ML20024D169
| ML20024D169 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1983 |
| From: | Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8308030255 | |
| Download: ML20024D169 (2) | |
Text
,
e-N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Jti,l, 2W/G19%g03 > 11 NUCLEAR REGULATOBY COMMISSION t
\\v N a rn,,,
$?.*lg h 54.
fp BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Glenn O. Bri Dr. James H.ght 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 ani 2)
)
ASLBP No. 82-h66-01
}
OL Certificate of Neg6tiations Re: DES, Control Room (DCRD9), Site Energency Plan and ATWS (Eddlenan 161) Contentions On July 21, 1983, in a conference call paid for by Applicants, Staff, Applicants and I negotiated on all pending contentions, as noted in the title above, including 15AA on canacity factor.
Applicants were unwilling to change their nosition on 161,.
which the Staff accepts.
The Staff appeared unwilling to stipulate to any of the parts of Eddleman 8 that Applicants found acceptable.
As attorney Baxter for Applicants noted in his 7-2183 letter to the Board, Applicants and Staff did not modify their positions on anything.
I understand the Staff will soon file its responses on control roon design (DCRDR), Eddlenan filing of 7-2-83 under extension of tine.
Those responses were not discussed on 7-21 but wore discussed infornally among Staff, nyself and Aonlicants since.
Staff will take its position in its filings.
I agreed also to exanine several matters and take one action, and the results of all that are as follows:
8308030255 030729 PDR ADOCK 05000400 0
PDR 2b
7-29-83 certificate of negotiations, page 2, by wells Eddleman 1.
Contention 152 is withdrawn.
It only asks for Applicants to commit to test communications.
Applicants' counsel O'Neill says that Applicants will do that (this commitment is in their response on the site energency plan), but have not made the comnitment to Imc as yet.
The withdrawal of Eddleman 152 does not imply I believe Applicants will ca-ry out that comnitment.
If they do not formally commit to NRC to test communications per the reauirenent cited in Eddleman 152, I may move for restoring this contention after a reasonable time (e.g. by 10-31-83 I certainly hope they'll have made the commitment).
There was not any tradeoff on 152, nor do Staff or Applicants necessarily agree with my, position above.
2.
Contention 15AA was re-exanined and is not withdrawn.
It is timely filed under the Board 's 5-27-83 Order and I think it is a valid contention.
See 7-29 filing by me re 5 factors and i
responsetoAnolicantsandStaffreDESContentichsah1 d
AA.
I If 15AA is accepted, I think it would sunersede l an 3
I committed to withdraw any part of 88A or B that says that Staff counted Harris lake (etc) recreation as a benefit.
Staff did not so count it, and Eddleman 88A and B do not say they did.
l Neither Eddlenan 88A or 88B depends on this assertion of " benefit."
4 I have reviewed material on SPDS subnitted by Anplicants 14-15-83 It does not change my position re SPDS and will be discussed re control roon design in my 8-31-83 filing.
- 5. I have reviewed Eddleman 155 and do not withdraw it.
- 6. I have reviewed Applicants ' brief re spent fuel and it does not change my position.
See 7-29 pleading referenced above, concerning Eddleman 25, 25B, 64D, 6kE and 126X.
7.
There are no other matters on which we reached agreement.
I've already filed the 5 factors for Eddleman 161.
NOTE: If anything further re it is reouired, I'll do it 8/31 since it concerns safety, g
Wells Eddlenan