ML20023A822

Responds to ASLB 820922 Order Ruling on Contention & Svc of Documents.Ruling on Contention Ivc & on Motion Re Svc of Documents Should Be Reconsidered.Arrangements for Svc Unacceptable Since Parties Unrelated.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20023A822
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	10/14/1982
From:	Wilson R WILSON, R.
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8210200053
Download: ML20023A822 (5)

Text

1 I

$$JD October 14, 1982 78 Pj:p GF h' ' '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA G

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'MIICH BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

)

Docket Nos.

50-400 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN

)

50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power

..g )

Plant, Units 1 and 2)

)

RESPONSE OF RICHARD WILSON TO BOARD MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON CONTENTIONS AND SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS I would like to address three issues related to the Boards Order of September 22 (ruling on contentions filed in support of petitions to intervene and on my motion to compel service of documents.)

1.

First, in the Board's acce.ptance of' contentions Ia-Id it is stated that the cont'entions involve the environmental effects of cooling tower blow down. My contentions did not address the water that is returned to the lake but rather the water vapo r that is evaporated into the atmosphere.

I am not sure that blow down is the correct term for this.

2.

Secondi I request that the Board reconsider its ruling on contention ivc, involving the statistical methods used in preoperational and operational radiologic.

l monitoring.

I would like to clarify my concerns on this issue.

In my review of the FSAR prior to the filing of contentions on May 14, it was apparent that there was very little discussion of how the collected data would be interpreted - that is, how the data would be analyzed statistically to determine, for example, whether a given 7

8210200o53

(,_

rsor

=

-f I

Page 2 reading from a sampling site is within the normal range or not.

At first glance this would seem to be a simple question but the interpretation of variations in systems in which the quantities measured are very small and the natural variation I

1 is very large is a complicated statistical problem. The intent of my contention was to point out this deficiency. The second sentence of my contention " Statistical analysis is imperative for meaningful interpretation of the impact of this facility on the surrounding environment" was meant to imply that the applicants had not adequately described any statistical analysis in the FSAR.

In the months between the filing of the contention and the Special Prehearing Conference on July 13 ai 1 14, J

I had time to refine my allegations, and on pages 158 and 159 of the transcripc of

{

that hearing I specified precisely three areas of deficiency in the FSAR.

The applicant 's first response in the hearing was that preoperational monitoring i

had been considered in the construction permit hearings.

My contention, however, explicitly refers to both preoperational and operational monitoring.

The applicant's second response is an Laplication that they have plans for the 4

kind of analysis that I discussed but just didn't include them in the FSAR. That may be the case, but how can I and the Board be satisfied that it is? If the procedures they are committed to are not written and available for inspection, how can their l

adequacy be verified?

As I stated on page 162 of the transcript of the Special Prehearing Conference, the interpretation of data is as important as the collection of it.

Without a description of statistical methods the Board cannot be assured that data will be l

interpreted correctly. Before the operating license is granted, the Applicant should be forced to present statistical techniques and procedures to be used in the situations l

l I specified during the Special Prehearing Conference (p. 158-159).

The admission of a contention rephrased in the following way would, through discovery, allow access to and evaluation of the statistical procedures in question.

I

Page 3 The statistical methods employed the preoperational and

~

the operutional radiological sur..-ys are inadequate because they do not specify:

1 1.

A detailed description (time, season, weather) of the samples used to caldulate the term Sb in the equation LLD =

4.66 Sb E x V x 2.2 x Y x e~

on page 6.1.5-29 of the ER 2.

The statistical methods used to determine the significance of a measuremen't' which shows incraased radioactivity.

That is, is it a statistical variation within the normal range or is it freely abnormal?

3.

The way in which discrepancies between split sample analyses will be resc_ved.

This wording offers the specifics of my contention which were implied but not detailed in its initial wording.

3.

Third, I would like the Board to reconsider its ruling on My tbtion to Compel Service of Documents to Intervenors.

As it affects me, the decision states that documents will be served to the

- representative of the Kudzu Alliance in Raleigh and we can then " arrange among (ourselves) to share access to these papers." Cost-saving was specified as the reason for suggesting this arrangement.

i This arrangement is unacceptable to me.

I have requested and been granted individual standing in this proceeding. I am an independent party with no prior connection to any of the other intervenors, including the Kudzu Alliance. I did not participate in the formulation of the Joint Contentions. I currently have no

Page 4 working relationship with the Kudzu Alliance.

I am dealing with the Board, the Applicant, and the NRC Staff.

I have no assurance that Kudzu will cooperate with me in any way in sharing documents. The representative of Kudzu may be uncooperative, busy, sick, or out of town when important documents are served.

It is not logical to demand cooperation of parties who are not associated.

This arrangement could lead to serious and time consuming procedural complications.

Furthermore, the marginal cost of the Applicant producing and delivering one more copy of their documents is clearly far less than the cost that I would incur in 1.

Taking time from my practice to make arrangements for " sharing",

driving to Raleigh, and Xeroxing documents. Even the smallest document would take 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of my time.

2.

Driving to Raleigh (15 miles), to a duplicating service, and back to Apex, every document would cost me $7. (35 miles at 20c/ mile).

3.

Copying at the retail cost of 5-10c/page.

Thus I repeat my request that I be served copies of all documents individually, as stated in my motion of August 20.

Respectfully submitted, cb bN/ ben Ric hard D. Wilson 72'rilunter Street Apex, N. C.

27502 a

?

I I

l l

i

o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. Et al. )

Dockets 50-400 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 )

and 50-401 0.L.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of EJAwM of lueet#b bitbob CD ADM $&k/Av0M1 OX)fcd7TsH7 hah W E7tLfC L C f WutM/) T$

HAVE been served this / I day of dC/c 2tv 198_2r by deposit in the US Mail, first-class postage prepaid, upon all parties whose names are listed below, except those whose names are marked with an asterick, for whom service was accomplished by Judges James Kelley, Glen Bright and James Carpenter (1 copy each)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 George F. Trowbridge (attorney for Applicants)

Shaw, Pittman, Potts, & Trowbridge 1800 M. St. NW Washington, DC 20036 Office of the Executive Legal Director Phyllis Lotchin, Ph.D.

Attn Dockets 50-400/401 0.L.

108 Bridle Run USNRC Chapel Hill, NC 27514 l

Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Secretary Dan Read Docketing and Service Station CHANGE /ELP Attn Dockets 50-400/401 0.L.

Box 524 l

USNRC Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Washington, DC 20555 (3 copies)

John Runkle Pat & Slater Newman CCNC CANP 307 Granville Rd.

2309 Weymouth Court Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Raleigh, NC 27612 l

l Travis Payne Edelstein & Payne f

Box 12643 Raleigh, NC 27605 f

Wells Eddleman Certified by

~

718-A Iredell St.

i Durham, NC 27705

!