ML14317A788: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
§ 2239; 28 U.S.C. | § 2239; 28 U.S.C. | ||
§§ 2341- 2344; the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.; Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; and Circuit Rule 15, Friends of the Earth ("Petitioner") hereby petition s the Court for review of the final order of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission | §§ 2341- 2344; the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.; Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; and Circuit Rule 15, Friends of the Earth ("Petitioner") hereby petition s the Court for review of the final order of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission | ||
("NRC") approving Revision 21 to the Final Safety Analysis Report as Updated (FSARU) for Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2 without the required license amendment proceeding, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2239. "Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 & 2 FSAR Update, Revision 21," (Sep. 2013) ML 13280A390. | |||
1 The NRC acted arbitrarily, abused its discretion, 1 In response to a request to the NRC's Public Document Room, on October 1, 2014, NRC posted a redacted version of sections 2.5, 3.7, and 3.10 of Revision 21, | 1 The NRC acted arbitrarily, abused its discretion, 1 In response to a request to the NRC's Public Document Room, on October 1, 2014, NRC posted a redacted version of sections 2.5, 3.7, and 3.10 of Revision 21, | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
2 Email from Lara Uselding, NRC Region IV Public Affairs to interested parties on September 10, 2014 | 2 Email from Lara Uselding, NRC Region IV Public Affairs to interested parties on September 10, 2014 | ||
: Based on your interest in the Michael Peck differing professional opinion AP story that ran a couple of weeks ago, I am sharing the agency's final decision that was made public today. Per the process, the Executive Director of Operations, Mark Satorius, has made a decision on the appeal and the submitter expressed his wish to have the file publically | : Based on your interest in the Michael Peck differing professional opinion AP story that ran a couple of weeks ago, I am sharing the agency's final decision that was made public today. Per the process, the Executive Director of Operations, Mark Satorius, has made a decision on the appeal and the submitter expressed his wish to have the file publically | ||
[sic] released. 2 | |||
that this Court (1) review NRC's order; (2) declare that NRC violated the Atomic Energy Act and Commission rules and regulations in failing to notice and provide opportunity for a license amendment proceeding in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 2239; (3) remand the matter to NRC for proper execution of the public hearing requirements for license amendment s under the Atomic Energy Act and the agency's own regulations; (4) order that Diablo Canyon temporarily suspend operation until those proceeding s are complete; and (5) grant any other relief that the Court may deem just and appropriate. | that this Court (1) review NRC's order; (2) declare that NRC violated the Atomic Energy Act and Commission rules and regulations in failing to notice and provide opportunity for a license amendment proceeding in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 2239; (3) remand the matter to NRC for proper execution of the public hearing requirements for license amendment s under the Atomic Energy Act and the agency's own regulations; (4) order that Diablo Canyon temporarily suspend operation until those proceeding s are complete; and (5) grant any other relief that the Court may deem just and appropriate. | ||
Revision as of 03:19, 28 April 2019
| ML14317A788 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 10/28/2014 |
| From: | Ayres R, Bernetich J H, Olson J Ayres Law Group, Friends of the Earth |
| To: | NRC/OGC, US Federal Judiciary, US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |
| Creedon, meghan | |
| References | |
| Download: ML14317A788 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT FRIENDS OF THE EARTH Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
, Respondents.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. ____________
PETITION FOR REVIEW Pursuant to
§ 189 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2239; 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2341- 2344; the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.; Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; and Circuit Rule 15, Friends of the Earth ("Petitioner") hereby petition s the Court for review of the final order of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
("NRC") approving Revision 21 to the Final Safety Analysis Report as Updated (FSARU) for Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2 without the required license amendment proceeding, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2239. "Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 & 2 FSAR Update, Revision 21," (Sep. 2013) ML 13280A390.
1 The NRC acted arbitrarily, abused its discretion, 1 In response to a request to the NRC's Public Document Room, on October 1, 2014, NRC posted a redacted version of sections 2.5, 3.7, and 3.10 of Revision 21,
and violated the Atomic Energy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Commission's policies and regulations, and other applicable laws and regulations in approving Revision 21.
This Petition is filed within 60 days of the earliest public notice of NRC's approval of Revision 21 and is thus filed within the Hobbs Act's 60
-day statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2344. Petitioner was not aware, and could not have been aware of Revision 21 until its existence was made public in the September 10, 2014 release of the Case File in the matter of the Dissenting Professional Opinion of Dr. Michael Peck, then-NRC Senior Resident Inspector for Diablo Canyon Power Plant
.2 Venue is appropriate in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2343. Therefore, Friends of the Earth respectfully requests those chiefly related to the seismic design basis, on the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) (ML14269A007). Attachment A to this Petition is the Panel Report issued in the agency's disposition of the Dissenting Professional Opinion of Dr. Michael Peck (DPO
-2013-002). Pages A-1 7 through A-1 9 of the Panel Report document the NRC's final order accepting and approving Revision 21.
2 Email from Lara Uselding, NRC Region IV Public Affairs to interested parties on September 10, 2014
- Based on your interest in the Michael Peck differing professional opinion AP story that ran a couple of weeks ago, I am sharing the agency's final decision that was made public today. Per the process, the Executive Director of Operations, Mark Satorius, has made a decision on the appeal and the submitter expressed his wish to have the file publically
[sic] released. 2
that this Court (1) review NRC's order; (2) declare that NRC violated the Atomic Energy Act and Commission rules and regulations in failing to notice and provide opportunity for a license amendment proceeding in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 2239; (3) remand the matter to NRC for proper execution of the public hearing requirements for license amendment s under the Atomic Energy Act and the agency's own regulations; (4) order that Diablo Canyon temporarily suspend operation until those proceeding s are complete; and (5) grant any other relief that the Court may deem just and appropriate.
Dated: October 28, 201 4 Respectfully submitted, Washington, D
.C. Richard Ayres (D.C. Bar No. 212621)
Jessica Olson (D.C. Bar No. 497560)
John Bernetich (D.C. Bar No. 1018769)
Ayres Law Group 1707 L St, NW Suite 850 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 452-9200 ayresr@ayreslawgroup.com olsonj@ayreslawgroup.com bernetichj@ayreslawgroup.com Counsel for Friends of the Earth 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT FRIENDS OF THE EARTH Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondents.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. ____________
RULE 26.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 26.1 of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Petitioner Friends of the Earth submits the following disclosure: Friends of the Earth is a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization with a mission to defend the environment and create a more healthy and just world, in particular by engaging in efforts to improve the environmental, health, and safety conditions at civil nuclear facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
4 Friends of the Earth is part of Friends of the Earth International, a federation of grassroots groups working in 76 countries. In the United States, Friends of the Earth has more than 9,100 members in all 50 states.
Friends of the Earth is not a publicly held corporation. No parent corporation or publicly held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in Friends of the Earth. October 28, 2014 Respectfully submitted, Jessica Olson Ayres Law Group Suite 850 1707 L St , NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 452-9211 olsonj@ayreslawgroup.com Counsel for Friends of the Earth 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify on this 28th day of October 2014 that I served a copy of the foregoing Petition for Review and Disclosure Statement by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid , on the following:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852
Allison MacFarlane U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
-0001 Jennifer Post
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale St., B30A San Francisco, CA 94105 John Bernetich Ayres Law Group Suite 850 1707 L St NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 452-9211 bernetichj@ayreslawgroup.com 6