ML091380504: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML091380504 | | number = ML091380504 | ||
| issue date = 05/05/2009 | | issue date = 05/05/2009 | ||
| title = Brodsky Et Al V. | | title = Brodsky Et Al V. USNRC Docket No. 08-1454-ag - Ex Parte Letter to the Court with Respect to a Recent Supreme Court Case | ||
| author name = Brodsky R | | author name = Brodsky R | ||
| author affiliation = State of NY, State Assembly | | author affiliation = State of NY, State Assembly | ||
| addressee name = Wolfe C | | addressee name = Wolfe C | ||
| addressee affiliation = NRC/OGC, US Federal Judiciary, Court of Appeals | | addressee affiliation = NRC/OGC, US Federal Judiciary, Court of Appeals | ||
| docket = 05000247, 05000286 | | docket = 05000247, 05000286 | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:THE ASSEMBLY 1 STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY RICHARD L. BRODSKY CHAIRMAN Assemblyman 92ND District Committee on Corporations, Authorities Westchester County and Commissions May 5, 2009 Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit United States Court House 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: Brodsky et al v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket No. 08-1454-ag | {{#Wiki_filter:THE ASSEMBLY 1 *--i. | ||
STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY RICHARD L. BRODSKY CHAIRMAN Assemblyman 92ND District Committee on Corporations, Authorities Westchester County and Commissions May 5, 2009 Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit United States Court House 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: Brodsky et al v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket No. 08-1454-ag | |||
==Dear Ms. Wolfe,== | ==Dear Ms. Wolfe,== | ||
This letter responds to the NRC's earlier exparte letter to the Court with respect to a recent Supreme Court case The Supreme Court, in Entergy v. Riverkeeper, 129 S. Ct. 1498 (2009) dealt with EPA's discretion to consider substantive and evidentiary matters, including cost-benefit analysis. | This letter responds to the NRC's earlier exparte letter to the Court with respect to a recent Supreme Court case The Supreme Court, in Entergy v. Riverkeeper, 129 S. Ct. 1498 (2009) dealt with EPA's discretion to consider substantive and evidentiary matters, including cost-benefit analysis. In a distinct claim, Petitioners' in Brodsky v. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission assert the absence of any statutory authorization for an entire administrative process, not the NRC's authority to weigh evidence. There can be no "deference" to a legal fiction. In any event, deference is usually applied toward a factual or evidentiary determination that requires expertise. Those factors do not appear in Brodsky v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, notwithstanding Mr. Raderfs letter. | ||
In a distinct claim, Petitioners' in Brodsky v. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission assert the absence of any statutory authorization for an entire administrative process, not the NRC's authority to weigh evidence. | Petitioners alsobring to the attention of the Court the existence of dozens of "exemption" requests by Entergy with respect to Indian Point now actively being considered by the NRC, as evidenced by the apparent "exemption application" now before the NRC. | ||
There can be no "deference" to a legal fiction. In any event, deference is usually applied toward a factual or evidentiary determination that requires expertise. | Respectfully submitted, Rc ard L,. Brodsky Attorney for Petitioners Cc: All Counsel D-ALBANY OFFICE: Room 422. Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York 12248, (518) 455-5753 | ||
Those factors do not appear in Brodsky v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, notwithstanding Mr. Raderfs letter.Petitioners alsobring to the attention of the Court the existence of dozens of "exemption" requests by Entergy with respect to Indian Point now actively being considered by the NRC, as evidenced by the apparent "exemption application" now before the NRC.Respectfully submitted, Rc ard L,. Brodsky Attorney for Petitioners Cc: All Counsel D- ALBANY OFFICE: Room 422. Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York 12248, (518) 455-5753:1 DISTRICT OFFICE: 5 West Main Street, Suite 205, Elmsford, New York 10523, (914) 345-0432}} | :1 DISTRICT OFFICE: 5 West Main Street, Suite 205, Elmsford, New York 10523, (914) 345-0432}} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:48, 14 January 2025
| ML091380504 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/05/2009 |
| From: | Brodsky R State of NY, State Assembly |
| To: | Wolfe C NRC/OGC, US Federal Judiciary, Court of Appeals |
| Robert Rader, 301-415-1955 | |
| References | |
| 08-1454-AG | |
| Download: ML091380504 (1) | |
Text
THE ASSEMBLY 1 *--i.
STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY RICHARD L. BRODSKY CHAIRMAN Assemblyman 92ND District Committee on Corporations, Authorities Westchester County and Commissions May 5, 2009 Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit United States Court House 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: Brodsky et al v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket No. 08-1454-ag
Dear Ms. Wolfe,
This letter responds to the NRC's earlier exparte letter to the Court with respect to a recent Supreme Court case The Supreme Court, in Entergy v. Riverkeeper, 129 S. Ct. 1498 (2009) dealt with EPA's discretion to consider substantive and evidentiary matters, including cost-benefit analysis. In a distinct claim, Petitioners' in Brodsky v. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission assert the absence of any statutory authorization for an entire administrative process, not the NRC's authority to weigh evidence. There can be no "deference" to a legal fiction. In any event, deference is usually applied toward a factual or evidentiary determination that requires expertise. Those factors do not appear in Brodsky v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, notwithstanding Mr. Raderfs letter.
Petitioners alsobring to the attention of the Court the existence of dozens of "exemption" requests by Entergy with respect to Indian Point now actively being considered by the NRC, as evidenced by the apparent "exemption application" now before the NRC.
Respectfully submitted, Rc ard L,. Brodsky Attorney for Petitioners Cc: All Counsel D-ALBANY OFFICE: Room 422. Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York 12248, (518) 455-5753
- 1 DISTRICT OFFICE: 5 West Main Street, Suite 205, Elmsford, New York 10523, (914) 345-0432