Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-29-2007-MEETING PROPOSED AGENDA Assembly of Governments March 29, 2007 7:30 -10:00 PM Southern Human Services Center Chapel Hill, NC Call to Order and Introductions I Sustainable Economic Development a. Update on EDC Strategic Plan and Overview of Work Plan for 2007-2008 b. Discussion of Economic Development throughout the County 2) Sustaining and Maintaining Affordable Housing 3) Shearon Harris Update 4) Future School Site Collaboration/Placements/Land-Banking ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 29, 2007 SUBJECT: Assembly of Governments Discussion Items DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: As noted in "Background" section Laura Blackmon, 245-2300 PURPOSE: To discuss topics of mutual interest among the governing boards of Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough. 1) Sustainable Economic Development a. Update on EDC Strategic Plan and Overview of Work Plan for 2007-2008 In 2005, the Orange County Economic Development Commission completed its five-year strategic plan, Investing in Innovation. The plan has been endorsed by the Orange County Board of Commissioners, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, the Chapel Hill Town Council, and the Hillsborough Town Board, as well as by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce and the Hillsborough/Orange County Chamber of Commerce. Dianne Reid, Orange County Economic Development Director, will provide a brief update on where efforts currently stand with the strategic plan, the goals for the year for the four plan workgroups, and the other goals of the Economic Development Commission (see attachment). Attachment 1— Economic Development Commission 2007-08 Priorities b. Discussion of Economic Development throughout the County As requested by Carrboro Alderman Joal Hall Broun, Dianne Reid will also provide an overview and update on the County's three Economic Development Districts. Other Town staff or Board members may provide additional information on their economic development goals, followed by an open discussion of: Do the goals align? Are there ways of strengthening relationships between the County and Towns in pursuit of common goals? • It appears that each town wholly within Orange County will soon have an elected representative sifting on the Economic Development Commission; can this body serve as a central clearinghouse for information about economic development? • What are the most effective ways to engage the private sector in economic development? • Other issues as desired. No Attachments 2) Sustaining and Maintaining Affordable Housing The Orange Community Housing and Land Trust recently completed an a with of the viability of the current land trust model and the challenges the organization faces with long-term maintenance of land trust properties. The results of this analysis indicate the need to revise the model to ensure the long-term maintenance and subsequent sustainability of these affordable housing properties. Attached is a more detailed memorandum from Robert Dowling and a summary of the findings of this analysis provided as background for discussion of this topic. Attachment 2 — 1— 3120107 Robert Dowling Memo to Assembly of Governments Attachment 2 — 2 — December 2006 Orange Community Housing and Land Trust Quarterly Status Report 3) Shearon Harris Update The citizens and elected officials of Orange County have, for some years, been aware of the potential for widespread and lethal consequences resulting from an airborne release of the tremendous quantity of radioactive material available from the spent nuclear fuel stored in Shearon Harris nuclear power plant's "temporary" waste storage pools. While the southernmost portion of Orange County is approximately 15 miles north of Shearon Harris, all of the County lies within the 50 mile radius "ingestion pathway" around the plant - as does a large portion of the heavily populated area of central North Carolina (approximately 2,000,000 individuals). Orange County governments and citizens have been very vocal about concerns related to those safety and security issues at the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant that could lead to an incidentinvolving a significant airborne release of nuclear waste materials. During the period of late -1998 through mid-2002, Orange County's concerns led it to work with other local governments to challenge, through a quasi-judicial proceeding known as an "Intervention" with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the plans of Progress Energy/CP&L to expand the use of the Shearon Harris fuel storage pools. In spite of the best efforts of the County and its consultants and allies, the NRC approved the plans of Progress Energy/CP&L. Orange County governments have recognized the potential consequences of an airborne release of nuclear materials, given a combination of circumstances including existing population densities, known problems with traffic gridlock under non-emergency conditions and the lack of overall coordination in emergency management, response and evacuation planning between Progress Energy/CP&L and local law enforcement/emergency management personnel. Orange County has, on several * occasions, tried to raise this issue and these concerns with Progress Energy/CP&L and with government officials on the national,, state and local level. At a September 2006 Assembly of Governments (AOG) meeting of elected officials from Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough, Orange ' County indicated its intent to renew its efforts to convince Progress Energy/CP&L and appropriate state and federal agencies (the NC Utilities Commission, Department of Crime Control & Public Safety and others; and the US Department of Homeland Security, Environmental Protection Agency and others) to work with all of the elected, law enforcement and emergency management/response officials within the 50 mile radius ingestion zone to develop comprehensive and effective emergency response and evacuation plans. On a separate track, the local governments of Orange County were advised of longstanding issues with the fire protection and safety at the Shearon Harris facility. Specifically, the plant has experienced at least one very serious fire and has a history of prevalent non-compliance with NRC-promulgated fire safety standards and regulations. Given that approximately 50% of the risks of catastrophic nuclear plant failure are associated with fire-related accidents (as calculated by the NRC), the-local governments of Orange County have expressed a high level of concern and alarm at learning of the Harris plant * 's shortcomings in this area. Orange County has been involved in an exchange of letters, resolutions, teleconferences, etc. with the NRC and Progress Energy/CP&L in support of the NC Waste Awareness and Reduction Network (NCWARN), the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Nuclear Information and Research Service, NC Fair Share and Students United for a Responsible Global Environment in their emergency petition to the NRC to compel Progress Energy/CP&L to immediately correct all of the fire safety violations at the Shearon Harris facility. Furthermore, Orange County and other local and state government officials have tried unsuccessfully to this point to ' convince the NRC and Progress Energy/CP&L officials to attend public forums to discuss the issues of fire protection and extending the emergency planning zone to the 50 mile radius ingestion area. Subsequent to the September 2006 AOG meeting, the Town of Chapel Hill tried to set up a public forum discussion involving those organizations who filed an NRC complaint relative to the Shearon Harris fire and safety issues. The forum would have included local public officials and citizens and Progress Energy/CP&L. Progress Energy/CP&L declined to participate and plans for the forum were abandoned. As of this date, the NRC has refused to consider Orange County's request to expand the safety planning zone around the Shearon Harris plant absent the presentation of technical data developed by state and local law enforcement and emergency management officials showing why the existing 10 -mile safety zone should be expanded. The NRC has also ruled against NCWARN, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Nuclear Information and Research Service, NC Fair Share and Students United for a Responsible Global Environment in their emergency petition for the NRC to compel Progress Energy/CP&L to immediately correct all of the fire safety violations at the Shearon Harris facility. The NRC has agreed to evaluate the petition's allegations of fire protection shortcomings at Shearon Harris. -NC State Senators Ellie Kinnard and Janet Cowell have sponsored a forum on Shearon Harris fire and safety issues, which scheduled to occur at Fearrington Village in Chatham County. Both Progress Energy/CP&L officials and NRC officials have been invited, though NRC officials have formally declined to participate. Local government officials may want to consider additional strategies to convince or compel the NRC and Progress Energy/CP&L to address the fire and safety issues at Shearon Harris. Attachment 3 — I — 10116106 Letter with Resolutions from BOCC Clerk to Attorney John Runkle Attachment 3 — 2 — 10116106 Letter with Resolutions from BOCC Clerk to Luis Reyes/NRC Attachment 3 — 3 — 11127106 Letter from BOCC Chair to Doug Pickett/NRC Attachment 3 — 4 — 11130106 Letter from BOCC Chair to C. S. HinnantlProgress Energy Attachment 3 — 5 — 12112106 Letter from C. S. HinnantlProgress Energy to BOCC Vice Chair Attachment 3 — 6 — 12119106 NRC Memo Summarizing November 13, 2006 Public Meeting Attachment 3 — 7 — 12127106 Letter from Timothy McGinty/NRC to BOCC Chair Attachment 3 —18 — 312107 Letter from BOCC Chair to Dale Klein/NRC Attachment 3 — 9 — 319107 Letter from Annette Vietti-Cook to BOCC Chair Attachment 3 — 10 — 3119107 Letter from Dale Klein/NRC to BOCC Chair Attachment 3 — 11— 1214106 Letter from J.E. Dyer /NRC to Attorney John Runkle Attachment 3 — 12 — 11127106 Letter from Timothy McGinty /NRC to BOCC Clerk Attachment 3 — 13 — 9118106 Memo from County Engineer Attachment 3 — 14 — Nuclear Safety Engineer Comments Relative to NRC Safety Standards 4) Future School Site Collaboration/Placements/Land-Banking The County/Schools Collaboration Work Group (a group composed of the chair and vice chairs of Orange County and both school districts) has asked the board chairs to forward a letter to the mayors of the County municipalities detailing a more formal process of school site collaboration. School site `land banking' includes identifying properties and purchasing them, in advance, for long-term school site needs. In this manner, all parties, local governments and the school districts can employ 'smart growth' locational and infrastructure criteria to proactively site future schools. A draft of the letter from the board chairs to the mayors is attached and will be forthcoming upon pon approval by the County Board and the two School Boards. The Chapel Hill Carrboro Schools Board of Education has already reviewed the letter and authorized the Board Chair to proceed. The County Board of Commissioners will review the letter at the Board's March 27, 2007 regular meeting. And the Orange County Schools Board of Education will be reviewing the letter in the near future. Attachment 4 — Draft Letter from BOCC Chair and School Board Chairs to Mayors Regarding School Site Collaboration FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact associated with discussion of these topics. There are no action items requiring formal Board decisions. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Boards discuss the topics listed and provide appropriate direction to the respective staffs. � i Economic Development Commission 2007-08 Priorities EDC Mission: Our purpose i8tO make Orange County G smart, innovative place —@ great place in which to live and VVn[k. We encourage public-private investments to provide jobs for county residents and to increase the non-residential tax base. Through these investments, VVe enhance the financial well-being and quality of life ofcounty residents, and the ability of their |OC@| governments to provide high-quality Gen/iC88. Five Year Goal (from Investing in Innovation: Orange County Economic Development commission Five-Year Strategic Plan: 2005-2010): To create 5.00O new private sector jobs in Orange County and add $125,000,000 in new commercial property by June 2010. Business-focused Strategies: Business Climate Goal: Public private partnerships will have kJOned to create @ GtFVOge[ business climate and Orange CoVDh/ will have @ clear set of gUide|iDes, e18Od8nds and procedures designed to sustain and nurture existing businesses, encourage entrepreneurship, and attract targeted employers Current Year Oboectives: • Get Commissioner buy-in for desirable businesses iD.EQDS (Highest priority — will bring preliminary list Oftargeted businesses to Anh| 12 work session) • Continue more tOVVgFd CBDt[a| permitting /High priority — will bring plans and potential budget inOp|iC8tiODG to April 12 work session) • Review regulations governing nodes, EDDs, Rural Economic Development Areas /High priority --work underway on Eno ED[J' some aspects of BVckhOrD E[)[J' review of current land use in existing nodes, potential conditional use permitting — will provide update tOBoard gt April 12 work session) • Approach other governments regarding desirable businesses (Medium Priority — undertake late in Fiscal Year) . • Monthly recognition of businesses (Medium Priority — Begin in August 2007) Infrastructure Goal: Infrastructure will be in place to support the DOuOh/e economic deV8|Op[OeDt goals of iDCFg8siDg the ConnnnaFCi@| tax base and retaining and attracting targeted businesses. Current Year Obiectives: • Pursue water/sewer for Eno ED[} (Highest priority —work underway through Eno EDD Work GnJVp, partnership with Durham to complete engineering plans for m/gstevV8te[ system to serve the area. VVO[k group recommendations will address timetable and process; budget implications to be addressed at that time. • Expand oe|| COVeFoge (High priority — continue xvO[k with Planning, EMS. C8|| providers) • Expand high speed OebmOrh (High priority —will be focus of Infrastructure Work Group during GpFin8/aU[O[OBr) N/orkeF'fbCu8ad8tra/aoiey: Workforce Development Goal: Effective systems will beiD place tO train and support residents and those who work in Orange County. Ad least 75 percent Of new jobs iDthe COUOh/ — h}rbOthneVVand expanding businesses — will b8 filled by county residents. Current Year Obiectives: • Compile information on occupational projections — COOfiFrn with employers (High priority — focus of Workforce Development Work Group throughout the year) • Work with l]TCC OO curriculum deV8|opnl8Ot /High priority — information from projections will feed into curriculum development process) • Build relationships with both public school sVSterDs — exp|OFe model program with |OCa| employer(s) /W18diuOO priority —Chambers of Commerce are taking the lead; Workforce Development Work Group will support current efforts) Quality of Place Goal: Orange County will have thriving partnerships ensuring that the county is a great place b] live and work, attracting and retaining the creative co[O[OVOit» of innovators, artists and civic leaders that will drive the desired economy. * Reestablish committee with focus on collaborative efforts to build DoDOnnUnU»' support arts and CU|bJ[g, and celebrate diversity /High phorhv — VVinkie LaFDrce' Executive Director ofLeadership Triangle and JOOVVi|Oe[. Executive Director of the AFtGCeDte[. have agreed to co-chair the VVO[k Group and help refocus its efforts) 0 Enhance the uniqueness of area to continue attracting creative/entrepreneurial individuals while support those already here (Priority to be determined as VVo[h Group proceeds) Research Goal: TO conduct research required for innovative economic development Current Year Ob'ectives: • Complete feasibility study for regional value-added agricultural processing facility /High priority -- $9.500 committed to date from Weaver Street, VVho|e[OOds. and /U60OGnCG' Chatham and Durham Counties. Cost of study ie$15.00O. Will bring contract forward for B[}CC approval oO March 13\ • Investigate retail development opportunities within county (High priority — Given the explosive growth just 8Cn]ss border in DU[harO' A|3OlaDCe and Chatham, there is significant leakage of retail dollars from {][@Oge COUDtv — ConveDe task force in Fall 2007) • Complete an inventory ofcommercial space and |gDd in the county /High priority —vvorhVVith tax office to identify all existing commercial space; may require intern to complete) • Explore development regulations requiring CODl0OGrni8| developers to provide affordable space aS part of approval process (Medium priority —inte[netresearch project to be completed by December 2OO7\ • Explore viability Of |GUd GVVGps to open large , underutilized property for development (Medium priority — iOt8rOet and economic daVe|Op[neDt list S8n/e project to be connp|8tedby December 2OO7\ * Create comprehensive business data b8S9 (Low priority — would require large commitment of existing staff time, probably interns as vve||' reexamine goal for next year) Retention and Business Development Goal: To encourage business development in Orange County through entrepreneurship, business retention, and recruitment. Entrepreneurship: Current Year Objectives: Partner with UNC to explore creation of early seed fund and support technology transfer (High priority — Secure formal support for EDC strategic plan by March 2007; work with UNC Associate Vice Chancellor for Economic Development on plan to help retain spinoff ventures) Develop seminars for aspiring entrepreneurs (Low priority — many agencies currently offer such programs, continue to refer individuals) Retention and Recruitment: Current Year Obiectives: • Ensure that EDC is aware of upcoming space needs of existing businesses (High priority — enhance partnerships to provide advance information) • Focus on expansion of medium-sized industrial/manufacturing businesses (High priority — with partners, meet regularly with existing businesses to assist in their expansion plans) • Work with economic development partners and developers to position Orange County as a preferred location for identified desirable businesses (High priority — this is a multi-year effort; during upcoming year, establish strong network) • Establish business (including farm) visitation program with volunteers (Medium priority — in 2007-08, focus on industrial /manufacturing businesses, farms with high growth potential) • Expand Orange County Business Expo to include smaller and home-based businesses (Medium priority — expand volunteer base and rely on partners to achieve goal) • Buy Local campaign with business-to-business component, government purchasing preference (Medium priority — Multi-year goal, in 2007-08 explore model programs via internet, list serve research; bring proposal to BOCC by Spring 2008) • Explore UNCs program for historically underutilized businesses (Medium priority — Develop relationship with HUB office, work with partners to market program to local business owners) • Create Farm Linkage program (Medium priority — Continue work with group of volunteers to develop a program to aid immigrants with agricultural background and others interested in forming farm ventures; may be combined with farm incubator program) Marketing of Successes Goal: To make both internal and external audiences aware that "Orange County is open for business" Current Year Obiectives: • Close one (or more) small business loans through Orange County Small Business Loan Program (Highest priority — Proposal for revamping program to be presented to BOCC at March 13 meeting) * Complete snl8U area planning VVn[k for Eno ED[}, CO[Oe|iWG Street/Highway 70' speedway area /High priority — COnlp|oie at |e8S[ one positive change in each area iO2OO7-O8\ • Help plan and produce SUCC8sGf4| ninth 4mhcVkUF8| GUnOOnit /High priority — Summit tObe held OD February 13\ • Complete zoning changes for Agricultural Support Enterprises /High priority — Contact staff Of planning partners in F|UrG| Buffer in February, VvO[k with Planning and ERCD staff to bring forward final proposal 8G part Of April 12work s8sSiOD\ • Review development potential in designated nodes within the COunh/ (High priority — VVO[k with Planning staff to review existing |@Od Use' make recommendations for changing standards by Fall 2OO7) • [|e|ebngt8 opening Of Hi||Gbon1uQh Farmers Market; explore opportunity for another market somewhere within the county /High priority — Working with partners, increase sales opportunities for local farmers) • Assist in at least one major bUSiOe8G expansion project /High priority — Currently working with manufacturing concern negotiating purchase of facility within the COUOh/'cODtiD�����[t8Od��|��ngt�itGSU����S\ ''. ' • Complete branding exercise (Low priority because of expense; rely on vvO[h of others) EDC Board Goals: To enhance the effectiveness Of the Economic Development Commission Board. Current Year Obffiectives: • Participate actively iO the update of the County's Comprehensive Plan; oversee completion of economic development element for plan /High priority — Six E3OB[d members attended the initial joint Advisory Boards meeting; this will be a monthly rOeEdiOg ihBrD until work iScompleted) • Develop |8Od Use primer/training pnOgrGDl so that all EDC DlGrnbg[8 fV||V understand basic |8Od Use terms and principles /High priority — Training to be held at March 8EDCmeeting) • Host presentations from economic developers from neighboring counties, towns within Orange .County (High priority — Invite development staff to talk about their initiatives and priorities at regular E[JC meetings throughout the year) • Seek greater participation from Chapel Hill and Cg[[boroe|ected boards /High pFioritv— Hi||GbVnJuQh has an elected official serving as a member; the Board Chair will seek similar commitment from other towns) • Include E[]C members in planning for Business Expo, particularly in obtaining sponsorships (High priority — Board Secretary will take lead in securing additional financial support from area businesses) • Hold periodic field trips/tours to acquaint members with UDh3Oli|iar areas of the county (Medium priority — Boo8US8 of work involved, probably hold only one trip per year) • Conduct county tOU[ with UNC/8|ected officials (Lowest priority — Very labor intensive, only undertake if time permits) EDC Staff Goals: To position EDCstaff as leaders iO Investing in Innovation Current Year Oboectives: w Reestablish and operate Gnn8U Business Loan PrOg[G[D (Highest priority as discussed above in Marketing section) w Continue to alter the Bt8b3 of the Local Economy PBpO[t and presentation to reflect pressing coFDnnUOitv issues /High phO[ih/ — |got y88[' elected Offioi@|S presented information OO projects within their jurisdiction; this year, the BOCC chair and educators will discuss future development challenges and the preparation oJ tomorrows' labor force) • Send Director's Economic Development Report tothe E[]C board in advance Of meetings and Dl8k8 SU[e BC]CC receives all F8pO[tG (High priority — Start immediately) • []eV8|Op online and printed "how to" guide for businesses /High priority — Complete guide by Fall 2OO7\ • COO[iOUe move towards predeVe|OpOnent facilitation/central permitting (High priority 8S discussed above iD Business Climate goal) • Overhaul VV8bGite /High priority — Most searches for where to locate businesses begin with the web; in order iobe competitive, the EDC must upgrade its current web presence; this effort may require gO outside consultant) • Plan for DlnVg to new county c8DlpUG (High priority — Work with other -departments toensure efficient space design for land services agencies; 0OVe anticipated in Summer 2008; probable budget implications for F`f2OO8-O9) • Work with NCGU and Other county agencies to develop p|@O for Breeze F8[[O /High priO[ity — T'he cnUDf« and NC State University are jointly preparing a plan for the Breeze Farm property; concept plans will be presented to the BOCC at February 12 VVork session) • Add Eat Local section, farmer pages, and farm land 3V8i|8b|e to Orange County Farms VVebSite /High priority — GS with the EC)C web site' needs work; the new sections will be added by F3|| 2008) * FzVrCh@Se new C]|S workstation/connect to Permits p|UG (High priority — In OnAe[ to have access to all the layers now available through the county's land records system, EDC needs a new COnOpU[ar; propose to purchase system with earned iOoODlB) • Host, meeting for and with cODlOOe[cia| [ea|torS to refine syste0R of listing commercial property on EDC web site and ensure that information is current and continuously updated /High priority — K8e8bOg will be scheduled for late Spring 2007) w GeCU[e marketing guidance/support to get out message that Orange County is "open for business" (Low priority — Will require outside consultants; sense that we should focus oO success this year, consider marketing in future years) • Expand the hours Of AorioU|tU[@| Economic Development Coordinator (Low priority —Will require additional financial commitment from County; VVV[k toward this goal iOFY2OO8-0Q\ • Pursue certification of EDC as "Accredited Economic Development Organization" (k8gdiVnl priOrity— BeC@USS of the time COrD[OitrOeDt required to accomplish this, suggestion that we tackle if time p8[[Oit8 in current year) A#0JAMC,-1J 0? . r " Date: March 20, 2007 a; To: The Assembly of Governments From: Robert Dowling r Re: Success of the Land Trust ORANGE Orange Community Housing and Land Trust (the Land Trust) has been developing COMMUNITY homes using the community land trust model since June 2000. This model of HOUSING & LAND TRUST conveying homes using a 99 -year ground lease is unconventional, but it offers the best long -term assurance that land and homes will remain under community control and off the private market. As most of you know, the number of homes in the Land Board of Directors Trust has grown significantly in the past five years, largely as a result of the Town Marceia Blake Council's inclusionary housing policies. Chair Gary Giles Vice Chair Today, with 125 homes in the Land Trust, the staff and board of directors have a far Gordon Merklein better understanding of how the model works than we did five years ago. We also Secretary recognize how the model can be strengthened. Strengthening the model, so that it Jim Tucker will be successful in the long run for both low- income homeowners and the Treasurer surrounding community is the reason we will be addressing the Assembly of Governments. Mary Bratsch John: Cooper This effort began in March 2006 when the board established the asset management Laurin Easthon: Sabrina Farrar committee, which is comprised of four board members and three staff. The asset Valerie Foushee management committee reviewed the sale and re -sale of every Land Trust home. Michael Hansen Analyzing the data from the 28 homes that have resold taught us a great deal about Dwayne Pinlntey how the model is working and allowed us to project how it would work in the future. Katherine Reynolds Mary Jean Seyda We also recognized the challenges of long -term maintenance for low - income Alex Zaffron homeowners. We realized that the existing ground lease did not adequately address Robert Dowling maintenance, which could well become a problem in the future. The committee Executive Director recommended revisions to the model that would address both long -term maintenance Funding Provided by: and affordability. Those revisions were subsequently approved by the board. Town of Chapel Hill Orange County We would like to review this new model and the financial challenges the organization Town of Carrboro faces as we embark on a second phase of growth, a phase that will include substantial Town of Hillsborough numbers of condominium units. The Land Trust board recognizes that for this model to be successful, our homes must remain affordable and well- maintained over time. We also recognize that the success of inclusionary housing in Orange County is PO Box 307 largely dependent upon our success and the success of our model. 104 JonesFerry Road Suite C We are entirely committed to making the Land Trust model successful for generations Carrboro, NC 27510 to come, but we will need your help. We look forward to providing you with as much 919.967.1545 information as you need to understand the challenges we face and our responses to Fax 919.968.4030 those challenges. www.ochli.org Orange Community Housing and Land Trust Quarterly Status Report December 2006 In March 2006 the board of directors appointed an Asset Management committee to analyze how our model was working. The committee consisted of 4 board members, including 1 homeowner, and 3 staff members. The committee gathered data on every Land Trust home sold since inception. We placed particular focus on homes that had resold to determine affordability trends. After eight months of analysis, projections and discussions about underlying philosophies, the committee made the following conclusions: 1. The current model was causing homes to become more affordable relative to home prices, but because HUD income limits are not increasing, our homes are becoming less affordable to our buyer population, 2. The current model does not require or encourage homeowners to maintain their homes because homeowners only receive 20% - 25% of appreciation when they sell. Long -term affordability is achieved at the expense of long -term maintenance. The Land Trust board recognizes that for this model to be successful, our homes must remain affordable and well - maintained over time. We believe it would be detrimental to inclusionary housing policies if Land Trust homes were to deteriorate and to be viewed as being responsible for declines in property values. Maintenance of big- ticket items like HVAC systems and roofs pose a significant financial challenge for all low- income homeowners. These challenges are exacerbated for Land Trust homeowners who do not reap the same financial rewards when they sell their homes. Because they forego most of the appreciation, their homes remain affordable to future generations of low - income buyers. The larger community benefits from this equity sharing arrangement. To address the affordability and maintenance challenges, we have drafted a revised model that includes the following components: 1. Our resale formula will be revised such that homeowners are guaranteed a 1.5% annual return on their property. This is slightly lower than the 1.67% that our home - sellers have averaged until now. 2. The Land Trust will begin collecting a monthly stewardship fee from every new homeowner. These funds will be dedicated to replacing five big- ticket items in each home: roofs, HVAC systems, hot water heaters, exterior painting and flooring. This fee will vary depending on the type of unit. 3. We will manage these stewardship fees and be responsible for the maintenance of these five capital items. We will also take on the property management responsibilities of homeowner associations. These additional responsibilities will require additional operating funds that will enable us to hire a property manager. 4. We will revise the lease such that typical maintenance, like cleaning carpets and painting dingy walls is the responsibility of the homeowner. We believe these changes to the ground lease will enable our homes to remain affordable and well maintained far into the future. However these measures alone will not be sufficient to keep our existing inventory of homes affordable and well maintained without additional funding. Based on our analysis and our projections, we will need $3.1 million over the next 25 years to keep all 125 homes affordable and well maintained. About one -half of the $3.1 million results from the accrual of deferred maintenance across the current inventory. Until those homes resell into the new model, that accrual will continue, without funds being set aside for maintenance. The other half results from some homes becoming unaffordable (such as the 2BR units at the Greenway Condominiums in Meadowmont) and the need for subsidy to allow for the monthly maintenance fee. We recognize that $3.1 million is a lot of money and we don't expect a solution will reveal itself in the short term. If the local governments approve, we can obtain funding to meet our short-term needs through the CDBG and HOME programs as well as from County bond funds. We expect to meed approximately $235,000 to address affordability issues in 2007. This amount is due mostly to the 2BR Greenway units. Our projection for 2008 is only $78,000. As the executive director, who has served since prior to the organization's conversion to the community land trust model, I would like to offer my sincere regret that this model is not working as well as we had planned. The original steering committee and board of directors, and I, recognized that maintenance would be problematic, but we were unable to devise a workable solution. We simply didn't understand the model well enough. Today, thanks to the efforts of the Asset Management Committee, we understand the model far better. In fact, we believe we can now see the future, and if we do not alter the model, then Land Trust homes will deteriorate over time and some will become unaffordable. Unfortunately, revising the model will not be enough. Funding will be necessary if we want the model to be successful at providing decent, well - maintained homes that will be affordable to future generations of low- income individuals and families. With adequate funding, I believe our Land Trust will be in a position to establish a new national standard for affordable housing sustainability. Thank you for your support and your commitment to integrating affordable housing units into new residential developments. 2 BARRYJACOBS, CHAIR ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS .SMPHE'NH. HALPGOT/S, VICE-CHAIR JR MOSES CAREY, POST OFFICE BOX 8 181 VALERIE P. FOUSHEE 200 SOUTH CAMERON STREET AUCEM. GORDON HIL.L.SBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 October 16, 2006 Mr. John Runkle Attorney at Law P.O. Box 3793 Chapel Hill, N.C. 27515 Gcx'r "e', 3—.L - :.7 \e, RE: Petition for Emergency Enforcement Action Pursuant to 10 CFR §2.206 — Suspension of Operating License No. NPF -63 for Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Until Recurring Fire Protection Issues are Brought Into Compliance Dear Mr. Runkle, The Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, at its October 3, 2006 regular board meeting, adopted the enclosed resolutions entitled "A Resolution Calling for Coordinated Emergency Management and Evacuation Planning Within the 50 -Mile Radius Ingestion Pathway for Potential Discharge of Airborne Nuclear Waste Material from the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant" and "A Resolution In Support of an Emergency Petition to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the NC Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Nuclear Information and Research Service, NC Fair Share and Students United for a Responsible Global Environment Seeking Regulatory Action by the Commission to Enforce Existing Fire Protection Standards and Regulations Applicable to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant." If you have any questions, please call Barry Jacobs, Chair of the Board of County Commissioners, at (919 732 -4941. Sincer ly, Donna S. Ba er, CIVIC Clerk to the Board WWW.CO. ORANGE NC.US PROTECTING AND PRESERVING -PEOPLE, RESOURCES,, QUALI7Y OF LIFE ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA - YOU COUNT! (9 19) 2452130 • FAX (919) 644 -0246 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF CONMUSSIONERS A Resolution In Support of an Emergency Petition to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the NC Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Nuclear Information and Research Service, NC Fair Share and Students United for a Responsible Global Environment Seeking Regulatory Action by the Commission to Enforce Existing Fire Protection Standards and Regulations Applicable to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has a long and well - established practice of advocating for any and all activities that would promote the public health, safety and welfare, particularly in regard to feasible threats to that health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, approximately 50 percent of the risks of catastrophic nuclear plant failure are associated with fire- related accidents, as calculated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners also have a long and well- established record of concern regarding security and safety issues at the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant, related to the potential magnitude and catastrophic consequences of a nuclear power plant fire leading to an airborne release of nuclear waste materials; and WHEREAS, information has recently been presented to the Board of County Commissioners as to ongoing problems with fire safety and fire protection practices at the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant; and WHEREAS, Progress Energy /CP &L has indicated that it will apply to the NRC for permission to take up to nine more years to bring the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant into compliance with fire safety standards and regulations; and WHEREAS, Progress Energy /CP &L has indicated that it will apply to the NRC for a twenty -year extension of its operating license for the Shearon Harris plant while the plant is not in compliance with existing fire safety standards and regulations; and WHEREAS, Progress Energy /CP &L has indicated that it is in the process of evaluation of permitting, designing and constructing two nuclear power reactors at the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant while the existing plant is not in compliance with existing fire safety standards and regulations; NOW, THEREFORE, do we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, hereby resolve to support the petition of the NC Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Nuclear Information and Research Service, NC Fair Share and Students United for a Responsible Global Environment to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission asking that the NRC compel Progress Energy /CP &L to immediately bring the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant into compliance with existing federal fire safety standards and regulations applicable to nuclear power plants. This is the 3rd day of October, 2006 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A Resolution Calling for Coordinated Emergency Management and Evacuation Planning Within the 50 -Mile Radius Ingestion Pathway for Potential Discharge of Airborne Nuclear Waste Material from the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has a long and well - established practice of advocating for any and all activities that would . promote the public health, safety and welfare, particularly in regard to feasible threats to that health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has a long and well- established record of concern and activism related to the potential magnitude and catastrophic consequences of an airborne release of nuclear waste materials from the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant; and WHEREAS, information developed within the least eight years has demonstrated the vulnerability of spent nuclear fuel to combustion with ensuing airborne release and dispersion of extremely harmful and dangerous nuclear waste material as a consequence of accident or sabotage/ terrorism; and WHEREAS, there. exists an area of a ten -mile radius around the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant for which there are in place emergency management and evacuation plans. of debatable efficacy in case of a catastrophic accident and airborne release of nuclear waste material from the plant; and WHEREAS, an airborne release of nuclear material may stem from an uncontrollable event of several days or greater duration that would affect at least all of the fifty -mile radius ingestion pathway area; and WHEREAS, the fifty -mile radius ingestion pathway around the Shearon Harris plant contains approximately two million persons, the state capital, Fort Bragg, the Research Triangle, four major universities and a number of smaller universities, hundreds of public and private schools, thousands of businesses, dozens of local government jurisdictions; millions of pets, and a rich natural environment; and WHEREAS, there is no coordinated emergency management and evacuation planning for the portion of the ingestion pathway beyond the area defined by the ten -mile radius around Shearon Harris; and SARRY✓ACOSS, CHAIR ORANGE COUNTY BOARD .OF COMMISSIONERS STEPHENH. HALKU0775, VICE -CHAIR JR MOSES CAREY, POST OFFICE BOX 8 181 VALERIE P. FOUSHEE 200 SOUTH CAMERON STREET ALlCEM. GORDON HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 October 16, 2006 Luis A. Reyes Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 -0001 art e at!� RE: Petition for Emergency Enforcement Action Pursuant to 10 CFR §2.206 — Suspension of Operating License No. NPF -63 for Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Until Recurring Fire Protection Issues are Brought Into Compliance Dear Mr. Reyes, The Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, at its October 3, 2006 regular board meeting, adopted the enclosed resolutions entitled "A Resolution Calling for Coordinated Emergency Management and Evacuation Planning Within the 50 -Mile Radius Ingestion Pathway for Potential Discharge of Airborne Nuclear Waste Material from the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant" and "A Resolution In Support of an Emergency Petition to the US Nuclear . Regulatory Commission by the NC Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Nuclear Information and Research Service, NC Fair Share and Students United for a Responsible Global Environment Seeking Regulatory Action by the Commission to Enforce Existing Fire Protection Standards and Regulations Applicable to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant." If you have any questions, please call Barry Jacobs, Chair of the Board of County Commissioners, at (919 732 -4941. Sincerely, D nna S. Baker, CIVIC Clerk to the Board WWW. CO ORANGE NC. US PROTECTING AND PRESERVING - PEOPLE, RESOURCES, QUALITY OF LIFE ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA - YOU COUNT.I . (9 19) 242130 * FAX (919) 644 -0246 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A Resolution In Support of an Emergency Petition to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the NC Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Nuclear Information and Research Service, NC Fair Share and Students United for a Responsible Global Environment Seeking Regulatory Action by the Commission to Enforce Existing Fire Protection Standards and Regulations Applicable to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has a long and well- established practice of advocating for any and all activities that would promote the public health, safety and welfare, particularly in regard to feasible threats to that health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, approximately 50 percent of the risks of catastrophic nuclear plant failure are associated with fire - related accidents, as calculated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners also have a long and well - established record of concern regarding security and safety issues at the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant, related to the potential magnitude and catastrophic consequences of a nuclear power plant fire leading to an airborne release of nuclear waste materials; and WHEREAS, information has recently been presented to the Board of County Commissioners as to ongoing problems with fire safety and fire protection practices at the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant; an d WHEREAS, Progress Energy /CP &L has indicated that it will apply to the NRC for permission to take up to nine more years to bring the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant into compliance with fire safety standards and regulations; and WHEREAS, Progress Energy /CP &L has indicated that it will apply to the NRC for a twenty -year extension of its operating license for the Shearon Harris plant while the plant is not in compliance with existing fire safety standards and regulations; and WHEREAS, Progress Energy /CP &L has indicated that it is in the process of evaluation of permitting, designing and constructing two nuclear power reactors at the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant while the existing plant is not in compliance with existing fire safety standards and regulations; NOW, THEREFORE, do we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, hereby resolve to support the petition of the NC Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Nuclear Information and Research Service, NC Fair Share and Students United for a Responsible Global Environment to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission asking that the NRC compel Progress Energy /CP &L to immediately bring the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant into compliance with existing federal fire safety standards and regulations applicable to nuclear power plants. This is the 3rd day of October, 2006 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A Resolution Calling for Coordinated Emergency Management and Evacuation Planning Within the 50 -Mile Radius Ingestion Pathway for Potential Discharge of Airborne Nuclear Waste Material from the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has a long and well - established practice of advocating for any and all activities that would . promote the public health, safety and welfare, particularly in regard to feasible threats to that health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has a long and well - established record of concern and activism related to the potential magnitude and catastrophic