ML20046C035

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Info Re Environ & Resources Conservation Organization V. NRC, 92-70202 (9th Cir., June 30,1993). Petitioner Has 90 Days to Seek Supreme Court Review
ML20046C035
Person / Time
Site: Rancho Seco
Issue date: 07/19/1993
From: Cordes J
NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To: Lehman R, Lieberman J, Sharp P
HOUSE OF REP., HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE, SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
References
CCS, NUDOCS 9308090136
Download: ML20046C035 (5)


Text

..

/!

p "to,

u

~

t UNITED STATES

'l.. > ' (

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20666-0001

/

?.....

July 19, 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:

Environmental and Resources Conservation Oraanization v. NRC, No. 92-70202 (9th Cir., June 30, 1993)

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Petitioner in this lawsuit challenged the NRC's issuance of a

" possession-only license" for the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant near Sacramento, California.

In an adjudicatory proceeding ihe Commission ruled that petitioner lacked standing to pursue its claim that issuance of the POL violated the National Environmental Policy Act. The Commission decided that petitioner had waived its claim to standing based on " environmental" injury by not raising it on appeal to the Commission from an adverse Licensing Board decision and that petitioner's claims of " informational" and " economic"-injury were not cognizable.under NEPA.

In a short Der curiam opinion the court.of appeals.(Reinhardt, Trott &

Rymer, JJ.) denied the petition for review.

The court agreed that petitioner had waived its environmental injury claim and that its claim of economic injury was not sufficient for NEPA standing.

The court declined to consider petitioner's claim of informational injury on the ground that petitioner had not adequately addressed it in petitioner's court of appeals brief.

In a separate concurring opinion Judge Rymer indicated that she would have rejected the informational standing argument on its merits. The court concluded that various other claims raised by petitioner were either incorrect or inconsequential.

Petitioner has ninety days to seek Supreme Court review.

We will keep you informed of any significant development in the case..

Sincerely,

'Q M.

hn F. Cordes, Jr.

t

[ olicitor

~

cc:

The Honorable Alan K. Simpson 31 9308090136 930719 k

PDR ADOCK 05000312 U

PDR

a-W araw

~

f t

' UNITED STATES '

[

{

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1

># (

t WASHINGTON, D.C 205o6-0001 tf

~

,[

[

July 19, 1993 i

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:

Environmental and Resources Conservation Oraanization v. NRC, No. 92-70202 (9th Cir., June 30, 1993)

Dear Mr. Chairman:

l Petitioner in this lawsuit challenged the NRC's issuance of a

" possession-only license" for the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant near.

i Sacramento, California.

In an adjudicatory proceeding the Commission ruled that petitioner lacked standing to pursue its claim that issuance.of the POL violated the National Environmental Policy Act. The Commission decided that

~

petitioner had waived its claim to standing based on "en_vironmental" injury by not raising it on appeal to the Commission from an adverse Licensing Board decision 'and that petitioner's claims of " informational" and " economic". injury were not cognizable under NEPA.

~

In a short oer curiam opinion the court of appeals (Reinhardt,- Trott &

Rymer, JJ.) denied the petition for review.

The court agreed that petitioner-had waived its environmental injury. claim' and that its claim of economic injury was not sufficient for-NEPA standing.

The court declined to consider petitioner's claim of informational injury on the ground that petitioner had -

-i not adequately addrassed it in petitioner's court of appeals brief.

In a

)

separate concurring opinion-Judge Rymer indicated that she would have rejected the informational standing argument on its merits. The court concluded that various other claims raised by petitioner were either incorrect or inconsequential.

Petitioner has ninety days to seek Supreme Court review.

We will keep you informed of any significant development in the case.

, Mncerely, 3

.g

id$

hn F. Cordes, Jr.

.t olicitor cc: -The Honorable Michael Bilirakis t

9

)

p e-w 4

m

,,.e.

. ~

. s;; w 3

/ *'%g fi Ft UNITED STATES

[

7j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

':j f

. WASHINGTON D.C. 20665-0001.

1 s

e July 19, 1993 j

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:

Environmental and Resources Conservation Oraanization v. NRC, No. 92-70202 (9th Cir., June 30,1993)

Dear Mr. Chairman:

l Petitioner in this lawsuit challenged the NRC's issuance of a

{

" possession-only license" for the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant near Sacramento, California.

In an adjudicatory proceeding the Commi.ssion ruled that petitioner lacked standing to pursue its claim that issuance.of the POL violated the National Environmental Policy Act. The Commission decided that petitioner had waived its claim to standing based on " environmental" injury.by not raising it on appeal. to the Commission from an adverse Licensing Board decision and that petitioner's claims of " informational" and " economic" injury were not cognizable under NEPA.

In a short oer curiam opinion the court of appeals (Reinhardt,. Trott &

Rymer, JJ.) denied the petition for review. The court agreed that petitioner had waived its environmental injury claim and that its claim-of economic injury was.not sufficient for NEPA standing. The court declined to consider petitioner's claim of informational injury on the ground that petitioner had i

not adequately addressed it in petitioner's court of appeals brief.

In a.

i separate concurring' opinion Judge Rymer indicated that~she would have rejected-the informational standing argument.on its~ merits. The court concluded that various other claims raised by petitioner were either incorrect or inconsequential.

Petitioner has ninety days to seek Supreme Court review.

We will iteep you informed of any significant development in the case.

j l

Sincerely,

&y/

62 2F.-Cordes,Jr.

licitor cc: The Honorable Barbara Vucanovich

.l

,; c jaa RfCg f

UNITED STATES l

f 1j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

-[

i*

e.

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20566-0001 (v,[

i July 19, 1993 4

The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston,. Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C.

20510 Re:

Environmental and Resources Conservation Oroanization v. NRC',

No. 92-70202 (9th Cir., June 30, 1993)

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Petitioner in this lawsuit challenged the NRC's issuance of.a.

" possession-only license" for the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant near Sacramento, California.

In 'an adjudicatory proceding the Commission ruled.

that petitioner lacked standing to pursue its claim that. issuance of the POL violated the National Environmental Policy Act. The Commission decided that.

1 petitioner had waived its claim to standing based on " environmental" injury by' not raising it on appeal to'the Commission from an adverse Licensing Board decision and that petitioner's claims of " informational" and. " economic." injury were not cognizable under NEPA, 1

In a short oer curiam opinion-the court of appeals'(Reinhardt, Trott &-

Rymer, JJ.) denied the petition for review.. The' court agreed that petitioner' had waived its environmental injury. claim and that its claim of economic i

injury was not sufficient for NEPA. standing. The court declined to consider petitioner's claim of informational injury on the ground that ~ petitioner had not adequately addressed it in petitioner's court of appeals brief.

In a separate concurring opinion Judge Rymer indicated that she would have rejected-the informational standing argument on its merits. The court concluded.that.

i various other claims raised by petitioner were either. incorrect or-inconsequential.

)

Petitioner has ninety days to seek Supreme Court review.

I We will keep you informed of any significant development in the case.

Sincerely, m \\

L mV 4

/

ohn F. Cordes, Jr.

Solicitor cc: The Honorable Mark 0. Hatfield i

w

[p** "%

?t UNITED STATES

'i ; 1 j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

  • { g i j

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20566-0001

\\

+s J vuly 19, 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:

Environmental and Resources Conservation Oraanization v. NRC, No. 92-70202 (9th Cir., June 30, 1993)

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Petitioner in this lawsuit challenged the NRC's issuance of a

" possession-only license" for the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant near Sacramento, California.

In an adjudicatory proceeding the Commission ruled that petitioner lacked standing to pursue its claim that issuance of the POL violated the National Environmental Policy Act. The Commission decided that petitioner had waived its claim to standing based on " environmental" injury by not raising it on appeal to the Commission from an adverse Licensing Board decision and that petitioner's claims of " informational" and " economic" injury were not cognizable under NEPA.

In a short ger curiam opinion the court of appeals (Reinhardt, Trott &

Rymer, JJ.) denied the petition for review.

The court agreed that petitioner had waived its environmental injury claim and that its claim of economic injury was not sufficient for NEPA standing.

The court declined to consider petitioner's claim of informational injury on the ground that petitioner had not adequately addressed it in petitioner's court of appeals brief.

In a separate concurring opinion Judge Rymer indicated that she would have rejected the informational standing argument on its merits.

The court concluded that various other claims raised by petitioner were either incorrect e inconsequential.

Petitioner has ninety days to seek Supreme Court review.

We will keep you informed of any significant development in the case.

Sincerely, r

1' F

nL

/ on

. Cordes, Jr.

Solicitor 4

cc:

The Honorable John T. Myers

e CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENCE SY8 TEX DOCUMENT PREPARATION CHECLt.IST This checklist is be submitted with each document (or group of O3/As) sent for.

ing into the Ccs.

24 2

1.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT (S) s 2.

TYPE OF* N Correapondenset XeEringser (Qs/ Ash 3.

DOCUMENT CONTROL 8ensitive (NRC Only)

Non-Sannitive 4.

CONGRESSIONAL CCXxITTEE and SUBCOMMITTEE 8 (if applicable)

Congressional Committaa Subcommittas I

1.

SUBJECT CODES (a)

(b)

(c) 6.

SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS (a) 5520 (document name Y

l (b)

/\\

scan.

(c)

AtT.achments (d)

Eaksy (a)

Other 7.

SYSTEM LOG DATES Cl'll

/

(a)

Data OCA sent document to CCS (b)

Data CCS receivess document (c)

Data returned to CCA for additional information (d)

Data resubmitted by-CCA to CCE

~

(a)

Data entered into CCS by (f)

Data OCA notified that document is in CCS 8.

C:xxENTs 05007L