| OCR Text |
Show 1090 481 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES Once there has been, in the terms of NEPA, "an irretrievable commitment of resources" in the technology development stage, the balance of environmental costs and economic and other benefits shifts in favor of ultimate application of the technology.44 This explains why, in its recently issued Memorandum to Federal Agencies on Procedures for Improving Environmental Impact Statements, the CEQ recommends: "* * * In many cases, broad program statements will be appropriate, assessing * * * the overall impact of a large-scale program or chain of contemplated projects, or the environmental implications of research activities that have reached a stage of investment or commitment to implementation likely to restrict later alternatives. * * * " 45 Applying the logic of this guideline to the present case, because of the long lead times necessary for development of new commercially feasible technologies for production of electrical energy, the decisions our society makes today as to the direction of research and development will determine what technologies are available 10, 20, or 30 years hence 44. Compare Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. USAEC, supra note 1, 146 U.S.App.D.C. at 52, 449 F.2d at 1128, where we held that consideration of environmental issues could not be delayed from the construction permit stage to the operating license stage since commitment of resources in constructing the facility would "inevitably restrict the Commission's options" and would make consideration of environmental factors at the operating license stage "a hollow exercise." See also Lathan v. Volpe, supra note 38, . 455 F.2d at 1120-1121, where, with respect to Department of Transportation approval of a particular section of interstate highway, the court held that preparation of an impact statement could not be put off until the final approval stage since "[o]nce the highway-planning process has reached these latter stages, flexibility in selecting alternative plans has to a large extent been lost." 45. CEQ, NEPA Memorandum, supra note 30, 3 BNA Environment Reporter at 87 (emphasis added). when we must apply some new means of producing electrical energy or face the alternative of energy rationing, through higher prices or otherwise. The manner in which we divide our limited research and development dollars today among various promising technologies in effect determines which technologies will be available, and what type and amount of environmental effects will have to be endured, in the future when we must apply some new technology to meet projected energy demand. In a very practical sense, then, the Commission's LMFBR program affects the quality of the environment. That the effects will not begin to be felt for several years, perhaps over a decade, is not controlling, for the Act plainly contemplates consideration of "both the long- and short-range implications to man, his physical and social surroundings, and to nature, * * * in order to avoid to the fullest extent practicable undesirable consequences for the environment." 46 The Environmental Protection Agency concurs in the view that an assessment of the total LMFBR program is desirable. In its comments on the Commission's draft statement for 46. CEQ, NEPA Guidelines, supra note 30, 36 Fed.Reg. at 7724 (Guideline 2). The concern for long-range planning is also reflected in NEPA's declaration of policv, see 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b)(1) : "* * * [I]t is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government * * * to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may- "(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations [.]" See also S.Rep. No. 91-296, supra note 33, at 8; id. at 5: "* * * Important decisions concerning the use and the shape of man's future environment continue to be made in small but steady increments which perpetuate rather than avoid the recognized mistakes of previous decades." I t is also interesting to note that radiation hazards was one of the specific problem !. areas noted in NEPA's legislative history. Id. at 4. |
