ML20044A662
| ML20044A662 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1990 |
| From: | Cordes J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Bevill T, Graham B, Jeanne Johnston, Sharp P, Udall M HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE, HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS, SENATE, APPROPRIATIONS, SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9007020025 | |
| Download: ML20044A662 (5) | |
Text
- -..---.... -
[e m%,j UNITED STATES NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION i\\
{,
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
.f May 17, 1990 B
The Honorable Bob Graham, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment & Public works United States Senate m
Washington, D.C.
20510 Re:
Shoreham-Wadina River Central School District. et al.
- v. NRC, No. 90-1241 (D.C. Cir.)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is the second lawsuit brought by the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District and the Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy against the NRC for failure to perform an environmental review of the consequences of decommissioning the Shoreham plant.
The D.C.
Circuit dismissed raetitioners ' first suit for lack of a reviewable final order.
Petitioners have now come back to the D.C.
Circuit claiming that the NRC improperly has allowed Shoreham's owners an exemption from full insurance coverage and is about to relax Shoreham's emergency prepardness and physical security requirements, without preparing the environmental impact statement required by NEPA.
Petitioners sought an emergency stay of the NRC's actions.
Ye argued primarily that petitioners had shown no irreparable injury and that the NRC had not yet authorized any " irreversible" step toward decommissioning that might trigger the agency's NEPA duties.
On May 11, the court denied petitioners' request for a stay and denied their motion for an expedited appeal.
Petitioners have informed us that they will seek a stay before the Supreme Court.
We will keep you advised of pertinent developments in this case.
Sincerely,
\\
Nm Mk,
[JbnnF. Cordes, Jr.
olicitor cc:
The Honorable Alan K.
Simpson S
GC 6 anscht*
,\\
.1 o
u POR
- s. j O
, i s'n i I. !
I' [y[
LN _ '
( e-M. \\
UNITED STATES
^,;
. [
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
- E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 2
% *....,P' May 17, 1990-1 i
'The Honorable Philip Sharp, Chairman Subcomnittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington,-D.C.
20515 Re:
Shoreham-Wadina River Central School District. et al.
4
- v. NRC, No. 90-1241 (D.C. Cir.)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This_is the second lawsuit brought by the Shoreham-Wading River s
Central School District and the Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy against the NRC for failure to perform an environmental review of the consequences of decommissioning the Shoreham plant.
The D.C.
Circuit dismissed petitioners' first i
suit for lack of a, reviewable final order.
Petitioners have now come back to the D.C.
Circuit claiming that the NRC improperly has allowed Shoreham's owners an exemption from full insurance coverage and is about to relax Shoreham's emergency prepardness and physical security requirements, without preparing the environmental impact statement required by NEPA.
Petitioners ~
sought an emergency stay _of the NRC's actions.
We argued s
primarily that petitioners had shown no irreparable injury and that the NRC had not yet authorized any " irreversible" step-toward decommissioning that might trigger the agency's NEPA duties.
On May 11, the court denied petitioners' request for a stay and denied their motion for an_ expedited appeal.
Petitioners have informed us that they will-seek a' stay before the Supreme Court.
We will keep you advised of pertinent developments in this case.
\\
Sincerely, d
g hn F.
Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc:
The Honorable Carlos J. Moorhead t.
t
's
'o,,.
UNITED STATES f"
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
'(
- a W ASHINGTON, D. C, 2CliS5 S
p
- ...+
Miy 17, 1990 V
f\\
I 3,
,t
., = <
y v
'The Hbnorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
< United-States. House of Representatives s
Washington,-D.C.
20515 Re:'
Shoreham-Wadina River CentraLJ,chool District, et al.
- v. NRC, No. 90-1241 (D.C. Cir.)
Dear Mr. Ohairmani ic
'This is the second lassuit brought by the Shoreham-Wading River
- \\
Central School' District and the Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy against the NRC for failure to_ perform an environmental review of the consequences of decommissioning the Shoreham plant.
The D.C.
Circuit dismissed petitioners' first-suit for lack of a reviewable final order.
Petitioners have now I
come back to the D.C. Circuit claiming that the NRC improperly n-has allowed Shoreham's owners ah exemption from full insurance coverage and is about to relax Shoreham's emergency,prepardness and' physical' security requirements, without preparing the anvironmental~ impact statement required by NEPA.
Petitioners 1
sought an-Wergency stay of the NRC's actions.
We argued 4
primarily that petitioners had shown no irreparable injury and that the NRC had not yet authorized ~any " irreversible". step t
toward deccaunissioning that might crigger the agency's NEPA duties.
On-May_11, the court dehied petitioners' request for a stay and' denied their motion for an expedited appeal.
' Petitioners have informed us that they will seek a stay before the Supreme Court.
\\.
j We will keep you advised of pertinent developments in this case.
Sincerely, i
l e4( Jr.
n F.
C. es,
'licitor cc:
The Honorable James V.
Hansen k
h a.osy ei
'i \\
'. 0 @ C*o%[o,,
UNITED STATES g
a f. c / g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.E WASHINGTON D. C. 20555 a
\\.'..+ /
May 17, 1990 The Honorable J.
Bennett Johnston, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Dcvelopment Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510 Re:
Shoreham-Wadina River Central School District, et al.
v.
NRC, No. 90-1241 (D.C. Cir.)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
i This is the second lawsuit brought by the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District and the Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy against the NRC for failure to perform an environmental review of the consequences of decommissioning the Shoreham plant.
The D.C.
Circuit dismissed petitioners' first suit for lack of a reviewable final order.
Petitioners have now come back to the D.C.
Circuit claiming that the NRC improperly has allowed Shoreham's owners an exemption from full insurance coverage and is about to relax Shoreham's emergency prepardness and physical security requirements, without preparing the environmental impact statement required 1:y NEPA.
Petitioners sought an emergency stay of the NRC's actions.
We argued primarily that petitioners had shown no irreparable injury and that the NRC had not yet authorized any " irreversible" step toward decommissioning that might trigger the agency's NEPA duties.
On May 11, the court denied petitioners' request for a stay and denied their motion for an expedited appeal.
Petitioners have informed us that they will seek a stay before the Supreme Court.
We will keep you advised of pertinent developments in this case.
Sincerely, r
l' 4p//
p n F. Cofdet,'Dr.
yolicitor J'
cc:
The Honorable Mar < 0.
Hatfield
- --i-a-m.---
e
- M...,d o,,
UNITED STATES f
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g
- j E
%,k...*/
May 17, 1990 g
The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations
' United States House of Representatives
-Washington, D.C.
20515 Re:
Shoreham-Wadina River Central School District. et al.
- v. NRC, No. 90-1241 (D.C. Cir.)
k
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thi[EsthesecondlawsuitbroughtbytheShoreham-WadingRiver Central School District and the Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy against the NRC for failure to perform an environmental review of the consequences of decommissioning the Shoreham plant.
The D.C.
Circuit dismissed petitioners' -first suit for lack of a reviewable final order.
Petitioners have now come back'to the D.C. Circuit claiming that the NRC improperly has allowed Shoreham's owners an exemption from full insurance coverage and is about to relax Shoreham's emergency prepardness and physical security requirements, without preparing the environmental impact statement required by NEPA.
Petitioners sought an emergency stay of the NRC's actions.
We argued primarily that petitioners had shown.no irreparable injury and-that the NRC had not yet authorized-any " irreversible" step toward decommissioning that might. trigger the agency's NEPA duties.
On May 11, the court denied petitioners' request for a stay and denied their motion for an expedited appeal.
Petitioners have informed us that-they will seek a stay before the Supreme Court.
We will keep you aCvised of pertinent developments in this case.
Sincerely, V
,r',
n F.
Cordes, Jr.
6olicitor
~
cc:
The Honorable John T. Myers b
h A, h
{he t j.
i
.c>
y f7 gggggmR!an g g m py g gy7