Anda di halaman 1dari 11

legislative purposes, heralded in the halls of Congress,

Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc., et al., are not lost or misdirected in the vast hallways of the
Petitioners, v. United States Atomic Energy Commission federal bureaucracy.
and United States of America, Respondents,baltimore
NEPA, like so much other reform legislation of the last
Gas and Electric Company, Intervenor.calvert Cliffs'
40 years, is cast in terms of a general mandate and
Coordinating Committee, Inc., et al., Petitioners, v.
broad delegation of authority to new and old
United States Atomic Energy Commission and United
administrative agencies. It takes the major step of
States of America, Respondents, 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir.
requiring all federal agencies to consider values of
1971)
environmental preservation in their spheres of activity,
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and it prescribes certain procedural measures to ensure
- 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971) that those values are in fact fully respected. Petitioners
argue that rules recently adopted by the Atomic Energy
Argued April 16, 1971 Commission to govern consideration of environmental
Decided July 23, 1971 matters fail to satisfy the rigor demanded by NEPA. The
Commission, on the other hand, contends that the
Mr. Marcus A. Rowden, Solicitor, Atomic Energy vagueness of the NEPA mandate and delegation leaves
Commission, with whom Messrs. Howard K. Shapar, much room for discretion and that the rules challenged
Asst. Gen. Counsel, Licensing and Regulation, Atomic by petitioners fall well within the broad scope of the
Energy Commission, and Edmund Clark, Atty., Act. We find the policies embodied in NEPA to be a
Department of Justice, were on the brief, for good deal clearer and more demanding than does the
respondents. Mr. William C. Parler, Atty., Atomic Energy Commission. We conclude that the Commission's
Commission, also entered an appearance for procedural rules do not comply with the congressional
respondent Atomic Energy Commission. policy. Hence we remand these cases for further rule
making.
Mr. George F. Trowbridge, Washington, D. C., with
whom Mr. Jay E. Silberg, Washington, D. C., was on the * We begin our analysis with an examination of NEPA's
brief, for intervenor in No. 24,839. structure and approach and of the Atomic Energy
Commission rules which are said to conflict with the
Messrs. George D. Gibson and Arnold H. Quint, requirements of the Act. The relevant portion of NEPA
Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of Duke Power is Title I, consisting of five sections.3 Section 101 sets
Company et al. as amici curiae in No. 24,871. forth the Act's basic substantive policy: that the federal
Mr. Roy B. Snapp, Washington, D. C., filed a brief on government "use all practicable means and measures"
behalf of Arkansas Power and Light Company as amicus to protect environmental values. Congress did not
curiae in No. 24,871. establish environmental protection as an exclusive goal;
rather, it desired a reordering of priorities, so that
Messrs. Arvin E. Upton, Leonard M. Trosten and Henry
environmental costs and benefits will assume their
V. Nickel, Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of
proper place along with other considerations. In Section
Consolidated Edison Company as amicus curiae in No.
101(b), imposing an explicit duty on federal officials, the
24,871.
Act provides that "it is the continuing responsibility of
Mr. Jerome E. Sharfman, Washington, D. C., filed a brief the Federal Government to use all practicable means,
on behalf of Consumers Power Company as amicus consistent with other essential considerations of
curiae in No. 24,871. national policy," to avoid environmental degradation,
preserve "historic, cultural, and natural" resources, and
Messrs. H. Edward Dunkelberger, Jr., Christopher M.
promote "the widest range of beneficial uses of the
Little and Peter M. Phillipes, Washington, D. C., filed a
environment without * * * undesirable and unintended
brief on behalf of Indiana and Michigan Electric
consequences."
Company and Portland General Electric Company as
amici curiae in No. 24,871. Thus the general substantive policy of the Act is a
flexible one. It leaves room for a responsible exercise of
Before WRIGHT, TAMM and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges.
discretion and may not require particular substantive
These cases are only the beginning of what promises to results in particular problematic instances. However,
become a flood of new litigation — litigation seeking the Act also contains very important "procedural"
judicial assistance in protecting our natural provisions — provisions which are designed to see that
environment. Several recently enacted statutes attest all federal agencies do in fact exercise the substantive
to the commitment of the Government to control, at discretion given them. These provisions are not highly
long last, the destructive engine of material flexible. Indeed, they establish a strict standard of
"progress."1 But it remains to be seen whether the compliance.
promise of this legislation will become a reality. Therein
NEPA, first of all, makes environmental protection a
lies the judicial role. In these cases, we must for the first
part of the mandate of every federal agency and
time interpret the broadest and perhaps most
department. The Atomic Energy Commission, for
important of the recent statutes: the National
example, had continually asserted, prior to NEPA, that it
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).2 We must
had no statutory authority to concern itself with the
assess claims that one of the agencies charged with its
adverse environmental effects of its actions.4 Now,
administration has failed to live up to the congressional
however, its hands are no longer tied. It is not only
mandate. Our duty, in short, is to see that important
permitted, but compelled, to take environmental values cost-benefit balance. Only in that fashion is it likely that
into account. Perhaps the greatest importance of NEPA the most intelligent, optimally beneficial decision will
is to require the Atomic Energy Commission and other ultimately be made. Moreover, by compelling a formal
agencies to consider environmental issues just as they "detailed statement" and a description of alternatives,
consider other matters within their mandates. This NEPA provides evidence that the mandated decision
compulsion is most plainly stated in Section 102. There, making process has in fact taken place and, most
"Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest importantly, allows those removed from the initial
extent possible: (1) the policies, regulations, and public process to evaluate and balance the factors on their
laws of the United States shall be interpreted and own.
administered in accordance with the policies set forth in
Of course, all of these Section 102 duties are qualified
this Act * * *." Congress also "authorizes and directs"
by the phrase "to the fullest extent possible." We must
that "(2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall"
stress as forcefully as possible that this language does
follow certain rigorous procedures in considering
not provide an escape hatch for footdragging agencies;
environmental values.5 Senator Jackson, NEPA's
it does not make NEPA's procedural requirements
principal sponsor, stated that " [n]o agency will [now]
somehow "discretionary." Congress did not intend the
be able to maintain that it has no mandate or no
Act to be such a paper tiger. Indeed, the requirement of
requirement to consider the environmental
environmental consideration "to the fullest extent
consequences of its actions."6 He characterized the
possible" sets a high standard for the agencies, a
requirements of Section 102 as "action-forcing" and
standard which must be rigorously enforced by the
stated that " [o]therwise, these lofty declarations [in
reviewing courts.
