ML20065M720
| ML20065M720 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1982 |
| From: | Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8210210376 | |
| Download: ML20065M720 (14) | |
Text
'
\\
10-15-82 y(([D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'82 DCT 18 PI:24 Before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAFD James Kelley, Chair; Glenn Bright; James Caroenter r,.-.
In the Matter of
)
Carolina Power & Light Co.
)
Dockets $50-h01 and and N.C. Eastern Municipal
)
50-h00 0.L.
Power Agency
)
)
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant
)
Units 1 and 2
)
Wells Eddleman's Objections to 9/22/82 Board Memorandum and Order " Reflecting Decisions Made Following (Snecial)
Prehearing Conf erence" As stated at pages 79 and 80 of the Board's 9-22-82 Order Wells Eddleman, intervenor pro se, files these objections to that Order.
Judge Kelley stated at the special prehearing conference July 13-14 1982 that in dronning a contention, an intervenor
' was not conceding that it was no good.
There are good conteritions one sime17 doesn't have time or resources to pursue.
Based o~n this understanding, I an not going to raise objections to most of the Board's rejections of my contentions.
In the absence of v
new information I will let then be, though new information (e.g.
a nuclear accident, omm E"
technical rea'ssessnent, observation or new-j witness) night well convert one of these abandoned contentions i
e-
{
88 to a valid one in the Board's estination.
9 In failing to object, I do not withdraw any of the supporting infornation for the m
on
@g cententions the Board has rejected, nor do I concede (excent uhere os~
=
38*
I have done so on the record and with ex711 cit basis) that any such information is not valid.
1 IN AE / Y OhCCdotJS ',
(1) My strongest objection is to the Board's order on 35' service (or should I say non-service) of C?&L's documents.
%0
_2_
I telephoned all the petitioners /intervenors, including Dr.
Lotchin, and they all state the Board had not consulted then about this " send it to two" clan for the seven of us.
Nor had I been consulted.
The board does not anpear to be taking account of the circunstances of the intervenors, particularly Dr. Wilson and nae.
With terpect to the " key docunents" this Board order requires much less of Apolicants than they were willing to connit to (in their spasm of underlining 8/10/82 re service of documents to intervenors).
j 7
Nor is it clear that I an any better off than when only the LPDR in Raleigh received the documents, since they nay be riling up unonened on soneone 's desk without ny havinE any guaranteed way to find out if they have arrived.
At least with the LPDR or the VDR I can call and be assured that soneone is able to find out what docunent's are arriving.
I have told the Board repeatedly that it is quite a' drain on ny tine to connute (1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> round' trip at a rough minimum) to either Raleigh or Chapel Hill, particularly (I now enphasize) with. ny werking nore than one job and needing to do consulting work on tine schedules set by clients.
I an already turning down remunerative work in order to keep up with this case.
The Board seens to have a greater'. fear of depleting Antlicants' fasuries '(though I an not aware of any challenge, nuch less a successful one, to recovery of nuclear licexnsing exoenses in North or South Carolina for CP&L) than of innosing e
g.reater difficulties unon intervenors like nyself.
(I ' d think D".
Wilson, as a fanily chysician, would be subject to like denands on his tine, but he 'll have to sneak for himself. )
I wonder, an I to be considered"in nossession of" a docunent that nay have been delivered to CH_AI:GE/rLP?
Or to Kudeu Alliance ' ~
cttorney?
An I presume d to be aware o_l their having it, or are
. they expected to telephone or write to ne when things cone in from CP&L7 That is, of course, an expense and a drain on their time and nine.
Really, it doesn't seen reasonable.
Nor is this schene a way to avoid delays, since slower delivery of infornation to netitioners/
intervenors would sinnly delav the t ines when they can file contentions based on new information.
I believe that all retitioners cre fully ent$ tied to all docunents CF&L files with the X'C, served upon us.
Since there are clear cases of mistatching exnectations and adsunptions in this case already, let ne be clear: I an not statins nositions te bargain back fron here.
Like the Quakers, I an asking for what I believe is justified.
But if for the sake of argument the Board did not intend to foul up the intervencrs by this " serve two in niace of sever" schene,
let ne suggest a nearly equivalent alternative:
In Saleigh and Chapel Hill, where there are LPD's, recu're the An;11 cants to hand-d c cuads (%r b
\\
deliver of mail in their gattssteemagsth-KRC) directly.
Thus, intervenors 4
in Raleigh and Chanel Hill will have nrompt access to sane.
For intervenors outside Raleigh and'Chanel Hill (i.e. Dr. 5?ilson and ne ),
order CP&L to nail conies of their resnonses, filings etc (inclusive) to us directly.
Af ter getting nyself a hernia fixing the 7aleigh LPDR's conying nachine I think I've. got ten be end tha le vel '.nr
" reasonable hardshin" as the Board nut it.
I'd still have to go to Raleigh and cony I&E renorts, etc, that K"O nuts out but.hes not
~
serve, but at least I wouldn't have to incur tine, gas and'co,ying expenses so often.
As a consultant, I an often forgoing incone by snending t' ne in transit, nlus having to nake co-les on ecuinnent that' is rel-atively slow, where I have to make way for other users, and which desnite the best efforts of its naintainers, brenks down all too often.
I do not th'nk a war of attriticn a orocch to this case ::111 be productive; but if it concars sue ~b W' 1 be a conted,
_h_
I do not intend to easily attrite, and I know the Golden Rule.
To sumnarize ( ) the Board advanc es no reason for not serving every intervenor with CP&L-generated docunents, except cost to CP&L.
dh) There is no indication dnese costs are unreasonable to an outfit with cash flou like CD&L's or NCEMPA's; indeed, I would be sururised if they anount to a like anount of CP&L's budget as tyting, conying and nailing this one resnonse is, from ny budget.
CP&L has not been denied dollr.r-for-dollar recovery o" such co rte (rn" nf the co sts of filing legal objections to se=ving such documents, which nay be a substantial cost in itself, to d2e average nerson 's way of thinking).
(()
The ar"angenents and considerations necessary for Intervenors to deal with this Board schene are nes t cnclear, but they take little or not account of any of our circunstanc es, certainly not nine.
(Unless you think being in the "Chanel Hill-Durhan area" is an allowa nc e.
I'm alnost exactly the sane distance cnd travel tine from the Raleigh and Chapel Hill LPDRs) ()) The Board should reverse itself and order service of CP&L's documents on all the intervenors.
Je have to serve everything on then and all the others too.
How can it be xxreasoneble for ne to se"ve 11 others (12 if you count NRC Secretary) but not for CP&L to do likewise?
(I would noint out he~e that I've never changed CP&L for extra co-lesor docunents nrovided to then at 'he? " "aoua9t in this case.
I inagine af ter the tine and chain of connand it would take to provide Daynent, the ratenayers of C hL would end un Daying 5 or 10 tines ny cost, or nore; but such is not the es se w' th a s ervf e e li st, whic,h Eces through ne"-Al channels. The nsrginal cost of ert"n conies 4
is, of c ouwse, less.)
([J since this is a gene"ul issue in licensing, if - the Boa ~d d 2c not reverse itself and o" der all rarties served, I recuest ce"ti"ication or referral to the A peal Board on thid roint.
2
. With respect to the contentions, except as noted below, I have no objection to the Board's deferrals of various contentions. I an cursuing security contentions and have reta! ned exnerts.
For this tonic (security) alone, I have retained Deborah Greenblatt, attorney, but she does not represent ne on any other natter.
I have also sougnt lesal counsel with respect to the two issues the Board ordered legal briefs on.
houever, I have been l'nited in ny cbility to travel (due to illness) and ny attorney will nove for an extension of time in which to file said briefs, before October 22, so that we have tine to x meet and consult on these noints.
(1])I nresume that uhen the Board rejects a centent'on as *edundart of an admitted contention (joint, or ny own) that this is really saying "vou could and should have let this one be sunerseded too" instead of saying that the ecuivalent contention is valid but.the reje.cted one is not.
If the Board intends any other interpretation, then I object to the rulings on "Eddleman 1 anendnent" and Eddleman 2,15(79/ health effects ),18,19,2h,27,29(7)(H) and (health effects),3h,h1(insofar as it innlicitly rejects the 6/26/82 anendment and stetenents at the cnecial prehearing conference re QA/CC),42 'and 7(re 132, - Order s.t p.50)',h3, 54(2d) re s e curity,613,63,6h( d ) and( e ),67 (!EEA ),76,77,83,8h,96,121x122; 126;,109(chenicals ),111, as saying that the same contention is both admitted and rejected.(an illogical-cosition).
I also ask tp'e Board to clarify whether it has selected the better lanEunge between redundant cententicns or whether (as it armea"r fren the Drde") the On nan %Wiuti c.dev )
Board sinmly rejected all later centent'on. on a t^-ic as edunient of d crevicus accerted one.
If the latter is so, I n sh the '!on*d to refer to the innguage of c11 such "sunerceded by the Board,r s in "edundant" contentions iz the s ano uscr it ec".siders numerseded 6x lJ.+e C, Olhd., ff. y)4 ce ntentions, at nfnir.up/ Ihese ccntentic,s reflect my intent
. at the time they were filed, and each is as representative of ny intent as the others, where several cover sin'lar tonics.
(3 It anpears the Board did not take into account the 6/28/82 anendnents I filed, but I find no ruling on their adnissibility.
Have I overlooked such?
If there is none, I object to the Board's failure to consider such anendments.
I also object to the Board's not considering them. (if the Board has so ruled), since they were tinely filed under the rules (6.28.82 anendnents incor, orated here by reference, for discussion of tinely filing Saerein).
(L{ The bomrd nisunderstands at lesst part of the intent of 37(a).
It is not about usychological stress (e.g. worry that a nuclear nlant near you will have a najor acoident and harn you, or give you cancer fron normal oneration).
It is about the pain and suffering of cancer victins (and others) when the health effects (cancer, retardaticn, etc.) that everyone, including Annlicants and Etaff, adnit v".11 occur, do occur.
That is, 37 (a ) is abo ut the actual pain and suffering
' that will result when the health effects of the Harris plant do occur.
It says they should be taken into account under NEPA.
Surely the Board does not say that cancer victins, and their friends and fanilies, do not suffer direct nain and su'rering.
(If they do, I'll be glad to take then on a visit to the "onald Mcdonald liouse in Durhan, rhere young canc er v'eti s and th e i-faillites stay durin5 t'reatmant, assuming thesex folks were willing to neet with t:.e Board. )
We're talking about the real nain:and suffering, like that involved in having a brcken leg, not the nsycnological stress cne night experience vondor.'rr '.T ene's leg is going tc be brcken.
There are clear errora in the transcrint on this reint, *relud' g one that nicstntes ny ositicn enti ely by o.ittirr n "d r i t".
'ba
. correct readine is "peonle don't just die uninlessly... they suffer".
I expected at least one of the Board to remenber that accurately, i
and in any event have not had tine to correct the transcirrint, and Judge Kelley said it was no rush to do so.
I ask in the Borrd to reconsider 37a in light of the above wnich is on the record.
I object to the nischaracterization of actual pain and suffering as "osychological stress" and noint out that by no stretch of the ' naginatien t can the Connission 's statement on usychological stress be construed to include this sort of nain and suffering as "psychologien1 s tress".
If the 3ce rd holds its position, I ask you to refer this natter tc tne appeal Board, since it affects the intercretatien cf NEPA by F9C and can be expected to recur in other licensing nroceedings.
($
With resueet to Table 3-3, I an no lawyor, but the Board 's stated osi.t' on "eninds ne of the diehard Southern (or other) segregationist who stands in the doorway until federal troons force connliance with a court order.
The Cou"t of Anneals x has 1
1 not stayed its order connletely invalidating Table.9-3 cerec
~
with the noints made by OHA"Gr/EL? re this, ' ncluding thei" objections.
The Court refused rehearing en bene.
Yet the Boe"d seens tc sa, "we can ' t e n nly wi th the Cou=t#
(a najor ~erc"al)# ecause tha ""C (ou" ec1cnel) we n't let us."
b l
That again.akes no sense.
'.t.n t i s the 9m "d go' n.r to do ", f ' th e i
Luprene Ccurt denies ce-t'c"ari, or the :C lose s
- .n the Sun"ena Cou"t?
T."e Sca"5 dcas n':t a"near te. dery the Oc urt 's j uri r d '.c t icn, but s c e.s i
I to say, l'_ke '.nd"ow Ja cks c n, the Cer"t " hrs ma'!e fts dac'sfen, rrw-let (thar.) er 4"c o i t"
'" tha" ean. ~ ~ ' i ' " ~ 't r 0 (a ) o "i /', uhi. e b t.a 13 c :s
- 3 n -
-ttcch T G 1r?
