ML20042A353
| ML20042A353 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1982 |
| From: | Charnoff G CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8203230354 | |
| Download: ML20042A353 (3) | |
Text
i March 17, 1982 t
UNITED STATES OF AMERIC% pg22 PG 9#'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIN":G" APPEAL" BOARD 3-In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 CP
)
50-330 CP (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
t]
.)
A, y s'/
'Q,
'v 7
APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION I
OF TIME TO RESPOND TO SAGINAW EXCEPTIONS 1 j~g
?\\
- 'y
~~ ~~
'\\
,g n
the Licensing Board isk6ed M_-<'f'J' On December 23, 1981, N2 a Partial Initial Decision in the remanded construction permit proceeding for the Midland Plants, Units 1 and 2.
The Saginaw Valley Nuclear Study Group ("Saginaw") filed exceptions to that decision and a supporting brief on January 17 and February 22, 1982, respectively.-*/
Applicant Consumer Power Company's brief in response to Saginaw's exceptions ordinarily would be due on March 29, 1982.
10 C.F.R. S 2.762(b).
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2. 711 (a),
Applicant hereby requests that the time within which its l
responsive brief must be filed be extended one week, to April 5, 1982.
This request is necessitated by professional d
- /
Both Saginaw and Applicant were granted an extension of time within which to file exceptions to the Licensing Board's
[>$O December 23, 1981 Partial Initial Decision.
8 i
l JD l
8203230354 820317
{DRADOCK 05000329 PDR l.
N -
commitments by Applicant's counsel to be out of town and, thus, away from his office, during most of the next several weeks.
Applicant has contacted counsel for Saginaw, the NRC Staff and Dow Chemical in order to establish that none of the parties objects to Applicant's request for an extension of time.
Saginaw and Dow Chemical have no objection.
The NRC Staff concurs on the condition that the date by which its responsive brief is due is correspondingly extended to ten days after Applicant's filing date.
Applicant supports this request.
Respectully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE b f. kW 1
Gerald Charnoff, P.C.
U Counsel for Applicant 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1032 Dated:
March 18, 1982 3
A I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Saginaw Exceptions" were served this 17th day of March, 1982, by hand delivery to 4
Christine N.
Kohl, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20S55 and by U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the following:
Gary J.
Edles, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. W.
Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 William C.
Potter, Jr.,
Esq.
Fischer, Franklin, Ford, Simon & Hogg 1700 Guardian Building Detroit, Michigan 48226 R.
L.
Davis, Esq.
Michigan Division Legal Dept.
Dow Chemical Midland, Michigan 48640 William J.
Olmstead, Esq.
William D.
Paton, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Myron M.
Cherry, Esq.
One IBM Plaza, Suite 4501 Chicago, Illinois 60611 hgk h. h R4/4 Deborah B.
Bauser