ML20083G265

Motion for Summary Dispostion of Joint Intervenors Contention IV Re Tlds.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Applicant Entitled to Favorable Decision

ML20083G265
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	01/09/1984
From:	Patricia Anderson CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20083G270	List: ML20083G265 ML20083G278 ML20083G286
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8401110214
Download: ML20083G265 (14)

Text

.

t

~

COLKETED USNRC January _9, 1984

'84 JF110 A1054 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 'J[ES,MSN NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~ '

'j,j y ~f' BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 i

In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )

AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY ) 50-401 OL

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF JOINT INTERVENORS' CONTENTION IV (THERMOLUMINESCENf DOSIMETERS)

Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (" Applicants") hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2.749, for summary disposition in Applicants' favor of Joint Contention IV. For the reasons set forth herein, Applicants respectfully submit that there is no genuine issue as to any fact material to Joint Contention IV, and that Applicants are entitled to a decision in their favor on Joint Contention IV as a matter of law.

8401110214 840109

{DRADOCK 05000400PDR O

- - - - - - - -- _ -- - - - - - - - - - - -- a

This action is supported by:

1. '" Applicants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disposition on In-tervenor Eddleman's Contentions 64(f), 75, 80 and 83/84," dated September 1, 1983;

2. " Applicants' Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard On Joint Contention IV"; and

3. " Affidavit of Stephen A. Browne" and At-tachment A attached thereto.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Joint Contention IV alleges that the thermoluminescent

. dosimeters (TLDs) which Applicants intend to use as the dosimeter of record to monitor occupational radiation exposure are inadequate to assure worker safety and health and that Ap-plicants should be required to use portable pressurized ioniza-tion monitors to corroborate the results of TLD readings. The wording of Joint Contention IV accepted by the Board is stated as follows:

Applicants intend to rely on thermolumi-nescent dosimeters (TLDs) as the dosimeter of record to monitor occupational radiation exposure.

Because of TLD inaccuracies and their lack of real-time monitoring' capability, these devices are-inadequate to assure worker safety and~ health.

Applicants should be required to use portable pressurized ionization monitors in support of workers in radiation hazard areas to corroborate the exposures indicated by the TLDs.

On January 31, 1983, Applicants propounded their first set of interrogatories on Joint Contention IV to the Joint Interve-nors. Those interrogatories were designed to discern the basis of Joint Intervenors' contention and the specific inadequacies alleged in Applicants' program. " Applicants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Joint Intervenors (First Set)," dated January 31, 1983. On March 18, 1983, the Staff also addressed interrogatories to the Joint Intervenors with regard to Joint Contention IV. "NRC Staff Interrogatories to Joint Intervenors," dated March 18, 1983.

The Joint Intervenors' responses to Applicants' first set of interrogatories and the Staff's interrogatories indicate a ,

lack of understanding of the various aspects of Applicants' program for monitoring and controlling radiation exposure and are notably vague about appropriate means by which the alleged deficiencies could be remedied. For instance, in response to basic questions about the basis of and support for their con-tention, Joint Intervenors repeatedly responded that they had not obtained sufficient information to respond "at this time."

See, e.g. " Joint Intervenors Response to Applicants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Joint Intervenors (Fitst Set)," dated March 29, 1983, Responses to Interrogatories IV-1(a) and IV-3(b). " Joint Intervenors'

~

Response to Staff Interrogatories," dated August 31, 1983, Re-sponses to Interrogatories 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 23.

In fact, in response to three of the Staff's interrogatories,

Joint Intervenors stated that "we . . . do not have time now to undertake this review just to answer your question." Id. at page 6.

Joint Intervenors also took advantage of the discovery

. process to pose detailed interrogatories to Applicants and'the

-Staff. " Joint Intervenors' Interrogatories to Applicants on Contentions IV, V and VI (First Set)," dated June 27, 1983;

" Wells Eddleman's Interrogatories to NRC Staff (First Set),"

Edated May 6, 1983. Applicants and the Staff provided Joint In-tervenors with detailed responses to their relevant interrogatories. " Applicants' Responses to Joint Intervenors' General Interrogatories and Interrogatories on Contentions IV, V and VI to Applicants Carolina Power & Light Company, et al.

(First Set)," dated August 1, 1983; "NRC Staff Response to Interrogatories Dated May 6, 1983 Propounded by Wells Eddleman and Joint Intervenors," dated June 24, 1983.

After supplying Joint Intervenors with the information sought in their interrogatories, Applicants served their second set of-interrogatories on the Joint Intervenors. " Applicants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Joint Intervenors (Fourth Set)," dated October 12, 1983. These interrogatories were designed to clarify some of the concerns alluded to in Joint Intervenors' responses to Applicants' and the Staff's interrogatories and in Joint Intervenors'

_4_

interrogatories and to follow up on those areas in which Joint Intervenors had been unresponsive during the first round of discovery. Rather than responding, or even objecting, to those interrogatories, the Joint Intervenors chose simply to ignore Applicants' discovery requests.

After receiving no response or other communications from the Joint Intervenors, Applicants took the initiative to con-tact counsel for Joint Intervenors and offer an extension of time. The Joint Intervenors refused Applicants' offer and stated, through their counsel, that they would be unable to respond to discovery requests until after the environmental hearing, then scheduled to begin on January 24, 1984. At that point, Applicants were forced to file a motion to compel dis-covery from the Joint Intervenors. " Applicants' Motion to Compel Discovery on Applicants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Joint Intervenors (Fourth and Fifth Sets)," dated November 17, 1983. The Board granted Applicants' motion on November 29, 1983 and ordered Joint Intervenors to respond to Applicants' interrogatories by December 9, 1983.

" Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Discovery Disputes Between Ap-plicants and Joint Intervenors)," dated November 29, 1983. On December 12, 1983, Applicants received a copy af a letter from counsel for Joint Intervenors, dated December 9, stating that

" Joint Intervenors have been unable to comply with the Board's Order of November 29, 1983, regarding Discovery on Joint

9 Contentions IV, V, and VI." "Unfortunately, the press of other business prevented us from preparing a response." Letter of M. Travis Payne, dated December 9, 1983.1/ As of this date, Joint Intervenors have not made any further effort to respond to Applicants' second round of discovery or to supplement their incomplete responses to Applicants' first set of requests.

II. TIMELINESS A motion for summary disposition may be filed at any time in the course of a proceeding. Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-696, 16 N.R.C. 1245, 1263 (1982); see also 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749(a). In the instant case, Joint Intervenors have had more than 15 months in which to conduct discovery on the issues raised in Joint Contention IV. Yet, as discussed above, they have failed to take advantage of their opportunity to propound a second round of interrogatories to Applicants and have abdicated their 1/ Joint Intervenors' failure to comply with the Board order is grounds for sanctions, including dismissal of the conten-tions at issue. Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 N.R.C. 452, 454 (1981); see also Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-719, 17 r..R.C. 387 (1983); Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-20A, 17 N.R.C. 586, 590 (1983). Applicants have moved for summary disposition ~ rather than imposition of sanctions because, not-withstanding Joint Intervenors' egregious failure to fulfill their discovery obligations, it is manifestly clear at this time that no genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to Joint Contention IV.

_ o

own discovery obligations by failing to respond to Applicants' interrogatories, even when ordered to do so by the Board. Fur-thermore, Joint Intervenors have known since February, 1983 that Applicants intended to file for early summary disposition on this contention. See " Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Dis-covery Dispute Between Applicants and Joint Intervenors),"

dated November 29, 1983. Thus, the instant motion is timely and the subject contention is ripe for summary disposition.

III. ARGUMENT The gravamen of Joint Contention IV is that TLDs are inac-curate and lack real-time monitoring capability and therefore cannot ensure worker safety and health. Joint Intervenors also contend that Applicants should use portable pressurized ioniza-tion monitors in radiation hazard areas to corroborate the results obtained from TLD readings. As the foregoing Statement of Facts indicates, Joint Intervenors' incomplete responses to discovery have given little clue as to the basis for their belief that TLDs are inadequate to perform the monitoring task for which they are used at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant ("SHNPP"). The Joint Intervenors have made no attempt whatsoever to explain why they believe TLDs are too inaccurate, what accuracy they believe to be acceptable or how the alleged inaccuracy poses a hazard to workers at SHNPP. To the extent that it is possible to determine Joint Intervenors' concerns,

i it appears that they believe: 1) that Applicants' TLDs are too inaccurate because they are only accurate to + 30%; 2) that TLDs are. inadequate because they do.not have "real-time" moni-toring_ capability and 3) that Applicants should be required to

. augment their personnel dosimetry program by the use of porta-ble pressurized ~ ionization monitors. None of these claims have any basis in fact.

On the other hand, Applicants' position is supported by the affidavit of Stephen A. Browne ("Browne Affidavit"), atta-ched hereto and discussed in detail below. Mr. Browne has more than eight years experience in the field of personnel dosimetry. As a project specialist in health physics at Carolina Power & Light Company ("CP&L"), he is responsible for the technical direction of the personnel dosimetry program at CP&L nuclear plants and has been directly involved in supervising dosimetry programs using TLDs. In addition, Mr. Browne has recently been selected by the National Bureau of-Standardsnas an expert consultant for the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program's assessment and evaluation of personnel radiation dosimetry processors. Mr. Browne's affida-vit demonstrates conclusively that Joint Intervenors' vague al-legations lack factual support and that Applicants' program of personnel dosimetry and exposure control complies with all reg-

~

ulatory requirements and standards recommended by recognized

~

authorities-in the field.and is sufficient to ensure worker health and safety.

i With respect to the first of the points raised by Joint Intervenors, reliance is placed on the fact that " error of TLDs

.plus or minus 3% was established as a basis of a contention in Catawba" as the sole support for the allegation that accuracy greater _ than +-30% is required for worker safety. " Joint In-tervenors' Response to Staff Interrogatories," dated August 31, 1983, at 2. The Catawba contention to which Joint Intervenors refer was-recently resolved on summary disposition in the util-ity's favor, however. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414 " Memorandum and

. Order (Ruling on Applicants and Staff Motions for Summary Dis-position of DES-Contentions 27 and 11)," (September 30, 1983).

Although Joint Intervenors' assertion about an accuracy of +

30% has no factual basis, the Browne Affidavit addresses the point by showing that the TLDs chosen for use at SHNPP comply with all applicable standards and are sufficiently accurate to assure worker safety. The affidavit also demonstrates that the other two -issues alluded to by Joint Intervenors are based on misconceptions about the use'of TLDs and about the variables associated with monitoring dose from radiation. Therefore, ap-plying the standards governing summary disposition to Joint Contention IV, it is clear that Applicants' motion should be granted.

Joint Intervenors' concerns about the adequacy of TLDs to ensure worker health and safety imply a basic misunderstanding of the~ function of TLDs and their application in the total scheme'of personnel monitoring and exposure control. In fact, TLDs are only one aspect of a comprehensive program that includes the use of self-reading pocket dosimeters (SRPDs),

computerized record-keeping and other monitoring techniques for ensuring worker health and safety. This multi-faceted health physics program, including the use of TLDs, has been reviewed and approved by the Staff. Safety-Evaluation Report related to the operation of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, NUREG-1038 (November, 1983)'("SER"), S 12.5.4 at 12-11.

Applicants intend to use TLDs as the dosimeters of record to

~

monitor exposure to personnel at SHNPP. Browne Affidavit at 3.

' As the Browne affidavit states, TLDs are ideal for this particular function because, in contrast to film badges and

.SRPDs, TLDs are rugged, not extremely susceptible to tempera-ture and humidity extremes and are accurate over an appropriate range of radiation-types and energy levels. Id.

Although TLDs are the preferred choice as dosimeters of record, however,-they are not the exclusive means of monitoring personnel exposure. Id. at 6. SRPDs will be used for opera-tional monitoring to provide workers with the basis for making quick decisions about potential hazards. SRPDs are appropriate for this - function because, although they are less accurate and reliable than TLDs, they can be read by the workers at any de-sirable time, thus providing real-time monitoring. Id. A

)

computerized system will calculate and record accumulated dose to workers by using the most recer.t TLD reading in conjunction with the day-to-day readings obtained from SRPDs. In this way, the two monitoring instruments will complement each other to provide the.most accurate and timely information possible about total accumulated dose to each worker.

While TLDs and SRPDs are used primarily in separate and distinct roles, however, it is worth noting that the two systems serve an auxiliary function in providing backup data .

e for each other. For example, if a worker drops or loses his SRPD, his TLD may be read immediately. Conversely, SRPD readings can be used to substitute for a lost TLD. Id. The availability of this backup system assures that monitoring and exposure control will not be affected by unforeseeable mishaps and further ensures worker health and safety.

The Joint Intervenors' vague allegations that TLDs are too inaccurate simply have no basis in fact. Contrary to Joint In-tervenors' claims, TLDs represent the state-o f-the-ar t tech-nique for personnel monitoring. Id,. at 8. The use of TLDs has increased steadily over the past few years while the use of film badges has decreased. See SER, s_u p r a , at 5 12.5.3 at 12-10. The particular TLDs selected by Applicants satisfied rigorous tests for accuracy during a two year study conducted at the University of Michigan under the auspices of the NRC.

Browne Affidavit at 9. The standards adopted at these tests

(

j A~

9 g, a

are consistent with the recommendations of preemin' e.ntN 9 s s i, g

, _s ,

%\ scientific organizations in the national and international com- g

'i .by- munity. Id. at 10. Furthermore, it has been recognized that s

at levels of radiation exposure far bilow the permissible regu-

, 'l ' . . .

latory-limits, the risk to worker safety and health is so N ,'

', t 9 4., '. .1

" slight thae great accuracy in dose measurement i.i , hot consid-t r

.r ered necessary. ~Ijd. at 11. Applicants' TLDs actua'lly comply with standards higher than some of those'that h' ave been recom-mendedbyrecognizedscientificbodiesandare,certainlywithin\ \ i \ .

the standard that has been approved for use/wSchin the indus-s '! \ '

try.n -

(

Finally, Joint Intervenors' claim that Applicants should be' required to use portable pressurized ionization monitors

suggests a marked naivete about the factors that are relevant

{ _to measuring radiation exposure. The instruments Joint Inter-venors propose could not be worn by workers--while technically portable, they must be used in a fixed position. Id. at 14. 4 Therefore, portable pressurized ionization ionitors are incapa- '

ble of accounting for variables introduced by,1), the fact that

% within a given work area the radiation field will vahy at different points, 2) the fact that workers wi$1 move within a ,

'j work area, 3) the fact that radiation fielda' vary over time and I f i 3j ' (). the fact that workers spend varying amounts of time in a

'given work area. Id. at 14-15 The inability of portable pres-

"( V^

surized ionization monitors to adjust for these variables

\ \

im. N

)

i ,

N' .

d c

5 w.." - i.- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ __

renders them totally inappropriate for measuring dose to workers. It should be noted, however, that Applicants do use I pressurized ionization monitors in appropriate ways, for in-N, stance, to conduct environmental monitoring.2/ Id. at 16-17.

C' s P I ' 's To summarize, it is clear that TLDs are the best available instrument for the routine monitoring aspect of Applicants'

, personnel monitoring and exposure control program. They are not intended to be and will not be used as the sole device for personnel monitoring. The TLDs chosen by Applicants comply with accepted standards for accuracy, and these standards are reasonable to ensure worker health and safety. The use of por-table pressurized ionization monitors in the manner suggested by Joint Intervenors would contribute nothing to Applicants' program for personnel monitoring. The Joint Intervenors have presented no competent evidence to the contrary.

IV. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing and upon the facts set forth in the Browne af fidavit and Applicants' Statement of Material Facts, Applicants submit that their motion for summary 2/ Of course, the use of portable pressurized ionizali 7on-itors could not contribute to the alleged lack of "real-r a;i-monitoring" capability because the output of such instruments is dose rate, rather than integrated dose.

2 e

disposition should be granted and that Joint Contention IV should be decided in Applicants' favor.

Respectfully submitted,

. 93 N M-Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.

John H. O'Neill, Jr., P.C.

Pamela H. Anderson SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 and Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

, (919) 836-7707 Counsel for Applicants Dated: January _9, 1984

. _ _ _ _ _ . . . .