the Board of Public Works of the State of Maryland. These hearings: considered all aspects of the facility's potential environment impact. Numerous other permits and licenses containing conditions imposed by governmental agencies are set forth in a document entitled "Report to Atomic Energy Commission Covering Actions Taken by Baltimore Gas and Electric Company to Comply with Federal and State Environmental Requirements," dated February 25, 1971. All of this information has been available to any member of the public. Based upon the tremendous quantity of information on the Calvert Cliffs facility and its environmental impact which is already publicly available and the supplemental Environmental Report to be filed on or before November 8, 1971, it makes no sense to postpone until after the issuance of AEC's final Detailed Statement the time for filing petitions for leave to intervene. Even in the unlikely event that the AEC's draft supplemental Detailed Statement or the final Detailed Statement should disclose significant information not previously available, the Commission's existing procedures would, of course, allow it for good cause to extend the time for filing of petitions to intervene. Because of the importance of the timely completion of environmental reviews, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company sincerely hopes that the Commission will, without awaiting a complete review of Appendix D, appropriately amend Appendix D to provide for an early intervention period. Very truly yours, JAMES A. BIDDISON, Jr., STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Mr. HAROLD L. PRICE, DEAR MR. PRICE: Your letter of September 3, 1971, has been referred to this office for reply. After reviewing the new Appendix D to 10 CFR 50, we note that in Sections B, C, and D of this Appendix D, states are expected to comment upon the environmental statements of a facility within thirty days. Although we recognize that the facilities covered in these Sections are already in the licensing process and therefore their comments should receive expeditious handling, we feel due to the time delays in getting the copies of the environmental statements to the appropriate commenting agencies, it may be necessary from time to time to request an extension of this time. We also note that by introducing the comments on the environmental report as evidence at the hearing you may, in fact, be putting all commentors in a position of participating in the hearing subject to cross examination. Although we feel that no responsible state official would fail to comment because of this likelihood, it would perhaps be of some benefit to clarify this point in the regulation. We also note that this may serve as a basis for deleting comments which are unsubstantiated or have no scientific basis. Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this regulation; and if you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me. Sincerely, IRA L. MYERS, M.D., PRESS RELEASE FROM THE OFFICE OF SENATOR JAMES O. EASTLAND Washington-Senator James O. Eastland (D-Miss.) today called on Congress to "take a new, close look" at the nation's environmental protection laws. Eastland, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said further study is needed "because special interest groups, invoking the ecology theme, are holding up badly needed government projects." The Mississippi lawmaker said "a rash of lawsuits" filed in federal courts is "blocking progress" on numerous public projects. "Many of the suits amount to nothing and the result is added cost for the taxpayer," the Senator said. He called for a "common sense approach" to the ecology question where such projects are concerned. "Everybody is in favor of protecting the environment," Eastland said, "but this business of yelling 'ecology' everytime we get ready for a new project has got to stop." Eastland cited a temporary injunction which is holding up the massive Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, a 253-mile mid-continent industrial canal. He also pointed out that court action has caused a reappraisal of the Atomic Energy Commission's plans for nuclear power plant permits. "Many of these suits are in the vital field of public power," the Senator pointed out. "Any delay along these lines could mean serious consequences for our already-overworked power system." The Tennessee-Tombigbee, dedicated by President Nixon last spring, was opposed by Nixon's own Environmental Protection Agency. Eastland called this action "a disgrace" and added: "A small group has thrown a roadblock in the way of progress, because this great Waterway will be an economic bonanza, benefiting the region and the nation as a whole." The Senator pointed out that similar legal action had prevented inauguration of a fire ant control program in Mississippi. "This is a critical situation involving a large segment of the South," he said, "and these special interest groups blocked the emergency effort to control the fire ant for more than a year." Eastland said "a serious study" is needed on the workings of the law creating the nation's environmental program. "I would urge Congress to review the operation of these laws in an effort to determine how they are working-and if they are operating in the interest of the nation as a whole." 28 CORRESPONDENCE: JAEC/CEQ/EPA Hon. RUSSELL E. TRAIN, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of August 4, 1971, responding to mine of July 7 concerning generally the interrelationship between the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (WQIA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as discussed in House Report No. 92-316 on the administration of NEPA. I am grateful for your thoughtfulness in sending me excerpts from the Calvert Cliffs decision. Although I have been briefed on that decision in its entirety, I am pleased to accept your offer for views of the Council on Environmental Quality on the implications of that decision with regard to the actions which all Federal agencies must take to comply with the requirements of NEPA. Further, in view of those implications, I would like to know what you plan to do to give much needed policy guidance to AEC and other Federal agencies as contemplated by Title II and Section 102 of NEPA. There is no doubt in my mind that if such guidance isn't forthcoming promptly the progress needed to meet this Nation's energy supply will become even more seriously impeded. This would indeed be regrettable because the impediments would result from procedural confusion which contributes nothing to environmental protection which, incidentally, I have advocated for years prior to January 1, 1970. I think your offer to share with me your views on the implications of the decision are particularly timely; and I hope that your views will be translated by the Council on Environmental Quality into prompt policy and realistic procedural guidance for environmental decision making under NEPA. Getting back to the specific subjects of water quality matters and the interrelationship of NÉPA and the WQIA of 1970, I assume that your view is completely in accord with the Court's treatment of the subject and, furthermore, that the Court's treatment is consistent with the treatment of the subject in the House report. If that is your position, I would like to know if that position is in accord with your position on the same subject which is referred to in the Corps of Engineers policies for permits to perform work or place structures in or across navigable waters and for permits to make discharges or deposits into navigable waters or their tributaries. I quote from page 32 of a Corps of Engineers pamphlet on that subject: "Section 102(2) (C) statements will not be required in permit cases where it is likely that the proposed discharge will not have any signifi cant impact on the human environment. Moreover the Council on Environment Quality has advised that such statements will not be required where the only impact of the proposed discharge or deposit will be on water quality and related water considerations because these matters are specifically addressed under section 21(b) and (c), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. However, such statements shall be required in connection with proposed discharges or deposits which may have a significant environmental impact unrelated to water quality." Although I recognize that CEQ has been faced with complex coordinating problems, I believe there is an urgent need for guidance from the Council regarding the procedures which agencies must follow to comply with NEPA. The situation regarding procedures to deal with water quality matters is one obvious area in which there is a need for uniform procedures. If additional legislation is needed to clarify the procedures which must be followed to satisfy the requirements of NEPA, I would like to know your plans in that regard. I look forward to hearing from you on these matters which are vital to the achievement of the twin goals of environmental protection and an adequate supply of clean energy announced in the President's Energy Message of June 4, 1971. Sincerely yours, CHET HOLIFIELD, LETTER FROM RUSSELL E. TRAIN, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, TO CONGRESSMAN CHET HOLIFIELD, DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 1971. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Hon. CHET HOLIFIELD, DEAR MR. HOLIFIELD: Thank you for your letter of August 16 concerning the application of the National Environmental Policy Act to the licensing operations of the Atomic Energy Commission. In the interval since I last wrote you on this subject there have been a number of important developments I would like to comment on. First, as you know, the Atomic Energy Commission has decided not to seek further Court review of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in the Calvert Cliffs case and has issued revised procedures to comply with that decision. These procedures should lead to greater public confidence in the treatment of environmental issues in the Commission's decision making process and to results that will meet the test of Court review better. Despite the substantial backlog of applications AEC must now review, we think further litigation of this case would have led to greater delay and prolonged uncertainty and, ultimately, to reaffirmation of the NEPA requirements for the Commission. Secondly, I would note that AEC consulted our Council fully in developing its revised NEPA procedures and that we stand ready, as specific questions in implementation arise, to give what assistance we can in helping make AÊC's compliance with NEPA work as smoothly as possible. In this respect we have agreed with Chairman Schlesinger that AEC should develop a schedule for the NEPA statement and Refuse Act permit actions required in its backlog of reviews. Our object is to work out with the Federal agencies which must comment on the environmental aspects of AEC's decisions or must process related Refuse Act permits an expeditious processing timetable. We will also invite the cooperation of State agencies concerned. In some cases simultaneous hearings may be possible on various environmental aspects. Thirdly, we have endorsed the legislative clarification on the relation of State certifications under Section 21 (b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and NEPA proposed by the Senate Public Works Subcommittee which is now considering amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. I enclose a copy of my letter to Senators Muskie and Boggs on the subject. Such legislative clarification should meet the concern expressed on the second page of your letter and I hope we may have your help on this issue when the matter is before the House. Finally, I would like to emphasize that we regard power plant siting legislation such as that proposed by the Administration as the ultimate solution to the types of issues raised in the Calvert Cliffs decision. Indeed, one of the merits of the decision is the new impetus it should give to developing an appropriate institutional mechanism to balance energy and environment considerations in power plant siting. As you quite rightly note, the President's Energy Message stresses the importance of this balance and of developing the power plant siting institutional arrangements I refer to. Sincerely yours, RUSSELL E. TRAIN, Chairman. Hon. WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, JULY 7, 1971. DEAR MR. RUCKELSHAUS: The House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries has recently issued a report (H. Rep. 92-316) on the administration of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The report recommends that the Atomic Energy Commission revise its views that NEPA does not require it to "look behind" state certification of water quality standards. The report includes a lengthy discussion (on pages 30-32) of AEC's "narrow and restrictive" view of its responsibilities under NEPA, particularly as regards its interpretation of the inter-relationship between the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 and NEPA. It is my understanding that your agency has the responsibility for the implementation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which, among other things, establishes the system for Federal approval of state water quality standards. I am particularly interested in having your views and analysis of how the report's recommendations that AEC "look behind" state certification of water quality standards |