ML21356A572: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:USCA Case #21-1229            Document #1927330                Filed: 12/20/2021      Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 December 20, 2021 Mark Langer, Clerk of Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 333 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 Re:      Error in Docketing Statement in Sierra Club v. NRC, No. 21-1229
 
==Dear Mr. Langer:==
 
Pursuant to Circuit Rule 15(c)(5), Respondent Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), on behalf of Federal Respondents, hereby informs the Court of an error in the Docketing Statement filed by Petitioners in this matter on December 15, 2021 (Document No. 1926848). The Docketing Statement fails to acknowledge related cases pending in this Court.
The Docketing Statement correctly states that this case involves the same underlying agency order and substantially the same issues, as two cases pending in the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Tenth Circuits (Texas v. NRC, No. 21-60743 (5th Cir.); New Mexico v.
NRC, No. 21-9593 (10th Cir.)). Docketing Statement at 6. Yet Petitioners fail to disclose that their Petition for Review in No. 21-1229 also involves substantially the same issues, and the same or related underlying orders and agency actions, as two other petitions that they filed in this Court on the same day (Sierra Club v. NRC, 21-1227 ; Dont Waste Michigan et al. v. NRC, D.C. Cir. No. 21-1231), as well as a third petition by a different entity (Beyond Nuclear v. NRC, D.C. Cir. No. 21-1230). And Petitioners fail to mention that this Court has consolidated those three petitions with four other related petitions, including two that they filed, under Case No. 21-1048 (Dont Waste Michigan v. NRC).
All of these cases relate to the same proceedings that resulted in the NRC issuing a single license. The substantial overlap between this Petition and the seven consolidated petitions is the subject of Federal Respondents pending motion to consolidate, filed December 3, 2021 (Document No. 1925216), which Sierra Club and its co-petitioners oppose.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
                                                        /s/ Andrew P. Averbach Andrew P. Averbach Solicitor}}

Latest revision as of 08:56, 18 January 2022

12-20-21 Letter to Court (DC Cir.)(Case No. 21-1229)
ML21356A572
Person / Time
Site: Consolidated Interim Storage Facility
Issue date: 12/20/2021
From: Andrew Averbach
NRC/OGC
To: Langer M
US Federal Judiciary, Court of Appeals, for the District of Columbia Circuit
References
1926848, 1927330, 21-1229
Download: ML21356A572 (1)
v • d • e


Text

USCA Case #21-1229 Document #1927330 Filed: 12/20/2021 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 December 20, 2021 Mark Langer, Clerk of Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 333 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 Re: Error in Docketing Statement in Sierra Club v. NRC, No. 21-1229

Dear Mr. Langer:

Pursuant to Circuit Rule 15(c)(5), Respondent Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), on behalf of Federal Respondents, hereby informs the Court of an error in the Docketing Statement filed by Petitioners in this matter on December 15, 2021 (Document No. 1926848). The Docketing Statement fails to acknowledge related cases pending in this Court.

The Docketing Statement correctly states that this case involves the same underlying agency order and substantially the same issues, as two cases pending in the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Tenth Circuits (Texas v. NRC, No. 21-60743 (5th Cir.); New Mexico v.

NRC, No. 21-9593 (10th Cir.)). Docketing Statement at 6. Yet Petitioners fail to disclose that their Petition for Review in No. 21-1229 also involves substantially the same issues, and the same or related underlying orders and agency actions, as two other petitions that they filed in this Court on the same day (Sierra Club v. NRC, 21-1227 ; Dont Waste Michigan et al. v. NRC, D.C. Cir. No. 21-1231), as well as a third petition by a different entity (Beyond Nuclear v. NRC, D.C. Cir. No. 21-1230). And Petitioners fail to mention that this Court has consolidated those three petitions with four other related petitions, including two that they filed, under Case No. 21-1048 (Dont Waste Michigan v. NRC).

All of these cases relate to the same proceedings that resulted in the NRC issuing a single license. The substantial overlap between this Petition and the seven consolidated petitions is the subject of Federal Respondents pending motion to consolidate, filed December 3, 2021 (Document No. 1925216), which Sierra Club and its co-petitioners oppose.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Respectfully,

/s/ Andrew P. Averbach Andrew P. Averbach Solicitor

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML21356A572&oldid=3402136"