ML20210K698

Motion for Admission of New Contention WB-4, Falsification of Exposure Records. Records Systematically Falsified to Reflect Lower Doses to Workers.Requests Opportunity to Respond If Contention Opposed

ML20210K698
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	04/22/1986
From:	Eddleman W, Runkle J CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NORTH CAROLINA, EDDLEMAN, W., RUNKLE, J.D.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20210K701	List: ML20210K698 ML20210K704
References
CON-#286-931 OL, NUDOCS 8604290014
Download: ML20210K698 (4)

Text

1 0- y

^

9%\

p w- ,

April 22, 1986 [ ' /,, ,

q}'

3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA M n r c %' ? N ..: ;

NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION ' ;ha  ?

g n

>c BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g ,, ~ >

r Li \,f x' ~

In the Matter of: )

)

Carolina Power & Light Company and ) Docket No. 50-400 OL NC Eastern Municipal Power Agency )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) )

REQUEST BY CCNC AND WELLS EDDLEMAN FOR ADMISSION OF NEW CONTENTION W8-4 (FALSIFICATION OF EXPOSURE RECORDS)

Now come the Conservation Council and Wells Eddleman, pro se, with a

~

new contention based on recently reported incidents of falsification of radiation records by the Applicants. The new contention is as follows:

Contention WB-4. The Applicants' program for maintaining radiation exposure as low as reasonably achievable for workers at its Brunswick and Robinson nuclear power plants has been inef fective. Radiation exposure records have been systematically falsified to reflect lower doses to workers and as such have circumvented accurate reporting and occupational exposure limits found in 10 CFR 20. Applicants have failed to keep accurate radiation exposure records and report them to nuclear plant workers in a manner in accordance with safe occupational management practices and the provisions of 10 CFR 19. These practices call into question the both the moral character of the Applicants and their ability to operate the Harris nuclear plant without endangering the health and safety of the public in compliance with regulations t 3 m*='#e if=' *jk 3)So 9

promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (see attached Affidavit by Patty S. Miriello, dated April 13, 1986, for partial

. basis).

In analyzing the admission of this contention in light of the five factors for late-filed contentions found in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1), it is apparent that the factors requiring admission greatly cutweigh any arguments against admission. Taking each factor separately, we present the following:

1. Good cause for failure to file on time--Although we have been concerned about worker exposure to radiation at the Applicants' nuclear plants, we have not had the specific basis with which to formulate a contention. The affidavit by Ms. Miriello and the facts contained within it along with other allegations of improper actions did not reach us until early last week. This contention could not have been filed any earlier than today because of the work loads of both Counsel for CCNC and Mr.

Eddleman.

2. Extent to which admission would broaden issues or delay proceedings--the issue of the improper procedure for keeping and reporting worker exposure records has not been addressed so far in this proceeding.

As such this contention broadens the iseyes which must to be heard before

, the Licensing Board can make its findings regarding the Applicants fulfillment of it regulatory burden. The contention is highly relevant to these proceedings and of crucial importsnce to any decision the Board makes about the suitability of the Applicants to operate the Harris Plant.

As to delay, the Applicants were recently allowed an extension of their Construction Permit until June 1987 and have consistently allowed the 2

fuel loading and operation schedule to slip. Construction of the facility is not substantially completed; the lasc estimate was only 93% which has tot changed to any degree in the last year. Therc are many inspections and tests which need to be finalized before the Applicants are able to begin operation. Between now and June 1987 there will also be another emergency planning exercise with the possibility of additional contentions.

Lastly, our records show that this would be the only contention definitely under consideration during this time, although others may require further hearings if remanded, and as such this contention could be placed on an expedited schedule for discovery and hearing.

3. Availability of other means to protect our interests--The procedure for determining the Applicants qualifications and ability to protect public health and safety is best conducted as part of the Operating License proceeding. This contention is directly relevant to the Applicants' ability to comply with NRC regulations and therefore needs to be fully litigated. We have so far determined that the NRC Staf f has not addressed this issue in depth in any reports or analysis done to date.

(That Ms. Miriello may have seme personal cause of action against the Applicants has in our opinicn no bearing on the admissibility of this contention).

4. Extent to which other parties will represent our interests--None of the other Intervenors or the NRC Staff have raised this issue or presented any contentions on this matter.

5. Ability to compile a sound record--the contention does not address overly complicated or technical matters, but rather the propriety of the procedures followed by the Applicants to protect and notify their workera about radiation exposure doses. Ms. Miriello has informed us that she will cocperate fully on this contention although some of the other workers whose 3

s

' names have been suggested to us have not yet been contacted. It is our belief that most of the other people involved are still employees of the Applicants or will otherwise be readily available. Both Counsel for CCNC and Mr. Eddleman stand ready to litigate this contention.

In light of the above and because of the seriousness of the allegation contained in Ms. Miriello's affidavit, this contention should be promptly admitted in full. We request the Board grant us the opportunity to respond to the responses by the NRC Staff or the Applicants if either of them

. oppose the admission of this contention.

~

Respectfully submitted, John Runkle General Counsel for CCNC 307 Granville Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 919/942-7935, 942-0600 W e ll> E / tah m f Wells Eddleman pro se, 812 Yancey Street Durham, NC 21701 919/688-0076 This is the 22nd day of April, 1936.

4

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _