CITY OF NEW BRITAIN, CONNECTICUT, PETITIONER,
v.
UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Atomic Energy Commission has the statutory authority to license the receipt, storage, and disposal of low-level radioactive waste, and that the city was afforded adequate due process.
The City of New Britain petitioned to review a determination by the Atomic Energy Commission granting Walker Trucking Company a license amendment for …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Due Process In Administrative Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The City of New Britain, Connecticut has petitioned this court pursuant to 5 U.S.C.A. § 1034 to review a determination of the respondent United States Atomic Energy Commission which granted an application of Walker Trucking Company for an amendment of its license to engage in the business of receiving, temporarily storing, and ultimately disposing of low-level packaged radioactive wastes.
Petitioner first argues that the Commission has no statutory authority to license the type of activity here in question, since receiving, storing, and disposing do not constitute “use,” and low-level packaged radioactive wastes do not constitute “by-product material” within the meaning of § 81 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2111. We think that petitioner has taken too narrow a view of these terms in light of the broad regulatory purpose of the statute, and we entertain no doubt about the Commission’s authority to grant the present license. See Harris County, Texas v. United States and the Atomic Energy Comm’n, 292 F. 2d 370 (5th Cir. 1961).
Petitioner further contends that the absence of factual findings to support the Commission’s conclusions coupled with the denial to the city of an opportunity to make an adequate presentation constitutes a deprivation of admin istrative due process. Our review of the record, however, indicates that adequate opportunity was given the city to make a record, and that the record supports the conclusion of the Commission that the proposed activity “does not involve any credible possibility of contamination of the ground, air, or water * *
Finally, petitioner asks us to remand this case to the Commission for additional findings in light of the resumption of Soviet atmospheric nuclear testing. But it makes no affirmative showing that the new conditions were not contemplated in the Commission’s decision to grant the license, or that these conditions, in any way, affect the safety of the activity in question. Under these circumstances, we see no useful purpose to be served by remanding for additional findings.
The motion to remand is denied and the order of the Commission is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Harris Cnty. v. United States & The Atomic Energy Comm'n, 292 F.2d 370 (5th Cir. 1961)