ML050130429
| ML050130429 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000240, Millstone |
| Issue date: | 01/11/2005 |
| From: | Cordes J NRC/OGC |
| To: | J. J. Barton, Domenici P, Randy Hall, Hobson D, Inhofe J, Voinovich G US Congress, US HR, Comm on Energy & Commerce, US HR, Subcomm on Energy & Air Quality, US SEN, Comm on Appropriations, US SEN, Comm on Environment & Public Works, US SEN, Subcomm on Clean Air, Climate Change & Nuclear Safety, US SEN, Subcomm on Energy & Water Development |
| Cordes John (301) 415--1600 | |
| References | |
| 04-1145, 04-1359 | |
| Download: ML050130429 (24) | |
Text
January 11, 2005 The Honorable Ralph M. Hall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 RE:
Citizens Awareness Network v. United States, Nos. 04-1145 & 04-1359 (1st Cir., decided Dec. 10, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In these cases various advocacy groups challenged the NRCs new Part 2 hearing process.
Petitioners claimed that the NRC is required by law - the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) - to provide formal, on-the-record adjudicatory hearings in reactor licensing cases. Without reaching that question, the court of appeals (Selya &
Howard, JJ., Lipez, J., concurring) agreed with our argument that the NRCs new procedures meet the APAs requirements for on-the-record hearings. The court explicitly left open the question whether the AEAs hearing requirement (§ 189) requires such hearings or, as the NRC has argued, leaves room for the agency to provide a less formal process.
The court addressed the subjects of discovery and cross-examination in some detail. The court said that the APA does not mandate discovery of any kind and that, in any event, the new rules requirement of mandatory disclosure seemingly compensates for the loss of traditional discovery. As for cross-examination, the court pointed out that the NRCs new rules do not ban cross-examination outright but, like the APA, allow cross-examination when necessary to complete an adequate record. The court brushed aside as meritless petitioners constitutional arguments for additional procedures at NRC hearings.
The court, and particularly the concurring Judge, expressed some concern that the NRC had taken the position that its new rule satisfied APA requirements belatedly, thus forcing an extended and unnecessary debate during the Part 2 rulemaking on the NRCs authority to depart from the APA. But in the end the judges agreed that we cannot say that the Commissions desire for more expeditious adjudications is unreasonable, nor can we say that the changes embodied in the new rules are an eccentric or plainly inadequate means for achieving the Commissions goals.
Petitioners have 45 days to seek rehearing before the panel or before the full court of appeals, and failing that, 90 days to seek review in the Supreme Court.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Representative Rick Boucher
January 11, 2005 The Honorable David L. Hobson, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 RE:
Citizens Awareness Network v. United States, Nos. 04-1145 & 04-1359 (1st Cir., decided Dec. 10, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In these cases various advocacy groups challenged the NRCs new Part 2 hearing process.
Petitioners claimed that the NRC is required by law - the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) - to provide formal, on-the-record adjudicatory hearings in reactor licensing cases. Without reaching that question, the court of appeals (Selya &
Howard, JJ., Lipez, J., concurring) agreed with our argument that the NRCs new procedures meet the APAs requirements for on-the-record hearings. The court explicitly left open the question whether the AEAs hearing requirement (§ 189) requires such hearings or, as the NRC has argued, leaves room for the agency to provide a less formal process.
The court addressed the subjects of discovery and cross-examination in some detail. The court said that the APA does not mandate discovery of any kind and that, in any event, the new rules requirement of mandatory disclosure seemingly compensates for the loss of traditional discovery. As for cross-examination, the court pointed out that the NRCs new rules do not ban cross-examination outright but, like the APA, allow cross-examination when necessary to complete an adequate record. The court brushed aside as meritless petitioners constitutional arguments for additional procedures at NRC hearings.
The court, and particularly the concurring Judge, expressed some concern that the NRC had taken the position that its new rule satisfied APA requirements belatedly, thus forcing an extended and unnecessary debate during the Part 2 rulemaking on the NRCs authority to depart from the APA. But in the end the judges agreed that we cannot say that the Commissions desire for more expeditious adjudications is unreasonable, nor can we say that the changes embodied in the new rules are an eccentric or plainly inadequate means for achieving the Commissions goals.
Petitioners have 45 days to seek rehearing before the panel or before the full court of appeals, and failing that, 90 days to seek review in the Supreme Court.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Representative Peter J. Visclosky
January 11, 2005 The Honorable Pete Domenici, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 RE:
Citizens Awareness Network v. United States, Nos. 04-1145 & 04-1359 (1st Cir., decided Dec. 10, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In these cases various advocacy groups challenged the NRCs new Part 2 hearing process.
Petitioners claimed that the NRC is required by law - the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) - to provide formal, on-the-record adjudicatory hearings in reactor licensing cases. Without reaching that question, the court of appeals (Selya &
Howard, JJ., Lipez, J., concurring) agreed with our argument that the NRCs new procedures meet the APAs requirements for on-the-record hearings. The court explicitly left open the question whether the AEAs hearing requirement (§ 189) requires such hearings or, as the NRC has argued, leaves room for the agency to provide a less formal process.
The court addressed the subjects of discovery and cross-examination in some detail. The court said that the APA does not mandate discovery of any kind and that, in any event, the new rules requirement of mandatory disclosure seemingly compensates for the loss of traditional discovery. As for cross-examination, the court pointed out that the NRCs new rules do not ban cross-examination outright but, like the APA, allow cross-examination when necessary to complete an adequate record. The court brushed aside as meritless petitioners constitutional arguments for additional procedures at NRC hearings.
The court, and particularly the concurring Judge, expressed some concern that the NRC had taken the position that its new rule satisfied APA requirements belatedly, thus forcing an extended and unnecessary debate during the Part 2 rulemaking on the NRCs authority to depart from the APA. But in the end the judges agreed that we cannot say that the Commissions desire for more expeditious adjudications is unreasonable, nor can we say that the changes embodied in the new rules are an eccentric or plainly inadequate means for achieving the Commissions goals.
Petitioners have 45 days to seek rehearing before the panel or before the full court of appeals, and failing that, 90 days to seek review in the Supreme Court.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Senator Harry Reid
January 11, 2005 The Honorable George V. Voinovich, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 RE:
Citizens Awareness Network v. United States, Nos. 04-1145 & 04-1359 (1st Cir., decided Dec. 10, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In these cases various advocacy groups challenged the NRCs new Part 2 hearing process.
Petitioners claimed that the NRC is required by law - the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) - to provide formal, on-the-record adjudicatory hearings in reactor licensing cases. Without reaching that question, the court of appeals (Selya &
Howard, JJ., Lipez, J., concurring) agreed with our argument that the NRCs new procedures meet the APAs requirements for on-the-record hearings. The court explicitly left open the question whether the AEAs hearing requirement (§ 189) requires such hearings or, as the NRC has argued, leaves room for the agency to provide a less formal process.
The court addressed the subjects of discovery and cross-examination in some detail. The court said that the APA does not mandate discovery of any kind and that, in any event, the new rules requirement of mandatory disclosure seemingly compensates for the loss of traditional discovery. As for cross-examination, the court pointed out that the NRCs new rules do not ban cross-examination outright but, like the APA, allow cross-examination when necessary to complete an adequate record. The court brushed aside as meritless petitioners constitutional arguments for additional procedures at NRC hearings.
The court, and particularly the concurring Judge, expressed some concern that the NRC had taken the position that its new rule satisfied APA requirements belatedly, thus forcing an extended and unnecessary debate during the Part 2 rulemaking on the NRCs authority to depart from the APA. But in the end the judges agreed that we cannot say that the Commissions desire for more expeditious adjudications is unreasonable, nor can we say that the changes embodied in the new rules are an eccentric or plainly inadequate means for achieving the Commissions goals.
Petitioners have 45 days to seek rehearing before the panel or before the full court of appeals, and failing that, 90 days to seek review in the Supreme Court.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Representative Thomas R. Carper
January 11, 2005 The Honorable James M. Inhofe, Chairman Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 RE:
Citizens Awareness Network v. United States, Nos. 04-1145 & 04-1359 (1st Cir., decided Dec. 10, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In these cases various advocacy groups challenged the NRCs new Part 2 hearing process.
Petitioners claimed that the NRC is required by law - the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) - to provide formal, on-the-record adjudicatory hearings in reactor licensing cases. Without reaching that question, the court of appeals (Selya &
Howard, JJ., Lipez, J., concurring) agreed with our argument that the NRCs new procedures meet the APAs requirements for on-the-record hearings. The court explicitly left open the question whether the AEAs hearing requirement (§ 189) requires such hearings or, as the NRC has argued, leaves room for the agency to provide a less formal process.
The court addressed the subjects of discovery and cross-examination in some detail. The court said that the APA does not mandate discovery of any kind and that, in any event, the new rules requirement of mandatory disclosure seemingly compensates for the loss of traditional discovery. As for cross-examination, the court pointed out that the NRCs new rules do not ban cross-examination outright but, like the APA, allow cross-examination when necessary to complete an adequate record. The court brushed aside as meritless petitioners constitutional arguments for additional procedures at NRC hearings.
The court, and particularly the concurring Judge, expressed some concern that the NRC had taken the position that its new rule satisfied APA requirements belatedly, thus forcing an extended and unnecessary debate during the Part 2 rulemaking on the NRCs authority to depart from the APA. But in the end the judges agreed that we cannot say that the Commissions desire for more expeditious adjudications is unreasonable, nor can we say that the changes embodied in the new rules are an eccentric or plainly inadequate means for achieving the Commissions goals.
Petitioners have 45 days to seek rehearing before the panel or before the full court of appeals, and failing that, 90 days to seek review in the Supreme Court.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Senator James M. Jeffords
January 11, 2005 The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 RE:
Citizens Awareness Network v. United States, Nos. 04-1145 & 04-1359 (1st Cir., decided Dec. 10, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In these cases various advocacy groups challenged the NRCs new Part 2 hearing process.
Petitioners claimed that the NRC is required by law - the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) - to provide formal, on-the-record adjudicatory hearings in reactor licensing cases. Without reaching that question, the court of appeals (Selya &
Howard, JJ., Lipez, J., concurring) agreed with our argument that the NRCs new procedures meet the APAs requirements for on-the-record hearings. The court explicitly left open the question whether the AEAs hearing requirement (§ 189) requires such hearings or, as the NRC has argued, leaves room for the agency to provide a less formal process.
The court addressed the subjects of discovery and cross-examination in some detail. The court said that the APA does not mandate discovery of any kind and that, in any event, the new rules requirement of mandatory disclosure seemingly compensates for the loss of traditional discovery. As for cross-examination, the court pointed out that the NRCs new rules do not ban cross-examination outright but, like the APA, allow cross-examination when necessary to complete an adequate record. The court brushed aside as meritless petitioners constitutional arguments for additional procedures at NRC hearings.
The court, and particularly the concurring Judge, expressed some concern that the NRC had taken the position that its new rule satisfied APA requirements belatedly, thus forcing an extended and unnecessary debate during the Part 2 rulemaking on the NRCs authority to depart from the APA. But in the end the judges agreed that we cannot say that the Commissions desire for more expeditious adjudications is unreasonable, nor can we say that the changes embodied in the new rules are an eccentric or plainly inadequate means for achieving the Commissions goals.
Petitioners have 45 days to seek rehearing before the panel or before the full court of appeals, and failing that, 90 days to seek review in the Supreme Court.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Representative John D. Dingell
January 11, 2005 The Honorable Ralph M. Hall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 RE:
State of Oklahoma v. NRC, Nos. 04-9503 & 04-9523 (10th Cir., order issued Dec. 9, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
These petitions for review challenged a Commission adjudicatory decision holding that some waste at Sequoyah Fuels Corporations Oklahoma site qualifies as 11e(2) byproduct material, and should be regulated as such. These lawsuits, as well as related Licensing Board proceedings, were held in abeyance for many months to accommodate settlement negotiations between Oklahoma and Sequoyah Fuels. Those parties recently reached a settlement agreement and jointly sought dismissal of all pending litigation. The settlement does not bind the NRC in any way, and allows our agency to take any regulatory steps it deems necessary or appropriate.
The court of appeals issued an order dismissing the petitions for review.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Representative Rick Boucher
January 11, 2005 The Honorable David L. Hobson, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 RE:
State of Oklahoma v. NRC, Nos. 04-9503 & 04-9523 (10th Cir., order issued Dec. 9, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
These petitions for review challenged a Commission adjudicatory decision holding that some waste at Sequoyah Fuels Corporations Oklahoma site qualifies as 11e(2) byproduct material, and should be regulated as such. These lawsuits, as well as related Licensing Board proceedings, were held in abeyance for many months to accommodate settlement negotiations between Oklahoma and Sequoyah Fuels. Those parties recently reached a settlement agreement and jointly sought dismissal of all pending litigation. The settlement does not bind the NRC in any way, and allows our agency to take any regulatory steps it deems necessary or appropriate.
The court of appeals issued an order dismissing the petitions for review.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Representative Peter J. Visclosky
January 11, 2005 The Honorable Pete Domenici, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 RE:
State of Oklahoma v. NRC, Nos. 04-9503 & 04-9523 (10th Cir., order issued Dec. 9, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
These petitions for review challenged a Commission adjudicatory decision holding that some waste at Sequoyah Fuels Corporations Oklahoma site qualifies as 11e(2) byproduct material, and should be regulated as such. These lawsuits, as well as related Licensing Board proceedings, were held in abeyance for many months to accommodate settlement negotiations between Oklahoma and Sequoyah Fuels. Those parties recently reached a settlement agreement and jointly sought dismissal of all pending litigation. The settlement does not bind the NRC in any way, and allows our agency to take any regulatory steps it deems necessary or appropriate.
The court of appeals issued an order dismissing the petitions for review.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Senator Harry Reid
January 11, 2005 The Honorable George V. Voinovich, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 RE:
State of Oklahoma v. NRC, Nos. 04-9503 & 04-9523 (10th Cir., order issued Dec. 9, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
These petitions for review challenged a Commission adjudicatory decision holding that some waste at Sequoyah Fuels Corporations Oklahoma site qualifies as 11e(2) byproduct material, and should be regulated as such. These lawsuits, as well as related Licensing Board proceedings, were held in abeyance for many months to accommodate settlement negotiations between Oklahoma and Sequoyah Fuels. Those parties recently reached a settlement agreement and jointly sought dismissal of all pending litigation. The settlement does not bind the NRC in any way, and allows our agency to take any regulatory steps it deems necessary or appropriate.
The court of appeals issued an order dismissing the petitions for review.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Representative Thomas R. Carper
January 11, 2005 The Honorable James M. Inhofe, Chairman Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 RE:
State of Oklahoma v. NRC, Nos. 04-9503 & 04-9523 (10th Cir., order issued Dec. 9, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
These petitions for review challenged a Commission adjudicatory decision holding that some waste at Sequoyah Fuels Corporations Oklahoma site qualifies as 11e(2) byproduct material, and should be regulated as such. These lawsuits, as well as related Licensing Board proceedings, were held in abeyance for many months to accommodate settlement negotiations between Oklahoma and Sequoyah Fuels. Those parties recently reached a settlement agreement and jointly sought dismissal of all pending litigation. The settlement does not bind the NRC in any way, and allows our agency to take any regulatory steps it deems necessary or appropriate.
The court of appeals issued an order dismissing the petitions for review.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Senator James M. Jeffords
January 11, 2005 The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 RE:
State of Oklahoma v. NRC, Nos. 04-9503 & 04-9523 (10th Cir., order issued Dec. 9, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
These petitions for review challenged a Commission adjudicatory decision holding that some waste at Sequoyah Fuels Corporations Oklahoma site qualifies as 11e(2) byproduct material, and should be regulated as such. These lawsuits, as well as related Licensing Board proceedings, were held in abeyance for many months to accommodate settlement negotiations between Oklahoma and Sequoyah Fuels. Those parties recently reached a settlement agreement and jointly sought dismissal of all pending litigation. The settlement does not bind the NRC in any way, and allows our agency to take any regulatory steps it deems necessary or appropriate.
The court of appeals issued an order dismissing the petitions for review.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Representative John D. Dingell
January 11, 2005 The Honorable Ralph M. Hall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 RE:
Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. NRC, No. 04-0109 (2d Cir.,
decided Oct. 14, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This lawsuit attacked a Commission decision rejecting petitioners intervention contentions in a license amendment proceeding. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut sought the amendment to effect changes to safety mechanisms with respect to fuel handling accidents at Millstone. An NRC licensing board, and the Commission itself, found petitioners contentions overly conclusory and not supported in fact or expert opinion. Although the board and the Commission found that petitioner had standing to intervene, they terminated the proceeding for lack of an admissible contention.
After briefing and oral argument, the court of appeals (Miner, Cabranes & Straub, JJ.) denied the petition for review. The court agreed that it was reasonable for the Commission to terminate the proceeding under NRC hearing rules where petitioner submitted no fact or expert opinion evidence to contravene Dominions analysis showing that any increased risk of offsite radiological exposure was well below federal regulatory allowances. In an unusual action, the court noted a change in the status of counsel for petitioner - she had been disbarred in Connecticut -- and directed petitioners counsel to apprise her clients of her changed status, as well as the means available to bring late-filed contentions.
Petitioner did not seek rehearing, and has until mid-January to seek Supreme Court review.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Representative Rick Boucher
January 11, 2005 The Honorable David L. Hobson, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 RE:
Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. NRC, No. 04-0109 (2d Cir.,
decided Oct. 14, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This lawsuit attacked a Commission decision rejecting petitioners intervention contentions in a license amendment proceeding. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut sought the amendment to effect changes to safety mechanisms with respect to fuel handling accidents at Millstone. An NRC licensing board, and the Commission itself, found petitioners contentions overly conclusory and not supported in fact or expert opinion. Although the board and the Commission found that petitioner had standing to intervene, they terminated the proceeding for lack of an admissible contention.
After briefing and oral argument, the court of appeals (Miner, Cabranes & Straub, JJ.) denied the petition for review. The court agreed that it was reasonable for the Commission to terminate the proceeding under NRC hearing rules where petitioner submitted no fact or expert opinion evidence to contravene Dominions analysis showing that any increased risk of offsite radiological exposure was well below federal regulatory allowances. In an unusual action, the court noted a change in the status of counsel for petitioner - she had been disbarred in Connecticut -- and directed petitioners counsel to apprise her clients of her changed status, as well as the means available to bring late-filed contentions.
Petitioner did not seek rehearing, and has until mid-January to seek Supreme Court review.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Representative Peter J. Visclosky
January 11, 2005 The Honorable Pete Domenici, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 RE:
Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. NRC, No. 04-0109 (2d Cir.,
decided Oct. 14, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This lawsuit attacked a Commission decision rejecting petitioners intervention contentions in a license amendment proceeding. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut sought the amendment to effect changes to safety mechanisms with respect to fuel handling accidents at Millstone. An NRC licensing board, and the Commission itself, found petitioners contentions overly conclusory and not supported in fact or expert opinion. Although the board and the Commission found that petitioner had standing to intervene, they terminated the proceeding for lack of an admissible contention.
After briefing and oral argument, the court of appeals (Miner, Cabranes & Straub, JJ.) denied the petition for review. The court agreed that it was reasonable for the Commission to terminate the proceeding under NRC hearing rules where petitioner submitted no fact or expert opinion evidence to contravene Dominions analysis showing that any increased risk of offsite radiological exposure was well below federal regulatory allowances. In an unusual action, the court noted a change in the status of counsel for petitioner - she had been disbarred in Connecticut -- and directed petitioners counsel to apprise her clients of her changed status, as well as the means available to bring late-filed contentions.
Petitioner did not seek rehearing, and has until mid-January to seek Supreme Court review.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Senator Harry Reid
January 11, 2005 The Honorable George V. Voinovich, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 RE:
Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. NRC, No. 04-0109 (2d Cir.,
decided Oct. 14, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This lawsuit attacked a Commission decision rejecting petitioners intervention contentions in a license amendment proceeding. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut sought the amendment to effect changes to safety mechanisms with respect to fuel handling accidents at Millstone. An NRC licensing board, and the Commission itself, found petitioners contentions overly conclusory and not supported in fact or expert opinion. Although the board and the Commission found that petitioner had standing to intervene, they terminated the proceeding for lack of an admissible contention.
After briefing and oral argument, the court of appeals (Miner, Cabranes & Straub, JJ.) denied the petition for review. The court agreed that it was reasonable for the Commission to terminate the proceeding under NRC hearing rules where petitioner submitted no fact or expert opinion evidence to contravene Dominions analysis showing that any increased risk of offsite radiological exposure was well below federal regulatory allowances. In an unusual action, the court noted a change in the status of counsel for petitioner - she had been disbarred in Connecticut -- and directed petitioners counsel to apprise her clients of her changed status, as well as the means available to bring late-filed contentions.
Petitioner did not seek rehearing, and has until mid-January to seek Supreme Court review.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Representative Thomas R. Carper
January 11, 2005 The Honorable James M. Inhofe, Chairman Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 RE:
Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. NRC, No. 04-0109 (2d Cir.,
decided Oct. 14, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This lawsuit attacked a Commission decision rejecting petitioners intervention contentions in a license amendment proceeding. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut sought the amendment to effect changes to safety mechanisms with respect to fuel handling accidents at Millstone. An NRC licensing board, and the Commission itself, found petitioners contentions overly conclusory and not supported in fact or expert opinion. Although the board and the Commission found that petitioner had standing to intervene, they terminated the proceeding for lack of an admissible contention.
After briefing and oral argument, the court of appeals (Miner, Cabranes & Straub, JJ.) denied the petition for review. The court agreed that it was reasonable for the Commission to terminate the proceeding under NRC hearing rules where petitioner submitted no fact or expert opinion evidence to contravene Dominions analysis showing that any increased risk of offsite radiological exposure was well below federal regulatory allowances. In an unusual action, the court noted a change in the status of counsel for petitioner - she had been disbarred in Connecticut -- and directed petitioners counsel to apprise her clients of her changed status, as well as the means available to bring late-filed contentions.
Petitioner did not seek rehearing, and has until mid-January to seek Supreme Court review.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Senator James M. Jeffords
January 11, 2005 The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 RE:
Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. NRC, No. 04-0109 (2d Cir.,
decided Oct. 14, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This lawsuit attacked a Commission decision rejecting petitioners intervention contentions in a license amendment proceeding. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut sought the amendment to effect changes to safety mechanisms with respect to fuel handling accidents at Millstone. An NRC licensing board, and the Commission itself, found petitioners contentions overly conclusory and not supported in fact or expert opinion. Although the board and the Commission found that petitioner had standing to intervene, they terminated the proceeding for lack of an admissible contention.
After briefing and oral argument, the court of appeals (Miner, Cabranes & Straub, JJ.) denied the petition for review. The court agreed that it was reasonable for the Commission to terminate the proceeding under NRC hearing rules where petitioner submitted no fact or expert opinion evidence to contravene Dominions analysis showing that any increased risk of offsite radiological exposure was well below federal regulatory allowances. In an unusual action, the court noted a change in the status of counsel for petitioner - she had been disbarred in Connecticut -- and directed petitioners counsel to apprise her clients of her changed status, as well as the means available to bring late-filed contentions.
Petitioner did not seek rehearing, and has until mid-January to seek Supreme Court review.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Representative John D. Dingell
January 11, 2005 The Honorable Ralph M. Hall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 RE:
Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. NRC, No. 04-3577 (2d Cir.,
decided Oct. 6, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Petitioner filed this lawsuit to challenge a Commission decision to apply its new Part 2 to the Millstone license renewal proceeding. The Commission turned down petitioners original petition seeking to apply the old Part 2 on the ground that petitioner filed it before the license renewal adjudicatory proceeding had actually started. Petitioner later sought to intervene in the proceeding when it was officially noticed, but petitioner simultaneously went to the court of appeals to argue that the old Part 2 should apply.
Granting our motion to dismiss, the court of appeals (Miner, Cabranes & Miner, JJ.) ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Commissions handling of petitioners premature challenge to the NRCs choice of hearing procedures. Petitioner did not seek rehearing, and has until early January to seek Supreme Court review.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Representative Rick Boucher
January 11, 2005 The Honorable David L. Hobson, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 RE:
Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. NRC, No. 04-3577 (2d Cir.,
decided Oct. 6, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Petitioner filed this lawsuit to challenge a Commission decision to apply its new Part 2 to the Millstone license renewal proceeding. The Commission turned down petitioners original petition seeking to apply the old Part 2 on the ground that petitioner filed it before the license renewal adjudicatory proceeding had actually started. Petitioner later sought to intervene in the proceeding when it was officially noticed, but petitioner simultaneously went to the court of appeals to argue that the old Part 2 should apply.