consequences of an airborne release of nuclear waste materials from the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant; and WHEREAS, information developed within the least eight years has demonstrated the vulnerability of spent nuclear fuel to combustion with ensuing airborne release and dispersion of extremely harmful and dangerous nuclear waste material as a consequence of accident or sabotage/ terrorism; and WHEREAS, there exists an area of a ten -mile radius around the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant for which there are in place emergency management and evacuation plans. of debatable efficacy in case of a catastrophic accident and airborne release of nuclear waste material from the plant; and WHEREAS, an airborne release of nuclear material may stem from an uncontrollable .event of several days. or greater duration that would affect at least all of the fifty -mile radius ingestion pathway area; and WHEREAS, the fifty -mile radius ingestion pathway around the Shearon Harris plant contains approximately two million persons, the state capital, Fort Bragg, the Research Triangle, four major universities and a number of smaller universities, hundreds of public and private schools, thousands of businesses, dozens of local government jurisdictions; millions of pets, and a rich natural environment; and WHEREAS, there is no coordinated emergency management and evacuation planning for the portion of the ingestion pathway beyond the area defined by the ten -mile radius around Shearon Harris; and BARRYJACOB$ CHAIR ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THEN CAREK JR0775, V/CECHA/R POST OFFICE BOX 818' 4LEWEP. FOUSNEE 200 SOUTH CAMERON STREET .4LJCEM. GORDON HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 November 27, 2006 Mr. Doug Pickett, Acting Branch Chief Plant Licensing Branch II -2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Dear Mr. Pickett: sgnsti/ Thank you for inquiring about Orange County's resolutions regarding the Shearon Harris nuclear plant. The Orange County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) has deliberated the merits of either joining as an active petitioner in the 10 CFR § 2.206 petition to suspend the operating license for the Shearon Hams nuclear generating facility, or to support the petition in the same vein as the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill by being placed on 'a distribution list for Nuclear Regulatory Commission correspondence with the petitioners. The BOCC has determined that Orange County will opt to remain a supporter of the petition with a place on the distribution list as opposed to becoming an active petitioner. The BOCC does support the request that the NRC hold field hearings or public meetings in this area as part of its evidentiary and deliberation processes. Furthermore, it is Orange County's desire that its resolution in support of emergency planning throughout the designated 50 -mile radius ingestion pathway be taken as a statement in support of the fire petition, given that fires represent the greatest risk of accidental release of radioactive material. The BOCC's emergency planning concerns are specific to the Shearon Harris facility in that the ingestion pathway area includes Orange County. We do not necessary expect that the ingestion pathways of all nuclear power facilities will encompass similar levels of population as is the case in the Research Triangle Area. However, it seems prudent on the part of the NRC and the nuclear power industry, particularly in light of recent experiences around the nation with flawed evacuation efforts, to work with local emergency management officials to ensure the safety of those living within the ingestion pathway of any nuclear power facility. If not addressed as a part of the current discussion, Orange County's concerns related to evacuation planning will arise again, perhaps during relicensing deliberations. WWW.CO.ORANGE.NC. US PROTECTING AND PRESERVING - PEOPLE, RESOURCES, QUALITY OF LIFE ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA - YOU COUNT.I (919) 24x2130 • FAX (919) 644 -0246 Page 2 Thank you for this opportunity to more fully clarify the intent and concerns of the citizens and Board of Commissioners of Orange County. If there is anything contained herein, or within the previously transmitted resolutions relative to Shearon Harris, that needs additional explanation or clarification, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely. CC: Kevin Foy, Mayor of Chapel Hill Mark Chilton, Mayor of Carrboro Jim Warren, NCWARN David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists Robert Gruber, Executive Director of Public Staff, N.C. Utilities Commission Bryan E. Beatty, Secretary, N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety Robert B. (Bob) McGehee, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Progress Energy i VMYJACOaS; CHUR ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS M sasCAREY JROr�s t/ /CE�i�uR POST OFFICE Box 8181 VUCEMP.ORDONEE 200 SOUTH CAMERON STREET AuCEM. GORDON HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 November 30, 2006 Mr. C.S. Hinnant Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Progress Energy P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, N.C. 27602 Dear Mr. Hinnant: r Wye/ Thank you for your kind offer of a tour of Progress Energy's Shearon Harris nuclear facility. At this time, I must respectfully decline and recommend that my colleagues on the Orange County. Board of Commissioners and on other elected bodies within our county do likewise. I am not inclined to lend my presence because, despite repeated assurances to the contrary, Progress Energy has not been responsive to the concerns expressed by our board on matters of public'health and safety. While our objections to extending the license of Shearon Harris relate to alleged fire safety deficiencies, they include corollary and longstanding reservations regarding the adequacy of evacuation procedures surrounding the plant. The Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted resolutions regarding Shearon Harris on October 3 with Marty Clayton in attendance. Mr. Clayton was asked specifically about Progress Energy's willingness to work with local governments on expanding and strengthening evacuation planning to a 50 -mile radius surrounding the plant. He stated that he would take this concern back to Progress Energy: To date, we have received no further response. This followed a March 22 presentation by Bill Johnson at the Triangle J Council of Governments at which several elected officials, myself included, inquired as to whether Progress Energy would voluntarily expand the planning area for evacuations. Mr. Johnson said he -would consider it, and told me as he was leaving that he would also like to discuss Orange County's previous intervention regarding the storage of high -level radioactive waste in pools at the Shearon Harris facility. To date, we have received no further response. WWW.CO.ORANGE.NC. US PRW ECMGAND PRESERVING - PEOPLE, RESOURCES, QUALI7Y OF LIFE ORANGE COUNTY, NOR7TN CAROLINA - YOU COUAMI (919) 24 -2130 •• FAX (919) 644 -0246 i. This silence leads me to conclude that Progress Energy is not serious about addressing our concerns, but is only interested in appearing to be open and receptive. You may recall'that, at the time we did intervene in the matter of the storage of high -level radioactive waste at Shearon Harris, we were similarly offered tours of the facility. I met you and other staff members from what was then Carolina Power and Light when I took that tour in the late nineties. While everyone was cordial, a guided tour by professionals of lay people is not likely either to allow knowledgeable, probing questions or to unearth significant truths. Therefore, I would consider. it a much more meaningful offer if any tour of the facility would include representation from NCWARN, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and members of the news media. Such a delegation would allow more informed questioning, and a more transparent discussion of issues of importance to the region and to our constituents. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 11� 5 �� County Bo -i (4,Qf Cho nmissioners CC: Board of County Commissioners Kevin Foy, Mayor of Chapel Hill Mark Chilton, Mayor of Carrboro Jim Warren, NCWARN David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists Robert Gruber, Executive Director of Public Staff, N.C. Utilities Commission Bryan E. Beatty, Secretary, N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety Robert B. (Bob) McGehee, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Progress Energy Mr. Doug Pickett, Acting Branch Chief, Plant Licensing Branch II -2, Division.of Operating Reactor Licensing,Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation M Progress Energy December 12, 2006 Honorable Barry Jacobs, Vice-Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners PO Box 8181 200 S. Cameron St Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Commissioner Jacobs: Adtve" 3_6 C. S. Hinnant Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Progress Energy, Inc. C qlls <al�, Progress Energy is committed to open communication with elected officials and other stakeholders about Harris Plant operations. Thus, we were disappointed with the tone of your letter and the board's decision to decline our offer to visit the plant. We have had several key leaders from surrounding communities visit the plant in the past and they found the visit beneficial and informative, and we are pleased that members of the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Wake County Board of Commissioners are planning visits in the near future. Please know that our offer stands, and we hope you will reconsider your decision. We believe a visit to the site would demonstrate first-hand the facts about the comprehensive measures that we have in place to ensure the public health and safety of our employees and nearby communities. It would also be a good opportunity for the Orange County commissioners to share questions and concerns with highly trained staff members who can answer them. The Harris Plant has one of the best safety records in the country and has operated safely since it came online two decades ago. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is onsite, ensuring that the plant meets its standards and operates safely every day. As you and I discussed during the fuel pool litigation, the NRC established a standard 10 -mile emergency planning zone (EPZ) for all nuclear facilities across the country based on very conservative public dose considerations. Data exists that would support reducing the evacuation zone to 5 miles, but the federal agency has determined that the current EPZ will remain at 10 miles. Therefore, we do not support burdening county and state emergency officials, who are responsible for evacuation plans, by arbitrarily supporting an expansion of the zone to 50 miles when the safety risk is not present. We are always open to sharing information with elected officials and community members about the operations and safety features of the Harris Plant and other plants operated by Progress Energy. We have also in the past met directly with NC WARN to discuss issues, including fire protection, in an attempt to alleviate their concerns. We routinely make the plant open to the P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602 T> 919.546.4222 F> 919.546.2405 Honorable Jacobs Page 2 December 12, 2006 media, encourage key leaders to participate in educational site visits and make additional information available via the Internet and other formats to plant neighbors interested in Harris Plant operations. A recent media day at the plant was attended by several local news outlets. Again, please call Marty Clayton, at 919- 878 -5300 or e-mail to marty.clayton @pgnmail.com if you choose to reconsider a site visit and discussion with our plant operators and senior management. Sincerely, C. S. Hinnant c: Orange County Board of County Commissioners Kevin Foy, Mayor of Chapel Hill Mark Chilton, Mayor of Carrboro Robert Gruber, Executive Director of Public Staff, NC Utilities Commission Bryan E. Beatty, Secretary, NC Department of Crime Control and Public Safety Doug Pickett, Acting Branch Chief, Plant Licensing Branch 11 -2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 December 19, 2006 LICENSEE: Carolina Power & Light FACILITY: Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 2006 SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF NOVEMBER 13,2,006, PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING THE PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTION PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 2.206 FOR SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT RECURRING FIRE PROTECTION ISSUES On November 13, 2006, a public meeting was held at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Headquarters, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The purpose of the meeting was to provide representatives from North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network (NC WARN), Nuclear Information and Resource Services (NIRS), the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and their appointed attorney an opportunity to present additional relevant information concerning their petition submitted under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 2.206.. This meeting also provided the NRC staff with an opportunity to ask clarifying questions concerning the•submitted petition. A list of attendees is provided as an Enclosure. By letter dated September 20, 2006 (Ageneywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) accession number ML062640550), John D. Runkle, Attorney for the petitioners, submitted a 10 CFR 2.206 Petition requesting that the NRC issue an order requiring the immediate suspension of the operating license for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) until alleged fire safety violations are brought into compliance. The petitioners claim that SHNPP has been in violation of NRC fire safety regulations for over 14 years. The concerns focus on the lack of protection against fires and the subsequent ability to safely shutdown the plant in the event of a fire. The supporting documentation includes a report by NC WARN, NIRS, and UCS, "Delaying with Fire: The Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant and 14 Years of Fire Safety Violations." Further, the groups demand that the NRC refuse to consider an early relicensing request by SHNPP until the plant is in compliance with fire-safety regulations. A public meeting was attempted on October 23, 2006, but had to be cancelled due to the loss of recording capability in the Operations Center. Supplemental documentation was presented by the petitioners at this meeting and is publicly available (ADAMS Accession Number ML062980107). SUMMARY The petitioners presented information in support of their request to suspend the SHNPP Operating License or to impose maximum fines for each fire violation until the plant comes into compliance. They submitted Supplemental documentation (ADAMS accession i number ML063200168). Their concerns focused on the licensee's longstanding fire safety violations, the licensee's long term use of compensatory measures, and the NBC's use of enforcement discretion to prolong SHNPP's noncompliances. The petitioners also made repeated requests for open and public proceedings with NRC, Progress Energy, and external stakeholders in the vicinity of SHNPP. -2- A court reporter was present during the public meeting. A transcript of the proceedings is publicly available (ADAMS Accession Number MI-06P210488). Lisa Regner, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosure: List of Participants cc w/encl.: See next page LIST OF ATTENDEES PUBLIC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 13, 2006 SHEARON HARRIS 2.206 FIRE PROTECTION PETITION 111U91121141YO, Giovanna Longo OGC Ho Nieh DPR Tanya Mensah DPR Stacey Rosenburg DPR Chandu Patel DORL Lisa Regner DORL Jason Paige DORL Alex Klein DRA Dan Frumkin DRA Sunil Weerakkody DRA Maria Schwartz OE David Decker OCA Petitioners John Runkle Attorney for Petitioners Jim Warren NC WARN Paul Gunter NIRS David Lochbaum LICS The following groups participated by teleconference: NRC - R11 Necota Staples D. Charles Payne Alfred Issa Mckenzie Thomas Paul Fillion Rodney Fanner Gordon Williams Michael Coursey Shane Sandal Joylynn Quinones NRC - Shearon Harris Philip O'Brian Mike King Progress Energy Julie Hans David Corlett Members of the Public Adam Schaefer Sally Greene Alice Lloyd Dan Coleman Alice Gordon Paul Times Tom Vanderbeck Town of Chapel Hill Town of Chapel Hill NC Council of Churches Town of Carborro Orange County Board of Commissioners Orange County Board of Commissioners Chaffam County Commissioner-Elect Enclosure cc: Mr. C. J. Gannon, Jr. Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 165, Mail Code: Zone New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165 David T. Conley Associate General Counsel 11. - Legal Department Progress Energy Service Company, LLC Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-1551 Resident Inspector/ Harris NPS c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5421 Shearon Harris Road New Hill, North Carolina 27562-9998 Ms. Margaret A. Force Assistant Attorney General State of North Carolina Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Public Service Commission State of South Carolina Post Office Drawer 11649 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Ms. Beverly Hall, Section Chief Division of Radiation Protection N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 3825 Barrett Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 Mr. Chris L. Burton Manager Performance Evaluation and Regulatory Affairs PEB 7 Progress Energy Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-1551 Mr. Eric McCartney Plant General Manager Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 3 New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165 Mr. Robert J. Duncan 11 Director of Site Operations Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 165, Mail Zone 1 New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Public Staff NCUC 4326 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4326. Chairman of the North Carolina Utilities Commission Post Office Box 29510 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0510 Mr. Herb Council, Chair Board of County Commissioners of Wake County P. O. Box 550 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. Tommy Emerson, Chair Board of County Commissioners of Chatham County P. O. Box 87 Pittsborb, North Carolina 27312 Mr. Christos Kamilaris, Manager Support Services Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 1 New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165 Mr. David H. Corlett, Supervisor Licensing/Regulatory Programs Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina. Power& Light Company P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 1 New Hill, NC 27562-0165 Mr. John H. O'Neill, Jr. Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, NW. Washington, DC 20037-1128 cc: Mr. John D. Runkle, Attorney P.O. Box 3793 Chapel Hill, NC 27515 Mr. James Warren ' N.C. Waste Awareness & Reduction Network P.O. Box 61051 Durham, NC 27715-1051 Mr. Paul Gunter - Nuclear Info & Resource Services 6930 Carroll Ave., Suite 340 Takoma Park, MD 20912 Mr. David Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists 1707 H. St. N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006-3962 NC Fair Share 3824 Barrett Dr., Suite 312 Raleigh, NC 27609 Students United for a Responsible Global Environment P.O. Box 1188 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Ms. Sabrina M. Oliver Town of Chapel Hill 405 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Chapel Hill, NC 27514-5705 Mr. Mark Chilton, Mayor Town of Carrboro 301 W. Main St. Carrboro, NC 27510 Ms. Donna S. Baker Orange County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 200 South Cameron Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 December 27, 2006 Mr. Barry Jacobs, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners Post Office Box 8181 200 South Cameron Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Jacobs: Alkaf,ir,e, �- 3 - 7 Thank you for your letter dated November 27, 2006, to Doug Pickett, of my staff. Your letter provided additional clarifications to the letter dated October 16, 2006, from the Orange County Board of Commissioners, which was addressed to the Executive Director for Operations for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and expressed concerns relating to: 1) the adequacy of emergency planning during a radiological emergency, and 2) compliance with the existing federal fire safety standards and regulations at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Specifically, the Orange County Board of Commissioners submitted the following resolutions: A Resolution Calling for Coordinated Emergency Management and Evacuation Planning Within the 50-Mile Radius Ingestion Pathway for Potential Discharge of Airborne Nuclear Waste Material from the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, and A Resolution in Support of an Emergency Petition to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the NC Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Nuclear Information and Research Service, NC Fair Share and Students United for a Responsible Global Environment Seeking Regulatory Action by the Commission to Enforce Existing Fire Protection Standards and Regulations Applicable to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. As requested in your November 27, 2006, letter, the NRC will include the Orange County Board of Commissioners on distribution for related NRC correspondence with the main petitioners concerning their request. We also acknowledge that the Orange County Board of Commissioners supports the request that the NRC hold field hearings or public meetings regarding this petition in the vicinity of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Please note that I provided a response to your resolution concerning emergency preparedness in my letter dated November 27, 2006, to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. However, as requested in your letter, the resolution will be treated as a statement in support of the 2.206 petition. I0 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Chandu Patel, of my staff, at (301) 415-3025. Sincerely, Timothy J. McGinty, Deputy Di e6tor Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-400 cc: See next page cc: Mr. Cornelius J. Gannon, Vice President Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 165, Mail Code: Zone 1 New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165 David T. Conley Associate General Counsel 11 - Legal Department Progress Energy Service Company, LLC Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-1551 Resident Inspector/ Harris NPS c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5421 Shearon Harris Road New Hill, North Carolina 27562-9998 Ms. Margaret A. Force Assistant Attorney General State of North Carolina Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Public Service Commission State of South Carolina Post Office Drawer 11649 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Ms. Beverly Hall, Section Chief Division of Radiation Protection N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 3825 Barrett Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 Mr. Chris L. Burton Manager Performance Evaluation and Regulatory Affairs PEB 7 Progress. Energy Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-1551 Mr. Eric McCartney Plant General Manager Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 3 New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165 Mr. Robert J. Duncan 11 Director of Site Operations Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 165, Mail Zone 1 New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Public Staff NCUC 4326 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4326 Chairman of the North Carolina ,Utilities Commission Post Office Box 29510 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0510 Mr. Herb Council, Chair Board of County Commissioners of Wake County P. O. Box 550 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. Tommy Emerson, Chair Board of County Commissioners of Chatham County P. O. Box 87 Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312 Mr. Christos Kamilaris, Manager Support Services Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 1 New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165 Mr. David H. Corlett, Supervisor Licensing/Regulatory Programs Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 1 New Hill, NC 27562-0165 _Mr.. John H. O'Neill,-Jr.. Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, NW. Washington, DC 20037-1128 MOSES CAREY JR CHAIR ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BARRYJACOBIS, VICED-1411? POST OFFICE BOX 8181 VALERIE P. FOUSHEE lucEM, GORDON 200 SOUTH CAMERON STREET YKENELSON HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CARoUNA 27278 March 2, 2007 Mr. Dale Klein, Chair United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD. 20852 .11fi eatt: I< k I ��t�� Re: North Carolina field hearing on Shearon Harris Fire Compliance Petition and Emergency Evacuation Zone Expansion Request Dear Chairman Klein: I am writing to support the request of North Carolina State Senator Eleanor Kinnaird for a field hearing to be conducted on March 22, 2007 at 7:00 PM, at the Barn at Fearrington Village, 500 Village Center, off Rt.. 15-501, Piftsboro, NC regarding the §2.206 petition on the Shearon Harris fire safety compliance filed on September 20, 2006 by NC WARN, Union of Concerned Scientists and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Students United for Reasonable Global Environment and NC Fair Share. Our Board of Commissioners is further interested in the expansion of the emergency evacuation zone around the plant beyond the current level. As you are aware, our board and a number of local governments have endorsed the petition and have expressed interest in a local hearing on these matters. I understand that during the November 13, 2006 meeting with the petitioners, the NRC expressed openness to participating in a local hearing. The purpose of the field hearing will be to address the questions raised in the petition so that the public and elected officials can hear from the NRC, Progress Energy and the petitioners as to their positions on the issues raised. Such a hearing will certainly improve the understanding of the public and local officials in the area. I look forward to your earliest reply that a field hearing will be held on the date and time requested. Thank you in advance for your favorable reply. Sincerely, Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Board of County Commissioners Cc: Congressman David Price Board of County Commissioners Mayor Kevin Foy Mayor Mark Chilton State Legislative Delegation WWW.CO.ORANGE. NC. PROTECTING AND PRESERVING - PEOPLE' RESOURCES' QUALITY OF LIFE ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA - YOU COUNrr (9 19) 245-2130 & PAX (919) 644-0246 0 SECRETARY UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 March 9, 2007 The Honorable Moses Carey, Jr. Chair, Board of Orange County Commissioners Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Carey: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated March 2, 2007 to Chairman Klein concerning the March 22 field hearing regarding the 2.206 petition on Shearon Harris fire compliance. A response is under preparation which will be forwarded to you shortly. Cv 600 P '-- -, �A 1 Sincerely, Annette �. i-Cook P'"FIC r-(J TED F —D MAR 1 5 2007 By: , lat REG& ovs ;PA R P CHAIRMAN fej�-, 80 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 The Honorable Moses Carey, Jr. Chair, Orange County , Board of County Commissioners Post Office Box 8181 200 South Cameron Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Carey: 8M R 40 lylad;1,6 1.�) On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to your March 2, 2007, request for NRC participation in a public meeting to be held on March 22, 2007, regarding a petition on Shearon Harris nuclear power plant and fire safety compliance. Specifically, you requested NRC's participation so that the. public and elected officials can hear NRC's position regarding certain issues raised in the petition. The petition on Shearon Harris fire safety compliance was filed on September 20, 2006, by Mr. John D. Runkle (attorney for the petitioners) on behalf of the North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, the Nuclear Information and Resource Services, the Union of Concerned Scientists, NC Fair Share, and Students United for a Responsible Global Environment (the Petitioners). NRC is reviewing the issues raised by the Petitioners pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.206 and in accordance with established NRC guidelines. See Management Directive 8.11, "Review of Section 2.206 Petitions" at httl2://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/petitions-2-206/md 08-01 l.pdf. As part of the Section 2.206 process, the NRC staff conducted a public meeting on November 13, 2006, to give an opportunity to the Petitioners to further explain the petition and provide additional information to the NRC's Petition Review Board. Although NRC has no plans for further meetings with Petitioners, NRC will accept any additional information that the Petitioners or other members of the public may have pertaining to the issues raised by the Petitioners. If that information is provided on or before March 22, it will be included in the proposed director's decision.. In accordance with the Section 2.206 process, the staff will provide an opportunity to the Petitioners and other members of the public to comment on NRC's proposed director's decision. The proposed director's decision will be made public through NRC's document management system, ADAMS. The NRC staff will consider all comments received including those received after March 22, before making its final decision and issuing a final director's decision. A� r, 4-vc tv a"j-- 7tM A R 29 Sm In our November 27, 2006, letter to Ms. Donna S. Baker of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, we described the regulations governing the emergency planning zone. If you have additional concerns not addressed in that letter about the emergency planning zone, please contact us. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Jim Dyer, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. S' cerely, Dale E. Klein `Ep,R RE�^,tj o S CYy� �'�lr�Eft'� aoy�a John D. Runkle Attorney at Law P.O. Box 3793 Chapel Hill, NC 27515 Dear Mr. Runkle: UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 -0001 1- cn.- 11• Your petition dated September 20, 2006, addressed to Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and filed on behalf of numerous petitioners, has been referred.to me pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 2.206. You request thatthe NRC immediately issue an Order suspending the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) operating license until SHNPP is in compliance with fire safety regulations. As the basis for your request, you discuss several fire safety violations at SHNPP which could affect the safe operation of the plant and safe shutdown of the plant in emergency situations. I would like to express my appreciation for your effort in bringing these matters to the attention of the NRC. The Petition Review Board (PRB) met on October 10, 2006, to discuss your request for immmediate action to revoke SHNPP's operating licenser The PRB denied your request for immediate action based on the staff's determination that there was no immediate threat to public health,and safety. You were notified of this by phone on October 17, 2006. In a public meeting at NRC Headquarters on November 13, 2006, you met with the PRB to present additional relevant information concerning your petition. The supplemental documents dated October 23 and 30, 2006, and submitted on October 23 and November 13, 2006, have been entered into the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under accession numbers ML062980107 and ML063200168, respectively. The results of that discussion and the supplemental documents have been considered in the PRB's determination regarding your petition and in establishing the schedule for the review of your petition. After considering the petition request, and information provided at the public meeting, the PRB has determined that your request does meet the criteria for acceptance as a 10 CFR 2.206 petition. DEC 0 D 2006 Lr -- �. J. Runkle 1Wz As provided by Section 2.206, we will take action on your request within a reasonable time. Chandu Patel will be taking over as petition manager for your petition. Mr. Patel can be �. reached at 301 - 415 -3025. Your petition is being reviewed by the Fire Protection Branch in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. I have referred to the NRC Office of the Inspector General (OIG) those allegations of NRC wrongdoing contained in your-petition. I have enclosed for your information a copy of the notice that is being filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication. I have also enclosed for your information a copy.of Management Directive 8.11, uReview Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions," and the associated brochure NUREG /SR -0200, "Public Petition Process," prepared by the NRC Office of Public Affairs. Sincerely, J. E. D er, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-400 Enclosures: .1. Federal Register Notice 2. Management Directive 8.11 3. NUREG /BR -0200 cc Wends: See next page cc w /copy of incoming 2.206 request: Mr. Cornelius J. Gannon, Vice President Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 165, Mail Code: Zone 1 New Hill, North Carolina 27562 -0165 cc: David T. Conley Associate General Counsel II - Legal Department Progress Energy Service Company, LLC Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 -1551 Resident Inspector/ Harris NPS c/6 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5421 Shearon Harris Road New Hill, North Carolina 27562 -9998 Ms. Margaret A. Force Assistant Attorney General State of North Carolina Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Public Service Commission State of South Carolina Post Office Drawer 11649 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Ms. Beverly Hall, Section Chief Division of Radiation Protection N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 3825 Barrett Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 -7721 Mr. Chris L. Burton Manager Performance Evaluation and Regulatory Affairs PEB 7 Progress Energy Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 -1551 Mr. Eric McCartney Plant General Manager Shearon Hams Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 3 - Now-Hill, North Carolina 27562- O'f65_.. Mr. Robert J. Duncan 11 Director of Site Operations Shearon Hams Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 165, Mail Zone 1 New Hill, North Carolina 27562 -0165 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Public Staff NCUC 4326 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -4326 Chairman of the North Carolina Utilities Commission Post Office Box 29510 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626 -0510 Mr. Herb Council, Chair Board of County Commissioners of Wake County P. O. Box 550 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. Tommy Emerson, Chair Board of County Commissioners . of Chatham County P. O. Box 87 Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312 Mr. Chdstos Kamilaris, Manager Support Services Shearon Hams Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company P. O: Box 165, Mail Zone 1 New Hill, North Carolina 27562 -0165 Mr. David H. Corlett, Supervisor Licensing /Regulatory Programs Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 1 New Hill, NC 27562 -0165 Mr. John H. O'Neill, Jr. Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, NW. Washington, DC 20037 -1128 -2- k cc: Mr. James Warren N.C. Waste Awareness & Reduction Network P.O. Box 61051 Durham, NC 27715-1051. Mr. Paul Gunter Nuclear Info & Resource Services 6930 Carroll Ave., Suite 340 Takoma Park, MD 20912 Mr. David Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists 1707 H. St. N.W., Suite 600* Washington, DC 200063962 NC Fair Share 3824 Barrett Dr., Suite 312 Raleigh, NC 27609 Students United for a Responsible Global Environment P.O. Box 1188 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Ms. Sabrina M. Oliver Town of Chapel Hill 405 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Chapel Hill, NC 27514-5705 Mr. Mark Chilton, Mayor Town of Carrboro 301 W. Main St. Carrboro, NC 27510 Ms. Donna S. Baker Orange County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 200 South Cameron Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 7590-01-P U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-400 LICENSE NOS. NPF-63 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY RECEIPT OF REQUEST FOR ACTION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that by petition dated September 20, 2006, and its supplements dated October 23, and October 30, 2006, Mr. John D. Runkle (attorney for the petitioners) has requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take action with regard to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP). The petitioners request that NRC; take enforcement action in the form of an Order that would revoke SHNPP's Operating License or impose maximum fines for each violation for each day the plant has been in violation of fire protection regulations. As the basis for this request, the petitioners discuss several fire safety'violations at SHNPP which could affect the safe operation of the plant and safe shutdown of the plant in emergency situations. The petitioners' concerns focus on faulty fir& barriers, reliance on indefinite compensatory measures, the risk associated with the noncompliances, and the NRC's enforcement discretion pblicy. The petitioners have also requested open and public proceedings with the NRC; the licensee, Car6lina Power & Light, now doing business as Progress Energy, and external stakeholders in the vicinity of the SHNPP. The request is being treated 'pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 2.206 (10 CFR 2.206) of the Commission's regulations. ' As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, the agency will take appropriate action on this petition within a reasonable time. A copy of the petition is available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located, k in at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, httr):/Iwww.nrc.gov/reading-rmladams.htmi. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. FOR NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J. E. Dyer, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor'Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 4 h day of DBcember 2006 Odd UNITED STATES wy NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 -0001 November'27, 2006 Ms. Donna S. Baker Orange County Board of Commissioners Post Office Box 8181 200 South Cameron Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Ms. Baker: Your letter dated October 16, 2006, to Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), expressed concerns relating to: 1) the adequacy of emergency planning during a radiological emergency, and 2) compliance with the existing federal fire safety standards and regulations at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNP). Specifically; the Orange County Board of Commissioners submitted the following resolutions: A Resolution Calling for Coordinated Emergency Management and Evacuation Planning Within the 50-Mile Radius Ingestion Pathway for Potential Discharge of Airborne Nuclear Waste Material from the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, and A Resolution in Support of an Emergency Petition to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the NC Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Nuclear Information and Research Service, NC Fair Share and Students United for a Responsible Global Environment Seeking Regulatory Action by the Commission to Enforce Existing Fire Protection Standards and Regulations Applicable to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. The following addresses each of these concerns regarding operation of the SHNP. Resolution Concerning Emergency Preparedness The resolution submitted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners requested that Progress Energy/Carolina Power & Light, the North Carolina Utilities Commission, the Department of Crime Control & Public Safety, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Environmental Protection Agency and others work with the appropriate local, state and federal government transportation planning, law enforcement and emergency management/response agencies and personnel to develop and coordinate emergency management, response and evacuation plans for the entire 50-mile radius surrounding the SHNP. NRC regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Sections 50.33(8), 50.47(c), and 50.54(s), and Appendix E to Part 50, specify an emergency planning zone (EPZ) -:�: -74 DEC 2006 IBY- ---- — -: ----- - I pr*,—, gra Ms. D. Baker -2- of about 10 miles in radius for planning to protect the public from airborne exposure (the plume exposure pathway) and an EPZ of about 50 miles in radius for planning for actions to prevent radioactive material from entering the food chain (the ingestion pathway). The size of the EPZs for nuclear power plants represents a judgment, based on consideration of the probabilities and consequences of a spectrum of postulated accidents, and on the extent of detailed planning required to ensure an adequate response to a radiological emergency. One of the principal bases for the 10 -mile EPZ is that detailed planning within 10 miles provides a substantial base for expansion of response efforts beyond 10 miles in the unlikely event that such response efforts prove necessary. The 10 -mile planning basis establishes an emergency response infrastructure that includes State and local government emergency management agencies, trained emergency response personnel, communication linkages, alert and warning capabilities, and response facilities and equipment that will be used to protect the public in the EPZ and beyond in the event of a radiological emergency. Instances where the EPZ is expanded or contracted are rare and are carefully evaluated by emergency preparedness experts at the NRC and DHS before they are approved. In general, however, it is not prudent or necessary to expand the 10 -mile EPZ. Such an expansion could add significant burden to affected parties with limited additional benefit. Furthermore, response resources would be spread over a larger area and may put people nearer to the site at greater risk by diverting those resources. In the absence of a technical rationale to the contrary, the NRC considers that the planning bases for the 10 and 50-mile EPZs are adequate. In April 1989, the emergency plans for the State of North Carolina and affected local jurisdictions were specifically reviewed and found to be adequate. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (now part'of DHS) determined there was reasonable assurance that the plans could be implemented. Additionally, based on the results of an exercise of the offsite radiological emergency response plans for the SHNP conducted on April 5, 2005, no Deficiencies or Areas Requiring Corrective Action were identified by DHS. Based on this information, the NRC continues to find that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency associated with the SHNP. Therefore, should the Orange County Board of Commissioners choose to formally pursue expansion of the 10 -mile EPZ, it would need to work through appropriate State and local agencies to develop proposed changes to the existing plans. Resolution Concerning Fire Protection Issues The resolution submitted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners supported the petition of the NC Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Nuclear Information and Research Service, the NC Fair Share and Students United for. a Responsible Global Environment (i.e., the petitioners) to the NRC asking that the NRC compel Progress Energy/Carolina Power & Light to immediately bring the SHNP into compliance with the existing fire safety standards and regulations applicable to nuclear power plants. The NRC plans to include you on distribution for related NRC correspondence with the petitioners concerning their request. The NRC received similar resolutions from the townships of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and plans to treat them similarly. Ms. D. Baker |f you have any questions, please dn not hesitate to contact Mr. ChQndV Patel, OfDly staff, 8t (301) 415-3025. Si Timothy J. McGinty, Deputy Director Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 5O-4OO cc: See next page cc: Mr. Cornelius J. Gannon, Vice President Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 165, Mail Code: Zone 1 New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165 David T. Conley Associate General Counsel 11 - Legal Department Progress Energy Service Company, LLC Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-1551 Resident Inspector/ Harris NPS c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5421 Shearon Harris Road New Hill, North Carolina 27562-9998 Ms. Margaret A. Force Assistant Attorney General State of North Carolina Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Public Service Commission State of South Carolina Post Office Drawer 11649 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Ms. Beverly Hall, Section Chief Division of Radiation Protection N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 3825 Barrett Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 Mr. Chris L. Burton Manager Performance Evaluation and Regulatory Affairs PEB 7 Progress Energy Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-1551 Mr. Eric McCartney Plant General Manager Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 3 New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165 Mr. Robert J. Duncan 11 Director of Site Operations Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 165, Mail Zone 1 New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Public Staff NCUC 4326 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4326 Chairman of the North Carolina Utilities Commission Post Office Box 29510 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0510 Mr. Herb Council, Chair Board of County Commissioners of Wake County P. O. Box 550 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. Tommy Emerson, Chair Board of County Commissioners of Chatham County P. O. Box 87 Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312 Mr. Christos Kamilaris, Manager Support Services Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 1 New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165 Mr. David H. Corlett, Supervisor Licensing/Regulatory Programs Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Carolina Power & Light Company P. O. Box 165, Mail Zone 1 New Hill, NC 27562-0165 Mr. John H. O'Neill, Jr. Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, NW. Washington, DC 20037-1128 3-13 Memorandum TO: County Commissioners Orange County Ass6m ' bly of Governments Rod Visser, Interim County Manager FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer DATE: September 18, 2006 SUBJECT: A summary of a) Orange County's past history of involvement in the regulation and regulatory approval of the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant and b) upcoming permitting/licensing efforts for Shearon Harris In November 1998, the Orange County Board of Commissioners learned that Carolina Power & Light (now Progress Energy) had been storing high level nuclear waste (spent nuclear fuel rods from the reactor core) in "temporary' (two to five years) fuel storage pools at the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant in southwestern Wake County (approximately 15 miles south of the Orange County line). The-BOCC also learned that CP&L/Progress Energy was storing not only waste generated at the Shearon Harris plant but was importing waste generated at its Brunswick (Newport, NC) and Robinson (Hartsville, SC) plants as well. The information about CP&L/Progress Energy's waste storage practices came to light as CP&L/Progress Energy was initiating the formal process to request that the -Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) amend the Harris operating permit. CP&L/Progress Energy sought the permit amendment so that it could expand its fuel storage capacity by: 1) completing construction of and puffing into operation two partially completed temporary fuel storage pools (built in conjunction with three reactors originally planned but not constructed); an and 2) modifying the storage racks in the pools to provide for, co a more dense stacking configuration.. CP&L/Progress Energy plans for nuclear waste storage at Shearon Harris did not appear to be consistent with protecting the public health, safety ' and welfare of one of the most densely populated area of North Carolina (approximately two million , individuals living within the 50 mile radius [potential nuclear accident impact zone] of Shearon Harris). The proposed low level nuclear waste storage site adjacent to the Shearon Harris had just been withdrawn from consideration because of these very concerns. In'late 1998, the BOCC attempted initiate* a dialogue with CP&L/Progress Energy to discuss its concerns and obtain more e infotmation, but was unsuccessful. The BOCC then hired two consultants - Dr. Gordon Thompson, an expert on nuclear safety issues and Washington, DC attorney Diane Curran, an expert in nuclear regulatory processes - to investigate CP&L/Progress Energy's proposals and to advise Orange,County as haw to address-its concerns In January of 1999, Dr. Thompson and another nuclear safety expert, David Lockbaum, a nuclear engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, advised the BOCC that: A the NRC has never investigated or evaluated safety issues related to the storage of densely packed spent nuclear fuel rods; and ■ should there be a loss of water in the fuel storage pools, densely packet nuclear fuel rod assemblies could spontaneously combust and burn, discharging Cesium 137 and other very dangerous nuclear isotopes to the atmosphere; and ■ there were a number of events that could occur - including. reactor meltdown, other accidents and acts of terrorism - that could cause such a loss of cooling, water with a resulting fire; and ■ the fuel storage capacity planned for Shearon Harris would be larger than any storage site in the U.S. other than the planned federal permanent storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada-, and ■ densely packed waste fuel rods stored in pools are more susceptible to fire than are rods in dry storage; and ■ the ultimate permitting and development of a permanent storage facility at Yucca Mountain or anywhere, else is far from certain, meaning that temporary storage may become permanent storage; and ■ a spent fuel fire involving the quantity of fuel that could ultimately be stored ' at Shearon Harris could release 50 times more Cesium 137 than was released by the Chernobyl disaster in the former Soviet Union and render 6 I.and area larger than the state of North Carolina virtually uninhabitable. By mid-January, 1999; ' the NRC staff gave: every indication of rubber stamping CP&UProgress Energy's request for a permit application (publishing its intent to issue the permit amendment after less than three-weeks review during the 1.998 Christmas/New Year holiday season). The County's consulting attorney, Diane Curran, advised the County that the only process available under NRC rules for the County to compel CP&L/Prog . ress Energy and the NRC to respond to the County's questions and concerns was an arcane and expensive legal pro6eeding (very similar to a civil suite) called an "intervention". The BOCC felt compelled to try to protect the welfare of the two million or more individuals, numerous businesses, schools, public and private universities, etc., within the potential impact area since it was apparent that the NRC would not act to do so voluntarily. Accordingly, in February 1999,.the BOCC (with' financial support from * m Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Durham County and the NC Waste Awareness & Reduction Network [NCWARN] and the moral support of a number of other local governments) initiated the formal intervention process. Over the next two and a half years, Orange County and its consultants confronted CP&L/Progress Energy and the NRC at every opportunity provided by the intervention process. The NRC was presented with volumes of evidence relating to the vulnerability of pool-stored spent fuel rods to fire hazards associated with terrorism, cooling water losses, too-dense storage and the like, in an attempt to convince or compel it to hold an evidentiary hearing in which technical issues and concerns could be examined in a public'forum. During that process, the County expended a significant level of funding and effort to learn that the NRC has a demonstrable bias in -favor of the nuclear power industry and that the intervention and evaluation processes are configured to produce outcomes that favor of the industry. The NRC granted CP&L/Progress Energy a permit to complete its activation of unused storage pools and to develop a more densely packed storage racking system. Orange County's intervention effort, though unsuccessful in a legal or regulatory, sense, has had some positive lasting effects. CP&L/Progress Energy stopped transporting waste from the Brunswick and Robinson nuclear power plants to Shearon Harris for storage. The intervention made case law that is being and has been used to contend with the NRC on similar issues in other parts of the country. The NRC has been forced to confront the serious and growing hazards of storing spent fuel rods in temporary. storage pools, hazards which it had managed to avoid recognizing or acknowledging for years. The Thompson report advanced the national science regarding spent fuel storage, leading to additional influential study in this area by Princeton, MIT, the National Academy of Science and others. Orange County's. attorney in the Shearon Harris intervention process, Diane Curran, continues to be active — and successful - in efforts ' to force the NRC and the nuclear power industry to address concerns about the safety. and security of spent fuel storage. Working for the Massachusetts Attorney General's office, she has filed Contentions related to fuel pool storage of spent fuel rods (raising the same concerns and issues first broached in Orange County's intervention) in the re-licensing process for the Pilgrim nuclear power plant in Plymouth, Massachusetts, and the Vermont Yankee plant located near Brattleboro, Vermont oust north of the Vermont-Massachusetts state line). Recently, representing the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Diane Curran was successful in a case heard by the 9th Circuit, US Court of Appeals. The Court overruled an NRC decision allowing Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) to construct r a dry cask fuel storage facility at its Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant without performing an environmental impact analysis addressing the potential impacts of a terrorist attack on or sabotage of waste fuel storage facilities. As of this date, PG&E continues to move forward with construction of the Diablo Canyon fuel storage facilities pending an appeal to the US Supreme Court. The NRC has indicated that it will file an amicus brief in support the PG&E appeal. On the negative side, the efforts of*the federal government to establish a permanent storage site for spent fuel (at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, or elsewhere) are now no closer to fruition than at the onset of the effort more than fifteen yea rs ago. "Temporary" spent fuel storage practices appear destined to become permanent fuel storage practices. High density storage in pools remains the most popular technology for storing the mounting inventory of spent nuclear power plant fuel at US nuclear power plants. The NRC and the nuclear power industry continue to refuse to recognize and address plant terrorism and security vulnerabilities. Nuclear power plants, and. particularly the Shearon Harris plant, continue to experience alarming and dangerous failures of equipment and normal site security measures. Insofar as Shearon Harris plant is concerned, CP&L/ Progress Energy has submitted a "Letter of Intent to Apply for License Renewal" for the plant to the NRC. The application itself, expected to be submitted in a October-December 2006 timeframe, will be seeking a 20 -year extension of Shearon Harris' current operating license (expires in 2026).. There is no state regulatory control that will apply to the license renewal, but the NRC evaluation process is anticipated to take approximately 30 months (see the attached exhibit for the Pilgrim nuclear power plant permitting. schedule). CP&L/Progress Energy has also indicated to the NRC and the public that it is planning to embark on the process to develop two new reactors at Shearon Harris. The plan to construct new nuclear generators (and new coal fired generators as well) was opposed by.a number of environmental/conservation groups at this year's (May, June) annual Integrated Resource Planning hearings held by the NC Utilities Commission (see attached Utilities Commission docket). However, in a ruling issued on August 31, 2006, the Utilities Commission found that it could not agree with a "proposed adoption of a blanket policy against the construction of any new nuclear or fossil-fired plants .. (see page 29 of the attached NCUC docket). Information published on the NRC website indicates that NRC staff expects CP&L/Progress Energy to submit a Combined License Application (COL- a permit, which authorizes the construction and conditional operation of a nuclear power facility) for two reactors in FY 2008. On a separate regulatory track, the. NC Utilities Commission (NCUC) would have to approve the development of new reactors (or power plants using any technology). The process to obtain NCUC approval (in the form of an Electric Generation Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct) would be initiated subsequent to the granting of the COL and would involve the North Carolina environmental clearinghouse review process, public *hearings, etc. Accordingly, CP&L/Progress Energy officials have indicated that the utility will be holding a number of "Town Hall"-type meetirigs to make its case to the public for the need for more nuclear power. As CP&L/Progress Energy moves forward with process of re-licensing its existing plant and developing ng new reactors, there remain a number of unresolved safety and operational issues at the existing plant, including: • Potential failures in the backup core cooling system stemming. from known design flaws involving insufficient recirculation of cooling water; and • Elevated risk of core meltdown stemming from loss of off-sitepower coincidental with the failure of on-site emergency generators;. and • Faulty materials protecting the reactor cooling system; and • High incidence of faulty or "inoperative" materials used to provide fire protection for electrical equipmdnt and wiring in violation of federal fire safety regulations; and • High rates of sudden reactor shutdown. Grass roots efforts have begun to arise in opposition to a license extension for the Shearon Harris plant absent CP&L/Progress Energy and the NRC undertaking- long overdue corrections to the demonstrated shortcomings safety, operational and security systems at the plant. Furthermore, many leaders of these grass roots efforts have signaled that they will continue to raise questions about the need for additional nuclear power sources and the environmental consequences of the development of such a major construction project in comparison to the projected, benefits of investment in energy efficiency infrastructure and technology. If I may provide additional information, please advise. NRC Accused of Dishonesty by Nuclear Safety Engineer — and Criticized for Reliance on Fire "Mitigation" Instead of Defense Against Aircraft Attack The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted on January 9, 2007 not to require nuclear plant owners to defend against aircraft or more than a handful of ground attackers. In a prepared statement, NRC Chairman Dale Klein said, "Nuclear power plants are inherently robust structures that our studies show provide adequate protection in a hypothetical attack by an airplane." However, David Lochbau m responded with an eleven -page rebuttal challenging the existence of such studies. Furthermore, he quoted and summarized numerous federal studies indicating the opposite, that numerous types of attacks — on a variety of plant structures including several outside the containment building — could cause catastrophic releases of radiation. These studies also show, as Lochbau m said, that "allegedly robust nuclear plant structures are extremely vulnerable to fires front within. " Jim Warren, NC WARN See the entire UCS Issue Brief for a fuller discussion and footnotes: http 11www ncwarn org/ UCS %20Iss %2OBrie1% SOW% 20HlGHLIGHTS %20by %20JIMYo2OFebO7.pdf Excerpts from the Union of Concerned Scientists Issue Brief: The NRC's Revised Security Regulations, by David Lochbauim, Nuclear Safety Project Director [This summary was prepared by NC WARN, March 2007. Context is provided in brackets] Responding to Klein's statement that "Nuclear power plants are inherently robust structures that our studies show provide adequate protection in a hypothetical attack by an airplane. ": [Lochbaurm] Really? What studies show that? Certainly not any of these publicly available studies: 1) [1982, Indian Point nuclear plant] THIS study documented the existence of a structure at a nuclear power plant that failed to provide adequate protection against aircraft attack. 