ML20217B075

Litigation Rept 1998 - 1

ML20217B075
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/09/1998
From:	Cordes J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:
References
SECY-98-073, SECY-98-073-01, SECY-98-073-R, SECY-98-73, SECY-98-73-1, SECY-98-73-R, NUDOCS 9804220413
Download: ML20217B075 (35)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

f""% RELEASED TO THE PDR .

,?

b Yio lQ% MY $

4

eata m

/ .............. ........

ADJUDIC kbRY ISSUE (Information)

April 9, 1998 SECY-98-073 Ent: The Commission From John F. Cordes, Jr.

Solicitor Subiect: LITIGATION REPORT - 1998 - 1 City of Benton v. NRC, No. 95-1402 (D.C. Cir., decided (Feb. 27,1998)

This long running lawsuit challenged (on antitrust grounds) two NRC license amendments issued in 1995: one to transfer control of the River Bend nuclear power reactor from Gulf States Utilities to Entergy Corporation, and one to transfer operating responsibility of River Bend to Entergy Operations, Inc. Originally, Cajun Electric Power Cooperative joined a group knov. , as Arkansas Cities and Cooperative (ACC) as petitioners, but Cajun ultimately dropped out of the suit as a result of a settlement agreement in bankruptcy proceedings.

The parties initially filed full briefs in the case three years ago. On the eve of oral argument, i

however, the court of appeals decided to hold the case in abeyance to await the outcome of the then-pending Cajun bankruptcy proceeding. Last summer, after Cajun withdrew its petition I for review, the court reinstated the case to its active docket. The parties then filed fresh briefs.

On February 27, the court (Williams, Sentelle & Henderson, JJ.) dismissed the case in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction.

The court held, as we had argued in our brief, that ACC's petition for review was fatally defective for failure to challenge a final agency order. ACC's petition had designated for review the NRC staffs interlocutory finding of no significant antitrust changes rather than the Commission's ultimate order actually granting the license amendments. The court stated that

"[i,1n a licensing proceeding, it is the order granting or denying the license that ordinarily is the final order," and concluded that "[w]hatever order ACC intended to ask the court to review, it named the wrong order in its petition."

ACC has until May 28 to seek certiorari in the Supreme Court, but we do not expect ACC to seek Supreme Court review. C (

CONTACT: Grace H. Kim NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 415-3605 IN 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF 9804220413 PDR SECY 980409 ' L~N~ '

l 98-073 R png j - OW %

Co.>uss

a lbrahim v. sacxson. No. 97-1269 (4th Cir,, decided March 5,1998)

).{

This lawsuit claimed gender and age discrimination in the NRC's selection of an applicant for a senior staff scientist position. The district court granted summary judgment to the NRC last year on the ground that the NRC had offered sufficient reasons for its selection decision and that those reasons were not a " mere pretext for discrimination.". Plaintiff appealed to the court of appeals, which in an unpublished opinion (Russell, Widener & Wilkins, JJ.) concluded that plaintiff had " failed to produce evidence creating a jury issue regarding whether the NRC's proffered reasons are pretextual."

Plaintiff has 45 days from March 5 to seek rehearing in the court of appeals, and if he does not, 90 days from March 5 tu seek certiorari.

CONTACT: Sandy Vora 415-1562 Citizens Awareness Network v. NRC. No. 97-4368 (2d Cir., petition dismissed Feb. 17,1998)

Late in 1997, petitioners filed this lawsuit seeking to set aside the NRC's 1996 decommissioning rule insofar as it did not guarantee an opportunity for a pre-decommissioning hearing.

Petitioners also asked the court to prevent decommissioning activity at the shut-down Haddam Neck nuclear power reactor pending an agency hearing. The lawsuit followed upon a similar petition filed with the Commission. In response to that petition, the General Counsel sent petitioners a letter informing them of the NRC's established process for altering agency rules and holding their petitiori in abeyance per. ding a further indication whether petitioners intended to seek a rule change.

We immediately filed a motion to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the NRC letter holding the administrative petition in abeyance was not reviewable agency action and that it was too late now to challenge the NRC's 1996 decommissioning rule. Our motion pointed out that petitioners could obtain a reviewable order if they asked the NRC to modify or rescind its 1996 rule and were tumed down. Petitioners subsequently indicated that they would file a petition for rulemaking in lieu of their lawsuit. They therefore stipulated to dismissal of the lawsuit, and the ceart of appeals duly dismissed the case on February 17.

Thus far, petitioners have filed no petition for rulemaking.

CONTACT: Peter G. Crane 415-1622

e 3-American Colleoe of Nuclear Physicians v. NRC. No. 94-1787 (D.C. Cir., dismissed April 1, 1998)

This lawsuit, brought by two physicians groups, challenged the "Radiopharmaceutical Rule" issued by the Commission some years ago. Petitioners never articulated their precise grievance with the rule, but asked that the case be held in abeyance pending issuance of regulatory guidance. The court of appeals subsequently issued an order holding the case in abeyance, and requiring the parties to file periodic status reports. Recently petitioners decided to withdraw their lawsuit, and the court of appeals granted their motion on April 1.

CONTACT: John F. Cordes 415-1600 General Atomics v. NRC. No. 95-70710 & 95-70842 (9th Cir., dismissed Feb. 17,1998)

These petitions for review, filed by General Atomics in the Ninth Circuit and by Sequoyah Fuels Corporation in the Tenth Circuit, challenged a rule that the Commission issued in July,1995, to clarify decommissioning funding obligations of nonreactor licensees. Petitioners, the subject of an NRC enforcement action arising out of a contaminated site in Gore, Oklahoma, apparently intended to argue that the Commission's 1995 rule unlawfully imposed "new financial assurance requirements" retroactively.

On our motion, the two cases were consolidated in the Ninth Circuit. The court of appeals held the consolidated cases in abeyance for several years because of the pendency at the NRC of administrative enforcement proceedings. Last summer, the Commission issued a final order approving a settlement of those proceedings. Petitioners then decided to withdraw their lawsuit. The court of appeals entered an order dismissing the case on February 17.

CONTACT: John F. Cordes 415-1600 Texas Instruments. Inc. v. United States. CV12812WGY (D. Mass., filed Dec. 23,1997)

Plaintiff brought this lawsuit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to obtain reimbursement of cleanup expenses incurred at its property in Attleboro, Massachusetts. The suit was filed in December,1997, but we did not receive notice of it until February 11,1998. Plaintiff claims, among other things, that they incurred 327 million for cleanup activities at its Attleboro site "in accordance with NRC approved plans." Plaintiff also claims that the old AEC and the federal government in general

l i

l " induced private sector business enterprises to engage in research and manufacturing l activities, under contracts and otherwise, related to military and civilian uses of radioactive l

material."

l l

We are working with Department of Energy and Department of Justice attomeys in defending f I this suit.

l CONTACT: Susan G. Fonner 415-1629 n F. Cordes licitor DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPA OCA ASLBP CIO CFO EDO SECY l

l l

I

l w

City of Benton v. NRC. No. 95-1402 (D.C. Cir., decided (Feb. 27,199e) i j

l I

I l

+

l

yNO f n,5 CE gIj*t!E _

~ ~ b : ,~  ?~ = ,

", I ~..

btd ee nia aesr 3t se , Lt u s

Lqy ae a eb u

l g a s

u r

e o ms pe e

t s a e

t u

s N.

o gt d o s

p n U uc f e arh r

o p A A R

r.

e j

fo o f

s* wO n fet e T

r. D n s c

e tr o

2l Q R E

8 e

oP eRo N

A N

rio es is i

t i

o yl ri tb n

l f 9 R S, A n. m C , , t r i t e ee L._ sa U m oA Q

.t th 9

1 S

s. ' N m

o ms Y OA r

sC r R Om n m p

e rf e

l i

l ist a

o pre ed t M r M 7,

2 2 mEmoI I R nCT A s a t

Ec MuA s, f

s N, fC a o ht t

f to a s mRr utU, y 0 L Arse osR s R O Oa oy r sn yo r

.o o o r 4 i wr fo r r. n 0 ws o w r C a 1 r o Crw TR I ai dt o fo C.i tcpr t pe s s D. r er Co  ?

P b

t r 5 9

n o oCmPo or crmCr V Y or R s e oe w A

n os r v o

w e a id v3 e>

f i

e r 14m _

SIC e N s s 4 U c n. 1 ro na Rg i

b n no .

e4wp ra w s a r.

s e R F o r A TA sr ost e n i

h p j1l b

u a i

t 3 I

d N oPnom c L

U Ss Cn rR o t iu _

sUmgo fo aD t e y r

G E o R rI r s wr rorCr wts.

r d c na a o bros t E i c Rc i a oe d v n of e or3m ienu nt al STo H R D e Cv su sE

s. n T M s oC nr an zU m Ul c iu w

n, lea i

f si ed f

i pofr v opo o

b F t ta z s t c E dN P l o

s b h d e n eM o e t t _

isr.e kr nu i

e si nh W uw le o t

i B WRA N Otf HlaCb n r F o ms e

r e e te i o D D. tsko cdhh et @ y M y so ol i

toF fyre r A r ct r

C e f ru N hoe e tfio 4 c o o e.

t nb a lscm Z l iei Bh t

f To i

• I*

[\

/./'

I E?y2 OEO'dg f

_'"E . p ;;,G g ,,uS y

==** ?I ,N ,i::

hewden t

f ton42dseenotCes a eehhOn e Rr gre aeres oe e8 wgy0 e o na wc e e n nf t gt t i

.e oh at h h2 enn6 es f "a % e f aa ofc o ii s i

ed t s s eg t t ii a vd e se 8) 8 b h'C RC.

t r Uv eg n nhcn e s o hdfy&h&h e n f"o eef v : 9 et dN R

Ne to e S r i ); a owhdffmNir g h 2 r ec o a4 1 tt oh ci cd e aG t S59 wt nt iai e n t p c au s4 sog f e s

i o o t t ss r t i s eh imas r

u o9i s a c uv yUB ec ir nr2 C Deoeif l

)r s tr N (1 wiv f. a l reA n et h s e

n o /,.SC

d. h aw AMCr t

ai e

dl e e n pi ot t

ri rynai ddIr h H r. hddeht e

n e o . C. t

. r t esro e

ht t c gt o2 e n e na ag-6ivieh g t -

7- ne gn kWy 8,A r Cd e

l f p a m y C. D rt auf c e

,r si in n1 er mauo sr g e. iW- h inao)9 (a na i rncS(F ap gsb nDdaE5 o(

i s n t ng a 1, ts eds/

s 8 e _lj t

e unAl iB w

or l e ai v O. haw.I toepry n e er,C mh R f

B2:2Nnl 3

5 C o,a5I 3

R g 2 o eg U. I (

I r ndg i

dt n inot i

i is o naH1 ubtr s o 'r e t sd J rN t "a nn 6,

. f nn mitalei G n .gt.ivua t eels ~te R 5). 5

,R nkn e eN8 hI oo ek n ia 0 0i de p 3

t mu a l grrst n eRah e n a q eynr i

e 92te 9 1 s u

asied t e riih et v

oe ct ce t v o fi w.1 yseaeiv2d . )e r i, i d 3dlti l a gi awddt wee m . h se C a n or e rti r 1

( r edt d w. eJ nu SSb ye a a t

0 8ep he o (

eRo nr ns e n eFletA e ph C p o i c t 2 e o t h n ei n v e n .

oy brF 5 M Cs a Cw e e1 o r a re *l no kac aes o rteh c d%dr5h t

dt ec r ei eim t a0 as ee eni L

5 st o ite b )t br eAe r

e o4t P. 'sryc A h l

i a f

ewi ces 6(ii v

n )s. e oh m t

iD 2.A gnOt t I

. aAd c st nk n ee ab l

nee e pi rn vf s g o C, ap 8 e p. bi h t

Md r.T W a )e ias t _

sRe ,)

min r ee eme r a e scgKeiAt hMR.rsdf eoEe w b "r s gi R gnA a. sedn b u w -

s e

it rr an a2 e e rt f e s t _

ene AeA v

r ale h 'c l a5dc t

i n (c tet .d i et 6, S dnedae nroo t

i ta t

aeMd s

i oe v ,

saiNi.Dio t

e sR e

I ai rt a pc i

r. s h s h r( o e r v. d d. e e ut rdh3 at c e a otn y9 aFroya t d t e 2l t r angFt e h sn hNh sC1 Csie 9 0 ord dMein Mwt gi e4 an ei t

e f

t l e

ot 2 R 'e a a r o "gE p s IN s ins 0, sat 8, wte me e dI ou .f nm e

t f 1 cgt n n PI a ,0 I

, n e

trd3 un2f oa c sl i

rWi nhe"e. f y

a Pler i l o

e, i ,

i ,d - h ser gi um s

t agwhu osd C 7e Rciennr uptrCie c i e rC's 3 nidEmhM3 i o l

. l ut e heCCat i

yidn e e t c Aid f f na i etn S yl M n e Raglouhk t

aioI nyy yis s elt r t ty i h Cf Ct AUeI dNMisF e l t

wt oaa MM Mh a e T NRATr '

oncey= sa M p. iAufe v e na t

(Ufo '" i dPar l a s ro .

t n nr n, on

,tt aei e, nnl . . ed .

eL niae - t oo r m c Ytf ro .

dt r s g ah at r i

l c o t nof et au r.

emhe4l 6 s u E. U l.,KiRl s oie e eacCf e r iel r s ei n i

y owopt n l r N y s s u e c

a it r o ), e onie jdt ar nnd wh hed C.

son r, e L A dn S w J i t l i

pC r ep a

n eot nnr Betnis c e C.

u Ehwboec i

t r i .

r i D

et r taiteedg a, O c L r u oCos nr ,d e co (

cehl t

CAa ns )am%

e a a s wf sn 'I pr i l t tl t o a de G. ites a lui a , 3 SoA Jml S s, , eS e u h n C, n

per i

ci v o gl egule l

ci5i nmUesSaRyo sr Ud nivc .

1 1

1 d ,

np nJ o o i t os -

te r. m o s ir J na veRn nFnd SnCnf rid nh e t i

i s ef n at ut a e Gecrooia 9

n J i

i sia s, K s R w th o d e

m uri rt a eet t (E et d- ciou r U n o . r paatr ), sfb i

s.

f at a u t

o re ed e y f s a r tnbs prf g N

,fe H. im me)mEiCe e n r ml m r ao elpuocpnWwu ots n aptwapmson o e at up osf r l

e e

nOsCrb e a

r eant d m ra n

e e

H d

o ve o C sr econ e e

B ni e m n tr rogan e t u

C R

eiCaJ r i v ew ad oCa et rl*

mie6 No e r mh n 2 no F. G y A trsp r

G s. r a a s aenogv t

cdf e si ed r t

e Cet t gyaf t n ), t l e .

