ML19329E709

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Brief Opposing Westinghouse Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Westinghouse Motion to Quash Subpoena
ML19329E709
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point, Point Beach, Midland  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 03/06/1972
From: Cherry M
CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER, Saginaw Intervenor
To: Murphy A
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19329E710 List:
References
RULE-RM-50-1 NUDOCS 8006170860
Download: ML19329E709 (2)


Text

oA v

. \

  • ~-

I

-, , , , rsca. e um. iac. Se M9.330 g q MYRON M. CHERRY f y *j

  • SUITE 200s

/* g 109 NORTII DEARDOItN STREET

[. C1t1CAGO. !!.11NOIS 60602 i __

g: -

1 g m. 4  :: .us.sses

,/2

. . ~

March 6, 1972 g (A'l u-n.q [!!E9 if), { [,

'2

  • L' Arthur W. Murphy, Esq.

" .' ' 1 31 Chairman -

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

  • Columbia University School of Law THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS 435 West ll6th Street New York, New York 10027 POOR QUALITY PAGES g In the Matter of Consumers Power Company Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330

Dear Chairman Murphy:

We enclose our Brief in opposition to the Westinghouse motion for econsideration with respect to the issuance of the subpoena. Our Brief was originally supposed to be filed on February 18, 1972. I had made an error and thoucht it was due on February 28. In any event, because of my workload as counsal for the National ECCS HeariniJ s, it was not possible for me to finalize this Brief until now.

Last week I contacted counsel for the Regulatory Staf f, Dow Chemical, Consumers Power, and Westinghouse. I told them that I needed extra time and asked if they would agree not to opposc a Motion for an extension of time through Sunday, March 5, 1972.

The Regulatory Staff, Dow Chemical, and Westinghouse had no opposition to the extension of time. Consumers Power did voice an objection.

We believe there is good cause for the late filing of this Brief and urge the Board to grant our Motion permitting it to be filed instanter. .

We have not specifically contacted Messrs. Ginster or Like with respect to the Motion for Extension of Time but, believe it is fair to state that they would offer no objection.

8006170bdO N-

t  ?

' Arthur W. Murphy, Esq. March 6, 1972 the reconvening of the Hearing.Recently, we received We understand a letter Dow's from Mr. Wesse impatience but that impatience cannot lead us into a morass. There are a multitude the partim."" issues which must be resolved.by the Board before Hearing. Wean even proceed to discovery, let alone begin a.

trust that with cood sense, the Board will approach the Hearing with dispatch but also with the notion that we all have a lot of work ahead of us before we are ready for a Hearing.

firmal Motir' We request the Board to consider this letter as a instanter as ;f to permit March the filing of the enclosed Brief 6, 1972.

Respectfully, V ,r

'll /

)

' MMC:njh ' l Enclosures cc:

Members of the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board All counsel of record Secretary of the Atomic Energy Commission Counsel for Westinghouse

?

-