ML20101S942

From kanterella
Revision as of 09:23, 28 April 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Motion for Extension Until 850306 to File Notice of Appeal of ASLB 850123 Partial Initial Decision.Granted by Aslab on 850201
ML20101S942
Person / Time
Site: Midland
Issue date: 02/01/1985
From: Williams F
CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:
NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
CON-#185-369 OL, OM, NUDOCS 8502050725
Download: ML20101S942 (2)


Text

ef.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION cM c [d BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD g3 rre g In the Matter of ) ,  : , .

-'t

) i g ',

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OM & OL M JM

) 50-330 OM & OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 )

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL OF LICENSING BOARD'S PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION On January 23, 1985, the Atemic Safety and Licensing l Board in the above-captioned case-issued a Partial Initial Decision (remedial soils issues). Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S l

2.762(a) the normal period for filing a notice of appeal would expire on Monday, February 4, 1985. The Partial Initial

. Decision is a document of 361 pages exclusive of appendices containing much very complex matter, both legal and technical, to be digested. Portions of this document may have

.significant implications for the Applicant in other fora. The Applicant requires significant additional time to assess the various implications and analyze whether, and if so which,

,g The requested additional o 3* procedural steps are appropriate.

j time is necessary to enable the company to consider various L

,o options with respect to the Partial Initial-Decision such as, D for example, whether to seek reconsideration or appeal.

.g O Accordingly, the Applicant hereby requests, pursuant to 10 Rg L4 0 C.F.R. that this Appeal. Board grant it an S GRANT 2.711(a)dD *N # In granting the requested For the Appeal Boar'd . '-

re11.f, the Appeat Board does-not pass upon the Q,1q~ b _ AM d. )-%$ ,

question of the appealability Seckbtary to the Appeaj Board __ of the sion in partial question.initial deci E m

o b

extension of 30 days, to and including March 6, 1985, within

~

which'to file a notice of appeal. The Applicant has already requested from the Licensing Board an identical extension of the time within which to file a petition for reconsideration of the Partial Initial Decision, and Judge Bechhoefer has agreed by telephone to grant.the requested extension. Counsel for the NRC Staff and counsel for intervenor Ms. Stamiris have stated that they have no objection to the granting of the requested extension.

Respectfully submitted, 14Ckk Frederick C. Williams Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 833-9730 Dated: February 1, 1985 9

+

t i

' - . . . _ - - - _ - - . _ .