« PreviousContinue »
Gavin, Emmett J., Assistant to the Chairman, Federal Power Commission__ 350
Journey, Drexel D., Deputy General Counsel, Federal Power Commission__
Simes, James J., Deputy Chief, Bureau of Natural Gas, Federal Power
Warren, Frederick H., adviser on environmental quality, Federal Power
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 1972 (p. 459)
Freeman, George C., Jr., attorney, Hunton, Williams, Gay & Gibson_.
Karaganis, Joseph, counsel, Izaak Walton League___
Kennedy, William F., associate general counsel, General Electric Co----
Speth, J. G., Natural Resources Defense Council__
THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 1972
Morton, Hon. Rogers C. B., Secretary, Department of the Interior_-_.
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS AND MATERIAL
Administrative Conference of the United States, information concerning__
Gordon Gooch, General Counsel, Federal Power Commission__
Russell E. Train, Chairman, Council On Environmental
Timothy Atkeson, General Counsel, Council On Environmental
William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator, Environmental Pro-
Russell E. Train, Chairman, Council on Environmental
William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, dated March 21, 1972___ Hunter, E. A., president and general manager, Utah Power & Light Co., letter to Senator Randolph--
Morton, Hon. Rogers C. B., Secretary, Department of the Interior, letter
Cases before the court of appeals---
Impact of NEPA on summer 1972 electric power adequacy..
New large steam-electric generating units scheduled for service
Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act---
Nuclear steam generating units scheduled for service October
Fossil-fueled steam generating units scheduled for service Oc-
Staff summary of FPC rulemaking with environmental significance__.
National Environmental Policy Act:
Responses to an inquiry of various Federal agencies as to the delays
caused by implementation of:
Schlesinger, Dr. James R., Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, material supplied by:
Draft detailed statement on the environmental considerations by the Atomic Energy Commission related to the proposed issuance of an operating license to the Duke Power Co. for the Oconee nuclear station, unit 1..
Electric energy needs of the country.
Train, Dr. Russell E., Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality, ma-
Briefing paper-Hearings on the National Environmental Policy Act__
Executive Order 11514, March 5, 1970, "Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality".
Memorandums to agency and general counsel liaison on NEPA matters
Projects in which actions have been held up in whole or part by
Reported judicial decisions involving the National Environmental
Summary of 102 statements filed with the CEQ through January
Summary of 102 statements filed with the CEQ through January 31, 1972 (by agency ) ‒‒‒‒
Summary of 102 statements filed with the CEQ through November 30, 1971__
Statements on proposed Federal action affecting the environment_-Utah Power & Light Co., letter to Senator Randolph from E. A. Hunter, president and general manager__.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 1972
UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
AND COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,
Washington, D.C. The committees met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 4200, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Howard H. Baker, Jr., presiding. Present: Senators Baker, Gravel, Buckley, Bellmon, and Hansen. Senator BAKER. The hearing will come to order.
The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Senate Committee on Public Works begin this morning a series of public hearings on the operation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969-NEPA.
It is my personal judgment that the act itself, the efforts of various Federal agencies to comply with it, and interpretations of the act by the Federal judiciary have posed and will continue to pose momentous questions for the society and its Government.
It is appropriate that the Congress should begin to explore these questions in some depth.
I would like at the very outset to make a personal statement of my own view as to what these hearings are about and, perhaps more importantly, what they are not about.
First of all, these hearings have not been called because of viction that NEPA-in whole or in part-is bad law.
On the contrary, as far as I am concerned, NEPA and the controversy that has grown up around it have served to focus the attention of the Government, private industry, and the public on some fundamental issues that have long cried out for attention.
It may be that NEPA has had effects unintended by the Congress at the time of its enactment; it may be that the Congress will at some future time choose to make changes in NEPA. But I emphasize that the fact of these hearings is not premised on displeasure with the act.
The second point I would make is that these hearings are exploratory and not legislative in nature. The two committees are not taking testimony on any proposed amendments to NEPA nor on any other legislative proposal.
We are making an effort to inform ourselves as fully as possible about the operation of the act since it was signed by the President on January 1, 1970.
Although we solicit no amendments, if any witness believes that the act should be amended and cares to propose an amendment or amend
ments, such testimony will obviously be received and made a part of the record.
But the purpose of these hearings is to hear firsthand the thinking of some of those who have been most directly involved in the implementation of the act.
The purpose is not to build a record for any particular change in NEPA or any other public law.
Third, I will take a moment to explain why it is that these two committees are joining together for the hearings.
The National Environmental Policy Act had its genesis in Senate bill 1075, introduced by Senator Jackson on February 18, 1969, and referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, of which Senator Jackson is, of course, chairman.
Title II of the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, which originated in the Committee on Public Works, created an Office of Environmental Quality to provide staff services for and further define the duties of the Council on Environmental Quality, which was established by title II of NEPA.
The two committees worked closely during the gestation of these
There is another area in which the two committees have a common interest, and that has to do with the impact of NEPA on programs carried out by various Federal agencies created by legislation that originated in the two committees.
The Interior Committee has a strong interest, for example, in the effect of NEPA on the operations of the Department of the Interior, as discussion later in these hearings of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands case will make abundantly clear.
The Committee on Public Works has a strong interest in the relationship between NEPA and the several environmental regulatory programs authorized by legislation under its jurisdiction, such as those carried out by the Environmental Protection Agency.
So, in the judgment of the distinguished chairmen of these two committees, Senators Randolph and Jackson, it appeared useful and desirable that these hearings be conducted jointly.
On July 23, 1971, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided simultaneously two cases involving the Calvert Cliffs nuclear powerplant.
The opening sentence of the court's opinion, written by Judge Wright, was this:
"These cases are only the beginning of what promises to become a flood of new litigation-litigation seeking judicial assistance in protecting our natural environment."
The judge knew whereof he spoke. To date there have been more than 60 Federal court decisions involving NEPA. I can think of no more convenient way to give the witnesses and other interested persons an idea of the sorts of issues these committees wish to explore than to make brief mention of four of the more prominent of these decisions, each of which raises related but somewhat separable aspects of the subject matter before us.
First of all, there is the Calvert Cliffs opinion itself, which found, in simple terms, that the Atomic Energy Commission had failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 102 of NEPA.