ML20084H045
| ML20084H045 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 02/10/1975 |
| From: | Nader R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Knuth D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19289B354 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8304270454 | |
| Download: ML20084H045 (3) | |
Text
_-_
O o
Donald P.
Knuth Director c, P innpection.nd Fnforcenent 1;u clw
- p l' tory Co.:.71rrlon Manhi rct on,
D.C.
205h5 i.
Dear Dr. Hnuth:
This in in "enponuo to your letter or I:ovember 12, 1974, wherein you (k naribed f he !!ualear Hecu]ntory Cor. iccion (:lRC) crite'$- for enfer a 2nt uction and radi ation monitorint; pro: : ';c.a.
Y.to U.Jont:nt pM nun of my July 27 letter however>
3 uere not ad6re: ted.
Or ' of t he quentionc uhich I had asked una n n '.
um "reJ.
In additien, your cc ments on radjation control progr:n 1.cn-str nt dj ation vere not convincing.
My July 27 letter pMnted out that one of the corrective n e t l en:, fo?lo','in~, redir.tlen overexpocures to Consolidated Ed i n n " "'c e r n uan th' eitablichn.ent of a 11 ult of 2 rom.
After thi., lit h
.s rer chen a vorher in excluded fren radiation work fo" the re:.inder of the quarter.
The cource for ny stat ~ ont van a letter from Consolidated Edicon to th2 Atomic Ent r:
Cor.nlacien (LEC), ubich cald:
.. r.
.. R.
asi m u vuc uum..nin vracive cont.rel of r H :t! en e.:ponure by preclu:'j n a any
.indivjf.un1 uho',,' cumuintive rndiatien arposure in in exco:
of 2000 [2 reu] fron 1:orking in high a
radiation arcan."
(Letter from Willian J.
- Cahill, Vice President, Connolidated Edison, to Janec P. O'Reilly, Director, Directorate of Heculatory Operations, Region I, AEC, May 16, 1974)
Mr. Cahill's letter went on to state that no new overexoosuren had occurred since the ir:pocition of the 2 rem limit.
e'
/
My July 27 letter 110ted four cases (out of e x applicab].e) in which the overexpoaures that occurred uould ve been prevented by thin 2 ren limit, even if it had bee 2 effect earlier.
These feur canen invo]ved ncn uhone doalmeter dosen were Jen; than 2 rem 3 but uhoce film badge dones v: ore creater than 3 rem.
Thene were canes B, F, G, and R in Yable 1 of Reglou I Inspection Report 50-3/74-11.
The Innpection Report and clarifying convern ttions betucan my eta PP and A'?.C personnel show that there i.y be extenuating f
circu:. 'ancen in tt:0 of these casco.
That utill leaven tuo cann., f'or ::h i ch o nplic ' len of the 2 rem li dt vo'.O d hnve been in H 8304270454 750519 PDR ADOCK 05000244 y
/
y
- ),I l D I
n
/
_-.u.
,,___www.sm--=*"'*********'-w""-*8***** ******""-****'"**t'+**
- 'v
.,/
/
N
,,/
2
/
I ruq
/
clo a you are nuare that Con Ed's propoaal to requiro perminnion for an Individual to exceed 1250 mee:a par
'j quarter docn not reprecent nufficient corrective action.
One i
han the dinquieting feeling that this perminulon will be nerely l
an adt.dnistrative formality, partj eularly ulnce it in t o bc l
granted before an individual reache a the 1250 3r.ren level.
Thia dicquiet in reinforced by the implication in Mr. Cahill's
[
ntat.ement that the 2 rem li: alt represents the real corrective i
action.
It in further rejnforced by the fact 1. hat the j
doalmater "verificat ion" level hau not been changed fro a 2000 mrom.
l
'"he inadequacy of Con Ed's 2 reu limit una perhaps the major factor which pronpted my July 27 Jetter.
Neither your letter nor the Inspection Report addrenned the cane-by-cane inadequncy of thin limit.
I therefore repeat the question uhich you failed to anneer:
l l
i Quention:
Una the AEC aware of thin cane-by-cano inadequacy in the ccmpany'a corrective action?
If the AEC uan noL aware
(
of the inadequacy, why can it overlooked?
If the AEC uns j
auare of the inadequacy, why did it accept the company's action?
To the nutgention that rodlation control programa be standardized, you encloced a list of applicable guides and ctandardn nnd unde Ud: M emont:
I j
"Due to maj or differences in licenceen '
i personnel, organizationn, type and cort.plexity of radiation-related activities, it is not i
poncible that all radiation control programs be identical."
(p. 33 your letter of l
Noveuber 12, 1974)
Conceivab]y, thin might just3 fy differences in the radiation l
control programo of a power plant and a reproconning plant, for l
examnle.
But there cooms to be no reason why different power j
plan'tc nhould have different progrtuas.
The Haval Reactorn (liR) d program, da an example, han for years required the same pornonnel radiation control program for each of its nubmarinoc.
The Im program is standardined, and han much more detailed requirements than the. lint of Cu;1 den you encloced.
While the lict of guides and standarda you enclosed may seem imprensive to the uninformd you munt admit that they provide only general, not detailed guidance.
i The IH1 program directly addrecaed the posnible problem of j
film badge-donineter dincrepanc,5; by requiring more frequent.
filia bndce checks an an individual getn closer to his exposure l
JJutt.
Thin program in more detailed and more comprehencave i
& n o
+ + the Connolidnted Eoinon or hochenter Gan & Electrjc p%
_n::J oned in ny Ju]y 7/ letter.
The Jmy': prc:.rrm uould have prevented mect or all of the Con Ed and llocheater I
overexponuren.
Liaison between Regulatory Operations and Nil
$ n t h 'c mtter uculd seem advinnble.
l
O e
i 3
I i
At pecount d11Terent nuclear planUn have different designn and diiTerent techni. cal cpe cifi ca ti onn.
But n.ince there necnut to be no ;;eo:"canhical va'-lation in the effectu of radiation on wor):cra, ',hy do. di.frerent po::er plantn bave di fTerent radiatJ on control pro;;ra:na?
Your July 2'l letter did not adequate 3y explaJ n thl:: non -standardJ nat Lon of radiation control progran.
b'hy doen lH: have a ntricter and ntandardined prorran thab nddrannua film bad:;e-dociteter differences while the llRC does not have nucli a program?
.9incerely, Y
4, (,/,X t
,y4
.-7
'f c,(/-
' Ralph !!ader cc:
William A.
Andern, Chairman fluclear Regulntory Commiculon i
I
.. - ~,
- - ~ - ~ '
-.,,.,....