ML20215G706
| ML20215G706 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1986 |
| From: | Barth C, Johari Moore NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1147 OL, NUDOCS 8610210069 | |
| Download: ML20215G706 (38) | |
Text
__ _____-
//d gN fQY 1%
l"'[f .A
~
' O C T .l ? Jggg UNITED STATES OF AMERIC'A '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g cdjC S BEFORE Ti!E COMMISSION .
. \ {
~j m i In the Matter of )
)
4 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT )
COMPANY AND NORTII CAROLINA ) Docket No. 50-400 OL EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER )
AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )
Unit 1) )
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 ON FACT ISSUES INVOLVED IN EXEMPTION REQUEST OF CAROLINA POWER 'AND LIGHT COMPANY l
l 1
2 i
Charles A. Barth Counsel for NRC Staff Janice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff October 17,.1986 8610210069 861017 0 PCR ADOCK 0500
.(*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION
- In the Matter of )
)
~
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT )
COMPANY AND NORTH CAROLINA ) Docket No. 50-400 OL EASTERM PIUNICIPAL POWER ~ ) ,
AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, ) -
Unit 1) )
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 ON FACT ISSUES INVOLVED IN EXEMPTION REQUEST OF CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY c.
Charles A. Barth Counsel for NRC Staff Janice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff October 17, 1986
(
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE(S)
T AB LE OF AU TH OR ITIE S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 f
- 1. I N TR OD U C T I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. B A C K G R O U N D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 III. DISCUSSION......................................... 5 A. The Applicants Have Satisfied The Criteria
' For An Exemption Under The Provisions Of 10 C . F . R . 5 5 0 .12 ( a) ( 1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 B. The Applicants Have Established The Existence of Special Circumstances Required by 10 C.F.R. I 50.12(a)(1) To Support Issuance of The Exemption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 C. FEP1A and the Licensing Board Have Found That The May,1985 Exercise Of The Shearon Harris Emergency Plan Provides Reasonable Assurance That Adequate Protective Measures will Be Taken In The Event Of A Radiological Emergency, And Petitioners' Allegations Of Deficiencies Would Not Materially Affect The se Fin din gs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 D. None of The Alleged Changed Circumstances l Set Forth In The Brief Present Material Issues Of Fact Concerning The Application l
Fo r A n E x e m p tio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
. E. Petitioners' Legal Arguments Are Beyond The Scope Of The Commission's Order And Should Be a R ej e c t e d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 l*
IV. CONCLUSION........................................ .
22 l
i I
l
I
- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PAGE(S)
. ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS Carolina Power and Light Company, (Shearon Harris
" Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-843, 24 NRC (August 15,1986).............. ,,,,,,,,
~14 Carolina Power and Light Company, (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), LBP-86-11, 2 3 N R C 2 9 4 ( 19 8 6 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 14 Carolina Power and Light Company, (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), LBP-85-49,
- 2 2 N R C 8 9 9 ( 19 8 5 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 13-14 Carolina Power and Light Company, (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-490, 8 N R C 2 3 4 ( 19 7 8 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 12 Kansas Gas and Electric Co. and Kansas City Power and Light Co., (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1), ALAB-321, 3 NRC 293 (1971). 20 Long Island Lighting Co. , (Shoreham Nuclear Power -
Station, Unit 1), CLI-R4-8,19 NRC 1154 (1984) .... 21 Wcchington Public Power Supply System, (WPPS Nuclear Project Nos. 3 and 5), CLI-77-11, 5 NRC 719 (1977) 20 STATUTES
~
Atomic Energy Act , Sec. 189A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 REGULATIONS 10 C . F . R . I 2 . 2 0 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10 C . F . R . I 2 . 7 5 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10 C . F . R . I 2 . 7 6 0 ( a ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10 C . F . R . I 5 0 .12 , , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 21 10 C . F . R . I 5 0 .12 ( a ) (1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 22 t
l
f l
- gg.
PAGE(S) 10 C . F ,'R , 5 5 0 ,12 (a) ( 2 ) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 10 10 C . F. R . I 5 0,12 (a) ( 2 ) (i)-(iv) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 9, 10 10 C . F. R . I 5 0,12 (a ) ( 2 ) (ii) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 9, 10, 11, 22 10 C. F. R . Part 5 0, A ppen dix E , I IV, F 1, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , Passim MISCELLANEOUS Commission Order, Slip Opinion (September 12, 1986)............................., 1, 2, 4, 5, 16 ,
Summary Dicposition Order (March 19, 1986).............. 14 i
i W
4
- m. I l
1
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 11UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT )
COMPANY AND NORTH CAROLINA ) Docket No. 50-400 OL EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER )
AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )
Unit 1) )
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO TIIE COMMISSION'S ORDEP, DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 ON FACT ISSUES INVOLVED IN EXEMPTION REQUEST Or CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY I. INTRODUCTION I
There is pending before the Commission a request by Applicants for an exemption from the requirement in the Commission's regulation that a full-scale emergency preparedness exercise be conducted "within 1 year I
before the issuance of the operating license for full power and prior to operation above 5% of rated power of the first reactor ....
10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, 9 IV.F.1. Also pending before the Commission are requests for a hearing on this exemption request by Mr. Wells Eddleman and by Mr. Eddleman joined by the Coalition for l Alternatives to Shearon Harris (" CASH"). On September 12, 1986, the Commission issued an Order requesting Mr. Eddleman and CASH to file a written brief identifying what material issues of fact they believe warrant a hearing. Order at 2. The Commission's Order permits Applicants and the NRC Staff (" Staff") to respond to the brief filed Mr. Eddleman and l
l l
l
( -- - - . . - - , _- .- _
CASH. Further, the Staff was directed to advise the Commission of its views regarding whether the exemption request should be granted. Id.
The "Brief of Interrenor Wells Eddleman and Coalition For Alterna-tives to Shearon Harris Pursuant To Order Of The Commission Dated September 12, 1986" ("Brief") was filed on October 6,1986. The Staff's response to the Brief and its views regarding whether the exemption request should be granted follows.
4 II. BACKGROUND On f' arch 4, 1986, the Applicants requested 1_/ an exemption from the Commission's requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, 9 IV.F.1. That regulation requires:
- 1. A full participation exercise which tests as much of the licensee, State and local emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory public participation shall be conducted for which the first operating license for that site is issued after July 13, 1982. This exercise shall i be conducted within 1 year before the issuance of the first operating license for full power and prior to operation above 5% of rated power of the first reactor, and shall include participation by each State and local government within the plume exposure pathway EPZ and each State within the ingestion exposure pathway EPZ. (footnote omitted)
[ In this proceeding, a full participation emergency preparedness exercise was conducted for the Shearon IIarris Nuclear Power Plant plume exposure l
f -1/ Letter from A.B. Cutter, CP&L to Harold R. Denton , Director,
! Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation dated March 4,1986.
l
r 1
i pathway Emergency Planning Zone on May 17-18, 1985. 2- At that time, a full power operating license was anticipated within a year. However, due to an unanticipated extension of completion of construction, a low power license has not been issued as of this date but is expected to be issued before the end of October. Full power operation is anticipated in January, 1987. Due to the need to coordinate scheduling for state and local emergency response organizations , the earliest another full participation exercise can be scIleduled is February 27, 1987'. If low power operation activities are carried out without significant delay, there is a substantial likelihood that the Harris facility will be ready for full power operation before the next scheduled full participation exercise can be conducted. Literal compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, 5 IV.F.1. under these circumstances would delay the full power operation of the Ilarris facility. To avoid such result, the Applicants are seeking an exemption from that part of the Commission's regulations which i
requires that the full participation exercise be conducted within one year of issuance of the full power license and prior to operation above 5% of ,
rated power.
! The issue before the Commission, that is, whether a hearing should be- granted on Applicants' exemption request , was first raised by 2/ Both FEMA and the Staff have issued favorable reports on the exer-Specifically, the Staff issued NRC Inspection Report
! cise.
No. 50-400/85-20 (June 5, 1985) in which the exercise was charac-terized as " fully successful". FEMA advised the NRC in its memo-randum transmitting FEMA's report on the exercise that "the State and local emergency plans are adequate and capable of being imple-l mented ...
" Memorandum, for E. Jordan (NRC) from R. Krimm
, (FEMA) (August 7, 19M) (transmitting FEMA report on exercise).
(attached as Exhibit A) l
Mr. Eddleman in a letter to Mr. Harold Denton, Director, NRR, dated April 13, 1986. In that letter, Mr. Eddleman set forth his views on the exemption request and sought a hearing on the exemption request.
- Mr. Eddleman's request for a hearing was forwarded by the Staff to the Commission for its consideration. 3_/ Both the Applicants II and the e
Staff b filed responses opposing Mr. Eddleman's hearing request.
Mr. Eddleman reiterated his request for a hearing in a letter to the Commissioners dated July 13, 1986 in which he was joined by CASH.
Applicants opposed this request for hearing as well. 6/
In an Order issued September 12, 1986, the Commisalon stated it had decided not to reach in its Order the question of "whether under Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, Applicants exemption requests grants interested persons hearing rights." Order at 2. Rather, the Commission
" decided firnt to determine whether there are any material issues of fact to litigate at a hearing." Id. The Commission provided specific instruc-tions with regard to the pleadings filed in response to its Order.
Mr. Eddicman and CASH were to' indicate "what contentions they seek to 3/ Memorandum for S. Chilk, through V. Stello, from E. Christenbury (May 15, 1986); Memorandum for S . Chilk , From E. Christenbury (July 17, 1986).
~
-4/ " Response by Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency to Wells Eddleman's Request for Hearing on Emergency Preparedness Exercise Exemption Request" (April 22,1986).
l 5/ "NRC Staff Response To Wells Eddleman's Request For A Hearing On Applictmts' Request For Exemption From The Requirement For An Emergency Preparedness Exercise" (July 24, 1986).
-6/ " Applicants' Response To Joint CASH /Eddleman Petition For Hearing on Exemption Request" (August 28, 1986).
9 1
litigate, what the specific disputed material facts are for which they believe a hearing must be held, what position they take on such issues, and the factual basis for such position." Order at 2-3. They should
., also explain "why these issues are material to a determination under 10 CFR 50.12. and should set forth their rationale for believing an oral hearing is needed for a full and true discussion of the facts on these issues." Order at 3. The Staff and Applicants were instructed to "specifically respond to each issue raised by Mr. Eddleman an'd CASH."
Id. In addition, the - Staff was to advise the Commission of its views regarding whether the exemption request should be granted. Order at 2.
CASII and Mr. Eddleman submitted their Brief on October 6,1986 O in response to the Commirsion's Order. Applicants submitted their
- response to the Brief on October 14, 1986. - The Staff set out below its rcrponse to the Brief and provides its views whether the exemption should be granted. .
4 111. DISCUSSION
! A. The Applicants Have Satisfied The Criteria For An l Exemption Under The Provisions Of 10 C.F.R. I 50.12(a)(1)
The Commission's regulations, 10 C.F.R. I 50.12(a)(1) provide that.
an exemption must not present an undue' risk to the public health and safety and that it must be consistent with the common defense and l.
7/ The Commission granted an extension of time for filing responses to its September 12, 1986 Order. Order dated September 4, 1986.
l 8_/ " Applicants' Response To CASH /Eddleman Brief On Exemption Request" (October 14, 1986).
1
security. It is the Staff's view that the Applicants have satisfied the criteria for an exemption under the provisions of 10 C.F.R.
I 50.12(a)(1). Attached to this filing as Exhibit B is the Staff's " Safety Evaluation In Support Of Granting An Exemption Request For An Exemption From Section IV.F.1. Of Appendix E To 10 CFR 50, Shearon
~
Harris Nuclear Power Plant." (" Safety Evaluation" or "SER"). In the fiafety Evaluation, the Staff finds that the following factors support the granting of the requested exemption:
- 1. The conduct of a full participation emergency preparedness exercise in May,1985 where the staff identified no significant deficiencies in onsite preparedness and leading to a favor-able FEMA finding on onsite preparedness on August 7,1985.
- 2. Full participation by the State of North Carolina in the exercise at Catawba in February 1986 and the planned full partici-pation by the State in the scheduled exercise at SHNPF in February 1987.
- 3. The participation of local response organiza-tions in a partial participation exercise at SIINPP in Octcber 1986 and the involvement of these organizations, with the assistance of the licensee, in an ongoing training and development program.
In particular the Staff's SER notes that a full participation exercise involving the testing of Applicants, state and local emergency plans for the Shearon IIarris facility was conducted on May 17-18, 1986. The off-site portion of the exercise was observed and evaluated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and representatives of the member agencies of the FEMA Region II Regional Assistance Committee.
9 The FEMA analysis of the exercise was set forth in its June 28, 1985 report which was sent to NRC in August 1985. U FEMA concluded:
-. . . that the State and local emergency plans are adequate and capable of being implemented, and the exercise demonstrated that offsite preparedness is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that appropriate measures can be taken to protect the
. health and safety of the public living in the vicinity of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Station in the event of a radiological emergency.
Krimm to Jordan Memorandum cited footnote 9.
The Staff's SER gives substantial weight to the FEMA exercise report and the information provided by the Applicants in their submittals of March 4 and May 2, 1986 which show that the emergency planning level which pertained in May 1985 has been maintained (SER at 2). Petitioners in their Brief do not question the factual content or conclusions contained in FEMA's June 28, 1985 Exercise Report, or in the Applicants' March 4 and May 2, 1986 submissions to the NRC which detail the activities occurring since May 18, 1985 which the Staff finds maintain the acceptable state of emergency preparedness.
The Petitioners assert that grant of the requested exemption would result in undue risk to the public health and safety, because "significant
- modifications in procedures, equipment and training were required as a result of the May 1985 test, and the contentions of Intervenors and cetions of other interested parties". Brief at 14. While there have been improvements to remedy the matters requiring corrective action noted by I
l l -9/ " Memorandum and Attachments," Richard W. Krimm , FEMA, to l Edward L. Jordan, NRC, dated August 7, 1985. This was sent to the Board and parties as a Board Notification on August 28, 1985.
i l
l
FEMA, the Staff knows of no "significant modifications" in the emer-
' ency g plan or its implementation resulting from the May 1985 exercise.
The' Staff's view is supported by the FEMA finding -that the deficien-cies noted during the May, 1985 exercise did not detract from the overall - state of readiness and could be corrected . through training
~ '
and additional resources. EI The Brief does not contain an identifi-cation of the "significant rrodifications" made to the emergency plan since May 1985, a specification of what facts therefore are fri dispute, and why a public adjudicatory hearing would be required to resolve -
those facts. Petitioners' vague assertion of "significant modifica-tions" in the emergency plan or its implementation without any specific fact to support the assertion is not in compliance with the Commission's instructions. While Petitioners do raise alleged changed circumstances or occurrence since the May, 1985 exercise, there is no showing of "significant modifications" made to the plan. See discussion in III.D.
below. It is the Staff's view that the Applicants have satisfied the criteria for an exemption under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. I 50.12(n)(1) and that granting the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the j common defense and security.
t i
-10/ " Memorandum", R.W. Krimm, FEMA to E.L. Jordan, NRC dated August 7,1985, third paragraph.
g B. The Applicants Have Established The Existence of Special Circumstances Required by 10 C.F.R.
I 50.12(a)(1) To Support Issuaace of The Exemption In order for an exemption to the Commission's rules to be granted, the exemption must satisfy the criteria of 10 C.F.R. I 50.12(a)(1) and satisfy at least one of the special circumstances set forth in 10 C.F.R.
)' I 50.12(a)(2)(i)-(vi) must be present. The Staff's Safety Evaluation finds that special circumstance 10 C.F.R. I 50.12(a)(2)(ii) is present and therefore the exemption should bE granted, b The rule from' which an exemption is requested is 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, I IV.F.1.
That section requires that a full participation exercise be conducted within one year before the issuance of the first operating license for full power and prior to operation above 5% of rated power. As noted in the Staff'r Safety Evaluation, the " underlying purpose" of that rule is to ensure that adequate emergency response capability exists at the time of licensing the facility to ascend above 5% of rated power. SER at 1. The .
~ Staff has found that the full participation exercise in May 1985 demon-strated that the emergency plans and their implementation provided reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures could and would be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. SER at 2. Since May 1985 additional training has been provided , fire drills have been I -
conducted, health physics drills have been conducted and other activities commenced that convince the Staff that the May 1985 level of response capability has been maintained. Id. In addition, the Applicant and the involved counties will conduct a partial participation exercise, now 11/ SER at 3.
scheduled for October 25, 1986. SER at 2-3. Identification of the activities occurring since May 1985 indicate that a continued state of adequate emergency response capability exists as set forth in the Staff's Safety Evaluation (SER at 1) and in the Applicants' submissions to the NRC of March 4 and May 2,1986. The Staff's reading of the Peti-tioners' Brief does not disclose any challenge to these activities which are designed to continue the adequate level of emergency preparedness, nor have any factual defects in t'he Applicants continuing program been identified in the B rief. For these reasons the Staff concludes that the crecial circumstances of 10 C.F.R. I 50.12(a)(2)(fi) exist and that requiring compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E I IV.F.I.
is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. Since the Staff finds at least one special circumstance exiets, and this is sufficient under the scheme set out in 10 C.F.R. I 50.12(a)(2), the other special circumstances identified in I 50.12(a)(1-vi) are not addressed.
The Brief addresses special circumstance, (I 50.12(a)(2)(ii)), at pp . 18-20. Petitioners argue that there are no special circumstances as severe problems were discovered in the May 1985 exercise and that the emergency plan has been fundamentally changed. Brief at 18. There is
- no factual support for this assertion. The FEPIA report found no
" Category A" deficiencies b identiiled as a result of the exercise. SER at 2. Rather, FEMA found that " ... the state and local emergency
, 12/ Category A deficiencies are defined as deficiencies of the type that would cause a finding that offsite emergency preparedness was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken to protect the health and safety of the public in the vicinity of the plant in the event of a radiological emergency.
1
f plans are adequate and capable of being implemented and the exercise demonstrated that offsite preparedness is adequate " Id.
Further, no basis is provided for the assertion that the emergency plan has been fundamentally changed. Petitioners also argue the changed circumstances of population and traffic flow require a full participation
~
exercise. Brief Et 18. This argument is not material to whether another full participation exercise should be held or not. 10 C.F.R. Part 50,
~
Appendix E. I I V . F .1. , does not require public participation in a full participation exercise so even if such an exercise were held it would test nothing about the t31eged effect of increased population or vehicle flow on the emergency plans. Stn'f review .of the Brief does not disclose identification of significant facts in dispute as to special circumstance
, f 50.12(a)(2)(ii), nor is it apparent to the Staff why a public adjudicatory type hearing would be necessary in regard to the special i circumstances of I 50.12(a)(2)(ii).
In summary, the Staff has found that the Applicants (1) satisfy the criteria for an exemption under 10 C.F.R. I 50.12(a)(1) and (2) establish the existence of the special circumstance identified in 10 C . F. R .