Section 101] are nothing more than that."7
Unlike the substantive duties of Section 101(b), which
The sort of consideration of environmental values which
require agencies to "use all practicable means
NEPA compels is clarified in Section 102(2) (A) and (B).
consistent with other essential considerations," the
In general, all agencies must use a "systematic,
procedural duties of Section 102 must be fulfilled to the
interdisciplinary approach" to environmental planning
"fullest extent possible."10 This contrast, in itself, is
and evaluation "in decisionmaking which may have an
revealing. But the dispositive factor in our
impact on man's environment." In order to include all
interpretation is the expressed views of the Senate and
possible environmental factors in the decisional
House conferees who wrote the "fullest extent
equation, agencies must "identify and develop methods
possible" language into NEPA. They stated:11
and procedures * * * which will insure that presently
unquantified environmental amenities and values may "* * * The purpose of the new language is to make it
be given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking clear that each agency of the Federal Government shall
along with economic and technical comply with the directives set out in * * * [Section
considerations."8 "Environmental amenities" will often 102(2)] unless the existing law applicable to such
be in conflict with "economic and technical agency's operations expressly prohibits or makes full
considerations." To "consider" the former "along with" compliance with one of the directives impossible. * * *
the latter must involve a balancing process. In some Thus, it is the intent of the conferees that the provision
instances environmental costs may outweigh economic `to the fullest extent possible' shall not be used by any
and technical benefits and in other instances they may Federal agency as a means of avoiding compliance with
not. But NEPA mandates a rather finely tuned and the directives set out in section 102. Rather, the
"systematic" balancing analysis in each instance.9 language in section 102 is intended to assure that all
agencies of the Federal Government shall comply with
To ensure that the balancing analysis is carried out and
the directives set out in said section `to the fullest
given full effect, Section 102(2) (C) requires that
extent possible' under their statutory authorizations
responsible officials of all agencies prepare a "detailed
and that no agency shall utilize an excessively narrow
statement" covering the impact of particular actions on
construction of its existing statutory authorizations to
the environment, the environmental costs which might
avoid compliance."
be avoided, and alternative measures which might alter
the cost-benefit equation. The apparent purpose of the Thus the Section 102 duties are not inherently flexible.
"detailed statement" is to aid in the agencies' own They must be complied with to the fullest extent, unless
decision making process and to advise other interested there is a clear conflict
agencies and the public of the environmental of statutory authority.12 Considerations of
consequences of planned federal action. Beyond the administrative difficulty, delay or economic cost will not
"detailed statement," Section 102(2) (D) requires all suffice to strip the section of its fundamental
agencies specifically to "study, develop, and describe importance.
appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of We conclude, then, that Section 102 of NEPA mandates
action in any proposal which involves unresolved a particular sort of careful and informed decisionmaking
conflicts concerning alternative uses of available process and creates judicially enforceable duties. The
resources." This requirement, like the "detailed reviewing courts probably cannot reverse a substantive
statement" requirement, seeks to ensure that each decision on its merits, under Section 101, unless it be
agency decision maker has before him and takes into shown that the actual balance of costs and benefits that
proper account all possible approaches to a particular was struck was arbitrary or clearly gave insufficient
project (including total abandonment of the project) weight to environmental values. But if the decision was
which would alter the environmental impact and the reached procedurally without individualized
consideration and balancing of environmental factors — need not be considered by the hearing board
conducted fully and in good faith — it is the conducting an independent review of staff
responsibility of the courts to reverse. As one District recommendations, unless affirmatively raised by
Court has said of Section 102 requirements: "It is hard outside parties or staff members. (2) Another part of
to imagine a clearer or stronger mandate to the the procedural rules prohibits any such party from
Courts."13 raising nonradiological environmental issues at any
hearing if the notice for that hearing appeared in the
In the cases before us now, we do not have to review a
Federal Register before March 4, 1971. (3) Moreover,
particular decision by the Atomic Energy Commission
the hearing board is prohibited from conducting an
granting a construction permit or an operating license.
independent evaluation and balancing of certain
Rather, we must review the Commission's recently
environmental factors if other responsible agencies
promulgated rules which govern consideration of
have already certified that their own environmental
environmental values in all such individual
standards are satisfied by the proposed federal action.
decisions.14 The rules were devised strictly in order to
(4) Finally, the Commission's rules provide that when a
comply with the NEPA procedural requirements — but
construction permit for a facility has been issued before
petitioners argue that they fall far short of the
NEPA compliance was required and when an operating
congressional mandate.
license has yet to be issued, the agency will not formally
The period of the rules' gestation does not indicate consider environmental factors or require modifications
overenthusiasm on the Commission's part. NEPA went in the proposed facility until the time of the issuance of
into effect on January 1, 1970. On April 2, 1970 — three the operating license. Each of these parts of the
months later — the Commission issued its first, short Commission's rules will be described at greater length
policy statement on implementation of the Act's and evaluated under NEPA in the following sections of
procedural provisions.15 After another span of two this opinion.
