# Amicus Curiae Brief — Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_1455%3A14 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1978 - **Citation:** 435 U.S. 519 ## Text , & > : ; ae a Oat Be ~__d4 a a) a a a j a ; 7 = > a Ta ; ing 9 —" = , a . * s land BLEED THROUGH POOR COPY State of Minnesota Warren R. Spannaus Attorney General Jocelyn F. Olson Assistant Attorney General Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1935 W. County Road, B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55101 State of Missouri John Asheroft Attorney General Robert H. Lindholm Assistant Attorney General Office of Attorney General Supreme Court Building Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 State of New Mexico Toney Anaya Attorney General James Huber Assistant Attorney General Environmental Improvement Agency P.O. Box 2348 P.E.R.A. Building, Room 515 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503 State of North Carolina Rufus L. Edmisten Attorney General Dan Oakley Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 State of Ohio William J. Brown Attorney General David Northrup Assistant Attorney General Environmental Law Section Office of the Attorney General 30 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 State of Oregon James A. Redden Attorney General Richard M. Sandvik Assistant Attorney General 500 Pacifie Building Department of Justice Portland, Oregon 97204 State of Pennsylvania Robert P. Kane Attorney General Douglas Blazey Assistant Attorney Genera! Department of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 State of Texas John L. Hill Attorney General Troy C. Webb Paul G. Gosselink Assistant Attorneys General Environmental Protection Division Office of the Attorney General Supreme Court Building Austin, Texas 78711 State of Utah Robert B. Hansen Attorney General William C. Quigley Office of the Attorney General 236 State Capitol Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 State of Vermont M. Jerome Diamond Attorney General Benson D. Scotch Asst. Attorney General Office of Attorney General 109 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 State of Wisconsin Bronson C. LaFollette Attorney General John E. Kofron Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice Madison, Wisconsin 53702 BLEED THROUGH POOR COPY TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Statement of Interest of Amici Curiae ............ 1 ENS GE GD GID onc cece cs dcossccecvcsvesss 4 EE... nodnds ones dena tescheessssusseascesecs 10 I. The Court of Appeals’ holding that the Com- mission failed to explain adequately on the ree- ord its decision that the environmental effects of nuclear waste disposal are “relatively in- significant” is required by both the Adminis- trative Procedure Act and the National En- Cy UE GD 6 cn do suenccedcnsdcs N. 93.980, U.S. Code & Cong, News, 5470, 5471 (1974). See Note: The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974: More Power To The People? 7 Loy. Chi. Lud, 410 (1976) ; Davis, Citizen's Guide To Intervention In Nuclear Power Plant Siting: A Blue- " ol Alice In Nuclear Wonderland, 6 Env, Law 619, 628, n. ). BLEED THROUGH POOR COPY 27 The petitioner’s final argument, a derivative of the pre- ceding one, is that full consideration of the environmental impact of radioactive wastes wil! bring the nuclear power program to a halt. It bears mentioning that this case has not even brought the Vermont Yankee plant to a halt. It is still operating and generating electricity. Two points should be made in response to these dire predictions, First, the Court below specifically approved the use of generic rulemaking proceedings to treat these issues so long as the record generated would truly justify the conclusions made by the agency (App. 68-69). What the Court held is that, absent fair and thorough generic proceedings, the issues cannot be ignored in individual licensing cases (App. 39). Second, NEPA does not dictate a particular substantive result on these or any other issues, Rather, it mandates a ‘‘hard look’? at environmental costs, based on the premise that decisionmakers will best exereise their authority when they are fully cognizant of the whole range of con- sequences of their acts. Aleppe v. Sierra Club, supra, 427 U.S, 410, n, 21. If the benefits of proceeding with nuclear plants outweigh the costs, including the costs inherent in the ereation of radioactive wastes, then nuclear plants will be licensed, If they do not, or if special measures need to he taken to mitigate environmental damage in the future, it is far better that we discover that now rather than after the problem has thrown the Nation into another energy- related “crisis,” CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed. Dated: New York, New York, September 8, 1977. Respectfully submitted, Lovis J. Lerxowrrz Attorney General of the State of New York Samvuen A, Hinsnowrrz First Assistant Attorney General © Punipe Weinpera Assistant Attorney General Office & P.O, Address Two World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 Tel. No, (212) 488-7562 Attorneys for Amici Curiae Jonn F. Suea, III Assistant Attorney General of the State of New York CaBanne Howanp Assistant Attorney General of the State of Maine Eutyn Weiss Assistant Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts of Counsel (Gerard Stagnato and Valerie Lee, Student Interns, assisted in the preparation of this brief.) BLEED THROUGH POOR COPY --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_1455%3A14. Public record. Not legal advice.