Opinion ID: 370401
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alternative Tank Type and Storage Technique

Text: 46 The district court decided that ERDA must prepare an EIS discussing an alternative waste storage system involving acidic waste in stainless steel tanks. ERDA contends that its discussion of this issue in its programmatic EISs is sufficient. We agree with ERDA. In the Hanford EIS, ERDA discussed the alternative of discontinuing its present system of solidifying nuclear waste to salt cake. It specifically considered and rejected the alternative acidic waste storage system identified by the district court. 39 In the Savannah River EIS, ERDA discussed the acidic waste system as an alternative to its present system of storing alkaline solutions in carbon steel tanks. It decided against adopting this alternative. 40 47 The district court recognized that ERDA had discussed these alternatives, but ruled that neither EIS discussed relative durability and retrievability of the calcinated acid waste system in any depth. 41 The district court's decision to require fuller consideration of this alternative was in error. The Supreme Court recently emphasized that the role of a court in reviewing the sufficiency of an agency's consideration of environmental factors is a limited one. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. at 555, 98 S.Ct. at 1217. The agency has substantial discretion in framing its discussion of an alternative and deciding which alternative to adopt. ERDA's treatment of acidic waste storage and its rejection of that alternative were within the range of reasonableness. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's decision to require an EIS discussing this alternative in greater depth.