S'.
L'
' t 'c -
- " 5 h*'":
t h e ~. sr *'o".
I I t '". ; " o f -~ " i O.,i '? O ', UC N.e 3'" dis "*,McD# T~
S T. $ ~.,
k a b e t
'1 ' * " "" l' 1 5 "
r 2 C! "...
- ': U"2 V i # "
- Et 1 n,
' 'h ' " * *E ^ 3c3"i cr'DQt.? n.
e
. There are several nore of my contentions that are involved with litigatio n.
On these, intervenors have not yet wen.
But should the Duprene Court or the World Court accMent the cosit' on of nlant!ffe in Honicker v. Hendrie, content?ons 5 and 6 world he ~n'.19
% I nyself, with 6 othe s, an suinre the ""C for violatina the
~
intent of Congress and the Adn'nistrative Proeddure Act in adonting the(N brule ofV f'.nancial cualifient'.ons, under wh' ch n cc: ntent' ens 58(2d),66,9h and 1p2 vera for these " ejections.
re je c ta d. The r ule wa s th e s-le veason dh I do not g(O say the Board shot:1d have adnitted these e ntertfons now.
Eut notice th = a sy r.e tr".
.' hen t h e II"C "ule has lort
'a a cou-t, and the crde= invalidating the rule is nct stayed, the 3ca-d unholds the PRC position over the Court 's.
't.Then inte*venors have lost at the NRC, and lave the e.ct'.on before a court, the EcErd also unholds the URC.
heads, N"C wins ; tails, intervencrs Icse.
- hat's unfa!".
h)9eContentict 27, vhich
- s really a bo st nsychologicalstress, and says s o, I believe "'C nis*and the Cou*t decision 'n " Alm v USC.
' I adopt CHAYG"/"L"'s argur. ente on this noint (conserv'.nr ny ere*cy t
i and yours, I hone). I object that the 90and car ot cl~ cr a-nn}ic.v a
=
statenent as unsurrorted e s U"C 's on ncycholoc' cal c tress i s. Th'e.
E Court said WI obviously was enouch effect t o un **c.n t "O f con 41de*at'or.
i' 2 hat is, 't war ele.rly nienty, thnn enrugt.
""C then d'.s-mc*^
l
'_ n tercrets this to say "If ' t 's net
"'iI, it'e n-t ns :h-larfcr.1 stress."
Mowcove",thir 'rulinf tria.-
t e-reach tbr "e-itr n' hcw ruch psychole L'en1 s tress ex'st9
=!
a"nt:n i t he Es'" 's m19 r t ("? r. n- ' r r it doesn't ~atei T:, ther<fe"e
- t 's r e rli * ' ? ~ ) w f 't e r
'innc~
m neu Much sycicle.cica? etrcr" 1tLir enun'~.
rif r % w*r-I "un a N ty" r ain,,s c P,0 n.c ?.3 'm 'ts 3 - onet : r (- m' r nl
- n if,
. q.m-le Li
" u ns c r e t r" ) rc~ :'Zuc ' t r e if ( s ac.
r' r DP-p01, rec,
~/p6/E2) an:' e "inr bl^v tvem e"
- t t t -
nr m e e
st" 's u x l e-n-Y *pq t esni c c~ f
- m.. co c-
>n>n'~n g t - n.,,
- p..:,
e.g.
,g y
,c c
~
I 79a a
... a.
_9 that CP&L's Brunswick plant had nuch lower safety ratings fren t'3C than did TMI-2 before the 3/28/197o accident.
see in this deckat, Board Exhibit 8, Board Notification, in the rer.snd hearings on
"'hI ma ra vamant c amah
- 1f ty ' n 1070 I should th'nk thet is basis enough to ndnit a centention on nsychoing'en1 s tress, and I ebject to the Board 'r net having admitted Eddlenan 87 ther=fere.
hk\\',11th resnect te riilenan 78, it is indeed hnniwritten, but it is printed in letters e beut 1/h incht high, exce,t 'or a few interlineated uc"ds and nh*ases.
