## Facts

- After enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) revised regulations governing nuclear power plant licensing.
- The revised rules required applicants to submit an environmental report but limited how and when environmental considerations would be addressed in licensing proceedings.
- The rules generally prevented AEC hearing boards from considering non-radiological environmental impacts unless raised by an intervenor or another party.
- The rules directed substantial, sometimes dispositive, reliance on other agencies’ environmental determinations rather than requiring the AEC to make its own evaluation.
- The rules permitted deferral of environmental analysis across stages of the licensing process, reducing meaningful reconsideration of environmental factors after a construction permit issued.
- An environmental organization petitioned for judicial review of the regulations, arguing they failed to implement NEPA’s procedural requirements, including the environmental impact statement (EIS) obligation in § 102(2)(C).

## Issues

1. Whether NEPA’s procedural requirements, including the EIS mandate, are judicially enforceable against a federal licensing agency.
2. Whether the AEC’s licensing regulations complied with NEPA’s requirement that environmental values be considered in agency decisionmaking “to the fullest extent possible.”
3. Whether the AEC could limit its NEPA responsibilities by (a) conditioning environmental review on intervenor participation or (b) treating other agencies’ environmental determinations as a substitute for its own analysis.

## Decision

- The court held NEPA’s procedural directives are binding on federal agencies and are subject to judicial review.
- The court concluded the AEC’s regulations were inconsistent with NEPA because they did not ensure that environmental considerations would be integrated into licensing decisions at all relevant stages.
- The court rejected the AEC’s approach of shifting responsibility to intervenors to trigger environmental review.
- The court held the AEC could not treat other agencies’ determinations as relieving it of independent NEPA obligations.
- The court invalidated the challenged regulatory approach and remanded to the AEC for further rulemaking consistent with NEPA.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA imposes enforceable, action-forcing procedural duties on federal agencies; it is not merely a policy statement.
- Section 102(2)(C) requires preparation and consideration of an EIS for major federal actions significantly affecting the environment, as part of the agency’s decision process.
- “To the fullest extent possible” requires agencies to follow NEPA’s procedures unless compliance is prevented by a clear, unavoidable statutory conflict, not by administrative convenience or preference.
- NEPA review must be undertaken by the agency on its own responsibility; the duty to evaluate environmental consequences is not contingent on issues raised by private parties.
- Environmental analysis must occur early enough to inform choices among alternatives; postponing review until decisions are effectively irreversible defeats NEPA’s function.
- An agency may coordinate with other regulators, but NEPA responsibilities remain the agency’s own and cannot be treated as satisfied by another entity’s findings.

## Conclusion

The court required rigorous, independent, and timely environmental review in federal licensing by holding that NEPA’s EIS and related procedures are judicially enforceable and that agency rules diluting those duties—through intervenor-triggered review, late-stage consideration, or deference to other agencies—are unlawful.


Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Comm., Inc. v. U.S. Atomic Energy Comm’n, 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971)