ML19318D153
| ML19318D153 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1980 |
| From: | Hossler D, Sheehan D, Sholly S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, SHEENAN, D.P. |
| To: | U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT |
| References | |
| 80-1691, NUDOCS 8007080007 | |
| Download: ML19318D153 (3) | |
Text
.
RELATED CORRESPONDENCE
- -, - g '<
DOCKET NUMBER
?. -
-Laco, s_vil.l._vA_c_.e%. M......^"
CElv ED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 30824 W FOR In~s DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA No. 80-1691 STEVEN SHOLLY, DONALD E. HOSSLER,
)
)
Petitioners,
-)
AN %
)
%k
/,
vs.
)
4 D%Fd3
)
usNao D
~
THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY )
?
- 5}
'JUN 2 41980> l-?
COMMISSION, Chairman Ahearne and the )
other coc=issioners as individuals,
)
(
rg gg '
)
-h:keting & Sin 48S e
Respondents.
)
F* *
/-
lll W MOTION FOR ARGUMENT AND ICARING ON MOTIONS Petitioners now ove that a hearing be set for argument on their motions pending in this =atter in the United States Court of ap. peals for the District of Colu=bia Circuit at 10 o' clock on June 27, 1980, in accordance with their " Petition for Review of Final NRC Orders" and
" Motion for Inj'.:nctive, Declaratory and Other Relief", filed herein on l
June 23 and 24, 1980; sad in support thereof state as follows:
I 1.
In its Petition for Review of Final NRC Ordl$rs,':jiled. O',,-
\\
June 23, 1980, Petitioners requested expeditious considerati5a under..
l c
Rule 6(1) of the Rules of this Court.
3 2.
Petitioners' Motion Requesting Expeditious Consideration of.
1i Petition for Review of Final NRC Orders, filed June 2'4, 1980 has set forth.
the reasons for an expedited consideration of this =a'tter.
~
3.
In order to expeditiously develop the facrual and legal.
basis for_a determination on the question of "significant hazards [on-
' ' ~ ~ ' '
8007o39 oo7 f
P'"
'.-y.
_~
siderations", 42 U.S.C. Section 2239(a), and other questions relating to this cause a hearing will be essential.
4.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2349:
4 in a case in which irreparable danage would otherwise result to the petitioner, the Court of Appeals may, on hearing, after reasonable notice to the agency and to the Attorney General, order a te=porary stay or suspension...of the operation of the order of the agency.
Petitioners have alleged irreparable damage if the NRC Orders entered June s
12, 1980 are enforced prior to the expiration of the legal notice, and
'have requested a temporary stay or suspension of the operation of the
~
orders. Petitioners have given the Respondents notice of this action by service of their Petition on June 23, 1980. Accordingly, a hearing set for June 27, 1980, would satisfy the requirement for reasonable notice.
5.
Petitioners are prepared, if necessary, to offer at such a hearing tNe testimony of epxert witnesses to show that the statutory test of "significant hazards considerations" is clearly met in this case.
6.
Because of the shortage of time available for Petitioners to bring this action to stay the NRC's June 12, 1980 Orders, oral argument on the legal issues involved in this case would help to further clarify issues presented herein which have not yet been decided by any tribunal.
\\
oIm Daniel P. Sheehan and Robert Hager 1324 North Capitol St.
Washington, D.C.
20002-(202) 797-8106 Attorneys for. Petitioners ORDER The foregoing Motion is hereby granted.
r i
i 9
.n---,
f.
i
.g b'
i-i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that true and correct copies of the Motion for Argument and Hearing on Motions has been served by hand on the Nuclear Regulatory Co:: mission,1717 H St., Washington, D.C. on this day of June, 1980.
i b
e e-O$
.l 4
i
.