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

Page 125

SCIENTISTS' INST. FOR PUB. INFO., INC. v. ATOMIC ENERGY COM'N 1 0 95 Cite ns 481 K.2d 1079 (1073) 0f the environment. Similarly, the reg­ulations of the Environmental Protec­tion Agency require that agency to issue a negative declaration when an environ­mental assessment indicates there will be no significant impact, accompanied by an appraisal documenting the agen­cy's reasons for concluding that no statement is required.65 A statement of reasons will serve two functions. It will ensure that the agen­cy has given adequate consideration to the problem and that it understood the statutory standard. In addition, it will provide a focal point for judicial review of the agency's decision, giving the court the benefit of the agency's expertise.68 In the present case the Commission has not established any pro­cedure to evaluate its ongoing LMFBR program under NEPA. The Commis­sion's basic position throughout this case seems to be that NEPA does not apply at all to overall research and de­velopment programs, but rather only to specific facilities. To the extent the Commission's decision not to write a statement for its program represents in- 65. Id. at 1699, amending 40 C.F.R. § 6.25 (a) (1972). 66. See Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 792, 88 S.Ct. 1344, 20 L.Ed. 2d 312 (1968) ; Citizens x\ssn of George­town, Inc. v. Zoning Comm'n of D. C, supra note 61, 155 U.S.App.D.C. at 239, 477 F.2d at 408; Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Ruckelshaus, supra note 62, 142 U.S.APP.D.C. at 88, 439 F.2d at 598. 67. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 419, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971) ; Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168-169, 83 S.Ct. 239, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962). 68. The decision whether the time is ripe for a NEPA statement on an overall re­search and development program is a mixed question of law and of fact. It concerns a question of law as to interpre­tation of the statutory phrase "major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" as it pertains to technology research and de­velopment programs. As indicated in text, we interpret the statute to provide for a balancing approach which takes into ac-stead a decision that the time is not yet ripe for such a statement, the Commis­sion has not given reasons for its deci­sion. Nor are the post hoc rationaliza­tions of Commission counsel of much value as a substitute.67 As indicated earlier, the reasons given in this case are ambiguous and inconsistent. And even if they were not, we would have no way of knowing whether they reflect the reasons actually relied upon by the Com­mission. We must, therefore, resort to other material in the record to determine whether the Commission properly decid­ed not to draft a statement for the over­all program at the present time. Fortu­nately a substantial record was made be­fore the District Court, consisting in large part of analyses and reports com­pleted by the Commission itself. Our examination of this record leads us to conclude that the Commission could have no rational basis for deciding that the time is not yet ripe for drafting an im­pact statement on the overall LMFBR program.68 Consideration of each of the facts set out in our balancing test point count the Act's policies in favor of infor­mation which is both meaningful and timely. In addition, the decision involves a question of fact as to application of that balancing test to the realities of a specific program at a specific time. With respect to judicial review of such mixed questions of law and fact, the Su­preme Court has authorized a practical standard of review, the "rational basis" test, under which the court will reverse the agency's decision if it has no war­rant in the record and no reasonable basis in law. NLRB v. Hearst Publica­tions, Inc., 322 U.S. 111, 131, 64 S.Ct. S51, 88 L.Ed. 1170 (1944); Hanly v. Kleindienst, 2 Cir., 471 F.2d 823, 829 (1972). In reviewing an agency decision that no impact statement was required for cer­tain proposed federal action, the 2nd Cir­cuit has recently rejected this approach in favor of the "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law" standard of the Administrative Procedure Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (A) (1970), as that test was interpreted by the Supreme Court in Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc.