Evening star., 1961-06-12
AECkUphe|d
By High Court
On A.PIants
=
Safety Provisions
Called Adequate
In IL Decision
BY MIRIAM GUTENBERG
Star Staff Writer

star Staft Writer
The Supreme Court today
backed the Atomic Energy
Commission in a major deci-
sion affecting this country's
program for the development
of peaceful uses of atomic
energy.
The court, in a To decision,
reversed the Court of Appeals
here in the first court test of
licensing proceedings developed
by the Atomic Energy Commits
sion under the 1854 Atomic
Energy Act.
The appellate court held last
June that the Acc should not
have granted a permit to con-
struct a multi-million dollar
experimental atomic power re-
actor at Lagoona Beach, Mich,
without more positive findings
that there was no peril to pub
lie safety. The planned reactor
was on Lake Erie 80 miles from
Detroit.
Safety Procedure OKd
The high court, in an opinion
by Justice Brennan, approved
the two-step safety procedure
of the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion. Under the commissions
regulations, a permit is issued
first for the construction of a
facility utilizing nuclear ma
terials. A second permit is then
issued before the actual opera
ton of the facility is allowed.
Justice I Brennan, reviewing
the history of the Atomic
Energy Act as well as the COM
missions regulations, said it
was clear that Congress con-
templated a step-by-step pro-
cedure.
He supported the commits
sion'S position that the regula-
tions permit the commission to
defer a definitive safety finding
until the operation is ready for |
use.
The Acc, said Justice Bren-
nan, had good reason to make |
a distinction between the safety |
findings to permit construction
and the safety findings to per-
init operation of the reactor
once it is built.
Fast Developing
For nuclear reactors are
fast developing and fast chang
ing" he wrote. What is up to
date now may not, probably
will not be as acceptable to-
morrow. Problems which seem
inSuperable now may be solved
tomorrow, perhaps in the very
process of construction itself. !"
Justice Brennan rejected as
without merit" the Court of |
Appeals argument that the
commission may not authorize
the construction of a reactor
near a large population center
without compelling reasons"
for doing so. Justice Brennan
said the statute and regula-
tions say nothing about com
pelling reasons.
"Of course Congress (aIld |
the commission too, for that |
matter) had the problem Of |
safety uppermost in mind, and
of course that problem is most |
acute when reactor, poten-
TALLY dangerous, is located |
near a large city," Justice
Brennan said.
CCCS
But the commission found
reasonable assurance, for pres
ent purposes, that the reactor
could be safely operated at the
proposed location and that is
enough to satisfy the require
mentS of law"
In a biting dissent, Justice
Douglas, with Justice Black
concurring, contended that the
legislative history of the act
makes it clear that the time |
when the issue of safety must |
be resolved is before the COM
mission issues a construction
permit. He called the courts
decision "a lighthearted ap-
proach to the most awesome,
the most deadly, the most dan
gerous process that man has
ever conceived"
The case was taken to court |
by three unions with a large |
membership in the Detroit area
who opposed construction of
the power reactor by the |
Power Reactor Development |
Co. on the grounds that it |
would be a. hazard to public |
safety and cause employers to
move out of the area.