ML20076F405
| ML20076F405 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 08/23/1983 |
| From: | Sugarman R DEL-AWARE UNLIMITED, INC., SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20076F413 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308260030 | |
| Download: ML20076F405 (3) | |
Text
k O
DOLKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL A
Administrative Judges:
OFFICE OF SECRtiA ;
00CKEilNG & SERVib.
Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Stephen F. Eilperin Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy In The Matter of Docket Nos. 50-352 50-353 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY :
(Limerick Generating Station Units 1 & 2)
APPELLANTS' MOTION FOR TWO DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF Appellants, by their
- counsel, move for an extension of two working days in which to file their Brief, which is enclosed herewith, and aver as the basis thereof the following:
1.
On July 20,
- 1983, the Board issued its Order requiring the appellants file a full brief on or before August 19, 1983.
2.
August 19, 1983 was a Friday, and appellants' counsel, as the only lawyer in the office, and required to i
be out of the state for two da,ys during the week, was unable to review and complete the draft.
3.
Counsel was also committed to a weeke:,d meeting in Canada, as a result of which counsel was unable to complete the Brief over the weekend.
4.
On Monday, August 22, 1983, counsel attempted to contact the Secretary of the Board to ascertain the 8308260030 830823 PDR ADOCK 05000352 G
1 procedure for requesting a continuance, but was unable to do so.
5.
The enclosed brief is being submitted, subject to the granting of this Motion, two working days late, but in the circumstances, will cause no prejudice, nor work any substantial hardship on any party for the following reasons:
(a)
These exceptions were filed in March, 1983, but action was deferred on the matter until resolution of issues pending before the Licensing Board, until June, 1983.
(b)
No party advanced any suggestion of prejudice from the sixty (60) days delay occasioned thereby.
(c)
When appellants' original submission was found inadequate by the Board and struck, by Order of July 20,
- 1983, no party objected to the additional period allowed by the Board, through August 19, 1983.
(d)
The slight delay can be forgiven in view of the circumstances, including the large burdens assumed by public intervenors in this case.
WHEREFORE, appellants pray that their Brief be I
accepted two working day late.
\\
ROBERT J.
SUGARMAN N
Counsel for Appellants 2
I.
Of Counsel SUGARMAN & DENWORTH 121 S. Broad Street Suite 510 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 546-0162 Dated: August 23, 1983 069 i'
3 1
4 i
e i
1 I
e i
6
~
3 a-
.,e.
- ~, +- p
.-e.,
n.
e.
.--.. ~
..e-
+