NEPA, like so much other reform legislation of the last 40 years, is cast in terms of a general
mandate and broad delegation of authority to new and old administrative agencies. It takes the
major step of requiring all federal agencies to consider values of environmental preservation in
their spheres of activity, and it prescribes certain procedural measures to ensure that those values
are in fact fully respected. Petitioners argue that rules recently adopted by the Atomic Energy
Commission to govern consideration of environmental matters fail to satisfy the rigor demanded
by NEPA. The Commission, on the other hand, contends that the vagueness of the NEPA
mandate and delegation leaves much room for discretion and that the rules challenged by
petitioners fall well within the broad scope of the Act. We find the policies embodied in NEPA to
be a good deal clearer and more demanding than does the Commission. We conclude that the
Commission's procedural rules do not comply with the congressional policy. Hence we remand
these cases for further rule making.
We begin our analysis with an examination of NEPA's structure and approach and of the Atomic
Energy Commission rules which are said to conflict with the requirements of the Act. The
relevant portion of NEPA is Title I, consisting of five sections^3
Section 10I sets forth the Act's basic substantive policy: that the Federal Government “uses all
practicable means and measures" to protect environmental values. Congress did not establish
environmental protection as an exclusive goal; rather, it desired a reordering of priorities, so that
environmental costs and benefits will assume their proper place along with other considerations.
In Section 101(b), imposing an explicit duty on Federal officials, the Act provides that "it is the
continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with
other essential considerations of national policy," to avoid environmental degradation, preserve
"historic, cultural, and natural" resources and promote "the widest range of beneficial uses of the
environment without undesirable and unintended consequences."
Thus the general substantive policy of the Act is a flexible one. It leaves room for a responsible
exercise of discretion and may not require particular substantive results in particular problematic
instances. However, the Act also contains very important "procedural" provisions-provisions
which are designed to see that all federal agencies do in fact exercise the substantive discretion
given them. These provisions are not highly flexible. Indeed, they establish a strict standard of
compliance.
NEPA, first of all, makes environmental protection a part of the mandate of every federal agency
and department. The Atomic Energy Commission, for example, had continually asserted, prior to
NEPA, that it had no statutory authority to concern itself with the adverse environmental effects
of its actions.^4 Now, however, its hands are no longer tied. It is not only permitted, but compelled,
to take environmental values into account. Perhaps the greatest importance of NEPA is to require
the Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies to consider environmental issues just as they
consider other matters within their mandates. This compulsion is most plainly stated in Section
- There, "Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible: (1) the policies,
regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and administered in
(^3) The full text of Title I is printed as an appendix to this opinion.
(^4) Before the enactment of NEPA, the Commission did recognize its separate statutory mandate to consider
the specific radiological hazards caused by its actions; but it argued that it could not consider broader
environmental impacts. Its position was upheld in State of New Hampshire v. Atomic Energy Commission,
I Cir., 406 F.2d 170, cert. denied, 395 U.S. 962, 89 S. Ct. 2100,23 L. Ed. 2d 748 (1969).