'e hile it is clen-the 3en=3 car t
reject it, I re-ecil veur attentier te n.2b7 cf ~~ <-1b-82 filirg of cententionc, wherein give reasons for the interlineations e tc.
and ask the Scard to censider the submission "ronerly filed and e
"to afford ne thepoportunity to excla' n, correct, tr. retyne o" have retyped, clarify er otherwise fix any nart cf this document er all of ft which for any reasen 's net cle ar, readablo c" c therwise usable in this nroceef'ng, since I cculd ret reasonebly have produced and f *. led it by 1h May 1082 cther the.n 'n the form it is in... " (at 2b7)
I believa T have s tated I wwote out "78 vhen I had not access to I
a tynewriter, but did have
)
snace en a sheet about to SW be conied i
for submission.
I
- aire this noint because sFnaone seainF the Boa"d 's order without the actual han d-n-inted cententf on errld assuna it was ' n some illagible euxrsive u*iting, etc., and such a *ulint.i corld ther be used te nitnickingly disrecr"d somennn else's cen tent' nns in the future, 'nr sene m'ne-t echt' ec] rule etolation
- .n "n msttinr tha conten t' cr.
S ' r e e Sh o a "c r Es" ' s ir net tFa ed" nuclen" 1Er' th t eculd hr ve n nuclear cce'icr; ud m"an3" c"fect'rg me no ecrelly (it 's ana n' ng.. or y ny a rn r r+ r -r ' irr i de, ' i,: ' ve"r nn 4 e ' - r-t e n"
'. t r i f i c h n c e, whici. I ne" M vc to trnvol :n-nu m n tork),
- u. ; c s iirect interort in'thi.
It u3sn s c ene tc e
ti 'ilennr TF,
if considered, would be pronerly deferred until UnC cennletes
- ts work on Station Blackout (Sref n.36, Nuoro-0606, Eddlenan #78).
My tyning is s till in trcuble, but I'r. nursing nany vi"uses and have to get this dene to neet the fil' nr deadline.
A connected noint he"e:
The Board a-nears to say it sinnly.
adnoted the niain neaning of verds in niace of my ieff nitions.
Those definitions (Cententf.cne, F/1h/82. n/2P ten ) a~e
- ntended to c c" ate"in n ii* ti on to the nlain nearings" (ibidi en1" where it is not "toox snecific, or overly bread" Thidi ibid. n.Plsect*on (I)).
t Thus, the 3 card has done (within its interr~ etat'.en) what I a sked.
(10 The argunent re Harris Unit 2 is Eettire ridiculous.
While the Board relies on Arnlicants ' attorneys statd r~ they " fully 'ntend" te build Harris 2, C?!L's senior officials are announcing that they will scend ne add'_ t' onal funds on the unit, end hnve nrev* ously testified (UCUC Dcchet Kn. " 2 sub hhh ) tha t ther we~e oniv snand'ng carrying charges on the unit.
I believe CP&L nay cancel it as soon as they can get another rate hike.
A denfrey WtIH But I object strenucusly to the Board 's duetutum Unit 2 6.5 (fcaA fLACEST) b substantially connleted.
If a unitYTG conolete, en which no further p
funds are nrosently budgeted for a ctual construct'on, is "substantially concleted", uhich is an inn 1' cit reo.uireneht he*e (exnlicit i n Mc0pire,,
t} '730 F),*n" nurnoses er assessinr its neededness, cennliance with construct' en ar i onarat* ng recuirements, s nd s'o on, then there is sonetting substcntian " wrong with the lon-d's view, t
vcu can 't b"a e unit he " ce ".ml e t a i " an d "e 9 e t contant'nra (o.c.
idl eman Ib, 15 ) beenuse it
'n, and than ser, eu, we knew
- t "enlly fsn't ce -letal fo" cth<" ^ur ce-2.
The 3ca"6 en""e c tl" nc' r tr nut tha t 'r'e"vano*9 "r'ne can or+',rs s
-r n matte" # "icht.
I..c14 th t t the ha"v' n 'Jn t t P'n re t r.ra enrnet t
=
. 7 be considered "substantially connleted", and thus the need for-nower inspe, alternatives, etc., are real issues nost c erta$ nly with c5*4 k u t-)
resueet to Unit 2.'/g)}ddlenan cententions 17 and 20 address this r
noint exn1!citly.
The N"C's new rules en need for never and alterr.atives are only there for avoid'nt unnzecessary ligi litigation on nlants subs tantially ec mnleted.
(see pages 76
&nd 80, Zddlenan contentien s, 5/1h /82).
