ML20126K951

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Withheld Transcript of 900206 Investigative Interview of P Jason (Closed), in Cincinnati,Oh.Pp 1 - 55. W/Related Documentation
ML20126K951
Person / Time
Issue date: 02/06/1990
From:
NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20126K503 List:
References
FOIA-91-533, FOIA-92-A-1 NUDOCS 9301070305
Download: ML20126K951 (57)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:-- r?. e

q 3 sp OFFICIALTRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

,e \\ y,: i Agericp sucie.r nesulatory co==iesion Investigative Interview of I!OI Prince Jason (CLOSED) Docket No. r m Cincinnati, Ohio tocAnog org Tuesday, February 6, 1990 FAGES: 1 - 55 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1612 K St N.W. Suite 300 EXHIBIT /3 (~ 3389 'O1 1 Mshington, D.C 20006 (202) 293-37A PAGE / O F 5 7 e i. n e =- 9301070305 920707 m - 3 PDR FOIA > r: 8 RESNICK92-A-2 PDR / n /a.

1 1 4' 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 3 4 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 5

~X 6

In the Matter oft 7 INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW 8 Prince Jason 9 (CLOSED) - - - - - - - - - - -X 10 11 Vernon Manor Hotel 12 400 Oak Street 13 Cincinnati, Ohio 14 15 Tuesday, February 6, 1990 16 17 18 The above-entitled matter commenced at 1:10 p.m., 19 when were present 20 MARY KAY FAHEY 21 RICHARD C. PAUL office of Investigations Field Office 22 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -23 24 799 Roosevelt Road \\, 25 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 . - - ~ -... ~

- = - 1 4 1 P ROCEEDINGS' / 2 KR. PAUL For the record this is an interview of 3 Prince Jason, spelled J-a-s-o-n, who is currently employed by the University of Cincinnati Hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio. 4 The location of this interview is the Vernon Manor, 5 6 Cincinnati, Ohio. Present at this interview in addition to Mr. 7 Jason are Richard C. Paul, P-a-u-1, and Mary Key Fahey, F-a-h-e-y, with the Of fice of Investigations, U. S. Nuclear 8 9 Regulatory Commission. 10 As agreed, this interview is being tape recorded by , 11 court reporter Kristy Smith. 12 The subject matter of this interview concerns the ( University of Cincinnati Hospital, 13 14 Mr. Jason, please stand and raise your 'right hand, 15 Whereupon, 16 PRINCE JASON 17 was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, was 18 examined and testified as follows: 19 EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. PAUL: 21 Q Hr. Jason, how long have you been employed at the 22 University of Cincinnati Hospital? I 23 A Five years this past April 2nd. 24 Q And during your term of employment at the hospital \\ 25 were you working in the radiation safety department?

1 i 5 e, 1 A That's correct, the entire time. f l' 2 Q And what was your title ther?? I started off as a radiation safety technician. 3 A Subsequently that title was changed to health physics 4 technician, and most recently, Ls of May or June of 1986 I 5 6 believe, I went into the position of deputy radiation safety 7 officer. 8 Q Who was the radiation safety officer? 9 A Mr. F.enneth Michael Fritz. 10 Q And was he the RSO the entire time? 11 A Yes, he was. 12 Q Prior to your employment at the University of e Cincinnati Hospital, did you have any other background in 13 14 radiation safety? I spent two years at the now defunct William H. 15 A Yes. 16 Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant in Moscow, Ohio. 17 Q And in what capacity did you work there? 18 A My title was rad chem technician. Did_you have any educational background in radiation 19 Q 20 safety? Not outside the normal physical sciences and things 21 A like that -- chemistry, physics, biology and so on and so 22 23 forth. 24 Q Focusing your attention to the timeframe -- I believe c it was" August 1988, the NRC was about to_ conduct a normal 25

4 1 inspection and at that time what was your position? Were you U" 2 the deputy radiation safety officer? 3 A Yes, I was at that time the deputy RSO. 4 Q And in your position there at that time, were you responsible for keeping the inventory cards on sealed sources? 5 6 A It was one of my responsibilities to review the 7 calculations on those documents in terms of accuracy and 8 completeness and timeliness, yes. 9 Q Was there a card made out for each sealed source? 10 A There was a card on each sealcJ source that we were 11 aware of. 12 Q And were those records maintained in your office? 13 A It was a general office. The cards were for the most ( 14 part located in my area of the office. Everyone had access to 15 them. 16 Q How of ten did they inventory the scaled sources at 17 that time? 18 A That was one of the points upon which the program on 19 the whole was negligent. We never did an actual inventory of 20 sealed sources -- that is to say to actually go to their 21 specified locales and make a determination as to whether or not they were still at that location, with the exception of the 22 23 medical sources, the brachy therapy svarces, on which we did to a physical inventory, but no sources of instrument calibration, 24 \\s. 25 check' sources, sources mounted in research devices, things of .i

i 5 ) that nature, were to my knowledge ever inventoried. 1 Was there a procedure to inventory them or wasn't

  • d 2

Q 3 there any requirement at all existing? 4 A Oh, there was definitely the requirement. We simply were not living up to it, the assumption on the RSO's part 5 presumably being that the sources or most all of them had to be 6 leak-tested every six months and we did do that and as far as 7 he was able to ascertain that in itself served as the 8 9 inventory. Would they document the leak test on these cards? 10 Q 11 A Yes. And would the technician do the documentation or 12 Q would he inform you and you do the documentation, or the RSO? ( 13 The technician would do the actual documentation. 14 A 15 The technician would wipe test the sealed source, count that sample on the appropriate counting instrumentation and record 16 and verify the data on the cealed source document card. 17 IB Q In your position as the deputy RSO, did you direct the day-to-day activities of the technicians, or was that just 19 a higher level than the technicians as far as the performance 20 21 level, or was it a management position I guess is what I'm 22 asking. 23 A I assigned the yearly, monthly, biweekly and weekly 24 tasks. There were very few things that were done on a daily k basis with the exception of laboratory surveys and package 25

6 1 receipt and' distribution. ~ 2 Q Did Fritz deal with the technicians directly or would 3 he go through you if he had something -- 4 A He generally always went through me. 5 Q Was Fritz' office located in the same general area as 6 yours? 7 A Same general area but somewhat removed from the main 8 office area in that you had to go down a corridor a short 9 distance, about 10 or 15 feet perhaps, to enter his door. He 10 did have a separate office. 11 Q Who was George W. Alexander, Jr.? 12 A He was our departmental administrator. ( 13 Q The radiation safety department? 14 A Radiation safety department administrative director. 15 Q What type of duties did he have? 16 A He handled the budget of the radiation safety. service 17 account fund. He informed us of university policies and procedures regarding employee pay, employee vacation, sick 18 19 leave, UC policies in general. 20 Q Did Fritz report to him or who did Fritz directly 21 report to? 22 A Mr. Fritz should have reported to the chairman of the 23 radiation safety committee, whomever that may have been. 24 During the five years that I was there I've seen three or four U 25 different committee chairmen. As far as I'm cognizant, that

. _.~- -. -.. ,7 -1 wasithe: person to,whom Mr. Fritz.was to report, thefchairman of-4 '2- -the radiation safety committee, whomever=that'may'have beeniat 3 'the time. 4 Q Do you recall who it was in '88,Jthe summer off'887 5 A Oh, yes. In '88 it was Dr. Wlot. 6-Q This~meno that I'll make the first attachment to the s 7 interview, the University of Cincinnati memorandum dated June 8 30 1988 and it's to radiation safety personnel, University of 9 Cincinnati, from; George' Alexander and'Kenneth M.-Fritz. The 10 subject is. problem notification process-for radiation safety 11 office. 12 Have you ever seen that before,-Mr. Jason? ( 13 A Yes, I have.- 14 Q Could you describe the circumstances 11n which it-Leame' - 15 out? The subject:is notification process and basica11yJyou're 16 required to go through the Univer..ity ~ of _ Cincinnati: in 17 reporting safety problems. n 18 Was that your. understanding what the1 subject-of this. 19 memo-was? 20 A 'I know perfectly well what the subject was._:I just-21 don'tLreally recall what actually precipitated-it. Ittcould-22 have been a number of things.- It could have been one incident I-23 in itself. 24 It had to do with the technical staff and I would 25_ _ presume myself included although at this point, in June-of '88 i

8 1 as the memo is dated, I was no longer considered as part of the 2 technical staff. I was part of the so-called management team 3 or administrative staff. 4 In any regard, it had to do with the technical staff' 5 and informing persons about various aspects of the program with regard to any safety violations without first discussing those 6 7 topics with an immediate supervisor. 8 Q Did you discuss this memorandum at all with either 9 Fritz or Alexander? 10 A Not to my recollection, no. 11 Q I notice at the bottom there's a space for name and 12 day. Was a signature required by the technician? 13 A Oh, yes. We all signed it, myself included. 14 Q Was it a required signature? 15 A The way it was put before us, it was either sign it 16 or else type of deal. You know, not in so many words but Mr. 17 Alexsnder has a way of presenting things and I don't know if it simply to appease him or to get rid of him you would do it, 18 19 perhaps. 20 Q Wr.s this subject discussed at any meeting with the 21 technicians, or was it just a memo that was circulated? 22 A Oh, it was definitely discussed at the point when the 23-technical staff and myself did finally have the opportunity to 24 meet with the radiation committee and its members. This was ^ \\ s-25 one of the topics that was brought up and discussed.

_.m 9 1 Q Was it-your. interpretation of-this memorandum that 2 this af fectediyour ability to contact the NRC at-all? - 4 3 A ch,no. 4 Q Did this deal atlall with the potential of an-5 employee going to-the NRC with.a safety' concern? 6 A Not to my line of thinking. 7 Q So it was more, if I'm understanding right, that if-in fact they had a safety concern that in addition-to going tol 8 the NRC they were required to notify. management or personnel 9 10 within the University of Cincinnati? 11 A Our management wanted to be informed-first'before any person on the staff went to the-NRC and that's:what this was-12 ( 13 for, in addition to having something toihold'over an-individual's head in the-event that.he or she:did not.do that.. 14 15 Q As an example, if an : individual went to~ the NRC :with 16

a. concern and failed to notify lthe university, would he be subject to some type of disciplinary action as a result of-l

-17 .18 that? 19 A Very possibly. 20 Q Did you express any concerns -regarding this. memo -to-21 you to Fritz or Alexander? 22 A Oh, yes. We all told Mr. Alexander especially that-we did not think that.this type of thing was-protocol and there 23 l was even discussion amongst ourselves -- that is, myself and: Y '~ 24 i 25 the technical staff -- of getting together and filing a class- ~ i- .,__ ie

10 action' suit against this sort of thing or against the 1 university or against whomever it should appropriately be .. p' 2 3 directed towards. Mr. Fritz blindly signed this memo, according to Mr. 4 Fritz, without really having read it or knowing its contents. 5 George Alexander was the author of this. Ken simply signed it 6 and I do believe that he probably did not read it. 7 8 BY MS. FAHEY: You alluded earlier that there were several things 9 Q that may have caused the memo to be written but you didn't 10 11 specifically stat 6 what you thought those were. 12 A I can give you some'for instances. There was an C incident whereby one of the technical staff persons was in the 13 nuclear medicine department and said something to a nuclear 14 medicine technician in terms of a contamination problem or some 15 16 sort of safety violation. The technician in the nuclear medicine department 17 became quite perturbed over the remarks-that were made and went 18 crying and ballyhooing to the superiors in that department and 19 it got back to our department and it was an ugly mess. 20 There was an incident whereby one of our radiation 21 safety technical staff personnel said something to a patient-22 who was undergoing some type of medical radiation therapy and 23 that got back to the director of nuclear medicine -- Dr. Harry /~ 24 b 25 Maxon'-- and he came to us all bent out of shape.

11 our technical staff felt obligated to make people 1 aware of certain conditions, certain potentials for hazards, 2 not necessarily a true hazard but a potential for a hazard and 3 they simply did not want the technical staf f speaking to people 4 at all without first speaking to the immediate supervisor and-5 6 administrative managerial type persons. 7 BY MR. PAUL: Does this relate at all -- I'm not familiar with the 8 Q l details but there was an employee by the name of 9 f 10 Do you kno 11 A Yes, I worked there who was there. p 12 Q And it'a my understanding that brought up some I'm not safety concerns that vent to the NRC and so - forth. 13 14 f amiliar with it or anything. In your mind did the allegations' brought out by 15 16 e195dBliNW6 ave anything to do with this memo? 17 A No, I wouldn't think so. This is very much h,h 18 subsequent to proposed allegations. This was long after 19

allegati ns.

) 20 BY MS. FAHEY: 21 Q Do you think that the prior NRC Office of Investigations inv'estigation possibly contributed to that memo 22 23 being written? 24 A I would think so. ^ \\,;;;/ 25 b Y fD

12 1 BY MR. PAUL: 3F 2 Q The result of the NRC investigation? 3 A Not as a result but I'm sure that had to be a 4 catalyst somewhere. That's just my opinion but I would say 5 that it certainly -- 6 Q But you don't think that the interpretation of the memo could be made that the University of Cincinnati Hospital 7 management didn't want technical staff going to the NRC with 8 9 their complaints? 10 A I don't think that, no. 11 Q You said -- I'm just trying to get the background on what was happening and it brought it to the August inspection 12 13 by Mr. Gibbons, August of '88. Was that an announced 14 inspection? 15 A Yes, it was an announced inspection. 16 Q Do you recall were all the NRC inspections announced? 77 A To the best of my remembrance some were and some were 184 not. 19 Q Were you present during the inspections? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Were you required to be present? 22 A By whom? 23 Q By management. You were a deputy RSO so was your 24 presence required by the NRC inspector? k 25 A As far as I'm cognizant, I was not required to be i

.13 1 there unless,someone indicated that they wanted me there. I o-2 was never told by my supervisors that I had to be there, nor 3 did the onsite inspector really ever request very much from_me 4 at all. 5 My answer to that would have to be no, there was no 6 requirement for me to be there. 7 Q Up to that time, Vas there effective -- there were 8 missing sources as far as the inventory cards. Did that ever 9 come to light up to that timeframe, that you had that problem 10 before? 11 A Oh, certainly. Over the years that I've been there 12 we had sources unaccounted for. We made great endeavors to 13 locate those sources without any success and it was brought-to 14 the attention of our supervisor, Mr. Kenneth Fritz. Whether or 15 not he ever took the issue to his supervisor, the chairman of 16 the committee, I have no knowledge because were never until 17 most recently ever permitted to attend any meetings, nor were 18 we allowed for the most part to ever see any records of the 19 minutes of those meetings so we had no idea.what went on at 20 those meetings. 21 BY MS. FAHEY: 22 Q Was the inspector ever made aware that the sources 23 were missing? 24 A Not while he was onsite, no. If you're referring to b 25 D,on Gibbons,'no.

14 1 BY MR. PAUL: 2 Q At the time was there -- Do you have any idea how 3 many sources were missing at that point in time, as far as. 4 numbers? How many are we talking about? 5 A I don't feel certain that I could say with any degree 6 of accuracy, really. 7 Q Two or three or ten? 8 A I would say of the ones that I know seven or eight, 9 maybe. 10 BY MS. FAHEY: 11 Q You stated earlier that sources were required to be 12 leak tested every six months? 13 A Yes, the beta gamma are required to be tested at that 14 frequency. The alphas every four months. 15 Q And how many of these seven or eight were that type? 16 A We're talking only beta gamma sources of the ones 17 that I know were misplaced, lost, missing, what have you. 18 Q So they obviously couldn't have been leaked out. You 19 couldn't find them. 20 A That's true. 21 Q So what did the records reflect? 22 A That's where all the problem really comes to thr2 23 fore. There were a number of cards that the last entry was ~ 24 something like "no longer here." Where did it go? Was it 25 properly disposed out, was it shipped out for burial, was it

15~ 1 transferred to another institution? Nobody knows.- xl: Some of the records go. back _ to the '60s and the early 2 '70s and those are the-type of notations that we saw on quite a 3 number of cards -- no longer here or gone or disposed of.. 4 But none of the leak test records were ever falsified-5 Q 6 that you know of? A 7 A No, I don't believe so. 8 Q So if you couldn't find the source, technicians would 9 just leave it blank? 10 A Yes. As I stated earlier, we made an attempt-on some-of the most recent sources, those received in the-late '70s and 11 especially in the '80s to locate those but could not locate any 12 .j' 13 of them-so there was no notation to be made,- really. I don't know if you have any personal knowledge of 14 Q 15 this, but how could they be gone? I assume that there's a specific location where-the sources'are supposed to be,t a 16 17 department or a certain doctor. 18 A Yes, the front of the source documents have-all the pertinent information as regards where the source is supposed 19 to be in terms of department, who is in charge of it, the 20 principal investigator responsible for it and so on and so 21 22 forth. E 23 We got there and it's not there and we had very-little cooperation from a large percentage of the research 24 25 investigators so it was just up-in the air as to its l

i e 16 whereabouts, totally up in the air. I The matter ultimately was left with Mr.'Fritz? 2 Q 3 A Yes. And if the sources were reported to him he would have 4 Q 5 taken whatever action? 6 A Should have. 7 BY MR. PAUL: could you basically tell us what happens in regards - 8 o - you describe it here in your memo so you're welcome to 9 refresh your memory -- as far as what Fritz instructed you to 10 do with the inventory cards at the time -- I guess it took 11 place before Gibbons arrived for his inspection. 12 That's what I was mistaken about in my first ( 13 A Yes. 14 response to Dr. Wiot, which I later clarified. The inspection was an announced inspection and it. vas 15 due to take place on a Monday morning, I believe August 19th 16 and the Friday prior to that announced inspection Mr. 17

1988, Fritz in his usual manner was frantically running around the 18 office asking me a lot of question as to what's been done, is 19 there anything that hasn't been done, where certain records 20 what is the status of those records and are they correct, 21
are, 22 are they complete, are they done on time and so on and so 23 forth.

He called me back in his office and asked to bring 24 with me all the sealed source documents so he could review \\m. 25

\\ 17 them, look at them and see if everything was in accord. I He had 2 Up until thi.s point he had never done that. never reviewed any of these record, es it clearly states in the 3 4 new regulations. I was always the one to do that and he took it on my word that everything was as it was supposed to be. 5 I gathered up all those documents for him and took 6 them back to his office and he very quickly and very briefly 7 scanned through them and any that looked amiss were put in a 8 9 separate stack, or pile if you will, informed me to do something with those that he himself could not explain. 10 Unfortunately I followed that directive. I did not 11 12 want to. I knew that subsequently it would come out in the C. Even before all this I saw the direction things were 13 open. 14 headed in for the program. 15 I did it on the assumption that, well, maybe with all the other things that were going on in terms of the technical 16 staff maybe all this is going to get turned around and 17 18 straightened out somehow. I took those cards out to the general office where 19 all the other technical staff was seated at the time and I gave 20 them to one technician who put them somewhere, as Mr.Fritz 21 22 instructed me to do. Were the cards he gave you the cards for the sealed 23 Q 24 sources that you couldn't find? 25 A" Yes, precisely.

4 18 1 Q And who is the technician you gave the cards to? At that time the newest addition to our staff, Melvin 2 A 3 Boyd. 4 Q Was Mr. Boyd aware of the reason why you gave him the 5 cards? 6 A oh, yes. We were all aware. 7 Q So at the time of the inspection, those cards were 8 unavailable for Don Gibbons' review, is that correct? 9 A That's correct. 10 0 Did he actually go through the cards while he was 11 there? 12 A Yes, he looked at some of them. We had quite a few 13 sources at the institution and he did not look at each and every one of them but he did look at the majority of them, 14 probably, to see how we did the calculation and how the 15 a 16 information was recorded. I would like to add that until the outside 17 consultants -- Nuclear Energy Services -- were called in, all 18 prior inspections any inspector that I saw looking at those 19 documents never asked for anything to balance them against like 20 21 NES did. 22 NES said show me a list of all your scaled source 23 documents, not show me the actual documents. 24 Well, without knowing what you actually have -- We 25 could have handed Mr. Gibbons five or six cards and that could

C .19 1 -have been it, youfknow. And.he would never have known, correct? 2 Q 3 .A Right, he would never have known. Did he go to verify that these sources actually 4 Q 5 existed, to balance the cards against -- 6 A No. His inspection was somewhat brief. He wasn't there nearly'long enough to do anything of that magnitude. 7 Were you aware or did you know that Gibbons -- Did he. 8 Q interview you during the inspection regarding procedures, any. 9 Did he talk to you_at type of activities related to license?- 10 11 all during the inspection? 12 A Not specifically. I don't recall having had-a one-on-one for any extended length of time with_Mr. Gibbons. - ( 13 Did the technicians during this inspection ever 14 Q indicate to you that-based on this --:they referred to it -- 15 16 A As a gag order. That because of the gag order'they didn't feel that 17 Q they were -- they didn't feel comfortable talking to Gibbons, 18 did they.ever bring this concern to your attention? 19 20 A Not at that time, no. 21 BY MS. FAHEY: Prior to the inspection in '88, did you feel that the - 22 Q technical staff and yourself were anxious to meet with the. 23 1 f 24 inspector? You stated that things were headed in a certain 25 =

20 1 direction. Did you--- We discussed it amongst ourselves as to whether or \\ 2 A I think the. not to at that time let on to what we knew. 3 l 4 general consensus was that, no, we won't do it at this point, we'll wait and we'll address these matters ourselves in ou.' own 5 fashion and see what we can get done and see if we can turn 6 7 some things around first. B Q Did you hope that -- I'm sure there were those of us who wanted to ht that-9 A point just spill the beans and tell all but on the Whole we 10 11 chose not to at that p9 int. Did you hope that the NRC inspector would uncover 12 Q 13 some of your concerns? I think we all privately and secretly had that 14 A

Yes, 15 hope and desire.

16 BY MR. PAUL: 17 Q But it didn't work out that way. 18 A No, it did not. I guess one question I have would be your opinion -- 19 Q I don't know what discussions you had with Ken Fritz in regards 20 to the inventory cards, but was it your opinion that he was 21 deliberately attempting to hide the cards from the inspector, 22 knowing that the sources were missing? 23 I don't see what else one could determine it. 24 A

Yes, He never said that to you, did he?

Did he make any 25 Q

n 21 je: 1 direct -comments as to his reason for doing it or was it sortrof L' 2 an implied situation? 3 A The reason was apparent. I think he may have intended upon the inspector's departure from the Uc premises toi 4 5 make some stab at or some effort to see what could be done-about locating those sources but to my knowledge it was simply. 6 7 forgotten about on his part. 4 8 Q What happened to the cards? Were they returned to 9 the inventory or wherever it was-that they were kept after the 10 inspector left or were they just discarded? 11 A No, nothing was discarded. As to where they went 12 after that I'm not real certain. ( 13 Q Here in the memo you said you had these cards - I' identify these documents as I.have them in my possession.. 14 ca 15 A I have some of them still but everyone-has.several 16 copies of the ones that I still,have in my possession. .17 Q Could I get copies at some point in time?! 18 A Sure. 19 BY'MS; FAHEY: 20 Q In your possession in hour office or at home?- 21 A They're at'home. k 22 BY ' MR. ~ PAUL: 23 .Q If you don't mindLI would like to get at least a 24 copy. 25 A I kept the originals of those that were most

.- l 1 1 .e, 22 ,~ I have somewhere between L 1 - blatantly in error of regulations. two and;four sources that were last -- again we're talking beta 2 gamma umitters,-basically and predominately nickel-63 beta and- .3 gamma -- last leak tested November of '86. After that, no-4 5 entry whatsoever. These are some of the types of the sources that we 6 did bring to the attention of Kenneth Fritz and he simply never 7 8 did anything about it. He never went to that point of location where those sources were supposed to have been and spoke with 9 the research investigator or any of the investigators and staff 10 11 people or anything. 12 DY MS. FAHEY: 13 Q Would you consider this nickel-63 source missing as being a safety concern as far as the amount of radiation to 14 15 have these sources unaccounted for? 16 10 Any amount of. radiation loose out there in the 17 general public, in someone's home or wherever it may be, . unaccounted for, in my opinion yes, poses a potential for1a 18 19 hazard. 20 O These sources.aren't so old that the amount of 21-radiation would be negligible?- 22 A No, no,-no. Nickel-63 has n'lifefof 92 years. It's going to be around for a while so there is a potential for a 23 24 hazard. How high that potential is, that's hard to say. It ~ 25 ultimately depends upon what may have happened to that source. r w y , - = - - w.- w-.--,-

i 23 1 If its integrity has been breached, if the encapsulation is 2 damaged, a child swallowed the darn thing, there are great 3 potentials for health hazards. 4 BY MR. PAUL: 5 Q In my review of the documentation, the next area that 6 came to my attention was in January of '89 there was concerns 7 brought up to the radiation safety committee. Evidently -- I 8 noticed your name is on the minutes as attending a meeting of 9 the radiation safety committee in which quite a few concerns 10 were brought up. 11 A A dozen of them, as I recall. 12 Q What was going on that it finally came to this level, ( 13 that the individual technicians and sourself went to the 14 radiation safety committee? Was there any event that caused 15 you to or just a general buildup of your concerns? 16 A It was both a general buildup of concerns or 17 practicos with the utilization of react materials and radiation 18 producing devices that we thought could be improved upon in 19 light of the alar concept. 20 Things could have been in our estimation even safer 21 than what they may or may not have been. A general wish and 22 desire to improve upon the program as well as your comment, 23 everyday, ordinary animosities towards particular individuals, 24 departments, repeat offenders. ( 25 There was preferential treatment given to some and I

i 24 1 very rash, abrasive, harsh treatment given to others, totally 2 2 unwarranted in my estimation. 3 Q This was within the radiation safety department among-4 the technicians? 5 A No, f rom the radiation safety department heads --- _ Ken Fritz, George Alexander -- towards other individuals. Some 6 7 departments simply got away with murder. Other departments 8 could not breathe. 9 Q And was your department one of the ones that couldn't 10 breathe? 11 A Oh, no. No. 12 BY MS. FAHEY: 2 13 Q Are you talking about medical departments? 14 A No, not.necessarily medical departments althoggh Mr. 15 Fritz did have his problems with some of the medical users of 16 radioactive materials. He had a great dislike for radiation on 17 ecology and its staff people. Nuclear medicine were friends la to him, both medical use departments. 19 There were other departments like chemistry and physics and he did not like those departments or the people in 20 i 21 those departments very well and there were those departments l 22 where he did have friends and did like individuals and 1 23 permitted them to do pretty much as they pleased. 24 BY MR. PAUL: 25 Q Did Alexander have management responsibilities or was i i

25 1 he just supp,onedly an administrative type? e Supposedly he was administrative type but he had his ^ 2 A nose in every last single issue that came up within the 3 4 radiation safety department and had something to say about 5 everything. 6 BY MS. FAHEY: 7 Q Did you feel he directed Kenneth Fritz at time? 8 A At times, on certain matters, in a certain limited 9 capacity I'd say but, yes, indeed. 10 Q And do you feel that Kenneth Fritz went along with 11 him or agreed with him? How would you characterize Ken Fritz' 12 position? 13 A Well, if it was something that Ken really did not 14 want to see come about or thought that it would defeat some 15 other purpose or make anything in any way any harder on 16 himself, he was very adamant about disagreeing with George. They had a strong dislike for one another although 17 they had to work fairly closely together a lot of the time. 18 For the most part he didn't go along with George. 19 They practically disagreed on everything but they would argue 20 it out back and forth and somehow they would both come out 21 22 satisfied I'd say. Strange relationship. We've all been trying to figure why George had anything at all to do with us, 23 the same question that the consultants and some of the other 24 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff have been asking us. 25

26 1 BY MR. PAUL: ( At the time you vent to the radiation safety 2 Q 3 committee, which I believe was January 4th '89 -- Have you seen 4 the memo that was prepared? 5 A Yes, I've seen this. 6 Q When you vent there did you and the other technicians 7 present all of your concerns? 8 A Everything was addressed, yes. Every issue from every memo that we originated and sent to the committee was 9 10 addressed and discussed one way or another, some to our 11 satisfaction, some not. It was probably about 50-50. We got our way on some things and did not get our way on others. 12 13 Q Did you consider whether to bring up this issue with ( Ken Fritz and the inventory cards a that time, whether to bring 14 15 this to the attention of the radiation safety committee? 16 A Was that not one of the issues? I thought it was. 17 so many things have happened and time has elapsed. 18 Q I don't see it as being an issue that was addressed. 19 I guess the question is why wasn't it addressed. Were you 20 hesitant to bring this up to.the committee? 21 BY MS. FAHEY: 22 Q Was there anybody on the radiation safety committee 23 responsible for the sources? 24 A Let me think on that. It was mostly nickel-63 25 sources that were used in gas chromatic graphs which were c.

l 27 -generally found in departments like pharmacy and - I would say_ L e' 1 I I don't_think -- I would-have to'say no, there were-no 2 not. members on the committee ast that point-who had a source i 3 4 unaccounted for. If that was not addressed in that January meeting it-5 was certainly not due to reluctance on our part.- Perhaps we-6 put it as a lower priority and said to ourselves,Lhey, this is. 7 enough and we're not even going to'get all this, we'll deal 8 with that a little later on down the line. 9 Maybe we thought these things.were a little more 10 a bit more immediate, they were a little more 11 important, . Sources -- well, _ concrete and really existed here and now. 12 it's gone and there really isn't anything we can' do about it-at ' ( 13 this point so maybe it simply wasn't one of our highest 14 15 priorities. BY MR. PAUL: I guess my next question would be what caused you to 16 Q write the memo of August 2nd of '89, which was-:about a year ~ 17 WasLthere-later, where you brought the subject up:to Dr.-Wlot.: 18-anything specific that happened at that-particular_ point __in? 19-time that caused your concerns _to be raised?- 20 Well,-as I previously stated, I saw the direction 21 A 22 that things were headed. I-was advised by one of my own staff: members, to be 23 to submit something like -this in an effort to help 24

frank, protect myself and I knew prior to that date that I was going; l

25 I ~._

28 1 to do something like that anyway. W9 2 Q Was this the major issue that was bothering you at-3 that time, that you had concerns on? Was there anything else going on in the radiation safety department that was causing 4 5 concern on your part? 6 A Probably so. I simply didn't like the way that Mr. 7 Fritz dealt with a lot of various individuals. I didn't like 8 some of the judgments that he made on various policies and 9 issues and things that were brought forth to him. I didn't 10 like the way he was running _the program. One of our biggest contentions was that we didn't 11 12 feel that we should have been -- we meaning the technical staff 13 in the radiation safety office -- should have been compelled to do the decontaminations of nuclear medicine iodine patients 14 15 .and that in itself was one of the big issues that precipitated 16 a lot of the animosities between our department and nuclear 17 medicine and higher-up management. 18 Everyone knows hbout that, I guess, the decons, 19 iodine 131 room decons which actually sometimes took two men 20 all week long, four or five days, without proper respiratory equipment and without any regard to radiation safety personnel, 21 exposure to radioiodine without regard to the other things that 22 we had to do in addition to that, without regard to anything 23 24 except appeasing the record of the director of nuclear 25 medicine, D. Harry Massin, and George Alexander who was also I

?. 29 ~ 1 administrative director for nuclear medicine. f-N *^ George was in-two roles -- administrative director 6 2 for our department as well as director for nuclear medicine 3 4 department. There was a lot of animosity between those two departments and we fought that tooth and nail, these room 5 6 decons. 7 Q Did Fritz go along with your -- meaning you and the technicians -- viewpoint or was he more on their side las far -- 8 9 A He was on our side about not having to do it. He 10 didn't want us to do it. That took us away from things _ that we 11 should have been doing for him, for radiation safety, but ha 12 never expressed it to anyone but us. 13 Q Would you characterize Fritz as a team player as far ( as being management or did he at times represent the-14 15 technicians' interest or was it a definite break between the 16 technicians as far as communication? 17 A A break. He seldom, rarely if ever, privately or 18 publicly represented us. His hands were tied. He was a mere puppet in the entire operation, a puppet of people above him 19 l 20 - Dr. Sanger, Dr. Keriakas, Dr. Haxson, Dr. Silberstein, Dr. 21 Wiot, Steger -- You name it. His hands were tied. He couldn't 22 do anything or wouldn't do anything. As the RSO he had the authority to do what he knew 23 cut' t 24 was right and ipa lot of instances was afraid to do so. \\ 25 Q Political situation? l

.w. ,= 3,... ,7

30 1-A oh, yes.

It was such that it affected his ability to perform 2 Q 3 as RSo? Is that-a fair characterization? I would say definitely that hits it right on the 4 A 5 head. 6 Q Considering this date, August 1989, when you wrote your first letter, was there an NRC inspection scheduled at' 7 8 that-time that you were aware of? 9 A Yes. They were to come in after Nuclear Energy-10 Services finished their findings. What caused Nuclear Energy Services to come:in? 11 Q 12 A That was a university decision.- 13 Q Was there an incident? Was there any_NRC involvement in that decision to bring - NES in that you know.of?: _ 14 15 A Well, in light of all the memorandums _that.our technical staff issued to the committee and in. light of the 16 discrimination suit that was-filed against the university by 17 one of the radiation safety staff personnel and just a whole -18 host of things I would imagine caused the upper-management-of 19 UC to get together and say, hey,_ we've got a_ problem with'our-20 21 radiation: safety program, we better-get somebody from the-22 outside, a third party, in here _first and-look -at'it before the 23 NRC comes. 24 Maybe~it was that the-NRC had called and told them 25 that they were going to be looking into some things-that they

- - :nz. =. w.-- (- 1- .31 j-3 had knowledge of and suggested to.UC -- Yes, I think that's the 1 -Y' ' ' 2 way it went. 3 I think the UC was aware of some things that were 4 going on. There may have been some phone calls by someinembers 5 of our staff or'some individuals-outside of our department 6 concerning all this mess and I think it was at the NRC's 7 request that the third party was brought in to look the program 8 over and see what the strengths and weaknesses were and how to 9 go about firming up the operation. 10 Q Were you-aware at the time you wrote thir memo that F 11 there had been concern raised-to the-NRC at about the same-time 12 regarding radiation safety programs?: Were you aware of that? ( 13 A In terms of what? 14 Q In terns that the NRC would'be looking at-radiation-15 safety. 16 A I knew they would be here soon. -I knew at the time. I. 17 sat down and made this that'they would-be here pretty _soon. 18 BY MS. FAHEY: 19 Q Were there yearly inspections in August?' It.seems ~ 20 like the one in '88 was in August. l 21 A No. NRC generally inspected every_two or1three A t /' 22 years, not yearly inspections. Every two-or three years. In*he-i 23 five years I've.been.there I think I saw three inspections and N .24 one was shortly. after I was hired and one about midway and then l. 25 the latest one back in '88. i l

k, 32 1 BY MS. FAHEY: f-l 2 Q Why is it you say you knew the NRC was going to be 3 coming out in August of '897 4 A Because of the discrimination suit that was filed 5 with Department of Labor with a lot of accusations and 6 allegations in it directly related to the operations of the 7 radiation safety program at UC and that entire packet that went 8 to DOL was copied to NRC. 9 Q Do you remember who came out during the '89 10 inspection? 11 A I don't recall their names. 12 Q It was a team? 13 A Yes, it was a team. 14 BY MR. PAUL: t 15 Q It was Wayne Slawinski, I believe. 16 A Right, Mr. Slawinski, Toye Simmons and another 17 gentleman. 18 Q Did you -- Before this inspection did Fritz hide any 19 of the inventory cards at this point? 20 A Oh, no. At this point, no. 21 Q Were you there when NES was there? 22 A Yes. For a while. I understand they spent quite s 23 some time there. I was suspended August 25th and they had been 24 there perhaps about a week prior to that date and I don't knov 25 how long subsequent to that date. I understand they were there

^ -{ 33 -- not the entire team that they originally sent but members of 1 that team were_there-for quite some time as I understand.

  • 1 2

3 Q. Did they come out after the NRC inspection or during o 4 it orLwas it ongoing with both of them there? 5 A I don't recall. I noticed that your first memo on the inventory cards j 6 Q was dated August 2nd 1989 and your' response from Wlot it was 7 l dated August 18th -1989 and there's a cc to Trajo, who is with - B 9 NES, is that correct? 10 A Yes, Trejo is with NES. 11 Q Did you have any verbal conversations with Wlot in 12 the interim, from the time you sent your memo to the time he-i 13 sent a memo asking for more information?- Did he-call you.up-on 14 this or have any discussions with-him? u 15 A No, I don't believe so. At the time I-wrote this he was in. Hawaii or something and that's why: the dates are so far : 16 17 apart. He did not receive this until long after that date. He was on vacation, out of town for about a week or so, maybe a ] 18 19 couple of weeks. I think that's why there's a disparity.in the 20 dates there. 21 Q Are you aware that the NRC issued a confirmatory - action letter against University of Cincinnati at about_ this 22 23-time?- If you'll tell me what a confirmatory-action letter 24 A i 25 is maybe -- 4

34 1 Q It basically suspended license activities until the 2 special inspection could take place. 3 A Then I have to say yes, I was aware of that, I guess mainly because the police officers came in and confiscated all 4 5 of our records. 6 Q Were they the University of cincinnati police, do you 7 know? 8 A He didn't have on a UC campus police uniform outfit. He was just a plainclothesman with a big gun on his hip and 9 they had some UC transportation qu'ys, movers and haulers, and 10 11 they came into our office and carted every piece of paper out 12 of there and put it under lock and key. { I know right then and there -- I don't know if I knew 13 14 before then but surely that's enough to tell the story that the 15 operation is suspended until such time as the act was cleaned 16 up. 17 BY MS. FAllEY: 18 Q Was NES at the university at that time? 19 A Yes, NES was onsite at the time. 20 BY MR. PAUL: 21 Q In your memo of the 21st back to Wiot's 18th, you 22 sent a copy to Trejo. I just wondered why. 23 A I believe he asked me for one but I don't know why. N 24 He surely was working in conjunction with the chairman of the 25 committee, Dr. Wlot, so I responded to Wlot and I think he ]

. ~ _ _ _ ~ _. - t + 35 4 requested that I give him a copy of my clarification memo. 1 C~'" Did you ever meet with Trejo or Wiot on'your 2 Q 3 concerns? Trejo interviewed me his first or his second day 4 A 5 there, extensively. I was with lie. Trejo for four or five 6 hours. 7 BY MS. FAHEY: Did you tell him the concerns that you're telling us 8 Q 9 today? 10 A Ch, yas. And those were the same concerns that the radiation 11 Q safety committee was made aware of also? 12 ( 13 A That's right. ( Did HES independently identify problems with the 14 Q 15 radiation safety program? No, I don't think that was what they were there for. 16 A, They weren't there to overhaul the program? 17 O oh, they were there to overhaul the program but not 18 A ) identify the problems as we identified them, as I and the L 19 20 technical staff could address. They never went out in the laboratory and did'a test ( 21 and found gross contamination and said, hey, you've got a 22 contamination problem in this lab, not that type of 23 identification, but simply to discourse with myself and our 24 l technical staff to' identify. problems. L 25 l L _,.. ~. _ _ -

=_.__...s 36 1 We told them how we do things and they say, well, 2 that's not the best way to do it, you're leaving this part of 3 it out and you're leaving that part of it out, here's what's 4 required, you have to do it this way or at least in a manner 5 that is c' le. 6 .it PAULt ,J a programmatic review as opposed to a 7 Q i 8 specific review. 9 A precisely. 10 Q Did the NRC inspectors talk with you at all on these 11 concerns? 12 A Yeah, yeah. (N 13 Q They interviewed you on this? 14 A oh, sure. 15 Q What was the reason they suspended you? Were you 16 ever given written notification or did they ever explain? 17 A Yes, Ken and I both on August 25th of '89 got a small 38 one-paragraph memo from whomever saying that we were 19 immediately on administrative Icave until further notice. 20 There was no reason other than verbal from Dr. Wlot, 21 that it was upper management felt as if this was the way to 22 best handle the situation. 23 Q Have they indicated to you since that time what your 24 status was? 25 A Ho. l

37 so,you're just under suspension, right? 1 o C Yes, with the exception of the now acting RSO, Dr. 2 A Howard Elson, who is the medical physicist for radiation 3 4 onconcology department, called me one evening a week or so ago and told me that this was about to occur and said that he felt 5 as if the university had no rights or grounds whatsoever to 6 terminate my employment with the institution and that I was 7 perfectly very well protected and so on and so forth and that a 8 lot of persons still there in the employ don't feel as if the 9 university is handling this properly at all by what they did to 10 11 me. Certainly I don't think anyone wants to see Ken go 12 13 back. I don't see how he could go back. He is the culprit, ( the true culprit in my estimation in all this and has been for 14 Givon his personality, his lackadaisical, really 15 years. noncaring attitude towards properly running that kind of 16 program makes him the biggest culprit in my mind for all of 17 18 this mess. But, once again, it's not entirely his fault given 19 20 the fact that, as I've already stated, he put himself into a position I guess whereby he really couldn't do anything though 21 22 he should have been able to. It's my understanding that the radiation safety 23 officer has the ultimate authority and power on any final 24 decision which regards any activity involving radioactive 25 =

38 1 material or radiation-producing apparati. C". He should have the ultimate -- I don't care if it's 2 3 the president of UC, Joseph Stager, on down. No one -- it's 4 the RSO who should have that ultimate authority to make a 5 decision as regards things of that nature but he never did. He 6 never exercised it. He never even admitted having it. 7 Q Who in your opinion was actually calling the shots as 8 far as the operation of the department? 9 A It had been Dr. Sanger, but since over the past three 10 or four years now he's been emeritus and getting up in age and 11 he's not had too much to do or say about what's going on with 12 the radiation safety program. e 13 To be quite frank, I don't know who is really' calling 14 the shots. 15 Q Wasn't it true that Mr. Fritz had some commercial 16 ventures with other people on the staff -- Dr. Sanger or Dr. 17 Koriakas. Was that an influencing factor? 18 A I don't know if that was a collaborative effort or 19 what. I really don't. I know that's one of the big issues, 20 the commercial use of the license. I know that there are a 21 number of individuals -- I don't know if I should say guilty of 22 that sort of activity. 23 Yes, if there is a license required they do that sort 24 of thing and as far as I know, yes, there is a license required .(.. 25 to do that sort of thing, but that's been going on for years l

l 39 1 and years, decades probably, and it's more than Een Fritz who n 2 has been involved in that kind of activity. 3 Q That was my question, whether this activity 4 influenced his running the department over the fact that he was 5 involved in this commercial use somehow influenced his 6 performance as radiation safety officer. 7 A No, I don't think the two are akin at all, really. 0 }!c was making a few extra bucks, I guess, and no one ever saw 9 any harm in it over all these years. 10 Q Well, from the way you described -- you stated that 11 you didn't think Fritz was performing up to par in his duties 12 as RSO. I thought there was some other reason why he wasn't 13 minding the store, so to speak, in radiation safety. 14 I was just trying to figure out if this could be a 15 contributing factor in his commercial interests with other 16 doctors. 17 A I really don't know. I wouldn't think so. There 18 were so many people involved with commercial utilization of 19 UC's license that I don't think that had any bearing on his 20 day-to-day conduct of running the radiation safety program 21 project operation. It could have. I just don't see a 22 connection myself. 23 Q on your memo of August 2nd -- we'll make this 24 attachment two. It's on University of Cincinnati radiation 'u 25 safety office letterhead. It's dated August 2nd to Dr. Jerone

n 40 4 1 Wiot -- W-i-o-t -- and it's signed by Prince Jason, deputy 'l 2 radiation safety officer. Did you feel that this particular letter resulted in 3 4 your suspension, had any bearing at all? 5 A You're asking me to read other people's minds. I 6 don't know. It may have. 7 Q Did you ever discuss this with Fritz or Wlot or any 8 member of the radiation safety committee, this particular 9 memorandum? 10 A I most certainly did not discuss it with Mr. Fritz. 11 I have to say yes, I discussed it brfefly with Dr. Wlot, to 4 12 whom it's addressed. (" Obviously after you wrote the memorandum a number of 13 Q -14 events transpired. There was-the NRC confirmatory action 15 letter. NES came onsite. Then both you and-Fritz were 16 suspended. The' question was in your mind was there a connection 17 18 there of you identifying these_ concerns and -- 19 A -Probably so if persons other than.to.whom it's 20 addressed saw this particular memorandum, and I'm quite sure 21-that they must have. I'm.sure Dr. Wiot felt obligated once he 22 received this to show it to his superiors _and so on up the 23 ladder so I would say, yes, this probably did somewhat 24 influence my suspension. 25 I knowingly.did this in spite of that.- I.took the

v-,,--,-__,=., 41 1 risk. I knew that. k You knew that there would be repercussions. 2 Q 3 A Oh, sure, yes. Were you on a talking basis with Fritz at this time? 4 Q 5 A Up until the very last day, yes, I was. Up until LU August 25thandjhenIhadnomoretosaytohim. 6 7 BY MS. FAHEY 8 Q Have you had any contact with him since? 9 A Not at all. I have not spoken to him or seen him 10 since August 25th. Do you know whether Mr. Fritz is aware that there's 11 Q an NRC Office of Investigation investigation? 12 13 A I don't know if he's been informed or not. A few days prior to my receipt of the memorandum from the acting RSO, 14 Dr. Howard Elson, I got that phone call from him stating that I 15 would be receiving that in the mail and when I did receive that 16 correspondence from Dr. Elson, a lot of people were carbon 17 copied but Ken Fritz was not so I don't know if he's aware that 18 the investigation section of the NRC is here presently or not. 19 I'm sure he knows about it from someone. He has a 20 21 few friends there, I presume. 22 BY MR. PAULt 23 Q So Fritz never personally confronted you about your 24 allegation? 25 A He never had the opportunity. When he and I were

42 brought into Dr. Wlot's office late morning of the 25th, to my 1 7-. ( knowledge it was only at that point that Mr. Fritz was made \\.'~ 2 aware of these allegations against him by me and he was totally 3 surprised and shocked by it so I don't think he knew before 4 5 that time. The part that really surprised me -- well, not really 6 7 surprised me, more angered me than any other emotion I guess, was when I did convene with the NRC after all this, when Toye 8 and Slawinski interviewed me, there were about ten allegations 9 that they went over with me and all of them were against me and 10 there was nothing at all against Mr. Fritz, to my recollection, 11 12 and ten against me. 13 I wasn't really surprised by that. I was a little angered by that because since I've been there I have done 14 everything in my power to try to better the program and to try 15 to circumvent some of the ridiculous behavior that's been going 16 17 on there the five years I've been there. IB Q You're sort of caught in the middle between the guys 19 working and you are management. 20 A Definitely in the middle. 21 Q I guess you brought this concern to everyone's 22 attention. Was there any other items or actions similar to this blatant disregard to UC procedures or NRC regulations that 23 you vent on as far as you were aware of or was it limited to 24 25 this? ~' 1 i

43 There were all types of -- Contamination itself is 1 A e 2 not really a violation. It is something that needs to be 3 addressed. To have contamination in a laboratory area, in an area where therapy patients frequent and so on and so forth, 4 5 it's not really a violation. It is a concern and something that should be 6 addressed and that was another thing that various ones of our 7 technical staff were highly upset about, that contamination 8 existed in those areas that were utilized and frequented by 9 10 nuclear medicine patients. In addition to those patients, those facilities were i ~ 11 epen to other UC personnel as well as the general public. 12 13 None of us liked it. It was a condition that had ( 14 existed for years and years. The RSO never saw it as a threat to anyone's health or safety or wellbeing and nothing was ever 15 16 done about it. There vera a lot of personnel issues where we really 17 18' got jacked around and that probably contributed to some of these memoranda that transpired between the technical staff and 19 20 the committee. The personnel issues I'm speaking of, those are all 21 22 Mr. Alexander's baby. He's the one that gave us the shaft on 23 all that. There were just so many things, so many personality 24 25 conflicts, UC personnel policy, withholdings, and whatnot and g me ~ a~,-

44 just a myriad of things that contributed to'all the ill feeling 1 and distrust and so on between technical staff, as well as

  • ^

2 nyself -- I include myself as part of the technical staff. 3 4 Most of my job, even as the deputy RSO, was still very 5 technically oriented. I was doing the technical aspect as well as the 6 administrative aspect because I reviewed everything so I had to 7 know the little simple calculations that we had to do. I had 8 9 to know about sources. I had to know about radiation. I had to train nursing personnel caring for therapy patients. I had 10 to from time to time get involved with decon, very much 11 involved with waste disposal, ell technical things as well as 12 trying to manage the office personnel, making assignments, tell ( 13 14 sumebody when they're falling short, sitting'in on the personnel annual performance reviews, making recommendations as 15 16 to promotions, hirings and firings. I was stuck in the middle every time. That's why I 17 18 never disassociated myself from the technical staff. I was 19 very much a part of the technical staff. 20 Q You were physically located with them, is that right? 21 A Yes. 22 BY MS. FAHEY: 23 Q How is it that your deputy position was created? 24 A That van a battle, too. Personnel policy is -- 25 everybody wanted more money, of course. They paid us all' rock

45 1 bottom. We finally found out how to go about getting more 7 k'" money and we proceeded and we were successful in that everybody 2 3 came out on top. We all had to fill out some position description l 4 questionnaires and they were all submitted to the benefits 5 section and compensation division and they actually did create 6 AO A b 04L alittlejobhetberforusthatgoesfromtechatentrylevel 7 to senior tech and simply created my position. 8 I was always a deputy RSO af ter the former person in 9 10 that position left but only in title. There was no such title 11 at the university or at the state level on their books. They simply created that title and position for me because I truly 12 believe they did not want to see me leave because I did have a ( 13 14 lot of knowledge, not so much about health physics, I'm not a 15 health physice expert. I had technical staff that knew a lot more about the technical aspects of the business than I do, but-16 I knew and know still the UC license and what UC is required to 17 18 do. I was a valuabic employee, I think, and.I think they 19 20 actually did that to keep me there. 21 BY HS. FAHEY: Let's backtrack a little bit about the commercial use 22 Q 23 of the license. After technical staff met with the radiation safety 24 commitIce, were you aware of what action was taken? _ Was the UC 25 l l

l i

, 4 46 license amended to allow the commercial use?

1 As I recall speaking with Mr. Fritz on that 2 A One was particular issue, there were two areas of concern. 3 radiation detection instrumentation calibration on UC premises 4 with UC calibration sources utilizing UC personnel. 5 Ken swore up and down that they had submitted a l 6 license to do that sort of thing some years ago, send in the 7 $900-some for that license and never-got a copy of that 8 Whether that was done, I 9 license. That's what he swears. I've never seen such a license on the premises. 10 don't know. The other big issue was the sample analysis from 11 various outside contractors and corporations which has been 12 (<- done since way back in 1960-something. 13 Thev did submit or amend-the license to have the; 14 capability to do that and they now do have.that license to 15 i perform sample analysis f rom outside contractors in that manner 16 on UC premises using instrumentation and so on and so forth. 17 But it's. not the university that gets benefits from 18 Q-19 these commercial services? The radiation -- the check'is always made 20 A. No. payable to University-of Cincinnati Radiation Safety Office 21 .2 22 Service Account Fund.- 23 -Q And the calibration ~ service, is that also University-of= cincinnati service or was it ---I was under the impression-t 24 -that it was private consultants, doctors -at -the university. %+ 25 = . E-- 4,,n,,-r.3. --e,. A w,, E, ,.,._~,,~m2,, ,-----.d,M- .h~.- c ..m r .am, ,..e-, -+

s 47 1 A Oh, some of it. The ones that we did out of our e-2 office, radiation safety office, our offica got directly paid 3 for. The instruments that were calibrated by Ken from some other institutions or by Dr. Kerlakas from some other 4 institutions, I don't know where that money went. It wasn't 5 6 made pay able to our office. 7 Q Who performed the calibrations? 8 A Sometimes Ken did..Sometimes we would do it for him. I think We generally did all of Dr. Keriakas' sample analysis. 9 he did his own meter calibrations of meters from contractors 10 that he had deals with but he always did bring his samples for 11 analysis from outside contractors because he had not the 12 13 counting equipment to make that analysis. ( 14 BY MR. PADL: This is one of the areas you brought up with the 15 Q 16 radiation safety committee? Oh, yes, the commercial use of the license, yes. 17 A Did you consider -- After you vent to the radiation 18 Q safety committee, did they take any actions on your concerns? 19 Dr. Wiot said right then and there if 20 A Oh, yes, sure. ve need a license to do this, we'll get one, and they got one. 21 I just have one other question on the so-called gag 22 Q 23 order, or it's been called a gag order. As far as you're -- Did this thing have any effect -- 24 this memo or.the meeting you-had behind it, did that.have any ' ~ 25 .~.

48 offect upon your performance in radiation safety? 1 (. That memo, as were so many others that Mr. 2 A Ho. I Alexander issued, were worthless and meaningless to me. 3 never put any stock in most of what he did or said or wrote. 4 5 You want me to sign it? Fine, I'll sign it. I didn't have any problem with that but whether or not I felt obligated to abide 6 by what he issued was another matter as far as I was concerned. 7 8 He was not my boss. Een was my boss. The technicians had some concern because that was one 9 Q of the issues they brought up to the radiation safety 10 11 committee. 12 A Well, they just realized tha this is the You can't force 13 inappropriate way to do something like that. ( ? 14 that type ot thing on a worker, especially in this business. We have rights as radiation workers to report directly to the 15 NRC if we so desire without ever taking it through any channels 16 We do have 17 internally if we felt the need was that strong. 18 that right. 19 BY MS. FAHEY: Didn't the authors of the memo understand that? 20 Q Before they prepared it, certainly they must have been aware 21 that what they were doing was certainly a violation of HRC 22 23 regulations. 24 A They should have been aware. I mean the notice to employees has been posted all over_ the university. If George 25

1, .49 ever stopped,in his own nuclear medicine laboratory and read 1 the top section of it, he would have known that each radiation 2 worker has a perfect right to go-directly to the NRC if they 3 think the problem is sufficiently serious enough or is in 4 existence for long enough and totally circumvent any internal 5 i l 6 channels. He's - He should have know that before he wrote this. 7 8 probably never read it. 9 BY MR. pAULt You said that you didn't think Fritz read it. 10 Q 11 A No, Fritz didn't read this. 1 Do you think Alexander's attempt -- Was he attempting. 12 Q Was that the-here to prohibit you guys from going to-the NRC? ( 13 purpose of this memo, that you had to go to the University of 14 cincinnati with any concerns? 15 I think his intent was two-fold. Number one,.because 16 A he was not aware of what the notice _to' employees said, he 17 probably -- I could be wrong on'that.but'if he has not read 18 that and is not aware that we do have that right,-that would be-19 one reason for him precipitating a meno like this. 20 21' -Number-two, just to shut us up in general. He didn't ~ vant tus talking to Lany patients about anything. - He didn't.vant. 22 us talking to anyone in the' general public about what-was going. i 23 He didn't want us talking to anybody about anything s 24 on at Uc.- '25 a.s regards radiation safety. h-7-tr-+iir s'-4 e-g 3 sp y-myuw g.,eaW s eawesMs.ggy,*i ygy.en e-- n Wyeberg y y:r ge 1r -.Qm a rt*-7M=w-,.rgr* TWT-Me&9We Pvf - PWtMPO tf M Y"7r V Y t'

o. 50 1 Q Do you know at the NRC inspection'whether they 4*' 2 interviewed Alexander? Do you know that? 3 A I'm sure they did. I'm sure they must have. They 4 were amiss if they did not. 5 Q Did you have any discussions in this timeframe, 6 summer of '88, with any Region 3 staff member, other than those 7 that came out for the inspection? Did you by telephone have any discussions regarding allegations concerning-radiation 8 9 safety program? 10 A No, not to my recollection. I did have a telephone 11 conversation with I believe it was Mr. Slavinski att some point 12 during when all this was happening. j 13 We had an incident whereby we came across some 14 tritiated foils we should not have wipe tested and we called 15 and said these things were leaking. Well, they're not really 16 leaking. We should have never wipe tested them. That was the 17 whole problem with that. 18 Outside of that, no, I haven't had any other contact 19 or communications with Region 3 personnel. l 20 Q Were you aware of an attempt by Ken Fritz to bd 21 determine whether the technicians -- I believe it was 22 or Boyd -- to call the NRC through phone records? l 23 A Oh, sure. He tried to prove that someone in our j l 24 office did call the NRC to make an allegation or report 25 something and he did secure phone records from somewhere that

,{ 51 1 definitely indicate that a call or calls were made to the NRC 2 on a certain date which in my estimation coincidentally 3 coincided with a date that we somehow know that the NRC was 4 called about something. 5 It could have been anything. We periodically would call the technical staff at NRC to assist us in answering a 6 question or something that we couldn't find in the regulations 7 8 for some reason or other. 9 Sure, yes, he kind of put the thumb on somebody for 10 that. 11 Q You don't know when that was? 12 A It had to have been between Christmas and the new ( 13 year somewhere, I believe. 14 Q Of the '88 '89 timeframe? 15 A Yeah. It must have been earlier than that. I can't' 16 say with any degree of certainty. It was at least in '88. It 17 was probably towards the end of the year '88. 18 Q Do you know where Fritz got his information that 19 there had been en allegation made to the NRC by these two 20 individuals or someone on the staff? Do you know what the 21 basis of all that was? 22 A I don't believe I know. We must have received a 23 call from Region 3. I would surmise that's the way it went. 24 Q I just wondered if you directly participated in that N._ 25 and knew what Fritz was doing. -. ~

~~ 52 1 A No, not personally. 2 Q Did he ever take any action against these two or 3 anyone as a result of what he found from the phone record? 4 A No. 5 BY MS. FAHEY: 6 Q Did he suspect you of calling NRC7 7 A I don't believe he did. He was fairly certain that 8 it was Mr. Boyd. As far as I was concerned he had no proof of 9 it whatsoever. 10 Q So there was no -- He didn't take any action against 11 Mr. Boyd. 12 A No. He didn't take any action against anyone. C-e 13 Q His suspicion that Melvin Boyd called in the i 14 allegation would have been after the gag order? 15 A Oh, I'm certain it would have been after that date. 16 BY MR. PAUL: 17 Q So during this timeframe there ~ were four members of 18 the technical staff? 19 A Yes, four health physics techs 'and myself, Ken and 20 our secretary. 21 Q Who vas the secretary?- 22 A Carolyn Hart. 23 Q Has she been there a while? 24 A Yes, she has been now for probably going on four 25 years.'Threi ' least. Probably just finishing up her third

.c - 53 1 7.- year and going into the fourth. 4' 2 Q Hr. Jason, have I or any other NRC representative 3 here threatened you in any manner or offered you any rewards 4 in return for this statement? 5 A No. 6 O Have you given the statement freely and voluntarily? 7 A I most certainly have. B Q In there anything further you care to add to the 9 record on this that we failed to discuss here, or that you want 10 to add to what we already discussed? 11 A No, nothing really except for the fact that I hope 12 this is very quickly resolved so I will know where I stand. -~ 13 I'm more concerned about having my name not snudged, if you 14 will, than anything else. 15 I know what I did was wrong. I should not have 16 followed that order that Ken did give no but I've already 17 related why I did it. 18 What I did was a more ultimate hoax than rearranging 19 that program as it is now being done without my presence and 20 assistance. 21 I just hope this is over and done with soon so I know 22 where I stand and hopefully I'll stand at least favorably with 23 the University of Cincinnati. Whether or not I will stand 24 favorably with the NRC I have no idea but I would like to stand 25 in favor of the University of Cincinnati.

$4 Like I told you before, we prepara our report and it 1 Q 7. goes through administrative channels and if there's any action 2 it comes out in the form of a notice of violation and it goes 3 to the university because they're the licensee and we're 4 5 investigating their actions. If there is no action, there is really no report that 6 comes down so there wouldn't be a notice issued but that's all 7 8 up to NRC management. 9 We just prepare a report on the facts that we determine from interviewing the witnesses such as yourself and 10 11 people that have knowledge on it, and going through the records that pertain to this item in a little different fashion than 12 13 the inspectors that came out in August of last year. They came ( 14 out and they prepared an inspection report. This is taken in conjunction and acted on at the same 15 time as the findings of that inspection report determines if 16 there was any willful violation of HR0 rules and regulations. 17 It's a factor in the findings on that report. If in 18 fact there are certain violations, the degree of willfulness 19 20 will have an impact on the action taken by the NRC. That's basically the future of what's going to happen 21 22 on the matter. So far as time things, I don't know. 23 A I understand it's going to take some time. It's been 24 going on six months since I've been suspended. 25 Q Well, I don't know if the university is -- i ' ~ - ]

l . s,. - .55 1 A I Know how slow you guys are, too. 2 MR. PAULt At this point, let's go off the record. (Whereupon the matter was concluded at 2:47 p.m.) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 + 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 \\. 25

e. < * *, e' ' ~ 5(f e 4 r REPORTER'S CERTITICATE c.. This is to certify that the attached proceed-ings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission la the matter oft NAME OF PRPCEELING: Investigative Interview-DOCKET WUMBEEt PLACE OF PROCEEDING Cincinnati,-Ohio-this is vers. hold as herein appears, and that the origins 1 transcript thereof for the file of -the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission to typewriting taken by se and thereafter reduced report-by as or under the direction of the court the transcript is a true ing company, and that foregoing proceedings. and accurate record of the C TG L darfIda-2 Kri((yfSmith Official Reporter. Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd. i. \\ w ,-w-v yyvtW-'v---iww pywwmt%,-m-*- -s-w,e -w-y-- my---vt-t-gi -'wg-w-r4qir-ga+w-- y-r-9-gp-g"s-7 ?ww-,-74+y r<-y--+r-+ -r--wi gr-w?-T-}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20126K951&oldid=4272357"