About or less than 5 reflection pages about (5 study cases about nuclear regulation) - DUE IN 5 HOURS
usf1414
VermontYankee.docxNSE 515 Case Study
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council
The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) was a civil case that was heard by the supreme court in 1978. Because this was a civil case, no specific laws were broken. However, the interpretation of procedural guidelines defined in the APA was called into question. The NRDC believed that the APA defined the minimum procedures an agency needed to follow and that the courts should impose more procedures for this rule in the interest of the public good [1].
This case originated when an application to build a nuclear power plant was submitted to the AEC [1]. The case revolved around procedures and hearings for individuals in licensing proceedings, specifically a rule made by the AEC regarding environmental effects of the nuclear fuel cycle. In addition to the standard informal notice/comment procedure for rulemaking, the AEC held a hearing where oral testimony was heard by the agency. The issue the NRDC took with this process was that during the oral testimonies, no cross-examination of experts or discovery of new information was allowed. For these reasons, the NRDC turned to the judicial system to determine if the procedures used during the rulemaking process were adequate and legitimate [2].
The lower level appeals courts ruled that the procedures were “procedurally defective” and did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) [2]. However, the Supreme Court decided to review the decision of the lower court because it had concern that the lower courts were misapplying statutory laws that cautioned courts from placing their own opinions of what proper procedure should be on independent agencies [3]. After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court decided that the lower courts had in fact misapplied these statutory laws and violated the governing principles for the relationship between the judicial system and administrative agencies. In a statement regarding their decision, the supreme court wrote that “agencies are free to grant additional procedural rights… but reviewing courts are generally not free to impose them [on the agencies]” [4]. This means that because the AEC/NRC (during the process of the case the AEC became the NRC) had held the standard required informal rulemaking process, any extra procedures could not generally be forced upon them. This in turn meant that the NRDC’s claim that informal rulemaking was the “lower procedural bound” required by the APA was rejected [5]. It is interesting to note that this decision was effectively the courts limiting their own power, a rare thing for that time period.
This decision has helped define the rulemaking process used by independent agencies. Because of this decision, independent agencies could now be certain that a court could not tell them how to carry out their rulemaking procedures as long as they followed the guidelines laid out in the APA and adhered to all other laws (such as NEPA). Essentially this case defined the guidelines for rulemaking laid out in the APA to be the maximum required laws, instead of the minimum as stated by the NRDC. This allows for rulemaking to be carried out more efficiently and effectively as longer processes are not required. It also makes regulation cheaper as less time needs to be spent in public hearings, testimonies, etc.
The Supreme Court made the correct decision on this case as the judicial system was not created to determine how laws and rules should be made, only if the rules that are made are constitutional and that they are followed. Had the Supreme court ruled that the rulemaking procedures not specifically required by the APA or other laws could be required by a court, agencies’ rulemaking processes would be much more complex and open to interpretation than currently. This would slow down the process and delay important rules from being created in a timely fashion due to the fear that an opposing party could file a complaint about the process followed by the rule, therefore delaying the application of the rule.
References
[1] Repka, David A., and Tyson R. Smith. "A dose of history: nuclear energy cases that shaped environmental law." Natural Resources & Environment, Summer 2010, p. 28+. Academic OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.proxy.library.oregonstate.edu/apps/doc/A232888212/AONE?u=s8405248&sid=AONE&xid=b90c1d2d. Accessed 20 Nov. 2018
[3] Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council 435 U.S. 519, 525 (1978)
[4] Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council 435 U.S. 524 (1978)
[5] Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council 435 U.S. 545 (1978)
