| OCR Text |
Show d Switksis* Institute v. AEC coinesbcfore the Congress as a "proposal for IcgisIaTTTTTr"- gaffl Vt?aT in the lorrrTur Spprp*" priations requests by the Commission. And as tluTCuuntil on Cminnu.iniial OuaTTfy JTas IgJL als for , . .,„ _L,_^_^W,,.,,.-.,., lions or tayorable reports relating tn kgisla-tiorT including that for appropriations.''l^)\n addition, the program, gSaS&rtiS "rrnj-T Federaj^action" within the meaning of the Tbe statutory phrase "actions significantly #^*fiecting the quality of the_envTroru!Tent^-i^in- H e m T a T t ^ f ^ O H ^ ^ to ' promote an across-the-board adjustment in federal agency decision making so as to make the quality of the environment a concern of every federal agency.32 The legislative history of the Act indicates that the term "actions"refers not only to construction of particulaTTacnTfTes? but includes "proJeH^fopbsals, proposals for ion, re'gutotsns»7p0ttcy!Itarements, fTqFTevision of ongoing„programs ' " ' , " Thus there is "Federal action" wiLhipi the, mparjjnrr nf thfT 5 5 S S afiTonly when an agency proposes, tr, hji;H > fmrilip/ it-sell,-" but also whenever an agency makes a Tfcliiiun which ptff'tnits action by othePfrarties menls (May 16, 1972) (hereinafter CEQ, NEPA MPTMUlViiidum), reprinted in 3 B^fii^JijivmS^wENT REr^nR^2T87. See CIO, THIRD ANNUAL RE-PORTZn^ 34-(7^grl^?-2^-icLat2X7: "CHan^eT~Tn^"ndTviduar~projects arc only a partial index of NEPA's impact. Perhaps a more important sign is that agencies are reviewing their policies to determine the need for across-the- board changes affecting entire Federal programs." See also CEQ, Statements on Proposed Federal Actions Affecting the Environment: Guidelines, 36 FED. REG. 7724, 7726 (Guidelines 10(a)) (April 23, 1971) (hereinafter cited as CEQ, NEPA Guidelines): "Agencies will need to identify at what stage or stages of a series of actions relating to a particular matter the environmental statement procedures of this directive will be applied. It will often be necessary to use the procedures both in the development of a national program and in the review of proposed projects within the national program. EQ, NEPA Guidelines, supra note 30, 36 b. REG. at 7724 (Guideline 5(a) (i) ) (emphasis KSee generally Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. USAEC, supra note 1, 146 U.S.App.D.C. at 36-37, 449 F.2d at 1112-1113 [2 ERC 1779]. " S . Rep. No. 91-296, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 20 (1969). See also CEQ, NEPA Guidelines, supra note 30, 36 FED. REG. at 7724 (Guideline 5(a) (i)). 34 See, e.g., Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers of U.S. Army, E.D. Ark., 325 F.Supp. 728 [2 ERC 1260] (1971). 5 ERC N23 which will affect the quality of the environ • ngi^LJLlN'EPA's'''impact statement pTBCWtWe ~y has been held to apply where a federal agency approves a lease of land to private parties,56 grants licenses and permits to private parties,37 or approves and funds stale highway projects.3" In each of these instances the federal agency took action affecting the environment in the sense that the agency made a decision which permitted some other p a r t y - 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 buildmg 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. 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 * * * , * » »»*» 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 35 "NEPA's implications are similar where the Government does not undertake or finance activities directly but regulates the private concerns that do." CEQ, THIRD ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 30, at 225. 34 See, e.g, Davis v. Morton, 10 Cir., 469 F.2d 593(1972).' 37See, e.g., Greene County Planning Board v. FPC, 2 Cir., 455 F.2d 412 [3 ERC 1595], cert, denied, 409 U.S. 849 (4 ERC 1752] (1972); Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. FPC, 2 Cir., 453 F.2d 463, 481 (2 ERC 1232] (1971); Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. USAEC, supra note 1. 38 See, e.g, Lalhan v. Volpe, 9 Cir., 455 F.2d 1111 [3 ERC 1362] (1971). 3* National Environmental Policy Act, § 101(a), 42 U.S.C. §4331(a) (1970). 40 S. Rep. No. 91-296, supra note 33, at 6. |
