ML20081C283

Answer to Staff on Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 65 & Applicant 840214 Answer to Contention 65. Summary Disposition Lethal Weapon Not to Be Faced Unarmed. Related Correspondence

ML20081C283
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	03/07/1984
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20081C272	List: ML20081C271 ML20081C274 ML20081C279 ML20081C283 ML20081C288
References
82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8403130220
Download: ML20081C283 (2)

Text

'

" ""gg F

qu.w.v w 4i \bQ J[ '

09'l,*@ February , 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~

NUCLEAR BEGULATORY COMMISSIch m 12 A11 :25 n- w: :.

Y BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIhG B'OXEb['

Glenn O. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman In the Matter of CAHOLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al. )

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )

Unita 1 ani 2) ) ASLBP No. 82-k68-01

) OL Wells Eddlenan's .Answey. to Staff on Sunna c Disposition of Edr31cnan Contention 65, and to Anplicar.ts '

Answer of February 1h concerning the en~.e On 16 February,198h, I received both Staff's "Resnonce in Support of Applicants" on Sunnary Disnosition of Eddlenan contention 65, and Applicants" Answer to Motion for Extension of mine thereon. This answer addresses new information in the Stnff response (cf. 10 CFR P.7h9) as it affects the Apolicants' Answer.

(and received cral soproval Under 10 e CF9 2.730 I hava v fron Jud G Kelley P-16 94)equested The Staff Response leave to file.this short resnonse to that Answer,b s

shows that there have ex ised honeyconbing/ void problens in the Harfsis Anolicants' Answer says I need show discove=y useful.

besc n:.t (Benis affidavit, p.. 3, accompanying Staff Response).7 I had thought it obvious that.I need to exanine the concrete nouw nacta6e data f

in order to assess the adequacy of the work.

t I-ha en't been able to locate my transcripts of the conference h

f calls on this subject, but I recall Judge Kelley in the second call saying words to the effect that Applicants.should either sunnly me "o

the pour packages or the requested information. I think they should h

supply this information before su$m.ary disposition cbnes to ruling.

o This response was to have been filed February 20; illness prevented its filing before now. Judge Kelley is aware of this illness as we discussed it by telephone. He granted leave to file tnis today.

It is a logical contradiction to say (as Applicants appear to )

"your contention should be dismissed for lack of information suoporting it" ANDt "we won't give you the original information, or even copies of it, about much of the stuff your contention relates to (which information is in our possession)".

It should also be noted that there are notential whistale-blowers on concrete out there, who may come forward at any tine (though of course I can't make any of them come forward of identify herself/himself). Thus, even if discovery is denied here (and

, -I do think I'm entitled to a second round since Applicants got 7, two rounds -- their superiodr numbers of people _shouldn't let them just push intervenors around when discovery time is not over according to a schedule Applicants agreed to (and pronosed!$ ),

and as a consequence the contention may get dismissed, information about concrete problems may surface elsewhere and force consideration of issues like those in Eddleman 65 I think discovery is obviously useful in getting information concerning contentions; Applicants have been most coveruppish about information concerning Harris concrete. The Staff doesn't say it has reviewed all CP&L's concrete documentation, so they can't verify that the information I seek does not contain $nfovmation which supports Eddleman 65. The only way I can tell is if I get the information to look at. I should not be put in a catch-22 situation lof hav$ng to prove the information I seek will prove sonething, when I haven't seen the information. The very purpose of discovery is to reveal information. Without the information souE h t, I will not be effectively able to use basic information concerning Harris concrete e

(which is sought' in this 2d round of discovery) to oopose Appliaants' motion for summary dianosition. That situation woul d be prejudice against me. Summary disposition is a " lethal weanon" that I ould not have te face unarmed M Wh Wsh6 M@%

UN # -