Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council

462 U.S. 87 (1983)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council

United States Supreme Court
462 U.S. 87 (1983)

SC

Facts

The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) directed federal agencies to consider environmental impacts before taking any major action. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (defendant) determined as part of a rulemaking that nuclear licensing boards should assume as part of their NEPA review that nuclear-waste storage facilities did not leak and thus had no environmental impact. The commission inserted this assumption into a numerical table estimating the environmental impact of fuel-cycle activities of a light-water nuclear reactor over a period of one year. Licensing boards then used the table when acting on license applications. Although noting that there were uncertainties accompanying the assumption, the commission determined that the probability of leakage was so low that the issue need not be reconsidered in each and every license application. Further, the commission counterbalanced the assumption with higher estimates of environmental impacts elsewhere in the table. The commission concluded that despite the no-leakage assumption, the table’s overall environmental impact estimate erred on the side of caution. The rule implementing the no-leakage assumption also provided that the table should be supplemented in each license proceeding with narrative evidence about fuel-cycle activities’ health, socioeconomic, and cumulative impacts. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (plaintiff) challenged the rule in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The court of appeals stated that an agency can make generic findings under NEPA and insert them into individual licensing determinations. However, the court of appeals found the commission’s no-leakage assumption arbitrary and capricious and vacated the rule. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership