ELR Citation: ELR 20605
No(s). 73-1009 (D.C. Cir. Jun 10, 1974)

The court upholds an AEC order issuing an operating license to the Boston Edison Company for its Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station after finding that the Commission's action did not violate either NEPA, the Atomic Energy Act, or the Administrative Procedure Act. The final environmental impact statement's cost-benefit analysis is adequate even though it assumed that the station would operate at full power. To evaluate the costs and benefits of partial power operation based on as yet undetermined acceptance criteria is too speculative a task to be useful. In any case, if more stringent acceptance criteria for its emergency core cooling system require derating the plant to something less than full power operation, an additional EIS would be necessary since this would constitute a major federal action. The court also holds that the AEC did not violate its own regulations regarding licensing procedure and the implementation of NEPA in granting the operating license, and denies the petition for review.

Counsel for Petitioner
Thomas B. Arnold
Epstein, Salloway & Kaplan
131 State Street
Boston, MA 02109

Counsel for Respondent
Marcus A. Rowden General Counsel
Guy H. Cunningham
Atomic Energy Commission
Washington, DC 20545

Wallace H. Johnson Asst. Attorney General
Edmund B. Clark
Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530

Counsel for Intervenor Boston Edison Company
George H. Lewald
Ropes & Gray
225 Franklin Street
Boston, MA 02110

Harold F. Reis
Newman, Reis & Axelrad
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036