|
|---|
Category:Legal-Order
MONTHYEARML20204A7502020-07-21021 July 2020
7-21-20 Clerks Order to SCE Directing Submission of Paper Copies of Brief (9th Cir.)(Case No. 20-70899)
ML20204A7632020-07-21021 July 2020
7-21-20 Clerks Order to SCE Directing Submission of Paper Copies of SCE Supp Er (9th Cir.)(Case No. 20-70899)(FILED)
ML20203M0382020-07-20020 July 2020
Federal Respondents Supplemental Excerpts of Record 9th Cir.)(Case No. 20-70899) (Filed)
ML20203M0492020-07-20020 July 2020
7-20-20 Clerks Order to Federal Respondents Directing Filing of Paper Copies of Brief and Supplemental Er (9th Cir.)(Case No. 20-70899)(FILED)
ML20174A1332020-06-19019 June 2020
6-19-20 Clerk Order to Pw on Filing of Paper Copies of Opening Brief and Excerpts of Record (9th Cir.)(Case No. 20-70899)
ML20140A0722020-05-18018 May 2020
5-18-20 Order (9th Cir.)(Case No. 20-70899)(FILED)
ML20127H7972020-04-30030 April 2020
4-30-20 Order Granting United States Party Status, Denying Petitioner'S Temporary Injunction Motion and Denying Intervenors Judicial Notice Motion (9th Cir.)(Case No. 20-70899)
ML19357A1342019-12-20020 December 2019
12-20-19, Order Denying Petition (9th Cir.)(Case No. 19-72670)(Filed)
ML19331A0022019-11-25025 November 2019
Order on Motion for Extension (9th Cir.)(Case No. 19-72670)
ML15267A7492015-09-23023 September 2015
Order of the Secretary (Extending the Time for Commission Review of Director'S Decision DD-15-07)
ML15229A2812015-08-17017 August 2015
Order of the Secretary (Extending the Time for Commission Review of Director'S Decision DD-15-07)
ML13339A9522013-12-0505 December 2013
Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI-13-09) Granting NRC Staff'S Motion to Vacate the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board'S Order, LBP-13-7
ML13339A9532013-12-0505 December 2013
Memorandum and Order (CLI-13-10) Granting Southern California Edison'S and NRC Staff'S Motions
ML13290A3702013-10-17017 October 2013
Notice of Secretary Lifting Suspension of Adjudicatory Activity in the Matter of San Onofre, Units 2 and 3
ML13290A4912013-10-17017 October 2013
Notice of the Secretary Lifting Suspension of Adjudicatory Activity in the Matter of San Onofre, Units 2 and 3
ML13283A0722013-10-10010 October 2013
Notice of the Secretary Regarding Agency Shutdown in the Matter of San Onofre, Units 2 and 3
ML13283A1172013-10-10010 October 2013
Notice of the Secretary Regarding Agency Shutdown in the Matter of San Onofre, Units 2 and 3
ML13172A3032013-06-21021 June 2013
Order Granting Friends of the Earth Request for Nine-day Extension of Time in Which to File an Answer to the NRC Staff'S Motion to Vacate the Board'S Initial Decision in This Matter
ML13165A3592013-06-14014 June 2013
Order of the Secretary Tolling the Running of the Time to File an Intervention Petition
ML13158A2752013-06-0707 June 2013
Order of the Secretary (Granting Request for Extension)
ML13133A3232013-05-13013 May 2013
Memorandum and Order (Resolving Issues Referred by the Commission in CLI-12-20)- LBP-13-07
ML13133A3682013-05-13013 May 2013
Order of Secretary Extending Time for Commission Review
ML13101A3472013-04-11011 April 2013
Order (Adopting Transcript Corrections)
ML13085A2002013-03-26026 March 2013
Order (Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petitioner'S Motion to Bar Sce'S RAI Responses After the Close of Briefing)
ML13072A1382013-03-12012 March 2013
Order (Format for Oral Argument)
ML13070A2102013-03-11011 March 2013
Order Denying Southern California Edison Company'S (Sce'S) Motion to Strike Portions of Declaration of John Large in the Matter of Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3)
ML13053A2022013-02-22022 February 2013
Order Setting Oral Argument
ML13045A4182013-02-14014 February 2013
Order (Granting Nuclear Energy Institutes Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief)
ML13039A1262013-02-0808 February 2013
Order (Denying Sce'S Motion for Sanctions Against Friends of the Earth for Violating the Protective Order, But Imposing an Enhanced Document-Review Requirement)- LBP-13-02
ML13032A3182013-02-0101 February 2013
Order Granting Petitioner'S Motion for Extension of Time
ML13023A2572013-01-23023 January 2013
Order (Directing Friends of the Earth and the NRC Staff to File Expedited Answers to Sce'S Motion for Sanctions)
ML12366A2462012-12-31031 December 2012
Order (Dismissing Objection by Citizens Oversight, Inc)
ML12356A1992012-12-21021 December 2012
Memorandum and Order (LBP-12-25) - Denial of Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing
ML12356A2412012-12-21021 December 2012
Order Directing Parties to Brief Additional Issue
ML12355A4522012-12-20020 December 2012
Order (Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petitioners Motion for Clarification and Extension)
ML12347A2552012-12-12012 December 2012
Order (Directing SCE and NRC Staff to File Expedited Answers to Petitioners Extension and Clarification Request)
ML12345A3722012-12-10010 December 2012
Order (Granting Joint Motion for Entry of a Protective Order and Non-Disclosure Agreement)
ML12342A3282012-12-0707 December 2012
Order (Conference Call Summary and Directives Relating to Briefing)
ML12331A2272012-11-26026 November 2012
Order Scheduling Conference Call
ML12325A7092012-11-20020 November 2012
Order Setting Oral Argument
ML12324A2672012-11-19019 November 2012
Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Matter of San Onofre, Units 2 and 3, 03/27/2012 NRC Confirmatory Action Letter
ML12318A2752012-11-13013 November 2012
Memorandum to the Parties to Provide Notice That Commissioner William D. Magwood, IV Will Tour the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 on November 14, 2012
ML12318A3762012-11-13013 November 2012
Memorandum from the Secretary of the Commission to E. Roy Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge, ASLBP Referring the Request for Hearing and Application to Stay Any Decision to Restart Units 2 and 3 at San Onofre by Friends of the Earth
ML12318A3792012-11-13013 November 2012
Memorandum to the Parties to Provide Notice That Commissioner Magwood, IV Will Tour the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 on November 14, 2012
ML12299A3392012-10-25025 October 2012
Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for Southern California Edison Company, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3
ML12293A4132012-10-19019 October 2012
Memorandum from Andrew L. Bates, Acting Secretary of the Commission to E. Roy Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge, ASLBP Referring the Citizens Oversight, Inc. Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing
ML12199A3462012-07-17017 July 2012
Notice of Commissioner, William C. Ostendorff Site Visit to San Onofre, Units 2 & 3 on 07/22/2012
2020-07-21
[Table view] |
Text
Case: 19-72670, 12/20/2019, ID: 11540459, DktEntry: 19, Page 1 of 4 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS In re: PUBLIC WATCHDOGS, No. 19-72670 PUBLIC WATCHDOGS, ORDER Petitioner, v.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Intervenor-Pending.
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, BERZON and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
This petition for a writ of mandamus requests that the Court direct the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to suspend immediately decommissioning operations at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3.
Case: 19-72670, 12/20/2019, ID: 11540459, DktEntry: 19, Page 2 of 4 The writ of mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes. In re Van Dusen, 654 F.3d 838, 840 (9th Cir. 2011)
(internal quotations omitted). We generally employ a three-part test to determine whether to grant mandamus relief: (1) the plaintiff's claim is clear and certain; (2) the duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt; and (3) no other adequate remedy is available. Or. Nat. Res. Council v. Harrell, 52 F.3d 1499, 1508 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Fallini v. Hodel, 783 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th Cir. 1986)) (internal quotations omitted). Here, at the very least, the limited record before us does not demonstrate that no other adequate remedy is available. Indeed, a petition seeking essentially the same substantive relief sought in this court is currently pending before the NRC.
That being said, we do have authority to issue a writ of mandamus against an administrative agency under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. In re Pesticide Action Network N. Am., Nat. Res. Defense Council, Inc. (PANNA), 798 F.3d 809, 813 (9th Cir. 2015). In particular, we have the authority to grant mandamus relief against an administrative agency if it has delayed consideration of a petition. See id. at 814. However, our authority to issue mandamus relief from agency inaction is narrow. In re Cal. Power Exch. Corp., 245 F.3d 1110, 1124 (9th Cir. 2001). In the context of considering administrative agency delay, [m]andamus is warranted 2
Case: 19-72670, 12/20/2019, ID: 11540459, DktEntry: 19, Page 3 of 4 in those rare instances when the agencys delay is egregious. PANNA, 798 F.3d at 813 (quoting Cal. Power Exch. Corp., 245 F.3d at 1124). In deciding whether an agencys delay is sufficiently egregious to warrant mandamus relief, [o]ur inquiry is governed by the six-factor test articulated in Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. F.C.C., 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984), known as the TRAC factors. Id.1 The most important TRAC factor is the first, which dictates that the time the agency has taken to reach a decision must be examined under a rule of reason analysis. In re A Cmty. Voice, 878 F.3d 779, 786 (9th Cir. 2017). We have granted mandamus petitions in the past when agencies have unreasonably delayed issuance of an order, but have generally done so in cases that involved delays of years, not months. Cal. Power Exch. Corp., 245 F.3d at 1125.
1 The TRAC factors are : (1) the time agencies take to make decisions must be governed by a rule of reason; (2) where Congress has provided a timetable or other indication of the speed with which it expects the agency to proceed in the enabling statute, that statutory scheme may supply content for this rule of reason; (3) delays that might be reasonable in the sphere of economic regulation are less tolerable when human health and welfare are at stake; (4) the court should consider the effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority; (5) the court should also take into account the nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by delay; and (6) the court need not find any impropriety lurking behind agency lassitude in order to hold that agency action is unreasonably delayed. Telecomms. Research & Action Ctr., 750 F.2d at 80.
3
Case: 19-72670, 12/20/2019, ID: 11540459, DktEntry: 19, Page 4 of 4 In this case, the mandamus petition raises serious issues about the present disposal of spent nuclear fuel, and we are mindful of the third TRAC factor, namely that delays that might be reasonable in the sphere of economic regulation are less tolerable when human health and welfare are at stake. However, the petition requesting suspension has only been before the NRC for a short period of time, and the NRC has represented to the Court in its response that it is processing the petition and has not engaged in delay. Under these circumstances we have permitted the agency to proceed with its review. Cf. League of United Latin Am.
Citizens v. Wheeler, 922 F.3d 443, 445 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc).
In view of these considerations, we DENY the petition for a writ of mandamus at this time, without prejudice to renewal if the agency fails to rule on the petition expeditiously.2 PETITION DENIED.
2 Southern California Edison Companys unopposed motion to intervene (Docket Entry No. 9) is GRANTED. The proposed answer to the petition for a writ of mandamus, submitted on December 9, 2019, is deemed filed.
4