months, the Commission published a notice of
proposed rule making in the Federal II
Register.16 Petitioners submitted substantial comments
critical of the proposed rules. Finally, on December 3, NEPA makes only one specific reference to
1970, the Commission terminated its long rule making consideration of environmental values in agency review
proceeding by issuing a formal amendment, labelled processes. Section 102(2) (C) provides that copies of the
Appendix D, to its governing regulations.17 Appendix D staff's "detailed statement" and comments thereon
is a somewhat revised version of the earlier proposal "shall accompany the proposal through the existing
and, at last, commits the Commission to consider agency review processes." The Atomic Energy
environmental impact in its decision making process. Commission's rules may seem in technical compliance
with the letter of that provision. They state:
The procedure for environmental study and
consideration set up by the Appendix D rules is as "12. If any party to a proceeding * * * raises any
follows: Each applicant for an initial construction permit [environmental] issue * * * the Applicant's
must submit to the Commission his own "environmental Environmental Report and the Detailed Statement will
report," presenting his assessment of the be offered in evidence. The atomic safety and licensing
environmental impact of the planned facility and board will make findings of fact on, and resolve, the
possible alternatives which would alter the impact. matters in controversy among the parties with regard to
When construction is completed and the applicant those issues. Depending on the resolution of those
applies for a license to operate the new facility, he must issues, the permit or license may be granted, denied, or
again submit an "environmental report" noting any appropriately conditioned to protect environmental
factors which have changed since the original report. At values.
each stage, the Commission's regulatory staff must take "13. When no party to a proceeding * * * raises any
the applicant's report and prepare its own "detailed [environmental] issue * * * such issues will not be
statement" of environmental costs, benefits and considered by the atomic safety and licensing board.
alternatives. The statement will then be circulated to Under such circumstances, although the Applicant's
other interested and responsible agencies and made Environmental Report, comments thereon, and the
available to the public. After comments are received Detailed Statement will accompany the application
from those sources, the staff must prepare a final through the Commission's review processes, they will
"detailed statement" and make a final recommendation not be received in evidence, and the Commission's
on the application for a construction permit or responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy
operating license. Act of 1969 will be carried out in toto outside the
Up to this point in the Appendix D rules petitioners have hearing process."18
raised no challenge. However, they do attack four The question here is whether the Commission is correct
other, specific parts of the rules which, they say, violate in thinking that its NEPA responsibilities may "be carried
the requirements of Section 102 of NEPA. Each of these out in toto outside the hearing process" — whether it is
parts in some way limits full consideration and enough that environmental data and evaluations
individualized balancing of environmental values in the merely "accompany" an application through the review
Commission's decision making process. (1) Although process, but receive no consideration whatever from
environmental factors must be considered by the the hearing board.
agency's regulatory staff under the rules, such factors
We believe that the Commission's crabbed conflicting factors that is struck in the staff's
interpretation of NEPA makes a mockery of the Act. recommendation.
What possible purpose could there be in the Section
The rationale of the Commission's limitation of
102 (2) (C) requirement (that the "detailed statement"
environmental issues to hearings in which parties
accompany proposals through agency review processes)
affirmatively raise those issues may have been one of
if "accompany" means no more than physical proximity
economy. It may have been supposed that, whenever
— mandating no more than the physical act of passing
there are serious environmental costs overlooked or
certain folders and papers, unopened, to reviewing
uncorrected by the staff, some party will intervene to
officials along with other folders and papers? What
bring those costs to the hearing board's attention. Of
possible purpose could there be in requiring the
course, independent review of the "detailed statement"
"detailed statement" to be before hearing boards, if the
and independent balancing of factors in an uncontested
boards are free to ignore entirely the contents of the
hearing will take some time. If it is done properly, it will
statement? NEPA was meant to do more than regulate
take a significant amount of time. But all of the NEPA
the flow of papers in the federal bureaucracy. The word
procedures take time. Such administrative costs are not
"accompany" in Section 102(2) (C) must not be read so
enough to undercut the Act's requirement that
narrowly as to make the Act ludicrous. It must, rather,
environmental protection be considered "to the fullest
be read to indicate a congressional intent that
extent possible," see text at page 1114, supra. It is,
environmental factors, as compiled in the "detailed
moreover, unrealistic to assume that there will always
statement," be considered through agency review
be an intervenor with the information, energy and
processes.19
money required to challenge a staff recommendation
Beyond Section 102(2) (C), NEPA requires that agencies which ignores environmental costs. NEPA establishes
consider the environmental impact of their actions "to environmental protection as an integral part of the
the fullest extent possible." The Act is addressed to Atomic Energy Commission's basic mandate. The
agencies as a whole, not only to their professional primary responsibility for fulfilling that mandate lies
staffs. Compliance to the "fullest" possible extent would with the Commission. Its responsibility is not simply to
seem to demand that environmental issues be sit back, like an umpire, and resolve adversary
considered at every important stage in the decision contentions at the hearing stage. Rather, it must itself
making process concerning a particular action — at take the initiative of considering environmental values
every stage where an overall balancing of at every distinctive and comprehensive stage of the
environmental and nonenvironmental factors is process beyond the staff's evaluation and
appropriate and where alterations might be made in recommendation.21
the proposed action to minimize environmental costs.
Of course, consideration which is entirely duplicative is III
not necessarily required. But independent review of
Congress passed the final version of NEPA in late 1969,
staff proposals by hearing boards is hardly a duplicative
and the Act went into full effect on January 1, 1970. Yet
function. A truly independent review provides a crucial
the Atomic Energy Commission's rules prohibit any
check on the staff's recommendations. The
consideration of environmental issues by its hearing
Commission's hearing boards automatically consider
boards at proceedings officially noticed before March 4,
nonenvironmental factors, even though they have been
1971.22 This is 14 months after the effective date of
previously studied by the staff. Clearly, the review
NEPA. And the hearings affected may go on for as much
process is an appropriate stage at which to balance
as a year longer until final action is taken. The result is
conflicting factors against one another. And, just as
that major federal actions having a significant
clearly, it provides an important opportunity to reject or
environmental impact may be taken by the
significantly modify the staff's recommended action.
