ML20069A336

Notes on Applicant Revised Proposed Schedule.Response Time Should Be Tolled Until Hearings Completed.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20069A336
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
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 Dr. James H. Carpenter NI2(([uE/h 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 i . i. i hearing. This could be interpreted to nean that it runs on weekends, ,  ;; . 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: , s 3 Any other interpretation can clearly be . unfair to intervenors 5e i such as v self with limited resouvees. For, if on the first day of om 6~ $ s N@ J-{ g a four week hearing, I were served with interrogatories, and 3 days @8

   - r;                                                                                          no     -
    ;4       l1each week were not actual hearing days, I would be left with only

• l o

! 5 - @g

• l V).9{_ 2 days to answer after the end of the hearing. It simply isn't gg

          .+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 ' proposal is unfair to intervenors like nyself. L esoai}}