Source: https://m.openjurist.org/460/us/766
Timestamp: 2020-04-07 04:32:16
Document Index: 327472029

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4321', '§ 2011', '§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 2', '§ 4321']

460 US 766 Metropolitan Edison Company v. People Against Nuclear Energy | OpenJurist
460 U.S. 766 - Metropolitan Edison Company v. People Against Nuclear Energy
460 US 766 Metropolitan Edison Company v. People Against Nuclear Energy
103 S.Ct. 1556
75 L.Ed.2d 534
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al., Petitioners
PEOPLE AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY et al. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, et al., Petitioners, v. PEOPLE AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY et al.
(a) Section 102(C) of NEPA—which provides that where an agency action significantly affects the quality of the human environment, the agency must evaluate the "environmental impact" and any unavoidable adverse "environmental effects" of its proposed action—does not require the agency to assess every impact or effect of its proposed action, but only the impact or effect on the environment. The statute's context shows that Congress was talking about the physical environment. Although NEPA states its goals in sweeping terms of human health and welfare, these goals are ends that Congress has chosen to pursue by means of protecting the physical environment. Pp.772-773
The issue in these cases is whether petitioner Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) complied with the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. (NEPA), when it considered whether to permit petitioner Metropolitan Edison Co. to resume operation of the Three Mile Island Unit 1 nuclear power plant (TMI-1). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the NRC improperly failed to consider whether the risk of an accident at TMI-1 might cause harm to the psychological health and community well-being of residents of the surrounding area. 678 F.2d 222 (CADC 1982). We reverse.
Metropolitan owns two nuclear power plants at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Both of these plants were licensed by the NRC after extensive proceedings, which included preparation of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). On March 28, 1979, TMI-1 was not operating; it had been shut down for refueling. TMI-2 was operating, and it suffered a serious accident that damaged the reactor.1 Although, as it turned out, no dangerous radiation was released, the accident caused widespread concern. The Governor of Pennsylvania recommended an evacuation of all pregnant women and small children, and many area residents did leave their homes for several days.
Petitioner People Against Nuclear Energy (PANE), intervened and responded to this invitation. PANE is an association of residents of the Harrisburg area who are opposed to further operation of either TMI reactor. PANE contended that restarting TMI-1 would cause both severe psychological health damage to persons living in the vicinity, and serious damage to the stability, cohesiveness, and well-being of the neighboring communities.2
The NRC decided not to take evidence concerning PANE's contentions. Metropolitan Edison Co., 12 N.R.C. 607 (1980); Metropolitan Edison Co., 14 N.R.C. 593 (1981).3 PANE filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals, contending that both NEPA and the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq., require the NRC to address its contentions.4 Metropolitan intervened on the side of the NRC.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the Atomic Energy Act does not require the NRC to address PANE's contentions. 678 F.2d, at 249-253. It did find, however, that NEPA requires the NRC to evaluate "the potential psychological health effects of operating" TMI-1 which have arisen since the original EIS was prepared. Id., at 235. It also held that, if the NRC finds that significant new circumstances or information exist on this subject, it shall prepare a "supplemental [EIS] which considers not only the effects on psychological health but also effects on the well being of the communities surrounding Three Mile Island." Id., at 235-236. We granted certiorari.5 --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 292, 74 L.Ed.2d 276 (1982).
"include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on—
To paraphrase the statutory language in light of the facts of this case, where an agency action significantly affects the quality of the human environment, the agency must evaluate the "environmental impact" and any unavoidable adverse environmental effects of its proposal. The theme of § 102 is sounded by the adjective "environmental": NEPA does not require the agency to assess every impact or effect of its proposed action, but only the impact or effect on the environment. If we were to seize the word "environmental" out of its context and give it the broadest possible definition, the words "adverse environmental effects" might embrace virtually any consequence of a governmental action that some one thought "adverse." But we think the context of the statute shows that Congress was talking about the physical environment—the world around us, so to speak. NEPA was designed to promote human welfare by alerting governmental actors to the effect of their proposed actions on the physical environment.
The statements of two principal sponsors of NEPA, explaining to their colleagues the Conference Report that was ultimately enacted, illustrate this point: "What is involved [in NEPA] is a declaration that we do not intend as a government or as a people to initiate actions which endanger the continued existence or the health of mankind: That we will not intentionally initiate actions which do irreparable damage to the air, land and water which support life on earth." 115 Cong.Rec. 40416 (1969) (Remarks of Sen. Jackson) (emphasis supplied).
"[W]e can now move forward to preserve and enhance our air, aquatic, and terrestrial environments . . . to carry out the policies and goals set forth in the bill to provide each citizen of this great country a healthful environment." 115 Cong.Rec. 40924 (1969) (Remarks of Rep. Dingell) (emphasis supplied).
Thus, although NEPA states its goals in sweeping terms of human health and welfare,6 these goals are ends that Congress has chosen to pursue by means of protecting the physical environment.
Our understanding of the congressional concerns that led to the enactment of NEPA suggests that the terms "environmental effect" and "environmental impact" in § 102 be read to include a requirement of a reasonably close causal relationship between a change in the physical environment and the effect at issue. This requirement is like the familiar doctrine of proximate cause from tort law. See generally W. Prosser, Law of Torts ch. 7 (4th ed. 1971).7 The issue before us, then, is how to give content to this requirement. This is a question of first impression in this Court.
The federal action that affects the environment in this case is permitting renewed operation of TMI-1.8 The direct effects on the environment of this action include release of low-level radiation, increased fog in the Harrisburg area (caused by operation of the plant's cooling towers), and the release of warm water into the Susquehanna River. The NRC has considered each of these effects in its EIS, and again in the EIA. See J.A. 51-58. Another effect of renewed operation is a risk of a nuclear accident. The NRC has also considered this effect.9 See J.A. 58-60.
PANE argues that the psychological health damage it alleges "will flow directly from the risk of [a nuclear] accident." Brief for Respondent 23. But a risk of an accident is not an effect on the physical environment. A risk is, by definition, unrealized in the physical world. In a causal chain from renewed operation of TMI-1 to psychological health damage, the element of risk and its perception by PANE's members are necessary middle links.10 We believe that the element of risk lengthens the causal chain beyond the reach of NEPA.
Time and resources are simply too limited for us to believe that Congress intended to extend NEPA as far as the Court of Appeals has taken it. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 551, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 1215, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978). The scope of the agency's inquiries must remain manageable if NEPA's goal of "ensur[ing] a fully informed and well considered decision," id., at 558, 98 S.Ct., at 1219, is to be accomplished.
If contentions of psychological health damage caused by risk were cognizable under NEPA, agencies would, at the very least, be obliged to expend considerable resources developing psychiatric expertise that is not otherwise relevant to their congressionally assigned functions. The available resources may be spread so thin that agencies are unable adequately to pursue protection of the physical environment and natural resources. As we said in another context in United States v. Dow, 357 U.S. 17, 25, 78 S.Ct. 1039, 1046, 2 L.Ed.2d 1109 (1958), "[w]e cannot attribute to Congress the intention to . . . open the door to such obvious incongruities and undesireable possibilities."
This case bears strong resemblance to other cases in which plaintiffs have sought to require agencies to evaluate the risk of crime from the operation of a jail or other public facility in their neighborhood. See e.g., Como-Falcon Coalition, Inc. v. Department of Labor, 609 F.2d 342 (CA8 1979) (Job Corps Center); Nucleus of Chicago Homeowners Association v. Lynn, 524 F.2d 225 (CA7 1975) (low income housing); First National Bank of Chicago v. Richardson, 484 F.2d 1369 (CA7 1973) (jail). The plaintiffs in these cases could have alleged that the risk of crime (or their dislike of the occupants of the facility) would cause severe psychological health damage.11 The operation of the facility is an event in the physical environment, but the psychological health damage to neighboring residents resulting from unrealized risks of crime is too far removed from that event to be covered by NEPA. The psychological health damage alleged by PANE is no closer to an event in the environment or to environmental concerns.
The Court of Appeals thought that PANE's contentions are qualitatively different from the harm at issue in the cases just described. It thought PANE raised an issue of health damage, while those cases presented questions of fear or policy disagreement. We do not believe this line is so easily drawn. Anyone who fears or dislikes a project may find himself suffering from "anxiety, tension, fear, [and] a sense of helplessness." N. 2, supra. Neither the language nor the history of NEPA suggest that it was intended to give citizens a general opportunity to air their policy objections to proposed federal actions. The political process, and not NEPA, provides the appropriate forum in which to air policy disagreements.12
The Court of Appeals' opinion seems at one point to acknowledge the force of these arguments, 678 F.2d, at 229, but seeks to distinguish the situation suggested by the related cases. First, the Court of Appeals thought the harm alleged by PANE is far more severe than the harm alleged in other cases. Ibid. It thought the severity of the harm is relevant to whether NEPA requires consideration of an effect. This cannot be the case. NEPA addresses environmental effects of federal actions. The gravity of harm does not change its character.13 If a harm does not have a sufficiently close connection to the physical environment, NEPA does not apply.
For these reasons, we hold that the NRC need not consider PANE's contentions.14 NEPA does not require agencies to evaluate the effects of risk, qua risk. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition for review.
For example, § 2 of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, provides: