830 F. Supp. 2d 737
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- This is a NEPA action where the DOE completed an EA and found no significant impact; plaintiffs challenge the DOE review and seek injunctive relief, with cross-motions for summary judgment, a record augmentation motion, and requests for judicial notice; the CRT project relocates NERSC and related programs to a new LBNL facility on UC land.
- DOE conducted NEPA review after this court previously required federal NEPA review via DOE involvement; the administrative record spans 16,000+ pages and includes public comments and multiple alternatives.
- The CRT project includes a new 2.25-acre, three-story facility at LBNL, relocation of NERSC computing resources, and relocation of LBNL and UC Berkeley computational programs; the site is near Hayward fault and features LEED gold design.
- The court evaluates whether DOE’s EA/NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT decision was arbitrary and capricious, applying APA review, and whether NEPA required an EIS.
- The court ultimately grants summary judgment for the defendants, denies plaintiffs’ summary judgment and augmentation motions, grants certain judicial notices, and denies the strike motion as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Plaintiff contends issues (noise, traffic, precedential impact, GHG) were or should have been raised in the administrative process | Defendants argue waiver due to failure to raise during admin process but distinguish general concerns from specific issues | Exhaustion satisfied for the four issues; no waiver for noise, traffic, precedential impact, and GHG under applicable standards |
| Noise impact analysis in the EA | EA used readings from a location that understates impact; noise analysis inadequate for Institute reception | DOE used city noise ordinance benchmarks and refined analysis showing minimal perceptible increases | DOE’s noise analysis not arbitrary; no significant impact found |
| Traffic and cumulative-impact assessment | EA failed to properly consider cumulative effects and baselines | DOE used 2018 conditions with/without Project, included reasonably foreseeable actions, and followed CEQ guidance | No substantial question; traffic impact not significant; liability for EIS not triggered |
| GHG emissions analysis under CEQ guidance | DOE relied on questionable CEQ guidance and thresholds; baselines and indirect emissions inadequately analyzed | DOE used CEQ guidance, showed direct/indirect emissions below threshold, and considered design features reducing emissions | No significant GHG impact; DOE’s analysis was adequate under NEPA/CEQ guidance |
| Precedential impact and geologic stability as grounds for EIS | CRT as LRDP precedent and geologic concerns may necessitate broader review and EIS | LRDP is not an implementation plan; site analysis funded; geology/support shows feasible construction | No substantial question; no EIS required on precedential or geologic grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871 (U.S. 1990) (NEPA/APA review framework)
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1989) (hard-look requirement and standard of review under APA)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 538 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2008) (significance and context/intensity framework for NEPA分析)
- Ocean Advocates v. United States Army Corps of Eng’r, 402 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2005) (requires hard look for significant environmental impact; not arbitrary if reasoned analyses exist)
- Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 426 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2005) (hard-look and cumulative impacts analysis guidance)
- Grand Canyon Trust v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 290 F.3d 339 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (cumulative impacts and hard-look requirements under CEQ regulations)
- Native Ecosystems Council v. United States Forest Serv., 304 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2002) (related actions and related actions/precedent concerns in NEPA review)