ML19329F381

Notifies That Brief Opposing Applicant 701130 Motion Was Filed on 710107.Discusses Motion Requesting Extension of Time for Filing Remaining Briefs & Interrogatories

ML19329F381
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	01/07/1971
From:	Cherry M MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY
To:	Murphy A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8006270432
Download: ML19329F381 (2)

Text

_. _

1 -- - . - - - .

~ ~ ~'

e

,- t7 C occuti Nuusta .

~ ~ - PROD. & UTIL. EE. 30-3M,330 O .5 ;-)

• McDune.sroTT, WILL & E.si niev 9 IH WCST MONROC STRCCT y .

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60603 '

8 UMIC va-ra m uua.noco '

ca. c too. css

- - I w n.4 u-p JAN111971 * ;u

'Mgfgae p January 7, 1971 q trug

/

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman P00R QUAUTY PAGES Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Box 38, 43S West 116th Street New York, New York 10027 Re: Consumers Power Company -

Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 -

Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330

Dear Chairman Murphy:

We have today filed our brief in opposition to Applicant's November 30, 1970 motions.

We have also today filed a motion directed to the Board to permit us until Monday, January 11, 1971 to file ,

our remaining briefs and also have filed a motion requenting an extension of time within which to file interrogatories up to and including March 22,.1971. The reasons for the exten-sion of time are as set forth in my attached affidavit.

I do believe our request is most reasonable, but I am sure that there will be strenuous objection from Dow

! Chemical Company's counsel. I would, however, be extremely surprised if there were serious objection from the Applicant, inasmuch as Applicant, because of our involvement in the Palisades proceeding, is intimately aware of the time commit-ments and burdens with which my schedule has been faced in recent weeks'. Thus, as my affidavit states, much of my time in recent weeks was sp::nt in connection with the Palisades proceeding and, accordingly, this case, among others, prevented my workin6 full time on matters involving the Midland proceeding.

In addition to the matters set out in the affidavit,

I would also. state that this case is highly complex and in-

-volves many issues of first impression. Because there are competent counsel representing all of the parties, it is

3 ..

. . _ _ _ . . - - ._ .... _ 2 -. .

lr .. :3 r' s .. .

Arthur W. Murphy, Esq.

January 7, 1971 -

PaSe two .

/

important that we take the opporttinity to spend the time so that the incues which will be resolved in this prococding.

will be' resolved upon a solid foundation which will enabic such decisions to serve as precedent in future proceedings.

Thus in a real sense the time spent in adequately preparing this case for hearin6 will reap benefits not only in the Midland proceedings but in all future AEC cases.

In support of intervenors' motion, we should also like to call attention to the fact that, whereas normally detailed statomonts are prepared by the Staff and are available prior to the hearing, the Staff in this caso did not so comply. i One of the reasons given by the Staff was its overburdened workload. Accordingly, the Staff has been given more than sixty days to comply with the filing of its detailed statement and such permission was granted to the Staff even in the absence of a motion.

Res ectfully,

[

L&

A MyrdaM.Chdrry MMC:ca cc: Dr. Clark Goodman Dr.' David B. Hall All parties of record Secretary, U.S. Atomic Energy Cotnmission

\

e t

4

___._ ._. ._ . _ _ . - _ _ _ . _ .- .. . . _ _ , _ _ . _ , .