ML20207M019

Motion to Continue Commission decision-making Re Licensing of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.* Requests NRC Refrain from Issuing Full Power OL Until Criteria Assuring Safe Operation Met.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20207M019
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	01/08/1987
From:	Eddleman W, Epting R, Katz S, Steven Rose, Runkle J COALITION FOR ALTERNATIVES TO SHEARON HARRIS, CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NORTH CAROLINA, EDDLEMAN, W.
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#187-2111 OL, NUDOCS 8701130064
Download: ML20207M019 (14)

Text

__

64 JL ,, '

22///

DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION 'Eg Jm -8 P1 :32 January 8,198j{

In the Matter of )

)

Carolina Power and Light Co. )

and North Carolina Eastern ) Docket No. 50-400 OL Municipal Power Agency )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant, Unit 1) )

MOTION TO CONTINUE THE COMMISSION'S DECISION-MAKING REGARDING THE LICENSING OF THE SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT NOW COME The Conservation Council of North Carolina (CCNC), Wells Eddleman, pro se, and the Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris (CASH), collectively referred to as Movants, and requests the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to refrain from making any decision to issue or otherwise approve the issuance of the Full Power Operating License for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) for an indefinite period of time. In support of this motion, movants respectfully show the following:

1. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has the duty, among others, under the Atomic Energy Act, to ensure that a nuclear facility is not licensed in the absence of reasonable assurance that such a j facility will not endanger public health and safety. That is, a i

license will not issue unless the facility has been constructed 8701130064 870108 PDR ADCCK 05000400 O3

s .

according to the strict standards governing nuclear power plants and that the operation of that plant will not pose a serious threat to the health and safety of the plant's nearby residence.

2. In deciding whether a particular nuclear facility has met the statutory requirements and otherwise complies with the criteria necessary to provide assurance that such facility will operate safely -- the " reasonable assurance" determination which is a condition precedent to the issuance of a full power operating license -- the Commission must be thorough, fair and rational in its analysis. Action by the Commission must be grounded in a rational basis.

3. At this time the Commission cannot make an informed decision as to whether or not the Shearon Harris plant should be licensed because all of the facts relevant to such a determination are not yet available for consideration, nor has the Commission finally determined all issues still. outstanding before it.

4.- Low power testing of the SHNPP was begun less than five days ago, specifically, at 2:32 p.m. on January 3,1987, and such low I power testing cannot have been completed prior to the date and time of this hearing; in any event, Movants have not been pro-vided access to any results of such testing, and have not been able therefore to prepare for any final hearing on issuance of an operating license. To proceed with the final hearing and con-

-_._f

-,a, p - *e_S-4

sideration of the operating license issue at this hearing will effectively deprive Movants of the opportunity to prepare and present their response in this matter.

5. As of this date, the Commission has made no final decision on Applicant's Motion for an Exemption from the requirements of 10 C FR 50.12, which requires that Applicant conduct a full scale exercise of the Emergency Response Plan within one year prior to commercial operation of the plant or operation at more than five percent of rated power. Movants respectfully contend that action on the exemption request must precede issuance of the operating license in order to preserve any meaningful opportunity f or Movants to obtain appellate review of the Commission's determination in that respect.

6. The Commission has been presented with information, which, if true, establishes serious and material safety problems at the Shearon Harris plant.

7. This information was originally presented to the Commission in a 10 CPR S 2.206 Show Cause petition filed October 17, 1986.

7 The NRC staf f did not begin on-site investigation of the allega-tions contained in the S 2.206 Petition until on or af ter Decem-ber 1, 1986. In a formal recorded interview conducted by the NFC staff on December 18, 1986, the person who provided the informa-tion contained in the S 2.206 petition gave the NRC further and

-e s_~xa , , -

r

_4_

more specific information regarding the allegations he had made, answered in detail questions posed by the NFC, outlined the means by which investigators could independently verify the informa-tion, and indicated that he possessed further information con-cerning serious safety problems at the Shearon Harris plant.

8. The entire interview was recorded by an individual authorized by law to record and transcribe oral conversations and testimony by stenographic methods. Said stenographic reporter put the alleger under oath prior to his being questioned by the NBC.

During the course of the telephone conversation the following persons were present in addition to the stenographer: Mr. Ha rold Denton, Mr. Joseph Lenahan, Dr. Nelson Grace, Mr. Luis Reyes, Mr.

Thomas Nash, Mr. George Maxwell, all of whom were present as rep-resentatives of the NT,C and were given full opportunity to ask specific questions. Also present were Mr. Joseph Buckner, a law clerk, and Mr. Robert Epting, who is the attorney representing the alleger.

9. During the course of the above-mentioned telephone conversa-tion as well as on other occasions, the NRC staff agreed that, if 7 true, the allegations made would constitute serious safety prob-lems with the Shearon Harris plant, and which should bear on the decision as to whether a full power operating license is advisable at present.

4

i o

5-

10. During the course of setting up the interview to allow the NRC to receive vital information regarding safety problems and which would also allow the alleger to remain anonymous, the attorney for the alleger was assured by NRC staff personnel that if the telephone interview took place, the alleger, through his attorney, would be provided with all information developed by the staff regarding its subsequent investigation of the S 2.206 peti-tion allegations, including documentation of said investigations and testing results as they were produced. There was to be no need either to wait until such documents were released publicly or to to file a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

11. To date, despite repeated requests,neither Mr. Epting nor anyone else representing the alleger has received any information f rom the NRC regarding the status of any investigation, what steps have been taken to determine the accuracy of the informa-tion or the results thus obtained by the NRC. In fact, the NRC has provided no evidence that such allegations are actually being investigated.

12. Also during the December 18 telephone conversation, Mr.

I* Ilarold Denton promised that photographs previously taken at the Shearon Harris plant would be forwarded to Mr. Epting as soon as they were printed. To date Mr . Opting has received no photog-raphs or any explanation of the delay.

. . l

13. The information provided by the alleger in the S 2.206 peti-tion and during the December 18 telephone conversation was remarkably detailed and highly specific with regard to the unsafe practices in question including the specific procedures by number and revision, the manner in which they were violated or were inadequate, which physical locations in the plant investigators could find evidence of safety problems and safety violations, how such violations were carried out, who did the actual bad acts, when the violations or problems occurred, why such actions were dangerous, how the NRC might conduct its investigation and which tests would best uncover the dangerous conditions.

14. In addition, the NRC was given given a remarkable step-by-step description of the manner in which documents were routinely falsified so that the plant as actually built does not conform with the quality assurance documentation. Falsified documents were used, for example, to cover up cutting rebar, moving anchor bolts and changing the size of plates. This information alone is sufficient to compel the NRC to withhold licensing of the plant, since it demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the quality assurance system which is intended to verify that construction 3 complies with NRC requirements -- the very heart of the regulatory system.

15. Information of such a high level of specificity has an inherently high level of credibility. It would be almost impos-

i .

7-sible for an individual to f abricate, in such detail, a method whereby control documents could be forged or falsified as alleged in the S 2.206 petition and later expanded in the December 18

-conversation, for example. The alleger has absolutely no reason to-fabricate any allegations, as he can not gain financially or in any other manner. Moreover, the alleger has told the NRC how his information can be independently verified.

16. The amount of detail of the information provided the NRC enables it to investigate the allegations in a thorough and detailed manner. The magnitude of the seriousness of the allega-tions ~ require that the NRC investigate each one with as high a degree of thoroughness as possible, and that a general or cursory review of the issues is simply insuf ficient.

17. At several points during the December 18 telephone conversa-tion NRC representatives asked the alleger how they should go about investigating particular allegations he had made. The alleger responded with specific and definite methods that the NRC could use to test for the problems he claim exist. For example, Mr. Denton asked how to test anchor bolts in a way that would

)e show whether or not they were strong enough to perform as required. (The inference had been made that if the bolts had been " sandbagged" according to the alleger's claims, then they would not be as strong as they were supposed to be.) The alleger responded that a tension test should reveal the defects while a

torque test or a nondestructive test would not. He said, specif-ically, that a Phillips bolt would pull out of the hole when pulled, before the concrete would fail. He also claimed that a subsurface interface radar machine would not reveal the defect.

Mr. Lenahan agreed with the alleger's analysis in this area.

18. Neither the movants herein not Mr. ppting has received noti-fication of such tests, as promised during the December 18 con-versation.

19. Mr. Denton also suggested deliberately sandbagging some anchor bolts and then destructively testing them to determine how the bolts reacted as a method of determining the performance of degraded bolts. The alleger agreed that such a test might work.

Again, no results of any such tests have been provided Mr.

Epting.

20. The alleger was also extremely specific in terms of the information he provided regarding the physical locations within the plant which are likely to contain the sandbagged bolts.

Similar information was provided regarding unauthorized use of 3- the "Q" stamp for pipe hangers and structural steel fabricated on-site, the substitution of improper materials and other specific charges.

21. Moreover, the alleger portrayed an environment on the site of mounting pressure to complete the job which was conveyed to l

l

^ n .n-

i .

_9-the workers, which lcd the construction workorn to cut cornarc l and violate rules in order to meet these demands. Only further investigation will show whether and to what degree supervisors and management were aware of or condoned the actions taken to meet the schedules they imposed.

