ML19330C016

Clarifies Util Opposition to Central Request for Extension Re Commission Order.Central Made Single Request for 30-day Extension,To Which Util Objects

ML19330C016
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	08/05/1980
From:	Brand W BRAND & HALL
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8008070424
Download: ML19330C016 (1)

Text

.- ..

~ '

BRAND G H ALL ATTORNEYS AT LAW WALLACE EDWARD BRAND SECOND FLOOR e Dw^nD e^nt H^tL - August.5, 1980 is23 t Sraser,w.w.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005 ssne r. aas>u ---

(202) 347 7002 Honorable Samuel Chilk~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: In the Matter of-South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit No. 1), Docket No. 50-395A

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Without intending to do so, SCE&G's opposition to Central's Motion for Englargement of Time may create the misleading impression that Central has made two successive requests for enlargement, first for ten days and subsequently for twenty.

In fact Central made clear at the outset it wanted a 30 day extension. Of the thirty days, the first 10 was sought because Central's lead counsel was not served with the Commission's Order--I first became aware of it and actually received a copy of it on July 10.

Applicant's counsel did not object to a ten day extension but did object to a 30 day extension. It was agreed among counsel that Central would seek a 10 day extension orally and an additional 20 days by written motion so that Applicant could respond in writing to the latter.

It is noteworthy that Applicant's agreement to the 10 days extension was conditioned on Applicant's receiving an additional 10 days to file comments.

In sho'rt, there was a single request; a part was sought by a. writing because that seemed the preferable procedure.

I hope'this will serve to set the matter straight.

Very truly yours, fg//fW4.h Wallace E. Brand cc: -All Parties of Record ,

80.08'o7 % m