ML20211A281
| ML20211A281 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/05/1994 |
| From: | Wiedeman D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210U181 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-98-341 NUDOCS 9908240016 | |
| Download: ML20211A281 (24) | |
Text
m M^
s, t 1994 APR 5 m5 1994 MEMORANDUM'FOR: Allegation Files ;
FROM: Darrel Wiedeman, Senior Health Physicist Fuel Facilities and Decommissioning Section
SUBJECT:
Telephone Conversation with A11eger on April 4, 1994 AMS-No. RIII-94-A-0026, Possible Dumping of Radioactive Materials in Landfills (Uniontown,0H)
On April 1994, I was asked by Mike McCann to' telephone the alleger to 4,'
discuss'her previous telephone conversation (4/29/94) with Mike McCann and to jnform.ber 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 informed 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.
l Information in this record was deleted in accordance wit Freedom of information ET#,f .--
MEMO AND ATTACHMENTS NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 82 6 990817 l s
REED 98-341 PDR b
W1O*321COfQ -
. k s,
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 gerns regarding-our OEPA project manager [ 6 k l b i
- 6) (for the Uniontown IEL Superfund Site. As 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 manager's perf ormance - especiallywhen we see decisions made 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: j l
- "Why, when senior OEPA officials said it was " logical and I reasonable" to do full scans for chemicals and radiation in j wells already found to be contaminated in Northwest Uniontown, was the one to make the decision not l to test, when is nel r a radAation expert nor a hydrogeologis . specially since M predecessor said that ,
MW. 27 was the "well that would tell the story for the people l living Northwest" and the fact that the state then found radiation 140 times over background in that well. (We believe h.)b the former RPM would have definitel ordered this additional ,
testing we are still seeking)... judgement and l objectivity is being questioned si emonstrated bias toward this issue when M asaid that USG would be " proven wrong", approx. two summers ago i.e., concerning the radial flow and flow to the Northwest. This was stated in front of witnesses.
Likewise, we question % ' decision to drop two monitoring wells in mid-stream tTTt showed high radiation readings from August of 1992 located South & Southwest and f W] failed to continue to resan;ple them for the December ancf 1 March rounds - even though these vore seasonal and consecutive rounds! &
'^"*h fiVYfy* . '
.that g fulfilled the obligation of d- ,
//M f,'l /Yb
( l/,9%r y . . .. s m . , . 9.y
'bh h?"f.;hff
. 1
- acceptable (by doubling up on samples from just two locations instead ofg roceeding with with all four locations). While states that % was not aware of the the,hi h <
h adings't5Tftained from the August round by the time conducted the December round, this exlanation is at 11 not accept ble. With the health and welfare of children at I stake, should have consulted with Headquarters, if money I was really an issue, and then ordered these wells located south and southwest to be resampled at whatever point in time jggg$DID le rn about the high readings. We find it very har 1 to believe didn't know by the March 1993 round! What makes this situation particularly disturbing is the fact tha la !
l USEPA reportedly lost its radiation filters for the MW 25 ,
well that is in question here. Therefore we do not have the I proper or adequate information about this well that previously showed high radiation. This omission is very serious because this well is in a residential area where residents in close proxim ty do not have alternate water I (souchuest). Note: USEPA ' ERT report now states that groundwater from IEL mov in this direction, after denying l this for all these years ad after refusing to give residents southwest al terna te wats . ,
l Our original letter of 6/13/93 regarding IEL's project manager discusses double standards and this problem is still occurring. You will recall that 756 demanded written scientific documenation on various issues from bM.lb/
our TAG experts, yet]ll$[did not hold USEPA to this same standard when USEPA was diseminating info on the radiation 1 to the press, public and elected officials!
We were truly horrified this fall when, in giving an interview with the Akron Beacon Journal regarding the newly released USGS Report, { h 7 said to the effect in the paper that the local flow rejoi'ne3 th,e regional flow within a few hundred feet. When we called Auge boss, - E seeking the source ofJgESPinformation', HE even thoug ,got C, it from the new USGS Report - that's what he said he assumed!
However, it turned out thatJg in writing
- after the damage was done,'gghacknowledged to us thatQRENlsource of information was frer the 1988 RI report of USEPA's - data that was over FIVE YEARS OLD !
This double standard. businessof[
] was allowed to get away with misleading the public in th6! ttory last fall it was pickedEYlC, up by the AP and reprinted in other media) -
now is acting with indignation about a newpaper article this past week concerning the USEPA's ERT report involving NORTHWEST
,6 .
% O
^
e UniontownagainandinaphonecallinformedusthatEggh}was
- getting a retraction concerning part af the i rmation conveyed by the Beacon Journal. If is so concerned about ac racy, why didn* e such a .
, retraction when last fall that was informed pub 1cly at theTICmeeting{}0L statements regarding the USGS report were It didn't seem to bother I.EEE%in seriously themisleading least,then.theWepublic?
. find this discrepancy odd and quite disturbing.
We believe that the proper party to seek any retraction should be the party responsible for giving out the quote or in this case the information. Therefore, since it is the FED'S report, they should be the ones filing the complaint and making the corrections to the paper, notigg>
r- { ~{,
AgggMbek (As we are constantly being reminded by the State EPA ever it doesn't want to do somethina - the " lead" on this case is up to the USEPA - not OEpA! jiEEES'can't have it both ways.) " -
We furthermore question if ,was the source of the comment in this same articTE~that inHTcated that MOST of the yg 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 statement 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 made regarding health.
Another serious concern that citzenshaveregardingjhhp is the waylEEE5 continually responds to questions that were"a dressed to USEPA of ficials. qSEEV continually interupts and answers for USEPA. This has not only taken place at TIC meetings, but tookplaceinthefieldduringtheERTsampling{y](_
of Northwest Uniontown, so much so that a resident had to ask Corkran to leave their property so that the resident i could speak to the ERT officials without being continually I interupted or having h answer for the Feds.
While l continues to appear to be doing the Fed's work PDT them --1,n fact, rany observers have asked us just WHO is'it that % works for - major concerns that we have g continue to go unanswered by Ohio EPA. We would like to see our project manager do something other than always putting 3
down and minimizing our concerns.
In our opinion, since 152 tons of toxic gas s are gene ated at this site per year according to experts, ~ shouldbY demand that ALL possible pathways for these poisonous gases 16 be addressed by USEPA from the IEL site to BOTH Northwest and Southwest Uniontown - rather than giving the appearance of power as our RPM to drop critical testing that using %'ly may be leaving our residents exposed to known potential and suspected carcinogens.
,- Yours truly, cc: T Concerned Citizens of Lake
, Jack VanKley V Twp.
Mick Harrisond -
IEL Superfund Site ;
sDebraDawsoh i
- l u- -(lch,(. WOTL 1& 4) c(> hf 46- A LC' pa on 6 "Lv Ad op http iL6 x D >
anL w Jaaud~ab,Aa a-ar->--s~ a i g.Acsc. p nio J why 2$n L pualc f y ak y y/ K rae d ft/ $ e b b 'rd/ $lw f J by-pct , L x 4 h x y -a n f d 4 aQ "z&.naa s +FA a+dia'uMA wk' A w'dyo -("" *d, .
u-WLt . .
gj k
) ,, / ,, , n k i a p o pd ~6 c u n n f /} / 4 k / h A c.,
es,,4J 4exaa.. Ae. n saw 'ofpuY)"Jj $ m9 u v .,
yL . .fc. . >
.<n ,me: % q(q',, a #,
p g,,gi ,
6/13/93 Ohio EPA Director Mr. Donald Schregardus P.O. Box 1049 1800 Watermark Dr.
Columbus, Ohio
Dear Mr. Schregardus:
We are writing this letter concerning Uniontown IEL's current State EPA project manager, replaced Mr. Bob Princic under what we feel was questio e timing and circumstances, citizens were told by headquarters initially that was especially chosen /-
because ofl W a'bility to han le get tough with USEPA, ironically we'have ONLY witnessed the opposite happening ! -
M . con,sistently appears to be extremely cozy with both M giort 5 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, g4 our concerns about ] are so grave and with the health and welfare of resi nts at stake, we can no longer afford to remaia silent on this matter and feel compelled to document our ccncerns to you. ( These concerns have already been previously relayed.to Rod Beals as they occurred.)
- 1. Last summer, when three citizens accompanied OEPA & USEPA
) in the; field tp_checi out the location of drains for dye marke:. tests, !immediately greeted us with words to the ei'fect tha ey would about *.he flow direction prove being totothe us Northwest, that USGS via "was wrong" these %N dye tests- We were appalled by this upfront bias put forth by 7 - which we believe was very unscientific and began what m ee as a pattern of bias. (Especially since 6 ,s 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 showingelevatedreadingsinmonitoringwellslocatedN.
South,.Southwe Jiprthwest, it took a conference callEast,h-)(j with Beals and ( a reporter was present in the room
) for Ms. Ito acknowledge that MW 27 was indeed
- J
% O located to the Northwest and NOT just West.
3.
Theaboveincidentisrelevantbecause(__ bM lb/
recently indicated that, as RPM at IEL, it was jdec)ision to NOT do full scans for chemicals and radiatidn 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 desianated to ~~ to make such important ecisions, we boileve that we have e aqr right to question ongoing statements and conduct at our Also, we wou d like to know exactly what qualifieslegg_ ,tosite. 6]'?(_
make judgements regarding water flow. It is our '
understanding Jggfis 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 would tell the story for the people living to the N. West. (
This was even later discussed on the phone between Terry Witsaman and Margaret Guirrero of Region 5 and S OULD be found logged.) Enclosed you will find a memo _] bYlb -
recently sent to us allegedly written by former OE N 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 accurately dqscribes whatswas said by Klakulak and do not believe all!
that h"'i" misinterpreted" what was said at If neither a hydrogeologist nor a rad expert,
( ronica 1 nastily put down the Senators' recent letter regarding the West testing because THEY weren't experts ),
then it greatly disturbs us that both Chris Khourey and Gerry tjT gg_
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\ very blatant double standard. When USEPA released its TG@"'92 data last Eyk i
9 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 occurrJng" and we found out that apparently he largely had M ]to thank for assisting m. To our shock and dismay, we learned months
. later that had run out and had " hand-written down" (
according boss) a handful of figures from the data bank from Stark Co. concerning Gross Alpha & Beta taken from other Stark locations. Apparently quite selectively, % )
listed for Dr. Broadway wells compounds.
at showed hits gf these {
Ironically, claimed thatWEghfailed 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, SENEjEE instead finally sent us actual computer printouts from~the data bank. Needless tq say, this computer' list was much more extensive than whatdEE$k had hand-written and provided to Dr. Broadway of USEPA. HAD
~ M PROVIDED a
TO BROADWAY LAST SEPTEMBER WHAT M SENT TO CITIZENS MONTHS LATER, HE WOULD HAVE CLEARLY SEEN THAT A MAJORITY OF THE STARK CO. 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.
While it is our opinion that, tctually assisted Dr. Broadway and USEPA in put Tng ou eir spin" via the above incident, conversely,4MEBRhas attempted to discredit our own radiation expert'on thi's same issue! When Dr. Marvin Resnikoff in writing stated that in his opinion radiation found at IEL was ABOVE background, M, the commented to citizens and others in effect that " h )C_-
Resnikoff's opinion would carry no weight with the scientific community unless he could prove in writing that the readings were indeed above background. Hearing this, to clear up any questions ~~~lhad, we offered Resnikoff's number for9 hand 1 to call. apparently preferred to knock Dr. Resnikoff instead t he ne s media, rather than behaving in a scientific manner. ( IEEfNOW states that it's up to the ENTIRE TIC committee to determine what_is and is not background! WE WANT TO KNOW then, WHYMEE( 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 officials?
l
. ?
- 5. Also last September 15th in a meeting, USEPA and NAREL succeeded in patronizing and minimizing citizens' co rns
~
about the State's high Gross Alpha & Beta thanks to-Abigissuewasmadeabo 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, officials to chime in on t allowed assumption USEPA's to make various our concerns (Y ]( -
look invalid... IT TURNED OUT, AT BEAL'S INSTRUCTIONS THE FOLLOWING DAY, CHECKED WITH THE LABS AND WE WERE THEN TOLD THAT IE STATE NEVER INSTRUCTED 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, W- ] has claimed for months now that(W B) doesn't know the " decision tree" about the State's own lab hD contract as to when GAMMA SPEC is triggered. We have repeatedly requested for s ral weeks this critical information from to give to our TAG expert Resni)cof f, but to ate it has not been given to us; M, Dr.~[ hb ]b says hdHE(has been too busy to find this info out bedhuse of her Work on the 30% design and work on other sites. The question is, however, WHY DIDN'T ;KNOW 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 DECISION TREE WITH THE LAB CONTRACT REGARDING GAMMA ?!
This information may very well have a direct bearing on the thirdandfourthrounds,yet{mmath&"beentoobusy"tofind out? And we're supposed to have c~onfidence in and not questionjEgsjjudgementnottotesttotheNorthwest?!!!
- 6. We strongly suspect the issue of " field filtered samples" will soon come up again by the Feds to avow the State Aug.
data. In the public meeting in March, admitted " the -
ball was dropped" by the state concerning t act that the g (y first two rounds weren't done exactly like NAREL's. It went a long way in setting the appeared to many ctage by helping thethat l g'eds cast doubt about the, State's samples. Please note: HOWEVER, WHEN PRESSED, @ jSAID THAT THE AUGUST DATA WAS UPHOLDABLE IN COURT. We've recently
l l
\
)
l learned from an independent radiation expert that especially for Gamma spec, whether a sample is filtered or not has no l l
l bearing because.chemoluminesence is NOT a problem. In other ;
words, tur esn't matter, the outcome SHOULD b the l same! Did the State own bothertocheckthisoutbeforejggB7putE>t'&.
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 " B.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 in labs.
field filtered) and cited his experience at working 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 Grps Alpha & Beta Readings. It is also our understanding that handling of the thi_ N ] fourth rd and personally roundsconducted
- after the the y{
questionable-change in the filtering procedures. We .
understand this is because Mr. Klakulak left the Ohio EPA.
Obviously, has caused us numerous concerns because of blat bias, double standards and conduct.
We we are especially concerned about the fact that9suW7made '(
the decision about the Northwest and$hus3 statements" "
concerning the field filtering. As stated many times in the past, we sincerely would have liked to have the confidence in OEPA. IndduN,as wewe had have in our previous championed project the State manymanagers at times over the years to the media, officials and to the public, largely because of our relationship with our RPM's. They gave us 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 S'
r 1
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 for 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 written regarding 6 O lb additional and equally serious concerns' nave deveicped.
After the state EPA got high readings of Gross Alpha in two shallow monitoring wells ( 2 5's &_23 s ) from the August 1992 round of split samples, it was h j decision to dropg g these two wells from the December '92 and'Earch '93 sampling rounds. Given that there was supposed to be 4 consecutive seasonal rounds this action raises serious questions.
Because these readings were high and located in the direction we elieve where citizens there should be ahave been thorough without alternate investigation into WHYwater, h_gp[ was gg yt j permitted to omit these two important wells and WHY Mdus7; didn't order them to be resampled upon learning of the August l l
/- j
results.
In addition, was quoted in the Akron Beacon bV 'b' Journal today gardi he 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 From Region 57 flow - so where Certainly it wasndidfrom M't get the %v ne USGS report.information? 6/
In light ofiggpa be proven wrong,previously biased decisions as well as]EEil, statementnot thattoUSGS would conduct state testing in neighborhod'ds Northwest, we believe the state should be very concerned about today's comments in the i press.
Addendum II.
It was later discovered that the statements made by$3hs 60 the Akron Beacon Journal that causeg the'above gj -g, confusi8n and concern were because in writing to us that W was infac @t ; acknowledged referring to a FIVE YEAR OLD REORT and yet, the' specific interview being conducted by the Beacon reporter was regarding the ND4 August 1993 US Geological Report on groundwater flow! Therefore the publics' perception surely was that)MEB3was discussing this Cf nev report's information - and we believe that this certainly 'C-led to disinformation being iven to the newsmedia. Not only did the Beacon report statements, but it was picked up on the AP and printed in other papers.
~7 ;
- 3,l2.2l9</
JCLT t
'oncerned Citizens ofLake Townshio P.O. Box 123 Uniontown, OH '44685
'o: %NTEREsTEb PAeTIES Re: TEL Radabah bak.
Enchsed yoa will find ct legal deposihoh thd we imuided do N Nr Grey bempsey Qg
tr~
cihzhn's groap dis winkr concernin3 OSEPA e presnzfel k bk. 'ZEL ad he rad &lich panel-Scitois 4%segAmnd.
Yoa wilI recali f.h& W beinpetf was responsi3/e for "invalia'li4" a fwa consecu/ivh> rowna's of rac{io}gica/dala on groeM af 7E2..
Tja secon} rown6ofbec. o-f ago., con /ained Juga leals oP nuc/eec asferi{-(We a'o no6 know wAaf /fr. beinpsey saw in 66 firb/r Wben $. bempuf we brougkt in on egorafe. occasiois by YP/ fv speak publie/y, Ae cart toy .seriaa., asper.riakr on M.u erk perfornd Ay & coormereiJ /Jcn+wy - Ad A,6! do k//
u tad some of flz seriais pro % were d+ec//y Aded to EPAE wn confrackr in A Add in cAargs of our cleanar!
Tluefo% we. fee / /Ad depari/&t if AfAly I'eleva>d and mporfad 6 our eax., de caux //re:rir seriava quashir do &: ,
cdent a f aft. Aempe,& oum cxperiebee, in daA pa//gadoA. Arna/Ag ais do ad /nu/ a Bd deye.+ a,i/A a fu addniasi cou m r ocey inyees.riA>, apecdty eHec amist /d as f, AebaL Nd Mr. Aern,oay we.r traeha/ly e nkn J ra&fio A.
G/bemove, in c nhu/> 64 /d P,en4d m pcesm//
spooke y
wif4, Aaa! many yetts af cyperiein.e> h raufan tireweecod & i%4d upearsd erhems csneern absd At a,as eany 9oi9 n, in Jnan6ou n as a-U az c o n ce,1 74 auf sin bempa.y Ainuele Nesaio fAaf !lo Il dl /xn y ,, ss" if a fruR um /d Ae know Aca.f /Js m 5,T .kuspakt tkt tL saa panel ne"er' askd h ^~ .
L /af j verma, Ad /i3/d fv be"~p*Y f W #?'f#
UqG \A_ .
RECEIVED 3 0:1 - 7 1991 i 1 -UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ,
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
. 2 HATTIESBURG DIVISION 3 STREET, INC- PLAINTIFF 4 VS.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H86-0200(W) 5 . CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., ET AL DEFENDANTS !
6 CONSOLIDATED WITH:
7 WINSTON STREET, ET AL PLAINTIFF 1 8 VS.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H86-0207(W) l 9 CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., ET AL DEFENDANTS I i 10 ,
111 DEPOSITION OF GREGG D. DEMPSEY 12 APPEARANCES:
13 STUART H. SMITH, ESQUIRE "'"'
p g j Law Office of Jack W. Harang "
14 625 Baronne Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 OCT 2 21991 !
16 REPRESENTING THE PLAINTIFFS ,y h[",
3 RALPH H. JOHNSON, ESQUIRE 17 I Schmeltzer, Aptaker & Shepard The Watergate ]
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 s, j 23
)
REPRESENTING THE DEFENDANT, 24 SHELL OIL Cor!PANY s
25 (Appearances continued.)
t i
MARILYN.S. MADDEN, CSR Jackson, MS(601)982-2250 a
r-
'*f , , , , . . . , _ . , . -,.. .. ....- -m--- ~ l -( a ) -
'l . NORMAN GENE HORTMAN, JR. , ESQUIRE Gibbes, Graves, Mullins,
, 2 Bullock & Ferris ,
P., O~. Drawer 1409 3' Laurel, Mississippi 39441-1409
'4 DAVID L. MARTINDALE, ESQUIRE 5~
Deputy Chief Counsel -' Litigation 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-13-Walthall Hotel, 225 East Capitol Street, Jackson, Mississippi, on May 10, 1991, at approximately 9:30 a.m.
14 15 16 17 . .
18 REPORTED BY: Marilyn Madden, CSR, Court Reporter and Notary Public 19 l
20 2'i 22 ^
23 24 l
.25
)
MARILYN S. MADDEN, CSR-Jackson, MS(601)982-2250 -
j L ]
.. . , . . . .. , . . . . , , . . , , . , , . . . .. .. '. - ., . . . . .s. 2 .
x .
l
^1 1HDEX
. 2 Style and Appearances . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Exhibit 1: Notice of Video Deposition . . 3 4 ; Examination by Mr. Johnson' . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 l
5 . Examination by Mr. Smith .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6 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 8
1 Exhibit D-86: 1-23-87. Letter from Charles I 10 R. Porter to Eddie S. Fuente, Reports
'll ,
of Gamma Surveys on Street and Case 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
.16 Exhibit D-250: 6-13-80 Standard Nuclide 17 Library . , . . .T. . . . . . . . . . 99 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: Radionuclides in Produced 22' . Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 i
23' ' Exhibit 257-Q: 4-11-86-Environmental Monitoring & Emergency Response Branch 24-
~
Division of Radiological Health Special Laboratory Services Report . . 263 25-(Index continued.)
l w
~< -- 3 ~
. , . - - ~- --
1 * *
- 2 (DOCUMENT MARKED AS DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE AND ATTACHED.)
4 BY THE VIDEO REPORTER, JIM FARRELL: This is 5 the videotaped deposition of Mr. Gregg D. Dempsey 6 taken by the Defendants in the matter of Street, 7 Incoroorated Versus Chevron U.S.A., Incorporated, 8 Et Al.,-Cause Number H86-0200(W) and Winston 9 Street. Et A1. Versus' Chevron U.S.A.,
10 Incorporated. Et Al._, Cause Number H86-0207 (W) in 11; the United States District Court, Southern '
12' District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg Division. -
13 The deposition is being held at the 14 Edison-Walthall Hotel, Hampton Room, 220 East 15 Capitol, Jackson, Mississippi, on May 10th, 1991, 16 at approximately 9:26 a.m. The court reporter's 17 name is Marilyn - 'I'm sorry-- -
18 BY THE COURT REPORTER: Madden.
19 BY THE VIDEO REPORTER: --Madden, Marilyn i 20 Madden, located in Jackson, Mississippi. The 21 videotape specialist is Jim Farrell with the 22 association of Data Video also located in j 23 Jackson, Mississippi. I will now ask counsel to 24 introduce themselves on the tape, starting with l 25 counsel for Plaintiff, please.
i a
m
, _. . , ,. . ~ , . - .. .- - ..
~4~~
1 BY MR. SMITH: I'm Stuart H. Smith. I am
. 2 the attorney for the Plaintiffs.
3 BY MR. HORTMAN: Gene Hortman, representing 4 Chevron, 5 k BY MR. MARTINDALE: David Martindale, 6
representing Chevron.
~7 BY MR. PICKLE:. Ed Pickle, representing 8
Shell Oil Company.
9 BY MR. JOHNSON: Ralph Johnson, representing 10 th& Defendants.
11 BY THE VIDEO REPORTER: Thank you, Counsel. j 12 Mrs Madden, would you please swear the deponent, 13 and we'll be on the record.
14 * *
- 15 \
GREGG D. DEMPSEY.
I 16 after having first been duly sworn, was examined and 17 testified under oath, as follows, to-wit:
~
I 18 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOHNSON:
19 Q. Mr.
Dempsey, would you state your full name, 20 please.
21 A. Okay. My name is Gregg D. '
A
[0 22 Q. And where do you live prese fcco i spJk 23 A. I live in Las Vegas, Nevad; yh 24 Q. All right. Did you graduai reedyggf g,p) in )
25 here in Mississippi?
g '/
JV,Ov'b"g/dlt0gl$
0 pkNn & y pasirrW', lldd # .
W '
pe'fg b* ,
i l
- - * ~ ~ ' " " ~ * *
- 9
. . , . -. . . , . . - .. . . . . . . ~ ,- - <
- '5'
1 -A.- 'Yes,'I went to Cleveland High School in
, -2 Cleveland, _ Mississippi, and graduated.in 1974.
3 Q. Where did you receive your college education?
4- A.- University of Mississippi at oxford.
'5 Q. .What did you study during college?
- 61 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 physicist in the Division of Radiological Health. j
'13 Q. While you were at the Medical Center, what were l
'14 your responsibilities? I l 15 .A. Basically, I was a lab assistant. '
We did -- We 16 did acute experiments with animals and hypertension.
17 Q. Okay. Af ter 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?
20 A. Yes, yes.
21- Q. WhatJwas your title there?
22 .A. Health physicist. i 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 1
J . , . . . . --
. - - 2
" ~ ~ % w ~ ' ~~ ' '
'~""
branch. chief of the -- what was called-the Environmental Mtnitoring and Emergency Response Branch.
Q.- All.right.
In the first position, what were your responsibilities?
A. Basically,.to do monitoring around Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, remedy any emergency response activities I that might have come up, some measurement of radioactivity, ,
.perticularly with~ gamma spectroscopy and gross alpha beta en21ysis and some liquid simulation analysis.
l Q. . In th'e second part-of your employment with the State, what were your responsibilities in that position?
A. I was the branch director in charge of all the Gnvironmental monitoring that we.had at the State. We did COnitoring around Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Tatum Salt D ca, any accidents that might come up, any -- any requests f
thnt the license branch had for any kind of monitoring or ocmple analysis. I also ran a laboratory for that group, did.the gross alpha beta, the gamma spectroscopy, the cliquid simulation, and any.of the radiochemistry that we Lmight have needed, did a. lot of emergency. response ^ work, :
training, responding to accidents, things of that nature. '
i j
Q. What years were you employed by the State of Miccissippi?
A.
In the Mississippi Department of Health, I was -
, j 1
i cmployed from 1979 until'1987. '
!, j i I I ,
i
! l
)
)
l 7 I 1
d q
Q. And in 'onl.a pp
- nal M anged employment.
- 4. That's richt.
Q. What did you do thent _
In septenber. T unn*
ui+F_th" rnvi_ronmental j.Jrotectionggarj_7 - _ "q9p Q
_. And__WACwa_s_ your titie_Wi_th_tha rn vi ron=o n* a l- -
9 fait 9Yuh
- .1 A. T
_ j
- 4 a 11" _ _i t 'q;.= ment @.phn t i s t , and__
i
,now I'm branch chief of the EnvitolpenWorster.i.nc -- the Envi ronmentaj_Etudi_es -- no m L'n__ spi;py --
4 r ' LtAQ g eJ g anch of_the office ofd adi,a Q Q rograms, Las Vecas Faei 1 itv __ ..-
h ' ' _ d;h *_ .-- ?.ri, _
_Q _
dti:11;/,__'dqp,,,,y,pu started with g EPA, what were vourd esconibil4,*472 s, ..
3-- Thnv wete actually very sim4,l e_te uh'? (k & _
Aone_ in MissishWgawag_th4 r,ecppns__that I
{
ira s h f .
i j ,d d of emeroency resp g e__enyitRnn_ g ental :
l MonitorjAo. s_onap_s ure ment e ,-- Lisia p 4 k==t%
_Q.
.I And your responsi,bgt,,4.ne ..rpac;4f 4 cally, now with , _
fbotros -
'~
J
.Q A. I am
__the_ branch chief in charce of'the Field Study Section.
I have staff that are concerned with _
elect romaaneticadia tion ,.-
v doinc d g , p ents foy Qi?
M'pp,gler 4 mostgls._3Q 'icALctudieshmgency response, and I_Qsp mart ace a _ sm_a, W oatory ,
J _
1 3
M a
1.
<['
1 8
. i E
s
_o_ The monit n-ino t h a +-
jcw N -ioi';;__;'::r'
- k . *y
{-( MIL,,,,,hqlt t a r a _^f Mi r eis sipp,1,_as Wo 1 1_ a e ui+h
+he EPA,
'I yere you obtaining samg),gp A environytegit p un g ements _
,for map p_o r i ng t ho rpainaetivity__ M tugp_e_ samples?_ .
A.
Yes , _ Xe -- va.M ained env.i.z;onment a 1_yppni ng-
. wo11 ie'e t;,ind,_o f -__T,havo tn __sp1 i +-1_the repli%the n,
,'[' _ question:
- f Environment =L rarples and_some,samplac__t- h ngg
. j th;-re 'ivuvLive materials gf6Up woulu nave'-brtmght ba@, l
- j .to ne logLing_,Lo.rzi.olafdgpA ,9,f_th.elr 1 i eansees . - a nd si,i,qc,e,,
N
.p T'* 'fi4h JP.'.,Litas-oMy with_anvironmental samples. _
t,.
