| OCR Text |
Show SCIENTISTS' INST. FOR PUB. INFO., INC. v. ATOMIC ENERGY COM'N 1097 Cite as4Sl F.2<1 1070 (1973) such wastes.'1 Other studies completed by the Commission contain reasonable estimates of the expected deployment of LMFBR power plants through the year 2000 if the program proceeds on schedule.73 ' The overall environmental effects of the program could thus be extrapolated from already existing data. We see no reason why the Commission could not, from information already before us, explore in a NEPA statement such vital matters as, for example, the total amounts of radioactive wastes which will be produced by development of this technology and the total amounts of land area needed for long- and short-term storage of these wastes. The Commission's continual references to "crystal ball inquiry" have a hollow ring in light of the fact that the Commission has already prepared a complex cost-benefit analysis of the LMFBR program, involving projections through and beyond the year 2000.73 This cost-benefit analysis notably lacks any attempt to quantify the environmental costs or benefits associated with the program so that these factors could play a role in the analysis. The Commission evidently believes its cost-benefit forecasts are accurate enough for use in convincing Congress to fund the program 74 and for use in planning various supporting facilities and fuel production requirements.75 We think in turn that parallel environmental forecasts would be accurate enough for use in planning how to cope with and minimize the detrimental environmental effects attendant upon deployment of these reactors, and in evaluating the program's overall desirability. It also seems clear that the Commission has available much information on alternatives to the program and their environmental effects. The Commission's own answer to the complaint in this case, at 9-10, states: "Alternatives to the LMFBR program have received serious national attention, study and debate. This reactor concept has been under continual review since its conception in the late 1940's. Alternative energy systems have been studied and compared by both governmental and private groups and the conclusion always has been that the LMFBR merits the highest priority within the nation's energy program. * * *" Similarly, in a speech given in 1971 Commissioner Ramey stated: " * * * [A] study has been initiated by the AEC to analyze the comparative risks and benefits from each form of electric power generation through the year 2000. We are hoping to have this study completed in about a year. It will include material on the characteristics of the U. S. power industry, the fuel cycles of coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear, a quantification of the effects of these fuels, legal and regulatory influences and what the effects of technological change might be. The goal of this study is to produce a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of each form of electric power generation through the year 2000." 76 One would be hard pressed to give a better description of what the discussion of 71. AEC,, LMFBR Impact Statement, supra note 47. at SS-89. 72. See generally AEC, Cost-Benefit Analysis, supra note 15 ; AEC, Nuclear Power, supra note 18. 73. See AEC, Cost-Benefit Analysis, supra note 15. 74. See Authorization Hearings, supra note 6, at 6S7-693. 75. See AEC, Nuclear Power, supra note IS at 1. 481 F.2d-69Vz 76. "Nuclear Power and Lawyers: What Are the Alternatives?," remarks by Commissioner James T. Ramey, AEC, before the ALI-ABA Course of Study on Atomic Energy Licensing and Regulation, Washington, D. C, Nov. 11, 1971, in Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply to Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities, App. B at 12. |
