ML20054A620
| ML20054A620 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1982 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | DOW CHEMICAL CO. |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8204160014 | |
| Download: ML20054A620 (3) | |
Text
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "02 /R 14 po.y' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Administrative Judges:
Christine N.
Kohl, Chairman Dr. W.
Reed Johnson SERVED APR 4198 Gary J.
Edles 1
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 CP
)
50-330 CP (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2
)
e n.
I s
e ORDER RECE;ygo
[
APR 151982*
April 13, 1982 pf u nr;up;;rer cren -p
'~qa: n Intervenor Dow Chemical Company has moved for an
'h,
" extension of time" to respond to the brief of Consumers sk iG Power Company in opposition to the exceptions of another intervenor.
The Commission's Rules of Practice do not provide any opportunity for parties ostensibly "on the same l
side" to respond to each other's arguments.
See 10 CFR 2.762.1 We therefore treat Dow's motion for extension 1/
Neither Dow nor Consumers excepted to the Licensing Board's decision before us for review.
Instead, each has filed a brief in opposition to the brief and exceptions of the Saginaw Valley Nuclear Study Group, i
6# 1
$$$41880k#SSSbh 0
G
/*
2 as a motion for leave to reply to Consumers.
In support of that request, Dow states that it disagrees with certain of Coesumers' arguments regarding the Licensing Board's factual findings. Dow also contends that its reply would be "an essential ingredient to a full explication of the issues involved" (Motion, p.
2).
That two parties with essentially the same interest in the ultimate outcome of a case may disagree on their respective arguments is not a particularly infrequent occurrence in multiparty litigation.
Absent some compelling reason in such circumstance, there is no need or basis for taking the unusual course of granting permission to one appellee to respond to another.
Rather, each party is free to argue as it sees fit, directing its arguments to the appellant's brief and the decision pending review.
- Here, Dow has failed to provide sufficient cause for departing l
from the traditional scheme of briefing.
Further, its j
concern with Consumers' treatment of certain factual matters is not well-founded:
we are satisfied that we will be able to discern fact from fiction upon our review of the record and authorized briefs -- without additional briefing as Dow i
proposes.
l l
yb 3
1 Dow's motion for extension of time, treated as a motion for leave to reply to the brief of Consumers Power Company in opposition to the exceptions of the Saginaw Valley Nuclear Study Group, is denied.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD i
G.R A&=,c_ _b )
C. Jdpn Shoemaker
~
Secretary to the Appeal Board i
i 1
1 e
(
. _. _.. _ _,. _. _. _ -