ML20207L114

Opposes Proceeding W/Licensing Proceedings for Facility on 870108.Granting of Exemption from Required Full Scale Exercise of Emergency Response Plan Seen as Possible Violation of NRC Regulations

ML20207L114
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	01/05/1987
From:	Epting R COALITION FOR ALTERNATIVES TO SHEARON HARRIS
To:	Asselstine J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20207K809	List: ML20207K806 ML20207L114
References
OL, NUDOCS 8701090629
Download: ML20207L114 (4)

Text

.

s C2clitisn far Alt:rnntivco ta Shorrcn Harria.

2 37 McCauley Street Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 January 5, 1987 Commissioner James Asselstine UNITED STATES NUCLEAR RECULATORY COf 21ISSION 1717 H Street N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Commissioner Asselstine:

I am uriting to you on behalf of the Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris. We are pleased to be with you today and trust that the following concerns will receive your immediate and careful attention.

I strongly oppose and urge the Commission not to proceed with licensing proceedings for the SHNPP on January 8, 1987, because issues pending before the Commission have not been duly considered or resolved in a manner consistent either with applicable regulations or the Commission's statutory charge mak. ng public safety considerations paramount to economic and political issues raised by licensing issues.

In particular, the Commission staff's recommendation to grant Applicant's request for an exemption from the regulatory requirement that a full scale exercise of the Emergency Response Plan be conducted within one ; year prior to operation at greater than five percent of rated power, and without even conducting a public hearing on the exemption question, is extraordinary if not in direct violation of this agency's own regulation. The Commission's delay in ruling on this request and the various objections filed by intervenors and the elected public of ficials of North Carolina's state and local governments, especially in

. view of the record of Applicant's inability to complete the plant in accordance with its announced and published schedules, suggests that the Commission desires for come reason to diminish the opportunity for appellate review of its decision prior to full power operation of the SUNPP.

8701090629 870106 O PDR ADOCK 05000 O

i i

)

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION January 5, 1987 Page Two Instead, the Commission staff has now made a delayed recom-mendation to grant the exemption request on the basis of the State's participation in an exercise held hundreds of miles from the SHNPP site at a power plant run by Duke Power Company. This Commission should need no reminder that Duke Power Company and Carolina Power Company are entirely different business corpo-rations, that Mecklenburg County is far from the SHNPP, and that the exercise relied upon tested neither the SHNPP ERP nor the personnel nor the equipment which the Federal Emergency Manage-ment Agency and the State Division of Emergency Management found in need of correction and improvement as a result of the May, 1985 exercise of the SHNPP ERP. If the exemption request is indeed granted by this Commission, that exemption will be granted on the basis of no evidence that the additions and corrections to the plan found to be necessary by the exercise completed some ninetten months ago have in fact been made, and without any indication that the plan and its personnel and equipment components are in f act currently adequate to of fer reasonable assurances to the public safety in the event of a disaster at the SHNPP.

Notwithstanding the deficiencies and additional personnel, training, equipment and facilities noted to be necessary as a result of the 1985 exercise, the Applicant has contested every ef fort by interested citizens to assure or even to question the correction of deficiencies in the ERP. For that reason, many thousands of concerned citizens, including the Attorney General of North Carolina and at least five local, elected governing bodies, have petitioned this Commission, by formal resolutions, letters and telegrams, to require the Applicant to conduct a timely full scale exercise of the ERP, as dictated by NRC regulations. In view of the Applicant's absolute refusal to acknowledge any deficiency in the ERP, or to willingly demon-strate that the defects and deficiencies in the plan have been corrected since May, 1985 exercise, those whose lives and property depends upon the adequacy of the ERP must rely upon this Commission to require the Applicant to comply with the law.

Under these circumstances, an exemption from the current exercise requirement would demean the high purpose of this Commission and further undermine public confidence in the reputation of this Commission.

This Commission will insult the legitimate interest and safety concerns of those citizens and elected boards and officials if it determines to proceed with a full power licensing hearing, and to license the SHNPP for full power.

operation, while withholding its determination of the exemption issue so as to prevent tirely judicial review of its action in that regard.

I UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION January 5, 1987 Page Three Furthermore, the Commission's conduct of a full power licensing hearing only five days after Applicant has begun low power testing at the SHNPP, (I note that Applicant was able to begin the first reaction at SHNPP only as of January 3, 1987, at 2 : 32 pm) , and while serious questions raised by Intervenor's Petition Raising Safety Concerns under Section 2.206 ( filed October 17, 1986) are still unresolved, is wholly unj ustified.

When, if ever, has this Commission held a full power licensing hearing within five days of an applicant's beginning low power testing of a new nuclear power plant? And why, given Applicant Carolina Power and Light Company's record with this and its other nuclear plants, should Carolina Power and Light Company be the first beneficiary of such an extraordinary writ?

What motive now justifies such haste to finalize a full power license less than a week after the first reaction is started in the new plant, and while NRC staff investigations of serious safety and quality assurance questions are yet unresolved?

The Commission's staff did not begin to investigate on-site the allegations made in Section III of the 2.206 Petition by a confidential informant until almost two months after the Petition was filed on October 17, 1986. And, though I was assured by NRC staff that if I arranged an interview with the informant cited in the Petition and the NRC staff, I would-be provided with written reports of the substance of the findings of the investigation thus far, no such reprots have been provided, nor have I, the informant of the Intervenors been provided with any information as to what has been found as a result of diat investigation or how the findings were being treated by the NRC.

During the course of the NRC's interview which I arranged with the informant, the NRC's investigator Mr. Lannihan verified that those allegations which the investigator had checked were found to be verified. At least one of the allegations had not been checked because the deficiency was determined to have been covered with several inches of poured concrete, and the agency was uncertain as to how to check it out without removing the concrete. I understand, too, that the agency has removed a sample of material alleged to have been non-quality material and will be making a chemical analysis of that material. But, th at analysis has not been made as of this date.

In short, if the Commission proceeds to license before adequate determinations are made of the allegations in the 2.206 Petition, the Intervenors will have once again be deprived of any avenue for effective review of the Commission's determination of the impact of those allegations upon safety of the SHNPP.

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COmiISSION January 5, 1987 Page Four i And, finally, I am compelled to question what end this haste to hold the final licensing hearing must serve. The Commission needs no reminder that this plant is already more than ten years behind schedule, that its cost has exceeded the Applicant's projections by more than 1700 percent, and that the Commission itself, in its September SALP report and before, had found

! substantial reason to question the ineffective quality assurance procedures of the Applicant in contructing the SHNPP.

And, only last week, I understand that NRC investigators determined that the in-core radiation detectors had been constructed in such a way as to make their service as intended impossible, and so as to require reconstruction.

These circumstances demand prudent deliberation, not hasty action.

4 Right now, before the SHNPP is licensed for full power operation, the substantial issues mentioned above must be resolved.

The public is entitled to a careful assessment of these issues, and that entitlement is paramount to the financial interests of Applicant, and pales beside Applicant's interest in receiving a d

full power license prior to the February,1987 date upon which it says it plans to conduct another exercise of its ERP.

Therefore, we request that the Commission deny the Applicant's request for an exemption from the requirement that it conduct a

full scale exercise of the SHNPP Emergency Response Plan within

, one year prior to commencement of operation of the plant above five percent of rated power, so that current evidence of the adequacy of the ERP may be provided to the public officials and concerned citizens who have a right to know whether the defects noted from the May, 1985 exercise have been corrected, and, so that the basis of the Commission's determination that 4

the ERP has been upgraded and is currently adequate may be known by those whose lives and property depend upon the plan.

And, we request that further consideration $f the licensing of the SHNPP be delayed until such time as adequate reports of the NRC's investigation of the already verified allegations of deficiencies noted in the 2.206 Petition have been circulated

! among the interested parties and fully considered by appropriate l Commission staff and officials.

. Thank you for your due consideration of these matters.

Very, ruly _ _ s, R e t Epti for the Coa ition f r Alternatives to Shearon Harris (CASH)