| OCR Text |
Show 1098 481 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES alternatives in a NEPA statement on the overall LMFBR program should look like. Moving to another factor in our balancing test, it is evident that there are sizable irretrievable commitments of resources taking place in the program. As indicated in the introduction, the federal commitment to this program is now over $100 million per year. The Commission itself admits that one of the results of this commitment has been to slow down development of other new technologies, such as alternative breeder reactor concepts, which would also require a large investment to move from the stage of technical and theoretical research into a stage of commercial feasibility.77 Finally, we cannot ignore the fact that the anticipated effects of the LMFBR program on the environment are among the most significant, and most controversial, of all federal programs. We deal here with a radical change in the manner in which our entire nation produces electricity. In many respects, no doubt, this new technique of producing electricity will be less harmful to the environment than present fossil fuel generating plants. But it is evident that the program presents unique and unprecedented environmental hazards. The Commission itself concedes it is expected that by the year 2000 some 600,000 cubic feet of high-level concentratedx radioactive wastes will have been generated.78 These wastes will pose an admitted hazard to human health for hundreds of years, and will have to be maintained in special repositories. The environmental 77. See Authorization Hearings, supra note 6, at 676. See also id. at 672 (remarks of Rep. Holifield). It has also been suggested that commitment of energy technology research dollars to the AEC has hindered development of other promising energy alternatives, such as coal gasification. See id. at 529-530. 78. This figure comes from the AEC's answer to the complaint in this case. Notably, information of this nature is not problems attendant upon processing, transporting and storing these wastes, and the other environmental issues raised by widespread deployment of LMFBR power plants, warrant the most searching scrutiny under NEPA. Of course, some of the environmental impacts of the program are still shrouded in uncertainty. But one of the functions of an impact statement is to point up uncertainties where they exist. And whatever statement is drafted by the Commission can be amended to reflect newly obtained information as the program progresses.79 IV. CONCLUSION At this point it is appropriate that we emphasize the limited nature of the issue under review in this case. By our holding we do'not intend in any way to question either the wisdom of the Commission's LMFBR program or the Commission's dedication to protection of the public health and safety. But as one commentator has noted: "It is obvious that government programs for development of technology do not proceed in callous disregard of the public welfare. It is equally obvious, however, that in the process of balancing benefits against risks, the government sponsors of technological programs are making decisions as to whether the public may be asked to assume certain risks or burdens which are determined to be 'reasonable' or not 'undue.' Since such determinations are presently made within small | closed circles of experts who have a vested interest in the technology, the basic question is whether the public y presented in the AEC's environmental im- y pact statement on the first demonstra- y tion plant, confirming its inadequacy a* y an evaluation of the environmental implications of the overall LMFBR program. g 79. "The program statement can, of coarse, |v be supplemented or updated as necessary y*g to account for changes in circumstance* yg or public policy * * *.** C E Q ; ? f J f "M Memorandum, supra note 30, 3 BNA **' • .y vironment Reporter at 87. -15 f i ll |
