ML20203J392

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Informs That Ga Brought Lawsuit in Federal District Court in San Diego Seeking to Halt Ongoing NRC Licensing Board Proceeding.District Court Agreed W/Position in Full
ML20203J392
Person / Time
Issue date: 03/20/1995
From: Cordes J
NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To: Faircloth L
SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
Shared Package
ML20203J328 List:
References
FOIA-97-384 NUDOCS 9712190199
Download: ML20203J392 (1)


Text

-

UNITED &TATES

  1. g mee NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N -

/

wAsHWOToN, D.C. 20046 4001

-i

\\,

March 20, 1995 omes onus OENEAAL COUNSEL IT -Honorable Lauch Faircloth, Chairman ubcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety Committee on Enviror. ment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 RE:

General Atomics v. NRC, Civ. No. 94-1734-K (LSP) (S.D. Cal.,

March 2, 1995)

Dear Mr. Chairman:

General Atomics (GA) brought this lawsuit in federal district court in San Diego seeking to halt an ongoing NRC Licensing Board proceeding.

In that proceeding the NRC staff seeks to establish the agency's right to hold GA financially accountable for the clean-up of a facility owned by a GA subsidiary, the Sequoyah Fuels Corporation.

GA's suit claimed that the NRC has no authority to hold a corporate parent liable for its subsidiaries' actions. We filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction. GA opposed that motion and asked the district court to enter a preliminary injunction halting further NRC proceedings.

In a thorough opinion, the district court (Keep, J.) agreed with our position in full.

The court found that federal district court was not the proper forum for GA's suit because the Hobbs Act vests exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of appeals over licensing-related suits like GA's.

The court also ruled, in the alternative, that GA was not free to go to court to challenge a Licensing Board proceeding in the middle of the proceeding. The court held GA to the usual doctrine that only final agency decisions are reviewable in court.

GA has sixty days to appeal.

It also could file an independent petition for review directly in the court of appeals.

Sincerely, o n F. Cordes, Jr.

Solicitor cc:

Senator

  • Bob Graham l

l:

9712190199 971217 I

ELISE-ao.

g{

eon