| OCR Text |
Show 10'*) A A. V J -i' U£lX\ii%iJ (iii) Alternatives to the proposed action The statement considers several alternatives, including reliance on the normal market process, expansion of the helium program by legislative action, use of leaner gases and recapture from the atmosphere. The discussion in our view satisfies the present requirement and the statement did not have to dwell on the imaginary horribles posed by the plaintiffs.0 (iv) The relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. That which appears in parts i, ii and iii above considers the present question. The statement took into account the known sources and supplies together with the possible uses such as generation and transmission of electrical power for nuclear reactors, for the space program, for levitation systems of mass transportation and for cyrogsnics. We disagree with the trie! court's finding that the impact statement's failure to consider the alternative of making the helium purchase program financially self-sustaining was a fata! defect. Such en alternative is somewhat obvious in that it would be a continuation of the present purchase program. This alternative is discussed in the statement. The impact of this alternative is implicit in the discussion of the several alternatives contained in the Final Statement. (v) Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would he involved- in the proposed, action should it be imjttemented. The termination which is the proposed action is reversible by continuation of one or more of the Contracts in modified form or by the negotiation of new contracts or by congressional action. Should the contracts be cancelled, and should the company shut down their separation plants, the Indium which is now preserved would, of course, be lost. Beyond this, hard and fast predictions about the effect of termination of helium purchases on the technology which we would have in the Twenty-First Century would be nothing more than speculation. We consider the subject matter sufficiently discussed in the Final Statement. There is enough there to alert the decision-makers and others concerned. Apart from the five- categories, § 4332(2) (C) requires that the Department "consult with and obtain the comments of" federal agencies having jurisdiction or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in. a contemplated action. The impact : statement meets the standard prescribed by § 4332(2) (C) in this regard, when viewed in light of the "rule of reason" we have here unproved. -The requirement should not be viewed as necessitating that the completion of an impact statement be unreasonably or interminably delayed in order to include all potential comments or the results of works in progress which might shed some addi- J tional light on the subject of the impact statement. Such a result would often j inordinately delay or prevent any derision in environmental cases. The court-should look for adequacy and completeness in an impact statement, not perfection. E. D. F. v. Corps of Engineers. 470 F.2d at 297. In this particular c a w / this court expressed the opinion that as ultimate resolution of the issues involved in this case was urgent and should lu> expedited. 455 F.2d at 657. The Initial . impact statement was not issued unui May 16, 1972, and the Final Staterawr j issued on November .13, 1972. To hw delayed the statement any longer wew have flown in the face of what we b " sidered a reasonable time for prepa.r-tion oi the statement. It is also contended by the v:l-l:' (appellees) that the statement is cwi- 6. Cf. Natural Resources Defense Council, lac. v. Morton, supra. |
