ML19345H357

Response Opposing Applicants' 810508 Notice of Appeal of ASLB 810430 Order Admitting Fairfield United Action (Fua) & Motion for Expedited Scheduling.No Good Cause Shown. Expedited Hearing Would Be Burdensome & Prejudicial to Fua

ML19345H357
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	05/11/1981
From:	Ruoff J FAIRFIELD UNITED ACTION
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8105200195
Download: ML19345H357 (2)

Text

'

(=

,,

\-

cmco

-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ust NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION ,'q} g ,  ;

In the Matter of: )

f1 Citic:cf the Swelary kckt!'s&Scaice

'

Eend d y

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS ) o>

COMPANY, ET AL. cn Docket No. 50-395-0L 9 *

(Virgil C. Sumer Nuclear Station, 4 Unit 1) 6 j May 11, 1981 8 g.

• f ' --

%D N U INTERVEN0R FUA'S RESPONSE TO b APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED SCHEDULING /- E 2

%

w t' On April 30, 1981, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a

" Partial Order Following Prehearing Conference . . . " admitting Fairfield United Action as an Intervenor in the above-captioned proceeding. Ap-plicants South Carolina Electric and Gas Company and the South Carolina Pub 1'c Service Authority (" Applicants") filed " Applicants' Nc*. ice of Ap-peal . . . of Licensing Board Order Admitting Fairfield United Action

... " and " Applicants' Motion for Expedited Scheduling" on Mayi8,1981.

Service was made on this party by hand delivery by one of Applicants' many lawyers on Saturday evening, May 9, 1981.

Intervenor FUA opposes Applicants' motion, which requests the Ap .

peals Board to direct parties to submit briefs on Applicants' appeal by

'

May 15, 1981.

The Applicants allege no specific good cause for granting their motion for expedited scheduling. Nor does the present scheduling of the Licensing Hearings warrant expedited scheduling of submission of those briefs.

1

,

8105200 N C,

s --( O Lagr 46 zw m w ;._ s. .c,.e &m.- w ; m eg g + n g p.1 ,e;;- _ g;mqmp.~ c

_

.

' -

Unlike Applicants, on whose behalf two additional attornies have noticed appearances in this proceeding in.the past week, FUA does not have available to it a stable of lawyers. The requirement of production of a brief on such short notice would be burdensome to FUA and prejudicial to its interests. FUA is prepared to meet its obligations under the orderly schedule set forth in the regulations and intends. timely to file a brief on this matter.

If Applicants' are concerned about delay, it is they and not FUA which must bear the burden of any delay or additional. work occasioned by this appeal. Filing the appeal was their choice.

CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Applicants' Motion for Expe-

-

dited Scheduling should be denied.

.

/

f M ohn C. Ruoff, Ph.D[ h Authorized Representative Fairfield United Action P.O. Box 96 Jenkinsville, SC 29065

< %%-anad t.nem m# .

4 .s .c gg :m,