ML20037A729
| ML20037A729 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1967 |
| From: | Schur R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Ramey, Seaborg, Tape US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003260751 | |
| Download: ML20037A729 (2) | |
Text
-NG D
S' b Nf (3
so
-coJ V
.- y,m,/ ^
UNITED STATES y
Y ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION bdk Q
WASHINGTON. D.C.
E h'a D
OCT 4W
/.Q M
MEMORAUDUM FOR CHAIRMAN SEABORG CO:GISSIONER RAMEY C0:UISSIONER TAPE CO:UISSIONER JOHHSON
SUBJECT:
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW; IN THE MATTER OF FLORIDA POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY Paul Siegel, an intervenor in the captioned reactor licensing pro-ceeding, has filed a Petition for Review of the Co-d ssion's Me=orandus and Order of *ugust 4,1967, dealing with the question of destructive enemy actions. The Petition, which is dated September 28, 1967, was filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
As grounds for judicial relief, Mr. Siegel asserts that, by virtue of the Co cission's rulings respecting the " potential effect of, enemy sabotage and other forms of intentional ham" directed against the reactors, he was denied a hearing and an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses relative thereto, in violation of Section 169 of the Atomic Energy Act, Section 7(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. Ec further asserts that refusal by the Co=sission to consicer and require pro-tection against enemy sabotage and other forms of intentional harm violates Section 104(b) of the Atomic Energy Act and the other sections of the Act requiring the Co= mission to promote the co==on defense and security and protect the health and safety of the public.
i Mr. Siegel asks that the Co= mission: (1) be required to grant him a hearing ofi the =atters in question; (2) be required itself to investigate and consider the foregoing catters; and (3) be required to impose on Jie applicant "any regulatory conditions within ita jurisdiction reasonably necessary to protect the public against the dsC'd t);t, J r of Reg,
(
Jate U'lb 7 j
ime. # N' jd
/
800326025.l
(3 D,
n TO The Co==ission g 4g effcets of sabotago and other form of intentional harm directed at.;ainst the reactors before issuing pnuits for their construction".
Finally, F.r. Siegel asks that the provicional construction pcmits previously issued be set aside pending co=pliance with the stops set forth above. The last-=entioned, upg ars ta be a request for
=
ulticate judicial relief and not a request for a present judicial stay of the permits.
Secronsibility for representing the interests of the Government in this judicial review proceeding rests, by statute, with the Attorney General. The A2C also has a statutory ric,ht to appear as a party in the proceeding. We have informally discussed the =atter of re-presentation with the Department of Justice and are advised that, where the Department and the affected agency are not in disagreement, it has been the practice to sub=1t a joint brief to the court on behalf of the Govern =ent and that, no mally, the agency would have pri=ary responsibility for presenting the Govern:mnt's position to the court. In the latter regard, responsibility for the appeal
- within tnis office has been assigned to the Assistant General Counsel (Solicitor).
We do not presently know whether the other intervenor in this pro-ceeding, Seadade ' Industries, Inc., will join Mr. Siegel in his request for judicial review. Presu= ably, the applicant will vish to submit its own views to the court through briefs and oral argument.
This office vill keep the Co= mission advised of further significant developments and vill advise the Joint Co==ittee of the subject judicial appeal.
/S/
Bertram H. Schur Acting General Counsel Director of Regulation (2),,x'#-
Secretary (2) cc:
s,a-
-, ~
,..a
--