## Facts

- The Department of Energy (DOE) pursued a nonproliferation policy encouraging foreign research reactors to convert from highly enriched uranium (HEU) to low-enriched uranium by agreeing to accept certain foreign HEU spent nuclear fuel.
- DOE announced a multi-part approach that included a long-term proposal to receive and store up to approximately 24,000 foreign spent-fuel assemblies and began preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for that long-term proposal.
- Separately, DOE identified 409 foreign spent-fuel assemblies as requiring urgent disposition and proposed receiving and temporarily storing them at existing facilities at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
- For the 409-assembly action, DOE prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), reasoning that the site already stored spent fuel, had capacity and authorization, and that the short-term receipt would not commit DOE to the long-term plan.
- South Carolina sued, alleging DOE unlawfully segmented the 409-assembly action from the broader 24,000-assembly program and was required to complete an EIS before importing or storing any assemblies.
- The district court agreed and enjoined DOE from receiving and storing the 409 assemblies pending completion of an EIS for the broader program.
- DOE appealed; the Fourth Circuit stayed the injunction and reviewed whether the EA/FONSI satisfied NEPA for the discrete 409-assembly action.

## Issues

1. Whether DOE violated NEPA by preparing an EA and issuing a FONSI for receipt and temporary storage of 409 foreign spent-fuel assemblies, rather than completing an EIS.
2. Whether treating the 409-assembly action separately from the larger 24,000-assembly proposal constituted impermissible segmentation under NEPA.
3. Whether DOE’s EA took a sufficient “hard look” to support a reasonable FONSI under the applicable standard of judicial review.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and vacated the injunction.
- The court held that DOE’s EA and FONSI for the 409-assembly action satisfied NEPA and that a full EIS was not required for that limited, short-term action.
- The court concluded the 409-assembly action was properly treated as a discrete action with independent utility that did not commit the agency to the long-term 24,000-assembly proposal.
- The court upheld DOE’s NEPA determination under a deferential standard of review, finding the agency reasonably evaluated potential impacts of transportation, storage, and accidents at an existing nuclear site.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA is primarily procedural: an agency must take a documented “hard look” at environmental consequences but is not required to choose the environmentally preferable option.
- An EA may support a FONSI when the record reasonably shows the proposed action will not significantly affect the human environment.
- Segmentation is improper when an agency divides a single major federal action to avoid meaningful review; separate review may be permissible when the smaller action has independent utility, does not foreclose reasonable alternatives, and does not commit the agency to a larger future action.
- Courts review NEPA determinations deferentially and generally uphold an EA/FONSI when the agency’s analysis is reasonable and grounded in the administrative record.
- Statutory context authorizing use of existing storage capacity may support treating a limited storage decision as lawful and bounded for NEPA purposes.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that DOE could proceed with importing and temporarily storing 409 foreign spent-fuel assemblies at the Savannah River Site based on an EA and FONSI, because the action was a limited, discrete project that did not improperly segment the broader long-term proposal and because DOE’s NEPA analysis reasonably supported a finding of no significant environmental impact.


South Carolina ex rel. Campbell v. O’Leary, 64 F.3d 892 (4th Cir. 1995)