ML20126K869
| ML20126K869 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/21/1990 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126K503 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-91-533, FOIA-92-A-1 NUDOCS 9301070276 | |
| Download: ML20126K869 (50) | |
Text
/
OR G \\ AL OFFICIAL TRANSCRIFT OF PROCEEDINGS.
6 4
A 00@
Huclear Regulatory Comission 8
g.
Investigative Interview of Helvin L. Boyd (CLOSED)
Docket No.
LOCA110ft Cincinnati, Ohio DATL Tebruary 21, 1990 PAGE$: 1 - 48
+
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1612 K S. N.W. Suite 300 5 - 8 9. - 01;j Mgm ac 20006 EXHIBIT II (202) 293-3950 7 6-PAGE OFSO PAGE(S) 9301070276 920707 bt/j "'k;y PDR -FOIA 7,
-RESNICK92-A PDR f -, o - _.,
_y, 3
r 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 0FFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 6
In the Matter oft t
7 INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW t
8 Melvin L. Boyd 9
(CLOSED) 10
X 11 12 Offices of DECKMAN, WEIL,
(
13 SHEPARDSON AND FALLER 14 Suite 1714 15 105 East Fourth Street 16 cincinnati, Ohio 45202 17 February 21th,1990 18 19 The above-entitled matter commenced at 9 07 20 o' clock a.m.,
when were present:
21 22 On behalf-of the Nuclear Regulatory Commissiont 23 24 RICHARD C.
PAUL, Investigator 25 MARY KAY FAHEY, Investigator
2 1
On behalf of the vitness:
2 3
DEC} Mali, WEIL, SHEPARDSON AND FALLER 4
BY:
Margaret A. Fiorino, Esq.
5 Peter L. Cassady, Esq.
6 Suite 1714 7
105 East Fourth Street 8
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 7"
24 k.-
25
3 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
(9807 a.m.)
3 MR. PAULt For the record, this is an interview of 4
Melvin L. Boyd, spelled B-o-y-d, who is employed by the 5
University of Cincinnati, the Medical Center.
The location 6
of this interview is cincinnati, Ohio.
Present at this 7
Interview, in addition to Mr. Boyd, are Peter Cassady, Peg 8
Florino with the law firm of Beckman & Wheel.
The subject 9
natter of this interview concerns the University of 10 Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
11 Mr. Boyd, please stand and raise your right hand.
I 12 Whereupon, 13 MELVIN L. BOYD, 14 a witness, was called for examination, and, having been 15 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
16 EXAMINATION 17 PY MR. PAULt 18 Q
Mr. Boyd, are Mr. Cassady and Ms. Fiorino your 19 personel representatives in this matter?
20 A-Yes.
21 A
And do you understand that they-also represent 22 other parties in this matter?
23 A
Yes.
24 MR. PAUL Mr. Cassady, could you just identify 25 what ocher parties you represent here?
4 1
MR. CASSADY Jef f Barbro, Pat Harris, Ray listes, f-c5' 2
Prince Jaran, and Melvin Boyd.
3 BY KR. PAUL 4
Q With the understanding that he also representa 5
other parties, do you wish to have him here at the 6
interview?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
Okay.
Mr. Boyd, what's your background 'in health 9
10 physics?
11 MR. CASSADY:
Before we proceed, could I once again go on the record and say that it's my understanding 12 that Mr. Boyd is not a target of these investigations but is 13 14 being interviewed as a witness?
15 MR. PAUL Yes.
16 MR. CASSADY:
Yes, that's true?
17 MR. PAUL Right.
18 MR. CASSADY:
Okay.
19 BY MR. PAUL 20 Q
Mr. Boyd's what's your background in health 21 physics?
22 A
I graduated in May of 587 from Purdue University 23 with a BSCH, Bachelor of Science and Environmental Health, a 24 major in health physics, and I have previous experience 25 working in the Radiation Safety Office while I'was a student
5 e -
1 at purdue University.
And as far as experience in the health physics 2
Q 3
field, what experience did you have?
4 A
Well, as part of the curriculum there, that you work at least 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> a semester in the Radiation Safety 5
6 Of fice at the University.
We are also required to do an 7
internship.
When did you go to the University of Cincinnati 8
Q 9
Medical Center?
10 A
May, 1988.
11 Q
And in what position did you go in?
12 A
Staff Health Physics Technician.
13 Q
And at the time you were hired, who was the 14 radiation safety officer?
15 A
Ken Fritz.
16 Q
And was there an assistant or deputy radiation 17 safety officer at that time?
18 A
Yes and no.
19 Q
Could you just explain a little bit what the 20 situation was there as far as the position.
I believe it 21 was Prince Jason was there?
22 A
Well, he was a Senior Health Physics
-23 Technician / Deputy Radiation Safety Officer.-
('
24 Q
Did he have any managerial function at that time?
Q.
25 A
Yes.
He was responsible for supervising the three
- 6 1
health physics technicians and the secretary.
f-And at that time, who were the three health E
2 Q
3 physics technicians?
4 A
Patrick Harris, Ray Estes, Jeff Barbro.
5 Q
Who is George Alexander?
6 A
He was the Administrative Director of the 7
Radiation Safety Office.
Did he have any managerial responsibilities over 8
Q 9
you?
10 A
Yes.
And in ~~ what was the actual chain of command in 11 Q
health physics -- the Radiation Safety Office?
How did 12
(
13 George Alexander fit into it?
Well, Ken Fritz was the Technical Director and 14 A
15 George Alexander was the Administrative Director.
16 Q
Did Fritz report to Alexander or was it the other 17 vay around?
18 A
I don't know.
19 Q
Did Alexander direct any of your day-to-day 20 activities?
21 A
No.
22 Q
Who directed your day-to-day activities?
23 A
Ken Fritz.
24 Q
In, I believe it was June of 19.88, do you recall a meeting you had with George Alexander and Ken Fritz 25
7 regarding what we termed in our last interview as a " gag 1
f-w?
2 order"?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
could you briefly -- or could you explain what the circumstances were that brought about the meeting and what 5
6 transpired at the meeting?
Well, all I can recall is he came in and said he 7
A wanted to have c meeting with all of the technicians.
8 9
Q And who was this?
10 A
And we proceeded back to Ken's 11 office, and we went over personnel policy, dress code, and 12 then he gave us what you considered a gag order.
You know, he just gave us all forms, and he passed them all around,
(
13 14 and everyone read them, and we signed them.
15 Q
Did the technicians term it a " gag order"?
16 A
Pardon me?
Did the technicians use the term " gag order" in 17 Q
18 describing it?
19 A
No, not that I remember.
20 Q
Has it ever been termed a " gag order" as far as 21 you know?
22 A
Not before recently, no.
23 Q
Well, when we interviewed you last time, didn't 24 you use that term?
25 A
Yes.
That's because that's the way it was. termed
. _.. - _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _. _. _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _. ~. _.. _ _ _ _.
i in the audit report, and a lot of individuals have referred
- c 1
f 2
to it as a " gag order."
What did you -- did you read the meno at that time 3
Q a
4 5
A Yes.
6 Q
-- that was passed around?
7 A
Uh-huh.
Yes, I did.
And what do you recall that it stated in that?
8 Q
It just basically told us not to go outside at the 3
9 A
University, do not discuss any problems that you may be - '
10 that the Radiation Safety Program _may be having with friends 11 or relatives or no one that's not affiliated with the 12 13 Radiation Safety-Office.
Were you familiar with what brought this situation 14 0
Was there any past up.as far as them writing a memo?
15 incident that initiated this memo that you wer.e_ aware of?
16 At that time, no, but af terwards, yes._
17 A
And what did you find out afterwards?
18 0
Well~, it was -- from the'past experience they had
-19 A
20-had with a former employee.
. 21--
0 And-who was the employes?
22 A'
And what was the past -- were you aware of the 23 0
circumstances of-what the past events were regarding that 24 25' employee?
e
'p
1 A
No.
2 Q
Did they mention name?
3 A
No, they didn't.
How did you find out that it involved this 4
Q 5
employee?
Just from individuals in the office talking about 6
A' 7
it.
Did it have anything to do with the NRC7 8
Q 9
A Pardon me?
10 Q
Did it have anything to do with the NRC, 11 incident?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
And do you know what the circumstances were 14 between and the NRC?
15 A
No.
At the meeting, when you read the memorandum, did 16 Q
17 you consider that this memorandum had any effect on your.
18 ability to discuss safety concerns with the NRC7 19 A
Hot really.
I didn't really pay it any attention.
20 0
- Did you sign it?
21 A
Yes..
22 Q
And why'did you sign it?
Decause when he came in,.and when we were in the 23 A
meeting, he just said sign'it, i.nd one of the technicians 24 had specifically pointed out that it was a violation of 25 (si%fn
=
c, y
rm--
y-www--
,r--w--
b 1-w-v---t
---+-cri--
w me = <= -
w'=
-wer - ~-
-. _.. _ ~ _ - -..
b 10 f-1 19.12, and, you know, of Torm 3, the notice to employaas, 2
but I signed it anyway.
3 Q
And you said "lle."
Who was he who told you the 4
information?
5 A
Well, I was aware of the information.
6 Q
No, I mean you. said, "He told us to sign it."
I'm 7
just asking who he was.
8 A
oh. George Alexander.
9 Q
Was Fritz at the meeting?
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
Did he say anything about the memo?
12 A
Ho.
2 C
13 Q
You mentioned you termed some sections.
- Now, 14 these were sections of the NRC-Regulations.
Is that right?
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
And what does that particular section of the Code 17 of Toderal Regulations pertain to that you cited.
You 18 cited the number; do you know what that pertains to?
19 A
Yes.
Okay.
Form 3.
It specifically states that 20 an employer cannot take action against'an employee for 21 notifying the NRC of safety problems.
22 Q
Okay.
So, evidently,- you-didn't consider this 23 memo complying to the Code of Federal-Regulations, did you, 24 as far as your freedom to -- is that what you said earlier?
(.
25
-- as far as your freedom to contact the NRC7 You didn't
. ',. -[
11 1
equate that with this memo at that time?
- W 2
A Yes.
3 0
Ch, you did?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
But why, then, did you sign the memo?
Because we were -- I was ordered to sign it.
6 A
George Alexander specifically said sign it.
7 Did you feel it was a condition of your employment 8
Q 9
to sign it?
Yes, because at that time in that meeting, I was -
10 A
- had just -- I wasn't there even a month.
I had just 11 recently started there at the Radiation Safety Office.
12
(
13 BY MS. FAHEY:
When one of the technicians brought up the fact 14 Q
that the requirement to sign this meno was a violation, what 15 was the response from the management representatives there?
16 17 A
Well, George just said, "Just sign it."
Ken didn't say anything.
He just sat there in his chair.
19 Q
Did everybody sign it?
20 A
Yes.
21 BY MR. PAULt At that time, were you the newest employee at the 22 Q
23 meeting?
[
24 A
Yes.
(
After the meeting, did you have discussions with 25 Q
L
,12 1
the other technicians on the memo?
d 2
A Yes.
And what was the substance of those discussions 3
o 4
about regarding the memo?
We thought it was funny, to be honest with you, 5
A because, you know, I was very well aware of my rights, and 6
that if I chose to call the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7
as a radiation worker, I have that authority to 8
- that, contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission if, after I take 9
10 safety issues to management, and if I feel that they are not responding in a timely manner, that I had, you know, an 11 obligation to contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
12 13 Q
So you were not -- this in no way coerced you or prevented you from going to the NRC with any safety concern?
14 15 Hy understand of what you said, is that correct?
16 A
Correct.
17 Q
Did any of the other rLdiation safety techs indicate that they were intimidated by the memo where it 18 would effect their ability to go to the NRC7 19 20 A
I can't really answer that.
Well, I'm just asking if they mentioned anything, 21 Q
that they felt that they no longer could, or this somehow 22 23 infringed on their rights to go the NRC?
24 A
Not that I can recall.
~
25 Q
Regarding the inventory of sealed sources and the
-_-m__m_m__,_
13
- s periodic wipe test, did you perform those in that summer of 1
2
'887 Was that one of your assigned duties?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
And did the University have any written procedures for you to follow in performing the inventory and wipe test?
5 6
A No.
7 0
When you first got there, was there any type of 8
training as far as this procedure?
9 A
No.
10 Q
Were you just -- how did you come about doing it?
Did they just give you a card and you vent out in the fleid 11 12 to perform it?
13 A
Dasically.
And Ken had -- you know, he use to
(
14 tell me a lot, that he said, "Well, you know, you vent to school for health physics, and -- if I didn't know how to do 15 something, I would go to the library or I would look in my 16 reference books and see what's the preferred methodology of 17 18 performing that certain task.
19 Q
Did all the technicians perform these wipe testo?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
Was everyone doing it in a dif ferent method, or 22 was there sono standardized method that was used?
23 A
It all depended on the type of source.
24 Q
So you were left to your own initiative as to how
"~
25 you'd. perform this.
Is that --
_=
i 14 As far as the gammas and the betas, it was 1
A Ho.
standard operating procedure the way all of us performed S'
2 them, but when it came to some of the radium sources, there 3
was a little discrepancy, because since there was -- there 4
5 was not any written procedures.
What was the discrepancy as far as radium was 6
Q 7
concerned?
Well, Radium 226 is an alpha and a gamma, and you 8
A 9
can count it either way.
There are a lot of different methods in which you can count Radium 226, and sometimes 10 they would be counted in the gamma counter, and then other 11 times they would be counted in the proportional counter.
12 13 BY MS. FAHEY:
14 Q
What's the proper way to do it?
It all depends on the way your procedure is 15 A
16 written.
Most individuals -- if you're using it for a gamma it should be counted gamma, but if you're using it 17
- standard, 18 for an alpha standard, it should be counted alpha.- The NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 19 preferred method is to count it gamma.-
20 21 Q
How was it used at the University?
Radium 226 was utilized as a calibration source.
22 A
23-BY MR. PAULt Of -the two methods, which one was used at the -
/
24 Q
(
University of Cincinnati -- to measure the gamma or count 25
=
T' e, _, -,,,,
4
- 1.,
1B 1-the gamma?
2 A
Both methods was utilized.,
3 Q
consistently or inconsistently?
4 A
Basically, it depended on which technician was performing the leak test at that particular. time.
5 6
Q Was there any procedure on this?
7 A
No.
Well, eventually, we found an older-procedure, but as far as an up-to-date, written' procedure 8
9 for the proper way of counting Radium 226, there was not a to procedure.
11 Q
Did you ever discuss with Fritz the lack of 12 procedures?
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
Do you recall when the discussion was?
l 15 A-Approximately two weeks after I.had started, I had 16 asked hint could I review the procedure manual.
He said ve.
17 had one, and I looked through-it, and the few that_vas in 18 there, you know, I utilized those.
19 Q
-Did he ever explain why they didn't have
-procedures as far as everything was concerned?
20 21
- A No.
22 Q
At Purdue, when you worked there,_did they have 23 written procedures?
24 A-Yes.
2 5 --
Q-For every type of activity as.far as radiation'
~
4 16 safety?- Was it all document on what you were supposed to 1
l 2
do?
3 A
Yes, for every activity you had to perform, you 4
had a procedure.
5 BY MS. FA1!EY:
I think when met last time, you stated that you 6
Q were surprised -- and I can't remember whether it had to do 7
B with calibration of instruments.
You were surprised by the method or the area where they did the calibration because 9
10 there was background.
11 A
Yes, that's with the Radium 226.
We utilized a 1 millicurie radium needle and we also had a 25 mil 11 curie 12 But for the
(
13 radium source and the cesium calibrator source.
in window and side window probes, we utilized the 14 GM meters, 15 radium needle.
It was a radium needle with a string.
It was hung 16 from a coat hanger and we had a tape measure and we just --
17 ve -- the technicians; we had calibrated the exposure at 18 dif ferent distances using inverse square law and a gamma ray 19 constant and we would just -.they would just go to those 20 distances where they wanted them, because with the way our 21 license read, we had to calibrate it one third and two-22 thirds of each scale and they'could figure it out from 23
/
24 there.
k.
25 BY MR. PAUL:
e 17 Were there other sources present in the lab when 1
0 O' -
2-you performed these calibrations?
q 3
A Yes.
4 Q
Would they have affected the calculations you i
5 performed on your calibration?
6 1.
They wouldn't affect the calculations.
7 Q
Or the readings that you got on whatever you were 8
using at that time?
9 A
Yes.
t 10 0
So they did have some influence on the 11 measurements you performed; is that correct?
12 A
The cesium would.
f c.
13 BY MS. FAHEY:
'Did the other techs realize that there was a lack 14 0
of procedure or that the procedures that you were currently 15 16 using were somewhat archaic?
Maybe'that's not a good choice of a word, but they were obviously_not the same. procedures 17 18
_you were used to at Purdue.
19 A
- Yes, f
20
_ Q RSo everybody knew that you were kind of behind the 21 eight ball as far as current technology or --
22 A
- Yes, 23 Q
What was:the procedure as far as sealed sources?
-How didLtheLUniversity maintain -- how did they keep track 24 N
~
25' of al1 these sealed sources?
m
=
-,-.m-.
,,...-.,..v-,
...... _. _. -.. _,. + _ _., - - - -.. -.... _,
18 1
A In,dex cards..
_{?.
J 2
Q Where were the index cards kept?
- N 3
A They were kept in a card file over by tne area 4
where -- over by the area where the microwave and the 5
refrigerator is located.
6 Q
In the radiation technician office there?.
7 A
Yes, it's in the main office, but it was the area 8
where the -- really where -- it's hard to describe.
9 Q
Well, it was in the office in a area accessible to 10 all the radiation safety techs?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
Did anyone have any responsibility as to
(
13 maintaining these cards, the inventory cards, or were they 14 just a general record maintained by the office?
15 A
Well, we were assigned what months, because all of 16 us was -- sc vs: e very well aware, you know, of what months 17 we had to go out and locate these sources and leak test 18 these sources.
We had a log, a monthly log _of what needed 19 to be accomplished for that month, so --
20 Q
Who would make the assignments to do the wipe 21 tests?
i 22 A
The deputy radiation safety officer.
23 Q
That was Prince Jason; is that correct?
24 A
Yes.
25 Q
So, at what point in time after you started work j
i i
_19
, - -, 3, --
~
1 at UC did you-start.doing-these wipe tests?'
~2
'A
. August.
3 Q
August of-'887 4
A Yes.
5 Q
Was that before or after~the NRC inspection?-
6 A
Before.
7 Q
Did'each_ individual -- was'that one of your 8
periodic duties to perform wipe tests?
Did everyone in the 9
office do that?
10 A-They were rotated,-because the office are wipe 11 tested quarterly. -The betas and gammas are wipe-tested it semi-annually, and-they were just rotated.
If-I do them-4 li This period, another technician would have to do-them the 14 next period.
15 Q
How would you document your_ wipe tests?-
16
.A We would~put'the date that_the wipe test was
~
17 performed, the number; we would calculate the minimal 18 detectable ectivity, the efficiencylof the: counting 1
19 instrument, the background count and'the net CPM for the 20 specific source.
l.
21 We will usually calculate anotherLoneLon net-22 activity.
l-23 Q
Where would you record the information; cm what 24 type-of document?
25-A On the back of the card.
I i
l'
- 20-Were you issued the cards when you were assigned 1
Q 2
to do the wipe-test -- the inventory' card?
i 3
A
_Not always.
What was the general procedure?
Would you go do the wipe test and obtain the_ necessary.
4 information and then go back to the_ office and document it, 5
6 or would you take the card in the field?
3 7
A I used to take the card in the field with me, 1
because all of the sources have serial numbers and model 8
9 numbers on them.
10 Q
Did the inventory card tell you where the source 11 was located?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
Did you ever have occasion to'be assigned to do a:
source survey and not be able to locate that particular 14 15 source?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
Did it happen on more.than one-occasion?
18 A --
-No.
19 Q
Could you tell us the circumstances when'this-happened and what transpired'as far as_'that particular 20
-21 incident-was concerned?
22-A Well, it was the Nickel-63 card which were located-23 in Wherry Hall, supposedly.in a gas chromatograph._
I went 24 over to perform the wipe test.
The sources were not there.
I located.the' authorized user in charge of the sources, and 25.
w
-e,-
-e
-- +
,a-s a
s na e.
w>
e
-o v
~w,
- re r n s
5,* '
21
~'
1 he recomranded me to go and speak with another gentleman, 9
2 the head of the chemical stores.
3 Q
Who was that.
4 A
Pardon me?
5 Q
Who was that; what was his name?
6 A
The individual responsible for the cards was Dr.
7 Tan.
The individual over at the chemical and pharmacy 8
supply store is David Frazer.
9 After I could not get suitable responses from 10 them, I turned it over to Ken Fritz and he made a couple 11 phone calls and that's all I heard of it.
12 Q
In effect, you never performed the surveys on that
(
13 source; is that correct?
14 A
That's correct.
15 Q
Was there any. notation as to when the last time 16 the source-had been wipe tested?
Was there any indication 17 of that on the card?
18 A
Well, I reviewed the card and the previous time 19 when the source was supposed-to be wipe tested.
It had in-20 storage, because our license specifically states that a 21 source in storage does not need to be wiped until you take-22 it out for usage.
Then you have to perform a wipe test;on-23 that particular source.
f' 24 Q
If it was in storage, where would it be located?
(
25 Where did they store these sources at, a central place?
w 22
~
1 A
Well, if it was storage, it all depends on your g-
-3' 2
particular laboratory setup._
You can store them in a 3
machine and unplug the machine.
You can store them in a 4
drawer.
You can store them in a lead shield.
You can store them in the original packing 5
6 material.
Was there any indication on the card as to who had 7
Q 8
entered the notation in storage?
9 A
No, but usually, we could tell from the 10 handwriting.
Who had written that, as far as you could 11 Q
12 determine?
l 13 A
Right now, I don't remember, because I haven't 14 seen the cards in a long time.
15 Q
The Nickel-63 source that was missing, or you couldn't locate; what type of source is this?
How is it 16 17 encased and where was it located?
Was it accessible to 18 people working in the lab?
What type of setting was this 19 source in?
It's a beta source and it's primarily used in gas 20 A
21 chromatographs.
It was just a solid metal source that then enclose in the tops of the gas chromatographs because it 22 23 helps with your resolution.
Was the gas chromatograph; was that machine still g'
24 Q
'E 25 in the lab when you went there?
23 1
A Yes.
2 Q
The source was just missing from it, right?
l 3
A The source, along with all of the other components 4
of the machine.
5 Q
Where they had been surplused or gutted or what 6
was the situation?
7 A
Well, my understanding was that the machine was
)
i i
originally moved to another location for storage and the 8
9 machine came back down to the particular laboratory.
As far 10 as where the source was; we couldn't locate it.
It could 11 have become missing or misplaced during transition.
12 Q
What was the physical size of the source?
(
13 A
It's not a very big source.
It's just a little 14 source that you put in -- I don't know if it's a female or 15 male adapter.
I'm not very good at those kinds of things, 16 but you just screw it on and hook it up and put it in the 17 aachine.
18 Q
What was the actual, physical length of it?
19 A
A couple centimeters, max.
20 Q
It was metal; is that right?
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
Was it identified in any way as a source, once it 23 was removed from the machine?
24 A
I don't know, because most of the machines; they 25 have " Caution, Radioactive Materials" on them.
It's an NRC
24 r
1 requirement.
-4 2
Q But the source itself didn't have an integral 3
marking; is that correct?
4 A
The source is -- all of the sources have " Caution-5 Radioactive Materials," or they would have the magenta tri-6 foil label on them, 7
Q Would the source have -- it was a Nickel-63 Are you familiar with what the half life of Nickel-8 source.
9 63 is?
10 A
One hundred years.
11 Q
So it would have still been within the regulatory requirements as f ar as activity is concerned; is that right?
12 13 A
Yes.
14 Q
What did Dr. Tan tell you when you asked him where 15 the source was?
16 A
He specifically instructed me to go and speak with 17 David Frazer, 18 Q
Did he tell you it was in storage, or did you get 19 that impression based upon what he was telling you?
20 A
No, he said the source was ;5 ara, because he had a 21 drawer in his laboratory, and we' looked in the drawer, him 22 and I, and we saw the adapters and everything that the 23 source is usually housed in, but no source.
24 He took me down -- walked me downstairs to the basemeMt and I spoke with David Frazer.
He said he was 25
.1
25 1
going to call property control and call over to the surplus 2
store of the Sears warehouse.
He did that, and then him and I went upstairs.of the third floor of the health professions 3
4 building.
5 No equipment was up there, because they had 6
remodeled that area.
They had made offices out of that 7
entire area.
It used to be a storage area for the 8
departments and the building area.
9 Q
Do did you get the impression that Dr. Tan was just as surprised as you were that the source wasn't in the 10 11 drawer, or did you get the impression from him that he knew 12 it wasn't around and he didn't have any idea where it might f
13 be?
14 A
I really can't answer that,-because I really, you 15 know -- well, my impression was-that he was somewhat 16 surprised that the sources were missing,.but he did 17 elaborate on how he did not utilize that machine anymore.
18 He was going to be getting new equipment in.
19 BY MR. PAUL:
20 Q
Did you-make any entries on the inventory card 21 regarding that particular situation?
l 22 A
I didn't make any entries on the spaces there, 23 because there was not room for it, but I did make entries on 24 a couple cards and stapled it to it, informing Ken Fritz, l
f 25 whom I have contacted, the dates, the times, what course of
', t.'
-26 i
1 action'that these individuals are planning to take,and 2
turned him over the cards, g-3 Q
How much earlier than you performed the survey; 4
when was the last survey of that particular source?
Do you 5
recall what the time sequence vas?
Six months?
6 A
Februa ry.
7 Q
So, it was in February of '88 that they had marked 8
"in storage;" is that right?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
Did you have any discussions with the other techs 11 about the situation?
Did you talk with them-in this 12 instance where you couldn't find the source?
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
Did you talk with Prince Jason about it?
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
Did either he or any of the other techs indicate 17 that they had also experienced this same type of problem?
18 A
Would you rephrase that, please?
19 Q
Did Prince Jason or any of the other techs 20 indicate to you that they also experienced incidents where 21 they couldn't find the source?
22 A
Are you referring to this particular source? ~
23 Q
No, no, any situation, any experience of similar
[
24 situations which you just described, the missing Nickel-63 (s
25 source?
-n, A
gy 1
A No.
2 Q
In August of 1988, there was an NRC inspection by 3
Mr. Don Gibbons; do you recall that?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
Prior to him coming out to the inspection, were 6
you made aware that the NRC was coming on site for their 7
inspection?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
Approximately how much before the inspection 10 actually occurred were you aware of that?
11 A
I was made aware of it a couple days before he 12 arrived.
13 Q
Who made you aware of it?
14 A
Ken Fritz.
,e.
15 Q
What did he indicate to you?
Did he discuss at 16 all what type of performance he expected from you as far as 17 when the inspector was on site?
18 A
He told us to be busy, to keep busy.
19 Q
Were there any reviews of inventory cards, 20 sources, NRC required documentation, prior to the 21 inspection?
22 A
Yes.
23 Q
Could you describe what took place?
24 A
Ken instructed us to go throagh our records and 25 make sure everything was completed.
We had completed all
4 28 4,
1_
'the tasks in attimely manner, as specified according to the kf*'
2 license.
3 Q
Had this-incident with the Nickel' source -- did-4 that occur before or af ter'. this particular l'nspection?
5 A
Before.
6 Q
Did:you have any_ discussion with the.-- with Fritz
-7 about the missing source just prior to the NRC' inspection?J 8
A Yes.
9 Q
And what was said?
What did you tell'him?
10 A
.I just asked him what-was the status.
I.was 11 curious of the status of the sourceI"#
gd 12 6 4:
He had contacted'some-lady over there.
I don't t (
and the two of them.were working-on trying-13 reca11 her name, 14 to-locate that-source.
15 Q
Dut as of just-prior to the inspection::it;was:not 16-located?' Is that correct?
- 17 A
Yes.
18-Q In talking with you in our last -- in the.
19 interview on January 25,:1990, I have:someinotes:that -
you) 20 stated that_the-record keeping related to these sources was 21 not very organized and there had_been_a problem:of missing.
~
- 22 sources and records-existing for a_ number of' years over
- Is-that correct?
23 there,.at the University.
A 24 A
Yes.
25
_Q At theitime of-the: inspection were there-any other -
--er-Dt o',re7wg w-
--v T
7 7-4 T--1r.
w T'-"w'*
=
r e
1m 4--
e
1 l
29 1
sources missing that you were aware of?
'N' 2
A No.
3 Q
Just prior to the inspection did --
4 A
May I back up, please?
5 Q
Sure.
I was aware of another source that was missing, 6
A that was thrown out -- inadvertently thrown out -- but it 7
B was not an NRC regulated source.
It was a state regulated 9
source.
This problem with record keeping, did that -- that 10 Q
you described to us earlier -- did that pertain to NRC 11 regulated sources or was it a generic problem, or 12 programmatic problem at the University as far as the record 13 14 keeping related to these sources?
15 A
It was a programmatic problem.
Was this problem in existence at the time of the 16 Q
17 NRC inspection of August of 1988 18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Now at that time it was my understanding that Prince Jason gave you a number of inventory cards prior to 20 21 the NRC inspector arriving on site.
Is that true?
22 A
Two inventory cards.
23 Q
And what were these inventory cards for?
What
/~
24 type of sources?
25 A
They were the missing Nickel 63 sources.
s I
f
,30 1
Q And were there two sources or one source missing?
y 2
A Two sources.
3 Q
And were these the two that you were involved 4
with?
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
so this gas chromatograph machine had two sources 7
within it that you couldn't locate?
8 A
It was two separate gas chromatograph machines.
9 Q
And those were both located in Dr. Tan's labt 10 A
Yes.
11 Q
And did Prince Jason -- what did he say when ha 12 gave you the cards?
13 A
He came out of the office and he just said -- it
(
14 was the three technicians in the office -- two technicians 15 and himself in the office, and he just said, here, do 16 something with these.
17 Q
Who else was there when he did that -- said that?
18 A
Jeff Barbro and Pat Harris and myself.
19 Q
Was there any other explanation as to why he was-20-giving you the cards?
21 A
No, not at the time.
22 Q
Was there any later?
~
23 A
Yes, later he came and he said that Ken told him 24 to do something with those-cards. <c-25 Q
Did he ever say why?
.. 3 31 l'
A Ho.
I" 2
O Did you have an understanding of why you were 3
given the cards?
4 A
Yes, my understanding was Ken told him to do something with them and so we did r omething with them.
5 Did you understand it to'be'an attempt to keep the 6
Q 7
cards from the NRC inspector?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
And what did you do with the cards?
10 A
I put them in my desk drawer.
11 Q
Are they still there?
12 A
No.
(
13 Q
Where are they?
14 A
They're in the file cabinet somewhere.
15 Q
Was Fritz present when this happened?
16 A
He was in his office.
Is his office-right off'yours, or connected to 17 o
18 yours in any way?
19 A
His office is in the back.
It's one big office but he has another office within.a large office in the back.
20 Was he in a position where he would have heard the 21 Q
22 discussions you had with Prince Jason?
23 A
Yes. wS
~
24 Q
Do you recall how long the NRC inspector was on 25 site tKat particular inspection?
~~'
32 1
A-
-Five days.
2 Q
Did he ever do any type of examination of the 3
inventory cards, that you were aware of?
Just paged through them, like he did all the other 4
A 5
records.
6 Q
Did -- were you given any instructions by Fritz or 7
Jason about the -- being around when the NRC inspector was 8
there?
9 A
From Fritz.
10 Q
What did he tell you?
11 A
He just told us to go on with business as usual 12 and to make sure we keep busy.
[
13 Q
Did he ask you to not be around when the NRC 14 inspector was present in the office?
15 A
No.
16 Q
Did yea talk at all with the NRC inspector during 17 that inspection?
18 A
Yes, briefly.
19 Q
And what was that concerning?
20 A
Just cisitchat.
How are you doing?
How do you 21 like Cincinnati?
How long have you been with the NRC?
22 Q
No interview regarding the procedures or any 23 specific matter related to radiation safety?
.~
24 A
No.
1(.
Did you ever consider discussing the situation 25 Q
i
33 1
with the missing ' inventory cards with the inspector -- NRC 2
inspector?
3 A
Yes, if he would have asked.
4 Q
But you weren't waiting for him to ask?
3 5
A Yes.
6 Q
And why was that?
7 A
Because at that particular time I didn't consider 8
the sources lost, because we were still trying to locate 9
them.
10 Q
But in fact, he never did ask you, is that 11 correct?
12 A
That's correct.
13 Q
At that particular point in time did you have any 14 concerns regarding the radiation safety program at the 15 University of cincinnati?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
And were your concerns related to administrative 18 type concerns or were iney related to radiation safety?
4 19 A
Both.
20 Q
And did you share -- did the other radiation 21 safety technicians share those concerns with you?
22 A
Yes.
23 Q
Did you ever consider at that time discussing 24 these with the NRC inspector?
25 A
If he would have asked specific questions, yes.
m
~
34 1
DY MS. FAHEY:
~.,
ss' 2
Q Was your reluctance to discuss these concerns with 3
the inspector related to the gag order you'd signed a couple 4
of months previous?
5 A
Somewhat.
6 Q
Okay, now earlier you stated that the gag order 7
really didn't have any affect on you.
8 A
No, but I was not going to volunteer information, 9
because he was the one there performing the inspection.
10 Q
Did you expect the inspector to ask the techs if 11 they had any concerns?
12 A
Yes.
f 13 Q
And he never did?
14 A
That's correct.
15 Q
Was it about this time, August of 1988, that the 16 techs started documenting radiation safety concerns in 17 memos?
I don't know whether they went up to the Radiation 18 Safety Committee at that time.
But it was around this time 19 that all of you were pretty much concerned about the.way the 20 department was functioning and the direction it was going 21 in?
22 A
Yes, right after the inspection.
23 Q
And was that because of the lack of attention f
24 during the inspection?
k' 25 A
No, it was the lack of performing a good
35 1
inspection.
7
\\**-
2 Q
okay, that's what I meant.
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
You said it better.
Okay?
5 BY MR. PAUL The note I have in our last interview said that 6
Q you and the other technicians gave "everything but red 7
flags"nas indicators to Gibbons, the NRC inspector, that you 8
9 wanted to talk to him regarding your concerns.
Did you say 10 that back then?
11 A
Yes.
12 O
But Gibbons never followed up on these i
13 indications?
14 A
No.
15 Q
Did you attend either the entrance or the exit to 16 the inspection?
17 A
No.
18 Q
Do you know if one was held and who from the 19 University attended?
20 A
I know Ken Fritz was there,-at both of them.
And 21 as far the entrance goes, I know George Alexander _was 22 present.
But the exit -- I don't know who was present at 23 that, besides Ken Fritz.
4?'
24 Q
In December 1988, early January 1989, you and the 25 other radiation safety technicians appeared before the
,36 1
University of cincinnati Radiation Shfety Committee?
Is Y "
2 that true?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
And at that time, you preser.ded a number of 5
concerns.
Is that true?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
Did you mention at all -- at that time what was-8 the status of the Nickel 63 source that you had found 9
missing?
Was it located?
10 A
No.
11 Q
Did you bring that concern up to the Radiation 12 Safety Committee?
I 13 A
No, because that was not the purpose of the 14 meeting, to bring up specifics.
It was to give them a general overview of problems -- administrative and technical 15 16 problems associated with the Radiation Safety Office.
It 11 was basically a "get to know you" session that.we could 18 familiarize ourselves with the Committee and they could do 19 the same, vice versa.
20 Q
And it was at that meeting that you presented a 21 number of memos --
22 A
Yes.
23 Q
-- documenting a series of concerns, both j'
24 administrative and related to radiati afety, is that
\\m 25 right?
37
- ~.'
1 A
Yes.
Did the Radiation Safety -- let's backtrack.
Who 2
Q was the Chairman of the Radiation Safety Committee when you 3
4 vent before them?
5 A
Dr. Jerome Wyatt.
6 Q
And was he at that meeting?
7 A
Yes.
B Q
Was Ken Fritz at the meeting?
9 A
Ho.
10 Q
Was George Alexander at the meeting?
11 A
Yes.
Did his presence inhibit you in any way from being 12 Q
13 up concerns?
14 A
No.
15 Q
Was the gag order brought up to the' Committee?
16 A
Yes.
And subsequent to your meeting with the Committee, 17 Q
did they take any actions related to your concerns?
By your 18 I mean all the radiation safety technicians.
19
- concerns, 20 A
Yes.
21 Q
And did they ever address the issue of the gag 22 order?
23 A
Yes.
Problem notification process.
/
24 Q
Could you explain?
I'm not familiar with that.
25 A
That's the gag order.
m._
_m h
38-i id
-It's-k n of a fancy name.
What did they say 1
- Q-2 about it?
3 A
Well,.they -- a few of the members were furious.=
4 They specifically stated it was illegal and they proceeded 5
to get advice from the legal counsel of the University to 6
try to develop a problem notification process that was-7 legal.
8 Q
Did they ever change the order?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
What's the current policy at Cincinnati --
l 11 University of Cincinnati?
4 12 A
We notify the Deputy Radiation Safety Officer and
[
13 he notifies the Radiation Safety Officer and it's the
(.
?
14 Radiation Safety Officer's responsibility to bring those 15 concerns to the Committee, the chairman _of the Committee,.
16 and then the Committee addresses those issues.
17 Q
Is there any language-related to going to outside 18 agencies about radiation sa'fetyLproblems?
19 A
No.
Because, see, the rules on Form 3 in that' 20 section specifically states that:before.you-go to the-21 Nuclear Regulatory agency.it is'your responsibilitylas a 22 radiation worker to inform the employer and give them 23 adequate time to correct those deficiencies.
24 BY MS. FAHEY:
25 Q
Did you subsequently sign another form?
~
..,n-.
, e un'~-v,
,e
'+,
v.->-,r-e-
m
+n
x e
39.
1 A
No.
-v 2
Q Was the original form that you signed returned to 3
you?
4 A
No.
5 Q
So you don't know where the original is at this 6
point?
7 A
No.
8 Bt' MR. PAUL:
9 Q
At the meeting with the Radiation Safety Committee 10 in early 1989, late 1988, was -- did they ever ask Alexander 11 to explain the gag order?
12 A
Yes.
(
13 Q
What was his explanation?
Do you recall?
14 A
No, I don't recall his explanation.
They did-15 formulate a subcommittee to look into all of those documents 16 and concerns that we had presented to the Committee.
17 Q
Do you know Greg Zembrodt?
18 A
I don't know him.
I've heard of him.
I've heard 19 I was his replacement.
20 Q
Were you aware that he had-found missing sources -
21 also?
22 A
No, because I don't know Greg Zembrodt.
23 Q
The end here, see documentation where he had e
24 similar circumstances such as yours that he attempted to 75 survey sources, was he unable to locate?
l
-~. - w..
-g A
po, D
2 (Pause.)
In that same time frame do you recall an incident-3 Q
where Fritz approached you.about making allegations to the-4 5
NRC7 6
A Fritz didn't approach me.
7 Q
What happened?
Apparently an individual from NRC had called which 8
A is normal procedure when an individual make allegations 9
10 against a licensee and he informed him-that someone, an -
11 anonymous caller had contacted:him with allegations 12 concerning the University of cincinnati's license and rumor 13 will had it that they, the individual that contacted Ken t'ritzsaidthattheindividualwas(
14 15 Q
How did you become aware of it?* Did Ken-Fritz' 16 come to you or'how did you obtain this knowledge that the 17 NRC had called Fritz about an allegation?
How did_you learn.
18 about it?
-19 A
How did'I 1 earn about-it? _ Well, when they had 20 looked at the phone logs that we'have, because we had-the 21 computerized phones.
It records all long distance phone 22 calls.
-23 Q
Who did this?
24 A
Pardon me?
25 Q
Who looked at the records?
/ '7f fr toy
9;
' * : v. : ;l 41-l' A
-Well apparently
-- well,;I don't'know,'.who,-you y#
know', wanted the records, but I know Ken Fritz had the-2 3
records.
4
'Q
-How did you become aware'that he'was looking at 5
the records?
~
~ ' t.
4 6
A Prince Jason informed us.
7 Q
So everything you learned about-this came through--
8 Prince Jason?
9 A
No.
10 MS. FAHEY:
Okay, why don't you just go ahead and-11 explain that, in your own words.
12
-THE WITNESS:
Well, after the phone call was made,.
certain people around there, because the placailsla' rumor.
- 13 mill', as all' big places'like that, and they-just said that 14 i
an anonymous caller hadLealled with allegations concerning-15 16 the University and that.the individual from.the Nuclear.
17 Regulatory Commission had mentioned that it was an gi and that was the end' 18 individual from 19 of it.
20 BY MR. PAUL:
21 Q-
-You learned'about this-through Prince-Jason?
.g Prince Jason and other members of the committee.
22 A
23 Radiation Safety Committee.
L'-
24 Q
Who?
~
25 A
Dr. Ed Silberstein.
n,
(), r en ?
y v, u,
i.
,42 l
1 Q
Silberstein, what did he tell you?
'6 2
A Well, after I had heard that information that it h
I went down to Dr.
3 was a persons L
4 Silberstein's office and I asked him.
And he said, yes, 5
that's what he had heard.
And his exact words was, he said, Well, because him and I had similar conversations about a 6
7 lot of radiation safety problems a week or so before that 8
incident had happened, and his exacts words were, "Well, at 9
first I thought it was you."
But he said I know it wouldn't be you because you're working too hard and you know, we're l
10 11 trying to solve the problems internally.
l 12 And I instructed him, at least I told him that..I
[
13 was going to write Dr. Wiot a letter informing him that I 14 was not the one who contacted NRC.
I had contacted NRC l
15 previously but it was under the direct supervision of Ken 16 Fritz to request some Form 3 maps.
l l
17 Q
Did Fritz ever approach you about this allegation?
l 18 A
No.
19 Q
Never said anything at all about it to you, is l
20 that right?
21 A
Well, he didn't ever state someone from i
22 6
'but he had mentioned to all of us that 23 someone had called NRC with allegations.
That's the way it 24 happened after he talked to the individual.
He came out and 25 he told Prince Jason he would like to talk to him.
And they
- G i
~
i
43 1
proceeded to go back in the office and they looked at the 2
-phone ledger, the phone log and everything, and Prince Jason 3
came out and told us that, you know, they had pulled the phone log and everything, and it was a call to Glen Ellyn on 4
5 that particular day in question.
But he had instructed Ken 6
that there was no way that a phone call with all these 7
allegations could have been made in that short period of 8
time.
And I was a little upset and I went to see Dr.
9 Silberstein.
10 BY MS. FAHEY:
11 Q
Why would you pick him out of all the people on 12 the Radiation Safety Committee?
13 A
Because I trust him.
14 Q
And that's why you went to him for a week or two 15 prior to that with your other concerns?
Do you recall what 16 the anonymous allegations were supposedly about?
17 A
Commercialization of a license.
Non-NBS traceable 18 standards and Prince Jason's qualifications.
19 BY MR. PAUL:
20 Q
Did this come up regarding the allegation before 21 or after the technicians had gone to the Radiation Safety 22 Committee?
23 A
After.
24 Q
By -- what was the time frame after?
Do you f
( '"
25 recall?
-1 A
Ho, I don't recall the time frase.
/
2 Q
Do you know if the Universityi meaning Frits and I' 4 3
guess the Radiation Safety Committee, ever found out who 4
made the allegations?
5 A
I don't know.
- 4.. j g,q.
6 Q
Was any type of disciplinary action taken against -
7 you over this matter?
8 A
Ho.
9 BY MS. FAHEY:
10 0
I have a question that goes back to the beginning 11 when we were talking about your being hired at the
~"
12 University.
When you were interviewed for your job, were-13 you interviewed by Fritz?
14 A
Not initially.
15 Q
But subsequently to coming on board'with the 16 University?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
- At any time did he make; mention of the 19 iatter to you?
20 A
No.
He didn't.
21 Q
And also, did.you eventually see the inspection 22 report from the Au' gust of '88 NRC inspection?
23 A
Yes.
24 Q
Did it independently identify any of the concerns 25 that you all had?
l t,3cn
4 45
.. u.e. '. - -
1 A
No.
2 Q
'None of them?
3 A
It was one of the short forms that you really 4
don't have to write a report up.
It was something about we missed a meter here and there and they missed some hood 5
flows one year in '87 doing hood flow calibration charts.
6 7
It's nothing major.
It didn't address any of the concerns 8-that we had.
9 BY MR. PAUL:
10 0
Were you ever asked to falsify any records 11 regarding documents required to be kept by the NRC?
12 A
No.
f e
13 Q
Are you aware of'any falsification of records at
(
14 the University of Cincinnati?
15 A
Not any willful falsification.
But if-you want to-16 consider using' incorrect formulas, I was aware of some l
incorrect formulations, but-that's_the extent!of it.
17 IB Q-What do you mean by formulations?
j 1
19 A
Well, in-the health physics profession, yeah,
]
l" 1
formulas for every type -- there"were dif ferent Lformulas - for 20 every type of calculation that you :have to perform and. I 21 noticed -that the metal detector activity formula was of f.
22 It wasn't a correct formula, you' know, utilized in the 23 24 industry.
T).ey wanted -- what-we were presently utilizing y
was the one that the air associated with the singleLcount 25 i
46
.t
- s It wasn't the metal detector activity formula.
1
- ate.
And who was responsible for which formulas were c'
2 Q
3 used or equations?
Was it fornula or equation?
4 A
It was an equation.
Een Fritz.
Was this a standard formula that he used in every 5
Q instance and was just using the wrong one?
Or, was this an 6
equation that he just selectively used to get certain 7
8 results?
It was a formula that was utilized through all the 9
A 10 le:
test procedures.
It was just a, probably an oversight.
11 Q
It was consistently applied?
Not selectively?
12 A
Yes it was consistently applied.
13 KR. PAULt Anything else?
14 MS. TAHEY:
No.
15 MR. PAULt At this time, let's go off the record.
16 (Discussion off the record.)
17 MR. PAULt Mr. Boyd, have I or any other NRC representative here threatened you in any manner, offered 18 you any rewards in return for this statement?
19 20 THE WITNESS:
No.
21 MR. PAULt Have you.given this statement freely 22 and voluntarily?
23 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
24 MR. PAUL Is there anything further you care to 25 add to the record?
.j
- ;r ;" ]
47 i
f 1
THE WITNESS:
Yes.
I would like to clarify.
The l
f reason I went-to Dr. Silberstain is because he was the i
2 t
Chairman of the subcommittee looking into the radiation j
3 4
health physics technicians' concerns.
5 MR. PAULt Were you dealing with him on a daily t
basis at that time or on a regular basis at that time?
6 i
7 THE WITNESS:
We were on a regular basis.
He was-1 keeping us posted as to the progress of the subcommittee-8 t
9 findings.
i 10 MR. PAUL Were you confident that he was acting 11 on your concerns at that time?
12 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
13 MR. PAULt The interview is concluded.
14 HR. CASSADY:
Can we, before we conclude it, you said something yesterday about Jeff Barbro being able to 3
15 obtain a copy of the transcript if he wrote in and asked for 16 17 a copy.
18 MR. PAULt Right.
19 MR. CASSADY Can Melvin do the same?
r
.20 MRe -PAULt Same, yes, Melvin,'if you want a copy of this, just -- do you.have a bus'iness card?-
'21 22 MR. CASSADY Wo have11t.
23 MR. PAULt Okay.
Send me a letter.that you want at copy of it and at the conclusion of the investigation-we'll 24
-(.
And if:you-25 send you a copy at the address you tell.us to.
.. _.,.., - ~.
..v.->
m,-.
.m,__.
5
_ gg
....; i vant to -revi,ew -the record, I mean, the interview before the 1
L' 2
conclusion of the investigation, we can make arrangements j
3 for that.
4 MR. CASSADYt How are those arrangements --
5 what --
6 MR. PAULt Call me up or send me, call me '!p and I
7 I'll make arrangements.
Probably have you follow it up with 8
a letter for our flie.
They want anything like that 9
documented.
But then next time I'm in town or some 10 situation such as that that I'm down here I'll bring then 11 with me and we can arrange a meeting'of the people that.want 12 a copy.
13 MR. CASSADY:
I'm sure they'll want to do it.
I'm 14 advising them to do that.
I'm just telling you that's going 15 to happen.
16 MR. PAULt And then --
17 MS. FAHEY:
You can't copy it.
You'll have to 18 review it with one of us present while you're reviewing it.
~
19 MR. PAULt But then you read it over and-if you 20 feel there's corrections, you can write a letter:and include 21 that as part of ~the-transcript of the: Interview. - You know, 22 ve'11 work it out ahead of time.
23 off the' record.
24 (Whereupon, at 10:24 a.m.,.the. interview was
\\%
25 concluded.)
.5 a-e g
eey-,-a--
h e.
w y
%,ip%-4-w-9.-
y q.4MW-p W W
'"'g
'y' m-W$9wiw-wy y vwW(y"my y
eg4 g= FtTg4*Mw pg W Wwme zr W 7+gmy yMr qtg' w p rwv'e s g WM4W'
-'frwa-4--wiw
-+pe9-g*'e--W WA P'
WWi^
m'*T'*'
r
,,r 6'\\
.qtt
+t p
...s I
REPORTER'S CERTITICATE This is to certify that the attached proceed-ings before the United Stetes Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the satter of NAME OF PROCEEDINC:
Investigative Interview.
DOCKET NUMBER:
PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Cincinr4sti, Ohio this is were. held as herein appears, and that _
file of the original transcript thereof for the the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court report-ing company, and that the transcript is a crue and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
p n
t bW %
Ro 10 N. LeGrand Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
9 m