ML20217D005
| ML20217D005 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Claiborne |
| Issue date: | 09/19/1997 |
| From: | David Wright NRC |
| To: | Fitzgerald J, Person L, Wade I NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217C995 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-97-209-C, NUDOCS 9710020167 | |
| Download: ML20217D005 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
^
From:
Darlene Wright To:
- WND2.LSP1.PDR, JAF, TWD1.TWP5.lJW, TWD1.TWP2. CAR 1,,,,
Date: _
_9/19/97 4:10pm
Subject:
Staff Req Memo - 9/19/97_ Affirmation Session (Secy-97 209)
In an effort to keep the NRC Staff informed of Commission decisions in a timely manner,-
attached for your information are the non-sensitive" Staff Requirements Memoranda (SRMs) signed by the Secretary on September 19,1997 - Please make additional distribution to interested staff members in your office If you have any questions, please give me a call on 415-1969.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman Greta J. Dicus Nils J. Diaz Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
)
In the matter of
)
)
Louisiana Energy Services
)
Docket No. 70-3070 ML
)
(Claiborne Enrichment Center)
)
)
CLI 97-ORDER Citizens Against Nuclear Trash (CANT) has filed a motion for reconsideration of CLl-97-11,46 NRC (September 3,1997). In CLI-97-11, we remanded for clarification one issue decided by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in its decision on waste disposal and decommissioning funding, LBP-97-3,45 NRC 99 (1997). For the reasons discussed below, the Commission denies CANT's motion for reconsideration of CLl-97-11.
Our rema,W order asked the Board to clarify its explanation of why-deep-mine disposalis a plausible strategy for handling depleted uranium waste.
CANT believes that because its petition for review challenged the Board's explanation, the Commission is compelled by its own regulations to grant plenary review rather than order a remand for clarification. We disagree. The section of
-)
our regulations to which CANT refers,10 C.F.R. 9 2.786, describes considerations under which the Commission "may" grant a petition for review but does not mandate any circumstance under which the Commission must take review.
Commission review under section 2.786 establishes a certiorari-like process that leaves full discretion to the Commission. Nothing in the rule prevents a remand to the Board prior to a Commission decision on whether to grant plenary review.
The Commission considers an immediate remand of the deep-mine disposal issue the most efficient way to deal with what we view as an unclear Board discussion of the issue. The Board, as the Commission's primary adjudicatory fact-finder, is well equipped to hanile the remanded matter. Giving the Board an opportunity to clarify the deep mine disposalissue leaves the Commission free to focus its attention on other pending issues in this proceeding.
LANT is not prejudiced by a remand. The Commission expects that the deep-mine disposal issue will be fully aired by the Board and that CANT will have sufficient opportunity to have its concerns addressed. Moreover, when the Board issues its supplemental decision, CANT will be free to supplement its petitions for
~
Commission review if CANT remains dissatisfied with the Board's treatment of the issue. The Commission has neither granted nor denied the petitions for review and would give appropriate consideration to any supplemental petition.
in sum, the Commission sees no reason to reconsider its decision to remand phe deep-mine disposalissue to the Board. Accordingly, reconsideration is denied.
For the Commission John C. Hoyle q.
Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of September,1997.
E W
W a