Sierra Club v. Gilbert Stamm and other legal cases involving environmental impact statements

Page 109

SCIENTISTS' INST. FOR PUB. INFO., INC. v. ATOMIC ENERGY COM'N 1079 Cite ns4Sl P.2d 1079 (1973) exigencies of rehabilitation do not call for resentencing since during the pen­dency of the appeal appellant was placed 0n work release and then on parole, on which he presently remains. In these circumstances, we are unable to perceive a n y useful purpose which a remand for resentencing could achieve.128 For the foregoing reasons, the judg­ment of conviction appealed from has been affirmed.129 such program, the controversial environ­mental effects attendant upon future widespread deployment of breeder reac­tors should the program fulfill present expectations, the accelerated pace under which this program had moved beyond pure scientific research toward creation of a viable, competitive breeder reactor electrical energy industry, and the man­ner in which investment in this new tech­nology was likely to restrict the future alternatives, a detailed statement about the program, its environmental impact, and alternatives thereto was presently required under the National Environ­mental Policy Act of 1969. Reversed and remanded with direc­tions. SCIENTISTS' INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION, INC., Appellant, v. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMIS­SION et al. No. 72-1331. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued Sept. 8, 1972. Decided June 12, 1973. Action for declaratory relief based on claim that Atomic Energy Commis­sion's liquid metal fast breeder reactor program involved a recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human envi­ronment and that the Commission was therefore required to issue a "detailed statement" for the program. The Unit­ed States District Court for the District of Columbia, George L. Hart, Jr., J., held that no statement was presently re­quired, and plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals, J. Skelly Wright, Cir­cuit Judge, held that in view of magni­tude of ongoing federal investment in (1972). The affirmance simply removes one category of the difficulties inherent in general sentences. 1. Health and Environment ^^Zo.10 In view of magnitude of ongoing federal investment in Atomic Energy Commission's liquid metal fast breeder reactor program, the controversial envi­ronmental effects attendant upon future widespread deployment of breeder reac­tors should the program fulfill present expectations, the accelerated pace under which this program had moved beyond pure scientific research toward creation of a viable, competitive breeder reactor electrical energy industry, and the man­ner in which investment in this new tech­nology was likely to restrict the future alternatives, a detailed statement about the program, its environmental impact, and alternatives thereto was presently required under the National Environ­mental Policy Act of 1969. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102 (2)(C), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(2)(C). 2. Health and Environment C=>25.10 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires federal agencies to include a detailed environ­mental impact statement in every recom­mendation and report on proposals for legislation and other major federal ac- 128. Compare McCollum v. United States, 437 F.2d 61, 63 (5th Cir. 1969). 129. See note 5, supra.