ML20236V772
| ML20236V772 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1986 |
| From: | Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Nash T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236V753 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-596, FOIA-86-793 NUDOCS 8712070082 | |
| Download: ML20236V772 (37) | |
Text
.
.[ptes UNITED STATES -
40 CLEAR flEGULATORY COMMisslON Li
-l y
i AEC'ON il e
101 MARIETTA STRttT.NN.'
l ATLANT A. GEORGI A 30323,
j
- g.....
APR 14 986 MEMORANDUM FOR:
T. Nash, Investigation / Allegation Coordinator,' E&IS:
'j FROM:
- Alan R. Herdt, Chief, Engineering Branch, DRS
SUBJECT:
USE OF CRANE IN-FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DURING CONSTRUCTION (PRIOR TO USE FOR FUEL HANDLING).-- CASE'N0..RII-86-A-0067, CONCERN 2860067001.
The alleger claimed that the' crane Lat Harris, in the fuel handling' building -
(FHB), was used for construction ' related operation contrary to anifSAR comitment.
Morever, since receipt of the concern, CP&L has amended FS'AR Table 9.1.4.1 FHS Auxiliary Crane to permit the use of' this-crane during the. construction phase.
^
This is in amendment No. 23.
Included 'in;the amendment is a cosuiltment following.
the completion of. construction use and prior
- to final turnover to operations,- the crane is ' required. to be completely: tested and l inspected. in accordance' with applicable ' specifications to assure compliance: with performance requirements.
The' NRC's preoperational inspection. program contains inspection procedures requiring the review of test procedures and witne: sing;of tests' associated with cranes,. hoists, rigging and lifting. equipment..This inspection activity is scheduled to be-completed during April or May 1986.: The. licensee's preopera '
tional test program and-the Region's planned inspection activities will provideL 1
adequate assurance that fuel handling equipment will be ' ready to support its 4 intended function.
Based on the above, we consider the case to.be closed.
11 Alan R. Herdt' cc:
R. Walker, DRP J. Vorse, O!
1
\\
+
B7120}oos28712C j
% No h 596 PDR
(
p & C P '* l
.;pyr
a J
M [ 4 A. p g-J.
J q
~
e 1
l zu ng: MNrITR Cr TDELDGES IN PIO/IDING' peopprICBI 10 m CDWGSATIW CEWCIL Arc M (BEC W MG'!DS PUtDLINDG TO
]
mas cose necases, nrrDomrIm, AND i
t.NSMT RADIATICH PNCTICES AT CMCLDOL PcBem s LIGC NUCLDJt PfANIS.
yTIIAVIT CF PATrY S. MIRIE[JD q
state of S. Caroline I
Petty S. Miriallo, being &aly scen wwrding to law, deposes and says as follows:-
- 1. % nues is Petty S. Miriallo, my address
~
l 27611] I ms employed by Carolina Peuer &
Aasiust 19ef I scuted at the sheeren Itarris Ikaclaer Feuer Plant (SIBSPF, New Mill,' N.C..
and at the knaswick Stass Electric Plant (EEEP is a tse reactor, plant sita)',
sauer, N.C. I ms employed as a health physics tadmician and scrk radiatim areas and ses esposed to radiation and radioactive %ed in i
tim in,the course of my icest at both plants.
U 2.1he purpose of the affidevit is to show that the iseums oft falso does reccede, intieddstien, and uneefe radiation practices at CP&L nuclaer plants tes becught to the attentien of the uBNBC and that there iere no act.icns identified in ames of these '
motstars-unti&- afterNm 4=. W.4-tans-peo& aced.
In Sephaber 1985 the office of Investigatim of the thited States *rlaar Regulatory n==imaen - Atlanta ins notified of wisere radiation practioma, does receeds that didn't agree with the esposure dtidt $ms noted on asveral instruments by myself and another tactmb ima dalla that tactrLician tas. showing 'me problast radiatimi areas Wtidt tsare not properly posted and *ilm in surveyed the areas, and'intieddotion and arveil-'
lance by CP&L health physics personnel.
DI Novester 1985 cuitect ses ande with two CP&L employees to chedt en the falso does records. By January 1905 it sans deteneined free these empicyees that there sere problems with the recxrds dtich alzeedy showed a does far below that indicated by survey instruments 'and stay ties / dose ~1m1*4m. Itzeover, this does tas insignifi-cent ir,
-zists: to the pocket dosimeter readings.
. In Jarumy of 1986, all of the natters discusand above were me to tasc 4hr-
'Ihcess Madr - Atlanta 1his saa a emocnd timer that the (BBC was notified. No indicetdan had best giver by that tanc officer of p._ $leM M
!aMtjpd any investigatiw
^"
- =
results or that an 4
- =
- haut amef
.n accordance wita.he treeJom of Information Act, exemptions I mig. E - r 9 4 + R 7 9 5 gk
4, Page 2 It us rot until, Mr111986' faspectsr naah called an and tad that natters % 4 g#-4 ms % that (ENR
. did not indiate. even in 4ril %
' mads Meter.
h um any results in the false
- 3. Finally, I am voic g %
nl hour for (E h
,f, 3)
/
- *"" ' W % %,,
y y_
eht, //,-
- d*Y of h~
/9fG gU h,
s
~
NY ~ '==im g ires _ c...)n I
i I
i
^
QChk&T e
u
~' IN THE MATI1:R OF CAPOLINA POWD & LIGfr f
HEALW PHYSICS SUPDVISION AT SHEAl0N NARRIS ORDERING A HEALW PHYSICS i
11DNICIAN TO LIE W A NIC FtMM 4 AFFIDAVIT OF PATTY S. MIRIELI4 Cbunty of Charleston State of S. Carolina Patty S. Miriello, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says as follows-1.
name is Patty S. Miriello, my address i I ms apployed by Carolina Power &
mn February Aufgust I worked at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SIMPP), New Hill, N.C.
and at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSD is a two reactor plant site),
Southport, N.C. I as enployed as a health physics technician and erkad in radiation areas and was exposed to radiation and endina,tive contamj ation in the p
course of my work at both plants.
- 2. The purpose of this affidavit is to state that I was told bv' two different levels of b=1th chvsies enr=_ vision at the SHNPP site to actrue with an ir_ mect or false radiation swcrt and to fill out a t.hited States Nuc;. ear Reg"1* tory Comnission Fcrin 4 :.n agreement with this falso rmA4* tion rert and therefore-I was told to lie cm an NBC Form 4.
e 3.
Eachlicenses of the f.hited States Nuclear Regulatory Ccunnission' (USGC) like Carolina Power & Light (CP&L) under the provisions of NRC regulatiar 10 Cf1t, Part 20 is required to obtain a ocmpleta NRC Fom - 4 free each new employee if the licensee (CPEL) proposes to expose the :.ndividual to a radiation dose in excess of that specified in NRC regulation 10 CFR parv.p. 20.101 (al.
Failure to obtain the required infornaticm on the NIC Fom - 4 nog subject d&L 1
to enforceent action by the USNIC in accordance with 10Cf1t 20.lin 1
- Moreover, the infornataan s.ipplied by the epicyee on the NRC.Fom - 4 nust certify at the mininun that the history of occgetional radiation exposure is correct. This includes former apployers, dates of employment, periode of exposure, and correct-ness of dose. It is the employeels responsibility to seks afre that the fann is This is to prevent the enployer (GEL) fzca knowingly e: posing a workar
{
correct.
in excess of the limits in 10 CFR, Part 20.
It is not theintant of NRC regulations that a lim (CP&L) knowingly :-x+3 a false NRC Fom - 4 ; nor, is it the intent of the NIC regula*4ans that the M n-see (CP&L) coerce an encloyee to falsify an NPC Fom - 4 for'any reason. This is a violation of the 01t.
(4. In rch of 1985 I was told by John O'Mallora SHNPP health physics forema in the dosimetry area, to mplete a NR c o rs = - 4. I had exposure record from all former employers except the North Carolina State-University (NCSU). Therefore, I contacted the. radiation protection office at NCSU to obtain my radiation exposure record. NCSU returneo a letter which is attachment 1 which states that there was no record.
i 1
Information in this record was deleted in accordance with tpe Freedom of information Act, exemptions w
F0IA. M "' l9 A Y
~
gg
?-
Pago 2 After further contact with NCSU I*was able to indicate that a mistake had been made and a dose record was received in May 1985 which is attachment 2.
- 5. In the period of April 1985 through May 13,1985; I was harassed by CP&L supervision to complete the NRC Form - 4 using attachment 1 s a basis and in agreement with attachment 1: I was told to fill ut the N C for. - 4 as having received noJose at NCSU. - loth ohn Dease ead osimetry technician, and orema$g ol me to do so. I would not.fal ohn O'MalloraQ dosimetry -
y a NRC Fo rm - 4.
I stated that I was a graduate student in nuclear: engineering at NC30 l
and that I participated in laboratories with radiation sources and ' that I had a dose.
I stated that it was up to NCSU to keep accurate records and that I would not lie on or f alsify anyone's NRC Form - 4. Theref ore, I persisted in asking NCSU to search for my records. This was =done by phone and by letter. This was the right thing to do.
Everyone, in the SHNPP dosimetry of fice knew about the problem that I was having with obtaining my dose records from NCSU. 'All phone calls were made from the dosimetry of fice phone and letters' were sent on OPSL (etterhead.
The dosimetry personnel aware of'the pro lem were:
eve Frost, Vera Poe, John Dease, and John O'Halloran In the period from April 1985 to May 13,1985; I-inf ormed ilohn Deas 4
that I was going to try to get th a wrteten request one more time. EJohn Dea:i proper rnords from NCWithroug E stated ~that I should not make another request and that I should fill out the NRC Form - 4 hav ng no dose from the period when I was a graduate student at as NCS".
So I said NO. I would not lie on something like an NRC Form - 4 especially my own.LJohn Dea 4 han stated that st _ was his decision; but 3 espe-that I should go tad to o upervisor: John O'Malloran 4
told me the same thing.
John,O'Hallor34' g.pgyg As a result I openly called the "SNRC resident was Richard, Prevatteand told him what was transpiring. He'said to sendins the additional request to NCSU.and that it was not' correct to lie on the NRC Form - 4.
Richard Prevatte also offered assistance from.the USNRC in Atlanta to have the matta glooked into i I did~ not get.a dose -
record back from NCSU.
So I told ilohn O'Mallora hat if he wanted tot that he could argue with the "SNRC M..at I didn't a lying on records.
- 6. As attachment 2 indicates the proper response finally came f rom NCSU. A second call was made to Richard Prevatte to indicate that problem was corrected and that the exist indicating this situation existed,further action was not necessary. Records the USNRC was notified of' he intent of CP&L health physics supervision to coerce a worker Lto lie on a dose record, and that the situation was corrected properly.
,4 4
Page 2 5.
\\
had no integrity in this matter.The CP&L health physics do Inti3Tdation from supervisioT to force any q
nuclear safety concern.emp_loyee to Violate the law is illegal.
Licht havei What Are any of their dose records to credibility does Carolin and is As I stated to the USNRC resident e belies,t&e
(
j in the period of April 1985 to Ma inspector, Richard Prevatte
)
lie on a simple NRC Form - 4, y 13,1985:
i then who will ever believe any ofIf C their records in the future when p roblems arose?
- 6. After I at SHNPP thatindicated to CP&L lie on the NRC Form - 4: dosimetry pers I would not equivalently as the other dosimetry person I.
the USNRC resident n
t I was not and to build a casei believe CP&L engaged in active effinspe nel. I don't treated believe cal a e me a ' good CP&L employee'l n:
ort to harass me and get me to qu; and' to fire me.
. $0
,l A
5'.
-l \\
Patt
- 5. Miriello i
\\
Sworn and subsribed beforei--c
\\
^
/
m
-his j i
^
i
.I
_ day of 7 A O
d
.,,g _ q.
1._
~.
, c a,. ; _
My commission expires _
a
"~$
^
,k July 29,1986 IN THE MATTER OF THE CAROLINA POLfER &
LIGHT DENIA L OF FURNISHING PALSE DOSE RECORDS IN THE APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO CONTENTION '#B-4 (FALSIFICATION OF-IXPOSURE RECORDS)
AFFIDAVIT OF PATTY S. MIRIELLO Patty S. Miriells veing duly sworn according to law,,deposestand-says as follows:
1.
My name is Patty S. Miriello, I live i I was employed by Carolina ower & Light (CP&L) from February 1985 through August 1985.
I worked at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) and at the Brunswick Steam Elactric Plants (BSEP), Southport, N.C.
I was employed as a health physics technician and worked in radiation areas and was exposed to radiation and radioactive contamination in the course of work at both plants. (At SHNPP there were calibration sources and radiochemistry sources.)
2 The purpose of this affidavit is to identify. inaccuracies and-the intent of CP&L to cover up false dose records by lies and inaccuracies in the CP&L response to the request for theiadmission of the new contention '33-4 dated 'as of May _8,1986.
3.
Palse dose records and false construction records related to any nuclear plant are a serious safety threat to the'public.
The public must suffer the further distress of being obligated to pay for the corruption and violations of the code of federal regulations.
In other words the public must pay for a nuclear accident waiting to happen when an unsafe nuclear plant is put on line.
4.- No good intent or any display of moral character is displayed by CP&L in its response to contention WB-4.
Instead,an overt attempt to cover up is displayed.
Hearsay, is sworn to in an affidavit by Stephen Browne.
Further, CP&L takes advantage of the public's lack of expertise in' health physics or radiation matters.
Information in this record was deleted.
in accordance withge freedom of Information Act excm tionS F0IA -
" O '*
Nb 2'
4-Page:2 The policy of CP&L, historically, has been to present a.. facade toi the public_of having no problems.
However, at thej same time CP&L-overtly. attacks v:histle blowers-indicating that problems L exist.
Certainly, this matter of CP&L corporate perfection :is:notipalatable to its rate payers with the onset of severe rate hikes..
5 For. example, on page'6 of attachment: 1F the CP&L response:to
. Contention '.134 ene finds-the following statement:
...The board found that Ms. Miriello had mistated' her qualifi.
cations."
This is an absolute lie by CP&L and.'if the. Board ' (Atomic L Safety and Licensing Appeals Board). actually found that.,then the board-should wake up finally and go back and. look over the -testimony that. it-documented during' the hearing concerning contention WB-3 -(Drug Abuse During Construction) which occurred in October of 1985r F.ntered into the hearing record is a copy of my resume which accurately -
describes my Master a degree as being in completion. 'Also'during the-cross examination of the hearing, Wells Edelman, brought.thetsubject.
to the attention of everyone present and 'it was discussed openly and in depth.
It is hearing record that' it is commonplace for; a company to consider a Masters degree as complete.if the. thesis is 'in revis' ion.
~
Further, even the United States Office 'of Personnel Managemnet. allows all federal employees to state that.a graduate 1 degree is complete _ if it is within 6 months of completion, Unfortunately, for CP&L my qualifications stand and according to.the United Sates office of Personnel Management, I can be hired'as having a Masters degree. By. Carolina Power-& Light constantly referring to this baseless argument, simply indicates that' the company.is 'out to.
attack and descredit any whistle blower: based on unsubstantiated and=
biased arguments.
I J
1 A more important nuclear concern is to ask: How much did CP&L simply-9 mistate to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board (ASIAB). and
PageJ3 j
i i
how much was intentional lies?
CP&L 'is given' ihe right to operate.
it's plants ultimately through the; public. - TheLanswers that CP&L '
I must give the public must bei beyond. any possible misstatement 'and if j the ' company is lying then it shouldn't 'in any manner. operate a nuclear:
. power plant.
I 6.
On page 7 of attachment 1, CP&L ~statesthat. the board (ASALB)'
took. note of Ms. Miriello's retaliatory ' motivation 'and hostility l i
toward CP&L.
CP&L has retaliated arainst me for lo'okins into i
rroblems at its plants and has continued to rettliate msninst me-
'I in various forms over the period from about 4/85 up to the wsent.
A. When I eontacted the United States Nuclear. Regulatory Countission (USNRC) inspector at the Harris plant concerning John O'Halloran ordering me to lie on my NRC form 4, I began to receive reverse. -
discrimination and harassment from supervision in' CP&L. ~ That was' in 4/85., Eventually I was fired without any basis and immediately-1 following the investigation of. negligent radiation practices at.
the CP&L Brunswick plants.
I was told.to get off the Brunswick site after a male worker harassed me(That was(Gene Haight after this worker's supervisor had me watched (That washcey Tripp, and after I came out of a unposted high radiation area-.with'a_ pocket.
dosimeter that was near off-scale'. That was on 8/9/85.L CP&L fired me on 8/30/85..usine the lie that I' did not' ret alone with a co-worker By 10/85 CP&L had-exaggerated Lihis lie. In the-lo/3/85 as a basis.
Raleigh News & Observer CP&L made this statementi
...Ns.Miriello's employment was terminated on Aug. 30,1985' 1
because of her inability' to function cooperatively with her co workers and supervisors."
Due to the' fact that I was testifying at the ASIAB hearing concerning drug abuse at the Harris. plant CP&L went further with !11 bel'in pure retaliatory action which was designed to make CP&L look good.
I've done nothing but tell the truth and have offered to submit to any form of lie detection in this. matter. 'Itlis clear that retaliation by CP&L against myself has occurred.
r
Page 4 B.
Further retaliatory action occurred when I tried to return to graduate srudies in nuclear engineering at the North Carolina -
State University (NCSU) after the ASLAB hearing andrug abuse at the Harris plant.
Before the hearing there was no problem in returning.
to graduate studies: however after the hearing and after a CP&L contact. I was being told that I may not be returning to study nuclear' engineering at NC3U by the nuclear engineering deoartment; C.
Continuous' retaliatory action has occurred at the Charleston Naval Shipyard.Vhenever I take part in a whistle blowing activity.
against CP&L I have received immediate harasstment or retaliatory
- action, taoreover, once again there is discrimination present on the job which would force anyone to quit.
Similiar to what I had experienced at CP&L after I went to the USNRC in' April 1985:
a supervisor is lying and usina the lie that I an't net alons with him or anvene else in the shinvard.
This is CPat's reason Not only did{ Douglas Rountree2 my NAVY @upervisor]
for firing me.
slander me countinuosly with that statement he went as far as to use it as a reason for termination and placed it in writing as libel.
{ Douglas Rountre] has lost six people in about 2 years and he normally
}
has a working group of 4 individuals.
That's a 1507. turn over.
In addition. it is beine allered thatfDourins Rountree is not only symnhathetic to CP&L. but has been in contact with and has acted in collaboration with CP&L to destrov mv career.
Since the NATI.
and the United States Office of Personnel u.=,ement knew that I am a whistle blower against CP&L it is obvies that this matter extends further.
Retaliation by CP&L against a whistleblower seems to have no end.
How can the NAVY state that it has the safest nuclear program in the world and at the same time fire. a nuclear safety activist or whistle blower? What is #ne NAVY hiding at
.l i
Charleston, S.07 D.
On page 7 of attachment 1, CP&L identifies the well intended j
action by the Conservation Council of North Carolina to identify 1
Page75!
my false dose records'as:
j
"...Further, ' to charge CP&L with the systematic falsification T
l of e::posure records to workers on the. basis ' of a. six. month employee's statement about..only her records.-- is' irresponsible."
To clarify this charge. of mine :on the false. dose. record matterstIf my dose ' records were ~ falsified then what about the records of'the' other technician wh'o was with me'in the;unposted high,radiationi
' His exposure l'Llow by accident, also?
area s
Once again in a statement by.- CP&L, inflamitory rhetoric:isf apparent, a
The Conservation Council is an environmental' group that isunotl engaged actively in making big buc'rs from nuc1' ear power as is Carolina 1
Power & Light.
Carolina' Powar & Light has enoug(monetary. interest in the matter to use any~ type of dirty. trick.
7.
On page 7 of the CP&L response (attachment 1), CP&L once again distorts the truth:
"... Ms. Miriello's allegation 'of. record falsification. is-based on two asserted beliefs:L (1) That her self-reading pocket dosimeter- (SRFD) reading for one exposureL period:
at Brunswick was clandestinely reduced.in her records:'
and (2) that several thermoluminescentidosimeter readings were not entered into her records at' Brunswick.":
I My statements are based on fact in this. matter.
The self-reading pocket dosimeter reading for 8/9/85 on attachment 2 was entered.
ashem whereas, the dosimeter actually read about es.
There was nothing. ' clandestine' about it. I can. Ma(*+
~
=
h+ 1 a + +a health physics technician at the controi noint;rema +h.
imeir.+-
dosimeter' and proceeded to write ~down the wrona remdhw an mit ^hman+
2 with the intent to cover up by writing in a false numbeifDene?
Haigh@idn't care about writing in the false pocket' dosimeter. rea..
'i
.w ding' j
clandestinely. He did it openly in my presence.
I couldn't believe it.
Within about an hour when I turned in the pocket, dosi:neter.and--
my TID badgethlice Thompsomla CP&L. dosimetry technician, took' the reading from.the same pocket -dosimeter and wrote down 'on attachmnet 3 that it read mrem.
l s
- - - - - - _ - _ = -.
1 f,
Page 6 j
i q
I saw aboutgmrem on the pocket dosimeter on 8/9/85,hlice Thompsohdocumentedthatshesaw andheneHai
- arem, tried to cover up and stated that.he saw mrsm when he made-the false entry on the dose access card Tattaement.2).
Consequently, the CP&L statement that the pocket dosimeter. reading for one period' at Brunswick was clandestinely reduced 'is false.1 That readiness openiv reduced in a ' falsifiention hvihene Mm4 ahtTon-i.
the access control card. The documentation or the acces's controlI
(
card and the exposure investigation report 'make. that cle'ar..
1 k
The statement that several thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) readings were not entered in my records at Brunswickiis true.
I had two TLDs at Brunswick The first TLD should have given'a I
reading of about to mrem in agreement with the pocket dosimeter which is reliable and'in agreement with.the survey.
results which were made by myself and the other technician. The second TID should have.given a very low reading, also, i
" hat CP&L is stating is that my combined. dose, which includes:
- 1. TIDs at the Harris niandh the neriod 2/25/86 to 8/30/85 total 0. ( I was working yrith calibration sources and involved j
in the accountability and the receipt of radioactive me.terials.
From similiar experience at both the -Pennsylvania State University and at the North Carolina State University I had received a sa:all dose.
At the CP&L Harris plant there was no dose. ) See ' attachment 4.
2.TIDs at the Brunswick blant for the cerii(/29/86 to 8/30/86 total mrem (whole body dose) and eem (skin dose),
muuur The CP&L stated combined dose is a mere im (whole body dose).
j By looking at the pocket dosimeter readings on the dose..necess card (attachment 2) and the pocket dosimeter reading which Alice Thompson recorded (attachment 3): the CP&L stated combined dose -
of mrem (whole body dose) is absurd.
i o
I r
j
a
. \\
'l
'q hop 7 J
- 8. In looking more clopely is. tithe dose access. card, bre uret three exposure periods.where significant dosa ;was ace.ddu2atos on the self reading pocket dosimeter.
As stated in the' h1?idavit i
of 4/3/86 i(See attachmnet 5), these doses are obviously excluded from the CP&L official radiation exposure report ofJ 8/20/85 (See attachment 6) and again frori the report of 9/10/df (See attachment A). Since the official radiation reports are based on the TLD readings, then these doses are not included M
in the TLD readings.
There is no rood reason for this;40sc ndt
+.9 have been recorded by the TLD.
Therefore, the TLD record j gronr.
- 1oreover, it is in the best inte$est of CP&L to make 11
, acoear as though there was practically no' dose acculmuldth, CP&L certainly won't admit to radiological problems at Brunswick and most probably this matter hs.si decurred before and been covered -
- ?*
y.
u The dose access cardg?ocuments the.followin6 Pocket dosiutor readings:
j 8/$/85 8/6/55
\\'
8/8/85 and S/9/85 is documented by(Niicj.Thompsoj(Attachmern 3).
TOTAL i
This is a large radiation e::nosure and it is dep;qqnt3,difh records as havine been recqrded by an accurata jipjddosimotor.
CP&L even states in Attachment 1 the followily: ;
... cn $/9/85 at Brunswick, which tras ir.ves'tig.AdE 'and documented.
On that occasion her SRPD (pocket dosimeht.r) read higher than e::pected based on her dose Tates in %e work area ana the amount of time spent ;in %$ area.
Her TLD was promptly read to confirm whether or not the SRPD J
(pocket dosimeter) reading of
. mrem was valid. 6/ The L
TLD reading was lmromg" t-f
{.
]f, 1
^
l i
D
~
1 g
Page 8
,S y
.] g-i 1
In the first place, C?aL does;not state' or'idend.fy the vrork area.
I surveyed the area which I.n.s in; with andtheritechnician
- ho uns also. surheying.
We had two E4thgann m6kdrs and a tele-tector.(normally used as a go.mma metIr)j Tiis dose rate at the entrance
.rasseveralhdndredmillrem/ hour.
?.at$4r into the area the two i
beta-gamma instruments) read _about 1000';[11birem/ hour and were within 15 of each other dher.'s checked,for accuracy or reliability. At the farthest point into'the area the~ teletector read 3000 to 5000 millirem / hour.
At that point ce decided to get out to avoid enpoSure.
\\
Therefore, based on the survey results which I made and which I saw another technician make it is highly reasonable to state a general area radiation level of about 1000 millirem / hour existed.
Since our time in the area was fpom 15 to 30 :.inutes: then ou.r exposure was about to milliria just as my pocket dosimeter indicated and was documented as indJe ing lirem.
- 9. consequently, how does1,CP&L get a TLD reading. of em (whole body dose) and a reading og er,em (skin dose)?
By falsifying dose records?
It is a simple matter to falsify a TLD reading.
I worked in a
dosimetry therefore I know how CP&L can do it. In the quote on page 7 of this affidavit CP&L statestst:
I
"...Her T2 was promptly read to emfirm t/hether or not the SRPD (pc:ket dosimeter) reading of mi"..irem was valid...*
d'
' hen a single T2 is promptly read at a CP&L operating plants it is normal 3y done usig the aanual TLD reader.
The mar.ual reader i
trill read one TLD at a timc; The automatic TLD reader which can handle trays of about 50 TIDs will usually not be used to read a single TLD.
If the manual reader is used it is a simple matter for the dosimetry technician to write in any reading that he/she l
pleases.
More importantly, a' dose of em (whole body) and
)
Q
i L
Page 9 mrem (skin) can easily be changed to mren and mrem.
31nilin.rly, if the automatic TLD reader was used: the' dose recorded on the 13*: diskette could be changed.
There are many ways that a T.D dose.could be altered.
Serefore. based on survev results. on a stay ti ie calculation. and on tk fact that the TLD results een be altsred I state' that CPaL has erhvided me with a false e::cosure record.
13 Simple arithmetic and standard health physics practices indi-cate that the doses o mrem and em are false.
If the TLD.
reading'of mrem (whole body dose) actually occurred, then the dise%reement-between the pocket dosimeter and the TID is
- mrem (cocket dosimeter total) -
mrem (CP&L official dose) X 100 =
j mrom (CP&L official dose)
A Difference =
- The following pocket dosimeter readi are included:
8/5/85 -
8/6/85 -
8/8/85-I 8/9/85 - Not included to show that even s
without the largest and most important dose. th mrem: "the dis-agreement between the first three. pocket'dosimet,er. readings and the l
CP&L official dose is just to large to be considered acceptable.
t Therefore CP&L is admitting to an error of between my pocket dosimeter and TID after on 4 days of radiation work at the Brunswick plant.
- 7 hat happens'when the pocket dosimeter reading from 8/9/85 is added to the total and compared with the TLD reading of em?
mremfoocket dosimeter total) -
axem(CP&L official dose) X 100 em ('CP&L official dose)
$ Difference =
i i
.b
Page 10 L"herefore, CP&L admits to routinely having an error of 110.3%
between CP&L pocket dosimeters and CP&L TLDs.
However, is CP&L trying to cover up a large exposure hdifferenceof1350.N If the TLD actually read mrem (whole body dose) and mren (skin dose), what would the percent difference btween the TLD and the pocket dosimeter be?
em to k dos mete t
. em o abl CP&
s gg_-
em ro ble CP&L ose
^
.-J Difference = 45.1%
Row the percent diffence is becoming acceptable.
Generally, a 30%
difference is allowed.
This is a standard health physics practice.
If the pocket dosimeter disagrees with the TID beyond the 305 range, then the pocket dosimeter is considered questionable and is removed from service.
The pocket dosimeter is then subjected to the proper quality control testing.
It is well known throught the nuclear in-dustry that pocket dosimeters overrespond slightly to low energy photons.
This explains the slightly higher pocket dosimeter reading in comparison to a TLD.
A pocket dosimeter reading 110 3% greater than a TLD is not in any
- ay normal and is highly improbable.
However, CP&L wants us to accept this as correct.
Is it more beneficial to CP&L in a legal manner to hope everyone will believe a 110.3% difference instead of a more probable dose ofgarem with a corresponding 45.14 difference between the pocket dosimeter and the TLD? Of course and for the fo11owin6 reasons:
(1) If my TLD read em and was falsified, then what about the other technician's dose? Is it to low? Has this happened before?
(2) If my TLD read mrem and was falsified, then CP&L was negligent in its radiation practices at Brunswick and I could have been over-
~
exposed.
Iven worse, is the fact that falsified dose records just don't f
happen by themselves.
It takes people to fix the numbers, i
4
Page 11-
- 11., the CP&L e::posure investigation report has many interesting details.
Included.in these details are cross outs.
Under part II are six cross outs.
It appears that the work area dose rate went from 20 mrem / hour down to 10 mrem / hour.
Similiary, the stay time in thu area decreased from 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />.
This reduced the dose from 40 mrem to 10 mrem'.
Of course CP&L wants all of their paper work to show a dose less than the mrem that Cp&L alleges the TLD read.
j Under that same section there is a sta.tament: Slay have been dropped."'
Doesn't it seem strange that I did not in fact say that the dosimeter had been dropped? I stated may have been dropped because I didn't want to lie and state that it was dropped.
Nor, did I want to tell CP&L that it was reading high because I had-been in one of the unposted high radiation areas at Brunswick with another technician who wanted 3
to show me what kind of a mess the plant was. To do that would have been plain stupid.
So I didn't tell them the area I was in or specif-ically who took me there. So how can CP&L calculate a dose in II?
I didn't tell them where I was. All that they may know was the general
- vicinity, i
Under section III is the pocket dosimeter reading whic lice Thomp--
so[ documented. She sawgmrom and I stated that it was about mrem which is close. Also listed there is the pocket dosimeter' readings from the dose access card for 8/5/85, 8/6/85, and 8/8/85 which total mrom. Even CP&L does not list the mrom which is l
listed on the dose access card for 8/9/8 '
That_1s the falso entry which the Bartlett technician no Hai
, ande on my access card at the control point.
He didn ike i when I said.that the pocket q
dosimeter looked like it was a mrem.
So he looked at the pocket j
dosimeter and wrote down
- mrem. What a good company man he'd make.
He started to cover up right at the control point.
He wasn't going
)
~
to let the matter wait until it reached the dosimetry office where
{
CP&L could take care of it.
Page 12 12.
The pocket dosimeter was functioning properly during the entire five day' period from 8/5/85 through 8/9/85
. According to the dose access card, the pocket dosimeter had not exhibited any significant drift on 8/5/85, 8/6/85, 8/7/85, '8/8/85, and on 8/9/85 According to the access control card, the initial and final doses are as follows:
In Out Date (Into radiation area)
Comments' 8/5/95 No drift. Exit value is similiar.to area levels.
8/6/85Firstentry.
No drift.
8/6/85 second entry.
.No drift.
8/6/85Thirdentry.
ito drift.
8/7/85 No drift.
8/7/85 No drift.
8/8/85 No drift. Exit value is similiar to area levels.
8/9/85 No drift overnight.
There was obviously no drift in any pocket dosimeter (s) at any time.
Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the reliability or the stability of the pocket dosimeter.
The readings are accurate.
The readings in all entries are comparable to the area radiation levels at the work site.
As a result, the official TID dose is highly questionable in this case.
It does not agree in any manner with the radiation levels which I and another technician noted during our survey of an unposted high radiation area. Therefore, if the pocket dosimeter agrees with the survey that was made, then the pocket dosimeter dose should be the official dose.
It should be noted that during the survey, we were surveying constantly.
I knew the area dose rate at a whole body location at every step.
~!Ie were not standing at one hot soot.
I
n Page 13
. n page 8 of attachment 1, CP&L states:
... Since. dose rates vary with both location and time in' a nuclear plant, it would '
be very difficult-for her to estimate her dose very accuratey..."
This is not true.
The location as a variable can be' eliminated.
'te sighted our. meters ' constantly,, mew where we were, and how much e tere getting'since we knew about how long we' were' in the area.
"oreover,. As soon as we saw'some very high levels: 3000-mrem / hour to 5000 mrem / hour we left in-a hurry.
Time was not a variable since we were in an area that, was for all-practical purposes stagnant in respect to fluctuating ' dose rates.
There was no neutron flux from an operating reactor, nor. was there any flow of reactor coolant in any of the pipes.
Dose rates were identified through.the' survey as not changing abruptly with. location except for the last very high reading and dose rates could not vary with time, since-the curie content in the area was not changing.
13.
On page 10 of attachment 1, CP&L statest"...Further, the TID is not significantly more sensitive than the SRFD (pocket dosimeter).
to gamma radiation, although it is more -accurate."
In this case the TLD was more ' sensitive' and CP&L is again wrong.
The definition of sensitivity from the Barnhart dictionary includes
...the degree of responsiveness of an electrical or an electronic device, as to a signal."
A pocket dosimeter which has a scale from 0 to 500 mren-with the scale in graduations of-20 mrom is hard to read at the low and.
It is hard to estimate a change of 1 or 2 mrom on a pocket dosimeter like this.
A change of 2 mrem may 'go undetected on.the pocket dosimeter. How-ever, a TID may be able to show a change of a arem or two arem.
Therefore, in this manner the TLD is more sensitive that the pocket dosimter (SRPD).
Usually, the TID is considered as the official dose unless there is considerable doubt as there is here in relation to whether or not the mrem (whole body dose) and mrem (skin dose) were figures contrived by CP&L.
__m_m___m_. _ _ _ - -
Page 14 14 A calculation of the dose which I received can be made.
3asically, one multiplies the followings (General area-dose rate)
X (Time spent in the area)_ Calculated Dose 1000 mr / hour X 0.330 hour0.00382 days <br />0.0917 hours <br />5.456349e-4 weeks <br />1.25565e-4 months <br /> (20 minutes)=:= 330 mram The agreement with the pocket dosireter reading of 360 mrem is
-l quite clear.
Even'if the time spent in the' area or the dose:
rate is varied slightly a similiar result occurs.
Moreover, if in fact the TLD reading was mrem-(whole body)Dand mrem.
(skin dose) then there would be agreement in all aspects of this j
matter.
15 Another peculiarity in this matter is the fact that CP&L admits-a mistake in record keeping on its computer dose tracking system called RIMS. CP&L states in the Browne affidavit of A'tachment 1:
... The report (see attachment 6) contains the correct total dose, but through an inadvertent clerical error j
the doses for the second and third periods of time shown on the report were switched."
Further, CP&L goes on to state on page 6 in the Browne affidavit:
.. 0ther than the clerical error which resulted in.the
]
doses being corresponded with the wrong dose, this report '
was a complete and accurate representation of the total i
dose received at CP&L for_ the TLD badges processed from February 25,1985 through August 9,1985."
gy answer to this allegation by CP&L is-the affidavit written in April of 1985 (See attachment 7) which indicates what else probably happened in reference to the August 20, 1985 dose report (Attachment 6) and the September 10,1985 dose report (Attachment 4) i having switched around doses.
Moreover, I am accused by CP&L on page 10 of Attachment 1 of t i
... The-September 10 letter (See attachment 4) was mailed e
r
l Page 15 to Ms. Miriello at the'same address as the August 20 letter (See attachment 6).
I t corre:ts the' clerical error, and reports on all TLDs processed.
The September 10 letter, the official termina-tion report, should have eliminated any confusion on Me, Miriello's part.
Yet, she deceptively makes no mention of it in th6 affidavit y
filed with the board.-
Instead, CP&L is wrongly accused.of record tamoering and~ destruction with malice."
Please note, Attachment 7' is an affidavit which clearly states that the September 10,1985 report was found on 4/5/86 and'it was-discussed in an April 1986 affidavit as attached here in depth.
It'is still.
1 sy belief that the 9/10/85 CP&L termination report isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
Moreover,ito once again' be accused by CP&L, as in the previous quote on this page', of being deceptive is.commone-place for CP&L to do that. As attachment 7 states, CP&L is ' completely -
wrong in that matter. A copy of Attachment 7 was even sent to the USNRC.
16.
Another lie to the USNRC ASIAB, the public, and the State-of North Carolina exists in Attachment 1 on page 9 CP&L and Stephen Browne state:
... Jhile Ms. Miriello may not agree with the dose she was assigned during work at the Brunswick plant, she was fully informed and aware of the dose assigned, and acknow-ledged such by signing the Personnel Exposure Investigation report form for that incident..."
)
I signed the form from about 8:30 AM to 9:30 AM on 8/9/85 in order
, to obtain a new TLD and to initiate an exposure investigation.
No investigation results were yet on the form.
New TIDs. aren't' just given out at any time.
LiceThompso}nsked me' to sign the form to start or to initiate.the investigative process and to acknowledge the receipt of new dosimetry. hiice Thompso)never filled in the results of the investigation in my presence and no CP&L employes ever informed me of the results.
'1 i
e
Fage 16-j Since CP&L' was so busy kicking me- ~off the site- (BSYS) on 8/9/85:
they didn't have time or care enou,h to give me a wheie body.
count.
I was never offered one or told to get one to check for the presence of internal contamination.
Moreover, where did anyone from CP&L sit down with me. and have time to discuss any exposure investigation.and yet also have the time to collect the data necessary to make the: investigation? - Doeshtsphen'Br remember discussing the exposure investigation wIth 'me?
He states' in the affidavit in Attachment 1 that this' discussion occurred.
and that I was fully informed (See page 8 of the Browne affida'vit).:
It appears thathtsphen'Br%is swearing an affidavit to second hand informatica and he is swearing that hearsay is the truth. ;I H
am not amazed at what lengths CP&L will go to in order.to discredit-a whistle blower.
Did Stephen Brownc inform me of the dose. of l
gmrem (whole body) andgarem(skin) which I was being. assigned j
at the Brunswick plant? 'Then who did? Let. the public see an affidavit from that imaginary individual.
17 Stephen Browne in his affidavit in Attachment 1 goes further.-
in swearing to information which he has no knowledge of and states on page 9:
...Ms. Miriello has presented no-information which could possibly account for such a large exposure during any of her monitoring periods."
CP&L states further that when the Conservation Council of North.
Carolina and Wells Edelman submitted Contention WBA (Falsification of Exposure Records) that it was sutr;aitted late.
How can any safety concern ever become annarent to late to voice? 'It is always imnortant to the nublic safety.
C?&L states on page 11 of Attachment 1:
...Es. Miriello has been' in contact with council for the.
CCNC (Conservation Council of N. Carolina) since at.least two days after her dismissal (8/30/85).
$he testifiedLin this proceeding in early October,1985, and presumably be-came at least somewhat familiar with the process by which -
'l
7 age l17-I interveners raise contentions:in this proceeding.
If she did not raise these issues riith 1*.r. Runkle; seven months 7ago, she could have.
In any. case,.it is clear that the1CCUC and "r.Idelman were alerted to these clainsof Ms. Miriello when they received
- j from the board a copy of. her January 1,1986 ex parte. letter. 'to :
the board chairnan.
]
1 The. ex carte letter which was mmeked: confidential and was t released by.TuAwa Valley (time attankmant 9), under artbema nrotest by tha'CCdC (See ' attachment 0) and myself. since it-endansers an!anvirsideental whistle blowert does not ro~into detail on many of these' nuclear?
J safety concerns.
It is 'certainly. in the. be' t interests.. of the public.
s since that would have only indicated to CP&L as a 'tip off' what else had been' obserted in the way of CFR : violations att its. plants'.y Pharefore.
I had to 'trovide the CCNC with more information.-
That takes t N.
i
'Jhistle blower federal protection;1aws.are designed to allow matters
)
directly affecting the public-sifety to come. to light.
There:is;
]
nothing in any of the laws which statesi that I.am allowe'd; two; days tr do an act of whistle blowing.
In the' amount of. time'which I have given my attention to these matters, it is obvious that I'have i
given a considerable amount of information and Ltimei for: just ions-person.
In addition, CP&L through retaliatory action has in several' instances
'l disrupted my life.
1 To have the USNRC dismiss Contention WB-4 asLuntimely or,even to' j
censider it as untimely is anovert act to quash a whistle. blowing i
activity.
Moreover, I have given the USNRC Office ~of Investigation the: same i
nuclear safety concerns in Sootember'of-1985 which are being brouaht 1
to light here.
It was not apparent' that any of the matters were ever q
I
Page 18 being looked into until late January of 1986.
That is about five months.
- %ny of the concerns still haven't been properly investigated.
Therefore, they must be brought to public attention, f
- thistle blowing no matter how slow seems to be the only way to do that.
The ASLG and the USNRC in general is not giving these matters the proper attention.
i i
18.
In conclusi n, there are significant nuclear safety issue at hand: The lack of integrity of CP&L to operate any nuclear 1
plant, falsification of dose records, intimidation of workers, intimidation of a whistle blower, retaliation against a whistle-blower, blacklisting, negligent radiation practices, falsification of quality assurance records, public deception, deception of the.
.j USNRC, and other matters.
All of these matters must be brought to the attention of the public 7
/M
[attyS.Miriello/
Sworn and subscribed to me this day'of %A' 14'1986.
V h.
k(A b' 6N
/I my commission expires Notary i
r s
i
j
+
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-i Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
<-i i
t i
In the matter of
)
-)
. CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL
)
Docket' No. 50-400 OL-POWER AGENCY
)
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plar.t,
)
Unit 1)
)
i AFFIDAVIT OF BRADLEY W. JONES l
1.
My name is Bradley W. Jones.
My job title is Regional Counsel for the.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission in Region II located in Atlanta, G In that capacity, I am responsible for, among other duties, reviewing O of Investigation (01) reports for the Region that may require.~ enforcemen g
action and coordinating requests from the NRC Office of the General Couns OGC) for information in support of staff filings during NRC proceedings j
Informhc in this record was deleted in accordn:e with the Act, exemp*.wns _f, freedom of (nformatio' FOIA.24 - F9WQ -y 'f ~
, fry >,,,.,,f
, Qf "r,f'
.r 17it y
//f
1 2
}
'2.
As a result of the September:15,1986, Motion.to Reopen filed in the above
~
proceeding,. I requested )that OIf orally brief. me on.. the; status of their -
investigations / inquiries into the allegations of Ms. Miriello referred 'to in that notion to reopen.
On. September 29,1986, I received the ' requested U
briefing from Larry Robinso'n, the. Regional 01 Investigator: responsible forL
- investigating Ms. Miriello's allegations.
3.
That briefing covered two ' broad categories of Ms. Mirtello's ' allegations.
The first dealt with. allegations ' concerning the in-service < inspection-:
program for welds at Shearon Harris' Nuclear powere plant.
The second 1
I category dealt with Ms. Mirtello's' allegations concerning the healthEphysics programs at the Shearon Harris and Brunswick ~ facilities.
The followinglis based on the oral briefing I received.
4.
The 01 Field Office had initiated-an inquiry into the allegations of Ms. Miriello concerning the in-service ' inspection programt.The'.results of that inquiry did not-justify the opening of' aE full.. investigation. - The report of inquiry has been completed and. forwarded to'. the Region and OI I
Field office has confirmed that the summary of ~ that inquiry may be made1 i
public. A copy of that sumary is enclosed with:this affidavit.-
5.
The allegations of Ms. Miriello concerning her health physics records involved three issues.
Although the OI Field Office has completed all.
- i 1
i l
i
3 l
logical follow-up to Ms. Miriello's allegations in this area, the official l
01 report on these allegations has not yet been written or reviewed. It is Ol's policy to let their report be the only written comment on their investigation of allegati ns; however, the Field Office did provide me with o
an oral briefing and the following is based on the oral briefing given to me concerning the three allegations concerning Ms. Miriello's health physics J
allegations, j
6.
First was an allegation t. hat someone at Shearon Harris directed her to sign an NRC Form 4 which contained an inaccurate record of her exposure at North j
Carolina State University. According to Mr. Robinson, records show that i
Shearon Harris did receive a letter from North Carolina State indicating-1 that Ms. Miriello had not been monitored and they therefore had entered no dose for North Carolina State on her NRC Form 4.
When North Carolina State sent the correct information to Shearon Harris, the original NRC Form 4 was f
replaced with a corrected NRC Form 4.
No intent to falsify a document was found in the investigators follow up.
7.
Second was an allegattoa that a false dosimeter reading was entered on Ms. Mirtello's records wMle at Brunswick, Nuclear Power Plant for. training.
)
This incident involved a pocket dosimeter which read over three-fourth scale on a particular day aire 3. Although there is some questions as to who wrote the amount on Ms. Mirtello's dose card for that day, the recorded dose was mrem.
The investigation revealed that the responsible individual receiving Ms. Mirtello's pocket dosimeter sent the dostmeter and Ms. Miriello's TLD for a.alysis. The responsible individual indicated that
t 4
he personally asked other individuals w >o had been working in the same areas as Ms. Miriello whether they had been working in high radiation areas and no one he questioned indicated they had done so. 'It was eventually determined from the analysis of the TLD that Ms. Miriello's correct dose was j
arem. The investigator indicated that he could find no evidence of an intent to falsify the dose record or to otherwise mislead the NRC.
8.
The last allegation was that the CP&L final dose record for Ms. Miriello' was incorrect. CP&L had acknowledged that the record was incorrect based on doses being recorded for the wrong periods.
The investigator found no reason to pursue this as other than a clerical error.
9.
Based on the oral briefing-I received amf a review of the inquiry summary enclosed with this affidavit, I do not intend to recommend any enforcement or other actions by the Region concerning Ms. Miriello's allegations as discussed above.
The written 01 report vill be reviewed to verify this recommendation when it is issued.
Bradley W. Jones Subscribed and sworn before me this day of September 1986
{
l
p, g
-~
CAROUNA POWE R & UGHT COMPAW
- g(
- l RWP WOR K ROSTER
.i j wL (yS3 -RwLp
'Au s
NO. hIdOO9 OATE b7 g,4gg h
~
h MAME (PMINT) 34GNATURE TLD # Test Tuse fast T
taget E
Ta.g uo hf0 fC$AY b
YO
$$/
d M
- $W!
Hf
~
/o eo Any/Nditu o jf
/b i
l 8
in xcm ff mcf aform 1 cit j
_IA-m YOUR SIGNATURE ON TH15 FORM ACKNOWLEDGES THAT YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS OF TH88 RWP,
-ng gng,issa r ~"
e
..:c. u.
emos - ( 'a b n 97 66001 kNLO
.~
g,g,y
\\
Cost
'waua
"~"
U W
.uE,Ri.,n secuTvRE nn. e r="
=
7="
'==
DOST GUT OWT gg.y C
m m
o R'*
W
- d ^2 G
y %-3 5 ;9
,d Y
W 6
.e,
MO
/
v.r ar e
()&
w..
y r v y
.. ~
~w a naar a s <w mean
]
)
. - m.-
e A '
usumusuus
- measummunima m
impuiminem N
mm man a aaim YOUR SIGNAT'1Mt ON THIS FORM ACKNOWLEDGES THAT YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE R
~~~~m_
I I
r^*
o, 3
N, 8-6-85 awe =. T560/o obd 8%
o^re
==
==
ug
_, o,,,,
. oru.,
ru,, =
= = =
T T
i_
5_
7 71 4A Pt351 i
f' s Mumammems g}hd.7$
/W
.e sw Pn 09
.8LAt4 m
GLU
~
o.
eP4L cm.
c es..
1.
p
- m..
% on~ n n e MursE4Tu~ vie;6I6uilisenriu '1,.' iou.
r.o,r
'M in
- c e:. x ~. r:c
fg.,n.
MAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY RWP WOR K ROSTER PAGE 0F 65'M bMr
,,,p uo.
orre C %_,
l ru,, rgj rg L"
=
u==u
-...m morum r
r 2".
g' EIS T T
T T
los 706 8M/k/
Bn m
... m.m T79 minetto awe?A a
W S6f d
,R
% pe E
2
~
M6.
ewa
^
~
~ ~
~. u.w., _
. g.- rn y
- ~ - -
..s r-nass!*"
"%E
' 7 " E E '5 3l E E '" " I.'.*f.' " '
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY RWP WOR K ROSTER r
I RWL D - d NS Tm of -J
'^GE s
85000 9 DATE b-b 'O Y g4 pg gg, R W P W,
~~~
7,=8 7,=8 E g E 'g j
LLo=As urut swun se,NAruns im e
..;i' 4; '- r
~
Es W6 g
wes ff
/41'!V /M/ Alt.LLO HP l A@
(ST)
[$D k.b.N${hbb l
J ks; t.
m
.m
_. ___ u m.ve e ie t
s
[dMNt'so8ts'rNfou Ave stI5'hdNenstAno rue deoumnsurs runs nine.
mmy wc.3.%':-2.'..
y;
- n-e t?-
%nouwowsa a umacoursk..e m.
aw woaxaosTsa
.= r- ; g g 6' '
~
0,.o.
85001D
" Z _ ? ":" su 1-P E h
cu.".T T
T
_T 6//
"s i
l 979
_m_
. ELus N
87a
-en B.cJalkw fa%..
M'
,Y unemamm ammunema mummmumes emmusea mammanumne N
N N
{
en e
lui.mmmamed YOUR SeGNATURE ON ?dBS FORM ACKNOWLEDGES THAT YOU HAVE READ AND UNDUtSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS RWP.
.,4 A e, CAROLINA POWE R & LIGHT COMPAyy RWP WOR K ROSTER g
9CooII o^TE 9 PS up m.
rg W = W g uyow
.A.E,.
T.
sicNATuaE Too e t=
r&rMg7?E.J--' wok 1
1.
r, l
CLASS m
m a
m
)N "ad M
th" MN$i!MN5 er p%r;J V
ab Yc m, as, a; g s
~..
on A4 M -
M 4
w s~u u
dP ELu2 rw
.yw.
e r
' S.[f X
c w eens vit sosin Hf reennem
,7 "a
YOUR $1GNATURE ON THe5 FORW ACKNOWLEDGES THAT YOU HAVE READ AMD UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THl4 RWP,
i CASE FILE MEMORANDUM type action pantecipants B. URYC (X) accono or connasation G. MAXWELL DATE a(Ct!VfD I i cast asview / status 10/02/85
( l ormen connocariaurv stoutstro us no 0910 G. MAXWELL advised that nformed him that he received a telephone call from an anonymous' individual who report tha was using drugs.
stated that be checked o nd found that had been employed at the site since 01/85 and that he was primarily involved in anchor bolt inspections was tested and came up positive for marijuana.
G. MAXWELL further advised that he was informed that CP&L has done a lot of folicuup activity regarding P. MIRIELLO since they have received the information.
All tapes relating to the eddy current testing have beeJ reviewed and found acceptable.
MAXWELL said that he was also advised that CP&L tested all NES employees in April 1985 for drugs and none of the individuals tested indicated drug use activity.
MAXWELL stated that he was informed by CP&L that MIRIELLO never voiced any concerns regarding drug abuse activity prior to that in her affidavit.
She did not relate any technical concerns either.
MIRIELI4 was employed as a health physics technician while she was the site.
nu 1w 1
/
DATE PREPARED pag 7Anto av 10/02/85 BRUNO U viero// J.
nt W lt blM hk Oc hW h M'OT acri a
(L, f20M, sod uk Wdoseet. d,f_<d,,,d,.is noldccen, S,Hw
-f id6 1'O d/W /5506 in wn thnce with the Freedom of Information
\\
Act, exemptions. 6 yg, f.,3,,. p g, y 9 3 acviews/o%
TrX u m,......-,m vovnE 0*ttm/~lu- -
N
~
- /.2, l
ne o n, n, e,., n,,.
,g
~
0FFICthl. us dM
~
k,k tu,nitho{fAA 44 ww of Morns s/u -
sc u
i - w,'c. -
PI JLTP4 4 444 sla b Au~ h H nduLor n es k.* + " % W W boyh & Lmatsk(Lsk
^
.IT.
1 j
W J
n Gmo~~ m N4J Uo k
,.fpW%
a
- [Y,
' j'Q-g-
~.:. -
g U.tM.'
- r
'?
.,.. f; m.
Information in this record was deleted
.-in.accordance with the Treedom of Information.',
S,.'l
~
Act, exemptions d'
~~A;gfl$'~
F0IA ?/,- ($@A - 7p4 2'
.. m op lTWE
- ' ] Wy,,
%Kaggf Iret g no, 1 Mit