ML14041A424: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:USCA Case #13-1311        Document #1478742          Filed: 02/06/2014  Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
{{#Wiki_filter:USCA Case #13-1311        Document #1478742          Filed: 02/06/2014  Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE                      )
___________________________________
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE                      )
COUNCIL, INC.,                                )
COUNCIL, INC.,                                )
                                               )
                                               )

Latest revision as of 23:21, 5 February 2020

Petitioners' Statement of Issue to Be Raised
ML14041A424
Person / Time
Site: Limerick  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 01/27/2014
From: Crystal H
Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, Natural Resources Defense Council
To:
NRC/OGC, US Federal Judiciary, District Court for the District of Columbia
Robert Rader
References
13-1311
Download: ML14041A424 (1)


Text

USCA Case #13-1311 Document #1478742 Filed: 02/06/2014 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE )

COUNCIL, INC., )

)

Petitioner, ) No. 13-1311

)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR )

REGULATORY COMMISSION and the )

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondents. )

___________________________________ )

PETITIONERS STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE RAISED The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (Commission) regulations require that in order for a Petitioner to challenge and obtain judicial review of Commission decisions related to the relicensing of nuclear power plants, the Petitioner must timely intervene in the relicensing proceeding and pursue Contentions in that proceeding. If the Contentions are not admitted into the proceeding they may not be pursued, including before a United States Court of Appeals.

In connection with the relicensing for the Limerick Generating Station, Petitioner Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) submitted several environmental Contentions concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs). The Commission ruled that those Contentions could only be

USCA Case #13-1311 Document #1478742 Filed: 02/06/2014 Page 2 of 4 considered through waiver of the application of 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L),

which, the Commission ruled, immunizes nuclear power plants from challenges concerning SAMAs during relicensing if a SAMA analysis had previously been completed. The Commission also denied NRDCs Petition seeking such a waiver, on the grounds that NRDC had not satisfied the waiver criteria. The issues presented are:

1. Whether the Commission erred in ruling NRDC may only pursue its SAMA Contentions by obtaining a waiver of 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), where the Commission at the same time recognizes that another provision of its own regulations, 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(iv), and the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq., unequivocally require the Commission to consider any new and significant information regarding environmental impacts during license renewal, including information concerning SAMAs?
2. Whether the Commission erred in denying NRDCs waiver Petition, which the Commission had ruled was a prerequisite to NRDC pursuing its SAMA Contentions, where the result of the denial is that although the Commission has recognized new and significant information concerning SAMAs must be considered during relicensing - and has on that basis referred NRDCs concerns to the Commission Staff with instructions to fully consider them in the relicensing process - NRDC will have no opportunity to challenge and seek judicial review of 2

USCA Case #13-1311 Document #1478742 Filed: 02/06/2014 Page 3 of 4 the adequacy of the Staffs analysis because the NRDCs Contentions have not been admitted?

DEFERRED APPENDIX STATEMENT The parties agree to utilize a Deferred Appendix.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Howard M. Crystal Howard M. Crystal Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal 1601 Connecticut Ave., N.W.,

Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 588-5206 hcrystal@meyerglitz.com Attorney for Petitioners January 27, 2014 3

USCA Case #13-1311 Document #1478742 Filed: 02/06/2014 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Howard M. Crystal, hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of Petitioners Statement of Issues to be served by U.S. mail on the following this 27th day of January, 2014 on the following:

Bob Rader Andrew Averbach U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Division of Legal Counsel Mailstop O-15 D21 Rockville, MD 20852 Brad Fagg Anna V. Jones Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004

_/s/ Howard M. Crystal_

Howard M. Crystal 4