~
0- JMt.,,,4up,egy_i,s o ry r e sp,op sibility_,.dicL.you.havAv i t h __
N y 2h- "t:te-M6eetssrppt?-= .
n 4
( A.
I had, geez, probably about, maybe, six to eight N . people, depending on_the year that you have in question. I N _
3 4
synvvi e;e,d the-red $ pres;;inqsmhut%id,sa1 uFuhe-ehami ntry, -
__. people that did -- did the routinet day-to-day stuff on !
i gamma spectrosc%_cggs_a,lkha _ beta cp,p3t1D,c1Jg}Li_sk
,' simulation. The staff that did the -- the sample _-.
{. collection for us is -- vou know, I woul_d do it myself a __
fj y -lot of times, but, -you know,__we'd have other staff that If. would 7 do it on_a rou_ tine _ basis, if they were routine _
{
samples. A lot of times, on the -- what -- what became
,}
}3 hnown as " th e_s,pggigl,,Jigri n e - " a-lot.c4 11mes either mys. elf
'7 1 .or the - RAD Materials Branch would take the samples a -
th em s e l vo c . ___.
L p ,
h b,,
+, 9 h
i C .
J. Jith _ _h_e t EPA n_n -( uhet eupc~fl ~ " responsibilities do vno h=vp?
w A-
'Phey bas M y relg,le to environtentd_monitorino, y CJ1Cy responsay NESJfAPC--qqmp.1,iAAWha t 's the Nation j Environmental Standards for Hazardp,,gpJg PQ_11_utaff <- Y havow 4
4 a person on mysjg(fJAWp.es anode T.4ng--f ac cumpl'ivnot -wd th,
- 1 ,._ that Act, and I have a person my staff that does work in electromagnetic radiation. _
_ I also have staff + hat.-er W eb Jm4 nr a b,g$$py__ tera _ maintalo_imstr_ugqgt;s for un.
Q. Okay. What specialized training have you j
gyse,, ved--4n -th.e, Agep.,of health phyeios? * -
.) n-A. Wheo l w,ajs_at the University _of Mississippi, I --
when I changed my_m,aior__to physics in my sophomore year, I E _
talked with the professors, because I was interested in the i
- _l_ielILof radidlon physics, and they slanted the courses
! for that. _
TR Abgr._y,grdsm_ ther.pmMM ba 4m,1y_one rr two
\l
,.i tp of us that were interested in this, and they offered soma -- _
1, special courses for us.
So if you__Rcre to look at my f --
transcript, for instance, you would find courses that__sAy,
! g ern topics in physics, but actually they were radiation j physics courses. After school, when I was with the_
{ .Mi s s i n nigiQepa r tment o f Health, I took_sn en l_ courses, f in particular the ten-week course that's offered at oalt_
j Ridge Associated Universities. It 's a cogp,;;ghans4ve -oour.sq in health pgsics in -- in all matters really, and then i
w
'l l
l 1
J
" " 1 0 ~.
1 another course that would be applicable here would be a 2 course in gamma spectroscopy I took at the Idaho Falls 3 National Engineering Laboratory.
4 Q. Could you tell us briefly what the term " health 5 physics" means. If a person is a health physicist--
]
6 BY MR. SMITH: I'm going to object to the 1
i 7 form of the question.
8 Q. (Mr. Johnson continuing.) If a person is a 9 health physicist, what does he do?
10 A. Thereis a variety of things he can do: He can 11 do, like a person like myself, make environmental monitoring, 12 make assessments of the environment, he can do gross
)
13 calculations, he can do risk calculations, he can work in i' 14 a nuclear power plant, for instance, and monitor the plant,.
15 to make sure it is operating in a safe fashion. i He can work j 16 alongside an industrial hygienist, let's say, at some kind of i
{
17 mining facility, to make sure that workers aren't. overexposed 18 or that safe conditions are being met in application to the 19 laws that are applicable.
20 ll Q. Are.you a. member of the Health Physics Society?
21 A. Yes, I am.
22 Q. Do you receive the Health Physi'cs Journal? l 23 A. Yes, I do. !
l 24 Q. Do you read that routinely?
25 A. Yes.
f i
i L _ ._. j