| OCR Text |
Show SCIENTISTS' INST. FOR PUB. INFO., INC. v. ATOMIC ENERGY COM'N 1Q89 Cite ns 4S1 F.2d 1079 (1973) the federal agency took action affecting the environment in the sense that the agency made a decision which permitted some other party-private or governmental- to take action affecting the environment. The Commission does precisely the same thing here by developing a technology which will permit utility companies to take action affecting the environment by building LMFBR power plants. Development of the technology serves as much to affect the environment as does a Commission decision granting a construction permit for a specific plant. Development of the technology is a necessary precondition of construction of any plants. [7] Application of NEPA to technology development programs is further supported by the legislative history and general policies of the Act. When Congress enacted NEPA, it was well aware that new technologies were a major cause of environmental degradation. The Act's declaration of policy states: "The Congress [recognizes] the profound impact of man's activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment, particularly the profound influences of * * * new and expanding technological advances * * * * * * " 39 And the Senate report notes, as one of the conditions demanding greater concern for the environment: "A growing technological power, which is far outstripping man's capacity to understand and ability to control its impact on the environment." 40 NEPA's objective of controlling the impact of technology on the environment cannot be served by all practicable means, see 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b) (1970), unless the statute's action forcing impact statement process41 is applied to ongoing federal agency programs aimed at developing new technologies which, when applied, will affect the environment. To wait until a technology attains the stage of complete commercial feasibility before considering the possible adverse environmental effects attendant upon ultimate application of the technology will undoubtedly frustrate meaningful consideration and balancing of environmental costs against economic and other benefits. Modern technological advances typically stem from massive investments in research and development, 42 as is the case here. Technological advances are therefore capital investments and, as such, once brought to a stage of commercial feasibility the investment in their development acts to compel their application.43 39. National Environmental Policy Act, § 101(a), 42 U.S.C. § 4331(a) (1970). 40. S.Rep. No. 91-296, supra note 33, at 6. 41. Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. USAEC, supra note 1, 146 U.S.App.D. C. at 36-37, 449 F.2d at 1112-1113. 42. It has recently been estimated that the United States Government spends $16 billion annually on scientific research and development. See Green, Technology Assessment and the Law: Introduction and Perspective, 36 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 1033, 1038 (1968). 43. Not only are options foreclosed by commitment of resources to a developing technology, sec, e. g., National Academy of Sciences, Technology: Processes of Assessment and Choice 47, 93 (1969), but vested interests in particular technologies often result from government-sponsored technology development. See Green, su- 481 F.2d-69 pra note 42, at 1039 ; Wollan, Controlling the Potential Hazards of Government- Sponsored Technology, 36 Geo.Wash.L. Rev. 1105, 1134 (1968). Cf. National Academy of Sciences, supra, at 80, emphasizing the lack of neutrality of government agencies in evaluating the risks and benefits of their own technology development programs. Thus an agency like AEC, which has a statutory mandate to develop nuclear technologies, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 2013, 2014(x), 2051(a)(4) (1970), may minimize the possible adverse effects of its technology development programs. Such potential bias is a further reason for applying NEPA's impact statement procedure, as this ensures full disclosure of environmental risks and permits other interested parties-public and private-to evaluate the risks and benefits of the program on their own. See text at p. 1091 infra. |