Commission, without full NEPA compliance, more than
Environmental factors, therefore, should not be singled
two years after the Act's effective date. In view of the
out and excluded, at this stage, from the proper balance
importance of environmental consideration during the
of values envisioned by NEPA.
agency review process, see Part II supra, such a time lag
The Commission's regulations provide that in an is shocking.
uncontested proceeding the hearing board shall on its
The Commission explained that its very long time lag
own "determine whether the application and the record
was intended "to provide an orderly period of transition
of the proceeding contain sufficient information, and
in the conduct of the Commission's regulatory
the review of the application by the Commission's
proceedings and to avoid unreasonable delays in the
regulatory staff has been adequate, to support
construction and operation of nuclear power plants
affirmative findings on" various nonenvironmental
urgently needed to meet the national requirements for
factors.20 NEPA requires at least as much automatic
electric power."23 Before this court, it has claimed
consideration of environmental factors. In uncontested
authority for its action, arguing that "the statute did not
hearings, the board need not necessarily go over the
lay down detailed guidelines and inflexible timetables
same ground covered in the "detailed statement." But it
for its implementation; and we find in it no bar to
must at least examine the statement carefully to
agency provisions which are designed to accommodate
determine whether "the review * * * by the
transitional implementation problems."24
Commission's regulatory staff has been adequate." And
it must independently consider the final balance among Again, the Commission's approach to statutory
interpretation is strange indeed — so strange that it
seems to reveal a rather thoroughgoing reluctance to Even if the long delay had been necessary, however, the
meet the NEPA procedural obligations in the agency Commission would not be relieved of all NEPA
review process, the stage at which deliberation is most responsibility to hold public hearings on the
open to public examination and subject to the environmental consequences of actions taken between
participation of public intervenors. The Act, it is true, January 1, 1970 and final adoption of the rules.
lacks an "inflexible timetable" for its implementation. Although the Act's effective date may not require
But it does have a clear effective date, consistently instant compliance, it must at least require that NEPA
enforced by reviewing courts up to now. Every federal procedures, once established, be applied to consider
court having faced the issues has held that the prompt alterations in the plans or operations of
procedural requirements of NEPA must be met in order facilities approved without compliance.28 Yet the
to uphold federal action taken after January 1, Commission's rules contain no such provision. Indeed,
1970.25 The absence of a "timetable" for compliance they do not even apply to the hearings still being
has never been held sufficient, in itself, to put off the conducted at the time of their adoption on December 3,
date on which a congressional mandate takes effect. 1970 — or, for that matter, to hearings initiated in the
The absence of a "timetable," rather, indicates that following three months. The delayed compliance date
compliance is required forthwith. of March 4, 1971, then, cannot be justified by the
Commission's long drawn out rule making process.
The only part of the Act which even implies that
implementation may be subject, in some cases, to some Strangely, the Commission has principally relied on
significant delay is Section 103. There, Congress more pragmatic arguments. It seems an unfortunate
provided that all agencies must review "their present affliction of large organizations to resist new procedures
statutory authority, administrative regulations, and and to envision massive roadblocks to their adoption.
current policies and procedures for the purpose of Hence the Commission's talk of the need for an "orderly
determining whether there are any deficiencies or transition" to the NEPA procedures. It is difficult to
inconsistencies therein which prohibit full compliance" credit the Commission's argument that several months
with NEPA. Agencies finding some such insuperable were needed to work the consideration of
difficulty are obliged to "propose to the President not environmental values into its review process. Before the
later than July 1, 1971, such measures as may be enactment of NEPA, the Commission already had
necessary to bring their authority and policies into regulations requiring that hearings include health,
conformity with the intent, purposes, and procedures safety and radiological matters.29 The introduction of
set forth in this Act." environmental matters cannot have presented a
radically unsettling problem. And, in any event, the
The Commission, however, cannot justify its time lag
obvious sense of urgency on the part of Congress
under these Section 103 provisions. Indeed, it has not
should make clear that a transition, however "orderly,"
attempted to do so; only intervenors have raised the
must proceed at a pace faster than a funeral procession.
argument. Section 103 could support a substantial delay
only by an agency which in fact discovered an In the end, the Commission's long delay seems based
insuperable barrier to compliance with the Act and upon what it believes to be a pressing national power
required time to formulate and propose the needed crisis. Inclusion of environmental issues in pre-March 4,
reformative measures. The actual review of existing 1971 hearings might have held up the licensing of some
statutory authority and regulations cannot be a power plants for a time. But the very purpose of NEPA
particularly lengthy process for experienced counsel of was to tell federal agencies that environmental
a federal agency. Of course, the Atomic Energy protection is as much a part of their responsibility as is
Commission discovered no obstacle to NEPA protection and promotion of the industries they
implementation. Although it did not report its regulate. Whether or not the spectre of a national
conclusion to the President until October 2, 1970, that power crisis is as real as the Commission apparently
nine-month delay (January to October) cannot justify so believes, it must not be used to create a blackout of
long a period of noncompliance with the Act. It certainly environmental consideration in the agency review
cannot justify a further delay of compliance until March process. NEPA compels a case-by-case examination and
4, 1971. balancing of discrete factors. Perhaps there may be
cases in which the need for rapid licensing of a
No doubt the process formulating procedural rules to
particular facility would justify a strict time limit on a
implement NEPA takes some time. Congress cannot
hearing board's review of environmental issues; but a
have expected that federal agencies would immediately
blanket banning of such issues until March 4, 1971 is
begin considering environmental issues on January 1,
impermissible under NEPA.
1970. But the effective date of the Act does set a time
for agencies to begin adopting rules and it demands
that they strive, "to the fullest extent possible," to be IV
prompt in the process. The Atomic Energy Commission The sweep of NEPA is extraordinarily broad, compelling
has failed in this regard.26 Consideration of consideration of any and all types of environmental
environmental issues in the agency review process, for impact of federal action. However, the Atomic Energy
example, is quite clearly compelled by the Act.27 The Commission's rules specifically exclude from full
Commission cannot justify its 11-month delay in consideration a wide variety of environmental issues.
adopting rules on this point as part of a difficult, First, they provide that no party may raise and the
discretionary effort to decide whether or not its hearing Commission may not independently examine any
boards should deal with environmental questions at all.
problem of water quality — perhaps the most remains to be done. It may be that the environmental
significant impact of nuclear power plants. Rather, the costs, though passing prescribed standards, are
Commission indicates that it will defer totally to water nonetheless great enough to outweigh the particular
quality standards devised and administered by state economic and technical benefits involved in the planned
agencies and approved by the federal government action. The only agency in a position to make such a
under the Federal Water Pollution Control judgment is the agency with overall responsibility for
Act.30 Secondly, the rules provide for similar abdication the proposed federal action — the agency to which
of NEPA authority to the standards of other agencies: NEPA is specifically directed.
