Page images
PDF
EPUB

B. THE DECISION

[Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Federal Reporter or U.S. App. D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 24,839

CALVERT CLIFFS' COORDINATING
COMMITTEE, INC., et al., PETITIONERS

v.

UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION AND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS

BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, INTERVENOR

No. 24,871

CALVERT CLIFFS' COORDINATING
COMMITTEE, INC., et al., PETITIONERS

V.

UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION AND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS

Petitions for Review of an Order of the Atomic Energy Commission

Decided July 23, 1971

Mr. Anthony Z. Roisman, with whom Messrs. Myron M. Cherry and Lewis Drain were on the brief, for petitioners.

Mr. Marcus A. Rowden, Solicitor, Atomic Energy Commission, with whom Messrs. Howard K. Shapar, Assistant General Counsel, Licensing and Regulation, Atomic Energy Commission, and Edmund Clark Attorney, Department of Justice, were on the brief, for respondents

Mr. William C. Parler, Attorney, Atomic Energy Commission, also entered an appearance for respondent Atomic Energy Commission. Mr. George F. Trowbridge, with whom Mr. Jay E. Silberg was on the brief, for intervenor in No. 24,839.

Messrs, George D. Gibson and Arnold H. Quint filed a brief on behalf of Duke Power Company et al. as amici curiae in No. 24,871. Mr. Roy B. Snapp filed a brief on behalf of Arkansas Power and Light Company as amicus curiae in No. 24,871.

Messrs, Arvin E. Upton, Leonard M. Trosten and Henry V. Nickel filed a brief on behalf of Consolidated Edison Company as amicus curiae in No. 24,871.

Mr. Jerome E. Sharfman filed a brief on behalf of Consumers Power Company as amicus curiae in No. 24,871.

Messrs. H. Edward Dunkelberger, Jr., Christopher M. Little and Peter M. Phillipes filed a brief on behalf of Indiana and Michigan Electric Company and Portland General Electric Company as amici curiae in No. 24,871.

Before WRIGHT, TAMM and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges.

[graphic]
[ocr errors]

WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: These cases are only the beginning of what promises to become a flood of new litigation-litigation seeking judicial assistance in protecting our natural environment. Several recently enacted statutes attest to the commitment of the Government to control, at long last, the destructive engine of material "progress." 1 But it remains to be seen whether the promise of this legislation will become a reality. Therein lies the judicial role. In these cases, we must for the first time interpret the broadest and perhaps most important of the recent statutes: the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). We must assess claims that one of the agencies charged with its administration has failed to live up to the congressional mandate. Our duty, in short, is to see that important legislative purposes, heralded in the halls of Congress, are not lost or misdirected in the vast hallways of the federal bureaucracy.

2

[graphic]

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 proce dural 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.

1 See, e.g., Environmental Education Act, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1531 (1971 Pocket Part); Air Quality Act of 1967. 42 U.S.C. § 1857 (Supp. V 1965–1969); Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 4372–4374 (1971 Pocket Part); Water and Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-224, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 242 U.S.C.A. § 4321 et seq. (1971 Pocket Part).

[graphic]
[graphic]
« PreviousContinue »