ML18019A765

Opposes Util 860304 Request for Exemption for Emergency Preparedness Exercise Requirements of 10CFR50,App E to Conduct Full Participation Exercise within 1 Yr Prior to Issuance of OL

ML18019A765
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	04/03/1986
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-#286-689 OL, NUDOCS 8604080127
Download: ML18019A765 (8)

Text

REGULATORY FORMATION DISTRIBUTION S EM (RIDS)

ACCESSION NBR: 8604080127 DOC. DATE: 86/04/03 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET 0 FAC IL'0-400 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Planti Unit ii Carolina 0500040Q AUTH. NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION EDDLEMAN> M. l Ed d emani M.

RECIP. NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION DENTONi H. R. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulationi Director (post 851125

SUBJECT:

Responds opposing util 860304 request for exemption for emergency preparedness exercise requirements of 10CFR50i App E to,conduct full participation exercise within gr 1 prior to issuance of OL.

DISTRIBUTION CODE:

TITLE:

YOOED Distribution for Atypical COPIES RECEIVED: LTR 50 Dkt Matel

~

ial ENCL 0 EIIE:

NOTES: Application for permit renewal f iled. ~ 05000400 RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL PNR-A ADTS Pl4R-A PD2 LA 08 PD2 PD Q7 09'NR-A BUCKLEY'S B 01 DENTONz H. R. 06 INTERNAL: ELD/HDS1 16 FIL 04 RGN2 /MIB 17 EXTERNAL: 24X LPDR 03 NRC PDR 02 NSIC 05 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 13 ENCL

3ZIB TjlldIRIDZH 38ANX3QGD QI R~> A.l 'HC~f 6-AWR kV Ca g~'3 )ADlfQ

tlat s Eddleman 81 Yancey St.

Durham, NC 27701-3152 3 'V.1986 Ph (919) 688-0076 Harold R. Denton Director Office of= Nuclear Reactor Regulation USNRC Mhshington DC 20555

Dear Harold. Denton,

This is in reference Co Carolina Power L Light's letter to you of g March, 1986, Serial NLS-86-053, requesting an exemption from the emergency preparedness exercise requirements of lo C.F.R. 50, Appendix E,Section IV.F.l to c onduct a full-participation emergency preparedness exercise within one year prior to issuance of the first 6psratinag.

License for full power and. prior to operation above 5 percent of rated power, for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant ("HArris" or SHNPP).

First, the delay in operation of Harris is entirely due to CPKLIs action in delaving the plant, which evidently stemmed from too-ophimisticm scheduling and inability Co comply with NRC requirements in a timely manner. CP8cL cannot claim that anything but their own failures and.

errors caused the delay.

Second, granting this exemption would violate my, and the general public Is, right to a hearing under section 189(a) of'he Atomic Energy Act, Q2 USC 2239(a), which provides "'...in an proceeding under this chapter for the granting, suspending, revok ng or amending of any license ... and in ~an proceeding for the issuance or modification of rules and regulations dealing with the activities of licensees the Commission shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose intezest may Se affected by the pzoceeding and shall admit any such person as a party to the proceeding." Since this exemption request is outside the licensing hearing procedures of the NRC, I hereby petition to intervene in this matter, which is effectively an amendment to the operating license application by request to remove a requirement of the NRC. The regulations governing the timing of full participation tests of emergency response plans are in place, and Applicants (CPSL for SHNPP) should not be allowed to change Che regulations by this end-run, which is illegal as a way to avoid a hearing. My interest is that I both live and work withe@ 30 miles of SHNPP and spend time in the EPZ while conducting my energy and environ-a mental consulting work as well; these interests are more fully set forth Pl<A ) in my petition to intervene in the Harris OL proceeding, Dkt 50-Jj00, IOO

<O Feb. 1982, which is incorporated by reference hereing to establish

)~ID my meeting the requirements to intervene under 10 CFR part 2, e.g. 2.71$ .

My interest in the proceeding ih to rebut Che false or misleading-Gl&

assertions of CPS' with regard Co this license amendment by request for exemption, and to protect the public health and safety, including OA IXI% my own and Chat of others dear to me. I assert further that the NRC has no right to grant this exemption on any economic ground since the OK Atomic Energy Act under thich the NRG apex'ates x squires NRC'o put pp IXIO L. health and safety first, and 5o author%sation is in Chat act fo r exemptions on grounds of cost. I Moreover, FEME has not zhaekeNmxnnR formall evaluated the corrections or corrective actions proposed for problems identified during the 1985 emergency planning exercise at SHNPP. FEMA officials have stated they could not evaluate the implementation of proposed corrective actI.ions uhtil the next full-participation exercise (5<<87) (2-11-86 conference call in NRC Dkt. 50-400; see Hells Eddleman~s Response to Summary Msposition on Contentions EPX-2 and 8, 2-18-86 at pp 2'-37. Besides, there is no NRC

IU

~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~

lh

0 finding that the Plans are adequate, a ~

and none can be made without fi.ndings which cannot be made without another 'full>>participation FEME.

exerci,se. (But even if NHC~s ASLB approves the plan, the arguments In Che first sentence of this paragraph, last page, remai.n valid and X stand on them).

CP8:L~s claimed '")ustification" for this exemption is specious or wrong in its aspect also. First, issuance of an operating license (10 CFH 50.57) is premised on complIance with the regulatIons. So by avoiding compliance with a regulation, that's a substantial amendment Co the operating license. Moreover, the request doep~ot meet part (a) of 10 CFR 50.12 >>- the requirement Chat there be noM~ azard. Xt doesn't say small hazard or minimal hazard, it says ("'No"~~Qq.zard. There's a hazard in 2 senses, first that FIRMA has not evalua%ecC formally the "fixes"'f deficiencies found by FEMA and others (including State of NC evaluatorsII during the past exercise, and second, there Is no assurance the respond is maintained, for nuclear emergencies, beyond one year, ability'o The rule so premises, I.e. that Che length of time for which 1C can be assumed, that the exercise remains amQ.Id measure of emergency response f'r nuclear accidents is at most one year.

it is still /~~~a 1"~kgg Moreover, CP8cg admits working on<3 improvement item'b "with Che goal of having them ready for NHC inspection'n t'une 1986".

The NRC's mandate in the atomi.c energy act Co put safety first means Chat CP8cL cannot claim any hazard is a "due" hazard (as distinct from the '"undue hazard" of 10 CFR 50.12(a));

NRC may not base its decision on activities CP8cL and others vill propose Co undertake (Exemption request p.2) either, because those Eave not happen'ed and vannot be assumed Co be successful. For example, 'in CP8cL's training of teachers, it was reqported that CP8cL represeritatives told Wake County teachers they would never have Co Implemerit the emergency plan (I.e. Chat no accident Chat serious would happen, appears to be the Chrust of the reported remakzrks). Moreover, only the "completed portions" of emergency plan training were found adequate by NRC. Xf training is not complete, how can the personnel be nuclear emergency?????

ready'or a

Radiological workshops (Exemption request, page 3) are also not evidently complete, so there is still a lack of training.

As noted above, the corrective actions by the State (CP8cL buries them in the end of'he last paragraph on part b of page 3 of their exemption request) cannot be formally reviewed. and evaluated by FEMA f'r effectiveness unt11 the next full-participation test.

Much of the training i.n part (c) on page 3 has also not taken place.

The planned exercises of Lee County and. CP8cL (bottom of page g) have also not yet taken place, apparently, and (or for CPLL drills, if It i.s not clear how many, any) offsite emergency response personnel will particip'ate. The drills in parts,(h) and (I), p.5, seem non-nuclear.

Hardship or costs: CP8cL assumes the public interest is reducIng theIr costs, but the increased cost is due to CP8cL~s own error in scheduling tpe origirial full-participation exercise and bei.ng unable to complete their nuclear plant in time Moreover, the dollar costs mentioned are riot that large, and NHC may not put costs above saf'ety even if were much larger (the costs not being large compared Co the cost of n'uclear the costs delays created by CP8cL, f'r example, which probably run over $ 500,000 a day). The relI8f requested Is NOT temporary (criterion (v), p.6) since the requirement only occurs prior to licensing. The exemption is there-

.fore permanent unless CP8cL flubs INC again and has to have a 3d exercise.

Criterion (Ui) p.7 is'P8cL~s si.lliest argument, X think. Xf'he.

second exercIse reveals new flaws, that Isn't redundant at all, and is it litigable under UCS v. NHC. Xf reveals the. same or similar flaws, It peag'gre~tivg s up ca ive 'ut action failed and this is also litigable, -"-'n'ot because because the dor rection failed. UCS v.'RC requires aws ound in the exerci e, and CP8cL must not avo~<d +>his requirement via "exemption" p/w Q~cu+5'~ ~~~

0 II I

1

~ ~

~ ~

lt t

~ I[

II I

CI

Wells Zddleman 812 Yancey St.

Durham NC 27701-3152 xc: -NRC Docketing and Service, 3x Richard E.'ones, VP h head of legal dept, CPSL Box 1551 Raleigh NC 27602 Tom Baxter, counsel for CPKL Shaw, Pittman Potts 5 Trowbridge 1800 M St Kf X Washingtoh DC'0036

0 e ~ V L

I II A f'p p ~c ~

'I -g C

I

~ p