ML20045F022
| ML20045F022 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Erwin |
| Issue date: | 08/11/1980 |
| From: | Malsch M NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038A409 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 SECY-A-80-117, NUDOCS 9307060326 | |
| Download: ML20045F022 (26) | |
Text
~
UNITID STAf t!5 NUC1. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
ADJUDICATORY ITEM August 11, '980 MCY-A-80-117 COMMISSIONER ACTION For:
The Ccmmissioners From:
Martin G.
Malsch, Deputy General Counsel Sub3ect:
EEARING IN MATTER CF. NFS ERWIN:
NRDC's MOTION FOR A STAY AND CTHER PENDING MATTERS Purrose:
To inform the Ccmmission of NRDC's stay request and other matters related to the NFS Erwin hearing and to provide reccmmended respcnses.
Discussion:
1.
NRDC's Recuest for a Stav Cn July 14, 1980 NP.DC petitioned the Ccmmission to stay the effectiveness of (1) its decision granting NRDC a legislative style hearing regarding the NFS Erwin license amendments, (2) the notice of that hearing which,provided no discovery or cross examination, and (3) the amendment to 10 CFR Part 2 incorporating the APA's military and foreign affairs function exception. ' NRDC ~re@2e'sted the _,
stay in order to maintain _.the s.tatus quo pending the D.C. Circuit's review of !TRC's NFS Erwin decisions. 1/
A copy of the petition is attached.
i i
l_ /
NRDC advised in its stay petition that it was preparing to pet: tic..,
for review.
On July 23, two petitions were filed with the 3.0.
l i
Circu:.t as we advised you by the Solicitor's memorandum of August.'
1980.
Ir.formatica in this re Ord w:s ddte.1 2/
i'.motnte with the F :tm cf !nktmation W
p t. C:...e..,
n,
- .. o,~ a _. _.
~
I l
l Nordlinger, OGC, 41465 i
l 9307060326 930317
-PDR FOIA t
i CILINSK92-436 PDR G (#y h p
6
~. _ _
Martin G.
Malsch Deputy General Counsel Attachments:
1.
NRDC petition 2.
Brook letter 7/14/80 Comissioners' concents should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. P.onday. Augus t 25, 1980.
Comission Staff Office coments, if any, should be submitted to the Comissioners NL' August 18, 1980, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it recuires additional time for analytical review anc corpent, the Ccrnissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when coments ca '
expected.
DISTRIBUTI0ft
-I Comissioners Commission Staff Ofifces i
Secretariat i
J l
r 4
2
. ~.
.,.,u ?.. #.:.. -
R...
r e;
2.t e..
...,c.m..e 2..
- t. ;
.. x.,
t.
e.
4 ~:...
.s
- e., -.
-'~ '..
r.e
, 4 t
2
- 3
., =
.m
.. ty....
.s,
..,...3._,.,
. s:.
..n.
.; 3
...,.a.
...,..,.,....z.
n
.. }., f.
. 5..
.. w.
e..
... r..
s w.
. 1,a..,.:Je:w9 2.pj-:,q. y,. t,
jf; g.'
1 e <.....
s a:M,... 4...,.
5._p,:
\\
.....Y... :.. s ~, ;
- a....
3 4...:.@ht,
.:,1. o.ldG;%p.,,U:g. yj?y
.4..
n;.,.%.u&
4
\\
. 3.4 W. k,; g%.?6 f,.s.fix
)... - 4.'*
3 ;
., c,.;%.:, &.
- d...:,=: n..~y..,
i m. w.,Jp. p f..
...c.... e.3
.m, m
..::q i y.
W::.:C L %,
's.x +y.. ~ y:,.,t. W
,b t ~. 4., - 7.)).3jy:
... ~.. ~....
....gr
...,.::,. i.
.s, 4
)
.,,.g..,
e.
......m.. ~...
- . p... w
,. c, u,.. ~.,
.,..~
,.n...
....a.,..,..
,..,.,.,... g.., J,..s.,.p. g %....
i
,. r..
g.@-
.:s1
,..., v.,...,.., s.
, -,.... u. ;
.. ES4;..,7,.16
. pg. % ' '
- q. m
.. 4,..s..... :
a ~.., s x..,..,..
% W. j,'sf..
.i.
r,1. x :.A...
m,....'?m.... %;JJ.b,%}$Q*."' *8. k *: '. $.&:. p&-.:
.y '.5'i5,5.s:
Wt $y+=, ?
8f.h4${4.kbk.e.3
.a A*:N
.,j
- w..t.
.m
. m. ~,..a.v.,..
.m...
u ___
g
~
A-
/ *l g
E/
~ COO N UNI ~'ED STATES OF AMERICA L4NNU BEFORE TEI NUCI. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L L-JUL"14 GB0 >
- l n M E N E.u w..
.O 3.RON-"s? ? X " ? ?. "4. N ro.r..
O!Se c.i.tht Sers:Tl fj T
p 4" * ]
k PROCEDURAL RULES FOR ADJUDIC'sTIONS INVOLVING CONDUCT OF MILITARY OR g
FOREIGN AEFAIRS FUNCTIONS b j g \\ *~
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Decke: No. 70-143-
)
SNM License No..124 NUC*.F.AR FUEL SERVICES, INC.
)
Erwin, Tennessee
)
)
- *= 6 *I. I. c aa..
=;envn 9 r* * *
- e m f %.N b - w
- - -~ si c *I.,
- m
- =cm,*-a-e s.16. t
- g s tw..Ma
."a w UL J I. 4.
. O p v V.".L O G U s./ w a S. a-v Ov erreC. vr,r_SS 0r r_* _ 2 s, NO. Cr_ Cr
_J EEARING AND Av?NDMENT TO PROV!DE EXCEPTIONI-TROM PROCEDURAL RULES FCR ADJUD~ CATIONS INVOLVING a' ' ?. n' '..o..c
?L"., C". '. O'd S C C a~DL'C ~. " "r
- v. '.. ~. ~..' t.v. C R eO.: ? ? 'o".,'
I.
INTRODUCTICN This case involves a ec=ercial ~ nuclear fuel f abrication f acility owned and operated by Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
The I: *in f acility, licensed and regulated by the NRC, manufactures highly-enriched uranium fuel scid to the military for use in nue'. tar-pcwered submarines.
