ML20044D466
| ML20044D466 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/19/1993 |
| 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, HOUSE OF REP., ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS, SENATE, APPROPRIATIONS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9305190193 | |
| Download: ML20044D466 (5) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
UNITED STATES i
D
.nE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
%.V[ !
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555
- cril 19, 1993 The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510 Re:
American Public Power Association v. NRC, No. 92-1061 (D.C. Cir.,
decided April 13, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Petitioners challenged the NRC's License Renewal Rule insofar as it does not require antitrust review at license renewal.
Petitioners argued that the
" plain meaning" of section 105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act -- providing for antitrust review of license " applications" -- calls for antitrust review of license renewal applications. On April 13 the court of appeals (Silberman, D.
Ginsburg & Williams, JJ) is, sued an opinion rejecting petitioners' position.
The court found that the statutory language was not "all that clear" (Slip op. at 7).
In the license renewal rulemaking the NRC had relied heavily on legislative history that appeared to rule out antitrust review in license renewal proceedings.
The court ruled that the legislative history was not itself " dispositive," but concluded that the Commission's statutory construction nonetheless was " permissible," in view of "the imprecision in the statutory language and the Commission's plausible reliance" on the legislative history (Slip op. at 7-8).
The court also rejected petitioners' complex statutory argument that at the least commercial plants licensed under section 104b ("research and development" reactors) ought to be subject to antitrust review at license renewal. The court accepted our argument that the Atomic Energy Act contains i
l a " grandfather clause" (section 102(b)) offectively imunizing section 104b S_e.g Slip op at plants from antitrust review absent unusual circumstances.
e 8-9.
j Finally, the court rejected petitioners' " policy arguments" as a ground for upsetting the NRC's approach. The court stated that it " suppose [d] the NRC could have accepted petitioners' arguments and determined to conduct antitrust review as a matter of discretion, but we cannot say that the Commission's construction of the statute is unreasonable" (Slip op. at 9).
l Sincerely, l
(V? h
~ 14
'F. Cordes, Jr.
v e icitor cc: The Honorable Mark O. Hatfield 9305190193 930419 PDR ORG NRCC
)(f
, [f
/
o UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,, f g
WASmNG TON, D. C. 20555 y
/a 1pril 19, 1993 The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman Subcomittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appr7 tiations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 Re:
Aaerican Public Power Association v. NRC, No. 92-1061 (D.C. Cir.,
decided April 13, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Petitioners challenged the NRC's License Renewal Rule insofar as it does not require antitrust review at license renewal.
Petitioners argued that the
" plain meaning" of section 105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act -- providing for antitrust review of license " applications" -- calls for antitrust review of license renewal applications. On April 13 the court of appeals (Silberman, D.
Ginsburg & Williams, JJ) igued an opinion rejecting petitioners' position.
The court found that the statutory language was not "all that clear" (Slip op. at 7).
In the license renewal rulemaking the NRC had relied heavily on legislative history that appeared to rule out antitrust review in license renewal proceedings. The court ruled that the legislative history was not itself " dispositive," but concluded that the Comission's statutory construction nonetheless was " permissible," in view of "the imprecision in the statutory language and the Comission's plausible reliance" on the legislative history (Slip op. at 7-8).
The court also rejected petitioners' complex statutory argument that at the least comercial plants licensed under section 104b ("research and -
development" reactors) ought to be subject to antitrust review at license renewal.
The court accepted our argument that the Atomic Energy Act contains a " grandfather clause" (section 102(b)) effectively imunizing section 104b plants from antitrust review absent unusual circumstances. See Slip op. at 8-9.
Finally, the court rejected petitioners' " policy arguments" as a ground for upsetting the NRC's approach. The court stated that it " suppose [d] the NRC could have accepted petitioners' arguments and determined to conduct antitrust review as a matter of discretion, but we cannot say that the Comission's construction of the statute is unreasonable" (Slip op. at 9).
Sincerely, 4
nF.) ordes, Jr.
olicitor i
cc: The Honorable John T. Myers
[
'o UNITED STATES
~, '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,[~3w
,j WASMNGTON, D. C. 20555 k...L
,/
April 19, 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:
American Public Power Association v. NRC, No. 92-1061 (D.C. Cir.,
decided April 13, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Petitioners challenged the NRC's License Renewal Rule insofar as it does not require antitrust review at license renewal.
Petitioners argued that the
" plain meaning" of section 105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act -- providing for antitrust review of license ' applications" -- calls for antitrust review of license renewal applications. On April 13 the court of appeals (Silberman, D.
Ginsburg & Williams, JJ) issued an opir. ion rejecting petitioners
- position.
The court found that the statutory language was not "all that clear" (Slip op. at 7).
In the license renewal rulemaking the NRC had relied heavily on legislative history that appeared to rule out antitrust review in. license renewal proceedings.
The court ruled that the legislative history was not itself " dispositive," but concluded that the Comission's statutory construction nonetheless was " permissible," in view of "the imprecision in the statutory language and the Comission's plausible reliance" on the legislative history (Slip op. at 7-8).
The court also rejected petitioners' complex statutory argument that at the least comercial plants licensed under section 104b ("research and development" reactors) ought to be subject to antitrust review at license renewal.
The court accepted our argument that the Atomic Energy Act contains a " grandfather clause" (section 102(b)) effectively imunizing section 104b plants from antitrust review absent unusual circumstances. En Slip op, at 8-9.
