ML20244B641
| ML20244B641 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000925 |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1981 |
| From: | Greger L, Peck C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237G454 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-450 70-0925-81-03, 70-925-81-3, EA-82-009, EA-82-9, NUDOCS 8112290566 | |
| Download: ML20244B641 (6) | |
Text
l U.S. .WCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III J l
Report No. 70-925/81-03 -
i Docket No.70-925 )
License No. SNM-928 Licensee: Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation Kerr-McGee Center Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Facility Narre: Cimarron Facility Inspection At: Cimarron Facility, Crescent, OK Inspection Conducted: July 15-16, 1981
\
Inspector: C.C.Pek I4 //!/E Date
/
- f. jM Approved By: L.R.Greger, Chief {AL Facilities Radiation ////E/8/ ~
Date Protection Section Inspection Summary
'Areas Inspection on July 15-16, 1981 (Report No. IO'-925/81-03)
Inspected:
Special, announced inspection of apparent exposures of two individuals to airborne concentrations of soluble uranium exceeding the limit of 10 CFR 20.103(a)(2). The inspection required eight hours ensite by one NRC inspector.
Results: . -
One violation was identified 4). (failure to make suitable measurement of airborne radioactivity - Section j l i
1 51 hbh i
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ ._ __.__.__._._______-------------J
- 5. < y k f DETAILS 1
s
- 1. Persons Contacted '" , *
- A. W. Norwacd, Cimarron Facility Manager
- R. L. Fine, Health and Safety Supervisor , .
- V. D. Richards, Uranium Plant Decont unination Supervisor ;
- J. L. Kegin, Maintenance and Utilities Supervisor i
- G. J. Sinke, Corporate Staf f Health Physicist "E. R. Goltra, M.D. , Corporate Medical Director The inspector also interviewed two uranium plant operators'd(rp u g the- Ii inspection. '
i
- 1. 4 r t,
- Present at exit interview at Cimarron facility.
- Present at exit interview at corporate office. N (, i
- 2. General 4'
,(, l
<8
, 1 z
This special, announced inspection began at 1:00 p.m. on Jin ,\1981, and was concluded the following day. The purposti of the ins) Jetion was to follow-up on a licensee report of the possible exposures of two uraniun plant employees to more than 40 MPC-hours of soluble uranium,% one ucek.,
.g a-
- 3. Background *
- During a routine inspection on May 5-8,1981(ReportNo.M0-95/81-02),
the licensee's Technical- Center, which analyzes biweekly t%e samples I submitted by uranium plant employees, reported uranium concentrations significantly above the licensee's action point of 65 c\ra/1' h samples .
submitted by two employees. The samplet'were submittedO!n early and #
mid - April. The licensee began an investigating of Nie cause of the ('y high concentrations and an evaluation of the personal exposures, as '
required by 10 CFR 20.103(b)(2). The workers were restricted from work iranium with and the uranium probableuntil causetheir urine of the samples incident containedThe was determined. noinci significant' .
dent was
~~
classified as an unresolved item in Inspection Report No. '/0-925/81-02 pending completion of the licensee's evaluation, including determir.stion of MPC-hours exposure. This information was provided to Region III,in j a report dated May 29, 1981. The report indicated that the e:cposures to '
two employees may have exceeded 40 MPC-hours of soluble uranium in a ;
seven day period. ,
, +
[ j
- 4. Cause of Exposures Cleanup and decontamination of the plant and equipment is currently '
j the major activity in the uranium facility. SoAid spd solutions ' {
containing uranium are generated in the processi These are pretreated '
chemically to produce an alkaline carbonate solution which is p umped through an ion exchange column to remove the uranium. The aqueous waste from the column, after analysis to assure that its concentration !
/
k
[
8 M w C
)
- is within the limit for disposal, is pumped to the sanitary lagoon.
1( The uranium eluted from the column, usually enriched about 2.5 percent,
"\
is transferred to an adjacent building forJ1ending with depleted f uranium to prt:, duce uranium with' the enrichment of natural uranium.
x .
The princy couponents of the cleanup system are: ,
A steam cleaning unit enclosed in a plastic tent.
Several solution pre-treatment and storage tanks. t Ion exchange columns. i
. Ovens for drying solids. s j
An open-faced ventilated hood for handling dry solids. This was N ;)
recent1v replaced with a ventilated glovebox. y
' s .,i y
The two exposed workers were engaged in cicanup work curing the period inwhich thJy submitted samples with elevated uranium concentrations.
Routine air samples collected at six locations in the restricted area j showed no concratrations indicating significant air activity, nor did
lapel sample datl pavide any evidence of airborne activity. Lapel. air- s samplers were vorn occasionally by each of the empicyees in accordance with a license condition which requires use of a lapel sampler during certain decontamination work. 'The licensee concluded -hat excessive airborne radioactivity could have existed near the ope =-faced hood where the employees worked with open trays of uranismi in the' soluble carbonate form. The employees did not wear lapel samplers durir.g this i
'N '
operation.
A stationt.ry air sampler located at the bank of ion exchange a
colduu, about ten feet away, was apparently too distant to detect air- !
5 borne activity near the hood. i '
l i .
The inspector discussed the exp'osures with the two employees involved. s
} Both were familiar with the. licensee's evaluation. Alt. hough' neither *
, I could recall any specific occurrence thht cou)d have caused them to inhale airborne uranium, they agreed that inhalacirc of uranium while I
- handling dry solids in or near the hood could have ocenped. They W knew of no.other possible cause.
The inspector concurs with the licensee's statement in the repo~rt of May 29, 1981, that inadequate air sampling failed to detect the 1
(
incidents of apparent overexposure. Inadequate air sampling is a violation of 10 GR 20.103(a)(3) which requires that the licensee
)i l e' i use suitable measurements of concentrations of radioactive materials in air for detecting and evaluating airborne radioactivity. Use of' (
lapelawplers or an air sampler near the'open-faced hood should have i 4
, detectv3 excessive airborne radioactivity.
1
'5. 1 Corrective Action
- In the report of !iay 29, 1981, the licensee described several corrective n ;
actions, itemized below, that had been taken to improve detection and -
prevention of furt.ber exposures to airborne radioactivity. u
i t
t 3
o e,
\ c k
t 4
__,_y __ _ _ - - - - - - - ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I g
4]f ,; , - i I
'a. -Delivery to the laboratory and 2nalysis of urice samples each week.
l The inspector observed during the inspection on May 5-8, 1981, Peport No. 70.925/81-02) that many urinalysis results, includ=g i
l those indicating the pov,ib'.e overexposure, were.not reported unti.i about a taon'.b' after5the sampling date. While_ earlier re-i I porting would probably not have prevented the overexposure in this case, timelier report 1n.g uou't6 permit more prompt identificatica of inadequacies in the air sampling program,
- b. Use of lapel air sapplers when handling dry ure:iium carbonate.and installation of a stationary air sampler on the gicvebox. ;
1
- c. Improved ventilation 3t the hood. The licensee replaced the open-faced hood with a venr G ered glovebox.
j d.
Use of respiratory protectfxe equipment when handling dry 'l j
uranium carbonate.
~
J The in.spector verified through observation, examination of records, and conveuations with licensee representatives that the corrective actions had been taken. The actions are considered appropriate and sufficient
";o prevent future overexposure during the cleanup operation.
- 5. Ca l cu.?a tion _
'p>osures to Individuals In the absente of elevated air sample data, ' the licensee used urin- l alysis data to determine the MPC-hours to v!1Lch the two individuals I were apparently exposed. The dat.2 used in the calculations are tabdated below:
Date of Concentration Sample , dpm/l Individual A 4/02/82 199 4/20/81 65 Individual B 4/03/81 ,
~
579 -
4/15/81 27 4/21/81 103 5/07/81 12 5/08/81 30 Sanplc. concentrations before and after those listed were below the action point of 65 dpm/l. !
The licenece applied the retention formulha foc< soluble uranium set forth in Publication 30 of the International Cowaission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the MPC specified in Appendix B to 10 CTR 20 to estinate the MPC-hours of exposure to the two employees. The estimates were that Employee A received a maximum exposure of 183 MPC-hours about Ma rch' 23, 1981, and Employee B received a maximum exposure of 66 MPC-burs atet April 15, 1981, and a lesser exposure of 34 l!PC-hours about sqcil 1, 1981.
