ML20210M674
| ML20210M674 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/05/1994 |
| From: | Wiedeman D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210M571 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-99-163 NUDOCS 9908100148 | |
| Download: ML20210M674 (24) | |
Text
D
..~
.+
j i
l APR 5 1994 m 5 1994 1
f
~
I MEMORANDUM FOR:
Allegation Files FROM:
Darrel Wiedeman, Senior Health Physicist Fuel Facilities and Decommissioning Section
SUBJECT:
Telephone Conversation with Alleger on ^oril 4, 1994 AMS-No. RIII-94-A-0026, Possible Dumping of Radioactive Materials in Landfills (Uniontown,0H)
On April 4,1994, I was asked by Mike McCann to telephone the alleger to discuss'her previous telephone conversation (4/29/94) with Hike McCann and to jnform her that I received her package in the mail marked
" Personal /Confidentiald.
The alleger told me that she was informed by Mike McCann on April 29, 1994 that her allegations regarding possible dumping of radioactive material in the Uniontown landfill and possible wrongdoing by U. S. EPA, Ohio Department of Health and the Ohio EPA are going to be referred to the EPA Inspector Generals Office (IG). The alleger wanted to know if the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) would be involved in the investigation.
I infomed the alleger that I was not at liberty to discuss the NRC proposed action to resolve her concerns / allegations.
The alleger mailed a package of letters and information regarding her allegations to me on March 23, 1994 and received by me on April 4, 1994, Attachments A.
Copies of these attachments were provided to Gene Pawlik for consideration when he prepares the letter referring this case to the EPA IG's office.
s
)
I Information in this record war deleted
[
In accottfance with Freedom of information j
Act, egplptions -
F0!AMf-Ilr3 j
j
)
o MEM0 AND ATTACHMENTS NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
/
j i
4 9908100148 990809
[]DflOOf y T
r a
3/14/94 OHIO EPA - DIRECTOR'S OFFICE c/o MR. Gerry Ioannides, Deputy Director P.O. Box 1049 1800 Watermark Dr.
Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149
Dear Mr.Ioannides:
As you suggested on the phone, I am continuing to document our co rns regarding our OEPA project manager 6 hlb dE4E5 hhp) for the Uniontown IEL Superfund Site, s you will recall, we do not believe that there has been adequate or proper attention by Headquarters regarding this matter.
Once again, this is not a personal attack.
As taxpayers and concerned stake-holders in this issue, we believe that we have every right to take issue with the IEL project
- especiall when we see decisions made manager's performance y
that will directly impact on the health and welfare of our citizens and that of future generations.
Issues that have yet to be resolved include:
'Why, when senior OEPA officials said it was " logical and reasonable" to do full scans for chemicals and radiation in Wells already found to be contaminated in Northwest i
Uniontown, was the one tc make the decision not hydrogeologis[.
specially sincejbdf3 predecessor said that to test, when is nel r a radiation expert nor a P
MW. 27 was the "well that would tell the story for the people f\\[.) b-living Northwest" and the fact that the state then found radiation 140 times over background in that well. (We believe the former RPM would have definitelr ordered this additional testing we are still seeking)...
judgement and objectivity is being questioned sEMce emonstrated bias toward this issue wnen Agilsaid that USG would be " proven wrong", approx. two sur #rs ago i.e.,
concerning the radial flow and flow to the Northwest. This was stated in front of witnesses.
Likewise, we questien h decision to drop two monitoring welic in ml:-strean t37t located South &'gh radiation showed hi readings from August of 1992 Southwest and
'tNEN]! ailed to continue to resample them for the December and 1-March rounds - even chcuct those were
/ '"'
seasonal and consecutive r:unds! &
(iW U
~
that qllg(fulfilled the cbl:gation et d
//rh A
f,'l fh L
y
&- 4.+h, a N
d;llis., ;sn..~w i,
. - y :,
,.3
T e
I ccceptable (by doubling up on samples from just two locations instead of roceeding with with all four locations).
While states that W 3vas not aware of the the.hi_h adings tained from the August round by the time conducted the December round, this exlanation is st 11 not cceeptable.
With the health and welfare of children at ctake,l$33rshouldhaveconsultedwithHeadquarters, if money was really an issue, and then ordered these wells located couth and southwest to be resampled at whatever point in time jgggl DID learn about the high readings.
We find it very har to believed
$ didn't know by the March 1993 round!
What 11 makes this lslituation particularly disturbing is the fact that USEPA reportedly lost its radiation filters for the MW 25 l
g well that is in question here.
Therefore we do not have the proper or adequate information about this well that previously showed high radiation. This omission is very serious because this well is in a residential area where residents in close proxinity do not have alternate water I
(southwest).
- oce
- USE.=A's iF: reccrc ncw states that th:s'd:rection, after denying
\\
groundwater from IEL mo:es an this for all these years and af ter refusing to give residents
\\
southwest alternate water.
l Our original letter of 6/13/93 regarding IEL's project manager discusses doubic standards and this problem is still occurring, You will recall that nf1 h ldemanded written scientific documenation on various issues from hM,lb/
our TAG cxperts, yet]llb(did not hold USEPA to this same standard when USEPA was diseninating info on the radiation to the press, public and elected officials!
We were truly horrified this fall when, in giving an interview with the Akror. Lea:r-Journal regarding the newly released USGS Report, m ' said to the offect in the paper that the local (T:- re:of5e3 the regional flow within a few hundred feet.
When we called 1EMr boss, E
seeking the source ofJEEF :n:;rmation, HE even thoug igot C it from the new USGS Rep:rt - that's what he said he assumed!
However, it turned cut tr.r g. acknowledged to us in writing
- after the danage was c:ne, t n a:QRgg '. so u rce of information was from the 1988 RI rep;rt
_f USEPA's - data that was over FIVE YEARS OLD !
This double standard business of.
~ was"al; owed to get away with misleading the public ir tha!~ttery last fall t was pickedEY h1 up by the AP and reprinted ir cther edia) now is acting with indignaticn ac:ut a newpaper article this past week concerning the USEFA's ih! report involving NORTHWEST s
s
Uniontown again and in a phone call inf ormed us thathggf was getting a retraction concerning part f the informati~on j
conveyed by the Beacon Journal.
If is so concerned about,.acc racy, why didn' eqCost such a
().
retraction when was informed pub icly at the TIC meeting last fall that statements regarding tho USGS report were se Lously misleading the public?
It didn't seem to bother
. in the least,then.
We find this discrepancy odd and quito disturbing.
We believe that the proper party to seek any retraction should be the party responsible for giving out the quoto or in this case the information.
Therefore, since it is i
{'}{,
the FED'S report, they should be the ones filing the r-complai t and making the corrections to the paper, notigE>
dEEpEben (As we are constantly being reminded by the State EPA VEEhever it doesn't want to do somethina - the " lead" on this case is up to the USEPA - not CEPA!
E5NEEBIcan't have it both ways.)
We furthermore question if was the source of the f-comment in this same article ~that in'dicated that MOST of the residents in the contaminated area already had alternate water.
We question if this is a factual statement.
EVEN if it is, certainly not ALL residents are hooked up - so the official making that statorent should be concerned about the rest of those citizens.
Also, the water is just one pathway of contamination that was identified by ERT. Yet the implication is then that there is no health threat.
This is not known at this time because gases were not tested in the air in these homes by ERT, so such reassurances cannot be l
made regarding health.
Another serious concern that citzens have regarding (EP Q"addressedis the way W cont:.nual.y respends to questh ns that were to USEFA cf:. :als.q$EEr continually interupts and answers for USEPA.
Th.s has not only taken place at TIC meetings, but took place in the field during the ERTsampling{f](_
of Northwest Uniontown, so much so that a resident had toost i
Corkran to leave their prcperty so that the resident could speak to the ERT offi;ials without being continually interupted or having $$$3333> answer for the Feds.
While "continuec to appear to be doing the Fed's work Tcf them M n fact, any ctservers have asked us just WHO is it that % works f:r - rajor concerns that we have g
continue to go unanswered b) Chic EPA.
We would like to see our project manager do something other than al'.ays putting 3
down and minimizing our concerns.
In our opinion, since 152 tons of toxic gases are geneyated at this site per year according to experts. M ehm idh-Y demand that ALL possible pathways f or these " poisonous ' gases
~1C,,
i be addressed by USEPA from the IEL site to BOTH Northwest and Southwest Uniontown - rather than giving the appearance of using % jpower as our RPM to d' rep critical testing that potentially may be leaving our residents exposed to known and suspected carcinogens.
Yours truly, cc:
T Concerned Citizens of Lake Jack VanKley U Twp.
IEL Superfund Site Mick Harrisond
's Debra Dawson j s
c Kt -
10p h, 'w._d hwaiw xn s OsF0 a 'uw. de Y
fg)
.ne, h ' (t ?-
?. : ir
!i: <j
, 's f
%~
O,)
^
4 I I ! 'a.A
' ') ' ' "
~lh' e
a
}
(fxL f(l,*, zLt. ~ f i<
o.
/ Y
' i. ;
^" " 0' 'l pxI~ !(Q, Y
!v3,,g.
yPi""jrf J
l-
~
- )
. Ow N
')/6. f b
- {',Usj 1:t b e y I(
. +'
.Q
/da
(,( I.'
Q} )
e,
. j#[, /
f i
a
./
nr
/
)
j a
,/
..x
,,,, ;,. i.., a. ' -b. /, : {.
i -
-'. ', - d./t
(:
1%.
II 'I I
/.
.a i.-
la..',,,a,
..,1,,4,
llI(
i n.. s. /,-
a. r t. ;
w
, < z.1 : u
[;f ie!
/.
/
/(l,f'
/A<A
< T.:: ft:.
- T 6'o N.h /tN I<'I (
~
/
i.
~,
l
, l,
't
( (f / ;O$. '
4 i
4 W p.,
.< u
.c.. a, m.,
.,+ s.,:g q
./
~...
J W f' s
y';
6/13/93 Ohio EPA Director Mr. Donald Schregardus
/
/
P.O.
Box 1049 1800 Watermark Dr.
g Columbus, Ohio i
Dear Mr. Schregardus:
We are writing this letter concerning Uniontown IEL's current State EPA project manager,[
replaced Mr. Bob Princic unTer what we feel was questio e
timing and circumstances, Whg e citizens were told by headquarters initially that W ] was especially chosen because of' W ability to halidle mrd get tough with USEPA, ironically,~ we'have ONLY witnessed the opposite happening !
M consistently appears to be extremely cozy with both l
TregiofFL and NAREL, while being quite antagonistic and difficult with our citizens.
For many months over the last year and a half we have seriously tried to understand this behavior.
We actually have gone as far as to rationalize that maybe it is some sort of game being played out in attempting to gain Region 5's trust and confidence - at the citizens' expense.
- However, g* $
our concerns about M tare so grave and with the health and welfare of resiM nts T stake, we can no longer afford to remain silent on this matter and feel compelled to document our concerns to you. ( These concerns have already been previously relayed to Rod Beals as they occurred.)
1.
Last summer, when three citizens accompanied CEPA & USEPA in the fiold to_ check out the location of drains for dye marker tests, N immediately greeted us with words to
~
the effect that they would prove to us that USGS "was wrong"_%._I about the flow direction being to the Northwest, via these b
dye tests.
We were appalled by this upfront bias put forth by h '- which we believe was very unscientific and begin what m ee as a pattern of bias. (Especially since 6 later admitted while driving around the area something to the effect that the drain pipes that were THAT old were no doubt cracked).
- 2. When the radiation data was released by OEPA this February showing elevated readings in monitoring wells located N. East, p
South, Southwes.t._and lorthwest, it took a conference call r
with Beals and
( a reporter was present in the room
) for Ms.
lto acknowledge that MW 27 was indeed
E l
l located to the Northwest and NOT just West.
(
3.
The above incident is relevant becauseL_
MD recently indicated that, as RPM at IEL, it was
] decision to NOT do full scans for chemicals and radiation in residential wells to the Northwest, saying that Chris Khourey and Beals were really " out of the loop" on the day to day work.
Why, on such an important project-with so much at stake, are they not included?
Given the obvious power designated to -
to make such important decisions, we believe that we have eVdry right Also, we wou@WMhk ongoing statements and conduct at our site. Ej ?(_
to question ld like to know exactly what qualifies Jagt to make judgements regarding water flow.
