ML20137F354

NEI Reply to Cant Opposition to NEI Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief.* NEI Requests Commission to Allow Amicus Participation in Review of Issues & to Grant NEI Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20137F354
Person / Time
Site:	Claiborne
Issue date:	03/19/1997
From:	Bishop R, Gaukler Pa, Gormley P, Doris Lewis, Silberg J NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT &, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#297-18220 LBP-96-25, ML, NUDOCS 9704010083
Download: ML20137F354 (6)

Text

! g3 73 '

i 00CKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W NAR 20 A9 34 Before The Commission DFFICE OF SECRETARY DOCKETING & SERVICE BRANCH

/

In the Matter of

)

)

Docket No. 70-3070-ML LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P. )

)

(Special Nudear Material (Claiborne Enrichment Center)

)

License)

)

NEI REPLY TO CANT OPPOSITION TO NEI MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMICUS BRIEF On March 13,1997, the Nudear Energy Institute ("NEI") moved for leave un-der 10 C.F.R. 5 2.715(d) to file an amicus brief in connection with the Commission's review of the Partial Initial Decision, LBP-96-25,44 NRC _ (1996), issued in the above matter. NEI sought leave to participate as an amicus because of the importance of the issues raised by that decision to the entire nudearindustry. The Intenenor, Citizens Against Nudear Trash (" CANT"), has filed an opposition to NEI's motion forleave to file an amicus brief basing its opposition on the fact that the applicant, Louisiana Energy Senices ("LES"), is represented by capable counsel.

NEI seeks to file an amicus brief because of the importance of the Licensing Board's decision for the nudear industry at large. As explained more fully in NEI's motion forleave to file an amicus brief, and in the amicus brief itself, the Board's deci-sion both injures the financial interest of NEI's members - in denying the license for an alternative, competitive source of uranium enrichment - and establishes damaging i

precedents that could adversely impact future NRC licensing decisions. As the NR*

O 70 C

PDR l

4 l

l representative of the nuclear industry, NEI is in the best position to articulate to the Commission the important legal and policy matters raised by the Board's decision j

from the broader industry perspective. Funher, in its amicus brief, NEI has set forth arguments that it believes are necessary to ensure a complete presentation to the Com-mission of the important legal and policy issues raised by the Board's decision.2 Traditionally, the Commission and, prior to 1991, the Atomic Safety and Li-censing Appeal Board (" Appeal Board") have exercised their discretion under 10 C.F.R. $ 2.715(d) broadly to allow interested parties to file amicus briefs on the review of Licensing Board decisions in order to allow full exploration of important issues.

See, g, Sequoyah Fuels Corporation and General Atomics (Gore, Oklahoma Site),

CLI-96-3,43 NRC 16 (1996); Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-91-02,33 NRC 61 (1991). Such amicus participation as-sists the Commission in " resolving matters of general public import" and " insures a complete presentation of difficult issues so that a proper decision is reached." Nu-clear Fuel Services (Western New York Nuclear Service Center), ALAB-679,16 NRC 121,125-26 n.11 (1982). As stated above, NEI believes it will provide such assistance i

to the Commission here. Neither the Commission nor the Appeal Board have ever identified capability of counsel for the panies as a factor in determining whether or not to allow amicus panicipation under 10 C.F.R. $ 2.715(d), as suggested by CANT.

In fact, amicus participation has been allowed where numerous able counsel repre-sented both sides of the issues. S, eg, Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham S

Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-788,20 NRC 1102 (1984). Rather, the critical L'

CANT claims that it would be prejudiced by having to respond to NEI's amicus briefin view of other demands in the licensing proceeding. In that NEI's participation does not en-large the underlying issues to be briefed, the basis for CANT's assertion is not self-evident.

Further, the burden of having to prepare multiple pleadings, referred to by CANT in its op-position, is a concomitant part of the litigation process involved in Commission licensing.

2

.. ~.

j 4

test is whether the participation of an amicus will assist the Commission in reaching a i

proper decision.

i Thus, NEI respectfully requests the Commission to follow its long stand-ing practice of allowing amicus participation in its review of imponant issues and to grant NEI's motion forleave to file the amicus brief attached to its motion.

{

t Respectfully submitted, Nuclear EnergyInstitute Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbddge 1776 I Street, N.W.

2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006 Washington, D.C. 20037 b,

id

(

bli 3

Roben W. Bishop Jay E. Silberg Vice President and General Counsel David R. Lewis Paul A. Gaukler Paul Gormley Counsel for Nuclear Energy Institute Dated: March 19,1997

)

l i

1 3

r

j-hakkO97 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOR t1AR 20 A9 :54 Before the Commission 0FFICE OF SECRETARY DOCKETING & SERVICE BRANCH In the Matter of

)

)

Docket No. 70-3070-ML LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.

)

)

(Special Nuclear Material License) i (Claibome Enrichment Center)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of"NEI Reply To CANT Opposition To NEI Motion For Leave To File An Amicus Brief" have been served on the persons listed below by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, or where indicated by an asterisk by hand delivery, or where indicatd by a double asterisk by both facsimile and first class mail, this 19th i

day of March,1997.

• Shirley A. Jackson, Chairman

• Kenneth C. Rogers, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-16 GIS Mail Stop O-16 G15 One White Flint North One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Rockville, MD 20852-2738

• Greta J. Dicus, Commissioner

• Edward McGaffigan, Jr., Commissioner l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

Mail Stop O-16 GIS Mail Stop O-16 GIS One White Flint North One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Rockville, MD 20852-2738 l

i-l

f e

j

• Nils J. Diaz, Commissioner

• Thomas S. Moore, Chairman 2

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop O-16 GIS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Two White Flint North i1555 Rockville Pike 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Rockville, MD 20852-2738

• Richard F. Cole, Administrative Judge

• Frederick J. Shon, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory r unission Two White Flint North Two White Flint North -

11545 Rockville Pike 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Rockville, MD 20852-2738 i

• Office of the Secretary

• Office of Appellate Adjudication j

Attn: Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

• Richard G. Bac'~ nann, Esq.

Panel Eugene Holler, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington,DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.

Marcus A. Rowden, Esq.

.Winston & Strawn Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobsen 1400 L Street, N.W.

I101 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 Suite 900 South Washington,DC 20004 Peter LeRoy Dr. W. Howard Arnold Duke Engineering & Services,Inc.

Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.

i P.O. Box 1004 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.

Charlotte, NC 28201-1004 Suite 608 Washington,DC 20037 i

I}

t l

Diane Curran, Esq.

• *Nethalie M. Walker, Esq.

l Harmon Curron & Spielberg Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund l

2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 400 Magazine Street, Suite 401 Washington,DC 20009 NewOrleans,LA 70130 Joseph DiStefano, Esq.

David S. Bailey, Esq.

Urenco Investments, Inc.

Thomas J. Henderson, Esq.

l 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 610 Lawyers' Committee for Civil Washington, DC 20037 Rights Under Law 1450 G Street, N.W., Suite 400 l

Washington,DC 20005 Mr. Ronald Wascom l

Deputy Assistant Secretary Office of Air Quality & Radiation Protection l

P.O. Box 82135 l

Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2135 1

Paul A.Gaukler Counsel for Nuclear Energy Institute i

42039541 i DOCSDCl i

I