Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commission

Last updated

Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission is a 1971 United States court decision which provided the first important court interpretation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). [1]

Contents

Background

In 1966, the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E) purchased property in Calvert County, Maryland along Chesapeake Bay. The company bought the property with the intention of building a nuclear power plant along the shoreline and applied for a nuclear power plant license. The utility began construction on the plant in 1968. [2]

Concerned about the impacts to the Chesapeake Bay's blue crab population, scientists from Johns Hopkins University analyzed the plant's potential impacts on the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.[ citation needed ] The scientists' apprehension about the potential adverse impacts of the plant's radioactive emissions as well as the discharge of heated cooling water into the bay led to the formation of the Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee. The committee challenged in court the decision by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to license the power plant.

The issue

After the passage of NEPA in 1970, the AEC revised its licensing rules to comply with the new law. The newly revised rules stated that while a utility company must provide an environmental report for each proposed plant, the AEC hearing board did not have a mandate to consider the environmental impacts of each new plant unless a challenge was issued to a specific plant.[ citation needed ] Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee argued that the AEC rules were inadequate and a direct violation of NEPA's Environmental impact statement requirement. [2]

Decision

In 1971 Judge J. Skelly Wright of the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the AEC was required to consider the environmental impacts of licensing a nuclear power plant, regardless of whether a challenge was raised or not. The Court took the ruling a step further and made NEPA judicially enforceable by establishing procedural and substantive provisions for how federal agencies should comply with NEPA. Judge Wright ruled that the Atomic Energy Commission's rules were deficient and required revision. [2]

Holdings

The court made several key decisions regarding how federal agencies comply with NEPA:

  1. The general substantive policy in Section 101 of NEPA is flexible.
  2. The procedural provisions in Section 102 of NEPA are not as flexible and were created to ensure that federal agencies comply with the substantive discretion they have been granted.
  3. Every federal agency and department is required to consider environmental protection and "to take environmental values into account".
  4. How agencies balance environmental issues with other agency priorities should be disclosed in a detailed statement in accordance with NEPA Section 102.
  5. Federal agencies must carry out NEPA's procedural duties "to the fullest extent possible".
  6. Federal agencies must conduct a careful and informed decision-making process in accordance with Section 102 of NEPA. Section 102 of NEPA also creates judicially enforceable duties.
  7. Federal agencies must take into account the findings of the environmental reports in their decision-making processes.
  8. The federal agency with the responsibility for a project or action is the only appropriate entity to balance environmental costs with economic and technical benefits.
  9. NEPA requires federal agencies to consider alternatives that would reduce environmental damage.
  10. Postponing the operation of a facility does not qualify as a reasonable explanation for eliminating the consideration of environmental issues under NEPA. [3]

Results of the decision

As a result of the decision, the AEC halted the licensing of all nuclear plants for eighteen months in order to modify its licensing rules to comply with NEPA. BG&E decided to pursue the operation of the Calvert Cliffs plant and released an Environmental Impact Statement. The final environmental report determined that the proposed operation of the nuclear plant would have no major adverse effect to the environment.[ citation needed ] The AEC granted BG&E an operating license for its first reactor in 1974 and the plant began producing energy in 1975. [2]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Atomic Energy Commission</span> Independent federal government agency (1947–1975)

The United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was an agency of the United States government established after World War II by the U.S. Congress to foster and control the peacetime development of atomic science and technology. President Harry S. Truman signed the McMahon/Atomic Energy Act on August 1, 1946, transferring the control of atomic energy from military to civilian hands, effective on January 1, 1947. This shift gave the members of the AEC complete control of the plants, laboratories, equipment, and personnel assembled during the war to produce the atomic bomb.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Natural Resources Defense Council</span> Non-profit environmental advocacy group

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is a United States-based 501(c)(3) non-profit international environmental advocacy group, with its headquarters in New York City and offices in Washington D.C., San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Bozeman, India, and Beijing. The group was founded in 1970 in opposition to a hydro-electric power power plant in New York.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuclear Regulatory Commission</span> Government agency of the United States

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is an independent agency of the United States government tasked with protecting public health and safety related to nuclear energy. Established by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the NRC began operations on January 19, 1975, as one of two successor agencies to the United States Atomic Energy Commission. Its functions include overseeing reactor safety and security, administering reactor licensing and renewal, licensing radioactive materials, radionuclide safety, and managing the storage, security, recycling, and disposal of spent fuel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Environmental Policy Act</span> United States federal environmental law (enacted 1970)

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a United States environmental law designed to promote the enhancement of the environment. It created new laws requiring U.S. federal government agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of their actions and decisions, and it established the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in December 1969 and signed into law by President Richard Nixon on January 1, 1970. To date, more than 100 nations around the world have enacted national environmental policies modeled after NEPA.

