ML19330A045

Advises of Util Attempts to Delay Reply or Rebuttal to Dow Chemical Findings Due to Alleged 14-day Period After Svc Instead of Five.Urges Prompt Ruling on Suspension

ML19330A045
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	06/24/1977
From:	Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER
To:	Coufal F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8007140847
Download: ML19330A045 (2)

Text

- _ _ _ -

t 9

. 1 1

• l law orrrecs MYRON M. CHERRY ONEIBM PLAZA CHICAGO. ILLINols So611

,o is esen ... ..ir7 g

June 24, 1977 *$fEl

- p.' g d; /bf -

Frederic J. Coufal, Esq., Chairman g JUN281977 >

arce of the fW-N.r e 4 7 "

{

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel e

/f U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~% i Washington, D. C. 20555 W 7

Re: Consumeis Power Company Midland Plant

Dear Mr. Coufal:

On two separate occasions now, we have called the Board's atten 'l tion to the fact that Consumers believes that it has 14 days after i service of our Findings within which to file reply or rebuttal Findings.

There is no support in the record for Consumers having this ext period of time and as we have pointed ot t before,:.Section 2.754 (b) {

provides:

~

"1 party who has the burden of proof may reply within five (5) days after service of proposed findings and conclusions of law and briefs by  ;

other parties."  ;

Accordingly, it is clear that Consumers' reply Findings are due 1 five days after service of our Findings.

Each time I attempted to confirm this fact with Consumers' lawyers I am informed that Consumers' argument that the Board grants them 14 days, a period beyond that permitted by the rules, to file Findings of a reply nature.

This is simply not true and is ansumers' attempt to continue a delay on suspension. ,

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Board PLEASE prompi inform Consumers a

that it is incorrect and that their Findings of a r1plynature'reduefivedaysafterreceiptofoursandnotanylat 007140 z/7 Under th G timd constraints of this case, the necessity to have a prompt ruling on su'spension, and the Appeal Board's directive to end this case as quickly as possible, there is no warrant for extend ing Consumers' time beyond that permitted by the rules. However,

o k

.: -. . . . .-.-.-...-.:.-. . -  : .:=. : u :- .:.:

Frederic J. Coufal, -Esq.

Page Two June 24, 1977 if the Board does not inform Consumers of this fact, it will simply proceed to file Findings under the assumption that the Board grante an extension of time. ,

once again, we respectfully request that the Board promptly inform Consumers that in accordance with 2.754 (b) (3) , Consumers' reply Findings are due five days after service of our Findings.

RespeJc tfully, j .

Y j y Myro, M. Cherry Atto ley for all Intervenors Exce;,t Dow Chemical ompany MMC:es cc: Service List s