ML20080L894
| ML20080L894 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 09/27/1983 |
| From: | Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080L879 | List: |
| References | |
| 82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8310030375 | |
| Download: ML20080L894 (2) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR BEGULATOBY COMMISSION 8'"
I' BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEMSING BOARD Glenn O. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman 1
In the Matter of
)
Dockets 50 400 OL CAB 0 LINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al.
)
50 401 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units i and 2)
)
ASLBP No. 82-h68-01
_)
OL Wells Eddleman's Response to Summary Disposition Motion re Eddleman Contention 64F l
Although 6kF is a safety contention, not an environmental one Applicants moved for summary disnosition of this contention on 9-1-83 They assert many" facts"; these establish, howeve=, that the valve with Rulon components is still on their cask -- they merely " intend" to renove it.
They appear to have been " intend.ing" that for months, but they do not
" intend" to ship spent fuel to Harris at this time (see their Motion of l
July 8 '83 and accompanying affidavit).
Applicants also say in their 9-1
. Motion and acconnanying affidavit that they intend to only ship spent ggfuel dry (i.e. in air) for the foresemeable future. botion at 6-7; Affid.
& paragranh 11, pp 3-h) nie n.
et paragraph 8, page 3g The existing valve does not meet annlicable
- $ standards (9-1 Martin Affidavit, paragraph 6) nor do Applicants seek to j
qualify such a valve. (Motion at 7).
I cannot discute these " facts" since r nca l @< I cannot read Applicants ' minds to ascertain their true " intent."
- Still, 8E 1See 2-24-83 special prehearing conference transcript at page h97.
I first learned this at the opening of settlement negotiatibns this l
May.
Since Aeplicants' counsel O'Neill quotes my arguments from these neFO-aSeS h kbe"B"arh* k rkeN$i legg he had asseMed shouM not be as releasing me from any secrecy obligation he sought relative to the'se negotiations, as he has violated that secrecy himself.
-2 ot foco valua, Applicents ' caserted facts esthblish the following:
- 1. The valve at issue in Eddleman 64F, the cask pressure relier valve, is still on CP&L's spent fuel shineing cask. Martin Affid, para. 8
- 2. This valve cannot meet anplicable requirements, nor do Applicants ossk to qualify such a pressure vat 4 (or any pressure valve) for use en their spent fuel shipping cask.
Martin Affidavit, paragraphs 8 & 11.
- 3. Because a qualified relief valve is required for wet shinment of spent fuel in their cask, Applicants intend to only ship spent fuel
" dry" in their cask. Martin Affidavit, paragaraoh 7.
Given these facts, it is appropriate that CP&L should be held to the conditions they presuppose (i.e. dry shipments only, and no uce of pressure relief valves with Rulon connonents such as the Target Rock 73-J on spent fuel shipments) for there to be "no issue" with raspect to Eddleman 64F.
An accompanying Motion by me recuests that auch conditions be innosed on the Harris cperating license relative to parmission to stora spent fuel on-site at Harris.
If Aeolicants truly stand by their asserted " facts"3 they should not logically object to auch a license condition.
Applicants argue also that the Board lacks jurisdiction because it dismissed environmental contentions re scent fuel transchinment to Harris on the grounds that their NEPA effects had been considered elsewhere.
64F, however, is a safety contention.
It is based on the idea that in order to get spent fuel TO Harris for storage (which Anolicants still sock anproval to do, despite their deidals of present nlans to do so),
tho spent fuel shipments must come within 50 miles of Harris (the zone of interest in this proceeding), and safety shortcomings of casks so used could and would inneril the health and safety of residents near Harris.
On cuch a safety issue, this Board must have jurisdiction.
The Board can, cnd should, anpropriately condition the Harris overating licenee (if any issues
) to hold CP&L to their asserted " facts" as above, e 3:
do not conedde CP&L's assertions ave true.
..