Granting our motion to dismiss, the court of appeals (Miner, Cabranes & Miner, JJ.) ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Commissions handling of petitioners premature challenge to the NRCs choice of hearing procedures. Petitioner did not seek rehearing, and has until early January to seek Supreme Court review.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Representative Peter J. Visclosky
January 11, 2005 The Honorable Pete Domenici, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 RE:
Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. NRC, No. 04-3577 (2d Cir.,
decided Oct. 6, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Petitioner filed this lawsuit to challenge a Commission decision to apply its new Part 2 to the Millstone license renewal proceeding. The Commission turned down petitioners original petition seeking to apply the old Part 2 on the ground that petitioner filed it before the license renewal adjudicatory proceeding had actually started. Petitioner later sought to intervene in the proceeding when it was officially noticed, but petitioner simultaneously went to the court of appeals to argue that the old Part 2 should apply.
Granting our motion to dismiss, the court of appeals (Miner, Cabranes & Miner, JJ.) ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Commissions handling of petitioners premature challenge to the NRCs choice of hearing procedures. Petitioner did not seek rehearing, and has until early January to seek Supreme Court review.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Senator Harry Reid
January 11, 2005 The Honorable George V. Voinovich, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 RE:
Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. NRC, No. 04-3577 (2d Cir.,
decided Oct. 6, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Petitioner filed this lawsuit to challenge a Commission decision to apply its new Part 2 to the Millstone license renewal proceeding. The Commission turned down petitioners original petition seeking to apply the old Part 2 on the ground that petitioner filed it before the license renewal adjudicatory proceeding had actually started. Petitioner later sought to intervene in the proceeding when it was officially noticed, but petitioner simultaneously went to the court of appeals to argue that the old Part 2 should apply.
Granting our motion to dismiss, the court of appeals (Miner, Cabranes & Miner, JJ.) ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Commissions handling of petitioners premature challenge to the NRCs choice of hearing procedures. Petitioner did not seek rehearing, and has until early January to seek Supreme Court review.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Representative Thomas R. Carper
January 11, 2005 The Honorable James M. Inhofe, Chairman Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 RE:
Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. NRC, No. 04-3577 (2d Cir.,
decided Oct. 6, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Petitioner filed this lawsuit to challenge a Commission decision to apply its new Part 2 to the Millstone license renewal proceeding. The Commission turned down petitioners original petition seeking to apply the old Part 2 on the ground that petitioner filed it before the license renewal adjudicatory proceeding had actually started. Petitioner later sought to intervene in the proceeding when it was officially noticed, but petitioner simultaneously went to the court of appeals to argue that the old Part 2 should apply.
Granting our motion to dismiss, the court of appeals (Miner, Cabranes & Miner, JJ.) ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Commissions handling of petitioners premature challenge to the NRCs choice of hearing procedures. Petitioner did not seek rehearing, and has until early January to seek Supreme Court review.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Senator James M. Jeffords
January 11, 2005 The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 RE:
Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. NRC, No. 04-3577 (2d Cir.,
decided Oct. 6, 2004)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Petitioner filed this lawsuit to challenge a Commission decision to apply its new Part 2 to the Millstone license renewal proceeding. The Commission turned down petitioners original petition seeking to apply the old Part 2 on the ground that petitioner filed it before the license renewal adjudicatory proceeding had actually started. Petitioner later sought to intervene in the proceeding when it was officially noticed, but petitioner simultaneously went to the court of appeals to argue that the old Part 2 should apply.
Granting our motion to dismiss, the court of appeals (Miner, Cabranes & Miner, JJ.) ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Commissions handling of petitioners premature challenge to the NRCs choice of hearing procedures. Petitioner did not seek rehearing, and has until early January to seek Supreme Court review.
Sincerely,
/RA/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc: Representative John D. Dingell