ML20031G409
| ML20031G409 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1981 |
| From: | Semmel H ANTIOCH SCHOOL OF LAW, WASHINGTON, DC, BIER, MILLS, CHRISTA-MARIA, ET AL |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031G406 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110220389 | |
| Download: ML20031G409 (5) | |
Text
D DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
City of Washington
) ss:
)
,, /2 J it Herbert Semmel being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I am attorney for Intervenors Christa-Maria, Mills, and Bier in this proceeding.
On October 6 and 7, I received motions by the Licensee and Staff for summary disposition of thirteen of the eighteen contentions already admitted in this proceeding.
These motions wre accompanied by extensive affidavits and materials, numbering well over five hundred pages, all of a highly technical nature.
I immediately undertook to review this materials with the assistance of two student assistants.
My assistants currently are full time students at Antioch Law School and are required to devote only ten hours weekly to their clinical responsibility, in their case this proceedingt However, they actually spent many more hours in the review of the materials.
We then prepared summaries of the principle points advanced in each of the eleven contentions.
This process was completed by Friday, October 16.
On Monday October 19, we mailed the packets to twenty experts with a letter soliciting their comments, advice and, where appropriate, affidavits to rebut the motion for summary disposition.
Given the mass of the material, the fact that the experts must O!doofj3
...PDR.
i
. Jonate their services without compensation because Intervenors lack the funds to pay them, and the inevitable delays in the mail, it becomes impossible to file opposing affidavits by October 26, the date in which a response is now due.
Intervenors are making every effort within their resources to complete their responce to the motions for summary disposition.
Intervenors do not have at their fingertips the full time body of experts on the Staff or the paid employees and consultants of the Licensee.
Intervenors have chosen what is the shortest period of time in which it is possible to produce well thought out responses to the mass of material served with the motions for summary disposition.
Accordingly, Intervenors request an extension of time to November 20, 1981 to respond to the motions.
The delay is not in any way prejudicial to anyone.
Licensee has stated, and the Appeal Board has found, that the Big Rock Point plant can operate until 1984.
The hearing is months away.
There are undecided matters of discovery, additional contentions and the application of NEPA Section 102(2)
(E) to be determined.
The request for an extension to November 20 assumes that
/
before that date, Licensee and Staff will have answered the g
interrogatories served on them by Intervenors on August 9, 1981, unless excused by a ruling of this Board.
These interrogatories relate to 'six of the contentions which are the
~ '
~
~ - c,T. r,,
. subject of the motions for summary disposition, as follows:
Contention Interrogatory Christa-Maria 8
6,9 O'Neill II C 5,6,7,8,12 O'Neill II D 6
O'Neill II E-3 34 O'Neill II F 12,22 Board No. 1 3,6,8,19,20,28,44 Furthermore, answers to the other interrogatories served August 9 may reveal information relevant to the motions for summary disposition.
Accordingly, to make it possible for Intervenors to have the necessary information to respond to the motions for summary disposition, the time for response should be the later of November 20, 1981 or twenty days following the receipt by Intervenors of the replies to the interrogatories.
f c
lierbert Semm(1 Sworn to before me this ggMdayofOctober1981 M 2td4L d
N'dtar? Public Afy Commhdca Ext res October 31, 1983 i
..-__m,~.,..~...._.._.m_,s_m~..~.._....__......
pp Inn colutEsi'ONDENGC DOCKETED USNRC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 11 M 20 P4:06 0FFICE OF SECRETARY 00cKEilHG S BVICE I hereby certify that copies of the forego 149A lon to Defer Intervenors Response to Motions for Summary Judgment, etc., and attached affidavit of Herbert Semmel were served upon the persons named in the attached list on the day of October, 1981 by delivering copies to their offices or mailing copies to them, first class, postage prepaid.
Herbert Semmel
o.
Atenic Safety and Licensing Jeesph Cal'c., Esquire Scard Panel Inha., Linen 3n and Beale 3
U.S. Nuclear Regulatery 1120 Connecticutt' Ave, N.W.
Cor.nassien Suite 325 Washington, D.C.
20555 washington, D.C. 20036 Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman Decketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Of fice of the Secretary Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington D.C.
20555 John O'Neill, II R ute 2, Box 44 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Naple City, MI 49664 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C.
20555 Mr. Fredrick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C.
20555 Janice E. Moore, Esq.
Counsel for NEO Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corr.ission Washington, D.C.
20555 I
i
[
~
-