(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
|---|
Category:Legal-Motion
MONTHYEARML24046A1402024-02-15015 February 2024
Beyond Nuclear V NRC (20-1187) - Joint Motion Re Oral Argument
ML23229A6022023-08-15015 August 2023
8-15-23 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply (5th Cir.)(Case 23-60377)
ML23161A0002023-06-0505 June 2023
6-5-23 Joint Motion to Govern Future Proceedings (DC Cir.)(Case No. 20-1187)
ML21021A3832021-01-21021 January 2021
Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd.S and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadlines
ML20342A3952020-12-0707 December 2020
Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd.S and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners Combined Reply to NRC Staffs and Holtec Internationals Oppositions to Motion for Leave to File New Contention No. 3 and Motion to Reopen the Record
ML20310A4462020-11-0505 November 2020
Exhibit 1 to Fasken and Pblro Motion for Leave to File New Contention 3
ML20310A4472020-11-0505 November 2020
Exhibit 2 to Fasken and Pblro Motion for Leave to File New Contention 3
ML20310A4492020-11-0505 November 2020
Exhibit 4 to Fasken and Pblro Motion for Leave to File New Contention 3
ML20310A4482020-11-0505 November 2020
Exhibit 3 to Fasken and Pblro Motion for Leave to File New Contention 3
ML20310A4422020-11-0505 November 2020
Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd.S and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners Motion to Reopen the Record
ML20310A4452020-11-0505 November 2020
Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd.S and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners Motion for Leave to File New Contention No. 3
ML20307A8822020-11-0202 November 2020
Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd.S and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners Combined Reply to Oppositions to Their Notice of Appeal and Petition for Review of Atomic Safety Licensing Boards Denial of Motion for Leave to File Amended Contentio
ML20273A0012020-09-28028 September 2020
Petitioners Combined Notice of Appeal and Petition for Review of ASLBs Denial of Motion for Leave to File Amended Contention and Motion to Reopen the Record
ML20273A0042020-08-12012 August 2020
Exhibit 3 to Fasken and Pblros Combined Notice of Appeal and Petition for Review of Atomic Safety Licensing Boards Denial of Motion for Leave to File Amended Contention and Motion to Reopen the Record
ML20273A0022020-08-0505 August 2020
Exhibit 1 to Fasken and Pblros Combined Notice of Appeal and Petition for Review of Atomic Safety Licensing Boards Denial of Motion for Leave to File Amended Contention and Motion to Reopen the Record
ML20206K8572020-07-16016 July 2020
Reply in Further Support of Motion for Abeyance (DC Cir.)(Case No. 20-1187)(Consolidated with 20-1225)
ML20199M1482020-07-16016 July 2020
Response to Motion for Abeyance (DC Cir.)(Case No. 20-1187)(Consolidated with 20-1225)
ML20199M1462020-07-16016 July 2020
Petitioners Response to Motion for Abeyance (DC Cir.)(Case No. 20-1187)(Consolidated with 20-1225)
ML20189A0262020-07-0606 July 2020
7-6-20 Motion for Abeyance (DC Cir.) (Case No. 20-1187) (Consolidated with 20-1225)
ML20189A0182020-07-0202 July 2020
7-2-20 Sierra Club Motion to Intervene (DC Cir.) (Case No. 20-1187 (Consolidated with 20-1225)
ML20132F0472020-05-11011 May 2020
Exhibit 4 to Fasken Motion for Leave to File Amended Contention 2 - Amended Declaration of Stonnie Pollock
ML20132F0192020-05-11011 May 2020
Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd, and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners Motion for Leave to File Amended Contention No. 2
ML20132F0332020-05-11011 May 2020
Exhibit 2 to Fasken Motion for Leave to File Amended Contention 2 - Facts Petitioners Intend to Rely on to Support New and Amended Contentions
ML20132E7242020-05-11011 May 2020
Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd, and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners Motion to Reopen the Record
ML20132F0262020-05-11011 May 2020
Exhibit 1 to Fasken Motion for Leave to File Amended Contention 2 - Declaration of Tommy Taylor
ML20125A0962020-05-0404 May 2020
Sierra Club'S Motion to Reopen the Record
ML20093K5652020-04-0202 April 2020
Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd.S and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadlines Pending the COVID-19 National Emergency
ML19246B8092019-09-0303 September 2019
Fasken Oil and Ranch and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners Motion for Leave to Reopen and Incorporate Contention Filed August 1, 2019
ML20132F0402019-07-0202 July 2019
Exhibit 3 to Fasken Motion for Leave to File Amended Contention 2 - Letter from Stephanie Richard, New Mexico Public Lands Commissioner, to Krishna Singh, President of Holtec International
ML19094B3972019-04-0101 April 2019
Federal Respondents Motion to Dismiss, with Addendum and Exhibits (DC Cir.)(Case No. 18-1340)- 4/01/19
ML19077A0002019-03-18018 March 2019
Reply of Petitioner Dontwaste Michigan, Et Al in Support of Motion to Amend Contentions 4 and 7
ML19056A0012019-02-25025 February 2019
Motion of Dwm Et Al. to Amend Their Contention 2
ML19056A0512019-02-25025 February 2019
Sierra Clubs Motion to File New Late-Filed Contentions 27, 28, and 29
ML19056A0022019-02-23023 February 2019
Attachment to Dwm Et Al. Motion to Amend Contention 2 - Declaration of Robert Alvarez and Cv
ML19049A0262019-02-18018 February 2019
Curriculum Vitae of Gordon Thompson Ph.D. for Dont Waste Mighigan Et Al
ML19049A0192019-02-18018 February 2019
Sierra Clubs Motion to Amend Contention 16
ML19037A5012019-02-0606 February 2019
Motion by Petitioners Dont Waste Michigan, Et Al. to Amend Their Contention 2
ML20273A0032019-01-24024 January 2019
Exhibit 2 to Fasken and Pblros Combined Notice of Appeal and Petition for Review of Atomic Safety Licensing Boards Denial of Motion for Leave to File Amended Contention and Motion to Reopen the Record
ML19017A3482019-01-17017 January 2019
Motion of Dwm Et Al. for Leave to File a New Contention
ML19011A1242019-01-11011 January 2019
Sierra Clubs Motion to Adopt Contentions of Dont Waste Michigan, Et Al
ML19003A2792019-01-0303 January 2019
Petitioners Joint Motion to Establish Hearing Procedures
ML18311A3622018-11-0707 November 2018
Joint Motion to Establish Schedule for Filing of Answer to Fasken Land and Minerals and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners Motion/Petition Dated September 14, 2018
ML18271A2382018-09-28028 September 2018
Reply of Movants Fasken and Pblro to Staffs Response to Motions to Dismiss
ML18261A1082018-09-18018 September 2018
Errata to Beyond Nuclear, Inc.S Motion to Dismiss Licensing Proceedings for Hi-Store Consolidated Interim Storage Facility and WCS Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Violation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
ML18257A3302018-09-14014 September 2018
Motion of Fasken Land and Minerals and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners to Dismiss Licensing Proceedings for HI-Store Consolidated Interim Storage Facility and WCS Consolidated Interim Storage Facility
2024-02-15
[Table view] |
Text
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of:
)
)
Holtec International
)
Docket No. 72-1051
)
(HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility
)
)
In the Matter of:
)
)
Interim Storage Partners
)
Docket No. 72-1050
)
(WCS Consolidated Interim Storage Facility)
)
)
Reply of Movants Fasken and PBLRO to Staffs Response to Motions to Dismiss Movants Fasken Land and Minerals and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners (Movants) hereby submit their Reply to the Staffs Response to the Movants Motion to Dismiss.
CLI-02-11 is dispositive The Movants basis for their motions to dismiss addresses the Applicants failure to meet the requirement of the NWPA that a functioning geologic repository be available as a prerequisite for licensing a Staffs Response to the subject Motion to Dismiss1 is premised on the argument that Fasken and PBLRO (Movants) must pursue their legal arguments through a contention in the license proceeding. (Staff Response, pp. 3-6). Staffs argument centers on the decision in CLI-1 The Motion to Dismiss of Fasken and PBLRO addresses both the Holtec and ISP CISF applications but was filed in the Holtec docket only. The subject motion to dismiss of Fasken &
PBLRO will be filed in the ISP/WCS docket with this reply.
2 17-10. In that case the Commission recognized that legal issues regarding the proposed Consolidated Interim Storage Facilities (CISF) should be anticipated. The Commissions decision did not require that such be raised only through a contention under 10 C.F.R. Pt. 2.2 The Commissions use of may rather than shall or must leaves open the means Movants invoke, i.e., a motion to dismiss based on the APA3. Because Movants have questioned the jurisdiction of the Commission to consider CISF applications raising the matter under the APA is proper.
In CLI-02-11 the Commission recognized jurisdictional issues under the NWPA that question the authority to issue a CISF license require resolution before expenditure of resources necessary in a licensing proceeding. The Commission rejected the Staff and applicants arguments based on timeliness in order to address the threshold questions regarding jurisdiction.
The issue presented here raises a fundamental issue going to the very heart of this proceeding. If in fact NRC has no authority to issue PFS a license, completion of the licensing process would be a waste of resources for all parties as well as the Commission.4 This Commission decision also extended an invitation to interested parties to file amicus curie briefs and did not specify that these parties participate through the 10 C.F.R. Pt. 2 process.5 This decision implicitly recognizes that the procedural means to resolve a jurisdictional issue that goes to the very heart of whether a CISF license may issue is secondary to the substance of the issue. Otherwise, the Commission 2 The Commission decision states [T]his argument [regarding predicate legal requirements of the NWPA] may be raised in an intervention petition after the hearing opportunity is re-noticed; 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) specifically permits petitioners to present contentions that raise issues of law.(Emphasis added).
3 5 U.S.C. 558(b) states A sanction may not be imposed or a substantive rule or order issued except within jurisdiction delegated to the agency and as authorized by law.
4 67 FR 18254 5 Id.
3 would not have extended an invitation for amici briefs; rather; it would have specified that the threshold jurisdictional issues be raised as contentions under 10 C.F.R. Pt. 2.
Staff argues that there is no reason to resolve the motions to dismiss outside the 10 C.F.R.
Pt. 2 process.6 But this overlooks the reasoning that the Commission adopted in CLI-02-11 that expenditure of resources necessary to adjudicate 10 C.F.R. pt. 2 contentions may be avoided if the Commission has no legal authority to issue a CISF license.
The Commission should adopt the wisdom of the decision in CLI-02-11 in resolving the motions to dismiss. The compelling necessity to resolve fundamental questions regarding the Commissions jurisdiction to issue CISF licenses to avoid unnecessary expenditures of resources should weigh in favor of resolution of the motions to dismiss before adjudication of contentions under 10 C.F.R. Pt. 2.
Accordingly, Movants respectfully pray that their Motions to Dismiss be accepted by the Commission for adjudication.
Respectfully submitted,
/electronically signed by/
Robert V. Eye, KS S.C. No. 10689 Robert V. Eye Law Office, L.L.C.
4840 Bob Billings Pky., Suite 1010 Lawrence, Kansas 66049 785-234-4040 Phone 785-749-1202 Fax bob@kauffmaneye.com Attorney for Movants September 28, 2018 6 Staff Response, p. 4
4 Certificate of Service Undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was submitted to the NRCs Electronic Information System for filing and service on participants in the above-captioned dockets.
/signed electronically by/
Robert V. Eye