ML20045G713
| ML20045G713 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1993 |
| 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 9307150085 | |
| Download: ML20045G713 (10) | |
Text
.
1 a a<c ey%
E E
UNITED STATES
% y, /
i
/!
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\s
/
WASHINGTON, D.C 20555-O m June 14, 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:
Kellev v.
Selin, cases No. 4:93-CV-67 (W.D. Mich.,
filed May 4, 1993, and transferred May 10, 1993),
appeal pendina, No. 93-1710 (6th Cir. ) ; No. 93-1646 (6th Cir., May 17, 1993); and No. 93-3613 (6th Cir.,
filed June 4, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Plaintiffs, the Michigan Attorney General, several private citizens and the Lake Michigan Federation, filed this lawsuit seeking immediate injunctive relief against the NRC.
Plaintiffs sought to stop Consumers Power Company from using an NRC-approved dry storage cask, the "VSC-24," at the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant.
Plaintiffs complain that the NRC has performed no site-specific NEPA analysis of the consequences of using the VSC-24 cask at Palisades.
We opposed plaintiffs' request for an immediate injunction, arguing both that the NRC had met all its NEPA duties and that the district court lacked jurisdiction over what, in essence, was a challenge to the NRC rule adding the VSC-24 to the list of casks approved by the agency.
On May 10 the district court (Robert Holmes Bell, J.) agreed with our jurisdictional argument and held that plaintiffs' lawsuit attacking an NRC rule was reviewable exclusively in the court of appeals.
At plaintiffs' request the district court transferred the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, where it was docketed as No. 93-1646.
Plaintiffs also appealed the district court's jurisdictional ruling to the Sixth Circuit (No. 93-1710).
Once in the Sixth Circuit plaintiffs renewed their effort to obtain a court order halting use of the VSC-24 at Palisades.
The court of appeals, though, after considering responses filed by the NRC and by Consumers Power Company, denied the request for relief.
The court (Nelson, Suhrheinrich & Batchelder, JJ.)
issued a short order reciting the usual standards for a stay pending appeal, including likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury, and concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to a stay.
Plaintiffs (now petitioners) then filed a petition for review in the Sixth Circuit directly attacking the NRC rule approving the VSC-24.
The petition asks the court of appeals to i
9307150085 930614 V9
['
l libd PDR ADOCK 05000255
~
U PDR g
U
set aside the rule as violative of the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA.
It also attacks the NRC's denial of petitioners' request for an adjudicatory hearing prior to issuance of the rule.
The court of appeals has consolidated this petition for review with petitioners' two earlier court of appeals cases (Nos.
93-1646 and 93-1710) and established a briefing schedule.
Petitioners' brief is due in early July, and the NRC's is due in early August.
Oral argument will follow later this year or early next year.
We will keep you informed of any significant developments in any of these cases.
Sincerely,
'Yy W P
/olicitor F.
Cordes, Jr.
/
/
cc:
The Honorable Hark O.
Hatfield i/
l l
i
e Mo,v
'f?s y
E'i^6 9
UNITED STATES 3C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION kh
/
WASHINGTON D.C. 20555-0001 y
q June 14, 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:
Kellev v. Selin, cases No. 4:93-CV-67.(W.D. Mich.,
filed May 4, 1993, and transferred May 10, 1993),
anneal-oending, No. 93-1710 (6th Cir.); No. 93-1646 (6th Cir., May 17, 1993); and No. 93-3613.(6th Cir.,
filed June 4, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Plaintiffs, the Michigan Attorney General,-several private-citizens and the Lake Michigan Federation, filed this lawsuit seeking immediate injunctive relief against the NRC.
Plaintiffs sought to stop Consumers Power Company from using an NRC-approved dry storage cask, the "VSC-24," at the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant.
Plaintiffs complain that the NRC has performed no site-specific NEPA analysis of the consequences of using the VSC-24 cask at Palisades.
We opposed plaintiffs' request for an-immediate injunction, arguing both that the NRC had met all its NEPA duties and that the district court lacked jurisdiction over what, in. essence, was a challenge to the NRC rule adding the VSC-24 to the list of casks approved by the agency.
On May 10 the district court (Robert Holmes Bell, J.) agreed with our jurisdictional argument and held that plaintiffs' lawsuit attacking an NRC rule was reviewable exclusively in the court of appeals.
At plaintiffs' request the district court transferred the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, where it was docketed as No. 93-1646.
Plaintiffs also appealed the district court's jurisdictional ruling to the Sixth Circuit-(No. 93-1710).
Once in the Sixth Circuit plaintiffs renewed their effort to obtain a court order halting use of the VSC-24 at Palisades.
The court of appeals, though, after considering responses filed by the NRC and by Consumers Power Company, denied.the request for relief.
The court (Nelson, Suhrheinrich &-Batchelder, JJ.)
issued a short order reciting the usual standards for a stay pending appeal, including likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury, and concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to a stay.
Plaintiffs (now petitioners) then filed a petition'for review in the Sixth Circuit directly attacking the NRC rule approving the VSC-24.
The petition asks the court of appeals to set aside the rule as violative of the Atomic Energy Act and y
,._,.y
+w-
=-..
NEPA.
It also attacks the NRC's denial of petitiontars' request for an adjudicatory hearing prior to issuance of the rule.
The court of appeals has consolidated this petition for review with petitioners' two earlier court of appeals cases (Nos.
93-1646 and 93-1710) and established a briefing schedule.
Petitioners' brief is due in early July, and the NRC's is due in early August.
Oral argument will follow later this year or early
)
next year.
We will keep you informed of any significant developments in any of these cases.
Sfh erely, j
u
.a o
Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc:
The Honorable John T. Myers 1
1 i
i
f* **%q
[s
- I d*'
E UNITED STATES iA l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gv WASHINGTON, D C. 20555-0001 June 14, 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:
Kellev v. Selin, cases No. 4:93-CV-67 (W.D.'Mich.,
filed May 4, 1993, and transferred May 10, 1993),
acoeal pendina, No. 93-1710 (6th Cir. ) ; No. 93-1646 (6th Cir., May 17, 1993); and No. 93-3613 (6th Cir.,
filed June 4, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Plaintiffs, the Michigan Attorney General, several private citizens and the Lake Michigan Federation, filed this lawsuit seeking immediate injunctive relief against the NRC.
Plaintiffs sought to stop Consumers Power Company from using an NRC-approved dry storage cask, the "VSC-24," at the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant.
Plaintiffs complain that the NRC has performed no site-specific NEPA analysis of the consequences of using the VSC-24 cask at Palisades.
We opposed plaintiffs' request for an immediate injunction, arguing both that the NRC had met all its NEPA duties and that the district court lacked jurisdiction over what, in essence, was a challenge to the NRC rule adding the VSC-24 to the list of casks approved by the agency.
On May 10 the district court (Robert Holmes Bell, J.) agreed with our jurisdictional argument and held that plaintiffs' lawsuit attacking an NRC rule was reviewable exclusively in the court of appeals.
At plaintiffs' request the district court transferred the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, where it was docketed as No. 93-1646.
Plaintiffs also appealed the district court's jurisdictional ruling to the Sixth Circuit (No. 93-1710).
Once in the Sixth Circuit plaintiffs renewed their effort to obtain a court order halting use of the VSC-24 at Palisades.
The court of appeals, though, after considering responses filed by the NRC and by Consumers Power Company, denied the request for relief.
The court (Nelson, Suhrheinrich & Batchelder, JJ.)
issued a short order reciting the usual standards for a stay pending appeal, including likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury, and concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to a stay.
Plaintiffs (now petitioners) then filed a petition for review in the Sixth Circuit directly attacking the NRC rule approving the VSC-24.
The petition asks the court of appeals to
set aside the rule as violative of the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA.
It also attacks the NRC's denial of petitioners' request for an adjudicatory hearing prior to issuance of the rule.
The court of appeals has consolidated this petition for-review with petitioners' two earlier court of appeals cases (Nos.
93-1646 and 93-1710) and established a briefing schedule.
Petitioners' brief is due in early July, and the NRC's is due in early August.
Oral argument will follow later this year or early next year.
We will keep you informed of any significant developments in any of these cases.
Sincerely, Q
- M7['
F. Cordes, Jr.
olicitor cc:
The lionorable Alan K.
Simpson
i y* * * %
A E'i 0
UNITED STATES 3i
~!
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 0001 June 14, 1993 The Honorable Philip Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 Re:
Kellev v.
Selin, cases No. 4:93-CV-67 (W.D. Mich.,
filed May 4, 1993, and transferred May 10, 1993),
aDoeal oendina, No. 93-1710 (6th Cir.); No. 93-1646 (6th Cir., May 17, 1993) ; and No. 93-3613 (6th Cir.,
filed June 4, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Plaintiffs, the Michigan-Attorney General, several private citizens and the Lake Michigan Federation, filed this lawsuit seeking immediate injunctive relief against the NRC.-
Plaintiffs sought to stop Consumers Power Company from using an NRC-approved dry storage cask, the "VSC-24," at the Palisades Nuclear-Power Plant.
Plaintiffs complain that the NRC has performed no site-specific NEPA analysis of the consequences of using the VSC-24 cask at Palisades.
We opposed plaintiffs' request for an immediate injunction, arguing both that the NRC had met all its NEPA duties and that the district court lacked jurisdiction over what, in essence, was a challenge to the NRC rule adding the VSC-24 to the list of casks approved by the agency.
On May 10 the district court (Robert Holmes Bell, J.) agreed with our jurisdictional argument and held that plaintiffs' lawsuit attacking an NRC rule was i
reviewable exclusively in the court of appeals.
At plaintiffs' request the district court transferred the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, where it was docketed as No. 93-1646.
Plaintiffs also appealed the district court's jurisdictional ruling to the Sixth Circuit (No.- 93-1710).
Once in the Sixth Circuit plaintiffs renewed their effort to obtain a court order halting use of the VSC-24 at Palisades.
The court of appeals, though, after considering responses filed by the NRC and by Consumers Power Company, denied the request for relief.
The court (Nelson, Suhrheinrich & Batchelder, JJ.)
issued a short order reciting the usual standards for a stay pending appeal, including likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury, and concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to a stay.
Plaintiffs (now petitioners) then filed a petition for review in the Sixth Circuit directly attacking the NRC rule approving the VSC-24.
The petition asks the court of appeals to j
~.._, _
set aside the rule as violative of the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA.
It also attacks the NRC's denial of petitioners' request for an adjudicatory hearing prior to issuance of the rule.
)
The court of appeals has consolidated this petition for review with petitioners' two earlier court of appeals cases (Nos.
93-1646 and 93-1710) and established a briefing schedule..
Petitioners' brief is due in early July, and the NRC's is due in early August.
Oral argument will follow later this year or early next year.
We will keep you informed of any significant developments in any of these cases.
Sincerely,
- 4
,F.,Cordes, ar.
o S licitor cc:
The Honorable Michael Bilirakis u/
1 l
i
i
)
f,%d* "*%,h
~
a
(
S UNITED STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y y,, j/
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 June 14, 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:
Kellev v.
Selin, cases No. 4:93-CV-67-(W.D. Mich.,
filed May 4, 1993, and transferred May 10, 1993),
acoeal pendina,.No. 93-1710 (6th Cir.); No. 93-1646 (6th Cir., May 17, 1993); and No. 93-3613 (6th Cir.,
filed June 4, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Plaintiffs, the Michigan Attorney General, several private citizens and the Lake Michigan Federation, filed this. lawsuit seeking immediate injunctive relief against the NRC.
Plaintiffs sought to stop Consumers Power Company from using an NRC-approved dry storage cask, the "VSC-24," at the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant.
Plaintiffs complain that the NRC has performed no site-specific NEPA analysis of the consequences of using the VSC-24 cask at Palisades.
We opposed plaintiffs' request for an immediate injunction, arguing both that the NRC had met all its NEPA duties and that the district court lacked jurisdiction over what, in essence, was a challenge to the NRC rule adding the VSC-24 to the list of casks approved by the agency.
On May 10 the district court (Robert Holmes Bell, J.) agreed with our jurisdictional argument and held that plaintiffs' lawsuit attacking an NRC rule was reviewable exclusively in the court of appeals.
At plaintiffs' request the district court transferred the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, where it was docketed as No. 93-1646.
Plaintiffs also appealed the district court's jurisdictional ruling to the Sixth Circuit (No. 93-1710).
-once in the Sixth Circuit plaintiffs renewed their effort to obtain a court order halting use of the VSC-24 at Palisades.
The court of appeals, though, after considering responses filed by the NRC and by Consumers Power Company, denied the request for relief.
The court (Nelson, Suhrheinrich & Batchelder, JJ.)
issued a short order reciting the usual standards for a stay pending appeal, including likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury, and concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to a stay.
Plaintiffs (now petitioners) then filed a petition for review in the Sixth Circuit directly attacking the NRC rule approving the VSC-24.
The petition asks the court of appeals to 1
i
j 1
set aside the rule as violative of the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA.
It also attacks the NRC's denial of petitioners' request for an adjudicatory hearing prior to issuance of the rule.
The court of appeals has consolidated this petition for j
review with petitioners' two earlier court of appeals cases (Nos.
93-1646 and 93-1710) and established a briefing schedule.
Petitioners' brief is due in early July, and the NRC's is due in early August.
Oral argument will follow later this year or early next year.
- l We will keep you informed of any significant developments in any of these cases.
1 Sincerely, i
~7.
ohn F.
Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor cc:
The Honorable Barbara Vucanovich i
1
-,,-n m
-~n--
m
,,-~p
-s
CONGRESSIONAL CORRZ8PONDENCE SYSTEX DOCUMENT PRZPARATION CHECKLIST This che:X11st is be submitted with each document (or group of Qs/As) sent for.
ing into the CCs.
1.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT (S) 7ki'/Y<> SAA
/
'I
'C
- ~
2.
TYPE OF' N Correspondenser Isaringar(QS'/Aab-3.
DOCUMENT CONTROL Sensitive (NRC Only)
Non-Sensitive 4.
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE and SUBCOMMITTEES (if applicable)
Congressional Committee Subcommittee i
5.
SUBJECT CODES (a)
(b)
(c) 6.
SOURCE OF DOCUXENTS (a) 5520 (document naam Scan-(c)
Atl.achmente (b)
(d)
Rekey (e)
Other 7.
SYSTEM LOG DATES (a) lf7 \\h3 Date OCA sent document to CCS (b)
Date CCS receivess document i
(c)
Date returned to OCA for additional information (d)
Date resubmitted by-OCA to CCS
~
(a)
Data entered into CCS by (f)
Date OCA notified that document is in CCS 8.
COMMENTS C30050
..