Scientists' Institute for Public Information v. Atomic Energy Commission

Civil Action No. 1029-71 (D.D.C. March 24, 1972)

The Atomic Energy Commission does not have to file an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act concerning its research and development program on the liquid metal fast breeder reactor. Only when a demonstration plant is built must such an Impact Statement be filed, and alternatives may be considered then. (See ELR Dig. [182] for moving papers available in this suit).

Counsel for Plaintiffs
J. G. Speth
Natural Resources Defense Council
1710 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Counsel for Defendants
Thomas L. McKevitt
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530

[2 ELR 20641]

[Transcript of court proceedings]

Hart, J.

THE COURT: Well, I think we have to judge this matter as of the time this case was filed, and as of that time it seems to me we have this situation:

The Atomic Energy Commission for some 20 years has been carrying on research and development in this liquid metal fast breeder power reactor. At the time this suit was filed, it was still in the research and development stage. It was looking hopefully towards a period between the 1980's and the turn of the century when this would become practical for use in the production of power for the citizens of this country. As of the time the suit was filed, as of this time, there is no certainty of any kind that the system will ever be economically feasible or will ever be put into effect.

Up until this time there has been no implementing specific action on any part of this matter that would affect the environment as the Court sees it, under the statute, that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. As the Court sees it, the first time that this step will be reached where it will be an implementing action which will significantly affect the environment will be when the demonstration plant is built.

Now, prior to building that demonstration plant, this Court would feel as the defendant has indicated, that they agree, an environmental statement must be filed according to the Act, and that it must consider alternatives.

So this Court, feeling that the situation is in the posture that I have just described it, holds that as of this time, and prior to taking any implementing specific action as the Court has indicated, no environmental statement is required, and will grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and will deny the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.