Secause the facility handles nuclear material capable of heing fabricated inte bcmbs, it is subj ect. to NRC-recuired physical security and material acccunting precedures intended
- 0 prevent, inter alia, the intentional c.. version of weapons-
+
grade uranium'to terrorists er foreign governments.
13 CFR Parts 10 and 13.
The NRC license for the Erwin facility conta:.ns a cone:.t:.cn requir:.ng shutdown, investigation, and e
f y
r----
e,...
,-_r--
inven:Ory of the plant when a specified amount of nuclear i
_1/
material is unaccounted for.
The Irvin f acility. has a chronic-histcry of inadequate Most recently,.:. _
accounting and cont.roijover; nuclear material.
c its license conditions were exceeded and the plant was shut 1979.
The subsequent investigatien and dcyn on August 14,.
succeed in reconcil.in.e. t. h. e. disc _ r. ec. ancie s re-inventerv. did not or_:.dentifying thi cisse,22hd substantial weapons-grade i
- v. /
The NRC Staf f recc= ended urar.ium remains _t. accounted fer.
the Cc=.i.ssion revoke the license f or Erwin.
that On' J5uarK 21',7CMGhout Wit._ notice-cr. opportu-nity f[o'r-he'a'r'ing',J.Telie 55m.isrsten.-insv. d;;i[ss'ued an c: der n
r'elaxing the conditions of ene' f~a'c:1 y
- s rice'ns'e-by penit-down ting it to " lose" mere materia 2. witr, cut triggering a shut 3/
The Commission also ordered additional
~
and re-inventory.
physical security and accounting requirentents presudably th:,s relaxat:.cn.
inter,ded te ecmpe[. sate :.n some way :c:
2 autner:.:ec :ne resu.ption c: cperatiens
_ u.:. s 1:.. cense amenc. ment within M days, "the
~
at Irwin.
It also provided that,
- .ntere s may be affected licensee and any other person whose
-4/
a hearing with regard to this proposed amendment."
may request
~
_1/.
This amcu.t is determined bv. use c'd a formula related to total plant throughput.
Amendmen:.v.??-1, Iicense Condi-tien 2.10.1.
2/
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Decket No.70-143, January 21, 1960.
_3/
Id.
4/
Id. p. 2.
,cc-..
., ~ -
I The hearing being offered, the only type then provided for by 5/
~
NRC regulations, was a formal adjudicatery hearing, featuring testinony submitted under oath and subj ect to cross-examina-I tion.
On Februa.ry 6, 1980, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) responded by filing a Request for Hearing.
2n brief, NRDC's Request for Hearing states f acts demonstrating that the new license conditions will not adequately protect against diversion of weapens-grafe uranium or the potential for undiscovered discharges of radioactive material to the environment.
The NRC admits that it has not identified the 6/
cause cf the " loss" of material at Erwin.~
The additional
' physical security requirements contained in the order of January 21, 1980, are little more than a shot in the dark with
<=
g 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G.
g
" P.R. DIRCRS:
[W]e can't rule cut a thef cr diverstion, we ca. ': say that there hasn': been One.
The only thing that we can say is that we have no real explanatien for the inventory difference.
.bd as the FBI pointed cut, this is one additional large inventory difference added to the many differences that we have had at that plant over these past several years."
Eriefing en NFS Ervin, December 14, 1979, Transcript of
?receedings, p.
4.
e
.mui.usAD e
-,w 1i-,
/
\\
s -Ala: changes of success.
Moreover, physical security is d
not-a substitute for adequate material accounting and does not ec=pensate for failures-in accounting.
'NRDC believes that the evidence cc=pels the conclusion
~
1 l
1 presents a; continuing 2 '-
that operation 6f 5.he E5in;fheilit risk'~of divins.bb Uf 6b'aj>6ns; g adelma:Erial and7er dischargs, of mates 111 inti the:ehvir6nment.: 'Given!the patent h
radioahtiviu inadeqiiacy-6fMhe:plih~ti ana 'th'e' n'e E t6' mainta'n" ' source of ftel e
for, raval rearters, de.... ly. re-asonan,..e course is: to reycke.-the
- on NFS-Irain !.i~csh'si.np h5316 bulid h st~ te-of-the-ard frcility en i
a m.
a-U.S.- Governnent= reservation wh..ere-r=preved =aterlab ' ccount:.ng a
anc enhanced' s ec r,ity- <:a.t.......oe proviced Dur:.ng-the.,. interim,-it nay re nece ssary.to-cp er atei: E..... -....rwin-as-a - DOE contractor f a'c....:.21ty With-independent NRC' over s'ight".' ~ The' present situationiprovides n
R<u-.%c,..
-/
u a..
w
- e [the new license cenditiens) does net, in ny view, give us the assurance that naterial can be accurately accounted f or in 'the ~f a'ci-lity-cr contrelied. "
~
- s.
i "MR.
SURNETT:'
.'We have not been able to determine the reason for the acccunting loss.
Therefcre, these license condi-i tiens are general, thev are bread-based.
Thev. are not directed at the specific problem, because we don't know the specific problem, therefore, it is very hard to guaran-tee you that this will cover it."
" eC.VV.* S S
- C,h*;R v*.sJN.TDv..
w a
Is the f acility so designed and its process so designed and operated to make possible the application of kinds of acccunting centrols which would give a high assurance?"
".v.R. DIRCRS:
.:...-.~..... :
..e.
.n--
2, e.... z :- -.
- a...,.
-., -,. a. o. g.
v
i 4, only the appearance of civilian regulation and compromises NRC's a.bility to strictly regulate other f acilities within its juris-a diction.
the Cc= mission took three actions, all
-.980, 1
Cn June 26, by ac.3-2.vp.te.with. vigorous dissents, which severely prejudice 1
I i i l
the righte of: NRDC. t.o.a: ful.l. and f. air hearing on the c.r t ca
.=
a.-
without notice or
- First, is<:w raised. by the.Irwin. sit.uation. - -.-
)
co=ent.,...the..Cc=missicn prc=ulgated an i=ediate-opportunity.- f c::
-- - =
ly fef'ective -rule c.reating an,exceptien to its rules for the
-- =
concuct -or. ad3ucteatery preceec ngs in cases, involving the.
..a In brief, conduct. cf -mili..ta.r. v. or..f oreie.n. af.f. airs f unctions. "_..
h
~
theneffect of the.new_ rule is to., allow.the,Ccmmission, in suc case.s,_to eliminate the. basic recuisites of a formal adjudi-
- v. _
notably the right to discovery
~
cat.ory proceeding, including. most 4
and to th.e submission of testimony under oath subject to As justificatien both fer the substance of cr e s s-examination.
1 even minimal notice and the rule and-for f ailure.to previde.. -. -..
.'.e C ~". ~... s s.' c..
'~
a
~'
~
'~s c.--,a---..,
J c~e.c- ~.~...'. y ' - co-..e".
- o.
c cited the so-called " military functions" exceptiens to the l
5 U.S.C.
555 3 (a) (1) and 5 U'S.C.
j Administrative Precedure Act, l
t f
5 554 (a) (4).
l The Comission's seccnd action on June 26 completed the-l circle by applying the new rule to NRDC's recuest for a hearing In C'I-80-27, the NRC " granted" NRDC's-in the Ervin case.
recuest but, not surprisingly, held that cnly a " legislative 1
l to Provide Exception from ?recedural Rules for j
of.v.ilitary or Foreign Amendment 8/
Adjudications Involving Conduct
~
26, 1980.
1 Affairs Functions, June
)
' Tm e % m ~., _
s type hearing" would be provided.
Its third action was to issue a Nctice of Hearing stipulating that the case will be " resolved on the basis of written presentations addressed to the Cc:= sis-sion and an oral hearing-at which the Commission will questien a'
-f
... t..he. -parties and hear cargumeriti. "~ ~
There will be no discovery or c
_. =.cro s s... examination.1 The -Com.......::u.s sien vili "en..terta n written 10/c
_; sugge stions.frc=. Ee pa'rtie's f'or question's to b... -.e posed.
--.was. d
... -.1980, of
. :- --.irected ter. notify tWe Commissien by July 14~,
- ~~
are. --
-..: i: ::. :
.whether.it in'tends..tc ~ par:icip.... --..
~
.-2.-.. NEDC hereb.r. rec.uests Y ~st'av. Of the ef f eetiVeness of
.-.C." 1 8 0. 2 7, O f : th.e Notice ofi He aring, and of the amendment to
_.10. C. F. R P a rt 2^,.pending-the' resolution of a ?etitio:n. for Review
..to the United-States 1 Court lo f..Ac.c.eals which 14FOC is cresentiY
..pgeparing and will file -within a few -days.
5 ;,. The Commission ap' plies -judiciil.-standards td 2tay. motions, -
as.. articulated in Vir-inia Petroleur !cbbers Ass 'n".
- v. 'F.P.C.,
~
- ~59 F. 2d 921.(D.C_ Cir..1958)~ and Washincten Me:Ec.>olitan Area
~'
Transit Cc=m'n.
v.
Holiday Teurs, 559 F. 2d S41 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
~
The relevant factors are:
1.
Has the Petitioner made a streng showing that it is likely te prevail on the merits?
9/
Nuclear Fuel Serrices,~Inc., :.ctiTe of Hearing, Cune 26,
- 1980, p.
2.
0/
d.
11/
Westinghouse Electric C0rp.,
(Exports to the Philic. cines) opin:.on of Cerm ss:cners Kennedy and Hendrie, S1.op. at 43.
\\
1 i
n
_7_.
\\
2.
Will petitioners be irreparably injured in the absence of a stay?
3.
Will the granting of a stay harm others?
__/_. /
4.
Where does the public interest lie?
In addition, -the Commission recently noted ' that " (o] f these,
~
~
the : weightiest'-is thOneed' to ' maintain -the' stat s~ q :o -.rriba.ther the ? party requesting a: stay -has ~~showri-th, at it will be-irrepar :' !
ab1v. -in ured unless - alstav. is c. ranted. "
- his is-consistent d
a
... a2 ucaci.,
dec_,sions:.....=.
w t.u.. r e c e n t..
. c ;e. a _:._.. a _; a.. :c u.e s. a...... go us m
.e ar:. :ce. r_ ate wnen.a sericus.ec. a_ c.uest on is
.1 : -
presented ; ~ when.-little :if.any -harm -will bef all other interested persons er the public and..
'.w.y en den:..a1. o,_ the or.,er..woulc.
- .n,_,u.ct. : rre -
c n
". e. c". a.... _',' /
r.. a" e
.4.. "s "-
a II. ARGUMENT A.
NRDC's. Likelihood'Of P'revailing~On The' Merits
~
Is Stronc
~
,Whether this aspect of the stay sta.dard is phrased in
. a.... s e.._# a " s.....
.'. _'.'.. a _' _'.". c o d " ~_ #_
s "- w _ a_ e_ a
. a "se__" ".s 'ec,a.'
3
-,.ee.
.,a e..,._~.ee._.s w... e s._. _. a... a _ a..
.e
. e,_
,,. s c..
.w,.
n w
_e/
. a. _ _ _4._. y. = ~
. h e-a.w... -... e... a._ _4 a _1
.__. w a.o_
s.,- ess.4s a
a m
..as e w ty s a,_ e.,..w e s. z
_: c.., a e a s w
w
.a
-ry--r_._- e s a..a.a e
_.e y
e, _s _, w. s.
.s
__/
W a s.k. _#. c.c r..V.e __ c _ o l _d - = =.
".....~..n.'~..
v.
"... _' _4 ' a v es
-.^a._ e _= "._
_=..e.,4 c
sv.C.
C :.
.s / s )
2 c.
.. a,, e
- 2. 9 :-.
i
. curs, t
_'_3/
Westinchouse Electric Corp., supra a-43.
14/
Washincton Metrecolitan Area, supra a-344.
15/
- d. at 843.
~
l.
I 1
i
[:]f the other elements are present (i.e.
the balance of ha.rdships tips decidedly toward
., a # -
"..#.#.1., -
w.d.'.' o. d.'. a d '.v ' e e n o". c..k.
..". a.
4*
the plaintiff has raised questions coin, to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as :
=ake them a fair ground fer i
litigation and thus.for more deliberate inves-tigation. _16/
"'here can be little dispute that the questions presented here are serious, substantial and difficult.
Indeed, each Cc= mission a'ction in c.uestien was ac.c.reved ever extremelv. strene. dissent 2....
by a 3-2 majority which has since been dissolved with the expira-
- .. c : n-...as g ; -. e -
- r..e..n c : r,
... c..
.e
,c,
=o.
u..
..t. e....e., a. c,. - -.. c. s - -- - e..a s -- e ga --;...
t..
n
....,, c a. e d
'.'.o"....o *. 4 e e -o... c c. o -.. 4 v.
y c.
..e
..u. e t.....;. s s ~: -. <
a. as y ee g- -..gs eu.. eo.-., e
.,a us.;:y
_n.
s 4 s r.--..".1,a do..
c'
..".e a..e.. d..e....o ' O C.r e=-.
7 d
.d.o-w n' c t..
notice or opportunity for rc=. ment, First, the-Cornissionrargues.."
tha: the rule, itself " involves _ the_ conduct c# militarv..or foreign affairs functions" and is exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
5553 (a) (1) n:. u.e - -. e
..ar..;..n sen.-
.. -.....u.,......a e g. a.
......e..
.-- yiga
.g n.
e-3
.cn cf Admin.strat ve Procedure Act.
Sc f ar as we are 'able to tell frem the absence of case law on the pcint,. this-renarkable.
argument has never befcre been made.
"'his may be because the Depar-.ent cf Defense, the agency most ec1crably entitled to 4
..e k e
- ..k. a. ex e~~"...,
. n a..' v o.# # e s
..o..'.. e a.. c'
..k. e o,,o, c..... 4.v
_i./
c,....e...
'.s -"'es.
'6/
Hamilten Watch Cc. v.
Eenrus Watch Co.,
206 F.
2d 738,
-.C b c.
Cir. A s s o.
17/
Suelear Fuel Services, Inc., C 2~,
June 26, 1380, a -
a.....;.,
n.n,,f.
p.
s c.
- g g e..
n.
u-.....
gg.-
g-ma
m l
-q_
.\\
The only useful interpretation cf the " military functions" can be found exceptiens to the Adminis, rative Procedure Act l
i i.n the legislative history and the c0==entary of Fr:f esser Sonfield for the Administrative Conference.
The Senate Ccmmit-iee~ 's ated that;.the exceptiert was to be applied."to.the extent"
' thai a military: ' functio'n is."-'b'.ly. and directly" cr "dir..e.c.t.l.y.
,.3/
_r.volved. "
.? rc r e s ser. onn.el:...expan.ce c :
S 5 33 a ).L. ).do es not c.ex c. uc e ar.:. ru e s - -
- - - - _.- - -Sect: on
.., __ _s
.. v. -__=_-
__y
_c.
ax_:n3._..o,.
.. ;.:. _ y. :._.
. _. -.. _. <. a..s m_
3 excluded.
Consecuently, only rn_e-mak:ng invciv-
. in. an activi~tv. that.is speciallv.. fitt.e_d. f or,
v ac. c. ro:::. ate -to,.
c:.ex ectec o.g One-ar ec.:_ crees as such because of their peculiar nathre, c.ualifi-
~-
a..
4."u. e s.i. s a.x e..:. a d.
?"-
.'.e e,
c.= +.4 o. s,.-
T.
~ 'to be~ excluded;under: subsection 4a)(1) the rule.
am--.
.a'w..M. a.u..y m.. ay.:.c.
c...e s _.: o.....g e..
c<ea.,:
~.
involve such a.n activity.19/
~
~ NRC's civilian. rsculation of the co:cercial fuel, f abrica-
-tien facility.at.ErvinU which civilian regulation is intended
.c. -r,.=de
...e r -.. l.' c a c. a.4.. s w *".e 'oss c-
.'.e#.
c#
...e,.w
-.~.......:...c...ea a:_,
...eg...g:,,
- e c.,
- a. e a "r..c.
a a......y.., c : -.. -
..w.e a c - _4 ". 4. ": "e_4.c.
. e. #.
....e d-
_v.
s no. c..'v.
.o "s.-ec a.v #.4..e
.. c' " -. ' v.
.b. e i
d a
r.
"e.i..g cc A_- -- a d. " v.
.'. e.._ _' _4. ary.
4*
.is,
- . a c.,....
4
~... 4.'.4. a. v.,
Scr is it being regulated by the military.
The only connection w.i..".
'. e.~., _4 _' _4 '. a.-v..is as a eu-
'..ase-c'
..e ou.,_u
.'.. e.e ' a....
Thus, there is no foundation to naintain tha: the prenulgatien of this regulation is itself covered by the " military functions" exemption:
the strap lacks a boc:.
O 9 A WJ ac/
at z.
t
-.-.....-g**g
- g
- -*?**,*
- y
- M
...,,s
.w m_
a w e m.
..m e-g' S
i--
v-se r
,s--
s
2n fact, affording prior notice and comment on this amend-ment would in no way affect any milita: y function.
The plant is oceratinc today and its continued cperations. are conpletely independent of the prc=ulpation of this r:le.
Nothing so clearly illuminates the bankruptcy of the Cc==issien's position.
- 1:.1.
~~*
.~be"hainiained that ihe rule is " procedural".or li6F 2:~ n'it a
" interpretive.'"- :t is~ts % ju:_gd ed by its effect, not by the label ~~whic.h the agency chooses te attach to :.t.
Brcwn Excress, L :.....
Inc.
v.
U.S.,
6C7 F....2d. 6 9 5- ( 5 th - Cir... 1979).
Thi. s. rec.ulation doe.c.. c. ~... e a.:
..~.~e.-
e
~-.~
c----.:' N ' ' '~~". e '.C. ~~~.=... _= N.~ ~, ~:. n' c.,.2 e
~
creates an exception.;o.the.SRC rules which did not exist before and results inl cutting off.the right which NRDC previously had f
t o e. f f e c t i v e l.v.. advocate.i.ts. position.
The 3r:vn Express _ case, supra is directly en point.
- There, the court pr -hibited the ICC from.. reversing without notice er.
s.
cc= ment a ic g-estab c,. s.. e c.o c c.. ev c: nc :., v. :.n c. c c = c. e t :.n g c a r r :. e r s
.< a
.,.a
.. ~.. g :--,.g.c.en.c.y
... u. c _i. -.
.a..
-,-~:
..u.e a
- es.;n,a e.
.e~n a e c
_-....-..-e.-a w.
e n.......
a..
_4, e_._
e.a _4ye
-o_ie, c_
..:. e g n.
_1 4
- s. e.'"." e ** a s a *.* *.~. a **a.C.'.'.'...d..'.
3
.. e h.o.4
,e c e r.1_4 4
- a. 4,. _as.-
a e e c_1a.a_
r_)w
- t g e g e c _a.,. e s
.~.c a. _*~ i c ".. ". s ' e _~....
~ ~.
4.
m gives no officer's opinion abcut the meaning cf
..k.e s.a.".*.e c.. e e" _' _= 4 c7s.
...=..^.a 4.
e.#.#e s
a chance in the method used by :ne cc=m:.ssacr in cranting sucstantive rients.
As such, it is a new rule and canner ce interpretative.
_Id.
a:
700, (empnasas addec). 2 0/
1
"'"""20/
See also, Texaco v.
??C, 412 ?.
2d 740, 744 (3d. Cir.
.a.. a.1
.u.c r _ e _4, w a.
, e.
.4...s s.8...
n.S.,
,_9 c 9 ),.
4 v
26S T.
Supp. 90 (D.D.C. 1967); Phar-.aceu:: cal.Manuf ac-
)
turers Ass'n.
v.
Tinch, 307 F.
Supp. 533 (D. Del. 1970).
1 I
1
,y
l Further, even if the rule were genuinely procedural or interpretive, it cannot lawfully be applied to pending pro,
ceedings when the.effect is to prejudice a party.
Pacific Molasses Co.
v.
FTC, 356 F.
2d 386 (5th Cir. 1966); Yellin v.
U.S.,
374 US 190 (19 6-3).
- n this case, NRDC is severely prejudiced"by 'th~e' abrid'gemen't of its rights.to discovery and -
~
cro ss-ex am:.n at on. -
- 2
-2... The' hilitary' fuhc~ui' ohs' exception to The ~.adjucatcry. "
~
crocedures guaranteed.bv. the Ad,inistrative Procedure Act. does no: appl ~y to the I: ain case.
=-
T
-It' ha's been argued 'above' that".the excepticn prcvided. i.1:
2Ii-5 553 (a) (1) cf the Adr.infstrati.ve'. Procedure Act does not extend :
td the rule-niaking 'at' is' sue' tere. ': Identical lang cage in; 5554 (a) (4) exempts matters " involving the conduct of military.
functions" from the procedures guaranteed for adjudicatory pro-
'e~e edin g s.
It--i-s invoked by' NRC as.the underlying justification _.
for all the acticns in questicn.
We will not repea: our
..o..e
.s..
e_
...e w e~..- ss.4 n.:s e.,,.
e4 w
. e s..e
..s,.4...
.a 3 4 c
'u. a.'
.".e s.4.4^. *k.a
.a.c.".'a.4c.
. '. =.N...4... a..4.'.i ":
clearly and directly involves a function pecul arly suited to w..e...4 3.:.a..:.
Only two additional issues need be addressed because the Cenmission states that these are "special considerations not 21/
-~-
ordinar:.y presented by a hearing recuest. "
First is "the i
need to protect the highly sensitive subject matter of the 22/
licensed activity."~~~
The Commission has all the necessary
.s. /
C
.m 0g4.,
R.
f r
4 22/
Id.
- rz -
i and-authority to do this within the nor=al adjudicatory context
~
has not been hesitant to exercise it in this case already.
Subpart I of 10 CFR Part 2, "Special Precedures Applicable to Adjudicatory Proceedings involving Restricted Oata And/Cr National Security. Information" contains detailed previsions for limiting
' access _ to sensitive material in adfudicatory hearings.
?rC :The second i"special~considerition" cited by the Cc= mission ifs :the need to deta:.n " direct control cf decisions that are hic.hly dominated tv."bdt3 f egulator.y 'ind ~ national ~ defense ~colicy +
_3 c23/;..;; -
~..'.:
censideraticns."
- 72 t is diffi' cult to see how aff ording NRDC disecvery and cross-examination would impede this ' goal.
The
.Ccmmissicn would in any case retain '"centrol" and -its abi1~ity to
~
... ke an informed _.c.ecisicn -wou2d ceit'ain,_y be enhanced by the ma Ic'6= piling of -a full and reliable ' record en the factual issues upon which a ratienal policy decisien must be predicated.
Wha:
the Commission:apoatently views as obstacles are,,cn_the.. con-irarv, the foundation of reasoned decision-makinc..
3.
The precedure =andated by the Ccmmission does not mee: the recuirerents of f undamenta_ administrative due process.
~~
Section lE9a of the Atomic Energy Act provides:
In any proceeding under this Act, for the granting, suspending, revoking or amending of any license.
the Ccemission should grant a hearine. uc.on the recuest cf any.cerson whose interest may be affected by the croceedinc.,
and shall admit any such persen as a party to such proceeding._2_4_/
23/
Id.
_2_4/
42 U.S.C.
522 39 (a).
o
~
i s
The AEC and NRC have always interpreted this as requiring i
~
the requisites of a hearing "on the reccrd" as defined by the n._/
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
55556 and 557.-
Section 556 (d) provides in pertinent part:
A party is entitled to present his case or defense by oral'or docunentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct.
such cross-examination'as"may me recuired
. f cr a full and true casclosure of tne iacts..
- (Emphas: s added).
Thusi the extent' towhich the~ age: icy"may chrtail cres's-
^-
=
exa.ina:icn is directly tied'to the' nature Of the issues in questien and the need fer a full disc 1csure Of the facts.
If i
facts are disputed,. trial-tv. ce o. f cc edures 'are necessarv..
Inde cendent 3ankers Ass 'n' cf C-edrgia v. 3 card of Governers,.
516' F.
2d 1206, 1215-1216 (D. C. ' Cir. ~19 7 5 ).
These include not only the right to'present evidence, but,also a reasonable
+
cr.ortunity to'know the basis of the coc.onents ca'se and to.
n me'et them.
National Trailer Co.
v.
U.S.,
293 F.
Supp. 634 (D.
n.a.
_ c a. e, The secticn of this sc:icn i.:nediate y folicwing centains a discussion of the nature of th'e factual issues raised bv. NRDC and of the har= which would result from denv.ine. us the abili:v.
to effectively pursue these issues.
The cuestion of the effectiveness of safeguards at NFS-Ersin' is funda:nental to this proceeding and its resciutien depends en knewing the facts con-_
cerning the nature and extent of the threa: and'the likelihood 2_5/
See siegel v.
.E C, 400 F_ 2.d 773 (D.C. Cir. 1968).
5 e
,v---
m
+m
that the amended license conditions will meet that threat.
Policy questions overlay these f acts and bear on the ultimate.
fate of the Irwin facility but that does not negate the essen-tially factual nature of..the record.
Under these circumstances,
fairness requires procedures tailored to develop,those facts.
Discovery and. cross-examination are essentia-1.
~
3.
NRDC Will 3e Irrecara31972nf.ufed' In The-~~ Absence Cf & Stay:
If the-Erwin. proceedings. go. forth acccrding; to_ the-plan prcycsed by the Cc==i's.sion,. NRDC will be denied disecvery and denied the right ter cros s. examine..the a s s er:ic n s.o f t.P.e..c.e.c.e..s inc.
26/
panies.-'-
In essence,'-the; assertions of NFS and the Cen=ission
-_t_a f f. wil_.l. b. e in.s.ulate.d frem anv. ef f ective prching..
The;_ulti-
-s bate ~ issue in this proceeding -- whether the NFS-Erwin license should be revoked and responsibility for its operat:.on assumed
~
. _. ~.
.2,..
ty DOE and the Navy -- will' c'ertainly require the Commissio. __.
n to balance cc=peting policy considerations.
Ecwever, this balancing cannet ra icnally be dene without the resolu icn of at least the fcilewin, c.uestions raised bv. NEDC:
1.
Do the amended license conditions provide adequate protection against the threat of theft or diversion of weapons-grade material?
2.
Do the amended license conditions revide adequate pro-r tection against en-site fabrication of a bomb?
3.
Do they protect against innocent er malevolent undis-covered discharges of radioactive material?
26/
CL 27 is unclear as to whether the submissicas o'f the parties will be made under oath.
4.
s 4.
Are excessive amounts of radiation being discharged into the environment from the ventilation syste.ms, scrap recovery operations and liquid effluent streams?
5.
Does the purported " offsetting" cf new physical security requirements agains loosened material. accounting---
ZuJ' :-
restrictionsTconform-to fundamentair safeguards prin-
~~
'cibief.which_" require a high degrek_cf - conf.iaence in
..both types of controls?
Pre-hearing discovery and the submission of. testimony under-
..= ;
cath subject to c css-examina:icn are clearly rectired in order to build'..a useful and reliable record on these issues.
For example, NRDC must be oermitted material in the hands.of NRC, NFS, and other parties to the proceeding, documenting the history of NFS 's operations and the ef f ectiveness or lack thereof of
_. cur. rent and past.. security'and' accounting measures..'In2 addition, we must be allowed to question u.. der cath members cf the NRC staf f on the basis for their recem=endation that the NFS license he revoked.
This is particularly crucial since the s:sff,-
pursuant to the express direction of the persens now sitting in judgment in this proceeding, will be taking the opposite positien at the hearing.
Under these circumstances, it is apparent that NRDC's rights cannot be protected by the Commission's undertaking to pese such questions submitted by the parties as it' believes appropriate.
If NRDC is compelled to go forward under the conditions established in CLI-80-27 and the Notice of.Mearing, these proceedings are highly likely to come to a conclusien before Y
a l.. if" F$3mm
\\
the Court of Apppeals is able to issue a decision on the-nerits of our appeal.
The Notice of Hearing contemplates initial submission of testimony en September 1 and cu1=inates with final written statements in mid-November.
At the very least, NRDC would be required to submit its case, having been denied the -right of -discovery, -by September.1, 'a'nd to serve -
its " written.. suggestions.fer questiens" by - September 15, well before the Court ef Appeals:could hear argument on the most expedited schedule possible;.
i-
- de r'
- _. ; These. circ =. stances -censeite.te. irreparable -harm t'o NRDC4- -
Denial of basic ~ proce~ dural ' guarantees would prevent NRDC.from informed and eff ective participation:in ithese proceeding's. an'd-hamstring cur. ahility..tc present a case on the basic f actual.
questions at issue..:ndeed, the NRC has long recogni::ed the particular importance :of cross-examination:in~ :its proceedings and has held that intervenors 'ar e entitled 'to " establish their direct case entirely by crcss-examination.
Tennessee valley Authcrity (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units lA, A,
13 and 23)
AI.A3-463, 7 NRC 341, 356 (1978).
Courts have found irreparable harm under similar circum-stances.
In Bannercraft Cic:hing Cc.
- v. Renecotiation Scard, 466 T.
2d 345 (D.C. Cir. 1972), the agencv.'s denial of docu-nents requested under the Freedom of Information Act was held C
to constitute irreparable harm because it precluded the affected party frem participating effectively in ongoing administrative proceedings.
The court enjoined these proc.eedings until the nerits of the FOIA claim could be resolved.
m-rwv
j.
1
\\
The decision distinguished this type of injury frem the =ere j
expense and time associated with administrative proceedings:
It is senseless to say.that the injuries they will suffer if not given the documents are merely incidental to the administrative process. : Appellee 's point is that the ad-
'ministrative process cer. net function as it "w r r - was. intended to function: until they. are given - -
access to the documents.
Thus, these cases are-quite different.frem-cases.where parties' 11 4
have complained that aininistrative procedures
- W r
- are themselves:. burden'some.' cur accellees.
I 4
would like to take advantage of the renegoti-i:. -
ation precess,2but claim an inability to de so effectivel; until the Board complies with the. Treedom: cf Information Act.
If these facts-are true, and it is for the trial court to determine ~in;the first-instance whether they are.
true or not, then appellees have demonstrated the sortnoffclear: threat 7to.a statutory right.
which can easily be categori:ed as an impending irreparable injury.2]/
L.
- It is no answer to maintain that harm to NRDC can be cured
.if necessary by. a ' emand 'and rehearing, ~ this time with~ discovery r
and cross-examination.c As a. practical matter that precedure-would give the cpposing parties a near insurmountable ady.antage.
These parties, who are in. possession of the information denied i
to h'RDC, would have had twc chances to mtet NRDC's case.
Perhaps even scre importantly, the momentum of the decision-making pre-cess would be exceedingly difficult to reverse.
It is simply not credible to suppose that the Ccmmission, pressed by numerous res-pensibilities and cc=mittments, would be able to devote the-time and attention necessary to re-hear the evidence and redecide the case.
NRDC is alreadv disadvantaged by the fact that the 27/
3annercraft Clothine Co.
v.
Renecctiation Board, 466 T.
2d 345, 356 (D.C. C;r. 1972).
w
e Cor ission reached its initial decision in this proceeding before d
it heard cur case.
Thus, in the proposed hearing, !iRDC will be asking the Cc= mission to reverse itself.
To recuire us te persuade the Commission to reverse itself after it has =ade the same decision again would be to i.mpose an.imposs3.ble burden.
C.
The-Grantinc Of-A - Stay Will: Do No Ea: n To Others The NFS-Erwin, facility is ccerating today and-will continue
~
to operate under, the. amended license conditions authorized in CL:-80-27.
..A. stay of;these proceedings will-have no effect whatsoever en.the operation of that plant cr cn the production cf fuel for the. naval reactors.
No other party. will.suf fer anv.
- e:
harm from a stav.
D.
The Public 'nte' rest Favers A' Stay
~~
The public interest-in the larger issues posed by the con-tinuing controversy surrounding NFS-Erwin inheres in achievingc three basic objectives:
(1) preventing the diversien of weapons-grade material to terrorists or foreign gcvernments, (2) preventing the c..:.sc..arge c:. excessive amounts of radicactive materia, to the envircnment, and (3) assuring a supply of nuclear fuel to meet
~~ ~ - t}W needs o~f'~the navy.
The third factor is not at issue here since NFS-Ervin continues to supply fuel to the navy.
In NRDC's view, the everriding public interest at this time lies in the assembling of a complete and reliable f actual record which 'will allow the Ccmmission to make a fully informed decision on the nature and extent of the vulnerability of the Irwin plant to internal and external threats and, on the short and long-ters
'9 s'
ilternatives to the operation of that facility.
Thus, the public interest coincides with NRDC's interest in a stay of these pro-ceedings.
III. CONCLUSION
- ~ -
For the reasons stated above, NRDC =cves the Commission to
= i.:.^~
- ..... 2... ;-
~
...i..1.
stav the effectiveness of CLI-80-27, the Notice of Hearing and
~
l n.. 3 the Amendmen to Provide Exception From Precedural. Rules for z.
... =.-
Adjudications Invciving Conduct of Military or Foreign Aff airs F=ction s, all issued en June 26, 1980, = il the U. S. Court of A? peals has ruled on the nerits of NRDC's Petition to Review.
n We recuest the Cc= mission to rule on this notion by July 25,
,o a
- B u,.
Respectfully submitted, 2.
NATURAL RESOCRCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.
f!
f
}!.p&
(\\
_Y:
.r n
~ - - - -
=
El-yn
?..
.;e:.s s Harnen & Xeiss 1725 : Street, N.W.
Suite 505 Washingten, D.C.
20006
[
bb4' UM%
/
J.
Jacct Scnerr s
Natural Resources Defense Council, 1725 : S-Jeet, N.W.
Suite 600' Washingten, D.C.
20006
, gg 7
m r.oemo ussac
%6.-
n-JUL 14 G: i m
A Offi:s c!the Sect 87 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA gg g 5.m:1 EEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN T' Sp&
% I j g c:. t \\. -
)
In the Matter of
)
)
s..
NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES, IN C.
)
Doc ke t No.70-143 ~
)
SN. M.L.Lc.e ns e No. 124 Ervin, Tennessee
)
S R\\..C:.
CE..,.,,,. :.,.a r..
.: ~. -...:..... -.;.:.___._:. :. :.
. :.i _r
! heraby. certify tha
_a copy of the" Natural Rescurces Defense Ccuncil Request f or a Stay -Of Ef f ectiveness cf C !-30-2, Notice of Hearing and ;. mend-.ent :c Provide Exception frem Procedural Rules fer -Adjudications nvolvine -Cenduct of Military or Foreign -Af f airs Functicns" was hand-delivered and mailed this 14th dav cf Julv 1950 to the fclicwing!partiesi7
~
~~
i' John Ahearne, Chairman Jos e ph H' endrie, Ccmmissioner U.S.
N'uclear Regulatory Ccm:1ssion U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Cot =.:-
Wash:.ngton, D.C.
20555 Wasnington', JD. C.T 205 55 Vic tor Gilinsky, Cemnissioner Peter 3radf0rd, Ocmmissioner U.S.
Nuclear Regula: cry Cen 1ssion U.S.
Nucle ar Regula tcry Cem :..
x a. s.,. e..,
s...
w e.:;
n~e.w.
,e, n...
.05.:5
'Lecnard Sickwit, Escuire
'Howard Shapar, Isquire General Couns el Execu: ve Legal ;;recter ATTN:
Mar,orie Nordl:.nger U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Cer.:..
U.S.
Nuclear Regula: cry Comm:ssion Wasnington, D.C.
20555 Wasnington, D.C.
205:o i
Nuclear Fuel Services Inc.
1 ATTN:
N e:.1 J. Newman, Esquire 6000 Execut ve Soulevard Su:. e 600 Rec kvill e, Maryl and 20852 1
1 4
4
_C1'\\
I IW C lyn R.
We.ss
- ailed postac.e. Ore.caid m
~
4
. Attachment 2 et
.3
'.. r;..,+..... ',
,. e.
.. r.
~
e
..t.
.,'i,.,..$,'..*e..
.. ~
.r o i,:.,;..
,.,L.,h.~,1. '
~~
v'*
n ?l J.-:.
V,..
& < M.... R...$..
c,-
i J',5.e..:"jV...
- 7 D..*.
- J' e
., p ' ' e' ~ k*L - $ '.. e.P'N -
' ;F
'N
- '~ h.?' ' ' W,..+.,4 8. # *,?g $...
ea
,. g.
