United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Steven Sholly

1983-07-06

Headline: Ruling allows nuclear regulators and utilities to collect appellate costs from nearby residents and an anti‑nuclear group after Congress changed the licensing rule.

Holding: The Court denied the motion for reconsideration and left in place the order requiring nearby residents and the anti‑nuclear group to pay the nuclear regulators’ and utilities’ costs under Rule 50.2.

Real World Impact:

Nearby residents and the anti‑nuclear group must pay $2,226 in assessed appellate costs.
Affirms that vacated judgments can trigger cost awards under Rule 50.2.
Does not resolve the underlying dispute over the license amendment.

Topics: nuclear plant safety, court costs, Three Mile Island, administrative rule change

Summary

Background

After the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island reactor, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a license amendment to allow venting of radioactive gas for maintenance. Several nearby residents and an organization opposed to nuclear power sued, arguing the Commission could not approve the amendment without a hearing. The D.C. Circuit agreed with those residents and found the case not moot, holding the Commission had lacked authority under §189 to skip a hearing.

Reasoning

While the appeal was pending, Congress amended §189 on January 4, 1983. The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment and sent the case back for further consideration in light of the new law. The Court assessed $2,226 in costs against the residents and environmental group under Rule 50.2, which generally awards costs to a prevailing party when a lower-court judgment is vacated or reversed. The residents asked the Court to retax (reconsider) those costs; the Court denied that motion and later denied reconsideration.

Real world impact

As a result, the nearby residents and the anti‑nuclear organization remain required to pay the assessed $2,226 in appellate costs. The ruling is procedural and does not resolve the underlying merits about the license amendment; the Supreme Court expressly declined to decide the merits and focused on the procedural disposition after Congress’s change.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Blackmun dissented, arguing it was unfair to force the residents to pay petitioners’ costs after the respondents had prevailed in the Court of Appeals and had suggested the disposition ultimately adopted; he would have ordered that neither side recover costs.