I 50.12(a)(?)(li). Accordingly, tbc Staff supports the grant of the
~
exemption, if needed. The Staff also finds support for its position in the
' - letter b from the North Carolina Secretary Department of Criac Control l
i
--13/ Letter Joseph W. Dean, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Pubile Safety to Farold Denton, Director NRR, l NRC dated September 29, 1986, Attachment A to Applicants' Response.
i and Public Safety which supports the ' granting of the exemption. The NCDCCPS is the local agency most involved with the state of emergency preparedness for the Harris facility. Their opinion should be given considerable weight. EI C. FEPTA and the Licensing Board Have ' Found That The May, 1985 Exercise Of The Shearon Harris Emergency Plan Provides Reasonable Assurance That Adequate Protective Measures Will Be Taken In The Event Of a Radiological Emergency And Petitioners' Allegations Of Deficiencies Would Not Materially Affect Theso Findings Petitioners next argue that the State and FEMA reviews of the emergency planning exercise which took place on May 17-18, 1985, at Shearon Harris established that critical parts of the emergency plan were not in place, and that the exercise demonstrated the existence of many deficiencies in emergency planning. Brief at 25. In support of these allegations Petitioners cite to selected portions of the State and FEMA exerciso evaluation reports. Id. at 25-32. In its report, FEMA did find some deficiencies during the exercise. However, FEMA concluded that these were deficiencies which could be corrected through training and additional sources. FEMA also concluded that these deficiencies did not detract from the overall capability demonstrated by the State and Counties to protect the health and safety of the public in the event of a
~
14/ See Carolina Power and Light Company (Shearon Harris liuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4), ALAB-490, 8 NRC 224, 741 (1978) where the Appeal Board gave heavy reliance upon the judgment of the local regulatory body charged with primary responsibility.
radiological emergency. These allegations represent an attempt by petitioners to raise an issue, i.e., the adequacy of the May 1985 exercise, which was previously litigated fully in the Operating License proceeding. They do not constitute material facts in dispute concerning the grant of an exemption as to the timing of a full scale participation cxercise. Thus, they should be rejected.
On August 7,1985, FEMA issued its interim findings concerning the adequacy of the Shearon Harris offsite emergency plan, and the adequacy of emergency preparedness at Shearon Harris. Memorandum, R.W. Krimm, FEMA to E.L. Jordan, NRC dated August 7, 1985. In its findings FEMA concluded that:
... [t]he State and Local emergency plans are adequate and capable of being implemented, and the exercise demonstrated that offsite preparedness is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that appropriate measures can be taken to protect the health and safety of the public living in the vicinity of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Station in the event of a radiological emergency.
Id. at 2.
On September 30, 1985, Intervenor Wells Eddleman, one of the petitioners here, flied twelve contentions alleging deficiencies in the 1985 exercise, all based on the FEMA and State evaluations of the exercise.
" Contentions Dased on Emergency Planning Exercise" (September 30, 1985) [ hereinafter Eddleman Contentions]. The Licensing Board admitted, two of these contentions and rejected the remaining contentions orally, stating that its written reasons would follow. Tr. 9771-74. The Licensing Board provided those reasons in its Partial Initial Decision on Emergency Planning and Safety Contentions. Carolina Power and Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), LBP-85-49, 22 NRC 899,
j 908-915 (1985). Applicants filed motions for summary disposition which j were granted by the Licensing Board with respect to the two admitted contentions. Summary Disposition Order of March 19, 1986; Carolina j ,
Power and Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant),
LDP-86-11, 23 NRC 294, 398-407. (1986)
- Intervenor Eddleman appealed the Licensing Board's ruling regarding i the admissibility ~ of the rejected exercise contentions. " Appeal From Partial Initial Decision on Emergency Planning Contentions" (January 30, 1986). Mr. Eddleman did not appeal the Licensing Board's summary disposition rulings on exercise contentions EPX-2 and EPX-8. See,
" Appeal From Final Licensing Board Decision" (June 9, 1986). The Appeal Board affirmed the Licensing Board's rulings on these contentions.
Carolina Power and Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant),
ALAB-843, 24 NRC ( August 15, 1986). Mr. Eddleman did not seek s
l Commission review of the Appeal Board's decision.
i In their response to the Commission's order, Petitioners are attempting to challenge both FEMA's and the Licensing Board's findings with respect to the adequacy of the emergency planning exercise, an issue which has already been resolved. Several of the issues raised by Petitioners were in fact raised by Mr. Eddleman. These issues include ineffective management of the EDS system (contention EPX-8), inadequacy of rumor control (contention EPX-6) and difficulties with hardcopy message availability (contention EPX-10). See Eddleman Contentions. In raising these, and the other issues in their allegations, Petitioners rely l solely on the reports of the FEMA and State exercise evaluators. They do not present any new information which would warrant reopening of the -
record on these issues EI or consideririg them again in connection with the Applicants' exemption request.
D. None of The Alleged Changed Circumstances Set Forth
- In The Brief Present Material Issues Of Fact Concerning The Application For an Exemption The Petitioners allege that changed circumstances and occurrences since the May 1985 exercise have put at issue material considerations -
relevant to the determinations required under the provisions of 10 C.F.R.
I 50.12, that therefore the exemption request should be denied, and that a full participation exercise should be held. Brief at 33-42. As discussed below, the Staff is in substantial agreement with the Applicants' response that Petitioners' assertions with regard to the alleged changed circumstances or occurrences are either unrelated to the exemption request , or lacking in basis, or both. Applicants' Response at 21-34.
First, Petitioners point to the inadvertent sounding of one or more of the emergency strens within the Harris EPZ during the summer of 1986 and to alleged malfunctions of tone alert radios distributed to persons living within five miles of the plant as raising important questions about i which a hearing on the exemption request would be necessary. Brief at 33-34. Applicants respond to these allegations and point out that the -
sounding of the emergency siren was due to vandalism and not to an emergency at the Harris plant. Applicants' Response at 21-22. In such circumstances emergency procedures were not in effect, and this incident M/ The final Licensing Board decision is still pending before the Appeal Board.
does not provide a true test of how such procedures would work. Id.
Further, Applicants argue that a full participation exercise would not test the issues Petitioners raise as a result of the vandalism incident and are,
, therefore, immaterial to the exemption request. This matter of the inadvertent sounding of an emergency siren was raised in a petition filed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 by Mr. Eddleman and CASH. The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has fully discussed this incident and found .that it does not warrant further action by the Staff in a j
decision rendered on October 15, 1986. For this reason we agree with ,
, Applicants that this siren issue does not raise a material issue warranting an evidentiary hearing on the exemption request. With regard to the tone alert system, Applicants note that this matter was litigated before the Licensing Board and that Petitioners have failed to indicate what an exercise will test that is not already tested by the "self-test" features of the radios and by the routine testing conducted weekly found acceptable by the Licensing Board. Applicants' Response at 24. The Staff agrees. Thus the tone alert issues would not be cognizable in a 4
hearing on Applicants' exemption request.
Petitioners argue in their brief that the lapse of time since the May 1985 exercise, personnel changes, modifications in the chain of command and the need for retraining require denial of the exemption. Brief at 34-35. Applicants argue in response that the simple fact of personnel changes and modifications in the chain of command do not necessarily require a new exercise, and that Petitioners' assertions do not demonstrate a potential fundamental flaw in preparedness. Applicants' Response at 25-26. The Staff agrees with Applicants' position.
?
t Petitioners next allege that questions have arisen concerning which agency will be responsible to warn and evacuate visitors to the Jordan Lake recreation area in the event of an emergency. Brief at 35.
Applicants argue that given the full complement of resources available to assist with notification and evacuation' of Jordan Lake, Petitioners' allegations do not suggest a fundamental flaw in planning. In addition, Applicants argue that Petitioners have failed to address how another full participation exercise would addre'ss issues concerning Jordan Lake, and accordingly such issues would not be cognizable in a hearing on Applicants' exemption request. Applicants ' Response at 20. The Staff agrees with Applicants' position.
Petitioners assert that another full participation exercise of the plan
. is necessary to educate the public about the plan and to give them confidence in the plan. Brief at 35-37. Applicants set forth several arguments addressing the immateriality of public education and confidence in the plan and conclude that this issue would not be cognizable in a hearing on Applicants' exemption request. Applicants' Response at 32-33.
The Staff is in substantial agreement with Applicants' arguments.
Petitioners next assert the revisions in the plan regarding what I
hospitals and medical facilities would be available to provide
! - decontamination and medical services raise questions suggesting a fatal 1
flaw in the emergency plan and bear materially on the Commission's
- determination of Applicants' exemption request. Brief at 37-38.
Petitioners are incorrect with respect to their assertions concerning reliance upon Chatham County Hospital in the plan. As clearly stated on
- p. 39, part 2, the N.C. ERP, Rev.1, September 1984 (copy attached as i
Exhibit C) Chatham County Hospital is not relied upon for the treatment of contaminated persons. Thus, . Petitioners have no basis for this allegation, and it is not material to the Applicants' exemption request.
t'ith respect to North Carolina Memorial hospital, Applicants argue that Petitioners' concerns with the hospital's policy to accept only persons in need of in-patient treatment are without merit. Applicants note the hospital's policy is consistent with the guidance in NUREG-0654 and does not represent a fundamental flaw in the plan. Applicants' Response at 29. Accordingly, Applicants argue, Petitioners' medical services contentions would not be cognizable in a hearing on Applicants' exemption request. Applicants' Response at 29-30. The Staff agrees.
Petitioners go on to assert that in light of affidavits by Chatham County employees stating that they would not perform their duties in the event of an emergency at Harris, although the employees stated that they would , participate in exercises, the Applicants' exemption request must be denied. Brief at 38-39. In response Applicants argue that this issue is immaterial to the subject of the exemption, since another full participation exercises, in which the employees stated they would participate, would not resolve Petitioners' concerns. Applicants' Response at 30. The Staff agrees with Applicants' position. Applicants also point out that
- this issue has been raised in other Commission proceedings, and that adjudicatory boards have found that, despite workers' statements to the contrary, in the event of emergencies workers perform their duties.
Appilcants' Response at 30-31. The Staff agrees with Applicants' position on this issue.
Petitioners also assert that large population growth in the vicinity of the Ilarris plant dictates denial of the requested exemption. Brief
.s 5
at 39-40. , Petitioners' concern appears to center primarily on the increased traffic which would be present on the area's major roads.
Brief at 40-41. In responso Applicants argue that the issue of population growth is not material to the exemption request ainee .
the public is not evacuated and the capacity of the roads to carry the population is not tested.' Applicants' Response at 34. The Staff agrees with Applicants' position.
~
Finally, Petitioners assert that the exemption must be denied due to the change in onsite fire services from the Apex to the Fuquay-Varina fire department. Brief at 41-42. The Applicants correctly note that the underlying premise of the Petitioners' assertion is not factually correct since the Apex fire department did not participate in the May, 1985 exercise. Applicants' Response at 32. More importantly, Petitioners' Brief is not responsive to the Commission's questions. Petitioners do not identify which significant facts are in dispute, nor the basis for such facts, nor what it is that the Fuquay-Varina Rural Fire Department cannot do and why it cannot perform its assigned function.
E. Petitione.is' Legal Arguments Are beyond The Scope of the Commission's Order and Should Be Rejected in their response to the Commission's Order Petitioners raise three arguments which are beyond the scope of the questions asked by the Commission. Brief at 2-12. Their first argument is that they are entitled to a hearing pursuant to Section 189A of the Atomic Energy Act.
Id. at 2-7. This argument was raised by Mr. Eddleman in his original
request for a hearing on the exemption, and has _already been addressed by the Staff. "NRC Staff Response to Wells Eddleman's Request For a llearing on Applicants' Request For Exemption From The Requirement For
. an Emergency Preparedness Exercisa" (July 24, 1986). The Commission did not ask the parties for their views on this question in the order of September 12, 1986. Rather, the Commission stated that it was not reaching the Section 189 issue at this time. Order of September 12 at 1.
Therefore, Petitioners' Section' 189 argument is irrelevant to the questions being considered by the Commission and should not be entertained.
Petitioners' second argument is that Applicants should have filed their exemption request with the Licensing Board and used the criteria of 10 C.F.R. I 2.758 rather than attempting to meet 10 C.F.R. I 50.12.
Drief at 7-12. b In support of their argument, Petitioners cite decisions in two Construction Permit cases. Kansas Gas and Electric Co. and 1(ansas City Power and Light Co. (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station , Unit No. 1) , AL AB-321, 3 NRC 293, 314 (1976); Washington lublic Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. 3 and 5),
CLI-77-11, 5 NRC 719 (1977). The cases are cited for the proposition that 10 C.F.R. I 50.12 should be used only in instances of exigent circumstances where timely relief from a licensing board impossible or highly unlikely. WPPSS, supra, 5 NRC at 723. By their very nature 16/ This argument, as well as their final argument, constitute a drastic change in the Petitioners' position. Both Mr. Eddleman in his original request for a hearing, and Mr. Eddleman and CASil in the later request for a hearing, acknowledged that this exemption request was not part of the operating license proceeding.
l
. I i
i .
these cases are inapposite. Unlike Construction Permit proceedings where licensing boards review both contested and uncontested issues , the jurisdiction of licensing boards in Operating License proceedings is limited
. to those issues placed in controversy by the parties or to matters raised by the Licensing Board itself. 10 C.F.R. I 2.760a. Petitioners also l attempt to rely on Commission's decision in Long Island Lighting Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-84-8,19 NRC 1154 (1984).
