Sierra Club v. Gilbert Stamm and other legal cases involving environmental impact statements

Page 37

CALVERT CLIFFS' COORD. COM. Cite as 449 F.2 until time of issuance of operating li­cense did not comply with Act. Nation­al Environmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102, 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332. Mr. Anthony Z. Roisman, Washington, D. C, with whom Messrs. Myron M. Cherry, Chicago, III., and Lewis Drain, Grand Rapids, Mich., were on the brief, for petitioners. Mr. Marcus A. Rowden, Solicitor, Atomic Energy Commission, with whom Messrs. Howard K. Shapar, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Licensing and Regulation, Atomic Energy Commission, and Ed­mund Clark, Atty., Department of Jus­tice, were on the brief, for respondents. Mr. William C. Parler, Atty., Atomic Energy Commission, also entered an ap­pearance for respondent Atomic Energy Commission. Mr. George F. Trowbridge, Washing­ton, D. C, with whom Mr. Jay E. Siiberg, Washington, D. C, was on the brief, for intervenor in No. 24,839. Messrs. George D. Gibson and Arnold H. Quint, Washington, D. C, filed a brief on behalf of Duke Power Company et al. as amici curiae in No. 24,871. Mr. Roy B. Snapp, Washington, D. C, 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, Washing­ton, D. C, filed a brief on behalf of Con­solidated Edison Company as amicus cu­riae in No. 24,871. Mr. Jerome E. Sharfman, Washington, D. C, 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. Phil- I. See, e. g., Environmental Education Act. 20 U.S.C.A. § 1531 (1971 Pocket Part) ; Air Quality Act of 19G7, 42 U.S.C. § 1857 et seq. (Supp. V 19G5-19G9) ; En­vironmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 4371-4374 (1971 Pocket Part) ; Water and Environmental v. UNITED STATES A. E. COM'N \ \ \\ 1 1109 (1971) lipes, Washington, D. C, 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. J. SKELLY 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." * 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).2 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. 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 Quality Improvement Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-224, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970), S4 Stat. 91. 2. 42 U.S.C.A. § 4321 et seq. (1971 Pocket P a r t ) .