ML20212G307

Attachments to 870108 Discussion/Possible Vote on Full Power OL for Facility

ML20212G307
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	01/08/1987
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
Shared Package
ML20212G305	List: ML20212G302 ML20212G307
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8701200051
Download: ML20212G307 (6)

Text

MW9MfV6hWWWGVfVfMfMWAW9MWWWGMcM;m4gyggggggggigg TRANSMITTAL TO:

Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips f fg $7

. ADVANCED COPY TO: 'k The Public Document Room gj DATE: I //1.fU I

/

3 :' SEGY Correspondence & Records Branch FROM:

3:

3:

3 3::

3 Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting 3i document (s). They are being fonvarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and l

~

jj, .

placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or required.

30 .

! Meeting

Title:

D d e wNon 0% C Uok on O yM b o,t t d k , l 2 b M t- E b en N @ r14 3

5! Meeting Date: 1 K 17 Open [ Closed 3l 3

3  ::

3: Copies 3i Item Description *: '

3 Advanced DCS

• 8 S :j to POR g ,

3 .

3 -

1 1 3! 1. TRANSCRIPT S

3 I. .

SchAul ,

Nde.51, S

i b$+ mucuAs i

3 Si:. 2. Shrush N.C. Afhi ser' '

/ 1 3

3 ! Ada ihin sm '

E 3. c,+Ao k . G T n <. % v I I m  :

Ql AdeA tlsle'7, S! 4. Odae. of PresedA ulals .

i I 3 ..

5[ t=D) w sn k}ek 11) sole &

g~ l l

@ d e r fr N Q f k l H alts 9 a: u.a.ut,in

/

3:

b !! 6.

3 3 -l. l 3 -:

$!

• POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.

33 C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, withcut SECY jj papers.

3l 8701200051 87 120

--- --- a/R6 -

gd MMMMnnnnnnnnnnnrWW&WW&MMYMY&&&&MYW&MMMM&MYli

s, 4 r

).c i .

EPTING AND HACKNEY ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLOR 5 AT LAW 214 W. ROSEMARY STREET F.O. DRAWER 1329 CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 EOBEET EFTING TELEPHONI 929-0323 JOE HACKNEY AREA CODE 919

'"#^"'" "#'"

January 4, 1987 Mr. Robert McOsker Office of the Secretary UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1717 H Street N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. McOsker:

Ms. Barbara Downey in the offices of the Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris called and relayed to me your request that summaries of the remarks of those who will appear on behalf of the intervenors at the hearing now scheduled for Janaury 8, 1987, regarding the licensing of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant by the Commission, be forward to you.

Enclosed is a copy of the remarks I plan to make in that regard at the hearing. I am sorry that I could not transmit these to you sooner. However, with the press of the holiday season, I have only just received your request through Ms.

Downey.

With kind personal regards, I remain Very truly yours, T. 4

,~

R ert Epthng

.m -~

/

~

1 '

i,N 3 V'

i -

i

Eg .

~- "i . .

1 '

EPTING AND HACKNEY ATTORNEY 5 AND CoUN5ELLoR5 AT LAW 214 W. ROSEMARY STREET P.O. DRAWER I329 CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 ROBERT EFTING TELEPHONE 9N 0323 AREA CODE 919 JOE I]L CKNEY

"^""'^"

January 4, 1987 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1717 H Street N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Summary of Remarks of Robert Epting before the Conmission at Hearing to Consider Full Power Licensing of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Scheduled for January 8, 1987

Dear Sirs:

I write to summarize the remarks I expect to make on behalf of the Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris before the Commission at its hearing, presently scheduled for January 8, 1987, to consider full power licensing of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, herein referred to as "SHNPP." In the event that I am unable to attend this meeting, I would ask that these remarks be made a part of the record of that meeting of the Commission.

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 making 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 agencies' own regulations. The Commission's delay in ruling on this request and the various objections filed by intervenors and the elected public officials of North Carolina's state and local governments, especially in view of che record of Applicant's inability to complete the plant in accordance with its announced and published schedules, suggests that the Commission desires for some reason to diminish the opportunity for appellate review of its decision prior to full power operation of the SHNPP.

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION January 4, 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 by the exercise completed some nineteen months ago have in fact been made, and without any indication that the plan and its personnel and equipment components are in fact currently adequate to offer 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 effort 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 App 1! cant'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 the 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 timely judicial review of its action in that regard.

k '

)

UNITED STATE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION January 4, 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 unjustified.

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 f; "ection 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 reports have been provided, nor have I, the informant or the Intervenors been provided with any information as to what has been found as a result of that 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, that 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 determi-nation of the impact of those allegations upon safety of the SHNPP.

P 4

• b UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION January 4, 1987 Page Four 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 constructing 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.

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

And, we request that further consideration of 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.

l l Thank you for your due consideration of these matters.

l i

Ver ruly-y rs, o ert Eptig' I

/ l

.