Mayaguezanos Por La Salud Y El Ambiente v. United States
198 F.3d 297 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a private entity's project to be considered a 'major federal action' requiring an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the federal government must exercise a significant degree of control or possess legal authority over the project, such that federal approval is a legal prerequisite for the project to proceed.
Facts:
- The United States supplies uranium to Japan for use in nuclear energy reactors.
- Japan ships the reactors' spent fuel to a French company, COGEMA, for recycling.
- This recycling process generates vitrified high-level nuclear waste, which is placed in internationally approved casks for transport.
- On February 3, 1998, the Pacific Swan, a British-flagged freighter, was transporting this nuclear waste from France to Japan.
- The ship's chosen route passed through the Mona Passage, a body of water between Puerto Rico and Hispaniola which includes portions of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
- The Pacific Swan did not enter the territorial waters of the United States.
- The private shippers voluntarily notified the U.S. Coast Guard of the ship's transit through the Mona Passage.
Procedural Posture:
- Mayaguezanos por la Salud y el Ambiente, et al. (Plaintiffs) filed suit against the United States of America in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
- Plaintiffs sought an injunction to halt the shipment of nuclear waste until the U.S. government prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court denied the plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the action.
- The plaintiffs (Appellants) appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the transit of a foreign vessel carrying nuclear waste through the United States' Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) constitute a 'major federal action' under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, where the U.S. has not exercised direct regulatory authority over such shipments?
Opinions:
Majority - Lynch, Circuit Judge
No. The transit of a foreign vessel carrying nuclear waste through the U.S. EEZ does not constitute a 'major federal action' under NEPA because the U.S. government did not exercise the necessary legal control or approval over the private shipment. For NEPA to apply to a private action, there must be significant federal involvement, typically where federal approval is a legal prerequisite for the action and the federal agency has discretion over the outcome. Here, neither international agreements nor the ship's passage through the EEZ created such federal control. The court found that the U.S.-EURATOM agreement did not apply because the waste in question had been officially determined to be 'practically irrecoverable,' thereby removing it from the agreement's consent requirements. Furthermore, while the U.S. has certain sovereign interests in its EEZ, foreign vessels do not require U.S. permission for passage, and the U.S. has not enacted regulations governing such shipments. The government's inaction or failure to regulate does not transform a private activity into a major federal action.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the threshold for what constitutes a 'major federal action' under NEPA, particularly concerning private activities with international components. The court establishes a high bar, requiring direct and legally mandated federal control or approval, rather than mere tangential involvement or the existence of unexercised potential authority. This ruling limits the extraterritorial application of NEPA, preventing its use to compel environmental reviews for private international activities that merely transit through U.S.-controlled waters without being subject to specific U.S. regulation or licensing. It reinforces the principle that governmental inaction, without a clear statutory duty to act, is insufficient to trigger NEPA's requirements.
