| OCR Text |
Show NATIONAL HELIUM CO Cite ns iSQ-V (3) Whether the statement eo|$fdss a i^sonable '^Hiscussion oTthe jvubject matter involved in the five required -r~~ III. The remaining issue and the crucial one in the case pertains to the adequacy of the Final Environmental Statement testing it by the five prescribed areas set forth in § 4332(2) (C), supra, [12,13] As a preface, we note that there is some dispute as to whether the comments which were given by the various agencies and institutions to which the draft environmental statement were sent are to be regarded as a part of the Final Statement. The Department solicited, received and considered comments from many interested parties, including the plaintiffs-appellees. They contend that the various comments are not to be considered as a part of the Final Statement. However, we disagree. These were incorporated into the Final Statement and were available for consideration by all interested parties and are available for the information of the President, the Congress and the public. Those commenting included the various agencies within the Interior Department and ten other federal agencies, including the National Science Foundation, Atomic Energy Commission, National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. In j addition, there were comments of three I states, various scientific groups and a 'number of business and educational institutions. Moreover, the Final Environmental Statement shows that the ^'comments were considered by the authors of the statement. The cases hold 'that the comments are to be regarded as !an integral part of the statement. See ^.'Con. Council of N. Car. v. Froehlke, 340 ^F.Supp. 222 (M.D.N.C.1972), and Envi- . ronmental D. Fund, Inc. v. Corps of ^Eng. of United States Army, 342 F. uSupp. 1211, 1217 (E.D.Ark.W.D.1972). n> In general, the di^ln£t_-.court, found. :ault with the fact that the impact state- OTM^TS « VTTVV .- ""•"•A'D'f ATT ~i A AO S4WS (1073) ment did not deal adequately with ceo-jiolnTc"" feasibiliiy. In" our judgment,. :* however, this subject was treated, sufficiently insofar as it a :fT3!^d~"the ehvi-ronmental consaqucne^ which, after alh are the important factors to be considered] The role of the Final rmviroTR mental Statement is to enunciate the environmental considerations for the benefit of the decision-makers. We are of the opinion that consideration of the five subjects prescribed by the statute was sufficient. (i) Environmental impact of the proposed action* There is no contention that the loss of helium, should it be lost, will affect the environment. It is, after all, a colorless, odorless, nonflammable, inert gas. Therefore, the matter to be weighed, and which the impact statement did weigh in accordance with our mandate in the previous case, is the secondary effect, namely, loss of the resource. As we have noted above, the supply which the government has in storage is sufficient to the year 2000 and perhaps beyond. Continued purchases by the government would at best extend the inventory for a period of from four to fourteen years. Thus, it would not solve the problem of the future use of it. The Final Environmental Statement considers the recovery of helium from the atmosphere. It considers the amount of electrical power which would be required and the effects of the generation of such power on air and thermal pollution. It notes that the extent of use of helium beyond the year 2000 is conjectural and -speculative, and thus the effect on the atmosphere of recovering the helium is itself conjectural. For our purpose the statement? took into consideration all of the possibilities and it was not required to do more than this. (ii) Adverse environmental effects ivhich are unavoidable. The statement points out the future problems of recapturing the lost helium if it is necessary. |
