ML20101F014
| ML20101F014 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1984 |
| From: | Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20101F012 | List: |
| References | |
| 82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8412260477 | |
| Download: ML20101F014 (1) | |
Text
.___
~
4 December 21, 1984
]: tr-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'"i
'04 [3,;y A!0 NUCLEAR BEGULATORY COMMISSION
- 19 0F 009hy'gd6 5ELR.
BEFORE THE AMMTC 3AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD d
Glenn O. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman
))
In the Matter of J
Docket-50 400 OL CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al.
S ar Harris Nuclear Power Plant, ASLBP No. 82-468-01
)
E
?
Wells Eddleman's Response to Applicants 12-11-84
" Motion to Rsceive Additional Evidence (Eddleman Contention 41)*
This is a motion to reopen the record.
Applicants state (Motion, p.3 and p.4) there ia no substantive change from the testimony at hearing in either of their proposed Exhibits 27 and 28.
Applicants knew, or at least should have known, that these matters were being prepared, when they did not object to the record being closed on Contention 141.
If they made any attempt to ask the record be left open to receive these documents at that time, their Motion does not reflect it. Me7#Mi-93b.
Therefore Applicants bear the same burden to reopen that an i
intervenor would:
They have to show their new infomation would likely change the outcome of the case, and was not available at the close of the record.
They appear to show nothing re availability of this information I
at the close of the record, though it came from CP&L; they admit there's nothing significant new in it.
Therefore their Motion should be denied.
I have no objection to making these proposed Exhibits a rked offers of proof, but Applicants ' own statement is that they add nothing to the record,'
effectively.
8412260477 841221 PDR ADOCK 05000400 Wells Eddleman 0
~
.