Similar Documents at Erwin |
|---|
Category:Legal-Pleading
MONTHYEARML23080A2942023-03-21021 March 2023
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.'S Brief in Opposition to Erwin Citizens Awareness Network'S Appeal of LBP-23-02
ML23055A1492023-02-24024 February 2023
Notice of Appeal of LBP-23-02 by Petitioner Erwin Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. and Brief in Support of Appeal
ML22329A3762022-11-25025 November 2022
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.S Answer to Erwin Citizens Awareness Networks Hearing Request and Petition for Leave to Intervene
ML22319A2502022-11-15015 November 2022
Notice of Appearance of Counsel for Erwin Citizen Awareness Network, Inc
ML22319A2512022-11-15015 November 2022
Notice of Refiling of Declaration of Michael Ketterer, Ph.D
ML22313A1492022-11-0909 November 2022
Notice of Appearance for Travis Jones
ML22304A7072022-10-31031 October 2022
Petition of Erwin Citizens Awareness Network for Leave to Intervene in Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. License Amendment Proceeding, and Request for a Hearing
ML22304A7092022-10-31031 October 2022
Amended Petition of Erwin Citizens Awareness Network for Leave to Intervene in Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. License Amendment Proceeding, and Request for a Hearing
ML22301A1932022-10-28028 October 2022
Park Overall Intervention Pleading (Resubmission) - Attachment 1
ML22301A1912022-10-27027 October 2022
Park Overall Intervention Pleading (Resubmission) - Letter
ML22300A2282022-10-27027 October 2022
Park Overall Intervention Pleading - Attachment 2
ML22300A2272022-10-27027 October 2022
Park Overall Intervention Pleading - Attachment 1
ML22300A2262022-10-27027 October 2022
Park Overall Intervention Pleading - Letter
ML22301A1942022-10-27027 October 2022
Park Overall Intervention Pleading (Resubmission) - Attachment 2
ML22278A1022022-10-0505 October 2022
Appeal to Judge Hawkens from Park Overall
ML22276A2462022-10-0303 October 2022
NRC Staff Reply to Appeal of Denial of SUNSI Access Request
ML22271A8362022-09-28028 September 2022
Appeal to Judge Hawkens Re Denial of Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information
ML22271A8372022-09-28028 September 2022
Atsdr 2007 Public Health Assessment for Nuclear Fule Services, Inc. (Attachment to Appeal to Judge Hawkens Re Denial of Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information)
ML22264A1142022-09-21021 September 2022
Notice of Appearance for Kevin C. Roach
ML22271A8342022-09-21021 September 2022
NRC Staff Letter Regarding SUNSI Access Request (Attachment to Appeal to Judge Hawkens Re Denial of Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information)
NRC-2022-0097, Redacted Version of Request for Access to SUNSI Information by Park Overall Regarding Nuclear Fuel Services' License Amendment Application2022-09-14014 September 2022
Redacted Version of Request for Access to SUNSI Information by Park Overall Regarding Nuclear Fuel Services' License Amendment Application
ML22208A2792022-07-27027 July 2022
NRC Staff'S Response to Extension Request
ML22255A1952007-05-29029 May 2007
Atsdr 2006 Public Health Assessment for Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc
2023-03-21
[Table view] |
Text
October 5, 2022 To: Hon. E. Roy Hawkens Chief Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Re: Denial of Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information - Response to Reply to Challenge of Denial of Access The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (Staff) has filed a reply to my challenge of the denial of access to SUNSI in connection with the license amendment application of Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., as announced at 87 Fed. Reg. 53507 (Aug. 31, 2022). I would like to respond to the Staffs position.
The Staff has asserted in a footnote that my challenge was submitted on September 28, 2022, and that it was due on September 26. The period allowed for submission of a challenge is five days. Normal procedures in case of such short deadlines call for the exclusion of weekend days and holidays. Under that usual procedure, my challenge was due on September 28, 2022, the day it was submitted.
In its dismissive reply, the Staff still has failed to explain how a citizen can show how SUNSI documents will assist the citizen in seeking intervention without seeing the documents themselves. The Staff has chosen simply to ignore the obvious dilemma in which its policy places a citizen who has an interest in the proceedings- outside of the process. Keeping information secret which is unclassified, and which the Staff clearly has already concluded relates to the application, while claiming that a citizen has not shown that the information relates to the application, is not only illogical but crosses the line into absurdity.
It is important to me to be able to review the SUNSI together with the publicly available information in order to formulate a position with regard to the application. Reviewing public documents without access to SUNSI deprives the review of context. Meaningful public participation requires disclosure of SUNSI to public participants.
Sincerely, Park Overall