Metropolitan Edison Company decided to reopen its TMI-1
Metropolitan Edison Company decided to reopen its TMI-1
Metropolitan Edison Company decided to reopen its TMI-1 plant at Three Mile Island, , after it had been shut down when a serious accident damaged the reactor. People Against Nuclear Energy (PANE), an association of Three Mzle Island-area residents, sued, claiming that the Nuclear Regulatory C . . attend to consider the psychological harm omission 1, . . that reopening the plant and exposmg the comity to the risk of a nuclear accident might cause. REHNQUIST, J.: Section 12(C) of NEPA directs. all federal agencies to “include m every recommendation. on or report on proposals for legislation. n and other major Federal actions significantly affect the quart of the human environment, a detail statement. by the responsible official on-(I) the e. environmental Imp t of the proposed action, [and] (u) an adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. · · ·” . . To paraphrase the statutory language . m h ht . of the facts of this case, where an agency act n imminently affects the quality of the human environment, the agency must evaluate the “en-: iron mental Impact” and any unavoidable adverse environmental effects of its proposal. The theme of section 102 is sounded ?Y the adjective “environmental”: NEPA does . not require the agency to assess the impact or effect of Its . proposed action, but only the impact or effect on the environmet. If we were to seize the word “environmental” out of Its context and give it the broadest possible definition, the words “adverse environmental effects” might embrace virtually any consequence of a governmental action that someone thought “adverse.” But we think the context of the statute shows that Congress was talking about the physical environment-the world around us, so to speak. EPA was designed to promote human welfare by alerting governmental actors to the effect of their proposed actions on the physical environment …. Our understanding of the congressional concerns that led to the enactment of NEPA suggests that the terms “environmental effect” and “environmental impact” in section 102 be read to include a requirement of a reasonably close causal relationship between a change in the physical environment and the effect at issue. The issue before us, then, is how to give content to this requirement. This is a question of first impression in this Court. The federal action that affects the environment in this case is permitting renewed operation of TMI -1. The direct effects on the environment of this action include release of low-level radiation, increased fog in the Harrisburg area (caused by operation of the plant's cooling towers), and the release of warm water into the Susquehanna River. The NCR has considered each of these effects in its EIS, and again in the EIA. Another effect of renewed operation is a risk of a nuclear accident. The NRC has also considered this effect. PANE argues that the psychological health damage it alleges “will flow directly from. the risk of [a nuclear] accident.” But a risk of an accident IS not an effect on the physical environment. A risk is, by definition unrealized in the physical world. In a causal chain from renewed operation of TMI-1 to psychological health damage, the element of risk and its perception by PANE's members are necessary middle links. We believe that the element of risk lengthens the causal chain beyond the reach of NEPA. Risk is a pervasive element of modern life; to say more would belabor the obvious. Many of the risks we face are generated by modern technology, which brings both the possibility of major accidents and opportunities for tremendous achievements. Medical experts apparently agree that risk can generate stress in hurnan beings, which in turn may rise to the level of senous health damage. For this reason among many others, the question whether the gains from any technological advance are worth its attendant risks may be an important public policy issue. Nonetheless, it is quite different from the question whether the same gains are worth a given level of alteration of our physical environment or depletion of our natural resources. The latter question rather than the former is the central concern of NEPA. Time and resources are simply too limited for us to believe that Congress intended to extend NEPA as far as the Court of Appeals has taken it. The scope of the agency's inquiries must remain manageable if NEPA's goal of “ensuring a fully informed and well considered decision,” is to be accomplished. If contentions of psychological health damage caused by risk were cognizable under NEPA, agencies would, at the very least, be obliged to expend considerable resources developing psychiatric expertise that is not otherwise relevant to their congressionally assigned functions. The available resources may be spread so thin that agencies are unable adequately to pursue protection of the physical environment and natural resources. As we said in another context ” [ w ]e cannot attribute to Congress the intention to … open the door to such obvious incongruities and undesirable possibilities
1. Why did PANE members want the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to consider “psychological harm” in the EIS?
2. What did the Supreme Court define the statutory language “adverse environmental effects” to mean?
3. Did the Supreme Court think that the risk of nuclear accident was itself an “adverse environmental effect”? Explain.
"You need a similar assignment done from scratch? Our qualified writers will help you with a guaranteed AI-free & plagiarism-free A+ quality paper, Confidentiality, Timely delivery & Livechat/phone Support.
Discount Code: CIPD30
Click ORDER NOW..
