| OCR Text |
Show 1082 481 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES necessary, it should state reasons for its decision. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102(2)(C), 42 U.S.C. A. § 4332(2)(C). J. G. Speth, with whom Ronald J. Wilson, Washington, D. C, was on the brief, for appellant. Edmund B. Clark, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom Asst. Atty. Gen. Kent Frizzell and Martin R. Hoffmann, Peter A. Bernard Gen. Counsel, Jerome Nelson, Sol., Atomic Energy Comm., and Thomas L. McKevitt and Peter R. Steenland, Attys., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for appellees. John D. Hoffman, San Francisco, Cah, filed a brief on behalf of Sierra Club and Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. as amici curiae urging reversal. Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and WRIGHT and WILKEY, Circuit Judges. J. SKELLY WRIGHT, Circuit Judge. [1] Appellant claims that the Atomic Energy Commission's Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor program involves a "recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment * * *" under Section 102(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C) (1970), and that the Commission is therefore required to issue a "detailed statement" for the program. The District Court held that no statement was presently required since, in its view, the program was still in the research and development stage and no I. The prayer for relief in this case did . not seek an injunction against continuation of the program pending completion of an impact statement, and we accordingly intimate no views concerning such relief. The complaint seeks, in addition to declaratory relief, a judgment requiring the AEC, on the basis of the impact statement covering the overall program, "to adopt that course which most conforms to NEPA's policies." We question whether such relief is ever appropriate under specific implementing action which would significantly affect the environment had yet been taken. Taking int0 account the magnitude of the ongoing federal investment in this 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 has 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 is likely to restrict future alternatives, we hold that the Commission's program comes within both the letter and the spirit of Section 102(C) and that a detailed statement about the program, its environmental impact, and alternatives thereto is presently required. Since the Commission has not yet issued such a statement, we reverse and remand the case to the District Court for entry of appropriate declaratory relief.1 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND: THE LIQUID METAL FAST BREEDER REACTOR PROGRAM Although more than a superficial understanding of the technology underlying this case is beyond the layman's ken, a brief summary will prove helpful. Nuclear reactors use nuclear fission- the splitting of the atom-to produce heat which may be used to generate electricity in nuclear power plants. Only a few, relatively rare, naturally occurring substances-primarily Uranium-235- can maintain the nuclear fission chain reaction necessary for operation of these NEPA. Sec Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. USAEC, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 33, 36, 39, 449 F.2d 1109, 1112, 1115 (1971). In any event, such relief is inappropriate at the present time in this case since there is no indication that, aside from not preparing an impact statement, the AEC has given insufficient weight to environmental values in charting the LMFBR program's present course. -See 146 U.S.App.D.C. at 39, 449 F.2d at 1115. |