Finally, the court rejected petitioners' " policy arguments" as a ground for upsetting the NRC's approach.
The court stated that it " suppose [d] the NRC could have accepted petitioners' arguments and determined to conduct antitrust review as a matter of discretion, but we cannot say that the Comission's construction of the statute is unreasonable" (Slip op. at 9).
Sincerely, l
/
b hn F. Cordes, Jr.
/ Solicitor cc:
The Honorable Barbara Vucanovich
~
^./
o.
UNITED STATES
~4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
(
h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k..... f
/
April 19, 1993 The Honorable Philip Sharp, Chairman Subcomittee on Energy and Power Comittee on Energy and Comerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 Re:
American Public Power Association v. NRC, No. 92-1061 (D.C. Cir.,
decided April 13, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Petitioners challenged the NRC's License Renewal Rule insofar as it does-not require antitrust review at license renewal.
Petitioners argued that the
" plain meaning" of section 105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act -- providing for antitrust review of license " applications" -- calls for antitrust review of license renewal applications. On April 13 the court of appeals (Silberman, D.
Ginsburg & Williams, JJ) issued an opinion rejecting petitioners' position.
The court found that the statutory language was not "all that clear" (Slip op. at 7).
In the~ license renewal rulemaking the NRC had relied heavily on legislative history that appeared to rule out antitrust review in_ license renewal proceedings.
The court ruled that the legislative history was not itself " dispositive," but concluded that the Comission's statutory construction nonetheless was " permissible," in view of "the imprecision in the statutory language and the Comission's plausible reliance" on the legislative history (Slip op. at 7-8).
The court also rejected petitioners' complex statutory argument that at the least comercial plants licensed under section 104b ("research'and development" reactors) ought to be subject to antitrust review at license renewal. The court accepted our argument that the Atomic Energy Act contains a " grandfather clause" (section 102(b)) effectively imunizing section 104b plants from antitrust review absent unusual circumstances. Egg Slip op. at 8-9.
Finally, the court rejected petitioners' " policy arguments" as a ground for upsetting the NRC's approach. The court stated that it " suppose [d] the NRC could have accepted petitioners' arguments and 4termined to conduct antitrust review as a matter of discretion, but we cannot say that the Comission't construction of the statute is unreasonable" (Slip op. at 9).
S
- erely,
,F42 dnF.Cordes,Jr.
folicitor cc: The Honorable Michael Bilirakis
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
f
,E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k..... f April 19, 1993 The Honorable Joseph T. Lieberman, Chairman Subcomittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510 Re:
American Public Power Association v. NRC, No. 92-1061 (D.C. Cir.,
decided April 13, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Petitioners challenged the NRC's License Renewal Rule insofar as it does not require antitrust review at license renewal.
Petitioners argued that the
" plain meaning" of section 105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act -- providing for antitrust review of license " applications" -- calls for antitrust review of license renewal applications.
On April 13 the court of appeals (Silberman, D.
Ginsburg & Williams, JJ) issued an opinion rejecting petitioners' positiot The court found that the statutory language was not "all that clear" (Slip op, at 7).
In the license renewal rulemaking the NRC had relied heavily on legislative history that appeared to rule out intitrust review in license renewal proceedings.
The court ruled that the legislative history was not itself " dispositive," but concluded that the Comission's statutory construction c.anetheless was " permissible," in view of "the imprecision in the statutory language and the Comission's plausible reliance" on the legislative history (Slip op. at 7-8).
The court also rejected petitioners' complex statutory argument that at the least comercial plants licensed under section 104b ("research and development" reactors) ought to be subject to antitrust review at license renewal.
The court accepted our argument that the Atomic Energy Act contains a " grandfather clause" (section 102(b)) effectively imunizing section 104b plants from antitrust review absent unusual circumstances. Sgg Slip op. at 8-9.
Finally, the court rejected petitioners' " policy arguments" as a ground for upsetting the NRC's approach. The court stated that it " suppose [d] the NRC could have accepted petitioners' arguments and determined to conduct antitrust review as a matter of discretion, but we cannot say that the Comission's construction of the statute is unreasonable" (Slip op. at 9).
Sincerely, OA f /cJi ohn F. Cordes, Jr.
Selicitor j
cc:
The Honorable Alan K. Simpson 1
v e
CONGRESSIONAL CORAESPONDENCE SYSTEX DOCUMENT PREPARATION CHECKLIST This checklist is be submitted with each document (or group of Gs/As) sent for e ing into the CCS.7, h 42 g[fggktote,v y
r Ua 4 DV f Lalb /2
" " ' ~,,
I.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT (5)J r
TTPE or coCcKrarr Correspondense rearia em (Qt/As) 2.
1 3.
DOCUKENT CONTROL Sensitive (WRC Only)
/ Mon-sensitive 4.
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE and SUBCCXXITTEES (if applicable)
Congressional Committee subecamittee 5.
SUBJECT CODES (a)
(b)
(C) 6.
SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS (a) 5520 (document name (b)
Scan.
(c)
Atlachments (d)
Rakey (e) other 7.
SYSTEM LOG DATER O
c (a)
Date oCA sent document to CCS (b)
Date ces receives; document (c)
Dats returned to OCA for additional information (d)
Data resubmitted by-CCA to CCS
~
(e)
Data entered into CCS by
. (f)
Date OCA notified that document is in CCS l
s.
eexxENT:
130070
- - -