Metropolitan Edison Company vs. People Against Nuclear Energy

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Issue
Law
Holding
Reference

Metropolitan Edison Company the petitioner in this case, operates licensed nuclear plants at 3 Mile Island located in Harrisburg. One day (TMI-1) one of its plants was closed for refueling reasons. On that same day, (TMI-2) a second plant ended up suffering a fatal accident that damaged reactors causing a number of concerns. As a result Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ordered the company to close TMI-2 plant till the operation safety of the plant could be evaluated. In addition, the commission published a hearing notice which entailed an invitation to parties that were interested to submit their briefs explaining the impacts of the accident to the psychological harm or any other indirect impacts of the accident or operation return of the first plant.

The group called Respondent People against Nuclear Energy (PANE) was an association of individuals living around Harrisburg who were opposing further operations of TMI-2 reactor. The group submitted their brief asserting that; operation renewal of TMI-1 will lead to stern psychological damage to those individuals living around Harrisburg, damaging the stability, cohesion as well as the well-being of all communities living in the vicinity. However, NRC did not take into consideration the contents that were submitted in the brief submitted by PANE’s. As an effect “PANE ended up filling a petition in the Court of Appeal with the aim of reviewing the content of National Environmental policy Act (NEPA), inter alia, for NRC to consider contentions that the association presented in its brief” (Openjurist.org, 1983). The Court ruled that, NRC failed to consider the risk factors of any accident at TMI-1 that were briefed by PANE was against the constitution. This is because NEPA obligates NRC the responsibility of considering the effects of accidents in plants on both psychological health, and the well-being of the community.

Issue

Was whether NRC complied with NEPA 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq when considering Metropolitan Edison Company TMI-1 nuclear plant operation renewal.

Law

The Court was trying to make clear issues concerning NEPA and Atomic Energy Act.

Holding

The Court explained that leaving PANE’s briefings was unconstitutional. Though the Appeal Court held that, with regards to Atomic Energy Act (AEA), NRC is not under any obligation to take into account the contents that were briefed by PANE, however according to NEPA, NRC was supposed to consider “the potential psychological health effects of operating” (Openjurist.org ,1983) TMI-1 which would have occurred since the preparation of EIS. In case there was any new information with regards to the subject then, supplemental EIS has to be prepared by NRC, which will not only put into consideration psychological health, but also include the impacts on the well-being of all the communities living around Three Mile Island. According to the court’s interpretation, “impacts on human health are recognized in NEPA and Psychology health is a sub-set of human health”, (Openjurist.org, 1983). Such prepositions are sufficient for the completion of a syllogism that disposes the case.

NEPA calls for agencies to look into the issues that concerns health. As a matter of fact an impact to psychology is considered as an impact to health. As a result, NEPA calls for agencies to put into consideration the impacts on psychological health that were briefed by PANE.

Reference

Openjurist.org. (1983). 766 – Metropolitan Edison Company v. People Against Nuclear Energy. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Metropolitan Edison Company vs. People Against Nuclear Energy

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)