ML20205J145
| ML20205J145 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/24/1976 |
| From: | Strauss P NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Gilinsky V, Kennedy R, Mason E, Rowden M, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205J149 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9904090195 | |
| Download: ML20205J145 (2) | |
Text
- .
. /
i e' UNITED STATES
. pq ,k .UCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION y WASHINGT ON. D. C. 20555 h 'E l
?% .... /~
March 24, 1976 g k . / L/ l
/[)J3f2 v .
l
\
neoc. 2/2/76 P<% (VdJ& ) l MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Anders M j,. g /// l Commissioner Rowden f( Jhrj l Commissioner Mason Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy FROM: C[P Peter L. Strauss, General Counsel
SUBJECT:
POSSIBLE REVIEW OF CHAPMAN DECISION ON NRDC SAFEGUARDS PETITION As you may know, Ken Chapman issued on Monday his letter to the Natural Resources Defense Council, denying its February 2 request for emergency and summary action on safeguards at 16 commercial licensees authorized to possess and transport strategic quantities of special nuclear material. A copy of it is attached.
4 You had suggested in the Federal Register notice of February 4 that Commission review would be availab,le, f j
and indicated in our discussions last week that you wished to take up the question whether the Commission should direct review sua sponte, once you had had a .
chance to study Mr. Chapman's letter and consider the alternatives. If the Commission were to direct its own review of the decision, it should do so in short order. A draft order which could accomplish this pur-pose is attached. (I would expect it to be published in the Federal Register should the Commission decide so to act.) Of course, were you to decide to await
~
any NRDC petition, no formal action would be required.
As to whether you ought to undertake review, I find that question difficult. You are aware, as I am, of ,
the narrow line Mr. Chapman is treading here between a l petition he felt able to reject because it has been l I
9904090195 760324 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
i The Commissioners March 24, 1976 overstated, and safeguards for the facilities which are the subject of the petition, which he has addressed in a recent classified memorandum to you. I see little point in your undertaking the review, unbidden, unless it will result in some directive dif ferent from what Mr. Chapman has proposed; and I believe that the last sentence of his letter will be enough to prompt any NRDC review petition should it wish to challenge his conclusions in an agency setting. The Commission's ability to make this choice should be enhanced by the briefing on Mr. Chapman's classified memorandum, which I understand to be scheduled for later this week.
I Attachments as stated cc: Ben Huberman SECY (2) o s~ u-n. m we
? Dvf Dnk l
l I
l
,