interest. Business often wants to stay out of the spotlight, but environmental groups often need a spotlight or a forum to get members and contributions. So, in the creative tension between the enlightened self-interests of both protagonists, the courts have shed useful effective light. Recent court rulings indicate that: (1) There is no need to address ‘psycho-social’ impacts; for instance, the idea that people may be afraid of an activity and thereby alter their quality of life. (2) The NEPA process is not a forum for public policy debate; the political process is the place to discuss public policy. (3) Worst case analyses are not required for an EIS. All of those issues arose in the case of the Galileo EIS and could have taken us down a merry path. It is obviously vital to work hand-in-hand, step-by-step with knowledgeable, thoughtful specialists. But there are also a lot of ‘armchair environmental attorneys’ who will raise procedural stumbling blocks. Fortunately, reason prevails, the courts and well-meaning environmentalists recognize that bringing the government to a halt will lead to a backlash that will hurt and not help NEPA. It is in everyone’s interest to prepare and publish sincere thorough EISs. The world gets smaller every day. Let’s help it get better every day. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am very grateful for the constructive support we received from our office of the NASA General Counsel (especially Counselor Sara Najjar) and from NASA Office of NEPA Compliance (Mr Lewis Andrews and Mr Ted Ankrum). We also received crucial support from our colleagues at DOE, and from our Project Office at JPL. JPL provided vital, reliable technical data—the heart of the EIS. REFERENCES [1] Science, The Scare of the Week, 244(4900), 7 April, 1989, p. 9. [2] Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 43 FR 55978-56007, 29 November 1978, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. [3] Implementing the Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, NASA Handbook (NHB) 8800.11, 24 April, 1980. [4] Final Environmental Impact Statement, Space Shuttle Program, NASA, Washington, DC, April 1978. [5] Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Kennedy Space Center, NASA, Washington, DC, October 1979. [6] Post-Challenger Evaluation of Space Shuttle Risk Assessment and Management, January 1988 (Washington, DC, National Academy Press). [7] Final Safety Analysis Report for the Galileo Mission, US Department of Energy (Available through NTIS as DE89007268-273). [8] The Galileo Earth Avoidance Study Report, JPL Report No. D-5580, Revision A, November 1988. [9] Final Environment Impact Statement for the Galileo Mission (Tier-2), NASA, Washington, DC, May 1989.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==