Case: Document: Filed: 02/23/2011 Page: 1

Similar documents
NO Oral Argument Held on May 2, Order Issued on August 13, 2013 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No IN RE AIKEN COUNTY, Petitioner

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No

Andy Fitz Senior Counsel. Washington State Attorney General s Office Ecology Division. December 14, 2012

SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No IN RE AIKEN COUNTY, ET AL. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

Case 3:18-cv MMD-CBC Document 22-1 Filed 01/02/19 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 39 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 5. Paul M. Seby (admitted pro hac vice) Robert J. Walker (Wyo. Bar No.

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 15, 2010] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 3:18-cv MMD-CBC Document 59 Filed 01/30/19 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOTION OF AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT SCHEDULED] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT : : : : MOTION TO GOVERN

) In the Matter of ) ) LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P. ) Docket No ML ) (National Enrichment Facility ) ) CLI MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

EARTH FARE, INC. S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND A JUDGMENT

The Current Status of Nuclear Waste Issues, Policy, and Legislative Developments

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 08/28/2018 Page 1 of 15 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 2:17-cv RAJ Document 36 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPLICATION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TOP. R. A. P. 123 ON BEHALF OF AMICUS

Pursuant to the NRC's rulemaking process, I'm writing to submit a petition for rulemaking.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 218 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 4

Supreme Court of the United States

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PETITION TO INTERVENE. COME NOW, David and Bettianne Jackson, B. Cris and Eleanor Jones, Charles and

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

NOTICE OF THE FILING OF AN APPEAL

Rebuttal to Assistant U.S. Attorney s Response to Petitioner s Objection and Removal

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. DAVID JACOBS; GARY HINDES, Appellants,

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 228 Filed 04/17/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF WYOMING

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Case 3:18-cv MMD-CBC Document 43 Filed 01/15/19 Page 1 of 7

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 10/19/2017 Page 1 of 7

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

v. Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-861

Case 3:18-cv MMD-CBC Document 25 Filed 01/03/19 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

EXHIBIT B South Carolina s [Proposed] Motion to Transfer Venue EXHIBIT B

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

Case 3:18-cv MMD-CBC Document 28-1 Filed 01/09/19 Page 1 of 13 EXHIBIT 1

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 09/09/2014 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

Case 1:15-cv S-LDA Document 38 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1053 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 16, 2012] No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Closing Yucca Mountain: Litigation Associated with Attempts to Abandon the Planned Nuclear Waste Repository

Case 4:17-cv JM Document 58 Filed 05/04/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION

BEFORE THE UNITED STATATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 2:16-cv NDF Document 29 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 9

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case: , 11/17/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 36, Page 1 of 12 No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA. N. JAMES TURNER JQC Case No.: /

Case , Document 912, 03/29/2018, , Page1 of 6

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

No ERICK DANIEL DAvus, LORRIES PAWS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Congressional Districts Potentially Affected by Shipments to Yucca Mountain, Nevada

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Appellants-Cross-Appellees. Nos , ,

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

[ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON APRIL 15, 2016] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Defendants-Appellees.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. In the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The City of North Charleston,... Respondent.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. ) Civil No CIV. Defendants )

Case 1:13-cv MMS Document 218 Filed 08/03/15 Page 1 of 7 Redacted Version IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

Nevada s Successful Opposi*on to the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA JUDGE ALEMAN S AMENDED WITNESS LIST (PLEASE SEE PAGE 6.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Transcription:

Case: 10-1050 Document: 1294622 Filed: 02/23/2011 Page: 1 SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON MARCH 22, 2011 NO. 10-1050, 10-1052, 10-1069, 10-1082 Consolidated UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 10-1050 IN RE AIKEN COUNTY, Petitioner No. 10-1052 ROBERT L. FERGUSON, et al., Petitioners, v. BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States, et al., Respondents. No. 10-1069 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, et al., Respondents. No. 10-1082 STATE OF WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, et al., Respondents. On Petitions for Review and for Other Relief With Respect to Decisions of the President, the Secretary of Energy, the Deparment of Energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Motion of Petitioners, Aiken County, Robert L. Ferguson, William Lampson, Gary Petersen, State of South Carolina, State of Washington, and Intervenor-Petitioner, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners for Consideration of Format for Oral Argument 1

Case: 10-1050 Document: 1294622 Filed: 02/23/2011 Page: 2 Petitioners respectfully move this Court pursuant to Circuit Rule 27 to consider the following proposed format for presentation of Petitioners arguments at oral argument. I. BASIS FOR PROPOSED ORAL ARGUMENT FORMAT This case involves four separate petitions for review that have been consolidated because they involve a common set of facts and some common parties. While the Petitioners all believe that various of the Respondents actions violate several federal laws, most particularly the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), and all four petitions overlap in some regard, the four petitions are not identical. As further described below, the petitions assert different claims, name different defendants, and in some cases request different relief. As a result, certain arguments raised by Respondents apply to some Petitioners, but not others, and not all Petitioners have raised every issue that is before the Court. Consequently, it would be appropriate for different Petitioners to address issues unique to their respective cases. Petitioners have set forth a proposed format that they all believe recognizes these differences and suggests to the Court how Petitioners propose to be prepared to present these issues. These differences are explained below. 2

Case: 10-1050 Document: 1294622 Filed: 02/23/2011 Page: 3 A. Actions Challenged The three public entity Petitioners (State of Washington; State of South Carolina; Aiken County) have challenged the decision of the Department of Energy (DOE) and Secretary to withdraw the application to construct the Yucca Mountain facility. The private party Petitioners (the Ferguson Petitioners ), along with South Carolina and Washington, also challenge the broader January 29, 2010, decision of the President, Secretary, and DOE to abandon the entire process under the NWPA for proceeding with the Yucca Mountain project, which includes but is not limited to the decision to withdraw the license application. B. Relationship of Actions Challenged to Finality and Related Justiciability Issues In addition to filing petitions with this Court, the three public entity Petitioners each, as a protective measure, sought participation in a proceeding before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). These three Petitioners therefore respond to the finality, ripeness, and exhaustion issues that Respondents assert arise from the NRC proceeding, which necessarily relate only to the specific license withdrawal issue. The Ferguson Petitioners are not parties in the matter before the NRC, nor is the action they challenge pending before the NRC. As described above, the Ferguson Petitioners challenge the January 29, 2010, core decision to abandon 3

Case: 10-1050 Document: 1294622 Filed: 02/23/2011 Page: 4 the entire NWPA process for developing a repository at Yucca Mountain, one indicia of which is the license application withdrawal. To the extent Respondents assert finality, ripeness, and exhaustion issues based on the NRC proceeding, those issues thus do not affect the Ferguson Petitioners. They also do not affect the claims of Washington and South Carolina related to the core decision challenge. C. Parties The Ferguson Petitioners and South Carolina name the President as a defendant. As a result, to the extent the Respondents argue that the President should not be named, or that the President did not violate the NWPA or Constitution by directing the Secretary to abandon the NWPA process, only the Ferguson Petitioners and South Carolina are in a position to present these issues. D. Requested Relief South Carolina and Aiken County have requested mandamus relief against their named Respondents related to the specific action of maintaining the license application. Therefore, only they are in a position to address such relief. II. PROPOSED FORMAT Based on the above, Petitioners jointly propose the following format for oral argument. Arguing counsel will present the argument for all parties who raise each specific point: 4

Case: 10-1050 Document: 1294622 Filed: 02/23/2011 Page: 5 1. Counsel for Washington will be prepared to address the following issues, for which 15 minutes is sought: a. Whether the January 29, 2010, core decision to abandon the process under the NWPA for developing a repository at Yucca Mountain is consistent with the law. b. Whether the NWPA permits DOE to withdraw its license application and the NRC to grant such withdrawal. c. Whether the decision to withdraw the license application is final and otherwise justiciable. d. Any standing concerns with respect to the public entity Petitioners. 2. Counsel for the Ferguson Petitioners will be prepared to address the following issues, for which seven minutes is requested: a. Whether the Secretary, DOE, and/or the President have the authority to abandon the NWPA s process, as announced in the January 29, 2010, core decision. b. Whether the decision to abandon the NWPA s process is final for purposes of judicial review. c. Whether the President is a proper party. 5

