ML19318D098
| ML19318D098 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1980 |
| From: | Hossler D, Sheehan D, Sholly S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, SHEENAN, D.P. |
| To: | U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318D099 | List: |
| References | |
| 80-1691, NUDOCS 8007070337 | |
| Download: ML19318D098 (2) | |
Text
T!15 DOCUMENT CONTA!NS I
h0C 4
e.e P0OR QUALITY PAGES
~(p o
IN TEE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
80-1691 STEVEN SHOLLY, DONALD E. HOSSLER,
)
7
)
)
b Petitioners,
)
)
00Cb#
vs.
)
USM@
J.
)
THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY )
M dl.)N 97 gp d COMMISSION, Chair =an Ahearne and the )
55 g@
other commissioners as individuals, gaf p
Respondents.
)
'ti g Is Q \\ \\ g MOTION OR PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGCESTICN OF REHFARING EN BANC Now co=e Petitioners herein and move the Court for a Rehearing on its Petition and Motions filed in this =atter on June 23 and 24, 1980 and suggests ' rehearing en bane.
Concise State =ent of Issue and I=oortance i
The issue presented by the Motion is whether the statutory requirement for a 30 days pric.r notice of NRC license amend =ents. except where there are no significant hazards considerations, may be enforced against the NRC, prior to NRC violation of the require =ent, by direct e=ergency appeal to
{
the Circuit Court of Appeals, or whether any clai= to enforce this statutory right to 30 days notice =ust be rendered coot and nugatory by delayed con-sideration in the Court of Appeals.
This issue is 1 portant both in the abstract and as applied to this
)
h$
s //
l 8007070337 4
case. -In the abstract, failure of the Court of Appeals to hear the =erits to an irrevocable action effectively denies a re=edy for unlawful denial of this threshold due process right. As applied to this case, the NRC, if not enjoined, will permit itslicensee to =ake an intentional release of potentially injurious radioactive materials upon a defenseless and distressed public without a prior hearing.
This act raises i=portant issues of due process.
Koreover, under the facts of the case the Justice Depart =ent has taken the unusual and laudatory step of stating that the hearing, and thus a fortiori che notice, is required by law.
The Court is thus in the position of permitting a probable violation of law to proceed, which will inflict irreparable injury through denial of procedural rights and consequent infliction of stress, as a result of the Court's refusal to grant expeditious consideration in direct violation of the 28 U.S.C. 52349 requirenent that the hearing on an application for an interlocutory injunction shall be given preference and expedited and shall be heard at the earliest practicable date after the expiration of the notice of hearing on the application.
(e=phasis added)
So moved,
)
dud.
_l m
Da E l P. Sheehan and Robert Hager 1324 North Capitol St.
Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 797-8106 Attorneys for Petitioners
.