It is our understanding Jggy'is a biology major and not a hydrogeologist or a radiation expert.
Indeed, it is STILL our belief that Andy Klakulak had a different opinion, that we garnered through his various comments, some we have several witnesses to
- i.e.
in particular the comments he made while in the field about the Northwest well ( MW 27 ) being THE well that j
would tell the story for the people living to the N.
West. (
j This was even later discussed on the phone between Terry Witsaman and Margaret Guirrero of Region 5 and SHOULD be found logged.)
Enclosed you will find a memo h recently sent to us, allegedly written by former OE rep.,
Andy Klakulak, whom M said M contacted in Michigan.
Why wasn't this signed by Klakulak?
Again, we have other witnesses to this conversation and we DO NOT believe this i
accurately describes whatssas said by Klakulak and do not believe that h " misinterpreted" what was said at all!
'" s neither a hydrogeologist nor a rad expert, If i
( ironicallfjgl%[nastilyput down'the Senators' recent letter regarding the 1.
West testing because THEY weren't experts ),
g g g_
then it greatly disturbs us that both Chris Khourey and Gerry r
Ioannides both felt it was reasonable and logical to test for radiation to the Northwest given MW 27's results, yet apparently these senior Ohio EPA officials were not listened to.
WHY?
( Christopher also indicated that he would like to see as many residential. wells left open for monitoring purposes as possible to the Northwest, although this was later denied by Beals.)
4.
Of great concern to us was the entire episode regarding NAREL's Dr. Broadway and Tvery blatant double h{
standard.
When USEPis rel n ed its 7E9' ' 9 2 data last t
l September, Broadway managed to put a spin on the whole thing to officials and public alike that the radiation found was all" low level and naturally occurr) M ]to thank for ng" and we found out that apparently he largely had assisting him.
To our shock and dismay, we learned months later that had run out and had " hand-written down" (
according to jboss) a handful of figures from the data bank from Stark Co. concerning Gross Alpha & Beta taken from Apparently quite selectively,iEWph gg ](j other Stark locations.
listed for Dr. Broadway wells Tat showed hits gf these compounds.
Ironically, claimed that JEEkj f ailed to keep a copy of this same list given to BroadJay when we requested it.
After calling Twinsburg several times ( and Beals for help) over months, jEIEEhinstead finally sent us actual computer printouts from the data bank.
Needless tq say, this computer list was much more extensive than what JEE$L had hand-written and provided to Dr. Broadway of USEPA.
HAD
~6[PROVIDED TO BROADWAY LisST SEPTEMBER WHAT6SENT TO CITIZENS MONTHS LISTER, HE WOULD HAVE CLEARLY SEEN THAT A MAJORITY OF THE STARK CC. WELLS HAD GROSS ALPHA READINGS OF LESS THAN THE DETECTION LIMIT OF 3 !!!
We believe this manipulation of data information had a definite serious affect on the entire outcome and infact it is believed that we would have possibly been able to present a much better case LAST FALL for core samples.
is our opinion that M'C'Their spin" via the
!actually assisted While it Broadway and USEPA in put ting ou Dr.
above incident, conversely,1EEDihas attempted to discredit our own radiation expert en this same issue!
When Dr. Marvin
~
Resnikoff in writing stated that in his opinions the radiation found at IEL was ABOVE background, commented to citizens and others in effect that l[_-
Resnikoff's opinion would carry nc weight with the scientific community unless he cou;c prcve in writing that the readings indeed_above, background.
Hearing this, to clear up,any_
were questions had, we offered Resnikoff's number for'tgumi to call, apparently preferred to knock Dr. Resnikoff instead to the Wews cedia, rather than behaving in a
~
scientific manner. ( ggEf S0W states that it's up to the l
ENTIRE TIC committee to determine what is and is not background!
WE WANT TO ENOW then, WHY W did not voice THIS same opinion publicly last September to'the Senators and Congressman's aides and to the press and public - when Broadway was making HIS statements about " low level and naturally occurring" and thus prevent him from getting away with misleading the public and our elected of::cials?
m i
S.
Also last September 15th in a meeting, USEPA and NAREL succeeded in patronizing and minimizing citizens' c
rns ntheir([.]Os about the State's high Gross Alpha & Beta thanks to, A big issue was made about the fact that split o the N.
East corner from the borehole, USEPA found uranium and the State did NOT.
Sam Windham of USEPA then cast aspersions on the validity of the State's data, suggesting that since this uranium isotope was NOT specifically found during further analysis by the State, it could mean that the high Gross Alpha was an error and not really there.
( Yet the State told the press the next day that the data was upholdable in cour
).
But without the press present on the 15th, allowed USEPA's various hlb
~
officials to chime in on t I assumption to make our concerns look invalid... hE IT TURNED OUT, AT BEAL'S INSTRUCTIONS THE FOLLOWING DAY, M jCHECKED WITH THE LABS AND WE WERE THEN TOLD THAT DIE STATE NEVER INSTRt'CTED THE LAB TO DO FURTHER RAD BREAKDOWN ANALYSIS!
Therefore, uranium didn't show up because it was never LOOKED FOR' We later informed Sam Windham of USEPA and he was quite surprised at this revelation saying that it was a pretty standard lab routine to do uranium when a high gross reading is found..._
Similarly, (5 Mfulehas claimed for months now that M '
h1 l
doesn't know the " decision tree" about the State's own lab contract as to when GAMMA SPEC is triggered.
We have l
repeatedly reques,te_d for scypral weeks this critical information from 6'Is,s not been given to us; h, Dr.
to give to our TAG expert i
Resnikoff, but to% ate it 7 h)b l
says!glE(has been too busy to find this info out bechuse of her Work on the 30% design and work on other sites.
The questiot is, however, WHY DIDN'T MENIKNOW ABOUT THE STATE'S FAILURE TO SEARCH FOR URANIUM BEFORE HAND AND WHY DOESN'T S ALREADY KNOW PERSONALLY, AS OUR PROJECT MANAGER, ABOUT WHAT'S IN THE DECIS!ON TREE WITH THE LAB CONTRACT REGARDING GAMMA ?!
This information may very well have a direct bearing on the third and fourth rounds, yet FEREhe "been too busy" to find out?
And we're supposed to h' ave confidence in and not question]Ebef]udgementnottotesttotheNorthwest ?!!!
6.
We strongly suspect the issue of " field filtered samples" will soon come up again by the Feds to AlsavoE the State Aug, data.
In the public meeting in March, g ! admitted " the
]
ball was dropped" by the state concerning the-fact that the first two rounds weren't done exactly like NAREL's.
It appeared to many that M_s c,/went a long way in setting the stage by helping the Fod ast doubt about the State's samples.
Please note:
HOWEVER, WHEN PRESSED, %,SAID THAT THE AUGUST DATA WAS UPHOLDABLE IN COURT.
We've recently
r learned from an independent radiation expert that especially for Gamma spec, whether a sample is filtered or not has no bearing because chemoluminesence is NOT a problem.
In other words, turb ity esn't matter, the outcome SHOULD be_the bother to check this out before jggB/ put E)/ 'd same!
Did the State own ront of everyone?
The headlines the following day in the paper made the State look very bad because of this.
( Prosecutor ~Horowitz said that the (lack of) field filtering was indicated to him in conversation with EPA as an explanation for the high readings and it was his impression that (the State) EPA was " 8.S.ing us" and he thought instead that they were going to " walk out of here" after the four rounds.
We relayed this to both Gerry and Rod.
Gerry Ioannides ( Deputy Director of OEPA ) said, after being told about this interpretation of Horowitz's, that he wouldn't back awa'y from his previous statements about the readings being too high to be explained away (because they weren't field filtered) and cited his experience at working in labs.
Note:
Most importantly, will the final data appeared to be scewed by the field filtering, by separating out " water" samples from " solids in the water ?"
OUR RESIDENTS DRINK UNFILTERED WATER and we believe this whole business is being done to make readings APPEAR lower.
Finally, as it relates to ALL the above concerns, it is our understanding that Andy Klakulak had previously collected all our rad water samples for the State ( and/ or with Bob Princic) up until the completion of the August '92 round that showed the high Gross Alpha & Beta Readings.
It is also our understanding that( N [ personally conducted the g{
handling of the third and fou'rth rounds - after the questionable change in the tiltering procedures.
We understand this is because Mr. Klakulak left the Ohio EPA.
Obviously,
, blatunt" bias, double standards and conduct.
has caused us numerous concerns thathND7made{4[
because of; We we are e' specially concerned about the fact the decision about the Northwest andShun' statements' concerning the field filtering.
As stated many times in the past, we sincerely would have liked to have the confidence in
" as we had in our previous project managers at OEPA.
InddE6, we hav.e championed the State many times over the years to the media, officials and to the public, largely because of our relationship with our RPM's.
They gave us l
hope that the right thing would be done at IEL for the health
(
and welfare of the people and demonstrated this to us through not just their words but through their actions.
Now, after all that we've been,through, our trust in the State has been r
I
terribly shaken and the State doesn't seem to be concerned.
Since the State will take over the "O & M ", it is critical that citizens somehow regain this confidence in the State.
Sincerely, Concerned Citizens of Lake Twp / IEL Superfund Site CC:
Senator Metzenbaum Bob Alvarez Debra Jacobson-Congressman Dingell Jack VanKley - Ohio Attorney General's Office P.S.
Do the cuts in the proposed OEPA budget as of July 1,
'93 have any bearing on this strange conduct at this site ?
ATSDR
's Dr. Johnson believed that his agency was " punished 1sr helping Uniontown" to the tune of 15 million dollars. -We are similarly aware that the Region controls 50% of your general budget.
We wrote the Ohio AG about this fear two years ago and it is once again on all our minds as we observe all the unusual dealings at this site.
Please secure a copy.
11/8/93 ADDENDUM TO THE 6/13 LETTER:
Since this letter was writter. regarding O
b additionalandequallysericusconcerns[havedeveteped.
After the state EPA got high readings of Gross Alpha in two shallow monitoring wells ( 25s W 3s ) fron the August 1992 round of split samples, it was
, decision to dropg g these two wells from the December '92 and" March '93 sampling rounds.
Given that there was supposed to be 4 consecutive seasonal rounds this actica raises serious questions.
Because these readings were high and located in the direction where citizens have been without alternate water, we_believe there should be a thorough investigation into WHY g was g g-permitted to omit these two important wells and WHY stub didn't order them to be resarpled upon learning of the August b
- results, i
In addition,
]wasquotedintheAkronBeacon bY Journal today garding-the USGS and stated that the local flow rejoins the regional flow to the west within 200 feet of the landfill.
We seriously question this public statement and its scientific vallidity.
We have personally spoken to one of the authors of the USGS report and we were told that USGS did not know where the radial flow ended and rejoined the regional flow - so where did M get % information? f/') {
From Region 5?
Certainly it wasn't from the ned USGS report.
In light ofJEEB5 previously biased statement that USGS would be proven wrong, as well as]EEi$ decisions not to conduct state testing in neighborhod'ds Northwest, we believe the I
state should be very concerned about today's comments in the press.
Addendum II.
It was later discovered that the statements made by &
{j t SEEbMMMRto the Akron Beacon Journal that caused the'above
~
confusion and concern were because 6 acknowledged in writing to us that WEgp was infact referring to a ETVE YEAR OLD REORT and yet, the specific interview being conducted by l
the Beacon reporter was regarding the NEW August 1993 US l
Geological Report on groundwater flow!
Therefore the publics' perception surely was that NE5[_was discussing this Ef T--
new report's information - and we believe that this certainly l
led to disinformation being lciyen to the newsmedia.
Not only did the Beacon report jglEEE l$b statements, but it was picked i
up on the AP and printed in other papers.
t i
I I
e l
7
E
.y 4.2./ y y 7CLT
?oheerned Citizens of Lake Township P.O. Box 123 Uniontown, OH 4468.2 i
fo: 'E NTER.sTEb PACTdS Re: 1El Rahaba bah-Enclosed yoa will find a legal deposibah tiid we provide </ do
\\
u' citaAn's group this wbkr concernin3 ()SEPfl $ Mr. Gre bempny.
j ns pt'eatfel k Ue. TEl ad k raddwh pane {-Sciuch Newy&aed, L will recad &t Mr Dempay' was responu%/e for "in va/ Mali 4" hwo coriseca/tvei rourds of rac/roAgica/clala on grocir.dwide f ZEl.
a Tla second road,09 bee. of mo., conkined hig) feeb of nuc/w aster ).(We a'o no 6 know tuAaf //r. beinptey'saw in ddz l irs / ruric{.)
Wbenl'IV. bemp.u.f we brought in on dep2rafe. occasio7is by ff/ t'v speak punkly, Ae cart wry seemir espenriskc on fl.u lrk perlc'rnw/ 4y & commercid lalacrafory - Auf laJed' d'o le/I,
lSAatSante o7' dls sertwir proAleic arre r/thec//f b k le / b E P// 5 con /rador in A fie&/ is cAarge of our cleanap!
l Tereh, wc $hc/ fbiE ilepartl&t E b!)/,v l'e/cuad and
/
hporfa>tt to cax., be cawz. i! redir Serioviques/iwirbotk our f//estf a f Nlt. beritpq'Br? </cyces wi}A a fe
's own fc flo Ito Y
/Orct' a ycr y/ P freIntpressth>
C.rpecia/'y' s(7er I
//fE9f /u/ ys fa bebsk?
/
Ylc beln,oJe-y' tDsJ frac /ica.'!v D1 Ei;<rs;/enq c.;l ~aaikfio k.
l
/
Vitr/brntorei in con!rn?) !h '/a4 fresi l we perssm/tf' poke wih', Aad many pars af experieiras k ract'k&an -
exercovd Tks frcus# erprassu" crfreme, coneerr, a wt Vid a,as t eatty goiig cn i>> %n tswn as we// a s c o n cern O II t O' /*
h 'nw:/E tYeJa,clfAni
/> o w t ir t s b e m p a y / S y
u " it a
/ct sc snw Acn We m
y,, frasf;-akJ fkf fL 3au Pa'rtel trewr' askal fn o
Aev
, %.,,,a, u w -! a anw s g "c~"
7 U K 161.\\ A _ '
a RECEIVED JUN - 71991 l
1-UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 21 HATTIESBURG DIVISION 3'
STREET,.INC.
PLAINTIFF 4
- VS.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H86-0200(W) 5-CHEVRON U.S.A.,
CONSOLIDATED WITH:
t --
7 WINSTON STREET, ET AL PLAINTIFF 8
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H86-0207(W) 9 CHEVRON U.S.A.,
INC., ET AL-DEFENDANTS 10
- 11 DEPOSITION OF GREGG D.
DEMPSEY l
12 --
APPEARANCES:
l:
13 STUART H.
SMITH, ESQUIRE p
Law Office of Jack W.
Harang.
14 625 Baronne Street l
DCT 2 21991 New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 15
( AT meus cu sy_7/pg~_a REPRESENTING THE PLAINTIFFS 16.
RALPH H. JOHNSON, ESQUIRE 17-Schmeltzer, Aptaker &' Shepard.
The Watergate i
18 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.,
Suite 1000 Washington,.D.C. 20037-1905 19 REPRESENTING THE DEFENDANTS,
'20 CHEVRON U.S.A.,
INC.'AND SHELL 21 G.
EDWARD PICKLE, JR.,
ESQUIRE Shell Oil Company 22 P.
O.
Box 2463 Houston, Texas 77002 e-23 (s
N.s [
REPRESENTING THE DEFENDANT, 24 SHELL OIL COMPANY l
25 (Appearances continued.)
4 1
MARILYN S.
MADDEN, CSR Jackson, MS(601)982-2250
m. 1 -( a ) --
1 NORMAN GENE HORTMAN, JR.,
ESQUIRE Gibbes, Graves, Hullins, 2
Bullock & Terris p.
O. Drawer 1409 3
Laurel, Mississippi 39441-1409 4
DAVID L.
MARTINDALE, ESQUIRE Deputy Chief Counsel - Litigation 5
The Chevron Companies P.
O.
Box 3725 6
Houston, Texas 77253-3725 7
REPRESENTING THE DEFENDANT, CHEVRON U.S.A.,
INC.
8 9
10 11 Taken at the instance of the Defendant, 12 Chevron U.S.A.,
Inc., at the Edison-Walthall Hotel, 225 East Capitol Street, 13 Jackson, Mississippi, on May 10, 1991, at approximately 9:30 a.m.
14 15 l
16 l
17 REPORTED BY:
Marilyn Madden, CSR, le Court Reporter l
and Notary Public i
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KARILYN S.
MADDEN, CSR Jackson, MS(601)982-2250
,.... s.
2
.i.
1-1 EDEX 2
Style and Appearances.
1 3
' Exhibit 1:
Notice of Video' Deposition.
3 i
-4 Examination by Mr. Johnson 4
i i
5 E): amination by Mr. Smith 28 73 Further Examination by Mr. Johnson.
43 7
Exhibit D-85:
9-22-86 Analysis of Samples Collected in Regard to Scale Removal 8'
from Production Tubing at the Property of Street, Inc.
45 9
Exhibit D-86:
1-23-87 Letter from Charles A0
- h. Porter lo Eddie S.
Fuente, Reports of Gamma Surveys on Street and Case 11 Properties 49 12 Exhibit D-55:
Photograph 62 13 Exhibit D-249:
2-16-90 Five Computer Printouts, 2-19-90 Four Computer 14 Printouts, 8-21-86 One Computer Printout, 9-4--86 One Computer-15 Printout, 8-21-86 One Computer Printout 99 l
16-Exhibit D-250:
6-13-80 Standard Nuclide 17-Library 99
.T-18 Exhibit D-248:
2-25-91 Statement of Gregg D.
Dempsey 111 19 Further Examination by Mr. Smith 135 20 Further Examination by Mr. Johnson 253
-21 Exhibit 2:
Radionuclided in Produced
'22-Water 263 23 Exhibit 257-Q:
4-11-86 Environmental Monitoring &-Emergency Response Branch
-24 Division of Radiological Health Special Laboratcry Services Report 263 (Index continued.)
I E-1 i
2 (DOCUMENT MARKED AS DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 3
NUMBER ONE AND ATTACHED.)
4 BY THE VIDEO REPORTER, JIM FARRELL:
This is 5
the videotaped deposition of Mr. Gregg D.
Dempsey 1
6 taken by the Defendants in the matter of Street, 7
Incorporated Versus Chevron U.S.A.,
Incoroorated.
8 Et Al., Cause Number H86-0200(W) and Winston 9
Street, Et Al. Versus Chevron U.S.A.,
l 10 I nco,roo ra t ed, Et A1.,
Cause Number H86-0207(W) in 11 the United States District Court, Southern 12 District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg ' vision.
13 The deposition is being held at the I
14 Edison-Walthall Hotel, Hampton Room, 220 East i
15 Capitol, Jackson, Mississippi, on May 10th, 1991, 16 at approximately 9:26 a.m.
The court reporter's l
17 name is Marilyn -- I'm sorry--
18 BY THE COURT REPORTER:
Madden.
19 BY THE VIDEO REPORTER:
--Madden, Marilyn 20 Madden, located in Jackson, Mississippi.
The 21 videotape specialist is Jim Farrell with the 22 association of Data Video also located in 23 Jackson, Mississippi.
I will now ask counsel to l
l 24 introduce themselves on the tape, starting with 25 counsel for Plaintiff, please.
r-.
c....
--~4~~~~~-
1 BY MR. SMITH:
I'm Stuart H. Smith.
I an i
2 the attorney for the Plaintiffs.
3.
BY MR. HORTMAN:
Gene Hortman, representing 4
Chevron.
5 BY MR. MARTINDALE:
David Martindale, 6
representing Chevron.
7 l
BY MR. PICKLE:
Ed Pickle, representing l
8 Shell Oil Company.
9-BY MR. JOHNSON:
Ralph Johnson, representing 10 ths Defendants.
11 BY THE VI.DEO REPORTER:
Thank you, Counsel.
12 Mrs. Madden, would you please swear the deponent, 13 and we'll be on the record.
I i
14 15 GREGG D.
DEMPSEY.
i 16 after having first been duly sworn, was examined and 17 testified under oath, as f ollows,- to-wit:
18 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOHNSON:
i 19 Q.
Mr. Dempsey, would you state your full name, 20 please.
21 A.
Okay.
My name is Gregg D.
,hb 22 Q.
_And where do you live presi efyrp8O[
ocht r
i 1
- 23 A.
I live in Las Vegas, Nevad; fCG#gf g/O/j3ft/g.f g,yq/
l 24 Q.
All right.
Did you gradua-
/
' l$ /I
}y2 &
l T
l 25 here?in Mississippi?
,[
gy aorkdn wh"
,,} /QN #.
1 pe' Q b'
'p a #,
W l
p'(*
~
~ - ~~
~
5
1!
A.
Yes, I went to Cleveland High School in 2' ~
Cleveland, Mississippi, and graduated in S.
b[ 3 0-j
.3:
-Q.
Where did-you receive your college education?
l 4
A.-
' University of Mississippi at Oxford.
5 Q.
What did you study during college?
6 A.
I had a major in physics and zoology.
7..
Q.
After your college education, what was your first 8
employment?
9 A.
I worked at the University of Mississippi Medical 10 Center in Jackson for about six months prior to joining the 11.
Mississippi Department of Health in 1979 as a health 12 ph'ysicist in the Division of Radiological Health.
13
-Q.
While you were at the Medical Center, what were 14' your responsibilities?
I 15 A.
Basically, I was a lab assistant.
We did -- we 16
'did acute experiments with animals and hypercension.
17 Q.
Okay.
After you finished at the Medical Center, 18
'you indicated that you had gone to work for the Mississippi 19 State Division of Radiological Health; is that correct?
I 20 A.
Yes, yes.
21 Q.
What was your title there?
22 A.
Health physicist.
23 Q.
And what were your job responsibilities?
24 A.
Initially, I was a health physicist in their 25 Environmental Monitoring Program. 'Later on, I was the
p.
~
r
' ' ~ '
[
branch chief of the --- what was called the Environmental
~ Monitoring and Emergency Re.sponse Branch.
i Q.
All right.
In the-first position, what were your roeponsibilities?
A.
Basically, to do monitoring around Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, remedy any emergency response activities 1
that might have come up,.some measurement of radioactivity, I
particularly with. gamma spectroscopy and gross alpha beta analysis and'some liquid simulation analysis.
l Q.
In the second part of your employment with the i
State, what were your responsibilities in that position?
I i
A.
I was the branch director in charge of all the environmental monitoring that we had at the State.
We did
- monitoring around Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Tatum Salt i
Domo, any acci~ dents that might come up, any -- any requests l
l that the' license branch had for any kind.of monitoring or l
l icomple analysis.
I also ran a laboratory for that group, i
i ldid.the gross alpha beta, the gamma spectroscopy, the liquid simulation, and any of the radiochemistry that we l
!might have needed, did a lot of emergency response work,
' training, responding'to accidents, things of that nature.
i Q.
What years were you employed by_the State of 1
i i
A.
In"the Mississippi Department of Health, I was i
i i
employed from 1979 until'1987..
i I
t i
I 1
i 7
s
.t
'1.'
Q.
And in l
'y'.. ? pp=c n dwQanged employment.
4.
_That's rin I
Q.
What did yp_u dcLthent In Seple_-9ter. T v ny *.s.i* hah @ uironmental i
'Jrotecti.grgggwy r "q9pt, j,
l 0-Aud_@,qs vour ti_tle_Mo,,,En'Liron enh 1 M % h9fbR9YA
~
A.
7 " '_* f_a 1 1 " _hsi, sewsconaen thaai,,s pigatis t_, a n d_
(now I'_m branch chief of the Enviton
_ _ _ _.. -- - gen *Ga? Hordt.er igm _ -- th e Envi_roge nt agi_e s -- ncy 'L_c_oq*L,-_!*h Q Q tud_i_ejJranch o,Lthe Of f i ce o(RagQq@ grams, Las Vegas
'Faeili_ty _
I I
_Q -
3 ' Y O.*
AT M M hQD,,KQ1L EAAI.ted vith
's
,g EPA, wha t we re yout_rarpongj hi 'j
- ifM I 'w
'l g-
"'hnv vere actually very p qllar, t.e wh e ( h g w
one _ i n Migp.isAi.qQA*griawn,q ' *,h_egggha t I
h jl4Wid_., 'QL_ e -] r E
ncy r y g ge g g_enta1 y.
g lon i t o_rjage@a s ur e sa ent a, - u h i n y o it e= t h%
\\.
l
- _ _ _ _ - - _ _ -A nd y ou r r e s pe n njpgiJ,,i,ow per,i (f,;A.l} y,
Q.
,1 now with
. koirot _
- ?!
j A.
.- I W ranch chief _in charce of the Field
' Study Section.
I have staff that are concerned with i
l Seem on2t3 ra11atien e o i n =_dse.9ssip.^m entc-f o W%=
i u
,M, TS:TPSt e r F3A,eML,.AG. fihet Mi&E iebeJ.2r,g_e ncy C
{
ll gesponse, and ! Qs y ar2cn
)
sggM g gty' a
.3 h
aa p.
l
I; 4
l o, j
B D
l' i
.p.
The monirpt no i
__ hn* p u've-imi';2--;h u*
- w t
n b
i f
did W.i$h t,bn.Ata r of.#.ississippi,,.as weJ.1.,, as_ ri*h _G9 e
- EPA,
, vere you obtaining'samp,1,gp A environf M p ersnr,ements __
for mpgnyri_ng rho ra r! i na c t i v i tVyJJ) f,,QGe samples A _ Yes,J,e -- wa/M 2ined enV4Ynnmanta1 n a m n I n.,g,,,;;;-
V"11 _:_,i, M d,_o f -- T_hayn to_ s,n1 i e _thum sp4-ir& 4he d
}
questiori:
Environ =n~*>' m =p,lesa nd some,.,,samplac_fh M h
.o
. j the-redivuvLive asurlals E f60p CoH10 nave-brought bac;,k J
to "c
1..o.o8, Ling.,,1o,rgi ola.tilp.p.s o.f, th.elr__ I i cansee s, and giac,e,,
(i _
- ri4h-BPWt2s-only wiMunvironmentaLsa=ple_s.
7'"
t O- - Jha_t Aup.e,ry_ispyyle_sp,opsjbility did yoshav.eg,ei th aA q hr.4**e,-o tl H1ireens rppt?-i-4
(
A.
I had, geez, probably about, m?yN, six to eight 4
h. People, d
depending on,__the year that you have in question.
I sgTe r"i n e.d the-redf 70",rmtWi'd m uy uf-bhe-eham i ntry,
N _._ people that did
_ _-.,,__. _did the routi _ne; day-to-day stuff o_n ga mna s o e e t r o s e ogg33. _ajgb,egc,og,$J1,gMig}11A,,
1 f
simulation.
The staff that did the -- the
[}
sample _
collection for us is -- vou know, l woul_d do it myself a -_
,d. _ lot of. times, bu t, y=c u k n ow,
_ _e'd have other staff that w
kl would do it on_a__ routine basis, if they were routine t.
[;g samples.
A lot of times, on the -- what -- what became q
f.
Known_as " t; h e_syggiql_q p; ' o r a lot cL ti,ces either mys. elf
'7
.a or the RAD Materials Sranch would take the samples c.;
W 4
=-
"P thennelvon.
i l
9
A 8
1,
- t, J3 l
[
0-The monirnrino tha+ g -w-bul';L;i r' *b g n
h
- f. M t},,,,the_Rtarn nf Mierirsippi as wn11 u i
- h Mp EPA,
{
,e yere you optaining sam @ A environyg g qL AeAsur,ements
+
for ropnurinn _tho ra rl i na nt i vit y ja.,y,h,qp e samples?
, r A
Yes,__ s(,e -
w?_^ M- ' ined en.v4_ rnmen ta l _f am_l og,,, ;-
woli i t ' n_ M c L,o f T_ _ h ayn ' o s n l i r _t he _ wp44%.t,he,
j
),'
question:
Environment?'_E2mples,and someJ amplac +- h a t th
.o,(p the-i edivavi.ive Wrerla15' gf 60p V5UTd naver-broughbbac,k p
to "e
1 c.o.hing Jpr_v_iolafJ o,ps pf_th.eir _1 i nensees,- and aiac,e,,
,e
$e T'-
ui-tih-BPier'-4t4 s-only wit.h any.i.ronmentaL sa=ple_s,%
~
0 - _ Jha_t,,,.s.pp.egy_i_s ory _ _,sp,ppsibility_ dicL.yondav.e,vi ch re A
y
.* b ^ " t :ce-o 6-H1irsenwrppi?- -
i4 g
A.
I had, gees, probably about, maybe, six to eight i
N people, depe, ding on the year that you have in question.
I y
= - - -
ysrv i n e.d Ahe-red.tp;"rmt-tiid,a7 uf-tshe,-eham i s_trv,__
3 1
Q _ people that did -- did the routine;-- day-to-day stuff on 5
gamma s p e e t r o s e o gg ggs_ _a,1p b a_._b,,ela_c o,p,p;j n a mligp,,1,ct,,
a
-f simulation.
The staff that did the -- the sample t
D. collection for us is -- you know,_" wo_ul_d do it myself a _
i-lot of times, but, ycy _];now, we'd have other staff that b
would do it on a routine basis, if they were routine 3
.t gj samples.
A lot of times, on the -- what what became I
h_nown __a s " the_spp_ciql,,J g.nin c
-a, lot of.,_ti:les either myself P7a or the F.AD Materials Sranch would take the samples g.)
e therne!ven.
i l
9 q
f b
1 ys t
I I
I J.
Firh 1
1 r
- t M PA nwhat -euper. vim" responsibilities _
?
do vn" Mel w
j.
Ih_p y_b,a, pig,ghly _ relg, tie to envirRDnental nonitorina.
I yscy IesponsaJESHAP.S c;pcr.1,.i.anWhat 's the Nationetl, fj Environmental Standards for HazardpJJp J g PQ_1_l,utag s
'T have.
2 a person on _ _m1syRfJJtaup.es sode;4ngdar cv.mp1-iance-with, f._.
li
_ that Act, and I have a person my staff that does work in electromagnetic radiation.
I also have staff +- h a t,.-e re r rf o r.
M "f ^ h.%t$,py_ t e rA,_maint aj 0._jr s_t 2;,uqqng,s for us _
j Q.
Okay.
What specialized training have you y
j ISne Lved 4n,,tha.,A:;cp,9_f he31th phyeioe?~
)
A.
WheD 1.y.g t_the UniversityJ _ Mississippi, I f
\\
_=_
when I chanced my__,ahtglyysics i.n mv sophomore year, I 3
talked with the professors, because I was interested in the
__liel3Cof__ raga,ylon ph.ys ic s,
g and they slanted the courses
?
for'tbapg I;Lc;b L w,grds th_eIg.XQM M.bc,QA,LyJBear_ tWo
\\l i
E
- f..
of us that were interested in this, and they. offered nore_
p special courses for us.
So if J
__ you__Enre to look at my
~
{
transcriot, f r instance, you would find courses t h a t _ s_cty,
f
- l'.;;.d e r n t op i cs i n ph y s i c s, but actually they were radiation 1
i l
physics courses.
After school, when I was with the_
l d'inimip Q p_artment of Health, I took splepl_ courses,
i in particular the ten-week course that's offered at O_ a k_
j Ridge Associated Universities.
It
.--_'s a-co.3p,; phans,i,ve coursc_
in health p"hvsics in -- in all matters really, and then I
1 i
i
h' py%g MAY 3, 1994 t
NOTE T0:
W. L. Axelson, Director, DRSS FRON:
Darrel Wiedeman, Senior Health Physicist
SUBJECT:
BACKGRUUND INFORMATICN - INSPECTION OF ALLEGATION AT GOODYEAR AEROSPACE An inspection into the allegations from citizens from Summit County, Ohio was conducted on April 25-28, 1994. A meeting was held on April 29, 1994 at the request of Doctor Nelson, M.D., Health Comissioner for Sumit County, Ohio.
The following individuals and agency representatives attended the meeting:
Rod Seals, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA)
Mike Bolas, (0 EPA)
Louise Fabeniski, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
J. L. Wentz, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Janice McCourt, Senator Metzenbaum's Office Tamy Proctor, Hartville News
-'~ r
' Marry Grimett, Concerned Citizen, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio (former resident of 950 Be Road Sumit County, Ohio) d B/0 Mike McCann, NRC, Region III Darrel Wiedeman, NRC, Region III The allegers explained to the attendees their concerns regarding the medical problem: they were having (and neighbors) and asked that additional testing for toxic chemicals of water wells be considered. The allegers provided the NRC representatives a petition signed by approximately 54 individuals requesting th RC to dp/a comprehensive radiologtr.al environmental sampling program alon ey Roadjnd the surrounding comunities, Attachment A.
c a L, Note-Prior his inspection the Ohio Department of Henith offered to sample all drinking water wells at no cost to the citizens; however, the allegers declined the offer due to their lack of confidence in the ODH's ability to do an adequate evaluation of the samples.
The NRC staff sumarized the findings of the inspection at Goodyear Aerospace Wingfoot Research facility and described the locations where the following umples were taken: nine (9) water samples; three soil / sediment sar.ples, and; one (1) catfish from Wingfoot Lake.
WMn b M M was deleW
-9505esotesM4ril9 3((-
in actotdance W$lk the Frosion W IWonnation PDR FOIA BELL 94-333 pop g
[,
F0fA-
' le3
- .t, t i O v
<C.,
(l ll i!
History of Previous Samplino On April 15, 1993, citizens from the neighborhood met at Springfield Township Hall and presented the Township Trustees with a list of " medical problems" and the number of residents experiencing each problem.
On April 19, '195., tha Springfield Township Trustees along with a representative with the Ohio House of Representatives met with the Ohio EPA and Dr. Nelson, Health Comissioner of Sumit County Health Department.
At this meeting it was agreed that the following actions would be taken:
- 1. A plan for water sampling and surface water assessment would be drafted by the Sumit County Health Department in consultation with the Ohio EPA and Ohio Health Department.
- 2. Water samples for primary contaminants would be taken at a sarpling of homes (not all) including a confirmation sam le Be Road M K -
and an initial sample at a home located a cf 4-
- 3. The Ohio EPA, through their water quality and assessment group, would evaluate the samples for the presence of industrial wastes.
- 4. The Sumit County Health separtment would evaluate for untreat 2d sewage running into a local creek.
- 5. All results would be reviewed and evaluated by the Sumit County Health Department in cooperation with the Ohio EPA and Ohio Depart. ment of Health.
A plan for water sampling was developed and 10 mes were se.lected. All homes had well logs available.
Samp)e s 50 Bey Road for E. $ v, Dev o mentally Disabled Adults o 8 homes o
}Bacteriologicalwatersimpesandwatertobeteste for primary tsa!.s were taken on May 3, 1994 by two teams consisting of one con indivi, ' i each more the Ohio Department of Health and Sumit County Health Department.
The ten (10) bacteriological water sample results were returned the following week and all were negative.
N test results were mailed to the respective property owners.
Results of the May 3,1993 water well sampling of the ten (10) homes for possible chemical contaminants are as follows:
(1) no volatile organte compounds (VOC) were deterted in any of the ten heces saw ted
(?) No semivolatile orgar.ic compounds (SOC) were detected in nine of the ten homes sampled.
(3) Results for primary contaminants, inorganics; heavy metals, nitrogen compounds, showed that no comparable [PA Ortnking Water Standards,
were exceeded.
E
f ew.y p.,
N$k he $-
lji '
(4) In all cases, for all the water samples collected, there were no if instances where any comparable EPA Drinking Water Standards were r;p exceeded.
i.:
1: a Dr. Martha Nelson, M.D. reviewed the list of medical concerns provided by the A.
citizens group from *28 homes in the Bey Road, Ellen Drive and Waterloq Road neighborhood," then sent that list to Dr. Kim Mortensen, Ohio Department of Health, Chief, Bureau of Epidemiology and Toxicology, for his review and assessment.
Dr. Mortensen responded to Dr. Helson on April 23, 1993 with the following conclusion: "At this time we have no reason to believe that there is or has been significant exposure in neighborhood residents to chemicals dumped in soll" cc: G. Shear, RIII G. McCann, RIII a
e
.