ML19259B907
| ML19259B907 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1979 |
| From: | Flynn P CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER |
| To: | Leeds J, Luebke E, Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19259B908 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905240899 | |
| Download: ML19259B907 (8) | |
Text
_ _ _. _..
law 0FFICCS C H E R R Y F LY N N & K A N T E R oNC ISM Bu2A uvmoN W.CMCamy CHICAGO. ILLIN ol5 S o Sil TELtPMont 8CTC m Fb?N N E 3 :21 5 6 5. u 77 amho(C KANTEm April 24, 1979 Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Dr.
J. Venn Leeds, Jr.
Atemic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing -
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Washington, D.C.
20555 10807 Atwell Houston, Texas 77096 Dr. E=meth A. Luebke i
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 4D U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (IP' g
Washington, D.C.
20555 g(s
%y c
gl 2
Re:
Consumers Power Company Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 Sb,,,(/j g
7}N'-/,5 Remand Proceeding
. q/f/
j s
Dear Chairman Miller and Drs. Leeds and Luebke:
g
,i n I write this letter, copies of which are being sent to everyone on the service list, following a' telephone conversation between myself and Chairman Miller and in order to place of record both the reason for, and the content of, that telephone conversation.
At the outset, I should state that Consumers ' counsel, Mr. Reynolds, was aware of my inten-tions to telephone Chairman Miller and stated that he had no objections to my doing so.
The purpose of my telephone call was to indicate to the Board that Myron Cherry, counsel for the Intervenors other than Dow Chemical Company, is presently engaged in a protracted and intense trial in Federal Court.
Mr. Cherry has been involved in that trial since late February, and I am advised that the trial is nowhere near a. conclusion.
For that reason, Mr. Cherry will be unable to attend a pre-hearing conference in this matter on May 1, 1979.
Accordingly, I discussed with counsel for Consumers (Mr.
Reynolds) and counsel for the Commission Staff (Mr. Olmstead) the possibility of resetting the pre-hearing conference so that Mr. Cherry would be able to particpate and of amending the briefing schedule accordingly.
Counsel for Consumers and counsel for the Staff both authorized ce to represent that they had no cbjection to such a continuance and rescheduling.
2278 ;46 77osmvoma
~*'
Chairman Miller and Drs. Leeds and Luebke page two April 23, 1979 Chairman Miller advised, however, that it was the Board's view that no postponement could be considered in light of what I understand to be the Board's feeling that the Appeal Board has directed resolution of this matter as promptly as possible.
In view of Chairman Miller's statement of the Board 's position, I have prepared, and also enclose, a Motion which we shall file with the Appeal Board contamporaneously with this letter.
We do not seek to postpone the pre-hearing conference out of a desire for delay.
Rather, we believe that Mr. Cherry's participation on behalf of the Intervenors other than Dow is of considerable importance, since Inter-venors have no other counsel who is in a position to appear on their behalf and respond intelligently.
Apart from the obvious and extreme difficulty of acquainting another lawyer with the extraordinarily lengthy record in these proceedings to date--and the impossibility of acquainting another~ lawyer with this entire case on any reasonable basis--the expense which would be involved simply in familiarizing another lawyer with the' record and past events would be very great.
Inter-venors other than Dow have, as has been pointed out on several occasions, extremely limited funds.
In view of the position taken by counsel for the other parties, I think it is clear that a postponement would not prejudice any party.
Under the circumstances--including the previous-postponement granted on Consumers' request, without opposition by any party--I do not believe a postpone-ment would impair the ends of justice.
Rather, I believe that to proceed with a pre-hearing conference in the absence of counsel for the cartbs who were instrumental in bringing the material facts to the Commission's attention would be unjust.
This is particularly so since as an historical matter the Intervenors other than Dow have constituted the principal, if not the only, voice in cpposition to the construction of the Midland facility.
^
A Resp ectfuliy,
) ~!)
,N %.
PF/es Peter Flynni enclosure cc:
Service List 1
2278 ;47
_