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

Supreme Court of the United States · 1983 · Administrative Law

462 U.S. 87 (1983)

Updated August 1, 2026

Administrative Lawdeference on technical predictionsNEPAAPAarbitrary and capricioushard lookscientific uncertaintytechnical predictions

Facts

In generic rulemaking concerning the environmental effects of the nuclear fuel cycle for nuclear powerplants, the Commission adopted Table S-3, which compiled estimated impacts of fuel-cycle activities. For long-term storage of certain high-level and transuranic wastes, the Commission used a "zero-release" assumption, predicting that a bedded-salt repository would isolate waste from the environment after sealing, while acknowledging uncertainty about possible future repository failure. The Commission disclosed those uncertainties in its Statement of Consideration and supporting staff studies, but decided they were insufficient to affect any individual licensing decision and therefore should not be relitigated in plant-specific proceedings. The final rule also expressly required individual licensing boards to consider health, socioeconomic, and cumulative effects in addition to the technical release data in Table S-3.

Issue

Whether the Commission violated NEPA or acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the APA by generically adopting a zero-release assumption for permanent nuclear waste storage in Table S-3 and by not requiring individual licensing boards to reconsider that uncertainty in each plant licensing proceeding. Also, whether the earlier versions of the rule unlawfully precluded consideration of health, socioeconomic, and cumulative effects.

Rule

NEPA requires an agency to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of major federal action and to disclose significant environmental risks, but it does not require any particular internal decisionmaking structure or require environmental concerns to prevail over other considerations. An agency may use generic rulemaking to evaluate environmental effects common to many proceedings, and a generic zero value for an environmental impact violates NEPA only if the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously in deciding that the relevant uncertainty was insufficient to affect individual decisions. When an agency makes scientific predictions within its area of special expertise at the frontiers of science, a reviewing court must be at its most deferential and ask only whether the agency considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Federal Coastal Siting Board adopts a nationwide rule estimating the seabed impacts of decommissioning offshore wind cables. For one category of long-term burial effects, the Board uses a zero-impact figure after publishing a statement that discusses possible storm scour, anchor strikes, and sediment shifts, cites staff studies modeling those risks, and explains why the uncertainties are too remote to alter any permit decision for an individual wind farm in Maine or Texas.

If a challenger argues the rule violates NEPA because the Board assigned a zero-impact figure despite acknowledged uncertainty, which is the strongest response?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, NEPA requires a hard look and disclosure of significant environmental risks, but not any particular decisionmaking structure or a ban on generic zero-value assumptions. A generic zero figure is unlawful only if the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously in deciding the uncertainty was insufficient to affect individual decisions. Where the agency disclosed the uncertainties, considered relevant factors, and articulated a rational basis within its technical expertise, review is highly deferential.