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

Page 137

isiituiev. A^C J i-k\.V.. i'*i.J tion Agency concurs in the view that an assess­ment of the total LMFBR program is desir­able. In its comments on the Commission's draft statement for the first LMFBR demon­stration plant, the EPA stated: "Because of the importance of the LMFBR program, we believe that a thor­ough and timely evaluation of the overall environmental effects of a national com­mitment to this concept of electricity gener­ation is warranted. Since the results of the demonstration program could influence a decision to use LMFBR's on a broad scale, we encourage you to fully examine all the environmental effects associated with a na­tional commitment to use LMFBR's to gen-eratejclectricity as soon as practicable."47 [ 1 ] We thus tread firm ground in holding that NEPA requires impact statements for major federal research programs, such as the Commission's LMFBR program, aimed at de­velopment of new technologies which, when applied, will significantly affect the quality of human environment. To the extent the ommission's "environmental survey" would not be issued in accordance with NEPA's pro­cedures for preparation and distribution, it is not an adequate substitute for a NEPA state­ment. These procedural requirements are not dispensable technicalities, but are crucial if the statement is to serve its dual functions of in­forming Congress, the President, other con­cerned agencies and the public of the environ-coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may- "(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each gener­ation as trustee of the environment for succeed­ing generations [.]" See also S. Rep. No. 91-296, supra note 33, at 8; id. at 5: "* * * Important decisions concerning the use and the shape of man's future environment con­tinue to be made in small but steady increments which perpetuate rather than avoid the recog­nized mistakes of previous decades." It is also interesting to note that radiation hazards was one of the specific problem areas noted in NEPA's legislative history. Id. at 4. 47 See letter from David D. Dominick, Assistant Administrator for Categorical Programs, EPA, to John A. Erlewinc, Assistant General Manager for Operations, AEC, reprinted in AEC, ENVIRON­MENTAL STATEMENT: LIQUID METAL FAST BREEDER REACTOR DEMONSTRATION PLANT A-l (April 1972) (hereinafter AEC, LMFBR Impact Statement). See also NEPA Hearings, supra note 20, at 100 (Senator Gravel): "I share their concern. I would like to know the environmental implications if we are going to launch a plutonium economy, and the time to know these problems is before we spend billions and billions of dollars, rather than after." "'See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton, 148 U.S.App.D.C. 5, 11, 458 F.2d 827, 833 [3 ERC 1558] (1972); Calvert Cliffs'Coordi­nating Committee v. USAEC, supra note 1, 146 U.S.App.D.C. at 38, 449 F.2d at 1114. 49See Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. USAEC, supra note 1, 146 U.S.App.D.C. at 38, 449 F.2datlll4. »/</., 146 U.S.App.D.C. at 36-39, 449 F.2d at 1112-1115. 51 See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton, supra note 48, 148 U.S.App.D.C. at 14-16, 458 F.2d at 836-838. MSee Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. USAEC, supra note 1, 146 U.S.App.D.C. at 38, 449 F.2dat 1114. 33 Compare Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton, supra note 48, 148 U.S.App.D.C. at 15,458F.2dat837. mental effects of agency action,48 and of ensuring meaningful consideration of environ mental factors at all stages of agency decision making.49. It is apparent, however, that the Co sion seeks to avoid issuing its forthcoming "en­vironmental survey" as an impact statement under Section 102, not out of any desire to cir­cumvent NEPA's procedural requirements, but rather because of a fear that Section 102's requirements as to the contents of an impact statement are so strict, particularly as to the need for "detail" in the statement, that any Commission attempt to issue its environ­mental survey as a NEPA statement would be doomed to failure. While we do not altogether understand the Commission's fears, we feel they are based on certain misapprehensions as to what NEPA requires. It is now clear that an agency's duties to is­sue a statement on a project and to consider environmental factors at each stage of agency' decision making as to that project arc not in­herently flexible or discretionary.50 But we j have also recognized that the statute admits of j some degree of flexibility and agency discrc- / tion in determining the contents of impact \ statements.51 The range of actions covered by V NEPA, as we have just seen, is exceedingly broad, ranging from, for example, construc­tion of a particular segment of interstate high­way to embarkation upon a broad devel­opment program of nationwide significance such as the LMFBR program. The issues, for­mat, length and detail of impact statements for actions as diverse as these must of course dif­fer. NEPA is not a paper tiger,52 but neither is it a straightjacket.53 Drafting a proper impact statement involves much more than filling in the blanks on a government form. NEPA statements can and do vary, from relatively short and simple analyses of the environ­mental effects of smaller projects to complex multi-volume works for projects of multi-billion- dollar dimensions.