ELR Citation: ELR 20670
No(s). 73-981-HM (D. Md. Apr 16, 1974)

The zone of interests protected under NEPA does not include one hospital suing to enjoin construction of a competing hospital under an aircraft flight path, and plaintiff thus lacks standing to assert a claim under the Act. As a corporation, plaintiff cannot assert an injury to its aesthetic enjoyment of the environment, and therefore cannot demonstrate the requisite injury in fact to gain standing. Plaintiff's claim for and on behalf of the proposed employees and consumers of defendant hospital's services does not confer standing, for to extend the requirements of NEPA to every action affecting people would be an egregious and unwarranted extension of the scope of the statute. The court rules that in determining the environmental impact of an action, agencies must examine the impact of the action on the general environment, not the impact of the environment upon the action. Thus, plaintiff's assertions of potential damage to the defendant hospital from accidents involving aircraft are inappropriate. The court also finds plaintiff's claims under the Comprehensive Health Planning Act, the National Housing Act, the Public Health Service Act, and the Noise Control Act to be without merit.

Counsel for Plaintiff
William H. Manger
Manger & Seifman
Suite 1106
One Charles Center
Baltimore, MD 21201

Counsel for Defendant Southern Maryland Medical Center
Paul M. Nussbaum
3723 34th Street
Mt. Rainier, MD 20822

Counsel for Federal Defendants
George Beall, U.S. Atty.
James M. Kramon, Asst. U.S. Atty.
Room 405
U.S. Courthouse
111 N. Calvert
Baltimore, MD 21202

Frederick L. Miller, Jr.
Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530