435 U.S. 519, 542 (1978)
The cases involve two nuclear power projects regulated by the Atomic Energy Commission.1 In December 1967, the Commission granted Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. a permit to build a nuclear power plant in Vernon, Vermont.2 Vermont Yankee subsequently applied for an operating license, prompting an adjudicatory hearing in August 1971 at which the Natural Resources Defense Council participated and objected to the exclusion of fuel reprocessing and waste disposal environmental effects.3
In November 1972 the Commission began informal rulemaking to address the environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle for light water reactors, publishing notice of two proposed alternatives based on its Environmental Survey.4 Hearings occurred in February 1973 with over forty participants submitting written comments; the Commission allowed oral statements but prohibited discovery and cross-examination, instead permitting questioning by the Commission itself.5 The Commission adopted the second alternative in April 1974, incorporating numerical values into a table for cost-benefit analyses.6
In January 1969 Consumers Power Co. applied for a construction permit for two nuclear reactors in Midland, Michigan.7 Intervenors including Saginaw and Mapleton submitted numerous environmental contentions and discovery requests, which the Licensing Board largely denied before holding hearings in 1972.8 Although Saginaw raised energy conservation issues in comments on the draft environmental impact statement, it did not present evidence at the hearings or participate further after the final statement issued.9
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1976 remanded both the Vermont Yankee operating license and the Consumers Power construction permit.10 It found the fuel cycle rulemaking procedurally inadequate and required consideration of energy conservation alternatives as well as further development of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards report.11 The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1977.12
Whether the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred by invalidating the Atomic Energy Commission's fuel cycle rule on the ground that the informal rulemaking procedures were inadequate?13
Section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act establishes the maximum procedural requirements which Congress was willing to have the courts impose upon agencies in conducting rulemaking procedures.14 Agencies are free to grant additional procedural rights in the exercise of their discretion, but reviewing courts are generally not free to impose them if the agencies have not chosen to grant them.15 Absent constitutional constraints or extremely compelling circumstances, administrative agencies should be free to fashion their own rules of procedure.16
Yes. The Court of Appeals erred when it overturned the fuel cycle rule on procedural grounds.17 The Commission instituted informal rulemaking proceedings in November 1972 that specifically addressed the environmental effects associated with the uranium fuel cycle.18 Notice of the proposed rulemaking was published, the Environmental Survey was made available along with background documents, more than forty participants submitted written comments, oral statements were received when time permitted, and all persons giving oral statements were subject to questioning by the Commission.19
The record remained open for thirty days after the hearing for supplemental written statements.20 These steps satisfied and exceeded the minima of 5 U.S.C. § 553.21 The Court of Appeals nevertheless held the procedures inadequate and effectively required additional devices such as cross-examination.22 This holding contravenes the settled principle that reviewing courts may not engraft their own notions of proper procedure onto agencies entrusted with substantive functions by Congress.23
No constitutional constraint or extremely compelling circumstance justified judicial imposition of extra procedures here.24
The Court of Appeals therefore erred in invalidating the fuel cycle rule because of perceived procedural shortcomings.25
Whether the Atomic Energy Commission was required to consider energy conservation alternatives when preparing the environmental impact statement for Consumers Power Company's nuclear reactors?26
NEPA requires a detailed statement on alternatives to the proposed action, but the concept of alternatives must be bounded by some notion of feasibility.27 Intervenors who wish to participate must structure their participation so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to their position and contentions.28 This is especially true when intervenors request exploration of uncharted territory such as energy conservation in the late 1960s and early 1970s.29
No. The Atomic Energy Commission was not required to consider energy conservation alternatives in the manner demanded by the Court of Appeals.30 Consumers Power applied for a construction permit in January 1969.31 Saginaw submitted 119 environmental contentions including energy conservation claims in comments on the draft environmental impact statement.32 Saginaw nevertheless chose not to appear at or participate in the May and June 1972 hearings, stated that it had no conventional findings of fact to set forth, and declined to search the record and respond with citations.33
The Commission had already determined that only reasonably available alternatives susceptible of reasonable proof need be considered and had invited further clarification of Saginaw's contentions.34 The Licensing Board and Appeal Board both addressed the issues that were properly raised.35 Because the concept of energy conservation was novel and evolving at the time, and because Saginaw failed to make an affirmative showing, the Commission's threshold test and refusal to reopen the proceedings were well within its discretion.36
The Atomic Energy Commission therefore satisfied its NEPA obligations with respect to energy conservation alternatives.37
Whether the Licensing Board should have remanded the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards report to the Committee for further elaboration of generic safety concerns before granting Consumers Power Company's construction permit?38
The function of an ACRS report is to provide technical advice from a body of experts uniquely qualified to assist the Commission.39 Publication serves an important but subsidiary purpose of apprising concerned persons of the safety or possible hazard of the facilities.40 The ACRS cannot be faulted for not dealing with every facet of nuclear energy in every report.41 Courts may not order the Commission to remand a report for further elaboration when the basic information has been conveyed and the referenced materials are publicly available.42
No. The Licensing Board was not required to remand the ACRS report to the Committee for further elaboration.43 The ACRS report on the Midland plant referenced other generic problems identified in previous reports and stated that those items could be resolved during construction.44 The referenced reports were matters of public record on file in the Commission's public-documents room.45 No member of the public requested remand of the report.46
The Licensing Board conducted exhaustive studies, reviews, and fourteen days of hearings before granting the construction permit.47 Ordering a sua sponte remand under these circumstances would constitute an unjustifiable intrusion into the administrative process that finds no support in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or NEPA.48
The Licensing Board therefore acted properly in granting the construction permit without remanding the ACRS report.49