ML20132E045
| ML20132E045 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/17/1996 |
| From: | Cordes J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-96-253, SECY-96-253-R, NUDOCS 9612200266 | |
| Download: ML20132E045 (24) | |
Text
,
i
,/# " %s RELEASED TO THE PDR e
h
}.A dll94
$$7<)
g,,
,j
..................s daio initia!
ADJUDICATORY ISSUE (Information)
December 17, 1996 SECY-96-253 For:
The Commission From:
John F. Cordes, Jr.
Solicitor
Subject:
LITIGATION REPORT - 1996 - 9 Iolaan t'nalitinn inr Rafe_ Energy v. NRC, No. 95-1590 (D.C. Cir., decided Nov. 26,1996)
This lawsuit challenged use of the NUHOMS dry storage cask at the Davis-Besse nuclear power reactor in Ohio and at the Calvert Cliffs reactor in Maryland. The NRC approved use of that cask in an earlier rulemaking. The lawsuit allegcd, among other things, that the users of the cask had made alterations without seeking amendment of their certificate of compliance.
We moved to dismiss the lawsuit as premature. Petitioners had not brought their claims first to the NRC, as required by the NRC's judicial review provisions. The court of appeals (Silberman, Randolph Tx Rogers, JJ.) has issued a short order dismissing the case in its entirety. The court ruled that the Ohio petitioners' claim was not ripe because their grievance still was before the NRC (via a petition under 10 C.F.R. I 2.206). The court dismissed the Maryland petitioners' claim for lack of standing because the only agency action identified in the petition related to the Davis-Besse petition.
NRC action on the pending i 2.206 petition could lead to renewed litigation on the NUHOMS cask.
CONTACT:
Peter G. Crane 415-1622 Thermal Arlanen inc_ v NRC, No. 4:96CV02282-CAS (E.D. Mo., filed November 20,1996)
This lawsuit seeks to halt further NRC consideration of a proposed $900,000 civil penalty against Thermal Science, incorporated (TSI), a company that produces and sells to the nuclear industry a fire barrier product known as Thermo-Lag. The proposed penalty rests on i
alleged misrepresentations about the testing of Thermo-Lag. The complaint points to TSI's l
p acquittallast year on related criminal charges and argues that NRC pursuit of a civil penalty violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN 5
,c WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS PAPER
\\s-4012e g s oo g o gfg yog n)-]u
. q,a g m
> <a g
g, g i.h4
...I
I The Commission 2
complaint also argues that the NRC lacks statutory jurisdiction to assess civil penalties against non-licensees like TSI. Finally, the complaint contends that the basis for the proposed penalty here, the " wrongdoer rule" (10 C.F.R. 5 50.5), also lies outside the NRC's statutory authority.
)
TSI seeks a stay of the deadline (currently January 31) to respond to the proposed civil penalty and a preliminary injunction halting further NRC penalty proceedings. We are drafting an opposition to the stay and injunction motions and will work with the United
)
States Attorney's office in St. Louis in defending this case.
CONTACTS: Charles E. Mullint 415-1618 Peter G. Crane 415-1622 j
Mort n v. NRC, No. 97-3067 (Fed. Cir., filed Nov. 12,1996) i This lawsuit was brought by the widow of a deceased former NRC employee and challenges an agency personnel decision. The suit apparently will argue that the NRC violated whistleblowing protection laws in terminating the former employee. The lawsuit challenges a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board, whicle upheld the NRC in full.
We will work with the Department of Justice in defending this suit.
CONTACT:
J. Bradley Fewell 415-1569 Naifelix_Jarkann, No. 96C-629 (N.D. Ill., filed Sept. 22, 1996)
This is the second lawsuit filed against the IJRC by an NRC employee claiming violations of i
the Americans with Disabilities Act. A copy of both complaints is available from OGC.