"With respect to those aspects of environmental quality The Atomic Energy Commission, abdicating entirely to
for which environmental quality standards and other agencies' certifications, neglects the mandated
requirements have been established by authorized balancing analysis. Concerned members of the public
Federal, State, and regional agencies, proof that the are thereby precluded from raising a wide range of
applicant is equipped to observe and agrees to observe environmental issues in order to affect particular
such standards and requirements will be considered a Commission decisions. And the special purpose of NEPA
satisfactory showing that there will not be a significant, is subverted.
adverse effect on the environment. Certification by the
Arguing before this court, the Commission has made
appropriate agency that there is reasonable assurance
much of the special environmental expertise of the
that the applicant for the permit or license will observe
agencies which set environmental standards. NEPA did
such standards and requirements will be considered
not overlook this consideration. Indeed, the Act is quite
dispositive for this purpose."31
explicit in describing the attention which is to be given
The most the Commission will do is include a condition to the views and standards of other agencies. Section
in all construction permits and operating licenses 102 (2) (C) provides:
requiring compliance with the water quality or other
"Prior to making any detailed statement, the
standards set by such agencies.32 The upshot is that the
responsible Federal official shall consult with and obtain
NEPA procedures, viewed by the Commission as
the comments of any Federal agency which has
superfluous, will wither away in disuse, applied only to
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to
those environmental issues wholly unregulated by any
any environmental impact involved. Copies of such
other federal, state or regional body.
statement and the comments and views of the
We believe the Commission's rule is in fundamental appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, which
conflict with the basic purpose of the Act. NEPA are authorized to develop and enforce environmental
mandates a case-by-case balancing judgment on the standards, shall be made available to the President, the
part of federal agencies. In each individual case, the Council on Environmental Quality and to the public * *
particular economic and technical benefits of planned *."
action must be assessed and then weighed against the
Thus the Congress was surely cognizant of federal, state
environmental costs; alternatives must be considered
and local agencies "authorized to develop and enforce
which would affect the balance of values. See text at
environmental standards." But it provided, in Section
page 1113 supra. The magnitude of possible benefits
102(2) (C), only for full consultation. It most certainly
and possible costs may lie anywhere on a broad
did not authorize a total abdication to those agencies.
spectrum. Much will depend on the particular
Nor did it grant a license to disregard the main body of
magnitudes involved in particular cases. In some cases,
NEPA obligations.
the benefits will be great enough to justify a certain
quantum of environmental costs; in other cases, they Of course, federal agencies such as the Atomic Energy
will not be so great and the proposed action may have Commission may have specific duties, under acts other
to be abandoned or significantly altered so as to bring than NEPA, to obey particular environmental standards.
the benefits and costs into a proper balance. The point Section 104 of NEPA makes clear that such duties are
of the individualized balancing analysis is to ensure that, not to be ignored:
with possible alterations, the optimally beneficial action "Nothing in Section 102 or 103 shall in any way affect
is finally taken. the specific statutory obligations of any Federal agency
Certification by another agency that its own (1) to comply with criteria or standards of
environmental standards are satisfied involves an environmental quality, (2) to coordinate or consult with
entirely different kind of judgment. Such agencies, any other Federal or State agency, or (3) to act, or
without overall responsibility for the particular federal refrain from acting contingent upon the
action in question, attend only to one aspect of the recommendations or certification of any other Federal
problem: the magnitude of certain environmental costs. or State agency."
They simply determine whether those costs exceed an On its face, Section 104 seems quite unextraordinary,
allowable amount. Their certification does not mean intended only to see that the general procedural
that they found no environmental damage whatever. In reforms achieved in NEPA do not wipe out the more
fact, there may be significant environmental damage (e. specific environmental controls imposed by other
g., water pollution), but not quite enough to violate statutes. Ironically, however, the Commission argues
applicable (e. g., water quality) standards. Certifying that Section 104 in fact allows other statutes to wipe
agencies do not attempt to weigh that damage against out NEPA.
the opposing benefits. Thus the balancing analysis
Since the Commission places great reliance on Section exempt it from doing so. And it,
104 to support its abdication to standard setting therefore, must conduct the obligatory analysis under
agencies, we should first note the section's obvious the prescribed procedures.
limitation. It deals only with deference to such agencies
We believe the above result follows from the plain
which is compelled by "specific statutory obligations."
language of Section 104 of NEPA and WQIA. However,
The Commission has brought to our attention one
the Commission argues that we should delve beneath
"specific statutory obligation": the Water Quality
the plain language and adopt a significantly different
Improvement Act of 1970 (WQIA).33 That Act prohibits
interpretation. It relies entirely upon certain statements
federal licensing bodies, such as the Atomic Energy
made by Senator Jackson and Senator Muskie, the
Commission, from issuing licenses for facilities which
sponsors of NEPA and WQIA respectively.35 Those
pollute "the navigable waters of the United States"
statements indicate that Section 104 was the product of
unless they receive a certification from the appropriate
a compromise intended to eliminate any conflict
agency that compliance with applicable water quality
between the two bills then in the Senate. The overriding
standards is reasonably assured. Thus Section 104
purpose was to prevent NEPA from eclipsing obedience
applies in some fashion to consideration of water
to more specific standards under WQIA. Senator
quality matters. But it definitely cannot support —
Muskie, distrustful of "self-policing by Federal agencies
indeed, it is not even relevant to — the Commission's
which pollute or license pollution," was particularly
wholesale abdication to the standards and certifications
concerned that NEPA not undercut the independent
of any and all federal, state and local agencies dealing
role of standard setting agencies.36 Most of his and
with matters other than water quality.
Senator Jackson's comments stop short of suggesting
As to water quality, Section 104 and WQIA clearly that NEPA would have no application in water quality
require obedience to standards set by other agencies. matters; their goal was to protect WQIA, not to
But obedience does not imply total abdication. undercut NEPA. Our interpretation of Section 104 is
Certainly, the language of Section 104 does not perfectly consistent with that purpose.
authorize an abdication. It does not suggest that other
Yet the statements of the two Senators occasionally
"specific statutory obligations" will entirely replace
indicate they were willing to go farther, to permit
NEPA. Rather, it ensures that three sorts of
agencies such as the Atomic Energy Commission to
"obligations" will not be undermined by NEPA: (1) the
forego at least some NEPA procedures in consideration
obligation to "comply" with certain standards, (2) the
of water quality. Senator Jackson, for example, said,
obligation to "coordinate" or "consult" with certain
"The compromise worked out between the bills
agencies, and (3) the obligation to "act, or refrain from
provides that the licensing agency will not have to make
acting contingent upon" a certification from certain
a detailed statement on water quality if the State or
agencies. WQIA imposes the third sort of obligation. It
other appropriate agency has made a certification
makes the granting of a license by the Commission
pursuant to [WQIA]."37 Perhaps Senator Jackson would
"contingent upon" a water quality certification. But it
have required some consideration and balancing of
does not require the Commission to grant a license once
environmental costs — despite the lack of a formal
a certification has been issued. It does not preclude the
detailed statement — but he did not spell out his views.
Commission from demanding water pollution controls
No Senator, other than Senators Jackson and Muskie,
from its licensees which are more strict than those
addressed himself specifically to the problem during
demanded by the applicable water quality standards of
floor discussion. Nor did any member of the House of
the certifying agency.34 It is very important to
Representatives.38 The section-by-section analysis of
understand these facts about WQIA. For all that Section
NEPA submitted to the Senate clearly stated the
104 of NEPA does is to reaffirm other "specific statutory
overriding purpose of Section 104: that "no agency may
obligations." Unless those obligations are plainly
substitute the procedures outlined in this Act for more
mutually exclusive with the requirements of NEPA, the
restrictive and specific procedures established by law
specific mandate of NEPA must remain in force. In other
governing its activities."39 The report does not suggest
words, Section 104 can operate to relieve an agency of
there that NEPA procedures should be entirely
its NEPA duties only if other "specific statutory
abandoned, but rather that they should not be
obligations" clearly preclude performance of those
"substituted" for more specific standards. In one rather
duties.
cryptic sentence, the analysis does muddy the waters
Obedience to water quality certifications under WQIA is somewhat, stating that " [i]t is the intention that where
not mutually exclusive with the NEPA procedures. It there is no more effective procedure already
does not preclude performance of the NEPA duties. established, the procedure of this act will be
Water quality certifications essentially establish followed."40 Notably, however, the sentence does not
a minimum condition for the granting of a license. But state that in the presence of "more effective
they need not end the matter. The Commission can procedures" the NEPA procedure will be abandoned
then go on to perform the very different operation of entirely. It seems purposefully vague, quite possibly
balancing the overall benefits and costs of a particular meaning that obedience to the certifications of
proposed project, and consider alterations (above and standard setting agencies must alter, by supplementing,
beyond the applicable water quality standards) which the normal "procedure of this act."
would further reduce environmental damage. Because
This rather meager legislative history, in our view,
the Commission can still conduct the NEPA balancing
cannot radically transform the purport of the plain
analysis, consistent with WQIA, Section 104 does not
words of Section 104. Had the Senate sponsors fully
intended to allow a total abdication of NEPA measures be taken now for environmental protection.
responsibilities in water quality matters — rather than a Specifically, the Commission has provided for three such
supplementing of them by strict obedience to the measures during the pre-operating license stage. First, it
specific standards of WQIA — the language of Section has required that a condition be added to all
104 could easily have been changed. As the Supreme construction permits, "whenever issued," which would
Court often has said, the legislative history of a statute oblige the holders of the permits to observe all
(particularly such relatively meager and vague history as applicable environmental standards imposed by federal
we have here) cannot radically affect its interpretation or state law. Second, it has required permit holders to
if the language of the statute is clear. See, e. g., Packard submit their own environmental report on the facility
Motor Car Co. v. NLRB, 330 U.S. 485, 67 S. Ct. 789, 91 L. under construction. And third, it has initiated
Ed. 1040 (1947); Kuehner v. Irving Trust Co., 299 U.S. procedures for the drafting of its staff's "detailed
445, 57 S. Ct. 298, 81 L. Ed. 340 (1937); Fairport, environmental statement" in advance of operating
Painesville & Eastern R. Co. v. Meredith, 292 U.S. 589, license proceedings.41
54 S. Ct. 826, 78 L. Ed. 1446 (1934); Wilbur v. United
The one thing the Commission has refused to do is take
States ex rel. Vindicator Consolidated Gold Mining
any independent action based upon the material in the
Co., 284 U.S. 231, 52 S. Ct. 113, 76 L. Ed. 261 (1931). In a
environmental reports and "detailed statements."
recent case interpreting a veterans' act, the Court set
Whatever environmental damage the reports and
down the principle which must govern our approach to
statements may reveal, the Commission will allow
the case before us:
construction to proceed on the original plans. It will not
"Having concluded that the provisions of § 1 are clear even consider requiring alterations in those plans
and unequivocal on their face, we find no need to resort (beyond compliance with external standards which
to the legislative history of the Act. Since the State has would be binding in any event), though the "detailed
placed such heavy reliance upon that history, however, statements" must contain an analysis of possible
we do deem it appropriate to point out that this history alternatives and may suggest relatively inexpensive but
is at best inconclusive. It is true, as the State points out, highly beneficial changes. Moreover, the Commission
that Representative Rankin, as Chairman of the has, as a blanket policy, refused to consider the
Committee handling the bill on the floor of the House, possibility of temporarily halting construction in
expressed his view during the course of discussion of particular cases pending a full study of a facility's
the bill on the floor that the 1941 Act would not apply environmental impact. It has also refused to weigh the
to [the sort of case in question] * * *. But such pros and cons of "backfitting" for particular facilities
statements, even when they stand alone, have never (alteration of already constructed portions of the
been regarded as sufficiently compelling to justify facilities in order to incorporate new technological
deviation from the plain language of a statute. * * *" developments designed to protect the environment).