..c-M.41 @l?.t E. M C+
i
'J *..
v
.;lh.)
jfh[ h}f 3
-C'.
.Q
{l[
N
'm q q#., $ q#
y.::. -....y_ g g g p g y
. : t g g p p r
. q.:.; u
- p. 4.., c u, < 7. c. %...W. M,M.,s.%
.6M%
':.:.%rg,a.
~;i r
.o
..., ;& V h;w. *-.
. * *r.
<#.t
- lc.. Q 's?. <.; '.< *:.t, +lv.. ' i.h,
..,l <'.?,' + R...'.-
- e
..e
- c*.t;~.f,k '%.....+...,...r...,.:.L,..,'... n.%.
y
, '. c.. ',;...
..w,,.
, i,,.. m..
,.A..
- W
.c.. %. m.
.n.
e.+..~,..
..p..
D v..
s.
s
.. 7.
..1>p: 4 4 4
... g:,
. s..
a.
.e s
e L;,,..,...in. y,..
ms
-. )p..s.c m< s,... o.
.. <e
..,3. wr.....q.i....
..e c s _....,.., %..:,.m m.;.
s v
...se s.
-..1(f$
.h J.'..
. $ h.,
e 4w. &*hb f* h.?$.hh h1 h.
$$.$ *l h.h$h. h.h ?h hh kk;k. hh,.M, n~,.m.w.n N. ~ w.s.. 4. W; b g t e ; m. e, u. y m.... m. y. e
.... m N.46LW.nR:,h;tl*g:dX.%?,;.Q E..;Q%
'[:' R : $'[.
- p u.
,.s H
!Q 187 h.
- '%#.'? Q lW,.
M g3 g f*,g g.]lJ5;j..QJj g,:,; n#7pi,',- @,.;U.i.-4:@1:@M f
(.t.
q.4; w ?" y.t;t.. y v ;.
c 9~d!w +[w.::.dc.npy.~
.'t,,:,.s - a
? ?
.v,,i.,.*.- r.
+
a
- . ev.9 n,- ;;
.A;y.. p.
..,s..
. *, u.'.; w ;.~ r;..n,qq f.,: e g v.
,. r.,..i'. 7. 7
~
.e.
s,
..a,. c..u.,..v,n.
m.w..,
.v a,
- 9* '< <.t v, <...
... s.
.m 8.
c.
.e. s.a.
g.*. *,
w.
v
- 4, ', '.
~
MQ;f. r.
' l
- ' ' ',&.k4af; -
- -!.Y
-QlQ.[.L,l.^,f ?*]
....,/., N. e h..
,' J,,},f'.i..M
........-4
, iis..
.,'*/,",
~*
.N. M;,#-
f
- ' h.*".-j$f.,y,{.,". \\. - h: g;* *<.., 3 s.
s. *..
2 '
':.,.5.,**
.,,.,,7
, 3. 6 N.gR'5.'JT", ~ V *A, P. [*<,'s (* * *..
., i. $.. e**m.gs
..'.ti
.'r
- E' [
I". tes) f ".*., i j ** fe4 *t..
W. f, '
+.
I.-
) tv,,g
- f
^
- a
..e e
,.,,;.,c *. j ? '.
g,',.;.4.c.
,*+-m
~;.. _ <~ >
t
...Mg.. -
.p.
g
- n..
-t
.. f.. ~
- . f.s].1. fr..A. c.z .
r.~.
'.s.
~
e _w v...
,i s.
8
- i. a p g y i y q..,. _ y g v g y. m. g &...~.. #.W & i,y u % i g
. -. +
e d-
n,.
-V-n,,,u
, ~
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. 6000 Executive seulevare, sune 600. Roexvine. Maryland 20U N
y%
A Subsic:arv et Getty ou company 001)770 55C July 14,1980 g,\\tlyfI cp
/
},-
If Docmto S\\
UwRc i
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk JUL161NOh Secretary of the Commission s
^
0@u cf the Se: rey U. 5. Nuc! ear Regula:ory Commission
- hmiu 8
Washington, D. C. 20533 C-
'Pb O
Reference:
NRC Docket No.70-143; SNM License No.124.
3; / y\\
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Erwin, Tennessee; Hearing (45 Fed Reg 4542S).
Dear Mr. Chilk:
This letter is in response to the Commission's notice of, legislative hearing dated June 27, 1980. Upon careful review of the notice, the nature of the hearing and the specific issues, we have concluded that NF5' ac:ive participation in this heanng is not warranted.
. In regard to issues "(a)" and "(b)", the Commission has already developed a full record in Docket No. 70-10 and NFS has no further information for the Commission at this time. We believe that the initiaj determination of these issues was properly made by the Commission.
With respec to issue "(c)", NFS does not possess additional information or expertise which, at this time, would be of assistance to the Commission. NF5 views tne issue so.ely as a question of government policy as to whether the nuclear safety, common cefense and security goals of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amenced, anc the Commission's regulations with respect :o actvites subject to License No. SNM-124, can best be achieved through regulation by ne NRC (pursuant to Title 10, Coce of Feoeral Regulations, and :he relevant provisions of tne Act) or, alternatively, by the Department of Energy (as authorized by law including Secdon 110 of the Act and Section 70.11,10 CFR).
Accordingly, we believe this issue to be within the judgment and discretion of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy as :ne two Federal agencies principally concerned.
Although NFS does not intend to present testimony in the noticed legislative hearing, NFS will continue to review all filings presented by others and, if it deems appropriate, will submit information or comments it believes would be helpful to the Commission.
To assist in our review, we would appreciate continuing to receive copies of all papers filed in this matter.
If there should be any modification of the issues or procedures for this hearing, NF5 will again review the matter and inform the Commission whether it wishes to participate. Finally, NF5 does not waive, and hereoy reserves its right to
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 14,1980 Page Two object to any proposal to suspend, revoke, amend or modify License No. SNM-124, except pursuant to adjudicatory procedures which conform to Sections 186,189 and other provisions of the Atomic Energy Act 'of 1934, as amended, Commission regulations in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, and the relevant provisions of the Administrative Procedtres Ac:, including Sections 3,7 and 9 (5 U.S.C. Sections
$34, 336, 339).
Sincerely yours,
/
. f4 ;,. 5 %
/
H. W. Brook Vice President General Counsel HWB:jnw v