CONTACT:
J. Bradley Fewell 415-1569 4
1
The Commission 3
Fuhrmaletar v. NRC, No. CV-0000481-96 (State District Court, Montgomery County, Pa.,
filed Nov. 26,1996)
An NRC employee brought this lawsuit to claim about $300 lost when his work assignments prevented him from taking annualleave. The lawsuit was filed in state court. We currently are consulting with the United States Attorney in Philadelphia on how best to defend the case.
CONTACT:
Grace H. Kim 415-3605
- b. Cord Solicitor DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OCAA OlG OPA OCA ASLBP EDO SECY
)
_.,.. _ _ -_. -. ~ _ _ _ _.
_-_._._________.._-__.__m__.-...
i l
- )
l I
1 l
i I
s i
i i
ATTACHMENT 1 Talada ca=li+1an for s.v. pn.,9y v Nac, No. 95-1590 (D.C. Cir., decided Nov. 26,1996)
I t
I 1
)
l 5
l i
i j
L i
?-
1
- i l
1 lHnitch States Court oMppeabr Fon THE DETMCT OF COUMB64 CWDCUff No. 95-1590 September Term,1996 Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy, et al.,
l Petitioners UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR DISTRICT OF C01.UMBIA CIRCull y,
FILED l
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and United States of NOV 2 61996 i
- America, Respondents Ct.ERK
_J Centerior Energy Corporation, et al.,
intervenors BEFORE:
Silberman, Randolph, and Rogers, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of the motions to dismiss, the lodged opposition thereto, the lodged replies, the motion for leave to exceed page limits, and the opposition thereto, it is ORDERED that the motion to exceed page limits be granted. The Clerk is directed to file the lodged documents. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to dismiss be granted. With respect to the Ohio petitioners, this matter is not ripe for judicial review because of the pendency of the agency proceedings. $_e_t Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner. 387 U.S.136,149 e
(1967). Accordingly, we dismiss this petition for review as to those petitioners without prejudice, see Mississiool Vallev Gas Co. v. FERC. 68 F.3d 503, 507 (D.C. Cir.1995),
and without ruling on the standing issue. We dismiss with prejudice as to the remaining petitioner, Maryland Safe Energy Coalition because the Coalition does not have standing to challenge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's letter dated October 12,1995, which concerns storage casks to be shipped to the Davis-Besse site in Ohio under a general license.
l l
l 1
Enitch States Court of Eppealg Fon THE District or CotuntsA Cincuri No. 95-1590 September Term,1996 The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. Sgt D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Per Curiam a
2
_ > _. _.._. _..__ __ _ ~. _ _.. _ _ _. _ _ ~ _ _..._.. ~ _..
i y.
4 4
4 4
1 e
4 1..
1-j 4
I
'I 1
l J~
i l
i e.
t 1 -
t 3.
f I
s' 4
t, t
t--
1-i i
F
-l 1
i 4
ATTACHMENT 2 l
' Thermal crianc. Int-v. NRC, No. 4:96CV02282 CAS (E.D. Mo., filed November 20,1996) l a
k 5.
i 5
}
i.
UbTTED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI i
MERMAL SCIENCE, INC.,
)
)
l Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
Case No. y: 76OO4$2-CA.S
)
i UNITED STATES
)
l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION,
)
)
{
Defendant.
)
)
SERVE:
)
)
Edward L. Dowd, Jr., Esq.
)
United States Anorney for the
)
l Eastern District of Missoun
)
401 U.S Court & Custom House
)
1114 Market Street
)
St. Louis. MO 63101
)
)
Janet Reno, Esq.
)
l Anomey General of the United States
)
j 10th Suget, N.W. & Constitution Avenue )
Wuhington, D.C. 20530
)
)
James Lieberman, Director
)
Office of Enforcement
)
United States Nuclear Regulatory
)
Commission
)
One White Flint North
)
11555 Rockville Pike
)
Rockville, MD
)
1 COMPLAINT For its Complaint against Defendant. the United States Nuclear Regulatory i
Comaussion ("NRC"), Plaintiff 'Ibermal Science. Inc. ("TSI"), states as follows:
I J
7 j7 g__
P Desenptim of Action l
1.
This is an action for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief :frohibiting the NRC from unlawfully pursuing monetary penalty proceedings against TSI.
2.
De NRC's recently commenced penalty proceeding violates TSI's i
constimtional right against the threat of suceenive governmen: prosecutions. as guaranteed by the Double Jeopartly Clause of the Fifth Amendtnem to the Unhed States Constimtion.
l TSI was already prosecuted for the same allegedly wrongful conduct in a lengthy criminal l
trial which concluded in August 1995. The jury in that pnor erhinal action unammausly acquitted TSI of all charges of wrongdoing.
]
3.
In addition. the NRC's current pena!ry pmceeding excee.is the agewy's natutory autburity to hupow such penalties under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,42 U.S.C. Il 2011, g ag., and also improperty seeks to extend the NRC's jurisdiction to non-Icensee suppliers like TSI who are not within the scope of the NRC's lawful jurisdiction.
Juri=Aidion And V-w-4.
This Court has subject maner jurisdiction over this controversy pt.rsuant to 28 U.S.C. I 1331 bossuse TSI's clairns artse under the Constitution and laws of the Umtad States, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. I 1337 because this is a civil action ansing under an Act of Ccngress regulating commerce, specifically, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
j 5.
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. I 1391(e) because the Defendant is an agency of the United States and the Plaintiff resides in this District.
The Pames i
6.
M1 ts a corporauon orgamzed under the laws of the State of Missoun wah its principal and only place of business in St. Louis, Missouri.
2
. - _ ~
1 1
4 7.
The NRC is a federal agency with offices in various locations nationwide.
Re NRC's principal offices are located in Rockville, Maryland, 4
Facma! Background f
3.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the "Act") permits the private dcsclopment of suc1 car energy under a Congassionally defined licensing regi:ne and creates j
an admmistrative agency, the NRC, to make and enforce rules goveming licensees and their activities.
9.
The Act requuss nuclear power placts and othe:s engaged in specified activities to obtain licenses from the NRC in order to operate, and permits the NRC to issue 4
I regulations that govern persons engaged in activities for which a license is required ne Act j
coes not generally permit the NRC to issue regulations governing persons who, like T3!, are rtther licemed nor engaged in activity for which a license is required.
10.
TSI is engaged in the manufacture and sale of a group of fire resistive products known collectively as Thermo Lag. Thermo Lag has been safely used for more than two decades in varied applications, includirng (a) the protection from fim of offshore and on-shore chemical and petrochemical installadons, railroad tank cm, amt liquerunt natural gas storage containers, (b) the protocuan of missiles and rockets from the heat generated upon reemry imo the Earth's atmosphere, and (c) the protection of electrical cables in nuclear power plass.
11.
In November,1980, the NRC issued a regulation. codified at 10 C.F.R.
i 50.48 and Appcodix R (" Appendix R*), enutled " Fire Protection cf Safe Shutdown Capability." Appendix R required that each licensed nuclear power plant establish cenain 3
.........u......:.
i fire protecdon reatures, including the protection from fire ot cecain electrical cables used m the plants 12.
Beginning in 1979, TSI, along with various testing laborateries, conducted fire tests of Thermo Lag to determine whether it provided sufficient the protection to qualify it for use h nuclear power plants to protect electrical cables, and thereby satisfy the criteria of Appenaix R. Following these successful tests, the NRC approved the use of Thenno-lag by j
nuclear power plants to protect electrical cables as requued by Appendix R. Beginning m i
1982 and continuing through the present, TSI has sold Therm 1.ag to nuclear power plants for use in protecting electrical cables from fire.
13.
