| OCR Text |
Show SCIENTISTS' INST. FOR PUB. INFO., INC. v. ATOMIC ENERGY COM'N 1093 Cite as 481 F.2d 1079 (1973) tempt to freight * * * a single environmental report on a single facility" with the broader considerations necessarily involved in an impact statement on the overall program.56 The issues discussed in an analysis of the overall program would be quite different from those discussed in an analysis of a particular facility, and the relevant audiences, both in government and outside, would vary for each analysis. It would thus seem to make more sense to issue a separate statement for the overall project. This view is shared by the CEQ, which has suggested that in situations such as that faced here the agency should issue a broad program statement on the overall impact of the program, in addition to subsequent statements on major individual actions to cover those localized environmental impacts that were not fully evaluated in the program statement.57 III. TIMING THE NEPA STATEMENT Whether a statement on the overall LMFBR program should be issued now or at some uncertain date in the future is the most difficult question presented by this case. It was especially troubling to the District Court, as reflected in the following colloquy with counsel for appellant : "I say this: I say there comes a time, we start out with E equals MC2, we both agreed you don't have to have the impact statement then. Then 56. See text at p. 1086 supra. 57. See CEQ, Third Annual Report, supra note 30, at 234; CEQ, NEPA Memorandum, supra note 30. 58. Cf. CEQ, NEPA Memorandum, supra note 30, 3 BNA Environment Reporter at 87: "A program statement will not satisfy the requirements of Section 102, however, if it is superficial or limited to generalities." See also ibid.: "If * * * the program [is] too far removed from actual implementation, the resulting analysis is likely to be too general to prove useful." 59. Cf. International Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaua, 155 U.S.App.D.G. 411, 438, 478 F.2d 615, 642 (1973). there comes a time when there are a thousand of these breeder plants in existence all over the country. "Sometime before that, surely as anything under the present law, there has to be an impact statement, and a long time before that, actually. "But the question is, exactly where in this chain do we have to have an impact statement." In our view, the timing question can best be answered by reference to the underlying policies of NEPA in favor of meaningful, timely information on the effects of agency action. In the early stages of research, when little is known about the technology and when future application of the technology is both doubtful and remote, it may well be impossible to draft a meaningful impact statement. Predictions as,to the possible effects of application of the technology would tend toward uninformative generalities,58 arrived at by guesswork rather than analysis. NEPA requires predictions, but not prophecy,53 and impact statements ought not to be modeled upon the works of Jules Verne or H. G. Wells. At the other end of the spectrum, by the time commercial feasibility of the technology is conclusively demonstrated, and the effects of application of the technology certain, the purposes of NEPA will already have been thwarted.60 Substantial investments will have been made in development of the technology and options will have been pre- 60. " * * * The Council [on Environmental Quality] believes that the consideration of environmental factors will be most effective if it comes in the early stages of program and project formulation. If the 102 process is not closely integrated at this early point, it risks becoming an overlay upon agency decisionmaking. And it tends to serve as a post facto justification of decisions based on traditional and narrow grounds. * * *" CEQ, Third Annual Report, supra note 30, at 246. Set also note 44 supra. |
