Opinion ID: 407564
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Zero-Release Assumption as a Factual Finding

Text: 55 As stated in Part II, above, a reviewing court must set aside an agency finding as arbitrary if it determines that the finding is not based upon consideration of relevant factors or if it is based on a clear error of judgment. 99 The relevant factors in this case are those whose consideration is mandated by NEPA. 56 Among the environmental costs that an agency must consider under section 102(2)(C) are significant environmental risks-probabilities or possibilities of environmental damage. 100 Such risks may be present due to the underlying randomness of nature. Or they may be due to human uncertainty over either the character of both random and nonrandom phenomena or the ability of future technology to cope with those phenomena. Regardless of the source, environmental risks are environmental costs that must be factored into the NEPA calculus. 101 They must also be included in an EIS. Where such risks are attributable to a lack of knowledge, the agency can be asked to do no more than to reveal that which it knows and that which it does not know. It may not be permitted, however, to do any less. 102 57 An agency could state in an EIS, as a matter of factual prediction, that a particular environmental effect will not have to be endured as a result of a proposed action. Of course, if it believes that to be the case, it can omit entirely any discussion of the would-be effect. Similarly, an agency could provide, by generic rule, that a particular environmental effect will not be caused by a class of actions, and that the effect should not be addressed in individual environmental impact statements. Because the risk of an environmental effect is the overriding relevant factor that an agency must consider in making such a factual finding, the agency may treat an environmental effect in this manner only if it finds that there is no significant risk that the environmental effect will occur. It may not do so if it finds only that the effect is unlikely to occur. Otherwise, NEPA's requirement that agencies consider and disclose uncertainty would be subverted. When faced with uncertainty concerning an environmental effect, an agency could evade its obligations under NEPA simply by finding that the effect will not occur. Thus, in the context of compliance with NEPA's procedural requirements, a court must interpret an agency's finding of no environmental effect as a finding that there is no significant risk of an environmental effect. 58 It is against that background that we review the Commission's finding that nuclear wastes that are sealed in a permanent repository will have no impact on the environment. When read as a finding that such wastes pose no significant risk of environmental damage, we conclude that the finding represents a clear error in judgment. 103 59 In each version of the Table S-3 Rule, the Commission based its zero-release assumption on a prediction that technology would be developed by which to isolate long-lived wastes from the biosphere indefinitely. In the Environmental Survey, 104 which constituted the technical basis of the original Table S-3, the Commission staff reported that (i)t was planned to construct a Federal repository in a salt mine for long-term geological storage of solid high-level wastes by the mid-1970's. However, subsequent events have deferred the site selection and construction of such a facility. 105 The plan at that time, therefore, was to build a Retrievable Surface Storage Facility (RSSF) in which to store the wastes until a permanent repository became available. The Environmental Survey said no more than that the permanent repository that would be developed is intended to isolate the waste from man and the biosphere. 106 A few years later, in the report that formed the basis of the interim and final Rules, the Commission staff continued to assume that a bedded-salt repository could be developed, but noted that other systems were also under consideration. 107 The other systems included the use of alternative geological media for isolation, and the eliminat(ion of) portions of the wastes from existence on earth. 108 The Commission still had not worked out the technological details of any permanent disposal techniques. Nonetheless, it concluded that a system would be developed that would fully protect the environment. Until such a system is developed, the Commission still plans to store waste in an RSSF. 109 60 Scientists with the United States Geological Survey testified to the technical uncertainties surrounding the zero-release assumption. 110 Similarly, the Report to the President by the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management 111 pointed out that risk assessments based on idealized repository characteristics ... are subject to significant uncertainties, 112 and concluded that the zero release of radionuclides (from a permanent repository) cannot be assured. 113 In addition, the record indicates that serious concerns were raised over the likelihood of developing the human institutions or political consensus necessary to establish and maintain the hypothesized facilities. 114 4] The IRG Report noted, in fact, that the resolution of institutional issues may well be more difficult than finding solutions to remaining technical problems. 115 Moreover, even the Commission's own staff recognized that there were many uncertainties surrounding the assumption that a permanent repository could be developed that would fully contain the effluents emitted from high-level and transuranic wastes. 116 61 There is no need, however, to comb the record further for evidence of uncertainty, for the Commission itself has explicitly-although somewhat belatedly-acknowledged its presence. In its Statement of Consideration for the final Rule, the Commission note(d) and agree(d) ... that areas of uncertainty remain regarding both the likelihood of finding a site and the probability that it will perform as expected. 117 The Commission nevertheless accepted its staff's zero-release assumption, stating that the staff's conclusion that there would be no release from the sealed repository had a reasonable basis. Moreover, revealing even more of the uncertain nature of its judgment, the Commission concluded that the evidence, although tentative and general in nature, favors the view that suitable sites can be found. 118 62 The evidence in the record and the Commission's own recent statements indicate the existence of such uncertainty concerning permanent disposal of high-level and transuranic wastes that the zero-release assumption, taken as a finding of fact, cannot stand. If read as a finding of no significant risk, which we acknowledge may not have been its intent, the zero-release assumption represents a self-evident error in judgment. Therefore, we conclude that the finding is arbitrary and capricious. 63