ML20035G807
| ML20035G807 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/09/1993 |
| From: | Cordes J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Bevill T, Jeanne Johnston, Lehman R, Lieberman J, Sharp P HOUSE OF REP., HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE, SENATE, APPROPRIATIONS, SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9304300044 | |
| Download: ML20035G807 (5) | |
Text
,y; g>R #8 Cg
/
'o UNITED STATES o
~
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
{
i WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 l
March 9, 1993 The Honorable Joseph T. Lieberman, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510 Re:
Burton v. NRC, No. 4:CV92-3217 (D. Neb., decided-Feb. 24, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This lawsuit challenged NRC regulations on low-level radioactive waste issued some years ago.
Plaintiffs raised constitutional and statutory objections to the regulations.
They 1
argued principally the NRC rules failed to address an adequate i
(
range of disposal options.
The NRC sought summary judgment both on jurisdictional and merits grounds.
On February 24 the district court (Warren K.
Urbom, J.) issued a decision dismissing the lawsuit in its entirety.
The court held that most of plaintiffs' claims, while styled " constitutional," actually were garden-variety arguments that NRC regulations were inconsistent with various statutory provisions, and therefore could not be pursued in the district court.
The proper means for attacking an NRC regulation, held the court, was " appropriate administrative procedures,"
presumably followed by review in the court of appeals.
The court did find that one of plaintiffs' arguments -- the contention that an NRC regulation improperly requires either state or federal ownership of land where low-level waste is disposed -- legitimately did arise under the constitution, but could not be pursued here because of a lack of standing to sue.
The court explained that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate how 4
they "are injured by this land ownership requirement."
We will keep you informed of any significant developments in this case.
Sincerely, f
N if.
ohn F.
Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc:
The Honorable Alan K. Simpson
\\
Dk Oko44 9M9 7I l n
pon
~
~
l e
1.
- a ascoq
/
jo UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
n f
{
E WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 k
,e#
g Fhrdi 9,1993 The Honorable Philip Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power i
Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 Re:
Burton v.
NRC, No. 4:CV92-3217 (D. Neb., decided Feb. 24, 1993)
Dear Mr Chairman:
}
This lawsuit challenged NRC regulations on low-level radioactive waste issued some years ago.
Plaintiffs raised l
constitutional and statutory objections to the regulations.
They 5
argued principally the NRC rules failed to address an adequate range of disposal options.
The NRC sought summary judgment both on jurisdictional and l
merits grounds.
On February 24 the district court (Warren K.
i Urbom, J.) issued a decision dismissing the' lawsuit in its-i entirety.
The court held that most of plaintiffs' claims, while styled " constitutional," actually were garden-variety arguments that NRC regulations were inconsistent with.various statutory provisions, and therefore could not be pursued.inithe district court.
The proper means for attacking an NRC regulation, held the court, was " appropriate administrative procedures,"
presumably followed by review in the court of appeals.
The court did find that one of plaintiffs' arguments -- the
'i contention that an NRC regulation improperly requires either state or federal ownership of land where low-level: waste is I
disposed -- legitimately did arise under the constitution, but could not be pursued here because of a lack of standing to sue.
The court explained that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate how j
they "are injured by this land ownership requirement."
t we will keep you informed of any significant developments in 1
this case.
l Sincerely, b/
John F. Cordes, Jr.
i olicitor l
cc:
The Honorable Michael Bilirakis
[pe recg*'q, UNITED STATES l ,,, 7 'g NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION w AswiNo ton. o. c. rosss l
t March 9, 1993 The Honorable Richard H. Lehman, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Committee on Natural Resources United States House of Representatives Washington, D.
C.
20515 Re:
Burton v.
NRC, No. 4:CV92-3217 (D. Neb., decided Feb. 24, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This lawsuit challenged NRC regulations on low-level radioactive waste issued some years ago.
Plaintiffs raised constitutional and statutory objections to the regulations.
They argued principally the NRC rules failed to address an adequate range of disposal options.
The NRC sought summary judgment both on jurisdictional and merits grounds.
On February 24 the district court (Warren K.
Urbom, J.) issued a decision dismissing the lawsuit in its entirety.
The court held that most of plaintiffs' claims, while styled " constitutional," actually were garden-variety arguments that NRC regulations were inconsistent with various statutory provisions, and therefore could not be pursued in the district court.
The proper means for attacking an NRC regulation, held the court, was " appropriate administrative procedures,"
presumably followed by review in the court of appeals.
