ML20236E434
| ML20236E434 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/25/1989 |
| From: | Spitzberg D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236E425 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99990004-890425 89-582-01-SC, 89-582-1-SC, EA-87-223, NUDOCS 8905040153 | |
| Download: ML20236E434 (28) | |
Text
- -
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 9999004
)
(General License Authority WRANGLER LABORATORIES, LARSEN.
)
LABORATORIES, ORION CHEMICAL
)
COMPANY AND JOHN P. LARSEN
)
E.A.87-223
)
ASLBP No. 89-582-01-SC NRC STAFF TESTIMON OFD.BLAIRSPITZB5RG Q1. Will you please state your name, job title, and your responsibilities relative to the enforcement action taken against Wrangler Laboratories, Larsen Laboratories, Orion Chemical Company, and John P. Larsen (Licensees).
A1. My name is D. Blair Spitzberg.
I am employed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV office, Ar'ir:gton, Texas, as a senior radiation specialist in the Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards.
The Region IV office is principally responsible for carrying out the NRC's inspection function of licensees located or operating within a 14 state geographical area. including the state of Wyoming.
The Region IV office 8905040153 890425 REG 4 GA999 EXIWRANG 99990004 PDR 1
7..
n 2
.t also performs the majority of the licensing functions for users of source and byproduct material within the region. My responsibilities include the inspection of materials licensees.
Such inspections include routine inspections, and special or reactive inspections. The nonroutine a
inspections are performed as a result of incidents, allegations, or other information which give rise to a heightened concern by the NRC for the safe conduct of a licensee's activities.
I was the inspector assigned by Region IV management to perform the special inspections of the licensee's Evanston, Wyoming. facility.
I also assisted the NRC's Office of Investigations (01) in their parallel investigation of the licensee's past activities. The inspections I performed, together with the OI findings, and the licensees record of conformance with certain commitments made to the NRC weighed heavily in the decision reached by NRC management to revoke the licensee's general ' license. Also consider'ed in this decision was the licensee's past enforcement history with the NRC, and the state of Utah.
Q2.
Have you prepared a statement of your educational and professional qualifications?
A2.
Yes, a copy is attached to this testimony.
Q3. What is the purpose of the testimony?
A3. The purpose of this testimony is to describe the circumstances which led up to the license revocation order decision.
Many of the circumstances
4 3
have already been documented and are part of the record.
Specifically, my observations and findings have been described in the NRC Inspection Reports 99990004/87-04 and 88-21 dated November 24, 1987, and April 26, 1988, respectively. Additionally, commitments made by the licensee to the NRC are specified in the Confirmation of Action Letters (CALs) that I drafted which were issued on November 12, and December 8 and 31,1987; and March 18, and April 1, 1988. Ny testimony will expand and elaborate on the content of these documents and will attempt to explain the reasons that both my management and I were sufficiently concerned with the licensee's activities to recommend first suspension, then revocation of the general licenses.
Q4. When did you first become involved with this case?
A4.
I became involved the week prior to my inspection of the Evanston, Wyoming, facility which was performed November 4-5, 1987.
I was given information relative to an allegation received by the state of Wyoming concerning the licensee's activities.
I was assigned by my management to perform an inspection of the facility the following week.
Q5. What was the nature of the allegation?
A5.
The allegation questioned the authorizea use of licensed material at the l
Evanston location, and the safety of the operations, and compliance with NRC requirements.
R I
+,
{
l h
4 Q6. Was your inspection the.first NRC inspection of the Evanston facility?
AE.
Yes.
Q7. khat did your inspection consist of?
A7. My inspection consisted of a visit to the licensee's facility.
I was accompanied on the inspection by Mr. Julius Haes of the Wyoming Radiological Health Services.
In this case, the inspection was' announced, or scheduled with Mr. John Larsen prior to the visit to ensure that we would be able to meet with him and to review documents related to the licensee's operation.
During the inspection, I discussed the conduct of the operations; licensee management, organization, and personnel qualifications; reviewed'reco'ds of source material receipt, transfer, and r
disposal, radiological surveys, and personnel monitoring. Mr. Larsen also provided other relevant information including a pamphlet describing his process and the hazards and controls to be exercised.
As a matter of routine practice, I performed independent surveys both inside and outside the facility.
Since one of the primary purposes of the inspection was to find a basis for substantiating, or not substantiating the allegation, I also met separately with the alleger.
Q8. Why did you perform the surveys?
AB.
Confirmatory surveys are a routine inspection element specified in NRC Inspection Procedure 87100 " Licensed Materials Programs." Beyond this
c
-l 5
procedural guidance, it was necessary to determine whether there was eviden:t of contamination within the facility, which was leased by the
' licensee, or outside the facility.
Finally, whenever there is potential for contamination, I perform surveys for my own safety and those working L.
with me to ensure that we do not become contaminated or receive exposures.
Q9. What did these surveys reveal?
I A9. The survey results were summarized in paragraph 7 of NRC Inspection Report 99990004/87-04 dated Novemebr 24, 1987.
Direct surveys for alpha contamination showed levels above NRC guidelines in three areas within the facility. These findings were later confirmed by the Oak Ridge Associated UnjversitysurveyperformedonJanuary19and20,1988.
The Oak Ridge survey was documented and attached to the March 18, 1988, Confirmation of Action Letter. My surveys of November 4-5, 1987, also showed that there was low-level contamination below NRC guidelines throughout the facility.
No contamination was found outside of the facility.
Q10. What regulations and requirements were you inspecting the licensee's activities against?
A10. Since most of the licensees that I inspect are subject to a number of specific safety regulations and license conditions, my inspections typically focus on both safety and compliance.
In the case of this inspection, the compliance review was limited to 10 CFR 40.22 and 40.61
m p.
I '4 6
requirements.
Because;of.the allegations, and the unique nature of the licensee's activity, my inspection was predominately a safety review.
L Q11. In terms of the safety review aspect of your inspection, what standards were you. expecting the. licensee to meet?
All. My job was to report my findings and' observations and to recommend a course of action.to my management.
As a health physicist, I am familiar
.with the general scope of the programs, procedures, facilities, and equipment which have been used and found to be acceptable in the uranium processing industry. My experience included several years reviewing and
. inspecting uranium mills, uranium recovery facilities, and a uranium conversion facility.
Clearly, the licensee's operation was not on the
~
same scale as some of the operation's I had reviewed in the past, but many of the same potential hazards appeared to exist.
Q12. Will you describe some of the potential hazards you observed during your inspection of the Evanston, Wyoming, facility?
A12. Chemical hazards would include the use of toxic or flammable chemicals such as benzene, 2-4 pentanedione, and nitric acid by individuals, often working alone, in a facility with no fume hoods or plumbing.
The hazards with which I was most familiar were the potential for radioactive contamination,.and for personnel exposure to uranium either by ingestion, contact with the skin, or inhalation.
l' l'
7 Q15. Dic you observe any of these potential hazards at the licensee's facility?-
A13. Yes.
In fact, despite the fact that the licensee knew of my inspection in advance and had the opportunity to prepare his facility for the inspection, I found widespread low level uranium contamination in the facility including some areas exceeding NRC recommended guidelines.
The contamination was both fixed and removable.
I also found evidence of airborne radioactivity in that the intake screen to the portable forced air heater showed contamination. Some of the areas measuring the highest levels of contamination were visible from the apparent spills of uranium bearing chemicals.
I also found contamination on the handles to ovens and cabinets.
In addition, I saw evidence of a personnel intake exposure to uranium from the licensee's activities processing depleted uranium.
This was in the form of a urine bio' assay measurement made 'in February 1987 which measured 108 micrograms per liter (pg/1). My understanding was that this measurement was required under the specific license issued by the state of Utah, but it corresponded to the period of time that the licensee was setting up the Evanston facility.
The Utah operation apparently involved the same chemical process.
Q14. What kind of exposure controls were in place at the Evanston facility?
A14. Very little.
The pamphlet provided by the licensee described fume hoods, ventilation systems with HEPA filters, air sampling and surveys as exposure controls.
By comparison, at the Evanston facility there were no fume hoods, ventilation systems, or filtration units.
There was a home
~
1 8
maos nitric acid exhaust scrubbing system, which appeared non-functional.
Otherwise, there were some stainless steel work' benches and plastic catch basins to control spills.
Q15.~In general how would a licensee control-exposure to uranium being chemically processed?
A15. A licensee should begin with a detailed safety. review of the process, procedures, facilities, and equipment to determine their adequacy.
Second, he should use qualified and trained individuals to oversee and operate the process. The training should include the operating
~
procedures, basic radiation protection, and emergency training. Third, he should incorporate engineering controls such as hoods, ventilation systems, filter units and processing equipment which'are specifically designed and sized for the quantities of material to be processed.
Fourth, he should have a systematic survey and monitoring programs complete with calibration and quality control checks.
Finally, the licensee should establish a rec _ords system to document key aspects of the program's operation.
Q16. Were any of these controls in place at the Evanston facility?
A16. Based on my observations, not to any appreciable extent.
Q17. What information do you have concerning the licensee's compliance with the 15 lb limit for use and transfer of source material at any one time?
4 g*
g A17. To begin with, the records I reviewed during the November 4-5, 1987, I
inspection showed shipments on June 1,1987, and August 7,1987, of greater than 15 lbs of source material. The shipments were apparently shipped by Federal Express and the shipping invoice was on Orion Chemical Company forms.
Since the licensee's Utah specific license was under suspension, these shipments, or transfers could only be made under an NRC general license.
Further, the Utah order suspending the license, specifically ordered the licensee on November 5, 1986, to immediately secure or transfer all source material in its possession at that time.
I also compiled a balance sheet, which is attached to NRC Inspection Report 99990004/87-04, which was based upon the material receipt and transfer information provided by the licensee.
This showed several pe,riods of time where the apparent net balance of source material being used at the Evanston facility' exceeded 15 lbs.
~
Q18. Were you able to verify on the basis of your November 4-5, 1987, inspection that the licensee violated, the 15 lb use and transfer limit?
A18. I did verify that June 1,1987, shipment exceeded the 151b use and transfer limit based on the licensees records.
The licensee's records did not reflect the receipt, or amounts of material that were transferred from the licensee's Utah facility. Also thre was no information at the time of the inspector concerning operations that took place at other locations following the Utah suspension of the specific license.
These questions were part of the decision to initiate the 01 investigation.
v
)
r 10 Q15. Did the 01 investigation reveal other instances of exceeding the 15 lb.
iimit?
p.
A19. Yes, according to the OI report the licensee transferred greater than 15 lbs of depleted uranium processed in Wyoming on March 3, June 1, and December 20, 1987. The August 7, 1987, shipment record which I had noted in my inspection report to be 16.76 lb, it turns out was the sum of two invoices, one dated August 6 of 8.1 lb, and the August 7, 1987, invoice of 8.65 lb.
It is difficult to determine from the copies I received, but it appeared to me that both of these transfers were consigned to Federal Express for a single shipment.
The dates reflected in the OI report are the most reliable documentation of the dates when transfers of more than 15,1b took place.
Q20. Were all of the 1987 shipments comprised of source material which was from the 150 lbs of depleted uranium received during 1987 from the supplier, Nuclear Metals, Inc.?
A20. No. As I learned during the OI investigation, some of the material was from source material contained in waste crystals transferred to the Evanston Wyoming facility f rom the suspended Utah operations.
Q21. Were records of the transfer of this source material from Utah, under Mr.
Larsen's specific license, to Evanston, Wyoming, maintained?
A21. No.
i 1
., s.
11 Q22. Were records of the receipt at Evanston Wyoming of this source material under the general license maintained?
A22. No.
Failure te maintain these records of receipt would constitute an apparent violation of 10 CFR 40.61(a).
Q23. The Order Revoking License states that the licensee exceeded the 15 lb transfer limit on June 1 and December 20, 1987. Why was the March 3, 1987, date identified in the OI report not specified?
A23. At the time that the revocation order was issued, the OI report had not been released. The two dates cited in the Order appeared in Mr. Larsen's March 18, 1988, letter in response to the suspension order.
The March 3, 1937, transfer of 16 lb of source material was depicted in Mr. Larsen's letter as having been transferred from his Utah operations.
The same is true for shipments made on February 2, 9, and 17,1987.
If this was the case, it would appear that these four transfers were made in violation of the state of Utah's suspension order of November 5,1986.
Records and information concerning these four transfers were not provided to me during my November 4-5, 1987, inspection. The 01 investigation found that these four shipments were of material processed in Evanston, Wyoming, transferred to, and shipped from provo, Utah.
Q24. Was the licensee aware of the 15 lb limit?
g v.
m 12
.A24. Yes.
In '1982 an Order to Show Cause and Order Temporarily Suspending License was issued to Mr. Larsen who was doing business as Orion Chemical Company which identified as a violation the possession of more than 15 lbs of source saterial.
I
'Q25. Under what ' circumstances are Confirmation of Action Letters used?
A25. The use of Confirmation of Action Letters (CAL) is described in NRC Manual-Chapter 0400-05.07d.
It states that if a problem requires immediate' correctiv.e action of a short-term nature, and a licensee has agreed to, take such action, a CAL may be used in lieu of an Order.
Q26. What were the NRC concerns which led to the November 12, 1987, Confirmation of Action Letter?
A26. After returning from the November 4-5, 1987, inspection, I briefed my management on my findings and observations.
Because of the contamination, apparent violations of the transfer limit, and the substantiation of portions of the allegations,.it was decided to issue the CAL to effectively suspend the processing and receipt of licensed material after November 13, 1987.
Q27. What was the purpose of requiring a urine bioassay on the individual B.N.
whose February 18, 1987, bicassay sample measured 108 pg/1?
_.______L__--
4 13 A27. A urine concentration of this magnitude, in the absence of other samples or explanatory information could indicate an intake exposure to uranium which could be of concern from a health standpoint.
NRC guidance specified in Regulatory Guide 8.22 is to repeat the sampling and to test for albuminuria, which is one indicator of kidney damage from the nephrotoxin effects of chemicals such as uranium. A followup sample was assayed approximately one month after the February sample and, while it was low, there was no date of sampling and no test for albuminuria. We did not expect that information gained from a sample, obtained 9 months following,the initial sample, would give further information about the cause of the elevated sample from February 1987.
But as a precautionary measure, and out of concern for the individual, we believed the followup saepling was appropriate to show, hopefully, that the results were in the acceptable range.
Q28. Were the results of the followup urine bioassays within an acceptable range?
A28. Yes. There were two samples, one collected in a glass vial, the other in a plastic pharmaceutical vial, which measured 26 2 and 713 pg/l respectively.
The test for albumin was negative.
Q29. Did you investigate the individual's February 18, 1987, results further?
A29. Yes.
I called him on November 17, 1987.
He stated that he had only worked at the Evanston facility building tables and benches and had not am____-m-
(-
14 worked with any chemicals.
He recalled submitting the February 1987 sample during the period that he was employed in the decontamination work at the Utah facility.
This work was being performed as required by the state of Utah. He recalled removing contaminated areas from the floor of the facility using a power grinder. He stated that he wore a dust mask, but that it was very dusty. Because of his statements, a uranium intake during this period appeared more likely.
Since the work was performed in Utah, I informed Craig Jones with the Utah Bureau of Radiological Health of this information following the December 2, 1987, enforcement conference.
Q30. Did the licensee comply with all of the commitments specified in the November 12, 1987, CAL?
A30. No.
Mr. Larsen failed to obtain baseline urine samples from two individuals who worked in the final processing and cleanup of the Evanston, Wyoming, facility.
l Q31. Did Mr. Larsen acknowledge this failure?
A31. Yes.
In the March 18, 1968, response to the Order Suspending License he acknowledged the failure and stated that because the two individuals had not worked for him in a long time, their baseline levels were assumed to be Zero.
He further stated that he was trying to keep expenses down.
l
7 L,
l' i-15
-Q3L Did the' licensee fail to meet any other commitments made in the hovember.12,1987, CAL?
A32. Yes. The CAL authorized'the continued shipments of final source material product up to 15 lbs.
Contrary to this commitment, the OI investigation found that a 16.33 lb shipment was made by the licensee on December 20, 1987.
Q33. What were the NRC concerns which led to the December 8,1987, CAL?'
A33. During the December 2,1987, enforcement conference, Mr. Larsen presented the bicassay results' required by the November 12, 1987, CAL. A set of sa,mples from four individuals, purportedly voided into glass vials about 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> after the completion of~pr~ocessing, again showed elevated levels of uranium. Three of the individuals measured above the 30 pg/l action
~
level of Regulatory Guide 8.22.
At the conference, Mr. Larsen stated that he couldn't understand the readings but that he believed they were' caused by contamination within the sample containers.
Because of this, he had obtained a second set of samples on or about November 19, 1987, voided into plastic pharmaceutical vials.
One of these samples measured 45 pg/1.
Another measured 26 pg/1, which was less than the action level, but still somewhat elevated.
During tM conference Mr. Larsen agreed to resample three of these individuals.
The December 8, 1987, CAL confirmed the resampling agreement.
It also required the licensee to dispose of the licensed material at the Evanston
m, e
16 F
facility and to decontaminate the facility to below certain specified levels. In addition, during the enforcement conference, Mr. Larsen revealed that some processing had been conducted in the Nevada desert after the suspension of his Utah license and that in the past, processing had also been conducted in California.
The CAL sought additional information on any locations where depleted uranium had been received, processed, or shipped by the licensees.
Q34. What were the NRC concerns which led to the December 31, 1987, CAL?
A34. On December 31, 1987, we received from Mr. Larsen the results of the followup bicassay sampling committed to in the December 8, 1987, CAL.
Again, two of these samples exceeded 30 pg/l with one sample measuring 88t4 pg/1. A handwritten note attached to the sample' results and signed by the individual whose sample measured 88 pg/l stated that he had been eating in the Evanston facility during the cleanup work. He indicated that the high result may have been caused by contamination of the food bc ingested.
Eating in the facility, in itself, was a concern since prohibition against eating, drinking, and smoking in a facility where radioactive contamination is present is one of the foremost universal rules of radiation safety.
The overall pattern of elevated bioassay measurements undermined our confidence that any of the licensee's activities, even the cleanup of the facility, could be performed safely without additional controls.
The December 31, 1987, CAL was issued to cease all work activities and to continue a followup urine sampling regime to track, over time, the urine levels of two individuals.
The followup
. r 4
17 sampling also specified the submission of a background sample with the employee samples. The provision is a standard quality assurance check of sampling programs and was specified, in part, because of Mr. Larsen's continuing contentions that the high bioassay results were from sample container contamination. Following issuance of the CAL, we requested an NRC contractor, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, to travel tc the Evanston facility to survey the facility, obtain additional urine samples, and to prepare a comprehensive decontamination program which could be conducted safely.
Q35. Did the licensee comply with the December 31, 1987, CAL,7 A35. Ns. There were three items that the licensee failed to comply with, first, he failed to submit the required background sample with the employee samples.
Second, he stopped collecting urine samples every three c'ys before he had received confirmation that results from two consecutive a
samples were less than '30 pg/1.
Finally, he failed to submit the urine bicassay results to Pegion IV as he received them.
More importantly, the results that Mr. Larsen failed to submit were results that were, again, elevated. One of the samples measured 282 pg/1, which was higher that any l-samples obtained previously. Although the samples were reported to have been received leaking bv t.e assay laboratory, these results should have been reported to the NRC in accordance with the CAL.
I documented these failures, and my observations and concerns regarding the bioassay results in a memorandum to file dated February 17, 1988.
___m_.
.r 18.
Q36. Did you receive a phone call from Mr. Larsen to inform you that the samples were received leaking and, therefore, reliable results would not be forthcoming?
A36. No.
Q37. How did you determine that these failurcs had occurred?
A.37 I determined this by reviewing documents submitted by the licensee which were received on February 8 and 22, 1988, in response to telephone requests I made on February 4 and 9,1988.
Q38. What was the purpose and nature of the telephone call you made to Mr. Larsen on February 4,1988?
A38. 'I knew that urine bioassay measurements performed by contractor laboratories typically are reported within ene to three weeks following receipt of the samples. Therefore, I was expecting some results to be submitted to Region IV during the latter part of January 1988.
I was on travel from January 24-29, 1988.
The week I returned to the office, I began looking for results. On February 4,1988, I called John Larsen ta inquire about the sample results from the bioassay sampling required 'j the December 31, 1987, CAL.
I informed him that we had expected some results by that time. Mr Larsen then informed me that he had just received the results from his laboratory and that he would forward a copy.
V:
~
4 19 Q35. Were the measurement results discussed during the telephone call of February 4,.198S?'
A39. Yes. I do not recall whether I asked, or whether Mr. Larsen offered the information, but during that call information was conveyed that the results were okay, or within normal range.
I did not ask for information regarding how many samples were reported, the sample dates, or the date he first received the results.
Q40. When cio you receive the results that were the subject of the February 4, 1988, telephone call?
A40. Re,gion IV received the results on February 8,1988.
' Q41. What did the results show?
A41. The results showed that there were samples obtained on January 10, 1988, and January 13, 1988, for each of the two individuals being monitored plus a background sample submitted on each date.
All results were less than 5 pg/1, which corresponded to the minimum detectable activity for the contractor laboratory. The report also showed that the Samples were rece'ved by the laboratorv on' January 20, 1988; were measured on January 21, 1988; and the results reported to the licensee on January 25, 1988.
0 20 QU. Wnat connection did the sample results received by Region IV on February 8,1988, have to the samples required by the December 31, 1987, CAL?
A42. The samples were obtained from the individuals specified in the CAL, they were obtained three days apart as specified in the CAL, and background samples were submitted as specified in the CAL. An important departure, however, from the CAL was apparent. The dates the samples were obta'ined were well after the January 1,1988, date specified in the CAL for initiation of sample acquisition.
Q43. What was the purpose and nature of the telephone call you made to Mr. Larsen on February 9,1988?
A43. I called Mr. Larsen because the sample dates on the bioassay report we received on February 8,1988, did not correspond to those specified in the December 31, 1987, CAL, and because Mr. Larsen had not informed me during the February 4,1988, telephone call that there would be no samples corresponding to these dates. During the February 9, 1988, telephone call I asked Mr. Larsen why the sample dates reported did not correspond to those specified in the CAL.
He informed me that the samples obtained on December 28, 1987, through January 3, 1988, were abnormally high and unreliable. He indicated that he had not submitted these results to Region IV, or informed us of them, because of their questionable nature.
He stated that he believed that the sample containers were again contaminated and therefore he had requested bottles from his assay
[.
i 21 laboratory.
He further stated that the delay in reinitiating sampling was in waiting for th,e bottles from his assay laboratory.
I asked Mr. Larsen to read me the results from the December 28, 1987, through January 3, 1988,' sampling and to send us a copy of the report.
Following the telephone call, I documented the information in a memorandum to file.
This document is dated February 17, 1988, and is part of the record.
Q44. When did you receive the report requested during the February 9, 1988, telephone call?
A44. Region IV received this report on February 22, 1988.
Q45. What did the report show?
A45, The report showed that one of the individuals specified in the CAL to be monitored voided samples on Decembtr 28 and 31, 1987.
The other individual specified to be monitored voided scmples on December 28 and 31, 1987, and on January 3,1988.
Thus, there was a total of five samples reported.
There were no background samples submitted as specified in the CAL. All sample results were greater then 30 pg/1.
The range of results were 35-282 pg/1.
The hiohest value was measured twice, with the same value reported each time. There was a note on the assay laboratory's report that the samples were received leaking with probable sample contamination in collecting specimens from plastic bags.
The report also showed that'the samples were received on January 8, 1988; were assayed the same day; and the report date was January 25, 1988.
_.a
~
f
=
gg QdE. knen dio Mr. Larsen learn of the bioassay results contained in the report received by Region IV on February 22, 19887 A46. Assay laboratories typically telephone a licensee promptly of assay results greater than Regulatory Guide 8.22 action levels. Mr. Larsen stated during tne OI interview that he learned of the results on about January 8, 1988.
Q47. Were there any bioassay samples obtained by the licensee between January 3 and January 10, 1988?
A47. No, to my knowledge.
Q48. What activities took place at'the Evanston, Wyoming,' facility after the cessation of activities specified in the December 12, 1987, CAL?
A48. I know of no activities until March 18, 1988.
On that date we issued a CAL for the decontamination and waste disposal work to be undertaken at the facility in accordance with the February 25, 1988, Order Suspending
)
License.
Attached to the CAL was the report prepared by NRC's contractor lateratory, Oak Ridge Associated University, which contained the guidelines, procedures, and monitoring to be followed during this wark.
Because we received the Oak Ridge report later than we had hoped, Mr. Larsen requested, and we approved, an extension for the completion date of the decontamination and waste disposal work.
This extension was confirmed in a CAL issued on April 1,1988.,
t
23 l
Q49. Was the. facility decontamination and waste disposal work satisfactorily completed?
A49. Yes. On. April 6 and 8, 1988, I performed a special followup' inspection of the facility, verified through surveys and observation that the work had been completed and that contamination levels were below NRC's guidelines for decontamination. A report documenting this inspection was issued on
. April 26, 1988 (Report 99990004/88-21). At that point the facility was released for unrestricted use.
+
0 0
L o
t 1
7-.
s 0~~.f.
,,,y CURRICULUM VITAE t
.D. Blair Spitzberc Senior Radiation Specialist Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlingten, Texas 76011 Pione(817)860-8191 Education B.S.
Biology, Southern Methodist University, 1975 M.S.
Environmental Sciences (Environmental Radiation), University of Texas at Dallas, 1977 Ph.D. Environmer.tal Sciences (Environmental Radiation), t!niversity of Texas at Dallas, 1988 Positions Held:
Teaching Assistant, Center for Ervircrmental Studies, University of Texas at Dallas (1976-1977)
Research Assistant, Center for Ervirer.nental Studies University of Texas at Dallas (1977-1979)
Radiation Specialist (Intern), UShRC Arlington, Texas (1979-1980)
Radiation Specialist, USNRC Ar11rgton, Texas (1980-1985)
Senior Radiation Specialist, USNRC Arlington, Texas (1985-Present) professional Excertence As the Senior Radiation Specialist tri the Nuclear Materia 15 Inspection Section.
Dr. Spitzberg has performed routine and reactive inspections of fuel facilities, source mater 131 operatiors, and medical, academic and industrial users of byproduct material. He h s performed inspections of over 350 licensees including special investigations, allegations reviews, and team insoettions. As the senior member of the materials inspection staff, Dr. Spitzberg has been frequently assigned to the more complex tases and tec9nical issues related to health physics, radiological assessment, and ind.rstrial nygiene. In 1984-1985 he n s assigned major responsibilities in the NRC's resoonse to the contaminat+c Merican steel incidant. His efforts included the planning, equipping, and training of operators for a U.S. - Mexican border survey and monitoring network to detict radiocative materdals coming across the border. In 1987, he was assigned as the Regional project Manager for the Sequoyah.Nels Uranium Hexatluoride Conversion Facility to ovei see the recovery, plant modifications, and restart of the facility following the 1986 accident involving a major release of UF. In 1988, as 6
assigned as the Project Manager for the NRC's first multi-site broadseme master materials license issued to the U.S. Air Force. Dr. SpitrMr g has, on several occasions, been dispatched as the initial agency responder to accidents, incidents, and suspected overexposure.
~
i
?
b
}
k L
T
.fy :
~~
F R0fi NRC R!U ARL.TX.
03/15/85 CB:52 P.
3
y,,
.fif.':*@m y; M % %l [i k n y.
gz 4, g.2,,
- n
- ..w c. m gn., m tQ 5 2 gyp 4.-g.rth, nxe.
trior'to becoming a Senior Radiation Specialist, Dr. Spitzberg perfors,ed... safety -
s inspections at operational and r,sar operational power reactor fM ti',ies," m.8" 8
Inspections were conducted in all phases of plant operations involving ~ <
'~
radiation safety including facility radiation protection, radioact.tve waste
- systems, solid radioactive waste packaging, classification, and shipping, ALARA programs, environmental sionitoring, emergency preparedness, and outage activities.
Dr. Spitzberg's graduate research studies have been in the area of low level environmental radiation measurement techniques, focusing on tritium; the modeling of environmental and human physiological transport kinetics for tritium; ant' rnere recently, the interpretation of uranium bioassay sample series, and moceling of human excretion patterns following intakes of the hydrolysis products of uranium hexafluoric'e.
Pub 11catiens:
D. B. Spitzberg, Acute Human Exoosure to Natural Uranium Hexafluoride, ph.D.
Dissertation, Tne University of Texas at Dallas, Cecember 1988.
Charles Cawiey, D. Blair Spitzberg, William G. Cale, E. O. Fenyves, "Modeling Reaction Kinettes in Man: Health Hazard cf Triti6m," Applications of Ecological Medels in Environmental Maracement, Vol. III, Sven Jegensen, ed.,
New Yora: Pientum press, 1986.
C. N. Cawley, D. B. Spitzberg, E. J. Fenyves, J. Wiorkowski, and M. T. Cheroud,
" Environmental Radionuclides Concentrations:
Statistical Model to Determine Uniformity of Distribution," preceedircs, Fourth International Conference on Nuclear Methods in Environmental anc Erergy Research,14-17 April 1980 Columb.fa, Missouri.
C. N. Cawley, D. B. Spitzberg, E. J. Feiyves, "A Comp. Iter' Algorit-hm to Calculate Tritium Concentration in Environmental Waters," proceedings, International Converence on Scintillation Applications and Development, August 21-24, 1979, San Francisco, California.
D. Blair Spitzberg, Charles Caw;ey, Willian. G. Cale, E. J. Fenyves, "A Model to Estimate the Bielegic61 Half-Life r.f Tritium ia Man," Praceedinos,1978 Summer Computer Simulation Conference, 24-26 July 1978, Newport Beach, California.
)
Charlec Cawley, D. Blair Spitzberg, William G. Cale, E. J. Fenyves,
" Reassessing the Nazard of Tritice tc Man," Feoceedines of Sin;1ation, Modeling, and Decisions in Energy Systems, international Association of Science anc Techno1cpy for Development, June 1578, Montreal, Canada.
I l
, 4 FRQt1 NRC R1U ARL.TX.
03/15/09 00:52 P.
4
~
{
7--_-___-_-_-__
e Michael A. Lamestra Professional Qualifications Medical, Academic, and Commercial Use Safety Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety I am the Leader, Commercial Use Safety Section, Medical, Academic, and Commercial Use Safety Branch, Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear
, Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
My formal education consists of an A.A. degree in Radiatior Science from Montgomery Community College in 1972, a B.S. degree in Physics from Towson State College in 1974, and an M.S. degree in Radiological Health from the University of Pittsburgh in 1975.
Before joining NRC, I served three years as a part-time employee of the Radiation Protection Department of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. My duties included collecting air samples to determine the level of radioactivity for specific isotopes, radiation contamination surveys of research labs, and advising research personnel in safety procedures involving the use of radioactive isotopes.
I joined the NRC in June 1976 as a health physicist in the Radioisotopes Licensing Branch, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. My principal function was to review applications from medical and academic institutions for byproduct, source, and special nuclear material to determine the adequacy of their proposed radiation safety program and the related efforts proposed to assure that occupational radiation exposure and release of radioactive materiel to the general public are as low as is reasonably achievable.
From February 1981 to July 1987, I served as a Senior Radiological Engineer in the Radiation Protection Section of the Radiological Assessment Branch. My principal fur.: tion was the review of power reactor applications, both at the construction germit and cperating license state, to determine the adequacy of proposed occupational radiation protection programs and the related efforts proposed to assure that occupational radiation exposures will be maintained as low as is reasonably achievable.
From July 1987, I have served as the Leader, Commercial Use Sec6 ton, in the Medical, Academic, and Commercial Use Safety Branch. My principal function is to coordinate all industrial program reviews activities for each of NRC five regions.
I am a member of the Health Physics Society and the Baltimore-Washington Local Chapter of the Health Physics Society.
o,:-
+..
d UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 9999004 l
(General License Authority WRANGLER LABORATORIES, LARSEN LABORATORIES, ORION CHEMICAL COMPANY )
AND JOHN P. LARSEN
)
)
E.A.87-223
)
ASLBP No. 89-582-01-SC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " TESTIMONY OF EDWIN D. FLACK " " TESTIMONY OF EDWIN D. FLACK RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE LICENSING BOARD ON REVOCATION AS A REMEDY," "NRC TESTIMONY OF DARRELL R. FISHER" and
" TESTIMONY OF D. BLAIR SPITZBERG" and professional qualifications of Michael A. Lamastra in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on l
.the fbilowing by deposit in the United States mail, first c ass, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, this 25th day of April,1989:
Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman *
.Dr. Jerry R. Kline*
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 John P. Larsen Mr. Frederick J. Shon*
Orion Chemical Company Administrative Judge 3853 North Sherwood Road Atomic Safety and Licensing Provo, UT 84604 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Appeal Panel (5)*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Board Panel (1)*
l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Adjudicatory File
- 1 Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 L
_--__________.____________________o
7r a
j' y
,y Doc'keting anc Service Section*
D. Blair Spitzberg 0'fice of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Washington, D.C. '20555 Arlington, TX 76011 William L. Brown, Esq.*-
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011-f t,t A L ID 4
~
Ann P. Hodgdon
(
Counsel for NRC Staff
=
=
~
f
______._.____________.________._____.______.____m_
_ _ _ _ _