2) [1982 NRC report by Argomle National Laboratory] The report stated: The major threats associated with an aircraft crash are the impact loads resulting from the collision of the aircraft with power plant structures and components and the thermal and /or overpressure effects which can arise due to the ignition of the fuel carried by the aircraft.... the core would most probably be headed for serious damage if not total meltdown. ...Note that the above sequence of events does not depend in any way on the breach of a hardened structure THIS study clearly, categorically, explicitly, and undeniably refutes the fanciful notion that nuclear power plants are robust structures and describes numerous' scenarios in which an aircraft crash could lead to significant reactor core damage. 3) [ 1987 NRC regarding an accident at Surry that killed four workers] "Condensed steam saturated a security card reader in the turbine building basement approximately 50 feet from the failed pipe and shorted out the card reader system for the entire plant. As a result, key cards would not open doors controlled by the security system. " THIS study demonstrates that real -world consequences from nuclear plant accidents can be sigiuficantly more severe than predicted ... it's not hard to predict that "collateral damage" from an aircraft crash might be worse than from one broken pipe. 4) [1987 NRC document] THIS study strongly suggests that the violence of an aircraft crashing into a nuclear plant structure can produce shaking that causes electrical relays to change positions and this outcome alone — without even considering the effect of fires or explosions or other consequences — has a high likelihood of causing reactor core damage. [emphasis added by NC WARN] 5) [1997 NRC document re accident at the Pilgrim nuclear plant where 4,300 gallons of oil leaked out of an electrical transformer] "If the transformer fault at Pilgrim had occurred at power [the reactor was shut down for refueling at the time], a serious turbine building fire could have ensued. " THIS study demonstrates how little combustible material it takes to cause major problems at an allegedly robust nuclear power plant.... a Boeing 747 aircraft can carry over 50,000 gallons of fuel. 6) [ 1997 NRC report on fire risks at nuclear power plants] ... plant areas with high fire vulnerabilities were the main control room, the electrical switchgear rooms, and the cable spreading rooms — all areas located outside of the thick, reinforced concrete containment walls.... the fire hazard from an aircraft crash [not considered in this pre -9/11 document] would very likely be significantly higher than reported in this NRC paper. THIS study shows that the allegedly robust nuclear power plant structures are extremely vulnerable to fires from within. 7) [2000 to NRC from the Turkey Point nuclear plant] ... An aircraft impacting the Unit 3 or Unit 4 auxiliary building has a high chance of causing reactor core damage, since all of the safety systems preventing such an outcome are located within or pass through the auxiliary building ... According to Turkey Point's owner, the top risks are a strike on [1) the spent fuel buildings, 2) the auxiliary building, 3) the cooling water intake structure.] The oft -cited threat of an aircraft hitting the containment dome is relatively low risk (10 percent). THIS study reveals that the allegedly robust nuclear power plant structures cannot be reasonably guaranteed to provide adequate protection against aircraft attack. 8) [2000 NRC study re plants such as Harris] One of the hazards examined for this study was the accidental crash of aircraft into buildings housing spent fiiel pools. The report stated: In estimating the frequency of catastrophic PWR spent fuel pool damage from an aircraft crash (i.e., the pool is so damaged that it rapidly drains and cannot be refilled from either onsite or offsite resources), ... it is estimated that 1 of 2 aircrafts are large enough to penetrate a 5-foot-thick reinforced concrete wall. THIS study also reveals that the allegedly robust nuclear power plant structures cannot be reasonably guaranteed to provide adequate protection against aircraft attack. 9) [2003, Oak Ridge National Laboratory et al, on the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to sabotage] The authors calculated the peak overpressure produced by an explosion and the ability of nuclear plant structures and components to withstand that force ... In both scenarios, core damage was a credible outcome. THIS study ... performed by non -NRC government researchers after 9/11 strongly suggests that nuclear power plants are vulnerable to attack. 10) [2005, National Academy of Science] The NAS concluded ... that successful terrorist attacks on spent fuel pools, though difficult, are possible....If an attack leads to a propagating zirconium cladding fire, it could result in the release of large amounts of radioactive material. W THIS study performed by non -NRC researchers after 9/11 shows that nuclear power plants are vulnerable to attack. More importantly, it provides insights into how the NRC dismissed the threat through reliance on secret, non- botulding analyses. All these studies, and many more like therm, strongly suggest that nuclear power plants are vulnerable to aircraft attack. Maybe the NRC Chairman does have secret paper studies prepared behind closed doors with industry representatives that reverse several decades of public studies to show that once vulnerable facilities have been magically transformed into invulnerable fortresses. Or maybe the NRC Chairman has secret studies showing that the facilities are robust and provide adequate protection against attacks by paper airplanes. NRC Chairman HIein's second sentence: "The NRC has also taken actions that require nuclear power plant operators to be able to manage large fires or explosions — no matter what caused then." [Lochbaum] What actions might those be? Certainly not any of these recent actions: In April 2006, the NRC published in the Federal Register its cockamamie scheme to allow nuclear plant owners to continue operating their reactors with known and emerging violations of fire protection regulations now and well into the future with complete immunity from sanctions. Licensees may adopt the performance -based [regulatory] option in 10 CFR 50.48(c).... The NRC will exercise enforcement discretion for existing noncompliance that could reasonably be corrected under 10 CFR 50.48(c). For those noncompliances identified during the licensee's transition process, this enforcement discretion policy will be in. effect for up to 3 years.... In addition to the 3-year discretion period, the staff may grant additional extensions to the discretion policy time for a specific plant item(s) with adequate justification. In other words, NRC inspections have revealed many nuclear plants in violation of longstanding fire protection regulations. The NRC ordered plant owners to resolve these violations years ago, but little progress has been made. The NRC gave the lagging owners more time and waived any thoughts about sanctions for their scoffing at safety regulations.... SO, the NRC is allowing "nuclear power plant operators to be able to manage large fires or explosions" by granting them indefinite "get out of jail free cards" for kriown violations of fire protection regulations.... SO, the NRC is allowing "nuclear power plant owners to be able to manage large fires or explosions" that might introduce large amounts of very combustible jet fuel by granting them permanent exemptions to fire regulations based in large part on small amoturts of combustible materials being present. The fire protection regulations (even if met and non - exempted) are intended to deal with a single fire in a single room or area. No other equipment damage is presumed to occur, other than the components within that room or area damaged by the single fire itself. Will those fire protection regulations ... prove adequate to deal with fires in multiple rooms and areas that can easily result from an aircraft crash? Will, for example, the installed fire sprinklers be able to discharge sufficient water to all the affected areas, despite rupture of one or more fire headers caused by the aircraft impact? 3 Get Real! In March 1975, a worker held a lit candle into the place where elec penetration from the cable spreading room beneath the main control room into the reactor building at the Browns Ferry nuclear plant in Alabama. He was testing for air leaks. If the candle flame flickered, it indicated that the packing material around the cables wasn't sufficient to block air flow between the buildings. This time, the candle flame ignited the packing material. The fire burned for nearly seven hours. As insulation bunged off cabling, wires came into contact with each other and shorted out. All of the emergency systems for cooling the Unit 1 reactor core were disabled as were most of those systems for Unit 2. Heroic operator actions narrowly prevented both reactor cores from meltdown. Does anyone — other than the NRC — really believe that a terrorist at the controls of a large, fast aircraft fully laden with jet fuel who crashes into a nuclear power plant will do no more harm than one guy with one candle inflicted at Browns Ferry? The revised security regulations approved by the Commissioners upgraded defense against ground -based attacks by a small band of intruders. The old regulation was reported to limit the small band to three persons or less and the revised regulation has been reported as being less than double the old number. In simulated force -on -force tests, sometimes the small group of mock attackers succeeds in damaging enough equipment to trigger reactor core meltdown. Does anyone — other than the NRC — really believe that a terrorist crashing a large aircraft into a facility will do less Kann than a handfiil of guys running about on foot? The NRC has better things to do than make veracity - deprived statements. Like enforce fire protection regulations, for a starter. 0 DRAFT April XX, 2007 Kevin Foy Mark Chilton Tom Stevens Glendale Stevenson Dear Sirs: The Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, the Orange County Board of Education, and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Board of Education have collaborated over the last few years to address a variety of common interests. Our work group's most ' 'recent discussions have centered on the County's School Construction Standards. The Standards provide benchmarks for various school construction components. Examples of components outlined in the Standards include square footage, school site acreage, and student capacity at each school level, elementary, middle and high. We recognize the fact that it is important to look beyond "traditional schools" — large schools that require 25 to 50 acres of land — to more non- traditional schools that would offer flexibility and accommodate various local conditions including the availability, or the lack thereof, of land. One of our next tasks is to collaborate with our municipal partners and identify potential future school sites that fit the parameters outlined in the standards. The ultimate goal of this process would, be that the County, who is statutorily responsible for funding school construction, might possibly consider opportunities to "land bank" properties that would be suitable for future school sites. As growth and development continues throughout our County, available and suitable future school sites become limited. In turn, we must grow smarter through proactive cooperative efforts and find appropriate school sites as far in advance of our needs as possible. Land banking will allow the County to find sites that exhibit as many smart growth attributes as possible. Attributes, although not adopted at this point, can include a variety of subjects from public transportation and walkability to green building designed schools and the community communication aspects therein. Our collective past work with regard to the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) has helped us project future school capital needs for a ten-year AP An period. There is a healthy amount of lead-time needed before future school doors open for students. Site search and acquisition, financing, regulatory approvals, and building and infrastructure construction can be time consuming aspects. Local governments know their jurisdictions best, from land use regulations and processes to the infrastructure necessary to serve the area in a timely manner. Schools, municipalities, and county government, have worked together in the past and used our local area knowledge and geographic information systems (GIS) to help find prime locations. Our most recent collaboration success was the siting of Carrboro High School. To that end, our work group would like to see this identification process formalized. Based on most recent student membership projections, the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools will need additional elementary and middle school space in the next three-to-six years. Therefore, it seems reasonable to ask our staffs to initiate a pilot school siting process for these facilities in the near future. Although the pilot program will primarily involve sites within the Chapel Hill Carrboro School District, we envision formalizing the process within the Orange County Schools jurisdictions. By virtue of this letter, the members of the School Collaboration Work Group asks that you convey this proposal to your staff. Key contact staff for our individual entities includes Craig Benedict, Orange County, Steve Scroggs and Bill Mullin, Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools, and George McFarley, Orange County Schools Associate Superintendent. Please forward your entity's representatives to the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, Donna Baker by March 15, 2007. Donna's email address is dbaker(cD,co.orange.nc.us. Thank you, in advance, for your participation in this undertaking. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us. Sincerely, Moses Carey, Jr., Chair, Orange County Board of Commissioners Dennis Whitling, Chair, Orange County Board of Education Jamezetta Bedford, Chair, Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools Board CC: Laura Blackmon, Orange County Manager Eric Peterson, Hillsborough Town Manager Roger L. Stancil, Chapel Hill Town Manager Steve Stewart, Carrboro Town Manager Dr. Shirley Caraway, Orange County Schools Superintendent Dr. Neil Pedersen, Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools Superintendent