In 1991, ils NRC begau pazallel @n6:mative ami criminal investigaduus pertanung to TSI and Thenno Lag. The investigations concerned, among other things, allegations tuat TSI had misrepresemed to utilities, their agents, and the NRC the nanne and extent of the involvement of independent testing laboratories in fire tests of Thermo-Lag. On numerous occasions beginning in 1991, the NRC requested and subpoenaed documents and information from TSI, and TS! provided the documents and information requested.
'Ibe_Crumnal Proceedings 14.
As a result of the NRC's investigation, in September,1994, TSI and its President. Rubin Feldman, wars cbs.rged in a seven count Indictment returned in the United j
Stams District Court for the Distnct of Maryland. Southern Division. The Indictment charged TSI and Mr. Feldman w.th one count of conspiracy to make false meanments and to detraud the United States, in Sklanon of 15 U.S.C. I 371; three counts or mabag false stamments within the jurisdiction of the NRC, in violation of 13 U.S.C. I 1001: and three 4
__. - - _. - \\
..................u l
l l
coums of maung incomplete and inaccurate statemerus to the NRC, in violation of 42 l
U.S.C. (( 2273(a) and 2201(b) and 10 C.F.R. ti 50 5(a). A copy of the Incietment is attached as Exhibit A. On or about May 4,1995. a Superseding Indictment was issued in the same case. The Superseding Indictment is attached as Exhibit B.
15.
The Indictment and Superseding Indictment focused on charges that TSI. in l
Stateinents to the NRC and to utilitics that operated nuclear power plants and their ager.rs, mis:spresented the nature and extent of the involvement of independent test.ng laborascrica in tess of Thenno Lag. The Indictment and Superseding Indictment also charged that TSI made false sta:eoents to the NRC during its investigation conceming the role of independent testing laboratories in the testing of Thermo-Lag.
16.
On August 1.12, following a trial lasting nearly three month <. the jury unammously acqumed TSI and Mr. Feldman of all charge.s. Tbs judgment of acquimal is attached as Exhibit C.
N NRC's hrond Annmar To Puniah TSI.
17.
Following TSI's acquinal, the NRC ordered a trial trans:ript and instmeted certam NRC staff members to review the testimony in enntemplation of pursuing funher punitive accon against T$1.
18.
On October 1,1996, the NRC issued its " Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalti# (the " Notice of Violation") against TSI, seeking to impose a
$900,000 penalty for alleged violations of 10 C.F.R. { 50.5. A copy of the NRC's letter to TSI advising of the Notice of Viniation is attached as Exhibit D: a copy of the Notice of Violatica is attached as Exhibit E.
).
.. u.... ; :......
2.
M 4
4 4
19.
As in the prior crurunal proceeding, the NRC's Nodce of Violation claims, as the basis for levying the demanded $900,000 penalty, that TSI made alleged false representations to the NRC concerning the nature and extent of N involvement of i
independent testing laboratones in the testing of Thermo-lag.
20.
The facts on which Charges A, R C, nnri D in the N'nrice of Violation are j
based are the same as the facts on which Counts I, II, III, and IV of tim: Supmsding Indictment were based. Similarly, all other charges in the Notice of Violation are part of, or closely related to, the governrnent's failed allegations in the Supersedag Indictment and the j
broad array of evidence the government unsuccessfully presented in the enminal trial.
I j
21.
De Notice of Violation unlawfully anempts to punish TSI for the same alleged s
conduct. acts, and wrongdoing that were at issue in the prict criminal proceedings, and to i
prosecute TSI successively for the same offenses of which it was aheady acqumed The NRQAn* mot To trean-Pen.we In he,ss of hs wr < x__du i
22.
Section 234 of the Atoaue Energy Act 42 U S.C. I 2282(a)("Section 2282-),
the stamte pursuant to which the NRC purports to levy is demanded $900,000 penalty against TS!, provides in portinent part as follows:
i Any person who (1) violates any licensing pronsion of section 2073, 2077,2092,2093,2111,2112,2131,2133,2134,2137, or 2139 of this title or any rule, regulation. or order issued thereunder, or any tenn, condition, or i
lisnizadon of any license issued thereunder, or (2) commits any violation for which a Ecense may be revoked under section 2236 of this title, shall be i
subject to a civ1! penalty, to be unposed by the Comnussion, of not to exceed 5100,000 for each such violation. * (emphasis added) 4
[
23.
Thus, by its express terms, Section 2282 only authorizes the NRC to impose penalties for violadon of the licensing provisions of certain specined statutes (and regulations
)
i l
h 1
l
i
. _ A.,_.....
m
.a i-4
.s j
inued '.hcreunder), for violations of licenses, and for violations for whieb licenses ma) be revoked.
i 4
24
'Ibe Nodce of Violation seeks to impose a S900,000 penalty against TSI i
j pursuant to i 2282 on the ground that TSI violated 10 C.F.R. I 50.5 ("Section 50.5"), a regulation that provides in pertinent part:
Any licensee or any employee of a licensee: and any contractor (including a supplier or consultam), subcontractor, or any employee of a contractor or subcontractor, of any ik. cues, who knowingly provides to any
~,
licensee, contractor, or subcontractor, components, equipment, materials, or i
other goods or services, that relate to a licensee's activities subject to this part.
may not:
Deliberately wbudt to the NRC, a licensee, or a licensee's contractor or subcontractor, information that the person submitting the information knows j
to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC.
25.
Section 50.5 purports to apply to suppliers, like TSI, who are not engaged in 4
activity for which an NRC license is required. Since Section 50.5 was not issued pursuant to the licensing provisions of any nf the staattes specified m i 2282. the NRC lacks 6tatutory authority to impme a penalty for alleged violanons of f 50.5. Accordingly, the NRC's t
anempt to impose a penalty on TSI for allegedly violating y 50.5 is unlawful and invalid.
i 26.
Likewise, insofar as i 50.5 purports to regulate the activities of non-licensee l
suppliers like TSI, the regulation exceeds the NRC's statutory authority and is invalid.
l Under the Atomic F.nergy Act, the NRC's regulatory jurisdiction is limited to the conduct i
mal activities of licemees, or those engaged in activity for which a license is required. TSI d
is not a licensee and has never engaged in activity for which a license is required.
a Consequemly, the NRC has no statutory authority to regulate TSI's conduct, or to lesy penalties against TSI.
4
] :
l i
.-u-
.....u A
a=.-
u: :-
d couvr1 (FOR A PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INE.WCTION)
(Violation of Double J6epardy Clause) 1/.
181 realleges and incorporates herein by reference as if set forth in full the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 26.
28.
The proceeding initiated by the Nouce of Violation is a successive prosecution for the same offense. within the sneamns of and in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clauw i
of the Fifth Amendment, because, among other reasons:
l A.
The a!!egations in the Notice of Violation were the subject of a prior cruninal proceeding.
B.
The alleged conduct on which the penalty is based--the deliberate submission of allegedly false statements to the NRC--would, if proven.
altsady be a crune.
C.
The penalty the NRC seeks to unpose requires a finding of scieser.
D.
The purpose of the proposed penalty is to promote the traditional aims of pmiahment: retribution and deserrence.
E.
There is no alternative non-punitive purpora that may rationally be attributed so the proposed penalty.
F.
The proposed penalty is excessive in !!ght of any conceivable non-punitive purpose.
20.
De isance of the Nodee of Violation is a second anempt to punish TS! for the same offenne, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
30.
By reason of the foregoing. TSI is suffering immediate and irreparable injury
{
as a result of the violation of its constimtional rights caused by the second criminal pr* ~dia*.
It is also suffering immediate and irreparable idury to its business as a result of the Notice of vinterion and remitirig proceedings. These losses include damage to its i
reputation and hann to its goodwill per==ut ton of cotomers, orders, revenues, profits..
I and employees, and the insses associated with having to expend additional substan:ial company rewusses to defeud dw NRC's latest meridcss punitive proceedings. Unless the requested injunctive relief is granted, TSI will comtnue to suffer immediate and trruparable injury. TSI has no adequate rernedy at law.
31.
TSI has alleged specific and definite facts showing a definite right to dw relief which it ultunately seeks, and has alleged specific and defmite facts that show a defimte probabilhy of psevailing on the merits.
CpUNTD (FOR PREIlMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE REl fFF)
(Violation Of Atomic Energy Act) 32.
TSI realleges and incorporates herein by reference as if set forth in fb!! the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 31.
33.
The proccoding inidated by the Notice of Violation exceeds the stamtory authority of the NRC because, among other reasons A.
The NRC lacks the statutory authority to impose monetary penalnes on suppliers such as TSI for violation of I 50.5, because that regulation was not issued pursuam to the licensing provisions of the stannes j
enumerated in i 2282; i
B.
The NRC has exceeded its stamtory authority by attemptag to apply i 50.5 to TSI, winch is not engaged in activities for which a license is required and is not otherwise subject to the NRC's regulatory authority pursuant to the Atomk: Energy Act, i
34.
By reason of the foregoing, TSI is suffering immediate and trreparable styury as a result of the NRC's inidation of an enforcement proceeding beyond its stamtory authority. This immediate and irreparable injury includes damage to its reputanon and hann to its goodwill, permanent loss of customers, enters, reveeues. profits, and employees, and the losses associated with having to expeud additional substanual company resources to
.p.
l A.
l l
l i
defend the NRC's latest meridess punitive proceedings. Unless dw reques'ed preliinimry usunctive relief is granted. TSI will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable injury. TSI 2'
has no adequate remedy at law.
i t
35.
TSI has alleged specific and definite facts showing a definite right to the relief I
which it ultimately seeks. and has alleged specific and definite facts that show a defintre probability of prevailing on the merics.
1 i
WHEREFOP.5., Plainuff Thermal Science, Inc. requests that this Court grant :he i
following relief:
A.
A preliminary and pe manent injunction directing the NRC to dismiss its " Notice of Violation and Proposed imposinon' of Civil Penalties" 1
and to end all further sinular proceedings against TSI: and l
B.
Such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper i
i i
Respectfully submitted, j
I THOMPSON COBL1tN ZUCEERMAN, SPAEDER, GOLDSTELN, TAYLOR & SE1TER, L.L.F.,
2/Is.I 44 By By Cordad 1.
,~
325' Martin S. hnele', Jr.' '[
s Michael J.
Sheryl B. Goldstein One Mers.amile Camer 100 E. Pran Street, Seite 2240 St. Imuis, Missouri 63101 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Telephone: ('414) $$2-6000 TW.--: (410) 332 0444 Facsimile- (314) 5$2 7000 Facsimile: (410) 689 04M Atunneys for Deftadam Thermal Science, Inc.
4 10-
ATTACHMENT 3 Mnrrin v. NBC, No. 97-3067 (Fed. Cir., filed Nov. 12,1996) i l
l I
t l
l l
I t
t 1
l l
l t
i i
i
m.-
~. _ _ ~.
m FILED O,8 COURToF APPEALS FC j
THE FECEaAL cmculT F
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT gg
)
CLERK '
CAROL MORRIS, Widow of
)
CHARLES E. MORRIS,
)
i i
Petitioner,
)
DOCKET NUMBER j
)
DC-0752-0774-I-1 l
v.
)
Q 7,,,(Q h k 7
)
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION,
)
t/ 5 JVVO Respondent.
)
)
)
)
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER OF THE MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD Carol Morris, widow of Charles E. Morris, hereby petitions the Court for review of the Order of the Merit Systems Protection Board, entered on October 9, 1996, denying Petitioner's petition for review, and upholding Respondent's removal of Petitioner for i
unacceptable performance and misc.oni'.uct.
Respectfully Submitted,
}
7 Ernest C. H'adl8y
(
)
Attorney for Petitio Wr j
1040 B Main Street P.O. Box 549 West Wareham, MA 02576 1
(508) 291-1354
- 20054 i
j Dated: November 8, 1996 i
i i
4 4
e L
l e
a o
~
UNITED STATEE OURT OF APPEALS FOR IE FEDERAL CIRCUlT NOTICE OF DOCKETING 97-3067 - MORRIS V NRC gg 11/18/96 h
4 (Date of Docketing)
~4 Petition for review of:
g MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD C
to DC0752940774-I-l Name of petitioner: CHARLES E. MORRIS Critical dates for counsel, pro se parties, agencies, the board, and arbitrators include:
Date of docketing, as above (Rules 12 & 15)
Cenified list due (Rule 17)
Entry of appearance due (Rule 47.3)
)
Certificate of interest due (Rule 47.4) i Statement concerning discrimination due (Fed. Cir. R.15(c))
Briefs due (Rule 31). Pro se panies must not file the informal brief until after the cenified list has been filed and served.
Calendar for oral argument or submission on briefs (Rule 34) i P v se panies should refer to the GUIDE FOR PRO SE PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS.
Attachments (with recipients noted) to this notice include:
Official caption (All)
Rules of Practice (includes GUIDE FOR PRO SE PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS)
(Private parties or counsel)
Entry of appearance form ( All counsel and pro se panies)
Statement concerning discrimination (MSPB petitioners)
Informal brief form (Pro se parties)
Copy of Rule 15 petition for review (board and counsel for respondents)
Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis form (Panies owing the docketing fee)
MELVIN L. HALPERN, Acting Clerk cc:
David M. Cohen. Department of Justice,1100 L Street, N.W. Room 12124 Washington. D.C. 20530 Clerk. Merit Systems Protection Board. Washington, D.C. 20419 Ernest C. Hadley
/4-3'7-[bb NEW
""^"'"'"' " "'S s I E
umannerman c
8= *
- mama NOV 2 01996 O
ammemmen.
= =
n (6NOV 2 01996 civil. ea M,
Unitcd State., Court of Appoals for.o Fcdcrcl Circuit Official Caption 2 97-3067 CHARLES E. MORRIS, Petitioner, v.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent.
On a petition for review of an order of the Merit Systems Protection Board issued in DC0752940774-I-1 on October 9, 1996, denying review of the initial decision dated December 14, 1995.
2 Aythorized Abbre iated Caption MORRIS V NRC, 97-3067 v
2Required for use en petitions, formal briefs and append-ices, court opinions, and dispositive court orders.
FRAP 12 (a) ;
32(a).
2Authorized for use only on items not requiring the Official Caption as listed in note 1.
/
f
(
U
ATTACHMENT 4 Fuhrrmaletar v NRC, No. CV-000048196 (State District Court, Montgomery County, Pa.,
filed Nov. 26,1996) 9
... m.~.
~
,;; g w y gg n COUNTY OF: _MONrGOMERY HEARING NOTICE u., o,,,
Pu*m!!
- amm 38-1-25 Tr0ERMEISTER,ROYL.
i m ha~ ~
19 E. RAMBO STREET j
JOHN L. KOWAL BRIDGEPORT, PA 19405 j
- '"' 12 8 WEST 4TE STREET L
j BRIDGEPORT, PA vs.
j DEFENDANT:
. mc...mxnes
{
%.(610)277-3377 19405-0000 F.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATOltY Colof1SSIONl U
475 ALLENDALE ROAD
{3 KING OF RPUSS7A, PA 19406 i
L J
j U.S. MUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
475 ALLENDALE ROAD Docket No.: CV-0000481-96 l
KING OF RFUSSIA, PA 19406 Date Filed:11/26/96 i
i
\\
t i
A cMI cornplaint has been filed against you in the above cap *ioned case. A hearing has been set in thin matter for:
i 1
i Date:
1/07/97 Place: DISTRICT wuxT 38-1-25 128 WEST 4TE STREET
{
Time:
10:45 AM BRIDGEPORT, PA 19405-0000 1
I I
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT I
i i,
i j
if you htend to enter a defense to this complaint, you.hould.o notify thi. offic'e immed!stely at the.bove phone number.
j i
You mu.t appe.r at the he. ring and present your defense. UNLESS YOU DO, JUDGMENT WILL BE ENTERED AGAtHST YOU BY DEFAut.T.
