ML14041A424: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| page count = 1 | | page count = 1 | ||
}} | }} | ||
=Text= | |||
{{#Wiki_filter: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 Commission's ("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 proceed ing and pursue "Contentions" in that proceeding. If the Contentions are not admitted into the proceeding they may not be pursued, including before a Un ited 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 1 of 4 2considered 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 NRDC's Petition seeking such a waiver, on the grounds that NRDC had not satisfi ed 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 in formation concerning SAMAs? 2. Whether the Commission erred in denying NRDC's 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 th at basis referred NRDC's 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 USCA Case #13-1311 Document #1478742 Filed: 02/06/2014 Page 2 of 4 3the adequacy of the Staff's analysis b ecause the NRDC's 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 USCA Case #13-1311 Document #1478742 Filed: 02/06/2014 Page 3 of 4 4CERTIFICATE 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 USCA Case #13-1311 Document #1478742 Filed: 02/06/2014 Page 4 of 4}} | |||
Revision as of 19:48, 2 July 2018
| ML14041A424 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 01/27/2014 |
| From: | Crystal H M 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
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 Commission's ("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 proceed ing and pursue "Contentions" in that proceeding. If the Contentions are not admitted into the proceeding they may not be pursued, including before a Un ited 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 1 of 4 2considered 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 NRDC's Petition seeking such a waiver, on the grounds that NRDC had not satisfi ed 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 in formation concerning SAMAs? 2. Whether the Commission erred in denying NRDC's 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 th at basis referred NRDC's 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 USCA Case #13-1311 Document #1478742 Filed: 02/06/2014 Page 2 of 4 3the adequacy of the Staff's analysis b ecause the NRDC's 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 USCA Case #13-1311 Document #1478742 Filed: 02/06/2014 Page 3 of 4 4CERTIFICATE 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 USCA Case #13-1311 Document #1478742 Filed: 02/06/2014 Page 4 of 4