Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

462 U.S. 87, 103 S. Ct. 2246, 76 L. Ed. 2d 437, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 48, 13 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20544, 52 P.U.R.4th 501, 51 U.S.L.W. 4678, 19 ERC (BNA) 1057
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided June 6, 1983·No. 82-524·Published·Cited by 1,315 cases

Opinion

*89 Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 853, 42 U. S. C. §4332(2)(C) (NEPA), requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impact of any major federal action. 1 As part of its generic rule-making proceedings to evaluate the environmental effects of the nuclear fuel cycle for nuclear powerplants, the Nuclear *90 Regulatory Commission (Commission) 2 decided that licensing boards should assume, for purposes of NEPA, that the permanent storage of certain nuclear wastes would have no significant environmental impact and thus should not affect the decision whether to license a particular nuclear power-plant. We conclude that the Commission complied with NEPA and that its decision is not arbitrary or capricious within the meaning of § 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. §706. 3

The environmental impact of operating a light-water nuclear powerplant 4 includes the effects of offsite activities necessary to provide fuel for the plant (“front end” activities), and of offsite activities necessary to dispose of the highly toxic and long-lived nuclear wastes generated by the plant (“back end” activities). The dispute in these cases con *91 cerns the Commission’s adoption of a series of generic rules to evaluate the environmental effects of a nuclear power-plant’s fuel cycle. At the heart of each rule is Table S-3, a numerical compilation of the estimated resources used and effluents released by fuel cycle activities supporting a year’s operation of a typical light-water reactor. 5 The three versions of Table S-3 contained similar numerical values, although the supporting documentation has been amplified during the course of the proceedings.

The Commission first adopted Table S-3 in 1974, after extensive informal rulemaking proceedings. 39 Fed. Reg. 14188 et seq. (1974). This “original” rule, as it later came to be described, declared that in environmental reports and impact statements for individual licensing proceedings the environmental costs of the fuel cycle “shall be as set forth” in Table S-3 and that “[n]o further discussion of such environmental effects shall be required.” Id., at 14191. 6 The original Table S-3 contained no numerical entry for the long-term *92 environmental effects of storing solidified transuranic and high-level wastes, 7 because the Commission staff believed that technology would be developed to isolate the wastes from the environment. The Commission and the parties have later termed this assumption of complete repository integrity as the “zero-release” assumption: the reasonableness of this assumption is at the core of the present controversy.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a respondent in the present cases, challenged the original rule and a license issued under the rule to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed Table S-3’s treatment of the “front end” of the fuel cycle, but vacated and remanded the portion of the rule relating to the “back end” because of perceived inadequacies in the rulemaking procedures. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. NRC, 178 U. S. App. D. C. 336, 547 F. 2d 633 (1976). Judge Tamm disagreed that the procedures were inadequate, but concurred on the ground that the record on waste storage was inadequate to support the zero-release assumption. Id., at 361, 547 F. 2d, at 658.

In Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519 (1978), this Court unanimously reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision that the Commission had used inadequate procedures, finding that the Commission had done all that was required by NEPA and the APA and determining that courts generally lack the authority to impose “hybrid” procedures greater than those contemplated by the governing statutes. We remanded for review of whether the original rule was adequately supported by the administrative record, specifically *93 stating that the court was free to agree or disagree with Judge Tamm’s conclusion that the rule pertaining to the “back end” of the fuel cycle was arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of § 10(e) of the APA, 5 U. S. C. § 706. Id., at 536, n. 14.

While Vermont Yankee was pending in this Court, the Commission proposed a new “interim” rulemaking proceeding to determine whether to adopt a revised Table S-3. The proposal explicitly acknowledged that the risks from long-term repository failure were uncertain, but suggested that research should resolve most of those uncertainties in the near future. 41 Fed. Reg. 45850-45851 (1976). After further proceedings, the Commission promulgated the interim rule in March 1977. Table S-3 now explicitly stated that solidified high-level and transuranic wastes would remain buried in a federal repository and therefore would have no effect on the environment. 42 Fed. Reg. 13807 (1977). Like its predecessor, the interim rule stated that “[n]o further discussion of such environmental effects shall be required.” Id., at 13806. The NRDC petitioned for review of the interim rule, challenging the zero-release assumption and faulting the Table S-3 rule for failing to consider the health, cumulative, and socioeconomic effects of the fuel cycle activities. The Court of Appeals stayed proceedings while awaiting this Court’s decision in Vermont Yankee. In April 1978, the Commission amended the interim rule to clarify that health effects were not covered by Table S-3 and could be litigated in individual licensing proceedings. 43 Fed. Reg. 15613 et seq. (1978).

In 1979, following further hearings, the Commission adopted the “final” Table S-3 rule. 44 Fed. Reg. 45362 et seq. (1979). Like the amended interim rule, the final rule expressly stated that Table S-3 should be supplemented in individual proceedings by evidence about the health, socioeconomic, and cumulative aspects of fuel cycle activities. The Commission also continued to adhere to the zero-release *94 assumption that the solidified waste would not escape and harm the environment once the repository was sealed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 103 S. Ct. 2246, 76 L. Ed. 2d 437, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 48, 13 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20544, 52 P.U.R.4th 501, 51 U.S.L.W. 4678, 19 ERC (BNA) 1057 (1983).

462 U.S. 87 (Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sierra Club v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
867 F.3d 1357 (D.C. Circuit, 2017)
Nrdc v. Usepa
Ninth Circuit, 2017
Center for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Management
937 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (N.D. California, 2013)
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. Graham
899 F. Supp. 2d 948 (E.D. California, 2012)
Friends of the River v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
870 F. Supp. 2d 966 (E.D. California, 2012)
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Locke
791 F. Supp. 2d 802 (E.D. California, 2011)
Bluewater Network v. Salazar
721 F. Supp. 2d 7 (District of Columbia, 2010)
Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp
719 F. Supp. 2d 58 (District of Columbia, 2010)
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Bradford
720 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (D. Montana, 2010)
Air Transport Ass'n of America, Inc. v. National Mediation Board
719 F. Supp. 2d 26 (District of Columbia, 2010)
Consolidated Delta Smelt Cases
717 F. Supp. 2d 1021 (E.D. California, 2010)
Rock Creek Alliance v. United States Forest Service
703 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (D. Montana, 2010)
Citizens for Smart Growth v. Peters
716 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (S.D. Florida, 2010)
United States v. Commonwealth of Mass.
724 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D. Massachusetts, 2010)
GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE OF MANITOBA v. Salazar
691 F. Supp. 2d 37 (District of Columbia, 2010)