| OCR Text |
Show served by ail practicable means, see 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b) (1970), unless the s t a t u t e ' s action f<»rcintr impact statcineru procel?**4"Ty-?rftf»Usd to q n g o i n g J ^ i c H i r T v ^ r n c y - f ^ g r n r n s aimed at d e j a a ^ m S j n e w tcch<n<al<^ci>»hirh, when a p plied, will allect the environment. T o wait u n til a'""technology a J j j S i fHr I'-agp•"? r n r n p l r ir commercial lcasibili|y hefnrn- rnnriderhjitr_tlie possible a d v e n e environmental MYrrtK ntfenrl. ant upon ultimate application of_the tech- _noljiay^TyTtrlTndoubteaiv Irustrat'emenningful csasideratlon and, E S a a S i j 5 5a5caagtental costs against economic and other benefits. M f ^ e r n ^hnn]Q|[Tie.3i^Hrrtrrr.eeg fy'p^lLy-»^m fronvxB«t95iv(i"lnvc'stititiiiA m^fesemrh 'aTTCi" development, 4* m is the case herc.-3IechnoUg-tcaI advances are therefore r^rmal investment; and, as such, once brought to~a~sta^r-of commercial feasibility the investment in tKetr development acts to Compel their application.43 OntrTtTrrg has been, in the terms of NEPA", "ah irretrieFTTbfe commitment of ref^wxees" in th«rtt!i'lln(iln^y deyrinpmynt gtagcrthH555Qee ol environmental costs and cconomiyand other h&rrylTtTshi^s in favor of ultimate application of the technology.44 This explains why, in its 41 Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. USAEC, supra note 1, 146 U.S.App.D.C. at 36-37, 44.9F.2dai 1112-1113. 42 It has recently been estimated that the United States Government spends S16 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, see, e.g., NATIONAL ACADEMY OE SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY: PROCESSES OH- ASSESSMENT AND CHOICE 47, 93 (1969), but vested interests in particular technologies often result from government-sponsored technology development. See Green, supra note 42, at 1039; Wollan, Controlling the Potential Hazards of Government-Sponsored Technology, 36 G E O . WASH. L. REV. 1105, 1134 (1968). Cf. NATIONAL ACADEMY OE 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 pp. 20-21 infra. 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 . . : ( , - . - . . • . tiiStltUte O. /Ut!,C recently issuer! Memorandum to Federal Agencies on Procedures for Improving Environmental Impact Statements, the C EQ 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 thai 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 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 be: gin 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 Protec- Commission's options" and would make consideration of environmental factors at the operating license stage "a hollow exercise." See also Lalhan 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 olf untii 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 SNA ENVIRONMENT REPORTER at 87 (emphasis added). 44 CEQ, NEPA Guidelines, supra note 30, 36 FED. REC. at 7724 (Guideline 2). The concern for long-range planning is also reflected in NEPA's declaration of policy, see 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b) (1): "* * * [l]t is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government * * * to improve and |
