Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy
In this article, we are going to delve into the fascinating universe of Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, exploring its many facets and its impact on our daily lives. From its origins to its current evolution, through its relevance in popular culture and its influence in various fields, Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy has managed to capture the attention of millions of people around the world. Through a detailed and exhaustive analysis, we will discover the reasons that make Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy a topic of inexhaustible interest, as well as the implications it has on modern society. Get ready to immerse yourself in an exciting journey that will lead you to better understand the impact that Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy has on our environment and on our way of perceiving the world around us.
| Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 1, 1983 Decided April 19, 1983 | |
| Full case name | Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, et al. |
| Citations | 460 U.S. 766 (more) 103 S. Ct. 1556; 75 L. Ed. 2d 534; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 21; 51 U.S.L.W. 4371; 18 ERC (BNA) 1985; 52 P.U.R.4th 189; 13 ELR 20515 |
| Holding | |
| The NEPA did not require the NRC to consider the conditions of PANE. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by unanimous |
| Concurrence | Brennan |
| Laws applied | |
| National Environmental Policy Act | |
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766 (1983), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.
Background
After the meltdown of reactor number 2 at Three Mile Island, the People Against Nuclear Energy (PANE) contended that restarting reactor number 1 would cause severe psychological trauma to residents of nearby towns. When the NRC failed to consider this evidence in the statutorily required environmental impact statement, PANE sought review in the court of appeals, citing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) protections of the natural environment. The court granted the petition for review, and agreed with PANE that the NRC had acted improperly in failing to consider their evidence.
Holding
The Court ruled that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission did not act improperly in not considering the conditions of PANE.
In considering such concerns as warm water released into the Susquehanna River, and the release of low level radiation, the NRC acted properly under § 102(C) of the NEPA in considering environmental risks.
Concurrence
Justice Brennan filed a concurring opinion, agreeing with the Court's reasoning, but noting that PANE's argument extended the chain of causation too far by attempting to link restarting the reactor with the hypothetical psychological injury of a "perception of risk."
See also
References
- Text of Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766 (1983) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Justia OpenJurist