467 U.S. 837, 843, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 2781, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1984)
In 1967 the Atomic Energy Commission granted Vermont Yankee a construction permit for a nuclear power plant in Vernon, Vermont, after the required adjudicatory hearing and reviews.1 Vermont Yankee later applied for an operating license; NRDC intervened and objected to exclusion of fuel-reprocessing and waste-disposal impacts from the hearing.2 In November 1972 the Commission opened a separate rulemaking proceeding on those fuel-cycle issues, noticed two alternative approaches based on its Environmental Survey, and conducted a February 1973 hearing at which more than forty participants submitted comments but no discovery or cross-examination occurred.3 In April 1974 the Commission adopted a rule assigning numerical values to fuel-cycle impacts and applied it prospectively.4
In January 1969 Consumers Power applied for permits to build two nuclear reactors in Midland, Michigan.5 After staff and ACRS review, Saginaw and Mapleton intervened and raised 119 environmental contentions, including seventeen on energy conservation. The Licensing Board held hearings on radiological issues, the staff issued a final environmental impact statement in March 1972, and further hearings occurred in May and June 1972; Saginaw declined to participate in the later hearings or submit proposed findings.6 The Licensing Board granted the construction permit, the Appeal Board affirmed, and the Commission declined further review.7 In November 1973 the Commission ruled in another case that energy-conservation evidence meeting threshold tests could be considered, but it later refused Saginaw's motion to reopen the Consumers Power record.8
NRDC appealed the Vermont Yankee license and rule to the D.C. Circuit; Saginaw and others appealed the Consumers Power permit.9 In 1976 the Court of Appeals remanded both matters, holding the fuel-cycle rulemaking procedures inadequate, the Consumers Power environmental impact statement defective for omitting energy conservation, and the ACRS report insufficiently explained.10 The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1977.11
The Commission is the successor agency to the Atomic Energy Commission under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.12 All licensing proceedings followed the two-stage process of construction permit followed by operating license under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with NEPA environmental reviews added after 1969.13
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by invalidating the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's fuel-cycle rulemaking on the ground that the procedures employed were inadequate?14
Absent constitutional constraints or extremely compelling circumstances, administrative agencies should be free to fashion their own rules of procedure.15 They may pursue methods of inquiry capable of permitting them to discharge their multitudinous duties.16 Reviewing courts are not free to impose procedural requirements beyond the minima specified in 5 U.S.C. § 553 unless the agency has chosen to grant them.17
Yes. The Commission published notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, made the Environmental Survey and background documents available, received written comments from more than forty participants representing diverse interests, allowed oral statements at the February 1973 hearing, and kept the record open for supplemental filings, thereby satisfying every requirement of 5 U.S.C. § 553.18 The Court of Appeals nevertheless set the rule aside because it believed additional procedures such as cross-examination or discovery should have been employed.19 The established facts demonstrate that the agency followed the statutory minima and exercised its discretion to structure an informal rulemaking proceeding.20
Under the governing rule, that choice was not subject to judicial second-guessing.21
The Court of Appeals erred in invalidating the fuel-cycle rule on the ground that the procedures were inadequate.22
Whether the Commission was required under NEPA to consider energy conservation as an alternative to the proposed nuclear power plants in the Consumers Power licensing proceeding?23
NEPA requires a detailed statement on alternatives to the proposed action.24 The concept of alternatives must be bounded by some notion of feasibility.25 An intervenor must structure participation so that it alerts the agency to the intervenor's position with sufficient specificity to require reasonable minds to inquire further.26 The agency need not consider every conceivable alternative that becomes known only after the record has closed.27
No. Saginaw raised seventeen energy-conservation contentions but declined to participate in the May and June 1972 hearings, offered no evidence, and submitted no proposed findings of fact.28 The Licensing Board and Commission applied a threshold test requiring a showing that conservation measures were reasonably available, would curtail demand sufficiently to eliminate the need for the plant, and were susceptible of reasonable proof.29 The established facts show that the Commission examined the record, found that Saginaw had failed to meet the threshold, and correctly refused to reopen proceedings years after the record closed when new guidelines on energy conservation emerged.30 The agency's judgment that the contentions did not warrant further consideration was therefore consistent with NEPA.31
The Commission was not required under NEPA to consider energy conservation as an alternative on the record presented in the Consumers Power proceeding.32
Whether the Licensing Board was required to return the ACRS report to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards for further elaboration of generic safety issues before granting the construction permit?33
The ACRS report serves primarily to provide technical advice from experts to the Commission.34 Publication informs the public of the Committee's position on safety.35 It does not require the report to be understandable to a layman or to cross-reference every prior discussion of generic problems.36 A court may not order the Commission to remand the report sua sponte when the referenced materials are already publicly available.37
No. The ACRS report noted other generic problems and stated that they could be resolved during construction.38 The referenced prior reports were on file in the Commission's public document room.39 The Licensing Board conducted fourteen days of hearings after exhaustive staff and ACRS review.40 The established facts demonstrate that no member of the public requested remand of the report.41
The Commission had already considered the generic items.42 The Court of Appeals therefore lacked authority to require further elaboration by the ACRS.43
The Licensing Board was not required to return the ACRS report to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards for further elaboration before granting the construction permit.44
Whether the Commission may consider the environmental effects of the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle in individual reactor licensing proceedings rather than in a separate generic proceeding?45
The Commission possesses statutory authority under the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA to evaluate the environmental effects of spent-fuel reprocessing and waste disposal when licensing individual reactors.46 Nothing in NEPA or the Atomic Energy Act requires that every fuel-cycle impact be addressed only in a separate generic proceeding.47
Yes. Vermont Yankee's plant will produce well over one hundred pounds of radioactive waste annually that must be isolated for hundreds to hundreds of thousands of years.48 The Commission prepared an Environmental Survey and conducted rulemaking that assigned numerical values to those impacts, which it incorporated into individual cost-benefit analyses.49 The established facts show that the Commission publicly stated it would consider back-end impacts in every licensing proceeding, and the effects are analytically indistinguishable from other environmental consequences routinely evaluated in individual cases.50
The agency therefore acted within its authority by addressing the issues in the Vermont Yankee operating-license proceeding.51
The Commission may consider the environmental effects of the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle in individual reactor licensing proceedings.52