ML20024E832

Request for Clarification & Reconsideration of 830818 Order

ML20024E832
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	08/31/1983
From:	Eddleman E, Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20024E830	List: ML20024E829 ML20024E832 ML20024E834 ML20024E840 ML20024E846 ML20024E850 ML20024E853 ML20024E856 ML20024E858 ML20024E862
References
82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8309070121
Download: ML20024E832 (2)

Text

.

Eb 00LMETE0 USNC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

% 3 ^ E $ M ':0/

93 NUCLEAR REGULATOBY COMMISSION 0FFICE OF SECRCA..

DOCKETING & SEPVIU BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BRANCH Glenn O. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman In the Matter of J Dockets 50 400 OL CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et aI. ) 50 401 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) ) ASLBP Nc. 82-k68-01 OL

}

' Jells Eddlonan's Request for Clatificatien and Reconsideratien of 8-18-83 Order This request is filed under an extension of tine OK'd by Staff, Aeplicants and the Board orally.

Re 8F3 and 853 (8-13 Order et 6,1h) I recuest clar'fication as to whether I will have any onvortunity to exanine the FES and withdraw, nodify, or nake new contentiene on these subjects when it issues.

Such has been the Board's past practice on defer-ed contentiers, e.g.

in 9-22-82 0" der at 8, 3-10-83 orden, 5-27 83 0-de .

Plea'se clarify why the allegation of underestincte of probab'lity of serious nuclear accidents, detciled at pp 16-17 of my 6-20-83 gg et o filing, which allege probabilities of severe accidents cs high as 8 1 in 1000 per reactor-year (neltdowns), are not conside ed specif f.c 36 enough basis for contradicting the Staff analys's (DES at 4-59 thru co "E 5-83) which states at p. 5-78 that the core-nelt probab'lity is ,

3 go assuned as high as 10-4 (only 1/10 cs nuch) per year. See top paragraph of my 7-29 response at 28 also.

Picase clarify why Eddlenan 3h (see revised ve-sion 6-20-S3 at 21, middle) referencing pages 5-58,59 and 5-55 of the DES,

I does not support " specification of any particular deficiency" when coupled with the specific citations given 6-20-83 at pp 20-21 beginning (last line p.20) "For a critique ..." and going on to give page citations fron Perils of the Peaceful Aton. (See also "WHAT's-NEW, 6-20-83 at 22, for Eddlenan 3h revised.)

My question here is how, if at all, the specifics given on pp 20-21 were considered re Eddlenan 3h revised, given the wording (6 83 at 21, above the revised version)(of 3h), "I think this omission (referring to the contribution to accidents described on pp 20-21) gives sufficient basis to renew Eddlenan 3h in a revised forn, as follows:". I underastand how the order of things night have been con #usin6 there (especially in such a long cleading), but I think the basis and spacificity are the"e, as I tried to point out 7-29-83 at 38. I ask your consideration, given this 2-page pleading, to please review the above-cited information re Eddleman 34 and clarify your 8-18-83 Order as you may think arnropriate.

REQUEST F0" RECONSIDERATION To the extent that the Board, in reviewing or clarifying the natters inquired about above, finds good cause to nodify its 8-18-83 Order with respect to either the admission of contentions 22C and/of 34, or with respect to allowing further response by ne to the FES cn '8F3' and/or 85B (as you have in the past re deferred contentions), I request you to do so.

Written 29 Au6ust 1983 Wells Eddleman Served 8-31 per oral extension of time J