| OCR Text |
Show 6< 'trusts'Institute u. AEC p)eted a statement for the first demonstration plant prior to the time such a statement would normally be issued.1'' Nor is the adequacy of either of these statements as they pertain to eir respective individual facilities an issue on this appeal. The question raised, uuttaad ig basically twofold: whether at some point in time the Commission must issue a statement for the research and development program as hole, rather than simply for individual fa- . cilitJesTltlul, Hjsuiu'uig'an aHirrnajj^£^aDSwer to tins qiie^lilHt. whivlU'pTTtTitfWnt rn^^r\na the entire program should be drafted now. ur consideration of this case has been somewhat complicated by the Commission's ambivalent position with respect to these already difficult questions. The Commission's basic position seems to be that NEPA requires detailed statements only for particular facilities, and that no separate NEPA analysis of an entire research and development program is required. In the words of then Chairman James Schlesinger: "These environmental statements are intended to deal with the particular facility or a particular project."20 The Commission proposes two apparently inconsistent approaches to assess the overall environmental effects of and altcrntives to its research and development program in light of the limitation it perceives in NEPA. First, it suggests that analysis of the broader aspects of the total program take place within statements on individual facilities. "* * * Unlike the detailed statements * * * which are confined to an analysis of the individual subject facility, impact statements on the LMFBR plants will be cumulative in nature; that is, each statement will not only provide the requisite environmental analysis for each facility, but will also place that data within the context of the current state of knowledge for the program in order to provide an overall environmental assessment. * * *"21 5 ERC 1421 " Normally an environmental impact statement on a nuclear power plant is prepared after an applicant seeks a construction permit. See 10 C.F.R. Part 50, App. D. (1973). When announcing the national commitment to construction of the first LMFBR demonstration plant by 1980, however, the President asked for immediate preparation of an impact statement. See 117 CONG. REC, supra note 9, at 18201. 20 Joint Hearings on Operation of National Environmental Policy Act before Senate Committee on Public Works and Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (hereinafter NEPA Hearings). 97 (1972) (statement of Dr. James R. Schlesinger, Chairman, AEC). 21 Brief for appellees at 34. It is clear that this commitment to provide an overall environmental assessment within individual facility impact statements was not carried out "to the fullest extent pos- But directly undercutting this approach, the Commission's brief quotes approvingly from testimony of Chairman Schlesinger: "We think that it would be a big mistake to attempt to freight on a single environmental report on a single facility, all of these broader considerations; [but] the public has a right to know, concerned citizens have the right to know, what the broader future implications may be of the cumulative impact of a number of such, facilities, rather than looking at each facility microscopically."22 In this context the Commission assures us that it is nj}jjLprepaiuixg_^a crTnTpTrbeR&iyiLenviron-mentaLsurvcy of the LMFBTCamiTyzTng the direct impact_oiljii(upolential_pialus^^ the broader implications of the prpgrarn.*'" But while^hjs environmental survey" would apparently discuss many of the same kinds of is-s u e r 7 f s l v £ u l ^ i n s uncT^ryyejijifter oraLargument,-whether the CommTssTon^prpposcs to issue it as a NEPA statement and whetbeF'thg'Commission will observe NEPA's requirements as to contents or"Lhe^EKerjtar^j i n g and isstnn^jjbxsj_atement. Elsewhere in its brief, however, the Commission seems to concede that at some point in time a NEPA statement for the entire program would be required. "Most assuredly, the AEC is not declaring its intention to never file a detailed statement for the overall program."24 In this context the Commission argues that the program has not yet reached that stage where a NEPA statement on the overall program would be cither feasible or meaningful. "[T]he remote and speculative nature of the project" 25 and the fact that it "remains uncrystallized in form and undetermined in application,"26 lead the Commission to conclude that any detailed analysis at the present time of the overall program, its environmental effects, and alternatives thereto would require the Commission "to look into the crystal ball"27 sible" in the impact statement on the first demonstration plant. Its analysis of the environmental implications of the overall program clearly does not present all available information, see note 78 infra, and its evaluation of alternative energy options is extremely superficial, even to untutored eyes. The Commission itself appears to concede that it has not done the best job possible, since it has already initiated another thorough study of the overall environmental consequences of the breeder program. See text at p. 34 infra. 22 NEPA Hearings, supra note 20, at 98-99. n Brief for appellees at 14. See also text at p. 34 infra. 2* Brief for appellees at 36 (emphasis in original). »Ibid. * Id. at 34. 21 Id. at 12, quoting NEPA hearings, supra note 20, at 99. |
