ML20069A336

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Notes on Applicant Revised Proposed Schedule.Response Time Should Be Tolled Until Hearings Completed.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20069A336
Person / Time
Site: Harris  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 03/10/1983
From: Eddleman W
EDDLEMAN, W.
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8303150603
Download: ML20069A336 (2)


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '7in March 10,.1983 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

  • gj MR 14 Alo:gg BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Glenn O. Bright NI2(([uE/h

~, Dr. James H. Carpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman In the Matter of ) Dockets 50 400 OL CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al. ) 50-401 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, ) Units 1 and 2) ) ) s, e s - ?) + Wells Eddleman's Notes re'Auplicants' .?, ~ Revised Proposed Schedule T ',

1. There is a difference between the notied position on tolling

?: i time and what I understood (and checked with Apolicants in our E .m u informal discussion before the' conference) we had agreed to. In 9> R5 the present wording, time for restonse is tolled only on days in h hearing. This could be interpreted to nean that it runs on weekends, i. i. i

. or days of the week when there is no hearing, even though a hearing

~, ( l R.is continuing. I interoreted (and checked) the agreement to nean g g sl1that from the time a hearing (or distinct separate phase thereof) l ?,.lf l .a f'$begins, until the last day thereof, response time wculd not run. 4: 3 Any other interpretation can clearly be. unfair to intervenors s5e 6~ $ s such as v self with limited resouvees. For, if on the first day of om i N@ J-{ g a four week hearing, I were served with interrogatories, and 3 days @8 - r; no l

4 l1each week were not actual hearing days, I would be left with only o

5 - @g V).9{_ 2 days to answer after the end of the hearing. It simply isn't gg l .+3 OQ h "' practical to do this and be well enough prepared for hearing to g< 5-om - ' assist in the. development of a sound record. I believe that the - @@o C6', agreement is misstated on the transcript, and that Apelicants ' L esoai proposal is unfair to intervenors like nyself.}}