ML19329F378
| ML19329F378 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/18/1971 |
| From: | Engelhardt T US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006270429 | |
| Download: ML19329F378 (2) | |
Text
-
N O
DOCKET fiUi.;;U1
'b C
Y/ 00CsETED aon.um. ura. EO.%T 330 i
s re 3
p Ms f
JANJ.91971
- a
-V
.n
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VI,9
.C's.
sftu t m arr G,
r.' jjj ess ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
- )
.z
/,O LTLQ.
G BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~
a co In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POLTER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329
,./
.\\
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
REPLY OF AEC REGULATORY STAFF TO
" MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME" 0F INTERVENORS SAGINAW VALLEY NUCLEAR STUDY GROUP ET AL.,
SERVED JANUARY 7, 1971 On January 7,1971, intervenors Saginaw Valley Nuclear Study Group, et al.* (Saginaw Valley) served a " Motion for Extension of Time" re-questing (a) an order extending from January 7, 1971, to January 11,
~
1971, the time within which Saginaw Valley may file briefs in support of its motions of December 1,1970, and in opposition to the briefs of the applicant and intervenor, the Dow Chemical Company, in regard to those motions; and (b) an order extending from January 7,1971, to March 22, 1971, the time within which Saginaw Valley may file inter-rogatories directed to the staff, the applicant, and intervonors supporting issuance of construction permits.
In regard to the first of the two orders requested by Saginaw Valley, the motion has been mooted by passage of time and the filing of the briefs by Saginaw Valley on January 11, 1971.
As a consequence, we waive any objections to the late filing of this brief.
Citizens Con:nittee for the Environmental Protection of Michigan, Sierra Club, United Auto Workers of America, Trout Unlimited, West Michigan Environmental Law Society.
THis DOCUMENT CONTAINS 8006270 Q POOR QUAUTY PAGES
i
+
g
,1, d With respect to the second requasted order, we belicve that extending 22,1971,'the ' te for filing of interrogatories prepared to March by Saginaw Valley would constitute an unwarranted imposition on other parties to this proceeding and would unduly delay this proceeding.
We also consider the requested extension of time to be unreasonable on its face and has not been sufficiently justified to warrant the granting of the requested order.
However, in the case of this particular request (but without admitting that good cause for any extension of time has been shown by Saginaw Valley), we would not object to extending the period for the filing of Saginaw Valley's interrogatories for some more reasonable period of time such as 30 days.
Respectfully submitted, 7
h.
Y !?
Thomas F. Engelhardt Trial Counsel Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 18th day of January,1971.
6 9mw_.
._._,.g y,_.
p