The court did find that one of plaintiffs' arguments -- the contention that an NRC regulation improperly requires either state or federal ownership of land where low-level waste is disposed -- legitimately did arise under the constitution, but could not be pursued here because of a lack of standing to sue.
The court explained that plaintif fs had failed to demonstrate how they "are injured by this land ownership requirement."
We will keep you informed of any significant developments in this case.
Sincerely, s'
,l John F.
Cordes, Jr.
j/ Solicitor cc:
The Honorable Barbara Vucanovich
!(,
~,jo, UNITED STATES 7,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{,
E*
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%..... J' March 9, 1993 The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 Re:
Burton v.
NRC, No. 4:CV92-3217 (D. Neb., decided Feb. 24, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This lawsuit challenged NRC regulations on low-level radioactive waste issued some years ago.
Plaintiffs raised constitutional and statutory objections to the regulations.
They argued principally the NRC rules failed to address an adequate range of disposal options.
The NRC sought summary judgment both on jurisdictional and merits grounds.
On February 24 the district court (Warren K.
Urbom, J.) issued a decision dismissing the lawsuit in its entirety.
The court held that most of plaintiffs' claims, while styled " constitutional," actually were garden-variety arguments.
that NRC regulations were inconsistent with various statutory provisions, and therefore could not be pursued in the district court.
The proper means for attacking an NRC' regulation, held the court, was " appropriate administrative procedures,"
presumably followed by review in the court of appeals.
The court did find that one of plaintiffs' arguments -- the l
contention that an NRC regulation improperly requires either state or federal ownership of land where low-level waste is disposed -- legitimately did arise under the constitution, but could not be pursued here because of a lack of standing to sue.
The court explained that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate how they "are injured by this land ownership requirement."
We will keep you informed of any significant developments in this case.
Sincerely, j
4 n F. Cordes, J j
licitor j
i cc:
The Honorable John T. Myers l
1
- N'
[ga uc,*'o o
UNITED STATES
!")m NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
g, g
WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555 o
March 9, 1993 i
The Honorable J.
Bennett Johnston, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate
[
Washington, D.C.
20510 Re:
Burton v. NRC, No. 4:CV92-3217 (D. Neb., decided Feb. 24, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This lawsuit challenged NRC regulations on low-lhvel radioactive vaste issued some years ago.
Plaintiffs raised constitutional and statutory objections to the regulations.
They_
argued principally the NRC rules failed to address an adequate range of disposal options.
The NRC sought summary judgment both on jurisdictional and merits grounds.
On February 24 the district' court (Warren K.
Urbom, J.) issued a decision dismissing the lawsuit in its.
entirety.
The court held that most of plaintiffs' claims, while styled " constitutional," actually were garden-variety arguments that NRC regulations were inconsistent with various statutory provisions, and therefore could not be pursued in the district court.
The proper means for attacking an NRC regulation, held the court, was " appropriate administrative procedures,"
presumably followed by review in the court of appeals.
t The court did find that one of plaintiffs' arguments -- the contention that an NRC regulation improperly requires either state or federal ownership of land where low-level waste is disposed -- legitimately did arise under the constitution, but could not be pursued here because of a lack of standing to sue.
The court explained that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate how they "are injured by this land ownership requirement."
We will keep you informed of any significant developments in this case.
Sincerely, bb
/m f k )
/
ohn F. Cordes, Jr.
/
Solicitor cc:
The Honorable Mark O.
Hatfield
CCNGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENCE SYSTEK DOCUMENT PREPA3tATION CHECKLIST This checklist is be submitted with each document (or group of f
Qs/As) sent for.
ing into the CCS.
g c;G)s 1.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT (S) [21h 7I 0/M/,
42 K MTR 2.
TT7r OF--
V Correspondansen Fearingsw(QS/Kah 3.
DOCUMENT CONTROL 8ensitive (NRC Only)
Non-Sensitive 4.
CCNGRESSIDEAL COMMITTEE and SUBCCXXITTEES (if applicable)
Congressional Committee Subcommittee 5.
SUBJECT CODES (a)
(b)
(C) 6.
SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS (a) 5820 (document naza (b)
Scan..
(c)
Attachmenta (4)
Rakay (e) other 7.
SYSTEX LOG DATES d O!Nd Date OCE sent document to CCS (a)
(b)
Data CCS. rassivame documaat (c)
Data returned to OCA for additional information (d) oeonc -
Data resubmitted by-OCK to CCS
~
- = u v V J t)
(a)
Data entered into CCS by (f)
Date OCK notified that docunent is in CCS 8.
CCXMENTS
.