| OCR Text |
Show CALVERT CLIFFS' COORD. COM. Cite as 449 F.J i -ALVERT CLIFFS' COORDINATING COMMITTEE, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. I SITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Intervenor. CALVERT CLIFFS' COORDINATING COMMITTEE, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents. Nos. 24839, 24871. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued April 16, 1971. Decided July 23, 1971. Proceeding to review order of Atomic Energy Commission. The Court of Appeals, J. Skeiiy Wright, Circuit Judge, held that the courts have power to require agencies to comply with procedural directions of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and that the Commission's rules precluding review consideration of nonradiological environmental issues unless specifically raised, prohibiting raising such issues in certain pending proceedings or when issues have been passed on by other agencies, and precluding consideration between grant of construction permit and consideration °i grant of operating license, did not comply with Act. Remanded. !• Health <§=>20 Direction of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that agencies consider environmental amenities along *»th economic and technical considerations involves a balancing process. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, v. UNITED STATES A. E. COM'N H09 !d 1100 (1971) § 102(2) (A), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332T2) (A). 2. Health €=>20 Direction of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that, "to the fullest extent possible" agencies must give "appropriate" consideration to environmental amenities and values does not give agencies broad discretion to downplay environmental factors in decisionmaking process but sets high standard which must be rigorously enforced by courts. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102, 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332. 3. Health <§=>20 Requirements of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that agencies prepare detailed statements covering impact of actions on environment and describe alternatives seek to insure that each agency decision maker has before him and takes into proper account all possible approaches to particular project which would alter environmental impact and cost-benefit balance. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102 (2) (C, D), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(2) (C. B). 4. Health <S=>20 Unlike substantive duties under National Environmental Policy Act, with respect to which agencies must use "all practicable means consistent with other essential considerations", Act's direction that procedural duties must be fulfilled to the "fullest extent possible" makes these duties not inherently flexible but such as must be complied with to fullest extent unless there is clear conflict of statutory authority; considerations of administrative difficulty, delay, or economic cause do not strip provision of its fundamental importance. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, §§ 101 •(b), 102, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 4331(b), 4332. 5. Health <§=>20 While reviewing courts probably cannot reverse substantive decision on its merits, under National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, unless it be shown that actual balance of cost and benefits |
