ML19338C188

Motion of Intervenor N Aeschliman of Saginaw Valley Nuclear Study Group to Extend Time Currently Set for Hearings Described in NRC 761105 Memorandum & Order to Wk of 761129. Motion Should Be Granted

ML19338C188
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	11/16/1976
From:	Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER, Saginaw Intervenor
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8008050638
Download: ML19338C188 (3)

Text

-

. 1. :

~*

<t(191 4

?

UNITED STATES OF ALERICA 7A NUCLEAR REGULATORY COIOIISSION jg, b

I

~

~

gDN,. D 16 e

BEFORE THE

.- p ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 6

.-4 m

)

In the Matter of

)

)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. 50-329

)

50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2) )

)

)

MOTION OF. NELSON AESCHLIMAN, SAGINAW VALLEY NUCLEAR STUDY GROUP, ET AL.,

\\

All of the Intervenors other than Dow Chemical Company -

each such Intervenor is named in the footnote * - submit this Motion N ~

tc. this Licensing Board in response to the Commission 's November '5, 1976 Memorandum and Order and its November 5,1976 " Supplemental

\\

General. Statement of Pol' icy. "

t Counsel for Intervenors named in the footnotes, by their Attorney Myron M. Cherry move this Board to extend the time currently set for' the hearings described in the NRC November 5,' Memorandum and 8008050 63 8 b

Saginaw Valley.' Nuclear Study Group, Sierra Club, United Auto Workers International ~, West Michigan Environmental Action Council, Citizens Committee For Environmental Protection of Michigan, University of' Michigan Environmental Law Society, Nelson

Aeschliman,_ John.L. and Hilda M. Wentworth, John and Loretta G.-

Liddell. (individualln pr#-l r%%O-n-C'

a_c

m..

. l*. _ _

q,

.'r; se 9,;

-l:

.W

~

Order in this-case -(.now ' set to. begin on November 16, 1976) to

'aJpoint' not earlier - than' November 29,'1976. ~ In support of this r

' Motion,) Counsel for the Intervenors states:

5 i

1..~As of. Friday,-November 5,,1976, Ccunsel for Inter-7 i

.venors_ wa's;necessarily a'nd unavoidably:engag'ed in an extremely important multi--million-dollar preliminary injunction hearing

.in;the United; States District Court for the Central District of

~

California, which hearing Counsel for Intervenors genuinely be-

-lieved;- when the hearini dates in this matter were set and v

actually;until November 5th - would be cdacluded in more than adequate time to allow Counsel.to appear before this Board on

^

November 16;.

2.

On> Saturday, November 6, 1976, however, Intervenors' Counsel' was required to appear. before 'a' Judge of the United ' States LCircuit Court of Appeals'for'the Ninth Circuit.'

That Judge i..

established an expedited briefing' schedule conce'rning the injunction

--matter-that Counsel had~ been trying, under which the' brief of Intervenors ' Counsel-on~ behalf' of his client is due te day, LNovember 9, 1976;iandfaidecisi'on'in the matter.will be rendered Jon or before Friday,c; November l19, 1976.'- Thit.scheddling-is

~ebsolutaly;crdcial becausela1 number. of the matters in dispute:

Nwhich center /on theishowing on; television of a major motion

- picture jfilma now f scheduledi for-~ television = showing on : November-20, c

t w

k-A z

4

• f_.

e.

;p

~

n Li

,: 2 i

~

~ ~

.l

^

f 3R W.-

.J J'

a v

t

.y,

1976) will b'e moot-if a decision is delayed past that date.

Thus, I

November 19, 1976 is?thefabsolute latest date when a decision can be had:in this. extremely important,-multi-million-dollar matter;

.3.

For the' reasons that were outlined just above, Counsal

'has asked the United States Court of Appeals for.the Ninth Circuit to schedule Oral' Argument in that expedited matter during the week of November 15, 1976.

Counsel is informed and believes that the Court will look favorably.on that request, and will very likely

. grant it.

However,. Counsel can not now say when the United States Court of Appeals will schedule that Oral Argument.

Since the Oral Argument will be held in California, Counsel.is thus not able to l

appear before this Board on November 16, 1976; 4.

Intervenors ' Counsel has spoken to Mr. Richard Brown of the NRC Staff. Mr. Brown, after.the circumstances were explained to him, agreed on behalf of' the Staff, to reset this matter to some-tim during the week of November 29, at the convenience of this Board.

WH"REFORE, the Intervenors named above request that this matter currently set for November-16, 1976, be reset to a time dur-

'ing'the' week of November-29, 1976, convenient to this Board.

The Commission Staff having previously agreed to that resetting.

hRn

'1 i o_

vu

-i

-MYRON M. CHERRY a)

. SUITE 4501

'ONE IBM PLAZA

-MYRON M. CHERRY, Attorney CHICAGO,. ILLINOIS-60611 -

for All'Intervenors1 312/565-117.7:

_,m..

s m

.