ML20057B563
| ML20057B563 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 12/07/1982 |
| From: | Bickwit L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049A457 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 SECY-82-479, NUDOCS 9309220234 | |
| Download: ML20057B563 (3) | |
Text
, _. m. - u : -.
.- - -.. :. =.- :....:
=ii e.
s
, - ~...
1
' t.g. \\
t i
ii,M //
j i
ADJUDICATORY ISSUE i
(Commission Meeting) l December 7, 1982 SECY-82-479
?
'l5 For:
The Commissioners 6
s From:
Leonard Bickwit, Jr., General Counsel j
Subject:
NRDC V.
NRC, NO. 82-1962 (DECIDED DECEMBER 2, 1982)
(CLINCH RIVER)
,f
Purpose:
To inform the Commission of the D.C.
I Circuit's decision in the Clinch River j
caseand[
j hff b f
Discussion:
On December 2, 1982, the United States I
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ("D.C.
Circuit")
decided the challenge by the Natural Resources Defense Council ("NRDC" ) to the Commission's decision authorizing I
the Department of Energy (" DOE") to j
+
initiate site preparation activit.es for i
the Clinch River Breeder Reactor j
(" CRBR").
The D.C.
Circuit-permitted site preparation to continue, but i
remanded to the Commission to reconsider its decision after conducting an accelerated adjudicatory proceeding on the issues relevant to an exemption under 10 CFR 50.12.
The Commission's decision and the record of the J
proceeding are to be filed with the D.C.
Circuit no later than February 4, 1983.
l Information in this record r;as defe'ed The D.C. Circuit based its requirement j
in accordance W th the freedom cIlitmatica for an adjudicatory hearing on Section Act. excmptions sr' 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
[
F0lA_ff_kM as amended.
Basically, the D.C. Circuit i
saw no difference of substance between the Commission's authorization of site 9309220234 930428 preparation activities by an e:<emption PDR FDIA E
or by either a construction permit (CP)
GILINSK92-436 PDR au CONTACTS:
Sheldon L.~Trubatch, OGC
.E.
Leo Slaggie, OGC f
634-3224 t
A w
s' or by a limited work authorization (LWA), both of which require prior adjudicatory hearings.
In the D.C.
Circuit's view, the similarity in substance required a similarity in hearing procedures..[A preliminarv X
)
,} fissessm_ent 1
i s
s b.
\\ -
s' 1
t~
)
J i
)
J l
l
o
,3 Recommendation r {
s --
i I
I Leonard Bickwit, br.
General Counsel
Attachment:
Order This paper is tentatively scheduled for discussion at a Closed Meeting Wednesday, December 8, 1982.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OPE OIA SECY
- -