NRC "...an agency that has a unique view of its own independence"

[kristopher]

Attorney Generals Fight for Public Access in Nuclear Issues
Roger Witherspoon

<snip>

"The (Nuclear Regulatory) Commission has stated that it is not bound by judicial practice, including that of the United States Supreme Court," ...the NRC has taken the position that U.S. Supreme Court decisions on procedural rules that apply to federal judicial proceedings are advisory, and the Commissioners are not bound to follow them. ...

"Four years ago," said David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists, "an ASLB in California ruled against the staff in a challenge to the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. The staff opposed requiring the plant to assess the possible impact of a deliberate commercial jet crash into the plant, saying it was speculative. The board ruled that since there have been terrorist attacks using commercial jets, that the challenge was not speculative and should be allowed.

"The Commissioners then ruled that the Board's decision applied only to Diablo Canyon and could not be applied to anyplace else. If they had won that case, I'm sure they would have said it was a precedent and used it everywhere. But since they lost, they made it unique."

It is the issue of hiding loses before a judicial tribunal by the NRC staff and then forcing states and civic groups to litigate the same issue at each and every power plant that has drawn fire from Sorrell and Schneiderman.

...

This is an outstanding article.

http://spoonsenergymatters.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/attorney-generals-fight-for-public-access-in-nuclear-issues/

[bananas]

1. The Social Security Administration did that under Reagan.

It was disgusting and shameful.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/05/13/us/us-flouts-courts-in-determination-of-benefit-claims.html

U.S. FLOUTS COURTS IN DETERMINATION OF BENEFIT CLAIMS

By ROBERT PEAR, Special to the New York Times

Published: May 13, 1984

WASHINGTON, May 12— The Social Security Administration is denying benefits to thousands of people in situations similar to cases in which Federal courts have ordered payment, and Federal judges around the country have denounced the practice as lawless.

<snip>

Judges, however, say such a practice of ''nonacquiescence'' in the decisions of lower courts undermines the rule of law and violates the Constitution. In the last year, at least two Federal judges have threatened to cite the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Margaret M. Heckler, for contempt of court.

<snip>

In the last year many Federal judges have complained of the Social Security Administration's attitude toward decisions of the lower courts. In Colorado, Federal District Judge John L. Kane Jr. said the Secretary's actions ''reveal a clearly rebellious frame of mind.''

In California, Judge Harry Pregerson of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said the policy was like the ''pre-Civil War doctrine of nullification, whereby rebellious states refused to recognize certain Federal laws within their boundaries.''

''The Secretary's nonacquiescence not only scoffs at the law of this circuit,'' Judge Pregerson said, ''but flouts some very important principles basic to our American system of government - the rule of law, the doctrine of separation of powers imbedded in the Constitution, and the tenet of judicial supremacy.'' That tenet was laid down by the Supreme Court in 1803. I.R.S. Similarity Asserted

In Arizona, Federal District Judge Valdemar A. Cordova struck down a recent nonacquiescence notice as ''contrary to law.'' It manifested a ''conscious and willful decision'' to disregard appellate court rulings, he said.

<snip>

[bananas]

2. Margaret Heckler was charged with contempt of court.

According to this article she was charged with contempt by Judge Lowe but it was dismissed by Judge Warriner.

These articles don't mention it, but with the contempt order was a very large fine which accumulated every day she remained in contempt. (The fine was removed when the contempt charges were dismissed.)

That also raised the issue of whether she would be personally liable or whether the Reagan Administration would pay it.

That fine seemed to be what ended the nonsense by Reagan and his minions.

This was a major news story at the time, I'll see if I can dig up how much the daily fine was - it was a lot.

Maybe it's time to start holding NRC commissioners in contempt of court.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19840613&id=IuNNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZYsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1206,2785259

The Free Lance-Star - Jun 13, 1984
Page 13 of 24

[cprise]

3. K&R