)
I
.9 j ', __ _ - - . _ . _ _ _ - - - - - - - -
, Accodding to the licensee's evaluation, these estimates represent maximum possible exposures to the individuals since in the absence of air sa=pling data or any known occurrence to date the exposures, the licensee assumed earliest possible exposure cates.
The licensee's evaluation was referred to an NR~ consultant;for his review and comment. Based on the urinalysis data, the consultant calculated MPC-hours of exposure to the two workers based on the metabolic models in ICRP-30, ICRP-2, and ICRP-1". He concluded that the model in ICRP-30 provided the best estimates, as it represents the most recent recommendations of the ICRP.
A problem with use of the ICRP 30 metabolic model is that the MPC values in Appendix B to 10 CFR 20 are based on the ICRP 2 metabolic model and may vary from those calculated using ICRP 30. Although ICRP 30 does not list MPC's based on chemical tcxicity for soluble uranium isotopes, discussions with the NRC conseltant confirmed that such MPC's would be more restrictive than the ICRP 2 (current 10 CFR 20) MPC's, therefore yielding higher estimates of MPC-hour exposures. It is further noted that use of the ICRP 2 metabolic model, although considered less realistic than the ICRP 30 model, especially for short-term retention, also yielded higher estimates of MPC-hour exposures.
The MPC-hours of exposure calculated by the consul ant (based on the ICRP 30 metabolic model and ICRP 2 MPC's) were somewhat less than the corresponding licensee calculations. The principal measurement para-meters and resulting exposure estimates determined by the licensee and the NRC consultant are compared below: _
Licensee NRC Consultant Individual A Uranium Uptake, pCi 9.19E-3 Uptake Fraction (of intake) 9.29E-3 0.2112 0.484 Uranium Intake, pCi 4.4E-2 MPC, pCi/ml ,1. 9 2E 2.0E-10 2.74E-10 MPC-hours 182 58 Individual B Uranium Uptake, pCi 1.73E-3, 3.34E-3 1.00E-2 Uptake Fraction (of Intake) 0.2112 0.484 Uranium Intake, pCi 8.2E-3, 1.58I-2 MPC, pCi/mi 2.07E-2 2.0E-10 2.74E-10 MPC-hours 34, 66 63 The lower exposure obtained by the consultant fo. Individual A results from the higher uptake fraction and MPC values he used. The uranium uptake fraction used in the calculation should be LB.4% of the original uranium inhaled, rather than the 21.1% used by the licensee. The con-sultant used the calculated MPC for 2.5% enriched tranium rather than the lower and more conservative approximation used by the licensee.
For Individual B, the consultant concluded that the urinalysis data
)
j indicated rences.
a single expos re. incident rather than two separate :c:ur-The consultant's calculations for Individual A are based on the same conservatively determined exposure date used by the 1.:insee.
The consultant's calculan:ns for Individual B, however, are based on a nonconservative exposure date. Basing the calculations for Individual B on the most conservative available exposure date yields an estinated exposure approximately tw:ce as great as the consultant's calenlated value.
The exposures calculated :y the .VRC consultant, although less than those determined by the licensee. confirm the licensee's determinatica that the two employees were possit 7 exposed to more than 40 MPC-hours cf soluble uranium. 10 CFR 20.103(a,(2) and Footnote No. 4 to Appendix B limit exposures to 40 MPC-hours for soluble uranium.
- 7. Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 at the conclusion of the inspection. Two meetings were held, as indicated, in which discussions were similar. The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspecti:n.
He stated that the licensee's. evaluation of the possible overexposure cf two employees appeared acceptable, and that the corrective actions to prevent recurrence were adequate.
Regulation 10 CFR 20.103(a)(2) pertaining to limits for exposure to soluble airborne uranium was discussed. The inspector said that NRC interpreted the regulatio: to mean that exposures to soluble uranium exceeding 40 MPC-hours in a seven day period represented a violation of the regulation. The licensee representatives said they were aware that NRC apparently considers trposures above 40 MPC-hours to be in noncom-pliance with the regulatico because of a diagrammatic interpretation of 10 CFR 20.103 given to then by an NRC inspector about three years ago.
