ML19331B236
| ML19331B236 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1973 |
| From: | Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER |
| To: | Murphy A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007280829 | |
| Download: ML19331B236 (1) | |
Text
-
~.....r
..=-m, w.,-m=-:.n.
m
- .a.s m... n.,.. v.. :.....
av
- CXE7 flUM3G :
..t.,.,
uw orrmes
'. ~..
JENNER & 8 LOCK
O & UTl!', Fr!,.,y jjp3;g
.m...
o., c,n m....
,4.....a...
ora se9 s L4:4
..,,.1....u....
, u,.r.... u... :
. r.. e.,.. ~
.m.
s.
- u..
.,u,. v.
,....,.s..
.... -..,. -,r..,c.'..'."
CHIOAGo. Illinois GC G11
. m., =.
,...,,s...
,.c.,,.
n...."..".'m"."
,e.
. ".....'..u.
..,c..
,,,,o
...o
.......c.,
.,o,..
g,, 3,,, g.3,.,
...,,..i..
... r.4
.,s.
3
.s......
,...2 m.
t,
.,tu,
..c..
..m
~.
-u..,.,.
aanuarv c),
.c. i.3 t. - t,...:, u -
s
. r s,,, m, s.
.. ~....
.i.
3.-. a pa..,S.
i L* ?..
ON
.Mwn
'y f
v s Arthur W.
Murphy, Esq., Chairman
-f ^
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
/ J 'f G\\
Columbia University School of Law
/.
[.,
- "g' ' b.,3- [j.
Box 38, 435 W.
Il6th Streeu m,
l.;
.3 New. York, New York 10027 I
i' '.,l
\\s' %.,s
~
\\
i.
Re:
Dockets 50-329 and 50-330
\\
?.,
~,. -
sQ%f
Dear Mr. Chairman:
c s
s We received Applicants' response to our motion of January 7, 1973 to have tha Licensing Board dedlared biased.
We have also received the Regulatory Staff's response _.
The Applicants' response is dated January 17, 1973 and the Regulatory Staff's response is dated January 22, l}73.
The Rules of Practice provide that answers to motions must be filed within five days of service and an additional three days is pcrmi.hted i.1 the event the motion is mai. led'.
Thus, it appears that Applicants and the Regulatory Staf f's motions arc untimely and the Board should (and we hereby request that it)
. ignore such filings.
These filings were not accompanied by a motion or any showing of cause as to why they were so late.
Intervenors in this case have had to carry many burdens and cri.ticisms uhenever they asked for an extension of time to file a pleading.
Here, the Applicants and the Regulatory Staff just filad a papar late without any j us tification.
We would also note that if the rules adopted in July are applicable the Regulatory Staff is still late since its filing of January 22 is more than-thirteen days after the filing of our motion (ten days for reply plus three days for mailing).
Whe re f o re, we requen t that the idcuouimr Board truitt our-mocion as uncontes ted as required under the rules.
_. 70spqctfully, N '. >
j THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS
'. >. s '. O.
'. ' f..,.
? ~ '
,c.
P00R QUAUTY PAGES ayrod. M.
cherry sc/mh Attorne; for Intervanors cc' Licensing 302rd Secretar / USAEC All cab 321 of roCord 80 07280 N@