Any such reliance is n!so misplaced. The decision in Shoreham related to a matter which was at issue before the Licensing Board. Contrary to the i Petitioners' unsupported assertion, no issue concerning the appropriate-ness of the timing of the 1985 Shearon Harris exercise was ever raised before the Ilarris Licensing Board. No contentions concerning this issue were filed by any of the Intervenors in the proceeding. The Licensing Board did not raise any such issue. Therefore, this argument is without merit and should be rejected. In addition, it is beyond the scope of the Commission's September 12 order and should not be considered. 1 l Finally, Petitioners argue that in the event I 50.12 is determined to l be the appropriate standard governing the exemption request, it must be the subject of an adjudicatory hearing. Petitioners once again cite Shoreham in support of this argument. As discussed above, Shoreham dealt with a matter which was related to an issue before a licensing board, not to an issue which was never raised before the Licensing j Board. In addition, 10 C.F.R. I 50.12 does not contain a requirement for a hearing on any exemption request. For these reasons, and because 1
l this argument is beyond the scope of the Commission's September 12 ,
l order, the argument should not be considered by the Commission. In
-, --- - _ - - . ,----..,,,_---~~-w---. - - - - - - . , . , - - . .--y----m.---.--.--.---------w-.---.-r-.--.--. - + -
4 sum for the reasons set forth above, none of these legal arguments should be considered by the Commission in deriving the answers to its questions.
IV. CONCLUSION
~
In response to the Commission's inquiry, the Staff's advice is that the Applicants have met the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 50.12(a)(1) and (2)(11) and the exemption request should be granted. For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner's Brief does not raise any significant or material facts in dispute regarding the Applicants' request for an exemption frem the requirement of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Apendix E, I IV.4.F. There is no reason to hold a public adjudicatory hearing on .
the Applicants' request for an exemption.
Respectfully submitted.
- '" h Charles A. Barth Counsel for NRC Staff D2/LE3E..(Y7 TYGO.
Janice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, This 17th day of October,1986
EXHIBIT A 3, , Federal Emergency Management Agency
- Washington. D.C. 20472
~
AUG 71985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Edward L. Jordan-Director, Division of Emergency Preparedness -
and Engineering Response e
- Office of Inspection and Enforcement ;
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission FROM:
Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs .
SUBJECT:
Interin Findings on Offsite Radiological Emergency Response (RER) Plans and Preparedness for the
- Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Station The Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Station is located in the extreme southwest corner of Wake County, North Carolina, approximately 16 miles southwest of Raleigh. The State of North Carolina and Wake, Chatham, Harnett and Lee
- Counties, which are located in the 10-mile plume emergency planning zone (EPZ),
i have developed RER plans and have participated in the first full participation exercise conducted May 17-18, 1985.
Attachment # 1 is a copy of the exercise evaluation report for the May 17-18, 1985, full participation exercise. The exercise report, dated June 28, 1985, was prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IV and transnitted to FEMA Headquarters on July 9, 1985.
No Category A deficiencies were identified during the exercise. However, there were five NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.,1 deficiencies observed during l the exercise that require a schedule of corrective actions. These deficiencies,
! which are typically classified as Category 8 deficient,ies, can be corrected through training and additional resources. These deficiencies did not detract fron the overall capability demonstrated by the State of North Carolina and
. Wake, Chatham, Harnett, and Lee Counties to protect the health and safety of the public in the event of a radiological emergency.
FEMA Region IV staff will furnish a copy of the exercise report to the Stato of North Carolina and will obtain a schedule of corrective actions. The Region ',
will assure completion by the State of the neccessary corrective actions.
The FEMA Region IV Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) has completed a review of the North Carolina Emergency Response Plan (Rev. 1., dated Septenber 3, 1984) which consists of the four local plans including the changes incorporated
- through April 1985.
Attachment # 2 is a copy of the FEMA. Interim Findings on the adequacy of of fsite RER Plans for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Station. The Interim Findings Report, dated June 12, 1985, was prepared by FEMA Region IV and transmitted to FEMA Headquarters on June 18, 1985 A c opy is being fo rwa rded to the State of North Carolina for their use in upgrading the offsite RER Plans for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Station.
Based on a review of the above information, FEMA finds that the State and, ,
1 ocal energency pl ans are adequate and capable of being impi enented, and the exercise demonstrated that offsite preparedness is adequate to provide reasonable as'surance that appropriate measures can be taken to protect the health and safety of the public living in the vicinity of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Statiun in the event of a radiological energency.
If you have any questions on the above, please contact Mr. Robert S. Wilkerson, Chief, Technological Hazards Divf'sion, at 646-2860.
Attac hment As Stated 9
e e
O
flKfc
/ 'o
',, UNITED STATES EXHIBIT 8 j' }
g ;
3 f. ' g
. t.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 October 17, 1986
%....+/
Docket No. 50-400 s
Mr. E. E. Utley, Senior Executive Vice President Power Supply and Engineering '
and Construction Carolina Power and Linht Comoany Post Office Pox 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina ?7602
Dear Mr. Utley:
SUBJECT:
SAFETt EVALVATION REPORT ON EXEMPTION REOUEST FROM THE RE0VIREMEPTS OF APPENDIX E, SECTION IV.F.1 We have evaluated your request for an exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.1 for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, and have prepared the enclosed Safety Evaluation Report (SER). However, the tran'smittal
. of this SER does not grant the requested exemption. That matter is currently under consideration by the Director of the Office of Nuclear Peactor Regulation, and is befnre the Commission for consideration as to whether a hearing is wa rranted.
Sincerely, th .
. Bart C. Buckley, Senior Proiect Manager PWR Pro,iect Direcorate No. 2
, Division of PWR Licensina.-A
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page
Mr. E. E. Utley Carolina Power & Light Company Shearon Harris cc:
Thomas A. Baxter, Esq. Mr. Travis Payne, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 723 W. Johnson Street 2300 N Street, NW Post Office Box 12643 Washington, DC 20037 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Mr. D. E. Hollar Mr. Daniel F. Read Associate General Counsel CHANGE Carolina Power and Licht Company Post Office Box 2151 P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Bradley W. Jones, Esq..
Mr. H. A. Cole U.S. Nuclear Reoulatory Comm.
Special Deputy Attorney General Region II State of North Carolina 101 Marietta Street Post Office Box 629 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Richard D. Wilson, M.D.
Resident Inspector /Parris NPS 725 Hunter Street c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Apex, North Carolina 27502 Route 1, Box 3158 New Hill, North Carolina 27562 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. R. A. Watson 101 Marietta Street Vice President Suite 2900 Harris Nuclear Plant Atlanta, Georgia 30303 P.O. Box 165 New Hill, North Carolina 27562 Mr. Robert P. Gruber l Executive Director l Mr. John Runkle, Executive Coordinator Public Staff - NCUC Conservation Council of North Carolina Post Office Box 29520 307 Granville Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0520 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. J. L. Willis Mr. Wells Eddleman Plant General Manager 812 Yancey Street Harris Nuclear Plant
' Durham, North Carolina 27701 P.O. Box 165 New Hill, North Carolina 27562
. Dr. Linda Little Governor's Waste Management Board Mr. Dayne H. Brown, Chief 513 Albemarle Puilding Radiation Protection Section 325 North Salisbury Street Division of Facility Services Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 N.C. Department of Human Resources l 701 Barbour Drive l Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-2008 l
l l
l l
<[st.9 f tCge
'9 UNITED STATES
>g E' 3-q g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D. C.20555
, g .p
\;.s /
S_AFETY EVALUATION IN SUPPORT OF GRANTING AN EXEMPTION PE0 VEST FOR AN EXEMPTION FPCM SECTION IV.F.1 0F APPENDIX E TO 10 CFR 50 T
SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLAN _T BACKGROUND In Supplement No. 3 of the NRC staff si Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-1038, SSER 3), the staff concluded that the state of onsite and offsite preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP or Harris). This conclusinn was based on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) findings and determinations on the adequacy of state and local emergency plans and preparedness, and on the NRC assessment of the adequacy of the applicant's onsite energency plan and prepared-ness. Subsequently, in a letter dated March 4,1986, Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) submitted a request for an exemption pursuant to 10 CFP 50.12(a) from the provisions of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E Section IV.F.1, regarding the con-duct of a full participation exercise within one year before the issuance of a full power operating license for Harris. The NRC staff has received many letters
~
concerning the applicant's exemption request which, as appropriate, have been responded to separately.
! EVALUATION The applicable provision of Section IV.F.1 provides that:
i A full participation exercise which tests as much of the licensee, l state and local emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory public participation shall be conducted for each site at which a power reactor is located for which the first operating license for that site is issued after July 13, 1982. This exercise shall be conducted within 1 year before the issuance of the first operating license for full power and prior to operation above 5% of rated power of the first reactor, and shall include participation by each state and local government within the plume exposure pathway EPZ and each state within the ingestion exposure pathway EPZ.
The NRC may grant exemptions from Part 50 requirements which, pursuant to 10 CFR 650.12(a) are (1) authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security, and (2) present special circumstances. Section 50.12(a)(2)(ii) of 10 CFR describes
- the special circumstances in that the application of the regulation in the i particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. The " underlying purpose" of the Appendix E,Section IV.F.1 requirement is to ensure that adequate emergency response capability exists at the time of licensing.
A full participation exercise involving the testing of applicant, state and local emergency plans for Harris was conducted on May 17, 1985, in expectation that a full power operating license would be issued within one year. The onsite portion of the May 17, 1985 exercise was observed and evaluated by the NRC and docunented in Inspection Report No. 50-400/85-20. There were no significant deficiencies in onsite preparedness identified as a result of the exercise. The
. offsite portion of the exercise was observed and evaluated by FEMA and repre-sentatives of the manber agencies of the FEMA Region II Regional Assistance Committee. FEMA provided its report of the exercise on August 7, 1985. In this report there were no " Category A" deficiencies identified as a rasult of the exercise (Category A deficiencies were defined as deficiencies of the type that would cause a finding that offsite emergency preparedness was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken to prot *ct the health and safety of the public in the vicinity of the plant in the event of a radiological emergency). FEMA found that ". . . the state and local emergency plans are adequate and capable of being implemented and the exercise demonstrated that offsite preparedness is adequate. . . ."
Since the initial exercise, CP&L has conducted emergency plan retraining in accordance with the SHNPP Emergency Plan. This retraining involves managers of emergency response facilities; personnel responsible for accident assess-ment, radiological analysis and dose proiection, first aid, medical support and rescue; and staff assigned to radiological monitoring teams, fire brigades, and security. In Ncvember 1985, the plant began conducting quarterly fire drills for each shift to test communications, notification, and management of systems and equipment using simulated fire conditiens. In December 1985, the plant began semiannual health physics drills to test the response of plant radio-logical teams to si.L. lated plant radiological conditions.
The capability of State and local response organizations was satisfactorily demonstrated through participation in the May 17, 1985 Shearon Harris exercise.
In addition, the State successfully participated in the February 1986 exercise with the Catawba Nuclear Power Plant. The State has conducted approximately 15 training courses to help maintain emergency preparedness for State and county personnel. Local counties are also conducting training programs-in radiation for local hospitals, and in damage assessment and shelter management.
In September 1985, the plant, State and counties began participating in monthly i -
communication drills to test the notification system and the reading of messages l by plant personnel to State and local warning point personnel. In November 1985, Harnett County conducted a hazardous materials release drill with local hospitals and a hazardous materials incident exercise is planned in Lee County.
In a letter to the NRC dated May 2,1986, CP&L committed to conduct a partial participation exercise with participation by Lee, Harnett, Chatham, and Wake counties. This exercise, currently scheduled for October 25, 1986, will include the following local activities:
l l
i
4 Mobilize appropriate local county staffs; Activate local county emergency facilities; .
Confirm adequacy of local county facilities;
, Exercise command and control functions during emergency resoonse; Confirm adequacy of communications between facilities and organizations; Exercise the alert notification procedures; .
Exercise the capability for ambulance support for contaminated injured persons; and Exercise the capability forihospital support for contaminated in.iured persons.
The State will participate in the exercise by activating their communications
. capabilities. Also, CP&L plans to conduct the next full participation exercise with the State of North Carolina and the four local counties in February 1987.
This exercise will be evaluated by NRC and FEMA. CP&L projects full power for Harris by late 1986.
CONCLUSION Based on a review of the applicant's exemption request, the NRC staff finds that the following factors support the granting of the requested exemption:
- 1. The conduct of a full participation emergency preparedness exercise in May,1985.where the staff identified no significant deficiencies in onsite '
preparedness and leading to a favorable FEMA finding on offsite preparedness on August 7, 1985.
- 2. Full participation by the State of North Carolina in the exercise at Catawba in. February 1986 and the planned full participation by the State in the scheduled exercise at SHNPP in February 1987.
- 3. The participation of local response organizations in a partial partici-
.. pation exercise at SHNPP in October 1986 and the involvement of these organizatiens, with the assistance of the licensee, in an ongoing training and development program.
Based on the foregoing, and in accordance with .10 CFR 50.12(a), the staff concludes that the exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50,' Appendix E,Section IV.F.1, as discussed above, is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. These factors also demonstrate that there exists adeouate emergency response capability and thus, the under'1ying purpose of the rule is served. Accordingly, pursuant to 10 CFR 650.12(al(2)(iil, the exemption request satisfies the requirement for "special circumstances."
. i
.. . . . . . . . .. . : _ L: _l ' EXHIBIT C ' '~
8 i i ' ' '
~~ 1 4
! ' I I'i'l ' ' i i ' i: '
' ' ' i !Ii1 ' ' ' i i ' i. i
._ . .. . . .-_ _ .... . . _ . . . . _ . ~
! I e 1 I i i ! _
I t '
! s e iiie I t I I .e i I i . : i e :
. . , i i . . . cr ..... , . . .. .
i ,- . . ,: i , ,- ., , . .
~~~-*
EIqm Wq n gg -- _ ___
~
g t"li s 2 8
6 <
f.f
~
j 1
j n'A ; h5 -
nWCW $gg<; re g< a 74 -.
(. -
k h_khh__ lL M_ ib---. .d,f---$ _
k m
=._
--g
~Z . - - . _ . _- In suP ort of the Shearon Harris
._ . - .. .. _ . . _ . ...~ ZZ ZZ . -. . . . . .. -. . _ .
Nuclear Power Plant
.~..w-.. . . . . - - _ . - - . - ~ . - . ~ ~ - . . . - . . .
x -
- .. .. . .- -- . .. _ - . - - _ . . . . N'N
--~~ ' * ~~ ~~
_. __ _. i~~ : L.~~ . .- _ . T :~ ~ :Z T ~~~ ' > -
r e f
> ' i I i
! f I i 4 I I I i i- i i . ,
3 i l I e 1 l t I I I I 3 3 i * ! l e I
' ! . i e i e l I l 6 f i
- . -_.___-.-_m.-__ . -... - .
a
' 1 I I e s e l
i e 1 8 l e t *
. i
- 0
- lQ 8 l e 4 e i , 6 I i i i e i ' .
..-~
._.-n . -
~...
. . . .-. . . .~. -
+ . .
~ . . =
. . . .4 . . . . - . - *
- - + . - - ... -.-***
~
.* . . - - *O " * * " " *
..w.-. .. .-em, e... . .- ..-- - .- .
, ., g g M _. .W.4.-.
- *****" O -
- q . . e . e e. . . . . . . . - * -
g , , ,4 ,. g .. -- 6*. = . -9 *-.v-
- .-.-.- .. ._.._ ..J.. .
. . . . - ; _ _ _.a _ _ _ . -_ .. .
_=
3 . ~
'n
. . ...... . . . . . . . - .. . - . - - . . - - - . 0 Y. 0 .
i i
a PART 2 Page 39 3
private companies to provide whole body counting equipment and with laboratory znalysis from medical institutions, the Federal government and private commercial laboratories. See Paragraph V.B., PART
. 1.
gg3g.'Chatham y County has no local hospitals with the
~ capability to evaluate or treat radiation exposure
, victims. (See Section V.B, .Part I for Local and Regional Hospitals in the vicinity of'the Shearon
, Harris Plant.) _ _ _
. 4. The Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Section, j Facility Services Division, Depar'ement of Human i
Resources is responsible for developing plans to
' marshal ambulance and rescue resources and for coordinating emergency medical services at
} radiation accident sites and shelters.
- 5. In the event of an accident at the Shearon Harris Plant, the Chatham County Rescue representative on the County EOC staff af ter consultation wi'th RPS will advise the Region "J" EMS Office of the medical facilities to be evacuated and those capable of receiving radiated patients. At the staging area EMS personnel will be issued dosimeters, briefed on the nature and extent of the-accident, and assigned missions.
- 6. If necessary, the Military Assistance to Safety and Traffic Programs (MAST) will be used to assist in transporting non-agbulatory persons to and from
{ medical facilities.
C. Emergency Facilities and Equipment.
e 1. Chatham County government conducts emergency com-mand and control functions from the Chatham County
- EOC located in the Emergency Management Department in the basement of the County Law Enforcement l Building in Pittsboro, N.C.
- 2. To the extent possible, the county will provide off-site monitoring in the vicinity of the l facility.
- 3. The County EOC houses a communications center and is equipped with an emergency power generator, eating and other necessities required for con-tinuous operation.
4 The County EOC is equipped with commercial telephone service (in-place), two-way radio and a
_) dedicated ringdown telephone line between the Shearon Harris Plant and the EOC.
i i
/
s\ f?'k y c>p '
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. U ,
O l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONw#
OCT 17 iggg, -
4 BEFORE THE COMMISSION .. ,c- 5 In the Matter of )
{~225$$r ro j
) ro T
, CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT )
~
~ COMPANY AND NORTH CAROLINA ) Docket No. 50-400 OL EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER )
AGENCY )
)
- (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )
Unit 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF. SERVICE.
I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 ON FACT ISSUES INVOLVED IN EXEMPTION REQUEST OF CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail first class, or (*) through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, or hand delivery (**), this 17th day of October,1986:
James L. Kelley, Chairman
- Richard D. Wilson, M.D.
Administrative Judge 729 Hunter Street i
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Apex, NC 27502 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 l Mr. Glenn O. Bright
- Travis Payne, Esq.
I Administrative Judge 723 W. Johnson Street l Atomic Safety- and Licensing Board P.O. Box 12643 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh , NC 27605 l Washington, DC 20555 l
Dr. James H. Carpenter *- Dr. Linda Little Administrative Judge Governor's Waste Management Building Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 513 Albermarle Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 325 North Salisbury Street Washington, DC 20555 Raleigh, NC 27611 Daniel F. Read John Runkle, Esq. Executive Coordinator CHANGE Conservation Counsel of North Carolina l P.O. Box 2151 307 Granville Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27602 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 i
o H. Joseph Flynn, Esq.
Associate- General Counsel
~ Office of General Counsel Coalition for Alternatives to FEMA Shearon Harris (CASH) 500 C Street, S.W. Rm 840 604 W. Chapel Hill Street Washington, DC 20472 Durham, NC 27701
. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Bradley W. Jones, Esq.
. Board Panel? Regional Counsel, USNRC, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta St., N.W. Suite 2900 Washington, DC 20555 Atlanta, GA 30323 Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.
Public Staff - NCUC John H. O'Neill, Jr. , - Esq.
P.O. Box 991 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Raleigh, NC 27602 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037 Wells Eddleman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 812 Yancy Street Panel
- Durham, NC 27701 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Richard ' E. Jones, Esq. H. A. Cole, Jr. , Esq.
Vice President and Senior Counsel Special Deputy Attorney Gent ral Carolina Power & Light Company P.O. Box 629 411 Fayetteville Street Mall Raleigh, NC 27601 Raleigh, NC 27602 Samuel J. Chilk**
Docketing and Service Section* Secretary of the Commission Office of the Scretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 DMb.M Janice E. Moore Counsle for NRC Staff
- - . - n- , - r -,- - - n - - --