(g)Itherefereobject to the Board 's re jec ting Eddlenan #17, because tha Board sa*s "censtruction co sts are sunk" (while C"&L
- - " e 'u s i. n c tn s'nk the menev 'nto th e,
'n fact) rnd l'kewise I object to the 3 card 's rejection of Eddlenan #PO, which alleges that Shearon Harris #2 will not in fact be built.
The Earris 2 cc:nstruction costs are not sunk, but like the Titanic, Har=is 2 nay soon s' nk.
The lawyees' " intend" to sun, ort it.
The 3 card Cw.o:ePwa is sinnly wreng as a natter of fact on the p=ame of Harris 2 --
j EUDEG-0030 shows it.
Also rlease note that "ddlenen #17 a"nlies 5-l 8
4
.h.ar"2 vhan figed.
i to cost !neretses af ter the cres.e.ent is 1 jus vent un to over $21.165 billion, and Earris 2 to $1.%6 billion, or so, ner CP&L's 6-30-32 Quarterly CNIP Progress Renort te HC Utilit'e s Connission.
That was before the current delays in bo th units.
These costs are connletelv cut of line v'th the CP.
Is a 2.206 1
recuest the ua" to deal "' th this, 'nsteed cf this 3csrd?
Senebody at N"C ought to be less than blind to this co rt e senlat' on.
(l1Ichjact tn the Board 's re jecticn of " idle ~ar 115 re AN!S.
The Board cuc'es the USC as sayint-the likalfhood cf A"i3 'n 1.nv i
}
in the nex: 2 to !! yaars.
On is the likel' hood n# En""'s e n"n t' en,
wcich CPLL h s n+v nut off unt'l carl" 1C86 at the e a"1. 4 est.
(Tnless thav use the " GS,70h nillion" "st o h Pe ther just --t see F1"nn, C l tn 1373 6 Cetobe" 1002.
Ibelieve this ' r o t~nc.)
?Lc"efere
't > tid s een annre,"' o te tr decer di3o,ar 115 ent*1
that rulenakin; 's co nolete.
As the Board points out, intervenors 1
raise contentions as a natter of right (Order, n.76 n.19), and this aight is better than =aising a 2.206 netition later.
? contentien 4
1 I
115 does not attack the "ule nak in g.
It sin,1y alleres a numbe* of
- nroblens, including the Earris srecific stear gene-ator nroblems, o
4 i
which could connound an A77.'S.
Since the rulemaking nar well be finished befcre the Harris plant is, defer **.nc this centention nakes more sense thtn reject'ng it.
phTne Board nisunderstarde Eddlenan 9.105. It says that the basis for setting th e rxclus' en Area and Lnw ?cnulatf en Tona. is to be set based on an ace' dent nnre severe than the max
- nun credible accident.
(which before T:II was the des'En bas's ace'denti.
"
- nc a
""7 h an n an a d,
an accident be ond design basis is for real.
Therefo~e the er ns erve-tien of 10 Cro 10?.11(a ) is not nainta! ned.
See on 210-211 of Eddler.an 5-lh-82 cententions.
Eddlenan 105 goes on to shcu hcw TNI exceeded the " conservative" assunntiens of the basis xf accident (beyond design basis) used in TID-lh6hh of 1962.
The noint is, 10 CF? 100.11(a) *ecuires the EA and L?? to be set based on an accident nere scvere then Eny cen side ~ed credible.
4 The TMI accider.t was mere than wha t vas c ensiderac c-edible Before-that; but 10 Or7 inO.lla, n<r Fawley, 7 XT Arc OP at 103, =ecuives an even no"e seve"e zhynothetical ace'dert tr be used in sett?ng un the "A ari L 7.
Tha nargin betuaen the "c ed*ble eec' dent" and the 10;r' 100.11a " rot excee ded" neef dent hcs bean ercied q
n ine e Or o c c r"s d be twe er th e Fa ** '.s P and the En
'a Therefore, ~ddlannn 105 asis the Beari c *ened-t1'.s nwohlen by trvnnrintel: exnanding the -"
c-d EDT.
" hic c n'.c nti on sP o*:1d c' the" be r. -itt e d e" def"r"e 5 o r -olr ta d to e~.c rce r; cv nin r
- nr- -
. /
The Board's ruling on vddlenan 116 takes no account of v, hat was said about fire orotection at the snecial orehearing conference, nor the 6/28/82 anendnents.
I object to ruling aga'.nnt th$ s centantion ir its unanended forn.
I have -cinted out d ef* cienc' en in the FSA" and the firen"etecticn n"oprnn showirr enough basis to adnit a cententien that CD!L's fire n=ctectinn fn" its connuter systens is net adecucte, rarticuls rly 'n "esnect to reiistien monitorint- /disolay.
?\\
(lb)I object to the re jection of rddlenan F131, whien describes a c" edible neans vinewebv stud belt _s cc.1d cene into contact with borated'ater.
All the FSAn says is that the" ven't let 't w
hannen.
The" don't say hew.
This ce ntention is e d.issible :
- t 's s*ac
- c' c, it has basis, it shcus a real wiW te nubli c health and safety.
[h I nust say I'm confused by the 3cr"d 's statemen*, tPI t the
.otions subnitted with
.v E-lh-82 cententions a"e denied because they den t conoly with 10 Cro 2.730.
They are in uviting, they were served, they state the grounds fo" the relief sought, descr!be the relief s ought, and so on.
The only dif.#erence I can see is they are not sena"ated cut v* th a nice cover on each one saving
"*:otion :b: for Such and Such".
I can't find anyth!n.7 ex, licit in 2.730 tha t ~r etians don ' t ec-My uith.
As te-er:unnnts, they don' t see-to be c ove"ed 'n 2.73';. ( O" der, ne 'b -34). I w'.11 2
gindly conn 1" w' d the 30i=S's cade" he=a, but ubnt inas i t me nn
?.ic ine d ' n 0 ". '. "'+ : : ' n -+t' n we :: t""' r P. but tim t
- n~F mm""'~".
3 *
- b \\ $'-N
$'I.
L') *[
gy p'
Qgfy E
efb) h e M m" S i R "'t.
- t's) nni "c ?,4 "' nn e
s [h I Still I"tM' t^
""'"'t t
"n-2.798 in*
m" n meme i s nu m.
icua m",
- w>s Le1? ?
h" m
i r e n ' q. + " r "r
t'
- gr4 "c.ce"q"",
e r i r.* * [ n*;3*t.y' Tin "U
ry,.p d ges t t-
' ' V i n **
."M n " 3 ', ' '!
IMth n'"
"W' t g 9.y tio n,,g w g p r o o, n,,, a,_ g
- v og e
y' ;* y -n r c ' / ". v *Aon e*. V % * '. [* ' "n " ? t s ^ ".' " n P d e A. e-L
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATOFY CO!OIISSION t In the matter of CAROLIhA POWER & LIGHT C0. Et al. ) Doc ke't's" $0-h00 ..w=- Shearon Harris tTuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 ) and 50!$h01 0.L. CERTIFICATE 0? SIBVICE I hereby certify that copies of "elle we1 mont, nd% Ei ;nien.- e 9/22/82 Board Menorandum and Order ' . - : ;;.:-i (nost-snecial mrehaarin. conf'awance ) HAVE been served this 15th day of October 198 _, by deposit in 2 the US Mail, first-class postnge prepaid, upon all parties whose nanes are listed below, except those whose nanes are marked with an asterisk, for whom service was acconnlished by _ Judges James Eelley, Glenn B"ight and Janes Cawpenten (1 cony each) Atonic Safety and Licensing Board US Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington DC 20555 George F Trowbridge (attorney for Anplicants) Shaw, P1;tnan, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M st. NW Washit.gton, DC 20036 Office of the Executive Legal Director Attn Docke ts 50-400/Ec10?L. Phyllis Lotchin, Ph.D. USURC 108 3ridle Run Washington DC 20555 Chanel Hill NC 2751h Dan Read Docketing and Service Section Attn Docke ts 50-400/h01 0.L. CEANGT/ELP Office of the Secretary Box 52h USNRC Chapel Hill NC 2751h Washington DC x 20555 Pat & Slater Newnan John Runkle CANP CCNC 2309 Weynouth Court 307 Granville Rd Raleigh NC 27612 Chapel Hill Nc 2751E i)" Travixs Payne Edelstein & Payne 9ex 126h3 Raleigh NC 27605 Richard Wilson, M.D. 729 Hunter St. Certified by ~ .s% Apex NC 27502 t}}