Metro. Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy - 460 U.S. 766, 103 S. Ct. 1556 (1983)

Rule:

The Court's understanding of the congressional concerns that led to the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 4332, suggests that the terms "environmental effect" and "environmental impact" in § 4332 be read to include a requirement of a reasonably close causal relationship between a change in the physical environment and the effect at issue.

Facts:

Petitioner Metropolitan Edison Co. (Metropolitan) owned two licensed nuclear plants at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, PA. On a day when one plant (TMI-1) was shut down for refueling, the other plant (TMI-2) suffered a serious accident that damaged the reactor and caused widespread concern. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) then ordered Metropolitan to keep TMI-1 shut down until it could be determined whether the plant could be operated safely, and published a notice of hearing that included an invitation to interested parties to submit briefs on whether psychological harm or other indirect effects of the accident or of renewed operation of TMI-1 should be considered. Respondent People Against Nuclear Energy (PANE), an association of residents of the Harrisburg area who were opposed to further operation of either TMI reactor, responded to the invitation, and contended that restarting the plant would cause both severe psychological health damage to persons living in the vicinity and serious damage to the stability, cohesiveness, and well-being of the neighboring communities. When the NRC decided not to take evidence concerning these contentions, PANE filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals, and petitioner intervened on the side of the NRC. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USCS 4321 et seq.) required the NRC to evaluate the potential psychological health effects of operating the nuclear power plant that have arisen since the original environmental impact statement was prepared. Petitioner appealed.

Issue:

Did the National Environmental Policy Act require the NRC to evaluate the potential psychological health effects of operating the nuclear power plant?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the National Environmental Policy Act (§ 4332) did not require the NRC, in deciding whether to permit a power company to resume operation of a nuclear power plant, to consider whether the risk of an accident at the nuclear power plant might cause harm to the psychological health and community well-being of residents of the surrounding area. The Court noted that Section 102(C) of NEPA -- which provided that where an agency action significantly affected the quality of the human environment, the agency must evaluate the "environmental impact" and any unavoidable adverse "environmental effects" of its proposed action -- did not require the agency to assess every impact or effect of its proposed action, but only the impact or effect on the environment. The statute's context showed that Congress was talking about the physical environment. The terms "environmental effects" and "environmental impact" in § 102(C) should be read to include a requirement of a reasonably close causal relationship between a change in the physical environment and the effect at issue. Regardless of the gravity of the harm alleged by PANE, if a harm did not have a sufficiently close connection to the physical environment, NEPA would not apply. Accordingly, the judgment of the appellate court was reversed.