| OCR Text |
Show mcr & Swing, Sidney G. Baucom, Robert Gordon, ana Verl R. Topham filed brief for Utah Power & Light Co., as amicus curiae, seeking reversal; Milton A. Smith, Stanley W. Schroeder, and Lee, Toomey & Kent hied brief for Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A., as amicus curiae, seeking reversal; Cameron F. MacRae, G. S. Peter Bergen, Henry V. Nickel, and LcBoeuf, Lamb, Lciby, & MacRae filed brief for Edison Electric Institute, as amicus curiae, seeking reversal; Neal A. Jackson, James F. Bromley, Macleay, Lynch, Bernard & Gregg, and Richard E. Ayres filed brief for Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and 25 other organizations, as amici curiae; John A. Carver, Jr. and Robert M. Mangan filed brief for National Coal Assn., as amicus curiae. Full Text of Opinion PER CURIAM. The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. , MR. JUSTICE POWELL took no part in the decision of this case. SCIENTISTS' INSTITUTE v.AEC U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia SCIENTISTS' INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION, INC, v. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, et al., No. 72- 1331, June 12, 1973 RADIATION 1. Federal, state, and local regulation - Administrative agencies - In general (§83.601) National Environmental Policy Act requires preparation of environmental impact statement for major federal research programs, such as Atomic Energy Commission's liquid metal fast breeder reactor, aimed at development of new technologies which, when applied, will significantly affect quality of human environment. U. Federal, state, and local regulation - Administrative agencies - In general (§83.601) Magnitude of ongoing federal investment in Atomic Energy Commission's liquid metal fast breeder reactor program, potential envi- Saentisis'Instituteg. AEC ronmentai effects of future widespread deployment of breeder reactors should program fulfill expectations, accelerated pace at which program is moving beyond pure scientific research toward actual use, and likelihood that continued investment in program will restrict future alternatives, require that AEC immediately prepare National Environmental Policy Act environmental impact statement covering entire program. STATUTES Federal - National Environmental Policy Act. (§95.011) Construed. J. G. Speth, with whom Ronald J. Wilson was on the brief, both of Washington, D.C, for Scientists' Institute. Edmund B. Clark, attorney, Department of Justice, with whom assistant attorney general Kent Frizzell and Martin R. Hodman, general counsel, Atomic Energy Commission, Jerome Nelson, solicitor, Atomic Energy Commission, and Thomas L. McKevitt and Peter R. Steenland, attorneys, Department of Justice, were on the brief, all of Washington for the Atomic Energy Commission, et al. John D. Hoffman, Washington, for Sierra Club and Committee for Nuclear Responsi-bility, Inc., as amici curiae urging reversal. Full Text of Op in ion Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and WRIGHT and WILKEV, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge WRIGHT. 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. TheJQiatnct Court held that no statement was presently required sjnj^jnjitsvjewj^ t h c researdTahTllevelopment stage~and*~no-spe-cifie implementing ad|^^hir^wo7i1H^rgnifr=- cant|y affect-the environment had veTbeen-- taken. Taking into account the magnitude oi the ongoing federal investment in this program, the controversial environmental effects attendant upon future widespread deployment / of breeder reactors should the program fulfill N present expectations, the accelerated pace under which this program has moved beyond pure scientific research toward creation of a vi- |
