ML20093P212

Response Opposing Applicant Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of Joint Contention Iv.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20093P212
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	07/30/1984
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W., JOINT INTERVENORS - SHEARON HARRIS
To:	Bright G, Carpenter J, Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8408030070
Download: ML20093P212 (6)

Text

~7A? i z  !

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA July 30, 198E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~,

BEFORE THE A'K)MIC SAFETY AND LICD' SING BOARD Glenn O. Bright '81 Dr. James H. Carpenter ~'g ~2 EII :55 James L. Kelley, Chairman E e

%n.jZy L

m In the Matter of l

) Docket 50 400 OL CAB 0 LINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al. )

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )

Unit 1) ) ASLBP No. 82-h68-01

) OL Joint Intervenors' 9esponse to Applicants ' " Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification ..."

l on Joint Contention IV (TLDs)

Applicants (Motion at $) make four claims about the Board's past ruling on Joint Contention IV, which we read as denying sumna n 4-13-8h disposition on part(1) of that contention. 1(Board Order at 20:

A "For the reasons outlined above, the Board finds an issue of material fact; namely, does comn11ance with the 1983 ANSI Standard insure connliance with the NRC regulations . . . alternatively, there is an issue of material fact whether the TLDs to be used at the Harris facility nevertheless can be used to measure occupational do ses with sufficient accuracy to comuly with NRC regulations. . ..

Suramary disposition for this issue is donied."

Joint Intervenors respectfully deny all fou of Apnlicants ' claims.

As to the first claim that the " Board erred in raising the comnatibility 1 oo

@@ of 10 C.F.R. Part 20 and the procosed NRC rule as a sua snonte issue" o

h oc we do not read the Board as having acted sua snonte. Joint Intervenors j l

QQ raised the argument (6 February 1984 Resnonse to Summary Disnosit!on at m

?$

ma.o 6-7): "The kinds of errors we allege, and the percentages , are real ... I 4 8p$37lt"hSP* * " * * " "

' ('f6

c r

(CP&L affiant) Browne and the NRC give the nercentages; NUREG/CR 2991 shows errors. ... With errors of 1 50% as Applicants assume is OK, the cumulatmive dose of an individual is a blur, not an accurate number. We believe ALA9A means what it says: "AS Low As Reasonably Achievable. To lower the exposure, you've got to know the exposure."

This, we believe, is the question the Board left open as disaputed in fact. The Board stated (4-13-84 at 16):

The essential issue, from the Board's point of view, is that reasonable worker radiation protection and demonstrations of regulatory connliance are not connatible with the accentance of performance with a standard deviation of 0.5.

A conventional interpretation of the 0.5 standard deviation would be daat, at the 95% confidence level, an individual dose estimate would be uncertain by 1100%.

A range of f 100% in data is very blurry indeed, and we think the Board stated the problem quite clearly here. The Board continued in a way we believe compatible with our raising the ALARA issue:

This range or latitude does not connort with the Board's reading of the regulations as calling for controlling radiation doases to workers with a resolution to integer values at one rem and above. (id.)

While Joint Intervenors might argue for an even stricter interpretation of the NRC regulations, we believe the Board's nosition is clearly based on those regulations and a Staff position (Id. at 8-9)

The uoard stated aften these findings on the regulations and a discussion of the Staff and CP&L affiants' nositions on dose uncertainty "We return to the Joint Intervenors issue that 'TLDs are inaccurateV i from a perspective that inaccuracy should not exceed 50 nercent for doses of a few rem from both the regulatory and biomedical noints of view. . ."

This is quite compatible with the argument we raised in our restonse at 6 where we raise the question of " errors which ... fall outside the l

120% or 130% or i 50% the rules require". We believe the Board's language, its detailed analysis of issue "(1)" (inaccuracy) in Joint Contention IV (some 12 pages, pp 7-20 in the h-13-8h order), and its reasoning, e.g. as cited above from pp 16 and 20, show that the Board found here a genuine issue of material fact which we had raised.

I

3- -

That is not sua sponta.

Applicants' second claim is that it was inappropriate to resolve  !

this issue through the hearing process when it is also in a rulemakina.

Joint Intervenors have noted we believe there is no conflict with the rulemaking in this contention. As admitted by the Board, the contention would focus on either whether comolmience with the 1983 t

ANSI standard (150%) insures compliance with the NRC regulations C@t whether the TLDs to be used at the Harris facility nevertheless can measure occupational doses "with sufficient accuracy to comnly (4-13-84 at 20) with NRC regulations". This means, to us , that even if the rule were adopted, there remains the issue of whether the TLDs to be used at Harris comoly with the NRC regulations. Since the regulation itself, as paronosed, includes the 150% limit but does not change the other NRC rules cited by the Board in its extensive analysis of the " inaccuracy" issue in Joint Contention IV, there is a question of consistency of the Rules. Since the proposed rule doesn't change the i

1 Rules the Board based its ruling on, there would remain the same issue of fact whether or not the rulemaking adonts or rejects the pronosal.

In sum, we argue that the proposed Rule does not affect the issue the Board preserved for hearing in Joint contention IV. Even if it did, we argue that the proposed rule has not been issued, and NRC lacks authority to issue the license for the Harris nlant without resolvine the TLD-inaccuracy issue.

Applicants ' third and fourth claims (that the " issue is immaterial" and that the Board had a " misunderstanding of" the regulations in 10 CFR of Part 20) are simply wrong. The contention alleges "Because TLD inaccuracies

... these devices are inadequate to assure worker safety and health" as i

"the dosimeter of record" a t Harris. That's very relevant. Annlicants misinterpret the Board, we believe, in citing the Board's Order at 19

re materiality. They say (Motion, 7/18/84, p.13) "the Board found that Applicants are capable ... of meeting the imolicit standard ,

, - , , , , - , , - - - . . , - - - , , , , -- , r----,--- ~ ~ - -- - - - ~ - , , , - , - - - - - - , n , - --- --- - -

-g.

• of accuracy that the Board , reads (An) 10 CFF Fart 20. "

l But what the Board actually said was "As the Board has outlined

! s l above, we believe that the NRC regulations recuire that eersonnel dosimetry be carried out in such a manner that the results can be relied on to be accurate to integer values or one significant figure for doses of a few rem. . . . That such nerformance is reasonable and not beyond limitations dicated by available measurement techniones is demonstrated by the nerformance of CP&L outlined above." This was nerfo~mance on a test, not performance in fact. The ouestien raised by us and accepted by the Board is (p.20) the accuracy that the rules reauire in fact.

Finaally-, we believe the Board's reasoning in interpreting 10 CFR part 20 is reasonable and detailed and clear (See discussion on pp 1-3 supra ) . Applicants admit (Motion, p.1h) that the new cronosed rule on dosimetry is " supplementary to, rather than a reolacement for, the current regulations". Thus, if the Board'c view cf the current regulations is valid, the new proposed rule should have no effect on this issue (our argunent above, o.3, re challenge-to-rulemmaking claim of Applicants).

Applicants then go on to argue,(p.15) that even smaller variations in dose (e.g. 1/k rem) are of " regulatory significance". This is a stronger position than that of the Board as we read it, and would require even stricter accuracy of TLDs in our view. Auplicants continue by pointing out that a licensee "can be fined for exceeding the . . . limit by any amount ... which again argues for more accurate readings of radiation exposure for the protection of the licensee. Applicants' argument here really sunnorts the Board, and seems to misread it.

2 Applicants use the . uhrase " reads into", but we believe it is clear that the Board used detailed reasoning to find the inaccuruey issue IN 10 CFR Part 20 and accompanying f nformation. Board h-13-8h Order at 6,9, 12, 16, 19-20.

__ _ . . . . . I

-5 Apulicants " support" for the Board's nosition comes from their points of how 10 CFR 20 and other rules may require greater accuracy in radiation dose measurenents for nuclear workers.

Their misreading, in our view, is concentrating on the " integer value" accuracy that the Board discusses, in a way that makes it look like the Board was requiring doses to only be renorted in 1 rem increments.

We think, to the contrawy, the Board was we==+v+x saying that a resolution of dose to the nearest rem or to better accuracy, was required under the NRC rules. ~Certainly a 1 50% standard devxiation on any measurement allows a 1100% variation in its value, within the standard 95% statistical confidence limits. At any dose above 1 rem, then, this sort of measurement inaccuracy will not permit resolution of doses to the nearest rem at all. This is the sort of blurred information we claimed (resnonse P-6-8h at 7) le f t the dose records as a

• blur". We think the Board was clear in its statements, and to the exatent Applicants have not misinterureted the Board's position, their argument here supnorts a requirement of at least as great dose measurement accuracy as the doard reads in 10 CFR part 20.

CONCLUSION For the above reasons, Applicants' argumenta are all in error, and the Board's decision of Anvil 13,198h should stand. We believe l that if the Board should find clarification anuropriate, we could also l

benefit from it re the scope of nossible testimony, which we read as addressing BOTH issues described by the Board on April 13 l Respectfully, submitted, pfhuv Vells Eddleman l

for hinself and Joint Intervenors

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLTAR REGUIATORY COMMISEION Docket 50-h00 l In the matter of CAROLIKA POWER k LIGliT CO. Et al. ))

Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Unit 1- 0.L.

CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE Joint Intervenors Response to I hereby certify that copies of _

Apolicants' " Motion for Reconsideration or Clai'ification . . ."

on Joint Contention TV (vT m i HAVE been served this y day of t,q7 198 , by deposit in f the US Mail, first-class postage prepaid, upon all parties whose names are listed below, except those whose names are arked with an asterisk, for whom service was acconplished by

\

Judges Ja tes Kelley, Glenn Bright and Jamas Carpenter (1 egy each)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board US Nuclear 9egulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 George F. TrowbridEe (attorney for Applicants)

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge R uthanne G. Miller

, 1600 M St. NW ASLB Panel WashinEton, DC 20036 USNRC Washington DC 2055 5 Office of the Executive Legal Director [ flajSeence W. Perry FMA Rxm $0 Attn Docke ts 50-400/E010.L.

USNRC N9 .J Washington 500 c st. sw Washington DC 20555 DC 907ho Dan Read Docketing and Service Section (3x) CEA!LT/FLP Attn Docke ts 50-k00/h01 0.L.

Office of the Secretary Waleigh,$707 NC Waveross 27606

• • LI"d" ** Lit *1' a ngton De 20555 Governor's Waste Ngt. Bd.

513 Albenarle Bldg John Runkle -

325 N. Salisburv St.

Raleigh, NC 27611 Granville Rd ,

Chapel Hill Ne 2751b. Bradley W. Jones Robert Gruber USNRC Region II Travi s Payne Exec. Director 101 Marietta St.

l Edelstein & Payne Public Staff Atlanta GA 30303 Scx 12601 Box 991 Raleigh NC 27605 Raleigh NC 27602 Richard Wilson, M.D. Certified by .84 %

729 Hunter St.

Apex NC 27502

.- . __ -.. - _ -. -.-. _ -_ -.- _ _ _ . - . .._. _ . - _- . _ - - -_