Because the Commission is bound to take account of all relevant information pertaining to safety of the reactor in making its operating license determinations, whether or not such information is a part of the adjudicatory record, Oystershell Alliance v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commn., 800 F.2d 1201 ( D. C. Cir. 1986) , and because the foregoing circumstances demonstrate the existence of important, outstanding issues affecting safety of the reactor, including the issues raised in the S 2.206 Petition and those issues which may yet arise in the course of completing low power testing, Movants respectfully suggest that final determination of the full power licensing issues by the Commission at the January 8, 1987 meeting would be premature and in derogation of the rights of the Movants to be fully informed of the purpose and intent of the meeting, and to participate effectively therein, and would be in derogation of 3 the public interest and in violation of the regulations of the Commission, and that such action would deprive Movants and the other Intervenors of their right to due process of law, and would be arbitrary and capricious.

10 -

The information given to tha NRC cnd outlinId Ebova indi-cates ion its face the existence of widespread safety problems at SHNPP and a failure of quality assurance to detect or prevent them. Under these circumstances, the Commission's action authorizing operation of this plant would be arbitrary and capri-clous and in violation of the Commission's fundamental duty under the Atomic Energy Act to protect the public health and safety.

NOW, THEREFORE, for the reasons set out above, Movants respectfully petition the Commission to delay and continue hear-ing of the matters respecting full power licensing of the SHNPP until such time as its investigation of the issues raised by the 2.206 Petition has been completed and reports of the results thereof have been furnished interested parties, and until after low power testing of the SHNPP has been fully and finally com-pleted, and until af ter the Commission has entered its decision {

upon the Motion of Applicant for a waiver from the provisions of 10 C FR 5 0.12, Appendix E, noted above.

Respectfully submitted this 8th day of January,1987.

'n vw u

Robert Epting i Wells Eddleman, Pro se Coalition for Alterna-I tives to Shearon Harris I

L , - -

,ff -)

7 h1 L(Lr v

2&l/1"'h,-

r hn Runkle Steven P. Katz y Conservation Council of Coalition for Alter-North Carolina natives to Shearon Harris

.r 7

q'% $ r o! _ ?J Me %

Stacy L. Rose Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris t

{

- ,. . s January 8,1987EP usu?C UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 87 JAN -8 P1 :36' CFin... . . J i'

) 80CP111S : a 1: WIU In the Matter of ) M4 E"

)

CAROLINA' POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )

and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No.

MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY ) 50-400 CL.

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on this date copies of the MOTION TO CONTINUE filed by Wells Eddleman, Pro se, Conservation Council of North Carolina and the Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris, were served upon the persons shown on the Service List as f ollows:

1. Copies of the said docenents were served upon the per-sons named below (in Paragraph 1) by hand delivering copies of the same to the Docketing and Service Section, Of fice of the Sec-retary, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., on Janu-ary 8, 1987, with a separate copy being addressed to each of the persons named hereafter:

Commissioner Lando W. Zech, J r.

Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Commissioner James K. Asselstine Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Commissioner Kenneth Ca rr Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal Nuclear Regulatory Commission

e a Wochington, D.C. 20555 Thomas S. Mo o re Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 James L. Kelley Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Glenn O. Br igh t Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board

uclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Charles A. Ba r th Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

2. Copies of the above-named documents were also served by hand delivery on each of the following:

Richard E. Jones Vice President and Senior Counsel Carolina Power & Light Company Raleigh, N.C. 27602 Thomas A. Ba x ter SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE Washington, D.C. 20036

Bredicy; W. Jonse, Esquire +

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, .C.C. 20555 i _.

Stuar t Tr eby , . Esquire

- orLC.A. . Ba r th, Esquire -

Staf f ~ Counsel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

3. . Copies of the above-named documents were served upon -

p the persons. named 'below by depositing thenm in the U.S. Mail, l postage prepaid first class, addressed as follows, this day:

Mr. Daniel F. Read, President

- CHANGE P . O . Bo x 2151 Ra leigh, N.C. 27602 Mr. Ro be r t P. Gruber Executive Director-

! Public Staf f -- N.C. Utilities Commission L

P.O. Bo x 9 91 l

Raleigh, N.C. 27602 i Travis Payne, Esquire

!' P.O. Box 12607 Raleigh, N.C. 27605 Dr. Richard Wilson 729 Hunter Street Apex, N.C. 27502 l Dr. handa Little .

! Governor's Water Management Board l 513 Albemarle Building I

Raleigh, N.C. 27601 Honorable Lacy Thornburg Attorney General of North Carolina

!! . A. Co le

Special Deputy Attorney General l 200 New Bern Avenue l Raleigh, N.C. 27601 l l Joseph Flynn, Esquire Federal Emergency Management Agency l 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, Ga. 30309 5

This the 8th day of January,1987. t

[ i

/

l , ~,

i I

i

_ _ , . , , - - -....,_...,...,~,e,,m,__ ,-.y _,__-_-,_-_,,,..-,._.,,,,-,...ym__,_,,., ,~ _ ,,_-.. -

--.w..~ ,_ _.-,- - - . . . _ . , - - . . -