Csd o e epDe G. e s P rl nRakc ee rv it singm0na afd na nil c a al ariitm n eE a Gemk e

. i a kc nt r t. ir l

e u de Ee en n, ou gne rJ r, l e Weat s s ies

. sn m l i

f i

c e e it eird s <

n

._nt5 tCf eI ('o es ro li b et d( md me ap ).

i t s u s n n aEa .

aar nee r w

J c

eoi t e eh a U u epnnC pt G si i c R G tt J. tt n s e ne S t

r t

'se i n naCn d, C o y Inh t yd w sd ae tiSe d m s- rUlpAi eo nRt i t l t ote nai e Ch Co e?ant sl r ,bf e nao6edo Dh r, i a r ya r n. s ee n t t ymSael C m yl cr r ept n, w a

a e Te l

aioinup snogs e S el  :

t a BeNni el ai bs so nd e s s r a

e v

r rhu e

u ot uoeRis u ne af u. h h t

r t

k n) ata c e f rhpni ia dpnot s cnod e r o Pnop Wu e

t e y t s e C pN ttAGo n . l es r..hUe r Re eh uvo n s e id o t t t rf Dye f

i f

r o mdAiCSreBt n t nR d n Gi

,R sBrOas t

e ep pe s n e9

c. (

u norDn etnyoyr eayaNn l st . r e r, l n e o E9 Cast ivt h e( e g'an dr 39 f torg Cn yR l

1b  :

e u se . e n t

eai e, ttaa n o pt ohi tt 9 t ncnf e o e eh r i s1 rl augS sri r n ze f o ,' i n nc nBcao 9 oie o vig p rNodeep f4a1 w ,

i JeB4O p ua leeirr nit i i i 1

,K g g st oNose e s r e eta st t Pkl ps s e vdiy us n eiRa r e ecs nt a H S de A A B. tabr w j roni A (c emRleI u i

emto I npeet e w ph p nh t "* a r.

l oat oETbeaf va M

Uygu$"

. E?::L. ;E ? E 3 3 R *' j ..

g= 3 =" ?E ,- ~i=

ueath s r a C a- a82 . er. n d et se i ol eRm c e9t i

e m rge neNatu1 n e nOni e er y e vt t i de a sa rS ah I d ee on at nhh k edu te tes e nde aiIt t

i a 'rs ve r%@k ea y

rk d,

go eds ev o unqo et r. ie a

t o

i f

t n m s ,l a er odl eD s t

t o )82ho ct er gaads r e i r

P9 i- 1 t h t

n r. g t n ACsfu iiI oat gtehf afl nnint r ef o

nuoh t ea r info t

t i

e@'"'

e n

so

~

ao e t rhtl e u nt bk i k

car t f a et s.hi - t a nd c D r pt e( h e u.

5 o ea m r a w a ad a(dag e

S72 of e ph p r

t i s d e e vk af ehg ir e

oound ee was en t

haHCs .Ree st eh iCgs n ddWg A

,. wian t s wt tr gCd i e

s25No pu agtsr eu r oi nam'itg 0 ,( vi e1 na r u enicd a J e rdt apL c o ge t

g e st r a 2. h rn s rT ut tr Cw&g eh c a r u s

C oft fo o 'tnt o ani i

jol A fn e g, 8 onr s t la9i 6i dlo ple t

eluad n.no yc as e l

sitoh aib y ut C

C C s rPrapa oplo - ef i

il t c e, to r ait

r. e g

ARo rat wd no or n Bephg.

N pfinnA oa ph i v t erHe ee l kr

^

., I l }

et e h oheiahrn s nse.ena .r - s a e 'a A G C p 2 l t nh r n tnt n i ds u rwt oiseedowI t

d i t Re2 w, e P. g n . . ehs tn h ei daa os a ruEh rln l u aN g o o 's d l KNe3 auni i

i sdygrie s m n p. laJo C. e st s e0 de htie ghUR r a ta cI holapweofit a t

di r ginEt c u .n 2 eta e pf it -- y o r gd p3 0uh rA r s C. ow leGieat c np ere m 8t e n n sys t er=5 y

r e + d, c.

a gnd oS(eDpi odh dAomp aot uera2 e e gtne o .

e-s" na ef n us oEl l

aCtM'dat a i Caufc r F. tr .d t'R f 7 ael s s siTeznn mv eon aoo re n idb o o e c s

'y Ra sNiioMsJh laa- ej ar.i r

t o eJ d w rh ocRa e sn n a4t .

ude" 2 5 t t

Aat 2 ce o es s rta s'ear o s nc s.

nh nn e n s N f 'r e r h e ( d) d eyegedMl s s) t t

a edteo e s9 ff cFi 40,d e o e 9iRhggt 4 vo r e goen dd i

dndee ta oahCwh t t

o ec l

n at

r. D S

. t n

)

2 oCe h te .i ms" n

cRe -

1 5 r y );

ond1 9 a gumsr t d i edai t

st udieNCs gmu r t

t r idae:ar o C 8 9 "t t

a k o d

2 nf ar w c r. e #* d jsaioea o n nI t

cyh n iasi meCe n

d o it ahAstune sDeta mr t s u gedr )r. ns r. feae

,e1 c Nisin d ai d 'e F. eo o eibt soiob teb eb4 gwrC t

i a l of ec t i

m t c eh r n r r e oieif e n nt ugr oe no r r a t

int s mt pn 5 t ah a et e f t eeieh amt ai adl CfCee ams t r ac t neehoC(v n rd g r )a,gmt 4 0 se wh thtt uauns r a .e .t a ei t r t s et sit ot o 8,i taeti vi t a( 4yo1 noih f ;i at 9 is a

id e

3u s t haiwCrtC e g h sn a C' o n i C. D s C. i u n n d ti i rAnr e eDintr8g ag9 nBeifcuy r y qt e a s osCef DeDdhe a enn t ,t neA n t h e( c( ec v de ni pdrFsis8 mn1 s w mh nnc woe s dngg ciAth i ni r e's o edeai3 r i Mr e u tca k t e enn s t 2 u 1 siag 2 o s t n bi ,) in r. f e oioie cg mefnfehh r.tli y 3 s 1 nst e n *i a o CdCe t

s (a aCwet vh sr U'sdr t t i

nt

.h nvdei i i e r Chc wom853 t niteod 31 aya o S ente esebo e i

'o .

c oa rad ch r1 ,R n MsAgn C o A eI v a rhe r nn t Gnd s, eeede g w. g, a1 e5 reluip ci wf t i t

c ef ay r i n,r p s lu. t Cs e e e e n3 lu &ee v e wr nt a a l r la n 3. 3leh(

vdoi o e w

r o r d fn1 5i s d s beadosFa i

ee se a ah l

uenCa r l g rdrh eo ann ruaFht go soqm c o c s Dli a nidt svs o A, esa 2. i 8 el e, d e 3f p1th 8 t wie t hc c e r o wtiSf r

enes ct eueg g ywel wi # 0, a r ur se e e3o o gt at us cbb nl e ec rt a r o .eed& oatnd h ,ur n h&lichcn on ndi ulyvve trSt sd 1 uir niein 4 t

pia pp 29 h);8t 1

ai3 s8 ah t ridt oiost oeNei n a8 os o m ed o1 a d 'tr re r, o h c Citd o cioe t ic a r s ei t e a gt 1 dhh c.dg nten r c rl ec ao e f abg n nl in e G9 9 2. t t yi eeyapsr t I mt d e y, t ns c Frtso e n Mh a c mr lrp( a wp aae re s2 nl e uue t

ht tru at nl i t CCeurfordi A pj ed e k assR(

u s ennV98d 1 i W aa )(aeo) inFio ond ethh ar r yl el v p C8 8gacqc9 e

i t

o u af s nul t

r nI t teeak l

FguN t p o gA c m aliia86 oih cc 98 r o e i dd 1i n w m rd 9 pdf maa nn int 5

l l t t t i 1 pr D. 9 ee2

(

1 l

l I 1

l i

Ibrahim v. Jackson. No. 97-1269 (4th Cir., decided March 5,1998) l l

l l

l

! l l

l l

l 1

l 1

l 4

S - - ee L S e

l i el pa t hh t t A g A

pB of t o E d u ry

, r om P J it oe f nr i

r pr u P ~ t r

ut u

c dnt o du o

A T Cb ol e i C

r l aA t

i da eq y

FI U t n cee eg S

r s ae bb t

uy OCR i t

r sGu rd 8 8

N I Mt t

S a ed s e i

Dt atJ 9

9 K .

a al D TI ) 9 9 L n dd cf i R HC E s ,ic M 1

1 I i

o s e is s H ted rJ 8

, W n et h in ht i UT antsP i 2 5 p L t n S

t SlyD7 ai -

y h d

n o E eU no -

B ORU I t, ii -

L n e. 3 r c a S t s a e d r eae 7 a r a m , n t i nc B l u ,

a N na U

P CO F l

l e

p l

e p iMt t

n t 3-is5 n

a M R E

i r

u U ot si s ps ee md ue S p p Uof s9 J  :

N c O -

ms N e - d gh -

E A R A-  :

e E r C E h cMA iA rT _

I et d e a U A d D _

TT H f-

,it l

l CR N,a t

n t i t

r s J(

.C g e

u i c

e I

p S dr e r, l ad r e mir r W d AR lMn A O dn D e agn ol .

i ,

o e A if ) -

a rDt e h wa I

l N ES e *, d s(d TO R l

AP v l

. OI S CMSf e f

eP L i

l s

oS r aa6 SF B K U hD l at h L b l l e w46 CNM u l h

I A O e

pr o E p yr o n D K J SC N AT E

Y A pf S S

n u

G r

aC a ll eo s i C.

E R K

N R U

R b y

a ucs i S.

s T A ATS OT e Dn n ReU d B- Y d e I

ED A.

r o e Eo ge2 8 _

N u o R T uc I E t f e m r

UD G

d ht u .

U I l _

r n i N e i

B i f

Rn t

J

• ee _

A SUR f A Ala ip mna _

t .

_ . 3 - e - s .r od rf f h r s ,el oyos n or ntrd ijs ere- san s t s e en h at t

_ ch at r o t

nis nfooot o c e i t ih a t

nt e ouoha

_ f on p ana a de e r wrt n n i o es l

s c t wojn r uoh cotene n

ucna s e t t

ic s yte ph sMneigar o s mefirAccm t

et r d yu o e ut r ni .a lpje rdt n ct iw.c ai cencppn.

di o elaireb oe r ly ht c l i e s o o n h r oinst a oich a t et pa e e si st i l nei r w repi r peton sd c e .

inn l aMwul oe e nielph r sh v a pt id ea t ac irfi i ri t s

r pt e nin nt t

n pf oOe ra f e co lpf it ht tnr ms a sb oe on nrd eei aardDud eo l

a a - mgt t c E'Ciedt ndi I c n qnlab p Win

_ g ps n rd o k od htndl nrl i

s ane c

a a eia st i t elo h acn eWina at r ae t laRmc r ant ecah h l

e yot rh Naio oiri weot n 'r uNier n teh s r r r n s wb st t

C rce t t n r eed a a r . e cril s a t gv t mjon q cmh si eindnoa Aeepg y a ne r

o comi i da r f s wt gf s

t l n a neqed t

u r eol f o vl s Ees hi dm,s iahe t

nso ee y o e cmok s r ni ax et d rdg o f h oeun t s si rl oMe r e et o yb a ec re e h n l t ht t ccb a ehimceedr xu ed s yvie n iwt isdn cpgeh n n ag wlictrs t 5 oicaesn xtee e 'c i

f i ih ac r4 t cs t ahi ee r emiwt d ht amvhot h

N l a s en bs rd b s o eat h lyn o b t n

ah c

i gd .

aDEd ny d t g dih c O

s u

qt pf n

,pi hghltet ashae r s. towed s I apr s et ao r

d n cnieD r o nce r

t el pn s pi yuMat n sl a hd st a iwnegrbi ard n ais on

's e a n eh eois C C uh n

J A t mh t ev ihx ad s u eiid Wcnshg hjas aoe t

ri t

t i is rd is af o n

olas i r g t

gnEwi i eh qt d e geeI rl d ,

al r n gR v.

n a ei cwg i i

s wirivi vaNt soin i ch aa sMohjt p p a ce c,nuki[ r t f t h aneteiN c)

M i nc lpout nr e e odh h h nt aeAst etihCai c o e mw,hemMl w t e e ge rjci n x mb[h C al oia

's .N tedt t

sh aCgt fle loh w e n s t

m pnt ee t wi n h eh ef u

dt whi h o ee r nee ir eul d Ooelu oo t

_ A a ns w ht e ooW ht s rf vo ahh c d a "t R8 r n eEt EcsFt easi s Net nd c w,s enncaN 3 6 eaga l u

w matwdCus al deiod

_ n i l s l

,et h Daainh t i f (

dt o .t n I ht yont na e e oyt n ai nt ,e r l n ot tr e o easAcied t

l -

f oh .

n m d

e cCc n s wat,n b eg b si e oyyuheeei ek v r nr oa ln t

i cwec r n oe e o mcd r

ee o A.

f hei,cre i h

i orh s p gog um a a . l i h get i

l J t

cnp ie p s,f r n s ot n t

as eicd ri r u r aop t cjla - qt peee r m 'g n e "s. sD b mht at j c imo04 nn n erMo3 o i

,a l

e via it reht v i ao e n4 ega s n c nh rf ee r t i a gh n omeic e

vt I

,msdi y r r r emims n hesl n id at oa t

nreg a a t aees

,t a ,o e in e dirl s h ivtcl e lyo a ets a pn ib r gta arh o wiceiTs n C w sui m at oe da et gC i fs dh r ec asi cjs . ee t

_ p r d .'g erl t

n g I i e ymisd eoh ee db n . l l l t n it c a t ngs r yi o ah n i pD ojmbp je boohg m h

t, d t i t

n in wd n

i o vli nmnene et i s nimd ad ee id r

nFqame u

ut er r

eg d n rd e in p e M c loOn uo a

o t

ut qn i ihClar us o u c ob oct -c amiDrd o . t s ceD ef e et so s, g

r c) Eohs eueOed s t t oEd e c c fter b r l

ic l l ds a m geee ri u o t l i s r o c eerli ajs eel r ne a ec orcls t pmEf et n c

a rsitue c u d Fn-wlae i

n oe nten aeyaih kc wbh ee nm t a o Ana o j

bsi. aOEiic l

eEe t r

e S poe a r

pt do c r omhi rh t f pt pd L b vt nmf r i cMdekhEh def st ( t a Optrhi ngr a ryW dnl ls orhehc o

-) .) - -

a licS e - e e t nCn1 t t hientnuW aRi) o( r o gd edi N t

iI S osNuikdt e y gff M r b (Nn3a (a t

fi vCr o s er ot i y t .

f nn v iC t

t aO,M it u

t i2 ndAgtnunrb id si ac

,l oiedA t s pn

_ a aO c r

u oi nm6 ioA e kc eqaeam hi cwdeio BrC r t amef b no

.o i c oirA a eh ags b e a rf e malp nan ct AVY csis cs . ichT a r r int aR is ht t

imdi A.

c l pr t

poCd nnaa wC t

as mn d gi Bten f a y- i naus n

eteO n e io s" nt n eC.

s.

fsNsR -amt RWin i r d eA d i r r t

u n gT n S. t s NNq u a t s . ehP ynA LaL i

dCmU ey y Mi eictl l t i n Cretc a nh Wio bls T. d d t t .

n h r s n k e h a i

S U s eh sjet Ast e foltolo9 t

e oi iwf e t i ei t c r s a ei F ;G d d

e a p 2 cc f t

nPS r

oih aot vlp r u m );

EnE c cS oe s t t epsi eep N u ui O I Rlay R e.c e

r ege4 m sf n f ) m y. ff gs n pd w lc e ca s

K BrRil p

N dr e e99 r ut aWgoSe ega it ou - s t

uh ee Ntr h rC c aAe g o Rr g1 i f

S Naln s ie s na a ts a r

A NMEp n O f s or r egnt efotnoN nR h iroCad i

J Lp d i I N aed e e omged ri ht l ei t v.