An environmental impact statement (EIS), under United States environmental law, is a document required by the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for certain actions "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment". An EIS is a tool for decision making. It describes the positive and negative environmental effects of a proposed action, and it usually also lists one or more alternative actions that may be chosen instead of the action described in the EIS. One of the primary authors of the act is Lynton K. Caldwell.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant</span> Nuclear power plant in Calvert County, Maryland, US

The Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) is a nuclear power plant located on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay near Lusby, Calvert County, Maryland in the Mid-Atlantic United States. It is the only nuclear power plant in the state of Maryland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States environmental law</span> US environmental policy

United States environmental law concerns legal standards to protect human health and improve the natural environment of the United States. While subject to criticism at home and abroad on issues of protection, enforcement, and over-regulation, the country remains an important source of environmental legal expertise and experience.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Santa Susana Field Laboratory</span> Industrial research and development facilities in California

The Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL), formerly known as Rocketdyne, is a complex of industrial research and development facilities located on a 2,668-acre (1,080 ha) portion of Southern California in an unincorporated area of Ventura County in the Simi Hills between Simi Valley and Los Angeles. The site is located approximately 18 miles (29 km) northwest of Hollywood and approximately 30 miles (48 km) northwest of Downtown Los Angeles. Sage Ranch Park is adjacent on part of the northern boundary and the community of Bell Canyon is along the entire southern boundary.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental impact assessment</span> Assessment of the environmental consequences of a decision before action

Environmental Impact assessment (EIA) is the assessment of the environmental consequences of a plan, policy, program, or actual projects prior to the decision to move forward with the proposed action. In this context, the term "environmental impact assessment" is usually used when applied to actual projects by individuals or companies and the term "strategic environmental assessment" (SEA) applies to policies, plans and programmes most often proposed by organs of state. It is a tool of environmental management forming a part of project approval and decision-making. Environmental assessments may be governed by rules of administrative procedure regarding public participation and documentation of decision making, and may be subject to judicial review.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kola Nuclear Power Plant</span>

The Kola Nuclear Power Plant, also known as Kolsk NPP or Kolskaya NPP, is a nuclear power plant located 12 km away from Polyarnye Zori, Murmansk Oblast in north-western Russia. If the floating nuclear power plant Akademik Lomonosov is excluded, it is the northernmost nuclear power plant housed in a fixed location structure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuclear Energy Institute</span> Nuclear industry trade association

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is a nuclear industry trade association in the United States, based in Washington, D.C.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Atomic Energy Regulatory Board</span> Board within the government of India

The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) was constituted on 15 November 1983 by the President of India by exercising the powers conferred by Section 27 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 to carry out certain regulatory and safety functions under the Act. The regulatory authority of AERB is derived from the rules and notifications promulgated under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986. The headquarters is in Mumbai.

United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669 (1973), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the members of SCRAP—five law students from the George Washington University Law School—had standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution to challenge a nationwide railroad freight rate increase approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). SCRAP was the first full-court consideration of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Court also reversed the lower court decision that an injunction should be issued at the suspension stage of the ICC rate proceeding. The standing decision has retained its place as the high mark in the Court's standing jurisprudence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuclear Safety Commission (Taiwan)</span>

The Nuclear Safety Commission is an independent government agency of the Executive Yuan of the Republic of China (Taiwan) which is responsible for atomic safety, development and regulations. It also conducts research and development into atomic technologies. It is affiliated with IAEA by special agreements to safeguard the peaceful development of the nuclear energy by the Republic of China government.

In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission, 461 U.S. 190 (1983), the United States Supreme Court held that a state statute regulating economic aspects of nuclear generating plants was not preempted by the federal Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The case provides a framework that has guided other cases involving preemption of federal authority.

Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766 (1983), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.

Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case decided 7-1 in favor of Monsanto. The decision allowed Monsanto to sell genetically modified alfalfa seeds to farmers, and allowed farmers to plant them, grow crops, harvest them, and sell the crop into the food supply. The case came about because the use of the seeds was approved by regulatory authorities; the approval was challenged in district court by Geertson Seed Farms and other groups who were concerned that the genetically modified alfalfa would spread too easily, and the challengers won. Monsanto appealed the district court decision and lost, and appealed again to the Supreme Court, where Monsanto won, thus upholding the original approval and allowing the seeds to be sold.

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court decision that held valid a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rule that during the licensing of nuclear power plants, the permanent storage of nuclear waste should be assumed to have no environmental impact.

<i>Sierra Club v. Babbitt</i> United States District Court case

Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 15 F. Supp. 2d 1274, is a United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama case in which the Sierra Club and several other environmental organizations and private citizens challenged the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Plaintiffs filed action seeking declaratory injunctive relief regarding two incidental take permits (ITPs) issued by the FWS for the construction of two isolated high-density housing complexes in habitat of the endangered Alabama beach mouse. The District Court ruled that the FWS must reconsider its decision to allow high-density development on the Alabama coastline that might harm the endangered Alabama beach mouse. The District Court found that the FWS violated both the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by permitting construction on the dwindling beach mouse habitat.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013</span>

The Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013 is a bill that would aim to expedite the review process required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for construction projects that are partly or fully financed with federal funds or require permits or approvals from federal regulatory agencies. It was to do so by establishing specific deadlines for environmental reviews, which sometimes go on so long that they can delay a project for years.

References

  1. Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. et al v. United States Atomic Energy Commission, 449F.2d1109 (D.C. Cir.1971).
  2. 1 2 3 4 Salzman, James (2010). Environmental Law and Policy . New York: Foundation Press. ISBN   9781599417714.
  3. Swartz, Lucinda Low (June 1997). "Major Cases Interpreting the National Environmental Policy Act" (PDF). NEPA.gov. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 20, 2016.