I i
if you have a claim again6t the plaintiff whicn is witnin Oestnct justice jurisdiction and!which you irtend to assert at the hearing, you mu.t file it on a complaint form at this office at least five (S) days before the date set for the hearing. If you hevo a claim agal%t the plaintiff wh.ch is not within OiStrict justice prisdiction, you may requet.
wormation from this ofrice as to the procedures you may follow.
\\
l if you.r..i hied.n require isi.nc., pi...e coniaci the u.,i.ieri.i oi.iriot offi...t th..dare l
. above.
j i.
o i
t j'
DATE PRINTED: 11/2C/96 4
AOPC 308844 i
. ~. a. me m. ua
. w,
. ~
.<c..
i ;
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA UML WWWW I PLAINTIFF:
Mag 6 ster *".) 06 strict Number 38 1-2.5 DJN w Mn Jggg g ggggL g,,,
^88**
123 vggt 300323 ymEIf Mo'us
- DOY b FDEME1STE 4
navneursWr, RA.1491405 19 L m STREET
.I RIDGEr0ET, FA. 19405 j
TWephone No. f610) 277-3377 l
COMPLMNT NUMBER. CV 481-96 oytungurgsp vs.
j DATE mLeo. 11/26/96 r
wourn DATE PAID Addene FIUNG COSTS 8
475 AI22 5 &I2 30&B 1
scaviceCosTs s Erst, or rasssIA. PA.19406 i
J.C.P.
5 1.50 D.2 Name Aa ns j
-TOTAL 8 41.70 11/26/96 TO THE DEFENDANT: The aime named plaintiftte) a k luogment against you for s 310941. together with ccets upon me vos ins c<.im cesi noe== anetaria enanon o' the mute or oenanca vioistan:
's ?Q MNIES WB Em INT DBFOSIE, 1
1, EffL M ver6fy that the facts set fonh in this cornptaint are true end correct to the best of my knowledge, hto mation, and bel;ef. Th6s ment 6s made subject to the pensties of Secuan 4004 of the Crimes Code (18 Ps C.S.A. $49o4) related to unsworn Isisiflestion to nes.
\\h v (sigistRe si mainim or Amtersea Apeno 1
Plaintiff 5 i
W Adeems Toiseme 6EARIIG fl SQtEDUJED SY DitTRICT Alliu A6 FOLLOWB-128uisT4dsTapf RIn g ear. PA. 19405 1/7/97 10:45 A.m
- teesse, osa Time IF YOU INTEND TO ENTER A DEFENSE TO THIS COMPLAINT, NOTIFY THIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY AT THE ABOVE TELEPHONE NUMBER. YOU MUST APPEAR AT THE HEARING AND PRESENT YOUR DEFENSE. UNLESS YOU DO, JUDGMENT WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY DEFAULT..
IF YOU HAVE A CLAIM against the pialntiff whi:h is within district petice jurisdiction and which you intend to assert at the hearin3 You must file at on a cornplaint form at mis ohice at least five (s) cays before the date set for the hearing. If you have a claim against the plaintiff whl=h is not within distrf:t justice jonntlWinn, yrw meir requegt inferrnetion from thle offee es to the procedures you may follow. If you a's disabled and requke assistance to atterd court, please contact the Magisterial' District office at the address above.
AOPC 308 94 ogpgggAgg.0(D 1) COPY TOTAL P.03
-