Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Comm. v. AEC

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
449 F.2d 1109 (1971)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The National Environmental Policy Act's (NEPA) procedural requirements are strict, judicially enforceable duties that command federal agencies to consider environmental values "to the fullest extent possible" at every critical stage of the decision-making process. Agencies must conduct their own balancing of environmental costs against economic and technical benefits and cannot avoid this duty through procedural loopholes, administrative inconvenience, or deference to other agencies' standards.

Facts:

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) became effective on January 1, 1970, requiring all federal agencies to systematically consider the environmental impacts of their major actions.
The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the agency responsible for licensing nuclear power plants, promulgated rules (Appendix D) to comply with NEPA.
The AEC's rules stated that its hearing boards were not required to independently consider non-radiological environmental issues unless they were affirmatively raised by an outside party or the AEC's staff.
The rules prohibited any party from raising environmental issues in hearings for which the official notice was published before March 4, 1971, more than a year after NEPA's effective date.
The rules also provided that the AEC would treat a certification from another federal or state agency regarding an environmental standard (e.g., water quality) as dispositive, precluding the AEC from conducting its own balancing of costs and benefits in that area.
For facilities that received a construction permit before NEPA's effective date but had not yet received an operating license, the rules delayed any environmental review until the operating license stage, allowing construction to proceed without considering potential environmental modifications.

Procedural Posture:

Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc., along with other petitioners, filed petitions in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The petitions sought direct review of the Atomic Energy Commission's final rules (Appendix D) governing the implementation of NEPA in its licensing proceedings.
One petition challenged the rules generally, while a second challenged a specific application of the rules to the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant.
The Court of Appeals consolidated the two cases for its review.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do the procedural rules adopted by the Atomic Energy Commission to implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 violate the Act's mandate by limiting the consideration of environmental impacts in its licensing proceedings?

Opinions:

Majority - J. Skelly Wright

Yes, the Atomic Energy Commission's procedural rules violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court found that NEPA imposes strict procedural obligations on all federal agencies that are not discretionary. The phrase "to the fullest extent possible" in Section 102 establishes a high standard that requires compliance unless there is a clear statutory conflict. The AEC's rules failed to meet this standard in four ways: (1) NEPA requires the agency to take the initiative in considering environmental values at every important stage, not just when an intervenor raises an issue. The hearing board must independently review the staff's environmental analysis. (2) The 14-month delay in applying the rules to hearings noticed before March 4, 1971, was an unjustifiable violation of the Act's effective date; administrative convenience is not a valid excuse. (3) NEPA mandates a case-by-case balancing of environmental costs against project benefits, which is the primary agency's responsibility. Deferring to other agencies' certifications, which only establish minimum standards, is an abdication of this duty. (4) For projects already under construction, waiting until the final operating license stage to consider environmental issues frustrates NEPA's purpose, as the irreversible commitment of resources by that time makes substantive changes unlikely. The AEC must consider alterations during the construction phase to minimize environmental harm.

Analysis:

This landmark decision established that NEPA's procedural requirements have substantive bite and are judicially enforceable. It transformed NEPA from a potentially symbolic statement of policy into a powerful tool for environmental protection, earning the case the moniker 'the Magna Carta of environmental law.' The ruling forced all federal agencies, not just the AEC, to overhaul their internal procedures to ensure a rigorous, good-faith consideration of environmental impacts in all major decisions. By rejecting excuses of administrative difficulty and cost, the court ensured that agencies could not easily circumvent their statutory duties, setting a precedent that has shaped federal administrative and environmental law for decades.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Comm. v. AEC (1971)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"