Case: 10-1050 Document: 1294622 Filed: 02/23/2011 Page: 6 d. Whether the President violated the NWPA or the Constitution by directing the Secretary to abandon the NWPA s process. e. Whether the decision to abandon the Yucca Mountain project violates the Administrative Procedure Act and National Environmental Policy Act. 3. Counsel for Aiken County will be prepared to address the question of why mandamus relief is necessary with regard to the license withdrawal matter. Three minutes is requested for this presentation. 4. Five minutes is requested for reply. Counsel for Washington has conferred with counsel for Respondents prior to filing this motion. Respondents counsel take no position on Petitioners motion. Respectfully submitted this 23 rd day of February 2011. s/ Thomas R. Gottshall THOMAS R. GOTTSHALL ALEXANDER SHISSIAS S. ROSS SHEALY Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. Post Office Box 11889 Columbia, SC 29211-1889 Attorneys for Aiken County s/ Barry M. Hartman BARRY M. HARTMAN CHRISTOPHER R. NESTOR CHRISTOPHER R. TATE* JOHN ENGLERT* K&L Gates LLP 1601 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-1600 *not admitted Attorneys for Robert L. Ferguson, William Lampson, and Gary Petersen 6

Case: 10-1050 Document: 1294622 Filed: 02/23/2011 Page: 7 ALAN WILSON* Attorney General for the State of South Carolina JOHN W. MCINTOSH* ROBERT D. COOK* LEIGH CHILDS CANTEY* Post Office Box 11549 Columbia, SC 29211 *not admitted s/ Kenneth P. Woodington WILLIAM HENRY DAVIDSON, II KENNETH PAUL WOODINGTON Davidson & Lindemann, P.A. 1611 Devonshire Dr., 2nd Floor Post Office Box 8568 Columbia, SC 29202-8568 ROBERT M. MCKENNA* Attorney General s/ Andrew A. Fitz ANDREW A. FITZ TODD R. BOWERS State of Washington Office of the Attorney General Post Office Box 40117 Olympia, WA 98504-0117 *not admitted Attorneys for State of Washington Attorneys for the State of South Carolina s/ James B. Ramsay JAMES BRADFORD RAMSAY ROBIN J. LUNT National Assoc. of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 1101 Vermont Ave. N.W., Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 Attorneys for Intervenor-Petitioner NARUC 7

Case: 10-1050 Document: 1294622 Filed: 02/23/2011 Page: 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I herby certify that on the February 23, 2011, a copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically using the CM/ECF system, which will provide service on the following parties: Avila, Aaron Peter Bauser, Michael Alan Bowers, Todd R. Brabender, Allen Michael Cordes, John F., Jr. Durkee, Ellen J. Fitz, Andrew Arthur Fitzpatrick, Charles J. Gottshall, Thomas Rush Hartman, Barry M. Jones, Lisa Elizabeth Lawrence, John W. Lunt, Robin Kimlin Jensen Malsch, Martin Guilbert Ramsay, James Bradford Shealy, Samuel Ross Beheler aaron.avila@usdoj.gov efile_app.enrd@usdoj.gov aaronpavila@yahoo.com mab@nei.org toddb@atg.wa.gov allen.brabender@usdoj.gov efile_app.enrd@usdoj.gov John.Cordes@nrc.gov ellen.durkee@usdoj.gov andyf@atg.wa.gov dianam@atg.wa.gov ecyolyef@atg.wa.gov cfitzpatrick@nuclearlawyer.com smontesi@nuclearlawyer.com tgottshall@hsblawfirm.com lgantt@hsblawfirm.com bvaldes@hsblawfirm.com barry.hartman@klgates.com klgateseservice@klgates.com lisa.jones@usdoj.gov efile_app.enrd@usdoj.gov jlawrence@nuclearlawyer.com lborski@nuclearlawyer.com rlunt@naruc.org mmalsch@nuclearlawyer.com cfitzpatrick@nuclearlawyer.com jramsay@naruc.org rshealy@hsblawfirm.com 8

Case: 10-1050 Document: 1294622 Filed: 02/23/2011 Page: 9 Shissias, Alexander George Woodington, Kenneth Paul ashissias@hsblawfirm.com, efoster@hsblawfirm.com kwoodington@dml-law.com sstafford@dml-law.com jangus@dml-law.com I herby certify that service of the same was made on the following parties by first class United States mail: Mr. Kilbourne, James Conwell U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division PO Box 23795, L Enfant Plaza Station Washington, DC 20026-3795 Davidson, William Henry, II Davidson Morrison & Lindemann, PA 1611 Devonshire Drive, Second Floor PO Box 8568 Columbia, SC 29202-8568 Ms. Cottingham, Anne Williams Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 s/ Andrew A. Fitz ANDREW A. FITZ TODD R. BOWERS State of Washington Office of the Attorney General Post Office Box 40117 Olympia, WA 98504-0117 9