ML19206B333
| ML19206B333 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane, 07801933  |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1978 |
| From: | Eilperin S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19206B334 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905090221 | |
| Download: ML19206B333 (2) | |
Text
I a
gaa age
/o g<'o UNITED STATES
/
C.,s._ g,' %
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
7 w$.<* #f.
=
C WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
-?
twl:
s s-
_e w
October 24, 1973 MEORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Hendrie Cc=missioner Gilinsky Cc==issioner Kennedy Cc=missioner Eradford Cc=.issioner Ahear -
m FROM:
Stephen F.
' :r 1. Solicitor p
SUBJECT:
KEPFORD V. NRC (D.C. CIR. No. 78-1933)
Dr. Chauncey Kepford has again sued the Cennission in the D.C.
Circuit, this time for review of ALAB-480, an Appeal Ecard decision not reviewed by the Con =1ssion which estab-lishes the Perkins record as the base case for deciding the radon release issue in 17 pending individual licensing prcceedings now before the Appeal Board.
See SECY-A-78-63 Dr. Kepford seeks judicial review of ALAB-480 cnly insofar as the decision affects the Three Mile Island proceeding.
He argues that the court should reverse ALAB 480 because it permits the continued operation of TMI-2 pending final resolution of the raden cuestion, and because it places additional procedural burdens on the intervencrs.1 Since the D.C.
Circuit has already upheld the Ccanissicn's refusal to stay operation of TMI-2, pending completion of administrative review of the operating license,.;e think his argument will get short shrift.
Keeford v.
NRC, D.C.
Circuit No. 73-1160 (March 8, 1978).
See also 7 SRC 307 (1978).
Additionally, we expect to argue that ALAE 480 is 1
Although the petition does not go into detail on the procedural =atter, Dr. Kepford in submissions to the Appeal Board has objected, among other things, to the use of the Perkins record on the ground that the Licensing Ecard made several evidentiary errors.
While Dr. Kepford is free to introduce new evidence in rebuttal, he apparently believes this is an unfair burden.
7/
7
^
. w (Q
L 1
E.
' ec Slaggie, GC 63--3222 7905000C12l Tf
>+
g
% m/
1 9
w i+
8 s
The Commission 2
October 24, 1978 an interlocutory procedural ruling not subject to judicial review at this time.
The D.C.
Circuit and other courts of appeals have often held that judicial review of procedural rulings should be deferred until the conclusion of the administrative proceedings so as not to burden the courts with a series of minor appeals.
cc:
OPE SECY e
- em
- t.,
LJU