ML20129B348
| ML20129B348 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/06/1984 |
| From: | Tourtellotte J NRC - REGULATORY REFORM TASK FORCE |
| To: | Asselstine, Palladino, Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129B225 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-709 NUDOCS 8506050196 | |
| Download: ML20129B348 (2) | |
Text
'
o,, UNITED STATES o T -
!- ,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Rehm
{, I WASHINGTON D.C.20655 StelIo
<n_..,.
f September 6, 1984 Ke SP
% ***** / Minogue O FFIC E O F TH s DeYoung COMMISSIONER ocket . h.'
PDR MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino Distribution: )
s on els ine U* #" ' #"W )
Comissioner Comissioner Bernthal (Re-to WM,623 SS)
Zech -- d FROM: James R. Tourtellotte, Chairman ~~
Regulatory Reform Task Force
SUBJECT:
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION RE: LEGAL FOUNDATION !
FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND URANIUM MILL TAILINGS 1 IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT POLICY l It is my understanding that the proposed Ad' nce Notice of Proposed Rulemaking .
and the implementation and enforcement poli,y statement are based upon certain l legal analyses presented by ELD and OGC. In my view as an attorney, neither ;
analysis supports the proposed position or actions of the Comission. The ELD memo is cursory and unsubstantiated. The OGC paper selectively omits facts which would drive the conclusion in another direction. In short, these analy- '
ses are legally wrong and the proposed Comission actions are contrary to l well established law. Moreover, there is no discussion of potentially over-riding policy considerations. ]
l The proposed actions of the Comission may unnecessarily surrender NRC juris-diction to EPA. Surrendering jurisdiction would mean not only giving up certain rights, it would also mean abdicating responsibilities attendant to those rights. The long-term implications of such actions could be significant.
The precedent could be used to erode away our jurisdiction in other areas.
Control over key regulatory matters would be lost. Effectiveness and effi-ciency would be seriously impaired. Viewed as a whole, the entire process would become more uncertain, perhaps even chaotic.
I respectfully request that the Comission take no action on this matter until after I am afforded an opportunity to provide a full legal analysis. In this regard, I propose that I be given 30 days after the final OGC paper emerges to answer and state an affirmative case. I further propose oral argument be held before the Comission at a reasonable time after all briefs are submitted.
cc: See attached list g j s a i en h ca CA
, m 8506050196 850312 -J 98z PDR FDIA BERICKB4-709 PDR g g E E a
e a
' 1* 4 ~ e
- a ^ .
- l Distribution List:
OGC OPE .
01 OCA OIA ,
OPA ~
Regional Offices E00 ELD ACRS ASLBP ASLAP SECY
^- - - .