| OCR Text |
Show Usis Institute u. AhC 5 ERC 1419 ^ r a able, competitive breeder reactor electrical energy industry, and the manner in which inr vestment 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 casetp-frfocrUlstHct Cour^forentry of appropriat^^claratorjirferief.1 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 reactors. There are thus severe constraints on the long run potential of nuclear energy for generating electricity unless new nuclear fuel is "artificially" produced. Such fuel can be produced through the process of "breeding" within a "fast breeder reactor." The fast breeder reactor differs from the now common light water nuclear reactor in that the neutrons which split atoms in the fuel (thereby releasing new neutrons and heat energy) travel much faster than the neutrons in ordinary reactors. The reactor breeds new fuel through what has aptly been termed "a sort of modern alchemy."2 Some neutrons leave the inner core of the reactor, which is made up of fissionable Uranium-235, and enter a blanket of nonfissionable Uranium-238. 3 1 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 NEPA. See Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. USAEC, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 33, 36, 39, 449 F.2d 1109, 1112, 1115 [2 ERC 1779] (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. 2 See Power Reactor Development Co. v. Int. U. of Elec, Radio & Machine Wkrs., 367 U.S. 396, 399(1961). When atoms in this blanket are struck by neutrons, they arc transmuted into Plutonium- 239, itself a fissionable fuel which can be removed from the reactor and used in other installations. It is estimated that after about 10 years of operation the typical fast breeder reactor will produce enough fissionable Plutonium- 239 not only to refuel itself completely, but also to fuel an additional reactor of comparable size. The Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (henceforth LMFBR) is simply a fast breeder reactor that uses a liquid metal, sodium, as a coolant and heat transfer agent. Because the breeding principle makes possible vast expansion of fuel available for nuclear reactors (Uranium-238 is many times more common than Uranium-235), it has been the subject of considerable interest since the earliest days of atomic energy. The Commission demonstrated the feasibility of breeder reactors by constructing several experimental breeder reactors in the 1950's. In its 1962 Report to the President on Civilian Nuclear Power, the Commission specifically recommended that future Government programs include vigorous development and timely introduction of.economic breeder reactors which, in the Commission's view, were essential to long-range major use of nuclear energy.J By 1967, when the Commission supplemented its Report to the President, the LMFBR had been singled out as a priority program representing the largest civilian power development area.4 The Commission's focus expanded beyond solving the technical problems posed by the LMFBR, and began to embrace efforts to build an industrial base and obtain acceptance for LMFBR plant types by utilities, primarily through planned Government-assisted construction of commercial scale LMFBR electrical power plants.5 In sum, the Commission came to see its program as serving "as the key to effecting the transition of the fast breeder program from the technology development stage to the point of large-scale commercial utilization."6 In furtherance of these objectives the Commission, in 1968, issued a 10-volume LMFBR Program Plan, the dual objectives of which 'UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERCY COMMISSION (hereinafter AEC), CIVILIAN NUCLEAR POWER: A REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT 41 (1962). * AEC, CIVILIAN NUCLEAR POWER: THE 1967 SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1962 REPORT TO THE PRESI« DENT 25 (1967). * Id. at 36. * AEC Authorizing Legislation, Fiscal Year 1972, Hearings on Civilian Nuclear Power Program he-fore Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess., March 4, 1971, Part 2 (hereinafter cited as Authorization Hearings), at 699 (statement of Milton Shaw, Director, AEC Division of Reactor Development and Technology). |
