ML20245A169
| ML20245A169 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/14/1989 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8811, REF-QA-99990004-890614 NUDOCS 8906210128 | |
| Download: ML20245A169 (287) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ __ _______ _____
,r-'-
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l, l
= ------------------------------------------------------,,
In the Matter of: I WRANGLER LABORATORIES, - LARSEN LABORATORIES, Docket No. ORIOt1 CHEMICAL COMPANY, AND 9999004 JOHIJ P. LAPSEf3 (Evidentiary Hearing) j ( Pages: 241 through 485 Place: Provo, Utah ., Date: June 14, 1989
------- ------ - .. -- .. ---------- ------ .==-=======.
m t\ HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION OficialReporters 1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600 Wuhingtor., D.C. 20005 (202) 628-4884 990621Ot2$ 5:N14 p t . , .. ve.,; : - E i I wCl-N0 m .* ~ vw.s 4 i- L( f
4 241
-(
r) UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD s 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 Provo, Utah Wednesday, June 14, 1989 - The parties met, pursuant to notice, at 9: 36 a. m. BEFORE: JUDGE CHARLES BECHHOEFER, CHAIRMAN Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission fs 20555 Washington, D.C. ( JUDGE FREDERICK SHON, MEMBER Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D.C. 20555 l JUDGE JERRY KLINE, MEMBER l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 1 . t
'N U-_ _ _
242 APPEARANCES: On behalf of the NRC Steff: ANN P. HODGDON, Esquire NRC Staff Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C . 20555 l NORMAN D. ROMNEY. Esquire l NRC Staff Counsel . U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D. C. 20555
~
l DONALD C' 7L ! Chief, Raulation Protection and Health Effects Branch Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 On behelf of the Licensees: JOHN P. LARSEN, Pro Se 3853 N. Sherwood Drive Provo, Utah 84604 SALLY LARSEN 3853 N. Sherwood Drive Provo, Utah 84604 l 1 n O
243
- s C Q ll I E ll I E
( l \ l WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSE l Pene1 --- 248 325 --- (Resumed) EDWIN D. FLACK DARRELL R. FISHER D. BLAIR SPITZBERG
. H. BROOKS GRIFFIN l JOHN P. LARSEN 337.361 372 s
6
244 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT IDENTIFIED ADMITTED DESCRIPTION St af f 's 2 (prev.) 351 Photograph: outside of the Evanston facility 3 (prev.) 351 Photograph: the Evanston facility with adj acent , buildings 4 (prev.) 351 Photograph: outside of the Evanston facility 5 (prev.) 351 Photograph: close-up of the Evanston facility 6 (prev.) 351 Photograph: inside of the Evanston facility 7 (prev.) 351 Photograph: inside of the Evanston facility, with Mr. Larsen present 8 (prev.) 351 Photograph: inside of the Evanston facility, including a space heater and storage rooms 9 (prev.) 351 Photograph: inside of the Evanston - facility, including buckets on top of a bench . 9
( l' 245 j y 10 (prev.) 351 Photograph: . inside [^/ T
'~'
of the Evanston facility l 11 (prev.) 351 Photograph: inside of the Evanston facility, including-stainless steel buckets
- 12 (prev.) 351 Photograph: close-up of a bench inside the Evanston facility 13 (prev.) 351 Photograph: inside of the Evanston facility, including Dr. Spitzberg
- during his inspection 14 (prev.) 351 Photograph: inside of the Evanston facility, with Mr.
Larsen present ( 15 (prev.) 351 Photograph: inside of the Evanston facility, with Mr. Larsen and Dr. Spitzberg present 16 (prev.) 351 Photograph: inside of the Evanston facility, with Mr. Larsen present 17 (prev.) 351 Photograph: inside of the Evanston facility
. Li censee 's 1 359 360 Proposed process description for Mr.
Larsen 's future Lindon, Utah, facility O C/
1 246 INSERTS DESCRIPTION AFTER PAGE John Larsen's direct testimony 342 John Larsen's professional qualifications 344 Letter of March 18, 1988. . with attachments 348 Letter of December 26, 1989,
- with attachments 350 O
o O' ,
247 b88 p l 4 1 _P _R _O C _E E _D _I N _G S_ 2 (9:32 a.m.) 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Good morning, ladies and 4 gentlemen. This is a resumption of the evidentiary hearing
$ involving Wrangler Laboratories and others. We're starting 6 a little late. Apparently, the Licensees misunderstood 7 that our starting time today was supposed to be 9:00 S c' clock. I would remind theta that if we have to go I
9 tomorrow, we will start at 9:00. 10 First, are there any preliminary matters that . 11 any of the parties wish to raise before we resume the 12 cross-examination of the Staff witnesses? 13 MS. HODGDON: (Pause.) No. O 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. 15 Before we turn over to Mr. Larsen's cross-16 examination, I had one more question that I would like 17 to ask of Dr. Fisher, which goes along with clarifica-18 tion of one or two of the items in his testimony, which 19 I was going into yesterday. l l 20 whereupon,
~
I 21 BLAIR SPITZBERG j DARRELL FISHER 12 BROOKS GRIFFIN
. EDWIN FLACK 23i 24 having been previously duly sworn, resumed as witnesses 25 herein, and were examined and testified further as follows:
A U
l PANEL 1 - CROSS 248 i b pa 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: On page 4, Dr. Fisher, of your 2 testimony, in answer 6, second paragraph, you've used the 3 terms " prolonged periods of time" and "short periods of 4 time." I wondered whether there are any more specific 5 limits you could put on that or definition. " Prolonged" 6 -- how long, and "short periods," how short? 7 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) In this particular 8 context, a short period of time would be one week or less. 9 A long period of time would be 30 days or more, 10 approximately. This specifically relates to evaluations . 11 of the biological effect of uranium on the kidneys. A 12 short period of time, less than a week; long period of 13 time, longer than a month. 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay, that helps. 15 Okay, Mr. Larsen, I turn the Staff Panel over 16 to you. 17 MR. LARSEN: Okay. 18 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) 19 BY MR. LARSEN: 20 0 Was that the duration that you were speaking of 21 there, the duration of the concentration within the body? 22 A (Fisher) That would apply to the duration of 23 the time that one evaluates the concentration of uranium 24 in the kidney tissues, which would be considered a critical 25 target for cranium poisoning in the kidneys. O
n-_-_,_____. _- - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ - - - - __ _ - - -- -- ._____ - __---- ji
- j. PANEL-l' ' CROSS 249-
-b90' p
l' O Okay. You'in your testimony, which is very 2 interesting, you. state that " depends on the concentration. N 3 as well as the duration of time," is that correct? (Fisher) L 4 A Yes. 5 Q' Okay. And then you say " duration before it gets 6 :of the threshhold concentration of'three micrograms per 7 gram of kidney or~900 micrograms for-the1 kidneys," is that 8 correct?: 9 A- (Fisher) Yes. 10 0 As threshhold? And that corresponds to 60 - 11 micrograms per liter of urine; is that right? Is that 12 where that comes from? 13 (There was no response.) [\ 14 BY MR. LARSEN: 15 Q How do you get the 60 nicrograms per liter? In 16 other words, how many liters of urine? You've got 900 17 micrograms in the kidneys. Where do you convert that to 18- micrograms per liter? 19 A (Fisher) In the testimony I give a rule of 20 thumb that the concentration in the kidneys is about 21 typically or over these periods of time about 15 times the 22 concentration in the urine, and if you take 900 and divide So it's just a rule of thumb. 23 ] by 15, you get roughly 60. 24 based on very complex models used to evaluate uranium 25 dosimetry and biokinetics.
PANEL 1 - CROSS 250 ' b9~ 1 0 Okay. Can I ask you, what do you first see when 2 you start seeing kidney damage? I mean, for radiation you 3 start seeing nausea and leukocyte, things like that for 4 radiation poisoning, things like that. What do you see 5 for kidney damage, the first and then progressively worse?
~
6 A (Fisher) In the testimony I indicate some of 7 the clinical signs for kidney damage when it occurs either 8 in animals or in humans. Kidney damage leads to loss of 9 kidney function, which translates to failure to resorb 10 certain materials and having these materials end up in . 11 urine, and those things are elevated levels of protein, 12 glucose, certain enzymes such as catalase, phosphates, 13 citrates, creatinine. There can also be -- the urine can 14 also show increased levels of what are called casts and 15 cells that are sloughed off during tissue damage. And 16 clinical laboratories at medical facilities can evaluate 17 urine for each of these parameters, and if there is an 18 increase in these indicators, the best protein analysis 19 being the analysis of a protein called beta 20 microglobulin -- if there's an increased level of these
~
21 things in urine, that's an indication that there is some 12 functional loss in the kidney due to possibly uranium 23 poisoning. ! 24 Q Okay, so the first signs woold be this 25 microglobulin? g i
PANEL 1 - CROSS 251 3 bc ( ) 1 A (Fisher) The first signs would be in increased L./ 2 levels of all of these things. 3 0 Of all of them, okay. 4 A (Fisher) In general. 5 O Now, the albumenal test or what -- that will show 6 the first signs of any kidney damage, is that correct? 7 A (Fisher) Albumen is a protein that's excreted 8 in higher levels of kidney that are damaged. It's a 9 common, easily-measured protein, but it's not necessarily 10 the best indicator of kidney damage. . 11 0 What is the best? 12 A (Fisher) A study out of NIOSH in Cincinnati 13 has stated that what's thought to be the best indicator s [ ) 14 of kidney damage would be the increased urinary excretion
\_/
15 of a protein called beta-2-microglobulin. 16 Q Okay, good. 17 Now, in your testimony here you talked about 18 uranium metal dust. You realize we're not dealing with 19 uranium metal except for in rods, little slugs. So there 20 wouldn't be any dust in those. There would be dust 21 possibly at the last step with the UAA. 12 A (Fisher) When we refer to uranium metal dust, 23 we usually refer to machining and sanding, grinding, 24 polishing of depleted or natural uranium metal. 25 0 Right. I fm b ___
PANEL 1 - CROSS 252 ) bS I A (Fisher) You're absolutely correct. The point l 2 that I tried to make in the testimony with regard to the 3 uranium metal dust is that metal would be normally 4 considered very insoluble, but in the form of a dust or 5 a powder, that very insoluble material exhibits considerable 6 solubility in the body, very unusual aspect of uranium 7 metal. . 8 O Let me ask you this: To get to 60 micrograms 9 per liter, how much would have to go in, how many micrograms 10 or milligrams would have to go in the nose or in the stomach 11 in order to come out 60 micrograms? 12 A (Fisher) Depends on which day after an intake 13 you're referring to. 14 0 Which -- 15 A (Fisher) It depends on which day you sample the 16 person after an intake. 17 O Oh. Well, you have to sample him pretty -- well, 18 if it's very soluble, you have to sample him quick, don't 19 you, because the excretion from the body is quite fast. 20 A (Fisher) It's very rapid for -- 21 Q Yes. 22 A (Fisher) -- a soluble material. , 23 Q Right. 24 A (Fisheri Yes.
^ I 25 Q For solubles. !
l O l
PANEL 1 - CROSS 253 a b( l A (Fisher) Now, if you'11 give me a few minutes, 2 I'll calculate it for any time point after a single acute 3 intake. I'll tell you what -- 4 0 Well, say if we took it right after it happened,
.1 5 so that we -- well, let's see, you need enough time to get 6 through the system, right? What would be the maximum 7 amount? Do you understand what my question is? I'm 8 trying to find out how much would a person have to ingest 9 or inhale to get 60 micrograms out in the yard?
10 A (Fisher) If you'll give me a couple minutes, - 11 I'll work on it. 12 O Okay. 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Give him a minute or two to rr I I 14 work it out.
\_/
15 MR. LARSEN: Okay, thank you. 16 (Pause.) 17 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) Do you want to go on while 18 I'm working on this? 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do you have questions for the 20 other --
~
21 MR. LARSEN: Yes. Maybe I cocld ask -- l 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. 13 MR. LARSEN: -- anyone who knows about 24 fluorimetry: 15 /// l 1 ym
\
N,.-
PANEL 1 - CROSS 254 1 b? I BY MR. LARSEN: 2 O Are there other things that can be read by the 3 fluorimeter other than the uranium in the urine, and are 4 there things that can give you a false reading? 5 A (Fisher) There are many species that will 6 fluoresce under UV light in the fluorimeter, and with good 7 chemistry you eliminate those materials so that only . 8 uranium in the sample fluoresces. 9 Q Would lanolin on hands contribute to a higher 10 reading? . 11 A (Fisher) That I don't know. 12 Q How about organic amine? 13 A (Fisher) I don't know that either. I'm not a -- 14 0 How about soap? 15 A (Fisher) I don't saow that. 16 0 Okay, well, I proposed buying a fluorimeter at 17 one time to the NRC autnority that was there, and he said, 18 "I really wouldn't advise it." 19 And I said, "Well, wouldn't that help me to get 20 a grasp or a control on the sources of where any 21 contamination is coming from because I believe my , i 12 bottles are ecntamine (ph.}." l' . 23 He said, "It's best to let the experts do the 14 f4uorimeters because there are so ma.ny t5ings that can 9f.ve 25 a false reading to the urine." ; 1 l -
PANEL-l'- CROSS 255 ~ i
;b9 y
']N 1 That is.one of the reasons the organic amines 2 -- one of the reasons why we gave up the pharmaceutical-3 bottles. We used to go down and buy the bottles at the 4 pharmacy, but because we were getting high readings there, 5 I lost confidence in those bottles that.we were getting. 6 And-so this is the reason why I said to Energy Labs, 7 "Please send me some certified bottles that are good, that a you know are clean." 9 And when they sent those,.that's when we got less 10 than five micrograms per liter readings. . 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Dr. Fisher, do you have any1 12 further comments on.-- 13 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) .I'd like to. Normally,
. s ~t 14 in chemistry laboratories that process urine samples, the 15 samples are acidified with a concentrated nitric acid prior 16 to taking an aliquot for fluorimetry, and one of the 17 Purposes of.that acidification is to' break down the organic 18 structures that might be present that could interfere with 19 the fluorescence measurement under UV light. And if that's 20 done right, there shouldn't be a fluorescence from such things as possibly soaps, lanolins, or the amines that you 21 22 mention. .They should destroy those, 23
- JUDGE BECHHGEFER: Ha.ve you finished?
24 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) Yes. 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Oh, ckay. I
PANEL 1 - CROSS 256 i l b! ! 1 Okay, I just wanted to make sure he had finished 2 before you started again. 3 MR. LARSEN: I appreciate this information because 4 I have been trying to find this out for so long. So I've 5 got to know this. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do you have other questions 7 of some of the other witnesses while he's still calculating? 8 MR. LARSEN: Let's see. This deals with his 9 testimony. That's the thing. 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, do you have questions . 11 -- well, I guess if you organized it. 12 (Pause.) 13 BY MR. LARSEN: 14 Q Can I ask you another question while you're doing 15 that? 16 A (Fisher) Sure. 17 0 It says uranium is a weak, metallic poison. How 18 does this compare with lead and mercury, uranium as a weak, 19 metallic poison? 20 A (Fisher) Most of the heavy metals are considered 21 metallic poisons. Their actions on the body, however, are 22 not comparable because they affect different biochemical
*I I 23 processes. So it would not be fair to compare lead ;
l 24 to uranium, for example. Uranium is unique in some aspects 25 in that it affects the kidney ce]ls and almost nothing j
~
. PANEL.1 - CROSS 257 R& . !
b98' )
-1 else in=the body that uniquely. It prevents the-transport -(
2 of nutrients into the kidney cells and kills them that way.- 3 I don't know of any other metals that do that.
4 Uranium does not have the same toxicity in other 5 biochemical reactions as say, for example, lead. So they 6 are two different materials.
7 Let me answer your question. The maximum 8 excretion of uranium at any time post-intake is about 30 9 per cent. This is a theoretical prediction. 10 On page 13 of the testimony I give some fractions. 11 of an intake that would appear in urine, using the most 12 -current biokinetic models of uranium excretion. So for 13 . example, if one were to sample urine at 24 hours.after an 14 intake, I've given a value of eight per cent. So'if we
\d 15 take 60 and divide that by .08, that would give an intake 16 24 hours previously, an estimated intake of 750 micrograms, 17 less than a milligram.
18 Similarly, at three days, one would estimate if 19 you had 60 micrograms per liter, you would estimate an 20 intake of six milligrams, with one per cent appearing in
. 2!' the urine at a point three days after intake.
22 Q Okay. Now, so there is no one-to-15 concentration 23 that goes up? 24 A (Fisher) The one-to-15 concentration is an 15 estimate of the ratio of the uranium in the kidney versus
PANEL 1 - CROSS 258 i i-b! I the concentration in the urine that's passed from the 2 kidney. 3 0 Okay. And then what about is there a percentage, 4 like five per cent or something, that goes through the wall 5 of the stomach or through the lungs? 6 A (Fisher) Much uranium that's in'aled in the form
~
7 of dust is cleared from the lungs as are all dusts, 8 swallowed into the stomach. And of the uranium that enters 9 the stomach and is passed through the GI system, if it's 10 a soluble material, between two and five per cent is re-11 absorbed into the blood, where it can then go to the 12 kidneys. The remainder is passed in feces. 13 Q Okay. 14 A (Fisher) That re-absorption is much smaller 15 if the material is very insoluble. 16 Q So if there's a five per cent passed into the 17 blood, does there have to be 20 times that amount ingested? 18 A (Fisher) To put the same level in the blood? 19 yes. 20 Q yes. 21 A (Fisher) That's correct. 22 Q So it really has to be quite a lot of milligrams 23 inhaled or ingested before you would get to 60 micrograms, i 24 is that right? 25 A Not necessarily. One unique characteristic of 9'
PANEL 1 - CROSS 259 i b3 1 very soluble uranium is that once it's inhaled, it very 2 quickly passes from the lung into blood. We estimate from 3 analysis of a recent accident involving soluble uranium, 4 that the clearance half-time from lung to blood was about 5 45 minutes. 6 JUDGE SHON: May I ask you whether that 7 situation, the clearance pathway that goes through the lung 8 directly and avoids the intestine is the one on which this 9 25 per cent at 12 hours, eight per cent at 24 hours in your 10 page 13 is based -- . 11 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) Yes. 12 JUDGE SHON: -- is that correct? 13 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) That's correct. 14 JUDGE SHON: So that what you said a moment ago, 15 about five per cent being resorbed in the intestine 16 applies only to material that doesn't go directly through 17 the lung, is that -- 18 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) No, that's not correct. 19 JUDGE SHON: No? 20 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) When we do these 21 modelings, we take into account all the biological 22 processes. 23 JUDGE SHON: Oh, I see. 24 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) And so that that 25 fraction that's re-absorbed into the intestines from
PANEL 1 - CROSS 260 i b? I the amount that's cleared and swallowed is taken into 2 account. 3 JUDGE SHON: Oh, it's accounted for. l 4 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) You bet. 5 JUDGE SHON: What I'm saying is that isn't all
~
6 there is. 7 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) No. That's -- 8 JUDGE SHON: For a soluble material the much 9 larger fraction passes directly to the blood; is that 10 correct? . 11 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) Yes. There's a minor 12 contribution from re-absorption back into the blood from 13 the intestines. / 14 JUDGE SHON: Thank you. 15 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) That's correct. 16 BY MR. LARSEN: 17 Q So these figures, then, 750 micrograms and six 18 milligrams, are what goes in the nose and in the throat. 19 A (Fisher) Let me define -- 20 Q In order to come out 60.
~
21 A (Fisher) Let me define an intake. 12 O Okay. 23 A (Fisher) An intake is the total amount of
)
24 uranium that as inhaled or swallowed. About a third of 25 that intake is immediately exhaled. O
PANEL 1 - CROSS 261 I b3 "7-s 1 Q Okay.
,.J
)
2 A (Fisher) But the intake is defined as the amount 3 initially going in either by inhalation, ingestion, 4 puncture, injection. When one inhales that intake, about 5 a third of it is immediately exhaled. 6 0 Okay, and so this 750 micrograms at 24 hours and 7 six milligrams at three days represents the two-thirds that 8 is retained? 9 A (Fisher) No. It represents the 100 per cent -- 10 0 Inhaled or ingested. . 11 A (Fisher) Yes, right. 12 O Okay. 13 JUDGE SHON: I'd like to make clear also that w [b \ 14 15 the numbers you've given are critically dependent, that is, maybe even order-of-magnitude dependent on the 16 solubility of the species inhaled; is that right? 17 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) That's correct. 18 BY MR. LARSEN: 19 Q And these are very soluble that you're talking 20 about here.
- 21 A (Fisher) These estimates are based on the most 22 soluble form of uranium that we know of.
I 23 0 Okay. 24 A (Fisher) Hundred per cent, Class D, soluble i 25 uranium. j \ (' N I
PANEL 1 - CROSS l 262 e i j bl' 1 Q Now, is it true that uranium is more of a ]\ 2 chemical hazard than a radiation hazard? 3 A (Fisher) In terms of intakes and toxicity 4 evaluations, the soluble forms of uranium are limited by 5 chemical toxicity, the soluble intakes up to approximately 6 10 per cent enrichment. So depleted and natural soluble . 7 uraniums are limited by chemical toxicity of uranium on
~'
8 the kidneys. 9 That's not the case for a highly insoluble 10 uranium, which the limit in toxicity is dose, radiation 13 dose to lung, from long-term retention in the lung. 12 Current standards for radiation protection as 13 Promulgated by the ICRP, the International Commission on 14 Radiation Protection, are based totally on radiation 15 toxicity, not on chemical toxicity. But those who evaluate 16 these things know that for soluble material, the chemical 17 toxicity on the kidney is the limiting factor. 18 Q Okay. 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// O
PANEL 1 - CROSS
..g /~x >
I "C l 1' O So it is more of a chemical hazard than a (x / v 2 radiation hazard? 3 A (Fisheri Yes. 4 O Internal'.y. 5 JUDGE SHON: Let me ask one more question to 6 clarify a point in my own mind. As to UAA, uranyl acetyl 7 acetate, you do not have figures on the solubility of it; is 8 that correct? 9 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) That's correct. To know 10 the solubility requiress analytical measurements to , 11{ determine it. Those require about two months of time, I 12 they're very expensive, and I don't know of anyone who has 13j made those tests. They don't appear in the literature at l s { I 14 all. JUDGE SHON: Secondly, in making your decisions l 15 { 16 ; as to the hazards involved here, you have assumed that it 17 is very soluble in that it is a hazard to the kidney and 18 : that it moves very quickly through the system; is that 19 correct? i 20 i THE WITNESS: (Fisher) Yes. 21 JUDGE SHON: Even though you don't know whether 22 i that is true or f alse. I 23 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) I make the statement in 24 the testimony that most uranium compounds are mixed in their 25 solubility characteristics. Acetates of uranium are l } 1 [v\ . __
PANEL 1 - CROSS 264 t M2 1 universally considered to be the most soluble compound of 2 uranium because of the plus-6 valence state of uranium. 3 The evidence that this material is an organic, metallic 4 compound, the evidence that it's only slightly soluble in 5 benzene and water, will have an impact on its solubility 6 in the body. And I would presume that the most conservative 7 assumption would be very soluble, but also guess that it's 8! not as soluble as a uranyl acetate. So the solubility is
- 9. unknown.
10 JUDGE SHON: It's solubility is unknown, and . 11 l you've assumed it's soluble as a conservative measure; is i 12 , that right? i 13l THE WITNESS: (Fisher) Yes, that's correct. 14 JUDGE SHON: Thank you. 15 l I didn't mean to interfere. Please go ahead. 16 MR. LARSEN: No, that's where I was getting to j 17 too. l 18 BY MR. LARSEN-i 19 Q So this decision, then, was made on an educated l 20 guess, but not fact; is that correct? 21 A (Fisher) Yes. And, again, it can only be 12 determined through laboratory experiments that have not been 23 ! performed, experiments that we recommend be performed. And , 24 I've consulted with a number of uranium chemists on this 25 matter. Their conclusion is that UAA is probably a somewhat
! t I l
, PANEL 1 - CROSS 265 p
Is v ) Ilsolubleuraniumcompound. Whether it be moderately soluble 2 or somewhat soluble, no one knows until the measurements 3 are made. 4 JUDGE SHON: I think you also made the point in 5 l your testimony that some things that are regarded as single f 6 l uranium compounds are actually mixtures. 7i THE WITNESS: (Fisher) That's true. 8 JUDGE SHON: Even yellowcake itself has some oxide 9 in it; is that right? 10 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) Definitely. - II l JUDGE SHON: Okay. 12 BY MR. LARSEN: 13 Q How hard is it, Dr. Fisher, to get cancer from p l 14 , uranium radiation? What is the risk? Is it very easy, very 15 , hard, or what? 16 A (Fisher) The estimated risks are given in the 17 ' testimony for both lung cancer and bone cancer, based on 18 the best available knowledge. These are not strong 19 , estimates of risk. We have no evidence of any humans that + l 20 have gotten either bone cancer or lung cancer from uranium. 21 Q How does it compare to smoking or drinking as l 22 j regards to cancer? Or health risks in general, I guess. 23 ' A (Fisher) I'm not prepared to make those 24 comparisons. But I can say that the estimates of risk that 25 I've given for both bone cancer and lung cancer are taken
! l 7s :
s
1 66 PANEL 1 - CROSS l l M4 1 from the ICRP, the International Commission on Radiological 2 Protection. These are the published values, on which there 3 is extensive data. Keep in mind that these estimates are 4 based primarily on exposures of the Japanese population 5 following exposure to the atomic weapons blasts and, 6 therefore, may not be strictly applicable to alpha-emitting 7 internal emitters. But in general these are the 8 internationally accepted risks per unit radiation dose. , i 9' The risk of cancer from exposure to uranium is l 10 not the major risk. But it is something that should be . 11 taken into account. Limits for radiation protection are 12 i based on those estimates. ; l 13 Q Do you have any standards for internal exposure i 14 in millirems per year? I know external exposure is, by law, 15 l 5 rems per year. Do you have anything for internal !- 16 , exposure? 17 i A (Fisher) Yes. Again the International Commission 18 on Radiological Protection has published limits on intakes 19 , of radionuclides by workers. Those limits are published for 20 each of the uranium isotopes in ICRP Publication 30 (1979). 21 O Jo you have it for U 238 7 12l A (Fisher) Again, it's in ICRP Publication 30. , l 1 23 0 But yc e don't know right off, then, iust for i 24 information. 15 A (Fisher) The annual limit on intake, derived from I i i _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . -_
i 267 I e PANEL 1 - CROSS 1 J l
; \ 1 those numbers, for soluble uranium, is 260 milligrams per LY 2 year.
3 0 Milligrams? 4 A (Fisher) Yes. 5 o You don't have anything in rems. 6 A (Fisher) That limit on intake would lead to 1lwhat'scalledaneffectivedoseequivalent, and -- Dr. Cool, i 8i is he here? You could check me if I'm wrong -- a 50-year 9; committed effective dose equivalent of 5 rems to the whole 10 body. , 11 ! O Okay, so 260 milligrams is 260,000 micrograms? 1 12 - A (Fisher) That's correct. 13 Q 260,000 micrograms. Now, how would that relate i
/~N 4
/ 14 l to the 60 micrograms per liter? Say the guy had 60
'( !
15 ! micrograms per liter every day. Would you just add that 16 , up, times 365? l 17 ; A (Fisher) No. Of course, I don't have my -- 16 Normally when I do these analyses, I use fairly 19 sophisticated computer programs and tools that I don't have 20 with me today. But these things can be evaluated.
. 21 in general, the body is at a state of equilibrium 22 with uranium. And a continuous excretion of about 60 23 l ! micrograms per day indicates an intake of slightly more than i
24 that per day, because a fraction of the uranium goes out 25 in feces, So it would be a continuous intake of about I rx \
' I _ _ _ ._ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ __
, PANEL 1 - CROSS 268 m6 1 100 micrograms per day. 2 Q Okay. 3 MR. LARSEN: I might for the record say that with 4 my process, there is only one step that there is dust 5 problem. That is the second to the last step, where there 6 is grinding. It takes us two weeks to do a batch, and the 7 exposure is for one day and maybe two at the most where 8 there is the potential there for dust. The other five steps 9 do not have the potential for uranium getting out into the 10 air, because the temperatures are not allowed or the , 11 ; physical characteristics of the process do not allow it. i 12 So the exposure from this process of making UAA r 13 l is very low, and especially since we have improved the 14 process from when we very first did it where we had to dry 15 l out things manually. 16 ! MS. HODGDON: May I interrupt, Judge Bechhoefer? l i 17 Staff objects to Mr. Larsen's lengthy testimony which is 18 not related to any question. He will have an opportunity 19 to put in his testimony, i i 20 MR. LARSEN: Okay, I'll save that, then. { i 21 MS. HODGDCN: He should De directed to make brief i 22 preliminary or introductory statements in order to ask a i 23 ; question, and not to respond to the testimony of Staff at , 24 this time. MR. LARSEN: My mistake. I 25 l. I I l
3' PANEL 1 - CROSS 269 em iM I JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right, that is more appropriate l 2 for your own testimony, and you will get that chance as soon l 3 as the Staff is through.
~
4 MR. LARSEN: As I understand it, then, I guess f 5 that's all with Mr. Fisher -- or Dr. Fisher, excuse me. 6 (Pause.) 7 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) May I make an additional 8 clarification to an answer I just gave? 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 10 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) In discussing the relative 11 l toxicities of soluble and insoluble uranium compounds, I 12 think it should be noted that the intake limits for 1 13 ' insoluble forms of uranium are more restrictive than the i ~x I ( 14 j soluble forms, based on radiological toxicity 15 considerations, or an order of magnitude of approximately l 16 ; two. They are about twice as restrictive. The annual limit l ; 17 i on intake for insoluble uranium derives out to about 160 l i 18 mil]igrams per year versus about 260 for soluble. I think ) l 19 that point needs to be made. ) i 20 JUDGE SHON: Is that considering both these forms I
- 21 I as radiotoxic, or is it allowing radiotoxic fe>r the f I
I I 22 insoluble and kidney metallic poison for the soluble? What 23 ; are t he limits based on? I know you said one was based on 24 ' 5 ren per year, the limit; I'm quite familiar with it. But 25 are both of then based on that? i s _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _
PANEL 1 - CROSS 270 M8 1 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) I know that the limit on 2 l insoluble uranium is clearly based on the radiological i 3 toxicity. The intake limit on soluble uranium, as published 4 by the ICRP, is also based on radiological toxicity. The 5 ALI developed, derived, is also based on radiological 6 toxicity. If one factored into that intake limit the 7, estimates of the chemical toxicity, it probaoly would not I 8l be as high as 260; it might be lower. 9 JUDGE SHON: That's what I was sort of thinking 10 I because in order to maintain -- If you put that much in, , 13 ! it seems to me you would do kidney damage or might well do I 12 ' it.
! Incidentally, the kidney damage, I think you said 13 14 in your testimony, is a threshold thing? There is a known 15 limit below which it doesn't occur?
16 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) All the evidence to date l 17 suggests that kidney damage is a threshold effect. 18 JUDGE SHON: And the radiation damage is assumed 19 to be a stochastic effect with no threshold. l 20 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) Yes. j 21 MR. LARSEN: I'd like to direct some questions I 22 , to Mr. Flack if I could, i l l I -!
! Is it Mr. Plack or Dr. Flack? j l
l 23 l l 24 l THE WITNESS: (Flack) Mister. l t I i l l l 25 l /// l I (
^
PANEL 1 - CROSS 271
)
( 1 BY MR. LARSEN:
\
ws . O was there a revocation meeting held, a group of 2{! 3 j people talking over the phone or in the same place or 4 something like that, when my license was decided to be 5, revoked? Was there an actual meeting? 6 l A (Flack) What I think I need to explain is the f 7 i enforcement process for the various types of escalated
- i 8l enforcement actions. These would be civil penalties and 9 orders.
10 Basically, what happens is an inspector such as , 11 ' Mr. Spitzberg goes out and does an inspection. He then 12 writes up an inspection report. If his findings are such 13 that they are of such significance, then the licensee will [ \l 14 be called in for an enforcement conference.
\ %) As you realize, you were issued an inspection 15 16 , report. You also called in for an enforcement conference.
17 After the enforcement conference, then there is 18 a decision of what type of escalated enforcement action, 19 if there is any, should be taken. In your case, basically , 20 l it was decided at the regional level that an order should 21 be issued suspending your license. I'm talking about this 22 > most recent case, where we came to the revocation. l 1 23 What the regien does is prepares a packege 24 recommending that this order suspending license be issued. 25 This package is then sent from the region up to NRC 1 i 1 l
/1 !
i
272
, PANEL 1 - CROSS ml0 1 Headquarters. In NRC Headquarters it goes to the Office 2 of Enforcement, which at that time I was a member of. These 3 cases then get assigned to an individual. I was the 4 individual who was assigned that case.
5 The case then gets reviewed by the Office of 6 General Counsel, which is another group of lawyers, It also - 7 gets reviewed by the licensing office, the Nuclear Material 8 and Safeguards Licensing Office that handles licenses such 9 as yours. And the Director of Enforcement also reviews this 10 package. We basically put our heads together, and we decide In your 11 l whether this order should or should not be issued. 12 case it was decided that an order should be issued. 13 ! This order then goes up to the Deputy Director 14 of Regional Operations, Mr. Taylor, for his review. He 15 i reviewed this order, and he also concurred in issuing this i 16 or der suspending the license. As you realize, then you were i I i 17 ! required by the order suspending the license to respond to 18 , this order, and basically you responded to the order. ! i 19 Then what happened was we went through this same 20 process, basically. Your response is first looked at in ;
. 21 l the regional office. It then comes up to Washington, D.C. l f i
22 ' to the Office of Enforcement. I again was assigncd the : 23 case. In conjunction with lawyers and the licensing office, 24 we ccme forth with a recommendation, which we agreef. upon , 25 , with the region, that your license should be revoked. It
.~. _ ,._ _ _ --__
l
.____ _j
PANEL 1 - CROSS 273 I' '} 1 went up to Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Taylor signed the order
'w <'
2,i revoking the license. 3 Q Okay, are there records kept of these meetings? 4 A (Flack) No, sir. 5 Q No records whatsoever? 6 A (Flack) No. We do not release preliminary 7 records regarding our enforcement decisions. For example, I 8 ! the package that came up from the regional office with their 9 recommendation, under the Freedom of Information Act we're 10 ' not required to keep records of those. , 11 You will notice on the order suspending the 12 , license and the order revoking the license all of the They all 13 f various offices that were involved in this order. [" 14 ; had to confer on this. ( '~' 15 0 Yes. But there is no record; is that correct? 10 . A (Flack) There is no records of all these t 17 meetings. 18 Q None written down. 19 A (Flack) There may be some records. The region 20 may keep some records. But we do not keep records up in i I 21 the Of fice of Enf orec ment. ! I ' 22 Q Let r.2 ask you this. How do you prevent a bias 23 ' from occurring? What if an inspector, or a group of 24 l inspectors, or a group of regulaters for that matter, decidej i i i t 1 25l they don't like somebody? They don't like his looks, or l
-~. ,
t
PAWEL 1 - CROSS 374 s M12 1 attitude, or whatever. How do you prevent him from being 2i given an unjust, biased judgment? I 3 A (Flack) That is why we have all this review in 4 our process by the various offices, to look at this and make 5 a judgment as to whether or not there was bias or not. 6 0 What if a person says, "In my opinion" -- Let
~7 me read here. Excuse me.
8! "In my opinion, Mr. Larsen is telling the NRC 9 that he doesn't have to live by its regulations 10 anymore. During the pendency of this . 11 investigation, J. Larsen has informed the NRC 12 officials that he intends to move once again to a l 13 - new state and begin processing DU if his 14 application for the NRC license is denied." 15 ; Does that sound like an objective, unbiased 16 , statement? Or does that sound like a provocation to the i 17 NRC to -- well, "We're going to stcp this guy." l 18 A (Flack) That's one person's opinion. It has gone 19 ' through a review by various people throughout the chain of l 20 command in the NRC. 21 Q IG there anybody there to represent Mr. Larsen's 22 interests? i ! - 23 ! A (Flack) Your interests were represented. You at responded to both the notice of violation and -- ! 15 ! O I didn't know this was being told about me. l I i ( _ _._ _ u_______ .
PANEL 1 - CROSS 275 I' 7-~s f ( 1 didn't know that this was being stated about me. The only
'v) 1 2 way I found out was when I got access to these affidavits 3 because of this court hearing.
4 A (Flack) I think you should respond to those, 5 which you know, in your testimony. 6 Q But I had no idea that that was being said about 7 me. In fact, the thing that is confusing to me all along 8 this period of time was: Why is the agency so mad at me 9 when I'm t rying to comply? And I find out that the reason 10 is because there are a lot of things that were said about . 11, me that were misrepresentations of me. I have been trying I i 12 to comply all the way along here. I built a building, I l i 13 bought land, I wore TDL badges, I did a lot of things. [ 14 A (Flack) I have a different view.
's JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Larsen, I think a lot of 15 ;
I 16 ; that should be in your own testimony, i 17 , MS. HODGDON: Yes, the Staff was about to object. IS Perhaps the Board will make a ruling. 19 JUDGE BECH30EFER: Right, well, that type of 20 ! material, it 's in your prepared testimony, and you can
.t1 expand on it when you get on the s;tand yearself.
i i 22 BY MR. LAFSEN: i i 23 i O May I ask you, Mr. Plach, why there isn't one i 24 j posit ive thing said about me? I don't -- l 25 l A (Flack) l i I-
-~
I
PAEEL 1 - CROSS 376 m14 I O One positive improvement. 2I A (Flack) We basically did not find that there were i 3 positive things. 4 Q There were no improvements? 5 A (Flack) There were some improvements, but they 6 did not -- If you look at the enforcement policy, we - 7 require meticulous attention to detail. And your I 8, enforcement history has shown, if you look at the exhibits, 9 we can go through the exhibits, starting back in 1979, which 10 was referred to in the order in 1982, that you had 11 noncompliance. I would like to go to Exhibit 1, which is 12 the order in 1982, and go through this and show the reasons 13 that we considered that Mr. Larsen has -- Basically had 14 l two fundamental problems with Mr. Larsen: his commitment 15 l to safety, and his fundamental trustworthiness. And this 16 , is shown by his past history. I would like to go back and 17 go into the order in 1982. I would like to go to page 3 ; i 18 of that order. l T-3 19 If you look at the third line there, it says that l l l 20 an inspection was done November 2, 1979. And basically
, 21 I there was a notice of violation issued July 22, 1980. In ; *j '
21 that there were two violat ions. There were violations I . 23 regarding his contaminations in areas outside of the ! l 24 licensee's business premise. { l f 1 25 l 0 May I respond to that ? l h 4
- _ _ . _ __ --_-_ _-- _ - _ _ _- _ A
e PANEL 1 - CROSS 277 f^s; m'
) I A (Flack) No, you asked me a question, and I'd like l %.J l 2 to finish.
3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: You respond when you testify. 4 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Also in that inspection L 5 there were also records of receipt that were incomplete. 6 Now we go to 1982. We did an inspection. That 7 r inspection was done on August 23, 1982, as shown on page --
- l 8l at the bottom of that page, it's shown as 235. If we go to ;
9 those violations, there are four violations that were issued 10 , here. Basically, if we go to the next page, page 2, he , 11 i exceeded the 15-pound limit, is the first one. The second i 12 I was that he refused to provide records to the inspector. > 13 The third violation at the bottom of the page is we also
,s i
{ 14 l observed again contamination outside of his f acility. This ! (_ -} l 15 , is a repeat of what we found in 1979. The fourth violatior i i 16 on the next page, we had problems with records of receipt 17 i that were incomplete again. And this was a repeat of a 18 violation found in 1979. 19 j If we go to the Exhibit 2, dsted October 25, 1982, 20 there is an rescinding order to show cause and order 21 temporarily suspending license. Basically, at this time 1 22 Mr. Larsen had responded to the order suspending license. I I 23 l And if we go to page -- Basically, let's stay on the first 24 page. The first page of that, Mr. Larsen committed in his 25 response to various corrective actions, that he would comply
~~s I 1
l l
PANEL 1 - CROSS 278 4 1 m16 I with record keeping problems that we had found, there 2 l would be improvements in his operation using protective 3' clothing and frequent instrument service monitoring, the 4 use of containers, and also the use of hoods at each step 5 of the process, to conduct all future operations in
~
6 accordance with the recommendation of a consultant, Mr. Bob 7 Decker of Chemrad Corporation. 8 If we go to what is noted as page 2, this is 9 actually the third page in there. At the bottom of the page 10 it says 2.43. "The licensee is also committed to use of . 11 hoods at each step of the process and to conduct all future 12 operations in accordance with the recommendations" -- this 13 l is the same as --
"and to also meet all state and local 14 regulations."
15 ; Now I would like to go to Exhibit 3. Exhibit 3 ; 16 is we issued a civil penalty to Mr. Larsen on December 15, l. 17 l 1982. Basically, this civil penalty was for $500 and was ! i 18 for the violations that we had found. f 19 If we go to Exhibit 4, note this is the March 11, ! i i 20 1983 response of Mr. Larsen to these violations. In that l 21 exhibit basically Mr. Larsen does not deny any of the l 4 22 1 viclations, and he basically says that he will operateunderl ' i ! 23li a specific license. He acknowledges spillage outside of 24 l his f acility. "We have receipts but didn't keep records ! I t 25 up to date," is on page 2 of his response. On page 3 he I
! I I
L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - __ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ l l l _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
PANEL 1 - CROSS 279 e 1 ' basically says that he will comply in the future with the m(v) 2 regulations. 3 Now I'd like to go to the next exhibit, Exhibit 5. 4 Basically this matter was turned over to the Office of 5 Investigation, and they referred this to the Assistant 6 Attorney General. If you go to page 2 of this letter -- 7 This is a letter from Mr. Cummings, the director of 8 inspector and auditor, to Mr. Samuel Alba. If you go to 9: the second page of that, in the first full paragraph it 10 f begins with August 1982. There's a sentence down there that 11 struck me. It says, "Mr. Larsen also refused to make 12 , available to NRC inspectors any records of transfers as i 13 ; required by 10 CFR 40.62 (b) . " He purported that these 1
,s 14 ; records were proprietary information. This refers to what
[
%/ } \
15 we were referring to yesterday. i 16 , BY MR. LARSEN: 17 , O May I ask, when was that? 18 A (Flack) That was a letter dated March 29, 1983. l 19 ; It's a letter from a Mr. Cummings to a Mr. Alba. ! I 20 i I would like to then go on to: the licensing ,
' l 21 ; action was then transferred. An NRC specific license was 22 , issued in December of '83. It was then transferred to the 23 State of Utah on April 15, 1985.
24 I would like to then say that Utah is an agreement 1 As such, they're like an arm of the NRC. And NRC, 25 { state. I , ( ! ss _-
PANEL 1 - CROSS g m18 1 what it does is its powers are then turned over, transferred 2 to the agreement, in this case Utah. NRC monitors their 3 program, Utah's program, to make sure that it's in 4 compliance and compatible with NRC's various regulations. 5 And its regulations are very similar to NRC's. 6 Mr. Larsen then, instead of under jurisdiction 7 of NRC, became unde: the jurisdiction of the State of Utah. 8 Now I would like to go to Utah's noncompliance. If we note 9 in Item 6, dated June 11, 1986, there was a notice of 10 ! violation and an order to show cause issued by the State , 11 of Utah. We have Mr. Craig Jones, who's from the State of 12 Utah. If you look at this order, basically there is a 13 l laundry list of, like, 17 violations here. 14 The first violation, the licensee has disposed 15 l of source materials in the vicinity of his facility rather j
! l 16 i than by transfer pursuant to URC-19-400. This is very l
17 , similar to what happened in 1979 and also 1982, that 18 l violation. l 19 The second violation is basically that radioactive i 'i 20 material was in unrestricted areas and was exceeding the 21 limits of 2 millirems in any one hour. , 22 The third violation basically is that he stored i 23 ! mat erial in an open truck. I i 24 The fourth violation is he failed to conduct a 1 1 25 preparatory evaluation of non-transportable uranium in I I l u ___ ._ _ . _ _ _ _ _ I
, PANEL 1 - CROSS 281 I workers and failed to conduct surveys at the required
[ ')
'L/
2jfrequency. 3 The fifth violation concerns basically
*4 Mr. Larsen's son Michael at that time was only 16 years old, 5 and he was a minor, and he was working. And he should not 6 have been working.
The sixth violation concerns uranium bioassay 7l 8 data reported July 8, 1980 was not identified by individual 9: name of Social Security number. He was required to do 10 ' certain urinalyses in compliance with his Utah license, , 11 which he did not do. 12 ltem 7(a) concerns the licensee's engineering 13 controls failed since radioactive contamination was 14 detected on the macadam surface in front of the Gold Key l 15 l Storage area. 16 l Item 7(b) concerns the licensee f ailed to document 17 1 personnel training. 18 ; Item 7(c) concerned he failed to calibrate his j i-19 survey instruments. 20 ltem 7(d) concern's he failed to provide change ! i 21 rooms as he stated he would in his license. . l i' Item 8 includes it was used at a Parrish Chemical i 22 23 l Company site which he was not authorized to do under his 24 i license. He was also using it at his residence, which he i 25 i was not allowed to do under his license. : l
! 1 -
I 7'N x l t l
PANEL 1 - CROSS 282 m20 1 No. 9 concerns he was not performing personnel 2 air sampling as he was required to do under his license. 3 No. 10 regards contamination surveys were not 4 performed. 5 No. Il concerns shipper's certification was not 6; available as he was required to have. I 7I No. 12 refers to he transferred radioactive 8 l material to Hysol without Hysol knowing -- without 9' them verifying that they had a license. 10 No. 13 regards posting problerr. Item 14 regards 11 labeling problems. No. 15 regards unauthorized disposal 12 in an unauthorized manner in the vicinity of 200 South 13 ! 450 West storage unit. No. 16, there was a posting problem. I 14 No. 17, the licensee f ailed to report a burglary as he was 15 l required to do. l 16 If we go to the next exhibit, Item 7, basically 17 this is a document in which Mr. Larsen admitted -- This l 18 . was a license from the Utah department in which they asked I l 19 him to respond to various violations. l l 20 If we go to Exhibit 8, this exhibit concerns a 21 letter from Larry Larsen to Larsen Laboratories regarding 1 22 the hearing, and basically it also assesses various civil 23 Penalties for all of these violations which I have just gone 24 through. 25 , If we go to Exhibit 9 in here, this is an f,
~
l 7 PANEL 1 - CROSS " 283 l l l ( ) 1 inspection report done by the State of Utah and a follow-up L_) 2 on all of these items of noncompliance. 3 If we go to 10, there was an order suspending the 4 license, effective immediately, and an order imposing civil 5 monetary penalties. This is the thing in which they came
- 6 up with the 13,000-do11ar civil penalty.
7 If we go to item No. 11, this is the settlement
= l 8 l agreement regarding these violations. Basically, Mr. Larsen 9 l paid $5,000, as I recall, and he was supposed to carry on.
10 f And a part of that civil penalty was not assessed, in that, 11 he would carry on and do certain other corrective actions 12 l to get his facility and his operations back into compliance 13 ! with the Utah regulations. 1 (' '
\
14 ! Then we enter the picture again, it looks like. 15 This Item 12 is a receipt of allegations regarding 16 l M r. Larsen. 17 l Then we come up on Item 13, our inspection report. 18 j This inspection report led up to -- This is Mr. Spitzberg$s 19 inspection report. 20 Item 14 is tne first CAL on November 12, 1987. 21 Item 15 is the December 8. Item 16 is the December 31. 22 , And February 2 is the order suspending the license, which 23 we have discussed a little bit. 24 Item 18 is basically we felt, the regional 25 administrator felt, this was significant enough that an l
, 4
[ \ I i C
PANEL 1 - CROSS l 4 284 ; l l J m22 I investigation should be undertaken, which Mr. Brooks and 2 Dr. Spitzberg undertook. 3 Basically, in summary, my conclusion is that 4 Mr. Larsen and his operations have had a very poor history. 5 They show that his commitment to safety is not there. And 6 his fundamental trustworthiness, if you read through this 7 , data, is very questionable. 8 Q Are you through? 9l A (Flack) Yes, sir. l 10 ! MR. LARSEN: Okay, am I allowed to respond to , 11 ; that? 12 ; JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, you should do that in 13 your testimony. 14 MR. LARSEN: Okay. 15 i (Pause for Judges to confer.) i 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I'd like to follow up a little 17 f bit. We went through, I think, the Utah suspension was i 18 l based on 17 dif ferent items. I'd like you, if you could, 19 to determine or give us your opinion, Mr. Flack, of to what 20 extent these 17 items would represent a violation, (A) of 21 I and (B) of an NRC general license l an NRC specific license, 22 under 40.22. 23 THE WITNESS: (Flack) As I stated previously, , 24 we have this agreement-state program. And basically I 25 consider the Utah program, once we transfer our power to t i l
L. PANEL 1 - CROSS 285 l l l, - ) I the Utah state under this transfer of power, then to be like
\s ,/
2 an arm of the NRC. Therefore, instead of us licensing them, 3 NRC licensing them, then Utah is like the NRC. 4 Regarding the 40.22(b) and the general license, 5 maybe you can state that again for me. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, if one were looking 7! purely in isolation at a general license, how many of those 8 17 items, if any, would be violative of a general license, 9; would be violations under a general license under 40.22? I 10 ' THE WITNESS: (Flack) Well, most licensees . 11 l operate either under a specific license or a general I 12 , license. However, if you read that section that Jud:n Shon 13 f pointed to yesterday, there seems to be some -- It's not i [ T 14 real clear. Y
'%./ But our position on that is that it's possible 15 ,
16 for someone who has a specific license to also operate under ' 17 , a general license, provided he abides by Part 19, 20 and 18 ; 21. However, basically, usually people do not do that. 19 They either operate under a specific license or under a 20 general license, and don't operate under both.
~
21 JUDGE SHON: Can I see if I understand clearly 22 what you said? I think you --
\
23 i THE WITNESS: (Flack) You must understand first 24 that I'm not a lawyer, and I can only give you -- OCG is And we're preparing. Ann will discuss this maybe. 25 , the one. I jf"\ < s
NAMEL 1 - CROSS 286 i m24 1 JUDGE SHON: Yes, but some of this question from 2 Judge Bechhoefer really wasn't quite a legal question. He 3 asked, first of all, of the 17 violations of the Utah 4 license that Mr. Larsen is accused of; of those 17, how many I would be violations of an NRC specific license if that was 5 l 6 what he was operating under? And I think, in effect, you - 7l said all of them. 8 THE WITNESS: (Flack) All of them would be. 9 That's correct. 10 ' JUDGE SHON: Because the Utah code is rigged to 11 track NRC regulations? 12 THE WITNESS: (Flack) That's exactly right. 13 JUDGE SHON: Okay, so that's the first question. 14 ! The second was, how many of these would be violations if 15 , he were operating only under a general license? 16 THE WITNESS: (Flack) I would say almost all of 17 them would be in noncompliance with the general license. 18 JUDGE SHOM: Why is that? The general license 19 sets forth nothing with regard to contamination of macadam, i 20 ! or disposal of wastewater, or posting. It has no posting
. 21 requirements.
22 ! THE WITNESS: (Flack) Okay, I understand what 23 l you' re saying. Okay, I retract what I said. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do you suppose you could go 25 through those 17 and indicate which, if any, would be?
-w&iw wwe-.e.- e e.eenme-emen e w*--m
PANEL 1 - CROSS 287 l, m 1 Because we're being asked to sustain a revocation of a 2 general license, and we're trying to figure out which of 3 the different allegations, at least, can be relied on.
~4 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Maybe Mr. Spitzberg could 5 help me in that area, since he does the inspection.
- 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right.
7' THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Without going over the 8 list of violations from the State of Utah once again, I 9 would say that if a licensee was operating strictly under 10 a general license, most of those violations would not apply 31 . to that licensee. If, however, that licensee also was in 12 possession of a specific license, then many of them would. 13 i by virtue of the fact that he would then be subject to 9 14 , Part 19 and 20. 15 i JUDGE BECHHOEFER: At this point, why don't we 16 take a short morning break. 17 (Brief recess.) i 18 i 19 20 l
\ :
21 22 23 ! 24 25 ! 9
PANEL 1 - CROSS 288 6-4A bi 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record. 2 You may continue. 3 MR. LARSEN: Okay. 4 BY MR. LARSEN: 5 Q Mr. Flack, in your decisions are there ever any 6 positive things said about the licensee, and were there - t 7 any positive things said about me? 8 A (Flack) I think there were some. I think I 9 remember Mr. Spitzberg saying that you had improved some 10 of your facilities at one time. , 11 Q What improvements? 12 A (Flack) Pardon? 13 0 What specific improvements? 14 A (Flack) I don't recall. I'd have to go back 15 and try and search those out. But the general problem is 16 that -- I think it boils down to -- is you feel you can 17 operate under a general license, and we, the NRC, feel that 18 the only way you should operate is under a specific license 19 with specific controls, and basically in the past even 1 20 operating under a specific license, you have failed to
. 21 comply with your requirements, and certainly under a 22 general license when you tried to operate, you also failed 23 to comply with requirements.
24 0 Well, I don't know. It seems to me, would you 25 not agree, that if you bring up a person's past over and 9 f
PANEL l' : CROSS' 289
-{
[5
; y{n .
/'~' 1 over and over again, pretty soon everybody's record gets
'_ Q 2 filled.up and everybody is looking like a monster. Is there 1
3 no forgiveness or forgetting the past and'saying,."Looks ) 4 like he's coming to compliance. He's trying hard." 5 Why -- well, excuse me. Go ahead.
- 6 A (Flack) We basically-haven't seen that with you..
7 Basically, is what we've seen over.and.over again is that 8 you are not'able or I don't know whether you're unable or 9 you're unwilling to put in the necessary resources to get . to up to a level where you can maintain compliance with our ,
.11 Regulations or the State of Utah Regulations.
12 Q Well, that's -- you see only what you want to. 13 see, I think, because -- 14 A (Flack) That's your view, I mean. 15 0 Well, that's your -- 16 A (Flack) I have a different view. 17 0 -- view too, right? 18 A (Flack) I have a different view. I --
'19 0 Yes, that's right.
20 A (Flack) And as you've -- I've expounded on.
, 21 Q Right.
22 Was it ever brought out that Mr. Larsen has 23 purchased four fume hoods? 24 A (Flack) I had seen that you had purchased them, 25 but the problem is I don't know whether they were ever
PANEL 1 - CROSS 290 l4 l l b3 i i used, and -- l 2 Q I wasn't given a chance to use them. 1 3 A (Flack) Well, you know, I can't do anything about 4 that. You have to -- if you get a license, whether it's 5 a specific license or a general license, you have to abide 6 by the requirements of those licenses. 7 0 Right. 8 A (Flack) And if you don't abide by those, then 9 we have an obligation to basically issue you various types 10 of enforcement actions to try and -- - 11 Q Yes. 12 A (Flack) -- get you to maintain your commitments, 13 and basically, as I explained before, you have failed to -- 14 0 You've mentioned that over and over again, 15 Mr. Flack, yes. We understand -- 16 A (Flack) Well -- 17 0 -- Mr. Larsen's pretty bad in your eyes. 18 A (Flack) In our eyes -- 19 0 Yes. 20 A (Flack) -- yes. The NRC Staff's view, we view l 21 you as bad I 22 g Well, I -- , 23 A (F3ack) You are not -- ! 24 0 -- I would say that I hr.ven't been fairly 25 represented. Now -- l O
h- PANEL l'- CROSS g ,. ,
.291 -
ns. - l t E bl* O "j 1- JUDGE BECHHOEFER: ' Again,Lthat should be -- 2 .MS.
; HODGDON: Once again, Mr. Larsen is arguing 5- with.the Witness. He's testifying.- Would you instruct 4 him to' limit-his remarks to asking questions on such 5 preliminary introductory statements that he needs in order 6 to ask those questions?
7- JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. 8 Mr. Larsen -- 9 MR.;LARSEN: Right.-
~
10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- you should certainly do . 11 that, and then when you get on the stand, you.can testify 12 then, and of course, then you will be subject to cross-13 examination yourself, but that's how the procedure works. L 14 MR. LARSEN: Okay. 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: For better or for worse, it's 16 .here. 17 MR. LARSEN: I guess that's all I have. 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do you have anything of 19 Dr. Spitzberg, or -- 20 MR. LARSEN: Let me-look.
. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Or Mr. Griffin as well.
22 (Pause.) 23 BY MR. LARSEN: 24 O Mr. Spitzberg, was it the NRC's opinion that we 25 were state-hopping in order to avoid regulation? Is that
- t. . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - _ -
PANEL 1 - CROSS 292 l4 \ l I what was transmitted to Julius Haes and then to the alleger? 2 A (Spitzberg) No. That information was never 3 transmitted to Julius Haes or to the alleger. That is -- 4 0 Where did that idea come from? 5 MS. HODGDON: If I may interrupt, Mr. Larsen has 6 no background whatsoever for this question, and so his 7 question about state-hopping comes out of the blue. If , 8 he would direct the Witness's attention to some allcgation 9 that he was state-hopping, maybe Dr. Spitzberg would have 10 an opinion about it. . 11 In other words, there's no -- he's not stated 12 that anybody at the NRC did say he was state-hopping. 13 MR. LARSEN: It was in the affidavit, but that 14 -- you've backed off from saying that? 15 MS. HODGDON: Is Mr. Larsen saying that 16 Dr. Spitzberg said that Mr. Larsen was state-hopping? Is 17 that what I understand and that's the basis of his question, 18 or is that not correct? 19 MR. LARSEN: I'm basing it on information that 20 was given both -- let's see, it was the owner of JG
~
21 Building, I believe, from the State of Wyoming. 22 MS. HODGDON: That's something in the OI report, 23 from the owner of the -- 24 MR. LARSEN: I believe .it is. 25 JUDGE BECHHOEE'ER: -- buildings? O
4 PANEL 1 - CROSS 293-4 bl= [ 'I MR. .LARSEN: I believe it'is.
.g 2 MS. HODGDON: And he said that Mr.'Larsen~was 3 -state-hopping and --
4 MR. LARSEN: Right. 5 MS. HODGDON: -- Mr. Larsen wants to know now-6 'whether Dr. Spitzberg agrees with that characterization? 7 MR. LARSEN: Well,.no. Where did that come from? 8 MS. HODGDON: Well, if he can show Dr. Spitzberg 9 who said it. He hasn't laid a background for his question. 10 So I object to the question to the extent that the questio.n 11 is totally lacking in background. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Can you find the --- 13 MR. LARSEN: Yes. L
/m 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I more or less recollect what 15 you're. talking about, but can you find it and direct the-16 Witness to it and then --
17 MR. LARSEN: Okay. 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- ask questions from that. 19 MR. LARSEN: Right. On page 11, the bottom line. 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Eleven of what?
. 21 MR. LARSEN: Of the affidavits, interview with 22 Gary Ellingford.
23 MS. HODGDON: This is in the OI report? 24 MR. LARSEN: Yes. 25 MS. HODGDON: Is that where it says Ellingford, I s N _)Y '
PANEL 1 - CROSS 294 s. b1' . I who is the owner of the facility said that the Radiation 2 Control Officer -- I presume that is the Radiation Control 3 Officer from the State of Wyoming -- told him J. Larsen i 4 was state-hopping to avoid regulation? 5 MR. LARSEN: Right. 6 MS. HODGDON: It should be noted for the record
- 7 that this is not an NRC position. This person is not 8 connected with the NRC.
9 Aside from that, is it Mr. Larsen's question that 10 he wants to know whether Dr. Spitzberg would use that , 11 characterization? Is that the question? 12 MR. LARSEN: No. The question is, the Radiation 13 Control Officer said to Mr. Ellingford that J. Larsen was 14 state-hopping. Where did Mr. Ellingford hear that I was 15 state-hopping if he didn't even know that I was in the 16 state? I have never met the Radiation Control Officer until 17 the inspection. 18 MS. HODGDON: Well, he isn't here to answer the 19 question. 20 MR. LARSEN: Well, my question is, was that
~ . 21 transmitted from the NRC to the State.
22 Maybe in the State of Wyoming it -- I had never 23 met this man until we were inspected, and he hadn't met 24 me. So how did he know I existed? 25 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Mr. Larsen, I never e o
~ PANEL 1- . CROSS- . 295-- -
1.:
.I E bl
I told Mr. Ellingford that you were state-hopping or ever 1[~'}
\m / 2 suggested to'him that you were state-hopping.
3- BY MR. LARSEN: 4 O Did anybody in the NRC that you know of? 5 LA '(Spitzberg) Not to my knowledge. i L.. 6 Q. How did he know I was even there? How did he 7 know anything about me?; 8 MS. HODGDON: If he was your -- excuse me. I .j 2 9 .can't answer the question. Perhaps Mr'. Griffin knows the to answer to that question. , , 11 JUDGE SHON: Mr., Griffin is the author of this ! 12 particular paragraph, isn't he? 13 MS. BODGDON: Yes. -l
~
14 JUDGE SHON: I think he should explain it if 15 -there's any explaining to be done. j 16 THE WITNESS: (Griffin) It's easy enough to 17 explain. I interviewed Mr. Ellingford, and this is his 18 testimony. It's hearsay, obviously, on the face of it, 19 because he's telling us what somebody told him. The fact ) 20 that it appears here doesn't make it factual. It's just
'; 21 his testimony.
22 I do believe that once this term found its way 23 to the Commission, I've heard it repeated, and I think I've < 24 used it myself, and it is one that clearly details what 25 I believed was occurring. So I've embraced it once I [ l l
PANEL 1 - CROSS 296 ,, l t y bil I heard it. I 2 BY MR. LARSEN: 3 0 That's the assumed fact of the situation. 4 A (Griffin) Yes. I think that's the origins of 5 it as far as I know. 6 Q Is it possible that it could be something other 7 than that? 8 A (Griffin) It's possible because only 9 Mr. Ellingford and Mr. Haes would know for certain -- 10 Q I mean, in your minds, is it possible that there, 11 could be another reason for going to Wyoming other that 12 state-hopping and what that -- 13 A (Griffin) Are you referring to yourself in the 14 third person here? 15 0 Yes. 16 A (Griffin) There are always other possibilities, 17 and I don't know what's in your mind either. 18 A (Griffin) Okay. I'll answer that. 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Again, Mr. Larsen -- 20 THE WITNESS: (Griffin) I answer that in my 21 testimony, didn't I? 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. You can state when you're 23 on the stand or when you're testifying. You may end up , I 24 sitting where you're sitting, but be that as it may. 25 MR. LARSEN: Okay. ( O l l
- - ~ - ~ ~~
4 PANEL 1 - CROSS 297 - ' , t bl~ ('^g 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: You may state why you moved.
\
') 2 MR. LARSEN: I can now? j I
3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: No, not now. When you're 1 4 presenting your testimony you may state that, and that'll 5 be part of the record then. And you will be cross-examined 6 on that. ) 7 MR. LARSEN: All right. 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And that's how we work. So 9 -- (Pause.) 10 MR. LARSEN: I don't believe I have anything , 11 else. 12 JUDGE KLINE: I'd like to follow up on that, 13 though, with Mr. Flack.
/'* 14 At the time you made your decision or participated s
' " ~ ,
15 in the decision to revoke the general license, did you have 16 this information before you, or did you consider it in any 17 way? 18 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Yes, we did. 19 JUDGE KLINE: Did you rely on this statement of 20 state-hopping as part of the evidence that would permit 21 you to reach a conclusion? 22 THE WITNESS: (Flack) We had available to us 23 the OR report. I don't recall whether it was in final or 24 not, but we had noted that he had operated in Nevada in 25 the back of a truck and also had come into our jurisdiction i
/'"]
I
\
wJ
PANEL 1 - CROSS 298 t i bl' 1 1 in Wyoming. We had gotten an allegation, and that's why l 2 Mr. Spitzberg followed up on it. 3 JUDGE KLINE: I understand, but when you reached 4 your decision, you did in part rely on this statement, is 5 that -- 6 THE WITNESS: (Flack) We noted that he had gone - 7 to various states. 8 JUDGE KLINE: Yes, okay. 9 JUDGE SHON: But it is true that that was not 10 one of the things formally mentioned as the violations for, 11 which his license was revoked; is that right? 12 THE WITNESS: (Flack) That's right. 13 JUDGE KLINE: I'd like to follow up again on the 14 question of possession versus use and transfer and perhaps 15 start with Mr. Flack. 16 I'm having a bit of trouble seeing how your 17 interpretation of the Regulations accommodates or allows 18 for let's say certain flexibility that a businessperson 19 might need, assuming that this person has no intent of 20 violating Regulations. And I just want to play a little
. 21 numbers game to see -- to try to understand your inter-22 pretation.
23 Presuming some person decides to begin processing 24 uranium and orders 15 pounds of metal and receives it and 25 processes it and ships out 14 pounds metal equivalent in O
PANEL 1 - CROSS 299 j bl' [/-~h). I the product and one pound goes to waste. On his very next
\
x./ 2 order of 15 pounds, as soon as he receives it, he's in ? 3 possession of really 16 pounds, the 15 that he receives 4 and one pound in waste. Is he in violation, then, at that 5 moment of his use or possession limits in your eyes? 6 THE WITNESS: (Flack) I would prefer 7 Dr. Spitzberg, who's looked into that, to answer that. 8 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) I'm not going to try 9 and give the legal position on this, but -- 10 JUDGE KLINE: No, but I want to know how you . 11 enforce -- 12 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. 13 JUDGE KLINE: -- what you cite. m
/ ) 14 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) I would view that as N./l 15 over-possession.
16 JUDGE KLINE: You would view it as over- -- 17 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) I would say that he 18 has to stay within the 15-pound use limit, taking into 19 account both receipt and transfer. As he generates waste, 20 then, in order to stay within the 15-pound use limit, he
. 21 would then have to transfer waste.
22 JUDGE KLINE: He would have to ship waste, in 23 other words, keep his books balanced concurrently, and -- 24 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. I think from 25 a safety standpoint, that is reasonable as well because tIQ)
'% /
7 PANEL 1 - CROSS 300 1 that would prevent a general licensee from accumulating 2 vast quantities of radioactive waste containing depleted 3 uranium. 4 JUDGE KLINE: Okay. 5 Thank you. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Is that your position, then,
- 7 that under a general license, a licensee could not order 8 and receive 150 pounds once during the year, so that by 9 definition would be violating --
10 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. , 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The way you construe it, 12 at least, that would be violating the general license. 13 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. That's the way 14 I see it. 15 JUDGE SHON: In other words, you construed that 16 whatever he has, let us say, on hand, whether it's waste, I l 17 scrap, newly-arrived material that he hasn't done anything 18 with, he is using it. 19 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And even if he had nothing
. 21 on hand, he could not order a one-time basis, " Send me 22 150 pounds of -- well, metal equivalent," or whatever it 23 is --
24 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) He could place the 25 order, but my position would be that he could not receive O
PANEL 1 - CROSS - 301 i l
,,-~
\ 1 more than 15 pounds.
/N.)\ 2 JUDGE KLINE: My original question had to do 3 with that if some regulatory allowance for, let's say, 4 essential business flexibility, and I am trying to 5 determine whether there's any attempt in enforcement 6 policy to maintain the operation on the one hand within 7 safe operations but yet allow a businessman to do 8 business, and --
9 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. 10 JUDGE KLINE: For example, somebody may receive, 1 11 15 pounds and process it and then have for some reason l 12 a contract to sell cancelled or deferred and in the 13 meantime a prior order comes in and the person is not
.I ) 14 intentionally in violation, nevertheless, circumstances
'~'
15 inadvertently put him in violation apparently by your 16 Policy. Do you have discretion in enforcement policy 17 to take account of things like this? l l 18 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) The way that 19 this would be avoided for this businessman would be 1 20 to operate under a specific license, whereby there are 21 not these 15-pound use limits and 150-pound receipt 22 limits. I think this goes back to what 40.22 was 23 probably developed to accommodate in terms of source 24 material usage, and I don't think it was developed 25 to accommodate individuals that were going to be p e L--_=___--_________-_-________
PANEL 1 - CROSS 302 s I processing or manufacturing products containing depleted 2 uranium. 3 JUDGE KLINE: Isn't it true throughout this case 4 that the actual ordering of material on an annual basis 5 was in compliance with the 150-pound limit? 6 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) If the only material 7 that he received in 1987 was the material that he placed 8 orders for, that would be true. In fact, though, we found 9 that he was also receiving material from his Utah facility, 10 which has to be added to that figure. . 11 JUDGE KLINE: Yes, I understand that, but in terms 12 of purchase orders that went out from his offices to some 13 supplier, my understanding from the review of the record 14 is that these met the 150-pound requirement. 15 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes. He placed an 16 order from his supplier for 150 pounds during 1987 to be 17 shipped to Evanston, Wyoming. 18 JUDGE KLINE: Yes. j l 19 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) But 40.22 does not i 1 20 speak to quantities ordered; it spesks to quantities !
~
21 received. l 22 JUDGE KLINE: Quantities received. So that in j _ 23 a sense -- I do want to explore this question of 1 24 transferring material from one laboratory to another. 25 When the Regulation speaks of transfer, I had understood l L - - . - - - - - . - - . - _ - - - _ - - _ - - - - - - _ - -
PANEL 1 - CROSS 303
+
I b,ly I , ( s_-,) it to mean transfer of custody, as for example, transfer l 2 cf material from a manufacturer to a transporter or from l I a transporter to some person receiving it. Does the 4 Regulation also when it speaks of transfer just refer to 5 transfer from one site to another with the same person 6 remaining in custody? 7 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) What we were speaking 8 of in reference to transfer in this case was transfer of 9 possession under the authority of one license to possession 10 under another license. - 11 JUDGE KLINE: I see. Okay. 12 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) And in this case, he 13 did not have a specific license outside of the State of (G tJ
; 14 Utah. Therefore, he was operating under a general license.
15 He was therefore transferring this material from his 16 specific license authority in Utah to his general license 17 authority in Wyoming. 18 JUDGE KLINE: Okay, I understand. I9 JUDGE SHON: I have one more question of this l 20 panel that harks back to something earlier that we
~
~
21 discussed, and I'm not sure whether anyone is able 22 directly to address it. It's a question of the chemist 23 and it's one that I will ask Mr. Larsen later. As I 24 understand the process -- now, maybe I understand it l l 25 vrong -- you've seen it in action -- the UAA is l i O i (_-) - l l
PANEL 1 - CROSS 304 I precipitated from an acqueous solution upon the addition 2 of 2-4 pentanedione to an acid solution of uranium. 3 Does not the fact that it precipitates out suggest it is 4 insoluble in acqueous solution? That's high school 5 chemistry.
~
6 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) I don't claim to be a 7 chemist, although I've had some chemistry background. 8 JUDGE SHON: I had it longer ago than you, I'm 9 sure. 10 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) I had asked that NRC for. 11 a chemical flow diagram of this particular process, and 12 I haven't gotten one. So I haven't been able to evaluate 13 it yet. But it appears to me to be an organic solvent 14 extraction -- 15 JUDGE SHON: Yes. 16 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) -- indicating insolubility 17 or low solubility in water -- 18 JUDGE SHON: I see. 19 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) -- and the fact that 20 solubility changes with temperature is another indication
~ - 23 that that's the case. On the other hand, when these 22 materials -- in the body the solubility is somewhat .
23 different because there's a complex mixture of anlytes. I 24 The pH's may vary, and organic compounds are sometimes -- 1 25 the uranyl ion often dissociates differently. So I can't O o
PANEL 1 - CROSS 305' 3
+
' bli *
}n s
-I 2
'really speak to'it, but I think what you're' leading to,.
the premise on which you asked your question.is correct. 1 I JUDGE SHON: .Thank you. That'sfall I wanted to 4 know. 5 JUDGE KLINE: LIs there a relationship formally-6 established between solubility in equeous solution 7 .in vitro and solubility in vivo? 8 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) There is not a good 9 correlation between solubility in water and solubility in l 10 vivo. . II JUDGE KLINE: Uh-huh. (Affirmative response.). )
'12 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) Solubility in water is 13 sort of an initial indicator, but.it is not a good one. l
/ 14 JUDGE KLINE: If there's a discrepancy, which I
15 way does it go in_ vivo? j' 16 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) Materials -- I believe l 17 uranium materials are -- I don't believe I'll tackle that. 18 JUD3E KLINE: Okay. 19 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) I don't have enough 20 information to -- 1
. 21 JUDGE KLINE: Okay. !
i 22 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) -- to answer that l 1 II question. I'm sorry. 24 JUDGE KLINE: Mr. Spitzberg, this enforcement 25 policy that we had just discussed previously where you i l l _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ E
PANEL 1 - CROSS 306
+
bil 1 suggest that the material inventory should be kept in 2 balance at all times, that is to say, that the waste and l 3 everything should be kept in such a state that the combined l 4 total on hand should never exceed 15 pounds, was that 5 explicitly conveyed to Mr. Larsen in any enforcement 6 conference? 7 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) At the time of the
~
1 ! 8 December, 1987 enforcement conference, we identified his 9 use of greater than 15 pounds as an apparent violation. 10 JUDGE KLINE: Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative response.) . 11 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) And the basis of that 12 was the addendum to my inspection report, showing the 13 apparent net overages of 15 pounds. We did not get into 14 the specific issue of accountability for waste and material 15 received at that time in any specific detail, and I cannot 16 speak to what Mr. Larsen was informed regarding this 17 position in 1982. 18 THE WITNESS: (Flack) And in -- it was in 19 1979 which he also -- yes. 20 JUDGE KLINE: The reason I'm emphasizing the
~
21 waste is because there appears to have been at some point 22 a kind of pennies from heaven occurrence where thinking . 23 that all of the material had been extracted from waste, 24 he later discovers that crystals post-precipitate or 25 something and that there is an additional little bonanza O
PANEL 1 - CROSS [ 307l'
- s +
7e n
'bli' j/ 1 coming from this waste. Is there any -- from his point 2 of view, it appears to be>just a happy' event. He gets
~
3 another little. amount of crystal to sell. 4 From your point of view.it appears to be a 5 violation of his possession limits. Was there any attempt 6 to make some kind of accommodation here for these late 7 precipitated crystals? Was he really obligated to throw 8 them out in your' view, or what -- it's hard for me.to see-9 how he should conduct his business in the face of these 10 regulatory interpretations which are not explicit.in the 3 11 Regulations, so that there was I think an obligation to 12 inform him very specifically what he was obligated to do, 13 and what was he obligated to do vis-a-vis these crystals? 14- THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) 'Okay. I can approach
\ This is an area where we do not have 15 an answer to that.
16 direct jurisdiction because you're speaking of the transfer 17 of waste crystals from his Utah facility. Mr. Larsen at 18 that time was under an order from the State of Utah 19 which specifically ordered him to immediately transfer all 20 material in his possession or as I recall, secure all
-. 21 material in his possession. Now to then transfer material 27 some months after that would appear to me to be in 23 violation of the Ut h order.
24 JUDGE KLINE: Of the Utah order. 25 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Now, any accommodation
PANEL 1 - CROSS 308 3 bla 1 for those transfers should have been communicated with the 2 State of Utah,-and the State of Utah would have had to make 3 those accommodations. But to make that decision to violate 4 the State order unilaterally would not be something that 5 the NRC, if put in that position, would be willing to 6 accommodate. 7 /// 8 /// 9 /// 10 /// . 11 /// 12 /// 13 /// 14 /// 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// l l 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 I
/// ;
I 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// l t O 1
PANEL 1 - CROSS 309 [y') 1 MR. LARSEN: Am I allowed to say anything?
\
'i" ~ -
)
2 JUDGE KLINE: When you come to testify, yes. But 3 I want to explore these people's view now. 4 I have no further questions. 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I would like to ask, I'm not 6 sure whom, maybe Dr. Spitzberg. But one of the documents 7 that we were forwarded by the staff was a letter dated 8j November 24, 1987 from Mr. Hess in Wyoming to William 9 Fisher in Region 4. It expresses a view about general i 10 ' versus specific licenses. I wondered whether the Staff, , 11 i in its conduct of the investigation in late '87 in Wyoming, 12 took into account the views expressed in the particular Are you aware of the particular letter I'm talking 13 f letter.
! 14 l about?
N l 15 , THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes, I am aware of the 16 letter. I read it last week. 17 JUDGE BECHMOEFER: I have a copy of it here. 18 I THE WITNESS: (Flack) Could I get a copy of that? 19 Do you have one, Ann? I 20 ! MS. HODGDON: I can get one. i
. 21 l THE WITNESS: (Flack) What's the date of the 22 letter?
23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: November 24, 1987. 24 MS. HODGDON: Give him the cover letter. Those 25 vere given t o Mr. Larsen in answer to discovery; isn't that I l (s_
PANEL 1 - CROSS 310 r i m2 1 right? 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: April 7, a letter of April 7. 3 MS. HODGDON: April 7 is the date on which they 4 were provided to Mr. Larsen in response to discovery 5 request. That's part of the package. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. 7 JUDGE SHON: They have not been admitted in B evidence. 9 MS. HODGDON: No , they're not even an exhibit. 10 They're not anything at this point. We didn't put them in. 11 l That 's fine, we can always put them in. i 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I'm just asking questions. 13 I I'm not suggesting they be put in the record. 14 MS. HODGDON: Well, I know. If they have to be 15 put in, we can put them in later. I wasn't taking any view 16 of that whatsoever. I was just trying to find copies and l 17 to determine whether everybody can see a copy who wants to l l 18 , see a copy. 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. 20 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Could I ask you to l l 21 restate your question, please? j 22 . JUDGE BECHHOEFER: My question was whether in the 23 conduct of the inspection in late 1987 of the Wyoming 24 facility and the follow-up based on that, was the Staff 25 influenced in any way by the Uyoming statement about use i l l l _ _. _ _ _
PANEL 1 - CROSS 311 e-g3 f )* - 1 of general versus specific licenses? v 2 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) This letter was written 3 after my inspection. Mr. Haes accompanied me on the "4 inspection. And at that time, prior to the inspection, we 5 were not aware of the precise circumstances of the 6 operations in Evanston, Wyoming. 7 We always work closely with the states and do take - 8 into account their positions on certain issues that take 9 place within their state. However, the State or Wyoming i 10 ; nor the NRC has any recourse in taking action against . 11 i general licensees that are operating within the requirements 12 , of the general license. 13f THE WITNESS: (Flack) I would like to add a
,e's !
[ 14 : little bit. I guess my perspective is a little different.
\ l 15 l Basically, going back to 1982 when we iosued the order i
16 j suspending the license, and then he got his specific 17 license, my understanding was that he understood that we 18 ' only wanted him to operate under a specific license 19 henceforth, that his operations were such that we did not i 20 l consider a general license to be the type of license that 21 he should have, because there weren't adequate controls that 22 someone could operate under a general license and in our 23 view protect the public health and safety. This was carried 24 forth in Utah, where he kept his specific license. Then 25 he deviated and came into NRC jurisdiction in Wyoming. fs i )
\_/
PANSL 1 - CROSS 312 me 1 Basically the view of NRC, from my understanding, 2' is that we only believe he should be operating with a 3 specific license, with adequate health and safety controls. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, let me follow up. Refer 5 to the affidavit of Michael Lamastra which was put in the 6 record. It's in under Exhibit 1, but it also follows 7: transcript page 209. 8 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Is this his one that was 9 l dated February 21? 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. ,
! THE WITNESS: (Flack) Yes.
11 l 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think it's Paragraph 3(b) ; 13 l at the top of page 2. Apparently, Mr. Larsen was advised 14 that the general license was still applicable and he could 15 use it in another state. This is how I read that affidavit. 16 I realize we don't have Mr. Lamastra here, but -- l i 17 THE WITNESS: (Flack) You also should look at l 18 , (a) up there, as you realize. l 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I do realize that. But I was 20 l trying to figure out if this was what Mr. Larsen was told. l
~
21 I assume this is what he was told over the phone. l t' 22 THE WITNESS: (Flack) . think you also, in 23 context with reading that, should go down to the paragraph 24 towards the bottom of the page that starts with: 25 ! "I further recall Mr. Larsen i , 1
PANEL 1 - CROSS y 1 asking whether the 15 pound limit was applicable v 2 for each location of his business. I recall my 3 response as follows: A -large corporation or 4 entity such as GE, Westinghouse, or the U.S. Army 5 that has many locations and separate corporations 6 not related to the use of source material could 7 use the general license at each location, as long
- i as the intent was not to avoid obtaining the 8l 9, specific license from the NRC, However, the 10 l setting up of several locations for the sole ,
11 l purpose of obtaining more than 15 pounds or 150 i 12 pounds is unacceptable." 13 I don't believe Mr. Lamastra was aware when ( 14 ; Mr. Larsen talked to him -- I can't speak to that -- of the 15 processes that Mr. Larsen was carrying on with his 16 activities. And I would think that he would definitely come
! I 17 to the same conclusion -- I have spoke to him about this --
18 in that if he knew of the activities that he was carrying 19 on, he would recommend that he have a specific license for 20 such activities.
. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay, my only other question 22 from that letter from Wyoming is, were the pictures which 23 we identified yesterday ard which I guess still haven't I
24 been technically admitted -- but were the photos the same 25 as these that were transmitted, or is that a different set? ; i i
's l r !
( __ __
i PANEL 1 - CROSS 314 m6 1 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Yes, that's the same 2 set. 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Thank you. 4 THE WITNESS: (Flack) I would also like to have 5 you look at the last paragraph on that. 6 "In addition,. because I thought Mr. Larsen 7 was a new licensee not aware of NRC regulations 8 and requirements, I cautioned Mr. Larsen that if 9 his use of source material had the potential to i 10 i cause widespread contamination, he could not . 11 operate under the general license but should apply 12 i , for a specific license of limited scope." 13 :! JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I was aware of that. I 14 JUDGE KLINE: I just want to explore one more 15 l element on enforcement policy before we quit. That has t) i 16 l do with the issue of NRC considering in its enforcement ! 17 l action -- in this case, revocation -- actions or violations 18 l that have taken place under the jurisdiction of the State i 19 l of Utah and in some cases for which penalties been paid and i 20 l revocations already exist . i 21 There does appear to be a kind of double l 22 regulation here. I'm wondering if that is consistent with 23 your policy and intent. Do you specifically consider the 24 fact that Utah has already imposed a penalty, and you are 25 considering the same information to impose another nenalty? l e l
PANEL 1 - CROSS 315 f 1 THE WITNESS: ( Fl ack ) - As I stated before, Utah
\~ /
)
2 in all respects is essentially NRC. We relinquish our 3 jurisdiction to the State of Utah when they become an 4 agreement state. 5 Now, in considering licensees' past history, it 6 has always been and it is stated in the enforcement policy 7 that we consider licensees' past history even though they 8 have been issued a civil penalty, paid a penalty, paid a 9 civil penalty, even though they've been issued orders such 10 l as he was. And the more of these things that add up, it , 11 ' finally boils down. It finally boiled down in our viewpoint 12 , that basically we were in a position that we should issue 1 13 l an order revoking the license. [ 14 JUDGE KLINE: Do you also participate in such
\ l 15 ! cecisions regarding larger-scale businesses that are also 16 licensees; for example, uranium mills or even reactor 17 operators?
18 ; THE WITNESS: (Flack) Yes. My -- 19 i JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, okay, "yes" is all I
- i 20 l wanted t o know.
. 21 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Well, let me explain my l
22 , full responsibilities. ; 1 23 JUDGE KLINE: Okay. 24 THE UITNESS: (Flack) I'm a health physicist by 25 training, and I've been in the agency for over 16 years, t I l f%
PANEL 1 - CROSS 316 m8 1 and I've been in Enforcement for over -- I was in 2 Enforcement for over seven years. I was a senior member 3 there, and I was responsible for processing not only 4 material licensees' cases, but processing fuel facility 5 licensees and processing reactor health physics types of 6 cases also. . 7 JUDGE KLINE: Okay, that's just the background I 8i I'm looking for, because I want to ask a question about I 9 other, larger licensees, whether they be reactor operators
, l 10 l or materials licensees, but larger businesses than ,
i II l Mr. Larsen operates. I 12 , Is my understanding correct, say, for a reactor 13 ! licensee that upon routine inspections year in and year out, 14 l' a more or less continuous level of violations of some kind , 15 l or other are cited and corrected, almost as a routine part i 16 l of doing business? 17 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Yes. 18 JUDGE KLINE: And is there ever a time when NRC i 19 i gets exasperated with a reactor licensee on the basis of 20 more or less continuous stream of violations year in and l 21 year out and says, "Well, this is finally the end of the , 22 , line"? l 23 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Yes. There have been 24 incidences of that. 25 JUDGE KLINE: Are there? l
I~ 317
, PANEL 1 - CROSS n
I ) 1 THE WITNESS: (Flack) I'm sure you can recall
%)
l 2 the Peachbottom incident where we caught sleeping operators. l 3 We have closed down fscilities, reactors, for long periods 4 of time. l l 5 JUDGE KLINE: I understand there are specific 6 events that may lead to a close-down. Are there close-downs 7 based on histories of violations which cumulatively add up 8 to something serious in your mind but which individually 9, appear to be something that could be dealt with by just, 10 ' say, a notice of violation and a penalty or something? . l 11 j THE WITNESS: (Flack) I think you have to take ; j 12 i some other things into consideration. Licensees such as i 13 l Mr. Larsen are inspected very infrequently. Licensees such I r~N i 14 as reactors and fuel facilities are inspected. We have ('s -} 15 l inspectors, as you know, at reactors, resident inspectors 16 ! there that are there. They live at the site, j 17 1 Basically, we do not have the manpower to go out 18 for licensees that are very small. We only have a limited j 19 , number'of resources. We do not feel that we have the 20 manpower to try and rehabilitate, spend a lot of time 21 rehabilitating licensees. l 22 i So if a reactor facility has problems, it can 23 f' certainly lead up to us shutting it down for a period of ; 24 time. But as you are aware, we haven't revoked reactor 25 l licenses. i g'~s ! km I i
PANEL 1 - CROSS 318 ml0 1 JUDGE KLINE: Well, that's what I'm getting at. 2 I understand your saying that, because of resources you have 3 to bring to it. But there does appear, then, or would you 4 agree, that there's a somewhat different enforcement policy 5 between large licensees and small ones, in that w.4th large 6 licensees there is a more or less continuous cycle of 7 i citation and correction that never leads inevitably to an 8 exhaustion of patience, let's say, and a revocation of 9l license, whereas with a small licensee once a track record l 10 is established -- . l 11 ; THE WITNESS: (Flack) There are differences. I 12 , I would agree with you. 13 JUDGE KLINE: But there is a threshold point 14 where you sort of would like to wash your hands of them. 15 THE WITNESS: (Flack) Yes. 16 ' JUDGE KLINE: Is that correct? 17 i THE UITNESS: (Flack) Yes, sir. 18 JUDGE KLINE: Okay. That's all I have. I 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's all the questions the 20 Board has. Does the Staff have redirect?
~
21 MS. HODGDON: Yes, the Staff has redirect. 22 . Perhaps we ought to adjourn for lunch and take the Staff's I 23 redirect after lunch. I don't have very much, but I think 24 I have more than people would be willing to wait for. 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. Well, why don't we be lh
~
319 1 1 I l I back at 1:00. That's what we'll do, we'll be back at 1:00, 2 (Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing in the 3 above-entitled matter adjourned, to reconvene at 1:00 p.m. 4 the same day.) 5 6 7 8 9 I 10 . 11 i. 12 , i 13 ' i 14 15 l 16 17 l 18 i I 19 20
~. 21 ,
22 ' 23 24 25 ( _
i Li 320 i i T-6 I AFTERNOON SESSION M 12 2 (1:04 P.M.) 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record. 4 Is the Staff prepared with its redirect? 5 MS. HODGDON: Yes, the Staff is prepared, as soon 6 as it gets its witnesses back. - 7 JUDGE BECHMOEFER: Okay. Let me ask you while 8 the witnesses were assembling, were you going to make a 9l statement as to how the Staff would answer the question l 10 l Judge Shon asked yesterday about whether the state license, i 11 ' constituted a license arising from Part 40, whether it did? 12 , MS. HODGDON: Are you asking whether I am going - l 13 to give a legal opinion regarding that? 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: No, whether you were going to 15 ' put on the record when you were going to answer that. 16 MS. HODGDON: I believe I heard Mr. Flack says i 17 that he believed that since the NRC issued that license and 18 ! Utah took it over, that it was a specific license issue . I t 19 pursuant to -- 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I see.
. 21 MS. HODGDON: And therefore required the Part 19, 22 1 20 and 21 requirements. In other words, that a licensee 23 holding that specific license would not be able to avail 24 himself of the exemption.
25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I understood that you wanted i l l
321
.1 As
[ T 1 to file something additional on that, and I wanted to just
\_ / 2 put it on the record if you were going to do that.
3 MS. HODGDON: The memorandum that the Staff would 4 file would go beyond that and would concern its conclusions 5 of law with regard to, amongst other things or in i 6 particular, the authority and meaning of 40.22. 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I see, and that will be filed 8 as part of your proposed findings and conclusions. 9' MS. HODGDON: Yes, I would do that. And then I I 10 since we would go first, I don't believe that Mr. Larsen . 11 would be prejudiced by that, because he would always have i 12 ' an opportunity to answer it. 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's correct.
/- l / 14 l MS. HODGDON: There's one other thing that I N ,)l 15 l haven' t had time to address. But I think that Dr. Fisher 16 , had some concern about Mrs. Larsen's having brought up the i
17 i fact that she and he may be related in some way by marriage. i 18 f And he wants that to be on the record, for whatever it's i 19 , worth. He was not aware of this. In fact, he wasn't 20 totally aware of it at the time he talked to me about it. 21 So you can handle this any way you want, f i 22 Mrs. Larsen perhaps could explain it, or Dr. Fisher would. 23 Maybe it would be appropriate if Dr. Fisher explained it, , 24 because he has spoken to Mrs. Larsen and it seems that her 25 step-sister is married to his brother perhaps. I'm not i l i
- i. _
322 i M14 1 sure. In any event, he did not know of this until five 2 minutes ago. 3 Is that correct? 4 THE WITNESS: (Fisher) Yes. Are we on the 5 record? 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes.
- 7, THE WITNESS: (Fisher) For the purposes of the 8;I record, I was not aware of this, but I'm delighted to know 9 that my brother -- By virtue of two marriages, we are 10 related. My brother, his wife is a step-sister of Sally ,
I 11 H untington Larsen. And that came to my knowledge today. 12 Apparently we have met once before, at a marriage. But I 13 wanted this on the record. 14l JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I see. Well, unless the Staff , decides -- l 15 16 MS. HODGDON: I suppose -- I've asked Dr. Fisher 17 , whether it would affect his expert opinion in any way, and 18 ! he stated that it would not. So the Staff does not l 19 consider that Dr. Fisher's testimony is in any way affected 20 : by this information. And the only reason I put it on the 21 record or asked it to be put on the record is that I did 22 not want Dr. Fisher to feel uncomfortable with this, in that l 23 he was not disclosing something that should be disclosed. l 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. Well, we appreciate l 25 that. It's up to the Staff, in part, whether they would i h I \
)
L 323
' f T N 1 think a relationship of this kind would disqualify its own i f
\w_/ 2 witness.
3 MS. HODGDON: No. As I said before, I asked 4 Dr. Fisher how he felt about it. And I said, "I have the 5 feeling that you would feel more comfortable if you put this
- 6 on the record," and he said that he would. So I said that 7 it was an appropriate thing to do. But I asked him whether 8 it influenced his judgment and his expert opinion in any 9 ! way, and he said that it did not. And I am satisfied that to it does not, so the Staff certainly does not have any ,
11 l problem with Dr. Fisher's testimony or his continuing in 12 this proceeding as their expert witness. 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's fine. (Pause for Judges to confer.) [ 14 l
l 15 ; JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Larsen, do you have any
+
16 l objections to Dr. Fisher's qualifications? 17 ; MR. LARSEN: He's fine. i 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Well, the record will 19 reflect the statement and the lack of objection of the 20 I parties because of the relationship, and that's the way it l We don't 21 i will be. We're not going to take any action. 1 22 think any action is called for. l 23 MS. HODGDON: The only action that's called for 24 is putting it on the record because Dr. Fisher wanted it 25 on the record. That's fine. There being no objection to i i i
/N t
\ ._ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _
y______-. _ t i 324 111 6 1 it, then it's totally unobjectionable. 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Off the record. 3 (Discussion held off the record.) 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record. 5 MS. HODGDON: I should say we're back on the 6 record for the Staff's redirect examination of the NRC Staff 7 witnesses. And I would like to say that I have Dr. Donald 8 Cool here with me, who is a health physicist and a member i 9 of the NRC Staff who is now in research, formerly in NMSS, 10 and I won't attempt to give you all his titles. But he is. 11 also a health physicist, and he's helping me with some of 12 , the difficulties in this case due to my lack of -- not total 13 l lack of , but lack of expertise in some of these matter. 14 So I may be a little slow at times. I beg your indulgence. 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I take it you are not seeking 16 , to put him on as a witness. i 17 ' MS. HODGDON: No, no. He's just helping me. And 18 I'm apologizing in advance if I may have to ask him 19 sometimes if I'm getting it quite right. But we'll have 20 a better record that way. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. 22 MS. HODGDON: So he is here at my side, attempting 23 to help me. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, we have permitted 25 l Mrs. Larsen to advise her husband as well . l I r
1 325 I mean, it's quite all right for j 1 MS. HODGDON: 2 the Staff to have such expert assistance. So I'm 3 proceeding. 4 Whereupon, 5 EDWIN D. FLACK D. BLAIR SPITZBERG 6 DARRELL R. FISHER H. BROOKS GRIFFIN 7 8 resumed as witnesses and, having been previous duly sworn, 9, were examined and testified further as follows: 10 REDIRECT EXAMINATION , 11 BY MS. HODGDON: Q Mr. Flack, earlier this morning you were 12 l i 13 answering a question from Mr. Larsen with regard to records 14 of the actions the NRC took to review an enforcement 15 , package. Is there a mechanism for documenting which i 16 j individuals in an office, or which individuals or which 17lofficeshavebeenpart of the review of a particular action? I 18 I mean, Mr. Larsen particularly asked you whether there was 19 ; a record of whether there were meetings and so forth, i 20 ' records of .netings regarding the revocation of his license. 1 21 And my question is, is there any kind of a record 22 ! documenting the revocation of Mr. Larsen's license? I 23 i A (Flack) I would like to address the Board to
' i 24 Exhibit No. 17 in the 01 report. This is the February 25, If 25l1988 order suspending license, effective immediately.
i \ k O I ___
g PANEL 1 - REDIRECT 326 M18 1 you go to the last page of that order, the distribution 2 sheet, down at the bottom of the distribution sheet it shows 3 a concurrence at the far left-hand side. You will note that 4 on the first person listed there. 5 The next office that concurred in it was the 6 Region 4 office. The next one is the Office of NMSS. The - 7 next office is the Office of OGC. And then the package goes 8 for concurrence to the Director of Office of Enforcement, 9! as I explained this morning. Then it goes on to Mr. Taylor, 10 who is the Deputy Director of Regional Operations, and he , 11 j concurs and signs these orders, as I explained this morning. I 12 , In the order revoking the license, we would have 13 ! the same chain of people that would be concurring in this 1 14 action. 15 f JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Did these individuals see a i 16 , copy, or was it concurred by telephone? Did they see copies 17 . of the documentation before they concurred? 18 THE UITNESS: (Flack) Yes, they did. They would i 19 ; have seen a final copy before it went to Mr. Taylor. 20 Basically, what happens is, as I explained this
. 21 morning, the regional office sen5s in a draft of the package 22 to "rshington, D.C. It gets distributed to NMSS and the 23 Office of General Counsel. I work with those. The 24 enforcement crecialist who is assigned the case then works 25 with the regional office, the Office of NMSS, and the Office I
327 l f PANEL 1 - REDIRECT
. n of General Counsel in coming up with a package which we
( 1 1 2 think -- And sometimes the -- When the package cones in, 3 I should say, the Director of the Office of Enforcement, 4 he will usually send down his comments and thoughts to me. 5 And then I'm to work with these.other offices and come up 6 with a package which we think is suitable for Mr. Taylor's 7' signature. This usually takes quite a period of time, to 8 try and get everybody on board on these packages. And then 9 it goes to the Director of Office of Enforcement, 10 l Mr. Lieberman, to make sure everything is in order. . 11 l And before we take it up to Mr. Taylor, es /one i 12 , is then given a final copy, to make sure there aren't any 13 other changes that they want to make. Sometimes we get
~ l /'h 14 ! packages up to Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Taylor doesn't like it; 15 then it gets bounced back down, and we have to revise it 1
So there's a lot of people 16 l in accordance with his thoughts. 17 that are involved, and there's an extensive review process is I set up for these escalated enforcement cases. A lot of time 19 , there's a lot of telephone conference calls back and forth ! l 20 on these. However, we don't keep records of all of these, l E 21 MS. HODGDON: Thank you. 22 1 I have a question for Dr. Spitzberg. 23 BY MS. HODGDON: 24 0 Yesterday during questioning by Mr. Larsen, 25 Mr. Larsen suggested that the lack of removable activity I o i
\m ^
PANEL 1 - REDIRECT 328 1 I i M20 1 could be construed as, he said, "so there's nothing floating 2 around in the air." Is this a correct inference for the 3 time period when the spill occurred? 4 A (Spitzberg) No. In fact, let me clarify the 5 results of my surveys with respect to removable 6 contamination. - 7,! At the time of my November inspection, I had 8 contacted Mr. Larsen and notified him in advance that I was 9 coming to visit his facility. There was ample opportunity 10 l for Mr. Larsen to at that time take any clean-up actions , 1 he wished to take. In fact, had I been Mr. Larsen, 11 l that 12 I would have made every effort I could to ensure that the 13 { f acility was immaculate when I arrived. i 14 ! I did find measurable removable contamination 15 f above background in the f acility contained on the smear 16 , samples that I obtained. The removable activity was not 17 above NRC guidelines for removable alpha contamination. 18 , The fact that I did not find significant levels 19 of removable contamination does not lead me to conclude that 20 i there had not been contamination at other times in the
. 21 facility which may have been at a higher level. And it -
22 tells me virtually nothing about what the airborne 23 contamination levels may have been. 24 MS. HODGDON: Does the Board have any follow-up 25 question about t hat , or should I go on? i
PANEL 1 - REDIRECT 329 M2 1 JUDGE SHON: Just one, in a sense. There was a 2- high-volume air sampler operating. Did it operate all the I 3 time, do you know?
*4 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) No. The high-volume 5i air sampler was not operating. That was Mr. Larsen's air * ! And I never reviewed any of the air sample data 6 l. s ample r .
7i from that. l You don't know, then. 8i JUDGE SHON: 9 BY MS. HODGDON: 10 ' Q Perhaps just to clarify the point that Dr. Shon , 11 i raised, Dr. Spitzberg, yesterday you were looking at those i 12 pictures, and you were pointing out various kinds of 13 equipment. Were all those pieces of equipment working at i 14 the time that you were there? I think you mentioned that l 15 j the sinks were installed. I 16 A (Spitzberg) The sinks were not installed. ; i i 17 Mr. Larsen had a breathing-zone air sampler and a l 18 high-volume air sampler, which may have been operable, but l l 19 I did not see any calibration data on these air samplers. ! I 20 j I In addition to this, Mr. Larsen had some radiation !. 21 l detection instrumentation which had been calibrated, I ; believe, in 1986. ! 22
- l 23 ' MS. HODGDON: Thank you.
24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Are there any periodic 25 ' calibration requirements for instruments of this sort? ! i 9 i
~ - _-
j. PANEL 1 - REDIRECT 330 l t M22 1 THE WITNESS: (Spitzberg) Under a specific 2 license for this type of facility, the calibration 3 requirements would most likely be on a six-month frequency. 4 BY MS. HODGDON: 5 O Did you review any records of the use of this 6 equipment, particularly of the air samplers? 7 A Not of the air samplers. I did look at some 8 l, results of surveys that Mr. Larsen had documented, showing 9 no significant levels of contamination based upon his survey ' t 10 results. , 11 ! MS. HODGDON: Thank you. 12 ; BY MS. HODGDON: 13 I Q Dr. Fisher, yesterday the Board was examining the 14 excretion curves from Reg Guide 8.22. In your testimony 15 you've also provided excretion curves. Could you explain 16 ; the differences between these two curves, theRegGuide8.22l 17 and the curve in your testimony? l l 18 A (Fisher) I'd be happy to. In Reg Guide 8.22, j 19 Revision 1, August 1988, thereisafigureshowingestimatedl 20 excretion curves for high-fired yellowcake and one for
~
21 low-fired uranium yellowcake, Figures 1 and 2 respectively. Ii 22 These were developed for Reg Guide 8.22 based on work done , i ! 23 l by Alexander, Brodsky, Jerry Puskin of the NRC, based on, 24 I believe, the ICRP-30 biokinetic model. I 25 I provided two figures as part of my testimony i j I
PANEL 1 - REDIRECT 331
\
f 1jthat compare that particular model with the model that we 2 are currently using for soluole uranium, which shows a 3 slightly different excretion of uranium as a function of 4; intake. Let me explain that the difference between these i 5 , two medels is primarily one of the assumptions that are used ! 1
, 6 l in the model . The major difference is we would assume a )
1 7 ' more rapid clearance from the lung and a slightly more 8 rapid clearance from kidney, based on fit to data from l 9 workers involved in a recent uranium hexafluoride ! I 10 inhalation. And we fit a model for soluble uranium based - l
~
11 on a complete analysis of those workers. The differences ! i 12 in the two curves are not great, but there are some 13 differences in them. I think that's what -- l 14 0 Yes. 15 A (Fisher) -- was desired, that we bring t his out . If O Does that complete your answer? l 17 A (Fisher) Yes. 15 O Dr. Spitzberg, what was the purpose cf recuesting 19 baseline samples? Uas it to establish a starting point for 20 the decontamination activity? . 21 A (Spitzberg) That wau one of the purposes for the i 12 baseline samples. Dr. Fisher testified yesterday that from t l
. 23 : baseline samples you are able to determine what the l 24 background uranium burden for individuals are. j i
25 An additional reason why we asked for baseline ; l i
PANEL 1 - REDIRECT 332 t M24 1 ; samples was that during this period of time from November 2 until the end of December, Mr. Larsen was involved in 3 different activities related to the CALs. Some of these 4 activities involved the completion of processing of 5 ; materials that he had in process at the time of the initial 6 l C AL . Then that was followed by packaging and shipment of
. l t
7
- his material to Hysol as permitted by the CALs. And then 1
- 8~ finally, later in December, he was involved and his 9 employees were involved in the decontamination of the 10 facility. ,
11 One of the reasons we wanted baselines is that 12 the sane individuals were being used throughout these ;
! l 13 processes and activities. And by taking basclines prior : I' i
14 to an activity that was aut horized by the CAL, we would be i 75 able t o bracket this act ivit y. Therefore, any elevated t 10 uranium concentration or bicassay result could not then be l 17 attributed to an activity which might have taken place a ; i 18 week or two earlier. It could t hen be associat ed directly 19 with the activity that he was undertaking at the time, or l l 20 within a few days of the b:oassay samcle. ! l 21 MS. HODGDON: Thank you. ; i 12 BY MS. HODGDON: , 1 23 0 Dr. Fisher, you were asked a question yesterday . l 24 by Chairman Bechhoefer about a statement that you make on , 25 page 9 of your testimony. That's in Answer 14, the second l l
, 4 I
i 1 l 1 > 1 I
c___ _ _ _ _ _ PANEL 1 - REDIRECT ' 333 l l-f~'T\ 1 paragraph, where you say that if the material were slightly 4 !
-- 2 less soluble and if the workers were continuously exposed 3 to lower airborne levels vi uranium over longer periods of 4 time, there is the possibility that the concentration of 5- uranium in the kidneys could exceed the threshold for
, t 6 l tissue damage. 7' Chairman Bechhoefer asked you what you meant by
- 8 " possibility," and I didn't completely understand your I
9 answer. Could you explain it again? 10 A (Fisher) In this sense -- and this answer . 11 referred to, again, a recent uranium accident involving at' 12 least 20 workers exposed to uranium -- that hadthemateriall 1 13 been less soluble, and had these workers been continuously { l 14 exposed t o someuhat lower levels over a longer period of (" time, there was a general likelihood -- and by " probability" i (x_- 15 i 1( I did not mean a remote likelihood, but a general 17 likelihood -- t hat the concentration of uranium in the i I ( kidneys cou.i exceed the threshold for tissue damage. And I 18 i 19 " possibility" in that sense meant a probable rather than l 20 an improbable likelihood, 50 percent probable. I don't 21 i think I completely understood the question yesterday, , 22 either. 23 O Tnank you. Yesterday you were also asked a 24 , question by Dr. Shon. Yeu stated in answer to a question 25 ! by Dr. Shon t hat int e--' diate samples were not important. o
PANEL 1 - REDIRECT . 334 l r l, M26 I Rather, you agreed with Dr. Shon that intermediate samples 2 ' might not be important. However, your written testimony 3 ; states that a low reading could indicate either a high 4 sample or no exposure at all. Without intermediate samples, 5 how could these alternatives be differentiated; that is, 6 the high sample or no exposure at all? . 7 A (Fisher) The answer to that, of course, is they 8 can't be. And that's why it's important to gather as much . 9 bioassay data as possible, todetermnethetrendsfollowing{ i 10 a potential uranium intake. Those intermediate samples in 11 t his situat ion are very import ant . l I 12 O Also, you stated in your testimony on page 19, , 13 Answer to Questien 35, that the grinding of uranium solids 14 produces airborne radioactivity. Could the boiling or 15 heating of uranium solutions also produce airborne 16 radioactivity? 17 A I don't really know. I suspect that it would not, i 16 uranium being as dense as it is. I would suspect, however, 19 that the grinding of a powder was very likely to produce 1 20 a uranium dust. But the boiling of a solution I don't think' i 21 ' would produce an aerosol. 22 Again, I put an uncertainty on that answer because 23 I simply don't know. I haven't had the chance t o take any ' l 24 air samples in the vicinity of that kind of a process. ' 25 : MS. HODGDON: Thank you, i I
PANEL 1 - REDIRECT 335 1
,e~3 That complete's the Staff's redirect questioning Ij
( ) 2 of the Staff. Mr. Larsen, you now have the 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: 4 l opportunity to cross-examine, only on the latest material I l
- 5. that the Staff has put in. Do you have questions?
~
6 4R . LARSEN : I can't make statements, I just ask 7' questions, right? JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. You'll make statements 8 9 short3y. You'll be a witness. MR. LARSEN: I don't have any questions. That's . 10 . 11 fine. I 12 (Pause for Judges to confer.) j JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I believe the St af f witnesses 13 j can be excused at this time, and we could get into [~ h 14 ! k' '/ 15 Mr. Larsen's case. l MS. HODGDON: Yes, thank you. 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: You are excused. l 17 IS (Ghcreupon, the wit nesses were excused. ) ; 19 MS. HODGDON: Will Mr. Larsen take the same l 20 uitness stand, or will he remain where he is? l* JUDGE BECHHOEFER: He can remain where he is. 21 Will 22 MS. HODGDON: But what about Kevin Noack? 23 he appear next? 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We told him 2:00. ! I 24 ' 25
)
%s
336 , j l i ] i i M2B MR. LARSEN: He isn't here yet. 1) 2 P.S . HODGDON: Oh, okay. If I may have a moment. 3: JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. Off the record. I 4l (Brief recess.) 5 6 . I 7i 6 9 ! 10 T j 12 i 13 l 14 15 i 17 , I 16 1 19 20 , 21 - 22 ! i 23 . 24 '
! I 25 !
l i i
LARSEN - DIRECT 337 JUDGE BECHHOEFER; Mr. Larsen, it's time for
/'~'T 1
/
i.
2 you to present your case. You might want to start by 3 putting into the record the various elements of your
-4 testimony, the written elements, not Mr. Noack's statement 5 at this time, because he'll be here.
6 Whereupon, 7 JOHN P. LARSEN
~
8 having been previously duly sworn, appeared as a witness i 9 herein, and was examined and testified as follows: MR. LARSEN: Is that what you mean? 10 ' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, like the March document, 11 12 the December document, the latest filing all should be put 13 into the record, and you should identify each one j
- 14 , separately, and for those bound into the record, you may We have some
( ,) l provide the Reporter with one clean copy. f i 15 16 copies, but they're -- f 17 MR. LARSEN: I have five copies here, three and , 18 ' one and one, if that's enough. l 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: If it's not identical to what , l
+
20 we had before, we may or may not need extra copies. l MR. LARSEN: I have the qualifications. 21 l 22 , JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do you have his earlier ones? + l 23l MS. HODGDON: Excuse me. I believe I heard l - 24 l Mr. Larsen say that he was going to put in his expert 25 qualifications? I l j o l t
LARSEN - DIRECT 333 i bl2r 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. , 2 MS. HODGDON: I haven't seen those before, so 1 3 I need a copy also. 4 MR. LARSEN: Yes, we've got one for you. 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: All right. We haven't got 6 those either. So we'll have to -- , 7 MR. LARSEN: So I should just bring them up here? 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, you should move first - 9 that -- I guess you could put your qualifications in l 10 l first and then put the three documents in, and then if 11 ' there are any corrections to be made on any of the 12 documents, you should do that in the time you introduce i 13 ' them, and that's the easiest way to proceed, and then i
! l 14 you may have some supplementary statements, and then 15 you're subject to cross-examination.
i 16 MR. LARSEN: Yes. i 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: But at the time Mr. Noack gets i 18 ! here, if you want, we'll interrupt and put him on -- l 19 MR. LARSEN: Yes. 1 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- for his entire testimony. 21 MR. LARSEN: Okay. 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Why don't we proceed now -- I l 23 MR. LARSEN: By " putting them in,' you just talk , i 24 into the microphone? 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, you move that we admit i i till ,
.____________-___-_w
LARSEN - DIRECT . 339 1 _. bl27
,r~'s 1 them into the record and describe them first, and --
i x! 2 MR. LARSEN: Okay. 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- then the Staff has a chance 4 to object or comment. You also indicate any changes if 5 there are typo's or various changes, whether they were -- 6 well, in each case I will ask you if it's true and correct 7 at the time it was written, and then if there are any
- 8 I changes. So I will ask you that for each of the past I
9, documents that we've seen. So. 10 If you could just hand a copy to the Court . In fact, before you start - 11 ! Reporter when we do this. l l 12 ' talking about a particular document, hand one to the l. 13 , Reporter and hand one -- the ones we haven't seen, give l 14 , us copies, and the Staff copies, j
/ \
l 15 l MS. HODGDOS: Judge Bechhoefer, if I may make kJ 16 another suggestion, it is that Mr. Larsen should number 17 the pages in his pre-filed testimony because it would make !, l i 18 it much easier to cross-examine, i 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. ; 20 MR. LARSEN: We'll do that now. 21 MS. HODGDON: And also to describe. It happens ; l 22 l to be a document of eight pages, as I count them. t JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Which one are we going to start 23 ! I 24 with? l 25 MS. HODGDON: Well, that's what he's starting I i 1
-s C./
m
LARSEN - DIRECT , 340 bl2B 1 with, and I was just helping him out. 2i JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Oh, okay. Right. 3 MS. HODGDON: It's eight pages. l 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Which one is this? ( l 5 MS. HODGDON: This is his testimony. I 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. . l 7 MS. HODGDON: Pre-filed testimony. My date 8 stamp says May 26th is the received date. It was filed 9 on May 23rd, I believe. 10 ! JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I recollect that the postmark 11 date was the date we said it had to be mailed by, whatever 12 ' that was. .i 13 ;- MS. HODGDON: It was either the 22nd or the 23rd 14 ; of May. l t 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: My copy indicates that it was 16 , filed on May 22nd and recieved on May 23rd, received by i 17 1 our office on May 23rd. i 18 My copy indicates that it's eight pages and that 19 there's one attachment to that, the attachment being the ; 20 letter dated May 12, '86, from the Utah County Sheriff. 21 So it'll be eight pages plus one attachment. , 22 i MR. LARSEN: Okay. We don't have that attachment.j 23 We can get that to you. ; i 24 MS. HODGDON: You don't need it if you don't rely 25 on it for anything. i
LARSEN - DIRECT 341 4 bl'^
<~3 1 MR. LARSEN: Well, it's not important.
I \
\s, / - 2{ JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, we can give you an extra 3 copy to give to the Reporter.
4 MR. LARSEN: Okay. 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I have several copies. If 6 you need an extra copy to give to the Reporter, we could 7 give you one of ours. And everybody else has a copy,
, 8 so that --
9 MR. LARSEN: Okay. 10 l JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So why don't you attach this, 11 to your testimony. Why don't you number the pages of your l 1 l 12 testimony. 13 ; MR- LARSEN: Yes. 14 ! JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We'll arbitrarily insert
/'~ 'N l l (v) 15 ' numbers on ours so it's easier to reference when we're ;
16 asking questions. t l 17 i (Pause.) l 18 l JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Give one copy to the Reporter, 19 , then, j i i 20 ' , MRS. LARSEN: Excuse me? ! I i , 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I say, hand a copy to the l
. l 22 Reporter. ;
! i 23 l MRS. LARSEN: Right now?
24 JUDGE DECHHOEFER: Yes. 23 This should be bound into the record as if read. I A l
M8 l
~
LAR@@M - DIRECT f bl30 1 First, does the Staff have any objection to this? 2' MS. HODGDON: I don't know what's being put in 3 at this time. I didn't hear it described. ) 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The May 22nd testimony, plus 5 the one-page attachment, the eight- -- f 6 MS. HODGDON: That's the Sheriff's letter? 7 i JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 8 MS. HODGDON: And not the professional . 9 qualifications. 10 ; JUDGE BECHHOEFER: No, no. , 11 . MS. HODGDON: Okay, that's fine. I have no 1 12 objection. 13 ! JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay, that document and l 14 ; attachment will be entered into the record as Mr. Larsen's l l 15 testimony. ! 16 ! (John Larsen's direct testimony follows.) a , i 19 i 20 l 1 21 l l . 22 ' l l I 2sj ; 1 24 25 O
I
. 4 m
( J Pie v : . . 4 4e, i
\
urateo z *. e l e s swuc t eer guietory Lornrr.a s s i on e,t
- rn i c Setetv ena Licens2ng boero W e s r.. n g t or. , D.L. ;v5LL Deer Ears:
. This as tre, s 2 cie et the story thet 1 an. f a nel l y al l owea Lt r C E D C'** C- 1; :. ' ' . e t e J 60 V *. . ' .'* rL Dr.t h E Ot bhang shut o owr.
& J . L ' . Q u '. erw a %c Dre.e 1 C. hPFe6 0+. 1 tna n6 tnaf af prDD&D,y i
. . e( ' t g D*.' L yr a e . i r.L e t f e r 1 . *Gvl. that JE tr et 1 neve e
.t- ~ r . ' . s' e . . *
. i- : . C' . .,w e l . .~ & erutts De- Ce r J r . r . tr 7 E# '. f . E C Vi; e t O b 6: ' 6 r *, . AD 6 t 01 + j 217 f* a isri E DC 2 et 'y a1
- f. . . Q " .4 '.a L e ' z *.
- i ; e. . . t ;.s t- .e'. I nt , n.e r L' C ;) . e n t r,c
( .
- o . 4 . .a3 . . . . - . ., 2 -t e s . r ee.e
- t t.es g) .en
. . .en. . . - e t ; c. - c.s t .a " A ; 2 :: e 2 n Wonder 2 enc '
'. . - . E... . .-* * . '
t". r se the ir J e, i &* Er . f,, _ 0 . .. rs; it , . c t r ,s 4. : e r. 3 tcte.., artc. w3th
. . L t. w . * * .; e De1CE D u c i t- i tCD v. ' er,'JV' w el. k .
t.e;e.Ee 1 .e no,. ne.a eript ner c Orr@ e n y n e n,e:I Ceret. Inc. trch t: n g, t . ., . A . t e +. e ; . E t . Hrsol has br oi en the contf act
- c+ q. s- c st *cr . Its. ot U . A . s, . beteuse Cf the b e ci a rrie c e cf M Er.;.sr Lets t r. c . nc.e rete;vec froni the N.R.C.
2 n . r." ..geb*cer ec t r. e l e *; c . r. ot tr e shut down suspens2cn of u c. -
. .= o- *c . Lirrt . L n t. i. . . . Wher- ) e rr< e:Cused of
.. . . ;' &&6 :nQ *~4 f* Ltfher DLi f
- 4 .e .. . . r*, & 6 er ii. - t-rct J pr.1 : L, ;.pr.
')ib
i { b,., l
. n 3. t . a ec ; . e4 enr o.er t. o t. o mp .t v . enc cal at seemE t L.
- c. _u. ,. .<n a s (nor e c O m sa, . c i 2 t r e re ti delav.
ac, '. ~ . c - ; 2 e . si:( ; ". c - 29 vere her a ta unoer s temo 2s tne eoverser2s'l et(nosp%ere that hee been always shown me. It 2s eEEdmed t he . one 2e c;ul'a t v un) es-s proven 1nnotent. Wher, e r. 2nvestagetor arr2ves et Evanston and announces "WE b,.. ~HE F Wi. R Tr.,;EET %) ik." at me6es me wonder now he c o' Ithduct e ". C t. ;i s t t s ve 2 n vest a gets on of the facts of whet 04f. . W' Er O , % 6- }9 ; "_ C . 2 n O 4 D i' }s emmun2t1On tO use
; i . . e. 6 . e. ' E re .. ' ' " . L t . s t ~ KiE r s,a he c e-
& ; * .- r E +t#* P r e- C v +- r tne fB w .
J t .e e t i i r ,c.n . +c 1e er. c- 1 , - + i- 4 ..CC 3* rec L I f - t- .e*
' . . . i*iE 1. L t h E
~
_L - I h11; I1 I" n C . , U IeC(t. E ~ s _;# 16 . ' i r '. . c f L C . L <. ' &. .
&l C vo k . ( ' a y) h h W 1L.
c - ._ *;Eu ..i; w e r G-
- * ~
6
't ; . o , . :. .
. .. . ;- : i ,
.. t .* t c'e a r e t rie r ' . , er ,
. 52L.: < t- . L i~ ic p D
- i . ve h80 to grind t h e p F % ethF n t w2th e y...LF' . #r a ;* antatstes nQ tree C On t e fr,1 n e t 2 t h gener all y .
. = m e. 4 .- O l k- . 0 $ E ELi (- Lli=et F L E I in fT , r e , C; E t 1 en meeting. There seems to
- 6:
- ',- ^**emi~
. &* U n d e r E *. (-P.d 1 r O the }1CenSEE. Ct putt 2nQ
. *z t '
+;4
. r ; L ;- *
. _ EeE A1 Pet aE . r . a r. D 10 OEt
. .I '. . e _ ige, ) - . e- , .
O
. _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ - - - - ' - - - - - -. _.
e
- D , n-.
f a a t:- e ; e c'2 r g hes. tti ar.a s i< i et y regulations. 6nd thit tne
> 3 r u es t 2 o f t or' 2E ne ve - antentJonally prejuc1ted in his k
; c - c er.t. l cn ci hesa+- srid s e - e t ', ce tne C&eretion. Is the gless t,af t + s11 or half empty: I s the them1cel operation I mproving its oper ati ons es much as its money can al l ow ,
or it it a h e p h s.: ar o , homemsde operation, not using the
E t e t e L4 the art m6thinery thet bigger operations- have ?
Uni r lest tnan Erpe-trt per4ection IE noted, and counted em- t v -!g f r, I s- e . Enc nt 61 10w e r.c f. tor E mel i busineEW E
- i. & .
i ar. r- . <
' ; wrr p as g,. . eti. J wa A j liig; , s cimi t
,43 4 , * , , * .'- 4. fi 0: . 1 $ i i or.i Gt Dut 6. E r, y t n j n c, E . .
, _ e .~ .: c r ccire ette c. ir 3,3 . we
, .. r . E'.m se.c> v.- ~ k & E ~. +- ca t er I. .
1
. (* J I. \ I5 1' O i.. J [ 1 E s be h / E. . s
. . - t- . *- "e:E2 L ~.. enu * ' enLi er Dt v i . . L- c r 1 , t, i r.( h i.- : in 'j t,
-- L; i'; : 9 '. C J 10. E % E 6! . b r. C w n e r.
- s v. .t; (P*1.99 ;J:JQEr. ne PUL
* * * ' . ;;. L F. JE ; r. 4 Ei; C tC B ; t". .
t t- . . . *; ' - .c . but 2* 7 0i W i- h t at, J W14i tt y to at it. '.- . c. s r- must r e s; 1: e ar.o tr y to uncerstent th6t we
. E- t E & E U. c.- 2 . L. U t i ri g- h p . St,C thst tnere are M6hy regul&tions."
.s L.gre6s. & * "' w f-
- ti j 6 pDOC wcr6ing re}at1onshap wh11e we W E t? '. r , 3 r ; 1D CDapa3 . Le bDught S acrew of 1Gnd out by G
- 5. L E 4 2 ff. :. ii E '. . WE W:au) G be e w & y- 4 rom Other t y*pe E of busineEE r- J .s t ' e n ;. . . s . *wA r e r, ar.*.o ;ontng p r ot. J en E W1th
~
w , * ~. ' , t r. rs s : C. e e . D e ; a i ^~ + c f
r g 4* wr.1 pr;r.*. .i c :.t : r t. c . .: t r x t a n p e p r op e r a abor at or ,- w2in
. t+ e .a e 1 < *eatures s +- c r,t : c ; p e t e ~J wDul d be neeceu.
, .. . t .c : ri s . c- t r- s +. c 2 i . :. r c c. .i . .erc.Jetacr r. f s t e n. . etc.
We tu d he.e i- f urt.u nood bu1Jt. but it was ser y sw6werd to work
- 1. wate the larger vessels of meter 2els. It was much seier, cj us to the i a e nen.e b l e fuGEE Of Our EOlvent. tO work With fans scr rt.s a i r,x, vent: ; i t: L;cw.no outc2t.e. I riese esi.ec those t t.61 W D: I w. i t , t h s. OP E t et 4CT6E to 3+1 E EU~QUEEt3DnB On hDW to
*;. r .. ;- -> , f t i ;- r,+ , ne ss r e or C t-b 5 et -
- D ; ' . k. C. D ' i - et - c. r ' ~
~ < i - - '
.t- - w . ec + pr ti , 6- w D :. J C .
. . < .# t 1
".r . s e .. . '. c e , ct, , c i.
_t ,i_t . *s ;e . r Di*. i..i . r . _ r tre *o w- a e-
, L Os t .* ',. vrs , t.
, *- ! ,, , a. - 2t -
; F.
4 *i- - t ; .i . ? ; e lt 'C & i i 1. . f. , I$** -. o .. '..s!. 6- 6h Ied ,E Ea h h*Il (' T [ (. r b W l' f, ' It enc u- ,s . .10;i - ;.t Ler**4: * 'iE , he%P BDt D E'E n DellEveO GE tr(.*' . e a 4 e IL e - 4 2 .bF 0 b l '. F ' ' e
;.+ t- *y 5it~ . D. _. ; e r a . 6, r . C u. n 'M. e r the CIl r pct 1 On Of
** r .- *r.e E p ~, - . *., r , s. i.. i a- FeLi c* L &r at3on C D r.1 r 0 ; .
O' t l i
e .5 _ h :.eutt R*
- t r- r o a t t er i or. on buil di riu on our lano. we
,.,-( 4 ;.r e c. *. t c c m * ; rw e our chen. teJ oDeret1on In veraous t,t.pcr e re . * .c , rn ~ v* e r.C t weii E v1 t e.d 1 cor our oper s.t 1 ore.
h a.e v er-we traed to keep it as clean es we could Leep a
. E fr e l 1 menufEcturIng operet1o'i, end not bother eny of our This we ol ti . and we sup;>lled the U,A.A. to nea ghoor ti .
rh c o; C. o . t t h e oe r.t c5 our eti11tv. However, in April, 1 We , our + tt2111v wes tar oi.en i nto by sotneone , and the a
* - . . , I r.e Ut fe r i F, tD i n s e t- t ; D e t e ,
1 .f _ f. - +-7. s ,t.U- -! . 1 d L*.i L 30- t 3 pr,E r a i + d. 5 + ) f i g + Or 4 r .+.' c 4 ;rv + e- t / t et 9( *ie w?C Dd i n t-
. , e.'. _ .
i ort F s !
- C Qtil . 3 m Eut*e ne
- ** ' , r. g, p c. g c ; p 3 ,, g r es ,
l I
~
i f -. i r t- 1 b;lE C
- T 8 s i-4 . _ ..
. ,, .i E s c 'e 2 O' 'e_r
- 2. _ t'i s' ' 1. ! ~ ~.J iL 1
- ; $0+t e ff. , _' .L . r*
e d j' .f I s J 6,(, {., , ,
,T,-" [f
- A . ,,-e e's ,e .ek &f v
.' . .. i 1 C ; it 1 J 004 D r C.p t" e re tQLrrE i8 . ; . ' s e 7 s- . a ..
.. L.i e : n.
SD . '. i fi 1OkpeCtDrE Ceme enO iounO E,Om e
. 4,e* ; .~. ! 6 .*a i .' E T. e r C G C the '4 ;CtenEe end i1000 me AbVOU. and 0
h I f e,, A k, . bes ed e 4
*it , .& - *ot t3g p r p .i,, m g , but the preperetlor. Of 17 Orums ffCn t h 5 . end
. - & i- E- - Ater.i4 wi E 5C nO tD tsie tIve tC E1
;,i; 56 .r+ w . . n , ". ;: 2i e1 W E' e
- 4 - i. . . p,p5- *
*-c .
t
[- - t f \ i
. n m o r . r .;' i t at win )ege) t o wor e in enother state unoer e
- r. E r st'. ..CenEE e.e, tn v;n e c ou, a n y c.orsessec e spec 1 4 1c
..;ents 1. esn c i n e r niete. I was t oa d it wes leoel, and so I
we mave:J tc W,oming in Jenvery and Februsry, 1987. We were i recuarEC tc EOlid1 4 Y our liquid w&Ete in Utah. and we f . r.1 s hed pr oc e s s; ng th6- meterial U.4.A. In production, and E. E n t it out to Hysol. In 4 2 nding good crystals in the waste . We did not go to j neat e r 161. we e) st s t r.t t h e n. to Hysol.
- i. ' - ; r , r. 4 . 2 - Or . * ' ' ' s '. f - *- S'; 1T 6 ~ O a O s n C t- C* r eQu! el J o'if ,
i v i s"< a ri . ' L' CrE- a C y E ;t e r,c L,2 e se i. *. t I t t ' ; t- E ) 1 e i -
. 6
', f ' v.- ' .
e t .e'
- Ceri k * . we e . T O. t ro;. ' a m e r. ~. s c: n,c E i .
]
, e . < v t cr et . c r. : : c + r. ;
- 2. ..+ , ~' C ACi 1 *. 6 , r a L i- E E,Fe s C .F h ei r i. ; 7 . ; ; , . - . . s,
- n. ei v. .M. 1 ". L
- 6 : UL r"i d
. .;i1?; ; i '. E C LM. 2 t. .
~
e.s .s : C v F ; . . e-rst t ,
* . 5 7.EA l* C E' ' . 1* L . '~ ~
. E' r .' s.. 5 . n L' e iC L+ 1.F C't
- O r i E 1D COmDIy W4 T. I.
40 EFr. . 4 C E 5EC r E pt .e.;Eng. WE h&Ve been tr31nQ enO trylng
- 1 ;- CD C C : ,w. t.1 CECeyye we 6re a E .T+ 1 3 bus 1neEs. G"d don't -j
. , ,; -r r e- i c m e c.= o- e t. : . ;.as i ne s s , we seer < to be an a
b 4 3 h , i I (h hh IyJ( ( h Ca 5. hf i h f h a bh )t W)th tbh fM hf $bh l h
- C 1 h (* P- 3 F hs' E ) 1 I
- b 75 *.rC1. C# hhbm a e Ce
.m = - G.
- 1,,. v. 0 . '_ + : ;
O
(, y, - s E. n me n g; - ,1 ctr E; &nDFr c Uper et a ng F r ocedur te. snd gett2ng & bec.;r.2r. U+ ,;er. bs wei' i* E Fenip } D y ) nQ b COMEU)tBnt EOD lu., _ .. .2 t: 1 i t ". s :tsie c, Lit e n end nw e reccmnienostac.nv 4r the Estic+Gct2On of the he<h and Es+ ety r requirements td Larrv Hnderson. bot Dec,er went up there and never returned b6cl to Mr. L+rsen. I think probably he was d;5cou"60eo by the uteh F F-; inst Mr. Larsen was going to be revei ed and t h 6.t there was nothing he could do to evold it. 1- ** 't* . p r f. s .!4 , c* t i ". D r. vtLt 3f. A n v v. c. 5 . I r - e ." cc w*: - vi 1R E L . i e> 2 G 21. OnC
~r+7 i, : L&r # t' e g pr. , p. , t a
.I c- i ritit O L.r ., . D' c. c t.m E i j t G P 1. .
t _
- d' A. Te " - 9 -:.l l e- - .
_ . i i. e - kes ;r.; trip t t r. :. ( , .
- g. t. e . . , . '
t, -
- . E b 1".3b[T k i" ! b*
. .*'.,t [ A q v. *I. Lie'
. 'ee! 'l- r.-
- w i ?. ; " e~. 'F
- m . 6 E.
? 67* w.*- ':
.* f t* [ b $b*p'
. . . s ,a. -rs .
~
b me= f I E . e Pi! y D*D21C lisZ s F c
' h i-
. e. i . - C'Csgr ,c ,_ , , p.3 ) p epp 3 g,E
- eBr E oi
! ,~ . Ok i
- s ;i i'4: CtET; Celt. And the d.g4 ep r g nc e Of
* ' l '
l e y J 'h & t, , k" b.' .I %3 m b d i s. e.- 0 t ~,L L+i~ . .s ', J a t.* . f. e E .; E + - ;4 b v 2 3 0 2 ng MOr e t or 2 U fTi delByE.
~
= . 36- E " C ~.
- E E'"d'itt E- P V 3 't O 2n h;E a nV GE t1 QGT 109
> i ,
r e. ~ + r. ; e r
. t- y , D4 ei p ,i ; , a r.g , .un g
*. i - .. t r,e ;r .r e s ere
.I 6 . ~, . c. atcrtang ilev enc: n.1 s t t e t eme n t E . thet J dl ori t heve 6 : n' . e- 1. o r e + M..t c, i c. I ri er., r e votet1 on meetI nc. He elst
. . . . t ro i.n er , no t r i e r ,5- an tna o i n as t i g e .l cr, is Mr.
Lar*FnE con 52Etent casregard ;for the regujetory r e a,v a r etr e"it s . and his Indif f erence to the saf ety of his, en r 3 o ves e . " as en outregeous thang to say. Mr. Novak will t.s p"e"ent t; t t< E t i s e h ov. Mr. Larsen disregarded h a s, s a f et y .
- 4tO t ci t _9 It eli C++. Mr. braffath says, DLtring the
, .I. e.t r,7 t * ,, ' e, , & s,
- qg ,, 7. r , '. L r4 " F Fi te e F 1 T s T O F M t- C 1f he
- T' .. ; i . '. . .O. ( S D = .: C " . *,. f; c- L e- 2 5 t C. e IieW s' ' '
- 1 ." n .. - F,*L2 2CA1)QM 9 ( it- i he . 4 r r.
.8 _ . ';_... mi .F a :.."*hbbb[ MI. UI - 5 'v L s O
. .: v. - . - : : ,e,2.- '
,,** l 6- .
9 2 -- k. L LP ,
. ~/* *- n e.t r ucm; .
i L.
. . i . :; ,.r- s
._ r . i sv-- ~ t '- t. v-U = : . .s v , ; ;:
- t *.' . . < 20 i 1 t- . e .
l . e , i
- f. t' Q ~_
- L & !'* k E - Dr, e w e,te. ,
C r + ' (, - v. .C- i'.F i e s. F t F n i. Dt JUEt%CR OeCJIneD 1D
. ' . ir w . ;6 . i *. Ai a r. C E . 1 0 4 0 tnt j engtt,E et wh1Ch e smell ,
iu^ : ' f J . ,7, L . ' 3L i. E: C" in C7CE' tO put h i n. Out 01 business.
*; a9 2" i 5 *. t i !' 6
- e :* O c g ' 1O fr+ 6 E e 11v1BQ t O d Fi e' 1O EMal1 I :- . '. F ?
O
U bs e %r
-^ Utah County Shsriff
\ 1775 SOUTH DAKOTA LANE
- PROVO. UTAH 84601
- PHONE 3744211
-[V .
DAVID R. BATEMAN Shersti Wy12,1986 Craig Jmes Utah Departrmt of Walth
. Dureau of Radiation Control P. O. Box 16700 Salt Lake City, UT 84116-0700
DearCraig:
Our agency is surely a;preciative of your efforts to deal with the problem at the storage sheds. A situatim like this has far reading effE7ts on the health ard welfare of the citizens hem in our ccrrunity. W as Icw enforcemnt c"ficars cannot overlcok this situation at the 9eriff's Office is very interested in the outcme 4 your investigatim. We certainly feel that this flagent disregard for re;platory procedures relating to the hardling ard disposal of uranlun ard it's waste products will msult in sevem sarctions, i.e., suspension of the haMling license. W would like to state for the remrd that W. Larson's raanufacturing pmcess in storage shed (A) v ruber three as discovered during our burplary investigation was extruely unkept aM cculd be considered hazardous. W &n't telieve the corditims as observed by our officers would crply with your strirgent stardards. It is obvious frun rny involvsmnt ard observation in this case that the operatim at business practices of Larson Labs is "hiphazard" and " slip-stot". This fact alone leads us to conclude this ctrpany stould rot have a license to hardle stch a hazardous traterial as uranitm 238 let alme any other hazardns thenical. W certainly wish to aid and assist you in any way possible, we want to cxperate in this ven-tum to provide any otter backgmtrd informatim you deen recessary. Siramly, _ _ - -
,f *
. W. Carter Detective cc: Utah Civil Defense - Lt. Cery Claytm Orsn City Fire Departent - Aty Bums R R C GIye c, MM 187956 p) g v
80m30Of 5dB-F f -y I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
LARSEN DIRE'CT ' 343 1 b13?: I~' 1 JUDGE;BECHHOEFER: Mr. Larsen, next I think you J i
\
ought.to offer your professional qualifications and.present
~
2 3 that statement both to us and the' Staff. 4 MR. LARSEN: Okay. i 5 ; JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We haven't seen it before.
.; 6 MR. LARSEN: Okay. I'll just read this.
~7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, you don't even have to
"- 8 read it.
9 .. MS. HODGDON: Just give us a copy. 10 MR. LARSEN: Just give you -- , I JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Just show it to all of us, 11 12 , and then you moved to have it put into the record as a 13 ! portion of your testimony. 14 MR. LARSEN: Okay. f-k 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And it'll be bound into the l 16 ; record then, just like the Staff's was yesterday. 17 l MR. LARSEN: Okay. 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It'll be put in following a
^19'different page. May be some questions about it.
20 Does the Staff have any objection to putting this 21 into the record? 22 MS. HODGDON: No, I have no objections to its 23 being bound into the record. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay, this will be inserted i 25 into the record, then, as part of Mr. Larsen's testimony. l ___m.________._-_m. . _ - _ E I
_ _ _ _ _ _ ' ~ ~ ' LARSEN - DIRECT l- b13' 1 (John Larsen's professional qualifications follow.) 2, O 3 4 5 6 ( 7 8 1 9 10 ! , 11 l - 12 l 13 ; l 6 i 14 ; 15 ; j 16 l 17 ; ; i 18 l 1 ! I 19 l 20 ! 21 .
! l '
22 ' ' t 23 l , 24 25 l
! l 9
ys
^
I-QUALIFICATION 3 LARSEN, JOHN. PAUL Citizenship: U.S.A. EDUCATION: B.A. CHEMISTRY
. Minors: Physics, Math, Philosophy Brigham Woung University SOCIETY MEMBLHSHIP: American Chemical Society EXPERitfJCE: 19'/B-6B Larsen Laboretaries; Orion' Chemical Co.-Los Angeles, Calif., Provo, Utah--Defense contract for.U.S. Government
- U.A.A. Catalyst for plastic reaction 19'/1 '/3 Abbott Laboratories, Pasadena, Calif. ; Enzyme Chemist and Analytic Chemist 19 /1 Research Drganic/ Inorganic Chemical Co.--Chemist '
1969 '/1 Skyline High School, Salt Lake City, Utah; Educator in Cnemistry and Pnysics 1968 Graduated Brignam Young University Ex1HACUHHICULAR: Occupational and Radiation Safety Seminar
' Harvard University
[ 9
.e t
f
- l. - b13-
1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Larsen, the next document
'- 2 probably should be the March 18th, 1988 letter.
3 MR. LARSEN: March 18th? Oh, yes, that's right, i 4 Okay. 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Could you describe that for 6 the record? 7 This is the response to I believe the Staff's 8 suspension order? Yes. And as far as I can see, it's Is that 9; nine pages long, plus seven pages of attachments. to correct? MR. LARSEN: Or is it eight? 11,! It's nine pages long. j 12 MS. HODGDON: JUDGE 3ECHHOEFER: It's nine pages. I counted 13 t
,m 14 seven pages of attachments.
I My copy has 11 pages of attachments.I ( )\ 15 MS. HODGDON: 16 ' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Oh, well, we'd better watch 17 -- ours only has seven, so. The copy I have only has l 18 l seven. I want to make sure we all have the same document. 19 MS. HODGDON: Yes. 20 Maybe he wants to describe the attachments?
. 21 (Pause.)
22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: This one seems to have 10 i
. 23i pages.
24 MS. HODGDON: Perhaps if Mr. Larsen described 25 the attachments --
, I l V
500 LARSEN - DIRECT s. b13, 1 MR. LARSEN: Yes. l 2 MS. HODGDON: -- we would be able to reconcile 3 this difference. Mine definitely has 11 pages. 4 MR. LARSEN: Mine has 11 here. 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Well, I may have 6 miscounted. . 7 (Pause.) 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It definitely has 10. Why . 9 don't you describe -- 10 MS. HODGDON: We could discuss the provenance . 11, of these. I think that the Board got its copies from the
- 121 Staff, and therefore they should be identical to the Staff's I i
13 l copies. 14 - JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's correct, but what I l 15 had before was only seven pages long and the attachments. 16 Let me check. ,
' i 17 Let me check. It may have been in the -- I had l
,1 '
18I these reproduced, and it's possible that -- (Pause.) i i So that's okay. : 19 My other copy has 11. t 1 i ! 20 MR. LARSEN: Mine has a number 6 on top of it, i 21 and youts does too. That's because it was -- What I had -- ! 22 ' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Ours does too.
' i 23 MR. LARSEN: These are the documents the Board t 24 asked the Staff for.
25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Correct, correct. l i O
sy, LAE5EN o UARLUT bl' 1 MS. HODGDON: And your copy should be the same 2 as mine. 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: No, it must have been of the 4 further reproduction, because I had reproduced an extra 5 copy, and it doesn't seem to have the right amount. So I'm not sure where the slip-up was. I didn't reproduce 6 7 it, so -- (Pause.)
- 8 We don't have to have a further description as 9 long as everybody agrees that it's now 11.
10 So Mr. Larsen -- , 11 MR. LARSEN: Do you want this one on December?* JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, well, I want to ask 12 l 13 you -- t 14 MR. LARSEN: Okay. 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- a question. l 16 , MR. LARSEN: Okay. ; t 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: This document should have been It is now that you're IB I under oath before. It wasn't. 19 putting it into the record because you have been sworn, 20 but is everything or was everything in this document, all ! 21 the statements true and correct at the time it was 22 written to the best of your knowledge and belief? MR. LARSEN: To the best of my knowledge, it's 23 24 all there. I 25 JUDGE BECHHOETER: Yes, and are there any changes I l i
- ~ - ~ - ~~~
EMA$@S3 - @2iMB@T 348 ) i b13 l 1 or any corrections that ought to be made? 2i MR. LARSEN: Not that I know of. i 3 JUDGE BECHHOETER: The March 18th letter and 4 attachments will be entered into the record. 5 (Letter of March 18, 1988 together with 6 attachments follows.) 7 i 8 . I 9' 10 , l ii I i ! 12 ; 13 l bk 15 l lg 16 ; i 17 f i 18 l i 19 > , I i 20 ' i 21 ,
+
22 ' - i l 23 ,
?
24 25 , I l O
[
& YnC KK]?W :t I
r MkV 3 AGS ( i
.s Verth le, 1958 Unite: itetta hudlEer Reguletcry Commission Region IV 611 Ryen Flere Drive, Sjite 100]
Arlin, ton, Text.s 76D11
Dear Sirs:
In regeres to the written response to the NRC letter dated Feb. 25, 1988, I ses esked to answer the information contained witnin it, within 30 days. This is the letter to that effect. Enclosed in this letter ere copies of the urine snelyses tr.et were done in conformity to the CAL letters. Also is enclosed the statement [ in regards to operating in Nevede and Celi'ornie, as recuested on pege#6, item C. The copies of the Urine snelyses are in conformity to the recuest on page #9, item D. Also enclosed is an secounting of ell the metal from Nuclear Petels in 1986 to Drion Chem. Co. On page #7, item B. Wrangler Lacs is ordered to deconteminets the facility in Evenston, Wyoming to the NRC limits for reisesa to the public, enc to dispose of source material and wests according!y. We will be glad to oc this, but we have been told that the Tennessee Report is to be followed, as to how and what to do in the decontamination clean up. We can not do anything until we receive thBt report, Which has not been forwerdad to us as of March 18, 1968 The inspection took piece Janu5ry 19, 20 and is long delsynd in getting to us. I would like to comment on some of the allegations mede ageinst us in the paper. On page #3, cuote, "..in gil, the etete of Uteh found 5 contemineted fecilities thet Pr. Lersen hed 'ebenconed'. I sculd like to ask who wrote this sentence and chose the word ' abandoned" to cascride our behavior in the past. We have been totally' responsible for every f acility we have been esked to c1sen up, either by the state of Utah or the NRC, and I resent very much being characterized es
'etenecning" any responsibility we were asked to perform. Esfors we lef t any site that we rented and werkad at, we were surveyed end checkte end signed off by the egency inspectors. Any short ccmings are not from our perferrence. This prejoretive word is typical of the past i adversarial cherecterizations by the State of Utah, and on the whole rs
.041(11 9
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - " - - - - - - " - - - - _ _,_
_ . . - _ - - ~~ t i
~
fh
. i crese-tr e cicture of a socially irrascoasiele person w c flees freea
~
state to state to escace free comclience to regulations, wn en in re ct the trut" it tnet we went te ce tro-ted fairly, and with sone uncer-l stencing inet we will me6.e some ristakes in learnin; what is wante: enc wa y it is wentec. We cannot werl. wit en agency that is sever-serigi in attituce, and so*es etm e*.biticus to snow how tough and re;uletariel they are, in orcer to establish their reputation. On pe;c #3, cuote, 'Jyoming informed the NRC of the allegation that , it nec receivec contarning improper activities at srangler Labs..." Tne ellegation of wrangler Lees concucting improper activities of its ~ Chemical operation in a temporery fe*ility, is Bgeln typical of the slentecness of tne letter. 1, personally, essisted the owner of the facility in contacting the Region IV NRC by giving names and telephone ' numcers of those to centact. I think the owner was concernac ecout the . chreical smells one recietion signs. I had no wrong coing to hice, thet 1 knew .*,f, and I was ccnficent of any inspection thet it would show us as heving a cleen operation. When Mr. 81cir Spitzberg in-spected us, the contamination snosec just e few r.inor stains from soee scills, that bec ceen cleened u; but snosec e somewhat elevated count. This was in Nevermeer thet the first inspection took piece. In Jenvery another inspection team free Tennessee esme end inspectre us anc founc very little conteeinetion again. We had workee sinost a year in the recility, one hec processed 150 lbs of Du into 300 lbs of UcA cetelyst, enc if our process were e hazarcous operation, we woulc have hec cust ell over the facility, enc maybe outsier the coor. But, in fact, we just had some minor conteninetion sects that are easily cleanec up. Cn page #L, item #1, states thet I misrepresented to the inspector When the Question was askec, that my work was only in Utah und Wyoming. ~ the tire frame he was esking it in was not stated, and it.souncec to me es just treentiv. I came forth in the enforcement conference that work O
,2,
g 5,
\,~
+
/ l l
e
- a3so nec been dcne in *elifornie en J f.evaca, going esck 10-11 yearc
/m\. spo. Tne baten in havace was a very stell amount, most3y crying cut I
j
\s_s crystels cone in f.eveds to es not te violate tne Utsh jurisdictica.
Cn es;r se, item 2 states,,"The license.e cevieted from the comeitwe.t descritec in the Rovember CAL in the baseline snelyses were not Lcn-cuttec..." This is not exactly true, as a samgle for Mevin was taken
.bEfore he started to werk a; sin on November 11-13. nis reading was i IL Agm/It 2. t'.ike Larsen ena Bruce Noack hacn't worksc-for me for e long tire, anc so their Deceline levels were assumec to be zero, or lowe . 2 probably shculd have samplac them, but I guess I was trying to keep exoenses cow n, so 2 mace the assumption on them and didn't get a saecle. I should have.
On pe;e #5, item #2 states, "hovember 10, 1987 CAL, was e failure by n the crocessinc of the licensee to recuire individuals w e were to cerfore the licensee meteriel on mend, to wear air samplers." This is simply
$$LT gggg, as we DID wear the lepel air sempler, and have the sample
- paper with tne negative resulto seved, and I have already shown them
( to Mr. Blair Spitzeerg. Cn page #5, item #3 states, "...the DDD purchases UAA from other scurces." In talking with Mr. Thomas Quinn, Mysol purchasing agent, he ordered 100 lbs from RDC/RIC last year, which was delivered very slowly and in small batches over a long period of time. After that experience. Hysol re-placed orders with Drion/drangler Labs. and has not orderen from any other company, according to his statements. Mr. Larsun was asked noee 10 years ago to surmit a sample of his work for enslysis. Af ter a comparison of several companies samples, Mr. Larsen's company was chosen to produce the UAA catalyst, based mainly on the quality
- cf his catalyst. P7evious companies had produced impure UAA,*which lacken in catalytic power, anc mace sub-standard weapons. Those n
weepons has to be destrgyed and many thousa ds of collars were lost. k
/>
i En 7t;E Fi, iter si, Fecerel Excress acesn't neve e orcp-of f staticn in Evensten, sycming, ene sc se tring the shicr ent to the Provo-Crer f.iepetch offier as we cirect ourselves home. Ncne of the processin; of the meterial was cone in Utah. All o' it has cone in Wyoring. Fe;e #5, item w5, states we purchasec meterial from AEROJE7 MEAvy ,
~
.E1LL5 es if the above were done recently, not noting that the time freme unen this hepoened was 5-6 years ago. The passege sounds like Fr. Larsen bought these meterials within the work in Wyoming in 1967, .
or possibly the year bercre. In fact, this event does NET reflect todey's behavior, es it has net even happened since then. Fage #6 says, "...in the December 31 CAL, the licensee failed to neve two individuals suomit urine semples for uranium enelyses until Jan. 10, 19EE, nine ceys after the egraec upon cate." I would like to responc to tnis one explain the circumstances, that we actually did try to comply with the CAL. Mention is mece of a work date, December 8, where uranium semples were teken efter work was completed on the last shipment to Hysel, December 20, 1987 Sampling was done on December 6 , I er.3 Enelyzec December 9 by T.M. A. Labs. The results were: JPL31ff:3- ) MJL EB L; KN 10 This sempling was a complete surprise to us, 9 . - especie11y MJL's, es there wss no trouble in completing the work, and there were no spills daring the work. I asked MJL to write up any possible occurance to the best of his knowledge, whis- was forwerced to Mr. Spitzberg. We cecidec to try another leo in Wyoming cellec Energy Labs, because TMA Labs were both expensive and slow,
anc treir results teet were releyec to us on December 9-10 were muc' hi; tr (220 mgr/.) tnan unen they retestEc anc got 66 mgF./L on Decee::Er 23,1967 I got urine semcles'in the pnermacy jars unicn I censiceree to ce clean, on December 76, 1967 for MJL and JPL cefers tne tele; hone cell frem Mr. Blair Spitzberg on Cec. 3D, and from
- kr. Etngerter Decameer 31. They asked to sample every 3 days from MJ6 enc JA until two tests were below limits, wnich we did from December 31, 1987 tc January 3, 19E8. he didn't sene a blank with our tests, due to the fact thet Energy Labs always runs a blank urine semole with every test analysis that they do. I realize nce .
that this part of tie Cet was supposed to be done by me. It is NDT true that "We dicn't send semples until Janvery 10, nine days after tne agreed upon date." The CcL was performed. In the future, s we will e1 ways run blanks or get NRC permission for the lab to N use a blank. Le sent the box Federal Express on January 6,1965 It was impossible to know that when the box arrived, it would be dem ged and that it wculd be leeking inside. We were informed after the analyses were performee that the box was damaged. I asked several cuestions about UV fluorescence and found out that organic compcunes, lanolin, etc, also fluoresca, so I tested UV lights on the pharmacy jars, anc some of the fluoresced. I then asked Energy Labs to send me some known cleen conteiners, which they did, We sampled on January 10, 1958 and on January 13, 1988 for MJL and JPL and the results were' less than 5 m;m/L. We didn't send the results ofthe lab tests on Occamber 26, 1967 - Janvery 3, 1968 as the samples were questionable, due to the box being demrged and the fluorescence of the pharmaceutical [ t jers. We should have done so, I realize now, it \
4 with a
. Men ute", in flove .ser, 1966, causes us tc sto;, w:.rk cessation creer, we were in the mid:le of preparing 60 les of Du entel into UAA.
It was all in various steges of tne process, anc ; I cidn't want to throw it away, dien't know w at to ec with it. w sc 3 cellec the fA; in weshington D.C. ene askee if a company coulc the work uncer e general license in another state, even thetigh . I was tcld same eerson hac a specific license in his home state. that es long as the limits of 15 lbs/ time, 150 les/yr. t.cre met. . So we finisheJ up the meterial cut-there would be no confli-t. of-state in Nevade and Wyoming. I did not want to violate Uteh I creers. we then started up a new company in Wyoning, called urangler i When we bought Labs, anc ordered 15 los. of Du f rom Nuclear Metals. this material, it was not done deceptively, under a different name of Urangler Labs. Paul Cleary and others at Nuclear Metals had e cleer uncerstencing that John Larsen was Wrangler Labs in Wyoming, and they vere given tne names anc telephone numbers of the NRC in Washington D.C., so they could get confirmation that it was per-missable to ship to John Lersen at Wrangler Labs in Evanston, Wyoming. The reason we chose Evanston, Wyoming to work in was that we felt l' we would receive more fair treatment ur.cer a federal NEC jurisdiction, . than we were receiving from the Utah Bureau of Rediation under Mr. Le started the new company with a new undsrs'tanding . Larry Ancerson. anc resolve fer absolute confinement of ecurce material and weste meterirlo; for running a good operation with safety and cleanlistse using steinless steel seulement and counter tops, monitoring with O w
TL es:;er, surve, swices of werk trees for cles-liness, ans i. ~/ t instr.11etien of a s:retter unit an: microwave evens fcr drying _ J-crocesses. On the un cle, we were cuen improveo in our work operet'cns. in Le .illingly assirtec in directing the inspection, expecting we we t goo: uc; king operation, anc woulc be proven so through the inspection results. I ttink it was shown teet censicering a few erees, our operation it clean. Even though we were asked to cleen up some elevated steins on a few ground surreces, we were elleged to be e potentially he:erdous operation. I guess every chemical manufacturing operation is potentially at risk to some , ce;ree er anotner. All I can say is that we were trying very hard to be an improvec company, doing our Dest, while keeping the spills, etc. tc e minimum as we werk 150 les of metallic source meterisi [ inte 300 lbs of ULA catalyst. - ( 8 O ( I f7 s
( n Ics; In entwer to ps;e 6, ite O, 2 precessed a swell caten cf UI in ?.evece, mostly 'ust the crying-out stage of the crystels fror
~e enterie: left incomplete ey the Utah Lrcer to Cesse in Tnis wes cone in Jecenser,1966, and was completec hcve-btr. 15E5.
in one cay, cut on e roed in tne desert near t.escuite, Nevede. The meterial was eent out f rom Frovo-C-em rederal Express dispatch c'fice. Previous to cowing to Uten we liveo in California, and oid work on 1 a truck in smell emcunts for small orders in various locations in Tnis the desert, and in a vecent lot, so es not to disturd anyone. was e long time ego end tne details are somewhat hazy. Please refer . to the letter tnat was written to Mr. William fisner, December 25, ICE 7 A copy is enclosed. In summary, I went to say that we do not have the time nor the means Se to defend ourselves leg 311y against these letters from the NRC. don't know of any lewyers to contact about the 3egel points of law Also, I that need to be responded to uithin twenty (2C) days. for a hearing that will slow down my specific don't wsnt to ask license application. It appears to me thet I am running a good chemical operation, witt. two inspections showing minimal contamination. The allegations egeinst me cane from tne enforcement hearing and ~ from the cuestions that were probably misunderstood, and which I Basically, 1 em a one-man have tried to answer in this letter. . company, without the means and men-power to fight the U.S. government. I rely on their justice end good-will in order to continue producing a catelvst for the government's own use. i O j or\ l
~
f Fleere fia: ar en: lose; e:ccunting of tne source meterials recalve ./ m / k e: smi:;c!n; caring 1966 ano 19E?. I was errer to e: count for ICCr of metel ciscreenney wnic" 3 hace tMis esper will show you, was efficiently eccoun ts: for, et 9?t yiele per year. The remainin; Es netal is tiec up in tne waste licu;cs, w ichn we eitner dispose of or ' reclaim the crystals ene e:d to future shipments. All the meterials ere secountee for, eno trtisferred to properly license: pecple. Sin:erely. w A!Ps, j 0 hn P. Larseh, Cnemist-Owner 9 k P.S. It is strange to me that nothing has ever teen mentionec JT We now ebout the pcsitive steps we have made iniprocess. wear badges while working our chemical; we have invested in air-sam;1ers (lepel); 5 new survey instruments, e neuly-purc9esed fluorimeter, aumerous stainless-steel pieces of souipment; etc. We are commited to continually improving our operation and we welcome any suggestions thet you may offer.
/4 i
l RECDRDS Dr NTERIALS RECEIVED AND 6-IPPED Sw1SFENT5 1986 g UTLH 50*EE nTERI AL RECEIVED (N4LE :: VETI-1/20/86 36.874# 6L5.1%) = 16.630#0.U. 1/9/86 60 lbs. 1/28/86 26.989# (66.3%) = 12.500 2/3/86 47.673# (46.3%) = 22.073 2/26/86 27.553# (67.0%) = 12.950 3/11/86' 60 lbs. 4/29/06 30.753# (46.1%) = 16.177 5/2/86 30.706# (L5.5%) = 13.971 6/6/86 60 lbs. 6/16/86 58.598# (L7.0%) = 27.541 6/26/86 40 lbs. , 7/7/86 30.172# (45.9%) = 13.869 7/8/86 30.968# (66.2%) = 14.307 7/14/86 35.363# (L5.5%) = 16.090 8/k/86 30.167# (L5.9%) = 13.837 8/13/86 15.901# (48.0%) = 7.63P 8/20/86 60 lbs. 9/k/86 31.837# (L5.5%) = 16.686 9/22/86 30.038# (46.5%) = 13.968 10/6/86 60 lbs. 10/7/86 16.620# (45.9%) = ?.629 lbs. Received BE 11/3/86 30.000# (L8.1%) = 14.430 approximate 315 lbs. snippeo 12/9/86 16.958# (67.0%) = 7.030 1/20/86 - 3/3/86 2/2/87 28.668# (L7.0%) = 13.469 92.M% Y 2/9/87 30.220# (46.5%) = 16.052 kg#= in 96 2/17/87 25.240# (L7.8%) = 12.065 3/3/87 3L.L20# (46.5%) = 16.00B#0.U. 690.108s U.A.A. 298.696 + (16.5# crx. recovered later). 31529680.L snippee in 86. in 1987 snippee ine SHIoPENTS 1987 Ln WYOMING 3/24/87 15.7068 (66.5%) = 7.616#0.U. 3/3/87 15 lbs. 3/29/87 14.859# (47.5%) = 7.058 3/30/87 15 lbs. 4/7/87 14.056# (46.6%) = 6.550 4/22/87 15 lbs. 4/18/87 1's.186# (46.1%) = 7.923 6/2/87 15 lbs. k/30/87 19.184# (45.9%) a 8.806 6/1/87 35.900# (46.9%) si 16.69L (10.5# added crx.) 6/13/87 16.658# (46.8%) 7.796 from wests) 6/27/87 23.660# (L6.5%) = 11.002 (4.0# added crx. ) 7/12/87 26.929# (47.2%) = 12.709 from wests) 8/6/87 17.656# (k6.4%) = 8.100 8/7/87 18.613# (66.5%) = 8.655 # edded crx.) 9/3/87 28.762# (47.5%) = 13.652(f ;. ) from wasta) 9/30/87 21.811# (46.5%) = 10.162 (spx.) 6/27/87 15 lbs. . 10/19/87 27.335# (46.8%) = 12.793 7/18/87 15 lbs. 12/20/87 3L.910# (46.8%) = 16. 338 #0.U. 8/9/87 15 lbs. 333.0038 U. A. A. 155.e36s--(16.5# crx, from wants)'s 139.33L# shipped in 87 9/10/87 15 lbs. snipped in E
- 10/1/87 15 lbs.
10/20/87 15 lbs. 150 les. Received 87 L39# = 92.89% b, YJfLO37 a50# I The remaining 25 lbs-(340# - 315#) was disposed of with the weste shipment ( to the University of Utah. Thors is still about 10 lbs in the wests for 1987 (150# - 139.8#), which we will dispose of to authorized egents of weste or recover f or Hysol U. A. A. catalyst shipments in the future. t t I
o Occeteer 25. ME"/ 3entlemen: Tnis letter is te ccnfirm t e ccnversetien tetween myself andLast winter, I pr Mr. .illiam Fisner, USNFC, Region IV.I cnose en iscistec location,I was in the 6 ins, cf cesert, Nevaca metal in Nevaca.anc workec cff the cack of my 2 ton truck.I was forcac to extremely careful to not contaminate the area. . catalyst fer tne Phthalic Annycrice work plastic The Stata of Utah had reaction, j snut cown if tne catalyst is not present.cronicitec i so es me from pro tnis small amount in Nevaca, uncer another jurisciet on,
~
not to be in viciation. d
- As for California, this was ever 10 years age, anc I manufactureon a vacan in the cesert my enemical en tne back of my truck, .
in Le Crescenta, and in various isolated locationsAt the time, my comcany areas of Califernia. I was cf little cencern es a healtn hazerc. Sincerely,
, sf . h v s
c p t dennP.Larsen sh
.v fk ;
;\; y .
.e >
I t (
\
l
t (.6 . TMA
.Thermo AnalyticalInc.
I j TMA lberlone La t s . . .* r . !: . 4. e . . j s .. : o . . . !! .: a o :. r v. .e ** 5: 3! *.'
.$2! J.'! H.' '
.s . u. 3 *-
.. .s s . .
; . ' * * > 5 ~ .. ? - 8 . 6. f * : '< ;
....i~ Ti . : ', i : : n, T--
.....9
. ' . . . 6. 6 .L: c.., sa. .. ..:
6 .' ; > I . *. d 3 s it 1-L t -:1 1;., v.. ... ..
,, . . . . ..e 1: -
J .. . Gentlemen: This statement from TMA dosimetry validates our contention that the radiation exposure in our process is minimal, which exposure was a major concern to the Utah Sureau of Radiation. Th.y should have known about the low 11 val exposure rats of depleted Uranium.
,s........m o... . . .
J .~LbT.. . 1C r..
. .g. . v. . . g ., ::. .
1 ,. .. .r : *.
. .?!* Ts .*:. ?!- -
. 7*.- ..:.
.. .~ -
7 :. . n. ...t
. 1. . C .. i. 1.;c6 Fiv ~
4 . ...0 :- ~.3,. :is -
. , 7. ". .
;.... -- t..
s.. w-
. .. ... .* . n.'
- 4
- .... Si f.;r. .:
t
. . . . . . . .. ..:.: 3s
. F.... 1. 7.:~~ ;
j
.a, e I
~
- c.;;; 5:
.... . I
/ . ,...... .
.. 1 .. r*
1 y . I 11.*., . 1 ; 11. 4 ' - 4:: 1
- r. ,...... .
u... l 1
\
" UNITED States '
. "'; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGloN IV g 3 7" / $11 RYAN PLAZA oRIVE. SufTE 1000 V5 # ARLINGTON. TEXAS 75011 9,,,,,- NOV I 9 tc:T .
In Repli Re'e* To: Docket: 99?90004JE704/ Cal 67-24 Wrangler Laos. Evanster., Wyoming General License: - EA E7-223 La-ser. Laos. Incorporated ATTA: Jonn P. Laesen. President 3853 NCith Sherwooc Orive provo. Utah. 6460'
Dear M . Larser:
SU2)ECT: CONFIRMATION OF ACTION LETTER
~
This is to cer. firm the conversation between10, Mr.1987. JohnBased Larsen. Wrangler Labs anc on this Mr. R. J. Evecest. USNRC Region IV on Novemberconversation. it and/or Orion Chemical is taking the following actions: e 23, 1987, cease N i[ Immediately cease all receipt of, and effective Novemberall between t h*fh,Is }' Thge er m90T Esh fe of the Us i s . that.-it-is.,further authorized by the NRC.'(bevember10-13]M
'g /hcensec material on hanc according tc7 bur proce'd 1=a*1 ade <ael e s to determine. personnel M @g i S erforming this work will weaevity, i ** and will fulMFerine (wele_s for y- pxposuretoairborner ginningthepr6cedures,'andy"twey{:g,]Q'
, uranium determinations h ocedures.
b,,p / 9k,h.o'ur's) f6 n{-)mp ietson 13,1987, sec#e a 1 licensed material on hand and any ! Effective November equipment previously used to process licensed material at Evanston, y ) ,d Wyoming Evanston, inWyeming. its present location at Jay-Gee Industrial Park, U . 4 di material f rom this location until further authorized b l
. continue.
\
.b Arrange to have your employee identified by the initials B.- N. whose 26, 1987, urine bioassay measured 10B 99/1, submit a urine
+3 V4 pFebruarysample to a qualified laboratory to be$Wste6*.f ~ ~~- or.* ura 4
]pReporttheresuitsofthetesttothisoffice.uoenvee. Tot 1
?. h'. y
% ... l A
# 9 ETURh RECE1FT RE00ESTED
, /4 A'
TMA l*. Thermo AnalyticalInc. TMA Nortal Mamng Aceress
- yy:.t.;-,a.e v eose.4se en=7:,: ,nc.:.w:
. a,cnmonc. c^ *E;' :o'3 4'! 233-2t!!
N vember 25, 1987 j Ref: TMA/Norcal CN 4438 l Mr. John P. Larsen l Orion Chemical Company , 3853 North Sherwood Road l Provo, UT 84604
Dear Mr. Larsen:
The results of the five urib.e samples we received for analysis on 19 Nevec 1987 have been completed and are shown belsv. NCll6 Sample Total Uranium Number ps/L 1 2 a %d. AUM$p l s - (fpAM1Avy John P. Larsen, 529 54 7655 53'1 3 /2.0 E-U- M SI) _ Michael J. Larsen, 528 53 5544 41"1 2 -97053 Bruce Noack, 505[84-9543 2 6 1 2 ---* N Kevin Noack (I), 502-88 7130 46 1 2 *ti$ 3 Kevin Noack (II), 502 88 7130 14 2 2 pfF k'~ ' A [s We appreciare this opportunity to be of so vice. { Very tru'.y yWrs , ,'g . 13h. MW Marvin P. Hunt '
\+b d .) '- } 'lk l
e Program Manager 4 4 d d' TMANorcal Corporation ' MPH /ss
?' D 9 15 N A 4,p ej,,,
J ,. g d-Qt./a ,' q<
TMA Thermo AnalyticalInc. O __ W Nons' _ ;f J C ."<* -- 4.e
- Maihng Acoress PO 3:s ay3 ae- m - "a Ngy :M: ec monc CA eaB'J ;> D
.s:1235 2L13 December 1,1987
- t Ref: TMA/Norcal CN 4438 . Mr. John P. 1.arsen Orion Chemical Company 3953 Ferth Sher..'eed P. cad Provo, UT 84604
Dear Mr. Larsen:
The results of the five urine samples we received for analysis on 30 Novest 1987 have been completed and are shown below. , Sample Total Uranium Numbe.r pg/L i 2 a O w John P. Larsen, 529 54-7655 12 2 3
-. ' John P. Larsen, 529-54 7655 Clue 2213 Michael J. Larsen, 528 53 5544- 2623 y Bruce Noack, 501 84 9543 723 - h u (#N-l
.5 Kevin Noack, 502 88-7130 4523 M
k Ve appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Very truly yours,
~
7;;.n. .' c/ . Marvin P. Hunt
- Program Manager TMANorcal Corporation MPH /ss
~
J O
d._,. t
*
- UNITED sTOTIs
# ~~ . .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I mtcloN IV h k ' [I ait RYAN PLAZA ORIVE, sutT[ 1000 ARLINGTON. TEXAS 7501) DEC 8 1987 A
/ ,
In R W.y Reie 'c: -
)
Docaet: 9999C04'E7C4,' CAL 87-22A & $,(*, General Licerse : krangle* Lacs. Evansten. Wyomingp EA 27-223
,y
'%i Larsen Labs. Incorporated %".
- N ATTh: Jene. F. La-see. Presicent 3853 Norin Sherwoed Drive hYb Provo. Utah 54604 .
Dear Mr. Larsen:
SUEJECT: CONFIRMATION OF ACTION LETTER . D ' - - Wrangler Lacs This and Me. is to confirm the conversation cetween Mr. maw 411a- L. tha' Eased o*. Fisne , USN conversation. it is my understanding that Wrangier Laos, Larsen Labs, anc/cr Orion Cne nical will tame tne f ollowing at: 1ons: h 1. By Decemce- 8,1987, obtain, from the following persons, urine samples These urine h for uranium analysis by a reputable bioassay laboratory. fa N samoles are to De voided into containers known to be free of uranium contamination, and the date and time of voiding are to be documented. M at 1 ,l .e ,.t-t Nt ,
- .,y.
- N j*, .h- {. . ' . v f 4..a
. 4. i.~ .,;
~ K.'F y g g .
- 2. Provice this office the address, if available, or a, description of the California and Nevada locationb) at which depleted uranium in any form or cuantity has at any time been received, processed, or shipped by Mr. John P. Larsen or by any ott.) - person on Mr. Larsen's behalf.
g Dispose of licensed material (depleted uranium) remaining in the Evanston, h'% 3. Wyoming facility. Material in process but not recovered as UAA when
'T.#
\, cperation ceaseo on November 13, 1967 may be either: (1) processed ic -
UAA and transferred to a 5.Es.123e.r or (2) disposed of a,s radioactive
,y s
^* " " - ll:p t $ 3 % %d C/nk.s .
k.$y4.\ Decontaminate all surf aces and equipment within the Evanston,' Wyoming f acility to or below the following levels: r Average
- fixed - 5,000 dpm alpha per 100 ca Maximum fixed - 15,000 dpm alpha per 200 cm2 Removable - 1,000 dpm alpha per 100 ce? .
s i
- Average over an area not greater than I square meter, l CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECElr RE00ESTED
w
' gg,g ,
The ,o AnalyticalInc. 4 0'ca' Ma. hag Accren e : se,s:s, 2:::.. p- a.r u ea~~;~: C.* sat:s *:s.
' a._g *=g ~: :: 5.:c:.'::':
xs :n:sn Dscomber 23, 1987 TMA/Norcal CN 4438
~
Ref: Mr. John P. Larsen : 5
' orion chemical company 3853 North Sherwood Road "
Provo. L'T 84604 Daar Mr. Larsen: . samples we received for analysis InJ Decembd . The results of the three urine . 1987 have been completed and are shown below.
./
Collection Total Uranium '{v Sample pg/L 2 2 a re k.y ,,p \. Date , . _ f her N " 31 2 3 4 12/8/87 John P. Larsen, 529-54-7655 12/8/87 4)'~ Michael J. Larsen, 528 53 5544 ' p'( , 1023 . Kevin Noack, 502-88 7130 12/8/87 p em"
.****p L's appreciate this opportunity to be of service. .
h8 Very truly yours, a[ '7iFM [( ' y/,h/%'/ Ib 4 j 6
.g t '
f g Marvin P. Hunt Pro 5 ram Manager , C -
- T:%Norcal Corporation MPH /ss
-u
. uNitto sTAtts
.~,, -
NUC'. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN
. ,f Atc60N :V n ? as / a11 RYAN PLAZA oRIVE. sufTE 1000 / *,"*,*' ARLINGTON, TEX As 7aC11 V} DEC 311987 In Rep'y Refe- To:
Docket: 90ceCC /E704/ CAL B7-24E Generai License: Wrangler Labs, Evanston, Wycming EA 87-223 La-sen Labs, Incorporated ATTN: John P. Larsen, President - 3853 North Sherwoce Drive Prove, Utah 84604
Dear Mr. Larser.:
SUBJECT:
CONFIRMATION OF ACTION LETTER This is to confirm the conversation between Mr. John P. Larsen, Wrangler Labs . anc Mr. Ricnarc L. Bangart, USNRC, Region IV on December 31, 1987. Based on that conversation, it is my understanding that Wrangier Labs. Larsen Labs, and/or Orion Chemical will take the following actions:
- 1. Immediately cease all activities involving depleted uranium at the Evanston, Wyoming facility until further notice from the NRC. Included are activities involving equipment or waste handli_ng, liquid volume h'
\
reduction, and decontamination. This yorptoppagy will stay in effect until such time as the NRC determines th,at %ork"can be conducted without uposing individuals to elevated levels of uranium.
- 2. By January 1,1988, obtain from the following persons, urine samples for
- uranium and albuminuria. s analysis..by. a.4eputable laboratory. Submit with l these sampjes Q,,ghaspufghptingus,appJacfor-ur,an47 nalyst.s.,o.nly g s obtained from.an ,iedividual who has not worked with. depleted.yraniu.m and
\ is known to have no lung or systemic uranium burden other than from
& naturh1 g . b. yh&
J background.Y' 4
. 3. Collect additional urine samples for uranium analysis only from the two individuals identified above at a frequency of once every three (3) days until such time that the results of two consecutive samples are less than . 30 yg/1. All urine samples are to be voided into containers known to be free of uranium contamination, and the date and time of voiding are to be documented.
4 Submit copies of the results of urine sample measurements to this office as you receive them. l l CERTIFIED MAIL RETURh RECEIPT RE0 VESTED x e _---m.__ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. . - ~
' ENERGY nuenar soonnomi. mc. esesz* c-s~c sc~ sus ss s
*: es. ssse e sss ~s causse s-
- casase JAROMATOMiff G
I
\ - BIOA55AY RESULTS LABCRATORY REPORT C12ent: ORJON-WRANGLER CHEMICAL COMPANY 01-19-EE su:mattal Date: 01-EG-EE #
Iate Fece <ecs 01-El-EE Assa. Late: 01-25-B5 Fe::rt Date:
; t.r a n );Lm. ]
E a mp M._Q.a .t .e.
~.S. ug/l
~
Lar N: t h,1 e . .Q 1 (5 529-54-7655 01-10-88 12:00 <5 OFL , 525-53-5544 01-10-88 1E:00 (5 ES-025e MJL 01-10-B5 12:00 GE-0EE7 (5 ,
--4= E F <5 EE-0EEE Lu:licate 01-13-98 12:00
- 52E-53-5544 5 FJL $29-5 -7655 01-13 8B 12:00 *. 5 EE-CEEC 2;L 01-13-EE GE-cE40 B5-0291 4 TON cerc_ F_c; INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE s=1 &e v a l u e-CHECKS:
ess. assav ce ugel
- ortein i c e e ._ ug Laze at: v - ug/l 0+'
15.0 c. 15 25.5
'. 5 6E-0EEe ;5 30 Es-0 Esc
- ;5 EL2 Black - 13.9 .
ELI 15 ELI 20 - 31.3 RC t anc analyzec in accorcance witn US-Information co NOTE: Eameles splitGuices 4.15 and E.22 the laceratory.ana
. Regulatory remevatte alona contamination atis attachec tc this report.
werk areas I
, l i
's ,-
retoottww coa 6 ! p, AwatvticAL scavices - waren soit .... ..... e ; uvic t . - w at s ,. .. . , n..
- ~ - - - - - . _ _ _ . _ - _
.4 '
~
ENEB&P susnov tisonironies,inC. l48884I88/l8 e e ecs 3:ss
- asa no etwtre s-
- casete we stocae *=our iact. ass ests LABORATORY REPOR1 - BIDASSAY RESULT 5 f a
4 A , C14ent: ORION-WRANGLER CHEMICAL COMPANY
*fft-l[y ,( I
- s"4 d .A)[/ .
.:uc m : t i a l Date: &!-C -EE
[h*/ d' L e Da e Receive:: (fl-OE-BE3 bit e g* k[ g , Assav Date: 01 -CE-Gii Lg Pe:cet Date: 01-25-BE h k o#'l . b LI f!- ) , .
- t. a t Ne. Eaa: 1e_1.D. -
5.5.-.
.. Sa m:_1. e Da t e Ilc. a n i u m ugri EE-:!c. J. Larsen S E 9 * *. '7e ".5 2-29-B7 1.E:00 35.e .
*h "EG-5 -7e"5 [2-31-87 12:00 to! .
J. Larsen k(' L Es-)!eE EE-M e3 M. Larsen "25 "3-5"*4 L2-28-87 12:00 oE.E. EE-0Jc- M. Larsen 529-53-5546 L2-31-87 12:30 "E.5- \1
- M. Larsen 52E "3-55** JJ1-03-BG 12:00 2E2 EE-Ole" 2EE Duplicate
% p\%
hCTE: m:les rece:ve: l e a 6. 2 - pret cle samole con aminatice
; r. c c . . . . s a ris s;.e s a me ns t'e c m c l a s t i c c a q s .
INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECKS: E r i k e yg,;.'Ae Q),54,,Asfa,t_Cgrjg. 8_:g. resee s Lattesterv = Oricinal C e r.c . . ce:. :. ug 'l ug ugeI en.E 20 9*.1 1.01* EG-C1c3 . E.- Elan. -
+5 -
E.1 15 - 1".1 Eul 30 - 29.o N~~E: Sa.ples sciit anc anals:e: in a::creancec r.ca with US-NR*. t i c e. c e r.c e s r. t ng Requiat:r. 3. aces *.1" anc E.'E. I r.
-em:wac.e ale".a c:ata.:natise. at tne Jacoratcry ar.alysis ,
( nc . a e As is atta:ne: te tn:4 re:D i. O 1
LARSEN - DIRECT 369 b13" I JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I guess finally, the December O 2 26th document which responded to our request for your 3 statement. 4 This document seems to be eight pages long; is 5 that correct? 6 MR. LARSEN: Yes, that is correct. 7 (Discussion held off the record.) . 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That document should have an 9 additional two pages of attachments. 10 Off the record for a minute. - r 11 [ (Discussion held off the record.) 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: On the record. The copies given for the record have indications 13 l 14 ' of what portions were highlighed when they were submitted 15 initially to the Board. This document is dated December 16 26th, 1988. It has eight pages plus two attachments, and l 17 ; the highlighting in question appears on each of the two { 18 pages of attachments. I 19 Any objection to that document going into the j l I 20 ; record' l 21 (There was no response.) l
- I ~
22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Ms. Hodgdon, any objection? 23 I MS. HODGDON: No objections. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay, that document will be 25 admitted into evidence as a portion of Mr. Larsen's I i i
~
O
LARSEN - DIRECT 350 , . . b13f 1 te s tiraony . 2 (Letter of December 26, 1988, together with 3 attachments follows.) 4 5 6 . 7 8 I 9l i 10 : . 11 , 12 l 13 l l 14 15 , ty 17 ; 18 , 19 i 20 21 , 22 l 23 j 24 1 25 , l ( I O
1 .i I t December 26, 1988
- []
N. United States Nuclear Fegulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Sirs:
l This letter is wr2tten in response to.Statf Order
. Revoking licenses.
- 1. "Enceeded 15 # 11m2t for transter. Pace 5." When we transf erred our work to Wyoming, we called the NRC in .
Wasnsnoton. D.C. to get clarification es to the 15 a limit at one time (If we d2dn't care about the NRC regulations as we have been cherged with. we wouldn't have called the NRC for 2nformation.) We were told that the 15 # l i mi t was p ( applicable to each location. We have kept the 15 # 11 mat at the Evanston location. Crystals from the waste that was being processea for disposal, were added separately 2n Provo. Utah, to the sh2cment going to Hysol. At no time did we exceed 15 # 2n Evanston, Wyoming. There were 10 purchases of depleted uranium from Nuclear Metal s and 10 del s veri es.to the Evanston location. No other purchases were made,2n 1987 thus keeping the General License rule of
, under 150 # per year limit. We did dry and package gooc crystals of UAA that were from ourchases made 2n 1985 and 1986. This entro pouncage was stored in L2ndon. Utah.
Between these l oc ati ons . I had more than 15 #. However. I [ (
l did not er: c eed 15 # in my Evanston location. Thase loft-ovar 1 ) crystals of good catalytic quality. would have been wasted l If thrown away with the waste material. As long as we did not e:: c eed our 15 4 limit of material in our Evanston location, we pacLaged and shipped them to Hysel. I do not thin 6 this was an unreasonable thing to do. However, as far as I can understand. this has been interpreted as my e:<ceeding the 150 # limit per year and hence the allegation of e::ceedi ng urani um possessi on li mi ts. , 1 l ) 2. "That he e :ceeced the annual limit of 150 #.
'155.8 pounds)" page 6.
As esplained above. the 1987 purchases were w1hin the i li mi ts of 150 #. The 30 purchases of 15 # each from the 1 Nuclear Metals. Inc. were within the 150 # limits for 1987. Any excess poundage was from purchases made in previous years. To throw the good crystals away would have been a waste of useable catalyst. To the best of my understanding, the 150 *, limit was for new materials r ec ei ved from suppliers during a cne year period.
- 3. "Mr. Larsen failed to obtain base-line urine samples ..." page 6.
, The base-l i ne urine sampl e f or Levin Noac6: was per+ormed according to the CAL. I had 4 other employees that were temporaralv woriang fer my company and were only employed occasionally. One being my son, Mi ke Lar sen , and the other Eruce Noac6 .
I did not obtain e base-line on these two 9
. .) ,.
1 temporary employees. I reall:e now that I mace a mistake in
,~~.x assuming that their urine counts would be zero. Obvi ousl y ,
( k as Mile Larsen is my own son, would I take any chances with y_ his or any other employees heal th. I was not attempting to save monev at their expense, I merely made a mistake in not obtaining their urine base-li ne. I bel i eved since the base-line for Eevin Noack read 14 micro-grams per liter, that the containers were contaminated to begin with.
- 4. " . . . f al l ed to submi t wori:ers bacLground sample."
page 6. Due to snenperience in collectino and submitting urine - samples. I over-l ooted the background sample that was requested in the CAL. However, es I gaineo more enoerience, I did not fall to submit f uture bac6: ground samples f or the
,s nent tests taten 1-10-88 end 1-13-58 These complied with (x the CAL
- 5. ...stoppeo ccllecting urine-samples every 5 days."
page 6. Samples were collectec in conformance with the CAL. Lec. 01, 1987 but the glass ;ars were suspectec of contamination We received urine sample jars that were pl asti c + rom Energy
~, Labs These were certified cl ean upon receipt , January 10, 19ee samplano continuee every : eays in con +0cmstv to tne CAL. The resul ts showed less than 5 micro-grams per later on 1-10-88 and 1-12-58 4cr all samples. inclucing l
b ac t.gr oun d. We conclude the dramatic drop of uranium l l
/~s
(' I
micro grams per liter betwecn th7 sample pcriods from 12-51-87 to 1-10-8E, a result of contamination 2n the sampling jars.. .
- c. ". . . bl o-assay resul ts were not submitted to the region 4 office..." page 6 As stateci above, the results were questionable because the bon arrived broken at Energy Labs on 1-8-88. This was a .
shipping problem, not our neglect. We boxed samples enattly the same way and this was the only package that arrived
- bro 6en. Roger, the assayer at Enercy Labs, c all ed us on 1-9-88 and reocrted the damace and asi:ed whether to continue .
the assev. I said. "Yes, and please send us cleen sample Jers even though the results will be Questionable." He told me that Jers can be easily contaminated with lanolin from hand creams used by the woriers. amines from pharmacy jars, as well as manv other mat eri al s. This is why I asl'ed for their containers that they knew were clean. Samples talen in their jars 1-10-68 and 1-10-88 all showed less than 5 m2tro grams / liter cf uranium. I still believe our cor. tainers were contaminated with something. I wish I could uncerstand why their is such a seemi ngl y adversarial attitude in regards to our efforts to compiv ' with the many regulations that we are finding out about. As I am a small business. I will admit to having some troubles in setting up our laboratory in a cood end proper place. We purchased 5 acres of lanc. away fecm any people that might 9
i bs bothered by us, and as close to a slag-dump by a steal mill, in L1ndon. Utah. After the purchase, we learned that [ ) we coul d not build on the land, because there was not a Q ,/ complete sewer svstem nearby. Since we don't dispose of any chemi c al s in the sewer, we requested the use of a holding tant for any human waste. We were densed and told that if our company were all owed a holding tant. every company a should be al l owed the same. We have since been allowed to build a storage buildino, and this year we have had electric 1tv installed in same bu11 dang. We built this antitloating a proper leboratory to be installed and we were encoureged that this seer a sewer would be in pl ace. It has , not beEn insta}}ed Es to this writing. The temporary f acilitics we have had to worl in have contributed to our problems.
^s As far as abandoning these temporary sites. we \, - absolutely deny this accusation. We were inspectec each and everv time by NRC Inspectors or state inspectors for a clean fac111tv. Thev woul d have never releasec us without clearence from them. If the sites show further c ont a mi n at i on . It would not ce because of neglect on our part. I have not understoco wnv my small business is , accused of a ll egall y-di sposi ng of material wastes, when 1 have stored the materi al for years and have disposed of the material legally when I knew how to and where to through the University of Utah at the cost of $5,000. There have been small meteriel sollis which we have readily cleaned uD, 1
i
\_
\ _ _ - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7_ never " willfully disregarding our recponsib111ticG." As far i I as the Wyoming f acility. I do not 6:now what corrective ections I have not lept. (Fress release 8-22-8B NRC to news media: "NRC also assued an order suspending the generel license ...the NRC staff concluded f rom the response to that order that corrective action commitments had not been i.ept , and that Wrangler Labs had vi ol a '.ed NRC requirements...") The few spots of sl i ght contamination were cleaned up and the building was released for public use. I have always , conolled With everything as4ed by NRC. I assume that now I will be accuceo o, abanconing the Evanston site. With regards to the Wyoming operation, we made the following 2mortvments in our operation. even though technically worl'ing under a general license status
- 1. TLD badges wcen. (TLD results: all less than 10 m1111 rem /vear)
Depleted uranium is not a very bad external radiation hacara, comoared to others of more significant concern, sucn as Flutonium. Racium, etc.
- 2. Cleanliness: The initial inspection showec 14 smear results of less than 1/0 the NRC gulde-lines. This shows no gros s cont amination, as was alleged. Three small ,
spots chowed some contami nation due to spill s. These were decontam1 hated with scac and water and some granding. For a manufacturing facility, which deals with larger than laboratory quenitaties. we feel that these results were not unreasonable. Even thouch a small business does not have O
~ - _ - ._
f (b the resources et a large businssa, w2 are Juog2d by the samg standards. There were no improper disposals of materials, .,m I i no contamination outside was found, and the waste was stored
\
a nsi de of the building in properly marked containers.
- 3. Security of work area was maintained with the materi al stored in cabinets.
- 4. Monitoring of area for cleanliness. Alpha smears checled the clean-up for removabl e contaminate on. Personnel lapel air-monitoring was attempted, but we recorded no readings.
- 5. Recorcs: All in oraer. and all material accounted for. with nc 200 # mi ssi ng as was cuestioned. .
- 6. Label 2ng. signs posted: Rad i o-ac t i vi t y stitters on containers, cabinets costed with cauti on radi o-acti vity signs, NRC form 4 postec. etc.
['~ 7. Stainless steel eautoment: Many thousands of ( dollars spent in wcrk area. counter tops, for cetter clean-up and monitoring of any c ontami n at i on.
- 8. FacLages: Monitored for compliance data for reciation anc DDT regulations. In-coming and out going pac 6eges chec6ec for radiation levels. Paper wor 6. was Lept for records. Also, Hysel 's Specific License was kept in f i l es f or regulatory inspection.
- 9. New Instruments: We purchased new instruments for monitorina radi ati on. We now have 2 Ludlum Model m3 Pancake Geiger Counters. 2 Alpha Eci nt i l l at i on counters and probes, t
~ /
l l 1 high volume Air Sampler, 1 Lcpel Air Sampler, etc. Those were purchased for the Wyoming operation.
- 10. Four new fume hoods we have recently purchased to c ont r ol any air particles. Our process is now done with micro-wave ovens in the dry 2ng step, under a fume hood.
which is the only step with any dust particles. (See new lab. design)
- 11. New fluor 1 meter: To give us more control of bloassay urine sampling, we purchased a fluorometer.
I hope this shows no l ec t: of concern and willtul disrecard for health / safety regul ati ons . One of the . greatest needs for small businesses is an agency that will help and inform us of regulations and yet treet the small i businessman as whet he is and not Judge him by the same standarcs as a large bus 2 ness. We are separate and our ' needs are greater beceuse our resources are l i mi t ed. has great need of business in general, and we f eel that our Utah S i business could contribute to the economy and supply jobs ; I for a few. An advertarial attitude does nothing but destroy. l 51 >r el v . : 7 ' i
' L, dohn F. Larsen .
i I O l _________J
9, m the canual defaeft.- ami , O : inflaue q-therform.n b caply tatation in w hud,tems the effect of brea beyouts Busin.ess ?; ttocombinathas those up taeffs-and selbng S Loff a Wedenesday ection C Morning-Decernh bl
- s. er 14,1988 ,
- I,
/"ar who wtD~~ lean them Page 5
- the,other, the str !
0 me t.Bes, ,uct_uring of fe- S.L.Ch.ana. ta
" on assumption of contta On Br., :ll.
us Affectm-Busine e The ' wi their capital basetment up toByone and a halfBd Joe Rolando g . darmg outlook , have a far Tribum Busbess Writer : raise hInterstateand ambutookThe of employnss htotuto restrictedits ts Lake Chamber LB01mvolve-- than does of CSDCommerce "We're Ptrst willing to negotfste erpo. board
, he said. percent of its capital be posttions Tuesday on four issues t o what we. l
*!ut problem on the'Amerten when considered by the Legislature it convenes Jan. 9. bill.,to save the general 6 des .
i of t The positions a nowis And t the Texas aarings and uusm hat, be said, plus Texas board agreed nmtmously recommended by the on whic being pushed byraUtab h the o
, Indut i . veral key Congressional Stakpostsmantfest Mgnhure Action were inComdtte chamber's Commission boldingrequiring and thebilitation AII'CIO anandator"the e Utah reh Stat ans - could give rise to gov. e.
under a- , ett interventions in the style of Johnson years K. Ptsber, pubbe affairs axes anarsgThe com er for Chevron Corp . *! have Uuh saidnot Mr.seen P.sber. a " figure for , keep your fugers cromed the trickle of bins pre., who observed-fad has increasd to a torrent-ftled le Cahfornia. early this forButexamplehave we do I n,
, 'gislaun session dnws near. as the workers' Small Cain TheMow detailed chamber board benud a postuons H bubon are , 61985 bn. mth 'i*
'I 6
com
- A ,,,. red setment on." of mandatorytehabihts- I bro & der indtzes to deepe# se ie drafted by the chamber's Sm mhuo
'8 d be bended hightr. worrier, that interest ~eOpposed several buls attemp '
ness Legislatn e 6 rates aD Busi-subcommittee fee,s rather to re enhme sm1e me e t. hold a loste pubbe htartng onthan eraltues. rules andqutre the customary ofen-g state rep
- s hated common regulabons tc 155.24 stocks NYSE they promnipte. composite inder "What we mean by that is Da.le Zabrakie, chairman of th fees where they're oppose ed to us... we sbpped 0 01 to 318 Smau 42 anddard Busmess Legalauve tee,explamed 2e beamgs
& Poor's e industrialin-shiftCocmut.
would f om general taxation er for s 500 stock composne m, des a. pngrams Iunded throul that should properly be
~21 to 276.31' low sman busmesses out to testify ab eral taaston,gh generalfund or gen-the unpact of the proposed rul ,
NASDAQ compoalte indes regulations M Bed busbems. es or t. e orcr thecenoter marke pose"What what we it properly doese opnot term mean as use- is tw" t 2 to 372S8. At the Ament quared to merely e- consider fus )beause many dis testisaid thmb- an r the {state ag index fell 0.85 to 295 mony prove 82tock before decidmg the rulesEzehange. or regulation. We wheiber pose to snarket ap-in hfe is to regulate a secto the burmesa community. A good a nde range of regulatsor"What we reaUy want b to look at es-stateWaste Bureau andsee tf where rouch of the tse small buswe can entget to real, governm.s i sninistrauve costs is really for a very-
-@ FQQd bustnesses "iness are not reAUy "They are sm. Mr. Zabnskie said.
af big sman acetor of the busmessi comanu
' false sense of securny,"need to the mdictment.
an buntn pe. some extra care." esses s.ad they in7ustnes han agmd om time 2an here imposed on them o fees in beu f bound Leutng is a subs) Tbe diarybtu also contains a tues legal todef> support that agency bees , Phoentz based Greybound n! tiononof Mthing theabookssmall to sebustness. rta AI"d "There
' "I*I is g,g, ,,,p,,,
uae nt related ctril hwsuit, which b.g to the U.S Duttnet Court Utab he said. So to desenbe a sman te ' of f,I "
,, pU al bustoess f ', a that when aetr.ims small bustness is d lour undersundmg g ve is 4 -
m- if the biU expands the county's a en defeodants toeludinGreyhound a enum. i mancial tuutuuons g three comp FtrttBank used and that's something 6 support Uke sutb aeated u-legalaton e in taI' r. asthe lugfed a 7, Zions First National less any with 500 employees or it does not erpand taung autbo I Player with imaneanInterstate Bank of Utab- ntt - ' has fraudulent deahns;g and James Mortuner explained "Our p
.ree fmanealinst!tubour ly contesnne L
those aDegs. a sman are subsidary busmess of a targer busmess s! tion. troduce tas and ishat that not typewere an someone o. of legalation anuiste to m- du 2 orW s havtng eten b0 orless fuu would tune enot support itif u, we cal state fraud syer's theybd no Laosi. ployees or less than 81 m!D)on gmss sales opporturJty *in for counbestoeluded th to use 4tib- Jr4 e
~ ty franetae tases, for example t.oo However. Mr. Zabriskie Without we would probs saidtoeludmF the such legishuoc}bly be supportive [of taxation abtllb..
es sad k'use 1 ug When item e4
'" \.
r- N n I -@
.__------------]
X '
,. j
)mG -
5 x
'bdd -
1 2 g , es p
? 8*
-G u- Q
- W\n l b d %e N.
=
kJ9 5 # apa s . ss.
.x
\. ( >
sv y 1 -
~%
%s N.e W i
=- e 7
S ~%i v%
) l N
; a
\ .
. e n b- z n
[ ;kU\
't e=4 C D 24 co' c- %M $
z N N 'd " g! se - 5 s W\
--- g b!$
m~ e
+
Q N an h N , g . s
. ,u '
W 5 \;j oi -
*5 E
. ~
i gg s z og
\ \ -uS F e
g mii!B m x
' m .s 2 t m- w '
$ $.g na mz
< lV" ali \i .
'N ll 133e a
u , ma
\
'i Sg NN e
-C ,
s d4 , m: p: . . W .
- to.
C.' E.*-. (52 e 3*'i w C
- c:;
]
' I g NN,f su,i i BE s~1 s
s t
#A t !s!II:
- : c r9
, i Yhi ge-
~
1 a , _ __ us.- n a
=aw a
5 o e
'.' '\ .
. g x. - _ 26
' s '.
g . , . ., Q,,, he5
- f. 5 -
--- s o
..: s', _ y: g g=
'. p/j-
- \xs g) C @ s i'
'3 y-s _gc, t u -
--.a, ;
1 e s .. ; g' o 6- C: . y d \ j
~'
41s$5 bi - GEME )
<LARSEN'- DIRECT. <
351 m.s,,, g ., a Hb1'^ l JUDGE BECHHOEFER:- 'Off the record for a minute.
..\
- 2 (Discussion' held off the record.)' ,
3- JUDGE BECHHOEFER: On the record.
-4 The' Staff had forgotten-to formally move into 5 the record' Staff Exhibits 2 through 17,.which are the i- - 6 photographs that it presented yesterday and which were 7 identified'on the record at that point. Any objections b 8 to putting those photographs into the record?
l l 9'l- Mr..Larsen, do you have any objection to those u 10 , photographs? , l 11 MR. LARSEN: No. l JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Those photographs, 12 13: Staff Exhibits 2 through 17, will be admitted into the s 14 record. 15 (The documents referred to, having 16 ~l been previously marked for 17 i ' identification as Staff's Exhibits
~18- Nos. 2 through 17, inclusive, 19 were received in evidence.)
20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now we can go further. 21 Mr. Larsen, do you have anything supplementary f 12 in the way of testimony that you would like to add to the 23 direct testimony that we have put in thus far before you 24 make yourself available for cross-examination? 25 MR. LARSEN: Do you want Kevin's testimony now? r :
LARSEN - DIRECT 353 bl 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: No. Well, let's wait till 2i he comes here on that. We'll put his in at the time he 3 goes on the stand. 4 MR. LARSEN: Okay. 5 Does this have to be a part of the record in order 6 to be considered as evidence, or -- . 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. Yes, it does. 8l MR. LARSEN: So should I put this great big thir.g , 9 in? This is the new amended and modified way of doing the f 10 ! process that the State of Utah was asking for and which , 11 j I submitted to them in the settlement. i 12 You did get one of these, didn't you? l MS. HODGDON: The Staff has a copy of the 13 f I 14 ! document and would inquire as to what Mr. Larsen intends 15 to use it for, because it -- MR. LARSEN: Well, only as clarification as to { 16 l l 17 i what the state of affairs are now. 18 ; MS. HODGDON: It doesn't seem to relate to any 19 issue in the case. .I 20 (Pause for Judges to confer.) JUDGE SHON: Mr, Larsen, that is a description 21 22 of your process as it now exists; is that right? I 23 ! MR. LARSEN: As it is proposed to exist. . 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Have we seen this? 25 MR. LARSEN: I believe you did get one. O
[T :LARSEN - DIRECT 353 . , , . L Y b1t;
$N' MS. HODGDON: These are documents-that were given
- [d
;l 1
~
- 2. .to the' Staff in response to a discovery request, and1the 3 Board was furnished with copies, I'believe by the Staff.
"4
. I~can't be too sure about that. Or maybe --
5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: No, I think Mr. Larsen did-
- 6 send this.
7 MS. HODGDON: Mr. Larsen gave you a copy, and 8 he gave me a copy. Then there were two' copies. And'I 9ldistributedtotherestofthe---fortheservicelist. i JUDGE KLINE: I have an unbound copy that says 10 f , 11 on the front page, "This was the first submittal for a 12 standard operating procedure for a specific license granted 13 by the NRC in December, 1983."
- 14 Is that the document you're talking about?
15 , MR. LARSEN: That's it. 16 MS. HODGDON: Well, I don't understand. I heard 17 Mr. Larsen say that this is a proposed process by which 4 18lheisseekingaspecificlicensenow, and if that's the 19 case, then it doesn't have any relevance. If it is his 20 ' license, then I think it's already in.
- 21 MR. LARSEN: Well, it does contain the old 12 license procedure and the proposed amendments.
23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Larsen, how many copies i 24 do you have, because some of this material doesn't seem 25 to relate, but some may well. I l _ __________-
LWELWJ o LW;L49E Es0 , 1-l bl4^ 1 MR. LARSEN: I'll be glad to go get copies, if 2 it would -- 3 JUDGE BECHHOETER: I think he needs, what, four 4 copies for an exhibit, or three? 5 MS. HODGDON: Perhaps the Board could inquire 6 as to what he wants to rely on it for. It's not at all 7 clear to me that he needs to put it in. 8 MR. LARSEN: I think that it's a description of , 9 l the old process, a description of the amendments to it, to jand it also is evidence of a willingness to comply and not
)) !a callous disregard for regulations.
- 12 ' MS. HODGDON: May I ask once again what it is?
13 !There are two different processes discussed here. One is 14 I the old process, which is what? 15 MR. LARSEN: The process that was before this 16 specific license, I believe. 17 i MS. HODGDON: The process that was used before l 18 Iwhat date? l 19 MR. LARSEN: The old process is the first process j 20lwherethespecificlicensewasgrantedin1983. And so l l 21 it would be the process that is under the old specific l i 22 license, and then the new process is the process required ! 23 by the State of Utah, and what I am sayir.-g is that is 24 evidence for a willingness to comply. I 25 JUDGE SHON: As I understand it, Mr. Larsen, i l I f O
84@@@2 - 8808@if , Ess N bla' .j} 1 you are offering the old process as an indication of what
/
i
'/ 2 was going on under your specific license and under the Utah 3 license that was suspended simply to show what we are 4 talking about in the matter of what you were doing. You 5 were doing essentially the same thing in Evanston also, 6 is that right?
7 MR. LARSEN: Yes, that's right. 8 MS. HODGDON: And that's the old process. JUDGE SHON: And that's the old process. Now, 9, 10 the new process -- you offer that including whatever changes 11 ' may be evident by comparing the two as evidence of your { 12 I personal willingness to comply with the orders of the Utah 1 13 l authorities, who we have already heard are an extension f-- 14 l of NRC authority, is that right?
- I
(, _ 15 MR. LARSEN: That's right. MS. HODGDON: Is this, then, Mr. Larsen's 16 l 1 i 17 application for a specific license in Utah? 18 MR. LARSEN: Also for Wyoming. 19 MS. HODGDON: And then for before the NRC in 20 Region 4, Wyoming not being an agreement state. 8 21 MR. LARSEN: Right. 22 ; MS. HODGDON: So this is his application to the i
. 23 NRC, then, and it's not his application in Utah because 24 he already has a license in Utah.
No, they're both. It's for both, 25 MR. LARSEN: m
LARSEN - DIRECT , 356 1 1 JUDGE SHON: Have you actually submitted another l 2; application to NRC for a specific license in Wyoming? i 3 MR. LARSEN: Yes. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I see. 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And does this apply to that? 6 MR. LARSEN: It applies to Utah and Wyoming. , 7 JUDGE SHON: Yes, right, right. 8 MS. HODGDON: So Mr. Larsen is saying that he's - 9 submitted this documentation as part of his application 10 ' for a specific license, both in Utah and with the NRC in , 11 , Region 4 for a license in Wyoming? 12 MR. LARSEN: That's right. l 13 MS. HODGDON: And this is without regard to any l 14 place where +his would be done. This is not place-related; 15 is that correct? If i MR. LARSEN: Not yet. It is in Utah, but it is i 17 not in Wyoming yet. It is a modification of the procedure 18 ' to help cover all health and safety inadequacies, i 19 Hopefully it will be approved. Then we will net it up. I 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now, is this the procedure f 21 you would propose to use if you should win back your - t 22 , general license? ! 23 l MR. LARSEN: I would implement all of the safety i i 24 in here, but it would be under a general license, and 25 it wouldn't be necessary or have to be reported on every O
LARSEN - DIRECT 357 l f bl45' l g ~'h 1 form of paper that is in here. In fact, the general l
\.
) 2 license is more of record-keeping, but nevertheless, the l 3 concern for safety is well covered in here, and that would 4 be part of my operation also. It would be under a general 5 license if I get the general license back, but it would 6 be up to the standards of a specific license.
7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I see.
~
8 MS. HODGDON: I think it should be noted for the 9 l record that the NRC would not grant a license as a specific 10 l license without the location being part of the application,. 11l/// 12 i /// I 13 l / //
!,,-~ \ 14 l / / /
( ,) s 15 /// i 16 i /// 17 ' /// 18 /// 19 ' /// I ! 20 ' /// 21 /// . 22 ///
. 23 ///
24 /// 25 /// i O o
LARSEN - DIRECT 358 l i 1 )' T-8 M 1, JUDGE SMON: Well, he might have to supplement 2 this. But what he said is that the process itself, 3 independent of the location, would be the same. t Is that correct? 4 l: 5; MR. LARSEN: Yes. 6, MS. HODGDON: I don't have any objections to this . 7 being admitted as an exhibit, for what it's worth. But I 8 i don't think it's worth very much because I think it has very , And I also 9 little relevance to the issues in this case. 10 think t hat it expresses an intention to do something that . 11 isn't really done. I mean, a large part of the license 12 application goes to the location. And since that's the one l 13 thing that 's not determined here, then it seems to be a l i But with that caveat, j 14 wish list more than anything else. 15 for what it's worth. 16 JUDGE BECHHOIFER: But if we should rule that a 17 genera) license is okay, and if we were satisfied that these 1E were the procciures that would be followed even though more 19 than require 6 by a general license, that would seem to be I 20 very relevant, if that 's the case, relevant to his intent l to improve any of his operations. I mean, we have heard j 21 22 a lot of testimony as to how he has violated certain 23 provisions, has not expressed an intent or taken action to . 24 l improve t hings. This might be relevant to that. I'm not 25 saying what weight it should be given, but I do think it O
LARSEN - DIRECT 359 I i l
~"N
)
I! may be relevant, at least to that aspect of the case. ( L/ 2 of course, the weight to be given will be after-So 3 , we see proposed findings, that kind of thing, as-well. 4 we would have to review it. 5, I believe this should be admitted as Licensee f
- 6 I
Exhibit 1. I do think we need to work out copies, however. i 7 l- (The document referred to was 8 marked for identification as 9 Licensee Exhibit No. 1.) JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We have copies of this, as long 10 11 as it's the same. The first page is not really relevant.' 12 That was the uitness list that you provided. l 13 MR. LARSEN: Right. 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: At least t.h at is not needed. [N
\' 'l
( 15 I don't know enact ly what -- 16 MR. LARSEN: You could start with the map. 17 JUDGE SECH30ZFER: Okay, the listing of the or the solubility -- l different compounds is not part of it-, 18 1 19 MR, LARSEN: It's not exactly UAA, so I don't ! l 20 think it's appropriate in there. , i Okay. So what would be put j
- 2) 1 JUDGE BECHMOEFER:
i l 22 in would start with this first.
- MS. HODGDON:
Excuse me, Judge Bechhoefer, do you 23 24 , mind starting over as to what's in that? JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay, I have determined or the 25 ! G - . -- --.- _.
)
m l l l l
LARSEN - DIRECT e 360 I i H3 1 witness has said that the witness 1ist, which is the first 2 page, the page dealing with solubility of UAA, and a listing 3 ! of physical constants of inorganic compounds, which is two 4 pages, is not included. Then there's a blank page after 5 that. That's beside the point. The first page is the one l 6, that there's a map on. - 7 The map is headed " Exhibit G"; is that correct? 6 MR. LARSEN: Yes, that's right. . 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So what will be admitted will 10 start with that page. MR. LARSEN: Can these copies be submitted 11 f 12 tomorrow? How many copies would we need of this? 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Off the record for a minute. 14 (Discussion held off the record.) 15 JUDGE BCCHMOEFER: Back on the record. 16 The copies of Licensee Exhibit 1 have been f 17 provided to the reporter, and they are admitted into i 18 evidence, i l 19 (Licensee Exhibit 1, having ; 1 20 been previously marked for i l identification, was received 21 i . 22 into evidence.) 23 ' i JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Larsen, did you have 24 anything further supplementary? Before we make you 25 f available f or cross-examination, do you have anything O
LARSEN - DIRECT - 361 i i 1 further to your direct? 2 MR. LARSEN: No, I don't. 3 JUDGE SHON: Mr. Larsen, it was my understanding i 4 that there were a number of things that you wanted to bring 5 up when you came on the stand, a number of statements that 6 ! you wanted to make at various points. 7i MR. LARSEN: Oh, you mean the time to make 8 statements is now? 9 JUDGE SHON: Yes. 10 JUDGE BECHMOEFER: For you, yes. This is your 11 testimony. Now is the time for you to cover the material.. 12 To the ext ent that it 's not in your testimony which is l t 13 already in the record, it's your chance now to supplement, 14 make additions t o your testimony and corrections if 15 necessary. l 16 JUDGE SHON: At various points you had wanted to , 17 make particular st atement s , and I think we advised you then ; i 18 to make a note of them, and when your time came you could 19 say what you wanted to say. That's now. 20 DIRECT TESTIMONY l 21 THE WITNESS: The photographs showed a high-volume! 22 air sampler, and I think an air lapel sampler was also , 23 mentioned. I believe maybe Mr. Spitzberg said, as I 24 i remember, that there wasn't any evidence for their use. 25 I would like to show that these were used. We i
.----_--.___,_m.. ____.__. __ _ __ ___ _____ __ _ __
t LARSEM - DIRECT -
.362 ]!
! l i
I were just getting into a program at that time when we were j 2l inspected. I had purchased these air volume samplers, so we l 3 were learning more or less how to use those and how to 4 interpret the results too. So I would just like to show 5 that to the Board. Is that correct? f 6 f JUDGE SHON: Well, I think, Mr. Larsen, what you i 7! wish to do is to introduce at this point something in the 8' record that will show how often those things were used and . i 9 what results were of their use. i 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. 11 JUDGE SHON: Do you have some record, a record 12 kept in the normal course of your business, that would show l I 13 that these samplers were used and that they showed readings 14 of certain levels? 15 THE WITNESS: Okay, the high-volume air sampler 10 was used November 11, 1987. No activity above background j i 17 was recorded. 1S I wish I would have put the numbers down. But l I 19 like I say, we were just using, just starting to familiarize ; i 20 ourselves with that. ! 21 November 11, air lapel sampler, no counts above i . 22 background. I December 6, air sampler, no counts above 23 l - i j 24 background. ! 25 JUDGE SHON: That's the only occasion on which i
~
O
LARSEN - DIRECT 363 I i I the lapel samplers and the high-volume air sampler were 2 used? 3 THE WITNESS: That's right. Now, we were just 4 going to use that. 5' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Is that 1988, those dates? 6lj THE WITNESS: 1987. 7' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Eighty-Seven, okay. j 8! JUDGE SHON: Let me ask you one other thing. On 9 the date when these samples were taken, date or dates -- l 10 I'm not sure whether it was one or more than one -- what , 11 was being processed, and what were the people doing, the 12 people who were wearing the lapel samplers, for example? l 13 THE WITNESS: I believe these were being used in l 14 the CAL of November 11. In other words, I said I would use 15 the air lapel sampler that we had, and we only had one, but If I think there were two guys that were working at that time 17 to clean up. Yes, that was it. I was inspected on f 16 November 4 and 5, and then I was decontaminating the i 19 building on November 11. And they asked me to use the lapel ; i 20 sampler, which I did. But we didn't have two of them. But i 21 ! I did have one of them. 22 JUDGE SHON: So these readings, these samples, l 23 were taker. during clean-up operations. j THE WITNESS: Right. l 24 l 25 JUDGE SHON: Not, for example, during the I O
LARSEM - DIRECT 364 i f I digestion of uranium matter, or during the drawing or 2' grinding of crystals, or anything like that. THE WITNESS: That's right. 3; 4
! JUDGE SHON: OKay, I just wanted to make sure that I
i 5 , the record would reflect that. l 6l (Pause.) - THE WITNESS: Is this the time to explain about 7! 8' state hopping? , JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It would be an appropriate 9 to time, yes. . 11 THE WITNESS: Appropriate time? - l JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 12 ; THE WITSESS: Okay. When we had our license 13 suspended in November of '86, I believe, by the State of 14 l 15 Utah, we were faced with ten years' of waste that had been Ic collected and saved but not disposed of. The State of Utah j l 17 said they want ed this material disposed of and transferred. ) 18 We knew this was going to take us some time, to l 1 19 do that . We also needed to survive financially in order j 20 to do t hat . So I made some phone calls to Washington, D.C. I l l 21 , to see if I could work under a general license in Wyoming l Ii ' 22 while having a specific license in Utah. They said yes, it could be done. And we took our equipment to Wyoming to 23 - 24 l work under a general license f or the purpose of surviving i 25 financially, not for the purpose of avoiding regulations O I
,l
)
LARSEN - DIRECT 365 l
.(-
1 or running from Utah. It took us until April or May, I k- - 2, believe, to boi.1 down all of this liquid waste into 17 drums 3 j of material, which we disposed of through the University i 4' of Utah to Richland, Washington. 5 Because we knew it was going to take a long l 6l time, which it took us six months, I believe, six or seven i 7I months, so that is the reasc.n that we went to Wyoming. At
. 8 Wyoming we implemented TLD badges. We made sure that there 9 was no waste that was not secured in the building, i 10 Previous to that time, we had been accused of 11 disposing outside. We hadn't actually disposed, but we 12 didn't keep it as secure as we should. We made sure in I
13 Wyoming that we did not have any waste whatsoever unsecured l l 14 to get outside. And Mr. Spitzberg's testimony confirmed { O that we had no radioactivity outside of the building, which l (s_- 15 . 16 is an improvement over previous operations. ! 17 I think it also should be noted, most of our I i 18 problems have not been a lack of will to comply, but have 19 been more in regards to not being abic to use the facility , 20 that we built in Lindon, to properly set up our lab and run ! I l 21 our business in a proper fashion. Because we thought the j 22 sewer was going in shortly, that's why we located there, 23 expecting to be able to do that. When we were delayed and 24 delayed, we were f orced to work out of less than ideal 25 workplaces. J.nd because of this, we couldn't do a proper ) h i
\
LARSEN - DIRECT 366 l 1i job of processing of our material. 4 I 2 We have never gone out and disposed of anything 3! outside of the building. We have saved our waste. And we i 4 had ten years' worth of buckets stored away which we had 5: to process. But -- Oh, and part of that was located on 1 This truck 6 this truck that was located at Parrish Chenical. - 1 7' wasn't open. It was behind a chainlink fence, and also on 8 I the flatbed of a truck with rails going around it. So it . 9 wasn't exactly open to the public to go past . 10 Nevertheless, the waste should have been disposed of correctly. I didn't know where to dispose of it. So 11 12 we kept it until we finally found out that the University 13 of Utah would take it, which we processed and sent through 14 them now. 15 So the point I guess I'm saying is that part of 16 our problem was because we could not use our facility in 17 Lindon, Utah. And as soon as they will finally grant us l 18 permission to use that building, we will be glad to set up 19 an operation there with a proper lab wit h all t he 20 implementation of what we propose right here, j
, 21 Is that okay?
l (Pause.) 22 ' l THE 1ITNESS: In order to take care of any dust 23 - I 24 Particles too, we have purchased four fume hoods and a 25 fluorimeter in order to monitor this. If we are allowed 1
LARSEN - DIRECT
~
367 i Il to process the material again, they will be operated, and 2 we don't expect to have dust problems. JUDGE SHON: Mr. Larsen, just to fill in a little 3l 4 on your statement, the four fume hoods, can you tell me the 5 exact stages in your process at which these will be used? I I'd refer you to the schematic. 6i THE WITNESS: 7 l Well, let's see, it's in testimony as well as the book that 1 - 8 I just submitted. The schematic is, I believe, attached 9 to December 26th testimony, in the back, last two; is that 10 correct? The four fume hoods are located in Step 3, two , 11 parts to Step 3; Step 5, there are two fume hoods there. 12 Step 5 is the critical one. Yes, Step 5 and Step 6 are the j 13 critical ones for the dust. The grinding is to be done in l l 14 an enclosed area, two enclosed areas, one that would grind j 15 it, and the grinding would go into a bucket, plastic 10 container. Then the plastic container would be taken over j i
~
17 into the ot her f ume hood, and the powder would be dried in IS the microwave ovens there. Then that's the critical dust : 19 st ep there, which is well enclosed. 20 But we would propose fume hoods over Step 1 with I 21 l the scrubber system; Step 3, the recrystallization; and 22 Steps 5 and 6. 23 JUDGE SHON: !!y diagram, I think, has two Step 5's 24 l on it. i THE WITNESS: Yes. 25 l i
- - " ~ - - - .----____m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , _
LARSEN - DIRECT ' 368 r l l l l Il JUDGE SHON: One is the microwave drawing, and j 2 one is the grinding operation? 3' THE WITNESS: Right. 4 JUDGE SHON: It would be a grinding operation; 5 is that right? 6l ; THE WITNESS: Right. . i \ 7l JUDGE SHON: Thank you. l l 8' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, for what you've just 9 described, would you need more than four? l 10 THE WITNESS: I don't think so. There's no dust, 11 problem except for Steps 5 and 6. And 6 is done in a fume 12 hood, pouring out of the plastic bottle into the plastic : 13 bag, and the bags are boxed after that. ! i 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Uell, did you not say that you 15 were going to use it at Steps 1 and 2? 16 THE WITNESS: Step 1, we have already got a 17 scrubber that we're going to set up. 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So it would be a scrubber and ; 19 not a fume hood for Step 1. 20 THE WITNESS: Well, a fume hood and a scrubber. t 21 ! JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Both for Step I? 22 THE GITNESS: Well, it's all enclosed in one -- i 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: What I was trying to figure . 24 l out is I had my not es saying Steps 1, 2, 5 and 6. And then j i i 25 earlier you said you used them in two parts in Step 3, as ' l, l h
. . . - - . . ______._____________._____w
LARSEN - DIRECT 369 I l
, . , 1l well as Step 5. And if I add all that together, I come out
_, 2j with six. I'm just trying to figure out where I'm going 3 wrong. 4 THE WITNESS: We also have right now some fume 5, hoods already. We have purchased four more. 6l; JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Oh, I see, okay. I didn't
- i 7i understand that. So the total would be more than four.
8l THE WITNESS: Yes. I 9 JUDGE KLINE: Mr. Larsen, this Lindon facility ! l 10 that you mentioned, the problem getting that into operation, 11 I take it, involves a dispute with local authorities, - 12 doesn't it; that is to say, whether they will grant, what, 13 a sewage permit? 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. l 7~s How long nas that been pending, that l i 15 JUDGE KLINE:
\ /
v 10 dispute? ! 17 THE VITNESS: I would believe four years, i 18 JUDGE ELINE: Doyouhaveanyprospectsforhavingl 19 that reversed? I mean, is there really a -- 20 THE WITNESS: Probably not, Judge Kline. This 21 is why Gyoming is being considered as an ope 1ating place.
- l
. 22 JUDGE KLINE: But there's a building actually i
' f 23 f constructed there; is that right?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's right, a 20 by 40 foot . 25 building, Butler-type building, on five acres. t i o U l e
LARSEN - DIRECT 370 l i i I JUDGE KLINE: The NRC citation -- We're not here 2 to review, you understand, a future application. 3! THE WITNESS: I understand. JUDGE KLINE: The existing citation says words 4l e 5' to the effect that you are unwilling or unable to comply. 6 ; And it seems to me the sum of your testimony is that you , 7 are willing but, by virtue of this dispute, unable to 8 comply. Is that what you would like to have us understand? - 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. And this has been the story 1 10 of why we've had to go to these less-than-ideal places , 11 pending -- We were expecting to go in and put in our propbr I 12 lab for doing this process. But it seems that there is 13 delay after delay, moratoriums and the like, that we just ' t > 14 have been f rust rated in that direction. 15 JUDGE KLINE: All right, thank you. But the 10 characterization "willing but unable" is one that you agree j i 17 with? 18 THE UITNESS: Exactly right. 19 Oh, yes, another thing I would like to mention. ! 20 Uhen there was a concern about the dust particles with the ! i l 21 j State of Utah, there was a suggestion that I get a lung l 22 bioassay done by Mr. Frinerfrok, the State of Utah. It was i 23 ' not mandat ory , but it was a suggestion. ,j i 24 So we flew down to Pleasanton, California and had ! 25 a corporation down there -- i l O
LARSEN - DIRECT 371 l t l _ (;) ( If > Do you remember what the name was? I b 2, MRS. LARSEN: No. t 3l THE WITNESS: We'd have to dig out the record on 4 that. But we wanted to find out about lung contamination 5, too, so we went down and had the lungs checked. And it was I
. 6, less than, I believe it was, 2 micrograms or something like i
7l that. Anyway, it was well within the limits of the NRC 8 guidelines. i 9 JUDGE KLINE: Whose lungs were being checked? l 10 THE WITNESS: Mine. . 11 JUDGE SHON: This was of the nature of an in viv'o 12 count, a whole-body count? , 13 THE WITNESS: Ghole-body count, yes.
,, -ss 14 (Pause.)
THE WITNESS: I don't think there's anything more ! k _)\ 15 16 that I have to say. i 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do you want a break before you ; it st art cross-examination? i 19 MS. HODGDON: Yes, a break before cross-20 . examination, pleasc. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay, let's take a 15-minute 4 22 break. Then, Mr. Larsen, you'll be subject to cross-
. 23 examination by the Staff, and we may ask you a few 24 questions after that.
25 (Brief recess.) l I
--- ---- ~~ . CROSS - LARSEN 372
, 9A 1 bl46 l l
1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I guess the Staff may begin. 2 We were waiting to hear about Mr. Noack, but the Staff may 3 begin cross-examining Mr. Larsen, and we can interrupt -- 4 MS. HODGDON: I think we're about to get a report 5 from Mrs. Larsen. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Oh, okay. , 7 MS. HODGDON: We will hear that before we start. 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. Off the record. - 9; (Discussion held off the record.) 10 ! JUDGE BECHHOEFER: On the record. - I 11 l We'll proceed, and then if Mr. Noack gets here l
! l.
12 this afternoon -- I hope he will -- then he could be put 13 I on right when he gets here, and we can probably finish with 14 ' him, since it's not too lengthy. 15 So Ms. Hodgdon, you may proceed. 16 , CROSS-EXAMINATION 17 ; BY MS. HODGDON: l 18 ' O Mr. Larsen, you filed three pieces of testimony i i 19 in this proceeding. The questions I will ask you first ; i 20 go to the piece of testimony that is dated May 22nd, which 21 begins, "This is my side of the story." 12 , A Okay. 23 0 Do you have that before you? . 24 A All right. 25 0 Yes. On the first page of that document at the l l 9
CROSS - LARSEN 373
- a,A n147 j
1 bottom of the page, three lines from the bottom you have (
'~ ~'} , \- ' 2 a statement, "I am accused of intentionally and knowingly 3 breaking the numerous regulations," et cetera. I want to 4 know what documentation you rely on for the statement that 5 the NRC is stating that you intentionally broke the 6 Regulations.
7 A Well, disposal of waste material has always been 8 described as intentional. Excuse me. I don't want to interrupt, but when 9l : Q 10 I ask you for documentation, would you show me something ,- 11 A More specific? Okay. Let's see here. (Pause.) 12 ; Q Mr. Larsen, if you want to, you can have Mrs. i 13 i Larsen look for that, and I can ask you some questions
,_ 14 f about your qualifications --
[ jj \ h 15 i I A Okay. 0 -- which I intended to begin with in any event. 16 l 17 ; A Okay. go ahead. i 18 l Q Yes. You've put qualifications in which I've i ! 19 . seen for the first time just now. ; I ! 20 A Okay. l 21 O By which you state that you have a B.A. in 22 Chemistry from Brigham Young University. . 23 A Yes. 24 0 Do you mean by this to qualify yourself as an 25 expert in Chemistry or an expert -- O I h V
LGUESS o LW M M WJ 2n/U
~ 'ol48 '
l i 1 A Well, as expert as a Bachelor's is. I would know 2 surely how to make UAA, and I have a Bachelor's knowledge 3 of Chemistry. 4 Q Would any Bachelor's in Chemistry know how to 5 make UAA in your opinion? 6 A I don't think it's that hard to follow. The 7 process is my own, but it's not hard chemistry to 8 understand. . i 9! O If I could find out something about that just ! I 10 from the qualifications as submitted, how did you happen , I
- 11 : upon this process? I see you --
l 12 i A Okay. I was telephoned back I believe in 1977 13 and asked to submit a one-pound sample for analysis. There
\
14 j were three or four other companies that were submitting j 15 samples, and so I sent a sample to Hysol, and I believe 16 they had Honeywell analyze it. Honeywell liked the quality 17 l of my stuff the best, my UAA, and so they ordered two l 18 pounds, then five pounds, then more. And so that's how 19 it came about. i 20 Q I don't believe you understood my question. You ! 1 21 said, "The process is my own," and I said, "How did you } i - 22 come upon this unique personal process?" 23 You tell me now that any Bachelor's in Chemistry , 24 ought to be able to do it, but you tell me that you -- t 25 I don't know what the word is, that you -- l 1 O L -
LARSEN 375 CROSS F 4 s , bh4" A Well, it was my -- 1
\
O -- invented it or --
.2- I' A No. I -- well, it was my own process, yes.
3 did it my way. There are various ways you can do it. 4
.My way produced the best
# 5 Some are better than others.
6 quality. O We have, as you have -- this is just background - 7 g A Yes.
-- looked through all the chemistry manuals and 9 0 so forth, and we don't find it.
10 y . It A Find what? O What UAA. 12 A So what are you saying here? 13 O No, I'm just asking you how you knew about the fb 14 l It's a fair -- 15 ; process in the first place. A General knowledge of chemistry, knowing how to 16 That's gener combine 2-4-pentadione with various metals. 17 j 18 , chemical knowledge. I Q No. I meant -- 19 20 A That a chemist would know.
- how did you become aware of the existence of
- ( 21 0 I 22 this material.
A They asked for uranyl acetyl acetenate, one po 23 f* Oh, okay, how did they know to ask me? 24 Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative response.) 25 , Q {
,r k
I CROSS - LARSEN 376
'o150 1 A Okay. Chem Sources is the book. I was listed 2 in Chem Sources as a supplier of that material.
3 Q But you had prior to that time been a supplier 4 of that material, then. 5 A No. But I could supply it. I was a source that 6 could supply it. Also, ROC /RIC could supply it, and . 7 McKenzie Chemical could supply it. 8 O Who's ROC /RIC? 9 A Research Organic / Inorganic Chemical Company. 0 Oh, and this is your 1971 employment, then -- 10 f , 11 A That's right. 12 , Q -- Research Organic / Inorganic Chemical Company. ! 13 ' A That's right. I 14 O That's in California? 15 A Yes. I did not get it from them. l 16 l 0 To your knowledge, are they still in business? 17 i A I don't think so. They had a tremendous fire, 18 as I understand. l 19 Q Where in California is that? l i 20 A Well, they were in Sun Valley, California, which ! 21 is a suburb of Los Angeles. , 22 O Looking at your other background experience, I 23 see you taught Chemistry and Physics -- - 24 A Yes. 25 0 -- at the Skyline High School in Salt Lake City? O
CROSS - LARSEN 377 bl51 [' ~'N 1 A That's right. t )
'- l 2 O And then you worked for ROC /RIC --
3 A Right.
~
4 0 -- as a chemist, and then you worked for Abbott S Laboratories in Pasadena? . 1 6 A Right. j 7 Q As an enzyme chemist and analytic chemist? 8 A That's right. And what did you do between 1973 and 19787 9l Q q A My own company. 10 f , 0 It's not on your experience. So I wondered what 11 l 12 i that was. A Well, I made and resold various inorganic 13l1
,3 14 chemicals and organo-metallic chemicals, and also I l \ ;
i s_ ) 15 supplied acetone to various boat companies in drum j 16 ' quantities. I 17l 0 Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative response.) Okay. i 18 I Tell me about the seminar you took at Harvard? 19 : I think you gave me sorae documentation of that, but I'm I 20 not sure that I have it with me. How long a course was 21 that? i 22 A I think it was five days.
- 23 O Five days. And for whom was this intended?
24 A For whom? 25 Q For whom was this course designed? In other I
,s ~
' \
d
CROSS - LARSEN 378 bl52 I words, who were -- 2 A Oh, for what type of people? 3 0 -- your fellow students?
. 4 A Yes. Health physicists. I was the owner of my 5 company. People who were interested in learning about 6 radiation, learning more about it. .
7 Q What year was this? 8 A Oh, what was it? . 9! (Pause for Witness to consult with Mrs. Larsen.) 10 l THE WITNESS: Eighty-six. , 11 l BY MS. HODGDON: i Q Nineteen-eighty-six. 12 j 13! A Do you need that exactly? 14 I Q No. 15 A Okay. 16 Q I don't need it exactly. I just wondered where 17 it stood with regard to today, in other words, how long i 18 j ago it was. That's what I was trying to -- 19 l A It was in regards to Utah and that suspension, l 20 I believe. ! 21 0 Do you remember the name of your instructor . 22 there? 23 A Yes, Shapiro. . 24 O Shapiro. 25 A He wrote " Radiation Protection." l O\
; CROSS.- LARSEN 379' bl5
[ l' O And.did you find that useful? 2 A 'Very. 3 0' Were you able to use'any of the information -- 4 A You bet. 5 -Q -- that you-learned there? , ~ ,; ; 6 A Yes. ! ' 7 10 Thank you. 'Now I'll get back to the questions.
.8 on your testimony, then.
9 Was Mrs. Larsen able to find anything where the 10 NRC says that-Mr. Larsen intentionally. broke the , 11 regulations?- 12 A well, this maybe is not intentional, but it's
~
13 careless disregard. Is-that the same as intentional to 14 I you? t 15 O I was about to ask you that. In fact, I'm asking ( 16 the questions, so it's my -- A Okay. 17 l 18 Q I get to go.first. 19 A Careless disregard would be -- I would not say 20 intentional.
. 21 Q That's the --
12 A There are others, though.
. 23 0 -- right answer. Careless disregard --
-24 A We will find others, though.
25 O I thought Mrs. Larsen was looking for an instance
m---------
@f!@@@
- N 380 6154 I in which the NRC had said that Mr. Larsen intentionally 2 violated the Commission's regulations, and you came back 3 to me with careless disregard.
4 A Well, okay. If you will give us time, we will 5 find it. We're not exactly sure right now. 6 Q Well, I'll move onto another question, then. . 7 A Okay. 8 0 Mrs. Larsen, if she could continue to look for 9 instances in which the NRC said that Mr. Larsen 10 intentionally violated the regulations. We're aware of 11 where the NRC said that Mr. Larsen operated with careless 12 disregard or willfully, but you mention intentionally here, 13 and that was my question. I need an answer that shows me 14 where the NRC said intentionally. 15 < Moving to the second page of your testimony -- 16 A Okay. l 17 Q -- the first full paragraph on the second page, j 18 second sentence, you say, "When an investigator arrives 19 at Evanston - " 20 A Yes. I I 21 Q "-- and announces (in quotes and in full caps]
- 12 'WE HAVE THE POWER TO DESTROY YOU'" --
23 A That's right. - 24 0
-- it makes me wonder how he can conduct an 25 objective investigation of the facts of what he sees when 1
i O
. . . , i.- . . ~ ,
i13155 ..
# T1 'all he'is. locking for is ammunition to use against his
' 2' supposed adversary, Mr. Larsen." .
3 A That's right. ,
.4 Q Well,.the way that sentence is written, Mr.
s 5' Larsen, I'm not able to tell what assertions you're making
. 6 there. So I'd like to break that down a.little. bit.
7 Are you telling me that someone whom.you style
~
8 here as "an investigator".did'come'to Evanston, Wyoming 9j and tell you that he had the power to destroy.you? 10 A Yes. , Do you care to tell me any more about that?- Who 11 Q .s is that person?- ; 12
~
13 A Mr. Spitzberg. s '14 O Mr. Spitzberg, Dr. .Spitzberg -- E' 15 A Dr. Spitzberg. I 16 .; O -- you say said that-'to you. 17 A Yes. 18 Q- On what occasion? A When he first got there. And I went up and said, 19 ! j -. 20 " Hello, how are you?" And there was some small talk said. 21 And he sprung this on me, and then there was nothing else 22 said for a long time, while he did his investigation.
- 25 0 Was Dr. Spitzberg alone?
24 A Yes. 25 O He was alone. i
' 156 o
1 A Yes. 2 0 What about Julius Haes? He was not with 3 Dr. Spitzberg at that time? 4 A He was around, but I don't know where he was. 5 He may have heard it. 6 O My question regards whether he would have heard . 7 it if he was there. Would you describe for me this building 8 again in which you did your processing? , 9i A It was a Quonset hut. f 10 0 It was some part of a Quonset hut; isn't that , 11 correct? 12 A Yes, a quarter part of the Quonset, I believe. 13 - Q It was a quarter of a Quonset hut. I 14 ' A Yes. I 15 ! O How large is that? 16 , A I would guess it was about 20 to 25 feet by ch, 17 i40, 50 feet. 18 Q And you say that Dr. Spitzberg came in the door 19 and said in full capitals, "WE HAVE THE POWER TO DESTROY ! l 20 YOU," and Julius Haes, who was there -- 21 A As we were talking. 22 0 What was Julius Haes doing? f 23 ' A I don't know. Maybe he was getting out of the . 24 car. I don't remember. 25 0 He was the only other person present? I O! l
CROSS - LARSEN 383 l blF i A I think Kevin was there too, but I don't think f i
}/ 1 1
2 Kevin heard it either.
l 3 Q I notice that there are pictures, those pictures i 4 that Julius Haes took on that occasion, and they've been 5 entered into the record as Staff Exhibits 2 through 17 --
. 6 show pictures of you and of Dr. Spitzberg taken by 7 Mr. Haes, and there aren't any pictures of Kevin, and I ~
8 don't in fact recall that anybody said that Kevin was there 9l at the time except you. A I am not swearing that Kevin was there. I don't , 10 l 11 l remember exactly who was there. I do remember Julius Haet I think 12I : was with Mr. Spitzberg, but I can't remember. I'm not exactly sure. I would have to Kevin was there. 13 ( , x 14 ' ask him. [' 't ' Do you recall anything else about this occasion,
'ss sl 15 Q 16 , what time of day it was, what else might have happened? i t
i It was -- well, it was light. I know that. 17 A 18 O How do you know it was light? f 19 A Because it wasn't dark. l 20 Q Did you have lights in your Quonset -- 26 A No, it wasn't midnight or darkness, but I'm 22 not sure of anything about that, and it could have been 23 in the morning. I would think that that was when it was 24 because I think that's when he came to investigate or us to meet him that day, and it was in the morning, I do 25 I i
,rh I
(_.)\
CROSS - LARSEE 384
'bl59 l
l 1 believe. 2 O You are aware, are you not, that Dr. Spitzberg 3 is an inspector and not an investigator. Do you 4 understand the difference? 5 A I did not make a distinction. l 6 Q Do you now? , 7 A Yes. I guess so. Is an investigator something 8 like Brooks Griffith? i 9' Q Brooks Griffin -- l I 10 A Griffin. , t 11 I Q -- is an investigator. Dr. Spitzberg -- l 12 l A Is an inspector. l 13 0 -- is an inspector. 14 I A Okay. 15 O Now, you say that Dr. Spitzberg took swipe tests,
\
16 ! I'm skipping down that page to --
! et cetera.
17 f A Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative response.) i 18 ', i O -- "He said that there was low-level l 19 i contamination below NRC guidelines throughout the facility. i 20 However, Oak Ridge didn't confirm that." 21 What in the Oak Ridge document are you relying , 12 on for your statement that Oak Ridge did not confirm that? 23 A The Oak Ridge inspection report. . 24 0 Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative response.) 25 A I believe it was February, 1988. 1 l
.b1fa
! 1 0' That's right. 2 A~ It is as attached to your March 18th, '88, 3 confirmation of action letter. 4 0- Yes,.that's where it is. 5 A~ And removable contamination. 6 Q What's it say? 7 A Let's'see. ' Table One, removable contamination 8 . alpha and beta, NRC Guidelines 1000. Alpha's was between 9 two and 61, and beta with an NRC Guideline of 1000 was 10 less than four to 130 counts per minute. These are with . Il smear swipes, I believe. 12 And then on Table Two, again removable 13 contamination on the wall surfaces,cand the Guideline is 14 1000, and everything was between two or seven in alpha, and 15 three and 14 on beta, counts per minute per 100 square i 16' centimeters. 17 l O' Is that all? 18 (There was no response.) 19 BY MS. HODGDON: 20 0 Is that inconsistent with Dr. Spitzberg's
- 21 statement that there was low-level contamination below NRC 22 Guidelines?
. 23 A I believe it shows that.
24 Q And what do you base that judgment on?
- 25 A well, if the NRC Guideline 1000 -- I think that
m_m .-
' ~
'bl61
,I 1 you can safely say that there wasn't very much contamination 2 that was removable, alpha or beta. It's not totally 3 perfect, but it's pretty low, and it could conceivably be ,
4 differences in the instruments from time to time. 5 O Moving on down, you say, "We had to grind the 6 pavement with a grinder, which indicates no free . 7 contamination generally throughout the building." 8 I don't really understand that statement. Why . 9 does that follow that there was no free contamination 10 becaaue you had to grind the pavement; therefore, there , 11 l wasn't any free contamination? - 12 ! A Well, no. Contamination is very visible as i 13 ! yellow -- 14 Q Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative reponse.) 15 A -- spots. And we had to clean up seven spots 16 around the whole area that were six to 12 square inches 17 approximately in size. And you could very visibly see 18 yellow spots or yellow contamination if it was there, and 19 there wasn't yellow all over the place as it is implied 20 by gross contamination. 21 Q Who said there was gross contamination? 22 A Well, what is the exact words? 23 0 " Low-level contamination." , 24 A Contamination throughout? 25 0 " Low-level contamination," not " gross O
CROSS - LARSEN _387 . , , , ,
'bl62' YN q)'
~. -
-1' ' contamination," " low-level contamination."
2 A Where was " gross?" We'll find the word " gross" 3 for you too, I think. 4 Q Maybe Mrs. Larsen can look for " gross" while she's 5 looking for -- _,- 6 A .Okay.. 7 Q -
" intentionally."
8 A Right. 9 Q .Now, I get down to the bottom of that page,'and 10 I see there's another " intentionally." It says, "It is 11 assumed that Mr. Larsen is intentionally disregarding 12 health and safety regulations. That's the same charge over 13 again. So I won't ask you any further questions about it. Lp 14 A Okay. t 15- I think, Ann, is that splitting hairs, or is that 16 an important concept, because I've never been told there's 17 a big difference in those two, " careless disregard" or 18 " intentional." If you're looking for a precise definition, 19 there is a difference, but are you making -- basing 20 something on that?
- 21 Q Well, yes, there is a difference between intent 22 and careless disregard.
23 A Okay, well, then I would withdraw " intentional" 24 and change that to " careless disregard." l' 25 JUDGE SHON: Ms. Hodgdon, did I understand you l i O
CROSS - LARSEN 388 . bl63 1 to say there's a difference between intentional and 2 careless disregard? 3; MS. HODGDON: From the point of view of who's t doing it. The result may be the same. I mean, " gross ! 4 5 negligence" and " intent" are the same in the criminal law. 6 JUDGE SHON: I'm not so sure " willful" is . 7 " intentional," but they sound a lot alike, and I would j 8 direct you to Section 3 of Appendix C of Part Two, which 9 says specifically, "The term ' willfulness' as used here 10 embraces a spectrum of violations ranging from deliberate 11 intent to violate or falsity to and including careless 12 disregard." 13 So it's certainly willful if it's careless 14 disregard. 15 MS. HODGDON: Yes. The NRC's contention was -- 16 I mean, the NRC's documents with regard to Mr. Larsen all 17 state " careless disregard," which is at the other end of 18 the spectrum. If you're asking me whether they're the same 19 thing in the law, it depends on what law it is, whether 20 intent amounts to -- I mean, of course, the Staff believes
- 21 that Mr. Larsen intended to do what he did, but not that -
12 he intended to violate the regulations; rather, that he . 23 just didn't have any particular regard for the regulations or whether he was following them or not. And so tl ;'s 24 25 a different thing that intending to violate them, i l l l
- CROSS:- LARSEN 389 bl64-
~
1 JUDGE SHON: I' note also that Mr. Flack at i 2 page 10 of his testimony -- this isn't quite the same_ thing 3 either -- said that "Mr. Larsen's actions demonstrated an ! , l
.l 4 unwillingness to comply with regulatory requirements and 5 safe' work practices."
r :.. 6 MS. HODGDON: Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative res73nse.) 7 JUDGE SHON: And an unwillingness to comply 8 seems to me to be pretty willful or to have to do with 9 will. , 10 MS. HODGDON: You could ask Judge Bechhoefer, 11 but I don't think that amounts to specific intent. 12 Unwillingness to comply is not the same thing as a specific ; 13- intent to -- it's like the burden of proof. It goes the 14 other way. It's --
,f
\~- 15 JUDGE SHON: Okay.
16 MS. HODGDON: If you understand my answer, it's 17 like a burden of proof problem. 18 JUDGE SHON: I see what you're driving at. 19 MS. HODGDON: So Mr. Larsen -- I understood 20 Mr. Larsen to say -- he mischaracterized the Jtaff's
- 21 documents in this regard, and they do in fact say " careless 22 disregard."
23 All right. Moving onto the substance of some 24 of the charges that Mr. Larsen makes in his testimony, he 25 says that he willingly admits that -- this is on page 3, l
CROSS - LARSEN 390 1 i I about halfway down the page, that in 1979 that they didn't 2
-- "we didn't" -- Mr. Larsen didn't know about many things 1 i !
3landhaddeficienciesthatwerecorrected. Through there 4
. he says, "We started keeping good records of receipt and S l transfer of materials. " '
j i 6 BY MS. HODGDON:
.)
7 Q But yet in 1982, isn't it true, Mr. Larsen, that 8 " in 1982 after you were issued a civil penalty, you filed 9 a document in which you were cited for failure to keep 10 records and which you admitted that you had failed to keep Il records? 12 A Is this the one about -- is this the instance 13 that I was to have aid, "This is proprietary information"? 14 0 I'm pointing you to a document dated March 16th, 15 1983. That's received date. I'm sorry. Your date on it 16
-- it's on Orion Chemical Company stationery --
17 A Okay. 18 -- March lith, 1983 -- Q 19 A Okay. 20 Q And this relates to the documents that Mr. Flack II read this morning. It says, "First accusation -- we do not - 12 deny the allegations of having more than 15 pounds. Making 23 records available -- we do not deny the allegations. Third 24 accusation -- we do not deny." It goes on. You do not 25 deny any of the allegations, and I'm just asking you, l O i
-- _- - 1
M CROS@ - EdB@ME m ,. p [\g] . I since you are charged with not keeping proper records and 2 you'did not: deny it, how you can-say now that you kept 3 proper records. 4 A As I remember, back in 1982 the inspector asked i l i 5 for the records, and they weren't all together, and I
. 6 brought them together,-as I remember, the next day, or 7 sometime after that, be it an hour to the next day, I
~
8 believe. I'm not sure which it was. I don't-remember. < 9 But we were made aware in'1979, I believe it was, that-s i 10 records were necessary for a general license, which we did 11- not know before that. We certainly are keeping records 12 now of everything as we understand. We've got this for 13 records. We've got this for years of records. And so we
~
/~' 14 keep. meticulous records now. !
15 0 Mr. Larson -- So that is an improvement, I would say. ! 16 A 17 Q Mr. Larsen, I don't want to interrupt you, but 18 you're really not answering my question. I stated that 19 your testimony states that you started keeping good records . 20 after 1979. Yet I pointed out to you that you signed-a 21 statement in 1983 based on a 1982 violation in which you 22 admitted to not keeping good records and making them ; I 23 available. So -- 1 24 A I think that was more making them available in 25 that they were not ready at hand. I think that the l 1
CROSS - LARSEN 392 1 inspector -- well, I'm -- it's been so long ago that I 2 really don't remember exactly the details of it, but we 3 were keeping records, and I certainly deny ever telling i' 4 anyone that this was proprietary information. I'm glad l' 5 you brought that up to my attention because I want to deny 6 that for sure. .T've never heard that before. . i 10A 7 Q Mr. Larsen, you did not deny it at the time, l 8 and we have your statement. 9 A I don't -- I've never heard that charge before 10 that it was proprietary information. I've never heard I Il said that. 12 0 The notice of violation stated that you refused 13 to make the records available and stated that they were 14 proprietary information. 15 A well, I don't ever remember that. 16 Q So you have no present recollection of these 17 events in 1982, is that correct? You do remember that you 18 kept records -- 19 A All I know is that we were keeping records. 20 As I say, we were less than perfect. That's for sure. We { 21 were learning all the time, and as I remember in 1982, ! 12 they just weren't readily available, but once I had some 23 time to get them together, they were produced. I will try 24 and bring them, if you want. I'll try and find them at 25 home to bring them to you, if that would help. O
' CROSS - LARSEN '393- .,, '[ 'l Ql .Okay, we'll return to that in a minute. I was
( 2 looking for a particular thing, but I can't look any more. 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Let me interrupt for one 4 minute.
~l
~
5 Did you ever tell the NRC inspector that you.
-- 6 refused-to make available records to him?.
'7 THE WITNESS: No.
8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: In so many words? Or did you 9 say, "Well, I'll have-to get the - " 10 THE WITNESS: No, I have never refused the , 11 records. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Pardon? 13 THE WITNESS: I may have not had them readily 14 available. That's the only thing that would keep me from j 15 producing the records for him the instant he asked them. 16 I never refused, and proprietary information is crazy to 17 my understanding. I never said that. And I don't ever -- 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The most you.would have said 19 was, "They're not available now, and I will take steps to l 20' get them for you"?
"[ lli THE WITNESS: "They're not here now. Let me get 22 them together, and I will have them for you." And I don't 23 remember in 1982 whether it was an hour or whether it was 24 the next day that I had to produce them, but I was willing 25 to produce them. I have never denied that.
CROSS - L&RSEN 3@6 l l 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. I'd like to raise one ) 2 more -- I j l l 3ll MS. HODGDON: Excuse me. I would just like to l t 4 read Mr. Larson's -- 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. 6 MS. HODGDON: -- statement which I have already l - 1 7 -- I would like to read to Mr. Larsen his statement of l I 8 March lith, 1983. l 9 BY MS. HODGDON: 10 ; Q You have that, Mr. Larsen. 11 A Okay. 12 Q You want to look at where it says fourth 13 accusation which is on page 2 there. It says, "10 CFR 14 40. 61 (a) . Each person who receives source material shall 15 keep records of receipt showing the receipt of such I 16 material. 1) We had the receipts but didn't keep records 17 up to date, ready for inspection. We do not deny that they 18 were incomplete at the time ~" . 19 A Okay. 20 Q And then it goes on to say, "We were under a lot 21 of pressure to prc?uce the catalyst at the time and , 22 neglected to keep good records." 23 A Okay, that's what I mean, then. May I say that 24 we had the receipts, but we didn't have them assembled 25 together.
CROSS - LARSEN- 395 1 j-'s 1 I might say.this: that this is the first - this ! (' 2 is what we started in Janaury, 1983. These are the records. 3' 'This is January, 1983 shipment -- or. February the lith, 4 -1983. Yes. So this is how we started keeping records in 5 1983. l 6 I have 1982 at home, if you want me to produce i i 7 them.- So -- 8 Q Mr. Larsen, in my questions just now I was l 9 dealing with a very small area, and they were questions. 10 about your statement that in 1979 you had started keeping 11 good records of receipt and transfer, and I merely showed" 12 you. materials that showed that in 1982 you were not keeping ; 13 good records of receipt and transfer, and that's all I 14 wanted to show by that. q t
-C -
15 A Okay. 16 Q We can go onto the next question, then. ! 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Before we get there, let me l 18 -- the Board doesn't usually try to answer questions, but
;I 19 the Board would at least refer the parties in response to 20 an earlier question to Mr. Griffin's report, pages 22 and
)
. 21 23.
. 1 12 THE WITNESS: Is this the November inspection?
23 MS. HODGDON: No, this is -- 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: No. This is the report dated 25 August 18, '88. 1 I 1 m f
CROSS - LARSEN 396 1 MS. HODGDON: This is the OI report itself. 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The OI report, yes. 3 MS. HODGDON: In the text of the report. i
.4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Which is in the record. >
5 MS. HODGDON: Yes, fine, fine. He wasn't sure 6 what the -- - 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now, turn to page 22 and 23, 8 and at least there is a use of the word " intentionally" 9 twice, and I'll let the parties take it from there, but 10 at least that's one instance. 11 THE WITNESS: Right. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Two instances where -- 13 THE WITNESS: " Knowingly and intentionally 14 violated." 15 MS. HODGDON: All right. This is not in any of 16 the notice. This language -- 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It's not in the -- 18 MS. HODGDON: Yes. No. This language does not 19 occur in the notice of violation. So it is in fact in 20 Mr. Griffin's report. It's not in the notice of violation. 21 So basically he said the NRC said this about him, and I 12 suppose in some larger sense it's true. In some smaller 23 sense the NRC didn't charge him with intentional violation. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. No, I'm aware of that, 25 but I just thought I would -- l O l
CROSS - LARSEN 397 [ 1 MS. HODGDON: Yes, yes. So it has some validity, 2 but the NRC's notice vf violation does not use that 3 language. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 5 BY MS. HODGDON:
.. 6 O Moving onto in 1982, Mr. Larsen, you say that 7 Mr. Everett wanted us to apply for a specific license, and 8 when we said, "We're not interested'in getting bigger,"
9 he.put pressure on us.
'30 A That's right.
!! O "When I finally gave in, I said to him, 'I really 12 ' don't want this, but if you want it, I will try to do it.
13 'You must realize and try to_ understand that we're a small i
'/ ^ 14 business.'"
( 15 Now, you seem to suggest there that Mr. Everett 16 was trying to make your operation larger, and I note that l 17 in fact your license does authorize you to have 150 kilos. 18 A Mr. -- may I answer? I haven't asked the question yet. 'l 19 0 20 A Excuse me.
.21 Q But isn't it true that the NRC, that the documents 12 at that time indicated that the reason they wanted you to l 23 have a specific license was because of the need for the 24 controls, public health and safety controls under Part 20, 25 et cetera?
l l { L' __ _ _ _ _ ______________.________ _ ____.___________ ______ ___ _ _______.____ _ _ _ ___________ ______ _ _
CROSS - LARSEN , 398 , , , l 1 A The reason he wanted me to get a specific license 2 he told me was because the waste material would be building 3 up and that I would have to order less and less metal in 4 order to keep under 15 pounds. Do you understand? , l I 5 In other words, you have to count the waste l l 6 material as possession, and as the waste material builds - 7 up, you can order only less and less to keep within :he 8 15-pound limit of a general license. That was what he 9 told me. I 10 Q Oh. In other words, in order to do the same 11 operation that you were doing, you would have to have more 12 because you would have to count the waste against your 1 13 possession limits. 14 A That's right. 15 Q And that was your understanding. 16 A That was what he told me. 17 Q Thank you. 18 A And may I say -- may I say, Ann, also, I took 19 the specific license becuase he wanted it taken, and he 20 said that this was the regulation, that in order to keep i 21 under 15 pounds with your waste, you have to have a 12 specific license. I didn't want the license because I knew 23 it would keep up at nights worrying about inspections, 24 but because he wanted it, I was willing to comply, and that 25 we had a good relationship, Mr. Everett and I because O
CROSS - LARSEN- 399
- " i E i
', O 1 of that.
v 2' -Q Okay. Then you say on page 4 of your testimony, 3 third line, "We did have a fume hood built, but it was very 4 awkward to work in." 5 Excuse me. I wanted to ask another-question with
- 6 regard to 1982, and I might as well back up and-ask that.
7 And that is that when you got the specific license or when 8 'you were applying for it, you did in that 1982 violation 9 .and aftermath of that, you did agree, did you not,-to 10 operate -- the agreement states " committed to the use of
- 11 a hood at each step of the process." That's the next 12 question. And " committed to meet all State-and local 13 regulations." And then somewhere else there's a statement-14 that you agreed to abide by the regulations.
15 A Yes. 16 O So getting back to the hood, it was much safer 17 -- you say it was very awkward to work with. "It-was much 18 safer due to the flammable fumes of our solvent to. work 19 with fans for maximum ventilation blowing otuside." 20 A Right. 21 Q Yet isn't it true that in 1982 you had committed 12 to the use of a hood? 23 A That's right. And we were in violation there. 24 0 And you were in violation of not using the 25 hood.
CROSS - LARSEN 400 1 A That's right. That's right. 2 But I'll tell you this: I could imagine a i 3i tremendous explosion and fire if we would have put the I ! 4 benzene fumes within a hood and heated up the benzene, and ! 5 it seemed to me that it was much safer if it were outside 6 with a fan or at least at the entrance with a fan blowing - 7 it outside, both from the fire hazard aspect and fron the !
~
8 workability aspect of it, handling it. 9 Q Who built the fume hcod? 10 ; A Mr. Decker, Bob Decker, who was consulting with 11 us at that time. He helped me put together the specific 12 license, which is the old process in Exhibit 1, I believe. 13 Q How would you determine that it was working i 14 properly? 15 A The fume hood? 16 Q Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative response.) 17 A Well, there was a vacuum system onto it, and there 18 was an HEPA filter that filtered out any dust that came 19 from within it, an absolute filter, and then if we saw no 20 dust within the vacuum, we were okay, or the suction 21 system. 12 O If you saw no dust within the suction system, 23 you were okay. What leads you to think that you could have 24 had a problem with it other than its -- 25 A Oh. Well, the volume of it. There is a picture O
CROSS - LARSEN 401 1 y I on that schematic where the microwave ovens were within it? 2 O Yes. 3l A You can see there that if you tried to handle 1 t 4' three-gallon buckets, five-gallon buckets within that fume 5i hood, it's not that easy to handle, especially heating it 6 up on a heating element or pouring, things like that. But 7 if you're just putting in trays and taking out trays in a 8 microwave, that's much easier to handle. But pouring and 9 the confining of the flammable fumes would have been 10 dangerous. 31 Q But you had committed to use the hood. 12 A That's right. And we were in violation. I 13 0 And you unilaterally decided not to use it and f-s 14 therefore were in violation.
/ )
k// 15 A That's right. l 16 MS. HODGDON: Thank you. I note Mr. Noack has l 17 arrived, but maybe the Board will want to question him about ! 18 his availability, because I can interrupt at this time 19 if Mr. Noack has to get someplace else. 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Off the record. ;
. 21 (Discussion held off the record.) ,
j 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: On the record. 1, 23 MS. HODGDON: Judge Bechhoefer, if Kevin Noack 24 cannot come back, then we ought to put him on now because 25 he probably won't take more than an hour, and present -- ( n i !
. CROSS - LARSEN 402 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's what we were just i
2 deciding. We're not -- off the record. 3 (Discussion held off the record.) 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: On the record. 5I JUDGE SHON: Mr. Larsen, I did have one thing 6 I wanted to ask. I gather that you were saying that one - 7 of the reasons you didn't use the fume hood in certain of i
~
8 these solvent evaporation operations is that you felt if 9 you took it outside or with a fan running, you'd keep the 10 concentration low enough of the stuff in the air to be safe, 11 and you wouldn't do that in a hood. Is that right? 12 THE WITNESS: That's right. 13 JUDGE SHON: But isn't the solution to that a 14 higher volume hood delivery? 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 JUDGE SHON: Couldn't you simply do that? ! 17 THE WITNESS: Yes, and this -- 18 JUDGE SHON: Put a bigger fan in the hood and 19 bigger vents? 20 THE WITNESS: This was not the most ideal fume 21 hood for that. I might say that the fume hood that we have - 12 now is much larger, and with a ventilation system, we don't 23 see any problem in that correction in the schematic there. 24 JUDGE SHON: Thank you. 25 JUDGE KLINE: Was the hocd a home-built hood? O I _____________U
CROSS - LARSEN 403 1 THE WITNESS: It was built -- yes,.it was not !- 2 a manufactured one. 3 JUDGE KLINE: Was it of'such a' design that'when 4 in operation the fumes that it was drawing up would pass 5 over the electric motor? In other words, was the electric
.- ' 6 motor in the stream of the air?
7 THE WITNESS: No, no. It would be underneath 8 the bucket. 9 JUDGE KLINE: I-see. 10 -THE WITNESS: As the bucket was being' heated, 11 and so -- 12 JUDGE KLINE: So'the fumes were not coming out. 13 THE WITNESS: The fumes -- yes. Even if you did
/N 14 have a' fire or any kind of an accident, it would be better 15 to have the outside rather than inside in a -- (Pause.)
16 Now, this was built by Bob Decker, the consultant. 17 I didn't have any design of that, and I didn't know what 18 he was coming up with, and I don't think that he built a 19 very good one there for our purposes, and when he was 20 through, he brought it down to us, and it was good for 21 a smaller oeyration but not ours. So yes, I think Kevin 22 could have built a oetter one than the consultant did. 23 But anyway, that ws the reasoning behind that. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now, you testified you had 25 four new hoods and several older hoods.
CROSS - LARSEN 404 f 1 THE WITNESS: .Right. 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The new hoods -- are they all 3 the higher capacity that you were talking about? 4 THE WITNESS: I have one big one that I am going ; 5 to be using for that, where I need room. It's oh, as big 6 as this, I believe, the table, clear out to here. , 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And the others are all about j 8 the same? 9 THE WITNESS: No. They are -- there are two that to are smaller, and they could handle smaller operations. I 11 have this grinding thing built, and this one here that 12 exists already. This one here for the packaging would 13 be one that we would use of the four hoods. This one for 14 the recrystallization would be one for the four used, and , 15 then I have two other ones which are medium-sized for any 16 other purposes that we need hoods for. 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And which is the one you were 18 talking about here, the one you didn't use? 19 THE WITNESS: Okay. The large one that we have 20 just purchased would be used for the recrystallization 21 for the flammable fumes. The one that was built would be . 12 used for microwave drving where there is a powder and the
~
23 potential of any particles. And this has a vacuum system l 24 to it with an HEPA absolute filter, and that would be used 25 for the microwave drying. 1 I O f
CROSS - LARSEN 405 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now, is that the one you said \ 9 1 2 was awkward to work with? THE WITNESS: That's right. It was awkward for 3j , 4 this step here. l 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: For the record, read off the 6 number of that step. The recrystallization step number ! 7 THE WITNESS: i 8 three. ! 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. That's just for somebody 10 reading it. 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 MS. HODGDON: Shall I continue? 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 14 BY MS. HODGDON: 9 15 0 On page 4 of your testimony, Mr. Larsen, you say 16 that Mr. Cummings of NRC's office of OIA wrote a letter 17 to Mr. Sam Alba, the Assistant U.S. Attorney. That letter 18 was in fact mentioned by Mr. Flack this morning, and you 19 say that Mr. Cummings described as specious -- you say he 20 described you -- 21 A Yes. ! 22 0 -- Mr. Larsen as specious. 23 A Right. , t 24 Q Now, I have a copy of that letter. I presume 25 you have one. O
CROSS - LARSEN 406 1 A Yes. 2 O And I will read you that sentence. It says, "This i J 3' also - " -- I'll read the whole sentence, because it may l t 4 answer one of the questions you raised this morning. It's , i the next to the last paragraph in the letter. ! 5 6 MS. HODGDON: Has the Board found it? It's part . 7 of that 1982 stuff -- March 29th, 1983.
~
8 MS. FLACK: It's Exhibit 5. l 9 MS. HODGDON: Exhibit 5 in the OI report. 10 BY MS. HODGDON: 11 Q Next to last paragraph. It says, "In the final 12 analysis, the recent efforts by Mr. Larsen towards 13 compliance are an improvement as compared to his past 14 record." I read that first part of the sentence in just 15 because Mr. Larsen had stated this morning that no one in 16 the NRC ever took any notice that he was improving. But 17 then it goes on to say, "However, it appears they may 18 be somewhat specious." 1 19 Do you see that, Mr. Larsen? 20 A "However, the improvements may be somewhat 21 specious"? 22 O Yes. 23 A Well, what does he mean by that? 24 Q I think he means the efforts, I think, because 25 that would agree with efforts. I'm not quite sure what O' 1 i
- . . - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ w
CROSSE -LARSEN-407 ~'
/ 1 he means, but anyway, it says, "The recent efforts are' an 2 . improvement as compared with his past record. However, 3 it appears they may be somewhat specious. In other words, 4 Mr. Larsen has expressed his intention to'obtain the 5 specific license which would enable him to handle greater
- 2. 6 than 15 pounds," et cetera.
7 I suppose what it means -- I mean, I don't know 8 what it means becuase I didn't write the letter, but all 9 I meant to point out to you was that Mr. Cummings did not 10 in fact say that you were specious. He said either that , 11 the efforts or the improvements were. specious, depending 12 on how you view that sentence. Would you agree? 13 A Well, my efforts were specious would seem to me 14 that I was trying to deceive by doing specious efforts. k 15 0 Well, I don't necessarily think'that's true. 16 I mean, that-doesn't necessarily follow, does it, that 17 because your efforts were specious that you were specious. 18 Maybe he just meant that there was wishful thinking on your 19 part, that you really didn't have any indication that you'd 20 do these things. Isn't that a possible interpretation? 21 A I would suppose so. 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Larsen, is that use of 23 the word " specious" here what you were referring to in your 24 testimony? Is that the use of the word " specious"? 25 THE WITNESS: That's where it came from, yes.
CROSS - LARSEN 408 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. Okay. l 2 MS. HODGDON: Okay. Having cleared that up, we'll 3 jmove on.
.4 BY MS. HODGDON:
l 5 0 Page 5. Now, you've made the statement many times' 1 6 that you were forced to do particular things, and here you . 7 say in the first sentence at the top of the page, "We were I I - 8 forced to continue our chemical operation in various storage! 9 units which were not well-suited for our operation." 10 You're aware, then, that your Quonset hut in 11 Wyoming was not suitable for the kind of operation that 12 you were carrying on; is that correct? 13 A It was not well-suited, not as ideal as we would , 14 like it. 15 Q Not very well-suited, okay. But yet you say that 16 you were forced to continue your operations in places that i 17 were not suitable. ! 18 A Well, forced by the moratorium and not being able 19 to use our building. 20 Q But isn't there something in-between. I mean, 21 isn't there something between the land that you had bought 12 and the building you had put on it which you caanot use 23 because of building moratorium and which you've asserted 24 earlier today that you don't believe that you'll be able 25 to use in the near future because of the building O f
CROSS LARSEN- 409- '(("' : 1 moratorium. .Isn't there someting in-between that and a 2 Quonset. hut that's not properly equipped, has -- 3 A I would imagine. l l t o 4 Q. -- no plumbing and -- 5 A I would imagine there were better places, yes.
.' 6 But you see, not everybody wants to welcome you with open 7 arms.to do a chemical process that is radioactive. We've 8 found that the best places to do this is where we are not 9 .a nuisance to people.
10 0 That brings me directly to my next question, It which is about your neighbors. 12 A Right. 13 0 "We tried to keep it as clean as we could and 14 not bother any of our neighbors." 15 What are you calling your neighbors? 16 A A flower shop, a flower wholesaler was one of 17 them. 18 0 Is this in the-Quonset hut in Wyoming? 19 A No. No,-this was in an industrial park in Provo. An industrial park in Provo. Was the facility -- 20 Q
~
21 A Orem. Excuse me -- Orem. 12 Q In Orem. Was the facility in Wyoming in an 23 industrial park, or was that merely a storage facility? 24 A 6-11, I don't know what you sould call it, but 25 there were businesses thct were fixing cars and other O
CROSS - LARSEN , 410 1 activities like that. 2 Q People did do things other than store. It was 3ldesignedtobeastoragefacility? 4 A Well, they could do many things there, but they i I 5 fixed cars. 6 What were some of the other things? Do you know? - 7 (Pause for Witness to confer with Mr. Noack.) ' 8 THE WITNESS: Okay. Mostly working on cars. l i 9 And this would be -- well, later on too. 10 BY MS. HODGDON: 11 Q When you say "and not bother any of our 12 neighbors," you say that the neighbors that you might have 13 bothered were not in Wyoming but in Utah, specifically a 14 flower shop. Did they complain about your operation? 15 A We don't know who complained, but someone 16 complained. 17 Q In Wyoming or in Utah? 18 A In Utah. 19 Q Complained that you were a nuisance because? 20 A Well, chemical operations do have an odor. I 21 think any chemical operation that you walk into you'll know 22 you're walking into something that deals with chemicals. 23 You walk into Parrish Chemical, you know you're in a 24 chemical company. It's organic chemicals. Unless, of 25 course, you're talking about a great huge chemical company O
F CROSS 'LARSEN .411 5 f 1 where they, you know, have money to'do everything-perfect. c -- 2 .Q .Well, surely you don't think'it's unreasonable . 3 of~a flower shop to complain about -- l 4- A No, of course not. -l 0 5 -- the proximity of it because -- , 6' A I'm not complaining about that. l 7 0 Probably it had some effeet on their operation.. > 3 A Yes. 9 Q- If the flowers retained that smell. 10 A And that's why we tried to, you know, not be a 31 nuisance. 12 Q So then,'I understand it to be your testimony
.13 that it's difficult to find a proper place to locate this 14 kind of an operation.
15 A- .That's it precisely. 16 0 Both in Utah'and in Wyoming. 17 A Right. 18 O Then, you have another statement about neighbors 19 further down that page: "Most neighbors expect that 20 ~ manufacturing in small amounts cannot be done safely with
. 21 buckets and hand-pouring," et cetera, et cetera.
22 A Yes.
~
23 0 What are you talking about there? Who are you 24 calling "ne2ghbors"? 25 A Well, people that walk by and see us processing I (
\
l L- -- i
CROSS - LARSEN 412
~
1 materials. You know, they're not impressed by small 2 businesses that don't have a lot of money, and that was 3 us. We were doing it with less than great stuff, but we 4' were trying to do it as safely as we could, but many -- ! l 5 I think, you know, everybody would like to see it handled 6 like a real big expensive operation, and we just didn't . 7 have that kind of money at that time. We did manage to 8 put together and buy the land and the building over in - 9 Lindon. But at that time we didn't have a lot of money 10 to do that. 11 Q Are you trying to tell me that this operation 12 is so marginal that you cannot make a profit -- 13 A No. 14 0 -- if you put in the projections that the NRC 15 and the State of Utah think are necessary to preserve -- 16 A No, that's not what I'm saying. 17 Q -- the public health and safety? 18 A That's not what I'm saying, no. What I'm saying 19 is that we -- if we were a big operation, we would have 20 a chemical plant, and we wouldn't even have to handle it. 21 We wouldn't have to touch it. We'd just turn valves and , 12 things like that, which would be -- you know, would be very 23 nice. But we don't have that kind of money. So we just , 1 do the best we can, j 24 25 0 You mentioned fumes and smells emanating from i e\ r
o'
-CROSS - LARSEN. 413 ) /~' 1 your facility,.your process. Do you know whether chemicals \~ lsuch as benzene are subject to regulation?
2 3 :A I would imag . ne they are. It's carcinogenic, 4 if'you are around it a long time. We're not of a long-term 5 exposure to it. But I understand that it is a-carcinogen
.- 6 if you work around it for 40 hours a week, and you have 7 to.take precautions for that.
8 Q Do you know what levels are safe? 9 A- (Pause.) 10 Q You've told me what levels are dangerous, 40 hours 11 a week. I'm asking you what levels are safe. 12 A Well, I'm not exactly sure. I know that we 13' ventilate as much as we can. Outside we prefer to work'
/' 14 with it, but we always keep the fumes as ventilated as k'- 15- possible.
16 0 can you tell what that smell that emanates from 17 your facility is? 18 A Just general chemical smell. Two-4-pentadione,
-19 -benzene, water --
20 0 Is 2-4-pentanedione a bad-smelling chemical? 21 A It has an odor. It's not an RCRA substance. 22 O Is benzene? 23 A Yes. Benzene should be handled carefully. 24 0 What about nitric acid? It doesn't smell, does 25 it? O
CROSS - LARSEN 414 i I I 1 A Nitric acid is caustic, and you have to -- 1 2 Q But it doesn't smell? l 3l A No, it -- well, youwoulddefinitelyknowiftherel l t
~
4 I was acid in the air, not by the smell but by the -- 5 Q Acrid. l 6 A Yes. . 7 Q Thank you. 8 Yes. Okay. Moving on from your neighbors, then. - 9 Getting down there to the bottom of the page where 10 you called Washington, the NRC in Washington, inquiring 11 if it was legal to work in another state under a general 12 license even though a company possessed a specific license 13 in another state, you stipulated to the accuracy of 14 Mr. Lamastra's affidavit. He doesn't say that you asked 15 him whether it was legal to work in another state under 16 a general license when you had a specific license in a l 17 different state. He says that you asked him about general 18 licenses, and then he said that you could have things in 19 different places under general licenses, providing you 20 didn't get them all together or something to that effect. 21 A Well, I'm telling you what -- what I said was . 22 what I said, and that was, "Can I go to another state and 23 work under a general license, having a specific license 24 in one state?" And I inquired several times about that 25 to make sure I got it right. O
i LARSEN - CROSS 415
,7~9.1 1 Q You also say here that you inquired whether it i ).
j 2 was legal. Isn't it also true that Mr. Lamastra told you 3 if you wanted a legal opinion, you'd have to call the i 4 l 4 Gcneral Counsel's office and get a legal opinion? I i. 5 A Yes. But you understand what I was worried about 6 there, and that was the possession of a general license and 7 a specific license at the same time. 8 O I think I understand. Since you asked me a I
! l 9 question, I will answer it. I understand, but I'm not sure 10 { that Mr. Lamastra understood. From his affidavit, it 11 doesn't seem that what you're now representing is what he '
12 ' heard your question to be. 13 , In any event, you say you were told it was legal. : i ! p 14 l That's what you're saying now. But you do recall also that G) l l 15 ' Mr. Lamastra told you that if you wanted a legal opinion, 16 you had to get the opinion from the General Counsel. Did 17 you seek such an opinion -- A No. 18 l 19 i 0 -- or write the General Counsel a letter? 20 A No, because they told me that it was okay. But
. 21 they wouldn't swear to it, they said. And I called several l 12 times to make sure that it in their mind was okay. And I ~
23 imagine they know what is okay and what isn't okay. But, 24 again, if you're going to get technically legal, I imagine 25 that you should go to a legal counsel. l d 1
. _ _ _ _.____________Q
LARSEN - CROSS 416 I lM2 1 Q Well, Mr. Lamastra's affidavit says what it says, ! 2 And it had -- 3' JUDGE SHON: Ms. Hodgdon, if I could interrupt 4 for one moment. 5, MS. HODGDON: Yes, you may, i 6! JUDGE SHON: The affidavit of Lamastra, to which . I I 7' Mr. Larsen stipulated, you know, does say, "In addition, j i - 8 because I thought Mr. Larsen was a new licensee and not j 9 aware of NRC regulations," and it goes on, which suggests 10 ( that Mr. Lamastra, at least at this time, didn't know that . 11 ! you already had an NRC license. THE WITNESS: Well, I never tried to say that I 12 l i All I said was, "Is it okay to work 13 i didn't have a license. 14 ' in another state and still have a specific license?" That's Now, if he thought that I was a new 15 j the way I put it. 16 licensee there, I didn't mean to mislead him in that way. 17 In fact, if I were going to mislead him, I wouldn't have 18 called back several times to make sure that it was okay. 19 JUDGE SHON: Was he the only one you talked to 20 at that time? 21 THE WITNESS: No, I talked to two people. 22 BY MS. HODGDON: 23 Q Was the other person Bruce Carico? 24 A Yes. Mr. Carico's affidavit was also offered at an 25 Q O
LARSEN - CROSS 417 f E if*~s
- \
1 earlier time. It says the same thing as Mr. Lamastra's.
's - 2 A In what regard?
3 Q Well, we didn't put it into evidence, because it 4 says the same thing as Mr. Lamastra's. It says he talked i l 5 to you on the telephone and told you the same thing that ! 6 Mr. Lamastra says he told you. l 7l MS. HODGDON: That's in the February 1 filing if ,
- 8 anybody can find it.
9 THE WITNESS: Did he say we talked about I 10 reciprocity? 11 , MS. HODGDON: Does it say reciprocity? 12 : THE WITNESS: The only information I would know , 13labout reciprocity comes from them. And reciprocity s 14 l involves, as I understand it, working with a general
/
k ,)\ 15 l license and a specific license in two different areas. 16 MS. HODGDON: Did everybody find Mr. Carico's 17 r affidavit? 18 (Pause.) 19 , MS. HODGDON: I don't believe there's a question. 20 I'll just continue if anybody has no question about 21 Mr. Carico's affidavit. Mr. Carico's affidavit does not l l 12 mention anything about reciprocity. Neither does 23 Mr. Lamastra's. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It doesn't mention anything 25 about a specific license either. l 4 t
.s , l \
x_ l l l l
LARSEN - CROSS 418 l M4 1 MS. HODGDON: Doesn't mention specific licenses 2 either. Doesn't mention reciprocity, doesn't mention -- 3 JUDGE SHON: Mr. Carico's affidavit uses the tcrm 4l " specific license," but it says, "I recall discussing the L 5 requirements for possessing source materials under specific 6 license." f I I 7! MS. HODGDON: Oh, yes, it does.
~
It certainly doesn't suggest, at ! 8l JUDGE SHON: ! 9' least to the uninitiated, that he knew Mr. Larsen already l 10 had a specific license when he did this. 11 MS. HODGDON: That is true. It does mention , 12 specific licenses, but in a different context, "I recall 13 discussing the requirements," right, "...under specific , I 14 license." Thank you. 15 ' BY MS. HODGDON: i 16 f Q Moving on from that, then, if I may, in the first l i 17 l full paragraph on page 6 of your testimony, Mr. Larsen, you 18 say that: 19 j "In working under a general license, we also 20 implemented most of our specific license 21 requirements, such as monitoring work area for . I 22 dust and clean up, buying much stainless steel l l 23 units to work on, dosimeters for external radiation 24 counts, maximum security efforts to keep any U.A.A. 25 locked up and proper waste handling." l l O
LARSEN - CROSS 419
""'g 1 You're talking about Wyoming at this point, aren't you, your .
N~ 2 operation in Wyoming? 3 A Yes. I 4 Q You've enumerated the specific license 5 requirements that you did implement. Can you tell us which 6 ! ones you had in Utah that you did not implement? l i 1 7, A Well, I know that we should have done urinalysis '. 8 tests. The reason we didn't is because we didn't think we l 9 had a problem there. Most of the urinalysis tests were m , zero, were less than 5 micrograms per liter, until we ran 11 into these November ones, and December tests and January 12 tests that we were totally surprised and wondering where So that is one thing that we l 13 e the contamination came from. l 14 have learned from that since, j 7y s.- 15 Q How did you monitor for dust? 16 A See, we weren't even aware of what the -- well, 17 what the limits were on the micrograms per liter. I 18 l Now, for dust, you say? i 19 O Excuse me. , I I 20 (Pause for Ms. Hodgdon to confer with Mr. Cool.) j i i 21 BY MS. HODGDON: ! I I'm sorry, I was distracted. You were answering 12 O 23 the question regarding the Part 20, the specific license 24 requirements that were imposed on you in Utah that you did 25 not implement in Wyoming. And you said that as regards (x o
LARSEN - CROSS 420 M6 I urinalysis, that you didn't think that you needed to do that I 2 i as required in Utah. l 3, A Well, no, okay -- l 6 4, Q Because -- i 5 A No, I'm just saying that's one thing we didn't I 6, do, because we were under a general license. . 7l Q But -- 8' A That was a specific license requirement in Utah. l
. i 9 Q Dr. Cool tells me that you hadn't finished your i l
10 ; answer, and that I interrupted you, and that that was just 11j one thing. So what are the other Utah -- 12 A Well, under a general license we have to keep 13 ! records and orcer 150 pounds a year, 15 pounds at a time. I 14 ' O No, no. Under a specific license you have to do 15 a number of things -- l 16 A Yes, but under Wyoming -- l l 17 Q -- that you don't have to do under a general 4 18 license. 19 ' A That's right. 20 Q That's what you say. But you say nevertheless, 21 you implemented most of them, and then you make a list. . 22 A Yes. 23 Q So there's an allowable inference that some of 24 them you did not implement. And I asked you what they were, 25 and you said that you did not do urinalyses. O
LARSEN - CROSS 421 I i
/~~~
A Well, I imagine also we should have had a fume [t 't
/
1 v 2l hood up there, which we had in Utah but we didn't have up 1 3 in Wyoming. 4; O So that's two things that you did not have in 1 5, Wyoming that you had in Utah and that you didn't find to ! 6 l be necessary or, perhaps, possible -- f 7 A We were lax on -- 8 0 -- in Wyoming, given the operation. 9 Now, getting back to the things that you did do -- JUDGE BECSHOEFER: Well, Mr. Larson, were all of 10 , . 11 the fume hoods someplace in Utah? i THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 I JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Including the one that you l 13 ,i l !
,m
} 14 l self-constructed and described earlier?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
15 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That was never moved to -- THE WITNESS: That was moved to Wyoming. 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I see, okay. I misunderstood 18 19 that, actually. 20 BY MS. HODGDON: 21 O No fume hoods in Wyoming; is that correct? 4 22 A Right, except for the scrubber. okay, a scrubber. Now, hov did you monitor for 23 0 24 dust? l 25 A Swipes, and a Geiger counter, and an alpha l t O a
\m /
l
LARSEN - CROSS . 422 I l- l ! -i i l'M8 i scintillator. 2 Q Did you do this on some sort of a schedule? 3 A Yes, after we cleaned up. j 4 Q You mean you cleaned up after every batch? I ! 5 A Yes. i 6 Q After every batch. . i 7 A Right. 8 Q Is there some standard for cleanliness? l 9' A Yes, NRC guidelines. 10 Q And you reached that after every batch. 11 A Yes. l 12 ' Q And then your statement is, you stated earlier, 13 , that it took you two weeks to process depleted uranium into l 14 ' UAA crystals. 15 A That's on the average. 16 f Q I understand you to say that you did this i 17 l monitoring the work area for dust and clean-up every two i 18 ; weeks. i 19 ; A After we finished a batch, we would clean up the 20 area and make tests that it was clean. Then we would wait 21 for the next order. ,
* \
12 Q How often did you participate in these activities? 23 I suppose I should ask the preliminary questicn first. How - 24 do you know this, Mr. Larsen, that this clean-up was done 25 on schedule and that the guideline levels were reached, et 9
LARSEN --CROSS 423 - M *N 1 cetera? i i (' t
/ I did the testing. I didn't always get the 2 A l )
l 3 swipes, but I did the testing. i i 4 Q Where did you do the testing? i l 5 A Back in Utah, where the instruments were kept. l j
! l l , 6l i 0 What's your basis for making these statements, !
i j J 7' then, that they were done? The tests led you to believe
* \'
8 that it was properly done. j 9' A With the swipes. 10 ' Q To what extent did you participate in the actual i . 11 activities in Wyoming, the processing of this material? i 12 A I did some of it, but most of it was done by 13 Kevin. s 14 ' Q When you say "some," could you give me some idea
/ i j \s_,2 15 , of a percentage?
l 16 i A No, I don't know. I can't tell you that, i 17 ' specifically what days I was there and when I wasn't. Some i 18 days I was up there, some days I wasn't. 19 0 In a typical two-week processing, how many days l l 20 would you have been there?
. 21 A I don't know. It wasn't -- Three or four. ;
12 Q Who kept the records of the monitoring? 23 A I did. l 24 Q And where were they kept? 25 A In Utah. p m i
LARSEN - CROSS- 424 M10 1 Q Do you still have them? i 2 A Yes. l f a 3 Q Were they made available for Blair Spitzberg j 4; inspection when he inspected? i i 5 A Sure were. . l I Well, which inspection is this,l 6j JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I 1 I 7 { the Wyoming inspection? Because these were in Utah. 8 MS. HODGDON: Well, I presume when -- Maybe I'm l
- 9. not allowed to presume. But I understood Mr. Larsen to say J 10 ' that ha made them available, that what he did was he carried 11 ' them over to Wyoming for Dr. Spitzberg to look at them.
I 12 BY MS. HODGDON: Q Is that true? Did you do that? 13 l 14 ' A Yes, that's what happened. j i 15 ; JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Is that accurate? l f I carried my records over on j 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. i 17 that first inspection, November 4 and 5, as I remember. I 18 He wanted to check them over, so I made them available. 19 BY MS. HODGDON: 20 Q Are you aware of any requirement that records be 1
~ - 21 kept on the premises? ;
l i 12 A No. Is that a regulation? 1 23 0 I asked you if you were aware. , t ) 24 A No, I'm not aware of that as a requirement. 25 O Getting down to other regulations that you l l
LARSEN - CROSS 425 -
,-s mentioned, "We seem to be in violation of sone rule
/ } 1
~'
2 somewhere," you say, "be it with the NRC, or the EPA, or ', 3, the Air Quality Control, or OSHA." What do you mean by that l 1 4 statement? I I 5 A I mean for a small business there are many i 6; i regulatory agencies that you have to comply with and please.: I ;
' I 7 And for a small business it is very difficult because of the limited money you have and the limited manpower. And l 8
I I 9: yet if you're treated the same as big business, you're a I 10 sitting duck, and it's very easy to put you out of business. 11 [ Q Have you had any dealings with the EPA? 12 A No. 13j Q How about Air Quality? I 14 ' A Air Quality, yes. [] 15 Q Could you tell me what those were? 16 A Scrubber system. i 17 Q The Wyoming Air Quality Control? 18 A No, this was Utah that wanted it. But we took there. 19 ! it up to Wyoming because we were working with it 20 Q You took what? 21 A The scrubber unit. 12 Q That's the scrubber. What about OSHA? 23 A OSHA came and saw us and never came back, gave 24 us a thing to put up on the wall. 25 0 What kind of a thing? ) f% \ L--) t
l l LARSEN - CROSS 426 l
!' i M12 1 A Whatever they have that you're supposed to post.
2' Q Oh, something like "This place may be dangerous l 3 to your health," or something like that? i 4 A Something like that, I guess. ! i l ! 5 _ Q Like smoking or something. I I 6 A It wasn't any violation. It was just: Here's
- i 7 who to call if there are any problems.
8 0 Oh. As I remember, 9l A 10 ' O They didn't inspect you or anything. 11 l A No. i 12 Q They just insisted that you put something up on 13 your wall. i A That's right. 14l! 15 , Q Okay. Were there any other Utah specific license ' 16 ' requirements that you did not implement in Wyoming? That's 17 returning back to my previous question. You mentioned 18 uriralysis, you mentioned -- 19 l A You must understand, Ann, that Utah specific l 20 license requirements were not required under a general 21 license. So this was all voluntary. 12 O Excuse me, that's your interpretation, that those 23 specific license requirements were not required under a i 24 general license, isn't it? 25 A No, that's the regulations under a specific O u
LARSEN - CROSS 427 You are exempt from 19 and 20, I believe, and you {n} . q ,- 1 license. l 2 } comply with records and the limits of possession. Did you hear Mr. Flack state this morning that f 3 Q i 4 the general license exemption from Parts 19, 20 and 21 was l 5 not available to the holder of a specific license? 6 A That's not the interpretation I got from 7 Mr. Carico and Mr. Lamastra. ; l Mr. Carico and Mr. Lamastra did not mention any
- j 8 O discussion with you of these matters; isn't that correct?
i 9 A I don't know. I know what they told me, and 10 ,
- 11 l that's that you could work in the state with a general 12 i
license while you still have a specific license. Q But did they mention Part 20, and Part 19, and l 13 ; I s [ 14 - Part 21? N.^ )) 15 : h A No, I don't believe so, because -- 16 i Q Well, if they were silent as to that, maybe they that exemption was not 17j thought you knew that those parts, 18 available to a holder of a specific license. 19 A No, under a general license you are exempt from ; 20 that. 21 Q Not if you have a specific license. 12 A That's not their interpretation, what they told 23 me. i 24 Q They didn't say that you mentioned anything about 25 that or that they did either. A i 1
\
f
LARSEN - CROSS 42g i M14 1 A I think one of the problems possibly with their 2 memory on that was that thishadtobewritteneightorninef 3 months after they -- or, no, it was much longer than that. 4 Good grief, it was a year plus 20 months, or whenever they l 5 gave their testimony or -- l 6' Q They gave an affidavit February 1. , 7 A Of '89? l 8 Q Of '89. . 9 A Okay, well, then it's about three years. ; 10 Q I believe the affidavit says "18 months ago," 11 l although I could be mistaken. 12 A Uell, anyway, a period of time that the memory 13 can dim. l
', Y 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, Mr. Larsen, at the time l 15 , we're talking about had you read 40.22?
i 16 i THE WITNESS: Is that for the general license? , 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's the general license 18lsection, yes. 19 ! THE WITNESS: Yes. See, I had worked under a 20 general license. And those were the only conditions that 21 they put me under, was records and possession limits. , - 1 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. Well, were you aware 23 that 40.22 for years, perhaps since it has been adopted, , 24 has had this proviso that says the exemption, which is from 25 Parts 19, 20 and 21, shall not be deemed to apply to any O f
LARSEN - CROSS 429 l P) I person who is also in possession of source material under
,' ~ ' )
2 a specific license. 3 THE WITNESS: And that's why I was calling them, 4 ; because I had heard that you couldn't have a specific and . I ! 5 a general license at the same time. And when I called them i . 6landsaid, "Can I work in another state under a general I 7 license?" they said, "Yes, because General Electric and big ; 8 companies can work in different areas under different 9 general licenses if they don't abuse the specific license." 10 ; JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, did you understand that 11 ! that could have meant that you would be allowed to work i license, but a general license which would 12junderageneral 13 be subject to the provisions of Parts 19, 20 and 21? That's /T 14 what that word means, I think. N' 'l THE WITNESS: Oh. 15l' , 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: There are two types of general 17 licenses. If you don't have another specific license, you 18 are exempt from the provisions of 19, 20 and 21. 19 THE WITNESS: I have not known until this instant 20 that there were two general licenses. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, it's one general license, 12 but it's what terms of a general license apply to you in 23 certain circumstances. And I think that proviso has been 24 in the rules for years, probably since they were adopted. 25 THE WITNESS: Well, like I was saying, I called N \ xJ
LARSEN - CROSS 430 i i 1 them several times to make sure that I was doing the right
- 2. thing on that. And they each time, according to my !
I 3 understanding, said it was okay to have a specific license 4 in one state and a general license in another one. , I 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, well, that would be 6 i consistent with the interpretation which would say that the . 7 exemption from 19, 20 and 21 would only apply if you didn't , 8, have another specific license. But if you did, you might 9 still operate under a general license, but you would have , 10 4 to live up to Parts 19, 20 and 21. I think the requirements 11 l would be still somewhat less onerous than under a specific 12 license. But it would be a general license with different , 13 applicability, different terms applicable. I 14 THE WITNESS: According to my understanding, a ! l 4 15 ; general license only have to have the possession limits and i the records. That's the understanding that I had for a j 16 l 17 j general license. Nothing else was mentioned about any other ! I 18 l requirements. i 19 j BY MS. HODGDON: 20 0 Perhaps, Mr. Larsen, if you had told Mr. Lamastra l 21 who you were and your situation, you would have gotten an 12 answer that you would have understood better, because it seems to me quite clear f rom Mr. Lamastra's af fidavit, and 23 24 telling you about G.E. and Westinghouse and the Army, that 25 what he was trying to do was to illustrate that holders of O f
i LARSEN - CROSS 431 1
,,A 1 specific licenses could have general licenses, but that they
(_,-) 2, weren't exempt from Part 19, 20 and 21 requirements. l 3 But your knowledge of general licenses seems to f 4 be based on your prior experience, prior to your holding
\'
5 of a specific license. And so it doesn't really depend on I 6 what Mr. Lamastra and Mr. Carico said to you, isn't that 7 true? I mean, the fact is, you didn't understand what they i
. 8' said to you. I I
9 A Well, I'll own up to that, because this is the 10 first time I've ever heard that interpretation. 11 , O Well, Mr. Flack talked about that for half an ho'ur i 12 this morning. 13 A Well, it didn't ring a bell to me about what he i . I 14 , was'saying.
/
(
'_) ,/ 15 I
Q Okay, but now you understood it. l 16 A That there -- 17 Q Is that correct? 18 A -- is a general license under which 19, 20 and 19 21 does apply to. 20 0 Well, we'll pass this to you so that you can read t 21 it. Maybe that will be some help.
- l 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It's the sections of 40.22(b) l 23 that I was referring to and that Ms. Hodgdon was referring i
24 to. 25 ///
^
ltv)
/
l 1 f
CROSS - LARSEN 432 bl 1 THE WITNESS: If that's the case, I'll own up 2 to that. I misunderstood. ! i 3' JUDGE KLINE: When you asked your question of 4 'Mr. Lamastre, did you ask it in abstract terms -- I. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 6 JUDGE KLINE: -- rather than specific concrete - 7 to you? 8 THE WITNESS: I didn't say to me. I said in 9 i abstract terms. i 10 JUDGE KLINE: You said in abstract, almost as 11 if you had an academic interest in -- 12 THE WITNESS: That's right. 13 JUDGE KLINE: -- regulations. l 14 THE WITNESS: That's right. 15 JUDGE KLINE: So that he was not cued about -- 16 THE WITNESS: That's right. And the reason for 17 that was because you get very paranoid after a while when 18 you find out, as I did, that your stigmatized or whatever. 19 I tried to go to Nevada, and they said, "What did they do? 20 be aboveboard." 21 And I said, "Okay, fine." So we went to Nevada, 12 presented our specific license, said, "Could we work under 23 a general license?" i 24 And all of the sudden, "No. No. No." Everything 25 was "No." O
l
'b2: 'n
- 1. JUDGE KLINE: When they learned who-you were.
2 THE WITNESS: When they learned who you were. 3 JUDGE KLINE: Yes. 4 THE WITNESS: Right. 5 JUDGE KLINE. skay. But if you asked it in 6 abstract terms -- 7' THE WITNESS: It tends to make -- 8 JUDGE KLINE: -- you got a different answer, is 9 that --' 10 THE WITNESS: (Affirmative nod.) . 11 JUDGE KLINE: Okay. 12 MS. HODGDON: Yes, well, having cleared that 13 matter up -- 14 BY MS. HODGDON: 15 Q If you'll move to page 7, in the first full 16 paragraph on that page, the second sentence -- I'll have "A fa.'.ily 17 to go back to the first sentence -- you say, 18 business was extinguished as a company. The world was not 19 made safer because of this because there was never any 20 public hazard that was proving to exist, only people's fears
+- 21 of radioactivity and chemicals."
22 I would ask you whether you represent yourself 23 to have the kind of expertise that would allow you to make 24 that statement that there was no public hazard. y 25 A well, I am saying that in reference to what L -. - - _- _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
CROSS - LARSEN '
. 434 i Larry Anderson says that he was never a public hazard. He 2 said that several times about the operation in Utah. And l 3 if Larry Anderson would say that about me, I think that's 1
4 -- (Pause.) 5 Q Do you recall yesterday when I think you were 6 asking questions and you wanted to know who the public was - 7 l and one of the NRC panel of witnesses said that -- i 8 A Yes, I do. 9 Q -- said that you were the public? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Kevin was the public, you were the public? 12 A What I -- what I would -- to me the public hazard 13 is persons outside the building, and there was no 14 contamination outside the building of Wyoming. Now, that's l I 15 what I meant by that statement. 16 Q Yet, you understood that the NRC Staff witnesses 17 did say that the public included your workers and yourself. 18 A Well, that may be their interpretation. I don't 19 use "public" in that way in my sentence there. 20 MS. HODGDON: Okay. I think that's all I have 21 on that document. I'll move to the next one. l 12 Does the Board want to follow up with questions 23 on this document, or do you want me to go on to the enxt 24 one? 25 JUDGE KLINE: I'm wondering, Mr. Larsen, other O 1
g-~ l than your contact-with Mr. Lamastra and the other NRC k 2 person, did you ever make an affirmative effort to 3 understand the NRC Regulations or to read them,.to inquire f i 4 of NRC Staff as to how they would be enforced, or to try 5 to develop some information other than your intuition on 6 which you could rely?. Did you ever make such an effort -- 7- THE WITNESS: Yes.
, . 8 JUDGE KLINE: -- an affirmative effort?
9 THE WITNESS: I've read things over many, many' 10- times. 11 JUDGE.KLINE: What did you read and who did you' 12 talk to other than the people we've been talking to, I mean
'13 other than Mr. Lamastra?
14 THE WITNESS: I did a lot of reading on these 15 sections and -- 16 JUDGE KLINS: What? I mean -- 17 THE WITNESS: Other than that, I called 18 Washington, D.C. when I was - 19 JUDGE KLINE: No, I understand you did that. 20 THE WITNESS: Okay. 21 JUDGE KLINE: Other than that? 12 THE WITNESS: No, I. guess not, because I was -- 23 JUDGE KLINE: What I mean is, as part of your 24 background. 25 THE WITNESS: I guess not because I was
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ - _-____ _ __= -.
CROSS - LARSEN 436 I 1 I satisfied'that I understood it. 2 JUDGE KLINE: Okay. I see. So you were really 3iin a sense functioning intuitively, is that right? That 1 4 if it didn't seem to harm the public, it would be all right? 5iWas that your interpretation? 6 THE WITNESS: Well, I thought I understood a , , 7 general license. 8 JUDGE KLINE: From reading sources? 9; THE WITNESS: From my past being a general license. I 10 JUDGE KLINE: Yes. But from specifically reading I 11 40.22? l ! 12 THE WITNESS: I would have to see if I read that 13 part of it, but I didn't get any outside information on 14 40.22, and there were many things in the Regulation that 15 were very ambiguous and hard to understand, because there's 16 many different -- 17 JUDGE KLINE: That's what I'm trying to get at. 18 Was there ever an affirmative effort on your part, given 19 that these were hard to understand -- 20 THE WITNESS: Yes. 21 JUDGE KLINE: -- to try to understand them or . 12 get an interpretation, other than the ones we've just
~
23 discussed? 24 THE WITNESS: Other than the ones we've just 25 talked about, no. 1 I f
CROSS - LARSEN 437 l.. 1 JUDGE KLINE: Okay. 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I have a couple of further 3 questions on the document we've been talking about. So l-4 I guess I might as well ask them'at this time before we
' k 5- move on.
6 First, you had mentioned several other agencies l 7L and you were asked some questions on page 6 of the document. ) i 8 THE WITNESS: Okay. 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Did any of those agenciet -- 10 have any of them ever taken formal action of any sort' 11 against your operation? ] ! 12 THE WITNESS: No. 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Any notices of violations or whatever they may be called by those agencies, any
.14 IS' directives to modify your operation? i 16 THE WITNESS: The Air Quality. Control said that -- )
i 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's Utah. l I 18 THE WITNESS: Yes, of Utah. 1 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 20 THE WITNESS: Said, "If you work in Utah, you 21 must have'a scrubber system, and we must check it out." 12 So when we went to Wyoming, we put in our scrubber i 23 system and tried to do the best we could on that. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And that's the only occasion i 25 that any of these --
CROSS - LARSEN 438 I l i 1 THE WITNESS: I haven't had trouble with EPA or { 2 OSHA, but there are many times they come down and want to 3 know information about your operation and hazarous waste I 4 also and whether your material is RCRA-regulated or not ' 5 1 and what you're doing with it and like that, but I've never ' 6 had an action against me other than the radiation people. ,j 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now turning to the next page 8 of your testimony, page 7, could you explain a little bit - 9 what happened when you hired Bob Decker, I assume, as your 10 radiation engineer or -- 11 THE WITNESS: Consultant? 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- consultant, or -- well, 13 was he the person you hired as a radiation specialist to 14 fulfill Utah's -- one of the requirements that you had not 15 yet filled on the Utah suspension, had you hired him, 16 Decker, to do that? 17 THE WITNESS: I submitted another man's name. 18 I would have to get it for you, and he is a radiation 19 safety officer at a company in Springville, which is close 20 by here, at Murdock Internatican1. , 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now, why had you not then . 22 satisfied the requirement of the Utah suspension order that 23 you obtained such an officer? ~ 24 THE WITNESS: Under the agreement provisions of 25 the State of Utah with my suspension? O 4 4 - -_-_____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i
CROSS - LARSEN 439 l-
,/~~N 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, yes, there were five --
l t
\ -) 2 THE WITNESS: Yes.
3l I JUDGE BECHHOEFER: You had to do five things, l 1 4 and you had done three of them. ! 5 THE WITNESS: We've done three of them, and we -- 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: One was the officer, and I'm 7 trying to figure out -- 8 THE WITNESS: Right. 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- what happened there. It 10 seems you -- 11 THE WITNESS: We have submitted that name, but 12 the amendment and the name of the RSO have been put on hold 13 because of new information from Evanston, is what Larry f- 14 Anderson said. So we have tried to comly with that, but t 15 it was put on hold. 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: What does it mean when you 17 say Bob Decker went up there and never returned? I I8 THE WITNESS: Oh. 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: What's all that about? 20 THE WITNESS: Okay. Bob Decker I asked -- I
- 21 called him on the phone and said, "Would you try to go up 12 to Utah, Salt Lake City. to the Health Department -- would 23 you try to go ne 2 '. e r a and figure out what we can do in 24 order to get cur lir ma,e going again." And so he went up, 25 and he never came back and talked to me, and I have no O \~ -]
CROSS - LARSEN 440 1 idea other than to guess that he thought it was hopeless. 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Did you call him and ask him? 3 THE WITNESS: I tried to, but he wasn't home. 4 The fact of the matter is, it's not hard to understand when 5 you're not wanted, and we're not wanted in Utah. And this l 6 is one reason why Section 4 and 5 of the agreement was not . 7 fulfilled -- is because what is the purpose of sending l 8 an amendment and an RSO if they don't want you? That is - 9 one reason why we also went to Wyoming, because we don't to feel wanted in Utah, and they make it so hard with the 11 moratorium where your building is, and all it was was delay, 12 delay, and condemnation from the State of Utah. And so 13 we just felt we weren't wanted. 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, don't you think that 15 if you sent a document up to Utah which specified the 16 activities you were going to undertake to fulfill your 17 agreement and if those activities on their face were 18 adequate, I think sney would be forced to reinstate your 19 license. 20 THE WITNESS: That's exactly what we did, and 21 they sent them back and said, "Your license is on hold," , 12 and it has been for ever since. We have submitted that 23 material to them, and they have not considered it. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, are they waiting for 25 the resolution of this proceeding? W
1 THE WITNESS: I would imagine that is true. 2 But they said pending new evidence in Evanston or 3 something like that. 4- JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, haven't you cleared out 5 of Evanston now? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, couldn't you tell them 8 that?
-9 THE WITNESS: They know that.
10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do they. 11 JUDGE SHON: Mr. Larsen, isn't one of the five 12 items the setting up of adequate facilities? That's the 13 other thing that was unfufilled, in fact; is that right? 14 THE WITNESS: The amendment to your process and 5 15 the setting up of adequate facilities. Yes, that's one 16 of them. 17 JUDGE SHON: Wouldn't you before you got your 18 license suspension taken away -- wouldn't you have to have 19 an inspection by Utah that would asy that indeed your 20 facilities were according to what you promised?
, 21 THE WITNESS: Say that again now? I'm sorry.
12 JUDGE SHON: Before Utah would remove the 23 suspension -- 24 THE WITNESS: Right. 25 JUDGE SHON: -- of your license, wouldn't you (
\
CROSS - LARSEM 442 1 actually have to produce the facilities, have them in l 2 physical being and have someone look at them and say they l t l 3fwereallright? l 3 ! 4 THE WITNESS: I would imagine, yes, but I would i 5 think that they could rule whether that was adequate ; 6 ventilation and safety procedures, in which case we could , 7 go ahead and look for a facility that we could build this l , 8 with. If we could do this in our Lindon office, our Lindon i - 9 plant, that would be the most ideal situation. But that j 10 is not the case. 11 JUDGE SHON: But you say they won't even tell 12 you whether the plan is adequate; is that right? 13 THE WITNESS: That's right. That's right. We 14 have also submitted this to Nevada, and Nevada has okayed i 15 it with certain provisions, but they said first of all to 16 clear up your troubles with the NRC and Utah. And so they 17 have reviewed it. But Utah hasn't even reviewed it. 18 JUDGE KLINE: Is Nevada an agreement state? 19 THE WITNESS: Nevada is an agreement state. 20 JUDGE KLINE: Inquiring a bit further, do you 21 recall hearing this morning Mr. Spitzberg, I believe, and . 12 I had a short dialogue concerning the question of transfer, 23 and-the net result was that he said he found that material 24 under the jurisdiction of the specific license in Utah was 25 transferred to Evanston. Is that something you agree with? O l 1
CROSS - LARSEN 443
, ~'s I THE WITNESS: My understanding on that was tl.st '( I k/ 2 . Utah wanted me to clean up that waste which I had. And l
3 j we started to work on that, and part of that waste was i i I 4' crystals. But also we had stuff in process that was shut 5 down in November of '86 by the Utah suspension order. 6 That material was finished up in Evanston, and because it 7 was purchased in Utah, that is where we counted it as 8 being possessed. That was my understanding of what the 9 rules was on that. 10 JUDGE KLINE: Okay. That's what I'm trying to 11 get at, is precisely where the dispute lies. My 12 understanding from his testimony this morning is he believes 13 ;l that material that was possessed lawfully under the Utah
,x 14 license was wrongly transferred to Evanston. And you --
i i
\_ / 15 THE WITNESS: We considered that Utah material.
16 JUDGE KLINE: -- our belief is that it was 17 transferred to Evanston but rightfully -- 18 THE WITNESS: But rightfully -- 19 JUDGE KLINE: -- that you were entitled to. 20 THE WITNESS: -- it being possessed in Utah, and
- 21 what we were doing was getting it processed and rid of it 12 so that we could help clean up the waste and also the --
23 JUDGE KLINE: Your view is that if you transferred 24 Utah crystals to Evanston, you were complying with the 25 clean-up order in Utah. p
\m
1 CROSS - LARSEN 444 i l 1 THE WITNESS: That's right.
)
2 JUDGE KLINE: I see. 3! THE WITNESS: We were transferring, getting waste l
,4 done, and finishing out material. It doesn't seem :
I
' l 5 reasonable to me that you'd throw good material out. !
6 JUDGE KLINE: And as long as the material was . 7 transferred out of Utah, in your view Utain was getting its 8 interests served -- 9 THE WITNESS: Right. 10 JUDGE KLINE: -- by removal or uranium that it 11 ' didn' t want. 12 THE WITNESS: That was my understanding of what 13 We -- 14 JUDGE KLINE: I see. So that you thought you 15 were complying -- 16 THE WITNESS: Right. I 17 JUDGE KLINE: -- with Utah's i avisions when you 18 moved that material to Wyoming; is that correct? 19 THE WITNESS: Right. 20 JUDGE KLINE: Okay, I think I understand the 21 dispute, anyway. Okay. Thank you. - 12 Well, let me ask just one further question, then. l . 23 There were conditiosn for the restoration of your Utah 24 license specified. Three were complied with. Two were 25 pending. Then you later hear that things are on hold O
= _ - _ - _ - - _ -
CROSS.-LLARSEN 445 _ 1
-[ \
1 'again. .Has it occurred to you'that the actions subsequent t 2' to the agreement, i.e., these transfers, where-there are 3 different interpretations possible, might well in part 4 account for the fact that things are on hold? That is, 5 .if-they viewed it as a violation and you didn't -- 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. 7 JUDGE KLINE: -- could that be what accounts for 8 the hold'and:why things have to be cleared up in Evanston 9 before tney're willing to go forward? 10 THE WITNESS: Yes.. 11 JUDGE KLINE: Okay. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Larsen, going back to your 13 statement about Mr. Decker, your statement that I think [
\s, 14 probably he was discouraged, et cetera -- what's your basis 15 for that other than just' general supposition?
16 THE WITNESS: It is a general supposition 17 because when I went to my file to get -- what is it called? 18 -- discovery -- to get discovery, my file was that thick. 19 And in fact, the television station, Channel 5, took a 20 picture of it, wanting to -- I guess Larry. Anderson said,
~
21 "This is his file." I don't know, but they took a picture 12 of it for the television because it was so thick. L 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: But Mr. Decker never 24 specifically told you that'he was discouraged by Utah or 25 that Utah had told him that your license was going to be l I \ ir
LARSEN - CROSS 446 I revoked? Mr. Decker never told you that, I take it? 2 THE WITNESS: No, he never told me that, but 3;lit was uncharacteristic of his behavior. He was a very 4 good -- very good at coming back and being a consultant : i 5 to you. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Hav eyout alked to him since - 7 the time that you asked him to go to the Utah BRC? 8 THE WITNESS: I haven't. He's gone quite a bit 9 out of state to do power plant consulting and work like 10 that. He's constantly gone. But he's a hard man to get 11 ahold of really. He comes and he goes. 12 JUDGE KLINE: Is his principal profession 13 consulting in the nuclear industry? 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. He's a health physicist. 15 JUDGE KLINE: As a health physicist. 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. He mostly works with power 17 companies. 18 I can get a resume, I think, if you're interested. 19 JUDGE KLINE: Well, no. I'm just interested in 20 a person, presumably an ethical consultant, simply 21 disappearing. 12 THE WITNESS: Like I say, that was uncharacteristic, 23 but I've never talked to him. 24 JUDGE KLINE: So there was never an attempt to 25 in a sense close out the mission? He was sent to Salt till __________a
LARSEN - CROSS . 447
- ,c 4 1 Lake City ---
F ( 2 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. He was sent to find out what 3 can I do to get the license back, because he was a-4 consultant,.and he.would know how to talk to them, and 5 hopefully that would do it. 6 JUDGE KLINE: Was it your hope that he.had some 7 influence in Salt Lake -- 8 THE WITNESS: No. 9 JUDGE KLINE: -- or he was just on an information-10 gathering?. 11 THE WITNESS: He was -- well, he was sent to try 12 and. understand better than I can. 13 JUDGE KLINE: Simply to gather information, then, Ef- 14 -and aid understanding. t 15 THE WITNESS: Right. 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Moving down to the 17 bottom of page 7 where you mention a statement about your 18 hlstory of employing young students who are unaware of the 19 danger of the process, you seem to dispute that statement. 20 THE WITNESS: I'll say I do. .
- 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Explain what, if anything --
12 before we do that, the word -- I assume the word on the 23 third line from the bottom, the word "Griffith" should be
~
24 " Griffin." It's the same person as was here, was it not? 25 THE WITNESS: Brooks Griffith, yes.
._______.m__ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
LARSEM - CROSS 448 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It should be " Griffin," should 2 it not? 3 THE WITNESS: Griffin? Okay. Yes. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It's the same gentleman who 5 was a witness here, right? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. . 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. What's your history 8 cf using students and informing them about dangers and that 9 type of thing? 10 THE WITNESS: Whenever I hire anyone like Kevin 11 Noack or any of the assistants that have worked with me, 12 they are always informed that you're working with a 13 radioactive substance, U238, it is depeleted uranium, do 14 you underrtnad what depleted uranium is, and you're working 15 with benzene, which is carcinogenic, and there is some 16 hazard there, there is some hazard 'uth U238, you're working 17 also with nitric acid, you're working with a flammable 18 solvent, so working with these ricks, do you understand, 19 do you want the job. And most have said yes. A few have 20 said no. And then we go from there and I -- on-the-job 21 training with them before they are trusted to do it by - 12 themselves.
~
23 l JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now, I assume one of these 24 people is Mr. Noack. Who are some of the others whom you 25 have hired? There seems to be a reference to quite a few. 9'
LARSEN - CROSS 449
~ ,
/~ ' 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. ,
2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Are you referring to your son, 3 for instance.-- 4 THE WITNESS: Yes. I j 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- as one of those? 6- THE WITNESS: My son did. My dad worked. Alan 7 Stevens, who is down in Texas -- 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Was he a student? 9 THE WITNESS: Well, he was at that time. He's 10 now working with TRW or something like that. And these 11 are always chemistry or chemistry-related. He was a 12 chemical engineer. 13 . Brent Downign is in' dental school. Hurst? a .14 Larry -- oh, Larry Stout is a chemist working over in f (
\ 15 Kimmerer, Wyoming now.
16 Who are some of the others? There was Bruce 17 Noack, which is Kevin's brother. Chuck Thompson, who is l 18 in medical school now. 19 So these people for the most part know chemicals 20 and have had a chemistry class, and they are -- I just don't
-- 21 hire anybody who I don't think could handle the job because 12 it is hazardous and you have to trust them.
~
23 And as far as hiring young people who are unaware 24 of the danger of the process, that just simply is not true. 25 And Kevin I think will testify to that.
,, e .
1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, well, we're going to 1 2 certainly ask him. But you gave instructions of this sort 3 to each of the people you named and all of the students i 4 you hired if there were others? .
~
5 THE WITNESS: There was one time many years back 6 that there was one or two days' operation where one of my j
,l 7 workers -- was it Chuck? -- Chuck Thompson, who had brought 8 in a friend, and they worked, and that was it. That was -
9 the only time that there was any person who I did not i 10 personally check out. 11 /// 12 /// 13 /// , 14 /// 15 /// 16 /// , 17 l
/// <
18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// - 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// O f __________a
451 LARSEN - CROSS i I 1 JUDGE KLINE: You mean you instructed them? 1C 2 THE WITNESS: Instructed, or worked with. They 3 understood what they were doing. 4' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Did you know that this person l 5 was going to be used or show up? \ 6,
\
THE WITNESS: I think we were out of town. In 7 !, f act , yes, we were in Hawaii, as I remember that happened. -
. And I take it from your 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
9; testimony as well as from your -- You started to make a 10 statement this morning, and I think we told you you You never stated that if your license we're 11 i shouldn't do it. i over or begin 12 ! denied, you' d move to another state and start 13 , again? I THE WITNESS: That's ridiculous. O 14 { 15 l JUDGE BECHHOEFER: This is on the middle of 16 page 8. 17 THE WITNESS: Why would I jeopardize my license 18 by saying something like that? That's provoking the NRC 19 to revoke my license. I don't know why I would say 20 something that would provoke them. .! I might say this, Judge Bechhoefer. We went to 21 12 Nevada because we were needing to make some money in order 23 to survive, and also we felt a responsibility to make this 24 UAA for Hysol. We walked in the door there and, above board 25 and everything, announced that we were here, handed them O I
LARSEN - CROSS 452 M2 1 our application, ar.d said, "Can we work under a general 2 license?" We in no way went there and did anything that l 3 ! wasn' t above board and announced. l 1 4i JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Is this the Nevada state ! I I' 5 authorities you're talking about now? 6 THE WITNESS: That's right, over in Carson City. . 7 And Stanley Marshal that I spoke with there. And they will ,
~
i ~ 8 l say that everything was absolutely above board. And they i 9 said no, and we took no for an answer. JUDGE SHON: Mr. Larsen, I have a couple of 10 I 11 l questions that may not bear directly on the case, but i i 12 l they're to give me and my colleagues, I think, some i 13 l background in what your entire process is and why you do 14 what you do. j 15 j To begin with, I understand from an article in 4 16 ' the newspaper yesterday that this material is a plastic 17 hardener used in land mines or cases. Is that correct? 18 THE WITNESS: It is a catalyst for thallic 1 19 anhydride plastic, which I understand is the casing for a 20 land mine which is packed into an artillery shell and { 21 launched, and falls down with a timing device and goes off l 12 at a predetermined time.
~
23 JUDGE SHON: Do you know why uranyl acetyl 24 acetate? How abouat lead acetyl acetate? 25 THE WITNESS: There have been attempts to replace I O
LARSEN - CROSS 453 I L i l PEsy 1 uranyl acetyl acetate because of its radioactivity. But i \ (_,/ 2 nothing seems to catalyze li'.a UAA. 3 JUDGE SHON: You think it is not simply a matter
! I 4,; of density or anything like that. : 1 I i 5' THE WITNESS: I don't know why the catalyst works !
i 6 and others don't. 7 JUDGE SHON: So do I understand the chemistry of ;
. 8 the thing somewhat? Let me say it to you, and then you as 9 ! a chemist tell me whether that's about it. You dissolve 10 l uranium slugs in nitric acid, which yields essentially a 11 l solution of uranyl nitrate; is that right?
i 12 l THE WITNESS: That's right. 13 JUDGE SHON: You add pentanedione, 14 ;l2-4pentanedione. , [ h THE WITNESS: Right. ( ,/ 15 16 JUDGE SHON: That latter material seems to me to 17 oxidize to an acetyl acetate radical. Is that right? 18 THE WITNESS: Bonds are formed. I don't know if 19 it's oxidation. But bonds are formed with the uranyl ion, 20 plus 2, UO 2. And then I believe there are two acetyl 21 acetates or 2-4-pentadiones that are hooked to it, and I 12 believe they're out this way. (Indicating.) 23 JUDGE SHON: Yes. I would expect -- 24 THE WITNESS: And there are some water molecules, 25 I should say.
. ,-~~ \ \
f
LARSEN - CROSS 454 i l M4 1 JUDGE SHON: A COOH or acid ending is the next 2 oxidation state above a COH 3* 3- THE WITNESS: Yes. 4 JUDGE SHON: That it's doing something of that : f 5 sort. 6 THE WITNESS: Well, this isn't a COOH. It's not
- I i 1
7j an organic acid. It's a ketone. I Oh, yes, the original material is 8 JUDGE SHON: 9, a ketone. But the next oxidation stage above a ketone is 10 ; an acid. 11 j THE WITNESS: Okay, well, whatever you say. I But I think those two oxygens hook on, 12 j guess that's right. i
! is here (indicating), and that's how they 13 l and the uranyl 14 ' hook.
15 JUDGE SHON: That's exactly how I visualized it. 16 THE WITNESS: Okay. 17 JUDGE SHON: Now, with the two oxygens so to 18 speak, the two now CO, O with a double bond and then the 19 rest of the string -- 20 THE WITNESS: Okay. JUDGE SHON: When those two hook onto the uranyl . 21 12 radical, it precipitates; is that right? 23 THE WITNESS: That's right. There is a 24 precipitation, and it is almost 100 percent, if not 100 25 percent. There's very little uranium left over in any of O f
7---
~ ~
1 LARSEN - CROSS 455 T'
- ws 1 the wastewater. It is all precipitated.
A._/ 2, JUDGE KLINE: What's the medium at this point? l 3i THE WITNESS: Water. 4 JUDGE KLINE: Well, the initial medium to . t I 5 dissolve the uranium slugs was acid. , 6 THE WITNESS: Acid. JUDGE KLINE: A pure nitric acid? 7l THE WITNESS: Right. 8f 9! JUDGE KLINE: Okay. Then how did it get to be 10 I an aqueous medium? I . 11 l THE WITNESS: Okay. Well, no, the-acid is aqueous i 12 to a certain extent. 13 l JUDGE KLINE: Yes. 1 14 I THE WITNESS: It's a solution. l
/ s\ l ks_, 15 JUDGE KLINE: Yes, I understand. !
16 THE WITNESS: The uranyl nitrate, yellow-green 17 solution -- The pH is adjusted with sodium -- no, not 18 sodium, not ammonium, sodium hydroxide. Okay, you can't 19 i use ammonium hydroxide because the ammonium forms a 20 different compound; it adds to the uranyl too, as well as
. 21 the two acetyl acetates.
12 JUDGE KLINE: Is the neutralization step before 23 or after the addition of the organic reagent? 24 THE WITNESS: The acid adjustment to,pH about 25 approximately to 4, to pH 4, takes place before the 2-4 is p k
\
LARSEN - CROSS 456 M6 1 added in. If the 2-4 is added, if it is too basic, you get 2 sodium acetyl acetate. And it just generates like that. 3 If it's too acid, less than 4, you will not form the uranyl l 4 acetyl acetate. ! 5! JUDGE SHON: It won't precipitate out of a low i 6 pH, correct? . 7 THE WITNESS: That's right. 8 JUDGE SHON: Okay. Now, but for a pH around 4, 9 you say it then precipitates, leaving very little uranium l 10 ; in the aqueous phase. 11 THE WITNESS: If there is any left over, it's 12 blood red. 13 JUDGE SHON: I see. 14 THE WITNESS: And by adjusting the pH more 15 correctly and leaving it over night, the rest of it will 16 float down, and you'll have a colorless solution. 17 JUDGE SHON: Have you ever made any attempt to 18 determine how much uranium is in that solution? Is the 19 solution waste? 20 THE WITNESS: Yes. You can measure it with 21 radioactivity. And the rad:t etivity is greatly reduced. - 22 JUDGE SHON: I see. That's just waste solution. 23 THE WITNESS: That's waste. 24 JUDGE SHON: I see. Well, I think I've gotten 25 a much better view of exactly what's going on. O
LARSEN CROSS 457 f' 'N 1 THE WITNESS: And that's crude UAA. And it goes
'~ 2 through a solvent, benzene, and is purified by
.3, recrystallization into a purer UAA. That's kind of the 4i secret of the process in making the pure UAA. And that's I l 5 why Hysol is using mine instead of others'.
. 6, JUDGE KLINE: The recrystallization process, is I
7l that the one that requires evaporation of the benzene 8 I solvent? 9 THE WITNESS: Well, it's not evaporation as much 10 as it is you heat the benzene up -- not to boiling, but to 11 pretty close to that. And then the hot solvent, which 12 l increases the solution, the solubility of the CAA, which 13 is not too soluble at first but at the elevated temperature 14 is soluble, then you carefully pour that into buckets that l fs t
\ -) 15 are cold. As it cools, it crystallizes out in needles on 16 the side.
17 JUDGE KLINE: Oh. It's supersaturated, 18 essentially, at a lower temperature. 19 THE WITNESS: That's right, saturated solution. 20 JUDGE SHON: In other words, your
- 21 recrystallization is by heating so that it will dissolve 22 and cooling so that it will come back out.
23 THE WITNESS: That's right, and the impurities 24 stay in the solvent. Then you decant off the solvent, and 25 you have your crystals. l \ (~' ; I ( w I
LARSEM - CROSS - 458 i l 1 M8 1 JUDGE KLINE: And that solvent must then contain 2 considerable dissolved material that didn't -- THE WITNESS: That's right. You recycle this 3l 4' solvent -- l f i 5- JUDGE KLINE: I see. I 6 THE WITNESS: -- until it is exhausted by the . 7 j impurities taken out of your crude UAA. Then you have to 8 handle that as a disposal. You dispose of that as a 9 hazardous substance. 10 - JUDGE KLINE: The solvent is essentially saturated i 11 at the cooler temperature with respect to UAA. 12 , THE WITNESS: Yes. f 13 JUDGE KLINE: Then you decant it off. 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. 15 i JUDGE KLINE: Okay. JUDGE SHON: I have no further questions. I think 16 17 that has cleared up a lot for me. 18 JUDGE KLINE: Yes. l You can continue if you want. 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: 20 MS. HODGDON: I forgot to ask a couple of questions which I would like to ask at this time. I said - 21 12 I was finished with that document. . 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. 24 MS. HODGDON: Actually, I forgot about the 25 attachment. Then I wanted to ask one follow-up question, O
LARSEN - CROSS 459 ) 1 and then I could continue. Is that all right? \ [~'N) l 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, that's fine. 3 BY MS. HODGDON: 4 Q The question that I wanted to ask was about the 5 attachment to the testimony that Mr. Larsen pre-filed. My
. 6 question is very simple. I wanted to ask why he filed that 7 attachment.
8 A Why I did? 9 Q Yes. ; 10 A Because I think this is the source of the 11 troubles. I think everything was going fine until there 12 l was a burglary. And Mr. Scott Carter, I believe, inspected
! the burglary, saw the buckets and the -- well, just the unit 13 / 14 that I was working in. And I think he took his Geiger i
s 15 counter and put it next to the radioactive buckets, or 16 whatever, of the waste, and got a high reading and became 17 alarmed, and called Utah up and said, "Take this guy's 18 license." They came down as much as they could, 17 19 violations, and fined me S5,000. And I think that was the 20 origin of it, of the problems. Il Q I was about to ask, do you understand that the 22 sherrif carried a Geiger counter instead of whatever it is 23 that sherrifs carry? 24 JUDGE SHON: A six-gun? 25 MS. HODGDON: A six-shooter or something.
LARSEN - CROSS 460 1 i M10 1 THE WITNESS: I included that for understanding. 2j I realize that it says that it's a sloppy operation and i O 3; that, and it's not flattering to me. But I included that i 4 in hopes of understanding what happened. . i 5 I think that when people see a Geiger counter read ! 6iI a high reading, they get readily frightened, whereas the , 7 true, I think, radiation exposure is measured by a TLD l 8 badge, and that the Geiger counter can be used as a public
- 9' relations meter, to frighten people. And I think this is 10 what happened to him.
11 BY MS. HODGDON: 12 Q Are you telling me that this Mr. Scott W. Carter, 13 the detective who wrote this letter to Craig Jones that 14 you've included here, did in fact have a Geiger counter when 15 he came? 16 A No, but I think someone did. Either his men or 17 he did, or whatever. I don't know who had it. But I'll 18 bring in another document if you want that will say that 19 I they came back concerned that it was radioactive. 20 MS. HODGDON: Okay, there was that question. Then 21 I wanted to ask -- Oh, you said I should continue, yes. . 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes.
~
23 MS. HODGDON: I have a follow-on. Okay. Back 24 when, I wanted to ask a question which I didn't ask, and 25 I'll ask that one before I go to the next document. O
LARSEN - CROSS 461 BY MS. HODGDON: . { '}/ s 1
\ 2 When Judge Kline asked about the crystals in Utah.,
Q i 4! he seemed not to be aware that there were also slugs l It's true, is it not, 4 l transferred to Evanston f rom Utah. 5+ that the slugs from the Utah operation were transferred to
. 6 Evanston?
7 A Well, there were some slugs, and there were some 8 in various stages, yes. 9 Q And then there was some material in process? 10 A Well, crude UAA. 11 Q And then there were also some crystals. 12 A Right. I 13 0 In every stage along the way, there was -- 14 A hell, not every stage, but various, ig}/
^ ~' 15 Q It went to Evanston, i
16 A Yes, it did. 17 MS. HODGDON: Thank you. I will move to the next 18 document. ] i 19 Can I ask how long we are planning to go this 20 evening? 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Let's go off the record for 22 a minute. 23 (Discussion held off the record.) 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record. 1 25 /// I'
\~_
_____________.___s
LARSEN - CROSS 462 M12 l BY MS. HODGDON: 2 O On the document that was filed December 26, 1988, 3 ; Mr. Larsen, you state that this also constitutes part of 4' your testimony in this case. So I would like to ask some 5 questions about it. 6 This is a written response to the Staff order , 7 revoking licenses, and it responds paragraph by paragraph 8 to the order revoking licenses. You say, in response to 9 l the Staf f statement that you transferred more than 15 pounds to at a time, that crystals from the waste that was being i 11 processed for disposal were added separately in Provo, Uta'h 12 ! to the shipment going to Hysol. Are you aware that Kevin i 13 I Noack indicated in the OI investigation, which you state i 14 ' that you've read, that that material was carried to 15 Evanston, where it was added to the material for shipment, 16 and then carried back to Provo, where it was shipped? 17 A Well, we, I'm sure, did small additions in Provo, 18 half a pound or whatever, things like that. But most of 19 it was done up in Evanston. 20 0 Are you trying to tell me that in some instances 21 the crystals that precipitated from the waste were of such . I 12 quality that they could be shipped without further 1 23 processing in Evanston? 24 A Yes. 25 Q But this was only with very, very small amounts. l 1 l O' 1
LARSEN - CROSS 463-I For the most part
<]
t i N' 2 A See, these crystals, some of them came from the i 3! benzene. So all there was was the crystal there, and dry i 4 it out and add it. It was good crystal. 5 O So your testimony now is that sometimes some small 6 quantities of crystals from the waste were added in Provo, 7 but that for the most part the large shipment of crystals, 8 f the large amounts of crystals, went up to Evanston -- 9l A That's right. 10 Q -- where they were processed further and then 11 i added to the processed material, the UAA from Evanston, ad I 12 ! taken by to Provo where they were shipped.
- 13. A That's right.
7-s 14 0 May I ask you where the small amounts of crystals (_-) ( 15 which were added in Provo -- where in Provo this was done? l 16 A At the Lindon place, where the waste is. l 17 Q Is Lindon in Provo, or is that a suburb? 18 A Well, it's close by. 19 Q But this was done at Lindon. 20 A Yes.
- 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: At the facility which you said 22 you had be'.t?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, where the waste was stored. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I see. 25 /// (" . l
\. s i
l _. _ __ - _ _ _ ___a
^
464 l I BY MS. HODGDON: 2 Q Do you consider that this was in conformity with 3 your Utah suspension order? 4 A It was getting rid of the waste material. 5' Q You think that that suspension order allowed you 6 to get rid of the waste.
- 7 A I think they told me to.
8 Q I thought they told you to put it in locked 9 storage? 10 A Yes, and then they said, " Process it and get it , 11 out of here," which we did with 17 drums. And it doesn't 12 seem to me that it's reasonable to throw good crystals away 1 13 ' as waste. 14 0 Well, I didn't ask you whether it was reasonable. 15 I asked you whether it was in conformity with the Utah order 16 as you understand it. 17 A Yes, of course it was, because you were 18 transferring it either to a waste dump or to -- You were 19 getting it out of there. You're transferring it. 20 Q Who did this work with the crystals?
~
21 A I did. We both were working on the stuff. I'm 22 sure that both of us did some of it. 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Who is "we"? 24 THE WITNESS: Kevin and I. 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Oh, okay. l l
I LARSEN - CROSS i 465 i I L BY MS. HODGDON:
/ 'h/-
1 I l\ ' /' 2 l Q On the next page, I had a question here, your 3l response to No. 2, that "he exceeded the annual limit of I I 4' 150 pounds." You say that you received 150 pounds from f 5 ; Nuclear Metals in 1987 and, to the best of your
. 6 understanding, the 150-poand limit was for new materials 7 received from suppliers during a year period. )
~
8 A That's right. 9 Q I think this has already been confirmed by Judge 10 - Kline. But just to confirm my question, your understanding I . 11 l then was that the ISO-pound limit was only for new materials I 12 l received from a supplier, and it did not include the i 13 I transfer from Utah to Wyoming. I 7 s 14 l A Right.
! )
(_s/ 15 Q From what you've heard here today, you now 16 understand that NRC's belief about those regulations is 17 different, do you not? 18 A Well, yes. Is that the 40.22 application? 19 Q Yes. 20 A Okay.
- 21 Q Then with regard to baseline samples, your 12 statement in No. 3, "I believed since the baseline for Kevin 23 Noack read 14 micrograms per liter, that the containers were 24 contaminated to begin with." Now, what sample are we 25 talking about here?
pm I
'u
LARSEN - CROSS 466-1 A I would have to -- 2 Q Which baseline is that? Oh, okay. Let's see, here it is. Baseline was, 3; A 4 the December 1, 1987 TMA report, baseline was 7. No, excuse I 5 me. 6 Q Fourteen. That's what you say, 14. 7 A Then what am I referring to? ~Yes, there it is. 8 Okay. Kevin, No. 2., 14 baseline. 9I Q And you say that you thought since it was 14, that 10 the containers were contaminated anyway. . 11 A That's right. 12 i O Isn't there any other explanation that you can 13 ! come up with that would be consistent with a baseline I 14 ' reading of 14 that doesn't require a conclusion that the i 15 containers were contaminated? 16 A Well, I submitted the December 1 analysis in a 17 glass jar, in a pharmacy jar we were using, and I got two 18 different readings. One was 22 plus or minus 3, and the 19 other was 12 plus or minus 3. 20 /// 21 22 23 24 25 I O\ l
-- -m_____ _. _ _ _____
LARSEN - CROSS 467 i
~]/ MC 1 O You mean this was a split sample?
'/ 2 A That's right. So I considered the jars suspect.
3; So we went to pharmacy jars after that. I 4' Q Yes, I understand that, and I had some other l 5 ! questions about the sampling. But those were based on what
. 6 you said earlier, so I'll just skip that. It may be 7 somewhat confusing, but that's with regard to what you said 8 yesterday, and I'll go back to those questions in a minute.
9 No. 4, you say "due to inexperience in collecting 10 and submitting urine samples." Now, just how inexperienced 11 were you in 1987 in Wyoming when you had been a specific 12 , licensee in Utah since 1983 and had been required to collect 13 and submit urine samples all that time?
,r ' 14 A Well, like I say, we didn't think we had a problem i
\~- 15 there. And the material was so insoluble, we knew by 16 working with it, that we didn't think we had a problem and 17 we didn't do the urinalysis samples as often as we should 18 have. We did, I believe, one or two samples along the way, 19 and they were all less than 5. So we were of the 20 understanding that it wasn't going to get in the bloodstream 21 because of it being water, inscluble in water.
12 Q So you continue to say that it's your belief that 23 this product is insoluble in water, is that correct? 24 A It's mostly insoluble in water, I think. But 25 there is more solubility than we believed. We thought it i I fo\
'wJ
\ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _-__
LARSEN - CROSS 468 1 was much like silver chloride, which is very insoluble and 2 can be used quantitatively to measure either chloride or 3-, silver. But it is more soluble than we knew at that time.
,4 Q Have you learned that from the statements made 5 by the Staff's expert panel?
6 A I think we learned that from Craig Jones. . 7 Q Craig Jones?
~
8 A Yes, plus also we started checking out the 9 solubility ourselves, or I started checking it out. 10 0 And it is now your belief that the UAA is more 11 soluble than you formerly thought. 12 A Right. l 13 I Q And therefore that if you had known then what you 14 know now, you would have collected and submitted the samples 15 as required by the regulations to protect -- 16 A I think we've gained a lot more understanding 17 about uranium concentrations in the urine. And, yes, we 18 are much more knowledgeable on urinalysis now, to the point 19 where we've bought a fluorimeter and we plan to monitor it 20 ourselves. 21 JUDGE KLINE: But this question really just deals . 22 with whether you should submit blanks or not.
~
23 THE WITNESS: Right. 24 JUDGE KLINE: Aside from being specifically 25 experienced with urine, just as a general chemist wouldn't 9 i
LARSEN - CROSS 469 I you agree that ordinary quality control would require the
\
/}/
'N ' 2 submission of blanks?
l 3i THE WITNESS: Yes. i I JUDGE KLINE: And wouldn't the submission of ! 4l 5 ' blanks answer or help to answer the question of contaminated 6 vials if they existed or contaminated containers? I.e., 7 if you submit a blank and it shows a high reading --
~
8 THE WITNESS: That's right. 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It might support a view of 10 contamination. Il THE WITNESS: That's right. JUDGE KLINE: But at the moment, absent blank 12 l 13l samples, we really don't have any evidence one way or the 14 other on the question of contamination; isn't that correct? I r~w\
/
Nus' 15 Or contaminated containers. 16 THE WITNESS: Right. 17 JUDGE KLINE: Okay. 18 BY MS. HODGDON: 1 19 Q In Paragraph 5, where you quote the NRC's order 20 as saying " stopped collecting urine samples every three
- 21 days," then you say in answer to that that, "The glass jars
~
12 were suspected of contamination. Sampling continued. The results showed less than 5 micrograms," et cetera. "We 23 24 conclude the dramatic drop of uranium micrograms per liter 25 between the sample periods from 12/31/87 to 1/10/88 a result
,7v.,
l x , i f
l LARSEN - CROSS . 470 ) L l 1 of contamination in the sampling jars." 2 A Right. 1 3j Q Based on what you've heard here, would you now I 4j continue to think that that statement is a proper statement; 5l in other words, that one needs must reach a conclusion that 6 the dramatic drop was due to contamination? , 7 A I don't think we can know that yet, until we know 8 the solubility of UAA. I think that we have to first of - l 9 all get a curve on what the release of UAA is in the urine, 10 whether soluble or insoluble. 11 Q And weren't you persuaded by Dr. Fisher's 12 : testimony, which shows the drop as a factor of time? I 13 ' A Well, yes, but depending on the solubility. I 14 Q Yes. 15 A His was for a very soluble substance. I don't 16 think it's very soluble. But it is more soluble than I 17 thought. 18 Q Don't you think that in order to design a sampling 19 program, bioassay program that would have any real value, 20 that you would need to know the solubility of this? 21 A Yes, I do. And I can appreciate what the CALs . 12 were getting at at that time, with more understanding now. 23 But at that time I didn't know that the body excretes it 24 in a certain percentage after certain hours. I thought 25 maybe the thing was staying in the body for weeks or months. i e t
LARSEN - CROSS 471 . p l l j I just didn't know what was going on. r '-~'j j 2 So when it dropped dramatically there, I thought, 3l"Aha hat proves that we have a contaminated jar." 4l Q Okay. In your Paragraph 6 in answer to the 5 Staff's charge, the NRC's basis for revocation, bioassay
. 6 results were not submitted to the Region 4 office, you 7 mention the samples having arrived broken open at Energy 8 Labs.
9 A Right. 10 Q And you say that Energy Labs told you that the . 11 jars can be easily contaminated with lanolin from hand 12 i creams used by the workers, et cetera, as wel) as amines 13 from pharmacy jobs, as well as many other materials.
,/ 14 You heard Dr. Fisher state, did you not, that the
15 bicassay is conducted in a way to avoid that kind of 16 contamination in the results?
17 A It's not my v.derstanding before I heard that from 18 him. That's the first time I've heard anything that the 19 acid, nitric acid I believe he said, is used to get out the 20 lanolin and the amine contaminations of the sample. And 21 I still don't know whether he's right or whether the person 12 who told me this is right, because they were the analysts. 23 They were analysts that told me that, that amines in lanolin 24 can contaminate jars. 25 Q Do you mean to tell me that it was a person at
,~
LARSEN - CROSS 472 1 Energy Labs,'who in fact conducted the.e bioassays, that 2 told you that contamination might be the result of lanolin 3 in hand creams and amines? 4 A To the best I can remember, that's where I heard 5 thu . 6 Q But yet Dr. Fisher says that labs regularly do ' 7 get this stuff out so that it won't be contaminated with 8 lanclin hand creams and such. 9 A Right. So there's a disagreement there. 10 Q Don't you think also that this contamination, if 11 there was contamination and if it was in fact caused by 12 lanolin 'and creams and so forth, that this might have 13 existed because of the deficiencies in your facility, their 14 lack of running water, et cetera? 15 A Well, I was told that there are many things, not 16 just lanolin and amine, but there are many things that can 17 foul up the readings on the fluorimeter. So I was advised 18 not to get one. 19 Q But yet you did say that you were getting one just 20 a few minutes ago. ) 21 A That's right. We have one now. 22 O You had already bought one -- 23 A Yes. 24 Q -- when someone told y- that you shouldn't have 25 one. i O
LARSEN - CROSS 473 fN I A That's right. ( l
- 2 Q You already had bought one.
3l A Went ahead and bought it. 4l Q You state also on page 4, "I wish I could 5 understand why there's such a seemingly adversarial , 6 attitude in regards to our efforts to comply with the many 7 regulations" -- this is the first sentence in the last i 8 l paragraph on that page - "that we are finding out about." i 9l Now, you have been a licensee of the Nuclear 10 Regulatory Commission and of Utah for how many years, ten? 11 A Yes, something like that. 12 ! Q And you're still finding out about the r 13 l regulations. I
,- s 14 ' A That's right. Just found out today about 40.22.
\- - _ 15 I was never advised that, to my understanding of it. So 16 it seems like you find out stuff every day.
17 Q So you took this mini-course at Harvard, but that 18 was in occupational and radiation safety. 19 A Right. 20 Q Did that have anything to do with the NRC's
. 21 regulations?
, 22 A Yes. They tailor that course very closely to the 1 23 NRC and its regulations. 24 Q Did they give a final exam? 25 A No.
/ \
k
) -me._____._ _ _ . . _ _
LARSEN - CROSS 474 1 Q You have a statement on page 5 that the temporary 2, facilities that you had to work in contributed to your 3, problems. I think I've already asked questions with regard 4 to your other piece of testimony about that, so I won't 5; question you further about the need to work in temporary 6 facilities. Except maybe I would ask one further question - 7 about Nevada. 8 Now, you said that when you went to Nevada, you 9! applied for a general license in Carson City? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Do you need to apply for a general license in Nevada? 12l! 13 i A No. We went there and applied for a specific 14 license and asked to work under a general license. That's 15 what we did, and we were told no. 16 Q Uas this when you were doing the processing in 17 the trtek? 18 A No , no. This was years later. 19 Q Later. I thought it was earlie.T. I thought you 20 said that you went to Nevada and did the processing in the i
~
21 truck because of an urgent need by Hysol and by your need 22 for money. 23 A Right. 24 Q And that that was with some of the stuff that was 25 in process when you were closed down in Ute.h; is that O
LARSEN - CROSS 475 I correct? j
-,- w\. 1 x_-
I 2 A That's right. 3; Q So that was in 1986, late '86. 4 A Right. I 5 0 So you did not tell Nevada that you were availing 6 yourself of their general license availability. 7 Well, we went to Nevada in '87. Maybe it was '88, l A
- 8i after we closed down in Wyoming. And we were again feeling i
I 9 i a very financial pinch. And I was talking with Region 4. i 10 I said, "Is it okay if we go to Nevada?" And they said, 11 "You can go there and ask them. But," he said, "you be 12 completely above board," which we did. We walked in there 13 and said, "Can we work under a general license while we are 14 with a specific license?" And Stanley Marshal said, "No, p_s,
) \ _,/ 15 you can't work under a general license."
16 Q The revocation order stated -- Are you saying 17 that after you got the revocation order -- 18 A No, no. The revocation order was August of '88. 19 ' Q I thought you just told me '87 and '88. 20 A Well, it was before the revocation order. It was
. 21 that period --
Suspension or revocation are 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: 23 we talking about? 24 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's right. 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The suspension order was what, ( LJ
LARSEN - CROSS , 473 l 1 March? 2i THE WITNESS: February. l 3 MS. HODGDON: I'm hearing this for the first time, 4 I think. I don't know about other people here, whether i 5 they're hearing it for the first time. 6 BY MS. HODGDON: ' 7 Q When did you go back to Nevada again? I thought 8l it was when you were shut down in Utah. It was when you - 9 were shut down in Wyoming? 10 A There were two times, one time in Utah just after 11 the Utah suspension, and we did a small finish-up thing with i 12 the waste. And then when we were shut down in Wyoming and 13 couldn't earn any money, which I believe was February of l 14 : '8G I asked. I said, "Can I go to Nevada?" And they said, i 15 "We don't run Nevada, but be above soard." 16 Q Who said that? 17 , A One of the men at Region 4. 18 0 Who? 19 ; A I don't know. 20 Q Was it Blair Spitzberg? 21 A No, it wasn't Blair. It wasn't Bill Fisher. . 12 I don't remenber who it was. 23 Q Uas this person aware that you were under 24 suspension order? 25 A Yes, he was. O 1
LARSEN - CROSS 477 () 7-~s 1 2 Q A And that the suspension order ran to all -- All under the NRC. Nevada 's an agreement state. 3 Q All non-agreement states. 4 A Right. 5 Q And they said that, nevertheless, you could go to s 6 an agreement state and operate under the general license. 7 A Because -- No. They said, "You can apply." 8 Q Apply? No, no. You don't have to apply for a 9 general license. You just told me you applied for a 10 specific license. . 11 JUDGE SHON: I think, as I understand it, what 12 you 're telling us is that the NRC Region IV told you that. 13 since they had ceded authority to the agreement state. g. l 14 Nevada, the only way to find out whether, under Nevada 's 15 rules, you would operate under a general license in Nevada 16 was to ask Nevada about i ?. . And you did, and they said no. 17 Is that right? 18 THE WITNESS: That 's rigt ,t . 19 BY MS. HODGDON: 20 Q Oh. But did you nevertheless process? 21 A No.
. 22 Q Well, I 'm even more conf used now.
23 You asked Nevada if you could operate under a 24 general license, and they said no, but you processed -- 25 A I didn 't process at that time, in 1988. I t
-_____________________a
i 1 1 LARSEN - CROSS 478 1 Q You did not. l l 2 A I did not. 3 Q You never -- You j ust told me that twice you -- 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Was it 1986 or '8'7 that you 5 processed -- 6 'rHE WITNESS: Eighty-six. I believe. 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Was that on the pickup truck? , 8 THE WITNESS: Yes. 9 BY MS. HODGDON: 10 Q That was in '86, but I thought you said more . 11 recently. 12 A No. 13 Q You said, when you were under suspension by the l 14 NRC in Wyoming, that you went -- 15 A Not processed. 16 Q What did you do? 17 A I applied to see if I could work under a general 18 license. I went to Carson City and asked them if I could 19 work under a general license while I'm applying for a 20 specific license. . 21 Q And they said no. 22 A And they said, "No, but you can apply " and I left . 23 my application, paid $100, and said, "Would you consider 24 it?" And they did. 25 Q But you did not do any processing at that time. O
LARSEN - CROSS 479 1 A No processing. 2 Q You 've done no processing since that that you did 3 under your Utah suspension. 4 A Under Wyoming suspension. After the Utah 5 suspension. I worked in Wyoming, Evanston. Wyoming. And 6 then, Wyoming suspended. and then there 's no more. 7 Q After the Utah suspension, you worked in Wyoming, 8 and you were suspended by the NRC, because Wyoming is not an 9 agreement state, and so you were suspended by the NRC in 10 February of 1988. , 11 Did you, at any time during 1987 or 1988, process 12 depleted uranium into UAA in Nevada? 13 A I would say, no, as long as that six pounds was at 14 the end of 1986. It may have been January, '87. 15 Q But you think it was under your Utah suspension. 16 It was before you took up other business. 17 A That 's right. The reason I went to Nevada was - 18 Q I misunderstood you, then. 19 A Okay. 20 Q Now, on page 6 of your statement of December, you 21 talk about improvements that you made in your Wyoming 22 operation, even though technically working under a general 23 license status, you say, "TLD badges." You say 24 " cleanliness." I 'm continuing on over on page 7 You say. 25 "Even though a small business does not have the resources of
LARSEN - CROSS 480 j 1 a large business, we are j udged by the same standards. " Do 2 you understand, Mr. Larsen, why you 're j udged by the same 3 standards in some ways, in some respects, as a large 4 business? 5 A Well, as far as standarde of health and safety go, r 6 there is n> obj ection to that. That has to be. But, when 7 you come down hard on lescer violations, such as not having , 8 posting of signs, not having Social Security number on the 9 urinelysis report, not having Hysol 's license in your files, 10 things like that that are lesser violations that cost you . 11 hundreds of dollars, if not a thousand, that cost me in 12 Utah. That 's when it 's hard on small business. 13 And, also, I don 't think the regulations are so 14 bad as the adversarial nature of it. If-they were helpful, 15 that would be fine. If they were not enforced with 16 edversarial feelings. If they would come in and say, "Now, 17 look, Mr. Larsen. You need to post your signs there." 18 Okay, fine. Rather than coming in and saying, "All right, 19 Mr. Larsen, you 've got a violation here, a violation nere, 20 and a violation here, and that 's going to cost you money. " 21 Q Uid the NRC cite you for not posting signs? 22 A No. I 'm talking about violations that were in the . 23 Ut ah 55000 fine. They were, at first, going to fine me 24 $20,750. That would have killed off any -- many small 25 businesses. O
LARSEN - CROSS 481
.O
() 1 Q They were going to fine you how much? 2 A Twenty thousand-some odd dollars. 3 Q I saw 13 4 A I know. They brought it down to 13, and that was 5 reduced to 5. 6 But it 's the adversarial nature of that. If they 7 would have come in and said, "Mr. Larsen, you 've got 8 problems. Here 's what you 've got to do." I 'm more than 9 happy to try and comply. But it 's the "Mr. Larsen, we 're 10 going to break your back" that I obj ect to for small - 11 businesses, because small businesses are sitting ducks for 12 all these regulations. You could put a small business out 13 very easily. (n) 14 Q But this particular complaint, then, does not go 15 to any that the NRC might nave done, anything that we have 16 any j jurisdiction over, and surely you realize that the lungs 17 and kidneys of workers in small businesses are the same as 18 those who work in large businesses. 19 A Right. 20 Q Don 't you? s 21 A There 's no obj ection with that. Just a matter of
= 22 understanding, I think.
23 Q Then, having catalogued your other improvements, 24 records and order, monitoring various, and so forth, you 25 state " Paperwork was kept for records. Hysol specific cJ'
LARSEN - CROSS 482 1 license was kept in files for regulatory inspection." Is 2 that a requirement, or is that -- 3 A It was with Utah. And so I was j ust going beyond 4 what I understood to be the general license, in doing all 5 these things. 6 Q Oh. So there 's a requirement that -- Is this in 7 fulfillment of the requirement that you keep the record and 8 keep the license of your transferee, the person to whom 9 you 're transf erring, because that 's a license requirement. 10 A That 's right. 11 Q Okay. 12 Now, you say, "New instruments. We now have two 13 Ludlum model number 3 pancake Geiger counters with two alpha 14 scintillation counters and probes." 15 A Right. 16 Q These were purchased for the Wyoming operation. 17 Were all these things in fact used in the Wyoming operation? 18 A Yes, although the air samplers were new. 19 Q You say it was not used until sometime late in 20 November or sometime in the clean-up. . 21 A Yes. That 's right. 22 Q It was not available during the normal operation , 23 of this facility. 24 A That 's right. 25 Q Then you mentioned four new fume hoods. O f
l l LARSEN - CROSS 483 I (n) 1 A These were bought after. N_/ 2 Q And none of these have been -- were ever installed 3 or used. 4 A No. Not yet. 5 Q And, as far as the fluorimeter goes, you say, "To 6 give us more control of bioassay urine sampling, we 7 purchased fluorimeter," and I think you indicated that you 8 might have intended to test your own samples. Is that 9 right? 10 A That 's right. . 11 Q Based on what you 've heard f rom Dr. Fisher and the 12 other witnesses, have you reconsidered that? 13 A No. I want to do it myself. I talked with Energy
/~N l I 14 Lab. They 've given me the procedure to follow in processing \m-)
15 urine samplen, and I 'm going to be doing that. 16 JUDGE KLINE: Does that procedure contain an 17 oxidation step? 18 THE WITNESS: I believe it does. There 's nitric 19 acid at first, and there 's an organic compound, I believe, 20 that precipitates, and then it is dried out in an oven,
- 21 kiln. . 22 JUDGE KLINE: I just wanted to know, on the 23 question of whether it was oxidized before running uraniums 24 on it.
l 25 THE WITNESS: I think so, with the nitric acid. 1 i
\ l
(-) I i
LARSEN - CROSS 484 1 BY MS. HODGDON: 2 Q Mr. Larsen, where would you conduct these 3 bioassays? 4 A In a very clean place. 5 Q Like where? 6 A I don 't know yet. 7 Q Well, you wouldn 't do it in the same place where 8 you were processing depleted uranium to make UAA. would you? 9 A Of course not. It would have to be a very clean 10 place. . 11 Q In any specific license that you might have, or 12 don 't you think the there might be a condition or 13 requirement that you have some control, I mean, that you 14 send out samples to a lab every now and then? 15 A Oh , yes. This would just be for our control. We 16 would have to send it to labs to conform with whatever 17 regulation there is. 18 Q Okay. 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Ms. Hodgdon, at some point, 20 when you come to a good breaking point, it 's getting close
. 21 to 6. At some point where it 's convenient and would be a 22 good breaking point. ,
23 MS. HODGDON: Okay. Yes. Mr. Flack just handed 24 me a question, but it actually deals with another line of 25 questioning, so I think this is, in fact, a good breaking O
r LARSEN - CROSS 485 [*\ 1 point, because I'm not going to ask any questions about this 2 small business attachment. And let me see what else. Or 3 about the set-up, the fume hoods, and so forth. I 'm not 4 going to ask any questions about those, so that 's a good 5 breaking point. I can break now, o 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. We 'll break for the day
, 7 and be back at 9 a.m., when we will resume cross-examination 8 of Mr. Larsen by the Staff.
9 (Whereupon, at 5:58 p.m., the proceedings were 10 adj ourned until 9: 00 a. m. the following day, June 15, 1989..) 11 12 13
^
/
s 14
\
15 16 17 ; 18 19 20 21
- 22 23 24 25 I
n 4 f
o 1 CERTIFICATE "gk 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 8 Docket Number: 9999004 9 Place: Provo, Utah 10 Date: June 14, 1989 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 15 direction of the court reporting company, and that the 16 transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing l-17 proceedings. 18 lal a /C H H l 19 (Signature typed) : Mark Handy i 20 Official Reporter 21 Heritage Reporting Corporation a 22
- 23 24 25 Beritage Reporting Corporation f
(202) 628-4888
#M
- - - - - - - - - _}}