ML20246B934

Final Response to 890531 Appeal to Dh Grimsley 890516 Response to FOIA Request for Records Re Alleged Radiation Exposure at C-E Glass,Inc.Appeal Partially Granted & Partially Denied (Ref FOIA Exemption 6)

ML20246B934
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/22/1989
From:	Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Fitzgerald P BROWN, JAMES & RABBIT, P.C.
References
FOIA-89-138, FOIA-89-A-20 NUDOCS 8908240090
Download: ML20246B934 (2)

Text

=- - -

l'l ' X .

p* '

%'g UNITED STATES

-8[-

j n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAsmucTow. o. c. 20sss j l E_

( * " * * ,/- t

~

AUG 2 21989 <

Patrick W. _ Fitzgerald, Esquire Brown, James & Rabbitt, P.C. IN RESPONSE REFER .

705 Olive Street TO F01A-89-A-20 St. Louis, MO 63101 (F01A-89-138)

Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:

This is in response to your letter dated May 31, 1989, in which you appealed

r- Mr._Donnie H. Grimsley's response dated May 16, 1989. Mr. Grimsley's response denied portions of one record, identified on the enclosed appendix, subject to your Freedom of Information Act (F0IA) request for records concerning alleged radiation exposure at C-E Glass, Incorporated.

Acting on your appeal, I have carefully reviewed the record in this case and.

have determined that some additional information can now be provided to you.

The NRC is providing the names of the subject individuals to you since the information is essentially known'by you. The NRC, however, is not making this record publicly available. The record centains one minor deletion. Therefore, your appeal is partially granted and partially denied.

The age of an individc;l has been deleted from the record pursuant to Exemption (6) of the F0IA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)) and 10 CFR 9.17(a)(6) of the coniission's regulations. Release of this information would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of that. individual's privacy.

This is a final agency action. As set forth in the FOIA (5 U.S.C.

552(a)(4)(B)),judicialreviewofthisdecisionisavailableinadistrict court of the United States in the district in which you reside or have your principal place of business or in the District of Columbia.

Since ely, M// /

pg'hL.fhompso Jr., ty Executive Director ffrNuclear terial S ety, Safeguards and  ;

I erations Support l

Enclosures:

1. Appendix

2. Record identified on Appendix

~

8908240090 890822 PDR FOIA FITZCEB9-A-20 PDR i

s i .

m 7 i;

t RE: F01A-89-A-20 g

t .

APPENDIX Number Date Description

1. 10/7/86 Letter to D. Sreniawski from E. L. Saenger re Evaluation of an Unusual Occurrence (2 pages) l-i i

_ _ - - - 1

3 ;9 r 3 _(J3 7

36%

m'. .w x x j ,r CROWN, . JAM ES 6 R'ABCITT. P.C.

t u.ca. 6..no.

p , , ATTORNEYS AT LAW sOHm P C

' pggggg g g. o.v o . .umminG,.w.Am u ... . .

. o. .o . . .J.A M.(..S,.

. 7 5 OLevg 3,RE t v. si. FLoon ' saug g , ag,wgn,.

, 's Ahe g g g ; .M ALS T . A=,wo v enn,,,=o,=gn nuous s po.sc+

'[ { >so .c.wcwouew.,. ST. Louis. MISSOURI 63 tot , .oc g .

,s t

,,,,co.c.o.s,,en ,, n e n. .

"PA. , m".C R .s.-a

.,u... ..,.. ,0,80ER' .L o *

..T , g g g . . . 4349 6.3doO

, pyggg F -A o..,.. ...

c m . .,. ,. .. ..u.

. . C.. . ~.,. ..L.

so.-o.

-. m..e-o

... .. ,n..o.

m....c..o...u.

DOR.$$'-

s CSEPM Au n 5.tF,*

OAR S $N v 3 F

, u .. . o , , .C. m... c. . o,,.c. .o...,. .'o".L. .

MtC.M.E L M.o. ....... LAv.m .

, ,.;- A, , A. -

,=,~,r

.o...., o~ o. ..,.o..o.v.-v.......... = ,,,,.go- , ,,,

( s amongnye Po ..aD.B' . mAm s.s Civv miStouses ..io. 3,gygu s ,ygwgg so== s.*.a,wao*

so== s so*~so=. sa - .n u eviu s.. u ,= o.. .eere . ... .re.o.oo SMCt A o4 C ER

....,,,,.... ,n.co................ .

.sCoy,S

. , ,L. . . ...W. .n

..TMUhg CHARLESE.REIS.E'

.g,M A, R AM P' too...,...... cwAntes6.Ca.m.m mgpAm1.nacanovsas.- o, cow 46 w.CM.E L A. CM.L.S esten s. ovwas+ .- March 27, 1989

.....,. Coc...-. ......w........o..

soAn u.noLt. ........

mannLawnow*

'd'"""" " .. .. ...... ....

s, c v.= w s"c"w w.=,z W

Director Office.of. Administration .'v.'

Nuclear' Regulatory Commission e-Washington, D.C. 20555 FREEDOM Of INf3MAia ACT REQUEST In re: T.O.I.A. .f03p.g7_j$p

Dear S r/ Madam:

k.C'hf ff I represent Combustion Engineering, Hordis Brothers, Inc.,

and Mr. Oscar Luebbert, defendants in personal injury lawsuits. brought by plaintiffs. George Porter and Jack Ballard.

These rer.;are alleging that they; suffered injury.as a result-to expesure to Cobalt 60 radiation. This incident has been-the subject of an NRC investigation, see report No. 030-05165/

86001(DRSS), Docket No. 03005165, concerning license No. 24-13998-01..- .A copy of that report is attached hereto purely.

for your convenience.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C Section 552, and in compliance with the procedures set forth in 10 C.F.R. Section 9.1 et seg.

I hereby request the following documents:-

1. .A copy of the recorded statement taken by NRC Investigators from Mr. Luebbert, in St. Louis, most likely taken between February 11, and June 30, 1986 (This request was also the subject of F.O.I.A.-88-72, which was not provided pursuant to that request).

2. A copy of license No. 24-13998-01, together with Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2 to said license.

(Amendment No. 3, but only Amendment No. 3, was provided pursuant to F.O.I.A. 88-72).

L

s :0 ,.... .,

p

() U s -  %  ;

- ' Nucle r Regulatory Cor. mission RE: F.O.I.A.

. Ma'rch 27, 1989 Page.2

3. Any and all documents, applications, or other supporting paperwork submitted to the NRC in conjunction with the application for license No. 24-13998-01 or Amendt.ent No. 1 or Amendment No. 2. (The application, supporting documents, and correspondence generated pursuant to the renewal request which resulted in Amendment No. 3 have been provided pursuant to F.O.I.A.-88-72, but not the documentation concerning the original license nor Amendment No. I nor Amendment No. 2.)

4. Any and all documents prepared by, or received by, Eugene L. Saenger, M.D., concerning George Porter or Jack Ballard (This is a new , request, see the investigative report, page 3.)

5. Any and all recorded statements taken by NRC investigators from George Porter or Jack Ballard.

(This is a new request, see Investigative Report, page 5.)

Please forward to me the above documents552(a)(4),

at your and earliest convenience. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

10 C.F.R. 9.33, 52 F.R. 49350, please be advised of my willingness to pay fees as high as estimated, including fees in excess of S25.00, based upon a presumed classification that this is a request for records for commercial use, which requires the payment of costs for search, review, and duplication of records which are responsive to my request.

If you have any further questions, please do not bestitate to contact me.

Sincerely yours, Patrick W. Fitzgerald PWF:ps I Enclosure

{

m.

e, .

- FOIA 138 hiseowst TYPE L

RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF X Im I Im'm

[

• ^"

INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST MAY 161989 e ,ee DOCLt1049M9LRtM 199 agtketnet REDOLS1LA +

Patrick W. Fitzgeralds Esquire PART l.- AGENCY RECORDS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED (See checaed boaes)

XX No ogency rocord. eubw to ihe reauest have besa iocated. (Item Nos. 1 & 5 of F0IA request)

No addnionet egency records subpect to the roguest have been located.

Requested records are eveilabee strough another putAc distribution program. See Comments Section are already available for pubhc inspecteon and copyng in the Agency records subject to the reesest that are identified on Appendistes)

NRC Pubhc Document Room 2120 t Street, N.W., Washington. DC 20555 A ., heme mode eveiiebie ,o, pubhc inspect,on eno co,ym, in t,e Agency recoeds subject to the retpest that sie identined on Appendiales)

XX NRC Pubhc Document Room. 2120 L Street, N.W . Washington. DC, in e folder under this FOIA number and requester nome.

! The nonproprietary vervon of tre proposal (s) that you egreed to eCcept in a telephone conversat#on enth a member of my staff is now bosng made svollableI hopection end copying at the NRC Pubhc Document Room 2120 L Street. N W., Washmgton, DC, es e folder undes this FQlA number and requester name.

may be enspec'ed and copied et the NRC Local Pubhc Doctrnent Room identetse ;

Agency records Subsect to the reesest that are identifed on Appendialest in the C_.cas Section.

Inclosed a mformation on how you may obtain eccess to and the charges for copying records pieced m the NRC Pubhc Document Room. 2120 L Street. N W ,

Washngton. DC.

gg Agency records Subsect to the reesest are enclosed.

Records subsect to the request have been referred to another Federal egency{es) for reWew and drect response to you.

You will be bmed by the NRC for fees totahng $ b*bh yg

. No.

in view of NRC's response to the request, no further action is being token on appealletter deted PART B. A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBUC DISCLOSURE Certain informetson in the respested records is bemo withheld from pubhc disclosure pursuant to the eatmptmons desenbed m and for the reasons stated in Po esctsons B, C. and D. Any reletsed portsons of the documents for which only part of the record es being withheld are being made aweitable for pubhc mspection and

(( copying m the NRC Pubhc Docanent Room. 2120 L Street, N W,, Washngton, DC,m o folder unde, thes FDIA number and requester name.

CDMMENTS The fees associated with the processing of your FOIA request are as follows:

Clerical Search / Review - 1/2 hour = $5.89

_ Reproduction of Records - 14 pages = $2.80 Total = $8.69 SIG URE DIRECTD D M SI EtDOM OF INFORMATION AND PUBLICATIONS SERVICES 4

M e +e24e336; -9pp

g . - _ - _ - _ - -

W l FMt400M OF INFORMATION ACT RESPONSE roia NuMetR(ar . FOIA 138 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _AIAY ! 6 oATE PART s.e- APPUCAeLE EXEMPTWNS -

JMecords outspect 12 the trouest that-cre deactibed on the enclosed Appendistrel . O ese being withheld in their cntir ty or en port under the ~

Errnptrons and for the tessons set forth below pureuant to.6 U.S.C. 552(b) and 10 CFR 9.17tel of NRC Regulations.

{>

i; The witw.id afo,meiion is ,,operiy cw.enied pu,suem io Es.cuuv. O* a XEuPT ON u

' 2,f The wethheld informaien relates solely to the intemet personnel rules and procedures of NRC fEXEMPTION 2) 1

~

3. The wrthheid advmsten le epocifically esempted from pubhc disclosure by statute endcoted: (EXEMPTION 31 -

Sectens 14bl45 of the Atomc Energy Act whch prohibits the disclosure of Restrcled Date or Formesty Restected Deta (42 U $ C. 216121650 f a

Sectaon 147 of the Atomic Energy Act whch prohduts the disclosure of Unclassified Safeguards infomsstion 142 U S.C. 216U resol or fmancial mformaton that is bemg wethheld for the resswnts) mecated (EXEMPTION as d

4. The withhold information le e trade secret or 1

The esformation is considered to be conte,wi Inkness (peoprietaryl eformaten.

The eformeten is cons 6dered to be propnetary eformaten pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(dHit.

The odormation was submitted and received in contadence pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790td)(2).

6. The wrthheld informaten consists of 6nterogency or entreagency records that are not available through discovery dunng litigaten IEXEhtPT40N 5). Applecabte Pnv6lege:

Delee'stive Process: Disclosure of predecissonal eformaten would toew! to mhibit the open end frennt enchange of edeas essentaaf to the dehborstsve process.

Where records are withhold in their entirety, the f acts are ar.estrcably mtertwened w.h the predecisional mformaten. There also are no reasonably moregable factual portions because the release of the f acts would permit en mdirect mouiry mto the predecisionsi process of the egency Attortwy worit-product pnvilege. (Documents prewed by an ettorney an contemplation of htigation i Attomey- chent pnvalege (Confidential commonscatens between en attorney and his'her client.)

6. .The wrthhsid information is exempted from public disclosure because its disclosure would result en a clearly unwarranted er vasion of pe'sonal privacy. (EXEMPTION 6}

7. The wethheld information consists of records compded for law enforcement purposes and is berng withheld for the reason (s) mdcated. (EXEMPT 80N 7)

Disclosure could reasonably be expected to enterieve with en enforcement proceedeng because at could reveal the scope. detection, and focus of en. 1 f orcement efforts and thus could possibly allow them to take action to shend potantial weongdomg or a violaten of NRC reouwements from ovestigators E KEMPTION 7 (AH Desciosure would constitute en unwarranted eyesen of personal pnvecy (EXEMPTION 7(C))

Tte information consists of names of mdmduals omd other information the desclosure of which could reasonably be emoected to revealidentries of confidentot sources (EEEMPTION 7 (DH OTHER PART 5. C-DENYING OFFICIALS Pursuant to 10 CFR 9 26tbt and/or 9 26 (c) of the U $ Nuclear Regulatory Commessen regulations. it has been determined that the information withhee es enempt from producten or disclosure. and that sts producten or doclosure s Contrary to the pubhc mterest. The persons responsible for the den 6al are those officia s identifie trelow as denyng offcials and the Director. Desion of Freedom of information and Pubhcations Services. Office of Administrated and Resources Management for any denials that may be oppepied to the Executive Directoe for Operatens (EDO#

RECORDS DENIED APPELLATE OFF;CIAL DENYtt.sG OFFICIAL TiTLEIOFFICE Sican ^av too Regional Administrator Appendix B X Mr. Bert Davis apoinn 111

/

PART 5. D- APPEAL Rif, HTS The denset by each denying officialidentifed in Part B.C may be appealed to the Ame.'ete Oflcialidentifed in that sectiors. Any such appent rnust be m writmg and must be made withsn 30 days of receipt of this response. Appeals must be addressed as appropriate 40 the Executive Director for Operatens or to the Secretey of the Commission U.S. Nocteor Megutatory Commesen. Washington. DC 20S$5. and should cleerty state on t's envelope and in the letter that it is en

• Appeal from en inrter FOI A Dece cnc Foftas sea (cert al U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSeo .

' * *l FOIA RESPONSE CONTINUATION

.=: ... .

v

(: + fL3 (}

Re: F01A-89-138 l'

APPENDIX'A

1. 4/7/71 . Application for Byproduct Material License. C-E Glass. Inc.

(2 pages)

2. 4/28/71 . License No. 24-13998-01 (3 pages)

!- 3. 3/11/76 _ Application for Byproduct Material License C-E Glass, Inc.

(2 pages)

4. 4/30/76. License No. 24-13998-01, Amendment 1 (3 pages)

5. 12/8/77 Request for Amendment for License (1 page)

6. 1/5/78 License No. 24-13998-C1, Amendment 2 (1 page)

$;l.V, ; t, , b ' Q ;?

Nl SMG* (y;

.ti e ., :' . .

.,Re: F01A-89-138-L: . ...

c

~

APPENDIX B' i WITHHELD.IN PART

.4

" > ,1. 10/7/86- Letter.'from E.1 Saenger-to D. Sreniawski,-subject:

Evaluation'of Unusual' Occurrence- (2.pages)

Exemption'6--

~'

m. .

a ,

q w:a N,. .

f'

's i

1 1

[.- )! ; , .

1

yw '

O-

"j.

E < .

Eup2ne L Scangit Radioisotope Laborate

~

' Unly2rs!!y ot Cincinn:ti University of Cincinn:ll Hospital U University Hospital- Mail Location e577 3l ,

' Medir. ~

7ELEPHONE (513) 872 4282

' 234 Goodman Street

- Cmcennati, Ohio 45267 0577 October 7, 1986 I Mr. Don Sreniawski. ' S f-/ 39f f ~C/

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 111 799 Roosevelt Road-

. Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 y

Dear Mr. Sreniawski,

Enclosed is my evaluation of an unusual occurrence at the C.E. Class '!

Incorporated of St. Louis, MO as described in your letter of February. 24. 1986.

. Dose estimates by.the NRC are based on the fact' that there was a sealed ,,

radioactive Eauge containing 900. mil 11 curies of cobalt-60. When the shutter was

'~

open there was a reading of 2 rem per hour at a distsnce of 2 feet which was. the

~

condition of the device when initially examined by the Inspector.

Other measurements included the value of 6 mR per hour at the surface of-the device with the shutter closed and 70 mR at contact with the closed shutter.-

Two individuals were involved. first j

e describes himself as-a From November 19 rou ruary 1 , e.was exposed toia stainless steel device which he used as a seat. He also tried to 3 cut it. Helvas working with this container on one day for about' 60-90 minutes .l j

during which time the shutter was presumably closed. The precise estimates of l exposure times are quite unclear..

s He was seen on February 21, 1986 at Barnes Hospital in St. Louis by Dr.

Shabbir H. Safdar. from whom all further infomation has been obtained. He is essentially. asymptomatic with a normal blood count and the counts have remained normal over a' period of one month. A marrow aspiration on February 21, 1986 showed no abnormalities.

.1 spoke with Dr. Safdar on September 30, 1986. He informs se that. .

% remains totally normal. His counts have been normal and his physical examination is normal. He has no complaints.

In the absence of any definitive measurements and in the absence of chromosome abnormalities, it is really not possible to make a dose estimate from the' fragmentary information provided. The simplest assumption would be that the patient received no more than 5 rem for a calendar year. Since there is no history of other radiation work, it is my impression that he would not have received any measurable damage from this event and that this exposure will be

~

without significant biological consequences.

The second individual exposed is $hoisalsointhe salvage business. His exposure to the above described source fa even less than information' in this record wat deleted  ;

in accordance with the Freedom of Information OCT14 Igg !

Act,6xemptions d Wt care

• Education

• Research a Community Service r% p g . /. M /

y .

2 Mr.' Don Srenicvski Oct'@e r 7, .1986 dince he gives a history of only handling the device with the that o't Therefore his shutter closed two or three times for a few minutes at a time.

expo.sure would have been less than 500 millfrem.

The interesting part of his history is that at the time he was seen initially was on the occasion of an admission to Barnes Hospital on Tebruary This conditico had been13, 1986 f or evaluation and treatment of an anal fissure.2 years and became sympto present at intervals On for about admission to the hospital he was found to have an abnormal blood admission.

count.

The diagnosis in He was seen in consultation by Shabbir H. Safdar, M.D.

February 1986 was a myeloprolfierative disorder, the exact nature of which has not yet been determined (February' 17, 1986). At this time he was presumed to have chronic eyelocytic leukemia.

Numerous blood counts showed a leukocytosis; a bone marrow biopsy on February 18, 1986 was interpreted as being consistent with chronic myelocytic leukemia.

The various hematological Rectal surgery was completed successfully.

studies failed to show the presence of a Philadelphia chromosomeOn vhich the is basis of pathognomonic of the diagnosis of chromic myelocytic leukemia.

the diagnosis of nyeloproliferative disorder, treatment was begun with hydroxyurea and the previc s splenomegaly resolved.

On September 30, 1986, I spoke with Dr. Safdar concerning 7At present, he believes the diagnosis of a myeloproliferative disorder remains unchanged and that the patient does not show the classical findings of chronic myelocytic leukemia.

Dr. Safdar suspects that at some point in the future, he vill develop acute leukemia. At present he is not receiving any specific -

therapy whatsoever.

Istory is that of a single episode of exposure to radiation in his work. There is no history of other significant radiation itexposure.

would seem that j Again, using the same criteria as were applied tothe dose received in thi O'

Host important, in my opinion, is that there is no possibility that this i radiation exposure could in any way be related to th myeloproliferative disorder which is well recognized as a pre-leukemic manifestation. The dose IcVel and the short time span between the exposure and the diagnosis were far too short for such an event to have taken place.

If there are other important points in evaluating the dosimetry of these two individuals which would bear on their diagnoses and prognoses, kindly advise me. Othervise 1 regard the conclusions in this curious episode to be reasonable.

Sincerely.

a oA^ LL r u Eugene L. Saenger, M.D.

EXEMP1 FROM DISCl0SURE '

ELS/sek l

s q, e n  ;.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM41SSION t4 REGION !!I Report No. 030-05165/86001(0RSS)

Docket No. 03005165 License.No. 24-13998-01 Category K Priority 7 Licensee: C-E Glass, Incorporated A Division of Combustion Engineering, Incorporated

• 88 Angelica Street St.' Louis, MD 63147 --

. Inspection. Conducted: February 11 through March 6,1986 Inspection At: 81 Angelica Street St. Louis, MO (Currently, Broadway Salvage Company Property)

Branch Street Scales )

020 Branch Street ) Office of Broadway Salvage Company St. Louis, MO 63147 )

Hordis Brothers, Incorporated Highway M East Truesdale, MO 63381 Classic Carriage and Car Company 1600 Heritage Landing St. Charles, MO 63301 749 0'Brecht Lane O'Fallon, MO 63366 Christian Hospital, NE 11133 Dunn Street St. Louis, MO 63136 Inspectors:

$$Yle S. R. Lasuk 8 8['

~

Radiation Specialist Date n n. %d M. A. Kunowski bb Radiation Specialist Date 1

~ hkb hY h $$

_ - _ - 1

' ~ '

b,.. -

I._/

l ReYiewed.ly: D. s1. Steniawski, Chief _

(Y8(,

Nuclear Materials $4fety k Date: "

J Section ? '

Approved- By: W. L.' Axe n h Nuclear Materials Safety and '

3 I!fk Date Safeguards Branch inspection ,$umary Inspection conducted February 11 through March 6,1986 (Report No. 030-05165/86001(DR551) .

Areas Inspected: 5pecial safety inspection ~ conducted to detemine the disposition of licensed material which the licensee, who sold its facility and equipment, had possessed. The inspection included visits to the licensee's fortner site plus interviews with former employees and individuals employed by .

subsequent owners.  !

Results: Two violations were identified:

1. Unauthorized transfer of licensed material,10 CFR -30.41(a) and(b);

2. Failure to notify the NRC that licensed activities were pennanently discontinued, 10 CFR 30.34(f). (The requirement is' currently contained in 10 CFR 30.36(b)).

1 l

?

O O

~

1

. j l- i DETAlts

. 1. " Persons Contacted

}

Former C-E Glass /Hordis Brothers Employees i Warren Kemps. Production Manager / Plant Manager Oscar L. Luebbert, Production Superintendent '!'

Albert H. Belz, Plant Manager (before Kempa)

Paul J. Schmitt, Plant Engineer, St. Louts /Warrenton Gerald F. Hertel, Maintenance Supervisor Verlin Sutton,' Supervisor Hot End Merle Haynes, Swing Foreman, Hot End Broadway Salvage Company Jack Ballard, Owner Porter's Engineering and Demolition George Porter, Owner (also works for Broadway Salvage Company)

Former National Industrial Services, Incorporated (Auctioneers) Employees Cathy Henry.

Mark Hibbeler Texas Nuclear Corporation Doris Bryan, &ager, Licensing and Regulatory Af fairs Ben Mathes, Field Service Supervisor Bill Hendrick, Chemical Engineer (runs TN's disposal service)

Combustion Engineering, Incorporated Reynold L. Hoover, Corporate Director, Health, Safety and Environmental Control.

Gary McKay, Radiation Specialist Nancy Wilper, Health Physics Technician Washington University Medical Center, St. Louis, MO

-_s- -

'Barry Siegel, M.t). - ,

Wohl Hospital, St. Louis, MO I

Shabbir Safdar, M.D.

University of Cincinnati Hospital, Cincinnati, OH Eugene L. Saenger, M.D. (NRC Medical Consultant) 3

~7- 9 a < - ..

2. . Licensed Prooral l

This byproduct taterial Itcense was initially issued to C-E Glass,  !

Incorporated (CEG) on April 28, 1971. The license was amended l

-(Amenda,ent No. 3) on July 8,1981, and will expirt on July 31, 1986.

The license _ authorizes the use of ccbalt-60 as a sealed source (not to exceed 2.5 curies per source) in a Robertshaw Model No. 770-A5 l source holder (gauge) for level measurement at the licensee's facility i at 81 Angelica Street, St. Louis, MO.

The four individuals named as authorized users on the original license are the same individuals named as authorized users on the latest amendment.

At this time, one of the individuals (C. J. Youngblood) is deceased, two 1

(A. H. Belt and O. Luebbert) are retired, and one (P. J. Schmitt) is working for another organization in Texas.

~

3. Inspection History There have been no previous inspections of this program.

4. Backoround Information On November 20, 1985, Region III's Material Licensing Section (MLS) received a memorandum from NRC - Headquarters listing six licensees whose sail was returned to NRC as "Not Deliverable As Addressed." One In an attempt tu contact individuals who are, or

~

of these was CEG.

were, associated with this licensee, MLS eventually contacted the former Production Manager (W. Kempa) for CEG St. Louis facility, on February 6, 1986. Mr. Kempa, who is currently employed by Hordis Brothers, Incorporated (HBI) in Truesdale, MO, stated that the St. Louis facility was sold, with all contents, by HBI to Broadway Salvage Company (BSC) in about 1983; he said he had no knowledge of any radioactive material licensed by the NRC. (It was subsequently determined that HBI purchased the CEG facility and equipnent on October 2,1981). On February 10, 1986, MLS notified Region III's Materials inspection staff of their unsuccessful attempts to obtain additional information regarding CEG; they requested assistance.

5. Inspection Activities A Region III inspector initiated the followup on the CEG matter on February 11, 1986 with a telephone call to Doris Bryan, manager of licensing and regulatory af f airs for iexas Nuclear (TN) (TN markets and services Robertshaw gauges). She stated that the only work TN had performed for CEG was in June 1978 when a 2.5 curie ccbalt-60 source was loaded into the gauge. (She later called with a' correction - the source was 2.5 curies in May 1976).

The inspector then called Mr. Jack Ballard, owner of BSC, who explained that he purchased the property from.HBI in October 1984. Mr. Ea11ard contracted with National Industrial Services of St. Louis to auction off 4

W W equipment remaining cn the property. The auction was held on November 28, 1984. Subsequently, Mr. Ballard's employees have been salvaging metal and otherwise preparing the _ property for sale.

~

. The inspector also contacted Mr. Oscar Luebbert, former employee of CEG and HBI and also an authorized user of the gauge. He stated that thes gauge had bun taken off the furnace several years ago and he thought it was shipped to a HBI plant in Pennsylvania. (He later changed this statement when he said the shipment went to another glass facility in Cinniainson, N.J. in late 1982 or early 1983). The gauge was returned to the Angelica Street site several months later and stored in a machine shop building until the auctioneers moved it, several days befort the auction, to a location near an outdoor scrap pile.

On February 19, 1986, the inspector arrived at Mr. Ballard's office at 820 Branch Street in St. Louis, tipon being shown a picture of the gauge, Individual A, one of Mr. Ballard's employees, stated that the gauge was still on an outdoor scrap pile at the site and he had worked near the gauge for several moi.ths in late 1984 and early 1985. The inspector was escorted by Mr. Ballard and Individual A to the site where they directed the inspector to the gauge location. Radiation level readings taken with a G.H survey meter" were less than 5 mR/hr at one foot from the exposed surfaces of the gauge. The shutter control knob was found in the full open position with the shutter end pointing down and into the scrap pile.

The inspector moved the shutter control knob to the off position and conducted a wipe test which indicated no removable contamination. The shutter control knob was then secured with a padlock purchased by the inspector, and arrangements were made by Mr. Ballard to have TN remove the gauge. However, the gauge was eventually removed by personnel from a Combustion Engineering f acility, rather than TN.

On February 20, 1986, Individual A stated he had tried to remove the stainless steel casing of the gauge and had removed a pin which held the shutter control knob in a fixed position some'.ime during the first two weeks in December 1984; the knob turned freely thereafter. In addition, Individual A and Individual B stated they moved the gauge several times while working near the scrap pile during the December 1984 - January 1985 period; Individual B said he actually picked up the gauge once to move it to another location. Arrangements were then made to have Individual A examined by a physician. Individual B stated he is currently under a physician's care for elevated white b1 cod count and an intestinal fissure.

At the request of the Region III office, Mr. Reynold L. Hoover, Corporate Director of Health, Safety and Environmental Control for Combustion Engineering in Windsor, Connecticut made arrangements to have Mr. Gary McKay and Ms. Nancy Wilper of the Combustion Engineering plant in Hematite, Missouri meet the inspector at the site on February 21, 1986 to ef fect removal of the gauge. A shipping paper was prepared and The the gauge was labelled and marked in accordance with 00T regulations.

combustion Engineering vehicle left the site with the gauge at 3:59 p.m..

Inquiries from the media and St. Louis city of ficials at the site were answered by the inspector or referred to the Region III office.

• Eberline, Model E-520 Geiger Counter, NRC No. 009577, calibrated 12/3/85.

5

~,

. Ow ;O

1. m.Yv w-The inspectors visited the. facility at 81. Angelica $treet on February 25,

- 1986', af ter: interviewing Individual 8:and Individual A at the'85C office on Branch Street earlier that day. In an attempt to determine if.any

'other gauges may be. on this3 6.5 acre site, the inspectors examined all of the buildings making a visual check and radiation level measurements (using Micro R Meters *). They also checked trash bins and trash / scrap pilesi

'both inside and outside of these buildings, including the scrap pile where the gauge was located during the previous' week. No other gauges were found.

The; inspectors met with cyrrent and former CEG/MBI employees. and former auctioneers .in.the St. Louis area during the. remainder of the week.

Telephone interviews were also conducted with fomer. employees and othersi to gather information that.would indicate'if. anyone say have received a significant radiation exposure and if NRC requirements;had been violated.

In addition, the inspectors interviewed two individuals who had been at the auction site. . Their names were given to the inspectors by National Industrial Services.

~

During the discussions with Individual A, the inspectors: learned that the gauge remained in the area of fire barrels (barrels in which he burned wood for warmth) where he spent his morning and afternoon breaks as-well as tis. lunch period through. February 12, 1985. .During these breaks from his nearby salvage activity (cutting ' steel I-bears-for scrap), he sat.'on

.the; gauge.

These daily breaks totaled from 1/2 hour to 11/2 hours, and he said he worked almost~ every day .(seven days per week);during that period through c.

February :12, 1985. He claimed his legs were sometimes over the rounded.

' portion of the gauge and, at other times, over either end of the gauge.

He also stated that he worked alone.

-Individual B said he f requently visited the site and talked to Individual A during the I-beam cutting work. He further claimed he was in the vicinity of the gauge about 100 times during that period, from 15 minutes to two hours, at a distance of one foot to five or six feet from the gauge. He added that he had his hands on the gauge about 12 times, eight to ten of. those times were during the November-December

'1984 period; otherwise, the other times were in July-August 1985.

Based on the limited information provided by other individuals (who either had little to do with the gauge or, were unable to recall events because of the elapsed time),1M of records, plus the unavailability of input from Mr. Youngblood, th Wspectors were unable to determine if anyone received a higher radiation dose than that estimated for Individual A.

The finding of the gauge on the scrap pile was reported on local television on February 21, 1986, and in the newspaper on February 22, 1986. Some of the interviewed individuals said they heard or saw the -l media reports. .

al. Ludium, Model 19, Micro R Meter, NRC No. 014809, calibrated 1/24/86. '

2. Eberline, Medel PRM-7, Micro R/hr Meter, NRC No. 010285, calibrated 1/17/86.

6 ,

l

v. .,

'In tracing the events that led to the loss of contrel of the licensed material, the inspectors learned that CEG sold their Angelica Street

- facility and equipment' including the' gauge to NBI on October 2,1981.

.This transfer of licensed material was a violation of 10 CFR 30.41(a) ,

i .

' and (b)(5) which requires transfers of. byproduct material by a licensee I to be made to persons authorized to receive byproduct saterial under terms of a specific license or.a general Itcense or their equivalents issued by the Atomic Energy Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or an Agreement State. This sale also violated 10 CFR 30.34(f),

(currently,10 CFR 30.36(b)), which required each licensee to notify the Commission in writing when the licensee decides to permanently discontinue all activities involving licensed material. After the. sale was completed, the licensed material was no longer under the control of the licensee. The gauge, containing the Itcensed material, was removed from'its installed position near a furnace by HBI employees during the latter part of 1982.or .erly 1983. This eventually permitted the gauge to be moved to an area on the site that was accessible to certain members of the public.

6. Independent Measurements Radiation measurements on the surf ace of the gauge in February 1986, ranged from 6 mR/hr to 70 mR/hr with the shutter closed. The 70 mR/hr reading was at the shutter.end. Measurements taken at one foot from the shutter end,with the shutter control knob in the fully open position showed a reading of 1.8 R/hr. Based on the above measurements and statements made by Individual A, the maximum radiation dose to his buttocks could have ranged from about 0.6 rem up to about 1.7 res. While sitting' on the gauge,-if his leg was always in the- radiation beam at a distance of one foot from the shutter end, and the shutter was in the fully open position, the maximum radiation dose to the leg could have ranged f rom about. 69 rem up to about 208 rem. (See Attachment C).

7. Followup Action TN representatives informed Region III on March 3,1986 that they took possession of the source at the Combustion Engineering facility in Hematite, MO on February 28, 1986 and returned it to their facilities for disposition. After removing the source, TN wipe tested the gauge.

Results indicated no removable radioactive contamination. The emptied gauge remained at the Hematite facility.

They reported that the source activity and assay date, which was stamped on the source capsule, was 2.5 curies on May 20, 1976.

7 L-______x______

Dn March 3,1986, Region 111 telephoned Dr. $afdar who.exanined

., Individual A on February 21, 1986. Dr. Safdar indicated he has been

- in contact with Dr. Saenger, the NRC Medical Consultant. Dr. Saenger f notified Region III on_ March 6,1986 that Dr. Safdar found Individual A's

, blood count, bone, marrow, and physical examination to be normal. .

8. Enforcement Conference L

An enforcement conference was held in the Region III office'on March 19, 1986 with Messrs. Reynold Hoover, Corporate Safety Director,and John Brett, Corporate Counsel, for Combustion Engineering, Incorporated and Mr. A. 8. Davis end others of the Region III staff. The apparent '

violations identified during the inspection and NRC's enforcement policy.

were discussed. The licensee was informed that this matter is being considered for escalated enforcement action. The licensee presented their findings and preliminary corrective action. -

Attachments:

A. : Requirements in Ef fect in 1981

8. Identification of Individuals A and B (Exempt from disclosure)

C. Dose Calculations D. Chronology of. Events, C-E Glass, Incorporated 1

8

p. y 2 (-

. L/ \

ATTACl#4ENT A

_ Requirements in Ef fect in 1981

l. .

l l' E 30.41 Transfer of byproduct material. I _30.34 Terms and conditions of ifcensees, i

(a) No Itcensee shall (f) Each licensee shall notify the transfer byproduct material except Commission in writing when the licensee

.as authorized pursuant to this decides to permanently discontinue all section. activities involving materials authorized under the license. This notification (b) Except as otherwise requirement applies to all specific license provided in his license and subject issued under this part and Parts 32 through to the provisions of Paragraphs (c) 35 of this chapter.

and (d) of this section, any licensee -

may transfer byproduct material:

(5) To any person authorized to receive such byproduct material under the Commission, or an Agreement State;

' \ ! -' ,

~ . .

g% .:tm*c -

'*.~] ' '  %

. ., ; c-

.u 4

. > 1

~~e Indiv'idualiA - ExemptJfrom~01sc105ure Individual B . Exempt from Disclosure

1 4

M i .. .

/ r f

,3.'.

t I t

4 2

7 5

sf E_m._-_'2. ____.____m________m_.____._ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . .

v v y . .

~

ATTACHMENT C Dose Calculations The radiation measurements in February 1986 showed a gauge surface reading of up to 15 mR/hr, except for the shutter end which was 70 mR/hr with the shutter closed. With the shutter open, the reading in the beam at one foot frtun the gauge was 1.8 R/hr.

Correcting for the decay of the cobalt-60 source from 12/84 to 2/86 (* 1.17 years), the following calculations show:

D, = Db ,- At = Db ' (*) -

Where D, = 15 mR/hr Tg = 5.26 years for Co-60 t = 1.17 years a = 15 mR/hr , 15 mR/hr , 15 mR/hr Therefore, D b=

At -0.154 0.86 e

e-h(1.17)e Db + 17.4 mR/hr If an individual sat on the gauge where the reading was 17.4 mR/hr, and he sat there from 1/2 hour to 11/2 hours per day for 66 days during the December 1984 to February 1985 period, the maximum radiation dose range to his buttocks can be estimated as follows:

17.4 mR/hr x 0.5 hr/ day x 66 days = 574 mR or s 0.6 rem and 17.4 mR/hr x 1.5 hrs / day x 66 days = 1,723 mR or,

• 1.7 rem Because of the construction of the gauge, it is unlikely that he would have sat on the shutter end.

Correcting for the decay of the source in regard to the open shutter reading, De =De =Ded 2 MD d

where D e

= 1.8 R/hr

, 1.8 R/hr Then, D d* C

~At e 0.86 Og r 2.1 R/br

, g, '

7 t Attachment C )

If an. individual's leg was in the radiation beam at a distance of one foot from the shutter end, with the shutter in the fully open position, and his leg was  ;

there from 1/2 hour to 11/2 hours per day for 66 days during the December 1984 l to February 1985 period, the maximum radiation dose range to his leg could be estimated as follows:

2.1 R/hr x 0.5 hr/ day x 66 days = 69.3 R'or, s 69 rem i and 2.1 R/hr x 1.5 hrs / day x 66 days = 207.9 R or, s 208 rem l

9 l

. r I

U r) l-

< V O _

i ATTACHMENT D i

.- Chronology of. Events C-E GLAS$. INCORPORATED Docket No. 030-05165 April 28,1971 License granted for one 2.5 C1 cobalt-60 source for use in a Rc5;ertshaw Model 770-A5 source holder for level measurement.

June 9,1978 New cobalt-60 source loaded into holder (gauge) by Texas Nuclear; source was 2.5 Ci in May 1976.

October 2, 1981 Facility and equipment es C-E Glass, Inc. sold to Hordis Brothers, Incorporated.

May 1982 Hordis. Brothers, Incorporated ceased operations at this facility.

Late 1982 - Gauge was removed from furnace by employees of Hordis Early 1983 Brothers, Incorporated, packaged and then shipped to a glass facility in Cinniminson, New Jersey.

2-3 months later Gauge was returned to the Hordis Brothers, Im.orporated facility in St. Louis, Missouri and stored in original shipping package.

October 1984 Hordis Brothers, Incorporated sold facility and equipment to Broadway Salvage.

Late November Gauge was removed from shipping pckage by employees of an 1984 auction company and subsequently moved to the vicinity of a scrap pile at the facility.

Early December Locking mechanism on gauge shutter control was removed by 1984 employee of Broadway Salvage. Removal of stainless steel casing was also attempted. Activity of source estimated as 0.81 Cf.

Early December Two employees of Broadway Salvage handled gauge and worked 1984 to sid- in vicinity of gauge.

February 1985 April-May 1985 Gauge moved to scrap pile.

]

February 19, 1986 Gauge relocated by NRC inspector with assistance of Broadway Salvage employees, q February 21, 1986 Gauge removed by employees of Combustion Engineering to Hematite, Missouri facility.

_ _ _ - =