ML20009G824

Response Opposing State of Il 810713 Motion for Extension of Time.Counsel Needs to Consult W/Other Personnel to Answer Interrogatories Is Usual & Does Not Justify Delayed Responses

ML20009G824
Person / Time
Site:	Bailly
Issue date:	07/27/1981
From:	Eichhorn W EICHHORN, EICHHORN & LINK, NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8108050097
Download: ML20009G824 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ . .

k. .

1 O ' g g ( UNITED STATES OF AMERICA // /

i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ru l 2

'sua 0 4198" # *-

9~

I f wA # " "M BEFO w

' THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

~

I N r?-15s

-c U

< ri Q 1981 s

'4 i %i Q <L a ca?JI 3 Docket No. 50-367 6 Ihxth[ t r of )

) y @

NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC ) (Construction Permit I SERVICE COMPANY ) Extension)

.)

3 (Bailly Generating Station, ) July 27, 1981 Nuclear-1) )

NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO ILLINOIS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME _

~

On June 22, 1981, Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) filed its Third Set of Interrogatories to Illinois, j Responses were due July 13, 1981. On that date, Illinois mailed a " Motion for Extension of Time" to the Board and parties. The Motion requests an extension to July 27, 1981, of the time for responding to the interrogatories. In support.of the request, l

counsel for Illinois state that "during the last two weeks the undersigned attorneys have been out of the of# ice due to illness and to responsibilities in other cases, thus limiting the

! time necessary to respond to NIPSCO's interrogatories." This, i

of course, is the same excuse offered in Illinois' July 7, 1981 Motion for Extension of Time to answer NIPSCO's Second Set of j Interrogatories. It is in our view insufficient. Counsel

- also state that "[t]he interrogatories are all of.a technical nature, requiring consultation with others;" this is allegedly another fact supporting the requested extension. There is l

8108050097 810727. . .

4 PDR ADOCK 05000367 $ds

o em f

nothing unusual in interrogatories of "a technical nature";

in fact, that may be said to be the usual nature of interrogatories in NRC proceedings. Certainly, the need for counsel to consult "with others" in order to answer interrogatories must be the usual case and cannot in itself justify delayed responses.

NIPSCO opposes the Motion for Extension of Time.

Respectfully submitted, EICHHORN, EICHHORN & LINK 5243 Hohman Avenue Hammond, Indiana 46320 e

f .

By:

/ @

William H. Ei orn Attorneys for Northern Indiana Public Service Company y

LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS

& AXELRAD 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

.. _ _-__ - _-_