Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 478 views

    Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee V AEC Digest

    Uploaded by

    sobranggandako
    This case established that NEPA has judicially enforceable duties. The appellate court found that the AEC's procedural rules did not comply with NEPA because they treated the EIS as a pro forma ritual rather than considering the environmental impacts at every stage of decision making. The court remanded the case back to the AEC to improve their regulations to fully consider the conclusions of the EIS.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee V AEC Digest

    Uploaded by

    sobranggandako
    478 views1 page
    This case established that NEPA has judicially enforceable duties. The appellate court found that the AEC's procedural rules did not comply with NEPA because they treated the EIS as a pro forma ritual rather than considering the environmental impacts at every stage of decision making. The court remanded the case back to the AEC to improve their regulations to fully consider the conclusions of the EIS.

    Original Title

    Calvert-Cliffs-Coordinating-Committee-v-AEC-digest.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case established that NEPA has judicially enforceable duties. The appellate court found that the AEC's procedural rules did not comply with NEPA because they treated the EIS as a pro forma ritual rather than considering the environmental impacts at every stage of decision making. The court remanded the case back to the AEC to improve their regulations to fully consider the conclusions of the EIS.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    478 views1 page

    Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee V AEC Digest

    Uploaded by

    sobranggandako
    This case established that NEPA has judicially enforceable duties. The appellate court found that the AEC's procedural rules did not comply with NEPA because they treated the EIS as a pro forma ritual rather than considering the environmental impacts at every stage of decision making. The court remanded the case back to the AEC to improve their regulations to fully consider the conclusions of the EIS.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v.

    United States Atomic  The preparation of the EIS must be more


    Energy Commission than simply a pro forma ritual.
    449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971) o Therefore, the Appellate Court found that AEC
     The US AEC (forerunner of the Department of Energy) was procedural rules did not comply with Congressional
    encouraging utilities to build nuclear power plants. Baltimore policy as enunciated in NEPA.
    Gas and Electric decided to build one in rural Maryland.  This case established that NEPA has judicially enforceable
     Two years after construction began, the Federal government duties.
    passed the National Environmental Policy o At this point, NEPA was new, and the concept that
    Act (aka NEPA) 42 U.S.C. §§4321-4370. individual people could use it to get the judiciary to
    o NEPA §102(2)(C) requires preparation of tell the executive branch what to do was a pretty
    an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). radical idea.
     AEC issued a regulation requiring permit applicants to
    prepare EISs. However, they felt that they did not have to
    consider the conclusions of the report unless parties raised
    specific challenges to it during the licensing process.
    o Basically, AEC was treating the EIS as just more
    paperwork. The EIS needed to be prepared and
    filed, but it was not considered within AEC's
    licensing board process to decide whether to issue a
    permit or not.
     No one at AEC would look at the EIS unless
    an environmental issue was raised by a
    party to the proceeding.
    o Technically, NEPA only requires you to consider the
    likely environmental effects of your activities. It
    doesn't say what you should do once you've
    considered the problem.
     A local environmental group (CCCC) sued AEC, arguing that
    AEC's regulations violated NEPA because they did not
    require AEC to independently assess environmental impacts.
     The Appellate Court found for CCCC and remanded back to
    AEC for further rulemaking to improve their regulations.
    o The Appellate Court noted that NEPA
    §102(2)(E) requires that all Federal agencies must
    considered NEPA "to the fullest extent possible."
    o The Appellate Court found that compliance "to the
    fullest extent possible" demands that environmental
    issues be considered at every important stage of the
    decision-making process.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy