ML20205C325
| ML20205C325 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1986 |
| From: | Holm K AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8608120307 | |
| Download: ML20205C325 (2) | |
Text
. _.
r
~.
August 6, 1986
~
i l
Mr. Harold Denton' Nuclear Reactor Regulation NRC Washington, D.C. 20555 t!
Dear Mr. Denton:
1 4
j-It is my belief that the emergency response plan for Shearon Harris is of i.
critical importance to the public health and safety, particularly to the l
health and safety of the residents affected by the provisions for evacuation.
I k
Thousands of Chatham County residents expressed concern over the possible 1
inadequacy of the Shearon Harris emergency plan's evacuation provisions.
i In response to the concerns of their constituents, on May 27, 1986, the Chatham County Commissioners withdrew Chatham County's approval of the previous plan. The commissioners a6 reed to rejoin discussions on evac-j uation planning in order to reach a satisfactory and adequate plan, but 4
i they did so only as a result of guarantees that the plan would be revised I
in a significant number.of areas.
i Similar concerns over the questionable adequacy of evacuation plans have 1
[
been issues for the county and municipal governiry!; bodies in Durluun, Orang *e Lee, and Wake Counties as wel). These local governments have been assured
/
by Carolina Power and Light aN the North Carolina Department of Crime Control i
and Public Safety that the She' aron Harris Emergency Response Plan will be rewritten, too.
f i
i There are important questions as to whether emergency systems can be operated.
i-Scme hardware involved in evacuation preparedness has never been fully tested.
The Harris plant's emer6ency siren cysten is one notable example. In May 3-1985 and June-July,1986, there were even officially observed malfunctions 0
1 j
of the sirens.
8608120307 860806
~
i0 j
PDR ADOCK 05000400 l
H PDR h h 600
1 As it has been demonstrate 1 that the previously untested emergency equipment is not fail-proof, and in light of the agreement by state, county, and local governments along with the company, that the previous plan was inadequate, with changes in the plan still proposed, it would seem essential that the company be required to demonstrate unquestionably effective public safety measures before even considering the final licensing of the Shearon Harris
~
plant, let alone permitting its commercial operation. It is appropriate in this case to enforce fully the provisions of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.1,which require a Full Participation Emergency Exercise.
If no measures are taken to ensure that a potential great source of danger is made as safe as possible in everbown way, any resulting injuries from a disaster can no lon6er be termed accidents. As long as the Shearon Harris Emergency Response Plan includes hardware which has already been proven faulty and hardware which has not yet been demonstrated to be adequate, it is a likelihood that there will be serious harm arising from any emergency at the plant.
I request, therefore, that the NRC, before authorizing operation of the
(
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, compel the company to conduct a Full Participation Emergency Exercise of the Replacement Emergency Response Plan.
Sincerely, Kristina Holm R // A l
l l
l