ML20245A165
| ML20245A165 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/13/1989 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8810, REF-QA-99990004-890613 NUDOCS 8906210126 | |
| Download: ML20245A165 (293) | |
Text
.
n.
I- ul J'\ c.
- t. ! ri i .' ',
,o UNITED STATES
\d NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WRANGLER LABORATORIES, )
IARSEN LABORATORIES, ) Docket No.
ORION CHEMICAL COMPANY, AND ) 9999004 JOHN P. LARSEN )
(Evidentiary Hearing) t' O
O Fages: 77 through 240 Place: Frovo, Utah
. Date: June 13, 1969
.........-.-------------==.--============================
,t\
\ ') '
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION OficialReporters
[n 1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600 9906210126 5:0,3: W .shington, D.C. 20005 5c,ggs (202) 628-48&8
, ..,09.~.
o v u E > I -5rv.
9.'r '
4 77 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD WRANGLER LABORATORIES, )
LARSEN LABORATORIES. ) Docket No.
ORION CHEMICAL COMPANY, AND ) 9999004 JOHN P. LARSEN )
(Evidentiary Hearing)
- J. Reuben Clark Law School Brigham Young University Moot Court Room 1 Provo, Utah Tuesdey, ,
June 13, 1989 The parties met, pursuant to notice, at 9:3E, a.m.
BEFORE: JUDGE CHARLES BECHHOEFER. CHAIRMAN Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 JUDGE FREDERICK SHON, MEMEER Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 JUDGE JERRY KLINE, MEMBER Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 W
. d I
78 !
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the NRC Staff:
ANN P. HODGDON, Esquire NRC Staff Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 NORMAL D. ROMNEY, Esquire NRC Staff Counsel .:
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conanission Washington, D.C. 20555 On behal f of the Anniicent :
JOHN P. LARSEN. Pro Se 3653 N. Sherwood Drive Provo. Utah 84604 ,
O
~
4' 4
0
i 79 C Q E I E tl I E
- 50Ndx DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS WITNESSES:
Penel. 89 135 EDWIN D. FLACr.
DARRELL R. FISHER D. BLAIR SPITZBERG H. BROOr.S GR2FFIN m
e O
. )
I
- - _________L
l 80 ,
t EXHIBITS j
EXHIBIT IDENTIFIED ADMITTED DESCRIPTION St af f 's 1 103 111 Office of Investigations !
report prepared by Brooks Griffin and -l Blair Spitzberg j 2 114 ---
Photograph: .j outside of the Evanston facility 3 114 --- Photograph: the /
Evanston facility , {
with adj acent buildings ;
4 114 ---
Photograph:
outside of the Evanston facility S 114 --- Photograph: close- '
up of the Evanston facility 6 114 --- Photograph: inside of the Evanston facility 7 114 --- Photograph: inside of the Evanston facility, with Mr.
Larsen present 8 110 --- Photograph: inside of the Evanston facility, including a space heater and storage rooms .
9 115 --- Photograph: inside of the Evanston facility, including buckets on top of e bench O
81 p ',. ) 10 115 ---
Photograph:
of the Evanston inside l . , ,f j facility 11 116 ---
Photograph: inside of the Evanston facility, including stainless steel buckets 12 116 ---
Photograph: close-up of a bench inside the Evanston
. facility 13 136 ---
Photograph: inside of the Evanston facility, including Dr. Spitzberg ,
during his inspection 14 116 ---
Photograph: inside ,
of the Evanston facility, with Mr.
Larsen present
! ) Photograph: inside
\
/ 15 117 ---
.'~' of the Evanston facility, with Mr.
Larsen and Dr.
Spitzberg present 16 117 ---
Photograph: inside of the Evenston facility, with Mr.
Larsen present 17 117 ---
Photograph: inside of the Evanston
- - facility 1-A 221 221 A page omitted from Staf f Exhibit 1.
The first page of the 1982 order to show cause and to rescind suspension
\
s._- ;
a
q 82 INSERTS DESCRIPTION AFTER PAGE Edwin Flack 's direct testimony and personal qualifications 91 Testimony of Edwin Flack responding to questions raised by the Licensing Board on revocation as a remedy 92 ..
Darrell Fisher 's direct testimony 98 Blair Spit berg 's direct testimony 101 Blair Spitzberg 's inspection reports and confirmat ion-of-action lettere 102 i
Brooks Grif fin 's professional qualificat ions 106 Stipulation re Lamastra affidavit 209 l
Affidavit and professional qualifications of Michael Lamastra 210 l O
-l Oi
83 l
i
( ~) 1!
I PROCEEDI NGS ijC 1 (9:36 a.m.)
2f 3I JUDGI SECHHOEFER:
Good morning, ladies and i
4'l gentlemen.
5!
t This is an evidentiary hearing in an enforcement proceeding involving Wrangler Laboratories, Larsen 6
t 7' Laboratories, Orion Chemical Company, and Mr. John P.
, i This is an action brought S Larsen, who are the licensees.
9 by the NRC staff, an enforcement action. I i
10 At the outset I would like to thank Brigham Young i
11 University and the J. Reuben Clark Law School for the use }
12 of their auditorium and also for maintaining public i
13 documentsforussincethetimeoftheprehearingconferencel ,
i in this matter.
This has been very helpful and useful to i 14 N i f
15 us.
I'll int roduce this proceeding as being conducted l 16 l i
17 by en At omic Saf ety and Licensing Board consisting of three l i
it members. On my left is Dr. Jerry Kline, who is an environmental scientist. On my right is Fred Shon, a l 19 and I'm 1
20 , nuclear engineer. My name is Charles Bechhoefer, 21 an attorney.
For the record, I would like the part ies and t >.rir i 12 counsel t o int roduce t hemselves. Mr. Larsen?
23 MR. LA95ES: My name is !!ohn Larsen, and I will 24l 25 !just be represent ing mysel f . l i
1 l
84 1 MS. HODGDON: I am Ann P. Hodgdon for the NRC M2 2 staff. With me today at counsel table is Norman 3 Romney, who also appears for the NRC Staff.
JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Before we start, are there any 4
5 preliminary matters that anyone wishes to raise?
6 (There was no response.) ,
JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
If not, in the notice of this 7,
l 8' hearing we mentioned that we would accept limited appearance 9, statements from any member of the public, if a member of 10 the public wishes to make a statement. Are there any people 11 here who wish to do so? Normally, those statements aren't f i
12 evidence, but we can take them into account in determining i 13 whether the record needs to be developed on the matters 14 raised. So this is for persons who are not parties. If l' l
let us know now.
15 ; anyone wishes to make such a statement, l.
16 (There was no response.) ,
17 , JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Not seeing any, the parties !
l 18 ' now may make opening statements if they wish to do so.
19 Again, this is not evidence as such but is a short statement 20 of what the parties will attempt to prove during the course 21 of the proceeding.
f 22 j Ms. Hodgdon, do you wish to make an opening i I
st at ement of any sort?
23 j '
MS. HODGDON: Yes, I will make a short opening 24 I
i statement.
25
85 4
i
, <m l [ ') 1 In August of 1988, the United St ates Nuclear 2 Regulatory Commission issued an order revoking the general 3 license of John P. Larsen under which Mr. Larsen processed 4 depleted uranium to obtain uranium acetyl acetate, UAA, in 5i Evanston, Wyoming. The NRC's action was based on inspection l
- 6 l reports describing the condition of Mr. Larsen's f acility I
7 ! and on his noncompliance with confirmation-of-action 8 letters. It was also based on the prior history of 9 Mr. Larsen's operations, mostly at places in Utah, which 10 is the st ate to which the NRC delegated its jurisdiction 11 over source material in the early '80s.
12 Because the NRC's Deputy Executive Director of f
13 Operations, James M. Taylor, believed that thepublichealthj
)
14 and safety required it, and because Mr. Larsen's non-('~'/
\
' ' compliances were thought to be willful, the revocation orderi 15 10 was made immediately ef f ective. Mr. Larsen asked for a 17 hearing, as the Commission's regulations entitle him to an 18 adjudicatory determination of whether the order should be ,
19 sustained.
20 The NRC will show here today that the order 21 l should be sust ained. It will show through the testimony 22 of Dr. Blair Spitzberg, who conducted the inspections, wrote!
I 23 l the report s and wrot e the confirmat ion-of-action letters, 24 l and generally had the primary responsibility f or determining , ;
25 ! the health and safety impacts of Mr. Larsen's activities -- l !
t i
/~N i
I - _ - . . . _ _ .- - _. . - _ . _ - _ _ _ _ . . .__
86 M4 I will testify concerning his conduct of those inspections.
2 Dr. Darrell Fisher is an outside expert, health 3 physicist, retained by the NRC to consider the implications 4 of activities such as those conducted by Mr. Larsen for 5 human health. j 6' Mr. Brooks Griffin, an investigator with the NRC's I a
l 7 Office of Investigation, will testify regarding his conduct S' of the investigation and his determination that Mr. Larsen's l
l 9 conduct was willful.
10 Mr. Edwin Flack, who was at the time an l i 1 11 enforcement specialist, will relate Mr. Larsen's conduct I 12 to NRC enforcement policy, to explain the appropriateness 13 of the immediately effective revocation order. l 1
14 Mr. Larsen has filed in this proceeding what he j 15 calls his side of the story. He states that he's a small j 1
10 businessman and t hat the projections required by larger l l
! I 17 operations are not necessary for his operation. The ;
le testimony of f ered by t he Staf f will demonst rate that this 1 19 simply is not so. I 1
20 Thank you.
21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Larsen? ,
22 MR. LARSEN: I haven't had anything so prepared ! .
I i i
' 'l 23 as Ann has. But I will say that our side of the story, l 24 after 20 months of being shut down without any income, seems )
I l 25 to me a long time before we are allowed to have an unbiased l
,- - - - + - - - < - -
I l
I
/'~N I opinion about what happened. We are a small business We
\-- 2{trytodothebest we can. We have tried to keep up in 3 compliance with all of the regulations, and yet not one word 4 of any improvement, of any positive step or positive 5i intention of Mr. Larsen is in any of the record. And we i
, 6( i start wondering where the line is drawn between vigilant i
7 , enforcement of the regulations and where they start losing
~
8 track that they're dealing with human beings who have 9 feelings and have families to raise, and they start using I
10 their authority to harass, destroy and condemn. It seems j 11 ' to me that it has been a process of misuse of power and 12 misrepresentation of us in the record. So we welcome this 1
13 chance at least to present our side of the story. And ;
,N 14 that's all, I guess. ;
/ \
\
\
x-
) 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Ms. Hodgdon, do you wish to l i
16 present your wit nesses? ;
17 MS. HODGDON: Yes. The NRC Staff is calling four .
16 witnesses, who are seated on my left here. They are 19 Edwin Flack, and Dr. Darrell Fisher, and Dr. Blair ;
i 20 l Spitzberg, and Brooks Griffin. I have their testimony here, '
l can
., 21j which we will give to the reporter as soon as I
' i 22 ascertain what it is. Well, I could have Mr. Flack describe
~
23 ' his t est imony.
24 Mr. F2ack, do you have your testimony with you?
25 , MR. FLACK: Yes, I do.
I l
. i
/"N s I
- - - . - . . . ~ - . . . ~ _ _ - .
L - - - - __ -
88 M6 I MS. HODGDON: Is it a document consisting of ten 2 pages?
3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do you wish the witness.to be 4 sworn first?
5 MS. HODGDON: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. I wish the 6 , witnesses to be sworn. They will have to swear to their ,
l 7 , testimony, though, so you could wait and swear them. You 8 can do it now. l 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay, why don't we just swear 10 them all first. ,
l 11 l MS. HODGDON: And then swear them separately as 12 true and correct?
I 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: No, we won't have tc. I
' i I 14 ; MS. HODGDON: We won't have to. Okay, that's l 15 fine.
16 I presume you're going to go on and swear the t
17 witnesses now. Is that right?
18 JUDGE BECHHOETER: Yes. I wanted to get out their 19 ; testimony too.
l 20 ; MS. HODGDON: Well, that was my problem. I was l
21 ! having some problem shuffling all this testimony. ,
22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay, I'll do this k -
23 individually.
24 ! ///
t 25 /// ;
i i
PANEL 1 - DIRECT 89 i
i t' I Whereupon, 2l BLAIP SPITZBERG f l DARRELL FISHER i 3 BROOKS GRIFFIN EDWIN FLACK 4
t 5l having been first duly sworn, were called as witnesses
, 6 l herein and were examined and testified as follows:
l 7i MS. HODGDON: The witnesses having been sworn, 8' I will now put their prefiled testimony into evidence and l
9 into the record. We will get a description from each of l
10 the witnesses regarding his testimony, so that we can all {
11 be sure that we are looking at the same thing and that that 12 is the thing that is going into the record.
l 13 DIRECT EXAMINATION I
14 . BY MS. HODGDON: l 15 O Mr. Flack, you have prefiled testimony in this l 16 proceeding.
i 17 A (Flack) I have. ,
16 Q I have here a document consisting of ten pages; ;
19 is that correct? ;
20 A (Flack) Yes.
21 0 Plus your professional qualifications.
22 A (Flack) Yes.
2
~
23 Q A document consisting of three pages, plus another!
! I Flack, Responding 24 l document entitled Testimony of Edwin D.
l 25 t to Questions Raised by the Licensing Board on Revocation as
! i S
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _..m
PANEL 1 - DIRECT 90 .
1 J
MB 1laRemedy, a document consisting of six pages.
2 A (Flack) My testimony is ten pages. I'm not sure 3 if I'm following you.
4 Q Yes, you have testimony consisting of ten pages, 5 ! you have professional qualifications consisting of three 6 pages -- ,
7 A (Flack) Right.
~
5 0 -- and another document entitled Testimony of 9 Edwin D. Flack, Responding to Questions Raised by the l l l
10 Licensing Board on Revocaticn as a Remedy. , l 11 A That is correct, six pages.
12 Q Do those document s const it ute your t est imony in I
13 this proceeding?
14 A (Flack) They do. I 15 Q This was filed some time ago. You've had an 10 opportunity to look at it since. Was it true and correct ,
17 at the time that you filed it, and does it continue to be 1E so today, or would you like to make any corrections to it? l 19 A (Flack) Yes, I'd like to make a correction on 20 , the Testimony of Edwin D. Flack. On page 8, the second line 1 '
21 i f rom the bot t om of the page, over in the right-hand side .
i' 22 it says, "Mr. Larsen's noncompliance in 1988-1989." That ,
i 23 should be correct ed t o read "1987-1988" .
24i O Thank you. Have you any further corrections?
i 25 i A (Flack) No, I do not. j l l f
PANEL 1 - DIRECT 91 l l
l I MS. HODGDON: h'e are giving to the reporter, then,
(
l 2lMr. Flack's testimony, which we ask to be admitted into the 3 record as if read.
l I
~
4l JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Any objections? !
l '
l l 5t MR. LARSEN: No.
6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay.
7 (Edwin Flack's direct testimony follows.)
~
8
' I 10 11 12 l
13 ,
I 14 15 10 i
17 1E ,
19 20 ;
i
~- 21 22 !
23 24j 25 I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
^.
/ NUCLEAP REGULATORY COMMISSION
< '~)' EEr0rF TFE AT0FIC SAFETY AND LICENSING FOARD In the Patter of ) Docket No. 9999004
) (General License Authority WRANGLEP LABORATORIES, LARSEN ) of 10 C.F.R. 40.22)
LABORATORIES, ORION CHEMICAL COMPANY )
AND 00P!. P. LARSEN ) E.A.87-223
- ) ASLBP No. 89-582-01-SC TESTIMONY OF EDWIN D. FLACK I, Edwin D. Flack, do testify and state:
- 1. I am presently employed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory .
Commissior, (NRC) as a Senior Health Physicist in the Office of Nuclear Materit.1 Safety and Safeguards. I have held this position since January 20, 1989. Before January 20, 1989, I was a Senior Enforcement Specialist I held that position from January 1982 to
(~] in NRC's Office of Enforcement.
(' "/ January 19E9. A statement of my professional qualifications is attached to this testimony.
The Office of Enforcement (0E) is responsible for implementation of NRC's Enforcemer.t Policy (10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C). My duties as Senior Enforcement Specialist included reviewing assigned escalated enforcement actions, originally prepared by the NRC Regional Offices, to ensure technical adequacy and conformance with established enforcement policy. The Wrar,gler Laboratories case was assigned to me by the Director of Enforcement. My review of the case involved comparing the findings contained in th inspecticn reports and supporting documents with the proposed enforcemerit action by Region IV to ensure technical accuracy and to ensure that the proposed enforcement was in accordance with NRC's Cg Enforcement Policy. 1
)
(v/
i l
\ ___-______________-_a
2-
- 1. !>ciar.an or. cf NRC's Enforcement Program
% purpcse of the hkC enforcerrent program is to promote and protect the radiolocicai health and safety of the public, including employees' health at.c safety, the common defense and security, and the environment f by:
Ensuring compliance with NRC regulations and license ,
condit1cns; l Obtaining prompt correction of violations and adverse quality conditions which may affect safety;
' Deterring future violations and occurrences of conditions adverse to quality; and
- Encouraging improvement of licensee and vendor performance, and ty example, that of industry, including the prompt identification and reporting of potential safety problems.
Consistent with the purpose of this program, prompt and vigorous enforcement action is taken when dealing with licensees who do not achieve the recessary meticulous attention to detail and do not adhere to the high standards of compliance that NRC expects of its licensees. It is NRC's policy that licensees who cannot achieve and maintain adecuate levels of protection should not be permitted to conduct licensed activities.
The nature and extent of NPC enforcement actions are intended to reflect the seriousness of the violations involved. Each enforcement action depends on the circumstances of the case and is evaluated in m eccordance with NRC's Enforcement Policy. The formal enforcement actions available to the Commission in the exercise of its regulatory responsibilities under the Enforcement Policy may be divided into three basic types, as follows:
O J
i.
A. Writter. hotices of Violations with no proposed civil penalty.
-(_ which ere generally used when violations are not serious, b
repetitive, or numerous, and the items are readily correctable.
L. Civil monetary penalties with written Notice of Violations, which are generally used for serious, repetitive, or chronic violations.
~
C. Orders, which are generally used when a licensee is conducting unauthorized activities, when other enforcement sanctions were not effective, or when there is an immediate threat to health and safety or to the safeguards of special nuclear materials.
Written Notices of Violations are issued by the Regional Offices. -
Civil Pensities and Orders are issued by or with the concurrence of the Office of Enforcement and the Deputy Executive Director of Regional Operations.
The civil penalty is the enforcement tool most frequently employed by
(
NRC and is mest familiar to industry and the public. Its purpose is to attract ettention to the problem and to emphasize an identified need for lasting remedial action. The civil penalty is not designed to place undue punitive penalties upon the licensee but, rather, is designed to emphasize to licensee management the seriousness of the violations involved. It is an enforcement acticn to bridge the gap between the Notice of Violation, issued by the Regional Office, and the more severe suspension or revocation Orders.
An Order is a written NRC directive to modify, suspend, or revoke a license; to cease and desist from a given practice or activity; or to take
(
4 suct, other actior, as may be proper. Orders may also be issued in lieu of, e ir ace tico to, civil penalties, as appropriate.
Modification Orders are issued when some change in licensee equipment, procedures, or management controls is necessary.
Suspension Orders may be issued for various reasons, including:
(a) Tc rencve a threat to the public health and safety, common -
defense and security, or the environment; (b) When the licensee has not responded adequately to other enforcement action; ,
(c) When the licensee interferes with the conduct of an inspection er investigation; or (d) For any reason not mentioned above, for which license revocation ,
is legally authorized.
Suspensions may apply to all or part of the licensed activity.
Ordinarily, a licensed activity is not suspended (nor is a suspension prolonged) fer failure to comply with requirements where such failure is not willful, and adequate correttive action has been taken.
Revocation Orders may be issued for various reasons, including:
(a) When a licensee is unable or unwilling to comply with NRC requirements; (b) When a licensee refuses to correct a violation; or (c) For any other reason for which revocation is authorized under Section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act (e.g., a material false -
statement or any condition which would warrant refusal of a license on an original application).
Orders are made effective imediately, without prior opportunity for hearing, whenever it is determined that the public health, interest, or safety so recuires, or when the order is responding to a violation involving willfulness. Otherwise, a prior opportunity for a hearing on the order is afforded. For cases where NRC believes a basis could
1 ressor.htly exist for not taking the action as proposed, the licensee will
, ) c rcir.arily be afforded an opportunity to show cause why the order should
\d r.ct be issue 6 in the proposed manner.
- 3. Februp 1 , 1988 Order Suspending Licenses (Effective Immediately)
The February 25, 1988 Order Suspending License (Effective Immedirte';. wes issued for a number of reasons, including: (1) Mr.
~
Larsen had fciled to fulfill commitments made on behalf of his firms to NPC and the State of Utah; (2) Mr. Larsen had made contradictory statements to NEC and the State of Utah authorities; and (3) Mr. Larsen's firms had processed uranium in an unsafe manner with inadequate controls and resultirp contamination. These actions demonstrated an unwillingness -
to comply with NRC regulatory requirements and safe work practices for many years.
As der.otec' in the February 25, 1988 Order Suspending License, Mr.
th Larser 's firt; have a history of not complying with NRC's and the State of (V i Utah's regulatory requirements. On September 3, 1982, NRC issued an Order to Show Cause and Order Temporarily Suspending License, based on a number of violations, including: (1) possession of source material at one time in excess of the 15-pound limitation on such material; (2) refusal to make records available to NRC; (3) unauthorized disposal of depleted uranium; and (4) failure to maintain complete records. In Mr. Larsen's response to
~
this Orcer he edritted the violations and stated that he would comply with NRC's regulations in the future. In addition, on December 15, 1982, NRC issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty for these violations. In December 1983, a specific license (SUB-1436) was issued to Larsen Laboratories of Provo, Utah. The responsibility for i
\m.
)
)
1 l
overseeing this specific license was transferred to the State of Utah, {
a its becorinc en Agreement State.
On November 5, 198f, the State of Utah issued an Order Suspending License (Effective Immediately) and Order Imposing Civil Monetary Fenalties ir, the amount of $13,000. The Order, which is still in effect, !
recuired, amer; othcr specified actions, that the licensee: (1) not receive or use source material except to secure or transfer such source ~I material in its pcssession; (2) dispose of radioactive wastes; (3) decontaminate two facilities in the Oren area; (4) move to production f acilities that have been approved through license amendment procedures; j and (E) obtair. a cualified Radiation Protection Officer. On January 15, -
19U, a Settlement Agreement between the State of Utah and Larsen Laboratories wes sicned. The Agreement required that the specified ,
activities in the Order be completed by April 15, 1987, and that $8,000 of the civil penalties would be suspended. The Licensee paid the remaining
$5,000 civil penalties, but has not complied with Items (4) and (5) of the Order.
On November 12, 1987, December 8, 1987, and December 31, 1987, Confirmation of Action Letters (CALS) were issued to Wrangler Laboratories because of potentially hazardous conditions at this facility. As a result i of an enforcement conference held with Mr. Larsen on December 2,1987 in Salt Lake City, it was determined that:
A. Mr. Larsen made contradictory statements regarding locations ,
where he had previously conducted chemical processing of depleted uranium operations.
9
4 q.
7-B. Wrangler Laboratories deviated from commitments described in the 7 .
hovember CAL in that: (a) baseline analyses were not conducted; and (b) lapel air samplers were not worn by the individuals who performed the processing of licensed material.
C. Mr. Larsen made contradictory statements regarding his companies being the only ones supplying uranyl acetyl acetate (UAA) to the Department of Defense (D0D).
D. Mr. Larsen made contradictory statements regarding UAA s hipments.
E. Mr. Larsen made contradictory statements regarding purchases of depleted uranium.
F. Wrangler Laboratories deviated from commitments described in the December 31st CAL regarding the submittal of urine samples for uranium analyses.
Based or, the aforementioned information NRC concluded that: (1) Mr.
Larsen had failed to fulfill commitments and abide by requirements made on behelf of his firms to NRC and the State of Utah; (2) Mr. Larsen had made contradictory statements to NRC and the State of Utah authorities; and (3)
Mr. Larsen's firms had processed uranium in an unsafe manner, with inadequate controls and resulting contamination. These actions demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with regulatory requirements and safe work practices for mar.y years. Accordingly, the February 25, 1988 Order Suspending License was issued.
The February 25, 1958 Order Suspending License was also in accordance with Section V.C of the Enforcement Policy, which states that Suspension Orders may be used for various reasons, including: (a) to remove a threat l to the public health and safety, common defense and security, or the I
-S- j f
e r.v i ronru t ; or (b) when a licensee has not responded adequately to other j er.f orcemetc i.ction. The Order was made effective immediately, in accorcance with 10 C.F.R. L 2.202 of the Commission's regulations and '
Secticm V.C of the Enforcement Policy, since it was determined by the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations that the public health, intercit, and safety required this action, and since the actions of Mr.
Larsen's firms involved willfulness, examples of flagrant NRC-identified l violations, and repeated poor performance in an area of concern. .
Section V.5 of the Enforcement Policy states that: "In cases involving willfulness, flagrant NRC-identified violations, repeated poor performance in an area of concern, or serious breakdown in management contrcis, NDC intends to apply its full enforcement authority where such ection is warranted, including issuing appropriate orders and assessing civil penalties for continuing violations on a per day basis, up to the stetutory limit of $100,000 per violation, per day." Furthermore, in Sectior VI of the Enforcement Policy, it states that "in serious cases where the licensee's actions in not correcting or providing information raises Questions about its commitment to safety or its fundamental trustworthiness, the Commission may exercise its authority to issue orders madifying, suspending or revoking the license."
- 4. August 15, 1988 Order Revoking Licenses The August 15, 1988 Order Revoking Licenses was issued for a number of general reasons, including: (1) Mr. Larsen's past enforcement history and noncompliance in 1982 under a general NRC license; (2) Mr. Larsen's past enforcement history and noncompliance in 1986 unde StateJf Utah's 13 - 19 ht',
specific license; (3) Mr. tersen's noncompliance in 1988 69 under a general NRC license; (4) Mr. Larsen's f ailure to fulfill commitments and O
F
l 1 l abide by requirements made on behalf of his firms to NRC and the State of Ptat; (5) Mr. Larsen's contradictory statements to NRC and the State of
()
Utah authorities; and (6) Mr. Larsen's firms processing uranium in an i
unsafe manner with inadequate controls and resulting contamination. Mr.
l Larser, was verbally informed by NRC officials, after the noncompliance in 19E:, and later, by State of Utah officials, that his activities were of such a nature that the radiation safety, chemical safety, and waste disposal aspects of his operations should not be conducted under a general license.
In addition, Mr. Larsen's March 18, 1988 reply to the NRC Order Suspending Licenses confirmed other facts, including: (1) tho 15-pound lirit for transfer of source material under a general license allowed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 40.22 was exceeded at Mr. Larsen's Wyoming facility; (2} the annual limit of IE0 pounds for receipt of source material under a O general license was exceeded at Mr. Larsen's Wyoming facility; (3)
Q deviaticn from Item 1 of the CAL dated November 12, 1987, regarding feilure to obtain baseline urine samples from two individuals who worked in the final processing and cleanup of the Wyoming facility; (4) deviation from item 2 of the CAL dated December 31, 1987 regarding failure to submit, with the workers' urine samples, background sample; (5) deviation from item 3 of the CAL dated December 31, 1987, regarding collecting urine samplet from two individuals every three days; (6) deviation from Item 4 of the CAL dated December 31, 1987, regarding submitting certain urine bioassay results, showing a high uranium concentration, to the Region IV Office, when they were received by Mr. Larsen.
Pased on the above, NRC acain concluded that: (1) Mr. Larsen had failed tc fulfill commitments made on behalf of his firms to NRC and the f%
m ;
I
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A
UI Etete c' l'teh; (2) Mr. Larsen had made contradictory statements to NRC and tN State of Utet authorities; and (3) Mr. Larsen's firms had processed uranium it. eri unsafe manner with inadequate controls and resulting contamination. These actions demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with f regulatory receirsments and safe work practices for many years.
Accordingly, the August 15, 1988 Order Revoking Licenses was issued.
The August 15, 1988 Order Revoking Licenses was issued in accordance l with Section V.C of the Enforcement Policy, which states that Revocation -
l Orders mey be issued for various reasons, including: (a) when e licensee l I
is unable or unwilling to comply with NRC requirements; or (b) when a f l
licensee refuses to correct e violation. In addition, as discussed in the - '
previous sect'en regarding the suspension of the licenses, revocation orders may t,t issued in serious cases where the licensee's actions in not !
correcting or providing information raise questions about the licensee's comnitment to safety or its fundamental trustworthiness.
9 .
l 6
0
l-l
- l. ;
IVE'i10NAL- OUALIFICAT10h5 0F EDWIN D. FLACK EDL': ATI C ',
TUQ A.F. Biology and Chemistry, Transylvania University,1964 M.S. Health Physics, Colorado State University,1968 l
- C&U The Manager end Program Planning and Evaluation Transportation of Radioactive Material Pressurized Water Reactor Course Soiling Water Reactor Course
- Environmental Impact of Energy Generation, Nuclear and fossil Medical Use of RadionLc11 des Ca14 ration of Teletherapy Machines .
Stfety Aspects of Industrial Radiography health Physics Course Evela tion of Laser Hazards Funcera tals of Nor.-Ionizing Radiation UFE'IE'.:E 1989 Tresent Senior Health Physicist Develops policies, criteria and procedures for the NRC program of licensing and inspection of fuel facility and materials licensees; monitors the licensing and inspection of activities carried out by the NRC regional offices; evaluates the radiological safety significance and generic implications of reported abnormal occurrences and events and recommends action to assure protection of public health and safety.
Represents the NRC in the conduct of liaison with agencies of the federal, state, and local governments in the formulation and implementation of fuel cycle and materials licensing and inspection.
1952 - 1989 Senior Enforcement Specialist Developed enforcement policy, prepared criteria, instructions, and guidance for carrying out NRC's Enforcement Policy. Reviewed and processed proposed escalated enforcement actions to assure conformance to established policy and criteria.
Appraised the enforcement program as carried out by the Regional Offices. (NRC,IE)
\
t
4 q
~2-19E1 - 1982 [enior Health Physicist Performed as the Office of Inspection and i Enforcement (IE) appraisal expert for all l Regional Offices for matters relating to -
i radiation protection programs at reactors, fuel l facilities, and material licensees. Responsible '
for: (1)evaluatingresultsofinspectionsand ir.vestigations conducted by the Regions to determine whether there were weaknesses in the 1 inspection program, and provided the technical l l
expertise for changes in the inspection i requirements as indicated by the evaluations; l (2) evaluated inspections, investigations, ~'
Regional Office activities, documentation of the !
inspection results, records of modules and I manpcwer expended, and to a limited extent l licensee records, to determine whether the l program is adequete. This was done on a national '
basis to appraise the effectiveness of inspection requirements, uniform treatment of licensees, and the application of enforcement sanctior.s.
l (NRC,IE) !
i 1980 - 1951 Senior Health physicist !
Served as a senior IE staff specialist and was the fiRC expert in inspection of radiation protection programs at operating reactor ;
fecilities. Planned and developed the program i for inspection of radiation protection programs !
of operating reactors. This work encompassed the ;
diverse areas of occupational radiation exposure :
programs and ALARA controls, management of I control of radioactive effluents and radioactive wastes, environmental monitoring programs, and radiological emergency p(lanning programs of licensees. NRC,IE) and preparedness 1973 - 1980 Health Physicist -i Served as a member of the Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch. Assisted in the ~
development and improvement of inspection programs for environmental protection and effluent control activities of NRC licensees, and l provided staff assistance and technical advice to the Inspection and Enforcement staff. Evaluated results of investigations, inspections, and enforcement cases. Reviewed, evaluated, and provided recommendations on NRC regulations and license requirements and regulatory guides, o
rbles, and standards as they applied to the l:i' l inspection program. (NRC,IE) 1973 - 19'E. Health Physicist l Analyzed and evaluated from the radiological !
safety ar.d environmental protection standpoint specific portions of-license applications, safety analysis reports, and environmental reports for
..~'
assigned fuel cycle plants to assess the adequacy j of the applicant's protection program. (NRC, NMSS) 1969 - 1973 Health Physicist Provided radiation protection services in ,
departments and associated labs. (Massachusetts !
Institute of Technology, Casabridge, ;
Massachusetts) 19ff - 1965 Laboratory Instructor Conducted laboratories for short courses on ,
application of radiation and radioisotopes in all disciplines of science. (Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee)
I
'O l
4Mt h
r I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEF0FE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket No. 9999004
) (General License Authority ERANGLEC LABORATORIES, LARSEN ) of 10 C.F.R. 40.22) 1
- LABORATORIES, ORION CHEMICAL COMPANY )
AND JOHN P. LARSEN ) E.A.87-223
) ASLBP No. 89-582-01-SC
'~
TESTIMONY OF EDVIN D. FLACK RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE LICENSINGBOARDONREVOCATIONASAREMEDY1/
Ouestice 1 .
Under the Steff's revocation order, what is the time period under whict. the Licensees' general licenses would remain revoked? Because a person neec not apply for the right to utilize a general license, how would the Licensees regain authority to operate under a general license, assuming they were to satisfy all the stated criteria? Does the revocation ir effect constitute an indefinite blacklist? How broadly f
would the revocation order permeate through Mr. Larsen's various orgar,izatior.s ? - (T r. 33-36. )
Answer The time period under which Mr. Larsen's general licenses will remain revoked is indefinite. As stated in my testimony and Dr. Spitzberg's testimony, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considers that Mr.
Larsen's activities should only be conducted under a specific license,
. with adequate controls, as specified in Dr. Spitzberg's testimony.
Furthermore, Mr. Larsen's actions have raised questions about Mr. Larsen, individually, and about his companies' fundamental trustworthiness and ability to comply with NRC requirements. Thereforet NRC will only 1/ Prehearir.g Conference Order, dated March 1, 1989.
- - - - - - - - -- - - - L
e 1
I, corsider licensing Mr. Larsen's activities under a specific license with I
adecuate controls, oversight, and supervision by a individual or c, organization qualified in the radiation safety aspects of uranium l processing.
Question 2 j i
What is the relationship in this case of the proposed revocation j remedy to the criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C? (Tr. !
36-37) i
- a. Into what severity category (App. C Supp. VI) do each of the !
asserted violations fall? j
- b. In this proceeding, are there circumstances within the meaning j of App. C(III) which would warrant an increase in the severity level of violations. See also App. C(V)C(3). -
- c. May actions of Mr. Larsen or the Licensees be deemed to be
willful", within the meaning of App. C(III) and (V)? (See Issue A.7.) 1
- d. To what exter.t. if any, is the Staff relying on past violations for which a penalty has already been assessed to support the revocation order (Tr. 37)? (See Issue A.12.)
Answer As stated in my testimony on pages 7 and 8, tM February 25, 1988 Order Suspending License was issued in accordance w th Section V.C of the Enforcement Policy, which states that Suspension Orders may be issued for j various reascns, including: (a) to remove a threat to the public health l and safety, common defense and security, or the environment; or (b) when a i licensee has not responded adequately to other enforcement actions. The c
Order was made effettive immediately, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. s 2.202 of the Commission's regulations and Section V.C of the Enforcement Policy, <
since it was determined by the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations that the public health, interest, and safety required this l action, and since the actions of Mr. Larsen's firms involved willfulness, O
(a l
(~
exarf e! c fiagrant NRC-identified violations, and repeated poor performance in an area of concern.
Sectier. Y.B of the Enforcement Policy states that: "In cases involving wi11 fulness, flagrant NRC-identified violations, repeated poor performance in an area of concern, or serious breakdown in management controls, NRC intends-to apply its full enforcement authority where such action is warranted, including issuing appropriate orders and assessing civil penalties for continuing violations on a per day basis, up to the Furthemore, in statutory limit of $100,000 per violation, per day."
Section VI of the Enforcement Folicy, it states that "in serious cases wherc the licenste's actions in not correcting or providing information raise questions about its commitment to safety or its fundamental trustworthiness, the Commission may exercise its authority to issue orders
.n.odifying, suspending or revoking the license."
As stated in my testimony on page 10, the August 15, 1988 Order Revoting Licenses was issued in accordance with Section V.C of the Enforcement Policy, which states that Revocation Orders may be issued for various reasons, including: (a) when a licensee is unable or unwilling to comply with NRC requirements; or (b) when a licensee refuses to correct a violation. In addition, as discussed previously regarding the suspension of the licenses, revocation orders may be issued in serious cases where the licensee's actions in not correcting or providing information raise questions about the licensee's commitment to safety or its fundamental ,
trustworthiness.
Although the facts described in an NRC Order almost always constitute violations of various NRC requirements, the Order usually does not
(
l I
f
__ - . - -__ - ___ _ _ _ ____-_- ___ _ _ A
'*f
-?- ,
{
speci'in' b . by delineation, cite violations or categorize violations ir.to severity categories. Categorization of violations into severity catecorics is normally done only with the other basic enforcement sanctions, i.e., notice of viciations and civil penalties. As stated in Se:tict i.C c' the Enforcement Pc.licy, Orders are issued to direct a licensee "to cease and desist from a given practice or activity; or to take such other action as may be proper." ,
As stated previously, the NRC staff concluded in its Orders that the actions cf Mr. Larsen and his firms involved willfulness, as specified in Sectice !!! of the Enforcement Policy, which states that the "... term W 1'viress as uses here enbraces a spectrum of violatiens ranging from deliberate intent to violate or falsify to and including careless disregard for reovirements."
In both the February 25, 1988 Order Suspending Licenses and the August 15, 19FE Order Revoking Licenses, the NRC staff took into consideration Mr. Larsen and his firms' past poor performance, which included: (1) Mr. Larsen's past enforcement history and noncompliance in 1982 under a general NRC license; (2) Mr. Larsen's past enforcement history and noncompliance in 1986 under a State of Utah's specific license; (3) Mr. Larsen's failure to fulfill commitments made on behalf of l
his firms to NRC and the State of Utah; (4) Mr. Larsen's contradictory statements to NPC and the State of Utah authorities; and (5) Mr. Larsen's , ;
i firms processing uranium in an unsafe manner with inadequate controls and resulting contamination.
O
.-f r
\
Luc r
- im i Vtat are the public health and safety implications, if any, of each cf the alleget violations? .0f all the alleged violations considered collectively? Are the alleged violations each considered to be' equally serious for purposes of ascertaining an appropriate sanction? Is a 5 lb.
excess transfer as serious as a 61 lb. excess, for purposes of imposing sanctions? (Tr. 37-38. )
Answer As stated in the answer to Question 2, in Orders, NRC usually does not cite specific violaticns. However, the actions of a licensee are considered collectively, in Orders. As discussed in the answer to .
Question 2 and as stated in Sections V.B and VI of the Enforcement Policy, Orders may be issuea "In cases involving wi11 fulness, flagrant NRC-identified violations, repeated poor performance in an area of concern, er serious breakdown in management control"; or "... in serious
\
cases where the licensee's actions in not correcting or providing information raise questions about its commitment to safety or its fundamental tru,tworthiness." Collectively, the actions of the licensee met these standards.
Questien 4 The Staff should develop for the record its rationale for seeking revocation (the most severe sanction) rather than some lesser sanction (Tr. 38). Dic the Staff give consideration to other sanctions--i.e.,
operation subject to specified conditions? If so, provide details. Would
. any other sanction have been appropriate?
-Answer As discussed in the answer to Question 2 and in my testimony, Mr.
Larsen and his firms' past actions have involved willfulness, examples of
, flagrant NRC-identified violations, and repeated poor performance, f
sa4 1
resulting in: (1) NRL issuir.g, on September 3, 1982, an Order to Show Cause and Order Temporarily Suspending License; (2) NRC issuing, on j Decemar If ,1K:, a hotice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Fenalty; (3) the State of Utah, on Noventber 5,1986, issuing an Order Suspendin; Liter.se (Effective Immediately) and Order Imposing Civil Monetary Fenalties in the amount of $13,000; (4) NRC issuing Confirmation of Action Letters on November 12, 1987, December 8, 1987, and December 21, 1957; and (5) NRC issuing, on February 25, 1988, an Order Suspending Licenses (Effective Imediately). Because of these past enforcement actions and because Mr. Larsen's actions have raised questions about Mr. .
LErsen, individually, and about his companies' fundamental trustworthiness l
and ability tc comply with NRC requirements, the NRC staff did not consider that any sanction other than revocation would appropriately protect the public health and safety.
l l
O
PANEL 1 - DIRECT 92 I
(Edwin Flack's Testimony Responding to Questions ll 2 ! Raised by the Licensing Board on Revocation as a Remedy 3i follows.)
4 1
5, i
6 I
7
. I 8 l 9
w .
11 12 i
i 13 14 15 l
IC 17 i
1E i
19 20
- - 21 22
- l l 23 , >
{
\
i 24 {
25 i
.t f
! O k' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION BEF0PE THE ATOPIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of -) Docket No. 9999004
) (General License Authority VL A'GL E D LABORATORIES, LAP.SEN ) of 10 C.F.R. 40.22)
. LABORATORIES, ORION CHEMICAL COMPANY )
AND JOHN P. LARSEN E.A.87-223 ASLBP No. 89-582-01-SC TESTIMONY OF EDWIN D. FLACK RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE LICENSINGBOARDONREVOCATIONASAREMEDYll Ouestien ! .
Under the Staff's revocation order, what is the time period under which the Licensees' general licenses would remain revoked? Because a person need not apply for the right to utilize a general license, how would the Licensees regain authority to operate under a general license, assumir.g they were to satisfy all the stated criteria? Does the revocation in effect constitute an indefinite blacklist? How broadly would the revocation order permeate through Mr. Larsen's various
[" organizations? (Tr. 33-36.)
-(
Answer The time period under which Mr. Larsen's general licenses will remain revoked is indefinite. As stated in my testimony and Dr. Spitzberg's testimony, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) considers that Mr.
Larsen's activities should only be conducted under a specific license, with adequate controls, as specified in Dr. Spitzberg's testirrony.
Furthermore, Mr. Larsen's actions have raised questions about Mr. Larsen, individually, and about his companies' fundamental trustworthiness and ability to comply with NRC requirements. Therefore, NRC will only 1/ Prehearing Conference Order, dated March 1, 1989.
s
.t c:. r:- i c e r licensing Mr. Larsen's activities under a specific license with acecuate controls, oversight, and supervision by a individual or c car.i:a. m qualitiec in the radiation safety aspects of uranium processing.
. j Question 2 What is the relationship in this case of the proposed revocation remedy to the criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix C? (Tr. '
3E-??'
- a. Into what severity category (App. C, Supp. VI) do each of the asserted violations fall?
- b. In this proceeding, are there circumstances within the meaning of App, C(III) which would warrant an increase in the severity level of '
violations . See also App. C(V)C(3).
- c. Me actions of Mr. Larsen or the Licensees be deemed to be l
" willful", within the meaning of App. C(III) and (V)? (See issue A.7.)
- d. To what extent, if any, is the Staff relying on past violations for which a penalty has already been assessed to support the revocation order (Tr. 37)? (See Issue A.12.)
Answer WP '
As stated in my testimony on pages 7 and 8 the February 25, 1988 Order Suspending License was issued in accordance with Section V.C of the Enforcement Folicy, which states that Suspension Orders may be issued for various reasons, including: (a) to remove a threat to the public health and safety, common defense and security, or the environment; or (b) when a licensee has not responded adequately to other enforcement actions. The . .
Order was made effective imediately, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. l 2.202 of the Commission's regulations and Section V.C of the Enforcement Policy, ,
since it was determined by the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations that the public health, interest, and safety required this action, and since the actions of Mr. Larsen's firms involved willfulness, O
L examples tf flagrant NRC-identified violations, and repeated poor
(
M.rf ormance in ar. area of concern.
Secticr. i.B cf the Enforcement Policy states that: "In cases ir.volvine willfulness,' flagrant NRC-identified violations, repeated poor per'ermance in an area of concern, or serious breakdown in management contrcis, NEC intends to apply its full enforcement authority where such acticn is warranted, including issuing appropriate orders and assessing civil penalties for continuing violations on a per day basis, up to the statutory limit'of $100,000 per violation, per day." Furthennore, in Section VI of the Enforcement Policy, it states that "in serious cases ,
where the licensee's actions in not correcting or providing information raise questions about its commitment to safety or its fundamental trustworthiness, the Comission may exercise its authority to issue orders
[
modifying, suspending or revoking the license."
\
As stated in my testimony on page 10, the August 15, 1988 Order Revoking Licenses was issued in accordance with Section V.C of the Enforcement Policy, which states that Revocation Orders may be issued for various reasons, including: (a) when a licensee is unable or unwilling to comply with NRC requirements; or (b) when a licensee refuses to correct a violation. In addition, as discussed previously regarding the suspension
' of the licenses, revocation orders may be issued in serious cases where the licensee's actions in not correcting or providing information raise Questions about the licensee's comitment to safety or its fundamental trustworthiness. 1 Although the facts described in an NRC Order almost always constitute ,
violations of various NRC requirements, the Order usually does not ;
}
[s
~,
specifically, by delineation, cite violations or categorize violations
- rto severity categories. Categorization of violations into severity l
catecories is normally done only with the other basic enforcement sanctions, i.e., notice of viciations and civil penalties. As stated in S e c t i er '.' . : c' the Enforcement Policy, Orders are issued to direct a licenser. "to cease and desist from a given practice or activity; or to i take such other action as may be proper."
I As stated previously, the NRC staff concluded in its Orders that the actions of Mr. Larsen and his firms involved willfulness, as specified in Section III of the Enforcement Policy, which states that the "... term wi11 fulness as used here embraces a spectrum of violations ranging from l deliberate intent to violate or falsify to and including careless !
disregard for requirements."
In both the February 25, 1988 Order Suspending Licenses and the August 15, 1988 Order Revoking Licenses, the NRC staff took into consideration Mr. Larsen and his firms' past poor performance, which included: (1) Mr. Larsen's past enforcement history and noncompliance in I
1982 under a general NRC license; (2) Mr. Larsen's past enforcement history and noncompliance in 1986 under a State of Utah's specific license; (3) Mr. Larsen's failure to fulfill commitments made on behalf of his firms to NRC and the State of Utah; (4) Mr. Larsen's contradictory statements to NRC and the State of Utah authorities; and (5) Mr. Larsen's .
firms processing uranium in an unsafe manner with inadequate controls and resulting contamination.
O
13 U . ,-. m -
l P=t are the public health and safety implications, if any, of each c
e the alleged violations 7 Of all the alleged violations considered collectively? Are the alleged violations each considered to be equally Is a 5 lb.
serious for purposes of ascertaining an appropriate sanction?
excess transfer as serious as a 61 lb. excess, for purposes of imposing sr ::1ons? (Tr. 37-3E.)
Answer I
As si:ted in the answer to Question 2, in Orders, NRC usually does r ot cite specific violations. However, the actions of a licensee are considered collectively, in Orders. As discussed in the answer to Question 2 and as stated in Sections V.B and VI of the Enforcement Policy, Orders may be issued "In cases involving wi11 fulness, flagrant NRC-identified violations, repeated poor perfonnance in an area of concern, or serious breakdown in management control"; or "... in serious
{ cases where the licensee's actions in not correcting or providing information raise questions about its commitment to safety or its fundamental trustworthiness." Collectively, the actions of the licensee met these standards.
Ouestion 4 The Staff should develop for the record its rationale for seeking
- revocation (the most severe sanction) rather than some lesser sanction (Tr. 38). Did the Staff give consideration to other sanctions--i.e.,
operation subject to specified conditions? If so, provide details. Would any other sanction have been appropriate?
Answer As discussed in the answer to Question 2 and in my testimony, Mr.
Larsen and his firms' past actions have involved wi11 fulness, examples of
~
flagrant NRC-identified violations, and repeated poor performance,
resulting in: (1) NRC issuing, on September 3, 1982, an Order to Show Cause and Order Temporarily Suspending License; (2) NRC issuing, on December 15, 1982, a hotice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty; (3) the State of Utah, on November 5,1986, issuing an Order Suspending License (Effective Immediately) and Order Imposing Civil
- Monetary penalties in the amount of $13,000; (4) NRC issuing Confirmation of Action Letters on November 12, 1987, December 8, 1987, and December 21, .
1987; and (5) NRC issuing, on February 25, 1988, an Order Suspending Licenses (Effective Irmiediately). Because of these past enforcement actions and because V.r. Larsen's actions have raised questions about Mr.
larsen, individually, and about his companies' fundamental trustworthiness and ability te comply with NRC requirements, the NRC staff did not consider that any sanction other than revocation would appropriately protect the public health and safety.
e O
PANEL 1 - DIRECT 93
(
x_-
) If>
MS. HODGDON: I will now proceed to Dr. Fisher's 2 testimony.
3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Off the record for a minute.
4i (Discussion held off the record.)
5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record.
I
~
6; MS. HODGDON: If I may proceed, then, with the 7'I testimony of Dr. Darrell R. Fisher.
8 BY MS. HODGDON:
9 Q Dr. Fisher, you have filed testimony in this ,
i 10 proceeding, or we have filed testimony in your behalf, , j 11 consisting of how many pages? Do you have a copy before 12 you? !
13 A (Fisher) Yes. Approximately 20 written pages, l
,m 14 plus one table and three figure attachments. i (x_- Four figure 15 Q Three figure attachments, plus -- !
16 attachments, is that correct? Well, one of them is a front 17 page of a manual. So four other pages, is that right?
18 A (Fisher) Yes.
19 Q Twenty pages, plus Table 2-1, which occupies a 20 page by itself, plus a cover page from a manual, plus three
'- 21 figures; is that right, another table and two figures?
22 A (Fisher) Yes. .
i '
23 ' O Then you also have your professional 24 qualifications here, which is a document consisting of four i
25 ; pages; is that correct? l
, l
- - - - - - ~ - - - - - -
94 l PANEL 1 - DIRECT q
l I
I I
41 1 1l A (Fisher) Yes, it is.
2! O Was this testimony true and correct, to the best 3 of your knowledge and belief, when it was prepared?
4 A (Fisher) Yes.
5 Q Have you had occasion tso read over it since?
I G A (Fisher) Yes, I have. .
7! O And is it still true and correct, or do you have 8 changes to be made to it?
9 A (Fisher) I have four minor changes. The symbol l l
10 " micro" was omitted on page 10, line 19. f i
Okay, we will write that in, then. Do you have 11 Q 12 other corrections?
JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Wait a minute, I'm trying to 13 14 find the right place. l 15 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) It would be page 10, ,
16 line 19, after the number "b" and before the symbol "g",
17 to read "5 micrograms per liter" instead of "5 grams per i IS liter."
19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay.
THE WITNESS: (Fisher) The same correction may ;
20 21 ,
be made to page 11, the last line, after "900" and before ,
l 22 the little "g".
23 BY MS. HODGDON:
Q What page?
24l -
l, A (Fisher) On page 11. i 25l j
PANEL 1 - DIRECT 95 )
i i
l 1 e, i f i I i O Oh, yes. It's wherever the space is: isn't that
\
l !
2 j right?
3' A (Fisher) Yes. Also I'd like to note that the 4 reference to Regulatory Guide 8.22, a number has changed I
5l in the revision. On page 12, line 2, at the end of the line 6l where it says "30 micrograms per liter," that has now been 74 revised to "35" through a revision of the regulatory guide. !
~
8' The same change may be made on page 14 in the 9 middle of the page, changing from "30" to "35 micrograms 10 per liter," and wherever else that particular number ,
11 appears. i j ;
l 12 THE WITNESS: (Fritt) I happened to notice it I'
i 13 on page 15. !
I
(_ ~} 14 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) Yes, on page 15 also, in l
\ } ,
15 Question 27. j IC BY MS. HODGDON: ,
17 Q The "35", okay. Does that complete your 18 corrections to your testimony? -
f 19 A (Fisher) Yes, thank you. l 20 , O With those corrections, is your testimony now true
- 21 i and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief? ,
22 A (Fisher) Yes, it is. ,
1 23 , MS. HODGDOU: I would, therefore, move that 24 ; Dr. Fisher's testimony be accepted in evidence and bound i
25 l into the record. Mr. Romney is giving a copy of l
,m, l
m
PANEL 1 - DIRECT 96 ,
I to the reporter.
M13 1lDr. Fisher'stestimony,asdescribed, I I have one question. At least JUCGE BECHHOEFER:
2'l 3finmycopy, there are two Tables 2-11, which are identical 4' except for the fact that one has at the bottom a number 5 "2-36". But other than that, they are identical, and I'm 6 wondering whether that's correct. And I don't have any .
I 7 table number as you mentioned for one of the tables.
You're saying 8! MS. HODGDON: My copy also has --
that we have two copies of the same document. Is that what j 9 f Two copies of the same table. Excuse me. f 10 you're saying? ,
11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. But you mentioned two 12 different tables, and I wanted to find out if they were two ;
1 13 different tables. One of those tables has a page number [
14 at the bottom, and the other one doesn't. But should there l i
15 be another table? Because there are no other tables than !
10 what I've got.
17 MS. HODGDON: It appears that they are the same ;
IS tabic. f (Fisher) I can explain that. They 19 THE WITNESS:
20 j are the same table. The first table was attached to the The second table was attached to the cover sheet 21 testimony.
22 of the manual from which it was taken. ^
JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Oh, okay.
23 MS. HODGDON: In other words, it appears twice 24l i 25 ; because the second copy shows what the source of it is.
l i
l
PANEL 1 - DIRECT 97 1
i
~s Judge Bechhoefer is correct; they are identical except for r(x' ) 1 i
2lthe "2-36" at the bottom.
3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. I have a question, 4 though. When you wer- introducing your testimony, you Where is that? This is 2-11, this 5 , mentioned a Table 2-1.
6ljtable.
7' MS. HODGDON: I think he has a poor copy and took S that to be a "1", whereas it's "11".
9 BY MS. HODGDON:
Is that correct? He's talking about the first 10 0 ,
11 appearance of that table, where it says " Table", and then it's hard to read in my copy. j 12 13 A (Fisher) Yes, it should be the same.
f'N JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So there is no Table 2-1.
( } 14 l
\_- !
15 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) Right. ,
I JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. I think in your j 16 i 17 testimony when you were introducing it, you had mentioned ;
18 that number. I just wanted to make sure that we were all ,
f 19 looking at the same document.
20 MS. HODGDON: So that what Dr. Fisher described
.~
21 as 2-1 should in fact be 2-11, which is the same table that 22 appears as 2-11 for a second time and at the bottom as the ,
23 l number "2-36".
I i Are we clear on Dr. Fisher's testimony, then?
24l JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes.
25 l I
\
O - - - - - -. . - _ - -.
PANEL 1 - DIRECT 98 9
M15 1 MS. HODGDON: I move that it be admitted into the 2 l record as if read.
3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Any objection' 1 l
l 4 MR. LARSEN: No. 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Dr. Fisher's testimony will 5,
6 be incorporated into the record. .
(Darrell Fisher's direct testimony follows.)
7' }
.i 8 i I 9
10 ,
11 12 l 13 i
, 1 14 l 15 l 16 17 i 19 i
20 l 21 j 22 l -
23 ' i l
24 i l
25 l,
l i
N.
I i .
m
~
UNITEE STATES OF AMERICA f
V
) NZ LEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FEF0FE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD P the Matter of ) Docket No. 9999004
) (General License Authority hE AN;aER LABORATORIES, LARSEN ) of 10 C.F.R. 40.22)
- LAECRATORIES. Cr2CN CHEMICAL COMPANY )
AND JOHN P. LARSEN ) E.A.87-223
) ASLBP No. 89-582-01-SC 1
NR: TESTIMONY OF DARRELL R. FISHER
- 01. Will you please state your name, affiliation and job title.
A2 t' name is Darrell R. Fisher. I am a senior research scientist t tc Ir' r. rr en: Internal Dosimetry Research Group of the Health Ph ysics Depsrtment of Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory in Richland, Washington. The Pacific Northwest Laboratory is operated for the U.S.
/'~'x
(' )
' ' ' Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial Institute, the world's largest n t-for profit scientific research institute. I am a specialist in the cosinetry anc health effects of internally deposited radioactive materials, including both medically administered radionuclides and radio-nuclides to which workers may be exposed at nuclear facilities. I have special interest in the dosim(try and health effects of uranium and
- uraniunt oecay products. I am responsible for the internal dosimetry I currently serve on a resese:" f ra;rar for the Department of Energy.
scier*'"- n=m' for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviewing the dosimetry and health effects of a recent major uranium inhalation accident. I am the author of several scientific articles and book Chapters on U' anium dosimetry, chemical toxicology, and bioassay.
r~g
{ s_-
t
~.
I t :- 3 E te: rec a statement of your educational and profes-
. 1: a ;
?? -
Q3. Is the statement attached to this testimony?
A3. Yes. 1 Q4. What is the purpose c' this testimony?
A4. The purpose of my testimony is to present factual scientific information regardinc the radiation hazards and toxicological effects of ,
s - M i urr in the body. I will describe how uranium is metabolized once I
taken into the body, the major organs where it resides and the pathways of excretion from the body. I will also explain appropriate methods for determining the amount of uranium in the body by direct measurement or ,
indirect bicassay. I will describe levels of uranium in urine which exceeds the threshold levels thought to be safe from chemical toxicity of
)
uraniuT and the standard practices for appropriate action following detection of levels of uranium in urine. I will also include a brief i description of standard occupational practice for working safely with uranium such as those that have been implemented by major uranium processing faHlities.
~
Uranium Bioeffects and Metabulism Q5. Please explain the difference between uranium in a soluble and an insoluble form with regard to internal deposition, metabolism and ,
i redistribution, and clearance from the body.
-3
~
src many diffE v .t chemical forms of uranium compounds.
) C. .
- . '4 ;. ,
s:' u: k , son t r c moderately soluble, and some are only rrt' ~?'e in water o- natural body fluids.
A soiuble uranium compound is one that dissolves within a few hours i: natural body fluids af ter inhalation, and is readily absorbed into the tlooc strear or lymphatic fluids.
The uranyl ion, 00[, is the most stable uranium species in solution and the r:st likely forr of uranium to be present as a dissolved uranium compound in bcre fluids. This ion bears some chemical resemblance to the sclubility cf the calcium ion, Ca ,
So'utie traniur dissolved into blood is concentrated by the kidneys, where it may bE deposited in kidney tissue or be excreted in the urine.
Uranium in blood is also deposited on bone surfaces and throughout the Orcens an' t issues of the body.
An insoluble uranium compound is one that is retained for long periods of tire, se:n as three months to five years or more, in the lung, a n d c r ', , sery gradually dissolves so that it can be absorbed into the blood strea- Insoluble uranium remains sequestered in the lung for long periods cf time and is only very gradually available for deposition in kidneys or on bone surfaces.
Ectr soluble and insoluble uranium compounds are removed from the tracheobronchial airways by mechanical mucus clearance. The mucus is swallowed natur ally, and uranium passes from the stomach through the gastrointestinal tract. About 5% of the soluble uranium is reabsorbed f rom the intestines back into the bloodstream from whence it may deposit in kidneys or bone. However, only about 0.2% of the insoluble uranium is V
. tr . intestiner into bloco. The remainder is excreted in 1
- 06. What are the health hazards resulting from the intake of l
sclutle w inscluble uranium?
AC. Uranium is a weak metallic poison. Small intakes fror naturally occurring uranium in food or water are harmless. However, toxic effetti u; occur above certain " threshold" levels.
Lic't; . an at risk for damage from depositions of uranium exceeding ,
about .m: tissue for prolonged periods of time, or exceeding about 100 pg': tissue for short periods of time. Tissue damage leading to function:: iess is incicated by failure of the kidneys to resorb (leading to increased urinary excretion of) protein, glucose, catalase, phosphate, citrate. anc creatinine. Histological examinations of the kidney show multiple sites of uranium-induced dysfunction involving both the gl ome r u' ' erd the tubules. Proximal renal tubule cells are killed by high acute or lower chronic dosages of soluble uranyl ions.
Cells or bone surf aces are at risk of small probabilities of alpha-particle radiation-induced bone cancer. There is no threshold known for this hs:ard; the risk is proportional to amount of uranium on bone surfaces. The risk is estimated to be 0.0005/5v or 0.000005/ rem dose equiva'ent to bone surfaces (International Commission on Radiological Protectic , Recommendations, ICRP Publication 26, Pergamon Press,1977).
Very high uranium levels in the blood stream may result in death due to capillary damage (breakdown of the walls of the smallest blood vessels) and resulting edema. Uranium is also known to induce minor damage in O
_ . _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ m_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
t t tissue. Its effects on the nervous system may be
~ ~. . .. fior PC ichiL3 ty other metals.
Urr ' . v the lung me) pese a small probability of alpha particle radiation-induced lung cancer; again, the risk is proportional to radiation dose. The risk of lung cancer is estimated to be 0.002/Sv or 0.00002/ rem dose equivalent to lung tissue (ICRP Publication 26, 1977).
Eidnc. and bone surf aces are primarily at risk from soluble uranium. j T4 lene '
.t erge primaril:. at risk from insoluule uranium.
C7 15 uranyl acetyl acetate (UAA) a soluble or insoluble chemical ,
form of t i a u ur ?
A' Inorganic acetates of uranium are considered to be among the nos t soluble forms of uranium (ICRP Publication 30, Limits for Intakes of Rcaionuclides by workers, Pergamon Press, 1979). Organometallic acetyl acetates may be more insoluble in lung fluids than inorganic uranyl acetates; however, the scientific literature does not specifically mention any measurements of their solubility in simulated lung fluids.
Laboratory experiments are needed to estimate the solubility character-istics of VAA in the body.
Our experience with uranium compounds has shown that uranium compounds e e typically mixed chemical species containing both soluble Dried and crushed UAA powders may contain and insoluole fractions.
inorganic acetates and therefore may be very soluble in lung fluids.
OE. What are the general hazards and health risks associated with the chemical processing of depleted uranium in open vessels from metal slugs into ground crystals of uranyl acetyl acetate?
_ ^ _
'* chrical proces sing of oepleted uranium in open vessels tc- , -ci!iH lity of eirborne uranium contamination. The
- - c, g L;o L cf inhalin;, uranium aerosols is metal poisoning of the Lidneys. Uranium binds to cell walls, inhibiting the transport of nutrients anc blocking important metabolic functions. The result is cell death and iets of kidney function. Other effects, as mentioned previously, are the .
riti c ' t'ont cancer, exposure to industrial carcinogens such as benzene, ar.- rist of lung cancer.
CE !s uranium metal a soluble or an insoluble form of uranium? .
A: Uranium metal is nighly insoluble. Uranium metal dusts, aercicis, a = fumes from processing e>.hibit combinations of both soluble and insoluble chemical forms. We have tested many uranium metal aerosols for solubility and found them to range from 95% insoluble, 5% soluble, to 40', insoluble, 60% soluble.
Q10. What are the differences between the hazards resulting from inhalation of uranium as compared to the ingestion of uranium?
A10. With inhalation of uranium, there is the potential for chemical da' rage to Lioney tissues and loss of the ability to concentrate impurities during filtration of the blood, and risk of bone cancer and .
lung cancer.
With ingestion of uranium, there is potential for kidney damage and risk of bcr.c cancer, but much reduced risk of lung cancer compared to risks frot inhalation of uranium.
O
s !
I . st ite differences in the hazards previously discussed y
v
. . re; a rk with " depleted" uranium compared to work with
rs..
. c: er.riched" uranium?
All. ihsse terms refer to the ratio of the isotopes U-234, U-235, and U-2?! En ieted uranium has less U-234 and U-235 than natural or enriche; eraniv". Enriched uranium has more U-234 and U-235 than cepletec or natura1 uranium.
There i essentially no difference in the toxicological ha2ard to kidnejs f<cr depletec, natural, or enriched uranium. There is a in risk to bone surfaces or lung tissues. Depleted ,
cifference. hoveter, urar,iur contains apprcrimately one-half the radioactivity of natural uraniun. E riched uraniu contains two or more times the radioactivity Therefore, cf natura' uranium, dependinc on the degree of enrichment.
r--4:'. t'Fniun is more of a hazard to bone and lung tissues than is
(
)
depleted or natural uranium, depending on degree of enrichment.
0; . V.ns; is the threshold level of soluble uranium in the human body above which effects have been observed in the sensitive tissues, such as th( kiartys?
A12. Research data on man, dogs, and rats, obtained since the early 1950's , indicate that the threshold concentration for kidney damage is Some about 3 pg/g kicney tissue, or about 900 pg in the kidneys.
scientists belie e that the threshold for kidney damage for soluble s
uranium is 0.6-1.0 pg/g kidney tissue, based on experiments with dogs exposec te seluble uranium as UO22 F. levels of 0.6 pg/g kidney tissue were found ic be tonic in dogs, and levels of 0.1 pg/g kidney tissue were
/
/
( .,
8-1 1
- * , - i- ra;: *
. Ho.ever, the toxicity may actualiy cepend t.e t m m ic- of exp:5 rt t's- level of exposure. The actual relation-s m:: t;e t w e e ' it.(1 and duration of exposure are not well known. I have ;
with me an excellent review of animal research studies on the chemical toxicity of uranium with special reference to the effects on the kidney era the use of urine for biological monitoring by G. L. Stopps and M. Todd .
of the University of Toronto. This summary was published by the Atomic Energ, Control Board of Cenact 0:3. ]s it appropriate to extrapolate the results of laboratory .
e r re ri rie nt s en animals to estimate the health effects on humans?
A13. There are inte-species differences in response to uranium poisoninc. Tne human response to uranium poisoning was determined from the " Rochester Study" involving administration of uranyl nitrate to six hospital patients with good kidney function (Handbook of Experimental 4
Pharmacology, Vol. 36, on Uranium. Plutonium, Transplutonic Elements.
Hodge, H. C., Stannard, J. N., and Hursh, J. B., editors, Springer-Verlag, 1973). Another human study called the " Boston Study" was conducted on eight terminally ill brain tumor patients, six of whom were comatose (Bernard, 5. R. , " Maximum Permissible Amounts of Natural Uranium in the Boc.v. Air and Drinking Water Bases on Human Experimental Date," Health .
Physics 1: 26E-305,1958. ). These studies support the estimated toxicity threshold value of 3 pg uranium per gram kidney tissue.
(14. You are reviewing the health effects of a uranium accident involving inhalation of soluble uraniun. After two years of follow-up 9
f
.t .
- .# t t , nc long tern, ef f ects on kidney f unction were observed.
. cai ti,i : inf ormation relate to what you havr fust statec concerning M cherici toxicity of uranium, and how could this information be used in assessing the potential effects of a chronic, long-term, low-level e x t.o s erei Al'. Although up to 30 workers, other contractor employees, and some neaters of the gerieral public were exposed to soluble uranium by
' r *.; : Et i; n: - recei.e. iritakes that were high enough to cause permanent kidnej damage. TMs incident involved a large, single release from a f ailec shipping can. Tne inhaled uranium was rapidly excreted, and the .
maximun kicney concentration for any worker did not exceed 2.5 pg/g lia % tissue, wr.ich is below the assumed threshold level for kidney toxi ci t;. c' ? pc 'c kidney tissue.
/%
If tN r=terial were slightly less soluble, and if the workers were i
u_j
)
cor.tinceusly exposed to lower airborne levels of uranium over longer periods of time, there is the possibility that the concentration of f uranium in the kidneys could exces the threshold for tissue damage.
015. If exposure to uranium was continuous, how would the distriba-tion in the body change over time?
A15. The answer depends mostly on the solubility of the uranium compound. However, contiriuous exposures usually lead to the gradual accumulation cf uranium in all soft tissues Si ce the removal rate from i l bone is the slowest, the greatest concentrations of uranium would eventually occur in bone, and would continue to increase with exposure to I uranium 1
,e m l v l l
l _ _ _ ._________a
M f
cescribe the appropriate methods for detecting the eie' a c' c Enium in the body for both the soluble and insoluble .
i chemical form.
A16. Uranium in the body may be detected by measuring the gamma-rays emitiec Lg tre isotope U-235 (184 kev, 54% abundance per disintegration). .:
U-238 does n:t e-it any gamma rays, but its immediate daughter, iv r- EM, dae- er.it a 93 kev (3.8%) gamma ray and a 63 kev (5.4%) gamma r e.- _. ovei not emit any significant, measurable gamma rays. Very sers"tist detectors are required because U-235 constitutes a small .
pera':c:< c' oepleted and natural uranium (0.25% and 0.7%, respectively),
a: 9' ns- E long physical half-life (half decays away in 700 million years -- 50 there are very few gamma rays to count). Thus, uranium is serf difficult to detect inside the body using external detectors.
Uranium exiting the body in urine or feces may be detected by fluorometry, neutron activation analysis, laser phosphorimetry, mass spectroscc: c alpha spectrometry. These methods vary in sensitivity, cost, and esse of measurement. The simplest method is uranium fluorimetry (minimur dete:' ion level - Sp.g/ liter urine), which is usually adequate for ansk -'s of urine samples from uranium workers.
T ho rt is ne difference in the measurement of soluble and insoluble .
chemical forms of uranium. However, soluble forms will be most rapidly excretec ir tr,e urine, whereas insoluble forms will be retained in the lungs. Theref or e , analysis of urine for uranium is the most practical method for bioassay of soluble uranium in workers, whereas direct measure-ments of the thorax are required to estimate insoluble uranium in workers.
O
{p} .- ;t u, 14 t y;:i c al e x c ret i on pattern observed after an intake N-_ /
.; e, A17. I have prepared a figure showing the theoretical amount of uranium in the urine of workers exposed to soluble uranium in a single, acutt e>tosure b.c inhalation. The percentage of the intake that is
~
e>pected in a urine bioassay sample at any time af ter intake is plotted I have also plotted actual amounts of uranium measured in b3 the curve.
the utits cf several workers to show how the actual amounts of uranium in ce i r4 compare to the theoretical values predicted by dose models.
01E. What is meant by the term " bioassay"?
AIE. Bioassay refers to either the direct measurement of activity in the body using external "in vivo" detector systems, or the indirect
( p) v measurement of activity in the body by analysis of excreta samples such as Other types of bioassay include the urine or feces exiting the body.
ats'ysis of clood, hair, or sputum samples for radionuclides.
Q19. Given the amount of uranium that could produce a toxic effect, what are the appropriate levels of bioassay results that would require investigation and action?
A19. The relationships are very time dependent; however, general approximations indicate the levels of uranium in urine that are of Concern.
A convenient " rule-of-thumb" is that the concentration of uranium in kidney tissue is 15 times the concentration in urine excreted by the Lioney. Theref ore, 3 pg/g in the kidney (900jcg/ kidneys) relates to a n\
[b
. 1 ;t ation of 60 pgilitei The NRC regulatory guide action f
- c. h .. "ite- (for follow-up investigation) and 3g pg/ liter (f or e ~ . re *tions) appear therefore to be appropriate for protection of workers fror the chemical toxicity of uranium compounds.
020. 11 a high bicassay reading is observed, what actions would you .
consider to be prudent?
A20. A high bioassay sample could be an indication of a uranium utt' peisoning. The f ollowing actions should be taken:
- 1. Ren ove the worker from the source to preclude further exposure. ,
- 2. Confirm the intake by follow-up bioassay.
3 institigate the reason for the high bioassay.
- 4. Continue to bioassay the worker to determine the amount of intale and clearance rates (and whether medical attention is needed).
E. Remediate the source of the contamination to prevent further exposures.
A high bicassay measurement may also be indicative that a urine sample has been cross-contaminated. It is therefore important to monitor the l
trend in bioassay measurement values over time to determine whether high bicassay samples are the result of an internal deposition or an external -
contamination of the urine sample.
Q21. hon long should measurements be continued after a high bioassay value is coserved?
O
e
$ ,7) .
s" t be continued until the levels reach normal m
frequ(n ;. cf bicassa, may decrease as the levels r- 'e; ct -(sse.
022. Does a low value in a bioassay measurement necessarily indicate no exposure in cases where measurements are not taken frequently?
A22. According to best scientific knowledge and recent experience investigate,- .: rlcrs with acute exposures to soluble uranium, the i r r :li ct. cf tN intake that may be detected in urine decreases rapidly
- v. i t h tirt (';er intake. For er: ample, the fraction of the intake cetectaEn ir u-int is approximately:
25% et 12 houn 8% et 2A hours m
/ \
2i at 2 davs (v) li at 3 days C.5% at 4 days 0.3% at 20 days 0.2% at 30 days A lov bi'.?sse, mej indicste low exposure to uranium or a previous higher exposure te uraniur.
Q23. Does the Federal Government have guidelines or standards for acceptable bicassay results.
A23. NEC Regulatory Guide 8.22 prescribes no action for bioassay measurements among uranium workers below 15 pg uranium / liter urine. ,
A:tict levels are indicated for levels exceeding 15 pg/ liter.
l l
.t_/
s l
r
t i.. ,c r ecersi standards for the accuracy and precision
- 3 : : 6,
... tr+-t: Hov.eser, the Health Physics Society has p . :lisne t crl't ANSI (American National Standards Institute) standard for the accuracy, precision and minimum detectable amount for a urine bicassay fe- uranium using fluorometry. It requires a minimum detection capa:;iiity cf 5 pg/ liter with a maximum positive bias of 25% and a .
relative precision of 40%.
024 Wo c: the NRC guidelines in Regulatory Guide 8.22 compare with guidelines provided b., the Department of Energy in their facilities? .
A24. D:L nas adoptec the ICRP Publication 30 DAC and ALI guides for de w str61- ccr;lian:c d in raciation protection requirements, but has l not formally adopted specific action levels for uranium in urine. DOE uranium facilities generally accept the NRC Regulatory Guide action f 1 evels of 15 pg/L and 3/ pg/L given in 8.22. !
l Q25. What is the importance of providing background or blank samples I
to the measurement laboratory? j A25. Blank samples provide a measure of quality assurance to determine:
- 1. the quality of the measurement provided by the laboratory and -
its minimum detection level, ,
- 2. a measure of the change in urine levels of persons working with i l
uranium and the relationship between working with and not I working with uranium, and O
1 i
(- : st e' of the variance in the natural background uranium (V) ;entrations in unexposed individuals of the sac.e geographical e'es (drinking the same water, eating the same food, and breathing the same air).
026. What is the importance of measuring the baseline urine level in individuals prior to working with uranium and other radioactive materials?
A.26.
2 21 establishes the individual's level of radionuclides in the b:,c, due to natural environmental sources. ,
2 :* prosides an indicator of whether the worker may have had a pre, < cus exposure at another f acility.
- 3. It provides a basis for determining whether following urinalyses are increasing due to work with uranium. It also (A) v provides a starting point for trend analysis.
f Q27. What is the significance of a urine sample containing 3/
pg/ liter or more?
A27. Assuming the urine sample was not contaminated externally, such levels indicate that the individual sampled was exposed to uranium, and that there is potential for uranium concentrations in the body to exceed levels that are generall.x considered to be safe.
Q28. Is Regulatory Guide 8.22 applicable to operations involving the chemical processing of depleted uranium?
("
(w I,
s.y m r3 G. ice E.21 v.e5 developed primarily to provide
..a ' csssay and follcr-up of workers exposed to soluble uranium w ; wnc; .
ammonium diuranate (uranium yellowcake). It is generally applied to operations at most uranium processing facilities in the United State , many of which process depleted uranium metal for I military applications (armor piercing shells, etc.).
L~crlur P-c:( ! 4n:
O2';. F art the hazards a licensee would encounter in the proc (ssinc c' depleted uranium in a laboratory bench setting? ,
c'- divided uranium metal is pyrophoric (igniting spontr +-
- r. i g t temperatures). Acids used to dissolve uranium metei are ighly corrosive and may cause skin burns or inhalation hazards. O'cs"ic solvents such as benzene are known to be carcinogenic.
Uranir di ri: art hazardous to health if there is potential for intake by inhaltt Q3' W et protective features should an employee processing depleted uraniu- - a tjench setting employ?
A30 It depends on the operation and the chemical or mechanical processes involved. In general, uranium facilities and chemical -
laboratories employ (filtered) ventilation systems to remove hazardous
~
contamina as tnat have potential to become airborne. Work may need to be performed ir. chemical hoods with ventilation. Radiation detectors are used to meesure both whole-body exposure and extremity doses (to hands and fingers). Workers wear protective clothing, including gloves, caps, O
4
,x 4- .t p'-tsti, and are surve,ec for personal contamination. Portable lV) . . t .. ins; ism; -43 at use; to monitor potential contamination of
- v 's t s Fixed station air monitors and battery powered breathing-zone personal air samplers are used to insure that airborne activity levels do not exceed a'lowable limits. Respiratory protection devices (half-face or full-face respirators) are used for conditions where intake limits could be exceeded. Workers follow a scheduled bioassay program to monitor the pctential for intakes of uranium.
The Department of Energy recently published a Health Physics Manual of Good Frectices for Uranium Facilities (Rick, B. L., Hinnefeld, 5. L., ,
Lagerquist. C. R. , et al. , EGG-2430, EG&G Idaho,1988), which provides informatio!. c the design and implementation of radiation protection programs consistent with current standards and state-of-the-art technology fe* protection of workers from the radiological and toxicological hazards
[
\.s cf uranium in the workplace.
Q31. In terms of potential hazards to workers, what are the differences between a large-scale industrial process, such as those operated by the Department of Energy, and a small-scale bench operation performed by a licensee processing small amounts of depleted uranium?
A31. Large-scale operations generally have well-developed worker protection programs, ventilation systems, radiation protection super-visors anc technicians, and programs for contamination control and over-sight that may not be typical of a small operation. The relative hazard depends primarily on the proximity of the worker to the uranium and the
/
(
(
t
h tu ui anium to become internalized in significant amounts.
. i et : . .; . at both large and small uranium processing facilities.
In sri-scale operations, uranium compounds are usually handled as chemical reagents rather than as the primary feed material processed and as the final product. Small amounts of uranium are added to other feed 1
materials and may be only a small part of a product. In large-scale ;
operations, uranium may be both the feed material and the final product.
1 Q32. U st kinds cf ope ations would a class of individuals, such as pm sicians, pharmacists, research laboratory technicians, chemical ,
laDoratory technicians, etc. perfor- c using uranium compounds, and how woulc this class of workers differ in scale and exposure to uranium as a hazardous material from workers employed in a production operation involving A32. Laboratory chemists and technicians would probably only work with gram quantities of uranium compounds as additives to other products or perform analytical measurements on amounts much less than for a production operation involving UAA as the primary product.
Q34. How does radiological training and expertise relate to the potentiel for exposure and risk te health? -
A34. Those who are well-trained and who are knowledgeable in the safe handling of uranium compounds will appreciate the potential hazards l associated with work involving such materials. Those who understand the hazards and are able to adequately protect themselves are less likely to be injured due to ignorance of the potential hazards.
O
4 (w/ ) ;c D. .E tm:entained grinding operation on uranium metal or a:etyi aceta . :"jstais t, ave a poten i for production of airborne rs'icactite corts"' nation' A35. The grinding of uranium metal produces uranium sparks and fine-particle fragmentation into air. Work with any powder involving grinding or crushing produces sufficient turbulence to suspend a portion cf the matt: ial into the air--including uranyl acetate crystals. For example, v"c" cne takes a teaspoon of cinnamon and adds it to a dry One m i sture, ort- immediately smells the airborne particles of cinnamon.
sr - the cinnamon in vapors from cooking. Uranium may not be ,
na . E 's s'cirit co cetectatle by smell or taste in air, but can still pose sioni - for intale by inhal'ation or ingestion, m
03^. In the absence of airborne monitoring data, what evidence might
[
LY be used to indicate that airborne radiation had been present?
A3E Contamination monitoring using portable instruments or swipes that are later counted may indicate that radioactivity in air had settled onto surfaces.
037. Where would one take smears and swipes to determine surface contaminations of uranium?
A3). One would first smear the immediate working area (benchtops, equipment surfeces , floors), and then surf aces meeting turbulent air flow (fan blades, air cleaners, hoods and ductwork, dehumidifier surfaces, etc.).
x
, yg b
- .cz 6 spil' cf uraniu material constitute a mechanism for t . . . , , - ;-, ic,_.
AM L ! . :' S t he spill dries and becomes an airborne dust that is l l
readily inhaled. Turbulence due to sweeping, fans, or mechanical equip- !
mert also generate airborne dusts that may be inhaled.
1 Q39. What basic steps should an individual working with uncontained uranium take to a -id internal exposures?
i 1
A30 1
- 3. Work with material in ventilated enclosures such as chemical ,
]
hoods.
2, hear respirstcry protection,'
- 3. Monitor airborne concentration using instrumentation with warning levels indicating when safe levels may have been exceeded.
- 4. Wear protective clothing to prevent skin contamination and i inadvertent contamination of off-site locations.
- 5. Periodically survey hands to minimize transfer of material from hands to foodstuffs that may be ingested.
4 O
/
If, -1AT10h CLA551F1 CATION FOR SOME URANIUM COMPOUNDS
() _ . . ..
UF Class "D"a Ura 4 u- he>aflucride 6 UO f Class "D"a Urcnyl fluoride 22 Class "D" Uranyl nitrate 00p(NO3 )2 Class "D"
- branji acetate UOp (C H 0 )2 p22 )
UO C1 Class "D" Uranyl chloride 2 2
~ U0 50 Class "D" U r a r.y 1 sulfate 2 4 UO Class "D" Uraniu . trioxide 3 UF Class "W"a Uraniur tetrafluoride 4 U0 Class N"*
Uraniu- oxide 38 l
U0 Class "W"*
Urar v cicxide 2 U0 Class "W" Uranium tetroxide 4 ass P g] Ammonium diuranate (NH 4 )2 + 27
\
/
UAl Class "Y"o Uranium aluminide x UC2 Class "Y" Uraniur carbide UZr Class "Y" Uranium-zirconium alloy U0 Class "Y"*
High-fired uranium dioxide 2
- a. "D", "W", and "Y" are inhalation solubility classes established "D" class by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. "W" class material is very soluble; lung retention time in days; material is moderately soluble; lung retention time in weeks; "Y" class material is relatively insoluble; lung retention time in years.
- .,rsnate is known to contain uranium as UD and should Amr;niur notbeassignedtoasingleinhalationclass(El-85),a$s,o,the solubility of uranium oxides is very dependent on heat treatment.
Although references assign inhalation classes to various uranium l compounds, it is recommended that solubility studies be performed in l
order to characterize the actual materials present.
l l /h o) i e
E EGG-2530 UC-41 Department of Energy Health Physics Manual of Good Practices for Uranium Facilities Bryce L. Rich, Chairman Stuart L. Hinnefeld Clayton R. Lagerquist W. Gary Mansfield Leo H. Munson Edgar R. Wagner -
E. J. Vallarlo, DOE Project Manager
.N.:.?l YY ~
Mq
\
- I * }")' $[k i [gE G r G ie no June 1988 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy .
Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health
, Under Contract DE AC07 761D01570 l
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Manegea ty the U S Depa'iment of Energy F
itE . 2 1; Ih % Ai10N CLASSIFICATION fOR SOME URANIUM COMPOUNDS g .
( Class " Dea U . tum hexafl.:*idt Uf 6 O'e ;i flu idt U0pfp Class "D'a U'ranyl nitr ate U0p(NO3 )2 Class 'D' 00p(CpH Class "D' Uranyl acetate 2 02 )2 Uranyl chloride 00ptig Class 'D' Uranyl sulfate UO2SO4 Class 'O' i Class 'D' Uranium triox*de U03 Class 'Wea Uraniun tetraficoride Uf 4 4 Class 'W l Uranium ezide U038 UOp Class 'W
Uranium dioxide Class 'W' ;
Uraniua t e '.r o d d e UO4 (NH4 )2 + Up07 Class 'W
Amanium diuranate UAi x Class ' Yea
/ Uranium aluminide UC2 Class 'Y' Uranium carbide Uraniun.rirconium alloy UZr Class "Y" Class "Y
High-fired uranium dioxide U02
- a. "D", 'W", and "Y" are inhalation solubility classes established by the International Comission on Radiological Protection. 'D' class material is very soluble; lung retention time in days; "W' class mater 121 is moderately soluble; lung retention time in weeks; 'Y" class
' material is relatively insoluble; lung retention time in years.
ld I a
- Amc.ium diuranate is known to contain uranium as UO notbeassignedtoasingleinhalationclass(El-85),aks,o,ndshou the solubility of uranium oxides is very dependent on heat treatment.
Although references assign inhalation classes to various uranium compounds, it is recomended that solubility studies be performed in order to characterize the actual materials present, n:' .
'w 2-36 Ks .
)
x0 Y L E
A D D
/ '
le d
O M
I l
9o 0 M i" M 3 -
g U
i d' n "e n P
R C
N '
W r I A d R
U iD
" e
' i
" d
" o v d i
Y m a m
N R i" n2
)
A a(
r udn i
n f o a t ,
R nc od L U i o E t
er m D d c O
. x0 '
1 e3 - M a P l
N E iC t
cR N N E
R eI r
e s R d o
U h eh t W D
GI T )1 ( E I
F F I D d x O
\ M r:
- l
{
- ,. r ~_.0 i 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
@v_ Op C
- &O O v90L-
- l!>
- ;,( } i :.
5 1
Lg '
Y A
D
/
M d
e s
os pn x o ei t si r
c E
D O
M 0
3 L
P-
. Q+: '
4 U e de kr r Rx p C * '
I o J N wla ic
/ '
3 s)
A 1 1
t e d R mo oe r
O N0 9 3 ,
' e(
U h h t Y set o '
e R l ud A
a e vr a np , ' m N i t
o m x L 2
._ I I eo r c O E ,
R c x , xo D '
U emu s 4O A o 2
l t
ai u na c r au x
\ I N
N E
E ol e f
R O b x '
R n ol u O W U is so r Y D
E
' 1 Gl ao pt n * -.
N' I F
I D
r -
F o + O '
C O 3o M 3
m x '
f[ - r- . ~ p! _ ~ - '
0
' 2 3 -
0 0 0 1 1 1
gO_d' EI
)Q v 0" ' C ,. O ! I t ,
, . ,l: , l ,I1lll ,
l m .e Curriculum Vitae 2/14/89 d j g y. r'5 9 , Senior Research Scientist Lesustry lecnnology Section, Health Physics Department Eattelle, Pacific Northaest Laboratories Rictiand,',.ashington 99352 Phone (509)-375-6852
-Edu:aticn E.a. Eiolotv (radiation biology),-University of Utah
- M.S. Nscle'a'r Engineering Sciences (medical physics), University of Florida Ft.D. haclear Engineering Sciences (health physics), University of Florida Pesitions Held:
Research Assistant, Radiobiology Laboratory, University of Utah College of t'edicine, Salt Lake City, Utah (1973-75)
Graduate Assistant, Nuclear Scientes Center, University of Florida, Gairesville, Florida (1975-78)
Pesear:n Scientist, Radiological Sciences Department, Battelle, Pacific ,
hertNest Laboratories, Richland, Washington (1978-80)
Censultart. U.S. Uranium Registry, Richland, Washington (1979-83)
Scnior FH ears Scie.tist, Health Physics Department, Battelle, Pacific Northaest Laboratories, Richland, Washington (1980-present)
Censulta t, Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Washington Hcspital, seattle, Wa: Fin; ten (1925-present) p g
Censultant, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, (I F -; ese *'.Ne:b Corporation, Seattle, Washington, (1gS7-present)
Cc-5;11 ant, f rcject Mara;e , Interral Desitetty and Measurement Upgrade Program for the U.S. te; art e- of Energy (19EE-present)
Arace-4c A;;: 9t ents Assistant Professor of Radiological Sciences, University of Washington and Tri-Cities University Center, Richland, Washington (1955-present)
Adjunct Assistant Professor of Nuclear Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas (1959-present)
Instructor, Snedish, Ricks College, Rexburg, Idaho (1982-83)
Instructer, Nuclear Medicine and X. ray Technology Program, Santa Fe Community College,Gainesville, Florida (1977-78)
_ Professional E gerience Dr. Fisher is a health physicist specializing in the dosimetry and health His primary research effects of irternally deposited radioactive materials.
interest is in development of irproved methods for calculating radiation doses frc- internally deposited radionuclides, and the application of microdosimetry This work to f ra:tical prcblems in radiobiology and radiation protection.in c e l l t.i a r it.cl aith ctser.able stort and long-term effects such as cancer irm cticr, r taticn cell Lilling, and chromosome damage.
Dr. Fisher is mene;er of the raitilaboratory Internal Dosimetry and Mach t'.3: rmt U;;<ade research program f er the U.S. Department of Er.ergy.
cf this v.cri tas f : std on the characteristics, tcxicology and desiretry cf
- rW ss ic-f E >:erier ce (continued)
As a medical physicist, he also e 3
- 4. - reta' a*d uranium oxide aerosols.
g rc ices Trarral dosimetry for the Division of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, the fred Hutchinson Cancer Researc ef festiveness of radiolabeled monoclonal antibodies and other radio-pharmaceuticals used in cancer diagnosis and treatment.
Fe has managed a number of research projects in his current as a study of the retention and Battelle.
fcr radiobicassay and whole-body counting,ill workers, and analysis of the excretion of uranium ore dust in uranium m Dr. Fisher has risks of plutonium inhalation in long-term beagle dog studies. '
served as a technical advisor toHethe Hanford Internal Do is currently
(
re,iening tr c results of a uranium exposure accident. involved in a the res;irat:r tract.
Dr. Fister is the author of more than 60 scientific papers He was also andofreports, and' co-editor editec Inn::c:
Current Concuts in Lung Dosimetry )C983).f:r:ic:cs vi (Fergencn t,uclecr Fuci Cycle (Gcrctn and Ereach Science Publishers,1958).
Scientific C0~ittees Chairne, h:^r Scie tific Committee 46-10 on Estimation of Occupational Dose frc: Interral Emitters (1959-present)
Pe-ter, D?E!O"ER Task Group on 0csimetry (1985-present)
Mecter, A erican Association of Physicists in Medicine Tas en Desiretry (1956-present)
Cecrdir.ator. 0:E Expert Group on Internal Dosimetry (19S6-present)
Societies Board of Directors (1985-present), parliamentarian Health Physics (1987-85),
Society: finance committee (1988-present), rules committee (1985-86),
publications committee (1982-85) president (1983-84)
Columbia Cnapter, Health Physics Society: .
Associate Editor, Health Physics (1985-present)
Asscciate Editor, HPS A'e sletter (1980-85)
Radiation Research Society '
Hen c rs_
Elda E. Anderson Award, Health Physics Society (1986) Sevill Hor,crs Energy Prograr Graduate, University of Utah (1975)FesearcF and D University of Florida (1975)
Eest Studer.t Paper Aaard, Fealth Physics Society, Atlanta (1977)
Eic;ranical citations in Who's Who in Technology Eth ed.,
52(3):261-263 (1957).
l'c- cf k - i t .T Tc! l'th ed . , and he ? t h Phys ics
I l
i 1 i
i n r , m._ _- -
x V E' *-le:t: Salt Lake City, Utah, February 12, 1951 9 :,e: to P r.E Jeannetta Thomas; six children ietider :( Z: 0 Saint, Richland, Washington 99352 Selected Futlications (from 60)
Fisher, D. F. , C. W. May s and G. N. Taylor. 1975. "Ca-DTPA Toxicity in the Mcuse Fetus." Hecith Phys. 29:780-782.
