ML19289D129

Informs of Wi Public Svc Corp'S Opposition to NRC Motion for Extension of Time for Response to Pending Motion Due to Desire for Timely Consideration of Merits

ML19289D129
Person / Time
Site:	Kewaunee
Issue date:	01/23/1979
From:	Baker D FOLEY & LARDNER
To:	Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 7902230040
Download: ML19289D129 (2)

Text

s-cp# FOLEY & LARDNER i rans? wusconsen cguien in cas? wiscensim AvcNuC M I LWA U K E E. W I S. 5 3 2 o 2

.= . s-imorem. o. c. in =ao. son.w.sconsi=

FCLET.LAADMER.NCLLASAUGM & JACO21 TCLCpMoN C (484) 278 2*oC' FO L EY & LAR D N E R

,7's et wa s e.vamaa avtwut. N w.

TCLtx 26 a'9 so st errect son .***

WASMiieG70N.D.C.2000 $ McLCv LA9D est L) reest wasCohsW *LAZA a scura 8'mC== tv s?*Ett Tre C8=out (202) asa s3co itLt*=ont (eo s) a s7-so a s EC pUBLIC DOCU,3,rEVf 20031 f^ m Mr. Robert M. Lazo 9

%mn w Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Com=ission Washington, D.C. 20555 gm dp g$3P,@

^

ceywgr g **

y, M\

~

Re: Wisconsin Public Service Corp. -

Docket No. 50-305 M k-

Dear Mr. Lazo:

We are in receipt of the motion of the NRC staff for an extension of time to respond to the pending motion for summary disposition in this proceeding. This letter, the substance of which was drafted prior to the conference telephone call between you and representative of the party, is submitted merely to make the position of Wisconsin Public Service Corporation ("WPSC") a matter of record. It is not intended as an attempt to circumvent your ruling this morning which granted an extension. This request appears to be based solely on the existence of discussion of a possible settlement of the matters in controversy. As with the request filed by the Intervenors, WPSC opposes this motion.

In addition to the reasons for denying an extension which were noted in our letter of January 22, 1979, WPSC fails to perceive why the possibility of settlement in any way dictates delay in submission of responses to the pending motion. The nature of the settlement possibilities is such that the ability of the parties to respond to the motion is unimpaired. Indeed, the filing of responses could aid the settlement process by further defining the issues still in actual controversy. The delay in Board consideration of the motion which would be created by the requested extensions would, we believe, be destructive of the orderly and timely consideration of the merits of this proceeding.

For the information of the Board, WPSC also wishes to point out that it has responded to the other parties concerning 790223COfD

s.

Mr. Robert M. Lazo January 23, 1979 Page Two the latest round of settlement discussions. The other parties have as yet not had time to respond in turn.

WPSC respectfully requests that the Staff motion for an extension of time be denied.

Very truly yours, FOLEY & LARDNER By David A. Baker cc: Mr. Glen O. Bright Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mr. William M. Cordaro Mrs. Wend Schaefer Ms. Mary Lou Jacobi Patrick Walsh, Esq.

William J. Olmstead, Esq.

Docketing and Service Section

<