| OCR Text |
Show SCIENTISTS' INST. FOR PUB. INFO., INC. v. ATOMIC ENERGY COM'N 1085 Cite ns 4S1 F.2d 1079 (1973) Our consideration of this case has been somewhat complicated by the Commission's ambivalent position with respect to these already difficult questions. The Commission's basic position seems to be that NEPA requires detailed statements only for particular facilities, and that no separate NEPA analysis of an entire research and development program is required. In the words of then Chairman James Schlesin-ger: "These environmental statements are intended to deal with the particular facility or a particular project." 20 The Commission proposes two apparently inconsistent approaches to assess the overall environmental effects of and alternatives to its research and development program in light of the limitation it perceives in NEPA., First, it suggests that analysis of the broader aspects of the total program take place within statements on individual facilities. " * * * Unlike the detailed statements * * * which are confined to an analysis of the individual subject facility, impact statements on the LMFBR plants will be cumulative in nature; that is, each statement will not only provide the requisite environmental analysis for each facility, but will also place that data within the context of the current state of knowledge for the program in order to provide an overall environmental assessment. * * *"21 II. APPLICATION OF NEPA TO TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS NEPA requires federal agencies to include a detailed environmental impact statement "in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment * * *." That the Commission must issue a detailed statement for each of the major test facilities and demonstration plants encompassed by the LMFBR program is conceded by the Commission and not at issue in this case. The Commission has already issued an impact statement for its Fast Flux Test Facility to be constructed in Hanford, Washington, and, at the President's request, has completed a statement for the first demonstration plant prior to the time such a statement would normally be issued.19 Nor is the adequacy of either of these statements as they pertain to their respective individual facilities an issue on this appeal. The question raised, instead, is basically twofold: whether at some point in time the Commission must issue a statement for the research and development program as a whole, rather than simply for individual facilities, and, assuming an affirmative answer to this question, whether a statement covering the entire program should be drafted now. AEC, Cost-Benefit Analysis, supra note 15, at 49, estimating construction of 49 LMFBR power plants in the 19S0's, 453 in the 1990's, and 733 in the first decade of the 21st century. Further evidence of the prospects for success of the LMFBR program lies in the major commitment of other nations in similar programs. See generally Authorization Hearings, supra note 6, at 677- 687. 19. Normally an environmental impact statement on a nuclear power plant is prepared after an applicant seeks a construction permit. See 10 C.F.R. Part 50, App. D (1973). When announcing the national commitment to construction of the first LMFBR demonstration plant by 1980, however, the President asked for immediate preparation of an impact statement. See 117 Cong.Rec, supra note 9, a t 18201. 20. Joint Hearings on Operation of National Environmental Policy Act before Senate Committee on Public Works and Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (hereinafter NEPA Hearings), 97 (1972) (statement of Dr. James R. Schlesinger, Chairman, AEC). 21. Brief for appellees at 34. It is clear that this commitment to provide an overall environmental assessment within individual facility impact statements was not carried out "to the fullest extent possible" in the impact statement on the first demonstration plant. Its analysis of the environmental implications of the overall program clearly does not present all avail- |
