Microsoft Word - Casebook on Environmental law

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIRCUIT 449 F.2d 1109 (1971)

CALVERT CLIFFS’ COORDINATING
COMMITTEE INC., ET AL ...................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION..............................RESPONDENTS

In 1969 the United States passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to protect
natural resources which was signed by President Nixon. Section 101 of the Act required the
federal government to “use all practicable means and measures” to protect the environment, and
to consider environmental costs and benefits in governmental decisions.
Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee brought this action against the Atomic Energy
Commission alleging that it’s recently adopted procedural rules, failed to satisfy the demands of
NEPA and that this commission should give consideration to environmental factors.

HELD:

1. The Atomic Energy Commission’s procedural rules do not comply with Congressional
   Policy enunciated in NEPA. These cases are remanded for further rule making consistent
   with this opinion.


2. NEPA makes environmental protection a part of the mandate of every federal agency
   and department which must “consider” environmental issues just as they consider other
   matters within their mandates.


3. Section 102(2) (A) and (B) require a balancing process between environmental
   amenities and economic and technical considerations. Section 102 (2) (C) requires
   responsible officials to prepare a detailed statement covering the environmental impact
   of major federal project, and to develop appropriate alternatives. These procedural duties
   must be performed “to the fullest extent possible”.


4. If a decision was reached procedurally without individualised consideration and
   balancing of environmental factor, it’s the court’s responsibility to reverse.


5. The commission’s rules make a mockery of NEPA’s procedural requirements.
   Environmental factors must be considered through the agency review processes, and not
   merely accompany other records through the federal bureaucracy. In uncontested
   hearings the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board need not necessarily go over the same
   ground covered in its staff’s statements, but it must determine if review by the staff has
   been adequate.