ML18022A406
| ML18022A406 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1986 |
| From: | Thornburg L NORTH CAROLINA, STATE OF |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609160400 | |
| Download: ML18022A406 (3) | |
Text
LACYH. THORNBURG ATTOBNEYGENBBAL State of North Carolina
~
Department ofJustice P.O. BOX 629 RALEIGH 27602 0629 September 9,
1986 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555
Dear Mr. Denton:
Pursuant to the statutory authority in N.C.G.S.
(114-1, I
am writing to you to register my strong opposition to Carolina Power 6 Light Company's (CPSL's) request for an exemption from the requirement in 10 CFR 50, Appendix E,
Section IV F.l that a Full Participation Exercise (FPE) of the Emergency
Response
Plan for its Shearon'arris nuclear facility be conducted within one year prior to commercial operation of the plant.
As you are the Nuclear Regulatory Commission official char'ged with making this
- decision, I
wish to register my opposition with you and to urge that CPSL's request for this relief be denied.
Although a full participation exercise was held in May, 1985, significant modifications to the Plan have either been made or planned since that time and extensive residential and commercial development within and immediately without the EPZ has occurred.
The level of public concern over the operation of nuclear power plants
. has indisputedly heightened since the Chernolbyl disaster:
it is imperative that the function of rehearings for evacuation in the event of an accident, which this FPE is calculated to serve, be met in a
timely fashion by compliance with the CFR requirement that the exercise
.be conducted within a
year prior to commercial operation.
I have considered the cost consequences of delay in commercial operation of the plant.
The tremendous costs of Shearon Harris are already, of great concern to me from a
ratemaking standpoint, as I am also charged by statutes with representing consumers in rate cases.
However, I note that the term "delay" in this context can only appropriately describe a period of time which commences with the point at which -the plant would otherwise be commercially operational, An
=.casual Opi)ortunity/AffirmativeAction I-mployer
yves'o Mr. Harold R.
Denton September 9,
1986 Page 2
without regard to the FPE issue.
Given the substantial slippage in target dates for fuel load and other construction milestones at this facility and the fact that CPSL does not yet have a license to load fuel, it seems eminently feasible that the company would not in any case be prepared for fullpower operation prior to February,
- 1987, the point to which CPSL has requested deferral of the FPE requirement.
therefore strongly request that the NRC mandate compliance with the 10 CFR 50, Appendix E requirement that the referenced exercise be conducted within a year prior to commercial operation.
Sincerely,'ACY 0
NBU G Atto ney General
/1<h cc:
',Lando M. Zech, Chairman
,NuclearRegulatory Commission
'0 v
P