ML20058K730
| ML20058K730 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick, Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1993 |
| 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 9312160018 | |
| Download: ML20058K730 (10) | |
Text
__
(hD
' d)ncuq$t UNITED STATES t
j j
$OCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20666-0001 l
ks j[
g November 16, 1993 The Honorable Joseph T. Lieberman, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works 7
United States Senate Washington, D.C.'20510 l
RE:
State of New Jersev v. Lonc Island Power Authority, Civ. No. 93-4269 (GEB)
(D.N.J.,
filed-on Sept. 21, 1993; decided on Oct. 12, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
l l
The State of New Jersey brought this lawsuit On September 21 against the NRC, the Coast Guard, the Long Island Power Authority and the Pennsylvania Electric Company in federal district court in Trenton, New Jersey.
The state sought te event barge shipments of slightly spent fuel from the dett.ict Shoreham nuclear power plant in New York to the Limerick plant near Philadelphia.
New Jersey challenged the shipments as illegal under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Coastal Zone l
Management Act.
The district court (Garrett E. Brown, J.) heard argtunnt on the case within a day of its filing, and denied a ter.orary restraining order.
The state then sought temporary rulief unsuccessfully from the United States court of Appealu for the i
l Third Circuit and from Justice David Souter of the Supreme Court.
In the meantime Judge Brown scheduled an October 4 hearing on New Jersey's motion for a preliminary injunction, and on motions to dismiss that all defendants, including the NRC, had filed.
On October 12 Judge Brown denied the preliminary injunction l
and dismissed New Jersey's lawsuit.
He agreed with the NRC's jurisdictional argument that it could be sued only in the court of appeals where, as here, its licensing decisions were at issue.
He also agreed with the Coast Guard's argument that the Coastal Zone Management Act did not come into play because the Coast Guard had not approved the barge shipments within the meaning of the Act.
l New Jersey has appealed the district court's decision to the j
Third Circuit.
New Jersey' unsuccessfully sought injunctive
{
relief pending appeal.
The state has also sought relief from the Commission in a recently-filed petition that demands a halt in the barge shipments under 10 C.F.R.
S 2.206 as well as a hearing under 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714.
f l
9 12160018 931116 0)'1 s.
l PDR ADOCK 05000322 0
i U
PDR l
l d
2 During the litigation several shipments have proceeded successfully.
We have been working in close collaboration with Department of Justice attorneys on this case.
We will keep you informed of any significant development in the case.
Sincerely, j
M J )hn F. Cordes, Jr.
licitor cc:
The Honorable Alan K. Simpson f
i i
)
i
j l.
Ja,a arcuq
.7 UNITED STATES -
[
]
ROCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
a WASHINGTON, D.C. 21sN.0001
%...../
i 3
I November 16, 1993 1
l l
l The Honorable Philip Sharp, Chairman I
Subcommittee on Energy and Power l
Committee on Energy and Commerce f
United States House of Representatives 1
Washington, D.C. 20515 I
j RE:
State of New Jersev v. Lona Island Power' Authority, Civ. No. 93-4269 (GEB)
(D.N.J.,
filed on Sept. 21, j
1993; decided'on Oct. 12, 1993).
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The State of New Jersey brought this lawsuit On September 21 j
against the NRC, the Coast Guard, the Long Island Power Authority j
and the Pennsylvania Electric Company in' federal district court in Trenton, New Jercey.
The state sought to prevent barge shipments of slightly spent fuel from the defunct Shoreham i
nuclear power plant in New York to the Limerick plant near j
Philadelphia.
New Jersey challenged the shipments as illegal under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Coastal-Zone j
Management Act.
l The district court (Garrett E. Brown, J.) heard argument on the case within a day of its filing, and denied'a temporary restraining order.
The state then sought temporary relief-unsuccessfully from the United States Court of Appeals for.the j
Third Circuit and from Justice David Souter of the Supreme Court.
In the meantime Judge Brown scheduled an October-4 hearing on New.
i Jersey's motion for a preliminary injunction, and on motions to-dismiss that all defendants, including the NRC, had filed.
On October 12 Judge Brown denied the preliminary injunction and dismi
)Ise Jersey's lawsuit.
He agreed with the NRC's i
jurisdict argument that it could be sued only in the coun..
1 of appeale_
e, as here, its licensing decisions were at issue.
j He also W with the Coast Guard's argument that the coastal i
Zone Management Act,did not come into play because the Coast l
Guard had not approved the barge shipments within the meaning of-the Act.
j New Jersey has appealed the district court's decision to the i
Third Circuit.
New Jersey unsuccessfully sought injunctive relief pending appeal.
The state has also sought relief from the i
Commission in a recently-filed petition that j
demands a halt in the barge shipments under 10 C.F.R. $ 2.206 as well as a hearing under 10 C.F.R.-5 2._714.
j During the litigation several shipments have proceeded j
successfully.
We have been working in close collaboration with i
Department of Justice attorneys on this case.
3
2 l
We will keep you informed of any significant development in the case.
l I
Sincerely,
'l O
i l
,)
J F.
Cordes, Jr.
o citor cc:
The Honorable Michael Bilirakis
{
l l
6 I
I i
1
I Je %
9)*,
UNITED STATES.
i
., ~
l
[
j hidCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
2 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20MH001 k.....
j November 16, 1993 l
The Honorable Richard H. Lehman, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources l
Committee on Natural Resources United States House of Representatives i
Washington, D.C.
20515 2
l RE:
State of New Jersev v. Lona Island Power Authority, Civ. No. 93-4269 (GEB)
(D.N.J.,
filed on Sept. 21, 1993; decided on Oct. 12, 1993) i j
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I I
l The State of New Jersey brought this lawsuit On September 21 j
against the NRC, the Coast Guard, the Long' Island Power Authority j
j and the Pennsylvania Electric Company in federal district court in Trenton, New Jersey.
The state sought to prevent barge 1
shipments of slightly spent fuel from the defunct Shoreham nuclear power plant in New York to the Limerick plant near i
Philadelphia.
New Jersey challenged the shipments as illegal l
under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Coastal Zone-Management Act.
)
The district court (Garrett E. Brown, J.) heard argument on i
the case within a day of its filing, and denied a temporary I
restraining order.
The state then sought ~ temporary relief:
(
unsuccessfully from the United States Court of Appeals for the 1
Third Circuit and from Justice DavidSouter of the Supreme Court.
I In the meantime Judge Brown scheduled an October'4 hearing on New l
Jersey's motion for a preliminary injunction, and~on motions to dismiss that all defendants, including the'NRC, had filed.-
i
)
on October 12 Judge Brown denied the preliminary injunction i
and dismissed New Jersey's lawsuit.
He agreed with the NRC's jurisdictiGal argument that it could be sued only in the court of appeals,there, as here, its licensing decisions were at issue.
i He also eg'Sted with the Coast Guard's argument that the-Coastal Zone Management Act did not come into play.because the coast Guard had not approved the barge shipments within'the meaning of s
the Act.
[
New Jersey has appealed the district court's decision to the.
Third Circuit.
New Jersey unsuccessfully sought injunctive relief pending appeal.
The state has also sought relief from the Commission in a recently-filed petition that demands a halt in the barge shipments under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 as well as a hearing under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714.
j I
i During the litigation several shipments'have proceeded
'l j
successfully.
We have been working in close. collaboration with.
Department of Justice attorneys on this case.
I o
l 2
We will keep you informed of any significant development in-the case.
Sincerely, b
J
. Cordes, Jr.
o citor.
cc:
The Honorable Barbara Vucanovich i
i l
l l
t e
i t
i 4
1 i
)
l 1
l i
,,f *$o arc %,+,
l o
UNITED STATES 4
{
(
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20E5-0001
}
\\...../
r
{
November 16, 1993 i
6 l
The Honorable J.
Bennett Johnston, Chairman.
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations j
United States Senate j
j Washington, D.C.
20510 1
l RE:
State of New Jersev v.'Lona Island-Power Authority, Civ. No. 93-4269 (GEB)
(D.N.J.,
filed on Sept. 21, j
1993; decided on Oct. 12, 1993) l
Dear Mr. Chairman:
l i
The State of New Jersey brought this lawsuit on September 21 against the NRC, the Coast Guard, the Long Island Power. Authority l
^
and the Pennsylvania Electric Company in federal district court in Trenton, New Jersey.
The state sought to prevent barge shipments of slightly spent fuel from the defunct Shoreham nuclear power plant in New York to the-Limerick plant near Philadelphia.
New Jersey challenged the shipments as illegal under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Coastal' Zone Management Act.
l i
The district court (Garrett E. Brown, J.) heard argument on i
the case within a day of its filing, and denied a temporary i
restraining order.
The state then sought temporary relief-unsuccessfully from-the United States Court of Appeals for the i
Third Circuit and from Justice David Souter of.the Supreme Court.
l In the meantime Judge Brown scheduled an October.4 hearing on New Jersey's motion for a preliminary injunction, and on motions to dismiss that all defendants, including the NRC, had filed.
on October 12 Judge Brown denied the preliminary injunction and dismissed New Jersey's lawsuit.
He agreed with the NRC's jurisdictional argument that it could be sued only in the court of appeals 'wenere, as here, its licensing decisions were at issue.
He also agreed with the Coast Guard's argument that the Coastal 4
Zone Management Act did not come into play because the Coast Guard had not approved the barge shipments within the~ meaning of the Act.
New Jersey has appealed the district court's decision to the Third Circuit.
New Jersey unsuccessfully sought injunctive relief pending appeal.
The state has also sought relief from the Commission in a recently-filed petition that i
demands a halt in the barge shipments under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 as l
well as a hearing under 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714.
During the litigation several shipments have proceeded successfully.
We have been working in close collaboration with Department of Justice attorneys on this casa..
a
l l
i 2
We will keep you informed of any significant development in i
the case.
i Sincerely, 4
o
. Cordes, Jr.
So icitor cc:
The Honorable Mark O. Hatfield
- i
)
I i
I
-l
>v.,-a g
s - -
- "*4
[i UNITED STATES f
[
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
wASmNGTON D.C. 20ME 4001
%*.***J l
November 16, 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:
State of New Jersev v.
Lona Island Power Authority, Civ. No. 93-4269 (GEB)
(D.N.J.,
filed on Sept. 21, 1993; decided on Oct. 12, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The State of New Jersey brought this lawsuit On September 21 against the NRC, the Coast Guard, the Long Island Power Authority and the Pennsylvania Electric Company in federal district court in Trenton, New Jersey.
The state sought to prevent barge shipments of slightly spent fuel from the defunct Shoreham nuclear power plant in New York to the Limerick plant near Philadelphia.
New Jersey challenged the shipments as illegal under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Coastal Zone i
Management Act.
The district court (Garrett E. Brown, J.) heard argument on the case within a day of its filing, and denied a' temporary restraining order.
The state then sought temporary relief unsuccessfully from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and from Justice David Souter of the Supreme Court.
In the meantime Judge Brown scheduled an October 4 hearing on New Jersey's motion for a preliminary injunction, and on motions to dismiss that all defendants, including the NRC, had filed.
On October 12 Judge Brown denied the preliminary injunction j
and dismi New Jersey's lawsuit.
He agreed with the NRC's jurisdi 1 argument that it could be sued only in the court i
of appeal e, as here, its licensing decisions were at issue.
He also with the Coast Guard's argument that the Coastal Zone Managissent Act did not come into play because the Coast Guard had not approved the barge shipments within the meaning of the Act.
New Jersey has appealed the district court's decision to the Third Circuit.
New Jersey unsuccessfully sought injunctive relief pending appeal.
The state has also sought relief from the Commission in a recently-filed petition that demands a halt in the barge shipments under 10 C.F.R. S 2.206 as well as a hearing under 10 C.F.R. S 2.714.
During the litigation several shipments have proceeded successfully.
We have been working in close collaboration with Department of Justice attorneys on this case.
.q O
o 2
We will keep you informed of any significant development in the case.
S
- cerely, o
F. Cordes, Jr.
S licitor cc:
The Honorable John T. Myers
. n a.~.
u n.
. ~. -..
j 1
~
CONGRESSIONAL COR.RESPONDEuCE SYSTEM i
DOCUMENT PREPARATION CEECKLIST i
l Itis checklist is
- he submitted with each document (or group og 4
Qs/As) sent for.
ing into the CCS.
1.
BRIEFDESCRIPTIONOFDOCUMENT(5)
- 21) TLb.
fA/
Ho a,
/
(44/ndinev:H 2.
TYPR oF-m Corree p Neariages(9sgask 3.
DoCUMEu? CCuTaos sensitive (NRC caly)
I Nea-Semeitive 4.
CoNoREssIONAL COMMITTEE and SUBCOMMITTEES (if applicable)
Congressional Committee j
i i
subcommittes l'
5.
SUBJECT CODES l
(a)
I (b)
(c) 6.
s0URCE OF DOCUMENTS q
(a)
\\-
5520 (document amme.
(b) sean (c)
At'Eschaeats (d)
Rakey (e)
Other 1
J l
7.
SYSTEM LOG DATES 1
I
{
(al
),21 (> b Date-Oca, samt dooumont to CCS
)
(b)
Data CCS.receiveesdooument (a)
Date returned to och for additional information 0800YU Data resubmitted by-0CE to CCS
~
(d)
(e)
Data entered into CCS by
~
(f)
Date OCA motified that-document is in CCS 8.
CCMMENTS
- -