Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission case brief summary
547 F.2d 633 (D.C. Cir. 1976)
CASE FACTS
Two cases concerned the manner to which information concerning the environmental effects of radioactive wastes must be considered on the public record in decisions to license nuclear reactors. In the first case, petitioners sought consideration of the environmental effects of that portion of the "nuclear fuel cycle" attributable to operation of that reactor. The second involved a rulemaking proceeding to reconsider whether environmental effects of all stages of the uranium fuel cycle should be included in the cost-benefit analysis for licensing individual reactors. The commission promulgated the rule requiring a series of specified numerical values be factored into the cost-benefit analysis for an individual reactor seeking a license to operate. Petitioners sought review of the order.
DISCUSSION
OUTCOME
The court ordered set aside and remanded portions of the rule promulgated by the commission that cut off consideration of waste disposal and reprocessing issues in licensing proceedings. The court held that the commission's actions were capricious and arbitrary.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
547 F.2d 633 (D.C. Cir. 1976)
CASE SYNOPSIS
In two cases, petitioner environmental
public interest groups sought review of an order from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (commission) promulgating a rule requiring a
series of specified numerical values be factored into the
cost-benefit analysis for an individual reactor seeking a license to
operate, and how the determination was made.CASE FACTS
Two cases concerned the manner to which information concerning the environmental effects of radioactive wastes must be considered on the public record in decisions to license nuclear reactors. In the first case, petitioners sought consideration of the environmental effects of that portion of the "nuclear fuel cycle" attributable to operation of that reactor. The second involved a rulemaking proceeding to reconsider whether environmental effects of all stages of the uranium fuel cycle should be included in the cost-benefit analysis for licensing individual reactors. The commission promulgated the rule requiring a series of specified numerical values be factored into the cost-benefit analysis for an individual reactor seeking a license to operate. Petitioners sought review of the order.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court held that the commission's action in cutting off consideration of waste disposal and reprocessing issues in licensing proceedings based on the cursory development of the facts which occurred in this proceeding was capricious and arbitrary.
- The portions of the rule pertaining to these matters were set aside and remanded.
OUTCOME
The court ordered set aside and remanded portions of the rule promulgated by the commission that cut off consideration of waste disposal and reprocessing issues in licensing proceedings. The court held that the commission's actions were capricious and arbitrary.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
No comments:
Post a Comment