However, they stated that in their opinion the regulation is-not clear.
The inspector told the representatives that the lack of clarity would be considered in determining appropriate enforcement action.
_- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - .- __ _ _-- __ _ -_ 3
m Af g
,/[g b Iog *?
- UNITED STATES y, g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-g- WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- . l a
%'* . . . . / 3 2 215E3
!( -
e 1
EGM 83-0 2 MEMORANDUM FOR: T. E. Murley, Regional Administrator, RI J. P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator, RII J. G. Keppler, Regional Administrator, RIII J. T. Collins, Regional Administrator, RIV J. B. Martin, Regional Administrate jr RV THRU: Richard C. DeYoung, Directo Office of Inspection and En hce hb FROM: Jane, A. Axelrad, Director ;
Enforcement Staff, IE '
SUBJECT:
WORKING ARRANGEMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE MEMORANDUM 0F UNDERSTANDING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR On October 25, 1982, a hemorandum of Understanding (M0U) was signed by NRC and '
the Department of Labor to facilitate coordination and cooperation between the agencies in the processing of violations of the emp oyee protection provisions '
of Section 210(a) of the Energy Reorganization Act Enclosure 1). Subsequently,
(
' working arrangements were developed and points of contact were established at i the regional and headquarters levels for each agency (Enclosure 2).
The working arrangements establish certain consnitments that ausst be carried out by the regional contacts for the NRC. The working arrangements provide that 3 NRC wiil refer complainants to DOL, advise DOL of complaints received concerning employee discrimination, inform DOL of investigations that NRC is conducting into these matters, facilitate DOL's investigations by assisting in gaining '
access to NRC-licensed facilities, and decide whether NRC should conduct an independent investigation. Once the NRC has received the Secretary of Labor's decision on facts uncovered during a DOL investigation, and if that decision determines that a violation of Section 210(a) occurred, the Region must detennine I whether there has been a violation of NRC's rules. Based on that detennination, enforcement action should be pursued consistent with the NRC Enforcement Policy and should be coordinated with headquarters.
- u.
. . Li<
l Jane A. Axelrdd, Director Enforcement Staff, IE
Enclosures:
As stated
, foIM - f? ~ WO i (
},
M 21 ISiid
(. EGM 83-02 2 -
?
cc: J.H.' Snfezek, IE J. Lieberman, ELD D. Holody, RI M. Puckett, RII W. Schultz, RIII E. Johnson, RIV'
! A. Johnson, RV E. Flack, IE J. Craig, IE -
G. Klingler IE G. Barber, IE R. Rosano, IE e
i I
i 1
i
_ _ _ - _ . . . - _ - - - - - - ~
MEMORANDUM 0F UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN .
i i
(
- 1. PURPOSE The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) and the Departm a or (DOL) enter into this agreement to facilitate c.cordinatien and coo the employee protection provisions of Section 210 cforganization the Energy R Act of 1974 (Reorganization Act), as amended, 42 U SC 5851.
- 2. BACXGROUND .
I Section 210 of the Reorganization Act prohibits any emplo Regulatory Comission licensee, applicant or a contractor or sub contractor of a Commission licensee or applicant, from discriminating against a employee with respect to his or her compensation, terms, conditions or privil eges of employment cecause the employee assistee or participated, or is about -
to- a r c pate, in any manner in any action to carry out the purposes of either the Reorga'nization Act or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (Atomic Energy Act)
, as amended, 42 V'S.C.
2011 el sec. .
The NRC and 00L have complementary responsibilities in the a protection. rea of employee 00L has the responsibility under Section 2*0 of the nReorga .
Act to investigate emoloyee comolaints of discrimination ad n may, after an j
l.
~
inves-igation and hearing, order a violator to take affirmative ac-ion to the violation, reinstate the complainant to his or her former s t onpo ii with backpay, and award compensatory damages, including attorney .
fees NRC, though without direct authority to provide a remedy to an employee , has independent authority under the Atomic Energy Act to take appropriate enforcement ac against Comission licensees that violate the Atomic Energy Act, the -
- ation Act, or Comission requirements. ~
Enforcement action may include license cenial, suspension or revocation er the imposition of civil penalties .
Although each agency will carry ou'J its statutory responsibilities n ependently, id the agencies agree that administrative efficiency and sound enf,orcement policies will be maximized by cooperation and the timely exchange of inf f mutual interest. onation in areas 3.
AREAS OF COOPERATION a.
00L agrees to promptly notify MRC of any complaint filed with D01
. alleging discrimination within the meaning of Section 210 of the Energy R o e organization Act.
00L will promptly provide NRC a copy of the complaint, decisions and orders associated with the investigation and any hearing on the c::xnplain .
3-(
20L will also keep aNRC c' rrently informed on the' status a of a proceedings seeking review of an order of the Secretary of Lab or issued pursuant to Section 210 of the Reorganization Act.
\
a b.
HRC and DOL agree to cooperate with each other to the fullest extent possit;e j
' in every case of alleged discrimination involving employees on 1
licensees, applicants, or contractors or subcontractors
~
of Com on licen-sees or applicants.
NRC will take all reasonable steps to assist 00L in obtaining access to l'icensed facilities and any necessary es.
s Each agency agrees t'o share and promote access to all infor obtains concerning a particular allegation ahd, to the extent permitted , will b
(
protect the confidentiality of information identified as sensitive at has th been supplied to it by the other agency.
4 IMPLEMENTATION The NRC official responsible for implementation of this s the agreement i Executive Director for Operations; the 00L official responsible emen-f tation of this agreement is the Administrator, Wage and Hou r Division. Working.
level point of contacts shall be established and identified ays within 10 after the effective date of this agreement for both headquarters a coerations.
1
- i g 5.
AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION '
This Agreement may be amended or modified upon written a parties to the Agreement. greement by both '
The Agreement may be terminated upon nine days written notice by either party.
~
6.
EFFECTIVE DATE i This agreeement is effective den signed by es.
both parti
/
r i i
i William J. Dircks Executive Director ,
for Operations '
Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1 Dated: July 29,1982
. . i M l William M. Otter, Administrator Wage and Hour Division Deoar*. ment of Labor Jared:
October 25, 1182
1
( Procedures for Implementing MOU between NRC and DOL I. Background and Purpose ?
i On July 29, 1982, ;
the Executive Director for Operations of the Nuclear I Regulatory Commission signed the " Memorandum of Understanding Bet j
NRC and Department of Labor."
The A$ministrator of the Wage and Hour i Division of the Department of Labor signed the document on October 25 ,
1982.
The MOU set forth the responsibilities of the NRC and 00L in protecting the rights of employees as specified in Section 210(a) of the :
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended.
j
.. Section 3 of the MOU pro-
)
vides that the two agencies will "... cooperate with each other to the .
)
i fullest extent possible in every case of alleged discrimination\
(
j employees of Connission licensees, applicants, or contractors or subl tractors of Conmission licensees or applicants."
l These working arrangements between the NRC and DOL have ensure prompt notification, investigation, and followup of complaints involving alleged discrimination against employees who have , or contacte have attempted to contact, the NRC.
II.
Investigation and Processing of Complaints A.
If the NRC receives a complaint concerning a possible violation of Section 210(a), it will refer the complainant to 00L and will promptly notify 00L to ensure that 00L is aware of the complaint and to determine if DOL is investigating the incident.
The NRC will not
( 2 normally initiate an investigation of a complaint if DOL is cond ,
or has completed, an investigation and found no violations.
(If00L concludes that a violation occurred, NRC may initiate an investig where necessary to develop additional information for its enforcem 1
action).
DOL will notify the NRC of"the decision of the Administrator ,
Wage and Hour Division, at the conclusion of the investigation n of ad the results of the Secretary of Labor's review of that decision .
i B.
If DOL receives a complaint concerning a possible violation n of Se\
j 210(a), it will promptly notify the NRC and infom the erNRC 00L of wheth
intends to conduct an investigation into the matter .
If DOL does not intend to conduct an investigation, the NRC will consider o whether initiate its own investigation.
In cases where the individual and his employer reach an agreement, 00L will notify the NRC of such a even thougli UOL will not conduct an investigation.
C.
The NRC will facilitate DOL's investigations by taking eall reasonabl steps to assist DOL in obtaining access to licensed facilities and any necessary security clearances.
i
~
I 3
2.
Each agency shall designate, and maintain as current, points of contact within its headquarters and regional offices for purposes of implementation of the MOU.
tbtters affecting program and policy issues will be handled by the headquarters offices of the agencies, i
h
- I:. Enforcement l -
A.
00L's enforcement actions are primarily directed at restering benefits or employment status unfairly denied an employee. If DOL finds that no violations of Section 210(a) occurred, NRC normall not initiate enforcement action. If, however, DOL finds that a violation has occurred, the NRC may take enforcement action under its En Policy,10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, including issuance of a Notice of Violation, imposition of civil penalties, or issuance of orders sus-pending, modifying, or revoking licenses, but will normally consider the effect of the action taken by DOL before deciding on its action.
B.
The area or regional offices of each agency will normally develop initial recommendations on enforcement action for their agency and will forward them to headquarters for review.
If a violation does not involve an escalated enforcement action, an NRC regional office I i
nay issue a Notice of Violation without Headquarters concurrence.
I NRC POINTS OF CONTACT f Headquarters:
Jane Axelrad, Acting Director of Enforcement 492-4909 (FTS); (301) 492-4909 (Comercial)
Region I (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New Yort, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware.
Maryland) ..
l' Daniel Holody, Enforcement Specialist 488-1312 (FTS); (215) 337-5312 (Commercial)
Region II (Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, j
South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida) I John Puckett, Enforcement Specialist 242-5505 (FTS); (404) 221-5505 (Conmercial)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ _ _- --
(
Region III (Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri)
~
A. Bert Davis, Deputy Regional Administrator
~..
384-2681 (FTS); (312) 932-2681 (Commercial)-
Region IV (North D&kota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahore, Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana)
~
Thomas Westerman, Director of Enforcement 728-8100 (FTS); (817) 860-8100 (Commercial)
Region V (Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Alaska)
Allen Johnson, Director of Enforcement 463-3739 (FTS); (415) 943-3739
1
\
{
. {
(
D0L POINTS OF CONTACT i
l l Headquarters:
James L. Valin, Assistant Administrator Wage and Hour Division 523-8353 (FTS); (202) 523-8353 (Conumercial)
Region I (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island)
William L. Smith
( Assistant Regional Administrator 223-0995 (FTS); (617) 223-0995 (Commercial)
Region II (New York, New Jersey) .l Raymond G. Cordelli Assistant Regional Administrator 265-3348 (FTS); (212) 944-3348 (Connercial)
2 Region III (Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia)
John A. Craven Assistant Regional Administrator 596-1194 (FTS); (215) 596-1194 (Commercial)
Region IV (South Carolina, Georgia, Florida)
Richard Robinette -
Assistant Regional Administrator 257-4801 (FTS); (404) 881-4801 (Commercial)
(Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolin Sterling B. Williams Assistant Regional Administrator 229-1301 (FTS); (205) 254-1301 (Comercial)
Region V (Minnesota, Wiscon: sin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois) t Richard A. McMahon t Assistant Regional Administrator 353-8845 (FTS); (312) 353-8845 (Comercial)
% l 9
4 3 .
r Region VI (Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico)
Alfred A. Ramsey Assistant Regional Administrator 729-6891 (FTS); (214) 767 5891 (Commercial)
Region VII (Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas)
M. J. Vallarreal '-
Assistant Regional Admini-strator t 758-5386 (FTS); (816) 374-5386 (Commercial)
Region VIII (North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Color Loren E. Gilbert Assistant Regional Administrator 327-4613 (FTS); (303) 837-4613 (Commercial)
Region IX (California, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii)
Herbert Goldstein Assistant Regional Administrator 556-3592 (FTS); (415) 556-3592 (Ccm:nercial)
i I
(
4 Region X (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska)
Wilbur J. Olson Assistant Regional Administrator 399-1914 (FTS); (206) 442-1914 (Conrnercial) l I
~
l I
I i
o.
i I
i I
1 l
l i
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .]