ML20126K833
| ML20126K833 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/16/1990 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126K503 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-91-533, FOIA-92-A-1 NUDOCS 9301070266 | |
| Download: ML20126K833 (40) | |
Text
_
,, 4 OR\G\N E
- OFFICIALTRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS e
Agency: u.s. nuclear nesulatory con.oission
-Ofsice of Investigations Tide: inytsu cin vc tursavirW William C. Lodge (Closed)
Docket No.
LOCAT10N: Cincinnati, Ohio DATL Honday, July 16, 1990 PAGES: 1 33.-
EXHIBIT ___ --
PAGE / OF db_ P AGE'S) '
.. 'J ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1612 K St. N.W. Suke 300 -
3 3 8 9 b'.0 j 1 . %shington, D.C 20006 (202) 29H950 \ 44 r _ ISE*[8?t6920707 _
"es"1cav2-a 1 von-
.?) o y'ages , o,, ,,. . M:';, - [(R
-$\'
x.
, . , . - _ . - - ~ , . _ . - ,- , -- e 4 - p 4
,. ,. 1 1
- Y r .
(s. 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
5 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 7 In the Matter oft 8 INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW 9 William C. Lodge :
10 (CLOSED) :
11 ----------------x 12 13 Dinsmore and Shohl 14 511 Walnut Street, Suite 2100-15 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 16 Monday, July 16, 1990 17 '
18 The above-entitled matter commenced at 2:10 19 o' clock p.m., when were present: l i
20- !
21-22 23 24
.. 25
,. / -
,._,,,_.-,-a,- v- - ~ ^ ' ' " " ~
.. ,. 2 1 on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory commission 2
3 RICHARD C. PAUL 4 Investigator 5 United States Nuclear Regulatorf Commission 6 799 Roosevelt Road 7 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 8
9 On behalf of the University of Cfncinnati:
10 11 KENNETH RESNICK 12 DINSMORE AND SH0HL 13 511 Walnut Street, Suite 2200 14 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 15 16 17 18 39 20 ,
21 22 23
, 24
' \* - 25
i 3
1 INDEX-
' 2 Witness Examination !
3 William C. Lodge 4/31 4 EXHIBITS Exhibit Number Identified 5
6 6 Attachment 1 14 7 Attachment 2 26 8 Attachment 3 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
4 o' . .
4
,-,=
',' -4 1 P R O C E=E D I-N G S (2:10 p.m.]
CD 2 3 MR. PAUL: For the_ record, this is an interview of 4
William C. Lodge, spelled L-0-D-G-E, who is' employed by the 5 University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
6 The location of this interview is Cincinnati, 7 Ohio.
8 Present at this interview, -in addition to Mr. -!
9 Lodge, are Richard C. Paul, Investigator, U.S. Nuclear' 10 Regulatory Commission, and Kenneth S. Resnick, an attorney-11 representing the University of Cincinnati.
12 As agreed, this interview is being tape-recorded
-l t
13 by court reporter Lincoln Davis.
14 The subject mattar of this interview concerns the 15 University of Cincinnati Medical Center.
16 Whereupon, '
i WILLIAM C. LO DGE , .
17 18 a witness, having been first duly _ sworn, was examined and 19 testified as follows: q 20 EXAMINATION 3
21 BY MR. PAUL:
22 Q Mr. Lodge, I understand:you are the Director of .
Is that 23 Employee and Labor Relations for the University.
,- 24 correct?
(
25 A That is correct.
'.. 5-
'l Q And how long have you been in that capacity?
- p, 2 A Four years.
I 3 0 Just one point of clarification for the-records 4 Mr. Resnick is your personal = representative in this matter.
5 Is that correct?
6 A No. He is representing the University.
7 Q But at this interview, you chose to have him here?
8 A I did choose to have him heret that's correct.
9 Q And he is here based on your request.
10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q How long have you been at the University?
12 A Well, I have been at the University 13 years. I
\ 13 have been the Director -- I'm sorry. I have been the 14 Director for 4 years,-but I have been in the Employee and' 15 Labor Relations Of fice for 12 of the -13 : years of my 16 employment at the University.
17 Q And do you recall what particular day you started 18 as the Director of Employee and Labor Relations?
19 A Ch, it was -- I think I took the acting job in 20 July of-1986, I became the Acting Director,-and then.I vas 21 confirmed as a permanent Director some months lat~er.
22- Q Who did you replace in that position?-
23 A A man by the name of George.Salerno.
24 Q And what was your position before you were Acting-I 25 Director 9
i - -
.. 6 1 A I was the Associate Director.
C49 2 Q In your capacity as Director of Employee and Labor 3 Relations, do you review policy related to personnel.within 4 departments, say specifically the radiation and safety 5 department, or Radiation Safety Office?
6 A Well, I -- certainly, a major part of my job and 7 of my staf f is to review University policy related to 8 specific factual situations that occur at the University.
9 Q What I'd like to do here and what the issue is is 10 a series of three memos that I'll show you here in a second.
11 A Okay.
12 MR. PAUL: They detail notification process for 13 radiation safety problems with the Radiation Safety Office.
(_
14 And I'm going to show these to you and ask you if you are 15 familiar at all with these.
16 The first one is a University of Cincinnati 17 Radiation' Safety Committee memoranda. It's dated 1 July 18 1986. It's to the Radiation Safety Office Personnel, 19 University of Cincinnati, and it's from George W. Alexander, 20 Jr. and Kenneth R. Fritz, and the subject is " Proper Channel 21 of Communication for Radiation Safety Office Personnel."
22 I'll mark this Exhibit 1, or Attachment 1.
23 (Attachment 1 marked for
, 24 identification.)
(
25 MR. RESNICK: Is there a difference?
m - , ~w-
4
.. ,..- 7 1 MR. PAUL: It's a long story, but there is a to' 2 difference.
3 MR. RESNICK: I figured there was some 4 significance to that change of mind.
5 MR. PAUL: It's a bureaucratic difference.
6 KR. RESNICK: And do you have.a question pending, 7 then, to him, on this?
8 MR. PAUL: I would just ask him to review that 9 particular document. And my question is has he ever seen 10 that before?
11 MR. RESNICK: At any time.
12 MR. PAUL: At any time.
/ 13 [ Witness perusing document.)
14 THE WITNESS: Yes. I've seen this document.
15 BY MR. PAUL:
16 Q Were you consulted before it was authored or 17 before it was issued?
18 A I cannot say absolutely that I was.
19 Q In what context did you see this document?
20 A After it was -- after it was written and issued to the staff; that's a certainty. Exactly how long after that, 21
! 22 whether it was 1 month or 1 or 2 years, I don't know. But I 23 did not review it in advance of its being disseminated to
,- 24 the staff in the Radiation Safety Office, w 25 Q Do you recall the circumstances under which you
- ' 8-
,. .. i
, 1 did review this particular document?
r~ -2 A Well, as I.say,'I can't say_to a certainty that I-3 reviewed this- document or- that= I reviewed the_ contents, the 4 potential contents of the document. I would -- I probably, 5 on three or four occasions, between 1984 and 1988,. spoke 6 Vith George Alexander about variousLedicts or memoranda that 7 he wished to send to the staff about the = appropriate use of.
8 information in the Radiation Safety Office. And'this may 9 have been one of the memoranda that resulted from one of-our 10 discussions.
What was the
~
11 Q Maybe I should ask you generally:
12 procedures for an individual such as. George Alexander and.
13 Kenneth Fritz to issue University policy related to 14 personnel practices, such as this, outside notification 15 problems?
16 MR. RESNICK: Assuming it is University policy.
17 MR. PAUL: Right.
4' 18 MR. RESNICK: You're assuming that. Okay.-
19 MR. PAUL: Generally, what the procedure lis that-20 exists to make policy.
21 THE WITNESS: They had no authority-to make.
22 policy. They had no authority to make policy. To the-23 extent that anything they sent'out war in' conflict with 24 written University policy, it was invalid..
- 25 BY MR. PAUL
I
..,m _ . . . _ , , . _ -- -_
,.',- 9 1 Q At this time -- July 1, 1986 -- did this T 2 constitute policy, this memorandum, University policy?
3 A It did not constitute official University policy, 4 in the sense that it did not go through what is known as a 5 Personnel Policy Review Committee, it was not reviewed by 6 the General Counsel's office, and it was not subsequently 7 approved by the University Board of Trustees. -
8 Q Is that the normal procedure?
9 A That is the normal procedure, right.
10 Q So, in other words, is there any classification of 11 whether this is unofficial policy, or what is it?
12 A This would be, generically, departmental I 13 procedure. Policy at the University is a very formal type There 14 thing, as it is with most State institutions in Ohio.
15 is a specific -- specific laws regarding the adoption of 16 policy. Now, this probably rises to the level of 17 departmental procedure.
18 Q Did Fritz and Alexander have the authority to 19 institute departmental procedure?
20 A Provided that there was no conflict with either 21 the relevant Federal or State law or University policy, yes, 22 they did.
23 Q So, this would have been procedure --
~
24 A Yes.
25 Q -- for the employees to follow.
e' .-
yo 1 A That's correct.
.; 2 Q Were the employees subject to disciplinary action 3 based on this procedure?
4 MR. RESNICK: This particular one, Attachment 1.
5 MR. PAUL Yes, Attachment 1. ,
6 THE WITNESS: Well, obviously, Mr. Fritz and Mr.
7 Alexander felt that the violation of this would be -- would 8 be grounds for disciplinary action, and I would certainly 9 agree that discussion of patient or student information with 10 persons who do not have a need to know within the-University 11 or with anybody outside the University certainly is grounds 12 for disciplinary action, if people are so informed in 13 advance. And the way I read this memo, basically, what 14 they're saying is you don't discuss patient records, patient 15 -- student records, etcetera, with people outside the 16 University.
17 BY MR. PAUL:
18 Q Did you have a discussion with either of these two 19- individuals, Alexander or Fritz, regarding what cause this 20 r.emo to come out? Was there any particular incident or 21 situation that initiated this memo?
22 A I can vaguely recall discussing with George a 23 situation where -- and I believe this was the same one; I 24 can't say to an absolute certainty, but I know I did have a 25 discussion with George in the last 4 or 5 years about a
l
.. . ...' 11-1 patient who had had a radioactive implant, a patient --
i
. 2 actual' inpatient at the University Hospital, who had a -
3 radioactive implant of some sort, and there had apparently 4
been a spill or the individual-had vomited or defecated, and 1
5 there had been a -- as result, a radioactive spill within 6 the room. And there was -- in those situations, the 7 radiation safety staff is sent to clean _up.
8 We don't have the normal housekeeping department 9 come in, obviously, in those situations, to clean up; we have the radiation -safety staf f come in. And ther 10 11 apparently was some -- apparently it's a very messy, ugly 12 situation, and there was some grousing on the part of the f
13 radiation safety staff, you know, "Why do we have to come in s.
14 and clean up this stuff?" And it was, you know, up and down-15 the halls, and you know, "Why us?", and the nurses and the 16 residents overheard'them and, you know, that kind of thing.
17 And I recall talking with George and saying, yes, I think, 18 to the extent that they were talking about -- where they 19 might have been overheard by other patients or by visitors 20 in talking about the patient's specific diagnosis or his or 21 her specific problems, that thatLwasn't appropriate, and the 22 staff'can be-warned that they are not supposed to walk 23 around talking about this stuff.
24 Q Were you familiar with a situation -- I'm not exactly sure what the date was; I believe.it was in '84 to-25
. - . ..- - . . . . . . - . - .- - . . ~ - . .- .,
.+
. 12
- 1
'86 timeframe -- in which a University of Cincinnati over -- I'11'try.
2 radiation safety technician was ans'here -- over allegedly contacting-the NRC7 .
3 to find 4
Are you familiar at all with that situation?-
Yes, I an.
I'm familiar with.-- with, I think, 5 A 6
one -- one case where a person was Do you recall name?
7 Q A Well, no. I will --
8 I'm trying to find name hers. I-9 MR. PAUL u ;
10 had it.
MR. RESHICK:
May I suggest to you what that name , ,
11 12 is?
b . PAUL Yes.
13 14 MR. RESNICK: (M G[b I -
MR. PAUL: Yes, 15 16 BY MR. PAUL:
Q
.Are you familiar with that.-situation?
17-18 A I am familiar with the circumstances:of which obviously the University feels.were.for the--
19 .
20 reasons' that you previously stated.
. ]k 21 Q .okay. What was the official reaso 22 f forJ A s 23 was not appealed to'any-c L
24 M hand 25 state of" Federal agency.
6,7e inf~
-..---m - --, . . - - .- .. -,m. .. - . . -~r , . = . , . . . ,
13 g.yyyj y q .}. f.a d.
1 E. A..,g., e.... v .. .c .- ( ,- ;. .. , ,-v.!. ,
. e. QQf ~(:ff."<
4 g; ., . f.; ,. . .g
. .- . %.i ~ > ,
~s. . ..
2 .' ;'f
%g'?f f[ %.&" n'i . '. ..'. .' f'~ J[ n - ' -
- - '4
~/ .
~ '
-l.
3 i
. Q'. ~ .
?
Gx}..cl r.. f4 "' .-. kg: .. .. :
.}$y. ,.
.pm
.c' ; ; ; . ..pg ,. .;
4 . r - - -
h.. .:A,q u
- g. . o . . . -
.? 1 -
e f
.y , q 5 %95 .i' 1 - - - ,. l . '., .: .- - . . .
N -
g~. , .p,jp 7q -.ar .=
yn) b ;
.'.. .. }{ '
. {:,2$,}. .,l
.'.\.
.g ,
_. y-4 y.
, , sg
- . j'.-tp . ~ e 6
- J le.
o . .. _ .
QMf:'r 3 . S : - ) . :q .. 10 3 ' "Y,,$i l, .t . . ,. , p ( . ,
9 h y; [L [ h[ '[;[.{N. j M . [$. s
,nl$n;:3:;
- v. . w
,y e , n. ;. ;. y#x
?.
..~ m. .k . ~ . y ; - . ..<s./ .
y, 10 ' T @ppq y% 7
^
,;.(l,
.: &* * ; gy;..s n . . .Y, y k: ' .I . ; . . ' .
e s ;;. .
m .: u.. " .- P, ie':% ,g - . ., ,
- m. . .
3-hi{ wll h9 11 fff, jf - l}%$. lk .
l
dnM%%g@6td'Nq g g' & j g 1 , W W -
13 Q Was the departmental procedure detailed in this 14 memorandum connected in any way with the @@
15 incident?
16 A No. I was very intimately involved in that, in .
m:.. WE - vM ,
17 C , terms of writing the -- in the State of Ohio Civil Scrvice 18 System, and(d$ $ M M M b fdYED f4 T @ whenever
/
19 you suspend or dismiss someone or otherwise take economic ( / (\
]b ' \
20 disciplinary action, you have to file a quadruplicate (
l )
21
- suspension, or removal order, which is then signed by what'sq 22 fh called the Appointing Authority for the institution, and it ,/
\ (
23 ) is filed with several State agencias, and of course, a copy 24 % is given to the employee.
e 6/ S(
One of my responsibilities,!M N A M If 25 was t )
\ . __cC -'
~
y, ~ :-e >~V
(,, 7c nw
9 14 1 draft the suspension and removal orders, to attend the f O2 g
I i administrative hearings where the department presented 3 evidence against I where and repreanntative 4 ) responded to those allegations.
5 A neutral and detached hearing officer 6
a finding of fact, which I would 7 fthentransposeontooneoftheseremovalordersandthen- /
~
8 present to the Appointing Authority for signature. [/ p j
L 9
10 ,
11 .
12 I )
{
14 'y
' his -
15 16 17 MR. PAUL: Attachment 2 is another University of 18 Cincinnati Radiation Safety Committee memorandum, dated June 19 30, 1988. It's to Radiation Safety Personnel, University of 20 Cincinnati. It's from George W. Alexander, Jr. and Kenneth 21 H. Pritz.
Subject:
" Problem Notification Process-for 22 Radiation Safety Office Personnel."
23 This will be Attachment 2.
24 [ Attachment 2 was marked for 25 identification.]
f
.. . ,.a.~...-
.-', .?
15 i
,_.. 1 BY MR. PAUL
$4;J 2 Q
~
I ask you, Mr. Lodge, if you have ever seen that 3 one before.
4 A (Perusing document.)" Yes, I have.
5 Q Did you review it before it was issued?
6 A No, I did not.
7 Q Did you have any discussions with either Mr. Fritz 8 or Mr. Alexander regarding this memorandum before it was 9 issued?
10 A I had discussions with Mr. Fritz, and I believe 11 they-were before it was issued.
12 Q And what was the nature of those discussions?
13 A Mr. Fritz -- he wanted to be -- basically, to cut 14 right to the case, Mr. Fritz wanted to make sure the 15 complaints came to him and nobody else. And he asked if we 16 could put together.a policy -- a policy or, failing that, a 17 procedure which would require them to take allegations of or.
18 reports of safety violations to him and no further.
19 Q What happened as far as the establishment of a 20 policy? Was that pursued or was that dropped? I 21 A I told Ken that, as per the informal practice that 22 George Alexander and I developed, that.if had a specific 23 problem that had occurred that he wished to talk about, we
.- 24 would do that, such as the problem in the patient room that
\'
25 I related earlier; that if we could talk about specific
_._m ,,~ ,_, ,,, ,_,
16-4 1 -problems,_that I-would be more than willing to do that but T- 2- that I felt-that a blanket prohibition on taking complaints 3
other than to him was -- was legally problematic and advised 4 him strongly not to pursue that.
5 Q You mentioned in your answer-that you had some 6 discussions with George Alexander. Was that related to this' 7 specific topic?
8 A Not at this time. I did havs discussions with 9 George within that 12-month period -- I think, probably, in ,
10 the late winter or early spring of 1989 -- about how far a 11 general policy could sp) about reporting violations. You 12 know, we'd always talked about specific _ incidents, and then, 13 early in 1989, George contacted me about putting together a 14 specific, you know, cover -- you know, one-policy-covers-
- 15 all-type approach to reporting -- reporting violations.
16 Q In your discussions with - Alexander and -Fritz, did 17 you discuss reporting problems to the Nuclear Regulatory 18 Commission at all?
19 A Yes, we did.
20- MR. RESNICK: Take them one at a time, so there.is
- 21 no confusion.
22 THE WITNESS: Okay.-
23 BY MR. PAUL:
24 Q Did you discuss with Alexander reporting safety l- ;k 25. problems to the NRC?
17 1 A (Yes.)
C.
2 Q In what context was that discussed?
3 A Every time we discussed any of these issues in the 4 last 5 or 6 years, I made a point of reminding George that 5 the technicians or anybody associated with the radiation 6 safety program or anybody associated with the University had 7 a statutory right and, you know, perhaps an obligation to 8 report violations to the NRC and that under no circumstances 9 should anything be put in writing which could be -- which 10 could be -- which could be inferred as suggesting otherwise.
11 I went so far as to say, clearly, you don't say 12 don't go the NRC and don't issue a blanket procedure that 13 says don't report -- don't go outside with violations, 14 because if you simply say don't go outside with violations, 15 it could be implied that you're also bringing the NRC within 16 that.
17 We talked about that specifically, each and-every 18 time we were on the phone, that they have a right to go to !
l 19 the NRC, that trying to deter them from going to the NRC is 20 going to be a problem for you if you suggest to them or they 21 get the impression that that's what you're trying to do.
22 Q In this specific memo, in the second sentence, it 23 says --
24 MR. RESNICK: You're talking about Attachment 2 25 now?
n v 18-1 MR. PAUL: Attachment 2, the June 30, 1988, 2 memorandum. "Under no circumstances should any employee 3 state either policy or problems relating to radiation safety 4 to anyone within the University of Cincinnati or outside of 5 the University of Cincinnati, unless told to do so by one of 6 the above-mentioned supervisors."
7 THE WITNESS: Right.
8 BY MR. PAUL:
9 Q Did you review the specific writing in this 10 memorandum before it was issued?
11 A No, I did not.
12 Q Did fou review it afterwards?
A I don't know when I received it.
( 13 14 KR. RESNICK: He saw it at some point, obviously.
15 THE WITNESS: I -- I have it at some --'it's in my 16 file, and I don't know when I got it.
17 BY MR. PAUL:
18 Q Did you have a discussion with George Alexander 19 relating to what you just said about that you shouldn't put 20 -- about the language restricting employees from discussing 21 with outside entities radiation safety problems? Did you 22 have that discussion with George Alexander before this 23 memorandum was issued or after? Do you recall?
24 A I had -- I had several discussions like that with
\-'
25 George before that memo was issued.
.. . . - . - - - - - - . .. - . - - . .. .- - - . - ~ . . - - - --
..,.-- f '
'19
' 1' - MR..RESNICK: Attachment 2 was issued..
e 't - THE WITNESS - (Yes. )- .
3 MR. RESNICK: Just so it's clear.
THE WITNESS: Yes. - But I never -- just let me -
4 5 _ clarify something.
6 My first. discussion of a blanket prohibition on 7 outside' contacts was with Ken Frits. l George always-8 contacted me with specific incidents that'had occurred-and:
9 saying what should we do about this. Should- we waan) the 10 people that,-in the future, these things are.-not: acceptable?-
11 And then Ken, at some point in 1988, did-contact me_and'say, 12 hey, you know, we want to write this policy that's going to I 13 be all-in$1usive. .
- 14 BY MR. PAUL:
15 Q Do you recall the-incident that Alexander was discussing: with youJ regarding- this type of situation?- You-16 -
17 just said that Alexander'came to you with specific problems.
One would have:been.that pat' lent incident I--
18 A
, 19 related.
2 0_ _ Q Okay.
21 AI Another was one of the technicians that I think~is R22 currently is. employed, a guy by the name of: Ray Estes, chad-
' 23 taken it upon himself.to post " radioactive hazard" signs all 24 over a public restroom in Holmes Hospital, and you know, I
. 25 guess tHe phone;was ringing off the hook in the Radiation V
4 -ere g.<qr-ry,---+ -#y -y r eg - y,y-y y +g
- s
^
- 20 !
Safety Office, because you know, the staff members were l 1
f_ i I )
\- 2 going in the restroom and then, you know, to be confronted 3 by this sign that says, you know, " Warning: Radiation 4 Hazard" -- you know, that is something that Ray should have 5 discussed with Ken or George before he vent ahead and did 6 it. And I said, yes, you know, you go back and reiterate to 7 him, in writing, that that's the kind of thing you don't do 8 without clearing it with supervision first, 9 Those are two offhand examples of situations that 10 come to mind that I discussed -- you know, specific-type 11 potential problems that I would discuss with George.
12 Q Would you characterize this memorandum, meaning 13 Attachment 2, as departmental procedure, as opposed to 14 policy? How is it classified in the University?
15 A It's not a policy. At best, it's a departmental 16 procedure.
17 Q And were you aware that each employee was required 18 to sign this specific memo?
19 A I subsequently became aware of that, when I was 20 shown the meno for the first time.
21 Q Do you recall when that was?
22 A I do not. The copy I have does not have a date-23 stamp on it, which would indicate to ne that I did not 24 receive it through the mail.
~
25 Hy thinking is that I got it at a meeting where we
-u -
e <
e 21 9
1 were discussing problems in the Radiation Safety Office, 2 sometime, many months after it was written and given to-the 3 staff.
4 Q Did you ever discuss this specific memo with Dr.
5 Wlot?
6 A Yes, I did.
7 Q And could you tell me what the situation was'and 8 what the discussion entailed?
9 A This was either in late July or early August --
10- well, either July or August of 1989, and Dr. Wlot called me 11 up, was quite agitated, seemed to be quite agitated, and 12 said, " Bill, I'm going to read you something," and he read 13 me that memo.
14 MR. RESNICK: Attachment 27 15 THE WITNESS: Yes, Attachment 2, or what I 16 subsequently determined was this. I did not have it in 17 front of me, but I -- you know, it sort if all comes 18 together now.
19 He reads this thing to me, and he goes, " Bill, did And I said, "No, Jerry, I did not." And 20 you approve this?"
21 he said, "That's all I wanted to know," and he-hung up, and 22 the conversation took about 90 seconds.
23 MR. RESNICK: Can I just ask something for 24 clarification?
\
25 MR. PAUL: Sure.
- +-
.c 1 KR. RESNICK: When you just said that, does that
'i * - 2 mean you did not have a copy of the June-30th memo when Dr.
3 Wiot called you?
4 THE WITNESS: I don't think_that I did. He read - :
5 - I believe he read it to se over the phone. .I may be wrong 6 about that, but as I say, I don't knov when I ever -- I 7 don't know when, specifically, I got a copy of this thing. _
8 Maybe -- perhaps he.had sent it -- perhaps he sent 9 it to me in July of '89 and said -- you know, attached a 10 note and said "I'll call you," and maybe that was a-followup _
11 call. I don't recall specifically. I'may_have had it by-12 that time.
13 BY MR. PAUL:
f 14 Q Do you recall any specific conversation with: Ken-15 Fritz on this memorandum or the-procedure?:
16 A As I say, I do recall talking to Ken.--I had notL ,
talked to Ken in about 4 years. And Ken, if-you're_-- well, 17 18 Ken, you don't -- you don't forget conversations with Ken.
19 And he, as I Jay, was very interested in making sure these 20 fellows didn't go anywhere:but to him. ,
21 You know, I -- I think he-did not want them to 22 even go to the -- I.think -- I think hAs concern was such 23 that he did not even want them going-to members of the 24 Radiation Safety Committee and that he wanted to put 25 together a policy _that was going to stop them or a procedure
b_l b '23
?
-- 1 that was going'to'stop.them from even talking to, you know, ,
' ' ?' ' - 2 responsible people within the institution.
3 Clearly, he wanted to circumscribo their-4 discretion to the greatest extent possible. And I don't 5 recall his giving me any --' any sample wording or _ reading
~
6 anything to me, but_that is -- that was the subject matter-7 of his call, and then, subsequently, some months later, I 8 find out this memo has been written.-
9 Q Did he mention the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 10 people going to them? Was that in any way discussed in 11 relation to this procedure?
12 A He had a thing where he interpreted the .regs, and I don't know if these are the NRC regs or the/ DOL rags,
( 13 14 offhand -- I've forgotten -- that say.you should inform your-15 supervisor or the - -not your supervisor, but youlshould' 16 inform the' responsible department or office <within your~
company or institution of any safety problems. And_he 17
~
la thought that -- he was -- he had this idea that if people-19 didn't: inform him first-that he could discipline them if 20 they were~ going to the NRC.
I mean I remember _ him asking me that: _ Don't you 211 2
22 think that we can construe these - these:regs-to the-extent 23 that if-they -- if they don't come to 1ne first"that we can- -
24 discipline them? And I said, " Ken, I really don't think so.
25 I think that's a very broad reading of the regulaticns, and
' 24 g- 1 I think you'r,e going to get in big, big trouble if you try 2 to do that. It's a suggestion, it makes sense, but I don't 3 think it gives you, no, carte blanche to do what you want if 4 you don't they have complied."
5 Q During this timeframe, did you discuss or was the 6 possibility of disciplinary action against an employee in 7 the Radiation Safety Office discussed with you over this 8 policy?
9 MR. RESNICK: Procedure?
l 10 MR. PAUL: Or procedure.
l 11 MR. RESNICK: What period of time are we talking 12 about now?
MR. PAUL: In the timefraue -- well, the86 to
( 13 14 '89 timeframe.
15 THE WITNESS: If any disciplinary action was taken 16 -- I think Ray Estes was conferenced for that business with 17 the restroom, and I don't think they really contemplated any 18 tough disciplinary action. I think, probably, as far as it 19 ever went was sitting down with a tech and saying, you know, 20 like with.-- you shouldn't have walked around the hall 21 complaining about that patient or the mess you had to clean 22 up.
23 Yes, there were, you know, a couple of calls, like 24 the ones I related to you, specific situations. Does this 25 violation existing University policy? In the one case, it
- 25 g-. 1 . violated-the University policy on the confidentiality of
- c -2 patient records. In another case, you know, one tech had 3 clearly acted outside the scope of his authority. But as 4 far as did I ever get a phone call saying, hey, we think 5 this guy went to the NRC? I don't think so. I really don't 6 think so. I -- no, I don't recall them calling me and 7 saying, specifically, we think they've gone to the NRC; 8 we're going to get them just for that. I don't recall that.
9 BY MR. PAUL:
10 Q Regarding Attachment 2, do.you recall having any 11 conversations with Dr. Silberstein regarding this procedure-12 within the Radiation Safety Office?
I don't think I have ever spoken to Dr.
( 13 A 14 Silberstein.
15 Q Have you ever appeared before the Radiation Safety 16 Committee?
17 A Have I?
18 Q Right.
19 A No, sir.
20 Q- Other than Dr. Silberstein, do you recall 21 discussing this specific procedures detailed in Attachment 2 22 with any member of the Radiation Safety committee?.
23 A Well, I discussed it with Dr. Wiot that' day, and I
-' 24 believe he is on the Radiation Safety Committee.
i
25 I believe I -- well, I talked to Gary Harris, who e- - ,- s - ~ . - > +-
, w- - m . .-
'.' .=
26
, 1. is the hospital's risk manager, about an alternative- policy M; 2 that Dr. Wiot had written. Probably about a year-after this 3 was released, Gary and I had a conversation about an-4 alternative policy that Dr.-Wlot had written that he and I 5 reviewed and felt =was acceptable, and Ilthink, probably, in 6 the context of that conversation, it's likely that this one 7 came up.
8 So, I would say, yes, you know, I talked -to Dr.
9 Wiot about this policy in July or August of '89, and I did 10 talk to Gary' Harris about an alternative policy, and we may 11 well have discussed this-one, you know, sort of contrasting _
12 the two procedures.
13 im. PAUL: At this time, since you gave me the
(
14 lead-in, I'll show you Attachment 3, which is a University 15 of Cincinnati Radiation Safety Committee memorandum, dated 16 July 31, 1989. It's to Radiation Health Physics Technicians 17 f rom Jerome F. -Wlot, M.D. , Chairman, Radiation Safety 18 Committee.-
Subject:
" Problem Notification Process."
19 [ Attachment 3 was marked for-20 identification.)- ]
21- BY MR. PAUL:
-22 Q = My - first -question is is this the memorandum or i
23 topic you were discussing with Gary Harris that you just 24 referred to?
25 A- Yes, it is.
.. f.
27
- 1 Q And did that ever become University of Cincinnati
"" 2 policy?
3 A Not policy. But as far as 7 know, it is still the 4 procedure for handling violations within the Radiation 5 Safety office.
6 Q And do you recall what -- I know you sort of 7 alluded to it, but do you specifically recall what brought 8 about this procedure?
The first question I have: Does the procedure 9
10 detailed in Attachment 3 supercede the procedure in 11 Attachment 27 12 A I would say yes, because one is signed by Jerry 13 Wiot and the other is signed by George Fritz and Ken
\
I think, pretty clearly, it does. Certainly, if 14 Alexander.
15 I worked in that department, I would assume that without 16 much difficulty.
17 Q And what brought about the issuance of Attachment 18 37 MR. RESNICK: If you know.
19 MR. PAUL: If you know.
20 21 THE WITNESS: Well, Gary Harris called me 22 somewhere between -- probably in the first half of 1989 and 23 said -- well, Alexander had written me a memo, I think in 24 March of '89, saying we need to develop this policy, we-need k 25 to develop the policy, and he had copies of the regs 4
% 1
- '~.' ~
28 1 attached, and he said, "What can we do under these'regs?"
j-
- 2 So, he is -- so, basically, he is coming to me in writing, 3 in essence, asking the same thing that Fritz had asked of me, probably 9 months before, over the phone. And you know, 4
it was -- it was a reasonable request. You know, he seemed 5
6 to simply -- and he had attached the regs, and he seemed to 7 simply want to put something sort of global in writing for everybody's guidance.
8 9 I, you know, did not follow up in a timely 10 fashion. We had three labor contracts open in the first 6 11 months of that year, and I advised George over the phone 12 that I probably would not get to it anytime soon.
, 10 weeks later, Gary 13 Subsequently, probably 8, 14 Harris called me and said, you know, Dr. Wiot has asked that 15 I -- that I -- and Gary Harris is on the Radiation Safety 16 Comnittee -- said, "Dr. Wiot has asked that I follow up and 17 take care of this. We have a draft. You know, rather than 18 have you do it from scratch, I've got a draft here." And I 19 don't know if Wiot wrote it himself or whether Dr. Wiot and 20 Gary Harris collaborated on-it, but that is -- that is 21 Attact. ment No. 3, and that is what Gary and I discussed 1 22 briefly and approved as appropriate under the regulations.
23 Q Was there any discussion as to why there was --
24 you were superseding attachment two?
\m 25 A I don't specifically remember if we discussed
29 1 attachment two.- I said earlier that he and I might have 2 discussed it,.but I don't recall specifically.- I'm not even 3 sure that I was aware of the existence of attachment two at 4 that time. I couldn't say to a certainty that I knew this 5 thing existed at-that time.
6 Q I guess then, the question would be which of the - l 7 three memos is current University procedure _within the Radiation Safety office; do you know? Are they all three 8
9 still valid?
10 A I would feel that the -- for two reasons: (1) 11 because it's the ---the most recent chronologically --
12 attachment three, because it's the most recent j chronologically and because it is from the Chairman =of the
~
13 14 Radiation Safety Committee, whose authority supercedes both 15 Mr. Alexander and Mr. Fritz.
16 .Q Going on to another area.
17 Did.you participate in the suspension of Mr.1Fritz 18 or Mr. Jason?
19 A I was not directly-involved in meeting with them-20 when they were placed-on -- placed on leave. Neither'one of 21 them has been' suspended. They're both still-being paid-22 But, no.-- I did not meet with'them specifically, 23 to place.them on leave.
24 Q Did you participate at all in any type of s
25 investigation as_to the circumstances which led up1to their.
. '; L ' . ' +
30
. 1 .being placed,on' leave?
No. ~By the time it got to me, it was - by the
?' 2 A 3 time it got'to me, the decision to put them on leave wasia 4 fait accompli. I mean, it was presented to_me that this is 5 going to happen; and then subsequently, you or someone in-6 your office is going to have to come in-and investigate all 7 the circumstances and make a recommendation as far as, you 8 know, disciplinary _ action.
9 Q Mr. Lyons, have I or any other NRC representative 10 here threatened you in any manner, offered you any rewards.
11 in return for this statement?
12 A No.
f Have you given this statement freely:and-13 Q 14 voluntarily?
15 A Yes.
16 MR.-RESNICK: Sort of.
17- (Laughter.)
18 MR. RESNICK: He had-to come downtown, leave his -
19 . job. I'm just being facetious. I'm sorry, I.couldn't 20 resist.
21 MR. PAUL: And before we answer this, you might
. 22 vant to talk to Mr. Resnick.
23 Is there anything further you care to add for the
/"' 24 record?
i 25 -ER. RESNICK: Yes. Why-don't we step out.
MR. PAULt okay, we'll go off the record here. j 1
g.
b 2 (Discussion held off record.)
3 MR. PAULt Any?
4 MR. RESHICK! He doesn't have anything to ask.
5 I've got a clarification to ask about attachment 6 two?
7 MR. PAUL Okay.
MR. RESNICK: If that's all right.
8 9 Do you have a copy of that there?
10 MR. PAULt Right there is attachment two.
11 EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. RESNICKt 13 Q Mr. Lodge, there were some questionn earlier about when you received attachment two. Ano I believe you 14 15 responded that you could not, with certainty, say when you 16 received it. What I'm interested in is your best 17 recollection, as you sit here today, when you r tved the 18 document that's attachment two to the deposition?
19 A Well, I -- as best I -- would have been one of two 20 general time frames. Number one would have been in the 21 spring or summer of 1989, when I discussed attachment three 22 or the potential implementation of attachment three with 23 Gary Harris; which, as I say, would have baan somewhore in.
/ 24 the May to July timeframe of 1989.
k' 25 And the second possibility is after both Mr. Fritz
' < ~
32 4
1 and Mr. Jason were relieved of responsibility -- that in my
\e
% 2 follow-up on what exactly they had done, that I may have 3 come into possession of the memo af ter they were placed on 4 leave, that's all I had.
5 Q In your discussions you had with Mr. Alexander and 6 Fritz weren't specifically based on this memorandum?
7 A No.
8 Q The conversations you detailed earlier?
9 A No.
10 Q It was just a situation, or was it an inquiry by 11 either Mr. Fritz and Mr. Alexander as to a set of specific 12 circumstances?
13 A No. The inquiry by Mr. Fritz was not a specific ,
14 circumstance. It was a very broad -- can we circumscribe 15 their reporting possibilities. very -strictly,- without --
16 there weren't -- nothing had happened that I know of.
17 He just called up one day and said, " hey, can we 18 make these guys report everything to me or else -- and 19- nobody else." And I said, " Ken, is there anything in 20 particular we vant to talk about?" And he did not have 21 anything in particular. And that was in probably, June of.
22 '88.
- 23. Q- Okay.
24 Just to clarify that. And what didLyou respond to I
25 him?
, e ,
- -' ... =
33 1 A I said, "no, absolutely not." That, you know, f-,
"let's talk about specifics." But nothing -- no general 2
3 prohibitions.
4 0 okay.
5 MR. PAUL Okay. The interview is concluded.
6 [The interview was concluded at 2:42 p.m.]"
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
. .. 3T +
/
t REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE '!
}
This is to certify that the attached proceed- ,
i ings before the United States Nuclear j Regulatory Commission i
in the matter oft Investigative interview NAME OF PROCEEDING:
DOCKET NUMBERS Cincinnati, Ohio PLACE OF PROCEEDING:
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for-the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by as and thereafter reduced to typewriting ;
~
by se or under the direction of the court report-ing company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of-the foregoing proceedinge.
W&{Es 4
~
Lincoln Davis Official Reporter.
Ann Riley & Associates. Ltd.- 1 i
t I
t u -m-r f + 1- 9.,--.- y p.',, g9 pp tf@'r M Nw'4 % ' WYreMN'm 'r m-'eww9^- s r MT t'4TW're4w+is--VWFNNW waW W $ M 9 7MW @Mr"*' 7*!'-M+ * ? M" '9FMNUF F '6'
}
- 4 g e "' e.
4 0 35
(
C Univorely of C4ncinnet Redletion Seley Committee Mall tocation 8591 Telephone (513) 872 4115 '
234 Goodman Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45267491 1 July 1986 '
r TO: Radiation Safety Office Personnel University of Cincinnati FROM: Coorge t. Alexander, Jr. '
Administrative Director [ Renneth R. } ritz - 0 Radiation Safety Officer
SUBJECT:
Proper channel of commu nications for Radiation Safety Officoq Personnel problems first to your immediate supervisor.. University of Cincinn - '
Your immediate i supervisor is the Deputy. Radiation Safety Officer - Mr. Prince Jason.
Problems relating to Radiation Safety which have not been addressed by the Deputy Radiation Safety-officer should be directed to the Radiation Safety Officer -- Mr. Kenneth R. Fritz.
Administrative Director - Mr. George Matters. should be directed to the Administrative Alexander.
All: correspondence including anything that has financial implications should be directed to the Administrative Director. -
Director deem it necessary to direct problems. to the cha of it isthe Radiation their job LtoSafety performCommittee this function. or the Radiation. Safety Committee, I
In the- event thatLany member of the Radiation' Safety Office- staff .
deters from this: procedure,- 'it is grounds for disciplinary. action.-
Further, University- Policy -states - that unauthorized discussion" of information pertaining to_ students, patients or 'other employees of the University- with ' friends, relatives, the general public'or the news media is considered -inappropriate behavior, and- that it discharge. in disciplinary 1 action up to and; including immediate shall-result Take pride- in your of fice.
what is ha Do not encourage conversation regarding elsewhere,ppening in this area. :If you spread derogatory-information Office of.the University of Cincinnati..you can only hurt yourselves, - the Radiation S
.. < . . _ < - ~-
I'. l N
9 e. Unteetelty cf clncinn:tl Matt tocation 8591 -
, .- tiedf oti:n safety Commill:e Tel; phones: 8 Radiation Safety Office $$8 4110 I
b 234 Goodman Stre'l Clocinnett. Ohio 45267-0$91 Admintsivstion $$8 9001
- I
,e . .
h '
1 i
June 30, 1900 TO: . Radiation Safety Personnel Univ. of Cincinnati C
D.S. '4
- rnott a George W. Alexander, Jr. ;
renneth H. Fritz, H.S. g SUDJECT: Problem flotification Procesa for Radiation Safety office Personnel _
In the event that there are any problems related to Radiation ,
Sofoty Office programs, nadiation llealth Technicians rnust !'
notify either the Deputy nadiation Safety Officer, Radiatkon ,
Sofoty of ficer or Administrative Director of Radiation Safety imm;diately. Under no circumstances should any employee stato either policies or problems rel'ated to radiation safety to anyone within the University of Cincinnati or outside of
.'l the 'niversity of Cincinnati unless told to do so by one of t nove mentioned supervisors. Picase be reminded that the ,
I. .otion Safety Committee makes radiation safety policies for i the University, and we act upon the provisions of our ilRC Droad License. Your specific jobs are to comply with assigned duties from the supervisors. In the event that there is e discrepancy related to this policy by an employee, disciplinary action will be taken.
llMtC DATE l I f
?'
l I
- . I.
s Patient Cate
- Education
- Research
- Community Service An offkenettve actionfequot opportunity institution a
~
~e l
- 1. ~ , . . 3,
, sl * :
,' e . - ~ ~ e m e. L.
ss v' .,
- ., ,,f .
l e' e e s. e . . \
'. ~' t.
Uni,,rsity of CtrvcJnn:ll i SAall tCCllon 691 R6dlauon L.fety Commf tle4 Telephones;
- ** , . .a . Radletion Safety Offke f464110 234 Goodman Street Obclnnat( Ohio 45267 0591
, Administration (4 6 90s t . .
N
- w. ---- ..
.v .
- (,
July 31, 1909 r 8 .
TO: Radiation llealth Physica Technicians <
Radiation Safety Office l-rROM: Jerome F. Wlot, H.D. ; . , -
chairman '
.i ..
i
.c
, , gg l Radiation Safety C ittee -
, .{
Problem Hotification Procesa * - "b
SUBJECT:
. . .).
y[ 0.p - .
The following problem notification procesa van approved by the-~~ ' / : .4 g.q Radiation Saf ety committee of the University of, Cincinnati at 1. .Q. ' ,"
l, ita July 25, 1989 meeting . - f
! . , j ' , [. .f)f )2
, lll ... ; C ,.,'.; ., , 'j:.kj
'If, intheopinionofanyoftheIlealthPhy&icaTechnicians,g;1
. a significant breach of enfety has ; occurred or a significantV8.y ,.,
potential ha'zard exista in relation to' radiation or radioactive i$ . -
materiale both in their use and their disposal .vithin the i?
University, this concern abould be .aubmitted in writing toi q', %
If(!/ '
the Radiation' Radiation SafetySafetyOfficer),.vith,a Officer (and'in his copyttol absence the Deputythe Chairman o ,
Radiation Saf ety Committee. < 'It vi1~i' be' the 'responsibilityQoff$
- the Radiation Saf ety of ficer to adrean thiaconcernr. take .r-C.d";,$ (:
appropriate action and report in writing to the Chairman-of!the .5
- Fadiation Safety Committee within thirty days of the filing of .'h' ,f .
8, the initial concern as t'o the disposition .
. j ;, .. jof p;i,.
.the concern. .m .: . g ; *, ..lp. : .0,T. ' .'. . ,.g All auch reports vill be brought to'.the'next acheduledlRadia d,., ;
tion Safety committee meeting as an"information inaue,i:and i for discussion and action ns. ic e .+ , :
To further clarify t'his process,' the route of $ complaints vhich etheQFQ techniciana should follov las complaintakare first presented in 0,W e.fi ,
writing to the Radiation Saf ety Of ficer,'.Hr. 'Fritt e (and in his absence 7 the Deputy Radiation Satety of ficer, Hr.' Jason),' and copied to the Chairman of the Radiation Saf ety Committee,' Dr.4Wlot.'. Hr.i Fritzt.is$d f.TV'
- to respond, taking appropriate action and reporting in ~ vriting to/the 'hk
. Chairm'an of the ' Committee. vithin 30 days"of thet.initia1' complaint.Ts A11gh auch actions are to be reported to the committee.at the next'regularl 8Q scheduled meeting: it should be noted,' however,?.that ranlemergency, id meeting may be called at the 'discretion 'o'f the' chairman. *
.
- fd
' ~-
),. . ..f:0; . .4.yd.
'. . 4 :9 Y" E
' fGM & &
OrW/ak ,' . .
,j(g - fjI,.
[ s,
- - ~
.a :. L.1 , , t-Y ces Mr. Kenneth H. Fritz ' i ?, d. C 4 M 2
,t , ji's h '; ]{lp{
2
[,. Hr. George Alexander , ,
. ,, ,b:) . '. .'h5. .
.l* '. '
' 3;..... . , , h.vh.s
. , Y ' ' ' j,,,f M* % '.. n.. s .,t. . .. n p ,.. . ... . ... ,
)
9 r wwn me. . ,
- h.. mx.yP s-c.ti.ni c.r. . cave.uon.. -
/6 s/ nmme . Commonw Wr:8 c '
em # _ . , - , - - - - - , -
,/
. REPORT OF INTERVIEW WITH
- MELVIN L. BOYO On January 25, 1990, Melvin L. BOYD was interviewed by NRC:01 investig Richard C. Paul and Mary Kay Tahey. Cincinnati Medical Center's R Ohio.
BOYD said he has been employed at University of 30,Cincinnati 1988. BOYD Medical said, Center (UCMC) in the Radiation Safety Office since May BOYD said he his current position is as a Senior Health Physics Technician.
has a Masters De ree in Health Fhysics from Purdue University and wor Purdue Universit 's Radiation Safety Office.
BOYD said that Ken FRITZ was the Radiation Safety Officer (RS0) at August 1989, when he was suspended.
Regarding the August 1989 NRC: Rill inspection of UCMC, BOYD r had been interviewed by Toye SIMMONS and Wayne SLAWINSKI, R!!! inspect BOYO said he had been interviewed individually by the inspectors in the basement of the Nuclear Medicine Department.
BOYD surveys.
said everyone within Radiation Safety Office BOYD perfo BOYD identified JASON as the Dcputy RSO, office, according to BOYD.
( said the health physics technicians knew the schedule for surveying the sources.
BOYO said the surveys were documented on these inventory cards BOYD said JASON would give the inventory cards to the by the technician. Upon completion of the survey the technicians at the time of the survey, technician would BOYDrecord the seale said required calculations and would fill Out the inventory card.
some technicians took the cards into the field with them for the surveys, others would just complete the docsmentation in the office.
BOYD recalled that on one occasion, during the sumer of 1988, he wasBOYD sai assigned to do a source survey for a Ni-63 source.
the inventory card which identified that the source was supposeThe to be loca in Whearly Hall and in the possession of Dr. Henry T BOYD said this meant the source's strength may have been b requirements for survey, conversations with TAN, FRASER, and FRITZ, and it was de would handle the matter.According to BOYD, UCMC procedures required a survey of s this source. BOYD said this was the only incident of a lost source that every six months.
he was aware of.
BOYD said he recalled that in August 1988, D. R. GIBBONS from NRC: Rill BOYD said GIBBONS was at UCMC for conducted an inspection at UCMC.BOYD said that about the time of the review of approximately one week.
(~
( the inventory cards by GIBBONS, JASON, the Depu N H! SIT 10
- M, P'GE / OF 3 PAGE's) e /s
P0YD said he put the cards in his desk drawer. BOYD stated he did not know why JASON had given him the inventory cards.
BOYD said the technicians were instructed by FRITZ to make "themselves scarce" BOYD said that he and the other technicians gave while GlBBONS was on site.
"everything but red flags
- to GIBBONS, indicating that they wanted to talk with him. BOYD said GlBBONS did not interview any of the technicians during his inspection.
E,0YD characterized the record keeping relating to the sources as not being very organized and the problem of missing sources and records as existing for the last ten to fifteen years. BOYD felt that the NRC let the problem go on because of the relationship the NRC had with Dr. SAENGER.
INVEST! GATOR'S NOTE: Dr. SAENGER was a medical consultant to NRC:RI!!.
BOYD said that the technicians' concerns reached a point where in December 1988 or January 1989, the technicians appeared before the Radiation Safety Committee (RSC). BOYD identified the technicians involved as At the meeting BOYD said the himself. Ray ESTES, Jeff BARBRO, and Pat HARRIS.
technicians brought up concerns related to commercial use of the NRC license by FRITZ and others, adherence to the NRC Regulatory Guides, administrative conflicts with George ALEXANDER, a union for the employees, Department of Transportation regulations, and lack of "NSB" standards. BOYD said these concerns were documented in memorandum to the RSC.
BOYD said the the meeting with the RSC was documented in the RSC minutes C and the RSC formed a subcorrnittee to look into the issues brought up by the technicians. BOYD opined that he felt the subccanittee was " dragging their feet
- and the outcome of all this had been no action except the creation of Regarding the paperwork so that FRITZ could leak test sources outside UCMC.
responsibilities for the events going on during this time ~ frame, BOYD felt that FRITZ was only doing what he was told to do by SAENGER and KERIAKES.
BOYD described FRITZ as being the RSO in name only. BOYD said that the hospital knew FRITZ was not qualified to be RSO.
According to BOYD, in 1988 ALEXANDER called a meet /g matter. with the technician about the bad publicity UCMC had received over the-said to prevent further adverse publicity ALEXANDL1 distributed a document BOYD which required that they keep all their concerns internal to UCMC.
referred to the document as a " gag order". BOYD said he read the document and told ALEXANDER that he thought the document was a violation of NRC regulations. BOYD indicated that he was then told he was required to sign BOYD said that during the review of UCMC by NES, the document which he did.
Bob BURGIN from NES obtained a signed copy of the " gag order."
BOYD said he was never asked to falsify records, because "they (FRITZ & JASON) did it." BOYD described JASON as being involved in the problems at UCMC because he was managenent but felt that JASON was caught in the middle between BOYD said JASON's position as Deputy RSO was the technicians and FRITZ.
created to keep JASON out of the union.
C 2
Case No. 3-89 011 / 9 /w
)
' for posting a contaminated IIBOYD recalled that restroom with radi active signs.
.' This report of interview was prepared on January 30, 1990, lC col.
Richard C. Paul, investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region !!!
Myn v?%
Mary K. Fahey, investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region 111 O
i 1
O _
Case No. 3-89-011 3 hr 6fM &