ML18004A184

Ack Receipt of NRC Response to Re Evacuation Exercises Prior to Startup of Plant.Evacuation Limit of 10- Miles Still Questioned.Delay of Licensing Process to Assure Safety Requested

ML18004A184
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	06/22/1986
From:	Christman C AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Buckley B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8606270217
Download: ML18004A184 (6)

Text

REGULATORY INFORl'tATION DISTRlBUTION SYSTEN (R IDS>

ACCESSION 'NBR: 8606270217 DOC. DATE: 86/06/22 NOTARIZED:

NO FACIL:50-400 Sheav on Hav v is Nuc,leav Power Plant~

Unit i.

Cav olxna AUTH. NANE AUTHOR AFFILIATION CHRISTNAN,C. J.

Affiliation Not Assigned RECIP. NgNE RECIPIENT AFFILIATION BUCKLEY B. C.

PNR Pv object Div.ectorate 2

DOCNET 5 05000400

SUBJECT:

Ack v'eceipt of NRC v esponse to 860610 ltr 1 e eYacuatlon exercises pv iov to stav tup of plant. EYacuation limit of 10-fAxles stx 1 I questi oned. Delay of li cen5x ng pv'oce55 to assUT'e 5a fe'bg req ue ste d.

DISTRIBUTION CODE:

TE03D COPIES RECEIVED: LTRj ENCL SIZE:

TITLE: Request fov NRR Action (e. g.

2. 206 Petitions)

Related Corv espondenc NOTES: Application fov pev mit renewal filed.

05000400 RECIPIENT ID CODE/MANE PNR-A PD2 LA BUCKLEY, B 01 COP IES LTTR ENCL 1

1 1

RECIPIENT ID CODE/NANE PWR-A PD2 PD COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

1 INTERNAL'DO/ACB ELD/

LE EXTERNAL: LPDR NSIC 04 03 05 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

ELD/HDS1 NRR DIR NRC PDR 02 1

1 1

1 8s(A ego TOTAL NUNBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:

LTTR 11 ENCL 11

~

~ -

I I rXN

'A K'i<,'NK(

I N% "I:'N I

,Kt litt[ ) f I

I KK Ky I I

I K

NC I

l;,

II

~

h

'K

~. I i I

lj a

<<vs, I A I

'NI KV"

(>>y II l,

tg" I$ 'l,t

<CKI I t.~'ill/I'l

< J.'.

K I' NK j'g,'

y 3 jN"t 3,',

IN KK

,.3",k HVAR.

V<.t~ l K

" r'

~

P>>

< i t" l 'it"I

~

,>P.

K

'K't) "

aK 1,

lt

'IK, K il I )( ~)) )I

'Ktll()

K Nl )I' irt>>

I

'4 K

K )I 'I K

INK)l, 1

I

613C Hibbard Drive Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 June 22, 1986 Bart C. Buckley Senior Project Manager PWR Project Directorate No.

2 Division of PWR Licensing -A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Buckley,

Thank you for your prompt, response to my letter to Mr. Denton June 10th.

I am glad to read that the NRC will carefully regulate CPSL's evacuation exercises prior to the start-up of the plant.

As you know, several government bodies within 25 miles of the plant and one (Chatham Co.

) within 10 miles of the plant have expressed no confidence in the comp-any's management of the plant of the evacuation plan";

(You might also be interested in a rumor going around here that the state government has offered Chatham County

$ 3 million in state funds if the county commissioners change their vote on the eyaauation plan.)

Though 'sI appreciate your prompt end curteous response, I found it full of gobbleydegook.

I realize that, regulations

'and-"their development are complex and that it is necessary to use-'jargon and apprevi=.ations at times in order to be eXact.

But I also belie&that you all use confusing lan-guage and a rather aloof manner as a way of putttng off hard questions.

For example, I wonder how you all can stick with

+his 10 mile evacuation limit with what has happened at Three Mile i',Island and at Chernobyl.

I have heard that people up to 50 miles away were eve~ntuall evacuated from the Three Mil Island area.

For all the myth perpetuated by the nuclear industry that no one died at Three Mile I>Island,there are many horrifying accounts of what life has been like there as a result of the accident.

You all cannot possibly know the extent of damage and death fran Cherynobyl yet; no one does.

Yet your tone is so sure of safety!

A quarter of a million people live within 25 miles of this plant.

Their safety is in part your responsibility.

I'm not talking about "protective actions," I'm talking about, how you all could possibly imagine evacuating that many people on these

goads, roads which cannot even han 1

Frida afternoon traffic.

IJm wondering which ospxtals could handle vzctzms of radxatz.on, since the one I live across from (N.C.Memorial) has said it could handle no more than~4 eople.

I'm wondering how you can talk about "hypothetical" accidents as if they are merely theoretical and not real.

What about theses SL-1 (1961), Fermi (1966),

$0 8bOb270217 SbOb22 H

PDR

)

~

~

h Ih I

h h

~

o t

h c

h kt

~

II h

=h g C

h

~

h

'Ik k

k

~~ K>v~ gII,~ ~

b ZQ Iyyup L~ld +aPpn Browns Perry (1975),

Rancho Seco (1978),

Ginnna (1982), Davis-Besse (1979),

Salem (1982),

San Onofre (1985),

as well as KfI.

Besides,. our utility CPEL has been the lowest ranking in the country in 'terms of safety competence in the pastt

)'rn It seems that the, nature of nuclear plant accidets is that C&

they are unexpected and unpredicable.

Often, they are caused g$~ +4}.

by a relatively minor (as opposed to high tech) problem a

valve, a candle, a small piece of metal, a waterline, a dropped p

ig light bulb.

The human error in dealing with unexpected prob-i@I(II4g I

lems usually compounds tlm problem.

Things can get much worse P~

I very fast, often in a matter of seconds or hours.

Somehow, I don't believe that you all have considered the real nature of safety problems in your publications~

If your resident inspectors are still in North Carolina, I hope they will take a deeper view of the problems ah Sharon Harris.

I have a friend who worked on the plant in the late 1970s; he was not a construction professional, but the problems in construction were very obvious to, him.

Because people are afraid to talk about Shearon Harris, lest they lose their jobs, doesn't mean they have faith in their the plant orr the company.

Your lack of receptivesness to the Patty Miriello complaint that she was asked to sign a false radiation record:

the fact that the NRC did not reply to her for months and then more recently ruled against considering her complaint on a

technicality suggestsc that you all do not really want to hear anything contrary about Shearon Harris. If so, that' not grounds to say that the plant is a

safe one.

I believe that you all have good intentions.

But in this

case, intentinas are not good enough.

My life is at shake; I firmly believe that

".."-. this plant is inherently unsafe and dangerous for my neighbors, my county, and my state.

The people of this area cannot compete with the millions'hat CPSL can spend on advertisements and lobbying.

So, we Tave to count on our local representatives (such as those in Chatham County) and YOU to protect us.

Please hold Carolina Power and Light accountable, truly accountable, for public safety.

You can do this by delaying their licensing process.

I hope that you will~

Sincerel Caroly J.

hristman

. ~

y t

K I

9 N