u O e, r C A ib n I P

s lc a u r nWw a f oe( n A m yi t- h ngnn n eni t i t

o fi amao cei ct c oUro O lep N e )( o r

S e ce gS i cd z r s

foicl l

m r lemNf i t

o n

p e dn (a rr t

uf sj n ooaoieniap t

i er ne ieoupn f npa f

o a re l

a el t

ah e2- e rdh ad p a S. d s nWput g n t ,f pB U an e h gnet

_ I r .m togc e o ai rh ins lce rd s o Cnnh x u eonw A yl r ,ly a f 0 o it at e o00 g n si aoge i

, t h t a n c it ,

r e e s a s

n o br e s2 m m s,m ri as ol ct ew,amee s c sl n l

a jol r eywd c e n f ronounM in I npun o eNaeei ic t f r a s e nia a v n cb gi a .d n n s,e Mecrel a

,t o e ,

Ku .d i t n

ip()c nlp iet net d

i t dt h a rj lc A. F cht ic nacl l o6 M y s C. ). a oopc nagni . t Ks a elt n vor e l

a yerk s avi l

d 3 A I

k a r 5 st star ic aa w f t l t

e t

a a ec r t no ee R B a 'm S. 8 e ah oin n uas dr wh nah t i

u- ma miU9 t t

hl s u U h i'm ot n e nr p ge nh MS G eR i R C o r2 1

hi i ta camimoi t

s ncw t

hWn a ,gpt o

ba m r tomh e i d r l

d , b b ub4 t s c i gb eteeN ua pc l

R AsI g e e m gh e r n el int R n ai ,

. ri on h t f I O no E P in oS( neW I o

r o ut e e pC osi n w s gnd poie v cal a Cetr als Acr a

_ 2 mUoS UL

t ol - v. t e - g .deat v a ael s,n ree oCct e- ,ee - e - r edy- e Re ae aotnhh t el i

a t r r eh D t

c ee f a r CiniUFn

. vit r mif S. t 3 ,i h m.t aFou on s n i a s e Ner l i pb uae e d a ojn luust E rSuihi8 c. pr S. m . a s c nuio nr s nDm s s t

ph e e n a o od M e 1 s cr -s1 2 .a Ui i i dego ue

- waCe

. t st er n c7 r qh tseol c f r e st R B1 aie ys n41,kchs 11 l eeya g s a et i csa nd e n t a a notnena .tn t I h s r oio f t a e d, m fdr e d n e p. s i 4 aSoter er e d ayodf , r n e eo r cl adc v h eh r t eia eigor F

F t

ini n Seeoue bor a a s,te nnr rsb l

t a ee ad l

a anies vde sl i oi vl na a sist eleciscy onmt cr A wom r en np emceGClueguim o.itnoe gslaa oice4 wos s t r o i pd t r u t a slef el aef e

_ l t t

c eai cr a r s vdoet o

nh .

v. h o o ot crt uci s i off0 o8 eibcf i

t ys l r

anol upc s et edc se e r

e p. c D t Dadi npa r e sct r t cd nd ydr uon r ed opn shiho r t i

f yi nt r pi rd r e ergs u o rd e rTl e opoh i r c 'o t y t

l at oro d ct eo e no vd l e nl t

ot d i 'tesdidAo .ta r

p'st t f ooikcdejabnc i ne nc

. l r af uCscu niet el t nn e a a rh aht st n i

_ i v n e itn t n ), re c t

nc ofin e oioCs e simt Rnt q h t ub t ot Mt or u o ees n tocco s

t amx e6 ur m9l cabDf od a oi f nannm snfudae yt s nS t i yei cn

.s-e 'm x mie aidNod pno sogre sr noes ef i

nl u s a ca r c e t

g 9 id a egAc . n r cl e r d 1 f f d u elpf c e n o i i h si miahd e amohtoi c o t

ct .

f s

v. Me s D n o i ee f l

cf oip cs odein J t u

n goio v ecMem ondi r r i

aid f d jr t i r t e ne yC igcl e le iDt nh n eeedendoihean b c s o er e cjhat r r

v I i t

r r n ,r u oed nfaops et se oer I

u u r c

hyi p ee n v ewim dg

_ i i

s nm s

a hl eiee e nal r eiSt rd ehtsi vt t

a e i

r mt a I id n vh

,eeeMeenehioie t

r gr ge du mt(l labatna oan i

s a id eer s t n pd v or l t ci hf e t

c n m4 nl e nt oc unh :r c s otaowt t wh y h b ihviwt t c e ah j n etae a s t ejrt nl u sDllUt osfi eis esemh n b onorr b ot y r cuw s8 uemc uh I

ni f t t r t eolf eo r aa i

u 4 dh e ). etain a d d at i

,n gi d eNd s cmeS97r seisnhs soa pwl ecimie e s x eh f t s

nim et ri o 1 i,itvnr u a c g i dr cg e es e .n d sOdt m nga n eeh ndu crl l gi heiEne e m gah a

t n

a4 5diint cn i ). 9 pmn ere 'tnen c oc aae il i f E gd uu s a 's br r1 in ne gd 1

3 r. sr ts ct yd i

rh ahidt t i

r n caar gd j f b ei vek ih p s ri olads rl or hec CI g n e7 n r oe nt ae Ca dI e r ve s nla eue t

eRe a

eNt d

a3 Ami a1 Cf d et f u gnl t

t 9i i i s gt e n Rrt e a n geuewn

. a g id o

ot g q na e pR e cno e

l t

C' t nf o w F ).d e u(h t sfd aemri Ni n s t

u ci i. s D g k es a o mNhwei o

_ l r

cem r

h o e

i4 7 usr c4 9jeir t 0 (4 uo ui me r nd f co bmef t r af epc h at i c yl .ir n as r aeh mo e r

t o r prt v9 e ,9 yr p a 2 % f s eiht

- i fn t r mb pr e t c h o wo

,m gaoef xes rih yf aDr uu a ce nnecs

- r t t -

t e r n( aye0 1

f ah cs i e t t

s ys d h o e or 7 mb mB1.ne .di pee ebr i t

cTinl t oj txDiostot n nah ew e r al a an a e l '

t t Wd8 <0u mnh' l

e e e i i t l i iZ I r rh enc a5 oiwe us rp l

ih e r r ii o ic?1

• ac I t t sl e ogea eoof gtet ucR s cs r e fa wu r t

4 D1 s t s pf8 l nloh s t ia ecinrh ptd pirii afi us t i nnf qN u

l Citizens Awareness Network v. NRC. No. 97-4368 (2d Cir., petition dismissed Feb. 17,1998) l 1

4

50-26 N RC Before the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the SECOND CIRCUIT.

CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK, INC., gW COURTy

! and NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND g p

RESOURCE SERVICE, Petitioners j l $ jyg q

y, de UNGE tti.4 O

UNITED NO CIRCO STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, and Docket no. 97-4368 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondents CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER mE mig UEW a GUN 8IWG OF TH" a

COMPANY, Intervenor [ ELM.HAS sEENREctf map 1 STIPULATION TO VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL  !

Petitioners, Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. [CAN), and

{

Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), by and through I counsel Jonathan Block, and Respondent United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission by and through counsel Peter Crane, hereby 3

stipulate to a voluntary dismissal of this matter pursuant to F.R.A.P. 42(b). Mr. Crane has authority to state that the United i States joins in this stipulation.

Respectfully submitted:

M i onathan Block Peter Crane

/or f Petitioners for Respondents February 11, 1998 February 12, 1998

$o Ord.e.TGO' l

FOR THE COURT GEOROE LANGE III, Clerk

u k E. a. u -

Vivien B. Shelanski, Conference Attorney l

I O6Y\

e. ggt!, COU;;y# j Before the United States Court of Appeals 7EL % .'

For the Second Circuit e. 243292 i CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK, INC., f ,$[u NUCLEAR ORMATION '

Docket No. _

AND RESOURCE SERVICE, # '

Petitioners v.

l PETITION FOR REVIEW I UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, OF AGENCY ACTION  !

Respondents I. Introduction i Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2342, 2343, 2344, 2349, and F.R.A.P.15, Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. [CAN], and Nuclear Information and Resource Service [NIRS],

petitioners, by and through counsel Jonathan M. Block, he,reby petition this Court to review the actions of United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC] which, in pertinent part, (1) denied petitioners a hearing to which they are otherwise entitled under i 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 2239, (2) violated the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. f4332, by delegating to its licensee, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, the responsibility for deciding whether the NRC should conduct a site-specific environmental assessment and/or environmental impact study, and (3) violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. f 706, by acting in a manner which is arbitrary, capricious, and not otherwise in accordance with the laws of the United States of America.

l

2 II. Nature of Proceedings As To Which Review Is Sought A. Factual Background There is no ' Order"of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC]

from which to petition for review in this matter. Petitioners served upon the NRC on October 24,1997, a letter requesting immediate action to rescind the decommissionin rule, stop the decommissioning of the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station in East Haddam, Connecticut, conduct site-specific environmental assessments and/or environmental impact studies, and hold a hearing on the proposed decommissioning pla See copies of United States Post Office return receipts showing person to whom and date delivered, Exhibit 'A', attached hereto. The letter itself, with attached exhibits, has been provided to this Court as Exhibit 'B' attached hereto [ Letter to NRC).

Petitioners' letter, requesting in pertinent part that the Commission halt the impending decommissioning of the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station, specifically requested that the Commission respond to the letter within 20 days of receipt.

See Letter NRC at 36 (October 24,1997), Exhibit 'B' attached hereto.

This Letter to the NRC also made quite plain Petitioners' allegations that the NRC's actions in the matter of the impending decommissioning of the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station at Haddam Neck, Connecticut, are siolating the National Environmental Policy Act, the Atomic Energy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

, Id. at 1-2,21-35.

l 1

l I

3 i

l Until Petitioners' counsel called the NRC to discuss the potential need for an '

1 cpplication to this Court for a stay of Comnussion sanenoned decommissioning activities j l

at Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company's Haddam Neck nuclear reactor, the Commission chose to ignore the Petitioners' letter. Approximately two weeks after l Petitioners' counsel spoke with NRC counsel, the Commission, through General Counsel, 1

Karen D. Cyr, faxed a letter to Petitioners' Counsel. See Letter from Karen D. Cyr, 1

General Counsel to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to Jonathan M.

Block, Counsel for CAN and NIRS (by fax transmission, December 2,1997), Exhibit 'C',

attached hereto.

On October 17,1997, Petitioners sent a letter of response to Ms. Cyr's fax. See Letter from Jonathan M. Block, Counsel for Petitioners, to Karen D. Cyr, General Counsel for the United State Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Exhibit 'D', attached hereto. In that letter, Petitioners' counsel explained why the NRC's letter was a pack of disingenuous nonsense intended to evade the Commission's responsibility for obeying the laws of the United States, and, in panicular, the National Environmental Policy Act.

Meanwhile, despite being placed upon notice of the violations of federal statutes entailed in allowing the deconunissioning to go forward, under the NRC rules, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company could have commenced decommissioning on December 5,1997, i.e.,90 days afier the filing of a Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report [PSDAR), which report was published in the Federal Register on

l c .

l 4 September 4,1997.8 10 CFR s 50.82; 62 Fed. Reg. 46723al6724 (September 4,1997).

l (At the present time however, the licensee cannot begin decommissioning until th Commission lifts a ' Confirmatory Action Lettef'[ CAL] which temocrarily limits the licensee's action until the NRC Region I staff have been satisfied that the licensee h adequate radiological controls in place.)

B. Basis for Review I

Review, in this instance is predicated upon the NRC's failure to respond to petitioners' notification that the decommissioning mle, particularly as applied at Connecticut Yankee, violates the Atomic Energy Act, the National Environmental P Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. By failing to respond and to address in meaningful way the allegations in petitioners' letter, the Commission has foreclosed possibility that, absent this Court's intervention, petitioners will be able to vindicate rights they have under these statues.

In particular, petitioners contend that: (1) they have a right to a hearing on the decommissioning plan for Connecticut Yankee, (2) that they have a right to insure that the Commission follows the procedural requisites of the National Environmental Polic Act, and, (3) that they have a right under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

i706, to litigate the Commission's arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise illegal actions in l

' The Commission is not at all clear about when the 90 day period commences to mn meeting in Higganum, Connecticut, on October 27, 1997, discussing the PSDA the NRC Project Director, Morton Fairtile, responding to a comment by this attorney to Es stating that decommissioning could begin on November 25,1997, indicated that perhaps publication in the Federal Register did commence the 90 day period, in which case decommissioning could begin December 5,1997.

5 promulgating a rule which violates f 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act,42 U.S.C. 2239 and the National Environmental Policy,42 U.S.C. f4332, and allowing otherwise ille practices under these acts in the course of the decommissioning of the Connecticut Yankee Nuclev Power Station at Haddam Neck, Connecticut.

Petitioners contend that this Court has uitimatejurisdiction of this matter under 28 4

U.S.C. 2342.

Despite the fact that the Commission has chosen to avoid meeting petitioners' challenge to its authority in this instance, this Court may take jurisdiction now, as it would have jurisdiction over any final order of the Commission issued in this matter. See, e.g., Telecommunications Research & Action v. F.C.C., 750 F.2d 70, 75-76 l

(fmality doctrine should be applied in pragmatic and flexible way; statutory obligation of a Court of Appeals to review merits may be defeated by an agency failing to resolve a dispute, and Circuit Court may resolve claims of unreasonable delay in order to protect its future jurisdiction); see also Motor Vehicle Mfrs v. DEC, 79 F.3d 1298,1305 (2d Cir.

1996)(application of ripeness doctrine depends upon the fitness ofissues for adjudication and the hardship to parties which would follow withholding of review).

There is final action in this matter because the NRC's failure to provide petitioners with any meaningful relief has determined rights and obligations. Port ofBoston Marine Terminal Ass'n v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic, 400 U.S. 62, 71 (l970), Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Surface Transp. Bd, 75 F.3d 685, 690-91 (D.C.Cir.1996). In the instant matter, in pertinent part, the NRC's response to petitioners forecloses any opportunity for timely relief (other than this Court) from the NRC's alleged violations of

6 the National Environmental Policy Act and other federal statues. Without this Court's exercise ofjurisdiction, petitioners are left without recourse, and the interests which the National Environmental Policy Act protects will violated. -

This case is not one in which petitioners may avail themselves of any additional administrative remedies. See Cofran v. Bd of Trustees ofN.Y.C. Pension Fund,46 F.3d 3,4 (exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required if adequate remedies are not reasonably available). Significantly, unlike the petitioner in Coffran, the agency's cynical and disingenuous letter to petitioners avoiding the issue of violations of federal law, requests for a hearing, and making the suggestion to petitioners that they pursue utterly bogus administrative actions makes abundantly clear that the agency intends to do nothing for petitioners in this matter. Compare Exhibit 'C' and Exhibit 'D' attached I

l hereto. This leaves the matter of NRC violations of federal laws entirely in this hands of this Court.

Petitioners contend that unless this Comt takes jurisdiction of this matter now, not only will petitioners be denied any meaningful reliefin this matter, but the Court's failure to act now will allow the NRC to continue to violate federal law with impunity.

II. The Facts Upon Which Venue Is Based Petitioners, environmental organizations, have standing in this instance by and through members who reside near the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station which is located in East Haddam, Connecticut, within the jurisdiction Second Circuit of the

y United States Court of Appeals. See Letter to NRC at 9-14, and Exhibits 4,5, a i

attached thereto, Exhibit 'B' attached hereto. Petitioners provided affidavits in s 1

their standing through members living near the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power l

Station. Id at Exhibits 4,5, and 6. As these members of the petitioning organizatio '

reside within the Second Circuit'sjurisdiction, venue is predicated upon such residenc 28 U.S.C. f 2343.

i III. The Grounds On Which ReliefIs Sought i

i j  !

Petitioners believe that this Court has authority, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2342, to i

enjoin, suspend, set aside, and declare upon the validity of the Commission's actions in i l

! this matter. Petitioners contend that although the Commission has not issued a final orde l

in the technical sense, the actions of the Commission are a de facto final order. As Petitioners noted by letter responding to the NRC, Exhibit 'D' attached hereto, the adrninistrative remedies held out to petitioners in this case aa 'her entirely false or would not provide timely relief.

In particular, a 10 C.F.R. 2.206 petition to the NRC for enforcement contemplates a request that the agency suspend, revoke, or modify a licensee's license to operate. This is no remedy. In the instant case, petitioners are alleging that the NRC (not its licens is violating the National Environmental Policy Act and other federal laws. The 2.206 remedy is exclusively for action against a licensee. Similarly, the NRC's suggestion that a request for rulemaking would be appropriate is absurd, as it would allow the agency l

8 under such circumstances to engage in otherwise illegal conduct until such time a illegal rules (and, more importantly, particular applications and practices under su at Connecticut Yankee) would be changed. By this route, the NRC would be able to l

1 continue violating federal statues with impunity, and in the end, there would be no guarantee that a new rule would be enacted or that it would be any different from the old ones.

1 Examination of the circumstances described in CAN v. NRC, 59 F.3d 284 (1st C 1995), and the rulemaking (and application of the new mies) at issue in this petition w reveal that the NRC has little regard for making rules which comport with the finding the United States Court of Appeals concerning the major federal action constitu decommissioning a nuclear power reactor. Compare the facts and holdings in CAN v.

NRC, id and Final Decommissioning Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 39278-39304 (July 29,1997 IV. The Relief Prayed Petitioners are seeking rescission of the existing decommissioning rules in so far as they are found to be in violation of the Atomic Energy Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Insofar as the rules are made final under an order of the Commission, petitioners request this Court to set aside the rules at I

issue. 28 U.S.C. I 2342 (4). Petitioners seek a hearing on remand to which they believe '

they are othenvise entitled. 28 U.S. C. f 2347(b)(1). Petitioners request that in the event i this Court does remand the case to the agency for a hearing, that this Court specifically l

l I I

9 enjoin any further decommissioning actions at Connecticut Yankee until all issues heard are fully and fairly resolved, including matters of fmal appeal to this Court. 2 U.S.C. l 2342. Petitioners will also seek any additional relief which this Court deem be just under the circumstances, and an award of the costs of bdefing in the even

{

petitioners prevail on the merits.

l i

espectfully submitted:

, M~ M

/onathan M. Block Counsel for CAN and NIRS December 19,1997 Attachments to this Petition:

Exhibit 'A' United States Postal Service return receipts for service ofletter to NRC; Exhibit 'B' Letter from (October Petitioners 24,1997); to NRC (with attachments as numbered Exhibit 'C' Letter from Karen D. Cyr, General Counsel, U.S. NRC, by fax to Jonathan M. Block, Counsel for CAN and NIRS (December 2,1997);

Exhibit 'D' Letter from Jonathan M. Block, Counsel for CAN and NIRS, to Karen D.

Cyr, General Counsel,. U.S. NRC (December 17, 1997).

l l

l l

I l

Y

. .-f,

t l

l l

American Colleae of Nuclear Physicians v. NRC. No. 94-1787 (D.C. Cir., dismissed April 1, i

1998) l l

l 1

l i

l

E i

l %2titch fi$tates QInurt of Appeals l* Fon THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUlT j l

i l

No. 94-1787 September Term,1997 American College of Nuclear Physicians and Society UNITED STATES COUP .~

of Nuclear Medicine, FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMb  ;

FILED Petitioner l

v. MR l '58 I Nuclear Regulatory Commission and United States of America, Respondents . . . .

ORDER Upon consideration of petitioners' inotion to dismiss petition for review , it is ORDERED that the motion is granted and this case is hereby dismissed.

i The Clerk is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the respondent in lieu of a formal mandate.

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk l BY:

Robert A. Bonner Deputy Clerk l

l l

1 l

A True copy:

88 d e++ s Court of Appeals rk y,.

[]

~v

. .._ . j J

put

l l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l General Atomics v. NRC. No. 95-70710 & 95-70842 (9th Cir., dismissed Feb. 17,1998) 1 l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l l l

l l

l l

l l

l l

i l

FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 1 7 1998 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT g4 ggg U.s.co0R7 OF APPEAus GENERAL ATOMICS, ) No. 95-70710

)

Petitioner, )

t

) '

l v. )

)

i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, et al., ) f

)

l Respondents. )

)

)

i SEQUOYAH FUELS CORP., ) No. 95-70842

)

l Petitioner, )

) ORDER

v. )

)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, et al., )

(

)

Respondents. )

)

)

l The parties' unopposed joint motion to dismiss is construed as a motion for voluntary dismissal of these appeals. So '

1 construed, the motion is granted. These appeals are dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b) . The partiec shall bear their own costs on appeal. -

A certified copy of this order shall serve as the mandate of this court.

FOR THE COURT: -

COPY CA A. CATTERSON Clerk of Cod L

ATTEST C. Lewis Ro s FEB 17 1938 Circuit Mediator ,_ ,-

2/11/98:blsp afd by: Depuh Clerk w I

Texas Instruments. Inc. v. United States. CV12812WGY (D. Mass., filed Dec. 23,1997) i I

i l

l l

.. . - 7 O

p L) f V i IN ,'IHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. .

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSEITS C.A. NO. ,

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED, 3.u22812WGY

) l

) -

Plaindff, )

) COMPLAINT. g $

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

?, Tr h * %,

) f, '. - p Je *

) -

f-e .

Defendant. )

3 55

'A

- a. ?. " '

.. h.

{

The plaintiff, Texas Instruments Incorporated, complains of die defendant as-  !

follows: '

INTRODtfCTION .'

1. ' Ibis acdon is brought under the provis' ions of4be Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Utbility Act (" CERCLA *),42 U.S.C. ll 9601 al sag., as amended, seeking recovery of necessary costs of response incurred by plaindff consistent with the National Contingency Plan ("NCP") ,40 C.P.R. Part 300, caused by the release or threatened releau of hazardous substances at a facility located at 34 Forest Street, Attleboro, Massachusetts (the "Attleboro facility").

Z .

384913848 ennO

)

4 .

, JURISDicTroN AND VENITE

2. This action arius under secdons 107(a) and 113(f)(1) of CERCLA,42 U.S.C.

5 il 9607(a) and 9613(f)(1). .

3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. I 1331 and 42 U.S.C. I M13(b). '

4. Venue h proper in this Judicial District pursuant to 42 U.S.C. I 9613(b) and 28 U.S.C. I 1391(b) because the site at issue h located wnhin this District and the defendant is to be fand within this District. *

5. Sections 101G1) and 120(a)(1) of CERCLA,42 U.S.C. ll 9601G1) and

• 9620(a)(1), waived the defendant's sovereign inununity with respect to cost recovery actions i

brought under CERCLA.

PARTIFA -

~

6. The plaintiff is a Delaware corporadon, having a principal office at 13500 North Central Expressway, Dallas, Texas. he United States has been named as a defendant on the bPsis of actions undertaken by its departments, agencies ard instrumentalities, including the following: the foriner Unhed States Atomic Energy Commission ("AEC') and hs successor agencies, the former Energy Mrstarch and Development Adminiention ("ERDA*), the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC'), and the United States Department of Energy

(" DOE').

2149124.01 *2-

[ t00iB IYi OT:9T G3A 96/IT/e0

) *

, FACTUAL BACKGRotMD 7

'Ibe Atomic Energy Act of1954, as amended,42 U.S.C. naction 2011,t.se l ("AEA') authori:ad the AEC to create and develop nuclear energy research and

} .

programs for both military and civilian purposes, and to promote a civilian indu military and civilian applications of nuclear energy.

8.

Since 1954, the AEC and its successor agencies have directly through their various regional offices and gdvernment owned national research labcratories, and through other departments, agencies or instrumentalities of the United States, indu '

l sector business enterprises to engage in research and manufacturing activides, under contra i

l and etherwise, related to military and civilian uses of radioactive n:aterial.

9.

The AEC and its successor agencies exercised a uniquely perv,asive deg control over private enterprises engaged in nuclear industrial activities. ~

I 10.

l h United States controlled the production of products manufactured using government owned radioactive material at privata facilities, including the Auleboro facility. .

11.

'Ihe United $tates also controlled safety and security, accountability for radioactive material, and radioactive material handling, storage and disposal at private j

facilities, including the Attleboro facility.

12.

From the early 1950's through 1981, the Attleboro he!!!ty was used to develep, process and fabricate nuclear fuel from governinent-owned radioactive materials supplied by the AEC and its successor agencies. Key activities at the Anleboro facility involved the

{

frhrication of uranium alloy fael elements and other nuclear fuels for government-owned and .

mmam .

Saa lt

govestme6 sponsored reactors. Specialty metals for nuclear reactors, such as Zirconium alloys. were also fabricated at the Attleboro facility. 4

13. The development, proccas*ms, and fabdcatlon activities IIsted in Paragraph 32 were undertaken by Metals and Controls Corp? ration (*M & C") under 'he direction of the AEC and its succettor agencies. .

1

14. In 1939, M & C merged with plaindff Texas Instruments Incorporated. M & c then operated as a division of the plaimiM. -

)

15. The AEC pmvided M & C with all of the uranium and other radioactive I materials needed to perform the taska required by the AEC contracts. Tlw United States also speelfled how the materials were received, stored, accounted for, and disposed.

I

16. The government-owned radioactive materials delivered to the Attleboro facility ,

were used to fabricate products under government contracts supporting, military and civilia'n ,

^

nuclear programs. The government retained ownership and control over the finished product fabricated at the Attleboro facility.

17. The AEC and its successor agencies exercised ddminion and control over all health, safety, environmental, and security procedures and practices for managing radioactive materials at the Attleboro facility, including exercising complete control over the disposition of radioactive waste materials. The' United States directed the burial at the Attleboro faellity of materials cor.taining busYdous substances, including Uranium 234,235, and 238. The United States provided instnictions on methods to reduce the volume of radioacdvs materials to bc disposed and provided instructions on methods to remove radioactive materials from equipment siossa si _

and products used in the fabrication process. Some of these materials were return AEC by M & C, while other materials were buried pursuant to AEC direction.

l 18.

The United States not only had authority to control produedon at the Atdeboro facility., da exercised such control, nrough contracts, the govemment imposed production processes, product speelfications,' and quality assurance and inspection requirements. The United States also' controlled the production schedule.

19.

The United Staths conducted numerous and frequent inspections of the proce .

and procedures at the Attleboro facility, including production processes, materials h '

. i and accountability, waste storage and da' pon! procedures. I i

20.

From 1952 through 1981, the United States directly benefited from the work performed at the Attleboro facility. i 21.

The material excavated from the Attleboro facility as part of the response-actions described in Paragraph 24 included the radionaclides Uranium 234, 255, 238 and o!

constituents defined as " hazardous substances" under CERCLA. .

22.

The AEC knew that the generation of radioactfVe Waste materials was inherent in the process of manufacturing nuclear 'fbels pursuant to its contracts with M & C.

23. >

In 1990, the NRC notifled plaintiff that it must undertake cleanup activities at the Attlebore facility.

24.

Following an investigation of emironmental conditions at the facility, plaintiff conducted response actions, beginning in 1992 and ending in 1990, designed to address O 8

wmsni -.. -- ..

I

, . 1 l

l l

l

[

elevated levels of radioactivity resultirts from the wastes buried by M & C pursuant to A3tc direction.

25.

Plaintiffs mpouse actions, which began in 1992 and ended in 1996, were conducted in accordance with NRC, approved plans.'

j 26.

Plaintiff expended at least $27 malion to undertake response actions regarding l

the hazardous substance contaminadon at the Attleboro facility, including, but not limited to, actions to investigate and char'acterize the facility. excavate contaminated material, and dispo of such material at off-she locations.

l COUNT D COET RECOVERYINDEM 4107 OF CFRrr1 27.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-26 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

28. 'Ihe plaintiff, the defendant, and all departments, agencies and instrumentallSes of the defendant listed in Paragraph 6, are " persons" within the meaning of CERCLA,42 U.S.C. I 9601(21). .

29. The Attleboro facility constitutes a "faellity* Wittiin the meaning of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. I 9601(9).

30.

There has been a " release

• or threat of " release" of " hazardous substances" into the " environment

• at or from the facility within the meaning of CERCLA. 42 U.S.C. 66 9601C22), 9601(14), and 9601(8), respectively.

31. Under CERCLA, l 9607(a), persons who arratiged for disposal of hazardous substances at a facility, as well as persons who operated the facility at such the when

.lr' .

sienson '

t hazardous substances were disposed at the faellity, are la' ble for a11 necessary co responding to a release or threat of release of hazardous substancu incurred by any o person consistent with the NCP.

32.

Plaintiff has incurred response costs at the facility, including the cost of excavating and removing contaminated naterials. ' All response costs incurred by p been necessary and consistent with the NCP.

33.

Defendant is liable for all such response costs incurred by plaintiff because defendant (1) arranged for the disposal of hat.anlous substan$ss at tbc fa:llity, and (2I defendant exercised control over the waste management, environmental, and operati practices at the facility and thus operated the facility at such time when hazardous subst were disposed at the facility.

CotNT ITr CONTRIBIynON FOR REKPONSE COETs INDER 8113 OF CERCil 34.

Plaindff repeats and realleges Pangraphs 133 of this Comp 1alist as though ful set forth herein. '

35.

Pursuant to CERCLA,42 U.S.C. I 96k3(f)(1); asy person may seek contribution from any other person who is liable for response costs under 42 U.S.C. ( 960 36.

Plaintiff has a right of contribution against defendant to recover response costs incurred by plalatiff at the Attleboro fael!!ry, as more fbily sei forth in Count I.

Pamn von amm WHEREFORE, plaintiff pnys that this Court:

m e a missai eoca '

8 .

l l

l A." Botar ajudgtnent in fhvor of the plaindff and against the defendant for all mecassary response costs locurred by plaintiff at the Auleboro facility consistent with the National Contingency Plan; and B. Order such othe and further relief as the Court deems fair andjust.

' T L c n 4 . b = g 4 Thomas H. Hannigan, Jr.,%q.

. BBO # 220420 '

Ropes & Gray OneInternationalPlace Boston,MA 02110 (617) 951-7523 .

Steven L. Leifer, Esq.

Baker & Boas,L.L.P.

I 1299 Pennsylvania Ave.,NW Washington. DC 20004 2400 (202) 639 7723 .

i Attorneys forPlaintiff 'a l TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED OF COUNSEL: . .

l Tami Lyn Azorsky, Esq.

I McKenna & Cuneo 1900 K Street,N.W.

i Washington, DC 20006 1108 1

Cowtney A. Johnson,Esq. '

! bgal Counsel Texas htstrumentsIncorporated l 7839 Churchill Way MS 3999 Dallas,TX 75251 I Dated: December 23.1997 W

womm . -S- .

1 ATnO . ..... .. .. ... -.