United States v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 643, 648, 81 S. Ct. Thus reports and statements will be produced, but
1278, 1281, 6 L. Ed. 2d 575 (1961). (Footnotes omitted.) nothing will be done with them. Once again, the
It is, after all, the plain language of the statute Commission seems to believe that the mere drafting
which all the members of both houses of Congress must and filing of papers is enough to satisfy NEPA.
approve or disapprove. The courts should not allow that
The Commission appears to recognize the severe
language to be significantly undercut. In cases such as
limitation which its rules impose on environmental
this one, the most we should do to interpret clear
protection. Yet it argues that full NEPA consideration of
statutory wording is to see that the overriding
alternatives and independent action would cause too
purpose behind the wording supports its plain meaning.
much delay at the pre-operating license stage. It
We have done that here. And we conclude that Section
justifies its rules as the most that is "practicable, in the
104 of NEPA does not permit the sort of total abdication
light of environmental needs and `other essential
of responsibility practiced by the Atomic Energy
considerations of national policy'."42 It cites, in
Commission.
particular, the "national power crisis" as a consideration
of national policy militating against delay in
V construction of nuclear power facilities.
Petitioners' final attack is on the Commission's rules The Commission relies upon the flexible NEPA mandate
governing a particular set of nuclear facilities: those for to "use all practicable means consistent with other
which construction permits were granted without essential considerations of national policy." As we have
consideration of environmental issues, but for which previously pointed out, however, that mandate applies
operating licenses have yet to be issued. These facilities,
only to the substantive guidelines set forth in Section
still in varying stages of construction, include the one of 101 of the Act. See page 1114 supra. The procedural
most immediate concern to one of the petitioners: the duties, the duties to give full consideration to
Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant on Chesapeake Bay in environmental protection, are subject to a much more
Maryland. strict standard of compliance. By now, the applicable
The Commission's rules recognize that the granting of a principle should be absolutely clear. NEPA requires that
construction permit before NEPA's effective date does an agency must — to the fullest extent possible under
not justify bland inattention to environmental its other statutory obligations — consider alternatives
consequences until the operating license proceedings, to its actions which would reduce environmental
perhaps far in the future. The rules require that damage. That principle establishes that consideration of
environmental matters must be more than a pro
forma ritual. Clearly, it is pointless to "consider" license stage. As the Commission candidly admits, such
environmental costs without also seriously considering consideration does not amount to a retroactive
action to avoid them. Such a full exercise of substantive application of NEPA. Although the projects in question
discretion is required at every important, appropriate may have been commenced and initially approved
and nonduplicative stage of an agency's before January 1, 1970, the Act clearly applies to them
proceedings. See text at page 1114 supra. since they must still pass muster before going into full
operation.43 All we demand is that the environmental
The special importance of the pre-operating license
review be as full and fruitful as possible.
stage is not difficult to fathom. In cases where
environmental costs were not considered in granting a
construction permit, it is very likely that the planned VI
facility will include some features which do significant We hold that, in the four respects detailed above, the
damage to the environment and which could not have Commission must revise its rules governing
survived a rigorous balancing of costs and benefits. At consideration of environmental issues. We do not
the later operating license proceedings, this impose a harsh burden on the Commission. For we
environmental damage will have to be fully considered. require only an exercise of substantive discretion which
But by that time the situation will have changed will protect the environment "to the fullest extent
radically. Once a facility has been completely possible." No less is required if the grand congressional
constructed, the economic cost of any alteration may purposes underlying NEPA are to become a reality.
be very great. In the language of NEPA, there is likely to
Remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
be an "irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
resources," which will inevitably restrict the
APPENDIX
Commission's options. Either the licensee will have to
undergo a major expense in making alterations in a
Public Law 91-190 91st Congress, S. 1075 January 1,
completed facility or the environmental harm will have
1970 An Act
to be tolerated. It is all too probable that the latter
result would come to pass. To establish a national policy for the environment, to
provide for the establishment of a Council on
By refusing to consider requirement of alterations until
Environmental Quality, and for other purposes.
construction is completed, the Commission may
effectively foreclose the environmental protection Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
desired by Congress. It may also foreclose rigorous Representatives of the United States of America in
consideration of environmental factors at the eventual Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the
operating license proceedings. If "irreversible and "National Environmental Policy Act of 1969."
irretrievable commitment [s] of resources" have already
been made, the license hearing (and any public PURPOSE
intervention therein) may become a hollow exercise.
Sec. 2. The purposes of this Act are: To declare a
This hardly amounts to consideration of environmental
national policy which will encourage productive and
values "to the fullest extent possible."
enjoyable harmony between man and his environment;
A full NEPA consideration of alterations in the original to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate
plans of a facility, then, is both important and damage to the environment and biosphere and
appropriate well before the operating license stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the
proceedings. It is not duplicative if environmental issues understanding of the ecological systems and natural
were not considered in granting the construction resources important to the Nation; and to establish a
permit. And it need not be duplicated, absent new Council on Environmental Quality.
