| OCR Text |
Show were (I) to achieve, through research and development, the necessary technology, and (2) "to assure maximum development and use of a competitive, self-sustaining industrial LMFBR capability."7 With growing concern about a possible energy crisis, rapid commercial implementation of LMFBR technology has become a national mission.8 In the style of President Kennedy's 1960 com-mitment to put an Am.eij£iIuQiXJiie_£!?on by the"end of the~deca<ie7President Nixon, in his J ung^jfT"! 9 /1 bne7gy^XTHs^^To*Troygress, announced as th]eTugl^s.Cp.frr5!itx. item of his program '1| aj*commitment ..jo_.Sfl.aiRlete the success!ul demoTiiit?atTorr"of the liquid metal fasHKeeder-f^nrrcrr-by^rWO^Sn has"^Tybt.jir»etl- the-^coricurrence of Congress' JomrrrcTmrmrnrtrsir^^ ceed~wilh" tKe"' first" dem<>tTsffafroh"plaTit^ fi-n a7i c e d i n 1 a r g; e"p"a? t B"y t h e fjd e r a 1 government,u and the Commission~Has entered into negotiations with the Tennessee Valley Authority and Commonwealth Edison aimed at concluding construction contracts for the plant. On September 26, 197 1 \Y\e Prrsi-dent announced his intention to seek the necessary legislative aut. irity loF-a-second demon-stration planL" The Congress^uppopts-the program through annual appropriations arid, 7 AEC, DIVISION OF REACTOR DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY, LIQUID METAL FAST BREEDER REACTOR PROGRAM PLAN, Vol. 1 (hereinafter AEC, LMFBR Program Plan), at 1-3 (1968). See also H.R. Rep. No. 92-325, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 25-26 (1971): "The purpose of this development program is not simply to show that we can build and operate a Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor. When that has been accomplished, we must at the same time have established a viable, competitive LMFBR industry which is ready and capable of designing, constructing, and operating large (1000 MWc) LMFBRs." *See H.R. Rep. No. 91-1036, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., 21 (1970). 9 See 117 CONG. REC. (Part 14)18200 (1971). 10See H.R. Rep. No. 92-325, supra note 7, at 25. " See Pub. Law No. 91-44, 83 STAT. 46 (July 11, 1969) (authorizing project definition phase of LMFBR program); Pub. Law No. 91-273, 84 STAT. 299 (June 2, 1970) (authorizing AEC to enter into cooperative arrangement for construction of LMFBR demonstration plant); Pub. Law No. 92- 84, 85 STAT. 304 (Aug. 11, 1971) (increasing appropriations for demonstration plant program). '2 Pub. Law No. 91-273. supra note 11, authorized expenditure of S50 million in cash. S20 million in services, and S10 million in waiver of charges for use of nuclear material for the demonstration plant. Pub. Law No. 92-84, supra note 11, increased the cash commitment by an additional S50 million, bringing the total demonstration plant commitment to S130 million. See H.R. Rep. No. 92-325, supra note 7, at 24. 13 See 7 WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS 1347 (Oct. 4, 1971). """"•""^THa Ihe Commission statement for eat'h'trf the _ _ _ ' " " ' s'institute v. AEC at a time of general-budgetary restraint, LMFBR program funds have recently mush-roornccT~ t7)~S903 million in fiscal 197f arid $ 130 mill ion in fiscatt 972. " T h e Commission expects future federal" expenditures for the program to be over S2 billion., s These funds have been in the past, and will continue in the future to be, matched with sizable financial commitments from the private sector.16 The LMFBR's prospects are sufficiently bright to have led President Nixon to say: "Our best hope today for meeting the Nation's growing demand for economical clean energy lies with the fast breeder reactor."'7 And the Commission has recently predicted that by the year 2Q00 LMFBR capacity will equal total electrical generating capacity in the United States today.18 II. APPLICATION OF NEPA T O TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS NEj^A_ref|uires federal agerjcigsjLQincIude a detailed eiwironmentluy mpact statement "in every recommendation or-report on propjosals lor legislation and other majoTPe7fen1~nrrrons s4girifinnTtfy^{T^^ emTromrfeTTT mu majw-test^rititrerarid cleriifoi^tl.ttiorrpt-rr;ts encom^sseff^bjThe LMFB"R progTarh is eon- 'ceded by the Commission and not at issue uT this case. 1 he Commission has already isTued an impact statement for its Fast Flux Test Facility to be constructed in Hanford, Washington, and, at the President's request, has com- M These estimates were given by the Government in its answer to the complaint. See also H.R. Rep. No. 92-325, supra note 7, at 22. 15 See Authorization Hearings, supra note 6, at 695. See also AEC, DIVISION OF REACTOR DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY, COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THE U.S. BREEDER REACTOR PROGRAM (hereinafter AEC, Cost-Benefit Analysis) 18 (April 1969). 16 See Authorization Hearings, supra note 6, at 739 (past private sector expenditures; id. at 694 (projected future private commitments). For statements of representatives of several firms active in the breeder reactor industry concerning commitments of their firms to the LMFBR program,see AEC, Cost- Benefit Analysis, supra note 15, at App. B. 17 117 CONG. R E C , supra note 9, at 18201. "See AEC, OFFICE OF PLANNING AND ANALYSIS, FORECASTING BRANCH, NUCLEAR POWER 1973- 2000 at 5 (Dec. 1, 1972) (hereinafter AEC, Nuclear Power). See also AEC, Cost-Benefit Analysis, supra note 15, at 40, estimating construction of 49 LMFBR power plants in the 1980's, 453 in the 1990's, and 733 in the first decade of the 21st century. Further evidence of the prospects for success of the LMFBR program lies in the major commitment of other nations in similar programs. See generally Authorization Hearings, supra note 6, at 677-687. |
