ML20210U761

Response to Applicant 860508 & Staff 860513 Responses to Contention WB-4 Re Falsification of Radiation Exposure Records.Disagrees W/Staff Response That Falsification of Records Not Significant Safety Concern.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20210U761
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	05/26/1986
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W.
To:	CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
Shared Package
ML20210U766	List: ML20210U761 ML20210U769 ML20210U775
References
CON-#286-337 82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8606030082
Download: ML20210U761 (12)

Text

+- m

(-

_\

A\.

o h x

/ v /  ;

Gd UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 26 May , ,0031 ,

NUC. LEAR REGULATOBY COMMISSION l(8 y.

C99 .

,BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY @ _ LICENSING BOABLi EM E919P N '

._ u;x Glenn Dr. O. Bri James 3.ght ,1 "

's g/

Carpenter n. .#

James L. Kelley, Chaircan '-

In the Matter of

) Docket- 50 404 OL CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. ,et el. )

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plent,

^ Unit 1) AStBP No. 82-k68-01

,) OI' 5 Viells Eddleman's Response on Contention WB-4 (Falsified FM1oyee Dose Records)

The Board's Order dated llt %y lor 6 Mrects @C and r'.e to reply by May 26 (a Federal holiday) to the Armlicant and. Staff a responses to Contention WB-4 (dated May 8 and May 13.,1986 res-pectively). Since CCNC's cocnsel has been out of the ccent"y, I am responding, except that I canc.ot answer as to why CONC did not file earlier if they had any infomation I did not have 4 See the " Memorandum" for the parties, May 16, 1986.

Ms. Miriello has provided an affidavit de.ted la May 1966 (copy attached: Attachnent 1) (2 pages) describing wt c d.e hai develoned the information provided in the affidavi,t which ns dated

3 April,1986 (4 pa6es and 4 attachments), Thst April 3 affidavit

$mo was sent to me via certified mail. .fhen I received it I mde copies g and provided one to John Runkle and discussed with him (on or about

• oo gj 9

o April 13, 1986, to the best of my recollection) fi31ng a joict

$c: contention on falsification of' radiation exposure rN ords. "* .

$$o Runkle filed the contention Anril 22, 1986, for CCNC and mysedf.

I had instructed him to sign the request to admit the new contention D 5 0 $.

~

for me since I couldn't conveniently get to his office to . sign it.

We had gone over the language of the contention and I concurred in it.

Ms. Miriello states in her 16 May,1986 affidavit that she provided USNRC's Office of Investigation with notification of " unsafe radiation oractices, dose records that didn't agree with the exnosure" which was noted by her and another technician on several (radiation nonitoring) instruments "while that technician was showing me nroblen radiation hreas which were not pronerly nosted and while we surveyed the areas." Also she says GI was notified of " intimidation and surveillance by 0F&L health physics personnel."

Thi.e any not be e.110f the information in the Auril 3,1986 affidavit, and Miriello does not state that any documents were civen to DI as of that date (Sentember,1985). I did not have any documenta-tien Of any of this informstion in September 1965 (nor, to the best of ery present knowledge, until 'I rScrived the Anrli 3 affidavit by certified mail). I do not sucEifically recall any information that GP&L had falsified an NrtC Form k that I had during 1985 or until I received the Abril 3,1986 aff,idavit. Certified ma$1 can take several do.ys to get here ,and I believe .I missed delivery on it once before sicking it up from the Post Office in Durhan.

Ms. Nirlello made '.'erthe.r inioctications in Noventer 1985 "to check on the false doce records' (5/16 riffidsvit, itern 2, nara-graph 3). She further states in the affidevit that "by January 1985 (almoet surely c tynographital error for Januncy 1986, since Ms.

M1.raio11o had not lef t her job at GF&L by January 1965) it waa de-terminad ... that there were problems with the records which already showed & dose far bele>: that indient'ed by sorvey instruzents s'nd. stay tira/doce calculation.m n,'h ' s i s ev?. dent 17 the f'irist t.'.me Mn. Miriello h.sd these ovo31 ems "debermined" as I ?ead it.

L .- - _ - ._ . _

About Elis time (January 1986 or thereabouts) I recall that Ms. Miriello nentioned problems with her dose records in one or l more phone conversations with me. I believe I asked her for docu-mentation, and I think she said she had nrovided the information to the NRC. I do not recall snecifically whether she had d2e documenta-tion (or told me that she had any) at the time. I vaguely recall

'her mentioning some difficulties getting documentation in hand.

At any rate, none of this documentation was publicly available or otherwise available to me, to my knowledge, until Ms. Miriello sent me the affidavit dated 3 April 1986. I do not believe I could have filed a contention based only on some statements (which I now in a phone call (or calls )

do not fully recall) that CP&L had been messing with Ms. Miriello's dose records, and had any chance of it being accepted. I further understood that Ms. Miriello had orovided, or was goire to provide, the inforrztien she had to NRC investigators. Far be it fron me to a s s ume tiin t .IRC will nronerly investigate information or allegations provided to it. However, I did not believe I was withholding anything from the NRC since I understood the information Ms. Miriello had then was being nrovided to the NRC, and this was information I did not have excent to the extent Ms. Miriello had told me it existed.

Ms. Miriello states in her 5/16/86 affidavit, p.1, item 2, paragranh k, that "In January of 1986, all of the matters discussed above were reported to USNRC insnector Thomas Nash - Atlanta. No indication had been given by the USNRC Office of Investigation (sic) that they had any investigative results or that an investigation had ever been initiated." She is stating she did orovide the information to the NRC, insnector Thomna Nash snecifically, in January 1986. But other than her 5/16/86 affidavit, I nave no nresent knowledoe ne what i sdeficif infornation she orovided to him.

l

- -_ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- a

-h-I vaguely recall some later mention by Ms. Miriello, nerhans in March of 1986, that NRC was not following un on the information she had provided them about her dose records. I believe I told her that if she could orovide me the information, I would try to do something with it. She sent ne the affidavit dated April 3, 1986 and I decided the best d ing to do with it was to file a contention, which CCNC and I then did.

Ms. Miriello states ($/16/86 affidavit, page P) that "it was not until Anril 1986, and after Contention W-4 (sic) was 7roduced that USNRC insnector Nash called me and indicated that matters were being looked into. He did not indicate even in April that daere were any results in the false dose records matter."

Ms. Miriello continues with a statement that she is voicing her concerns in her soare time (non-working hours). This is consistent with my recollection that sonetivos it can take considerable time to receive information from her, either because she does not have it in hand or has not had time to nrenare an affidavit. In this particular set of matters (covered in t he Anril 3,1986 affidavit),

Ms. Miriello apparently gave the information (at least in eart) to NR6 investigators in September 1985, and again in January 1986. Only af ter NRC apparently did not act on this information (or did not contact Ms. Miriello to confirm they were investigating or to seek additional information ) did she provide the documentation to ne.

I have no control over what Ms. Miriello does. I cannot nake her prorduce information. I cannot control her schedule (nor can she always control it, evidently).

While one could argue, perhaps, about whether I should have filed a contention based on whatever information I had from Ms.

_g_

Miriello by phone in January 1986, the Licensing Board's treatment of her testimony on WB-e (h/28/66 " final order") is evidence that it is very inprobable, that a contention would have gotten anywhere based on my statenent of what I thought she had said on the telephone. (Nor am I certain that I had her nernission to retell r

what she was telling me at that time.) I don't think daere was the oroverbial " snowball's chanca" of getting a contention admitted on such basis. However, a contention that -denends on documentation need be filed reasonably promntly after the documentation was in hand. This CCUC and I did. The documentation attached to Ms. Miriello 's affidavit of 3 April 1986, together with her exulanation of that documented information, does provide basis for Cor3tention WB-4. I do not believe that Applicants have succ.sssfully undernined that basis (and, a s usual, their argument goes to the merits more than is proper in dealing with a contention ).

Applicants first argue that there is " insufficient nexus" between the problems alleged and the licensing of dae Harris plant.

CP&L tries to put the resoonsibility on someone else for properly reporting radiation exnosure (pp h,5), but the contention clearly says it is the moral character of " Applicants", i.e. the licensees, that is ' quer CP&L is the licensee for Brunswick and Robinson, alleged, with documentation, and the . ' or s whose dose records are to be false had worked at Harris. This is a red herring.

OP&L than pwocaeds to attack the d.n'ornation nrovided by 'is.

Miriel] . However, their own attachment D indicates that the dose estimate was changed (by someone whose initials I can't clearly read) on d/9/85; Ms. Miriello tella me that the signature she out on the form was tat there before the investigation by CP&L, not af ter. I have no independent knowledge of this matter nor of whether CP&L had nrovided her with their attachment D. However, the curious thing to

me about Attachment D in the Apphicants ' Browne affidavit is that the SRPD (self-reading nocket dosimeter) was not checked. Why assume it was in error without checking it?

Also, the urevious SRPD readings, reflected on Miriello's access control card (attachment 3 to her h/3/86 affidavit attached to the request of CCNC and Wells Eddleman to admit Contention WB-4),

add un to 61 nrem. Why was this difference not investigated??

CP&L claims that the doses being shown wrong (even by CP&L's oosition) on Miriello attachnent 2 (filed with Contention WB-h) and Arowne attachment B are due to a " clerical error". There is no affidavit from anyone who may have actually made this error, as far as I can see, in CP&L's presentation. The " erroneous" deae record (Browne attachment B) and the one CP&L claims is correct (Browne attachment C) are both cigned by S.W. Croslin, Technical Soecialist, Health Physics. This annears to be the same eerson, not only fron the identical nane, but from the similar signatures.

If this was indeed a clerical error, why didn't Croslin make an affidavit about it?(Browne never exulains how he might know that the switch of dose is a " clerical error).

Moreover, if the different attachments were generated 8/20 and 9/10/85 (3 weeks apart) as CP&L says, why didn't Croslin notice the error then? Did Croslin coneare the 8/20 recort "prenared at Ms. Misriello's request) with the 9/10 final report? Why not, given

-the licensee's resnonsibility to nake sure the recort is coPrect?

The only reason I'm getting this far into the evidence is that that is where CP&L has gone. CP&L is not adducing facts so much as making excuses which are not traceable back to original facts in the information provided. For exanple, what was Ms. Miriello's request that led to the 8/20 renort? Is that request written? What does CP&L know about it?

l l

They don' t say.

I don't know what CCNC snecifically referred to in the 1/21/86

. letter quoted by Applicants (1/2//86 at 3, Anolicants, p. 12 ) However, the time we were "too busy to file the contention earlier" was in April 1986, after we had the information in hand, as far as I know.

That is certainly true - for me, of my own knowledge, and I recall discussing with John Runkle when he could get the contention filed and he said he was not sure because he had so much work to do in the time around h/20.

OPeL aays we "did not diligently nursue and uncover information they knew was available". They do not specify what information we

" knew was available". The main thing I recall knowing is that Ms.

Miriello believed that CP&L was messing with her dose records. I believe I did ask her for documentation on that at that time. But I ,

had, and have , no means to make Ms. Miriello reply to such a renuest.

I believe she did not orovide the information to me until she had waited some months to see what the NRC investigators would do with ,

the -information that she had provided to. them. I can't ston her from doing that. Ms. Miriello 's cooneration with me or with CCNC is entirely voluntary on her nart. Other than through Ms. Miriello, I know of no way we could have received her dose records or her access control card. I daink the documentation is crucial bo suonort for tnis contention and see no way to have filed such a contention with r any none of admission, witnout tne documentation which we did not have until early April 1986. Obviously one can file any contention at any time, on any basis, but I can't see any merit in an argument that says a contention should have been filed on a basis I believed (1) the NRC investigators knew more about than I did, and (2) that my knowledge could not sustain the contention. I am far from certain that Ms.

Miriello would have cooperated had such a contention been filed in

January,1986, although I also cannot say for sure that she would or would not have cooperated.

Ann 11 cants' attack on our ability to litigate dhe contention and contribute to a sound record is weak. Ve did litigate Joint Contention IV (Runkle was counsel at hearing on this issue), and the claimed " misunderstanding of health rhysics nrac tices" (Annlicants at 13) is evidently something a health physicist 551d us. Of course, Applicants could not be exoected to want an investigation of their radiation dose record-keeping, as falsification in these records would be extremely serious and could prevent their getting a license to ouerate the Shearon Harris nlant.

We agree that this contention does broaden the issues (it being a new issue) and would create some delay in the nroceeding, although Auplicants have reneatedly delcyed the Harris nlant, the last time from " june" to " late July" 1986 (I believe the tentative fuel load date is now July 25.

Annlicants concede that no other parties would represent our interests (n.15) but evidently believe that daere are no naaties-since they think the proceeding is over.

Their argument on Factor (ii) (other means to protect our interent) brings in die red herring of Ms. Miriello's personal interest. As our request of h/22/86 states (n3J item 3) "(That Ms. Miriello may have some oersonal cause of action against the Apolicants has in our oninion no bearing on the admissibility of this contention.)" Also, Ms. Miriello has evidently nursued this matter unsuccessfully (as to getting an investigation begun or renorted to her) witn tne MRC. Miriello affidavit, attached to this filing.

But it is our interest, not Ms. Miriello's nersonal cause of action, that is at issue here. Remedies available to her are irrele-vant.

I have not reviewed ALA3-828, but I doubt that calling the

. v. .- .

_9 moral fitness of Applicants to hold a licente '.nto question is a

" limited interest" as they assert (pp 15-16).

Applicants go on to allege that falsification of dose records is not a "significant safety issue". We disagree, Fir st , if they

.will erv on falsify !n those records, which ref].ect exnosure to radiation for emoloyees, would they not also be likely or willing to err or falsify records of radioactivity to which the nublic is exposed? Second, if they will falsify information, the Noc, which by and large depends on soot checks of panerwork (information) created by Applicants, has no basis to be sure its results are correct. They could be based upon falsified information.

Anolicants ' attack on the Miriello affidavit goes to the merits.

As noted above, they do not exclain a nunber of ouestions about the dose records Miriello provided in her Anril 3,1966 affidavit, nor  ;

do they provide direct evidence about the " clerical error" or an exolanation of it, nor evidence that Droves the S9PD was in error.

And there is more evidence of a pattern of falsificaticn, involving Harris specifically, (Miriello affidavit dated 5/15/86, attached).

This was recently received by me and T copied it the week ending 5/23, urobably on 5/19. I believe that this nrovides additional '

basis that the Harris plant is not keeping nroner radiation exposure

~

records (Miriello evidently had to fight to get a correct record).

As to the Staff's filing of 5/13, daey state (p.4) 'that if a contention orovides "the requisite specificity"' and an 'a6ecuate delineation of the basis for the contention" on an ie'aue that is

" cognizable in in individual licensing proceeding," the conetntion ,

can be admitted " irrespective of whether resort to extrinsic evidence might establish the contention to be insubstantial." (n.4). We d

believe Contention VB-4 meets these criteria.

The staff clains there is no connection between falsification of records at drunswick and tne oueration of Harris. First, the records alleged to be falsified were sent out by CP&L corporate record-keeping, Harris E& E center, as one can see from their attachment (; {EEC is the Shearon Harris Energy and "nvironnent(al?)

Center),.whose date is 9/10/85, misidentified as 9/4 on Staff n.8 fn 9.

This is cornorate recordkeeping. The gravamen of the cen tenti on is CP&Las fitness as a licensee if they falsify data, and since CP&L is the licensee of Brunswick and Robinson, it matters not a bit where the falsification occurred. Nor have either the Staff or Annlicants shown that radf ation dose recordkeeping is different at Harris than at Brunswich cr Robinson. There is no reason to exclude 9obinson from an investigation of falsified dose records, especially when it has h:gh exposure of record to workers. If these doses are falsified they voi.id be likely to be even higher in reality (it would do CP! L and its contractors no good to falsify tne doses as nigher than actual).

Tne staff alleges, as do Anolicants, that "questi onabic urac tices related to health physics" referred to by John Runkle 1/20-21/1986 are the same as the subject matter of WB-4 or that he should have done sonething more about this matter in January 1986. Neither Staff nor Applicants quote the Miriello letter to Judge Kelley to show any state-ments about falsification of dose records. I can't locate a cony of the letter right now (I have moved since January 1986 and not yet got all my files back into accessible order), so I will leave that matter to John Runkle to deal with further if he wishes to.

Staff's statement that intervenors have no interest in the Harris Droceeding which is adversely affected by the information in the Miriello affidavit (p.10) makes no sense to me and is unsuoported by any further statement in the Staff cleading. We surely have an interest in the reliability of CP&L's record-keeping and in CP&L's

como11ance with NRC renorting requirenents. If one can be 'alsified, anything can be falsified, and if the Connany is doing it ow encou*aning it (see, e.g., Miriello affidavit dated 5/55/86, attached)(and other statements, p.9, supra of naz my reasoning), the Connan#'s fitness to hold a license to ouerate Harris is clearly in question, at mininum.

The Staff's statement on a sound record is equally bare-bones assertion. We certa d nly are able to litigate and helu establish a sound record, based on our participation throughout this nroceeding, in which CCNC and I have been the main litigators against CP&L and the Staff.

It is not clear from the " Interest nrotected by other parties "

statement on page 10 by the Staff, whether Staff counsel is aware tha t Ms . Miriello evidently brought sone of the problems addressed in her April h,1986 affidavit to the attention of Staff insnectors, or whether the " ongoing regulatory and insnecti on urogran" has addressed her concerns in any way... As noted above, the addressing of Ms.

Miriello 's causes of action against Auplicants is irrelevant to our interests as intervenors, which are in the fitness of CP&L to hold a license.

He have already addressed the lateness factor above and on h/P2.

How the Staff can say that falsification of records is not a "significant safety or environnental concern" is beyond me. If the falsification issue were nroved, the Board would be unlikely to order an operating license for Harris, I should hope. Any other result would condone falsification of records, a / ' ' ' 1, m, J 'v , we. -~

Wells Eddlenan, p_ro se P.S. Ms. Miriello also states she discovered the 9/10/85 dose report in her caners h/05. She does not believe it is a clerical error but believes the dose has been switched. She provided me this infernatior after she discovered the 9/10/85 document, according to an affidavit dated May 1,1986

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY ColmSION In the matter of CAROLIhA POWER k LIGHT CO. Et al. ) Docket 50-h00 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1- ) 0.L.

CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Wells Eddleman's Resnonse on WB-k Th ' OWh9 h Cr(hs NST/Z'~)

HAVE been served this # day of May 198 6, by deposit in the US Mail, first-class postage prepaid, upon all parties whose names are listed below, except those whose nanes are marked with an asterisk, for whom service was accortplished by Judges James Kelley, Glenn Bright and Jae.*e Carpenter (1 copy each)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board & their Law Clerk, cane US Nuclear Megulatory Commission address Washington DC 20555 Al Cole, Karen Long or Nike (attorney for Applicants) Jo Anne Sanford rh F' N Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge tM tttorney General's 1600 M St. NW Office Washington, DC 20036 - Mx. 62S,

.italeien !r 276C2 Office of the Executive Legal Director \ Spence .H er Attn Docke ts 50-400A01 0.L. b FEMA :toom 40 USNRC @g4) 500 C St. SW Washington DC 20555 Washington DC 20740 Dan Read Docketing and Service Section (3x) CT,APET M LP 3ox 2151 Attn Docke ts 50-h00/hC1 0.L.

Office of the Secretary Raleigh, NC 276062 USNRC Dr. Linda W. Little washinston De 20555 (v Plan Only) Oovernor's Waste Mst. Bd.

John Runki*

Steve Rochlis 513, Albenarle 33 dg, CCNC FEiiA , suite 700 325 N. sam abutm St.

1371 Peachtree St. NE Ra1.agn, NC 2?611 307 Granville Rd '

Chapel Hill Ne 2751h / Atlanta. GA 30309 aradley W. Jones Robert Gruber USNRC Region II

~Travi a Payne Exec. Director 101 Marietta St.

Edelstein & Payne Public Staff Atlanta GA 30303 mex 12607 Box 991 Raleigh NC 27605 Raleigh NC 27602 Richard Wilson, M.D. Certified by f.th 729 Hunter St.

Apex NC 27502

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