Opinion ID: 423907
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Overall Impact

Text: 62 At the heart of the District Court's criticisms of the Environmental Assessment lay its dissatisfaction with DOT's use of the results of the assessment of overall risk. In Judge Sofaer's view, 63 DOT's use of overall risk obfuscated the central question as to the environmental significance of its proposed action: whether a proposal entailing a credible risk of catastrophe demands treatment as one significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 64 539 F.Supp. at 1274 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)). 65 This final criticism can be understood in two ways, neither of which justifies declaring the Department's action arbitrary or capricious. First, Judge Sofaer could have meant that DOT was required to use some other form of risk assessment than overall risk analysis. Certainly, other risk techniques were available, and Judge Sofaer apparently preferred the so-called mini-max methodology employed by the Sandia Report. 19 Id. at 1275. However, in reviewing an environmental assessment, a district court is precluded from imposing its own choice of risk analysis upon a federal agency. As long as the agency's choice of methodology is justifiable in light of current scientific thought, a reviewing court must accept that choice. In this case, DOT had discretion to apply overall risk analysis in its Environmental Assessment. 66 Alternatively, Judge Sofaer might have meant that DOT was wrong to conclude that HM-164 would have no significant impact on the environment once the Department had conceded the infinitesimal probability that the Rule might lead to catastrophic consequences. We believe, especially in light of the Supreme Court's recent caution in Baltimore Gas, supra, that this view does not comport with the degree of deference that courts should accord to agency determinations concerning environmental consequences. In Kleppe v. Sierra Club, supra, 427 U.S. at 410 n. 21, 96 S.Ct. at 2730 n. 21, the Supreme Court stated that neither NEPA nor its legislative history contemplates that a court should substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the environmental consequences of its actions.... The only role for a court is to insure that that agency has taken a 'hard look' at environmental consequences. Here, DOT considered a rule that might be expected to generate a catastrophic accident approximately once every 300 million years. After receiving advice from all sides, the Department decided that such a remote possibility, even of a serious consequence, did not create a significant risk for the human environment. Disquieting as it may be even to contemplate such matters, this decision cannot be said to be an abuse of discretion. 20