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

Rule of Law:

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a reviewing court must not substitute its own judgment for that of an agency, especially on matters of scientific uncertainty. An agency's decision is not arbitrary and capricious if it has taken a "hard look" at the issue as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, considered the relevant factors, and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.

Facts:

• The operation of a light-water nuclear powerplant generates highly toxic and long-lived nuclear wastes as part of its fuel cycle.
• The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) began a generic rulemaking proceeding to evaluate the environmental effects of the nuclear fuel cycle.
• The NRC created "Table S-3," a numerical compilation of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle, to be used in individual power plant licensing proceedings.
• The NRC's Table S-3 included a "zero-release" assumption, which assigned a value of zero to the long-term environmental effects of storing solidified nuclear wastes.
• The NRC based this assumption on its belief that technology would be developed to permanently isolate these wastes from the environment.
• The NRC acknowledged that its assumption was subject to substantial uncertainty, noting the remote possibility that geological or man-made events could compromise a repository.
• The NRC decided this uncertainty was a generic issue best handled in the rulemaking, concluding it was not significant enough to affect the outcome of any individual licensing decision.
• The NRC contextualized the zero-release assumption as one part of a larger, risk-averse table that deliberately overestimated other potential environmental impacts to offset this uncertainty.

Procedural Posture:

• The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) challenged the NRC's original Table S-3 rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
• The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) vacated the rule, finding the rulemaking procedures inadequate and the record insufficient to support the zero-release assumption.
• The U.S. Supreme Court, in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, reversed on procedural grounds and remanded to the Court of Appeals to review the rule for substantive adequacy under the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard.
• While the case was on remand, the NRC conducted further rulemaking, issuing interim and final rules that maintained the zero-release assumption.
• The NRDC and the State of New York filed new petitions for review, which were consolidated with the remanded case in the Court of Appeals.
• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit again held the rule was arbitrary and capricious, finding it violated NEPA by preventing uncertainties from being considered in individual licensing decisions.
• The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.