information or new developments, at the operating
license stage. In order that the pre-operating license TITLE I
review be as effective as possible, the Commission
should consider very seriously the requirement of a DECLARATION OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
temporary halt in construction pending its review and
the "backfitting" of technological innovations. For no Sec. 101. (a) The Congress, recognizing the profound
action which might minimize environmental damage impact of man's activity on the interrelations of all
may be dismissed out of hand. Of course, final components of the natural environment, particularly
operation of the facility may be delayed thereby. But the profound influences of population growth, high-
some delay is inherent whenever the NEPA density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource
consideration is conducted — whether before or at the exploitation, and new and expanding technological
license proceedings. It is far more consistent with the advances and recognizing further the critical
purposes of the Act to delay operation at a stage where importance of restoring and maintaining environmental
real environmental protection may come about than at quality to the overall welfare and development of man,
a stage where corrective action may be so costly as to declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal
be impossible. Government, in co-operation with State and local
governments, and other concerned public and private
Thus we conclude that the Commission must go farther organizations, to use all practicable means and
than it has in its present rules. It must consider action, measures, including financial and technical assistance,
as well as file reports and papers, at the pre-operating in a manner calculated to foster and promote the
general welfare, to create and maintain conditions (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be
under which man and nature can exist in productive avoided should the proposal be implemented,
harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,
requirements of present and future generations of
Americans. (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of
man's environment and the maintenance and
(b) In order to carry out the policy set forth in this Act, it
enhancement of long-term productivity, and
is the continuing responsibility of the Federal
Government to use all practicable means, consistent (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
with other essential considerations of national policy, to resources which would be involved in the proposed
improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, action should it be implemented.
programs, and resources to the end that the Nation Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible
may — Federal official shall consult with and obtain the
(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as comments of any Federal agency which has jurisdiction
trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; by law or special expertise with respect to any
environmental impact involved. Copies of such
(2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive,
statement and the comments and views of the
and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, which
(3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the are authorized to develop and enforce environmental
environment without degradation, risk to health or standards, shall be made available to the President, the
safety, or other undesirable and unintended Council on Environmental Quality and to the public as
consequences; provided by section 552 of title 5, United States Code,
and shall accompany the proposal through the existing
(4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural
agency review processes;
aspects of our national heritage, and maintain,
wherever possible, an environment which supports (D) study, develop, and describe appropriate
diversity and variety of individual choice; alternatives to recommended courses of action in any
proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning
(5) achieve a balance between population and resource
alternative uses of available resources;
use which will permit high standards of living and a
wide sharing of life's amenities; and (E) recognize the worldwide and long-range character of
environmental problems and, where consistent with the
(6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and
foreign policy of the United States, lend appropriate
approach the maximum attainable recycling of
support to initiatives, resolutions, and programs
depletable resources.
designed to maximize international cooperation in
(c) The Congress recognizes that each person should anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of
enjoy a healthful environment and that each person has mankind's world environment;
a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and
(F) make available to States, counties, municipalities,
enhancement of the environment.
institutions, and individuals, advice and information
Sec. 102. The Congress authorizes and directs that, to useful in restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the
the fullest extent possible: (1) the policies, regulations, quality of the environment;
and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted
(G) initiate and utilize ecological information in the
and administered in accordance with the policies set
planning and development of resource-oriented
forth in this Act, and (2) all agencies of the Federal
projects; and
Government shall —
(H) assist the Council on Environmental Quality
(A) utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which
established by title II of this Act.
will insure the integrated use of the natural and social
sciences and the environmental design arts in planning Sec. 103. All agencies of the Federal Government shall
and in decisionmaking which may have an impact on review their present statutory authority, administrative
man's environment; regulations, and current policies and procedures for the
purpose of determining whether there are any
(B) identify and develop methods and procedures, in
deficiencies or inconsistencies therein which prohibit
consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality
full compliance with the purposes and provisions of this
established by title II of this Act, which will insure that
Act and shall propose to the President not later than
presently unquantified environmental amenities and
July 1, 1971, such measures as may be necessary to
values may be given appropriate consideration in
bring their authority and policies into conformity with
decisionmaking along with economic and technical
the intent, purposes, and procedures set forth in this
considerations;
Act.
(C) include in every recommendation or report on
Sec. 104. Nothing in Section 102 or 103 shall in any way
proposals for legislation and other major Federal
affect the specific statutory obligations of any Federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
agency (1) to comply with criteria or standards of
environment, a detailed statement by the responsible
environmental quality, (2) to coordinate or consult with
official on —
any other Federal or State agency, or (3) to act, or
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, refrain from acting contingent upon the
recommendations or certification of any other Federal  This case established that NEPA has judicially
or State agency. enforceable duties.
o At this point, NEPA was new, and the
Sec. 105. The policies and goals set forth in this Act are concept that individual people could use
supplementary to those set forth in existing it to get the judiciary to tell the
authorizations of Federal agencies. executive branch what to do was a pretty
radical idea.
Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v. United
States Atomic Energy Commission
449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971)

 The US AEC (forerunner of the Department of


Energy) was encouraging utilities to build
nuclear power plants. Baltimore Gas and
Electric decided to build one in rural Maryland.
 Two years after construction began, the Federal
government passed the National
Environmental Policy Act (aka NEPA) 42
U.S.C. §§4321-4370.
o NEPA §102(2)(C) requires preparation
of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
 AEC issued a regulation requiring permit
applicants to prepare EISs. However, they felt
that they did not have to consider the
conclusions of the report unless parties raised
specific challenges to it during the licensing
process.
o Basically, AEC was treating the EIS as
just more paperwork. The EIS needed
to be prepared and filed, but it was not
considered within AEC's licensing board
process to decide whether to issue a
permit or not.
 No one at AEC would look at
the EIS unless an environmental
issue was raised by a party to
the proceeding.
o Technically, NEPA only requires you
to consider the likely environmental
effects of your activities. It doesn't say
what you should do once you've
considered the problem.
 A local environmental group (CCCC) sued
AEC, arguing that AEC's regulations
violated NEPA because they did not require
AEC to independently assess environmental
impacts.
 The Appellate Court found for CCCC and
remanded back to AEC for further rulemaking to
improve their regulations.
o The Appellate Court noted that NEPA
§102(2)(E) requires that all Federal
agencies must considered NEPA "to the
fullest extent possible."
o The Appellate Court found that
compliance "to the fullest extent
possible" demands that environmental
issues be considered at every important
stage of the decision-making process.
 The preparation of the EIS must
be more than simply a pro
forma ritual.
o Therefore, the Appellate Court found
that AEC procedural rules did not
comply with Congressional policy as
enunciated in NEPA.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai