Page images

Page 350 350 350

Gavin, Emmett J., Assistant to the Chairman, Federal Power Commission.-
Goldstein, Daniel, Assistant General Counsel, Federal Power Commission.-
Gooch, Gordon, General Counsel, Federal Power Commission.-
Gould, Franklin P., staff attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Federal

Power Commission.
Journey, Drexel D., Deputy General Counsel, Federal Power Commission.-
Lucas, Kenneth, Assistant to the Chairman, Federal Power Commission.--
Nassikas, Hon. John N., Chairman, Federal Power Commission---
Philips, T. A., Chief, Bureau of Power, Federal Power Commission---
Savoy, Willard W., Assistant Director, Office of Public Information, Fed-

eral Power Commission..
Simes, James J., Deputy Chief, Bureau of Natural Gas, Federal Power

Warren, Frederick H., adviser on environmental quality, Federal Power


350 350 350 350 350




WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 1972 (P. 459)
Freeman, George C., Jr., attorney, Hunton, Williams, Gay & Gibson---

Prepared statement-
Karaganis, Joseph, counsel, Izaak Walton League_-
Kennedy, William F., associate general counsel, General Electric Co---
Roisman, Anthony Z., Sierra Club-----
Speth, J. G., Natural Resources Defense Council..

481 491 509 467 473 460

Morton, Hon. Rogers C. B., Secretary, Department of the Interior----
Ruckelshaus, Hon. William D., Administrator, Environmental Protection





Administrative Conference of the United States, information concerning-- 424
Baker, Hon. Howard H., U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee:
Letters :

Gordon Gooch, General Counsel, Federal Power Commission.. 409
Martin R. Hoffmann, General Counsel, Atomic Energy

409 Russell E. Train, Chairman, Council On Environmental Quality

407, 573 Timothy Atkeson, General Counsel, Council On Environmental Quality

574 William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency-

405, 567


Russell E. Train, Chairman, Council on Environmental

572 William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, dated March 21, 1972_.

404, 564 Hunter, E. A., president and general manager, Utah Power & Light Co., letter to Senator Randolph--

11 Morton, Hon. Rogers C. B., Secretary, Department of the Interior, letter to Senator Baker dated March 15, 1972-

544 Nassikas, Hon. John N., Chairman, Federal Power Commission, material supplied by: Cases before the court of appeals--

376 Impact of NEPA on summer 1972 electric power adequacy

365 New large steam-electric generating units scheduled for service by summer 1972...

365 Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act-

369, 375 Mid- and long-term power capacity needs..

366 Nuclear steam generating units scheduled for service October 1972 through December 1975--

367 Fossil-fueled steam generating units scheduled for service October 1972 through December 1975--

367 Staff summary of FPC rulemaking with environmental significance--- 382 National Environmental Policy Act :

Page Reprint of---

6 Responses to an inquiry of various Federal agencies as to the delays caused by implementation of : Appalachian Regional Commission.

599 Atomic Energy Commission...

589 Canal Zone Government

602 Civil Aeronautics Board

Departments :
Agriculture :
Agricultural Research Service...

593 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

593 Consumer and Marketing Service

594 Extension Service

594 Farmers Home Administration.

574 Forest Service----

594 Rural Electrification Administration.

595 Soil Conservation Service

581 Commerce

602 Defense

583 Housing and Urban Development-

595 Interior..

580 Justice

596 State

597, 598 Transportation

590 Treasury

598 Environmental Protection Agency

580 Federal Communications Commission..

604 Federal Power Commission..

591 Federal Trade Commission...

600 Interstate Commerce Commission

575 National Aeronautics and Space Administration -

600 National Science Foundation -

601 Postal Service -

600 Small Business Administration.

601 Smithsonian Institution -

601 Tennessee Valley Authority

579 Veterans' Administration.

602 Water Resources Council.

602 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 ee nuclear sta-
tion, unit 1.-

190 Electric energy needs of the country

107 Mini-NEPA review for Quad Cities


Train, Dr. Russell E., Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality, material supplied by :

Page Briefing paper-Hearings on the National Environmental Policy Act.. 81 Cumulative listing of 102 statements received --

51 Executive Order 11514, March 5, 1970, “Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality”.

37 Letters addressed to: Senator Baker dated March 14, 1972.

572 Congressman John A. Blatnik..

559 Congressman William A. Harsha.

599 Memorandums to agency and general counsel liaison on NEPA matters

39_51, 85 Projects in which actions have been held up in whole or part by court orders under NEPA..

85 Reported judicial decisions involving the National Environmental Policy Act through February 15, 1972--

73 Summary of 102 statements filed with the CEQ through January 31, 1972 (by project type)

13 Summary of 102 statements filed with the CEQ through January 31, 1972 (by agency)----

14 Summary of 102 statements filed with the CEQ through November 30, 1971.

51 Statements on proposed Federal action affecting the environment.- 58 Utah Power & Light Co., letter to Senator Randolph from E. A. Hunter, president and general manager--






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


my con

[ocr errors]

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 two statutes.

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.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »