ML022680104
| ML022680104 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/24/2002 |
| From: | Cordes J NRC/OGC |
| To: | J. J. Barton US HR, Comm on Energy & Commerce, US HR, Subcomm on Energy & Air Quality |
| References | |
| Download: ML022680104 (4) | |
Text
September 24, 2002 The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 RE:
Orange County, North Carolina v. NRC, Nos. 01-1073 &01-1246 (D.C. Cir.,
decided Sept. 19, 2002)
Dear Chairman:
This petition for review challenged an NRC adjudicatory decision approving Carolina Power &
Light Companys application to expand its spent fuel storage capacity at its Shearon Harris nuclear power reactor. Petitioner claimed, among other things, that the agency should have issued an environmental impact statement analyzing the possibility of a catastrophic spent fuel pool fire. After considering petitioners claims under the special hearing process established in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart K, the Licensing Board found their concerns too remote to warrant an EIS or a full-scale evidentiary hearing. The Commission subsequently upheld the Board ruling.
Deciding the case just two weeks after the oral argument, the court of appeals (Edwards, Rogers & Williams, JJ) issued a 2-page judgment-order (unpublished) ruling summarily in favor of the NRC. Citing the Commissions two opinions in the case, and [f]inding no error in NRCs determinations, the court said that it was denying the petitions for review primarily for the reasons given in the agencys orders.
Petitioner has 45 days to seek rehearing in the court of appeals and 90 days to seek review in the Supreme Court.
Sincerely, John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Representative Rick Boucher
September 24, 2002 The Honorable Sonny Callahan, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 RE:
Orange County, North Carolina v. NRC, Nos. 01-1073 &01-1246 (D.C. Cir.,
decided Sept. 19, 2002)
Dear Chairman:
This petition for review challenged an NRC adjudicatory decision approving Carolina Power &
Light Companys application to expand its spent fuel storage capacity at its Shearon Harris nuclear power reactor. Petitioner claimed, among other things, that the agency should have issued an environmental impact statement analyzing the possibility of a catastrophic spent fuel pool fire. After considering petitioners claims under the special hearing process established in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart K, the Licensing Board found their concerns too remote to warrant an EIS or a full-scale evidentiary hearing. The Commission subsequently upheld the Board ruling.
Deciding the case just two weeks after the oral argument, the court of appeals (Edwards, Rogers & Williams, JJ) issued a 2-page judgment-order (unpublished) ruling summarily in favor of the NRC. Citing the Commissions two opinions in the case, and [f]inding no error in NRCs determinations, the court said that it was denying the petitions for review primarily for the reasons given in the agencys orders.
Petitioner has 45 days to seek rehearing in the court of appeals and 90 days to seek review in the Supreme Court.
Sincerely, John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Representative Peter J. Visclosky
September 24, 2002 The Honorable Harry Reid, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 RE:
Orange County, North Carolina v. NRC, Nos. 01-1073 &01-1246 (D.C. Cir.,
decided Sept. 19, 2002)
Dear Chairman:
This petition for review challenged an NRC adjudicatory decision approving Carolina Power &
Light Companys application to expand its spent fuel storage capacity at its Shearon Harris nuclear power reactor. Petitioner claimed, among other things, that the agency should have issued an environmental impact statement analyzing the possibility of a catastrophic spent fuel pool fire. After considering petitioners claims under the special hearing process established in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart K, the Licensing Board found their concerns too remote to warrant an EIS or a full-scale evidentiary hearing. The Commission subsequently upheld the Board ruling.
Deciding the case just two weeks after the oral argument, the court of appeals (Edwards, Rogers & Williams, JJ) issued a 2-page judgment-order (unpublished) ruling summarily in favor of the NRC. Citing the Commissions two opinions in the case, and [f]inding no error in NRCs determinations, the court said that it was denying the petitions for review primarily for the reasons given in the agencys orders.
Petitioner has 45 days to seek rehearing in the court of appeals and 90 days to seek review in the Supreme Court.
Sincerely, John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Senator Pete Domenici
September 24, 2002 The Honorable Harry Reid, Chairman Subcommittee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 RE:
Orange County, North Carolina v. NRC, Nos. 01-1073 &01-1246 (D.C. Cir.,
decided Sept. 19, 2002)
Dear Chairman:
This petition for review challenged an NRC adjudicatory decision approving Carolina Power &
Light Companys application to expand its spent fuel storage capacity at its Shearon Harris nuclear power reactor. Petitioner claimed, among other things, that the agency should have issued an environmental impact statement analyzing the possibility of a catastrophic spent fuel pool fire. After considering petitioners claims under the special hearing process established in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart K, the Licensing Board found their concerns too remote to warrant an EIS or a full-scale evidentiary hearing. The Commission subsequently upheld the Board ruling.
Deciding the case just two weeks after the oral argument, the court of appeals (Edwards, Rogers & Williams, JJ) issued a 2-page judgment-order (unpublished) ruling summarily in favor of the NRC. Citing the Commissions two opinions in the case, and [f]inding no error in NRCs determinations, the court said that it was denying the petitions for review primarily for the reasons given in the agencys orders.
Petitioner has 45 days to seek rehearing in the court of appeals and 90 days to seek review in the Supreme Court.
Sincerely, John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Representative James Inhofe