| OCR Text |
Show lists' Institute v. AEC 5 ERC 1429 breeder reactor and producing an industrial infrastructure ready, willing and able to construct such reactors on a commercial basis. The Commission also has a great deal of confidence in the program. As the Director of the Commission's Division of Reactor Development and Technology stated in the introduction to the LMFBR Program Plan: "Sufficient experience exists to provide assurances that each complex element of the LMFBR program, if carefully pursued in a diligent and disciplined manner, can produce a viable industrial capability/which will provide LMFBR plants on a self-sustaining competitive basis, at a minimum cost, and in a timely manner. * * *"6I> Nor_do~Aye-think,completion of-lhe- program may be termed remote. While 10 years may "WlTrrttTttg-timein"ot'Kercontexts, by 1968 the Commission already had a carefully planned and detailed schedule for the LMFBR program through the year 1980.70 Secondly, the Commission's own documents indic.TTe"7hat there aTTe^n^XisTs^mttcTr meafr-ingTul informati6n~"oh therei^pnal^_Jore-seejrbtrieWrroTimelTtal Impact of development ofLMTBR technology/The impact"statement fortffeTirst demonstration plant, for example, contains detailed estimates of the radioactive wastes produced annually by a single commercial- scale LMFBR electrical power plant. It also contains estimates of the amount of ** AEC, LMFBR Program Plan, supra note 7, at ii. See also Authorization Hearings, supra note 6, at 672: "The energy supply and environmental crises have served to underscore the vital importance of expeditiously completing the breeder's development and commercial introduction, in order to assure the great potential economic, environmental, and resource conserving benefits of this reactor type. "General agreement has developed among most of the key energy community leaders in the cognizant agencies of the Government, in the Congress and in the nuclear community that the breeder reactor is the major long-term solution to the energy supply and related environmental problems. In addition the endorsement by the principal reactor manufacturers and the utilities of the LMFBR program as the highest (priority] energy development program is evidenced by the present commitment of alxiut S25 million per year, and participation of more than 100 private and public utility organizations in cooperative development and design studies with the reactor manufacturers." Thus the whole tone of discourse about the LMFBR program suggests that commercial implementation of breeder reactor technology is not a question of "if," but rather a question of "when." 70 A chart of the program through 1980 may be found in AEC, LMFBR Program Plan, supra note 7,atl-41. land area necessary for short- and long-term storage of such wastes.71 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.72 The overall environmental effects of the program could thus be extrapolated from already existing data. We seeno reason why the Commission could frrrt>fHojrCJ*sfom*a^^ fofT3l5Ii£xp4o£eyn-"a-^^ vital matters as^ for exarnple, "The total ailfTTOnty^H^dio^crTve~wasTes~\vhich-will be prqduced by devempjmenT!>nTiisjechnology ancphe tot5\lTmo"unts~orTjhd "area.needed for long- and short-term storage ofjhcse-wastes. The CbTnrmssibrT'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 2000.7J This cost-benefit analysis notably lacks any attempt to quantify the environmental costs or benefits associated with the program so that these fac tors could play a role in the analysis. The Commission evidently believes its cost-benefi 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 fflHTfrlTiTormatloirbTT^hcfaSitLviesjo t he^prograrrriyjffiy Tne^CommTssTon'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 slated: \W- 71 AEC, LMFBR Impact Statement, supra note 47, at 88-89. 72 See generally AEC, Cost-Benefit Analysis, supra note 15; AEC, Nuclear Power, supra note 18. 71 See AEC, Cost-Benefit Analysis, supra note 15. 74 See Authorization Hearings, supra note 6, at 687-693. 75 See AEC, Nuclear Power, supra note 18, at 1. |