C. W. Mays and J. G. Dockum. 1976. "Decorporation of "2Am Fisher, D. P..,
fro: Mouse Bone Using Zn-DTPA and Parathyroid Hormone." Health Phys. 30:313-315.
C. b. , G. N. Taylor and D. R. Fisher. 1976.
- Estimated Toxicity of Ca-May s DTU to the W man Fetus." Health Phys. 30:247-249.
S. E. Calder, C. W. Mays and G. N. Taylor. 1976. "Ca-DTPA ristcr. D. P.,
Death and Malformation." Teratology 14: 123-127.
I r : .;: e : Fe: 5' .
Fisher, : i. a-d B. G. Dunavant. 1978. " Internal Decontamination of Fadi- -cl
- T'.s. 35:279-285.
Fisher, D. F., a-d W. C. Reesch. 1951. "The Microdosimetry of Plutonium in Eea;1e E:; .:;.' 1r Se> enth Sp;:sium on Microdosimetry, J. Booz, H. G.
Ebert, era s . L. Hartfiel, eds., p;. 1399-1405. Harwood Academic Publishers O
/t T Lt .. Lr t:-
v/ fis'e , E. ;. a-d R. Harty. 1952. *The Microdosimetry of Lymphocytes Jrt'n+: t . Ai:na Particles. Int. J. Rod. Biol. 41:315-324 Fistc , D. F. 1952. "Estirating Population Health Risk f rom Low-level En,ircr~en:t F a d cn. ' In Speciclist Meeting on the Assessment of Fadcn cnd Daug!ter Eng:5 re and Related Biological Effects, G. F.RD Clemente, Press, Salt A. Lake V. Nero, F. Ste:r' usler, and M. E. Wrenn , eds. , pp. 252-258.
City, Utah.
Fisher, P. F. 1953. *]n Search of the Relevant Lung Dose."
In Current Coc c t ; : S ir Lung Des iret ry, D. R. Fisher, ed. , pp. 29-36, CONF-820492--Pt.1.
Technical Irfernation Center, U.S. Department cf Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
FisVer, D. R, (ed.) 1983. Current Concepts in Lung Dcsimetry. CONF-820492-Ft.1. T(:r.nical Inf erration Center, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge,
- Tenressce.
l 1953.
Fister, C. E.,
" Levels cf
'# U,P ' gUD ., and Jad'dTh sr ,inG. G. Brodatzynski Excreta of Uranium Mill and R.1. Scherpe z.
Crushermen."
Pe:lth th :. 45:617-629.
Fis*tr, L. ;. ard G. *. Stcetze1. 1953. Ecdiological Health Aspects cf er:-i.- !' :,fr; itu 4000, USL'F-04 Fatific Northnest Labcratcry, Richlar.d.
m W3st'n:t - ~
I f a-: i. T. Hadle,s. 19E4 "Cor;uters and Health Physics."
N Fis*(r, [. E.
i:E c ll t it.5. AL.1 *.
f L _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- 4 Fisner, ;. V. 195'. Frintiples of Microdosimetry in Radiction Protection.
Fht-SA.'.1959. Pacific Northnest Laboratory, Richland, Washington, fisher, D. E. and R. T. Hadle). 1984. "A Statistical lung Model for v :, . : , , r : r y . In tur,; Model1ing for Inholotion of Radioactive Materials, H. Smith and G. Gerber, eds., pp. 265-271. Commission of the European Co=unitics Report EUR-93S', Brussels. .
I 19E5.
- Internal Dosimetry of Uranium." In Colloquium on the rister, D. R.
Eickinctits crd Anclysis of Uranium in Man. USUR-05, U.S. Uranium Registry, 1 Richiand, Washington. i
-l fisher, D. R., M. E. frazier and T. K. Andrews. 1985. " Energy Distribution ;
and the Relative Eiological Effects of Internal Alpha Emitters." Rod. Prof.
Dosimetry 13:223-227 .,
fisher, D. R. , W. C. Cannon, R. T. Hadley, and J. f. Pg"k. 1986. " Pre-lirinary E.aivation of Lung Doses for Dogs Exposed to pug 2." In Life-Span What Con They Tell Us? pp. 683-596, Fc::ction Effn hational ts Studies in Animals:
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. ,
C0hr-E3:E '.
rister, [. p. 195i. The Microdosimetry of Monoclonal Antibodies Labeled siin 11r b Er;t:ers.' In fc.;rth International Pcdiopharmaceutical Dosimetry Sy m,c os it. , ; .1, 5:hlefie-Stelson and E. E. Watson, eds., pp. 26-36 C ON T -651 H 3. Oa,. Ridge Asso:iated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Fisher, D. F. 1957. " U r a r. i u . Chapter 65 in Handbock cn the Toxicity of Inc pc-ic C: ,c / ds, r:. 739-ME, H. G. Seiler and H. Sigel, eds. Marcel Eekker, Ir;., hen irrk.
Fis*er, [. F I?!'. ' 5f ecific Erergy Distributions for Alpha Emitters in the E:; Lu r;.'
1r le c ct Fertic:es vl, J. Dodgscr, R. 1. M:Callum, M. R. Bailey an:: E. E. Fishe', eds., pp. 1095-1104, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
1958.
Dodgsen, F.1. , R.1. M:Callur, M. R. Bailey, and D. R. Fisher (eds.).
Intcice ferticics VI. Fergamen Fress, Oxford.
AIFen, E. L. , R. O. Chester, and D. R. Fisher (eds.). 1988. Population Exposure fro- the Nuclecr fuel Cycle. Gordon and Ereach Science Publishers, Nen icri.
Leibel, S. A., S. E. Order, D. R. Fisher, J. R. Williams, and R. J. Morton.
19EE. 'Trysics and Biology of Radiolabeled Antibodies." Workshop Sponsored by the Radiatier. Research Branch, National Cancer Institute, Division of C'an:er Treattert, February 12-13, 1937, Bethesda, Maryland; Antibody, .
Im unccon.n;;f cs, cnd Rcdiopharmaceuticals (in press).
O
PANEL 1 - DIRECT ,
99 jm 1 MS. HODGDON: We proceed now to Dr. Spitzberg's
(
%~/
)
2l' testimony.
3 BY MS. HODGDON:
4 Q Dr. Spitzberg, I have here a document consisting 5 of 23 pages, together with a statement of professional 6 l qualifications consisting of two pages. Do you have a I >
7' similar document before you?
6' A (Spitzberg) Yes.
, (
9 Q Is this your testimony in this proceeding?
10 A (Spitzberg) Yes.
11 Q And was it true and correct at the time you filed 12 , it, to the best of your knowledge and belief? l i
13 A (Spitzberg) Yes.
I Does it continue to be so today?
(s)
%/
14 l Q Yes, it does.
15 A (Spitzberg) {
l 16 , Q You have no corrections to make. l 17 A (Spitzberg) No. )
i I would, then, move that l 10 MS. HODGDON: J l
19 , Dr. Spitzberg's testimony be admitted into evidence and ;
i Mr. Romney is giving a l 20 l bound into the record as if read.
l 21 j copy to the reporter.
22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Dr. Spitzberg, is there any i
l 23 I reason to change any of the references to "30" to "35"?
t 24 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) No. The regulatory l 25 , guidance, 8.22, that was in effect at the time that the CALs l: i l
i l
l i
{ i
?
(_-
PANEL 1 - DIRECT 100 M17 1 were issued was 30 micrograms per liter. It has since that 2 , time been revised and is now 35 micrograms per liter. So 3 "30" is still a valid number in terms of the time period 4 that we were using that as the action level.
5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay.
6 MS. HODGDON: Also, with Dr. Spitzberg's testimony .
7 I would like to have bound into the record the documents 8 on which his testimony relies, namely, the inspection 9 reports of November of 3987, and the subsequent inspection ,
l 10 report dated April 26, 1988, and all of the confirmation- ,
11, of-action letters that were written by Dr. Spitzberg and 12 became a part of this action. I believe there are five of 13 them, and I can describe them. l Those are, then, an Inspection Report 8704, i 14 :
15 dated November 24, 1987; Inspection Report 8821, dat ed l 10 April 26, 1988; and the confirmation-of-action letters dated i l
17 November 12, December 8, and December 31, 1987, and 18 March 18 and March 1, 1988. I would like those to be bound ,
l 19 into the record for convenience of reference. Dr. Spitzberg 20 is the author of all those documents. As soon as Mr. Romney 21 i has found all those documents, we will give copies to the -
i I
22 reporter, to be bound in with Dr. Spitzberg's testimony.
l' .
23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Any objections to that?
24 MR. LARSEU: No.
25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Off the record a minute, t
'O
PANEL 1 - DIRECT 101 1
r 1 (Discussion held off the record.)
k 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record.
3 (Blair Spitzberg's direct testimony follows.)
4 5
- 6 7' i
~
S l
9 10 ,
11 12 13 14 15 10 ;
17 j l
1B 19 f 20 :
21 1
22 I
23 24 25 l
L - _ _ _ _ . , _ . . _ _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ _
l 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket No. 9999004
) (General License Authority WRAN3LER LABORATORIES, LARSEN ) of 10 C.F.R 40.22)
LAB 0 EAT 0EIES, CRION CHEMICAL )
COMFANY AND J0nN F. LARSEN ) E.A.87-223
) ASLBP No. 89-582-01-SC NRC STAFF TESTIM 3NY OF D. BLAIR SPIT 2 BERG
- 01. 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 (Licenseer).
A1. Mj name is D. Elair Spitzberg. I am employed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV office, Arlington, Texas, as a senior radiation specialist in the Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards.
The Region IV cffice 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 r
.-, q 2
O also performs the majority of the licensing functions for users of source 1
anc byprocact raterial within the region. My responsibilities include the inspection of materials licensees. Such inspections include routine inspections, and special or reactive inspections. The nonroutine
')
inspections are performed as a result of incidents, allegations, or other !
k information which give rise to a heightened concern by the NRC for the .J 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 !
Ir. estimations (01) in their parallel investigation of the licensee's past actisitin. The inspections I performed, together with the 01 findings, (
eno the licensees record of conformance with certain commitments made to the NC gighed heavily in the decision reached by NRC management to revcle the licensee's general license. Also considered in this decision !
I was the licensee's past enforcement history with tt.e NRC, and the state of Utsh )
l 1
- 02. Hase you prepared a staterent of your educational and professional qualifications?
.i A2. Nes, e copy is attached to this testirnony. .:
l Q3. What is the purpose of the testimony? :
l A3. The purpose of this testirnony is to describe the circumstances which led up to the license revocation order decision. Many of the circumstances
i
(
3 i
I havt alreacy been documented and are part of the record. Specifically, my ;
observations and findings have been described in the NRC Inspection -I Reports 99990004/87-04 and 88-21 dated November 24, 1967, and April 26, I9SE, respectively. Additionally, commitments made by the licensee to the NRC are specified in the Confirmation of A(tion Letters (CALs) that I ,
draf ted which were issued on November 12, and December 8 and 31,1987; and l March IE, an: April 1, 1988. My testimony will expand and elaborate on l the content of these documents and will attempt to explain the reasons I
that both my management and I were sufficiently conts.rned with the .
licensee's activities to recommend first suspension, then revocation of i
the general licenses.
( Q. When did yev 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 f acility the following week.
QS. Wnat was the nature of the allegation?
AS. The allegation questioned the authorized use of licensed material at the Evanston location, and the safety of the operations, and compliance with NRC requirements.
r
w 4
Of. VE! your inspection the first fiRC inspection of the Evanston facility?
i 11( . Yes.
l 1
Q7. What 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 Radiclo;;ical Health Services. In this case, the inspection was announced, -
cr scheduled with Mr. John Larsen prior to the visit to ensure that we would Le 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 c; qualifications; reviewed records of source material receipt, transfer, and disposal, radiological surveys, and personnel monitoring. Mr. Larsen also prosided 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. .
QE. Why did you perform the surveys?
AE. Confirmatory surveys are a routine inspection element specified in fiRC Inspection Procedure 87100 " Licensed Materials Programs." Beyond this
5 e protecural guidance, it was necessary to determine whether there was evioente of contamination within the facility, which was leased by the licensee, or outside the facility. Finally, whenever there is potential for contatir,ation, I perform surveys for my own safety and those working with ce to ensure that we do not become contaminated or receive exposures.
Q9. Wr.at cic these surveys reveal?
The sur vey results were summarized in paragraph 7 of NRC Inspection A9.
Report 99990004/E -04 dated Novemebr 24, 1987. Direct surveys for alpha contamination showed levels above NRC guidelines in three areas within the facility. Tnese findings were later confirmed by the Oak Ridge Assoc'ated University survey performed on January 19 and 20, 1988. The Oak Ridge surve;, 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 loclesel contamination below NRC guidelines throughout the facility.
No conte : nation was found outside of the f acility.
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 resiew was limited to 10 CFR 40.22 and 40.61 0
4 6
requirements. Because cf the allegations, and the unique nature of the O
licensee's activity, my inspection was predominately a safety review.
Q11. In terrs of tne 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 equipner.t which have been used and found to be acceptable in the uranium prccessing industry. My experience included several years reviewing and inspecting uraniur mills, uranium recovery facilities, and a uranium conversion f acility. Clearly, the licensee's operation was not on the sare scale as some of the operations I had reviewed in the past, but many of the same potential hazards appeared to exist.
i 012. Will you describe sore of the potential hazards you observed during your i inspection of the Evanston, Wyoming, facility?
A12. Cherical hazarcs would include the use of toxic or flammable chemicals ,
such a benzene, 2-4 pentanedione, and nitric acid by individuals, often ,
1 working alone, in a f acility with no fume hoods or plumbing. The hazards j i
with which I was most f amiliar were the p0*.ential for radioactive i contamination, and for personnel exposure to uranium either by ingestic ,
contact with the skin, or inhalation.
O'
jo 5
7
%i (13. Did you observe any of these potential hazards at the licensee's facility?
A13.hes. In fact, despite the fact that'the licensee knew of my inspection in adsance and had.the opportunity to prepare his facility for the inspecticn, 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 airt.:,rr,e 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 uranier frcm the licensee's activities processing depleted uranium. This was in the form of a urine bicassay 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 periou of time that the licensee was setting up the Evanston facility. The Utah operation apparently invtin: the same chemical process.
Q14. What kind of exposure controls were in place at the Evanston facility?
1 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 1
fure hoods, ventilation systems, or filtration units. There was a home i
L
..& 3 8
s.a ct r.nric ac. exhaust scrubbing system, which appeared non-functional.
O ;
Othe s i s t . : c , were some stainless steel work benches and plastic catch basins to control spills.
i I
015. In general how would a licensee control exposure to uranium being j l
chemically processed? l A15. A licensee sheulo begin with a detailed safety review of the process, procedures , f acilities, and equipment to determine their adequacy.
- Second, he should use qualified and trained individuals to oversee and operate the process. The 1,aining should include the operating procedures, basic radiation protection, and emergency training. Third, he should incorporate engineering controls such as hoods, ventilation systens, 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 cor.plete with calibration and quality control checks. Finally, the {
licensee should establish a records system to document key aspects of the pregraa's operation. j 1
Q16. Were any of inese controls in place at the Evanston facility? -
A16. Based on my observations, not to any appreciable extent.
017. What infortration do you have concerning the licensee's compliance with the f 15 lb limit for use and transfer of source material at any one time?
1 1
" ,e - p i,
5 9
C i
A17. To begin with, the records I reviewed during the November 4-5, 1987, -l 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
~ I Cospany forms. Since the licensee's Utah specific license was under i suspension, these shipments, or transfers could only be made under an NRC l
general license, further, the Utah order suspending the license, specifically ordered the licensee on November 5,1986, to immediately I 1
I secure or transfer all source material in its possession at that time. I
{
also compiled a balance sheet, which is attached to NRC Inspection i
Report 99990004/67-04, which was based upon the material receipt and '
transfer information provided by the licensee. This showed several periods cf time where the apparent net balance of source material being used at the Evanston facility exceedea 15 lbs.
QIB. 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?
AIE. 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 refle:t the receipt, or amounts of material that were transferred from the licensee's Utah f acility. Also there 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.
_ _ - _ . _ - - - _ - - - _ - - _ _ - - _ - _ - _ - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A
..p 10 C.:. Did the OI investigation reveal other instances of exceeding the 15 lb 0
limit?
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 E.1 lb, and the August 7, 1987, invoice of E.65 lb. It is difficult to determine from the copies I received, but it -
appeared to Fe that bCth of these transfers were Consigned to Federal l l
Express for a single shipment. The dates reflected in the OI report are l
(
the most reliable documentation of the dates when transfers of more than !
15 lb took place.
l Q20. Were all of the 1987 shipments comprised of source material which was fron' l the 150 lbs of depleted uranium received during 1987 from the supplier, Nuclear Metals, Inc.?
A20. N:. As I learned during the OI investigation, some of the material was from source raterial contained in waste crystals transferred to the Evanston Wyoming facility from the suspended Utah operations. ,
i j
Q21. Were records of the transfer of this source material from Utah, under Mr.
Larsen's specific license, to Evanston, Wyoming, maintained? l A21. No. '
i
~
m..___________-_____-- --
t 11 Q22. Were records of the receipt at Evanston Wyoming of this source material under the general license maintained? !
1 i
.A22. No. Failure to maintain these records of receipt would constitute an i
apparent violation of 10 CFR 40.61(a).
Q23. Tnt 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, 1957, date ioentified in the OI report not specified? '
A23. At the time tnat 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, 1957, 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 ry Nosember 4-5, 1957, inspection. The 01 investigation found that these four shinments were of material processed in Evanston, Wyoming, transferred to, and shipped f rom Provo, Utah.
Q24. Was the licensee aware of the 15 lb limit?
f i
l
-a i
12 A2'. Yes.
O In 19o2 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 seurce traterial.
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 corrective 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 try findings and observations. Because of the contamination, apparent violations of the transfer limit, and the substantiation of pcrtions of the allegations, it was decided to issue the CAL to ef f e:tively suspend the processing and receipt of licensed material after November 13, 1987.
Q27. What was the purpose of requiring a urine bicassay on the individual B.N.
whose Februe j 2E, 1957, tioassay sample measured 108 pg/1?
O
i 13 x
J Ai! 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 indicttor of kidney damage from the nephrotoxin effects of chemicals such as uranium. A followup sample was assayec 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 nct ex;ect that information gained from a sample, obtained 9 months ~
fclicoing the initial sample, would give further information about the cause cf the elevated sample from February 1987. But as a precautionary reasure, and out of concern for the individual, we believed the followup
) sampling was appropriate to show, hopefully, that the results were in the a
)
acceptable range.
Q28. Were the results of the followup urine bioassays within an acceptable range?
A26. Yes. Tnere were two samples, one collected in a glass vial, the other in
~
a ;iestic pharmaceutical vial, which measured 26!2 and 713 pg/l respectively. The test for albumin was negative.
029. Vid you investigate the individual's February 18, 1957, results further?
A29. Yes. I called hit on November 17, 1987. He stated that he had only
) worked et the Evanston 'acility building tables and benches and had not
(
, W 14 l worked with any chemicals.
O He recalled submitting the February 1987 sample curing the period that he was employed in the decontamination work at the Uta5 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, j but that it was very dusty. Because of his statements, a uranium intake ,
I curing this period appeared more likely. Since the work was performed in Utah. I informed Craig Jones with the Utah Bureau of Radiological Health cf this information following the December 2, 1987, enforcement
- conference.
030. Did the licensee comply with all of the commitments specified in the November 12. 1967, CAL?
A30. No. Mr. Larsen failed to obtain baseline urine samples from t o individuals who worked in the final processing and cleanup of the Evanstor., Wyoming, facility.
1 031. Did Mr. Larsen acknowledge this failure? i I
A31. Yes. In the March 16, 198E, response to the Order Suspending License he , j l
ackno ledged 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 fu"ther stated that he was trying to keep expenses down.
I O
__ s
I 15 O C22. Did thE licensee f ail to meet any other commitments made in the .
1 Novemoer 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, 1957.
033. 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 samples 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 processing, again showed elevated levels cf 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 obtainec a second set of samples on or about November 19, 1967, 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 the conference Mr. Larsen agreed to resample three of these individuals.
The December 6, 1987, CAL confirmed the resampling agreement. It also required the licensee to dispose of the licensed material at the Evanston
C V, t
16 j facility ana to decontaminate the facility to below certain specified O
l ievels. In addition, during the enforcement conference, Mr. Larsen revealed that some processing had been conducted in the Nevada desert efter the suspension of his Utah license and that in the past, processing had also been conducted in California. The CAL sought additional l
information on any locations where depleted uranium had been received, J
processed, or shipped by the licensees.
I i
Q34. What were the NP.C concerns which led to the December 31, 1987, CAL? '
I I
i l
l A34. On December 31, 1967, we received from Mr. Larsen the results of the j followup bicassey sampling committed to in the December 8, 1987, CAL.
Again, twc of these samples exceeded 30 pg/l with one sample measuring Es:t4 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 i
eating in the Evanston facility during the cleanup work. He indicated l l
that the high result may have been caused by contamination of the food he ingested. Eating in the facility, in itself, was a concern since prohibition against eating, drinking, and smoking in a facility where l
radica:tive contamination is present is one of the foremost universal rules of radiation safety. The overall pattern of elevated bioassay J measurements uncermined our confidence that any of the licensee's activities, even the cleanup of the facility, could be performed safely I
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
17
)
s sar ling aisc 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 corainain; contentions that the high bioassay results were from sample container contamination. Following issuance of the CAL, we requested an ht contracter, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, to travel to the Evanston facility to survey the facility, obtain additional urine samples, and to prepare a comprehensive decontamination program which could be ccnda tec sa4Iy.
Q35. Did tM 'icersee comply with the December 31, 1987, CAL?
( ') AH . E. There were three itets that the licensee failed to comply with.
'u /
First, he f ailed to submit the required background sample with the erployee sar.ples. Second, he stopped collecting urine samples every three days before he had received confirmation that results from two consecutive samcles were less than 30 pg/1. Finally, he failed to submit the urine bicassay results to Region IV as he received them. More importantly, the results that Mr. Larsen failed to submit were results that were, again,
~'
elevated. One o' the samples measured 282 pg/1, which was higher that any samples ottained previously. Although the samples were reported to have been received leaking by the assay laboratory, these results should have been reported to the NRC in accordance with the CAL. I documented these failures, and ry observations and concerns regarding the bicassay results in a memorandum tc file dated February 17, 1988.
]
( ,-
t
5 1
C2f. 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? I i
A36. No.
Q37, Moa did you determine that these failures had occurred?
A.37 I determined this by reviewing documents submitted by the licensee which
- were received on Februar,i 8 and 22, 1988, in response to telephone '
requests I made on February 4 and 9,1988.
1 I
Q3E. What was the purpose and nature of the telephone call you made to Mr. Larser. on February 4, 198S?
A38. I knew that urine bioassay measurements performed by contractor l
laboratories typically are reported within one 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 f ror January 24-29, 1988. The week I returned to the office, I l
began looking for results. On February 4,1988, I called John Larsen to inquire about the sample results from the bioassay sampling required by the December 31, 1987, CAL. I informed him that we had expected some 1
results by that time. Mr Larsen then informed me that he had just I received the results from his laboratory and that he would forward a copy.
O
p 19 l
t
\
- Were the measurement results discussed during the telephone call of-
-C'i.
l Februa9 4, 198E?
A29. Yes. I' do nct 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.
Q4^. When did you receive the results that were the subject of the February 4, 1988, telephcne call?
A40. Region IV received the results on February 8,1988.
J Q41. What dic the results show?
A41. The results show ed 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 received by the laboratory on January 20, 1988; were measured on January 21, 1988; and the results reported to the licensee on January 25, 1988, t
\
[
[
20 C :. W5at conne: tion did the sample results received by Region IV on Fecrua7 E. 1958, have to the samples required by the December 31, 1987, CAL?
A42. The samples were obtained from the individuals specified in the CAL, they l 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 obtained were well ef ter the January 1,1988, date specified in the CAL for initiation of sample acquisition.
1 Qa2. What was the purpose and nature of the telephone call you made to Mr. Larsen on February 9, 1988?
l A43. I called Mr. Larsen because the sample dates on the bioassay report we received on February 8, 1980, 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 j corre:anding to these dates. During the February 9,1988, telephone call j
.i I asked Mr. Larsen why the sample dates reported did not correspond to i l
i those specified in the CAL. He informed me that the samples obtained on December 28, 1957, 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.
I He stated tnat he believed that the sample containers were again contaminated and therefore he had requested bottles from his assay 1
C
+
21
/~ -
lab:rstery. He further stated that the delay in reinitiating sampling was ire waitinc for'the bottles from his assay laboratory. I asked Mr. Larsen to read me the results from the December 28, 1987, through January 3, 1965, sa ;1ing and to send us a copy of the report. Following the
. telechone cali, I documented the information in a memorandum to file.
This document is dated February 17, 1988, and is part of the record.
Q44. Wnen cic you receive the report requested during the February 9, 1988, telephone call? .
A44 Fegion IV received this report on February 22, 1988.
045. What did the report show?
A45. The report showed that one of the individuals specified in the CAL to be monitored voiced samples on December 28 and 31, 1987. The other individual specified to be monitored voided samples 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 l ., CAL. All sample results were greater then 30 pg/1. The range of results were 35-282 pg/1. The highest 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 l
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
. v+Tff 22 C4 . v en c,: Mr. Larsen learn of the bioassay results contained in the report re:c' e.: :. Regicn IV on Fecruary 22, 1988?
A06. Assay lat:ratories typically telephone a licensee promptly of assay results g* eater than Regulatory Guide S.22 action levels. Mr. Larsen -
stated during the 01 interview that he learned of the results on about January 6,1955.
Q47. kere there any bicassay samples obtained by the licensee between January 3 and January 10. 19BE?
A47. Nc. tc ry kncaledge.
Q45. What activities took place at the Evanston, Wyoming, facility after the cessation of activities specified in the December 12, 1987, CAL?
A48. I knca cf no activities until March 18, 1988. On that date we issued a CAL fc- 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 .
laboratory, Oak Ridge Associated University, which contained the guidelines, procedures, and monitoring to be followed during this work.
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. g 1
1
.m.
l.
- '- 23
- 04. Was the facility decontamination and waste disposal work satisfactorily CC'c'EtEc' A G Tes. Or A: m 6 and 8, 1985, I performed a special followup inspection of the fa:ility, verified through surveys and observation that the work had been com;leted 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 releasec for unrestricted use. .
O
- 4 l
- ----- l.
m '
. p a CLRRICULUM V!TAE
/ '-
C 51ai- 5:'t::e : Senior Faciat'en Spe:'alist
(
/
Divisier c' Re:iation Safety and Safegua ds
.5. N.,:t ea Re;Llatery Commissien, Region IV 611 Ryar F aza Drive. Suite 1000 Arlingt:c, Texas 760'1 . Ptere (817) 860-8191 E: :st'e-E.5, E'o'o;y, 5:uthere Methodi st Uriversity, '.975 V.$. Envir:r ertal Sciences (Environmental Radiation), University of Texas at
. ;ailas, 1977 Fr.D. Envir:n ertal 5:terces (Ensirormental Radiation), l'niversity cf Texas at Callas, 1985
- c esi tiens ue le Tea: Hag Assistert, Cente- f:r E'vir:rmertal Studies, University c' Texas at Callas (197E-1977)
- Resu-:- Ass
- staat, :erter f:- Ervi-:" e tal Studies, University of Texas at Callas (;377-1979)
R6: tau:. 5:e:'a'ist (Irte-n), L5hA: 4-11rgter Texas (1975-1980)
Ra 'at: 5:e: alist, USNR: Aritrgton, Texas (19EC-1955)
Sen'c- Raciati;r Spe:ialist, U5ht~ Arlington, Texas (1965-Present)
Cr: fess'e-a' Exce-ien:e As tre Sen':- Rac'at'or 5:e:ial't: ir t*e N lea- Faterials Irspe: tier Se:tten, p Cr. 5:. ::er; *as cerforre: ro., tire ard rea:tive ir.scettiers of fuel fa:'lities, so.:rce mater'ai cperati:rs, are reci al, academic and incustrial (N
t.se s of t>:r::.:t material . Ne tas terferned inspectices of over 350 14:ersee s 'n:1ccin; s;e:'ai investigations, al'egations reviews, and tea-irs e: tier.s. As t e senier mem:ct of the materials inspection staff, Cr. Spit:De ; has tre* frecuertly assigred to the more templex cases aed te:.tt:a1 iss.es related to health Ot) sics, radiological assessment, arc in:sstrial hygtere. In 196a-19EE he was assigne: rajo- responsibilities in the
',* :'s re s::r se : tre contar.inatec Merican steel in:icent. His efforts in:19:e: tre :1amning, e:u*pping, eM training of cperators for a U 5. west:ar ter:cr servey an: r<er/to-ir; networt to detect racicattive r.ater'a's ::-ir; across the border. In 1967, he was assigned as the Regional
- - le
- t vara;er f:- tne Secuoia- Fuels U anium Fexaflucrice Conversion Facility to oversee tre re::very, plant m:cifications, end restart of the f acility fello ing tre ;986 a::ident involving a rafor release of UF 6* I" l9Eb' h' ""5 ass 3g*ed as tne Frefe:t Panage- fer the NR:'s first multi-site broadscope reste materdals li:ense issued te tre U.S. Air Force. Cr. Spitzberg has, en seve-al o::asions, teer d'spatche as tre initial agency responder to a::icents, incicents, ard suspected overex;;sures.
+ 1
- E 5
. s y -
F C I P. N: "E'd f. C . . * * . 0 ~- lE E" C6:52 P. 3 I
g..
s s-
. a .Q .
- f. - . "' . fn e , ' * 'f , ,* ,
.;g . . ,1! V$.w_y- y Prior to becoming a Senior Radiation specialist Dr. Spitzberg performeIsafety e insce:tions at c:e stional and near c;erational p war reactor facilities,' F
- nspe:ti:ns were conducted in all phases of plant operations involving ~
radiati n safety -in:1uding facility raciation protection, radioactive waste s ste s, 5:'ic radi: active waste packaging, classification, and shipping, A1. ARA pregrar.s, envir:ra. ental a.cnitorirs, ef erger.cy preparedness, and outage a* tivi
- d e s .
D . Spitzberg's ;-a:uate resea-:b sucies have been in the area of low level ervirenrental ra:iation r.easuremert technicues, fccusir.g en tritium; the eedeling of e ,vi ontental and hvean grysiclogical trarsport kinetics for t-itt ue , a n: c:-e re:ently, the inter;retatice of uraniur bicassay sample se-ies, an: e::eling of hueen excretien patterns fellowing intakes of the hycrolysis preew: s cf uraniut hexaflucrice. .
F ab11ca t t ea s :
D. B. Spit:ters, A:ute human Exposu-e to hatural Uranium Herafluoride, Ph.D. -
Dissertati:n, *re university of Texas at C'a11as, ;e:er.oer 1955.
Cea-les Ca ley. D. Blair Spitzterg, killia- G. Cale, E. J. Fenyves, "Modelirg G.ea:tson eret :s 1. Mae: Health Haterd cf iritium," Applications of E:ciccita' *:ceis in Eavirc.nrectal Maragerent, Vol. III,~ Sven Jegense , ed.,
~;entu: Press, 29st.
he. Yo a.
C. W. Ca 'ey, C B. 5:it::e ;, E. J. Fe.yves, J. icriewski, and M. T. Chercue,
- E viren e te: Re: cro :' ice Cer:e t-atie.s: Statisti:a1 M::e1 to Ceterrine Unifoer'ty :' C st-te t':r," Pre:eedirt s. Fesrtn Interratic9a1 Conference on Ns: lear PE. recs ir Ervironmentai anc Erergy Research,14-17 April 198C, Cc1Wa , wiss: -i .
C. H. Ca 'ey, C. B. 5;dt:be*;, E. J. Fenyves, "A Corpster Algerit - t:
Calculate
- t u- C:r:entration in Erviron ental Waters,' Preceedie.es, d
Ir.terrati:as C: ,erer:e er 5:ittillation A;plicatiens arc Develo; ent, August 2;-24, ;979, San Francis::, California.
C. Blair 5;itzters, Charles Cawley, W1111am G. Cale, E. J. Fenyves, "A Mocel to Esticate the E':1:;1:a1 Half 'ife - cf Tritiun in Man," Freceecinos,1978 Sumeer C: ; uter Stesiat er C:rferen:e, 24-26 July 1978, Newport Eea:h, Califerr.ia.
i Charles Ca ley, C. Blair Spitzberg, Kiiliam G. Cale, E. J. Feayves,
" Reassessing tee *aza c cf Tritiu- : War," Fec:eectngs cf Siralation, P::elir;, a : De: 4 sic .s in Energy Systtes, International Association ef Science an: Te:nr.:1:gy fc- Ceveicpment, Jure 157E, Fontreal, Cana:a.
I
, l f . I I
- hE kjV E ., . I A . C3/:5'E9 cE:52 P. .:
wm,u. s .- us _ . . - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _
i 1
(Dr. Spitzberg's inspection reports and l
[J8-A- 2 confirmation-of-action letters forming the basis for his 3 direct testimony follow.)
4 ,
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 .
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ,
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
._ c .m m . _ . _ _ _
KH 24 W General License A Docket: 99990004/87-04 EA: 67-223 (v)
Wrangler Labs c/o Larsen Labs, Inc.
ATTN: John P. Larsen, President 3853 North Sherwood Road Prove, Utah B4604 Gentlemen:
This refers to the special, announced radiation safety inspection conducted by Mr. D. B. Spitzberg of this office on November 4-5, 1987, of the activities authorized by the General License provisions of 10 CFR 40.22, and to the discussion of our findings held by the NRC inspector with Mr. John Larsen at the conclusion of the inspe: tion. The enclosed NRC Inspection .
Report 99990004/67-04 do:vments this inspection.
- The inspe: tion was conducted to review allegations of unsafe practices at your Evanston, Wyoming facility. The inspection was an examination of the a:tivities conducted under the general license as they relate to radiation safety and to compliance with the Comission's rules and regulations. The inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative re:ords, interviews of personnel, independent measurements, and observations by p the NRC inspector, During this inspection, certair, of your activities appeared to be in violation of NRC requirements. We are releasing this report et this tite for your information and you are en:ouraged to review our findings and take corrective action as you believe appropriate. You will be notified by separate correspondent:e of our de:ision regarding enforcement action based on the findings of this inspe: tion. No written response is required at this time. ..
This letter also confires the telephone conversation between Mr. John P. Larsen and Mr. R. J. Everett of my staf f on hovember 20, 1987, con:erning your coercitments to take certain actions including the cessation of uranium processing and our request to condu:t an enforcement conference to address the findings of the NRC inspection referenced above and your response to these findings. As agreed, the enforcement conference will be held at the Federal Building,125 5. State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, Roor 3425 or December 2, 1987, at 2:00 p.e.
i
- d VL-I~~ { f t -
J.- AD
' EDW _ fjd
- DR55 Riv: Nw.157 ' [aIS$ $ . C:V;Fishe-NwEPf[fRLBangartMEErerson DAPowers DE5pitzterg/t. kJEverett a/ & E7 t' / t3/67
,./23/87 n/r>/87 a /D /87 6 H/Q/67 13
. b - -
~~ 1- b ' ' ' ' ~ /,
[
.4-8B-002
Wrangler Labs , _
Shovic you hase any Questions concerning this letter, we will be pleased to cis:vss thee with you.
~
Sincerely, 7.f .
William L. Fisher, Chief -
Nu: lear Materials and Emergency Preparedness Branch Enciesures:
- 1. Appendix A - NRC Inspection Report 99990D04/87-04
- 2. Appendix B - Source Material Re:eipt an: Transfer cc w/ enclosures:
Utah Radiation Control Prograr Director Wyoeing Raciatinn Control Prograe Dire: tor .
b:::
Dv.E - Original (IE-07)
- L5hea, R*./ALF (AF-2'15) RDMartin
- Inspe: tor RLBangart
- NwEps REHall
- C5 Systee WLFisher p DAPowers
- R]V Files (2) JLieberman
- RSTS Operate-RJDoda RJEverett MEirerson
- w/766 o
O G
-7 O
APPENDIX A U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO WISSION O '
REGION IV i
NR; Inspection Report: 99990004/E7-04 License: General Do:ket: 99990004 Licensee: Wrangler Labs Unit 121 Top of Sage Industrial Park.
Evanston, Vt 62903 Inspe: tion At: Evanston, Wyoming 1
- Inspe: tion Condu:ted: hoveeter 4-5, 1957 1
Insee: tor;, eQ i+/4 W 5 pit:oerg , Je% or F.acia".icC 5peq7a n. st Date L. E.' !
hu:1' ear Materiait Inspection Section ;
l Accompanied By: J. E. Haes, Jr., Chief, Radiological Health I Se* vices, State of Wyoming l
)
/ l App-o.ed: 54I $1d+ _ FM Date
//!73!I7 E. JgM verett, Enie,I,f's:isc Materials Inspe: tion Se:tien
\
Inspection Sume y q
\
Inspection Cenducted hevembee 4-5, 1987 (Report 99990004/87-04)
Areas Insee:ted: Spe:ial, announced inspe: tion of activities conducted under
- general license provisions of 10 CFR 40.22, and review of an allegation of unauthorized an: unsafe use of licensed r.aterial (case 4-87-A-062). Included in the inspe: tion was a review of radiation protection practices, selective examinations of pro:edures and representative records, interviews of personnel, independent measurements, and observations by the NRC inspector.
e%
e*
t i
f l
2 Reselts' Within the areas inspected, two aoparent violations were identified To'r possession at one tire of mere than the general license limit of 15 pounds of source material (Se: tion 6.a) and for possession of Quantities of licensed material which requires a spe:ific license without having been issued a specific license (Ser. tion 6.a). These violations appeared to have occurred on several o::asions sic:e March 1967. The allegation of an unauthorized user was substantiated in that the user was found not to bt authorized to possess and use source material in excess of general license quantities. The alleged use of source material in an unsafe manner was substantiated and the investigation ~
into this allegation did result in identifying the apparent violations referenced above and two cpen itees referen:ed in Se:tions 6.d and 7.
o O
O M
S g *9 O
f l ____ ___ _______ ___ _____ _ __ -
i l 1
I
{
/^% . DETAILS
- 1. Persons Conta:ted 1
' John P. Larsen, President, Wrangler Labs A11eger i
'Present during the exit briefing.
- 2. Reason for See:ial Inspection On October 26, 1957, Region IV was notified by the Wyoming Health Department of an allegation it had received concerning activities which were being conducted at a mini warehouse located near Evanston, Wyoming.
The allegation Questioned the authorized use of licensed material at that 1c:ation which reportedly involved the chemical processing of uranium-238 into a chemical catalyst product. The allegation also questioned if the user was operating in a safe manner a: cording to NRC requirements. The ,"
user hac stated that he represented two organizations: Wrangler Labs, Frove, Utah; and Orion Chemical, Prove, Utah. The NRC inspector was dispatched to inspect e:tivities at the site. He was accompanied by a representative of the Wyoming Health Department.
- 3. Ea:k;round The company president, wne was the alleged unauthorized user, had over the
)
V years been involved in the processing of depleted uranium (OU) to the product tranyl acetyl acetate (UAA) in the state of Utah. He had previously worked uncer a general license pursuant to 10 CFR 40.22 under the neee of Orion Chemical Company. The licensee's facility was inspected by the hR: in August 1982, at which time four violations of NRC requirements were identified. Included in these were a violation for possession of more than the general license limit of 15 pounds of source material at one tire during August 1982, and a violation concerning contamination found outside the facility resulting from unauthorized disposal. Following the August 1982 inspe: tion, the NRC issued an Order to Show Cause and Order' Temporarily Suspending License to Orion Chemical on September 3, 1982. The Order was rescinded on October 25, 1982, after the licensee had implemented suitable corrective action, and following the
~
September 1982 reinspection of the facility. On December 15, 1982, the NRC assessed Orion Chenical Company a civil penalty for the violations identified during the August 1982 inspection.
In May 1952, Orion Chemical had applied for a specific license to conduct the same a:tivities it had previously condu:ted under the general license.
This license (5@1436) was issued in De: ember 1983 and was reissued under a dif ferent name, Larsen Laboratories, on May 13, 1985, by the state of Utat f c110 ir,94ts be:oring an agreement state. A: cording to information re:ei*ec from the State of Utah, Larsen Laboratories was investigated cy
e' i .
the State Bureau of Radiation Control during the perios April through May 1956 with several violations identifiec. A hotice of Violation, Orcer, and Orcer to Show Cause was issued by the state in June 1986.
According to the Order, the violations collectively showed a
- careless disregarc by the licensee of Departrent of Health requirements." On July 30, ISSE, the state issued a Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties to Larsen Laboratories. Following a September 19B6 hearing, the state issued a November 5,1986, order suspenoing the license and imposing civil penalties. This follo ed the October ISS6 inspection by the state, which .
showed many of the violations to be uncorrected.
Note: Under the general license provisions of 10 CFR 40.22, a licensee is "hotices, exempt f rom the requirements of 10 CFR Part 19 -
Instructions, and Reports to Workers; Inspections"; and 10 CFR Part 20 " Standards for Protection Against Radiation."
- 4. Frecess Description The NR inspe: tor discussed with the company president the activities he.
had been concu: ting in Wyoming and reviewed a pamphlet containing the process description. This description hadInapparently simplifiedbeen fort, submitted the licensae in support of previous specific licenses.
had been receiving from a supplier DU metal slugs, which would be dissolved into solution using nitric acid, followed by the precipitation of UtA using 2,4 pentanedione. To the pre:1pitate would be added benzene The produ:t would then be filtered, to promote re: crystallization of UAA.The licensee had been pro:essing lots of dried, grounc, and pa:kaged.
15 pouncs or less of DU, as this was the possession limit of the general license. UtA produ:t contained generally between 45 and 18 percent DU by weight.
- 5. Facility Description The The NRC inspector toured the licensee's f a:ility on November 4,1987.
licensee had leased the Quensehtut type building in January 1987 and The had received the first shipment of DU from the supplier in March 1987.
approximate 30 X 40 foot area comprising the licensee's facility appeared orderly on the day of the inspection with no active processing ongoing.
The f acility was equipped with stainless steel work benches, catch basins, and storage cases. There was no plumbing to the facility. The NRC inspector observed two SS-gallon drums of benzene, one each of 2,4 pentanedione and nitric acid, and a smaller container of sulfuric acid. There were also several containers of used pro:ess chemicals Two contaminated waste barrels were observed, bearing dissolved uranium.
- es:h containing some contaminated dry trash as detettined by radiation survey. Process equipment observed included numerous stainless steel buckets, hot plates, three microwave evens used to dry the prctu:t, and a blencer used te tulverize the produ:1. Some rolls of linoleue had been placed on the,(.lpor; ho.ever, most of the flocr area was co filters, and provisions for air sampling, whi:h may have teen utilized in O
4 I
(
_. ___-__-_A
5 thelicensee'sIltahoperations,theNRCinspectorfoundlittleintheway of en;ineering controls to control potential airborne radioactivity.
Fro:essing had been concu:ted in open air using only natural ventilation, except for the nitration step, which did have a crude suction fan and wet scrubber to remove acid fumes and oxides of nitrogen.
- 6. Documentation Reviewed
- a. Receiej/ Transfer / Shipping Records The NRC inspe: tor reviewed records of licensed material receipt and transfer since the Wyoming operations began in January 1987 (see Appendix B). According to these records, the licensee did not
- re:eive more than the 150-pound general license limit per calendar year of sour:e material. Records indicated, however, that during the periods Mar:b 27 through April 7; April 21-30; June 1; June 26-27; August 6-7; and September 23 through November 5, 1987, the license 2 was in possession of more than the 15 pounds of source r.aterial -
at one time authorized by the general license provisions of 10 CFR 40 '
and witnout a spe:ific license. These findings were identified as ap;arent violations of 10 CFR 40.3 and 40.22(a). The company president incicatec that some of this overage was from residual product recovere: from waste material from ms Utah operations. Licensee records of raterial receipt, transfer, and disposal were found to have been maintained in a:cerdan:e with 10 CFR 40.61.
- b. Waste Diseesel The NR; inspe: tor reviewed records showing the May 29, 1987, shipment of 17 drues (127 ft3 ) of dry waste to the University of Utah for disposal by burial at a licensed waste burial facility. Most of the waste was from the previous Utah operations and was disposed of under State of Utah Order dated November 5, 1986. As noted earlite, under the provisions of the general license, the licensee is exempt from the waste disposal requirements of 10 CFR 20.301 .311
- c. . Licensee Surveys / Instrumentation The NRC inspector reviewed available smear surveys of alpha cont. amination perforred by the licensee following cleanup fror each
- process batch. The sueveys were made using an alpha scintillation detector and revealed r,o levels above the NRC recorrt. ended guidelines of 1000 d;>m/100 2ce . There was a total of 36 individual smear survey results recorded since the Wyoming operations began in January 1967.
The licensee was also in possession of two portable beta-gura survey instruments; however, any results of use of these instrurients had not been recorded. Certificates showed that licensee instruments had been ca1 M ated by the manufa:turer in late 1986. The licensee also had a hi p olume and a breathing Zone air sartpler; however, no l
calitratioh cata or measurement results from these instruments were available for revie..
6
( .
- d. Users / Personnel Desimetry The NR; inspe: tor reviewed the availatie records pertaining to personnel exposures, which had been maintained largely as a result of previous operations in Utah. According to these records, four individuals had been involved in some manner in licensed activities.
Some of these were college students. Because of the general license provisions of 10 CFR 40.22, there are no requirements for identification of, or training and qualifications of users. But l
' since the user exceeded the general license quantities of source material without a specific license as noted in Section 6.a he was ,
found to be unauthorized to conduct such activities. Three individuals had been issued thermoluminescent dosimeters from September 1986 to the time of the inspection, with external exposures .
all minimal. A whole body count performed on the company president in July 1985 was below the 9 nCi action level of Regulatory Guide 8.22, "Bicassay at Uranium Mills." Urine bicassays on three individuals were submitted to a contractor laboratory in June 1985 June 1986, and February 1957. All results were below the Regulatory.
Guide 8.22 action levels except for one individual, whose ,
February 1987 sample measured 105:5 pg/l uranium. The individual was resampled in Parch 1987 with the result (5 pg/1. The higher sample could indicate excessive internal exposure and inadequate airborne uranium confinement.
Also there was no data to show how long after a potential intake the sample was obtained. This finding is considered an open iter pending further urine analysis of the (0 pen Item 99990004/6704-01) individual for uranium and albuminuria.
- 7. Independent Surveys The NR; inspector performed random radiation surveys for dire:t alpha, beta-gamma, and removable alpha contamination both inside and outside the licensee's facility. Of 14 smear surveys, all were less than 1/3 of the NR" guidelines for removable alpha contamination for unrestricted areas.
Direct alpha surveys showed measurable surface contamination above Three areas surveyed were above the ba:kground throughout the facility. 2rand NRC guidelines for average surf ace contamination of 5000 dpr/100 cm one of these was more than twice the guideline for r.aximum surface contamination of 15,000 dpm/100 cr2 This finding is considered an open item pending proper licensee removal of this contamination (south caten basin support) (0 pen Item 999900D4/8704-02). Eeta gamma surveys using a .
pancake probe and count-rate meter also showed low level surf a:eEvidence contamination throughout the facility.
was found by surveying the air filter of a portable heater - 1800 cpm No (background 100 cpe), and dust / dirt floor sweepings - 1800 cpe. -
eviden:e of contamination was found outside of the facility.
e#
O
7
- 8. Exit Briefing.
The NRC inspector met with the company president at the conclusion of the
. inspection to discuss the fincings. The president was informed that Region IV management would review the findings before taking enforcement action, and that a decision would be made concerning the appropriateness of continuing such operations under the regulatory exemptions provided by the general license. ,
9 e
e O
e e
l i
\,
1 APPENDIX B SOURCE MATERIAL RECEIPT AND TRANSFER Q . 1 Scuece Material Source Material Apparent het Balance Date Receivec (1bs) Shipped (1bs) Onhand (1b) 03/03/87 15 --
15.00 03/24/87 --
7.62 7.38 03/27/67 15 --
22.38 G
- i 03/29/87 --
7.06 15.32 9 04/07/E7 --
6.55 8.77
~
04/1B/57 --
7.92 0.85 04/21/57 15 --
15.85 (1) #2 04/30/E7 --
8.80 ,y# 7.05 .
06/01/E7 --
16.69 16.69 S 8 3 06/02/E7 15 --
15.00 06/13/57 -- 7.80 7.20 CE/2E/E7 15
~~
22.20 @ *4
\ - 06/27/57 -- 11.00 y 1.20 1 07/12/87 --
12.71 # 12.71 07/17/E7 15 15.00 OS/05/E7 15 8.10 21.50 @ 45 16.77 06/07/87 --
7 ' . s 5.13 09/03/87 -- 13.65 13.65
. 09/09/67 15
-- 15.00 09/23/67 15
-- 30.00 6 09/30/87 -- 10.14 ,19.86 @ #5 l l- 10/19/67 15 12.79 22.07 b
( .
icial 150 147.60 l
4 APR 2 61988 deneral License D o c k t. *. : 99990004/88-21 .
j f
\
EA: 07-223 6
Wrangler Labs ,
c/o Larsen Lacs, Inc. .
ATTN: John P. Laesen, Dresident ,
3853 North Sherwood Ecad '
Frovo, utan 84604
. Gentlemen:
This refers to tre special, anricunced radiatier safety inspection conducted by Mr. D. B. Spit:cerg of tnis office on April 6 and 8, 1988, of the activities
- authorized by the General License provisicrs of 10 CFR 40.22, and to the ciscussion of cur fincirgs held by the NM in!+ector with Mr. John Larsen at the conclusion or the inspection. The eatlosed NPC Inspection Repcrt 99990004/5E-21 cocurrents t1is ins:< c tion.
The ins;;ection was concocted in crder to vtri'y compliance with h4C '
Confirmation of A: tion Letters witn respa:t to the removal of licensed rateria'.
and decentaminatien af tne Evanston feci ~*.), to rev'ew the action taken in response to previcas intre: tion fircings ar c to per'orm an independent c10secLt survey. The irspect'c" : Ors sitd c f selective exa.?inations of 3rotecures anc re;rese1tative records, it;.etviews of personnel, independent measure! rents, an: C0seS ations oy the NRC irsDetter.
No siclati0ns cf NRC re:p re-entt were in".ifiec caring this inspectien.
Shoule you have any cuestiens concerning. tv s letter, we will be pleased to discuss the with ycu.
Sin:erely, D Igh::.1 Signed Ey, villiam L. Fisher, Chief Noclear Meterials and Emergency Preparedness Branch
Enclosure:
Appendix - NRC Inspectdon Rep: t 99990004/68-21 w/sttach*.ent
- cc w/ enclosure:
Utan Raciation :ontrol Prograt Cirec.or Wycming Radiaticn Control Fregrr.m Di ecto-RIV:NuIS/lh C: Nul5 [ C:NMEF. AC DB!,pitzberg/tk DAP:we s WLFis 3h - MEEmersen J/M/B6 % /g/85 q l6/65 Ljl55{$$
9 N
I i l
~2" Wrangler labs Gl
~
l bcc: !
CMB - Original (IE-07) j
- L5hea, RM/ALF ( A R- 20'.5) RDMartv.3 '
RLBang3*:
s
- Inspector
.pgp g REkall
- MIS System WLfiSI'"
DAPowers
- RIV Files (2) JLiebe-vin
'RSTS Operater RJDM6 ,
MEErterson
- w/766 9
e O
9 9
O
y g_ , , , , _ ~ _ . _ _ -
.1 APPENDD
~
f ) -U.S. NUCLEAR REGION IV REG l LATOLY CCMMISSICN
-L/
J License: General 4 59930004/ES*21 NRC Inspection Report:
Decket: 99990004 Wrargler Labs Licer.see:
'~ Uni: 121 Top of Sage indtstrial Farn Evanster, Wyomirg f2903
- Evanston, Wyomirg Inseection At:
Apr41 6 ans 8,198!
Inspection Condt.:tec:
/-/4-# ,
J hh[+ g,,,,,_ _
Uite Inspecter:
E e. dp): 2:er;r, Wng' mr stion 5peciaiist h.sclese t'ateriels Inspect on Section i f
. O MNI 0 b ! I W i k' Date '
~
f -
A;; roved: U~F%ers , Gief , N;ciJiMiterials Inspecticn Section Insnection Sue.arv 99990004/88-21) l h pection Condteted Arro 6 6cc 8, 1988,,{Relcet Special, announceo ingsetion The inspection ofwas activities conductedconducted to un Areas Inspected: tamination from the facility se general license provisions of 10 CfR 40.22, d to review action taken in verify the rernoval of licensed traterial ard con Inclucec l
that it could be retumed to unrestricted ise, ani s inspection.
tices, selective response to two open itefrs identified during a prev ou
~. in the inspection was a review cf radiat1or, protection pracinterviews examinations of proced:res and repres,entr.ive ' i tions were rec l emaved Results: Within the areas insstcted, no vified olations areas of or dev aAThe icentified.
from the facility and surveys showed that previously RC guidelines. ident One coeFitem surface facility contamination di identifiec pencing tre scom Ital hac 01"fdiifssay (Section 4).
tesn d from results decontami obtaine individuals curing the c'ennut activit'es l m
~2w , s t
ri o ec:oi se e o ;m w m m uou ]
l l
I i
2 -
O D_E ~ A l '. j
- 1. Persc+s Cc--tacted
' John P. Larsen, Pres,ident, nangler Laos Sally Larsen, f acil'ty citanup worke*
Kevin Noack, facility cleanup worter .
"Present during the exit briefing.
2 Reasce for Special Inscection '
inspectier (W Inspection 99990004/8744)
Report Park, on Novew e- 4-5, IEE7. en Industrial was cendo:*sc cf the iicensee's facility at SageBuilcing During the 1;14, E No. 4 A482) rade concerning ecthities at tre f acility.
inspectier. t :
cpen itens were ice .tified pending licensee followup tc an
- elevate::
t'oassay result 'ror a licensee eg'.oyee, and for19-20, On Janusry areas1988,of fi>ed surf a:e cor. amination exceecing NRC guidelines.by Region IV and a contractor, Cak r for the anotter s;. wei was ma:e of the erd f aci'- t)1sted Urivers ties (CUU). and a pro disposal cf radioactive waste.
Ridgc Asso:
saf e decentaminatitn of t9e f aci'it)
ByN: Orce dated Fet uary 25, 1960, the general licenses issued to '
Mr. J:hn Larsen at his cot;enies E.ansto, we facility e sascended to belowand the licensees wereNRC gu orcerec tc :ecentaminate taf te o*ccerl. disp:se cf all 'icenset material in their possession d Evanston. *yoming.
1965, Mr. .arsen comitted to pe+ ferning the re::uired ciecentamination an disp 05ai activities in a:Co-cance wit, the procedures described in the Ine NPC inspector isited the f acility on April 6 and 8, ORAU recer..
1958, te revie, tne licersee's f ol'cwuc to the open itees, to verify that l aterial qat tetr packaged or removed from the f acility, and to license::
verify thr: ugh independent measurements tnat the facility had been cetonta inated to safe lesels below hR: guidelines.
3.
Li:ensee Acticn on Previous Inspecticn findings This item concerned the need to -
(Cicsed) fc'10wup perform Ooen Iter urine (99950004/8704-01):
analysis for uranium anc albuminuria The NRC for en employee . nose February 1957 urine sapie measured 17, 1987,pg/1.
106 to l t'y telephone on Novemcer inspector contacted this irdividua ,
inquire into his activities which may have caused this elevated measuremer , resuh. material in Wyoming but that he had performec activities inv31ving sourc( i general lacer for the licensee at tac Ennston location on a few oc He statec trat be hed been involved ir. t,e decontamination work at the i f l Utah locations wh ch we-e terio med He recalled vrwere that ne der orde l surfa:e contamination using an ele:tr'c grinder. .
O
,m _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - _
3
\
i r .
l a cust rest and goggles but that the v>tk environment had been very dus.y.
The state of Utan es inform d of tr's snf ormation by the NRC Followsp insoector at the De: ember 2, 1937, enforcement cciference
- i witn the lic accordan:e with the CAL dated Novest er .2,1987.
containers were used with tne results snowing 26 1 2 pg/l and 7 2 3pg/1 t.lbumin test results .ere negative (i.e., within normal respe:tively.
range). This item is considered closg.
This item was open pending
~'
(Closed) Open Item (999900C,4/8704-02):
licensee remova' The of an NRCareb irste: torofverified fixedthat surfece this contamination atoSe tne NRC guideline. contamination, which Other was on areas theofsurf ue of a ba by disposing of the bisir, suoport at radioactive waste. less Section 4. This item is corsiderec c'esed.
Licensee De;;ontamiration ant' Waste Cigosal Activities 4.
On April 6,1968, the NRC irspector observed the final cleanup work at th f acility and noted that the ORAU rec)mnended contamination control, a lity as agreed prete:the clotning pro:ecuies were I, use.hac alrea:y teen oved to by the licensee , 6RC, and state of Utah.
its licensee tc consclic!te raci0 active waste from Wyoming wi ir Utah fret alrea:y cel p turial. It wotic also allow the 1 censee to store certain laboratory equipment icentified in tf e ORAU re: ort as having licensure c.f future operations.icentifieo in thesurveys Licensee MU report using as hnin; el l the Evanston f acility had been cecer.tarnated. l a;propriate instrumentation showed these and other areas to be less l NRC re::mnnded guicielines for centureination levels in unrestricted area Conta-inatec wasta had teer placed 'n solid f orm in S5 gallon drums transfer to Utsh. Licensee survey, calibration, and inventory Thi s logs were reviewed and fount to be in order.of the de:ontat.ination procedures l was identified as an open item (99930C04/8821-all urine s
~
On April 6, 1988, all e:uipment was observed Only a sealed to barrel have been rem Evanston f acility ard transferred to Linden, Utah. On April 12, 1986, the
- of NRCcontaminated waste reca ine inspector teleobonec nedlicensee to be transferred.
who final stated disposal. that this last dru ,
i waste had beer, tr ans.f erre d to Linden, t.tah, pending y N
violations or deviat ons were itentified by the NRC inspector, i
mg sr y r wy, m mc y -- w m-- ,wm7- ---- ---
4 s
- 5. Incerencert Meass v e_Els On t.;ril 6,1988, the NRC inf retter Peterrned su veys of the Evanston !
f acility using calit rated in!.truments Farticalsrf'tted witn an etphasis wasalpha placeddetector on the anoareas a ceta-gamma pan:ake cetector. These previously identified wit 3 elevated find surf Theace contamination.
results of the surveys are areas hac been treated by wet grinding. All areas surveyed, !
summarized in tre attachment to inis report. i including these previcusly iaentifica in the ORAU report as having
- elevatec contaminatier levels, nad been successfully decontaminated The facility. to levels less thar NRC puidtli'es for unrestricted arsas.
hasing been cecc.nta:nineted to safe levels, and having had all equipment and waste rEfrov(d, is confid? rec by the HEC to be available for .
unrestricted use.
No viclations or ceviatict1: were idir tif c d by tne NR; inspector.
- 6. Exit Eriefits '
Tne NFC inspector ret witn P r. John fincings. tit . I.arsen at the conclusion of theLarsen was in inspecticn to cisc,ss tne waste drun (which subsequently took place on re-csc' cf t*e firal April n MES), a* d N: sea'e:C m agement ap;rcsal, the Evanston f acilitj .culd be consictrec availatie 'cc t.nre str' :u d ase.
NRC Incepencert $ur$ e/ - AE 'il 6,1958 Atticvent:
O h
O
- - - _ _ . .m ___
60:01 se w:. n, ^A le v rasa JI'd '. r a t . 6 1'd j
i 5 i ATTACHMi3T
- LM IL 6,1966 NRC !NCEPEhD!NT SURVE'fNS i:13, SAGE ltDJ5 TRIAL FARK SUILD: EV ANSTON , '*VC PINO INSTRUMENTATION; EBERLINE PACISGA with AC-3 sipha prob!
LUDLUM 3 wit, 44-9 pancake 3V probe T AMINATION DURING ORAU FLOCR AFEAS IDENTIFIED HAVIN3 ELEVATED BE'4-(;AMMA CON 1EUI y 0F JANJidt 5I~ E 75 E_
NRC Measurement 4/6/8E apwi wacm' C U U Measeet et 1119-20/EE -
direct alpha re'novatie c;m. O, :n~ teta ga'tma
- eta gam a alpta (u>) (mar) .
Aa. t'a n Area <100 346 E4LO <100 N l. 6525 4032 692 1 410: 652 (100 N'A 4032 <10]
2 10C9' 346 N/A 4032 (10; 3 922!, 692 4 N/A .
4032 <10; N/A 17700(' 4)32 692 5 <100 N/A '/EC00 4339 346
<10:
E 1175u 4332 652 7
N ! *- (120 16:00 346 blo:L B,2 5063 794 '.
4032 346
<120 blc:<. E.E 6530 4E39 16 3 909'. .
15000 biet k F .9 6193 .3500 2 vss W
E533 guideline All etter areas ran:cels 5.urvoe.1 on April i,1982, were less than the applica:Te guiceliN .
-- ~ ~ . . . . .
'~~~~~_ ----% _ -
)
In Reply Refer to:
Do:Let: 99990004/8704/ Cal 87-24
(N General License: .. Wrangler Labs, Evanston, Wyoming EA 87-223 1
Larsen Labs. Incorporated ATTN: John P. Larsen, President 3553 North Sherwood Drive Provo, Utah 84604
Dear Mr. Larsen:
~
SU!LIECT: CONFIRMATION OF ACTION LETTER This is to confirm the conversation between Mr. John Larsen, Wrangler 1, abs and Mr. R. J. Everett, USNRC, Region IV on November 10, 1987. Based on this conversation, it is ey unce standing that Wrangier Labs, and/or Larsen Labs, and/or Orion Cherical is tating the follo ing actions:
- 1. Immediately cease all receipt of, and ef fective November 13, 1967, cease '
all pro:essics of licensed material (cepleted uranium) until such time that it is further authorized by the NRC. The period between hovember 10-13, 1957, may be used to complete the processing of the licensed material en hand according to your procedures so long as such processing does not exceed 15 pounds of source material. The individuals performing this work will wear lapel air samplers to determine personnel esposure to airborne radioactivity, anc will submit urine samples for uranium determinations before beginning the procedures, and between 48 and 96 hoves,following completion of the procedures.
\ Effe:tive November 13, 19E7, secure all licensed material on hand and any x 2.
ecuipment previously usec te process licensed material at Evanston, kyoeing in its present lo:stice at Jay-Gee Industrial Park, Unit 1214 Evarston, Wyoring. Prevent all a::ess, disposal, or removal of licensed material f rom this location until further authorized by the NRC.
Shipments of final procu:t, up to 15 pounds of source material may continue.
- 3. Arrange to have your erployee identified by the initials S whose -
February 15, 1957, urine bicassay reasured 10E vg/1, subeit a vrine sample to a cualified laboratory to be tested for uranium and albuminuria.
Report the results of the test to this office upon receipt.
CERTIFIEC MAIL
< RETUEN EECElfi REOUESTED
.4 R:v:Nw:SyJ- C:h 1 C:hWEFE ' "0:0 3,h E0 d RA RDS.artin A1 87-457 DE5citzterg.ap RJE wrett WJi see- RLE nga-t DA; owe s M ll:-!E7 U /g !67 a /rt./E7 / /E7 IV'A7 It /p /E7 C ~
'[Ic. e _
2__- _ . . . .
4-EE-002
Larsen Labs In:orporated l Issuan:e of this' Confirmation of A: tion Letter does not preclude the issuance cf ar oreer formali:ing the above comeitment. If your understanding differs free tr.at set fortr. ado.e, clease call P. . R. J. Eve-ett at (E!7) E60-8167 immediately.
Sincerely, i:
Robert D. Martin '
kegional Administrator cc: ,
'eyomir; Radiat on CCEtrol frogram Director i
Utan Radiatser Contrei Frogram Dire: tor b::: .
DME - IE-07 RDwartin '
RL5arga-:
REMa11 WLFishe-RJEverett CLCai-DA?owers/
TDwa-tie, DEDRC Sta'f JLiete--a CE E5amre-s, CE hLihom:s:c, NW55 JCa sen NwEPB RIV Files l
O
DEc 8 E -
In Reply Refer To:
(pV Docket: 9999004/E7J4/ CAL 87-24A General License: Wrangler Labs, Evanston, Wyoming EA E7-223 Larsen Labs, Incorporated ATTN: John P. Larsen, Fresident 3B53 North Sherwood Drive Prove. Utah 84604
Dear Mr. Larsen:
SuoJECT : CONFIRMATION Le ACTION LETTER
, This is to confirm the conversation between Mr. John P. Larsen Wrangler Labs and Mr. William L. Fisher, USNRC, kegion IV on December 4, 1987. Based on that conversatica., it is my understanding that Wrangler Labs, Larsen Lats, and/or Orior Chemical will take the following actions:
- 1. By December E 1987, obtair., free the following persors, urine samples .
f e' ura*,iue analysis by a reputable bica ssay laboratory. Tnese urine -
peples are to be voiced into containers known te be f ree of uranive contamination, and the date anc time of voiding are to be documented.
O F
o) t, V
- 2. Previde th,s office the accress, if available, or a description of the California and Nevaca location (s) at which cepletec uranium in any fore or ovartity has at any time teen received, processed, or shipped by Mr. John F. Larsen or by ary other g erson on Mr. Larsen's behalf.
- 3. Dispese cf licensed material (depleted uranium) remaining in the Evanston, Wyceing facility. Material in process but not recovered as UAA when ope *ation ceased on Novembe' 13, 1957, may be either: (1) processed to ,,
UA.A anc transf errec to a custoeer or (2) disposed of as radioactive waste.
4 Deccataminate all surf aces and ecuipeert withir the Evanston, Wyoming facility to or below tne fc110 wing levels:
Average
- fixed - E,000 cpe alpha per 100 ce2 Pasimue firec - 15,000 cpe alpha per 100 ce' Ree:*able - 1,000 dpe aicha per 100 ce2 F
'Avera;e over an area not greater than 1 scuare meter.
CE n e:E0 M2:t E! b h EE;!:: FE0 JESTED E:vv:5 ;n, NM:sT.C.NMEosf$:DEh!, EO Af RA a' E7-457 C: RD .<y t p CEsc u:ce ;.a: R;E.e ett v m ste- tEahr-t Dace e s it /r /s-- 3 M %
/f g e/ /E- w /E7 e imE: p /p /E7
-_[ .-.2-.
4-ES-002
l l
l Letter tC Larsen Labs, Inc. f .
- 5. CO**'ete **e d's:Osal and de:Orta*ination WDrf by Decembe* 3], 1927, anc c t'fy *his
. C
- ite se that we car mane a 00nfirmat0*y survey before you va* ate 'te fa:ility.
- 6. V:Cr va:at'ng the facility, remove &ll itema nCt belonging to the fatility cere'.
C0es rci p-e:lude the issuance Issvarte cf this Ccr'irration of A: tion Lettee
- c' ar creer f eccalt: ; tt.e aDeve commitment. If your understanding ciffers k'. L. Fisher at (617) 860-E235 or frc? trat set fette a ove, please call Mr. -
Mr. D. E. Spitz:er; at (E17) 860-E191 immediately.
Sinterely, OR'w., '.- .. e r,
- p. ,.s ,. . r.. ,,
- - . . s v. . .. .... :,
R: tee D. Martir ,
Ee:ienal A eiristrator .
Wy:- r; Ea: at,c Ccat-:1 Ero; ar Di-e:t0*
Utan ka: a;3c. :cet . E*0;"ar O're:to' c:::
Dw! - IE-07 R;wa-tir kkbangart EE-all W.: ster RJEvere*t
- e. aiI bww CAE ,
0we r s.;do
/ ....w y,.ayiC'. V IDhar*ir.. DEOR Sta
Jwitzereat, D.'C E LJ: tan:le , Asst. G:/03:
E5um-e-s. OE HLin:r:sce, NwSS JCa son
- NSE S RI. Files O
- s. .cs y l 7 .
ble In Reply Refer To:
. W '-
- [v).
Do:ket: 99990004/87-04/ CAL 82-02 Ge9 % ensee: Wrangler Labs, Evanston, Wyoming tA E7-2 1' h M.
Wrangler Laboratories, 2n ,
ATTN: John P. Larsen, President I i
3E53 North Sherwood Drive Provo, Utah' 84604
Dear Mr. Larsen:
SUBJECT:
CONFIRMATION OF ACTION LETTER This is to confirm the conversation between Mr. John P. Larsen, Wrangler Labs and Messrs. Dale Powers and Blair Spitzberg, USNRC, Region IV on March 18, 19EE. On January 19-20, 19EE, a survey was made of your Evanston, Wyoming, f acility by Region IV and our contractor, Oak Ridge Associated Universities.
The purpose of the survey was to define any areas within the facility that exceeded NRC guicelines for contamination, and to outline a plan for you to use '
in decontaminating the facility and disposing of contaminated waste so that the .
facility could be returned to unrestricted use. The survey findings and -
decontamination plan are attached to this letter.
Ir a:cordar:e with the Order Suspending License dated February 25,198E, you are to complete the cecentamination and disposal activities by March 26, 19ES, and notify Region IV when the wort is completed prior to vacating the Evanston facility. Based on our conversation with you, it is my understanding that you p will take the following actien:
- 1. Perform the detentamination work and waste disposal activities outlined in the February 25, 1958, Orcer Susoending License in accordance with the guidelines, pro:edures, and m:nitoring described in the attached report.
- 2. Any ecuipment specified in Se: tion III of the decontamination plan must either be decontaminated to below NRC guidelines; packaged and disposed of as radioa:tive waste; or transferred to another licensee who is authorized to receive su:n material. Contaminated ecuipment may not be removed from the Evanston facility except for disposal as radica tive waste, or to transfer su:h equipment to an authorized recipient.
- 3. Complete records will be maintained showing the disposition of each of the eovipment items listed in Section III of the decontamination plan and of all radion:tive waste disposed of in accordance with Section IV of the plan.
- 4. Questions con:erning implementation of the referenced plan shall be resolved betweer you and this office before proceeding with the work.
r, .n C:NMEF,:) A:E0 RA / AI 88-09E RIV:NMI! ::iE,;.
DESpitzberg;ep C:N"I S y DGowevs WLFisher d'D:
RLBff, Mart HLScott RDM 3/d /88 5/d /EE a/T/sE (Qg /EE / /SE $/qtin g/EE CEPTITIED MAIt EETG.',' RECEIPT EE0EEFTED
0 i
Wrangler Laboratories, lnt. Issuante of this Confirmation of Action Letter does not preclude the issuance i of an order formalizing the above commitment. If your understanding differs from that set forth, please Call Mr. R. L. Bangart at (817) 860-8248.
Sincerely, GioGlNAL SIGNED ST ROSERT D. MARTH Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator
- Attachments: as stated CC:
Wyoming Radiation Control Program Director Utah Raciation Cor. trol Prograt Dire: tor bet:
DME - IE-07 -
RDMartin RLEangart REHall WLFisher DAPowers CLCain HL5tott DES;1tzberg ,
JMiaylor, DEDRD !
T0 Martin, DEDRD Staff JLieberitan, D/DE LJCnandler, Asst. GC/DG: /
B5ummers, DE HL1nompson, NM55 JCarson NMETS RIV Files 1
.t e.
O
r.:..
csua cas. 6 e :.as. nets 22:26 r. *
- i l DE00NTAMINA*10S PROCEZ'RES Building 1214 Sage Industrial Park .
Evanston, Wyoming ,
- 1. Faf f aties !sfety Precatiens
. A. Obtain urinalysis serples free each individus) involved in the decontamination effort, before the start of the work and following its corpletion. Samples should be collected in new plastic or glass screw cap containere. A einimum volume of 1 liter (about 1,1 quarts) of urine should be obtained for each sample. To prevent accidental contan.ination of the saeplos, they should be collected away from the work site and tho hands should be thoroughly washed before collection. Analysis of samples can be perforced by numerous laboratories; several of these ere:
Alpha Nuclear Laboratories 9922 Monroe Drive Dallas, Texas 75220 (214) 351 6092 l'
EAL Corporation 2030 Vri 6ht Avenue Richmond, California 94204 t (415) 235 2033 Ebor11ne 7021 Pan American IMf., N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico E7109 (505) 345 3461 IT Cerperation 1550 Beer Creek Road Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37E30 (615) 452 9707 B. Vear protective clothing to prevent contamination of skin and persenal clothing. The niniwan recon: ended for the activities described in this procedure aheuld be spissh goggles, cisposable (TYVIK) coveralls, rubber boots, and rubber (neopror.o or latex) gleves. Cleves should be replaced f requently, if they are damaged, or if they becene highly contaminated.
C. Do not oct, drink, chev, or seeke while in the facility, Whilo wearing potentially contaminated clothing, or while handling radiosetive natorial.
D. Establish a chance area in the facility. Cover the floor of this area with heevy paper. plant.ic. er other easily disposable etteric?. .
Delineate one side of this change area as a " clean side" and the
~ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . - _
rs,, can, ca&W GJ '
A 3.3:.39es 32826 ~
- e. 5 l 1
\
i other as the *centacinated side'. Remove potentially contaminated
!O side *. before passing from the " contaminated side
- to the
- clean clothing E. Wash hands !
thoroughly when leaving the facility.
T.
Obtain a thin vindow (<2 rg/ce') C M instrument for nonitoring I purposes. This instruneet nus: be calibrated for respense in cpt/dpe (counts por ninute/ disintegrations per ninute) to uranium .'
236 and should inizediate preferrably be oquipped with an audible indicater for response.
Possible sources for such equipeent include:
Eberline Instruront Corp. .
Airport Road Sante Fe, Fev Mexico 87501 (505) 471 3232 Ludlum Measurements. Inc.
501 Oak Street -
Sweetwatet, Texas 79556 (915) 235 5404 C.
When leaving the facility neriter hends, face, and personal clothit5 Clean any sktn er clothing surfaces, having detectabic contaninstion background. levcis, ur.:11 the lovels are reduced :o ambien:
H.
Monitor all potentially contaminated items which are being rotoved '
floa the facility and vill be roleased for unrestricted use er disposed ef as non centarinated vaste. Monitoring should include direct renovable measurements contamination.for total contaninetion levels and arears fer Smears are performed by viping an area cf approximately 100 ce? vith a dry filter paper, using coderate pressure. Record all monitoring results. Itens with contamination levels exceeding NRC guidelines levels must be cleaned and resurveyed before rolosse. The applicable NRC guidelines are:
1ern! conre-.ieetien 15003 dpt/100 cm2 carimum over 100 ce8) 5000 dpc/100 en', everage ((ever i n')
Po-evable Centra!*etter .
1000 dp:/100 ced
- 11. Bu!1 dine Surfece Decenterireti,e_n_ .
A.
Five fleer surface areas (thrco, int grid biceks and two smaller spets) vore identified by the January 1988 survey as exceeding the NR0 uranium surface contamination guidelines for release for unrestricted uso. Areas are indicated on Figure 1.
E.
Because the contacinetton appears to be in the surface of the cenerate and beccuse use ef various en1 vents, concrete ocching agents, corrosives, and other chemical cleaners could generate nixed
. e - w w w tuv--- 8. 89.20a0 :;ia9 p. s I
9 j ., 4
(' j. (redicactive plus hazerdous chenical) vaste, nechanical (physical) decenterination techniques are reeer.renced wherever possible.
C. L' sing the drawing provided in Tigure 1, locate and outline each locetion of residual floor contamination. Monitor the area with the C M instrueent to assure that the narked boundaries include all contamination exceeding the guideline levels (see 1.H.). Also, identify locations of r.aximum contamination within the area, to establish a reference for evaluatin5 the effectiveness of cleanup.
D. Vipe the surface with a damp cloth to remove loose esterial.
Rocheck reference locations to detereins whether contamination has been reduced to acceptable lovels. If so, perform and record
" nessurenents and smears at 2 to 5 locations (esponding en total area) within the cleaned region.
E. If contamination persists, darpen the surfaco and recove surface l deposits using a paint scraper or putty knife. Repeat step II.D.
T. If conta tination is still present, scrub the surfaco using an abrasive cleaner and abrasive pad er heavy gauge steel vec1, Repset step II.D.
C. If above tochniques are not successful, contamination nay be recevod by surface abrasien, using standerd concrete finishing er grinding equipment. The surface should be kept camp to minimise airborne dust. Cover adjacent clean surf aces with plastic or heavy paper to p avoid spread of cents:ir.etion by splattering during grinding.
- Repeat stop II.D.
(
H. Repeat steps II.C-C for each cf the five identified areas cf contar.ination.
III, reu! m e-t Decenta-in ife-A. The January 19EE survey identified tho folleving iters of equiprent as having urenturt contarinatien ebove guidelino levels fer unrestricted release:
trough (drain) incuteter (and contents) fan (grill)
- Electrefreero (drain)
Hotpack even (inside) sink unit (drawers and drain) nierewave 9ven (inside)
, polyethylene bottle caps bucket (under trough contains solidified natorial) electric
- sip
- cerc If these itens are to be reused for future verk with urantur., no decontamination vill be required. If they are to be sold er disposed of as other then radioactive vaste, decentesination vill be required.
k
- i
. I 4 B.
Decentarination cf sere equirnent surfaces vill be extressly difficult to perfere and equally difficult te verify by radiation nessurements. It is therefore suggested that such cents:tinated surfaces as drains (trough. Electrefreeze, and sink) be rs=oved free the equipeent by sewing (avoid use of torches near contaminated surfaces) and disposed of intact, as radioactive vaste. Other itens which should be disposod ei in one piece are the bucket, centaining solidified naterial, the electric cord, and contents of the incub ator.
C.
C1saning of remaining surfaces may be accomplished by damp viping, -
scraping, and scrubbing w1Lb abrasivo cleansers, as described in Svetion II. D T above.
D. Surfaces of equipnent, which cannot be decontaminated by abrasive -
techniques, ray be disassembled (for exa:ple, sink drawers and liners andtreated pertiens racks in asthe incubatorvaste.
radioactive and oven) and the contar.icated E. t' Perfore and reeerd direct ressurecents and snaars on all equipment '
iters which have been decontaminated end are being released for
- unrestricted use.
IV. Veste riseul !
A. Segregate conta-inated or potentially conta sinated vaste fer disposal as Icv specific activity radioactive vaste. De not include other hazardous caterials er liquids with this vaste. Allev liquids or vet items to evaperate er air dry before dispesal.
- b. Flace radioactive vastes into nov 55 gallen netal drues (17H).
Maintain an accurate listing of iters placed into vaste containers.
C. Obtain the assistance of a cor.rercial radioactive vaste disposal service er pursue arrangements via the University of Utah, sicilar to those used previously, to assure that packaging. labeling, transportation, ar.d recota are in accordance with applicable regulations.
b 9
O 1
880* C8 % C8&. G30 4.35.198E 12:29 p, g
. I i c- E T. ag j l d IE g8 l* W I I o 1 l
.k
l
.b.
m _ . , .&. 4 m ,
a E4 E :
m.. <8- - ,
y ,
s
- I=
- b :
h e
e ,
li :
h.
U~?EE k W
__ m $,
M -~ P
@ i e a i
e :
I i i i i l' ,
k u e o e <
r
) % a j >
f . >
i e
C RADIOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS EUILDINO 1214 SACE INDUSTRIAL PARK g EVANSTON, WYOM130
, INTROJJ0 TION Under the provisions cf a general license, a small facility, located in -
Building 1214 at the Sage Industrial Park near Evanston, Wyo:ing, was used to process small- quantities of depleted uraniu: metal into uranyl acetyl acetate. The processing operations at this site have ceased and initial
, decontamination ef f orts have been perf ormed. A: the request of Region IV of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co= ission (NRC), the Radiological Site Assessment Progra of Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), conducted a radiological
~
survey cf the f acility on January 19 and 20 19EE. The purpose of this survey was to determine the t.urrent status of :he f acility and its contents, relative to the NRC guidelines f or release f or unrestricted ube. This report presents .
the procedures and results of that survey. .
FACILITY DESCRIPTION Euilding 1214 is 1/4 of a Quense: hu: type structure. Dimensions are approximately 10.6 e by 5.6 m (See Figure 1); the maximum roof heifat is approximately 6 c. ' T1ooring is a poured concrete slab and there are no internal partitions. The ves: vall and ceiling is a se:icircular arch cf
. corregated metal; east and south valls are dr>vall and separate this f acility fro: the other three sections of the Qaonset hut. The ncrth vall is of wood construction and contains a large rollup door, which is the only entrance to the f acility. With excep:fon of the vest vall and ceiling, which h.sve a spotty coating cf paint, all internal surf aces are uncoated. The f acility contains nu=erous small items of equipment and supplies; all of these ite=s are por:able or easily movable.
Frepared by the Manpower Education, Res e arch, and Training Division of Oak Ridge As s ociated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennes s ee , under Interagency Agreeeett DDE No. 40-770-60. NRC Fin No. A-9093, between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission and the U.S. Departcent of Energy.
January 29, 1957
\v f
f.
PROCEDURES
- 1. A one ceter Frid systec was established on the floor of the f acility i or reierence of survey measurements. This grid is s hown on Tirure 1.
- 2. The flocr and lower valls (up to 2 m) were scanned f or loce: ions of eleva ed direct radia:1on levels, using end-windov CM detectors, vi;h audible indicating ratemeters. Loca 1ons of elevated radia:f on ,
were noted f er iurther investigation.
~
- 3. Eleven floc grid blocks (Tigure 2) were selected for surf ace con;azination measurements. In each block direct measurements of alpha and teta-ganza levels were systematically perf orced at the center and feur equidistant pein:s, tidway between the center and ',
block corners. S ears f or recevable alpha and beta conta:ination were perf or:ed a: that location in each grid block, where the highes dir<ct level was obtained.
Measure ents of to;al alpha radiation level were perfcreed using Ebe rline Model TES-! pertable scaler /ra:eeeters wit h Model AC-3-7 alpha s scintillation probes. Measurements of total beta-ga= a radiation levels were perf creed using Eberline Model FF.5-1 portable s caler / rate:ete rs with Model EF-260 thin-vindov " pancake" C-M probes. Count ra cs (cpe) were converted to disintegration rates (dp:!10D c:#) ty dividing the net rate by the 4
- e.f f iciency and correctirg f or the active area of the detector. Eff ective vindow areas were 59 c= f er the Ens detectors and 15 cc f or the G-M detectors, The background rate for 2nS alpha probes averaged approximately 2 cp:; the average background count rate was approximately 40 cp: for the G-M de:ectors. Seear measurements were redorced on nu:bered filter paper disks, 47 m in diameter. Scears -
were placed in labeled envelopes with the location and other pertinen: information recorded. Scears were counted on a lov background proportional counter at the Oak Ridge laboratory.
=
9 l
l
- (
4 Thirteen locations on the valls were selected for single-point measurements of total and removable _ alpha and beta-gam =a contamination levels. These locations are identified on Figure 3.
s 1
- 5. Measurements of total and removable alpha and be t a-ganza contamination levels were perf ormed on floor areas, identif ied by i gamma scans.
1 i 6. Beta scans and measurements of alpha and beta-gamma contamination 1evels were perf ormed on all equipment and supplies.
. TINDIN05
- 1. Surf ace s cans identified seven small isolated floor areas of elevated direct be t a-gamma radiation. These areas are shown on Tigure 4. No elevated radiation levels were identif ied on vall surf aces .
- 2. F.es ults of surf ace cents ination measurements on floor grid blocks are presented in Table 1. Three of the grid block (B,2; B,E; and T,9) have average total beta-ra==a levels above the h10 guideline of 5000 dp:/100 c=#; the highest level is 6190 dps/100 et # in grid i block T,9. One of the blocks (B,2) also has a location in the north
. vest quadrant with a contamination level of 16400 dpc/100 cm#, which is in excess cf the h10 saximum beta-gama guideline of 15,000 dp:/100 c:# . Total alpha levels and removable alpha and beta levels were all well within the applicable guidelines. Although surf ace contamination guidelines f or uraniu: are expressed in terms of alpha dp:/200 cm# it is apparent f ree the floor measurements
. that the direct beta-gamma measurements are significantly higher than the alpha measurements. This is not consistent with the known alpha / beta erission ratios of depleted uranium and say be attributed to alpha self absorption in the dust and the porous surf ace of the concrete floor. Theref ore, it is OPAU's opinion that the beta-gama measurements are more representative of the true surf ace contamination levels and 0FAU re commends use of these data for co:parison with Fuidelines, rather than the alpha data.
t :
\ 3 I
w---_____-___---______________-_______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- 3. R:s ults of me:surements en tS11 surf cc:s cro prcscnted in Tabla 2.
All contczination lovels vers well within the opp 11 cable guideline values.
4 Measurements at locations on the floor, identif f ed by surf ace beta-gan.e s cans , are su=tarized in Table 3. The total bet e-gam .a contamination levels at locations 5 and 6 were 17,000 dp:/100 ce'.
Although several other locations had direct beta-gacca measurements above 15,000 dp , the contamination at these locations was licited to areas of less than 100 ce and the resulting levels, when averaged over the adjacen 100 ce , were within the guideline values. A removable beta con:acination level of 1620 dp:/100 cc' (above the 1000 dp:/100 guideline) was noted a: location 6.
- 5. Eesults of measure:ents conducted on equipment and supplies are presented in Table 4 These results indicate that seven items of equipcent have conterination levels exceedie.g the NRO guidelines f or unrestricted use. These are:
trough, incubater, fan, Elec:rof reeze, liotpack even, sink unit, and citrovave even.
In addition, other itecs with contamination levels above guidelines are caps of polyethylene bottles, a bucket (located under the trough), an ele ct ric cord, and several pieces of miscellaneous sury11es. A 55 gallon metal dru: located in the f acility is about 1/4 to 1/3 f ull cf trash, including uraniu: contaminated vaste.
SlW'ARY During January 19-20,19EE, Oak Ridge Associated Universities perf creed a '
radiological survey of a iacility in Euiilding 1214 of SsEe Industrial Fark, Evansten, Wyoming. Res ults of that survey identif ied three 1 m x 1 m grid blocks and two additional small areas on the floor, having residual contamination levels in excess of hT.: guidelines. Seven pieces of equipmen:
and several supply itets als o ere conts:inated abeve releas e 11:f:5.
O
1 )llll I.
. [ -
m m 1I g
5 R
pJ L
t -
P J
sW t
t f
O
%1 0 t
u e
oD R c 1 n
- e
' /" -
- - o t
f r
e C
W '
e V R P y O e T
t t
9 v
r A
C u
- S S A
t t W O r E wO T o
- Rot As t t i f sU 0 i
8 t
d uE /
otO h e
R 5 T l l
is l
wI1 7 b .
r4 vi t t
a -
t s
E r, m i
c s
y S
5 d pO i G
r g
i n
4 l o
ic d
i n
3 y M
ic o
F 2
1 E
R 1 U G
I F
0 r C D C 0 A t
n y
w w
lllll l
r
- ~ ~ e, Er h5
$j b ' o-IE
. l l l e 0 0 : I, 2
g eg
'ie
,7 N
I i l i I i u u o o e <
l s-O x
l i
W 2
s w, g e 1, E $ ~ ,5 t-6-
- c. =< -
.-2=
< c L
-.=,
e - C wa E 6 C
- E 4 Cw b E u c C G V
.J r =
E rC U C C & C L == E o W .C G
.a K 8 8 -
J k 5 *.CK -
E E ==
Z O
C E
O
^
O e9 O O e
C e
c m
o e
e m
c C
6 e-e em g ., u w
^ == == C .C e e ch A e 0 - - C 6 cC = s.0
- v. ~ = c N e n ~ c e m E m cn e .c; usLE e .
k E 9 - -
Z L e e
- C E C .e k
- r C t == C e W C e T o W g == U 4 E =0=-
4 O % 4 C LU E 40 E C C == C
< < L .s t U CE F W T 4 t.: c-w c c C C O C O C C C C C C C T W ==
w O O cc e m cc N N N sc es o = c-E C 4 e N O == A e == c N N == C b T -w C C > N m no N @ m e == =cr N @ n WC U
- = == < E L
>= es C t-
< e C e tt Z C 4
.= == =C == b I E o .e C
< r ==
>= .Cs C == .
Z C 4 ed &
C C E U u U U ~
se e b o e e e e e e e e o -b C w
C C
.E=
at
.e e
- 7 o
==
en N
~
~
CC es N
~
A r
m e
A
~
m
~
N 8
C C w VJ e
=< r - - n C C
>= C f - ==
- at F .a C .J
< E C V U == C T C T ** .J *C O L w C C V. - == C k
< .J == L C C E A ti 4 ft E C O O O C O O C C O C C T .J w - c5 th N ab d N m m Ch == 4 C b g; N h w n n N m N N - - C C
> h .at Yw
< vo CCe O
E F b C C a:
- w U
.= ==
. g .2 4 4 b C n ., e
.C C == E
& K =d E C == @ C g == bT C *
.ac == =====N U G .J IC C *D .C d CU CP
- W 4 g == s C-c C. . N. e. IC. N. C. E. . e. C k ==
< < E E E C C W W 6 6 O & E Eh T w C k -
- O L k & C w % E "a. F *s C E E4
( 5
mR 0 p 1 l.
(
n o
i t
a n
i m
a t
n n
C S e E l M b a A ah 2 33 2 2 2 2 2 2 2257 0 F vp < ( ( < < < < << 0 R ol 0 t
mA 1 15 e R
I. ,
l A
i t
N O
S T
N E
M E
2 R 1
1 ) a E. 5 m I A mm R E ca 0000000000000 0 A H G 4 4 4 4 4 1 94 4 4 4 4 4 0 T D - 6 6 6 6 6 2 066 66 6 6 0 N O a <( <( ( 4 1 < ( < ( < ( 5 O I t I I
T / m11c A p N d I (
M A n T o N i O t C a n
F i O m a
S t T. n t o i
l C S
E l R a t a oh 8 8 0R 8 0088 R 8R 8 0 T p 3 3 53 1 1 533 33 3 3 0 l << ( ( 1 1 <<<<<< 0 A 5 1
3 e
r u
e g n i i F 1
"n e o n d t I I t I 2 34 561 89 01 2 3 u r n 1 1 I 1 G e c f n, C e 1 R R N "
t
. a n
i m
a t
n S a N C A
C c n
S l1, h 394 9900 0 E a i 232 2 2 1 0 C vlg .
3 0
'A oA 1 F m R e J
T R S
i n
l' l
. E I 'm F c I
T 0 5005000 0 N 0 2 0n2 005 0 E a1 51 02 001 0 D ) m/ 64 097 5I 5 I # mm 1 7 1 I 1 ma p 1 S cGd N -
0 0 a 3 1 0 t T 1 e E, A / B - 0000000 I C m m 0000000 -
R 0 p i 55 4 5 005 A I d Ig i 1 001 4 51 -
T ( 4 2 56 5 7 2 R 3 0 n 0, o I i F t
,'m a
T n c A i m 0
/ S a 0 5 028505 0 T t 1 3532 7 3 6 0 N n / 391 5 3 4 0 E o m 37 5 M C p 1 E d
- R l n n U aI S t p A ol
_ E TA
_ M
_ m 0000000 F
O d p 4 564 53 3 37 6 5 1 1 9 21 4 87 7 S
T,
_ I
_ U S
E R ea t e
_ a r
= mA )
i x
f, 5005000 oom 1 2 21 505 r e 7 pef pz 4
_
- Ai S e
_ r u
_ c g
_ n i I F l
_ 8 e o
_ n d t o l i u r e
_ t 1 2 3 4 567 G
_ a f
_ c C e
_ n, R R 1 N "
U
6 e
S E e 4
- c. e 4
a w
8 'e e ~ls g
.,e ,. ee
<- .e eR s
5 e ~e e- e
-R
~c
~e
<~
~e m, -e e ,- e -
E a -
E G i e -
- E z -
_E O
E
-5. 7:
C 4^7 2e c 7~ sc -
S, e R *2 o
s -D e y .
e l y a Y ',
. g s ca E -
g I
- E
~ e, SR a e 8
< ~~
SR e~
8 8& 88 88 ee SR SE
.D. E.,
E =m e ,v v e =<<v eP N c~
v ee v v r, c. ~ es n R c -
z E E E i 5
m i U
- C
'g e a Rev Fe e ce.. O C C Rn e e .e e, -
E C
9 -
,s W
n, e n ,e e-e.R
,e
-ne EnCv C e nn v
M -
- M b >
e M
e b
. , ,t b -
- ,3 a
I I- t !
l :E .
R R . -
s, C g
C T
- - E .E . -
C * - - T h
==
t & ,$ C- .$ C-T--$ 5a ,$
E
.s $$ $$
- v v -- .$ $. .$ $.
S C ee 8 r 4 S b = E S E e s C
- O Ie - -
P 4
{ E
- 4 L & 4
- E E c
2a e F 3 . t F 6 c - C C S 4
- > b an. L z C C 42
r ,.
l- _S
- .r .
( "}
.. (
[ .- 9 , , * }
=.
te e t,=:
t x t-s -
3 ER F.R[ R I l g
.e g3 e c m e s
, E .'
3
. e _
,. ,c m =
E $L
- g
- :=
3 I 3 _1 se
,s _e _e _
- , i, i g
_ _i
_g 2 < :: .
- it s _.
s ii
- i. r c u
= y .i 12 E m E f 1 v *
~
. s E v. !. !. Eif
. , _i i ! I ll s(a
_ c. r !i1 t .
!!e i
1 = -
- 1.
8 E -: . . i . s. .at. e ! i! 1 85
< g , 3. ,* 2 a
m c _ _i a. s see
<_~ 8
=
l i i gg
's 1's 3
_. _ ., }s f3 _i ., b c : [g
- g,42se s -
.is ;} :
a 12 e t i
- . _5 : s:-
. 5 b-.5 E1 l =t e 44e 4 -
y: 4 -li t *8 1 1s _t 1" _E _E ,* _E l l l ,1 5 i 21 14=1*l1[. c
- r i >::i r, 1 : jij.EE
_- [ # g v . $. .. _T I _I , /, g E 1 f T [ h 5 0 t L x z E5 c i : a W z hj9o ,& *= b 23
\
l
, / )
V l APR 1 BB
.j}
}
In Reply Refer To: i Docket: 99990004/87-04/ CAL ES-02A General Licensee: Wrangler Labs, Evanston, Wyoming EA 87-223 Wrangler Laboratories, Inc. ATTN: John P. Larsen, President 3853 North Sherwood Drive
. Provo, Utah 84604
Dear Mr. Larsen:
SUBJECT:
CONFIRMATION OF ACTION LETTER This is to confirm the conversation between Mt'. John P. Larsen, Wrangler Labs and Messrs. Richard Bangart, Dale Powers, and Blair Spitzberg, USNRC, Region IV on April 1, 1988. The purpose of the conversation was your request for a - time extension for you tc complete the radioactive waste disposal activities - of your Evanston, Wyoming f acility as required t.y the Confirmation of Action Letter we issued to you cn March 18, 1988. With regard to this issue, we understand that ycu are working with a Utah licensee and the State of Utah to gain authorization for transfer and disposal of this waste. You have also informed t;s that fin:1 at,tnorization for, and acceptance of this waste may take an additicnsi tnree weeks. There'o e, based on our conversation with you, it is my understanding that you will tak3 the following actions: Prepare all radioactive waste from you+ Evanston, Wyoming facility in a
,\ dry form in packages that are inventoried, sealed, and prepared for transfer by April 8, 1983, and hold thise wastes in the Evar.ston facility until authorized by you- weste broker and the State of Utah to transfer them for cisposal. If trar.sfer cannot be ccepleted by April 22, 1988, yes will notify this office in advance. All other facility decontamination efforts are t3 be condscted in accordance with the Confiamat*on of Act on Letter dated Maren IE, 1988, and completed by April 8, 29BC.
Issuance of th's Confirmation of A: tion Letter dces not preclude the issuance of an order formalizing the above commitrent. If your understanding differs f rom that set forth, please call Mr. R. L. Sangart at (817) 860-8248. Sincerely, O/.pnnl E! Ened By, Robert D. Martin Fegicnal Administrator cc: (seenextpage) CERTIF1ED MAIL . RETURN R!cEIPT RE0 TESTEE / C:NMIS ,Mt C:NMEFB C':0 A:EO N RA Al SS-098
] RIV:NMIS D ys FLFister J
FLBhar- HL$cott RDMartin [G DB5pitzberg:cd 4/4/BS DAPowers 4/I /88 4/t /E8 4/(t/BB 4/I/68 4/ /88 g
;= s _.m .m. , .
//
.=m. ..=. =,
Wrangler Laboratories, Inc. cc: Wyoming Radiation Control Program Director Utah Radiation Control Progran Director 1 bec: DMB - IE-07 . R. D. Martin R. L. Bangert . R. E. Hall - W. L. Fisher 1 0. A. Powers C. L. Cain i H A.
- 4. B. . Spitzberg Scott J. M. Taylor. LESA0 :
T. O. Martin, CEORO Staff J. Lieber." n, C/0E L. J. Chanc'er, Asst. GC/01C B. Sum ers OE H. L. Thompson, NMSS J. Carson NMEPB ' R]V Tiles , 1 O
*: 6,
-: - . e.e- -
PANEL 1 - DIRECT 103 i i r 1 j MS. HODGDON: I will proceed with Mr. Griffin. 2 BY MS. HODGDON: 3 Q Mr. Griffin, you have not filed testimony in this 4! proceeding, but you are here today to answer questions 5 regarding the Office of Investigation's investigation into 6 Mr. Larsen's activities, in which a report was filed. 7- Therefore, you do not have written testimony; is that l 6 correct? i 9 A (Griffin) That's correct. i I 10 Q I would then put in a copy of your professional , 11 qualifications. Do you have a copy of that? 12 A (Grif f ir. ) I'm looking at a copy. 13 O Thank you. That is a document of how many pages? 14 A (Griffin) Tue. k MS. HOD 3 DON: Ue would at this time put in , 15 16 Mr. Griffin's professional qualifications, describing his ; l 17 professional qualifications as an investigator qualified ; IS and experienced in t his type of investigation, and that goes 19 in as his testimony. The 0 report I will offer at this 20 time as a Staff exhibit, of which we give the reporter four
. 21 copics. That woul d be Staf f Exhibit 1.
22 (The document ref erred to was
~
23 marked for identification as i Staff's Exhibit No. 1.) 24 l The exhibit that you're 25 I THE WITNESS: (Griffin) f
-------------_m. _ - _ _ . _ _
l M20 1l offering here in the way of the OI report is the written I 2 summaries of the testimony as reported. Does this include 3 the exhibits?
, 4 MS. HODGDOM: I'm offering the OI report in its 5 entirety except that, as everyone who has received a copy 6; knows, it uas not relcased to the public until the names of .
7 persons whose privacy needed to be protected were removed. j S So it is offered in its entirety as it was released by 01. I - 9 THE WITNESS: (Griffin) Does that include each ! 10 exhibit as listed? That is my question, because the OI
?
11 report is a summary of the people's testimony. The one 12 exception would be Mr. Larsen's signed, sworn statement that 13 he made during the pendency of the investigation. I wanted i 14 to make sure that that was an exhibit. 15 MS. HODGDD5: Yes, that is. The OI report is 10 being offered as an exhibit in its entirety, includjng all 17 of it s exhibit s -- Il THE HITNESS: (Griffin) Okay, fine. 19 MS. HODGDOr: -- which are listed somewhere in i 20 there, I think page 25. All of those exhibits are being 21 offered with the OI report. We are giving four copies tc 22 the reporter, and it will be Staff's Exhibit 1. , i
^
23 So I move that it be accepted as Staff Exhibit I , 24 at t his t irc . Do I necd to describe that exhibit 0 In t he ! i 25 1 colloquy that Mr. Griffin and I have had here, I think we _ _ ____ __ _ ___ _ _ _ _ l
i 4 I I l 1
/
""4
\
1jhavegivenyouafairlygooddescriptionofthedocument. It consists of interviews and documentation that Mr. Griffin s < (f 2 3 and Dr. Spitzberg collected and put together in the course 4 of this investigation. 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Let me ask you a few questions 1 6 as to exactly what is included. Just looking at my copy, 7i does it include the memorandum from Ben Hayes to Robert 6 Mark, dated August 23, '88? Does it start with that? That 9 is the memo that transmits the report, isn't it? ; 10 MS. HODGDON: Mr. Romney just gave the four copies i 11 to the reporter, and what he gave them is something that - i l' he knows and I don't. So if he can answer that question 12 i 13 of what it includes, he's the only person. j 14 Yes, it does apparently. (Conferring with { 15 Mr. Romncy.) He dia not give him the cover letter. { 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I'm merely trying to find out 17 what is in the record and what isn't. 16 MS. HODGDON: Mr. Romney states that he gave him 19 enly the report itself and not the document as transmitted. 20 However, I think that we can add those part s back on, for i 21 no good reason, but only because it gives the full story 22 regarding t he report , the fact that it was referred to the i 23 , Department of Justice. And af ter the declination f rom them, ! 24 we proceeded. I think that that comes out more clearly with 25 I all these attachments on. And since it's already public, i t
PANEL 1 - DIRECT . 106 1 I
! I a
M22 1 I don't see any harm in that. l 2 (Brooks Griffin's professional qualifications 3 follow.)
*i, 5
6 , i i 7 I s 1 i 9 l i 10 , f 12 I 14 15 ; 16 17 3 18 19 20 21 22 ; i 23 ) . 24 1 1 25 )
,_-.-----.n. - . . - - -- ~-- -~
t i
.l /O PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS L) 0F i
H. BROOKS GRIFFIN OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS j I UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION H. Brooks Griffin is Senior Investigator with the NRC's Office of Investigations Field Office Region IV located in Arlington, Texas. He is responsible for conductag investigations of alleged and suspected violations of NRC regulations nd/or Federal laws which relate to NRC . licensed facilities and other activities under the NRC's jurisdiction. Mr. Griffin's entry-on-duty date with the NRC was September 17, 1982. Mr. Griffin received his Bachelor of Science degree in Sociology from Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas in 1970.
\ prior Work History In 1971 while working in a Masters program in criminology at East Texas State University, Mr. Griffin was hired as a Special Agent with the Internal Revenue Service-Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF),
U.S. Treasury Department. During his service with BATF, Mr. Griffin investigated alleged and suspected violations of the firearms, explosives, I alcohol, tobacco, arson, and wagering laws. His duties involved the development of sources of information, the investigation of potential violations of law, and the participation in the subsequent prosecution of persons and corporations alleged to be in violation of Federal laws. Mr. Griffin has taken a number of courses in criminal investigative
8 techniques and investigative theory. Mr. Griffin has also been a part of Secret Service details providing protection to presidential candidates and foreign dignitaries. During Mr. Griffin's eleven year service with the Treasury Department, he was posted in Albuquerque, New Mexico and Dallas, Texas. d i S O e g4
PANEL 1 - DIRECT 107
't 2A bl
. gs 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I was asking you about
(
'- 2 ; that, but the letter from the Department of Justice -- to l
3 or from the Department of Justice -- I wondered whether 4 those were in the record. I was going to ask.you whether 5 those were in the record as well.
. 6 MS. HODGDON: Mr. Romney did not give copies 7 of those to the Reporter, but in order to provide the
- 8 record with what has already been provided and to make 9 this document complete, I think we should put this back 10 on. I mean, unless you have some objection --
11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. 12 MS. HODGDON: -- unless you've got some other 3 13 ' thing -- t I
,, 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: No. I think it's important
( ,/ 15 to have that complete. And also there's a reference by 16 Mr. Larsen in his testimony to the fact that Justice 17 ; declined prosecution, and that would be -- the letter from l 18 ' Justice would be evidence of tha+ l 19 MS. HODGDON: Thank you. All right, then I 20 Mr. Romney will then restore those four pages. And so I 21 am now providing a document, the OI report as Staff l 22 l Exhibit 1, which consists of a memorandum for Robert D. ! l 23 ! Martin, Regional Administrator, from Ben Hayes, dated I 24 l August 23rd, 1968; a memorandum or letter from Ben Hayes 25 I to Robert Showers, dated August 23rd, 1988, which is l p - (
P&232L 1 - 92&BCT 10@ ] b3 l 1 in two pages; a letter from Edward Dennis, Sr., Assistant , 1 2; Attorney General, Criminal Division, to Ben Hayes, I I i 3' Director, Office of Investigations, dated October 20th, 4 1988; and then a page that came out black on the Xerox, 5 which I don't know what that is. We might as well put that 6 in there. And then starts what Mr. Romney has already And the document i 7 given to the Reporter as the OI report. 8! now starts signed by Ben Hayes, Case No. 4-88-002, report , 9 date, August 18th, 1988, Control Office OI, Region 4, et 10 cetera, et cetera. There's a page there. Then there's 11 a page of synopsis. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I was going to ask you whether 13 the warning is going to be deleted, and this, I take it, 14 is no longer official use only. 15 ; MS. HODGDON: That's right. This document was 16 redacted by OI prior to release for privacy. You know, 17 however, they failed to take the warning off. The warning 18 ' is no longer operative. So, but it's still on there. 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: All right, it's on there, 20 _ but -- 21 MS. HODGDON: Yes. I took it the way I got from 22 OI, and I did not ask whether they -- 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: In case they ask us -- 24 MS. HODGDON: Well, just tell them that OI failed 25 ; to take that off but probab1.y intended to. I don't know. l I
! - 1 0'
m_ o - n_ - - - - - - - 03-l- (. f l ,_ 1 Maybe Mr. Griffin can speak to why OI does these things. k, 2: I don't think -- 3 THE WITNESS: (Griffin) Well, I'm not certain 4 which copies are being used, but Hayes has given the 5 authority for the release of this document, and the warning 6 no longer applies? 7 MS. HODGDON: And I suppose it would be 6 appropriate, but I don't have the authority to do that. 9 So I didn't do it. I released the document exactly as it j i to was given to me by OI, and it's now being provided to the
- l t
11 Reporter exactly as it was given to me by OI. ,
~
JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I just wanted the record to ; 12 i reflect the status of that, what various people have 13 14 reviewed in the record, they'll know -- l ,
's I think that was very prudent, and l 15 MS. HODGDON: . \s,) i 16 I think it's enough to say that the warning is no longer ,
17 operative. I mean, it's clear that it's not because they 18 ; did release it and they could cover it. ; Then there's a synopsis. Then there's a page 19 , l left blank intentionally. Then there's a page called i 20 i I a table of contents, 21 l" Accountability,"anotherblankpage, I 22 another blank page, a page of applicable regulations, i , l j i Then we start into the text with
- 23 l' another blank page.
24 details of investigation, a number of pages here. l i 25 . On page 25 there's a list of exhibits, and the l i i i t
110 PANEL 1 - DZRECT _ be t l There's a 1 listed there.
!exhibitsareallattachedas l 2 service list on the back of mine which we could take off 3' there. I'm not sure whether it's on there or not. I don't 4 l think it makes a dif ference.
I
)
I think that's it. And that's what's being { 5} ! 6 I offered as Staff Exhibit 1 at this time. - I 7l Thank you. l JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Any objections to that? .f , 6 9 (There was no response.) ! I i 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That would be circulated as an exhibit, then. 11 , l' 12 I assume you have a copy of all that material. MR. LARSEN: Well, I assume I do too. So -- !
}3 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It's hard to have the record 15 describe exactly what it is, and Ms. Hodgdon has represented 16 that every party has a copy. So --
i MS. HODGDON: It was served in this proceeding. 17 18 Therefore, Mr. Larsen has been provided a copy. It was 19 a part of the Staff's response -- 20 JUDGE SECHHOEFER: February 1 -- i MS. HODGDON: February 1, 1988. If Mr. Larsen 21 l . I 12 doesn't have his copy with him, I may be able to provide i 23 him with another copy. , i 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. MS. HODGDON: Mr. Griffin's professional 25 i } l
G5 I I I 1' qualifications, then, were received, and -- 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's correct. 3' MS. HODGDON: -- the exhibit has been received. 4 I just want to know where I am. 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, and Staff Exhibit 1 6 as described extensively, is also admitted into evidence. (The document referred to, having 7l 6 been previously marked for 9 identification as Staff Exhibit ! 10 No. 1, was received in evidence.) ' l l 11 MS. HODGDOS: So that leaves me with Michael , : l 12 Lamastra, and he will not appear as a witness, and I'm not 13 ready to go with that at this time because I've written a stipulation, but it isn't signed yet. So if I may just l 14 15 defer that until later -- 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 17 MS. HODGDON: -- I will do that. t 18 Then the four witnesses appearing on behalf I l. 19 of the NRC Staff, having been sworn, and their testimony l 20 , having been received into evidence, their direct testimony 1 21 having been received as if read, the NRC Staff witnesses
~
22 are now available for cross-examination. 23 , I forgot the pictures. Okay. I had something 4 I 24 l passing through my mind here. I 25 i I We have here -- Mr. Romney will do this, if he I
' i O
- - - - - - ~ - _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _
1MEL ll - 1@X1McT 1T2 - b6 1: he may. 2 MR. ROMNEY: We have a total of 16 photographs, 3 ! four copies each, the first one being a photograph of the 4 outside of the Evanston, Wyoming facility, and I think 5 we'll mark that as Exhibit No. 2. 6 We have another photograph of the facility with , 7 all the buildings next to it we'll mark as Exhibit No. 3. 8 MS. HODGDON: Excuse me. Couldn't we just do . 9 them all as one exhibit? l 10 MR. ROMNEY: As one exhibit? Okay. , 11 MS. HODGDON: Wouldn't it be better if we did i 12 them all as one exhibit, all 60 photographs? 13l Well, maybe it wouldn't. Maybe he's right. Go 14 ahead and do that. I 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Is there a cause to refer to ! 16 individual photographs? If there is, it would be better 17 to have -- particular photographs I'm talking about -- it 18 would be better to give them each a number. l 19 MS. HODGDON: That's fine. That's fine. We'll l 20
- just proceed, then, with separate numbers.
21 j JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So it would be 2 through 17, 22 and perhaps the back of each one you could put the right 23 number on. 24 MS. HODGDON: While I'm at that, Judge Bechhoefer, 25 we have four sets of these, and that's the number that
'c7
/
}
I we need in order to enter them as an exhibit. However, s / U 2 ' we can have people look at them while they're being used 3 and then give them to the Reporter. And so you could have 4 a set and Dr. Spitzberg a set and me have a set and 5 Mr. Larsen a set, and we'll just take them all back up. ,
\
6 If we have the numbers on them, that shouldn't be any l 7 problem.
- 8 Is that all right? l 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Ms. Hodgdon, are we going to {
10 ' be enlightened as to the circumstances under which these . Il photographs were taken and who took them -- l 12 MS. HODGDON: Yes, yes. 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- and all that? f 14 MS. HODGDON: You will. l
^T In fact, Mr. Romney could cite that now, although
(_ 15 16 Dr. Spitzberg will explain exactly what they are for and 17 why they come in. l 18 Say generally what they are. 19 MR. ROMNEY: These are photographs that were taken 20 during Dr. Spitzberg's November 4th inspection of the 21 l 1 facilities, and they were taken by a Mr. Julius Haes 22 from the State of Wyoming, who accompanied Dr. Spitzberg , 7 23 during his inspection. 24 And I've already described the first two ; I 25 photographs which we are entering as Exhibits 2 and 3. l i v
b8 j i 1l (The documents referred to were 2' marked for identification as 3i Staff's Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3.) I 4 MR. ROMNEY: Exhibit No. 4 is going to be another 5 photograph of the outside of the facility. 6 (The document referred to was . 7 marked for identification as 8 Staff's Exhibit No. 4.) . i 9 MR. ROMNEY: Exhibit 5 will be again a close-up , 10 of the facility with a pipe sticking up the front. . 11 (The document referred to was , 12 marked for identification as ! 13 Staff's Exhibit No. S.) i 14 MR. ROMNEY: Photograph 6 would be a view inside 15 the facility. 16 (The document referred to was 17 marked for identification as 18 Staff's Exhibit No. 6.) f 19 MR. ROMNEY: Seven would be another photograph 20 of the inside of the facility, which would also include 21 Mr. Larsen in the photograph, and that would be Exhibit 7. 22 (The document referred to was , 23 marked for identification as , t 24 Staff's Exhibit No. 7.) I i i 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: What did it also include? 4 l J t O
PANEL 1 - DIRECT 235 b9 r~ N 1 We didn't catch that.
/ \
's / 2, MR. ROMNIY: And it also included Mr. Larsen.
3! JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Oh. 4 MR. ROMNEY: He's in the photograph. 5 Exhibit 8 would be another view inside of the 6i facility, and it would include a space heater and some 7 storage rooms. .
- Sl (The document referred to was 9 marked for identification as ,
10 Staff's Exhibit No. 8.) . 11 MR. ROMNEY: And that would be marked Exhibit 8 '. l
' i Exhibit 9 is another view inside the facility j 12 I ;
13 and includes some buckets stacked on top of a bench. 14 (The document referred to was O ! marked for identification as f s _j 15 ; , 16 Staff's Exhibit No. 9.) l i 17 MR. ROMNEY: Exhibit 10 would be again another . 18 view inside the facility. 19 (The document referred to was 20 marked for identification as 21 i Staff's Exhibit No. 10.)
- I
- i 22 /// I
> i 23 /// l 24 - /// '
l I 25 l /// I i
~~-
ON k 1 i
PANEL 1 - DIRECT 116 3A-b10 i 1i MR. ROMNEY: Exhibit 11 would be another view i 2! inside the facility, and they are showing a bench with some 3 buckets, stainless steel buckets, marked Exhibit 11. 4i (The document referred to was I 5 marked for identification as 6i Staff's Exhibit No. 11.) . 1 7 I MR. ROMNEY: Exhibit 12 will be a photograph, 1 8 l a close-up of these materials stored on one of the benches - 9 inside Mr. Larsen's facility. 10 * (The document referred to was , 11 marked for ider.tification as 12 Staff's Exhibit No. 12.) i i 13 ' MR. ROMNEY: Exhibit 13 would be a view inside j I 1 14 the facility and includes Dr. Spitzberg during the i 15 performance of his inspection, marked Exhibit 13. 16 (The document referred to was j i l I l 17 marked for identification as 18 Staff's Exhibit No. 13.) ; 19 MR. ROMNEY: Exhibit 14 would be another view , l 20 inside the facility. This one also includes Mr. Larsen. 21 l (The document referred to was _ 22 marked for identification as 23 Staff's Exhibit No. 14.) , l 24 l MR. ROMNEY: Exhibit 15 would be another view l i l 25 inside the facility and it also includes Mr. Larsen I l l
t bil
,- s 1 and Dr. Spitzberg, and that will be marked Exhibit 15.
I(( ,/) (The document referred to was 2 L , marked for identification as l 3l 4 Staff's Exhibit No. 15.) 5 MR. ROMNEY: Exhibit 16 would be a view inside 6 the facility, including Mr. Larsen. It will be marked 7 Exhibit 16. P
. 8 (The document referred to was 9
I marked for identification as l 10 Staff's Exhibit No. 16.) 31 MR. ROMNEY: And finally would be Exhibit 17, - 12 the final photograph, and it shows the inside of the 13 facility. l I 14 l (The document referred to was j m
/ marked for identification as t 15 N
16 Staff's Exhibit No. 17.) i MS. HODGDOS: These, as I explained before, will 17 j 18 be -- the Staff proposes to give them to the Reporter, or l 19 they will be the Staff's exhibits as described. { l t 20 Meanwhile, since people need to see them, they i 21 will be distributed as I described a few minutes ago. ' 22 l t MR. ROMNEY: But they would have to be renumbered. l MS. HODGDON: We seem to have some problem with 23 24 , the numbering, but we'll go through that again. If we do . l 25 I l them differently as described -- no, they were described : l J i l "N l
)
v i l
gg 3 gm g_ -- _ _ _ _ _ - - -
'o12 1 properly. Is that right?
21 MR. ROMNEY: Right. 3i MS. HODGDON: They were properly described, i 4 I improperly numbered. They are now being renumbered. 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Off the record. l 6 (Discussion held off the record.) . 7; JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record. 6 1 Are you going to ask questions about them , 9 immediately? Because it might be easier -- 10 MS. HODGDON: I'm probably not going to ask any , 11 questions. 12 JUDGE SHON: Ms. Hodgdon, can I ask what the 1 13 purpose and intent of introducing these as exhibits are? l i 14 ' What are they intended to show? And won't Dr. Spitzberg l 15 be expected to describe them as direct testimony in some 16 fashion? 17 4 MS. HODGDON: Dr. Spitzberg will describe them j 18 as direct testimony. They are intended to show the l 19 facility. They are intended to be supplementary to tne , 3 i 20 ' inspection report of November 24th, 1987, which was -- i l { l 21 l that inspection was the occasion on which these pictures ; { 22 . were taken. They show the 'acility. They show the :
! I 23 ! operation in the way -- this is just a representation, of ! .
I 24 course. A picture is worth a thousand words. They are ; j 25 f intended to show the f acility in a graphic way and in ! i 1 i O
l b13 1
'~ N 1 color, which is why we wanted the photographs in color. \- / 2 We could bind them into the record as well, but we wanted 3 them as an exhibit to show --
l 4 JUDGE SHON: Do they in any sense illustrate or 5' show, whether in color or otherwise, any of the violations 6 for which Mr. Larsen's license was revoked? 7 MS. HODGDON: Yes. They show the spills, f
- 8l JUDGE SHON: I see.
MS. HODGDON: They show the spills. They show 9, 10 i the equipment. They show the relationship of the , l 11 , equipment to the building. They show the building. They-12 show the surfaces. JUDGE SHON: And someone, Dr. Spitzberg, perhaps, j 13 , 14 ' will tell which pictures show what, is that right? l
,s '
c MS. HODGDON: Yes. Dr. Spitzberg will tell which
\ 15 l 16 l pictures tell what.
17 i And if I mean to supplement his direct testimony 18 . to do that , I will do that. 1 j JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think it would be a good 19 20 ' i idea to have our mid-morning break while you're taking -- MS. HODGDON: I think so too. I think it is , 21 l 22 time -- 4' l 23 JUDGE BECHHOETER: Why don't we do that right 24 now. We'll break for 15 minutes. 25 (Brief recess.) f I O
bl4 i 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record. 2 During the recess, we were talking to both of 3 the parties about the forthcoming schedule of witnerses, 4 that type of thing. Mr. Larsen indicated that he would 5 ,like a little more time to prepare his cross-examination, 6 and then he could start today, and he would like to be able 7 to continue tomorrow the cross-examination of the Staff. I f
- 8. The Board believes that this desire could be accommodated. ,
I - l 9 After we hear a little bit more about the photographs, then 10 Mr. Larsen could start his cross-examination of the Staff. 11 ' The Board itself has a number of legal-type question to . i 12 , ask some of the Staff witnesses concerning such matters l I 13 as the scope of general licenses and the regulations and l l 14 requirements of general licenses. We thought we would 15 ; ask those questions, but after Mr. Larsen finishes what l 16 he has prepared. l l 17 i We also mention that Mr. Larsen asked if I i 18 Mr. Noack could be put on as a witness tomorrow around l 19 10:00 a.r.., and we indicated that we could accommodate that : 20 j any time after 10:00, 10:00 a.m. or after tomorrow. So l 21 we indicated we would accommodate that.
~
22 So any comments before we decide that that's what l I 23 . we' re going to do? l . 24 4 (There was no response.) 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay, what we'll do, then, e I
bl5 1 is after we hear a little more about the photographs -- i,,-~ \
\,_,/ 2; whether that'll take us through lunch or not I'm not sure 3 how much detail we'll have, but we will have a lunch break 4 of around an hour, hour and 15 minutes perhaps, and then 5 Mr. Larsen could begin his cross-examination, and we will 6> ask our questions, and hopefully, that will take most of
. l 7i the day or enough of the day so that we can legitimately l l
8 break. 9 Ms. Hodgdon, do you want to proceed with I guess l 10 your witness's description of the photographs? . 11 MS. HODGDON: Yes. Mr. Romney did describe 12 what is to come in as the exhibits. Of course, these 13 pictures were taken on Dr. Spitzberg's inspection visit 14 to the Evanston, Wyoming facility. So Dr. Spitzberg can A ' ( 15 describe these pictures for the record, telling what they s_. ; 16 show or what they're intended to show, and starting with ; 17 2, which is the first picture -- yes? 18 JUDGE BECHHOETER: Okay. Permit us on each one : 19 to pass ther around so we can show our copy to -- 20 ' MS. HODGDON: Yes. I'm sorry we don't have more 21 ; copies. 1 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: All right. Well, actually, 23 l during the description, we can pas them around. ; 24 ' MS. HODGDON: Yes. We can go slowly, then. , 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. ; i i* i 1 , s
r-______ ___ _ PANEL 1 - DIRECT 122 bl6 i i i 1! MS. HODGDON: Yes. 2 Dr. Spitzberg? 3 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Exhibit 2, I believe, 4 is the back side of the Quonset hut facility that was used 5 by Mr. Larsen for processing depleted uranium. 6 Exhibit 3 shows the -- 7l JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Hold on a minute. 8i (Pause in proceedings.) , 9 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) I should mention that 10 these Quonset hut units -- or at least Mr. Larsen's unit . It was divided into four different working areas, only one I 12 of which was occupied by Mr. Larsen. So neither of these 13 doors on Exhibit 2 show the entrance to Mr. Larsen's work ! 14 area. 15 Exhibit 3 shows the entrance to the Sage 16 Industrial Park, leading into Mr. Larsen's facility, i 17 ' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And which -- is the one in i 18 the front Mr. Larsen's? , 19 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) No. That would be I second one from the le f t, the one -- you see a -- looks 20fthei 21 like an old automobile carcass out in front, and his unit , 22 ' was on the right-hand side of that unit. 23 Exhibit 4 shows the door leading into Mr. Larsen's processing area. You can note a pipe coming 24 l. 25 ' out of the front of the building, which had been connected i i i s O
PANEL 1 = vansca b17 j 1 to his nitric acid scrubbing system. 9 2 facility. And Exhibit 5 is just another angle of the same 3 4 Exhibit 6 shows the interior of the processing 5 facility. You can see what I think is the nitric acid 6 dissolution tank where the depleted uranium slugs were 7 introduced -- 1 MR. LARSEN: May I correct that? . sl ! 9 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. ; i lo "R. LARSEE- That's not nitric acid. It's nitrogen dioxide, NO-2 gas. That's what the scrubber . 11 12 system was for the gas. ! (Spitzberg) Okay. But I was 13 THE WITNESS: 14 referring to the polyethylene container there on the -- MR. LARSEN: Yes. That's not acid. That's water. 15 (Spitzberg) Okay. So -- okay. 10 THE WITNESS: JUDGE SHON: I'd like a little more explanation. 17 18 ; It looks to me as if what we see here is the inside l 19 connection to that pipe -- 20 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Right. 21 , JUDGE SHON: -- that was mentioned in the 22 , earlier photograph. THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Do you want me to , 23l 24 , explain how it works? i JUDGE SHON: Ycs. 25 f i, O
^ _
,3_ _, _ - - _ _ - - - _ _
h '. 8 l l 1i JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Larsen, I guess that we I 2 ought to swear you, as any testimony you put has to be under i 1 3 i cath. So we might as well do it now. This will cover ; i I 4 not only this but anything else you put in the record. 5 Whereupon, 6 JOHN LARSEN
\
7 l appeared as a witness herein, and after being first duly l 8 sworn, made the following statements under oath: l' . 9 JUDGE SHON: I just wondered what this scrubber j 10 system accomplishes in the way of removing things from the, l I 11 ' airstream that I presume enters at the bottom of this - f i 12 cylinder, i .. that right? l 13 MR. LARSEN: In the first step of the process, 14 the metal is digested by nitric acid in a stainless steel l 15 container underneath the nozzle there. i 16 JUDGE SHON: Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative response.) 17 MR. LARSEN: The fumes, NO-2, brown fumes are 18 j given off, and they are sucked up into the nozzle and go 19 through a spray of water, sprinkler system there -- ; 20 JUDGE SHON: Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative response.) 21 MR. LARSEN: -- and then which removes the NO-2
~
22 gas, and that which is left over of the air is forced out l 23 the pipe, out the front. i l . 24 Thank you. ! i JUDGE SHON: l 25 Oh, the water simply drops back into the digester; I l 4 e
4 bl9 s 1 is that right? (y,<) 2 MR. LARSEN: Yes. No. It falls back into this 3 vat. 4 JUDGE SHON: Oh, I see. Okay. 5 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes, that's correct. 6 In fact, referring to my diagram of the facility, I have 7lthat tank labeled as the scrubber tank. I S, MR. LARSEN: Now, that is recycled. It's not
\
9; disposed of, the water in the vat. In other words, there's j 10 nothing there that is disposed of in a sewer system of any , 11 ' kind. It i.s recycled. . 12 JUDGE SHON: The water, however, must build up 13 some concentration of dissolved NO-2 and nitrous acid and j 14 things of -- l A 15 MR. LARSEN: Yes, but there isn't enough that ( N 16 , warrants -- that exhausts it. From what we have -- the } i 17 experience that we have had, it has not exhausted the [ 18 i NO-2 that 's in it, and I'm sure it would eventually if l l ! 19 we used it enough, but from our experience we didn't exhaust 20 l it. 21 i JUDGE SHON: What you're saying is that the water I 22 i doesn't build up any appreciable concentration of -- 23 ! MR. LARSEN: Well, it -- yes, I'm sure it would 24 ' if we used it long enough. 25 JUDGE SHON: I see. l i O ( x_
i b30 1> MR. LARSEN: But it didn't for us. 2 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Exhibit 7 is a wider 3' view of the same area of the processing facility which 4 shows one of the stainless steel work benches next to the 5 scrubbing system. Mr. Larsen is standing to the left in 6 this photograph.
~
7 Exhibit 8 is looking in the opposite direction, l 8 on the other side of his process facility, shows another f i . l 9 stainless steel catch basin which drained to a floor pail. l 10 You can see two 55-gallon drums on the left-hand side of 11 ' the photograph, one of which with the plastic liner there , l 12 . contains some dry, contaminated waste paper, and the other 13 one I have on my notes as being a container of 2 l 14 pentadione. l 15 JUDGE SHON: Of what, sir? 16 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Two-four-pentadione. ; 17 ! JUDGE SHON: Pentadione. Thank you. 18 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) You see a space heater,j 19 and in the stainless steel catch basin, you see two 20 stainless steel buckets which are resting on heat plates, i 21 And off to the far right of the photograph you see some 22 of the containers of process solutions and pregnant I i 23 l solutions which hat been generated prior to my visit. ' 24 Exhibit 9 rnows the far back of the process 25 facility, a continuation of the earlier photograph, which ! i i l O
-yg 3 ggm ew u i s21
,s 1 also encompasses the storage container, the stainless steel
\
/
(_ 2lstoragebinforprocessedmaterial. And to the right of i 3'that you see also a trash container which housed some 4 contaminated waste paper. 5' You might also be able to see on this photograph 6,the cinder block that this catch basin is resting on has
~
l 7!-- shows some yellow -- some yellow stains which was, I l 8'.believe, one of the areas of highest contamination that . l I 9iwas identified from the surveys. 10 ' JUDGE SHON: How did you identify it as such l 11 ' contamination? THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) I identified this using' 12 l 13 , a Ludlum 12 survey instrument with an alpha scintillation 14 ; detector. s I i 7 JUDGE SHON: Thank you. 15 j (N- ) i ; 16 ' THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) I also used the I 17 Ludlum 12 with a pancake beta-gamma probe, which was used . 18fforgeneralareasurveysalso. t JUDGE SHON: Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative response.) l 19 , 20 > MR. LARSEN: Mr. Spitzberg, was any of this l i 1 21 '. removable contamination? ( None of the removable -I (Spitzberg) 22l THE WITNESS: l 23 contamination survey showed significant levels of , I l 24 removable contamination. 25 MR. LARSEN: So there's nothing floating around l t l (s_-)
'o22 l
1,in the air. 2 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) I cannot -- I can say 3 i that based upon my surveys of mi smears, there was no i 4 removable cor.tamination. 5 MR. LARSEN: Did Oak Ridge find any removable 6 contamination that was above NRC guidelines? 7l MS. HODGDON: Judge Bechhoefer, I don't believe 8 that this cross-examination on the part of Mr. Larsen of i l 9 Dr. Spitzberg is appropriate at this time. Dr. Spitzberg 10 is merely trying to describe the pictures. 11 i Mr. Larsen corrected or attempted to correct one. l l l 12 of his descriptions. He will have an opportunity for l' 13 cross-examination. I think that Dr. Spitzberg should be l l 14 , allowed to continue his description of the photographs 15 without interruptions from Mr. Larsen. 16 MR. LARSEN: If this is not proper, that's okay. j 17 I'm not a lawyer, so -- j 18 MS. HODGDON: Would you so instruct Mr. Larsen, i l i 19 please? ! 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, Mr. Larsen, for cross- l 1 21 4 examination, you probably should wait till they finish their
. 22 description, but for pure corr ections as you did the first 3
23 i time , I think that's okay, because it'll help us understand 24 what we're looking at. 25 ! JUDGE SHON: The distinction between pure i 9 i r _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _
_,m _ _ _ tb23
,.s I correction and cross-examination in this instance may be
\
k' _,/ 2 a difficult one to draw, but -- (Pause.) 3 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Okay. The Exhibit 10 4 shows the back of the facility. It shows the stainless 5 steel work bench. Next to that there are I think three 6 55-gallon drums, two of which I have in my notes as 7 containing or having contained benzene, one having contained 8 nitric acid and two smaller containers approximately 20 9 gallons which contain sulfuric acid. i 10 l Next to that was a sink which was -- by the way, , 11 ! none of these sinks were connected to plumbing or drains. - I i
' i 12 ! The -- next to that is a product storage bin, stainless l
13 steel. Then you see a stainless steel work bench with i i microwave ovens that were used for drying the product. f gN 14 l: ; 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Dr..Spitzberg, where is the ( ) 16 l third container? I just see two. I 17 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) You can see just the 18 base of it behind the stainless steel sink. l 19 , JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Oh, okay, okay. 20 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) I'ts kind of hidden i 21 from view there. , 22 ' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. Okay. 23 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Exhibit 11 is looking l 24 j again frcr the same angle as Exhibit 8, and this shows the 25 heat plates and the stainless steel buckets that were I i l l t
'm/
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _a
my 3 a gamy- s y-- - b24 l i 1i used in the process and the space heater. You can also 2 see some evidence of spillage on the linoleum below that. 3 JUDGE SHON: Did that also show fixed alpha 4 contamination? 5I THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) I would have to 6 review my survey notes on that. I'd be glad to come back 7 and -- (Pause.) l.
- 8. JUDGE SHON: Okay. .
l 4A 9 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Exhibit 12 is the same { 10 I view. Many of these are redundant in terms of what they're l , 11 showing. They're just different perspectives. Exhibit - 12 12 once again shows the containers of process solutions 13 and the storage container for in-process material. l
\ i 14 Exhibit 13 is a wider view of the facility j 15 looking in from approximately the door threshhold, and it 16 , shows the --
it shows me. I'm not sure what I had just 17 performed, perhaps a swipe, and some strips of linoleum 18 l on the floor. l t 19 Exhibit 14 is -- is just another view of the ; 20 facility, with Mr. Larsen and myself over in one corner, 21 l looking in the storage chest. 22 Exhibit 15 looks like it was taken after 1 23 Exhibit 13. 24 Yes? 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Dr. Spitzberg, back up a O
_ _ ~ . . _ - _ b25 7y I bit. Why does in Exhibit -- why is that -- those strips i I
\s ,) 2 of linoleum on top of some other flooring material?
3 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Why is it on top of 4 the floor? 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 6 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) I believe that the 7 linolcum was there to make -- to contain spills and make 8l cleaning up of spills easier. e 9' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So they threw away the 10 ' linoleum periodically, or how did -- (Pause.) . 11 ' THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) I'm not sure I can - i 12 answer that, j 13 MR. LARSEN: What was the question again? l l 14 ; JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I was wondering why the
- i I
(, w) 15 linoleum was there and what happened. The strips in this l x- / I i 16 . Exhibit 13 -- why the strips of linoleum. 17 ' MR. LARSEN: Well, like Dr. Spitzberg said, it 18 l was to protect the floor and to help clean up any spills i 19 , that would occur -- , 20 l JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I see. t 21 MR. LARSEN: -- in the manufacturing. ; 22 i JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do you just throw the ! 23 linoleum away, then, as -- 24 MR. LARSEN: Yes, as -- 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- low-level waste? I l l
$26 f l
l 1 MR. LARSEN: -- as it gets contaminated, we throw 2 j it away and replace it. 3 JUDGE SHON: What did you say was the device in
- 4 your hand there?
5 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) I'm having difficulty 6 making it out. It looks like I may have just obtained a 7 smear sample. 8 MR. LARSEN: I think the device you're looking , 9 at there is the high-volume air, and isn't -- air collector,i I i 10 and it isn't in his hand; it's -- l, 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: You can see the -- - 12 JUDGE SHON: Oh, I see. It's behind there. 13 MR. I.ARSEN : Maybe in picture 10 where -- , 14 , JUDGE SHON: Okay. 15 MR. LARSEN: -- where it is, on the -- l 16 , THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. In fact, it's I 17 visible also in Exhibit 14. You can see the -- that's a 18 high-volume air sampler. l 19 Where are we now, Exhibit 15? l 20 JUDGE SHON: Fourteen. , 21 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Fourteen. Okay. 22 That's just another view of the -- showing the strips of i 1 I 23 linoleum on the floor and the benzene containers in the ' 24 rear of the facility, and we're looking, peering into the 25 4
-- I believe that's the product -- one of the product-in- l i i l
1 O u-- _ -- '
b27 i I
,_ 1 process storage chests. l k
\ And Exhibit 15 is probably a better photograph i
. ' s_ - ( / 2 li 3 from a different angle, showing many of the same features 4 that have been shown in the other photographs. 5 Exhibit 16, just another angie. You can see that 6 the linoleum shows some evidence that there had been some 7 spillage. You can see a broom off to the back of the 8, facility, a fire extinguisher, and am empty soda can. 9l Exhibit 17 showed -- I think you can see some 10 l of the evidence of spillage on the linoleum, and the space 11 l heater here is shown also. I didn't -- apparently, , 12 Mr. Haes did not get a photograph of the space heater i 13 from the other angle that shows the ventilation, the screen 14 I on the heater that was surveyed and showed some 1 jg contamination, j 15 1 (x_- ) i 16 ; JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Are your witnesses now , 17favailable for cross-examination, or do you have anything l 18 i further? , 19 MS. HODGDON: The witnesses are now available 20 for cross-examination. 21l. JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Larsen, are you prepared
". 22 to start now?
23 MR. LARSEN: I'll do some of them, I guess. , - l 24 Not being a lawyer, I didn't know what to expect, but 25 now, I am to ask questions about some of the affidavit I I, L t
. __ __ __ _A
gg 3 , g r b28 l 1 that have been -- 2 JUDGE bECHHOEFER: Some or any. 3' MR. LARSEN: -- that's in the record; is that 4 correct? JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I take it you're referring 5l j 6 to the direct testimony? That -- . 7j MR. LARSEN: What I'm referring to is details 8 ! of investigation, and it doesn't say who's talking. I - 9, believe it's this one right here. . 10 l JUDGE BECHHOEFER: What document is that? , 11 , MR. LARSEN: Okay, title? Let's see, Case i 12 ' No. 4-88-002, and it has Brooks Griffin's signature, j 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Oh, that's the inspection i 14 ; report. l 15 MR. LARSEN: Yes. l 16 , JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. 17 MR. LARSEN: 11ow , is that -- is that over? l 18 i JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's one of the many items - l 19 you may ask questions about, certainly. That's been i ! 20 i introduced into the record now. I believe that's Staff 21 l Exhibit i t I? , 22 MS. HODGDON: Staff Exhibit 1. I 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. You can refer to it l . 24 , as Staff Exhibit 1, if you wish. I 25 , MR. LARSEN: Okay. j I l O
@&N$L 1 - @@@@@ T3F s
b29 I JUDGE BECHHOEFER: If that saves some words.
} 's- 2 MR. LARSEN: Okay. Now should I begin, or --
3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 4 MR. LARSEN: Okay. 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. LARSEN: 7 O It says " Agent's Analysis." I'm not sure whose
- 8 , analysis that is. Is that Brooks Griffin? Did he make t
9 tup this whole -- 10 ' A (Griffin) You need to direct that question -- , 11 , JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, ask -- l 12 THE WITNESS: (Griffin) I'm here, and I'm i 13 available to you. 14 ; JUDGE BECHHOETER: I might say that if a question (,,) 15 is directed to any particular member of the panel and some 16 ; other member of the panel has a supplementary answer or ' i 17 something to add, we welcome you to do that, and you don't ; i I 18 i have to be asked specifically. We really save time and 19 make the record easier to review if you Just volunteer and
\
20 I ' add , and if Mr. Larsen isn't sure exactly who to ask, I i l 21 guess he could ask the panel, and then whoever is most i
, 1 22 familiar with the document or the statement may answer. l
\
23 I think that'll make things work a little easier. 24 So feel free to -- if any of your colleagues, 25 any of the colleagues of the person who's asked a question l O x l
_y, __ _ - - - . - - - _ - - _
* >3 0 I have something to add, please do so.
2 THE WITNESS: (Griffin) The question was, I 3 believe, who would have written this, and it would have 4 been me. 5 MR. LARSEN: Okay. 6 BY MR. LARSEN: 7 i O I, then, would direct a question. On page 22 l 8 of that document under " Agent's Analysis" -- 9 JUDGE BECHHOETER: Yes, I've got it. i 10 MR. LARSEN: Shall I go ahead? 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. . l t' 12 MR. LARSEN: Okay. 13 BY MR. LARSEN: 14 ,I O In the middle, John -- "J. Larsen has a history j 15 of using young students who are generally ignorant of the 16 dangers of the process. However, the invarying theme j i 17 developed during this investigation and previous regulatory ! i ; 18 inquiries was J. Larsen's consistent disregard for l 19 regulatory requirements and his indifference to safety of l 20 his employees. J. Larsen's failure to notify the NRC of ' 21 i high bioassay results - " -- well, that's something else, 1 22 , but "J. Larsen's consistent disregard for regulatory 23 requirements and his indifference to safety of his ! l l l . 24 , employees." t 25 f How did you come to that conclusion, Mr. Griffin? i i 1 - - . . -- 0 1
PANtL 2 - unvoo b31 Mr. Larsen, the Agent's Analysis 1l A (Griffin) 9 2 3 section of the OI investigation is an option available to the investigator to offer the reader opinions based upon 4 the overall findings. Tne more important part of the case 5 is the actual conclusions that followed this. But this 6 -- those sentences that you just read at the time that I 7 wrote the report reflected my opinion of the results of . 6ll my finding, and those opinions are based upon the testimony 9 that I took during the pendency of the investigation -- 10 0 Whose testimony? A (Griffin) -- and the documents. f 11 i
~
12 O Whose testimonv, I would ask? l 13 A (Griffin) Well, one of them is a confidential 14 t.ource, but people that I interviewed that had been in l 15 your employ. 16 MR. LARSEN: Is there any option for me to know 17 > who that testimony came'from, because I don't know of any l 18 , person that worked for me that has been ignorar.t of the 19 dangers and hazards of what we've been working with. 20 The first thing I ever do before I hire a person 21 is let t. hem know exactly what the hazards are before they "No," 22 , ever say, "Yes, I want to work for you," or t 23 i (Pause for Judges to confer.) JUDGE BECHHOETER: Ms. Hodgdon, as we recall the 24l 25 l, general rules that are applicable, it would appear to t O
- - _ _ _ = - - .
PANEL 1 - CROSS 138 l b32 1 1' l us that we either could tell you where there are factual 2 differences of opinion to bring in the alleger, or 3 ! alternatively, we might have to exclude everything based 4 on what the alleger said. I would like your comments on 5 that, but as we read the NRC Rules, we're required to 6 3 follow one course or the other. . I MS. HODGDON: I don't thoroughly understand the 7l i 8 ! question. Did you say " alleger?" - 9 MS. HODGDON: Well, the person that provided v l 1 10 Mr. Griffin with such information. I said " alleger," yes.
. i II , MS. HODGDON: I believe that Mr. Griffin can do l
12 without any reference to the confidential source, if that's , j i ! 13 ' what you prefer. It'd be the easier thing to do. j 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Because there are numerous 15
-- and the references appear to go to the inspection 16 reports to some extent as well, including the --
l 17 JUDGE SHON: The November 24th, 1967 -- 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: November 24th, yes -- \ t 19 inspection report, in speaking of persons contacted, talks 20 ; about an anonymous alleger. I 21 MS. HODGDON: Yes. . 22 JUDGE SHON: Now, I don't know that that's the f 23 same person that Mr. Griffin referred to. . 24 MS. HODGDON: I believe it's not. That person I 25 l is not anonymous. I think that the OI report makes , l I i 9
139 PANEL 1 - CROSS f b33 1 explicit who that person was on the November inspection 2; report, but he was -- 3 JUDGE SHON: He wasn't anonymous. 4 MS. HODGDON: -- he was the owner of the facility, 5 and Mr. Griffin did in fact interview him. He's not the
. 6 person that I assume you're talking about now, who was a 7 former employee.
8! JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay, I wasn't sure, and so -- l 9 MS. HODGDON: There are various ways that we could 10 - do this. One thing we could try to do is just do without 11 , this confidential source altogether since there were other" i I l 12 sources that were of -- i i JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, particularly in areas . 13 , I i 14 l where there are dif ferences of f actual opinion between the j 15 confidential source and Mr. Larsen which would have to l i ' 16 be resolved, it's difficult to rely on a confidential I 17 , source in that situation. 18 l MS. HODGDON: Well, I heard Mr. Griffin's answer , 19 as being that some of that information was provided by a i 20 confidential source. l 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. 22 ! MS. HODGDON: I think that at that time that
. 23 Mr. Griffin was looking at another copy that didn't have !
24 the pages whited-out, he could use that, but of course, 25 to the extent that he has other sources, he should use
E
~ -
PANEL 1 - CROSS , 140 b34 1 those, and we shouldn't get into the confidential source 2 . with all its peculiar rules unless we really have to, which 3 I don't believe we do. I think we should try to do it that 4 way for now. 5 But the other thing I wanted to make clear is 6 that the other source was not a confidential source with . 7 l regard to the Wyoming f acility and that inspection. That i ol is in the document. Tnat's not whited-out, and he's not - l 9 the person that I understood Mr. Griffin to be talking 10 , about . 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I see. Well, when we get to i 12 ' questioning Mr. Spitzberg later on, we'll find out about 13 , that, I guess. 14 ' MS. HODGDON: Yes. l 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. , I 16 (rause in proceedings.) i 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Griffin -- ! l 18 l' THE WITNESS: (Griffin) Yes, sir. l 1 l 19 . JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- you could perhaps add j l 20 to this. Of the two sentences in that Agent's Analysis ; l 21 that Mr. Larsen had raised, the first sentence says, "J. ; , 22 Larsen has a history of using young students who are f 23 generally ignorant of the dangers of the process." l . l 24 ; In any respect did that come from a confidential source? I 25 l i
'Ill> !l
l b35 1 THE WITNESS: (Griffin) One of the sources for
/ i
( ) 2 the -- as a basis for that statement was a confidential 3 source, but that was not the only source that I was relying 4 on or that prompted me to offer that up as my opinion. 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: What else were you relying ) 6 on? I 7 THE WITNESS: (Griffin) My interview with 8!Mr.KevinNoack. He said the same thing essentially. 9i JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Kevin Noack said the same 10 thing. , 11 I THE WITNESS: (Griffin) Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative , i i 12 , response.) And it's contained in -- l 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, we're going to have Kevin l 14
! Noack on the stand tomorrow, and he's probably the best -- l
(, ,) 15 THE WITNESS: (Griffin) Source. !
\m ,/
16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- evidence. 17 THE WITNESS: (Griffin) But that's the basis i, 18 , for my opinion. 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. Well, we'll ask him 20 about that. ! I 21 The second one is, let's see, "The invarying theme 22 developed during this investigation and previous 23 regulatory inquiries was J. Larsen's consistent disregard . i e 24 for regulatory requirements and his indifference to the 25 safety of his employees." x- /
goggggf g ggggg pg - - - -
.b36 ;
1 1 Did that stem from confidential informant? l 2j THE WITNESS: (Griffin) Only -- and from a 3 historical perspective. The NRC's or my investigation j i 4 focused on his activities in Wyoming. Since he has been 1 5 the subject of past inquiries by various regulatory bodies, 6 I was drawing on the full history of his -- of the , 7 regulatory or attempted regulatory oversight of Mr. Larsen L 8: in drawing this or forming this opinion. . 9' (Pause in proceedings.) ! 1 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Griffin, referring to the l 11 ' first sentence which I asked you about which you said i 12 stemmed in part from Mr. Noack, are you referring solely l 13 there to the material that appears on -- I think it's i 14 pages 13 and 14? l 15 THE WITNESS: (Griffin) Yes. 16 Mr. -- if I may offer to help along here, Kevin ! t 17 Noach said that he had not been given much instruction into l 18 l the hazards of the processing. Mr. Noack is one of the f 19 , people I consider to be a young student. He -- there are I 20 other Noack brothers involved in some -- some aspects of I 21 this business, and it's not a mystery as to who I'm 1 22 i referring to. It's past employees of Mr. Larsen, including . I t i 23 ; the Noack brothers. ' I , I ! 24 j JUDGE BECHHOETER: Well, we'll have Mr. Noack 25 here tomorrow, and you can ask him questions about it. , I i O l l
I b37 [N- ! 1 1 We're not precluded from accepting hearsay, but it's a 2 little nicer to ask to the man that actually said it. 3 THE WITNESS: (Griffin) Okay. I might offer 4 that the Agent's Analysis part of our investigations is 5 a purely optional section for us to put in. The details
. 6 and the conclusion are the vital parts to be considered, 7 and that's the part that the Agency relies on for any action - 8 that they might take from this. The Agent's Analysis 9 provides me an opportunity to communicate with the Regional 10 Administrator or whoever else might have occasion to read ,
11 l this, that maybe there's something more than just the 12 regulatory violations or something beyond just the facts j 13 4 that I obtain from -- from individual witnesses. ! 14 i So this is -- I would ask that the Board not take ! 15 my opinions as something that I'm prepared to sustain with i I I 16 i facts as I do my conclusions which follow the Agent's i i 17 ! Analysis. 18 ; JUDGE SHON: I'd like to ask Ms. Hodgdon a 19 question regarding this particular section in this specific 20 report. If we were to simply strike the Agent's Analysis - 21 section here, how would that strike you? 22 ' MS. HODGDON: I believe I told you earlier that 23 I was so careful of the report that OI gave me that I did 24 not even delete the note that said that it was not for l 25
, public consumption, even though it was clear that that i l !
l . (
)
- - - - - a
'c3 8 j 1 note should have been deleted. So I took this document l l 2t as it was given to me, and I offered it exactly as it was j 3 given to me. If somebody wants to take a pencil and put
,4 an X through all portions that deal with Agent's Analysis 1 5 and say these are off-limits because the NRC does not use j I
6 them as basis for action, then I would have no objections 7 to that. JUDGE SHON: I thought that might be the case. 8l , 9 Since they're not the basis for your action, there really l 10 isn't mue:. point to our delving into them, is there? 11 ' MS. HODGDON: You feel that Mr. Larsen is wasting , l 12 ' his time in this line of inquiry because it was not the ; 13 basis for the decision and that he should get to the basis !
; i i l 14 i for the decision to revoke his license. Is that what you i 15 feel? And that we would save time by not making the -- ,
16 JUDGE SHON: Perhaps. 17 MS. HODGDON: -- the Agent's Analysis available l 18 ' for cross-examination, since it really is irrelevant? i 19 JUDGE SHON: At any rate, you would not intend 20 to refer to this in your proposed findings or anything i 21 like that or rely upon it in any way? i 22 MS. HODGDON: No, I would not rely upon it. i 23 j MP. LARSEN: Could I say something?
~
I l 24 ' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. , 25 MR. LARSEN: In regards to that. It may have I i e
ypyggtx e cyggg- amn (239 I l 1 1 not been.the basis. They may say that it was not the basis
/ s) '\s ,/ 2 for their decision, but the fact of the matter seems to 3 me is that it certainly puts a certain light on the facts, 4 a certain interpretation on them that I have no 5 representation in the revocation hearing to correct or to 6 say that is a misrepresentation. And what is the check 7! on the opinions of the Agent's Analysis in any kind of a .. 8j revocation of a license?
9 It seems to me that it's really a one-sided story. 10 It doesn't square with what Kevin said here, Kevin's . 11 testimony in there, and I wonder if Mr. Grif fin sees what - 12 ' he wants to see and hears what he wants to hear. . l i i 13 (Pause in proceedings.) l 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Larsen, we would propose
/N ;
to strike from the record, which would mea- that no one () 15 16 could rely on it, the segment on page 22 of the report here l 17 , that's described as " Agent's Analysis" or that's headed f I 18 : by " Agent's Analysis." Now, the interview with Mr. Noack j 19 , will stay in, but when Mr. Noack is a witness, you can ask i 20 him did he say exactly that or was he misconstrued as it ; j l . 21 l appears on pages 13 and 14, which was said to be the basis 22 in part for these statements. That we can explore and 23 develop on the record. , I 24 Ke would propose to and the Staff is not 25 objecting if we would strike these three -- I guess it's
PANEL 1 - CROSS 146 ] l b40 1 the three paragraphs on page 22. We would just indicate ' i l 2 i that they're no longer part of the record. Would you -- 3' MR. LARSEN: Yes, I wou.d be in favor of that. 4 The only point I would like to say is that my license has 5 been revoked, and I feel I was misrepresented in that l 6 revocation meeting -- , 1 7l JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, the purpose of this -- l 8! MR. LARSEN: -- and the damage has been done. . 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- hearing is to demonstrate 10 if you can, that that revocation was not a correct action. 11 JUDGE SHON: Mr. Larsen, we're going to explore ) i 12 ' as we go through this case exactly why your license was , 13 revoked and what the basis was for doing so. One of the 14 things we're saying is that thi s Agent's Analysis section 15 cannot turn out to be one of the bases for doing so. I 10 , MR. LARSEN: But how do we know that it didn't i 17 influence the decision? I 18 f JUDGE SHON: Because we expect them to state theirl l 19 bases succinctly, and you can challenge each one of them. 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: 'le s . And we have to rule on 21 whether the baris for revocation of the license was i - 22 adequate, anr1it'llbewhat'sdevelopedontherecordbeforef l 23 us, and what's stricken from the record isn't in it any i 24 more, and we can't look at it. So -- 25 (Pause in proceedings.)
\l i !
e i
-gum s~ sam--- - - - - - - - - - - -
b41 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. The Board will rule (/ ) 2lthat the portion of the inspection report appearing on page t 3 22 under the heading of " Agent's Analysis" will be stricken 4 from the record. 5 I think the reporters usually put an X through 6 those sections that are stricken out. 7 THE REPORTER: Okay, I'll do that. 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It's easier than cutting and 9 chopping and all that. Just let the record reflect that 10 { it has been deleted from the record. 11 JUDGE SHON: It's even better than cutting it . I 12 out because then the Appeal Board can look at it and decide 13 l whether we committed error or not. l 14 f JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. f C' Mr. Larsen, are you prepared to go further? ( 15 16 MR. LARSEN: Do you want to break? It's 12:00. l 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Larsen, would it help you 18 if we broke for a little longer time period, like say till 19 1:30 maybe? ] i I 20 i MR. LARSEN: That would be fine. I 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Would that help you a little , 1
~
22 l more to -- 23 l' MR. LARSEN: Yes. l 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- prepare for further 25 questions? m
o43 I I MR. LARSEN: Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative response.) 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay, we'll break for lunch 3 until 1:30. 4 (Whereupon at 12:05 p.m. proceedings in the above-5 entitled matter recessed for "rk, to reconvene at 1:30 6 p.m. that same day.) 7i i
- 8. ~
i 9 10 ' 11 , 12 13 1 14 I 15 i 17 l 18 19 . I 20 , , l ! 21
! ~
22 ! i 23 i . 24! ! 25 l l O l i
149
'4 o
lt' I i C1 1j i AFIERNOON [ESSION 2 (1:37 p.m.) 3, JUDGE BEC2HOEFER: On the record. I-4 Mr. Larsen, are you prepared to continue?
- 5) MR. LARSEN: Do you want me to start, or do you
. 6 have anything to say?
7: JUDGE BECHHOEFER: No, I don't have anything at 8 the moment. 9 Whereupon, 10 EDUIN FLACS
- BLAIR SPITZBERG .
11 DARRELL FISHER BROOKS GRIFFIN 12 i l 13 resumed as witncss and, having been previously duly s'orn, i l i 14 were examined and t estified further as f ollows : l 15 CR OS S-EXA::INATION (Resumed) ; I 10 B Y ' *.R . LARSEN: t 17 0 I would like to know, even though the analysis i i 18 has been stricken, the last paragraph, which is particularly j 19 provoking, it seems to me -- 20 "J. Larsen has informed the NRC officially that he intends to move once again to a new state
, 21 )
22 to begin processing DU if his application for the 23; URC specific license is denied. J. Larsen, in the 24 opinion cf this investigator, is telling the i I 25 ' regulat ory authorities that he does not have to _ _ _ _ . MM
Staff Panel 1 - Cross 150 I comply with existing regulations. Furthermore, M5-2 1 2 because of a loophole in the regulatory 3j requirements, he does not believe the government ! i
4 { can stop his activities."
5 That is a pejorative statement, it seems to me. i 6' - l And if that is the objectivity of an investigator seeking 7' for the truth in a situation, I'll have to eat my hat on i 5 that. ! i 9 MS. HODGDON: Well, may I inquire as to whether , 10 Mr. Larsen intends to ask a question? Because he will have l i 11 an opportunity to testify. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. That 's the type of thing 13 that would be better for your own testimony. 14 MR. LARSEN: Okay. l 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Then you could be examined or , 10 cross-examined on that. 17 "R. LARSEN: Uc11, okay, I will ao on here. 18 Sext I woul d like t o, if I could, briefly touch 19 or ".r. -- Let's see, this is NRC Staff reply to John D. 20 Larsen response of December 26, 1985. Do you have that ? I 21 February 1, 1969, I believe is the date. , 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 23 MR. LARSEN: Page 3, or the end of 2. . 24 , "Mr. Larsen's response concludes with a i I st at ement that he hopes his response does not show 25 l l
Staff Panel 1 - Cross 151 i l t lack of concern and willful disregard for health 1
,f""q 3 ' 1j k_s s 2 and safety regulations. Mr. Spitzberg's affidavit 3 shows that Mr. Larsen's disregard for the health of i
4 his employees was so flagrant as to amount to 52 wi11 fulness. I
~
6, THE WITNESS: (Flack) Well, I'm sorry, I can't l 7' follow where that is. i 8 MS. HODGDON: If I could identify it for the 9 Board, it is from the NRC Staff's response, signed by the to staff counsel, Ann P. Hodgdon. He is reading the remark , l 11 of counsel, and I am not here for cross-examination. So - 12 again I would suggest that Mr. Larsen confine his questions , 13 to the testimony and direct them to t he witnesses who are j i 1 14 sitting at the witness table. l O 4 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, you were highlighting
\
It sc r
- hing t hat Mr. Spitzberg said. Why don't you ask j 17 Mr. Spitzberg.
18 MR. LAREE5: Okay, I'm going to go to , 19 Mr. Spitzberg. 20 JUDGE BECHMOEFER: Turn t o "r . Spitzberg, either i 21 his testimony or his affidavit submitted. MR. LARSEN: Okay, Mr. Spitzberg's affidavit. 22 23 Let's see. , 24 - JL'DGE BECHHOEFER: Uhen you get there, refer us i I i to whatever page you are on. l 25 ! I I,
.- - ~. __ _ _ . . _ -
W. l f g 1 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Staff Panel 1 - Cross
. 152 i
I i MS-4 1' MR. LARSEN: Yes. I'm trying to see where to 2 start, here. Chay, I think on page 4, number 6. 3 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Is this my affidavit l 4 j or testimony? l ' 5,i MR. LARSEN: The affidavit. 6 MS. HODGDON: Judge Beechoefer, if I may, the . 7 affidavit was not filed as the Staff's testimony. Could 8 I ask that you direct Mr. Larsen to direct his questions . i 9 to the Staff testimony in the first inst ance? l 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, the affidavit is in the
~
11 record. I u 12 MS. HODGDOS: It's not the St af f 's t est imony. 13 I mean, the rules regarding the use of that under the [ 14 Fedcral Rules of Evidence would be that it would only be 15 admissible if it's under certain conditions. I'm sure you 16 know what they are and Mr. Larsen does not. 17 JUDGE EECHHOEFER: Yes. 18 MS. HODGDON: However, I t hink that we're going 19 t o bc here f orever unless Mr. Larsen is directed to ask his 20 quest ions on the testimony. 21 MR. LARSEN: I'll tell you, Ann, !'a trying to 22 answer Mr. Spitzberg on his allegation of willfully not . I 1 So if you can maybe help us, j 23 , reporting December 31 CAL. , 24 , where is it in the testimony? That's what we will discuss. 4 25 THE UITNESS: (Spitzberg) Ann, that is dealt with
i Staff Panel 1 - Cross 153 j I i l - g ~i-5 1 in my testimony on -- i Dr. Spitzberg is trying to find the
\s_ 2 MS. HODGDON:
3 . place in his testimony to which Mr. Larsen's question seems 4 to be directed. (Pause.) Page 17, Question 35. 5> MR. LARSEN: Well, I don't know what the question
- 6. is. But the substance of what Mr. Spitzberg, I think, was I
7 saying was that the December 31 CALs were purposely 6 withheld. 9 "Mr. Larsen did not comply with the j 10 December 31 CAL by reporting the late December, . 11 early January bioassay results as he received them. . 12 This appeared to be an act of withholding l 13 information, for which the possible motive could 14 have been avoiding a delay in his receiving a 15 license." If The reason this was not reported was that on 17 January 7, I was infor.ed m by Energy Labs, who I sent them , 15 to -- 19 F. S . HODGDO": Judge Bechhoefer, St af f objects. 20 Mr. Larsen is once again testifying. Could the Staff l 21 , request once again that Mr. Larsen be instructed to ask j
- 22 questions and not t o testify at this time.
JUDGE BCCHHOEFER: Mr. Larsen, what you were 23 , 24 stating just now is testimony which you are free to give 1 i i 25 ! when it comes for your testimony. I think if you could
Staff "anel 1 - Cross l i MS-6 1 I focus your questions on Mr. Spitzberg's testimony itself 2 and ask him any questions you have -- for instance, 3 question ano answer No. 35, which was ref erred to -- that 4j would be at least a proper way of proceeding. 5l MR. LARSEN: Can I ask you, where are the 6! testimony papers? All I have is affidavits with me. Now, 7 I got a banch of papers yesterday, but I don't think they 8 were testimony papers. 9 Frankly, I'm sorry I'm not better prepared on j 10 this. But I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't know what the j t 11 procedures were going to be on this. I probably have them, 12 at home, but I don't have them with me. The testimony has I 13 been sent to me. l 14 JUDGE SHON: Mr. Larsen, the testimony was sent , 15 under a cover letter of April 25, 1969. 16 MR. LARSEN: Right. ; 17 JUDGE SHOS: To us, at any rate, and I think was 15 probably sent t o you at the sane time. 19 IP. LARSEN: And I don't deny that. All I'm I 20 saying is t hat not knowing the procedure of what is going 21 , t o be doing, and not knowing that affidavits are no good, 22 that you have t o have t estimony instead, I just didn't know. - 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think we'll allow Mr. Larsen l 24 ' to cross-e:: amine base.e on tht affidavat, in that he doesn't 25 have any of his material him. l l,
--..-...--e--.-.---- - . = - -.
W -. . . - . . . . . - . . . - . O
Staff Panel 1 - Cross 155 4
\
\ l I
/N7 If there is anything that got changed in the 1l'
{' ' 2 testimony, Mr. Spitzberg, please say so, because the 3 testimony is what is crucial. A lot of it is more or less 1 4l the same material. i MR. LARSEN: If you want, I can delay until 5l 6l tomorrow, and I will be prepared tomorrow with testimony. 7: But we will continue if you went. It doesn't matter. i
- 8 MS. HODGDON: Judge Bechhoefer, if you could l 9 deterr.ine whether or not Mr. Larsen has read the testimony l 10 and marked it up or made any preparation for cross- , l 11 examination, then maybe we could find anothcr copy. If he* f 12 has not, then he would not be prejudiced by our giving him ,
13 another copy of the testimony at this time. I don't see 14 how he could cross-examine on testimony that he hadn't read. ! ! 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFEP: Have you read, or studied or
\s-IC made notes on that testimony?
17 MR. LARSEN: Yes, I read it. I can't refer to i t 18 No. 35, though, not having a copy of it. And I would 19 prefer, if I could, to get it right and do it right if I 20 can do it tomorrow, so there would be no problem. 21 MS. HODGDON: Judge Bechhoefer, the Staff coes 1 22 not believe t hat Mr. Larsen should be allowed now to ; ~ 23 question Dr. Spitzberg on the affidavit; not that it's not l l 24 entirely consistent with his testimony, but just the fact i 25 4 n om m-o-mme a is _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . ___________a
Staff Panel 1 - Cross 156 1 1
! l i
M5-8 1 is that it's not testimony. I mean, it formally is not his 2 testimony. He put something else in as his testimony. So 3 I find that vcry confusing, and I think it has a great deal 4 of potential for causing logistical problems. 5 I think at this time, since Mr. Larsen is not 6 ! prepared for cross-examination of the Staff, on the Staff's . t 7' pre-filed testimony filed on April 25, that we could just 8 forego the questioning of the Staff at this tire and proceed . 9 to having Mr. Larsen put on his testimony if that's the way l 10 he would spor 3 the time f or the rest of the afternoon. , 11 I just don't know. I don't think that we ought to be 12 proceeding on having Mr. Larsen ask questions on other 13 things that are not the Staff's testimony. i 14 MR. LARSEN: Does that mean that I am not allowed i t o c;ue s t i on bc c a u s e I don't have the testimony here? Is 15 It t hat what Ann is saying? 17 MS. HODGDOS: I would be happy to provide if Mr. Larsen uith a copy of the testimony if he thinks that 19 he can ask questions on the testimony. That 's finc . And 20 if we could have a recess or something when he could read 21 it and refresh his reco11cetion of it, I know that 22 Mr. Larsen has in fact read the testimony because I've i i 23 spoken with him about it in the past. i i . JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Could you use an extra copy, 24 j I 25 or have you marked up yours with questions, the one you have l O
Staff Panel 1 - Cross i 15i l i l
/~N9 1 l; at home?
t
's- 2' MR. LARSEN: Let me take a look at it and see if 3 l we can proceed, if you have an extra copy.
i 4 (Mr. Larsen examined the document.) 5 t MR. LARSEN: I would appreciate it if I could do 6fthistomorrow. There is a lot of information in here, not 7 specifically just to Question 35, but there's a lot of other
. 8 ones too.
9 (Pause for Judges to confer.) 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We are going to let you ask quest ions based on the af fidavits. And if there is anything l 11 further -- We don't want duplications. So if you look at 12 13 the testimony and you think there's something else, or if l 14 there are some inconsistencies, you certainly can follow l m i 15 that up. But I think that you prepared some questions based , k ' it on the affidavits. The affidavits are in front of us, and 17 the affiant is here and is a witness. So I think we will 18 allow you t o proceed this way. 19 MR. LARSEN: I'll try and combine them a little. And tomorrow try to -- You 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: , 21 ; know, we're not going to let you overlap when you cover a ; 22 certain subject unless there is some additional information I think we will allow you 23 , or inconsistency that you see. , The record will be a little confusing, 24 l to proceed that way. 25 but I think the best way for us to get all the information I l
~
l
Staff Panel 1 - Cross 158 i t 1 M5-10 1, out is to go this way. So we will proceed for a while and 2 see how it works. Please refer to the specific parts of 3 the affidavit you're asking questions about, though, so we 4 l can follow it. We all have the affidavit. 5' MR. LARSEN: Here we are, affidavits, page 5. 6 l Act ually, page 4, number 6 we're going to start at. , 7 " Paragraph 5 of Mr. Larsen's response contends ! 6 that he did collect urine samples in accordance l , I 9 with the December 31 CAL. Paragraph 6 speaks of j 10 Mr. Larsen's failure to report the high readings - I l 11 fror December 28 through January 3 urine samples 12 as required by the December 31 CAL. Mr. Larsen , 13 st at es t hat the samples were damagea in transit ! 14 and may have been contaminated. The CAL called t 15 for two individuals, who had previously showr Ic elevat ed uranlur concentrations in t heir urine, to ; 17 submit additional urine samples starting no later l 18 than January 1 and continuing once cvery three 19 days until such time as the results of two 20 consecutive samples for each individual showed 21 less than 30 micrograms per liter. The reason for ,
~
22 this action, as explained to Mr. Larsen in a , 23 telephone conversation of the 31st, was concern . for thc individuals and uncertainty surrounding the l 24 ; i 25 ' cause of the previous high values. At that time I l i
Staff Panel 1 - Cross 159 e I. f-~g1 I! the best method for validating the bioassay l
; \
1
\s_e) 2 results in estimating potential intake was to 3 immediately begin tracking the concentration over 4 time before the remainder of any internally 5I deposited uranium was excreted. As I learned 6 later, Mr. Larsen did obtain samples from the twc 7I individuals during the period from December 28 to 8 January 3. One individual submitted two samples, 9 the other, three, with sample frequency of three l 10 days. After the 3rd, no samp3es were obtained ,
11 until the 10th, despite the fact the retalts of - 12 ssmples would not be known by Mr. Larsen until the , 13 samples were assayed on January 8." f 14 '"The assayed samples once again showed high i
~
g 15 uranium concentrations, all well above 30 u 16 micrograms per liter. The report of the analytical 17 laboratory did note that the samples were eceived , 16 leaking and had probable contamination. Despite ; 19 this, in deviation from the CAL, there was no 20 subsequent three-day samples following January 3. i > 21 And the opportunity to track the individuals' urine l 22 concentration over time, until they were below the . l~ 23 ; action level, had been lost." l 24 ; " Recognizing that results were above the ; 25 I stated levels, Mr. Larsen reinitiated the sampling i l s (
Staff Panel 1 - Cross 160
< l i
i l 15 - 1 2 1j on the 10th and the 13th. These samples, which i 2 were assayed on January 21, were less than 30 3i micrograms per liter and were in fact background l 4l 1evels " 5' "I believe there is no justification for i I 6 Mr. Larsen not obtaining additional samples every . i 7! three days, as specified, after January 3. Samples 8 collected did not have to be immediately analyzed. . 9 Even if Mr. Larsen was safe in his apparent l 10 assumption that the first two samples in a time l 11 series would be less than 30 micrograms per liter, - l 12 he should certainly have continued sampling the l 13 series and held the samples for analysis in the i 14 event his assumptions proved wrong." i 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now, Mr. Larsen, do you have 16 a question about that? Because normally it would be easier I 17 just to ref er to the Paragraph 6, starting and ending in l l 1F a cert ain place. What is your question about that? , 19 "R. LAREEL: Well, because of this incident -- 20 I'm trying not to testify and explain what l 1 21 happened there, and yet ask a question about the affidavit. ; 22 JUDGE SHON: Mr. Larsen, do you think that any 23 , of the things set forth in Paragraph 6 there are inaccurate i
\ ! .
14 , or 2ncorp;ete, or do you think that something has been 1 25 omitted? If so, ask him whether he hasn't omitted the O f
Staff Panel 1 - Cross 161' l t
\13 1 thing.
2 MR. LARSEN: Okay. 3 BY MR. LARSEN: 4 O I guess my question is, why was it not reported 5lthatthesamplesthat I took were continued but were thrown - 6; out as the containers were suspect? Now, the box was I 7 ! broken in. It was broken when it was delivered on ; 6 January 7. They called me on the 8th and said, "Your 9 container has been broken open. Your results will not be j 10 accurate." , 11 And I said, "Would you please send me, then, some i l 12 certified cont ainers that are clean and that I can take the i i 13 samples with," which they sent. l 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Ithinkaproperquestionwouldl 15 be first -- ; 10 MR. LARSEM: Gell, my question, I guess, is why 17 is this not reflected on there, i IS JUDGE BECHHOETER: Mc11, ask him if he was aware 19 of this, first. 20 MR. LARSZh: Okay. 21 > BY MR. LARSEN: 22 0 Were you aware of that information? , 23 MS. HODGDON: Do you understand the question? l 24 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Are you referring to 3 i 25 [ samples that you obtained but did not have analyzed? I _ _ _ _ _ . - ____________m _________m __m__ _ _ __ m .
Staff Panel 1 - Cross 162 9 l MS-14 1i BY MR. LARSEN: 1 2 Q That's right, that were ready to be analyzed if 3 l the samples proved to be high in that CAL. Then I would 4 li send them the other sample there, the three-day samples. 5 But when the centainers were broken open, I thres them out f 6 and asked for their containers, which they sent me. We i . i 7 ! sampled and sent them in. And it's not reported in here i 8 that that is what took place. Mere you aware that that was i 9 what took place? 10 A (Spitzberg) I was not aware that you had thrown, l 11 out samples. That would be something that we would have 12 advised you against, had we known the result s of the samples 13 that were not rc;. ,rt c d . 14 O Okay. I had thrown them out before I had talked 15 to you. When did I talk to you on that? We talked on It the 31st -- 17 A February 4. 15 0 -- and ycu asked fer t hese samples . I did t hem. 19 I took ther every three days. When was the next time we 20 talked af ter the 31st? 21 . A February 4, is my -- -
\
22 Q Oh, okay. Well, the samples were thrown out , 1 23 , when, January 6, I was informed that the material that was , 24 sent there was broken open. I said, "Please send me l 1 25 samples." The containers were suspect, and they sent me e i
Staff Panel 1 - Cross' tu 163 1 l r's i i\m ,/115 I their samples. He analyzed them, and that was it. l 2 My question I guess is: It.'s not reported in 3 here. And because of that, there is: "Mr. Larson and his
# workers have been receiving high uranium intakes," and, 1
5' "It appeared to be an act of withholding information, for 6 which the possible motive could have been avoiding a delay 7 in extending his license." And I believe that that was also !
. I S brought up as criminal activity to the Justice Department. !
S A (Spitzberg) I think we're encompassing many 10 issues here. Let me address the issue of samples that you, 11 may have collected, but did not have analyzed. To answer i; ths; gacetior., no, I do not know all the f acts related to
!! any samples that vere not analyzed. The information that I
( 14 we base our evaluation on are the samples that are analyzed l.
\ li and the results of which are turned over t.. the NRC, as we 16 requested and as you committed to in the CAL.
17 Had you reported the elevated results of the It samples that ucre suspected of havinc leaked in t ransit , 15 ue would have at that point definitely advised you not te 20 dest roy the ot her samples that had been collected, so that
. 21 we could assay those samples. Essentially, you're U dcst roying evidenec t hat 's support ing your own case.
23 0 The cont ainers were suspect . That is why they 24 i were thrown out. I had no confidence that they were clean. ; I 25 A (Spitzberg) Mr. Larsen, the NRC did not have an
/ n\ _ . . __ . _ _ . __ _ _ _ . _ _ -- \s
Staff Panel 1 - Cross 164 115 - 1 6 1 opportunity to come to the same conclusion about the 2 contaminated samples as you did. 3 0 I am explaining that I did take the samples every 4 ! three days. I told you that information when we talked. ! l 5 You said, "Can you find those samples?" And I said, "No, 6' they have been thrown out." And it is not reflected in here - 7 that you even said anything about them. 8 A (Spitzberg) I'm not sure I recollect the story f 9 about the unanalyzed samples. But what I can say -- 10 0 You asked if I continued taking the three-day l 11 samples. I said, "Yes, but I have thrown them out because l 1; the containers are suspect. I ar getting certified, clean 13 containers from Energy Labs." And you can ask them and 14 verify that that's exactly what I asked, and they sent me And I knev that they were clean. That 's t he 15 theirs. M rcason I asked t hem, and that 's the reason that t hose others 17 were t hrown out . IE So you say t hat I'm intentional 3y withhciding 19 information. I am not int entionally withholding 20 information. The box was broken into when it was received. 21 I didn't break it. . 22 JUDGE EECH30EFEP: Mr. Larsen, did you say thet 23 you mentioned to Dr. Spit zberg in a telephone conversation . 24 , that t he samples were received leaking, or not? . I 25 :2. LARSEN: Yes. i
Staff Panel 1 - Cross 165 17 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Did you advise him? 2 MR. LARSEN: I advised him -- No, vait a minute. 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I'm referring now to Question I 4, No. 36. I 5 MR. LARSEN: No, I did not call him on the 8th. C BY MR. LARSEN: 7 0 We didn't talk on the 8th, did we? S A (Spitzberg) The 8th of what? : 9 Q The 8th of January. 10 A (Spitzberg) No, sir. We did not talk in 1988 , t 11 unt il February t., according to my records. 1; "R.
. LAnEEN: Now, I did net inform the NRC about 13 the December 31 CAL samples, because the box was received ,
14 broken, and Encrgy Labs called me up and told me that the 15 sampler ucre probably contaminated; should t hey go ahead It and run them? I' I said, "Go ahead and run them. But, please, 11 will you send me some good containers." l' They sent me the containers. I got them Federal 20 Express and sent in some new samples, which immediately were
. 21 analy:cd, and they turned out to be less than 5 micrograms.
22 JUDGE BECHMOEFER: Right. 23 MR. LARSEN: That is what happened. I did not 24 inf orm the NRC. 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: No one fror the NRC, I mean,
_.__m-_._a______________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Staff Panel 1 - Cross 166 i l M6-18 1 neither Dr. Spitzberg or anyone else; is that correct? 2 MR. LARSEN: That's correct. And the reason I 3 didn't was because they were broken. 4 i JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. 5 THE WITNESS: (Griffin) I have additional 6 information on the question he asked. On page 8 of , 7 Mr. Larsen's st atement taken during the OI investigation, i 8 if you could find that in this list of exhibits here, I'm 9 not certain, but I think that part of that statement may , 1 10 speak to the question that he has asked. j 11 J"DGE BECHHOEFER: b'he r e is this?
); TME Z T5ESS: (Griffin) We have t o find t he 13 handwrit t en st at ement . It 's Exhibit 27 to the OI report.
14 MR. LARSES: Page 6? 15 THE KIT::ESS: (Griffin) Yes. This is the 16 hande. rit t en st at ement . The second paragraph begins 17 Ab ou t January 8, 1985". . 1 !. I think that part of this may speak to his 19 questlen. 20 "R.
. LAP SE:, : Yes, I think that's right.
21 I don't know why this is crossed out, "and I , 2 believe the sarple cont ainers have been cont aminated," 23 because I did thin:- they were contaminated. But other than . 24 , that, everything is -- 1 1 25 THE WIT"ESS: (Griffin) I would drau everybody's 4
Staff Panel 1 - Cross 167 t 19 1 attention to, it looks like, the next to the last sentence. 2 If I can take it out of context here, "I did not take urine 3 , samples on January 6 because I did not have trustworthy I 4 1 containers. I provided control samples with the i i 5 January 10 and 13 samples." i
- 6 The sentence above the one I read into the record 7 here says, "On January 10, I resumed sampling and !,
6 subsequently sent urine samples for Mike and myself on f 9 January 10 and 13." I was just drawing the court's 10 attention to his statement regarding samples taken on the , i j 11 6th. 1, MR. LARSEN: I;e l l , I did take samples. There were 13 samples that were thrown out. And I must have been confused 14 when I wrot e that dcun. 15 1 don't kno'.. why this is crossed out, "and I This was, 10 believe the samples may have been contaminated." 17 as I remember, a very confusing time right there, and we 11 ' crc trying to get it straight. That 's why I was asking 19 you, when uc ca13cd the last time, that. There's a lot of 20 confusien that seems to be going on around there, as to what 21 happened. So there were samples t hat were thrown out. And 2:
- 23 I thought t hat they were the 6th and the 9th or whatever, 24 , 6th, 5th or 6th, or around there. But the san.pling did ,
i 25 continue in expectat ion that if the results were high, then
...u .. . _ . .
Staff Panel 1 - Cross 168 i M6-20 1 there would be other samples to test antil they were below 1 2 the 30. So that's my explanation u~ that there. 3 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Well, the answer to 4 your question, then, Mr. Larsen, as to why I did not note 5 any samples that may have been thrown out is because I was 6 present during the time that you made the statement to 7 Mr. Griffin. And according to the statement you made, you ! 8 did not collect these samples. i 9 B'l MR. LARSES: 10 Q Well, it seems like there was no information 11 recorded about the samples being broken, that I just 11 discontinued ther. And the reason was not because I just 13 discontinued. It was because they were broken and I wanted 14 certified-clean samples. 15 A (Spitzberg) I think I have noted that ;n every 16 occasion where I have been talking about this sequence of 1, events. I thinh I have noted that you contended the samples it were leaking and possibly cont ar.inated. I don't think is that's a fair chargc, that I left that information out. 20 Wh at we were not able to do is est ablish 21 independently that the samples were contaminated. Had there , 22 been fellow-up samples, we might have been able to establish 23 t hat . . 24 O The Energy Labs have said t hat there was ; { l 25 cont ar.1 n a t i on , in their report to me on what the results ' 1 I
....a
Staff Panel 1 - Crose 169 r I 21 1 A (Spitzberg) I don't. think, Mr. Larsen, that I'm 2 prepared to say t hat the samples were contaminated or not 3 contaminated. What I was trying to -- 4 o Well, they were suspect. 5 A The point I was trying to make in my statements,
. 6 testimony and my affidavit, was the fact that the NRC did l
7 not receive any information about these samples until after 8 I called you on February 4, actually until after I called 9 you the second time, after you sent me the January 10 and to 13 samples. , 11 Q Uhen I got the results of the January 10 was about 12 the 1st of February. You called t he 4th -- 13 A (Spitzberg) That's right. , 14 0 -- and I said, "I ar sending you the material." 15 A (Sp;tzbcrg) And those samples we received and 16 reviewed, and detcrmined that those were not the samples 17 t hat .se were interested in reviewing. When I called you 1F bach, that's when the NRC found out about these other 19 sarples that may have been questionable. And that was not 20 the int ent of our confirmation-of-action letter. The intent 21 of our confirmation-of-action letter, I think it's fairly clear f rom reading t he commitment s you made t o us, was that
~
22
. 23 we uant e6 t o receive t his data as you received it so that 24 we could evaluate it at the time to see what additional 25 controls may have been necc.ssary, to see whether or not t
Staff Panel 1 - Cross 170 1 1 any evidence of exposure of your employees. We did not M6-22 2 expect that we would receive this information some months j 1 1 3 l at er . ( 4l Q Well, all I want to say is that the reason it i 5> wasn't told you -- and maybe I was mistaken in not doing 6 that. This is the first time, in all of the ten years that f 7 I've been doing these, that I've been asked to do these 8 urine sampics. And I should have, in retrospect, informed l 5 you that the box uas broken and that we were resampling with i 10 other cont ainers. But I did not intentionally withhold , 11 information from you for the purpose of hiding the high -
- 1. bioassay results.
13 A (Spitzberg) Well, I can only state the fact that 14 you did not report t he high elevated values t o us as 15 required by the CAL. 1( Q but then you go ahead and assume that I 1 *.' intentionally was withholding high bioassay results. 18 7. You at sore point in time, I think, must have -- 19 MS. MODGDON: Just a second. May I ask that this 20 conversation between Mr. Larsen and Dr. Spitzberg be 21 discontinued and that Mr. Larsen be asked to ask quest 1ons 22 and not to testif y? There is no question pending in the 23 four er five exchanges. . 24 JUDGE SHON: I'd like to ask one question from i i ; 25 the bench -- it may extend to two questions -- of a O
Staff Panel 1 - Cross yyy. , t L23 I technical nature, in an effort to establish the real 2 relevance of the sampling at the end of December, 3, January 3, and then a discontinuation of sampling until 4 i sometime after the 10th of January, a period of some 10 or 5 15 days after which, as I understand it, low samples were 6' obtained. i 7 Dr. Spitzberg, do you have a copy of Reg. Guide '
~
C 822 with you? 9 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. 10 JUDGE SHON: I'd like to direct your attention , I 11 to page E22-7 of that guide. 12 THE UITSESS: (Spitzberg) Are you referring to 13 t he August '68 revision or the July '78? , 14 JUDGE SHOS: This one is the August '86 revision. l 15 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Okay. IC JUDGE SHO5: I suspect, though, that the graphs 1 [ 17 have not changed much. , 11 If someone else feels compelled to ansver, 15 ir.cident cIly , that ' ;11 be fine with me too. It's a general l 20 l rechnicci question. l l
. 21 Now, I'm not going to .oly that, necessarily, 22 high-fired yellowcake is the proper model here. It just 23 happens to be one of the graphs. This is a graph of urine 24 , concentration versus time, i
25 It appears t hat if someone's urine concentration
Staff Panel 1 - Cross 172 f M6-24 1 were about 35 micrograms per liter at day 30, it would not 2 get down t o, say, 5 or so until close to day 100, some 60
- 3. days, which suggests to me that this material is quite i
4 i persistent and that if you had really had a very high ! 5 concentration, say, on December 31 of one year, it would 6 still be expected to be quite high by the time you got to - 7 January 12 or so, only 12 or 13 days later. If it takes l 6 60 days to clear out, why would you not assume that perhaps, l
- 9 indec 6, the high reading was wrong if 12 days later it was to gone? Do you see what I'm driving at? ,
11 THE UITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. 1 may ask i i 12 Dr. Fisher to elacorete. 13 The reason is that tl.e various chemical species 14 cf uranium have various solubilities. And the solubility 15 of the chemical species determines its residence time in 1( the human system. For the material that Mr. Larsen was 17 processing, we believe that it was fairly soluble material, 10 in $1hich case it ecule net exhibit the same type of 15 clearance curves t hat you see here for the high-fired 20 yellowcake. 21 JUDGE SHON: But by the same token, then, would , 22 not the limits, and the precautions, and the necessary 23 changes in enc's behavior also be quite different from that, . 24 fror what is described in this guide? And it appears t o 25 be the numbers from this guide that you've been using as
Staff Panel 1 - Cross 173 , - i i
-25 1, a criterion.
2 THE UITHESS: (Fisher) My name is Darrell
- 3 Fisher.
4, The bioassay of urine for uranium can exhibit t marked changes over time. You're absolutely correct. And 5
- 6 that was probably the reason for this particular material, 7 since it was suspected of being a highly soluble material, !
S meaning one that clears very quickly from, say, the lung i 9 into blood and then from blood into urine through the 10 kidneys. After a few days, say, on the order of three , j
^
11 days to seven days after an exposure, the Icycls would 1: probably be so low you wouldn't find them anyway. 15 And the sampling program needs to be designed to ! 14 detect the uranium that 's being excreted bef ore it's gone.
?
15 Otherwist, you've missed it. 10 As I've stat ed in my testimony, a low reading can l 's either indicate no exposure or very little exposure, or that 1E toc much timc has passed and you've missed the excretion t o be able t c measure it . So either case is plausibic. is 20 JUDGE SE05: But, Dr. Fisher, as I recall your 21 t e st imony , also you pointed out that the persistence in 2? itself is a measure of the damage, particularly as a That - 23 chemical poison to the kidneys. Is that not true? 24 is, the longer material stays there, the worse it is? 25 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) The persistence in the 4
.c__,._.m,,,,
n n.
.e -- ..n
.a
_..._._______-.._.__m-_ - d
Staff Panel 1 - Cross 174 j i l M6-26 1 kidneys. 2 JUDGE SEON: Yes. 3 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) Not necessarily the levels 4 l measured in urine, j i
$ JUDGE SHON: So you're saying the material might 6 persist in the kidneys and not be measured in the urine; 7 is that it?
i
- 8 THE UITNESS: (risher) It depends on the i 9 material.
10 JUDGE SHON: WeII, consider that it's a very , 11 soluble material such as this. 12 THE MITrESS: (Fisher) There's a rule of thumb 13 that t he concent ration in t he kidneys is typically on the 14 ordcr of one-fifteenth -- cr, I'm sorry, is a ratio of 15 l 15 to 1 of thc concent rat ien in ur:;ne, and that the 1( material -- 17 In the huran body, stepping back a couple of If paces, you have a number of comp 2 cx processes t aking place 15 simult aneous :3 You have rapid clearance frcm scme 20 compartments and sic.- clearance from other compartments. 21 If the inhalation was in time somewhat distance from the . 27 excreticn, t hen vhat is being measured in a urine sample, 23 therc's gencrally tuo components. One is a very slow . 24 , clearance frcm bene, on the order of hundreds of days, and '
! ,I 25 the other is a noderately rapid clearance from the kidneys,
_.___.__________________m. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - -
Staff Panel 1 - Cross. 175 27 1 on the order of, say, 4 to 15 days. 2 So if a person were sampled after an exposure took 3 place, this amount of uranium in urine that was measured 4 i could be indicative of clearance from the kidney or- l 5 clearance from the other parts of the body. { l 6 liow, for my benefit if you would restate your } 7 question, I'll see if I've been able to answer it. 6 JUDGE SHO!;: Uell, I guess the fundamental ? 9 question is this. Given that sampling was missed, let us 10 say, for one reason or another on December 31 or the end . 11 of Decenber, but was resumed for a couple of times around 1; hc 12tr and showed rat her low readings, regardless of what 13 the intermediate samples may have shown, because of the kind of persistencies you've been talking about, wouldn't one 14 IL extrapolating back in time assume that the conccnt rations 10 had been much, much Icwer during t he periods like January 3, 17 January 6, and so cn? Would that not be a fair assumption? It 73; g 7:;ESS : (Fisher) That's correct, and t hat 's 15 h o .s we int erprci these results. 2C JUDGE SHO:,: But then the fact that these samples were missed becomee a much less significant one, because
. 21 22 :he ones made later did show low concentrations, and t hey 23 weren't made 1ctc enough f or everything to have cleared; 24 1sn't this truc?
25 73r n 7;;ESS: (Fisher) That's correct. _ ---~----"--------% m__ ,
Staff Panel 1 - Cross 176
- i i
M-28 1 JUDGE SHON: Thank you. That's all I wanted to 2 kno.. 3 MR. LARSEN: Judge Shon, this material or this , 4 UAA -- this is a sample of it right here -- has very little 5 solubility. It's solubility is not determined. But we j 6' can't find it in the literature. But it is nothing close . 7 ' to uranyl nitrate or any of the highly soluble uranium i S salts. . 9 So what I'm seying is that if it did have high 10 readine, it should have been high on the 10th of January 11 also. l l 12 JUDGE SHON: That brings up anot her matter that 15 I found rather troubling in the papers that have been filed , 14 in t his casc t o cat c, ana that is the exact nature of the 11, meteria. t hat you're dealing with. At one point when asked if about the so.lubility, I believe you yourself sent in a 1, Xerox of a couplc cf pages from the Chemical Rubber 16 h:blishing Compcn"2 's Handbock o# Chemistry and Physics with 19 the compour" uranyl acetatc rarked. 1 20 MR. LARSEN: Right. 21 JUDGE SHON: This, however, is not uranyl acetate, 22 1s it? 23 MR. LARSEN: Tnat's right, it is acetyl acetatc. , 24 JUDGE SHON: So that the solubility data that you I 25 gave in that responce really didn't mean anything. I
I Staff Panel 1 - Cross 177 - f That's right. .All I was trying to I HR. LARSEN: do is to get something close to what it was. But I know 7 its 3 ; from cleaning up this material for ten years that 4 solubility in water is slight. But I don't know the number . l 5 that it is. 1 6 JUDGE SHON: Well, I'msorryI'veinterruptedyour{ t 7 cross-examination. i
. t 6 MR. LARSEN: No, no.
9 JUDGE SHOS: Please go on. l 10 MR. LARSEN: I just wanted to add that , 11 information. if 12 1 uould 1 he t o be better prepared tomorrow, 13 I could. So if it would be okay, I could hand the time back i 14 to t he Judge. 15 (Pause f or Judges t o conf er. ) At this stage, I think the 10 JUDGE BECH30EFER: 17 Board will ask some of its questions, but I would like to If inquire uhat the progress of the parties on the Lamastra is st ipul at ler has been, becausc if we could get rid of that 20 t his af t ernoon, that uould be useful. 21 MS. HDDODOS: I spoke with Mr. Larsen, I think He agreed to 2: :t was last Friday, last Thursday sometinc. 23 sign a stipulat ion. I have written the stipulation, but So at 24 ; I haven't had an opportunity to get him to sign it. I 25 the next recess I will get him to sign it, and I will put ,
Staff Panel 1 - Cross 178
! I I
116-30 1 it in the record. Did I before put in Lamastra's 2 professional qualifications? No, I saved that. 3: JUDGE BECHHOEFER: There's nothing at al1 in on 4 ,i Lamastra. 5 115 . HODGDON: All right, we will put in 6 Lamastra's professional qualifications, his affidavit, and - 7 the stipulation after the next recess, then, if I can find E a Xerox machine. I only need one copy. 9 10 l 1: i 13 e 1 */ 1r 19 20 21 , 22 2? - 24 l i 25 l
PANEL 1 - CROSS 179 7A b43 f 1, THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Judge Shon? k'-- l Did you have something you wanted 2 JUDGE SHON: 3 f to -- t
.- 4 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. May I ask one 5 question about your last question. I may not be clear about
. 6 what you were trying to get at with your question, but one
?i of the issues that came across was that you were trying
- 8 to get at the question of what was the significance of not 9 having sampled between the 3rd and the 10th. I 10 JUDGE SHON: Right.
11 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) And what Darrel and , 12 I have just been discussing here I think -- I'm not sure 13 if this came out in Darrel's statement -- is the fact that j 14 prior to the 3rd of January the bioassay samples that were t kx .. 15 suspected of having leaked were showing an increasing trend I 16 up to January 3rd. 17 JUDGE SHON: You had a series of bioassay 18 samples before -- 19 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. 20 JUDGE SHON: -- January? 21 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. These were the 22 ones that were not reported to us, the ones that were
. 23 suspected of leaking.
7/ JUDGE SHON: By "an increasing trend," I think t there were only two. : 25 l i k N p
PANEL l'- CROSS 180
~]
l b44 l l 1- THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) There was two for one 2 ' individual and three for another, and -- and for both I 3 individuals, there was an increasing trend from December 28 4 to January 3rd. l 5 JUDGE SHON: But that's only two point some -- 6 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) That's right, but the . l l 7 point we're trying to make is that by not sampling every i 8l three days thereafter, we cannot finish out the curve. So l .
; i.
9 we do not know where on the curve, on the excretion curve 10 these individuals were. So the significance of not having 11 those additional data between the 3rd and the 10th means t I 12 that we do not know whether he was on the front end of the i 13 excretion curve or on the back end of the excretion curve. ; 14 JUDGE SHOS: I understand, Dr. Spitzberg, that 15 it certainly would have been far preferable to have 16 intermediate samples. If in point of fact, however, the 17 samples were contaminated or the readings were erroneous, 18 that's a possibility also. I was simply trying to get at 19 the fact that it appeared to me from the curves I had seen 20 for relatively insoluble material that for material that's 21 {moresoluble and should clear more readily, a single - sample, for example, taken on the 13th of January, if 22 23 accurate and if showing of the order of a few micrograms , 24 could not be indicative of dozens or hundreds of micrograms , 25 present on the 31st of December simply because it couldn't
~'
PANEL 1 - CROSS 181 b45 1 clear that fast. (O)'~, 2' t THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) For a lesser soluble 3 ' substance, that's true. 4 JUDGE SHON: Yes. THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) For a highly soluble 5 6 l. substance, you can't make that statement. ! JUDGE SHON: That's true. For an insoluble j 7l sl substance, it wouldn't have gone away; for a highly soluble t 9 substance, it would. But the standard you were applying i 10 was for a relatively insoluble substance; isn't that true? 11 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) The standard we were 12 applying, the three-day sampling frequency, was a number 13 that was our best judgment at the time, considering the i l'
-s 14 fact that we did not precisely know what the solubility rate ;
, I h I
\ms/ 15 of UAA was.
JUDGE SHON: I see. ! l 16 l )
! I THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) And so we thought if 17 18 we sample every three days, we should get a few data points l 19 of the excretion curve. \
20 , JUDGE SHON: Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative response.) l l J 21 BY MR. LARSEN: 22 O Were you implying that the material was being
- 23 held within the body by the increase in the curve? )
l 24 A (Spitzberg) No. What I'm saying is that we don't; ) i I 25 know whether the concentration in the urine was still i l I i- )
)
i
b46 l I I 1' increasing at January 3rd or whether it was on the down 2 -- decreasing. 3' O Why would it be increasing? 4 A (Spitzberg) Because if you account for the 5j uncertainty that we have in the solubility of UAA, the 6 clearance rate of the material may have still been causing - 7i the urine concentrations to rise after January 3rd. ! 8' O And then would it be sti]; high on the 10th? - l 9 A (Spitzberg) No. i 10 0 It wouldn't have cleared out the system. ; 11 A (Spitzberg) No. If it was -- depending upon , i 12 the solubility, it could have reached a peak sometime 13 ; between the 3rd and the 10th. l 14 Q Okay. Now, the numbers went from 35 to 161 and ; l 15 went from 02 to 282. Are you saying that that could have ' 16 cleared out? 17 A (Spitzberg) I'm -- I'm saying that without the j 18 additional data points, we cannot draw any conclusions about: 19 this data. 20 JUDGE BECHHOETER: I'd like to ask a legal-type 21 l question, from either Dr. Spitzberg or Flack or probably , 22 both. Both of you seem to refer to an opinion that the 23 kind of activity Mr. Larsen performed should not be - 24 conducted or should only be conducted under a specific 25 , license and not under a general license. If Mr. Larsen
. _ - . - - . -. - - . . - - . . . . ---m - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - ~ ~ - - -
l l l . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
PANEL 1 - CROSS 183 1 1 1 b47 j l' [~'} 1 met the various general license requirements, does the NRC (/ 2 the way the Regulations stand, have any authority at all j 3 to tell Mr. Larson that he should be getting a specific 4 license and that he can't be excempt from the various 5 provisions which a general license would authorize? I
~
6 THE WITNESS: (Flack) I'd like to address that. 7l JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It's in both of your testimony, j I e 8 i s o -- ! i ! 9 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Right. The NRC basically j 10 , back in 1982 -- we as you recall, suspended Mr. Larsen's l' 11 activities, and we thought we had reached an understanding i t 12
'with him at that time that he should have a specific license 13 in order to carry out activities such as he was carrying l f- g 14 , on . And then it went on as you --
1 ! (
\m / 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: What would that be based on?
16 ~I'm trying to figure out where that -- l 17 THE WITNESS: (Flack) That would be based upon 18 the Atomic Energy Act. We feel that we have the authority l 19 whenever we see a health and safety p.oblem, that we can ! 20 l take action and basically require someone to -- to not , 21 1 operate, and we felt in this case these activities should 22 ' not be conducted under a general license. 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, if this is so, could 24 the Staff decide that for health and safety reasons it could 25 impose any condition it wanted to cn any license if public ! (Q
\- J
PANEL 1 - CROSS 184 f i l b48 1lnealthandsafetyrequired? Isn't this ratcheting to the 2 greatest extent possible? {
! l 3, THE WITNESS: (Flack) No. We think for l
4 operations -- 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Using some of the phraseology 6 that has been rampant around the Commission for the last - 7 few years. l Cl THE WITNESS: (Flack) Well, I guess you could - 9 carry it that far. If -- I think we have the mandate under ; I 10 the Atomic Energy Act that if the public health and safety, l 11 is endangered, then we have the right, and we have the 12 responsibility to shut down that operation. 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, would the proper l 14 , procedure be to first take steps to exempt material such i 15 as this from the general license authori::ation? 16 ; THE WITNESS: (Flack) As you know, we have a 17 lot -- we have over 8,000 licensees, and our Regulations ! 18 are not specific, and if you go back in the history of how 19 Part 40.22 was developed, we basically at the time in 1982 20 when we shut him down, we felt like ih-t basically these 21 loperationswerenot intended to be done under a general , 22 license and that he should get a specific license to carry 23 ; out such activities as he was doing. And this was passed . 24 on, as you will recall, to the State of Utah. And then 25 all of the sudden, he cropped up into Wyoming in our ,
PANEL 1 - CROSS 185 b49
/,m\i i
1l jurisdiction again,
\,/
2; If we found any other licensee operating under 3 a general license doing the kinds of things that Mr. Larsen
- 4 was doing, we would feel the mandate to take such action 5 as we did and suspend their license.
6! JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, would this be true if 7 -- leave aside for the mor-ent any alleged violation of the 8 f 15-pound or 130-pound limits as stated in the general 9 license. If all of these were adhered to, if a licensee ! 10 ' adhered to all of these requirements, would you then -- , l 11 , THE WITNESS: (Flack) We would not permit him l i l' 12 to operate again with a general license doing what he is ; I 13 doing. l JUDGE BECHHOEFEh: You mean even without regard , f-~s 14 ; i \ ! \s / 15 to violations, let's say? 16 THE WITNESS: (Flack) That the only way that -- 17 I guess I should -- without any violation. I guess I 18 should -- what I should say, at this point we have dealt 4 19 with him for a very long period of time, and basically the 20 only way we would let him operate even under a specific l 21 ' license would be if there were some other party, a third i 22 party in control of his operations. 3 - 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well -- I 24 MR. LARSEN: Can I just say something? l l 25 JUDGE BECHHOETER: Well, just let me finish out i ( j
PANEL 1 - CROSS 186 b50 l 1' for a little bit, because what I'm trying to raise is that 2 if something is authorized under a general license, why 3 isn't the p: wr approach to go to the Commission and say, 4 "Well, take this material or this type of operation out 5 from under the general license by regulation," so that the 6' Regulation -- now, the Staff has done this, and I have here . i 7 just an example, if I can find the darn thing, , 8' That's the wrong book. Oh, wait a second. . 9 MS. HODGDOS: Judge Bechhoefer, are you referring 10 to (c) .inder 40.22, " Persons who receive / posse *e pursuant ! 11 to the general license are prohibited from administering ' 12 source material"? External -- 13 JUDGE BECHHOETER: No, no, I'm not referring to i 14 that right now. What I'm referring to is -- 15 MS. HODGDON: Well, that's relevant. I mean, 10 that's the kind of thing you're talking about, I believe. 17 It limits the general licensini authority of 40.22. 18 JUDGE BECHHOETER: Yes. That's the type of thing. 19 I'm trying to find a -- I think the one you're talking about 20 , is the one in which they've removed from a general license i 21 ; a particular type of x-ray enhancing material Thorotrast l 22 because primarily it wasn't being used any more, and put 23 , it back, and that the Comission took action to do that. , 24 JUDGE SHON: Yes, here it is. 25 JUDGE BECHHOETER: Yes. This was published and l. t - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
, , . ,_ m, . _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _
b51 fx 1 took effect in -- published in August and teak effect in , t I \ (s / 2 September, 1980, and this was a specific deletion from the i 3 Part 40, General License Requirements. Source material, l 4 "Medicinals" it was called generically, and that was taken ; 5 out spe;.fically, and why wouldn't that be an appropriate 6 approach for this kind of operation if the Staff believed 7: that it shouldn't be carried out under a general license? I 8' THE WITNESS: (Flack) The Commission is in the l 9 process, as I understand it, of revising 40.22 to take care 10 of this problem, but it's going to require rule-making, , 11 and as you well reilize, ru'e-making requires a very long 12 period of time because you have to go out with public 13 comments and get public consents back and everything. And - 14 so at'll probably take another two years at least. O i t 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, what bothers me is V
/
16 , legally if the Regulations authorize a certain type of 17 operation, I'm not sure the Staff has authority to take 18 ! any steps, absent lack of compliance with whatever the J 19 general license criteria are. 20 j THE WITNESS: (Flack) My understanding of the j is if we feel that there is a public 21 f Atomic Energy Act 22 health and safety problem, that we have the authority te 23 take such action. vUDGE BECHHOETER: Yes, I + nk tnat's generally 24 l 25 ,1 true, but the Commission has, the wa; the r egulat;Ons read, t / \ l l 1
-_ _-_ __ __-_ _______________ a
PANEL 1 - CROSS 188 ,, b52 1 has defined situations which do not give rise to a health 2' and safety problem, as inclucing handling up to 15 pounds 3l and the 15-150 criteria. That is anything less than that I 4 apparently has been defined as not creating a -- by 5 Regulation, as not creating a problem. And if that's 6 l inaccurate, the approach is to go the Commission quick 1 f. - I 7! THE WITNESS: (Flack) My only answer is that, i 8 ! you know, we have 8,000 licensees, and it's very hard to l 9 write regulations which will cover every type of licensee , l 10 there it out there. And I agree with you that this is a l 11 regulation that we need to work on and -- but basically, j i ! 12 as I stated previously, I still feel that we have that 13 authority, to close down operations that we feel are j 14 endangering the public health and safety. 15 JUDGE KLINE: Mr. Flack, what is it that puts 16 a potential licensee on notice that you have that authority 17 and you're going to exercise it, because let's say a person 18 decides to begin processing uranium and he learns some way 19 or other that 40.22 controls it and he takes 40.22 on its 1 20 , face and says, "I only have to comply with a couple of I 21 l things and I don't have to report anything to the NRC." , 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, there's the reporting 23 requirements. Strike the " report." Strike the " report." JUDGE KLINE: There may be a later reporting 24l 25 ,' requirement, but 40.22 itself does not impose heavy 1
..<%-%.. . . . _ . , . - , . _ . ...____-.-.----.a---w__
i i l I' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
PANEL 1 - CROSS 189 ..._, b53 s'
/ l' requirements on such a potential licensee. What is it then
\
'~'
2j that puts the licensee on notice that he is going to later 3 i face or possibly face very extensive regulation and very 4 detailed regulation? 5' THE W1TNEbS: (Flack) There -- that's -- you're 6 talking about a hypothetical licensee -- 7 JUDGE KLINE: That's correct. I
~
8l THE WITNESS: (Flack) -- and I understand what 9 you're saying and I agree that our Regulations have flaws J 10 ' in them and there could be such a licensee. We don't know 11 of any licensee like that. Every -- the other licensees 12 that are basically doing processes such like -- such as 13 this from our knoweldge, the best of our knowledge, has g ~s 14 specific licenses and are not operating under a general
-/ 15 license.
16 - JUDGE KLINE: But as far as if somebody wanted s . 17 to go into the business and read 40.22, he would not be l 18 put on notice of any other regulation, then, would he? 19 THE WITNESS: (Flack) You're correct. ; 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do any of you know what kind I 1 Incorporated
. 21 l of license a company called Cerac, C-e-r-a-c, i
22 has? Mr. Larsen's direct testimony names that company as i i having taken over the contract that he used to have before i 23 j 24 his license was suspended and revoked. And do you know 25 what kind of a license that company has? i I
/* . _ - . - . - . _ -
f
'\_
PANEL 1 - CROSS 190 .b54 1 THE WITNESS: (Flack) I pulled the data. I did 2: not get Mr. Larsen's testimony till just before we came. ,
' l 3 I have a folder which is back in headquarters, but this 4 is not a complete folder. This -- this folder -- the reason 5 it is not is because our Region 3 office in Chicago is the 6 one that licensed this licensee. What I can tell you is -
7 I that Cerac is located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It's run i
- 8 ! by a Dr. Colter, I think is his name. They've had a license 9 for a substantial period of time in 1976. It's a specific 10 license, and they do have the kinds of controls that we ,
11 would expect for -- for people to carry out activities such l 12 as Mr. Larsen to have those sort of controls. 13 , Thr / had an inspection, I've got in here, in '85. 14 , It was a clean inspection with no violations. , 15 We can get you more information. We can supply 10 you more information in our other -- when we -- 17 JUDGE SHON: They are operating under a specific 18 license? 19 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Under a specific license, 20 , yes. JUDGE SHON: And subject to Parts 20 and 197 21l , 22 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Subject to parts 19 and 23 l 20, correct. . 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I see. Is that because l 25 of the clause in 40.22 which says that -- or say that
b55 i- [ \ 1 does apply the 40.22 to other holders of specific licenses,
\'^,) See, you're 2 I mean, specific licenses for other purposes?
3 saying the company had a specific license for another
~ 4 purpose prior to the time they dealt with this.
5 THE WITNESS: (Flack) From what I gather from 6 reading what little material I have here, they do quite 7 a bit of work with uranium processing and thorium processing,, 8 and they have fairly elaborate controls and facilities. 9 JUDGE EECHHOEFER: So that would come under l 10 -- the clause reads, "This exemption shall not be deemed , 11 to apply to any such person [ referring to certain persons) 12 who is also in possession of source material under a 13 , specific license issued pursuant to this part." l O 14 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Correct.
/
( 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: 1 take it that's the situatior 16 , of Cerac, correct? , 17 THE WITNESS: (Flack) That's my understanding , 18 at this point. 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So that would not be completely 20 , consistent with a person who only carried out this type 3 21 of operation, which is what I understood Mr. Larsen to be. 22 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative
- 23 response.)
24 gp. LARSEN: I'd like to ask a question in regardsj ! 25 i to shutting down for being a public hazard? i Og
PANEL 1 - CROSS 192 J l I l b56 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I' guess if it's relevant to 2 the questions I asked, yes, you may. 3 BY MR. LARSEN: 4 O Well, I would like to inquire as to how the 5 public was in danger or at risk with my operation in 6 Wyoming. 7i JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, that's a little bit l 8fdifferent. 9 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Well, I can give you a j i ! 10 fairly long answer on that. . ! II BY MR. LAF.SEN: 12 Q There was no material outside the building. 13 A (Flack) Maybe Blair Spitzberg can answer some . 14 of that. 15 Maybe not at this time there wasn't, but 16 certainly in the past -- if you go back to a history, I ! 17 would like to address to the Board the list of exhibits ! 16 in Exhibit 1 which shows the history of Mr. Larsen and his 19 activities and go through these various -- these orders 20 that have been issued by NRC and also by the State of i i 21 Utah, and maybe -- I don't know whether at this time it's :
)
22 -- and come to my -- 23 , Mr. Flack? O 24 A (Flack) Yes, i 25 Q That would be past history, and if there was i f
PANEL 1 - CROSS , 193 b57 I I nothing at this time, this last inspection, that would mean 2 there would have been improvement in Mr. Larsen's operation. 3 A (Spitzberg) Let me address this to an extent. 4 When we say that the licensee poses a health hazard to the 5 public, part of this envelope that we call "the public" 6 are your employees. 7! Q Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative response.) 8 A And in the fact that you were doing business in 9 a facility that was not owned by you and was not 10 specifically licensed and that there was contamination in, 11 ; this facility that was above NRC guidelines and that there j i i 12 wss evidence of z.iroorne contamination anc that there was 13 a series of bioassay samples that were indicating some l 14 intake of uranium, those types of information lead us to j 15 , conclude that there is a risk to individuals both working 16 for you anc in the public. 17 0 Well, there's a lot of assumptions there, but let me ask you one thing also. If I did the work myself, 18 19 would that be acceptable? Am I the public? 20 A (Flack) You're a member of the public also, i A (Spitzberg) We have the responsibility to
- 21
( 22 protect your health and -- ~ 23 0 To protect me? (Spitzberg) safety too. 24 A A (Flack) Yes. j 25
PANEL 1 - CROSS 194 l b58 ] I I i, MR. LARSEN: That's just the information I wanted. ; I i, 2' JUDGE KLINE: Mr. Spitzberg, I understand that ! 3 in the revocation order you reached a conclusion of willful
- 4 and non-compliance, and I understand also from Mr. Flack's i 5 testimony the same thing. Was any part of that conclusion 6 of willful non-compliance based on this uranalysis episode .
7' that occurred starting -- 8 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. I believe -- ! - 9 JUDGE KLINE: Could you specify exactly what 10 fortune of the failures there or the alleged failures were, 11 willful non-compliance? l I 12 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. The fact that 13 Mr. Larson had information on the samples that were ! 14 committed to in the December CAL for sampling beginning 15 on December 31st and continuing every three days, the fact 16 that he had the information on those initial samples, and 17 that he made a decision not to report those results to us ! 18 in our view represents willful withholding of information. 19 JUDGE KLINE: And does the conclusion of willful 20 ; withholding of information remain valid in your mind in 21 the face of what could be a plausible explanation for 22 withholding? 23 ' THE WITNESS: (Griffin) Well, let me add what , ; 24 l I can here. Part of my conclusion as the investigator , 2 I 25 ' was willfulness also on this, and the willfulness did
/
i
. . _ _ ~ - - . . _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ J
PANEL 1 - CROSS 195 j b59
/ j 1 not extend beyond the fact that he made a conscious decision
\./x to withhold while under orders, and we can't penetrate --
2 I 3 I can't offer you evidence as to what was in his mind. I 4 I have no testimony of other people. But the conscious 5 decision to withhold after he was ordered to provide is
~
6 the basis for t1m willfal call. JUDGE KLINE: Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative response.) 7l ; 8l THE WITNESS: (Griffin) It's not willful in the i 9 sense of a material false statement, but he made a conscious 10 decision under orders to not provide the material, and 11 that's why it is written and stated as such. ) i i~ 12 JUDGE KLINE: So that the conclusion of i 13 willfulness remains valid in your mind whether or not an f} 14 explanation exists. The explanation does fN' 15 THE WITNESS: (Griffin) ; 16 exist, and it is noted throughout all the filings by the l I 17 URC. His explanation is contained in everything that has !, 18 been put forth. 19 JUDGE KLINE: Okay. 20 Is there a regulatory definition of willfulness ,
- 21 that draws a distinction, for example, between a mhterial 22 false statement and a willful non-compliance or a willful 23 withholding?
24 THE WITNESS: (Griffin) I believe that OGC has : I 25 ' addressed that. I cannot reproduce that here for you ! i n . . - - _ . . - _ . _ . _ . . - - - . (k
PANEL 1 - CROSS 196 1 b60 1 1l today, but it has been addressed over all the years I've 2 been in the NRC. It seems to be a constantly -- 3 JUDGE KLINE: Do you have one that you operate
- 4. under or one that's say a -- I know that you're not lawyers,,
l 5 but you do operate in a regulatory climate, and I'm really 6 trying to find out what your impression of it is or what , 7 your understanding of it is when you investigate or 8 ! regulate? , r i i 9 THE WITNESS: (Griffin) Well, when we -- as 10 an investigator, knowledge and intent is what I do. I gather facts, and then I view people's actions, always 11 12 looking backwards, and then try to determine based on either 13 documentary evidence or testimony or anything else that 14 might exist as to what was in their mind. And so if I can ; 15 establish that they did something knowingly and i 16 intentionally, then it is willful; it is not an act that 17 is an error or an omission that they were unaware of. l 18 So if what you do is wrong and you do it knowing -- knowing 19 it's wrong -- in this case, he's under orders to comply 20 -- then it's willful. I 21 i JUDGE KLINE: But here the explanation is -- I specifically seems to deny the knowledge of wrongfulness. 22 i 23 , How are you able to conclude that Mr. Larsen knew it was _ 24 wrong? That is, how are you able to conclude that the 25 explanation he had in his mind wasn't mitigating? l 1 i O l
-7, .b61 i
I j'~g 1' THE WITNESS: (Griffin) The object of the
\ 'l
'- 2 , exercise is to try to determine whether somebody has been 3 harmed in some way.
.- 4 JUDGE KLINE: Yes.
THE WITNESS: (Griffin) It's a serious matter, 5
- 6 and that's the reason it's put in an order form. The 7l burden shifts to Mr. Larson to comply with that. The order ~
8fiswritteninsuchawaythatheisnotgivenlatitude 9 to unilaterally not obey the order. JUDGE KLINE: Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative response.) 10 . THE WITNESS: (Griffin) He is being compelled 11 l 12 by everything that the Commission has to obey, and by 13 ' deciding not to obey, he takes on the burden of wi11 fulness. JUDGE KLINE: I see. Okay. 14 , I 7- .s JUDGE BECHHOEFER: My next question I guess -- ( 15 16 THE WITNESS: (Flack) I might add something. If ' l 17 you -- ; 18 JUDGE BECHHOCTER: Oh, okay. 19 THE WITNESS: (Flack) -- look in the enforcement 20' policy, there is a definition. "Wi11 fulness as used here , 21 ; embraces a spectrum of violations ranging from deliberate I 22 intent to violate or falsify to and including care 3ess 23 i disregard f or requirements. " 24 JUDGE ELINE: But isn't there also a section in l 25 there that draws a distinction between that and errors . I i e- ,me,em=we (_- f
F PANEL 1 - CROSS 198 b62 l L 1 or mistakes and things of that nature? 2' THE WITNESS: (Flack) Yes. The next sentence l . 3' states, " Willfulness does not include acts which do not 4 rise to the level of careless disregard, for example, i 5 l inadvertent clerical errors in a document submitted to the i 6 ' NRC . " . 7 JUDGE KLINE: Okay. 8l MR. LARSEN: Does that include inexperience? - 9 JUDGE KLINE: I'm not going to testify, j 10 Mr. Larsen. - l 11 MR. LARSEN: All right. I I 12 JUDGE KLINE: You'll have to ask the -- 1 13 THE WITNESS: (Flack) I'm not a lawyer, and I 14 would not want to answer that. 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now I have a question again 16 back to the more legal type questions. 17 I'm focusing here -- this appears both in 18 Dr. Spitzberg's testimony and in the November, '67 19 inspection report. There seems to be a focus in both of 20 these documents of violations for possession of more than 21 , 15 pounds. The word " possession" seems to be stressed. ; i 22 And I havc looked all over that 40.22, and I see nothing i 23 that limits possession. I would like to find out where . 24 l -- at least, Dr. Spitzberg, where that requirement comes ! I l 25 I from, and if you're just talking about a general license i
pm3gL T - ggoss 'I w
~
b63
.t
[N I 1. l now, why is it a violation to possess any amount? Any
\~ 2 amount I'm talking about. Take your pick.
34 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Let me -- 4 JUDGE ESCHHOEFER: If you read the Regulations 5 strictly. 6; THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Let me ask you to 7li clarify one point. Between November of '87 and the date
! i 8 ! that I filed my testimony, I thought I had learned a little l 9 bit about 40.22, maybe not as much as I thought, but maybe ;
10 ' you can refer me to the part of my testimony where I talk, 11 ; about possession. l 12 JUDGE BECHHOETER: Well, it comes out most 13 prominently in the inspection report that I referred to. 14 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. In the (,/ 15 inspection report --
, i 16 JUDGE EECHHOETER: The word " possession" is used l 17 numerous times I'11 detail. I have it marked a number of j 18 places.
19 /// 1 20 /// 21 . /// 1 22 /// l l
. 23 ///
24 l ///
]
i 25 /// , l l l i i 1
\_
j l
PANEL 1 - CROSS 200 Tape B 1 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) I was not as familiar M-1 2 with 40.22 at that time as I have tried to become in the ! 3 intervening time. l 4 During that time we were considering, and still l 5 do consider, " possession" and "use" to be synonymous, as 6 well as " transfer". To transfer material is to possess it, - 7 and to possess it is t o use it. So we -- I, at least, was , 8 not drawing the distinction between possesion, use, and ! - l 9 transfer. i 1 l' 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I see. Do you know why t here's 11 a difference betueen the words "use" and " transfer" in the
- 1. in2t:a2 par
- cf 40.22(A) and then later on t hc 13 .zord " r e c e n'e , " and then in (B) they use all of tnesc 14 words, "recc2ve, possess, usc or t ransf er ," in tcrms of the 15 e >, e tp i l er frcr Farts 29 through 22? So t he Corn scion, when if it wre*, this regu2ction, rust have had some knouledge of 17 c.22 of these terms. I'm trying to make some sense out of ,
11 that they sa, in thc re gul at ion . And on that, I st122 vant 15 t o kno. why pOssCss10n Cf any a50unt 2s proscribed. 20 THE UIT::ESS: (Spitzberg) I'm not f ar2 2iar wit h 21 the erigins cf the terminology in 40.22. But the . 22 understanding ihct I was ucrking undcr at the time cf thc 23 ?:ovembc: inspection was that Mr. Larscn as a general . 24 22censee was not to possess or transfer more thar 25 pounds ; 1 25 at one tire -- transfer, I should say' - nor receive more i x- - - - . - _ - - - - - _ _ _ - , - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ , _ , _ , _ _
4 ys.4 .o " ,-d > V %' , <z t 0*. 47'+ ' IMAGE EVALUATION
[ % ff' TEST TARGET (MT-3) / /)t &,f?" (
\[Q
'\?'p,,,,,9 /4 ,,,,
l,0 _ g,* = o.z ze la I" 2.2 ya an
^
^*
l,l l.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 l 4 150mm >
- 6" >
f g,y
,y//
/,
u 4% sp O .,p$ $ : Q
; y x;
6) g<p'4
.s
%f 9,
v' ,
- o E.
q
';, R a IMAGE EVALUATION /,o///
jp Y' %f9 TEST TARGET (MT-3) / cI)t 24', gy,,,, & Rs,,,, , qlV
<> s 1.0 li a Mn m
L t m 4 Ja. 3l tim =-! th 1.1 - l 1.8
>=
1.25 i.4 j i.6
- 150mm >
- 6" >
4 d *% a4/*'4 m' )fjp>,, 0
$g@
}J.N% j
, s y o
' 'lq, . ge, ',
' s-Q~>f >V IMAGE EVALUATION O:<%
\ '(
Qk/ TEST TARGET (MT-3)
/ /j:[^ dp
++s* %[%$
l.0 L '" W 2 . " BR
% 2.0 ll
~
Ywe= 48. l.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm *
*------- 6"
- hki
/fk,,f# $1 A %
wt g mWm3 . .4- ; 0 .w; <-PANEI,1'-' CROSS: Wr '
^
, f
.. . ev 3 M N.1N*,3 $c
,2014
; .3 ,
f M y ;y y n% < h hb; mppm , n. . I e 'V b;i4 % r , y.. f- '{, .1/ y fl & ' - '14.than.1150. pounds in one year. .It was our determination'that-
/? t - 3 L 1 . _,
t (:Wjy s%a .
;2 n
she:did both. g'i_-a , 11; ;; ? JUDGE BECHHOEFER: See,-on'two occasions -- at:
- zqq-p , Q' 3y -
'4j lleast; we511, bei exploring .that; later, maybe - tomorrow, but V , 3.
,#. o . I realize
- 7. ,
4 m f 5.q:y you'do. allege transfer of- more than 15 pounds. n - @h M . .w .. . 6/ that. 'But beyond'those'two occasions is there any.'other 2 m: m;; a ; j. p@ . u T : violation that you've attributed to possession beyond those '-
- a. ~%
1 8> two1 specific' transfers, alleged transfers? h.-> 19? THE' WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes.i I believe that g-
- 1 b4 that, is' addressed.in-the CI conc]usions.
There were other ,i ,
.'10 1 i *~
;-occasions where he transferred greater than 15 pounds. j lifi? o. r; L' - 11
.t
,y.
.j" ,,. c ,
' '.11 1THE WITHESS: -(Griffin) Judge, if;you are i t.
7[ D- lii = speaking' tor the particularilanguage .of the statute as it ; q,r , 14 ; .-relates to t he 150-pound limitation, 'it- does use the word
~
.e 2 9
>l b, , ,
ISj "receivc" only, rather than'" receive," " possess" and "use." 3 TNf: g#n
- g d j l0 ' JUDGE:BECHHOEFER: 'Right. . As I=was commenting,.
yy
;I think;the fact that they use all those words in one SJ 17
+> , I t . cont ext or"another:in the'same. regulation must have meant Gd m4 t.15 '. ithey perhaps thought there wasisome difference between.them. . 4 m 4 20 THE WITNESS: ~ (Griffin) Well, this may be outside
- v. ,
, , , - 4
.the scope of what will be helpful,to you. But prior to 21 3j x, s _i+'
~
'17 joining the Commission, I worked enforcing the gun control 5
~ ,
23- act, and they had the same series of words that they used to' encompass every conceivable variation of how a person 4 24 q [g^ oc .Y, 1' 25 ' can handle, use, possess, transfer a weapon.
- edyy, t
W , ', ; .
.q -
.s i
. 1 4
dW )( A j' u w.O - R n I ,, / .f w n.< l * 'h r' _ g ( yp > jh . <'
. a .m.
y x-n~"~ ' PANEL 1 - CROSS 202 L , b MB-3 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I'm aware of that. [. 2 i THE WITNESS: (Griffin) The language intended L 3 there is calculated to encompass every conceivable j Whether he can receive something he already 4.l possibility. 5;has, or whether something that he already has can be 6 received by an employee who uses it, whether he's acting , 7 as an agent, and all the various variations of terminology 6 that come into play there, our interpretation for the l .. 9 purposes of at least the OI call was based upon the fact ! i 10 that his use -- he had to have receipt if he was going to j 11 use it. And the statute precluded him from receiving more' j
- u. than 250 pounds in a calcndar year.
13 JUDGE KLINE: Let me follow up on that with 14 Mr. Spit zberg. 15 If Mr. Larsen had written a purchase order for IC- 150 pounds of depleted uranium, to be delivered all et once, 17 and then'you came upon it in an inspection, learning that 1 15 he had received a single ISO-pound shipment in one year, 19 would you cite him for a violation? 20 THE UITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes, I believe that 21 our view is that he would be using more than 15 pounds. 22 JUDGE KLINE: Well, that's what I'm t rying t o get 23 at. Would you cite a violation, that is, without regard , - 24 : to any other circumstance, otherthanreceivinga150 pounds l 25 all at once? , s
?
- _ _ _ . - - _ ~
PANEL'l - CROSS 203 I .t 9-t 1 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. (,.,/ 2 JUDGE KLINE: You would cite a violation. 3 THE WITNESS: ( Spit zberg ) I would rectnmend that
- 4- he be cited. .
l
. t i 5 7UDGE KLINE: Ycs, and onse it on what it says {
6 in 40.22. l l 7 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. 8 JUDGE KLINE: Okay. Well, while we're on that l 9 subject, you have a question and answer, 19 on page 10, in i 10 which you suggest that the August 7, 1967 shipment which j 11 turned out to exceed 15 pounds was the sum of two, one of - , 1; B.1 and one of B.05. Is there something of some publ.c 13 healt h significance t o this, cr could Mr. Larsen instead ; 14 have shipped two shipment s, one of 8.1 pounds and then a m
. v( 15 day latcr one cf 6.f5 pounds, and avoided a cit ation? Th at 10 is, would he be in compliance if he had, just as a mattcr l' of technicality, shipped two smaller shipments a day apart if rather t han one large one?
19 JUDC-E SHOU : Or, for that matter, an hour apart, 20 15 minutes apart, or what? 21 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) The use of the 16.76 22 pounds uas information that was provided by the licensec, 23 that we then used to establish the f act that he had used 24 at onc t ime great er than 15 pounds. If you're asking me 9 25 whether there is a health significance to the f act that he's U
PANEL 1 - CROSS 204 l MS-5 1 two pounds over 15 pounds, n'y answer to that would be no, . 2 if you're talking about transferring. If you're t alking ; 3; about processing, I would say that there could be a l 4; significance between 17 pounds and 15 pounds. 5 JUDGE KLINE: But as to the remaining part of my l 6 question, could a violation have been avoided by shipping l ,, '
*/ two shipment s well within the 15-pound boundary a day apart? i I
6 THE WIT!;ESS: (Spitzberg) In my view, had that j , 9 been the case, we would not have been able to make t hat a 10 valid violation. . 11 JUDGE XLI!;E: Okay. l 1? JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Dr. Spitzberg, in your 13 Answer 24 you refer to the 1982 violation as a possession > 14 violation. 15 THE 1;IT:ESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So if that's purely a 17 possession allegation at least, and if we should decide that 15 possession was not a relevant factor under 40.22, should 19 we net exclude that portion of your testimony er not give 20 weight t o t hat aspect of the -- 21 THE WIT:ESS: (Spitzberg) I would have t o ref resh 27 myself on what the 1962 citation actually said. But I would i 23 be nore inclined, rather than striking that , to changing . 14 the word " possession" to "use." , t 25 ' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, was there use in that ? : I O
t PANEL 1 - CROSS '- 205 "' i t I
/ ~h6 1, If so, that would take care of the legal prob 2em, but --
- 1 s" - Yes, our position 2 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) 3 was that thera was use of greater than 15 pounds.
4, JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Was that use by any means other t 5 than possession? I mean, does that mean they were working
- 6 with it or doing something with more than 15 pounds? ,
1 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) I think it coulo
' encompass any of the activities of Mr. Larsen, including j 8
i S transfer and shipment would also be considered use. JUDGE BECHHOEFER: All right. Dr. Spitzberg, I've 10 11 got t en out the ' c2 show-cause order, which is attached to
- 1; the inspect icn repcrt . I see only one allegation which would deal with possession or use. It appears that there's 13 nothing det aile5 ot hcr than possession there, so far as use j
,-~s 14 I
( ,f
) li is concernca. That's Paragraph 1. ,
( Spit zberg ) Yes, I see t hat . j
!c THE t'ITNESS:
17 JUDGE BECMHOETER: Now, if we were to const rue , If use and transf er not t o ir.clude mere possession, we would : 19 probably have t o cxcludc this as a violation as well, would 20 we not ? THE UITSESS: (Spitzberg) It think the position 21 22 we 're t aking is t hat possession is use. No, I realize that. But we
. 23 JUDGE EECHHOEFER:
24 , have had problems with the appearance of many of these same i 25 ' words throughout the regulation, which would indicate that ; p s_ -
PANEL ). - CROSS. 206 r i 4 1 the Commission may not have intended it that way. Where MB-7 i 2 the word "use" is in cert ain contexts and "possesion" is 3 used in others, we're not so sure. 4; JUDGE SHON: It's an ancient Latin legal maxim, It means if I i 5 expressio unius est exclusic alterius. 6 express one thing in a bunch, I'm excluding the others. . i 7 And it's clear that 40.22 expresses use and transfer and 6 doesn't express possession, and 40.22(A') does that, and (B) { _ 9 expresses then all. So the person that wrot e it knew t hey 10 were all there, and he deliberately lef t one out. THE GITNESS: (Spit zberg) In that case, I'm not 11 1- sur I can respond f urther t o t his quest ion. JUDGC SHON: I think this is the line of questions 13 14 that Judge Bechhocfer raised, saying it appears to us that 15 uniformly since 19E2 you have treated mere possession of it more than 15 pounds as being a violation of . 4e limit set 11 forth in 40.22(A), when 40.22(A) does not really say that IE possession is limited. Isn't that correct? 19 TH7 UITNESS: (Spitzberg) That is correct. 20 JUDGE SHO%: That is correct. Maybe one of your 21 attorneys would pref er to give some answer t o t his. . 22 THE MITNESS: (Spitzberg) I can only say that 23 frem a health physics standpoint, I believe that this . 24 regulation at some point in time must have been based on I i 25 e the fadt that above a certain level of use or possesion, I I
< - . - - . _.-..-,-_.m..-..--. . - . - - - ~ ~ - - - . . . - -
L________ _ _ _ . - _
PANEL 1 - CROSS 207- '"" l F #"' N r
.s V8' I
3 t-you could get yourself into some serious health-risk
.'~ ~/ 2 consequences, which would require more controls than are 3i provided for by a general license.
I 4; JUDGE SHON: Well, that's true. So what you're 5, saying is that you feel it makes sense from a health physics
- 6 standpoint to limit the total amount on hand, even though 7 the regulations appear to limit only the total amount in I 8 use, so to speak; is that right? l 9 THE WITNESS: ( Spit zberg ) Yes.
10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So that if you had a ton of j 11 it in your cellar or if you owned a ton of it a block away, i I li that would still have to count ; is that right ? 13 THE WITNESS: (Griffin) You would have t o own
-s 14 it wit hout having received it, though, which is the second / 1 15 part of t h :, s .
1( JUDGE SHON: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.
~
Il THE WITNESS: (Griffin) You were saying if you IE have a :.on of it , you would have had t o receivc it . If you
" received it, t hen you've got t en it. That's all that says.
20 JUDGE SHON: Uc11, I received this ton over the 21 past 30 years. You know. I'm saying if you had it in your 22 possession, it mahcs sense from the health physier
. 23 st andpoint --
24 , THE VITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. What I'm saying ! 25 ' is that the 15 pound limit or any limit and regulation that p _ _ _ . _ _ - .-. _ - _ . _ _ - tv
- _ _ . - _ _ __-_-____m__ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
PAMEL 1 - CROSS 208 i MB-9 1 would exempt a licensce from the controls of Part 20 and [ 2 Part 19 and t he rpecific conditions of a license would, in 3 my viev, have to be performed under such circumstances that 4 l possession and use of the material wouldn't pose an inherent l 5 high risk of consequences. And I think that the framers 6 of 40.22 anticipated that 40.22 would not lead to . 7 circumstances under which somebody could endanger themselves 8 or their workers by possession of 15 pounds or use of less l 5 than 15 pounds. 10 JUDGE SHON: Even if they handled it only in 11 5-pound bat ches or somet hing. li THE 1 IT:;ESS : (Spitzberg) That's right. 13 (Pause for Judges to confer.) 14 JUDGE BECMHOEFEP.: I think at this point we'll 15 take a break. !;s . Hodgdon, you may want to work on . hat 3( stipulat ion because, when we get back, let's at least take 17 care of that. Uc baven't decided whether we will have IT further general-type questions. We have a number of it specific factual quest ions ; but whether they should wait 20 until after I4r. Larsen goes or not, I'm not sure. 21 I'll have t o look through. I think we've asked . most of our general kinds of questicas, the so-called 22 23 lega3 questions, t hat kind of thing. But we will look , 24 through again. l l 25 Let 's t ake a 15-minute break, to about quarter
--- -- - . . ~ . .
209 . 6 PANEL 1 - CROSS I
't i
TI 'r10 i to four. d A /
2 (Brief recess.)
I JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on't.e record.
- 4) Ms. Hodgdon, have you done anything about that 5; stipulation?
- 6 MS. HODGDON: Yes. During the break Mr. Larsen 7 and the NRC Staff signed a stipulation, which I will read '
8 since it's very short. It says, " John P. Larsen and the f 1 9 NRC St af f stipulate to the f actual accuracy of the affidavit 10 of Michael A. Lamastra filed February 1, 1989 in this l 11 proceedinc." i 1; I propose t o put this stipulation, the affidavit 13 of Michael A. Lamastra, which is a document consisting of ' 14 threc pages which, as stated, as filed February 1, 1989 in
/f.s) 15 this proceedina, and I'.ichael.;.. Lamastra's professional \_/ s 10 qua3ifications into the record at this point. I would like 17 it to be bound in.
If JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Larsen, any objections to 15 that ? 2 ', 'E . LARSEN: No, Your Honor. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That material will be entered
~
22 into evidence, put in the record.
. 23 (The above-ment ioned stipulation f ollows. )
24 i ; l 25 ' i i p - _ . . - - . - . . - - - (~'s.,/ f
- .5 , #f I-a-
- J% .
I V k UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE-THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD L
) Docket No. 9999004
'In'the Matter of- (General License Authority WRANGLER' LABORATORIES, LARSEN of10C.F.R.'40.22)
-LABORATORIES, ORION CHEMICAL COMPANY l :.
AND JOHN'P. LARSEN E.A.'87-223 l ASLBP No.' 89-582-01-SC
)
m: STIPULATION John P. Larsen and the NRC Staff stipulate to the factual accuracy. .
~
of the affidavit of Michael A. Lamastra, filed February 1, 1989 in this proceeding. i t
~
ff45//c/ Jo P. Larsen _) b/ l DIN) C (:Cg g'. l(AA L Ann P.'Hodgdon , Counsel for NRC Staff w I f 1 ( f j
~ "'
210 i [ 11 1 (The affidavit and professional qualifications 2 of Michael A. Lamastra follos.) a 5i 6' 7 i s l 9 i 10 . O i 12 13 14 15 10 17 1 15 15 20
- 21 27 23 24 , j 25 l l
l4
,,ee,* me. m mam a
...mm,.,,_e4m,,
_ ..s_. ew am-+Wwe"+ e= 6r**s I
I s.- ny w UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\ j BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of ) Docket No. 9999004
) (General License Authority WRANGLER LABORATORIES, LARSEN ) of 10 C.F.R. 40.22)
LABORATORIES, ORION CHEMICAL COMPANY ) AND JOHN P. LARSEN ) E.A. 87-223
) ASLBP No. 89-582-01-SC AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL A. LAMASTRA f.
1, Michael A. Lamastra, having first been duly sworn, do depose and state:
- 1. I am the Section Leader of the Commercial Section in the Medical, Academic and Commercial Use Safety Branch of the Division of ;
Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. My responsibilities include the oversigtt of inspectior and EN, licensing activities associated with the industrial use of by product, ('"/ source and speciel nuclear material in each of NRC's five regional offices.
- 2. This affidavit provides rj knowledge relative to the staterents made by Pr. Larsen in his December 26,195E, response to the August IE, 19SE, NRC Ordtr Revoking Licenses.
- 3. Paragraph 1 of Mr. Larsen's response stated in part that hr 4 called the NRC in Washington, DC to get clarification as to the 15 pound limit at one time and "was told that the 15 pound limit was applicable to
- each location",
o V
, n -. n - --. n n . - _ _ . - = .__
2 I recall several telephone conversations with Mr. Larsen on the general license listed in 10 C.F.R. 5 40.22, during the last 18 months. I remember giving Mr. Larsen the following information: (a) That an official interpretation of NRC regulations could only be given by NRC's General Counsel, but I could provide general guidance. (b) The general license for small quantities of source material did still exist and a limit of 15 pounds of source material at any one time was authorized and a total of 150 pounds of source material could be received in any one calender year. (c) Persons who used source rtaterial under the general licenses , listed in 10 C.F.R. t 40.22 were exempt from the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 19 and 20. I further recall Mr. Larsen asking whether the 15 pound lirit I recall my resporse as l was applicable for each location of his business. follows: A large corporation or entity such as GE, Westinghouse or the 5 U.S. Arrry that has man locations and separate corporations net related to the use of source inaterial could use the general license at each location, y as lon; as the intent was not to avoid obtaining a specific literse from I i the !FC. However, the setting up of several locations for the sole purpose of cbtaining more than the 15 pound or 150 pound limit was unacceptable. ! In addition, because I thought Mr. Larsen was a new licensee not aware of N;.: regulations and requirements, I cautioned Mr. Larsen that if , his use of source material had the potential to cause widespread f 6 contamination he could not operate under the general license but should I ap;1y fo- a spe:ific license of lir.ited scope. O
w - ~ _ _
. ,- , - S y.y. .
L I 3-
!. 1-hereby. certify that the information set forth above is true and correct to the best of _my knowledge.
J 2: - Michael.A. Lamastra-i f-- t g., Subscribedjndsworntobefore me this 1 of February, 1989 bsOY Notagf7ublic
/
)
My Comissior. E>pires: 7, / 9/ , 1 l' s
., f1 i
g :
, .i -
__.m..um_5 . _ _ _ . - _ _ , -m -_-.E'__-- . - - - - - '-- sii-i- -iii=d
211 PANEL 1 - CROSS-i
'3
'. t -
'~12 1l, JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Larsen, the Board has one t ;
)
L/ 2 follow-up question, at least one -- I have one -- with 3 respect to the telephone conversations between you and 4; Mr. Lamastra. You have stipulated as to the accuracy of l ! 5'i the affidavit. Is the affidavit complete as to describing
. 6 what went on in the call or calls between you'and 7 fir. Lamastra, in terms of the general subject matter? { !
8 MR. LARSEN: In terms of the general subject- l 9 mat t er , as far as I understand it, yes, it is. I'd have 10 to see.it specifically. But as I remember reading it, it , j 11 was the same. There was no objections that I had. l f 11 So the reason I made several calls to the NRC Vas i3 in order to have an understanding that I could work under l ; t 11 a cenerci license in anot her stat e, having a specific
- r. '
./
(u 15 license in another state; in other words, working with two 10 licenses,.but different states. And the reason I was l 'i questioning that was because I had heard somewhere that you , 13 can't have both a specific and a general license. So I was 15 asking f or a clarification: if you're working two dif ferent 20 st at es , is at okay? And I was told yes, and I was told i 21
)
about reciprocity and things like that. So that was what 22 transpired. 23 And he did tell me about General Electric, I 24 ; believe, t hat had several general licenses in different ! 25 ' places, each place working with just 15 pounds possession j
.~.
i s i f i l
PANEL 1 - CROSS 212
, 1 i
M8-13 1 at a time and 150 pounds in a year. And, he said, but that J
~
2 is not to evade any regulations or anything like that, or 3 to abuse the 15-pound limit. JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The affidavit here states that 4l' 5: you were cautioned that if your_use of source material had 6j the potential to cause widespread contamination, you could . 7 not operate under the general license. Did he explain at j 8 all what he meant by " widespread contamination"? - 9 MR. LAP.SEN: I don't remember him ever saying 10 that. But that would seem to me to be common knowledge, 11 that if you're going to be a hazard, you shouldn't havc j t 1; posscssion of t he trat erial . And I didn't consider that I
!! was a widespread, general contamination of anything. I l
14 wouldn't disagree wit h that , in other words. , 15 JUDGE SHON: Something you just said, Mr. Larsen, If generated in my mind another question of a sort of legal l 'i nature that parallels some of the questions that i If Judge Bechhoefer and I had asked a short while ago, and is 19 in addition t o them, and I think bears upon the casc. 20 You ment ioned t he preclusion f rom holding bot h 21 a specific and a general license. Well, I think what you 22 are referring to is probably 40.22(B), the last sentence 23 of which says, "...provided, however, that this exemption , 24 j shall not be deemed to apply to any such person who is also i I l 25 l in possession of source material under a specific license
PANEL 1 - CROSS ..? i. f'" y14 1' issued pursuant to this part." So it makes it clear that i
/ '
2 you can't'have both a specific and a general license if the 3; specific license is issued pertinent to this part.
.- 4j As I understand it, the general license that 5 Mr. Larsen was operating under was in effect during a time
- 6' when he held a specific license issued by the State of Utah, !
l 7 which had originally been issued by the NRC but converted ! 8 when Utah became an agreement st ate. Is a specific license l i 9 issued by t he St ate of Ut ah a specific license issued 10 pursuant to this part? I
. I 11 (Pause for uitnesses to confer.) ,
I
); THE WITNESS: (Griffin) I'm not surc we're in 13 a position t o field that one today. Could we have a shot j
-~ 14 at that one tcmcrrow, once we've had time to look?
/ s i \
- i. / 15 JUDGE SHOS: Yes. Uo great hurry, I just want ed >
I f. to kno.e, because it might preclude this. I '/ THE WITNESS: (Griffin) Even if that specific if license is in suspension, then it still cou3d apply to this 19 par ;cular cit etion? 20 JUDGE SHOS: Yes, I realize that. It might bear 21 upon t he cit ation, it seemed to me. 21 THE WITNESS: (Griffin) Okay.
. 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Flack, I have a few more 24 , questions I wanted to ask you concerning your testimony 8 i
25 which responded to questions we raised. On page 3, both ! ! I f - - - - - - - . - - -- - - _ _ - - . . . - - - . - . - - . . . _ . - - - . - - t I
%)
y PANEL 1 - CROSS 214 i i MB-15 1 in the first full paragraph and in the second full paragraph 2 you mentioned -- You have a comment about licensee actions i 3 in not correcting or providing information. Which of these 4 two -- or you have both of them when you talk about 5 Mr. Larsen's operation -- did Mr. Larsen fail to provide 6 ' you perhaps other than the one report of a urine sample? . 7 Did he fail to provide information to you in any other case? ! 8 THE WITNESS: (Flack) I'm sorry, are you on ! . 9 page 3 of -- 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. i
- 1) THE UITNESS: (Flack) And this would be the ;
i
); ansucr t o Quest ien 2?
13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. 4 14 THE WITNESS: (Flack) And what specific part on 15 page 3? You said the first full paragraph and the second 10 full paragraph. 1 "i JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. There are st atements IE about licensee's actions, it says, in not correcting or 19 prcviding inf ormat ion. I uas following up on the "providing 20 information" aspect of that, to t ry to find out what, if 21 anything, you had in mind with respect to Mr. Larsen other . 22 than the one inst ance of the urine samples. 23 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Could you point me to the , 24 :! particular sentence on page 3, please? ! 25 ' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. The first time, it says, j f
\ ! PANEL 1 - CROSS 215 s -- L _ i i ( 11 6 I "Furt hermore , in Section 6 of the policy it states that in
\)
2 . serious cases uhere the 3icensee's actions in not correcting 3! or providing information raise questions about its 4 l commitment to saf ety," et cetera. That's'the first use of 5 the words " provide information." 6, The second is in the next paragraph, where there's 7 a discussion about " licensee actions in not correcting or S providing information raised questions." 9 I know what you're talking about in terms of not . I 10 correct ing , both occasions. But providing information, what 11 actions of Mr. Larsen would this have ref erence to other l 12 than the one e::ampic I mentioned of the urine sample? 13 THE UITNESS: (Flack) Right offhand, maybe
,'~x , 14 Mr. Spitzberg cculd help me, but I cannot recall another (s
I 15 instance of providing information. As you will note, I took 10 quot at ions out of the enforcement policy. And basically 17 wh at I was t rying t o do in that paragraph was to show in
!! the enforcement policy, and as you've described, the 15 licensce's actions in not correcting situations and his 20 commitment to safety. I was relyin, more on those words , . 21 than on the ones of "providing information."
2? JUDGE BECHMOEFER: Right. Uc1I, tr .t 's just what ,
- 23 I wanted t o clarif y.
24 ; THE WITNESS: (Flack) That's correct., l 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Dr. Spit zberg , you can add to i
/~n _ - _. ._ __ ___
7 s ( ).
._________ _ _ _ _ ___________J
PANEL 1 - CROSS 216-l MB-17 I that if you wish. 2 THE WITNESS: (Spit zberg ) There was one other 3, instance which may fall into that category, and that was 4 the fact that fir. Larsen's March 18, 1988 response -- I 5 believe it was to the suspension order -- had attached to 6 it a table showing shipments of UAA from both Utah and , 7 Myoming. And in this table he shows in 1986 shipments in j i 6 Utah, four shipments at the bottom of that list, beginning 1 . 9 ytth February 2, 1987 and ending with March 3 of 1987, which ' 10 he did not represent as being shipments from Wyoming. And , i 11 the 01 invest igat ion , I think, determined t hat these were ' 12 shipments from Wyoming. 13 14 15 If 17 Il 19 20 i 21 22 i 23 . 24 j l t. 25 i
- -..n__._ _ . . - _ . . - - - . _ . . ~ . - - -
O f
PANEL 1 - CROSS 217 ,_ 9A b64- . 7 L ;' j 1 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Furthermore, I believe,
%)
2 l at the time of my November inspection, these shipments -- 3 records of these shipments were not provided to me. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: My other -- let's see. I'm 5 looking or one more reference. 6 Yes, my other question about the failure to 7 provide information comes from the 1982 show-cause order. l 8 I wondered what, if you can find that -- and this can be 9 from any witness who may know, probably Dr. Spitzberg, but to it could be others -- paragraph 2 has an allegation which , l 11 seems to be refusal to make available information. I'd i 12 like perhaps a further explanation for the record of what j 13 that involved. l ( 14 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Judge, I was not i w 15 involved in the case back in 1982. So I would have to get ! 16 that information from our office. I'I THE WITNESS: (Flack) My recollection -- I was ! t 18 involved in 1982, but -- 19 , JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Feel free. 20 THE WITNESS: (Flack) But you know, not from
. 21 the inspector's point of view, but my recollection was that 22 the inspector went to and saw and met with Mr. Larsen and 23 that basically he refused to provide records to the ,
24 inspector, and that was the reason for that citation. f 25 ' MR. LARSEN: Can that be responded to, or is l ) h I y .
PANEL 1 - CROSS 218 s b65 1 it probative?' 2i JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Certainly in your testimony -- i 3 MR. LARSEN: Okay. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- it's probably better, but -- 5 MR. LARSEN: Okay. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- write a note down that you . 7 should respond to it, because I'm trying to develop the 8 record on -- . 9 MR. LARSEN: Okay. ! 10 r JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- all of these items that , 11 are included one way or another. I 12 ~ THE WITNESS: (Flack) It may be -- you know, 13 ; I may be overstating it a little bit. It may be that he ! l ; 14ldidn'thaveallhisrecordsuptodate, that sort of thing, i
.15jbut I had -- my recollection was it was stronger than that. !
16 JUDGE 3ECHHOEFER: I see. ; 17 THE WITNESS: (Flack) But my -- you know, I'm 18 _ relying on memory and only from word of mouth. l 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I might say, by the way, that 20 in my copy of the order rescinding that show-cause order i 21 it was defective in that the first page of the order is ; 22 missing. 23 ' THE WITNESS: (Flack) Here. , 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I have two page 2's. 25 , THE WITNESS: (Flack) I would have the same i l
- 1 1
l l
PANEL 1 - CROSS 219 b66 ! I problem. I am missing -- 2i JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And so part of my question l 3 was to follow up on what was left out of that.
' 4 MS. HODGDON: Judge Bechhoefer, if you would like 5 that to be restored, we could have it bound in. I mean, 6 at this point I have a number of copies. I did not want 7I to put it in the OI report because the OI report is what l 8 it is. I mean, it's not right with regard to that. l i
t 9 However, I'm happy to make it available, and I will give i i 10 i it to the Reporter at this time, and I can provide copies l 11 for everybody. I think I've got about 10. Is that okay? , l 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: All right. i 13 , MS. HODGDON: It's clear what it is. It says 14 , "242" or something like that at the bottom, which I can't i 15 read. 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Two-dash-43 -- ; 17 MS. HODGDON: And it was provided to me by -- i 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It's got pages that say the 19 same thing. ' i 20 MS. HODGDON: Well, I know, but this -- 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 22 MS. HODGDON: -- this is the right page.
. 23 ' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. .
24 MS. HODGDON: This is the one that's missing. l l 25 I wonder how I could describe that. Excuse me. l
~
I llll
PANEL 1 - CROSS 230 b67 1 I have mine.
- 2. I should describe that better for the Reporter.
3 This is the missing page from the order of 1982. 4 This is the order rescinding revocation -- rescinding 5 suspension, I think it is. 6 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Right. Order to show cause . 7 and order to temporarily suspend. 8 (Document proffered.) . 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Thank you. 10 MS. HODGDON: Should that be an exhibit? , i
^
11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Pardon me? ! I 12 MS. HODGDON: Should that have been an exhibit? 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think it should. I i 14 ' JUDGE SHON: Well, should it be an exhibit or ! 15 should it be a correction to -- 16 MS. HODGDON: I don't know what it is. It appears 17 isolated from what it goes with. So I think I just 18 'sufficiently identified it, but I just want people to be 19 able to find it. 20 i JUDGE BECHHOEFER: This is Exhibit 1. You should l l 21 !make that 1-A. i . 22 MS. HODGDON: We can't very well at this point I 23j! put it in the OI report. . 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We could identify it as l i 25 Staff Exhibit 1-A. ! 4 l i ( - - - - - - _ - . D
PANEL 1 - CROSS . ,221 b68-
/ 1 MS. HODGDON: Well, that's fine. Okay.
')
\'~,/
2 j JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Identify that last as 3 Staff Exhibit 1-A. 4 (The document referred to was 5 marked for identification as 6 Staff's Exhibit No. 1-A.) 7, JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It's a correction to
~
8l Exhibit 1. 9 (The document referred to was 10 , received in evidence as Staff's , 11 i Exhibit No. 1-A.) ; 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Another question for 13 Dr. Spitzberg: In the 1987 inspection, 6704, at page 5, yN 14 ; among other places in paragraph 6-A, you identify certain I
\~ ' 15 findings as apparent violations of two different sections, 16 but I wanted to clarify. It's the same activity or 17 , violation that is said to violate each of the two 18 l paragraphs, is that not correct?
19 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes, that's correct. 20 And this was a question that I brought up at the time to
. 21 our Regional Counsel, and his position was to use both 4
22 ' citations as the apparent violations. I
~
23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now, is this, then, one i 24 violation of each or do you view each occasion when there 25 allegedly was more than 15 pounds of source material, each l
/~" _ . . _
(
'\s
- - _ _ - ____--__--____-_________-_-_-___-___N
PANEL 1 - CROSS 222 ' ~ b6 1 occasion as a separate violation of both sections, as it 2 were? 3 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) My understanding 4 was that each apparent violation would be apparent 5 violation of both of the Regulations. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now, turning to page 6 of the 7 same report, item 6-D, I'd like you to add whatever you 8 can about this sentence that says, "But since the user 9 exceeded the general license quantities and source material I 10
- without a specific license, he was found to be unauthorized I
11 , to conduct such activities." That appears to say that 12 person becomes unauthorized because he violates one ; 13 ' requirement of 40.22. He becomes an unauthorized user and i 14 i therefore almost by definition violates the other i 15 section. Is that a -- , 16 j THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) The use of the word , I 17 " unauthorized" there was an attempt to address the ; 18 allegation, and the allegation was was the individual j 19 performing these activities in Evanston, Wyoming authorized ; t ; 20 ' to do this? And the statement that you're referring to { t 21 was addressing the issue that if Mr. Larsen indeed used . 22 more than 15 pounds, then that would put him into the arena 23 where he would require a specific license. In other words, 24 by virtue of the fact that he exceeded use of 15 pounds, 25 then he would by definition require a specific license. i ! t l l O 4 i
3, b70 7 3; 1iSince he did not have a specific license, then he was
.I \
I 2'therefore unauthorized, and the use of the word 3 " unauthorized" was primarily to address the allegation in 4 that.. 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. Is there any sort of 6 general policy that says when a general licensee violates 7 iany of the conditions that give him an exemption from 8 specific licenses, he therefore in order to ever operate !' i 9 again becomes required to have a specific license? Is there 10 any such doctrine that you're aware of, because that's what i i i 11 this seems to say. i t 12 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) I'm not sure if there 13 -- I'm not aware of any -- of any piece of paper that has 14 that position stated in that' context. This position here en T was concurred in by my management. So I believe it was ('x-)' 15 16 -- it's fair to say that it was their position. 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do you yourself know how 18 broadly that's been applied to other general licensees who 19 may have violated one of the general license conditions? 20 ' THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) I've never encountered 21 ;another case of somebody violating the possession limits 22 of a general or the use limits of a general license. 23 JUDGE BECHHOETER: I see. 1 24 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) So no, I'm not aware j 15 of another case. i ,
~ ,w r
V l f I l . _ _ - _ . _ _ _ - _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4 . b71 1 I will point out one thing, Judge. On my 2 l statement about my management's concurrence on this report, I 3 many of our routine inspection reports just go through two 4 levels of management concurrence above the inspector. In 5 the case of this report, it went to my immediate supervisor, 6 the Branch Chief, the Division Director, the Allegations . 7 Coordinator, and the Enforcement Officer -- al? concurred 8 in this report. 9 JUDGE BECHHOETER: And eventually it gets to us. j 10 I'm looking for one thing. Dr. Spitzberg, a few 11 , questions. These are much more factual questions, but i 12 since they're from the same report, I guess I'll ask them. 13 , They may have to be followed up on more tomorrow. But the i
' i 14 so-called source material receipt and transfer, which is i 15 , Appendix B -- it's a chart -- it's Appendix B to that 16 report --
l 17 ! THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. I ' 18 JUDGE BECHHOETER: First, I was trying to follow 19 through all these sums, and there are a number of question l 20 I marks in this source material received. Is that material 4 21 that you assume must have been received but for which there , 22 ; was no record or -- THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) No. , 23 l , l 24 JUDGE BECHHOETER: -- what does that mean? 25 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) The column marked l l l t
PANEL l'- CROSS 225 r b72 L , 1 " Source Material Received" was material for which Mr.
-r 4
- - ' 2 Larsen showed me a receipt for the material in Wyoming.
3 I'm not sure, Judge, who made these marks. This
- 4 may have been an attempt to reconcile this information 5 with the information that was uncovered by the OI 6 investigation. But I can state that the columns marked 7 " Source Material Received" an? " Source Material Shipped"
- 8 were based'upon records of material received and shipped 9' from Wyoming that were shown to me during the November 10 inspection.
I 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, if you turn just as an 12 example to July 12th, 1987 -- , 13 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- and if it shows that the j
,_ 14 j .
s . s_- ) 15 material shipped was 12.71, why the arrow up there to -- f 16 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) The fact that -- l I 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- that on -- yes. This is 18 i the inconsistency, where the inference can be made that l 19 somewhere there was material that was not being reflected 20 in his receipt documents. So in order to make up that 12.71, I 21 pounds of UAA that he shipped on -- on July 12th, somewhere 12 there was material that was received that was not shown 23 in the records. And that's the point I was making. 24 JUDGE SHON: In each case where you've drawn the l t 25 arrows and inserted the question marks, it appears that i
! i I
i
- u. /
_-_._m_. _ ..__ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
b73 k l l 1 he shipped more material than your calculations showed he 2 had on hand; is that right? 3 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) That's right, although 4 I did not draw the arrows, so I can't respond to -- 5 JUDGE SHON: Oh, I see, but that's what you think 6 it is in that -- 7 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. 8 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Somebody was doing a 9 balance and did this. ! 10 JUDGE SHON: Yes. 11 , THE WITNESS: (Flack) We don't know who did it'. ,
! i 12 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) I did the balance, 13 , but if you'll notice, there are inconsistencies, as you i
14 pointed out, that cannot be accounted for in the records l 15 of receipt and shipment -- ! 16 JUDGE SHON: Yes. 17 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) -- that Mr. Larsen 18 showed me. And therefore we suspected at that time that 19 there must have been some material coming from another 1 20 source for which there were no records, and this we later i 21 j confirmed was accounted for by waste crystals. 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now, did you attempt to put 23 l in the figures on the apparent net balance? , 24 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. These -- these 25 were my figures, the apparent net balance, and this was O 4
PANEL 1 - CROSS '227
-b7/
./ 'N 4 1l just based upon the other two columns and did not take into
> 'm 2' account any other material that he may have received. 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. Okay. 4 Mr. Flack, I asked a question a few minutes ago 5 about occasinne nr.;r,information wasn't available, and I
. 6 nenticaed the '82 refusal, the allegation of refusal to 7 ;aake records available. You mentioned that in your
. 8 testimony too. Is that I assume the same thing that I 9' raised the question about before? Page 5.
10 , THE WITNESS: (Flack) Of my testimony? , 11 , JUDGE BECHHOETER: Yes. Page 5, the last 12 paragrpah, item 2. , 13 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Page 5, the last paragraph.: i 14 What line? i ' ( )s 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Sixth line in the last 16 paragraph. t i 17 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Yes. ; i 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That was the one you said you ; 19 didn't have a specific recollection of what actual -- , l 20 i 2HE WITNESS: (Flack) That's -- that's right. 21 I -- I took that from the 1982.
- I
~
22 JUDGE RECHHOEFER: Order. i
. 23 { THE WITNESS: (Flack) Order.
JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. 24l , i 25 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Yes. i I
) I l
n
~~~-
~ @ANgL 3 - @RsSS
~~
228 e b75 1 If you look at that new page that they supplied 2j us -- I was just looking at it -- there's words down at 3 the bottom of that page. The third line up from the bottom 4 it says, "To take, including: 1. Measures to assure 5 compliance with record-keeping requirements and to permit 6 inspection of records by representatives of the Commission." - 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. Well, that was part 8 I of the corrective action -- . I 9 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Right. 10 ! JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- that he agreed to, right? 11 , THE WITNESS: (Flack) Right. But it infers thdt i 12 there were problems in getting those records. , 13 i JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. l 1 1 14 1 Dr. Fisher, I have just a couple of general ' 15 questione I wanted to ask about your testimony, about a 16 couple of words that were used. On page 9, the last 17 , paragraph of question 14, I wondered if you could define 18 the word " possibility." It's on the second to last line 19 of the paragraph. What's the scope of what you were saying, 20 because I guess anything is possible, but -- (Pause.) ! 21 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) The exact threshhold for - 22 f kidney damage even in humans is not well established. i 23 The animal studies tend to indicate a value lower than , 24 three micrograms per gram kidney tissue. The human data l 25 that we've reviewed show that kidney damage does not occur i l l l
, i O
I
. . _ _ _ . _ - _ _____-_..__m_____-______m
I: 229 PANEL 1 - CROSS L 1 b76 J j 1 below at least two and a half micrograms per gram of
-\ /
2 kidney tissue, but that it does occur at some level above 3 two and a half micrograms. That threshhold limit is not 4 well defined. We're pretty close to what it is. 5 I think the reason it's difficult is that in the 6 case of uranium poisoning, the duration of the concentration 7 is an important factor along with concentration, and 8 whereas 100 micrograms per gram kidney tissue of a very 9 transitory nature may not inflict sufficient damage that '
)
10 the damage can be proved clinically for a short-term l 11 exposure. It's possible at levels as low as three 12 micrograms.per gram if sustained over long periods cf time i 13 could in fact induce kidney damage. So those parameters i are not well known, but we feel that we have a fairly good r'^x 14 I ] understanding of the ballpark in which that so-called
's / 15 16 , threshhold exists. ,
17 ; So I used the word " possibility" meaning that ; i 18 we don't really know specifically and exactly what that 19 , threshhald value is. It's time dependent as well as j 20 concentration dependent.
. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Something more than remote 22 and speculative?
- i THE WITNESS: (Fisher) We -- I think it depends 23 l~
24 on exposure -- exposure situation. That's why good and 25 accurate, complete bioassay data are very valuable in i 7 I V
PANEL 1 - CROSS 230 b77 1 assessment of uranium exposures. From my own experience 2 I know of people who do have permanent kidney damage, 3 workers in the uranium industry. We also know of people 4 who have been involved in uranium accidents that have not 5' sustained kidney damage. 6 So that's the reason why I use the word - 7 " possibility." 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now turn to page 15, question 9 26. Would you disagree with a conclusion that a baseline 10 , -- that an assumed baseline of zero was conservative? 11 , THE WITNESS: (Fisher) I don't think that a i
! l 12 ' baseline of zero is possible. There's always some trace 13 uranium in every urine specimen. If your analytical 14 methods are sensitive enough to detect it, you'll always j 15 find uranium even in a non-exposed individual. So there's .
I 16 no such thing as a zero. 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: But my question really is if j 18 you assume it to be zero, is that not conservative in terms f 19 of the other readings in the urine samples? Would that 20 { not make every other reason be conservative, in other words, l 21 i read too high? , 22 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) I -- I guess I don't 23 , understand the question. ! l ! 24 JUDGE SHON: I think I see v' t Judge Bechhoef er's ! 25 driving at. In your assessment of a given reading or a
! I h ,
PANEL 1 - CROSS '231
-9 b78 y' ~ 1 say three micrograms per liter 3
/ fgivenseriesofreadings,
'/- 2 or some cubic centimeter, whatever, the millimeter, then 3 you look at that number, if you had a baseline for that
.- 4 person, would you not ther. subtract it, and if you just 5 assume the bareline is zero, would you not then subtract
- 6 zero, and would you not then assume really that the 7 situation was worse than it really is? Isn't that the most
- 8 conservative assumption?
9 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) That really is, yes. The 10 { question then comes up, what is the natural background level 11 ; of uranium. And we've measured backgrounds in many i 12 ' different populations, and it ranges from about a tenth , 13 l of a microgram per liter in my community, which is very f
! I s 14 l low, to as much as eight to 10 micrograms per liter in areas:I
/.' k, 15 of the country-with high concentrations of uranium in 16 drinking water. So that background can vary from about i 17 i 3 .1 to eight to 10, depending upon what amount of uranium l 18 is natural to the diet of that individual. Right. l l 19 JUDGE SHON: But I think we still haven't gotten l l 20 an answer to Judge Bechhoefer's question, which is, when 21 you as a health physicist, qualitatively evaluate a 22 i reading of 30 micrograms, let's say, if you just didn't
~
l i f' . 23 subtract anything, wouldn't that be saying that it's the 24 worst that it could possible be? 25 THE WITJ'ESS: (Fisher) Sure. I agree with that. i l l I l v
l PAWEL 1 - CROSS 232 l
\
j l b79 l 1 JUDGE SHON: And if someone's background is 10 2; instead of being zero, wouldn't that make it appear that 3 at least the exposure he had gotten from his work or 4 wherever he got this was not as bad than if you'd assumed 5 a zero background? 6 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) That's true. However, 7 in practice one does not normally subtract the baseline 8 f from a bioassay sample. 9 JUDGE SHON: Then what do you do with it and why 10 ' do you need it? If you don't subtract it, what do you
- 1 I
11 do with it? l l 12 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) Again, in practice, the i 13 baseline bioassay is generally not subtracted. I know of 14 i a number of facilities in the past year where we have 15 visited and worked with, and we've reviewed their program ; 16 for uranium uranalyses. They do not subtract a baseline 17 from measurements. They simply report the measured value. 1 18 JUDGE SHON: Well, then, a very naive question 19 is, why do you need a baseline if you're not going to 20 subtract it? What are you going to do with it, add it or 21 l multiply by it or take its square root or something? , 22 i THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Can I interject one r 23 , point here, and it's covered by Dr. Fisher's testimony. 24 Number 2, it provides of whether the worker may have had l l 25 previous exposure at another facility. One reason for , I 4 j i
PANEL 1 - CROSS , 233 b80. i 1 requiring a baseline bioassay before these tasks were i 2 undertaken was that then if there was any elevated 3 bioassays following the onset of the task, we would be able 4 to establish pretty firmly that that intake was a result 5 of the work that was undertaken and not as a result of any 6 prior work that may have been undertaken by that individual. 7 JUDGE SHON: But this is in effect a simple I
'~
8l subtraction. You're looking at the present work and saying 9, that the present work could have caused only the difference i l 10 ' between his original bioassay and the new one; isn't this 11 true? THE WITNESS: (Fisher) The reason that in general. 12 13 practice the baseline is not subtracted is that the l i
,e~'s 14 baseline for a worker is generally less than the five j
\/ 15 microgran per liter detection limit for most fluorimetry l l
16 processes. Therefore, it's in the -- it's in the , 17 i statistical noise region and can't be subtracted out l t 18 statistically. I 19 JUDGE SHON: Yes, that's a fine answer, but I ' i. 1 20 ' think it still leaves Judge Bechhoefer's question
, 21 , unanswered.
That is, if you assume it's zero instead of 22 assuming that it's something around the limit of l 23 l detection, doesn't that give you less optimistic, less 24 sanguine, less rosy answers? (Fisher) It leads to an upper 25 THE WITNESS: 5 i I
,- s
%)\
~
I-PANEL 1 - CROSS 7] R F ~~ -~ ~ - i b81 1 estimate of the excretion. 2 I agree with that analysic, in fact. That's a 3 -- this is a point that has been debated a lot among the 4 health physics community, should you subtract that 5 background from a bioassay. In truth, it probably should 6 be; in practice, it's rarely done. , 7 JUDGE SHON: But in fact, an assumption of zero 8 baseline gives the most pessimistic -- THE WITNESS: (Fisher) That's true. It leads l 9, 10li to the highest estimate of dose. , 11 JUDGE SHON: Okay. That's what -- I 12 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) Which may not be i I realistic. [ 13 I
! True, t 14 ; JUDGE SHON:
THE WITNESS: (Fisher) And I've given in the 15 16 testimony the three most important reasons for requiring j i l 17 i a uranalysis. First of all, it establishes a natural i 18 j pattern for that individual due to natural sources of l 19 uranium, provides an indicator of whether the worker may l 20 have had a previous exposure at another facility before ! 21 coming to work. This is a real problem for other 12 radionuclides. It's not as great a problem for uranium, ; i' 23 but it certainly is for other radionuclides in nuclear . 24 industry. 25 Third, it provides a basis for determining l I, I
PANEL 1 - CROSS 235 bS2
)/. I whether urinalyses are -- are changing in time due to the
~~
2 ' present work situation. 3 JUDGE SHON: But a failure to account for a 4 baseline or an assumption of baseline zero will always make things look worse than they are rather than better; is that 5 6 right? 7 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) That's true. 8 JUDGE SHON: All right. 1 9 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) It's a~ conservative l 10 l approach. 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now, just to follov up on tha', t 12 would a urine sample containing less than 30 micrograms 4 13 per liter but having no baseline submitted at all, would f3 14 I it be statistically insignificant to have had the baseline l t '\ sI 15 for something like that? f 16 , /// l I 17 . /// ;
, i 18 /// :
1 19 /// l 20 /// i
. . 21 ///
I 22 , /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// I j~'N , s I
\_,/ !
i- PANEL 1 - CROSS 236 k-l l b83 1 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) Would it be statistically 2 to what? Would you repeat -- 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: To require a corrective or 4 a baseline sample for a reading that turned out to be 30 5 micrograms per liter or less, which is the threshhold level 6 that you have stated here. I 7! THE WITNESS: (Fisher) The baseline level is l 8 usually one that is obtained before a worker works with It's not something obtained after the fact. You ! 9 uranium. i 10 don't establish a bascline after a worker has been working~: l 1 11 l with uranium. This is something you have to establish ' 12 before the work with uranium starts. So I'm not sure if 13 ' I can answer that. 14 , In -- if I were interpreting a 30-microgram 15 per-liter result, I would first of all request a second : 16 anlaysis to confirm the first measurement. It's highly 17 l unlikely that if it's a real analysis or if it's a correct . 18 measurement on a urine sample, that it is due to random 19 intake of uranium. This usually indicates a positive , i 20 exposure. So the firt thing you want to do is confirm a ! d 21 positive exposure with a second uranalysis. . 12 JUDGE SHON: I think, though, again what ; I 23 l, Judge Bechhoef fer was driving at is if a worker turned up 24 at some time with a 25- or 30-microgram-per-liter reading, 25 you wouldn't need the baseline to decide whether or not
L
*' PANEL 1/- CROSS- .237
, v_,p_,.q, b9< ..
P ' lb84 " fje 1 the actions! recommended'in Reg _ Guide 8.22 should-be q 2 . enforced,..would _you?
'3 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) That's correct,;with one-
-- - 4 exception. -There.are cases where people move in the
'5 sindustry who'do. carry ~ lung burdens'and do excrete --
# H 6-' excrete. uranium, and I think if this were a new-employee 17 who'on his.first' urine. sample measured 30,'you'd want to 9, 8 - you would want to have a baseline sample to know whether 9-j or not that>was due~to work.today;or work previously.
s Io t " Baseline sampling'is very important. It's , It. protects not only the worker-1l'*} standard in the industry. 12 'butfthe company, and I feel that.a sample-'on.that order e If-it were true,
- 13 L would: not be' due . to environmental' intakes.
1. Ef . 14 if'it would indicate'a. positive exposure in the workplace. (d 15_! It's high enough. 1 16 . THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Can I respond'to the- l~ l}; 17 : basiine issue? 4 18 ; JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, certainly. E 19 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) One of'the.other ]! 20 aspects.is that during this period of time when we were
-.:-
- 21 issuing the CAL's, Mr. Larsen was completing the processing.i
'12 , 'of the remainder of the depleted uranium. that he had in' !
'- 23 Evanston. Shortly thereafter, he was committed to doing
'24 .the decontamination of the Evanston. facility. Throughout 25 this period, which I guess was about,a month long from i
f i
- f. PANEL 1 - CROSS 238 L .
i b85 i November until the end of December, maybc a month and a 2 half, he was utilizing the same employees to do this work, 3 and one of the reasons for wanting the baseline bioassays 4 was that that way we could narrow down any elevated 5 bioassay to a period of time, and without the baseline, we 6 would not be able to make that connection because if an - 7 individual reflected an elevated bioassay on a given date j 8 l with no baseline, then you would not be able to conclude l I 9, that it was associated with a certain activity on a j i 10 l certain date, and that was one of the additional reasons j 11 , for wanting this baseline measurement. j i i' 12 ' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Fisher, I have one more 13 l question, of general type questions. On page 16, answer I 14 ; 28, you refer to the f act that Regulatory Guide 8.22, its l
' r 15 purpose and how it's applied, is there anything in the j i
16 terms of that Guide itself which would indicate that it j 17 1 does apply or should be applied to an operation such as , 18 } Mr . Larsen's, a fairly small operation, dealing to be sure l 19 with uranium? I 20 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) The Regulatory Guide 8.22 i i 21 was written specifically to deal with Class D, which means , 22 highly soluble uranium yellow cake. The previous l' 23 i guidance, 8.11, bioassay at uranium facilities, deal
- I i 24 primarily with the insoluble forms of uranium, uranium l
l 25 oxides, and it was felt that another uranium guide was l I O
PANEL 1 - CROSS N 239 .- t 'b86 ,
~, {
1 needed to deal with a special case of a soluble uranium 2 compound, such as uranium diuranate, which is yellow -- 3 juranium yellow cake, as opposed to high-fired uranium And so 8.22 was written. In the supporting 4 yellow cake. 5 document new Reg. 08.74, I Delieve, Robert Alexander 6 explains that -- that historically it had the purpose for dealing with soluble compounds or uranium. In practice, 7 8 particularly at Department of Energy facilities, this 9 Regulatory Guide 8.22 is used as the basis for uranium to bioassay, even though these facilities do not process , 11!yellowcake. It's nonetheless a guide for all forms of 12 -- of soluble uranium compounds. I 13 But the -- but the Regulatory Guide itself does 14 not state that it applies to anything but yellow cake. ; j. V 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now, does anyone here know j j 16 .-- I guess you probably would, Dr. Spitzberg, or perhaps 17 ' othe r s , wa s Mr . Larsen ever 1) given a copy of Reg Guide 18 8.22 in the years when it was applied against his facility, I 19 .and was he told that he had to meet its terms or certain
! Is anybody aware of whether that happened? t 20 'of its terms? l (Spitzberg) Yes. I think if you j 21 THE KITNESS:
22 i can give me one minute, I can respond to that. f Mr. Larsen was subject to certain bioassay 23 24 requirements under his Utah specific license and had 25 obtained bioassay samples to comply with certain aspects A
\
L
~~ ' PANEL 1 - CROSS 240 t
-b87 1 of the State license. So he was familiar with to some I
2 degree, the bioassay sample, acquisition, and analytical 3 requirements of 8.22. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Does Utah use Reg Guide 8.22 5 as such, or do they have something else? 6 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) I believe Utah does , 7 use Reg Guide 8.22 in the case of uranium bioassayc. 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think at this stage we've , 9 finished most of the questions we have currently. We may ' 10 i have more later directed to specific testimony, but we thinkl 6 . , 11 ' maybe it's getting time to close for the day, unless anyone 12 , else. wishes to raise anything before we leave. ; 13 ! (There was no response.) 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So hearing no strong , 15 objection, I guess we will close for the day and adjourn 16 tomorrow at 9:00 o' clock. Give Mr. Larsen a little chance , 17j to do some preparation work. , 18 ' Okay, off the record. I 19 (Whereupon, at 5:07 p.m. proceedings in the above-I i 20 entitled matter recessed for the day, to reconvene the , l 21 following day, Wednesday, June 14th, 1989, at the same l
- 1 22 place.)
i 23 , 24 25 t O
I 1 CERTIFICATE
.t
(- 4,,s,,/ 2 3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter 5 of: 6- Name: Evidentiary. Hearing, Wrangler Laboratories, Larsen Laboratories, Orion Chemical Company and John P. Larsen 7 9
.3 8 Docket Number: 9999004 9 Place: Provo,' Utah
'10 Date: June 13, }989 11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for.the file of the United' States Nuclear 13 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 14 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the
/^ direction of the court reporting company, and that the 15
( 16 transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing 17- proceedings. 0l' *l - [~ ! GI' ~ ~ ' "
/
18 Is/ s 19 (Signature typed) : Mark Handy 20 Official Reporter 21 Heritage Reporting Corporation s - 22 23 24 r 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation .
.( (202) 628-4888 ,
k f
- _ _ - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _}}