ML20203D156: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:-                            _ _ _ _ .  ..
g            %
k
[e g              j UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COlWMISSION 3
* WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566-0001                                      '
          . . . . . ,o January 19, 1999 The Honorable Paul Sarbanes United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
 
==Dear Senator Sarbanes:==
 
'          The purpose of this letter is to follow-up on a letter dated April 28,1998, to you from Mr. L. Joseph Callan, Executive Director for Operations. This letter responded to your March 24,1998, letter to Mr. Dennis K. Rathbun, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs,
  ,        regarding a constituent's concerns about Neutron Products, Inc. (NPI) in Dickerson, Maryland.          ;
In our letter, we indicated that NPI and the State of Maryland were in court hearings related to issues associated with the license renewal and we would provide further information once a ruling on the court case was rendered. Although, a ruling has not been reached, we would like to provide you with some additionalinformation at this time.
On June 26,1998, Administrative Law Judge Judith Finn Plymyer issued a proposed order i
regarding, " Neutron Products, Inc., v. Md. Department of the Environment OAH No. 96-MDE-ARMA-047-106." A copy of the proposed order is enclosed. Dickerson Citizens Association (DCA) was an intervener in this case (see pages 4, and 6 through 7 of the enclosed document).
In the Petition to Intervene, DCA made three requests for relief: (1) DCA seeks to intervene as a party in the NPI licensing proceedings; (2) DCA requests a continuance of the NPI licensing proceedings to allow it sufficient time to retain counsel and conduct adequate discovery; and (3) DCA requests that NPI's " timely renewal" license be revoked, or, in the alternative, that the      .
proposed license be implemented as written, with NPI operations being suspended until the proposed licensing terms are fully met.                                                                  j
,          in the proposed order, the hearing requests of the Interveners and NPI would be dismissed for            '
failing to meet the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence (see page 60 of              !
        -the enclosed document). In addition, the proposed order would affirm the issuance of the NPI              l l          license Amendment 43 by the Maryland Department of the Environment. Parties in the case
,          were given twenty one (21) days to file a written exception with the Secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment concerning the proposed order. NPI filed a written exception l
which is currently being reviewed by the Maryland Department of the Environment. We will provide further information on this matter once a ruling on the court case is rendered.
Since NPI is regulated by the State of Maryland, an Agreement State, NRC must obtain                      I information from the State to fully address the concerns expressed by your constituent. We will address those remaining concerns in future correspondence. For your information, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, Maryland became an Agreement State in 1971 l
                                                                                                          \
12 0. ,, r-W C4p Cki
                                                                    #m                                        li QW 9902160045 PDR              990119 STPRC ESGMD PDR                                                              '$ fl N'I N I
 
1                                                                                                            l l
The Honorable Paul Sarbanes                                  2                                        ,
and NRC discontinued regulatory authority for certain types of uses of radioactive material, including operations such as those at NPl. NRC's role is to provide oversight of Agreement States to assure their regulatory programs adequately protect public health and safety and that these programs are compatible with NRC's program.                                                    ,
Sincerely,                            l
                                                                                        /c-  ,
William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations
 
==Enclosure:==
 
As stated cc:              Roland Fletcher, Manager Radiological Health Program                                                          ,
Air and Radiation Management Administration                                          l Maryland Department of the Environment                                              j i
i l
l h
I l
l I
a
                                                                                                              ]
l l
1 I
I
                                                                                                              'l l
i
 
January 19, 1999 The Honorable Paul Sarbanes                                          2 and NRC discontinued regulatory authority for certain types of uses of radioactive material, including operations such as those at NPl. NRC's role is to provide oversight of Agreement States to assure their regulatory programs acequately protect public health and safety and that these programs are compatible with NRC's program.
Sincerely, William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations
 
==Enclosure:==
 
As stated cc:        Roland Fletcher, Manager Radiological Health Program Air and Radiation Management Administration Maryland Department of the Environment l
i I
1
                                                                                                                                                                    )
i l
l 1
Distribution-                                                                                                                                    1 DIR RF                                                            DCD (SP05) PDR (YES)
EDO RF (G19980209)                                                Maryland File                                                                  ,
BUsilton                                                                                                                                          l DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ CHM \NPl.WPD                                                              *See previous concurrence.
Ta receive e copy of thle document, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachmentlenclosure *E" = Co >y with attachment / enclosure *N" = No co?y  _
OFFICE                  OSP                  OSP:DD l            OSP:D                OGC                OCA;D                  DEDR l            $@/l NAME            CHMaupin:nb:kk PHLohaus                          RLBangart          FCameron            DKRkthbun              FMiraglia          W h M rs / ,
DATE                  12/16/98*              12/21/98*          12/22/98*          12/30/98*            /7//'/ /Fr                              N l (/[2  l OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-14      ;
                                                                                                                  )        )
6
[p)gp f' cy
 
l ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP              !
DATE: DECEMBER 23,1998
;          CONCURRENCE REQUESTED                    INITIALS        D TEj    i
(    W(1d  j l          F. CAMERON, OGC                            -
_/        1 /99    l f
LETTERS TO:      REPRESENTATIVE CONSTANCE A. MORELLA SENATOR PAUL SARBANES FROM:            WILLIAM D. TRAVERS                              i EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS                l
 
==SUBJECT:==
CONCERNS ABOUT NEUTRON PRODUCTS,INC. (NPI)
(NOTE: PLEASE RETURN INCOMING DOCUMENTS TO OSP.)
4 i
l YOUR COMMENTS / CONCURRENCE ARE REQUESTED BY JANUARY 6.1999 OSP CONTACT: CARDELIA MAUPIN (415-2312)
PLEASE CALL KATHALEEN KERR (415-3340) FOR PICK UP.
 
    ~
Tha Honor:bla Paul S rbin:s                                                                      #
Unit:d Stat:s S:n:ts Wcshington, DC 20510                                                                            f
    ~
l
 
==Dear Senator Sarbanes:==
 
The purpose of this letter is to follow-up on a letter dated Ap i 28,1998 to you from Mr. L. Joseph Callan, Executive Director for Operations. This letter responded to your March 24,1998 letter to Mr. Dennis K. Rathbun, Director,                                    ice of Congressional Affairs, regarding a constituent concerns about Neutron Products, I c. (NPI) in Dickerson, Maryland.
In our letter, we indicated that NPI and the State of Maryta were in court hearings related to issues associated with the license renewal and we would p ovide further information once a ruling on the court case was rendered. Although, a ruling as not been reached, we would like to provide you with some additionalinformation at this tim .
On June 26,1998, Administrative Law Judge Judith Finn lymyer issued a proposed order
  <                  regarding," Neutron Products, Inc., v. Md. Department of he Environment OAH No. 96-MDE-ARMA-047-106." A copy of the proposed order is encio d. Dickerson Citizens Association (DCA) was an intervener in this case, pages 4, and 6 thr ugh 7 of the enclosed document. In the Petition to Intervene, three requests for relief were ade, which follow: DCA seeks to intervene as a party in the NPI licensing proceedings;                                A requests a continuance of the NPI licensing proceedings to allow it sufficient time to retain counsel and conduct adequate discovery; and DCA requests that NPI's " timely renew " license be revoked, or, in the alternative, that the proposed license be implemented s written, with NPI operations being suspended until the proposed licensing terms are fully met.
In the proposed order, the hearing requests of the Int rveners and NPI would be dismissed for failing to meet the burden of persuasion by a prepon erance of the evidence, page 60 of the enclosed document in addition, the proposed order affirmed the issuance of the NPI license Amendment 43 by the Maryland Department of the nvironment. Parties in the case were given twenty-one (21) days to file a written exceptio with the Mretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment concerning the pro , osed order. N filed a written exception which is currently being reviewed by the Maryland epartment of 1 a Environment. We will provide further information on this matter once a r ing on the court case is rendered.
Sincerely, William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations
 
==Enclosure:==
 
As stated cc:          Roland Fletcher, Manager Radiological Health Program Air and Radiation Management Admini tration Maryland Department of the Environm nt Distribution:
DlR RF                                                              DCD (SP05) PDR (YES)                                                        ,
EDO RF (G19980209)                                                  Maryland File BUsilton DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ CHM \NPl.WPD                                                                      *See previous concurrence.
T= recalve a cop r of thle document, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without a chrrHpnt/ enclosure *E's Copy wtth attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE                  OSP          l        OSP:DD                  OSF{:D[j $/              OCA:D                    DEDR l                      EDO    l NAME            CHMaupin:nb:kk                PHLohaus              RLBa'ngbr't "'          DKRathbun              FMiraglia                  WTravers DATE                    12/17/98*                1PJ21/98*              1s/3298                  12/ /98                    12/ /98                  12/ /98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-14 l
 
The Honor bb Paul S:rbin:s                                                                                                                                                                  l United States Senate                                                                                                                                                                      !
Washington, DC 20S10 j
 
==Dear Senator Sarbanes:==
 
i The purpose of this letter is to follow-up on a letter dated April 28,1998 to you from Mr. L Joseph Callan, Executive Director for Operations. This letter responded to your                                                                                                                                                    !
March 24,1998 letter to Mr. Dennis K. Rathbun, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, regarding a constituent concerns about Neutron Products, Inc. (NPI) in Dickerson, Maryland.                                                                                                                                              !
In our letter, we indicated that NPI and the State of Maryland were in court hearings related to issues associated with the license renewal and we would provide further information once a ruling on the court case was rendered. Although, a ruling has not been reached, we would like to provide you with some additional information at this time.                                                                                                                                                                            i On June 26,1998, Administrative Law Judge Judith Finn Plymyer issued a proposed order regarding, " Neutron Products, Inc., v. Md. Department of the Environment OAH No. 96-MDE-ARMA-047-106." A copy of the proposed order is enclosed. Concerned Citizens of Dickerson (DCA) was an intervener in this case, pages 4, and 6 through 7 of the enclosed document. In                                                                                                                                              j the Petition to intervene, three requests for relief were made, which follow: DCA seeks to                                                                                                                                              j intervene as party in the NPI licensing proceedings; DCA requests a continuance of the NPI licensing proceedings to allow it sufficient time to retain counsel and conduct adequate discovery; and DCA requests that NPI's " timely renewal" license be revoked, or, in the alternative, that the proposed license be implemented as written, with NPI operations being suspended until the proposed licensing terms are fully met.
In the proposed order, the hearing requests of the Interve'ners and NPI would be dismissed for failing to meet the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence, page 60 of the enclosed document. In addition, the proposed order affirmed the issuance of the NPI license Amendment 43 by the Maryland Department of the Environment. Parties in the case were                                                                                                                                                    !
i given twenty-one (21) days to file a written exception with the Secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment concerning the proposed order. NPI filed a written exception which is currently being reviewed by the Maryland Department of the Environment. We will provide further information on this matter once a ruling on the court case is rendered.
l Sincerely, !
l
                                                                                                                                                                                              \
Travers William Executive Dl Director for Operations
 
==Enclosures:==
                                                                                                                                                /
As stated                                                                                                                                                j cc: Roland Fletcher, Manager                                                                                                                          f Radiological Health Program                                                                                                                  i Maryland Department of the Environment                                                                                                    j i
DistributioD:                                                                                                                                /
DlR RF (8G209)                                                                                                                            !
EDO RF (G980209)                                                                                                                        l SECY (CRC-98-0286)                                                                                                                    l Allegations File (C. Maupin)                                                                                                        l DOCUMENT
            . r i . e        NAME:ni.G:\
                        , .e ini. ii.eu ina CHM main
                                              .i. in in. \NPl.WPS . Coor without                                                                      ! ture                    attachmen"pf                        :'
                                                                                                                                                                                                      "E% Cory wt h attachment / enclosure "NN No copy OFFICE            QQ!yff l            OSF@/l          OCA l                                                                                                                          OSP:D                  DEDR l                    EDO l NAME        CHMadih:nb PHLolials i                  DKRathbun :                                                                                                    RLBangart                              FMiraglia                WTravers DATE              12/M/98                12/2 //98      12/ /98                                                                                                                        12/ /98                  12/ /98                  12/ /98
 
E p,
Perris N. Glend;ning Governot                                                  gh~h c, , am,,._ u. ....
l
                                                                        +,
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS                                  Too plo)229 42s7 (410) 229-4100                                        ADMHSTRATIVE LAW BULLDING                                  FAX (410) 229-4111 (goo) ass.9805                                              11101 Gilroy Road
                                                  -a        Hunt VaBey, Maryland 21031 1301 June 26, 1998 Francis John Kreysa, Esq.                                Christina Gerstung Beusch, Esq.                                    )
4 Professional Dr., Ste. 118                              Valerie J. Smith, Esq.
Gaithersburg, MD 20079                                    office of the Attorney General                                      ,
Dept of the Environment                                          !
Gerald and Yvonne Mulgrew                                  2500 Broening Bighway 22138 Dickerson Road                                      Baltimore, MD            21224 Dickerson, MD                  20342 Beather Rae and William Moore, Jr.
Michael and carol Oberdorfer 22170 Dickerson School Rd.                                          l 22030 Big Woods Road                                      Dickerson, MD 20842 Dickerson, MD                  20842 RE:      Neutron Products, Inc. v. Md. Department of the Environment OAH No. 96-MDE-ARMA-047-106
 
==Dear Parties:==
I rnelosed is a copy of my proposed order in above-referenced matter.
You have twenty-one (21) days from the receipt of this order to                                                              I file written exceptions with the Secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment. Reccipt is presumed to occur three (3) days after mailing.                      Please refer to COMAR 26.01.02.35 for the specific procedures for filing exceptions.
Very truly yours,
              \[4(dl h                /1            %
Judith Finn Plymyer Administrative Law Judge III1E1oaure                                                                      -
cc:    Merrylin Zaw Mon                                                              'h" G
01tice et The Attoin?? t"e'31 Deptment of the gwisonnient TOTAL P.02
 
NEUTRON PRODUCTS, INC., et al.*                          BEFORE JUDITH FINN PLYMYER,                    l
* I
: v.                ,
AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE                    :
OF THE MARYLAND OFFICE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF
* i ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS THE ENVIRONMENT                -*    -
* l OAH No. 96-MDE-ARMA-047-106                    :
                                                                                                                / 1 PROPOSED DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE                                                  I PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND                                                  '
MOTIONS ISSUE                                                    !
EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD
 
==SUMMARY==
OF THE ARGUMENTS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT DISCUSSION PROPOSkiD CONCLUSIONS OF IJLW PROPOSED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On March 12, 1996, the appeal of Neutron Products, Inc. (NPI or Licensee) was filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH),
contesting certain terms and conditions of Radioactive                                            ,
Materials License No. MD-31-025-01, Amendment 43, (License).                                    The        <
License was issued on January 18, 1996, to NPI by the Radiological Health    Program                    of    the        Air  and (RHP)                                      Radiation Management Administration (ARMA) of the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE or Agency).
In addition to the Licensee and the Agency, this caso involved several interveners, Heather Rae, William Moore, Michael and Carol Oberdorfer, and Gerald and Yvonne Mulgrew.                                    The Licensee's appeal of its radioactive materials license issued by MDE is governed by Title 8 of the Environment Article and Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.12.01.01.
e'
 
                                                                                \
t A hearing on the merits was conducted by Administrative Law    -
1 Judge Judith Finn Plymyer (ALJ) at the Office of Administrative Hearings, 11101 Gilroy Road, Hunt Valley, Maryland, beginning on September 30, 1997, and continuing on the following days: October 1, 2,  3, 7,  8, 9, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, and 31, 1997.      At this point in the hearing, HPI concluded its case, with the right to offer rebuttal following MDE's case.      The hearing reconvened on January 13, 1998, and continued on January 15, 20, and 21, 1998.
During this period, MDE presented its case and NPI presented rebuttal. Closing arguments were submitted in writing at the request of the participating parties.      The record closed on April 6, 1998.8 Procedure in this case is governed by the contested case provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, Md. Code Ann.,
State Gov't SS 10-201 through 10-226 (1995 & Supp. 1997), Md. Code Ann., Envir. SS 1-601 through 1-606 (1996 & Supp. 1997), COMAR 26.01.02,    and  the  Rules  of  Procedure    of  the  Office  of Administrative Hearings, COMAR 28.02.01.
The Appellant was represented before the OAH by Francis John Kreysa, Esq., 4 Professional Drive, Suite 118, Gaithersburg, MD 20879.'
The Agency was represented by Assistant Attorneys General 1
1998.      The original closing date for all briefs was March 13, 13, 1998. The  ALJ then allowed reply briefs to be postmarked March Corrections submitted by NPI on April 6, 1998, were received without the objection of any party.
2 Bruce Musico, HPI's in-house counsel and a member of the Pennsylvania bar, requested permission to appear in hac vice, but subsequently withdrew, having taken a position in another state.
 
                                                  ~          ^ '            ^    ^      ^    ' ~
                'L'^
                                                                                    ~
  .      .                  L . . _ .- . .      - ..
                                                                                                          ?
Christina Geratung Beusch and Valerie J.                          Smith,    2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, MD 21224. The Intervener were not represented by counsel and appeared sporadically,                          if at all,      during the hearing.                                                                                      '
                                            " PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND NPI  is  a  Delaware        corporation which        has  conducted its radioactive materials business since the late 1960's, primarily in Montgomery County at                      its    plant  at  68  Mt. Ephraim Road',
Dickerson,          Maryland 20842.                NPI was licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.          In the 1970's, the State of Maryland received approval of its own program and took over NPI's License.                              The License was canended on numerous occasions over the years, until the most recent amendment, Amendment 43, issued by MDE on January 18, 1996.                                On March 12, 1996, NPI filed an appeal concerning many of the amended 1
j          conditions of its license.                      At the request of the parties, the appeal remained in inactive status for purposes of negotiation. On
!          September            6,  1996,    counsel for MDE asked OAH to schedule a prehearing conference on the unresolved issues.                                                  ;
;                    On December 5,1996, ALJ Sondra Spencer conducted an in person prehearing meeting and advised the parties that she would not be conducting a hearing because of a scheduling conflict.                                The case was  then reassigned to ALJ Judith Finn Plymyer for a prehearing conference on January 16, 1997.
On        January    3,    1997,      Jackson      A. Ransohoff      (Ransohoff),    l President of NPI, filed a Motion to Intervene.                          On January 8, 1997, l
l
 
MDE filed a Motion to Prevent Unauthorized Practice of Law by Ransohoff, apparently based on representations at the December 5th prehearing conference that Ransohoff intended to examine witnesses and argue on behalf of NPI at the hearing.      On January 13, 1997, MDE filed a Memoradtium in Opposition to Motion to Intervene of Jackson A. Ransohoff.
On January 14, 1997, OAH received a statement from Heather Rae (Rae)  on behalf of the Dickerson Citizens Association            (DCA),
advising of the organization's intent to participate in the prehearing    conference  on  January  16,  1997,      and  re-questing permission to intervene.        OAH advised the parties        of DCA's intentions and converted the prehearing conference to a hearing on motions.
On January 16, 1997, a hearing on preliminary motions was conducted by ALJ Plymyer at the Administrative Law Building, 11101 Gilroy Road, Hunt Valley, Maryland.      Attendees at the motions hearing  included  Assistant  Attorney  General    (AAG)  Christina Gerstung Beusch on behalf of MDE; Ray Manley, Inspector, RHP; Ed Herbert,    Environmental    Manager,  Montgomery      Department    of Environmental Protection, Francis John Kreysa, Esq., representing NPI; Bruce John Musico, Esq., in-house counsel for NPI; Mr. and Mrs. Jackson A. Ransohoff; and Heather Rae on behalf of DCA.
At the conclusion of the hearing, ALJ established a briefing schedule on the intervention issues. MDE, NPI, Mr. Ransohoff, and several other intervener filed legal memoranda as previously agreed.          The other intervener filings were received by MDE, although not by ALJ
 
Plymyer. Additionally, Rae forwarded to OAH a letter from Reeva Jonas (.Tc nos ; of 22101 Dickerson Road, Dickerson, Maryland '?0842, which was addressed to Assistant Attorney General Beusch dated January 27, 1997.      In her latter, Jones detailed a history of alleged violations and noncompliance by NPI and requested "an up-dated investigation with citizen input to include all the facts...
both zoning and also the 1982 Agreement."                                                                Jones' letter did not 1
address the issue of intervention. As Jones' purpose seemed to be to request a meeting and an investigation from MDE, her letter was deamed irrelevant to the issue of intervention.                                                                                  I Following the final rulings on the preliminary motions,                                                              a prehearing conference was held on June 2, 1997.                                                                The parties in attendance included counsel for NPI and MDE, Ransohoff, Rae, and                                                                  j l
Carol Oberdorfer,      representing herself and her husband.                                                                ALJ Plymyer issued a Prehearing Order on July 10, 1997, limiting the                                                                  i substantive issues, clarifying certain procedural matteru, and setting pretrial deadlines for motions and discovery.                                                                            ,
1 In August,1997, NPI filed three motions which were opposed by MDE. All were denied by ALJ Plymyer, as further described below.
MDE filed a Motion for Summary Decision, which was held sub curia.
At the conclusion of the hearing on the merits, MDE decided to withdraw this motion.                                                                                                            I' MOTIONS Three preliminary motions were filed in early January, 1997, prior to the prehearing conference scheduled for January 16, 1997, before ALJ Plymyiar. Motions to intervene were filed by Jackson A.
                              . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - -                                -- I
 
Ransohoff, individually, and by Heather Rae on behalf of Dickerson                          "
Citizens Association (DCA), an unincorporated citizens interest group. MDE filed a motion to prevent the unlawful practice of law I
by Mr. Ransohoff.
ALJ    Plymyer    orally    granted          MDE's      Motion      to  Prevent        -
Unauthorized    Practice    of  Law    at        the      January      16th  hearing, concurring with MDE's        argument          and  legal      citations      that  an individual who is not licensed to practice law may not be permitted to represent a corporation in this administrative hearings.                          Md.        !
Code Ann., State Gov't S 10-206.1 (1995).                      The ALJ held all the motions to intervene sub curia pending written briefs.
pCA's Petition to Intervene On January 14, 1997, Dickerson Citizens Association (DCA) filed a Petition to Intervene.                  At the hearing on motions on January 16, 1997, Beather Rae (Rae) appeared and acted as the spokesperson for DCA.8 Rae, who is not an attorney, described DCA as an unincorporated group of about twenty concerned citizens, having no officers or membership requirements, no mailing address, and no funds. Rae argued that she and William Moore own property near NPI in Dickerson, Maryland.          She described two decades of DCA concerns about NPI's violations and noncompliance with regulations, and MDE's indifference or inability to enforce the license conditions.
In its Petition to Intervene, DCA made three requests for relief, quoted here in pertinent part:
A. DCA seeks to intervene as party in the NPI 3
Rae was the only perr.n to appear from the DCA.
                                                                  ...m.-                  . . _ .,___ _.____            _ _.._      ._  _ - . .
  ,.+                                                                                                                                                g licensing proceedings.
{
B. DCA requests a cont 3 nuance of the NPI licensing                                        !
proceedings to allow it sulficient time to retain counsel                                      i and conduct adequate discovery.
l C. DCA requests that NPI's " timely renewal" license be revoked or, in the alternative, that the proposed                                          ;
license be          lamented as written, with NPI operations                                  l being suspended until the proposed licensing terms are                                        ,
fully met.                                                                                    !
NPI argued in opposition to the intervention of f.he neighbors                                        f and DCA.        MDB argued that DCA had not proven an interest, but f
conceded    tha't individual neighbors may be able to prove an                                              :
interest.                                                                                        ,
Jackson A. Ransohoff's Motion to Intervene On January 3, 1997, Jackson A. Ransohoff (Ransohoff) filed a motion to intervene as an individual. Ransohoff is the founder and                                              ;
president of NPI as well as a member of the board of directors and                                              j the plurality shareholder.                      At the hearing on January 16, 1997,                              !
Ransohoff argued that his interests are different from those of other NPI officers or shareholders because he is the corporations's sole personal guarantor with outstanding personal liability and has the prospect of liability for future' risks due to his role as president and a director of the board. MDE contested the Ransohoff Motion to Intervene, but NPI did not.
At the conclusion of the motions hearing on January 16, 1997, ALJ Plymyer established a briefing schedule. Briefs were filed by MDE and NPI, and a letter was received from Reeva Jones addressed to Ms. Beusch.                    Ms. Jones' letter did not address the issue of                                        I
                                                                                                                                                      \
1
 
4
                                                                        ~''
intervention directly, but detailed a history of alleged violations        ,
I by NPI and requested an undated investigation with citizen input.          1 1
ALJ Plymyer recommended . denial of all of the motions to intervene in a written decision on March 24, 1997. Exceptions were timely filed to the Secretary of MDE and arguments were heard on May 27, 1997. On May 29, 1997, the Secretary's designee, Michael Haire, Esq. , ruled that Mr. Ransohoff's Motion to Intervene should be denied, but he granted the neigFhoring intervener' requests to intervene.' The intervener included Heather Rae and William Moore, who list the same address, Michael and Carol Oberdorfer, and Gerald and Yvonne Mulgrew.      William Moore and Michael Oberdorfer made opening remarks on the first day of the hearing.      Thereafter, Mr.
Oberdorfer was the only intervener to participate regularly in cross examination. None of the intervener put on a case; however, written arguments were filed by the Oberdorfers and by Beather Rae and William Moore.
As indicated above,      the July 10,  1997, Prehearing Order identified    of  issues  and  established  certain  deadlines  for prehearing discovery and motions.      The issues identified included License Conditions 6A, 7A, 8A, 9G, 10, 12B-G, 13 through 21, 22B, 23 through 26, 27A, 27B, 27C2, 28, 29, 31, and 34 through 37.
Condition 9A was inadvertently omitted, but the parties agreed that condition 9A continued to be disputed.
4        Mr. Ransohoff appealed MDE's denial of his Motion to Intervene to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, but the appeal was unsuccessful.
 
l NPI's Motion to Stav                                    i i
on August  4,  1997, NPI moved to stay the administrative j
hearing, pending a ruling by the Circuit Court for Montgomery j      County on Mr. Ransohoff's appeal of his unsuccessful attempt to intervene. ALJ Plymyer denied the motion under COMAR 26.01.02.37B because it was untimely and should have been directed to the final decision maker, rather than to the ALJ.
NPI's Motion to Reconsider Scoce of Hearina On August 6,    1997, NPI moved to expand the scope of the hearing and MDE objected. ALJ Plymyer denied the motion, based on the  parties'  prior  agreement  to  certain      contested      License Conditions  at  the  June  2,  1997  prehearing        conference,    the
,    Prehearing order of July 10, 1997, and Md. Code Ann., Envir. S 1-605(a)(2) (1996).
NPI's Motion for Continuance On August 29, 1997, NPI moved to continue the hearing based on Mr. Bruce Musico's decision to terminate his position as in-house counsel for NPI in order to accept another position out of state.
ALJ Plymyer denied the motion but agreed to accommodate NPI by holding no hearings on Mondays, and by limiting the hearing time from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. with an hour for lunch, thus providing counsel to NPI the time to prepare his witnesses and to handle other cases. These accommodations were accepted by the parties.
MDE's Motion for Summary Decision on August  4,  1997, MDE moved for summary decision.                ALJ Plymyer held the motion sub curia.      Subsequently, MDE decided to l
 
withdraw its motion in order to limit its closing arguments to a
                                                                                                                ~
discussion of the merits.
                                                . ISSUE i
4 The issue is whether certain Conditions of Amendment 43 of the I
License issued by MDE to NPI were inconsistent with the applicable 4
law and regulations, or arbitrary and capricious.                    The contested License conditions include 7A, 8A, 9A par. I and 2, 9G, 10, 12B                                            ,
through G, 13 through 21, 22B, 23, 24, 26, 27B, 27C2, 28, 29, 35 through 37.5                                                                                              I EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD
                                                                                                                  +
The administrative record in this matter consists of the                                          ,
following:
: 1. The Administrative File in four binders containing the transmittal of the Agency decision and the request for hearing, correspondence, hearings notices, and pleadings.
~
: 2. MDE Exhibits in two binders.                                                                    '
: 3. NPI Exhibits in two binders.
: 4. A Radiation Regulations Manual prepared for the ALJ by MDE.
5.
A Law Notebook of relevant federal and State laws and regulations compiled by OAH.
: 6. Hearing Tapes and Transcripts.
A. EXHIBITS NPI submitted 89 documents of which 83 were admitted on the record, and 6 were not admitted.
5 Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, NPI voluntarily withdrew      its challenge to License Conditions 6A, 9A par. 4, 25, 27A, 31, and 34.
 
    .                                            ,7 , , - _ _
MDE submitted 107 documents which were admitted on the record with the exception of one page which was not admitted.
The Interveners submitted no doct[ments du'rin'g the hearing, but Moore and Rae enclosed news articles in support of their written                .
closing arguments.                                                            ,
The exhibits are individually described in Appendix A of this decision.                                                                        ,
B. WITNESSES NPI presented the testimony of the following witnesses:'
Jackson A. Ransohoff, with expertise in chemical and nuclear engineering.
Jeffrey D. Williams, Radiation Safety Officer (RSO), NPI.
Roland Fletcher, Director, RHP, MDE.
Raymond E. Manley, Lead Health Physicist, RHP, MDE, called as a hostile witness.
Robert E.            Alexander, Health Physics Consultant, NPI, with      i expertise in radiation protection and/or health phys 2.cs.                l l
MDE presented the testimony of the following witnesses:
Raymond E. Manley, Lead Health Physicist, RHP, MDE.
Alan Jacobson, Lead Health Physicist, REP, MDE, with expertise in the area of health physics inspections with special knowledge of State of Maryland health physics regulations as applied to Maryland licensees.                          .
The Interveners presented no testimony.
!      6              NPI attempted to present the testimony of James V.
Muckerheide with regard to the effects of low dose rates of radioactivity, but ALJ Plymyer ruled that his testimony was
;      irrelevant, and granted MDE's Motion in Limine to prevent the introduction of evidence in this area because it is contrary to
;      federal law.
l
 
==SUMMARY==
OF THE ARGUMENTS                                                      l Oral opening arguments were made by the following parties,                                        )
2 NPI, MDE, Michael D. Oberdorfer, and illiam N,. Moore, Jr. Written                                          j closing arguments were submitted by NPI, MDE, Michael and Carol                                      .
]                Oberdorfer, and Heather Rae and William Moore, jointly.                                    Because i                                                                                                                    .
l                  the record contains the transcript of the oral arguments and the l                actual written arguments, only a brief summary of the arguments is i
)                offered here.
Arcuments of NPI J
d Preliminarily, NPI makes certain procedural arguments.                                NPI complains that it was not allowed to expand the scope of the
;                hearing beyond a challenge of the License conditions enumerated at the prehearing. conference on June 2,                              1997. NPI contends that it should have been allowed to contest the procedure followed by MDE in issuing Amendment 43 to NPI.
According to NPI, under COMAR 26.12.01.01, S C.50 Modification and Revocation of Licenses, MDE should have afforded NPI the opportunity to comply with the law before taking punitive action against its License for alleged violations. NPI also contends that MDE should have issued a tentative determinat-ion on the License application under Md. Ann. Code, Envir. S 1-604 (1996'), rather than making a final determination only. By failing to issue a tentative determination, MDE has failed to follow its own policy, NPI argues.
To remedy this error, NPI suggests that the ALJ rule that MDE must meet with NPI in an attempt to resolve the contested conditions.
                                    ~
c-                              - - . - - - - - - . - +                                -
(
Additionally, NPI proffers revisions to Conditions 9A, 24> and 27C                                j for MDE to considar.
Following these procedural concerns, NPI mikes two arguments with regard to the specific disputed conditions of its License.                                  ,
First, NPI contends that MDE has abused its discretion in imposing i        conditions which are more stringent than the requirements of the NRC absent " overwhelming evidence that such stringency contributen in a major way to public and/or employee health and safety [ . )"
l (NPI's Closing Argument at 3)                                Second, NPI argues that the conditions " effectively restrain trade without valid cause...."
(Ibid.) NPI argues that this restraint of trade is contrary to the policy of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Md. Code Ann., Envir. S 8-102 (1996).                                                                      j Finally,      NPI makes      certain general                  arguments  about its philosophy concerning radiation safety, including the Linear No Threshold Model and'its interpretation of ALARA, which means "as low as reasonably achievable" with regard to the maintenance of exposures to radiation as far below the dose limits as is practical.        COMAR 26.12.01.01 S A.2.
2 NPI's written Closing Argument then contaihs discussion of the disputed License Conditions. NPI also offers suggested language to substitute for MDE's wording of the conditions. NPI would have the ALJ adopt its suggested language.
Aronments of MDE Preliminarily,      MDE      disputes                    NPI's characterization    of Amendment 43 as a punitive action under COMAR 26.12.01.01 S C.50.
_13_
 
\-  -        -.                              .            ..- . ...  - _                                    - .
i      .
MDE maintains that Amendment 43 is a renewal of an expired license                    '
e-and was issued by MDE under SS C.20, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, and 31.                    --
Envir. ,5 1- 604 does . require tentative According          to      MDE, determinations, but the section applies only to the types of licenses listed, and radioactive materials licer.ses are not listed.
MDE admits that Envir. 51~605 applies to the intervention process,
,                  but argues that' the burden of going forward and the burden of persuasion rest on the Licensee under COMAR 26.01.02.28B(1).
With regard to the License Conditions, MDE maintains that the negotiations have ended, and that only Conditions 6A, part of 9A, 25, 27A, 31, and 34 have been resolved.                    MDE asserts that NPI                -
offered no evidence or argument as to Condition 9G. MDE argues that NPI's request that the ALJ consider proffered alternative language and recommend continued negotiations is not appropriate.                          -
Finally,          MDE offers  discussion of the disputed License                        -
1 Conditions.                                                                                      '
Arcuments of Michael'and Carol Oberdorfer The Oberdorfers reside at 22030 Big Woods Road near the NPI facility in Dickerson, Maryland.                While recognizing the social j                benefits of nuclear-related industries, the Oberdorfers support the proposed license conditions in order to ensure the safe operation of the NPI facility, noting that radioactive contamination of neighboring properties and streams could ultimately impact the Chesapeake Bay.                They emphasize the need for strict prospective i
j enforcement and oversight by MDE of the license conditions governing use and disposal of hazardous materials. The Oberdorfers e
 
    =      .    -  . . - -      . . - .
question NPI's willingness and ability to be accountable for the impact of its operations on the environment in view of its history of regulatory violations and' contempt for State regulators and concerned neighbors.        The Oberdorfers believe NPI relies to its detriment    on an antit}uated business plan, in-house experts, decentralized paper record-keeping, and ill-defined standards.      In cum, the Oberdorfers view the License as fair and reasonable and ceek assurance that it will be strictly enforced by MDE to protect the public from the potential consequences, including clean-up costs, of a hazardous materials accident.
Arcuments of Heather Rae and William Moore Moore and Rae reside at 22170 Dickerson School Road, close to the NPI facility in Dickerson, Maryland.      According to Moore, he and Rae intervened to ensure that NrI complies with existing regulations and to allow the Dickerson community a chance to understand the process by which the license and its conditions are granted. Moore and Rae request the following relief:  1) MDE limit NPI's inventory of radioactive material to zero curies. 2) NPI be required to employ a full-time health physics consultant to report to MDE and the Dickerson community to ensure regulatory compliance,
: 3) the amount of radioactive waste generated by NPI be limited with waste removal strictly monitored, 4) MDE review NPI's and its principals' finances, assess decommissioning costs of the NPI facility, and not allow NPI to delay payment of decommissioning costs, and 5) MDE order NPI to cease all further Cobalt-60 melts.
Moore and Rae submitted numerous quotes from interested individuals c
in the field and photocopies of newspaper articles about NPI dating from 1980 through 1997 in support of their position. They maintain that    NPI  has for  years  continued    to release  radioactive            I contamination to the environment and to violate the conditions of                ;
its license and of court orders, with little regard for the danger                :
to the surrounding community, and with insufficient oversight from MDE.                                                                              '
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT General Backcround
: 1.      Neutron Products,  Inc.,    (NPI or Licensee)  is a Delaware            i t
corporation with its principal facility in Dickerson, Maryland,                    ;
located in Montgomery County.
: 2.      Among other activities, NPI manufactures radioactive sources l
for use in cancer therapy from Cobalt-60 (or co-60).
: 3.      Cobalt-60 is produced as a radioactive by-product of the operation of a nuclear reactor.
: 4.      The Radiological Health Program (RHP) of the Air and Radiation Management Administration (ARMA) of the Maryland Department of the                !
Environment (MDE) regulates the use of radioactive materials in                    ;
t Maryland under an agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC), a federal agency.
* 4 5.
NPI's use of radioactive materials in Maryland was initially regulated through licensure by the NRC.
; 6.
In the early 1970's after Maryland's radiological health                    '
program was approved by the NRC and Maryland became what is called i
i                                                                                    !
,                                                                                    i i
r                                                    '
f
 
an " Agreement State," NPI's radioactive materials license was taken over by a predecessor State agency to MDE.7
: 7. The State of Maryland has modified the NPI License from time to time because of changes in NPI's operations, new regulations, and the need to improve radiation safety.
: 8. NPI agreed to cease its Cobalt-60 melting operation for four months in 1981 following the discovery of a Cobalt-60 particle or
            " hot spot" along the railroad tracks adjoining its Dickerson plant in November, 1980.
: 9. NPI filed for bankruptcy in 1986, and is still in debt to some of its creditors.
: 10. In 1989, the NRC adopted more stringent radiation safety standards and required agreement States to adopt them.
: 11. In May, 1989, MDE shut down NPI's manufacturing operations
                      ~
because of radiation safety violations.
: 12. NPI was allowed to restart some of its operations in July,      j 1989, under revised License conditions designated as Amendment 33.      ;
: 13. In 1991 MD2 brought an enforcement action against NPI in the
!        Circuit Court'for Montgomery County.                                    j
;        14. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment on certain counts,    f I
i and the parties entered into a Stipulation and Settlement on the        i I
l        day of trial on the remaining counts dated January 3, 1994. NPI I
j        failed to submit to MDE certain plans for a waste compactor and for construction of a court yard enclosure which would meet all i
j        7          NPI operates under three other licenses issued by MDE 1
which are not at issue here.
_17 1
I
 
I applicable legal requirements as required by the Stipulation and      '
Settlement.    (State Ex. 20)
: 15. Certain aspects of the Stipulation and Settlement were before the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for resolution when closing arguments were being submitted in this case.
: 16. Between 1989 and 1996, approximately 150 radioactive particles of Cobalt-60 were found within one kilometer of the Dickerson facility.
: 16. On August 2,1994, NPI applied for the renewal of 'its License, No. 31-025-01.
: 17. On January 18, 1996, MDE issued Amendment 43, renewing and revising the prior version of License No. 31-025-01.
: 18. On March 12, 1996, NPI filed a request for hearing to contest many of the License conditions or parts of c>nditions.
: 19. In May 1997, MDE permitted six individuals with property interests in Dickerson to intervene in the case.                              '
Contested License Conditions
: 20. NPI contested the following conditions or the License by 4
offering evidence and argument at the hearing:
7A, BA, 9A par. I and 2, 9G, 10, 12B-G, 13 through 21, 22B, 23, 24, 26, 27B, 27C par. 2, 28, 29, 31, and 35 through 37.
: 21. Conditions 7A, 9A (par. 2), and 13 relate to the Licensee's j  authority to possess and use stellite:
: 7. Chemical and/or physical form A. 1. Sealed sources, singly or doubly encapsulated.
 
i i
  ~
                                                                              \
: 2. Stellite bearings and axle rods mounted in stainless steel corners sheared from the top end of BWR control rod assemblies.
: 9. Authorized use:
A. 2. Radioactive material authorized in Item 7.A(2) is for possession and storage only. No additional receipt of stellite is authorized.
: 13. Ownership. possession, or control of radioactive materials authorized in Item 7.A.(2) including incidental activation products,    shall not be transferred to other persons,      (as
            " person"  is defined in COMAR 26.12.01.01.)      except to a licensed burial site.                                            I
: 22. Stellite is a radioactive metal alloy which is composed of about 60% Cobalt-60.                                                    I
: 23. Unclad stellite hearings are used in the control rod followers of boiling water nuclear reactors (BWR).
: 24. After the useful life of a control rod, the stellite bearings in the ends of the rods may be sheared off for other uses.
: 25. In 1985, HPI proposed a pilot project using encapsulated atellite bearings to create sealed sources for use in irradiators and requested approval from MDE.
: 26. NPI would receive the bearings for free from the owners of the BWRs, and would bear the expense of removing, encapsulating, and transporting them to Dickerson, Maryland.
: 27. In 1985, MDE modified the License to allow NPI to remove otellite bearings after use in BWRs, to encapsulate them, and then l
l i
                                                                              )
I
 
to transport the encapsulated stellite for storage at its plant in Dickerson, Maryland.
: 28. In 1985 and 1986, MDE staff considered NPI's proposal to convert the stellite into useful products, and expressed concerns to NPI regarding te-control of contamination.
: 29. NPI had the opportunity to remove stellite bearings from Peach Bottom 2 BWR, but did not do so.
: 30. In March 1986, NPI wrote to MDE, stating that it had selected a recycling process for stellite, but needed to conduct tests and design equipment before seeking a license amendment.
: 31. NPI has not shared any additional plans with MDE regarding its recycling process for stellite.
: 32. With the passage of 12 years, the Cobalt-60 content of the stellite brought to Dickerson in 1985 has lost about 80% of its activity to radioisotope decay, thus greatly reducing its potential value for other uses.
: 33. In its August 1, 1994 application to renew its License, NPI did not include procedures for a new process involving stellite.
: 34. Condition 8A of the License limits NPI to a total possession of two million curies of radioactive material at any one time, including product and waste:
: 8. Maximum amount of radioactivity which licensee may possess at any one time A. 2,000,000 curies.
: 35. The prior amendment to the License had allowed three million curies inventory.
: 36. NPI inventories of radioactivity which were produced at the hearing showed totals of 1,281,750 curies in January,1991, and of 1,695,045 curies in Apgust,1996. No records of higher inventories were submitted to the record.
: 37. If  the  NPI  facility  in    Dickerson  would  need  to  be  '
dccommissioned due to closure or disaster or some other reason, all the radioactive materials would have to be lawfully disposed of.
: 38. NPI possesses more Cobalt-60 than any other licensee in the United States.
: 39. Disposal of two million curies of Cobalt-60 would be difficult cnd could involve transporting product out of the country to other users.
: 40. NPI does not have an approved decommissioning funding plan for its Dickerson facility.
: 41. Condition 9A, paragraph 1 requires sealed source fabrication and manufacturing operations and operations involving bare (that            i is, unencapsulated) Cobalt-60 to be performed in the hot cell            .
: 9. Authorized use:
A. 1. Manufacture of special form cobalt-60 sealed sources.
Sealed source fabrication and manufacturing operations shall be conducted opql.y in the hot cell. Operations involving bare cobalt-60 shall be performed in the hot cell.            Sources distributed shall meet the current American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard.      The receipt of unencapsulated cobalt-60 is not permitted.
 
            . . _ .. .                                                                        ~
: 42.      The hot cell at NPI is a restricted, controlled area which is specifically designed for operations involving bare Cobalt-60.                    )
: 43.      Operations involving bare Cobalt-60 are the major source of radioactive waste generation and contar.ination of equipment and personnel at NPI.
: 44.      In its application for this License, NPI submitted no protocol or procedures for activities involving bare Cobalt-60 outside the hot cell.
: 45.      Condition 90, in conjunction with Condition 7G, allows NPI to possess an AECL Gamma Cell 220 irradiator at its Dickerson facility, but it does not allow NPI to use the irradiator to irradiate research materials:
: 9. G. Possession and storage only.
: 46.      In its application for this License, NPI submitted no protocol        e or procedures for the AECL Gamma Cell 220 irradiator,                          b-
: 47.      Condition 30 allows NPI to conduct its licenas activities at the Dickerson facility only:
: 10. The authorized place of use is the licensee's address
;              stated in Item 2. The licensee must notify the Radiological Health Program 30 days prior to vacating a permanent use address as is required by Section D.1301 of COMAR 26.12.01.01.
: 48.      NPI may remove or replace a radioactive source at another licensed facility under that facility's license.
: 49.      In its application for this license, NPT submitted no general procedures for irradiator source replacement.
 
4 v                                                            -
M          50.        conditions 128 through 120 describe in detail the requi'roment's
  *d.R s
for testing for leaks from radioactive materials:
: 12. m. Each sealed source as defined in iteam 6, 7, 8, line B, C, D, & F, containing radioactive material, shall be tested for leakage and/or contaminatica at intervals not to exceed six (6) months.      In the absence of a certificate from a transferor indicating that a test has been made within six months prior to the source transfer, the sealed source shall not be used until tested. If the test reveals the presence of 0.005 microcuries or more of removable contamination, the licensee shall immediately withdraw the sealed source from use and shall cause it to be decontaminated and repaired or disposed of in accordance with Departmental regulations.      A report shall be filed within five days with the Maryland Department of the Environment, Radiological Health Program, 2500 'Drocning Highway Baltimore, Maryland 21224, describing      ,
,                      the equipment involved, the test results, and the corrective action (s) taken.
: 12. C. The t'est shall be capable of detecting the presence of 0.005 microcuries of stadioactive material on the test sample.
The test sample shall be taken from the sealed source or from the surfaces of      a' device in which the sealed source is permanently mounted or stored on which one might expect contamination to accumulate.
I
: 12.      D.      Records of leak tests shall be kept in units of microcuries and maintained for inspection by the Department in                              '
the records room.
* s
  ,            12. E.          If the test of singly encapsulated cobalt-60 sources reveals the presence of 0.05 microcuries or more of the removable              contamination,          the licensee shall immediately withdraw the sealed source from use or storage and shall cause it to be decontaminated and repaired.                            Records of such leak tests shall be maintained for inspection by the Department in the records room.
: 12. F.      If the test of doubly encapsulated cobalt-60 or any other doubly encapsulated radioisotopic sources reveals the presence              of  0.005        nd.crocuries              more or            of  removable contamination, the licensee shall immediately withdraw the                                    - '
scaled source from use and shall cause it to be decontaminated and repaired. Records of such leak tests shall be maintained for inspection by the Department in the records room.
: 12. G. Tests for leakage and/or contamination shall be performed by the licensee or by other persons specifically authorized by the Department, the U.S.                Nuclear Regulatory Commission or another
,  Agreement State to perform such services.
51.
MDE does not intend the provisions of Condition 12B to apply to newly irradiated targets.
52.
In its application for this License, NPI did not submit leak test procedures different from those in Condition 12E which has been in NPI's license since 1980.
: 53. The leak test required in condition 12E may result in a false positive test.
: 54. Condition      14  was  modified  to  include    prior  approval rostrictions on NPI's receipt of Cobalt-60 from a ve'ndor:
: 14. A. Neutron Products, Inc. may receive cobalt-60:
                                                                                  )
(1.)  From a vendor who, has produced cobalt-60 in a reactor (after approval of the specifications by the Department); or (2. ) From a teletherapy unit when Neutron Products, Inc.
installs a replacement source.
: 14. B. Neutron Products, Inc. may not receive cobalt-60:
(1.) That is contaminated with other isotopes; other than activation    products    normally  present    in  activated materials    e.g.,  (manganese-54)  and received from a reactor.
(2.) As any material contaminated with cobalt-60; or (3.) As a sealed source which is not received in exchanga for a replacement source unless prior approval has been granted by the Radiological Health Program.        Such prior  .
1
.                approval may be granted only after a thorough review of          l a specific proposal that describes the source of cobalt, the total activity and quantity involved, other isotopes involved, the proposed use and the potential market of any product thus produced and the plan for disposal of any waste generated.                                            i 1
                                                                -                  1
: 55. The modifications to Condition 14 allow MDE to monitor the amount and nature of the Cobalt-60 that NPI wishes to receive, in order to control NPI's inventory of newly irradiated Cobalt-60 and low level radioactive waste.
I
: 56. In September --P99J , NPI requestod MDE approval to receive Cobalt-60 radiation processing sources from Rockwell International in addition to low activity sources originally manufactured by Lockheed.
: 57. NPI's request was not routine because the sources were radiation processing sources rather than the teletherapy sources, which NPI routinely received.
: 58. In April 1994, after several exchanges of written questions and answers between MDE and NPI, MDE allowed NPI to receive the radiation processing sources from Rockwell International, but disallowed receipt of the low activity sources which originated from Lockheed.
: 59. Conditions  15 through  20            continue      the radiation        safety provisions of the current license issued in 1989, Amendment 33; Amendment 33 was issued in response to numerous findings of Cobalt-60 contamination involving NPI in 1988 and 1989.
: 60. On May 25, 1988, Cobalt-60 contamination was found on the clothing of Frank Schwoerer (Schwoerer), an NPI employee, as he passed through a monitor at the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant in New York state.
 
l
    -                                                                                              l
)
: 61.      An investigation of the NPI Dickerson facility by MDE in 1988,                    l
.                                                                                                    l showed the monitoring devices outside the IAA were not sufficiently                      .
j sensitive to detect Cobalt-60 contamination on employees.                                  l l
: 62.      Cobalt-60 contamination was found in Mr. Schwoerer's office in an unrestricted area and on his clothing at home, on the floor of the NPI cafeteria, on the steps leaving the LAA, on the steps to j      Mr.      Ransohoff's        office      in an  unrentricted    building, in  an employee's car, and on an employee's hands.                                                  !
: 63.      Further investigation in 1988 showed Cobalt-60 contamination                      l in the homes, beddinn, clothing, washing machines, and vacuum j      cleaners of NPI employees.
: 64.        In February, 1989, Cobalt-60 contamination was again found on l
l      Schwoerer as he passed through a monitor at a nuclear power plant i
!      in New York.
i                                                                                                  i
: 65.        Conditions 15 through 20 provide:
: 15. A.      A gas proportional portal monitor equivalent to the i                Belguson HECM-2 capable of detecting 2500 dpm at three inches
!                shall be utilized in a location approved by the Department.
The monitor shall be used by all personnel who exit the
;                Limited Access Area ("LAA").            They shall remain standing in i
:                the sensitive detection zone of the monitor for at least two 1411 minutes.        Each person shall expose his/her back, front, right and left sides to the detectors for thirty seconds each.
i The monitor shall be maintained and used in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications at all times. At a minimum, this monitor shall be inspected by the manufacturer in                              l accordance with the terms of the Agency approved, service I
contract dated September 15, 1989, Agreement #SA/89/1.                            The monitor shall be maintained and used in such a manner as to                                    ;
ensure  its    ability                  to  accurately    detect        levels  of        l radioactivity of 2500 dpm on the hands and 5000 dpm on the                                    f whole body. The monitor must be fully operational and kept free from contamination at all times unless unforeseeable and                                  l unavoidable operational problems arise.                      The Department must t
be notified by telephone within one workday in the event that                                  '
the portal monitor is not operational.                    The contingency plan describing personnel monitoring procedures for use during                                      f downtime shall be conducted as submitted in referenced letter of May 26, 1989.      The portal monitor must be located in the access and egress area as identified in Attachment 7 to plans submitted by the licensee on April 21, 1989.
B. Background radiation levels at the portal monitor shall not                                  {
exceed 50 micro /R per hour unless otherwise authorized by the Department.
C. The  radiation    Safety                Officer  shall    perform monthly evaluations of the portal monitoring area, the use of the portal monitor by employees, its functioning and the radiation                                  .
safety training of employees, and submit monthly reports to the Department based upon such evaluations.                          These reports shall    include    the    review                of  incidents    of      radioactive i
contamination above 22,000 dpm detected on personnel.
J.
4 i
j 1
: 16. A health physics consultant shall be retained by the licensee.                  This consultant shall be retained subject to the approval of the Department concerning qualifications.                                        The licensee shall be deemed responsible for any failure of the consultant to s b '"t                reports or perform required evaluations
!                                                            and analyses.                  The health physics consultant shall perform,                      i but not be limited to, the following functions:
.                                                                                                                                                              i A. Submit monthly evaluations to the Department regarding the                                  l l
health physics radiation safety status of the facility as it relates to on going and future operations under this license.
4                                                            Monthly                  reports  by  the    licensee's              consultant      shall  be submitted to the Department by the last day of the next calendar month.                  Such evaluations shall be in accordance with NPI letter dated January 13,                        1995 and RHP letter dated 1
i                                                            February 9, 1995.                                                                                ;
i B. Ensure that the portal monitor is properly installed and l                                                                                                                            <
maintained; C.      Oversee the maintenance of the pertal monitor area as required in order to assure that background radiation levels 4                                                            do not exceed 50 micro /R per hour; 1
i D.      Oversee and evaluate the RSO report in Item 14.C and submit this evaluation to the Agency as part of Item 15.A.
: 17. A full-time trained health physics technician or full-time equivalent health physics technicians shall be retained subject to e
the approval of the Department concerning their qualifications.
,                                            The licensee shall maintain a log which documents the work of the i
 
                                                                            ' ~
health physics technician.        The health physics technician shall perform the following functions:
A. During working hours the technician shall ensure the proper use of the portal monitor, hand-held frisker and any other devices-* employed to detect levels of radioactivity present on persons or items which exit the LAA; B. Ensure that all persons log in and out upon entering ari exiting the LAA; C. Ensure the proper use of hand-held friskers by all persons who incur levels of contamination detected by the portal monitor:
D. Report immediately to the Radiation Safety Officer any contamination levels above 10,000 dpm which are detected by the portal monitor, or if the portal monitor is inoperative, under contingency monitoring procedure date (put date in license]. In the event that contamination is detected above 22,000 dpm such incidents must be evaluated by the RSO and must  be  reported to    the  Department in monthly reports submitted to the Department by the health physics consultant.
Evaluations of such incidents of contamination detected shall include the name of the person contaminated and the activity of contamination detected.      The Department shall be notified within two hours concerning all contaminations above 50,000 dpm which      are  detected    by  the  portal  monitor,  or  if inoperative, under contingency monitoring.        During non-work l
 
  ~
hours, call (410) 243-8700 and ask the operator for " Radiation              i Assistance."                .
E. Document,  for evaluation be the RSO all sources of radioactive contamination of employees in excess of 22,000 1      dpm.
F.
Conduct radiation surveys within the eiltire facility in accordance with documented procedures set forth elsewhere in 4      this license.
1 G. Conduct water sampling of the main source pool, canals and waste water generated in the LAA in accordance with NPI's documented procedures set forth elsewhere in this license.
t B. Conduct radiation surveys of soil and water contamination levels in accordance with NPI's plan titled, " Environmental Surveillance Plan", Procedure R1004, July 6, 1989, for the surveillance of. radioactive contamination in surface and i
ground water at the plant's boundary and within a one                            ,
kilometer radius of the licensee's facility. This plan shall f
include but not be limited to a decontamination plan, a                          i schedule for remedial action and contingencies for obtaining j                                                                                      t i
access to private dwellings and commercial property.                              !
I.
Conduct radiation surveys of all personnel, vehicles, equipment, and personal belongings exiting the gate of the courtyard area in accordance with the limits specified in Condition 13a of this license, MPI Procedure R 1011, and U.S.
Department of Transportation Regulations.
: 18. Following any detection of contamination by the portal monitor, hand-held friskers capable of measuring levels of radioactivity as low as 500 dpm shall be used to detect the precise areas of contamination. Upon discovery of a level of contamination at or above 500 dpm, conteminated individuals must  be promptly decontaminated to a      level  as  low as reasonably achievable and remonitored.
: 19. A. NPI shall maintain an established " clean room" which shall  be  operated  and  maintained  so  that  radioactive contamination shall be limited to less than 500 dpm per 100 cm2 smearable, removable contamination on any surface area.
The clean room shall be located immediately inside the entrance door to the LAA and shall provide storage space for all street clothing and equipment which shall not be worn or transported into other areas of the LAA.
B. Any clothing worn outside the LAA shall not be worn in the LAA except in the clean room. Conversely, any clothing worn in other areas of the LAA shall not be worn outside the area.
Such clothing may be worn in the clean room if a thorough if a thorough frisking of a person detects no contamination in excess of 2500 dpm on the hands and 5000 dpm on the whole body.
C. An NPI random inspection plan shall be conducted in accordance with NPI's " Random Inspection Program" revision dated May 14, 1993.
 
    .                                                                          1
: 1. Each documented monthly inspection shall be completed by the second week of the next month.
: 2. Quarterly  inspections          be shall      documented  and i available for RHP inspector review within six (6) weeks of the end of each calendar quarter.
D. All tools, containers, materials, equipment and facilities in the restricted area shall be maintained in a clean, orderly manner and properly identified to prevent unnecessary risk of    !
personnel contamination or injury. Radioactive contaminated material (s) not properly maintained shall be declared waste and properly disposed of accordingly.
: 20. The licensee shall maintain and implement a detailed Radiation    Safety  Training  Program  as  approved  by  the Department. At a minimum, this Program shall provide,    on a quarterly basis, training sessions provided by the Health Physics    Consultant  to  all  employees  who,  under  any circumstances, may have access to the LAA. Attendance at such 1
training sessions shall be mandatory and documented.                I
: 66. Following imposition of Conditions 15 through 20 in 1989,          i l
contamination of NPI personnel has decreased.
: 67. In its application for the License, NPI did not submit a              i radiation safety manual for approval.
68.
condition 21 prescribes how long and in what amounts NPI may maintain radioactive waste at the NPI facility before shipping the waste to an off-site disposal facility.
i'
: 21. A. The compaction of radioactive waste prior to storage or disposal is prohibited unless the Department approves of a plan submitted by the licensee for conducting this activity in a safe manner.
B. Within 904ays from the issuance of this license,'NPI shall submit to the Department for approval a comprehensive plan for disposal of all low level radioactive wastes in accordance with the following:
(1.) Any radioactive waste storage, either temporary or long term shall only be located in the LAA with the only exception being the underground waste water storage tank.
Waste storage not in the main pool / canals shall not exceed a period of two (2) years.      Waste storage in the main pool / canals shall not exceed four (4) years from date of placement in the pool.
(2.) Radioactive waste inventory not in the main pool / canals shall not exceed 600 curies and not more than 200 cubic feet at. any one time.          Radioactive waste inventory and any waste like materials at NPI located in the main pool / canals shall not exceed 5000 curies.
(3.) All radioactive waste must be identified and dated as to when generated and containerized.
(4.) All radioactive waste shipments shall be composed of the oldest waste first.
(5.) copies of radioactive waste shipment records shall be provided    to KBP and    Hazardous    and  Solid  Waste
 
4 1
!=
I Management Administration within 14 days of shipment dates.
i i
(6. ) Procedures for radioactive waste handling, packaging 1
;                  and transportation must include personnel and equipment            ;
4
)                  that will be used.                                                  i
!            Failure to meet this schedule may result in the possession and 1
i                                                                                      s storage    of      radioactive    materials  until    actual  shipment l
3 schedules are met.
: 69. If NPI were to store its radioactive waste on site, it would take approximately 50 years for the radioactivity to decay, and                  ,
then the material would still be required to be disposed of as radioactive material.
: 70. Cobalt-60 has a half life of 5.2 years.
l
: 71. NRC  guidelines        allow storage    for decay    for radioactive isotopes with half-lives of less than 40, and sometimes as many as 90 days.      (State Ex. 45)
: 72. Regulatory radiation waste storage limits of from several months to several years are routine in Maryland and in other states and federal licenses.
: 73. Indefinite      on-site      storage    of  radiation    waste  subjects personnel      to    the      potential  of    exposure  and  decommissioning problems.
74.
Condition 22B provides that soils with levels of radioactivity              l above 8 picoeuries per gram above background must be removed and properly disposed of:
i i
 
22.B. Evaluation and remediation of unrestricted areas, dry j                                                                pond and ground areas surrounding the facility shall be conducted in accordance with NPI procedure "R 1004" titled
]
!                                                                " Neutron Products, Inc. - Environmental Surveillance Plan" i
dated July 6, 1989. The criteria for acceptability of cobalt-
{
60 contamination of ground areas are:
(1.) The gamma exposure at one (1) meter above the ground I                                                                    surface shall not exceed 10 microR/hr above background i
for an area greater than 900 Sq. Ft. and shall not exceed 2,0 microR/hr above background for any discrete area (i.e.
!                                                                    less than 900 sq. ft.).
l                                                                    (2.) The concentration limit for cobalt-60 soil i                                                                    contamination is 8 picoeuries per gram above background for an area. All soil exhibiting levels of radioactivity in excess of the above, wherever found, shall be removed and properly stored / disposed of as radioactive waste by the licensee. The Department shall be furnished with documentation  of  the    discovery,                              survey dates and disposition of such radioactive material found off-site on a monthly basis.
: c. A floor radiation monitor of a type approved by the Department shall be used on a weekly basis to detect surface levels of radioactive contamination on all surf aces within the facility outside of the LAA.                                The licensee shall maintain records regarding the use of this monitor, the contamination found and any decontamination performed.                                                                        ;
i
: 75. NPI agreed to comply with the standards found in Condition 22B in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement of January,1994, State Ex. 20, at para. 13.
: 76. Condition 23 requires NPI to conduct surveys of employees' homes and vehicles, If tTiey consent, in order to detect radioactive particle contamination:
: 23. Licensee shall, with employee permission, conduct or cause to be conducted employee home and vehicle surveys on an annual frequency, utilizing NPI procedure " Guideline for NPI Home Contamination Survey" R-8010 dated June 29, 1988.
: 77. Condition 23 provides a mechanism to check the effectiveness of a licensee's radiation safety control program.
: 78. Condition 24 requires that NPI maintain a central records room in an unrestricted area and to keep certain records there:
: 24. NPI shall establish a records room in an unrestricted area          l within 90 days from the issuance of this license. The records in this room shall be inclusive of but not limited to legible            i copies of all health physics records, copies of bound logs,
;                  IRC    and  Jiadiation    Safety  meeting,  radioactive    waste inventories,    surveys,  environmental surveillance records, pool / canal conditions, radioactive material inventories, plant and personnel radiation incidents, calibrations performed, source melts conducted, personnel monitoring, NPI policies, Procedures and drawings, and employee training and exposure records.
i                                                                                          ,
a f
  . . . . . - - -  - -    .      --. - . -          -.-... .. - ~_ - -            - - -        _ .. . . - - -
l
                                                                                                                          -  l l                                                                                                                          \
: 79. A central records room allows REP staff to review NPI                                              l i                    documents    more      efficiently            and  allows NPI      staff a            central.
unrestricted location to store and access documents efficiently and I                                                                                                                          i without fear of contamination.
: 80. Monthly updattne of records and placement in the records room                                    t satisfies condition 24.                                                                                !
: 81. Condition 26 is a new condition that requires NPI to develop                                      l a procedure for cleanup of its hot cell
: 26. NPI shall develop and issue within 90 days of the issuance                                    !
of this license for Agency approval a procedure specific to                                        ;
the clean-up of the cell following a cobalt-60 melt.                                    The        I procedure shall include at least the following" A. Pre-entry cell dose-rate assessments.
f B. Hot cell personnel entry requirements.                                                      .
C. LAA health physics requirements.
D. Methods of radioactive waste handling and removal.
i E. Management oversight.                                        ,
l F. Record keeping requirements.                                                                <
G. Written post melt assessment.                                                                ;
: 82. Clean up of NPI's hot cell after a Cobalt-60 melt is a                                            ;
hazardous activity that may expose its employees to high levels of                                        ,
radiation.
t
: 83. The wording of Condition 26 allows NPI to draft a procedure which allows flexibility to meet the particular circumstances of a                                        !
melt.
I E
 
                              ~--
f l-                                                                                      .                                                            ;
84.
Condition 275 is a new condition that requires NPI to clean
                                                                                                                                                    \
its pool and canals annually and to submit a procedure for this                                                  i activity to REP for its review and approval
* I
: 27. B. The main pool and canals shall be cleaned on an annual                                            ;
i basis beginning on or before 90 days following the issuance of this                                              i license in order to remove all foreign material which accumulates on the bottom and sides of the pool. Any vacuum system used for i
this purpose shall be equipped with an in-line filter (s).                                    The                i i
licensee shall develop procedures and equipment prior to performing                                                i this operation.                                                                                                    i These procedures shall be submitted for approval                                            '
by RHP 90 days following the issuance of this license.
: 85. The pool and canals are used to store radioactive materials and offer significant shielding.                                                                                    ;
: 86. Cleaning    the      pool        and      canals  is    necessary  to remove                          -
radioactive particles and other debris.
: 87.      The cleanup of the pool and canals is a hazardous activity which exposes NPI employees to potentially dangerous levels of radiation.
88.
Condition 27c2 sets standards for the conductivity of the pool and canal water,              and requires              operations      to cease if there standards are exceeded for more than 72 hours until water quality                                                      ;
if restored:
: 27. c. Pool Operating Parameters:
l 2.
Main pool / canal water conductivity must not exceed 10 micro siemens-cm.
 
                                                                                                                                    -    l 1
When pool / canal water exceed theses values for a period' greater than 72 hours, all operations must cease until water quality is restored and maintained at these levels.
: 89. Failure to maintain low conductivity can cause encapsulating materials to corrode and the possibility of leaking sources.
: 90. NPI has had instances of high conductivity in its pool and canal waters.
: 91. The standards set out in Condition 27C2 are consistent with federal standards for irradiator waters and with NPI's current internal standards.
: 92. Because the pool and canals water is tested daily, the 72-hour period allows NPI some    leeway to make to take corrective action before having to cease operations.
: 93. Condition 28 requires NPI to label equipment in the LAA which is used in connection with radioactive materials and to keep a log of all maintenance and repairs in the LAA:
: 28. A. all LAA facility equipment,                          controls,                                    piping and filters etc. dealing with RAM [ radioactive material], shall be clearly labelled as to its purpose or function.
B. The licensee shall maintain a log for review by the Department, of facility maintenance that has been performed.
This    log  shall  include        repairs,  replacement                                                  of  safety equipment or building, plumbing and electrical equipment under areas affected by this license.
 
i
;          94.
Condition 28 helps prevent contaminated equipment from leaving the LAA and tracks maintenance in this area of potentially high            !
contamination.                                                              i
: 95.      Condition 29 requires NPI to give RHP 30 days notice prior to i        a Cobalt-60 melt: "            -
I
[                                                                                      l i                  29. NPI shall notify RHP in writing a minimum of 30 calendar i
days prior to any melt operation.                                '
;        96.        The notice requirement in condition 29 gives REP staff time to adjust their schedules so that REP staff can be present for the              E j      melt and cleanup at the Dickerson facility.                                    I
: 97.                                                                            !
Condition 35 requires an annual body count for NPI employees      f 4
who work in the LAA:                                                          i
: 35. NPI employees shall be monitored via a whole body counter 4
at least once annually for those individuals performing tasks      !
in the Limited Access Area. Additionally, individuals found          I with internal      contamination following an incident of i
inhalation or ingestion of radioactive material shall have additional whole body counting performed within a time period necessary to determine the activity and personnel exposure.
;      98.
Condition 35 assures that NPI employee safety precautions are being followed and that employees are not exceeding the recommended j
annual doses set by federal and State regulations.
l    99.        Condition 36 requires a licensee to maintain a financial assurance mechanism for decommissioning if its business ceases:
i                                                                                  '
i a
 
l l
: 36. Financial assurance and record keeping for decommissioning        '
of the licensee's facility shall be conducted in accordance-i with Section C.29 of these regulations.                            I 100. Condition 36 is required by federal and State regulations so that the expense of d ojing or cleaning up a hazardous site does not fall on the public if the licensee is unable to perform.
101. Condition 37 requires that 'NPI operate in accordance with            -
procedures and protocols that it has submitted to RBP and that RHP t
has approved:                                                              !
: 37. Except as specifically provided otherwise by this license,    -
the licensee shall possess and use radioactive material              !
authorized by this license in accordance with statement, representations, and procedures contained in application dated        t August 1, 1994 and the documents as submitted by the licensee and approved by the REP for safe operation of the facility.          t As currently constructed, the facility and equipment utilizing radioactive material under this license are considered a part        l i
of this license and any changes must have prior cpproval by          1 j        RHP. Additionally, all changes in procedures, forms and          l l
checklists used under this license shall be submitted to REP for approval and are also a part of this license.          COMAR l                                                                              ..
26.12.01.01.    " Regulations for Control of Ionizing Radiation" shall govern the licensee's statement in applications, letters or procedures unless these requirements are more restrictive          '
;      than the regulations.      The following documents are hereby        [
incorporated as binding / mandatory parts of this license:....
i i
 
i
    ~
l l
102. Condition 37 includes a listing of 62 NPI written procedures and 12 NPI drawings which have been submitted to REP and approved.
l DISCUSSION On January 18, 1996, MDE issued a renewal of a specific license for radioactive materials (License or Amendment 43) to NPI                                                                        ,
under Title            8,  Radiation,                of the Environment Article of the                                                I Annotated Code of Maryland, and COMAR 26.12.01.01, Regulations for                                                                      '
the Control of Ionizing Radiation.                              NPI objected to many of the i
conditions of the License and requested a contested case hearing on i
March 12, 1996.                Six neighboring property owners wh, support the                                                            ,
conditions of the License and want to see the License strictly                                                                            !
enforced by MDE were allowed to intervene.                                                                                                  .
The issue is whether the conditions of the License which NPI                                                                    I is contesting were inconsistent with the applicable law and regulations, or arbitrary and capricious.                                        The contested License t
conditions include 7A, 8A, 9A (in part), 9G, 10, 12B through G,                                                              13 through 21, 22B, 23, 24, 26, 27B, 27C2, 28, 29, and 35 through 37.'
Preliminary Procedural Matters                                                                                .
1 j                        Preliminarily, I will address the burden of proof and the                                                                          i i
standard of review in an appeal from this MDE licensing decision.
NPI contends that under Md. Code Ann., Envir. SS 1-604 and 1-605 j              (1996), MDE was required to issue a tentative decision and allow a pariod of comment before issuing a final decision on a license.
B Pri7r to the conclusion of the hearing, NPI voluntarily withdrew 27A, 31, and    its challenge
: 34.                to License Conditions 6A, 9A para. 4, 25, l
_ , , _ .      , - . m                                        _      -        _ _ _ . -                  __            _ _ - ~ . _ .
 
                                                                                    .          l Furthermore, NPI argues that under 5 1-605,' it must show that                            !
MDE's final decision is legally inconsistent with applicable law or bas 3d upon an incorrect determination of a relevant and material fact. MDE disagrees, arguing that radioactive materials licenses are not covered by 5 1-604, but are specifically covered by the licensing provisions of COMAR 26.12.01.01 Part C and the contested                        '
case hearing procedures of COMAR 26.01.02.
Subtitle 6 of Title One of the Environment Article, Public Participation in the Permitting Process, was enacted in 1993, and clarified MDE's procedures for public involvement in its permitting process.      Radioactive materials licenses are not among the                            ,
departmental permits listed in S 1-601(a) which require public notice    of permit  applications  under  S  1-603    and tentative determinations under S 1-604.      In fact, under 5 1-601(b), MDE need not provide a contested case hearing to any party besides the applicant for a permit that is not listed under 5 1-601(a):
,          (b) Notwithstanding any other provision          of law to the                    t l
;        contrary,  the Department is not required to provide an opportunity for a contested case hearing to any party other than the applicant in connection with any permit issued                              ?
l        pursuant  to this article except the permits listed in
;        subsection (a) of this section.
I l Section 1-605 at (a) sets criteria by which a person may request a contested case hearing to appeal a final determination:
j        (a) A person may request a contested case hearing to appeal a
                                                                                              \
final determination if the person makes factual allegations 4
with sufficient particularity to demonstrate that:                                  -
i 9      Unless otherwise noted, statutory citations in this                                ;
Discussion are to the Environment Article of the Annotated Code                            :
of Maryland, (1996 & Supp. 1997).                                                          t I                                                    ,
I l
r
 
                                                                                  ~
(1) The person is aggrieved,by the final determination;            )
and (2) The final determination is:                                    I (1) Legally inconsistent with any provisions of law          l applicable to the final determination being challenged; or (ii) Based upon an incorrect determination of a relevanj and material fact.                                    l The procedures for MDE's contested case hearings, COMAR 26.01.02, provide for intervention of a nonapplicant, such as the Interveners here, if the person:                                                                      i Claims an interest relating to the property or transaction                    j that is the subject of the action, and the person is so                      i' Lituated that the disposition of the action as a practical matter impair or impede the ability to protect that interest                  j unless it is adequately represented by existing parties.
(COMAR 26.01.02.24A(2))
l It was on this basis that the Secretary's designee allowed the Intervenors                to      participate  in    NPI's appeal  of the License l
conditions.
COMAR 26.01.02.28B places "the burden of going forwitrd to ostablish a prima facie case" and "the burden of persuasion" on a J
Party contesting the Department's intent to issue or renew a permit or license,                  absent a specific statute or regulation to the contrary.              COMAR 26.01.02.28D describes the standard of proof:            ,
D.      (An administrative law judge) shall find against a party              I with the burden of:
(1)      Going forward if that party has not presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for that party's claim or defense; or (2) Persuasion if that party has not presented evidence sufficient to establish the correctness of its claim or defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
The burdens of going forward and of persuasion, therefore, rested on NPI which was contesting the Amendment 43 License conditions.
i
 
    .. . . . . . . . - . ~      , ..  . . .          . . - . .  . . _ . ..                                    .
                                      ~
                  "'he Interveners supported these License conditions, and offered no evidence, other than th'e newspaper e.rticles submitted with the written closing argument of Moore and Rae.
In its Closing Argument, MDE argues that 5 1-605 does not apply to radioactive materials licenses. Construing Envir. Article 51-605 and COMAR 26.01.02.28B tooether, I find that the burdens of going forward and of persuasion rested on NPI to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the License conditions proposed by MDE were legally inconsistent with any provisions of applicable law or based upon an incorrect determination of a relevant and material f act.                  While I agree that much of Subtitle 6 does not apply to t'his licensing action, nothing in S 1-605 appears to exempt radioactive materials licenses from requests for contested case hearings. I note that the Secretary *z designee also relied on 1                Subtitle 6 in his Final Decision of May 29, 1997.                                        , , .
In its closing Argument, NPI contends that MDE is required to issue a tentative determination under 51-604 along with a factual basis for its tentativo determination.                        NPI contends that MDE f ailed to follow this procedure and f ailed to allow NPI a chance to comment on the tentative or proposed License. 'rhis position is not legally correct.                  First, 5 1-601(a) provides that only cartain permits shall be issued in accordance with Subtitle                        6, and a radioactive materials license is not one of those enumerated.
Secondly, CDMAR 26.12.01.01, MDE's regulations for the control of ionizing radiation, at Part C, specify subject areas to be included in the issuance of radioactive materials licenses.                        A tentative L
 
  -~~            _      .
        . decision and comument period is not required under Part                C.
1-
      ".'. Furthermore, this case was' held in an inactive status from March          j 1996 until September 1996, to allow the parties to negotiate. The          l actual hearing was convened on September 30, 1997, thus providing the parties another year in which to negotiate.            In fact, the    ;
parties did reach agreement on certain contested Conditions and these Conditions were withdrawn during the course of the hearing.
These delays and negotiations provided NFI the opportunity to comment and successfully amend certain License conditions.              A separate comment period, therefore, would be duplicative.        For all
.j            of these reasons I find that NPI's interpretation on the lic'ensing procedure is without merit.
According to NPI, under COHAR 26.12.01.01, 5 c.30 Modification and Revocation of Licenses, MDE should have afforded NPI the opportunity to comply with the law before taking punitive action            i against its License for alleged violations.              This procedural argument is also without merit.            MDE issued its renewal of the revised License, Amendment 43, on January 18, 1996, in response to NPI'm application for a renewed license under COMAR 26.12.01.01, 55          l C.24, Filing Application for Specific Licenses.        The conditions in Amendment 43 are based on the regulatory requirements for a specific license under 55 c.25, General Requirements for the Issuance of Specific Licenses; C.28, Special Requirements for a Specific License to Manufacture, Assor.ble, Repair, or Distribute Commodities,    Products,  or      Devices which Contain Radioactive Material;    C.29,    Financial Assurance and Record Eceping        for i
 
Decomntissioning; C.30, Issuance of Specific Licenses; and C.31,                  .
Specific Terms and Conditions of Licenses. COMAR 26.12.01.01. It g
is true that MDE has used its considerable enforcement powers
                ,      against NPI in court in the recent past because of alleged violations.      I understand that the instant licensing action may in fact encompass some language which NPI interprets as punitive.
Under S C30(a), hcwever, MDE has broad discretion to include in a license "such conditions and limitations as it deems appropriate or
'i necessary."          This      does    not mean that  MDE's  action' was a modification or partial revocation of the License under, S C.50, 1
Modification and Revocation of Licenses. ~Section C.50 in clearly intended to allow MDE to address changes mandated by statute or j                  regulation, false statements in applications, and violations.                I
:                  find that MDE's issuance of Amendment 43 was a licensing action in                -
3 response to an application under S C.24, and not a punitive action l                  under S C.50.
I                            Preliminarily, NPI asked to expand the scope of the hearing in ways which were denied. In its Closing Argument and reply to MDE's Cloning Argument, NPI asks that I review draft revisions to the 4
proposed conditions and become involved in what amounts to a t
negotiation between the parties. Although ALJs do sit as mediators j                and also conduct settlement conferences in certain cases, an ALJ l                assigned to hear a contested case does not have such authority.
OAH has the jurisdiction to hear only those cases and issues which a State agency delegated.                  Md. Code Ann., State Gov't 5 10-205            l l                (1995)        In this instance, MDE delegated an appeal of a licensing i
                                                                ~48-l l
t  _ _ _ _ _
 
decision      made  in  January,  1996,  for  a  proposed  decision.
Exceptions from the ALJ's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law may then be taken to the Secretary by a party.                The ALJ must evaluate the underlying licensing action by RHP on the laws, the regulations, and the record available to MDE at that time. An ALJ is bound by agency regulations and policies under Md. Ann.
Code, State Gov't S 10-214 (1995). An ALJ does not have equitable t
powers      or    the authority  to  act outside    the    contested case procedures contained in the Administrative Procedure Act, Md. Code Ann. , State Gov't SS 10-201 et sec. (1995 & Supp.1997), and in the applicable agency regulations.                                                :
Following its preliminary procedural arguments, NPI raised two substantive arguments, that MDE abused its discretion and that the            ,
License conditions are a restraint of trade.
Abuse of Acency Discretion                            i NPI contends that MDE abused its discretion in imposing conditions which are more stringent than the requirements of the NRC absent " overwhelming evidence that such stringency contributes i
in a major way to public and/or employee health and safety [.]"
(NPI's Closing Argument at 3) MDE presented the testimony of Jackson Ransohoff, NPI's founder and president, Jeffrey Williams, NPI's Radiation Safety Officer, and Robert Alexander, NPI's Health Physics Consultant, to support NPI's position that its radiation safety procedures and its personal and environmental contamination              i I
lovels meet legal standards, and that MDE's insistence on prior                  i i
i approvals and incorporation of NPI's internal procedures into the I
l
 
License are excessive and unnecessary.        NPI argues that based on its record and greater familiarity with its facility and business needs, it should be allowed to operate under a Radiation Safety Manual that is not incorporated into the License.      NPI argues that MDE incorporates NPI's procedures so that MDE can create a record of License condition violations for which it can assess penalties and  that  MDE  greatly exaggerates    the  significance  of NPI's violation history, much of which NPI blames on MDE.        For example, Ransohof f testified that MDE's failure to approve NPI's HECM portal monitor promptly in 1989 allowed personal contamination problems to go undetected, thus creating violations.        Williams and Alexander testified concerning the specific conditions which they believe to be are unnecessary, unuseful, expensive, or inefficient or to be restrictive of NPI's ability to adapt to its commercial needs.        In many instances Williams and Alexander conceded that the conditions are based on regulations or were already in the 1989 license, Amendment 33. I found the testimony of Williams to be detailed and knowledgeable of NPI procedures and MDE regulatory requirements.
The testimony of Alexander was less persuasive;            for example, Alexander was unsure whether NPI had an approved decommissioning plan, he admitted to knowing nothing about NPI's economic factors related to Condition 8A's 2 million curie level, and whether NUREG 15-30 (NPI Ex. 30) was incorporated into the relevant CFR.        When applying the ALARA requirement to the construction of the Dickerson facility,    Alexander testified that      "the ALARA requirement is extremely difficult to analyze because of constraints, I believe,
 
that have been placed on - I just can't answer that." *(Tr. 1887, 2d-22)
MDE responds to the " abuse of discretion argument" that under federal law an Agreement State program must be compatible with the NRC's regulatory prNraTn and adequate to protect the public health and safety.      42 U.S.C. S 2021(d)(2).                                  Furthermore,,according to MDE, a state program may be more stringent than the NRC program.
42 U.S.C. S 2021(o). MDE points out that Maryland's program was approved by the Atomic Energy Commission,                                          NRC's predecessor.
Section 2021(o) of 42 U.S.C. provides in pertinent part:
In the licensing and regulation of byproduct material, as defined in section 2014 (e)(2) of this title, or of any activity which results in the production of byproduct material as so  defined under an agreement entered into pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, a State shall require-(2) compliance with standards which shall be adopted by the State for the protection of the public health, safety, and the environment from hazards associated with such material which are        equivalent,                                  to the  extent practicable, or more strincent than, standards adopted and enforced by the Commission for the same purpose, including requirements and standards promulgated by the Commission and the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to sections 2113, 2114,and 2022 of this title,....
(Emphasis added.)
Nothing in S 2021(o) requires a state to show " overwhelming evidence that such stringency contributes in a major way to public and/or employee health and safety" to justify more stringent otandards as NPI suggests in its Closing Argument at p. 3.                                        In its    i Rasponse to the Closing Arguments of MDE, et al. , NPI concedes this                                        l Point, and substitutes the words " convincing," " demonstrable," or "for good cause clearly documented" for " overwhelming" and "in a j
 
major way."    (NPI's Response to MDE's Closing Arguments Concerning Applicable Law, n. 2, at p. 2 )
I find that under State law and current regulations, MDE is not required to make such a showing under any of the alternative terms suggested by.mI. and set out above. Nevertheless, I advised counsel at the onset of the hearing that I expected MDE to defend its licensing action in response to NPI's charges.                                                                In response to my direction, MDE cross examined NPI's witnesses, produced MDE witnesses, submitted exhibits, and made legal arguments in defense of the License conditions.        MDE presented the testimony of three experienced RHP employees with training or graduate work in the area of radiation safety and licensing:                                                  Roland Fletcher, RHP Director, Raymond E. Manley, and Alan Jacobson, both Lead Health Physicists in RHP.      I found the testimony of the MDE witnesses to be detailed,      candid,  responsive,                                          and credible.                                      Where their familiarity with the license history or their knowledge of an area was  limited    they  admitted                  such.                              MDE's  witnesses                                                                        remained professional and unbiased under cross-examination despite NPI's repeated attacks on the expertise and credibility of their Program.
The testimony of the MDE witnesses addressed the licensing and enforcement history of NPI with regard to this License, the MDE exhibits, and each of the contested Conditions.                                                                In additional support of its licensing decision, MDE submitted 107 exhibits.
The evidence on the record, particularly the testimony of Fletcher, Manley, Jacobson, Alexander, and Williams, demonstrated that  the  following    License                      Conditions                      were    required                                                                        by  or
 
l consistent with federal and State laws and regulations: Conditions 7A, 9A, 10, 12B-D, F, G, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21 23, 24, 2 6, 27, 35, 36,  and 37.
NPI's witnesses, Alexander and Williams, rarely disputed that these Conditions flowed from specific regulatory requirements, but they argued that RHP should allow NPI to maintain a safety manual which was not incorporated into the License.                                                    They also suggested that the Conditions be worded to require NPI to meet performance    standards,                rather                    than              to    comply  with  defined procedures.      MDE's        witnesses                          responded                  that  C.23(a)(2)    and CC.25(a)(2)    require a licensee to submit procedures and that C.25(a) requires MDE's approval of those procedures prior to a license application. In light of NPI's large inventory of Cobalt-60, its enforcement history, and unresolved courtyard enclosure issues, I conclude that MDE was well within its discretion to incorporate NPI's procedures into the License and to def.tne                                                            !
required procedures rather than using performance-based language.                                                        i NPI complains that MDE incorporates some of NPI's procedures which are more stringent than the State's regulations.                                                              MDE responds th'at it has invited NPI to revise its procedures, most of l
t which were drafted in the 1970's, but NPI has failed to do so. In l                          support of the incorporation of NPI's internal procedures, MDE l                          offered examples of several other licenses of other licensees, both 1
i federal and out-of-state, which incorporate the licensee's internal                                                          ,
procedures.            NPI
;                                                    offered no                            authority                      suggesting    that  such incorporation of internal procedures is improper.
i l
l
 
It was reasonable for MDE to require a licensee to follow its own protocols or procedures, particularly as NPI was permitted to, and invited to, amend and resubmit its procedures to RHP.            I conclude that MDE's practice of incorporating NPI's internal procedures    is not inconsistent with law or regulations,        nor arbitrary or capricious.
Restraint of Trade NPI's second substantive argument is that many of the License conditions " effectively restrain trade without valid cause. . . . "
(NPI's Closing Argument at 3)      NPI argues that this restraint of trade is contrary to the policy of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, as well as the policy of the Maryland General Assembly at Envir. S 8-102. To support its proposition NPI cites 42 U.S.C.
Section 2011:
Atomic Energy is capable of application for peaceful as well as military purposes.      It is therefore declared to be the policy of the United States that-(a) the development, use, and control of atomic energy shall be directed so as to make the maximum contribution to the general welfare, subject at all times to the paramount objective of making the maximum contribution to the common defense and security; and (b) the development, use, and control of atomic energy shall be directed so as to promote world peace, improve the general welfare, increase the standard of living, and strengthen free competition in private enterprise.
NPI then cites Envir. Section 8-102:
(a) The General Assembly finds.that radiation:
(1) If used properly, can help to improve the health, welfare and productivity of the public; (2) If used carelessly or excessively, may destroy life or health; and (3) If used improperly, may impair the industrial and agricultural potential of this State.
l l
t
 
i 1
I (b) It is the policy of this States l
(1) To encourage the constructive uses of radiation; and (2) To control radiation.
According to NPI, MDE's overly restrictive License conditions, its insistence on preapprovals of activities and procedures, and the slow response of RHy" staff to its approval requests have all hindered NPI from capitalizing on business opportunities and making internal                            changes      in                order        to        operate  effectively  in  the                    !
marketplace. NPI contends that MDE's alleged concern for radiation safety is not supported by evidence of serious violations by NPI.
i NPI argues that MDE's restrictive License conditions act to create                                                                                l technical violathws, thus placing NPI in a regulatory trap. NPI                                                                                    f argues that in its 30-year history, it has a good radiation safety                                                                                l record and it is a leader in the field of supplying Cobalt-60                                                                                      l sources for. cancer therapy.                                                      Based on its record, NPI argues that                            j MDE should respect NPI's expertise and grant it more flexibility to operate in response to the market.                                                                The License conditions which NPI deems to place restraints on trade-include Conditions 7A, 9A, and 13 which restrict NPI to storage or disposal of its stellite; Condition 8A which limits NPI to 2,000,000 curies of radioactivity; condition 10 which Limits NPI to operations at its Dickerson site; Condition 14 which requires approval prior to receipt of Cobalt-60 targets; and Conditions 15 through 20, 22, 23, 26, 32, 35, and 37 1
regarding radiation safety; Conditions 16 and 17 which require j      NPI's health physics consultant and health physics technician to be approved by REP and their duties prescribed by MDE; Condition 18 1                                                                                                                                                        4 4                                                                                          i i
 
i i                                                                            .
j      which requires use of hand-held friskers in certain circumstances; and condition 21B requiring an accelerated waste disposal schedule.
In  response  to NPI's    restraint of  trade  argument,  MDE l      responded that NPI failed to meet its burden to present evidence in support    of  its  abaims  regarding  the  Conditions  mentioned i
immediately above. For example, with regard to Condition 8A which limits total radioactivity to 2,000,000 curies, MDE argues that Ransohoff testified vaguely about a contract with the nuclear plant in Argentina, but failed to introduce a contract. MDE notes that i
!      such evidence would be uniquely within NPI's control and yet it was l      never produced.
I 1            I concur with MDE's assessment of NPI's proof. NPI's experts i
j      clearly are knowledgeable about the operation of the Dickerson 1
;    facility, legal requirements within their areas of expertise, the I
License conditions, as well as about NPI's sometimes difficult relationship with the RHP staff.        What was not forthcoming was specific testimony or documentary evidence of actual financial losses suffered by NPI or estimates of potential loss as a result of MDE's licensing treatment. The anecdotal testimony of the NPI witnesses, particularly the often rambling, argumentative, and hyperbolical testimony of Ransohoff, was not as persuasive as the focused testimony of the RHP staff. MDE produced both documentary evidence and credible testimony of RHP staff regarding numerous, repeated uncontrolled discharges of radioactive contamination to individuals      and to the environment,    as well as evidence of regulatory or licensing violations, such as monthly reports and
 
    .                                                                            l i
pool cleanups which were missed by NPI.          In addition, the RBP !
witnesses testified concerning the specific COMAR regulations which supported the various License conditions. NPI's witnesses conceded    !
that many of the Conditions are COMAR requirements.
j NPI argues that MDE has failed to show any harm to individuals or the environment and that personal contamination limits have not been exceeded.        This argument ignores the conservative position taken by the NRC in 1995 regarding the effects of low level radiation.
As an Agreement State, MDE was bound under 42 U.S.C. 5 2021(d)(2) by the NRC's regulatory position at the time Amendment 43 wan issued in January, 1996.        (State Ex. 102) The NRC spent more than a decade reviewing radiation safety issues              and a multitude of public comments, before adopting the " Fundamental Radiation Protection Principles," including the following:
The radiation protection standards in this final rule are based upon the assumption that (1)  Within in the range of exposure conditions usually encountered        radiation work, there is      a linear relationship,    without threshold,    between  dose and probability of stochastic health effects (such as latent cancer and genetic effects) occurring; (2)    The severity of each type of stochastic health effect is independent of dose; and (3) Nonstochastic (nonrandom) radiation-induced health effects can be prevented by limiting exposures so that doses* are below the* thresholds for* their induction.
1            In the absence of convincing evidence that there is a dose threshold or that low levels of radiation are beneficial, the Commission believes that the assumptions regarding a linear nonthreshold dose-effect mode for cancers and genetic effects and  the existence of thresholds only for certain nonstochastic effects    remain appropriate for formulating protection                                            radiation standard and planning radiation protection programs.
(State Ex. 102, 10 CFR Part 20 at 20-SC-7 and 8.)
 
Accordingly, in January,1996, MDE required the NPI License to be consistent with the NRC position, that is, because low levels of radiation were statistically likely to prove dangerous to some people,  allowable per person dose        levels had to be revised downward. Agreement States were given three years to bring their regulations into compliance with federal dose limits.                COMAR 26.12. 01. 01 S D.2 01( a) , and S D.301. These revisions caused the "as  low as reasonably achievable"      (ALARA)  principle to be a mandatory requirement for licensees.      Id. at 10 CFR Part 20, 20-SC-13-14 and COMAR 26.12.01.01 S D.101(a).            In several instances Ranschoff testified that he had lobbied for different standards or policies than those which were eventually adopted.        NPI attempted to introduce documentary evidence which indicates a recent change in NRC policy which I ruled was irrelevant to MDE's 1996 decision.
Because I am bound by current regulations, I cannot agree with NPI's position that RHP should not take se:-iously NPI's repeated uncontrolled low level discharges of radiation.        I find that under the policy statement of S 8-102, the State has a duty to balance the encouragement of constructive uses of radiation by licensees with the control of radiation which may destroy life or health if used carelessly or excessively.
NPI has demonstrated that RHP sometimes took months to renolve NPI's concerns, sometimes unsatisfactorily to NPI.        The fact that RHP staff may not have responded as swiftly or as favorably to NPI requests as HPI would have liked is not sufficient to show that a license condition requiring agency prior approval              should  be l
 
deleted. In many instances MDB showed that NPI's proposals were preliminary and that it failed to follow through with final proposals and written procedures which REP could approve.                Three cxamples of this failure of NPI to respond to REP's need for documentation incluH$ the courtyard enclosure plans, the stellite procedures, and the plans for waste containers.            Whether or not NPI has greater expertise or familiarity with its operations is not at losue here.      MDE is charged by law with the duty to regulate and control radiation in Maryland.                It cannot allow a licensee to embark on new projects or use new equipment without the necessary rcdiatira safety protocols in place.            Only the regulatory body can decide when an approval can be given.            The evidence showed that MDE was neither arbitrary nor capricious in issuing the License.                  In summation, I find that NPI failed to meet its burden of persuasion on the issue of restraint of trade by failing to produce factual or l
documentary proof of economic hardship.                                          !
l The Interveners Arcuments The Intervenors played a limited role in the hearing process.
Some of them made opening arguments orally and some submitted written closing arguments.              None testified during the hearing.
Only Mr. Oberdorfer actively followed the majority of the testimony and participated with incisive cross examination questions.              Moore and Rae    submitted with their Closing Argument news articles                  ,
1 partaining to NPI's violations and relations with the community.
The Interveners supported issuance of the License and want to cggressively enforce its conditions. Some honestly state that they l
5 h
would like the Dickerson facility to close and the License to be
]
l terminated.              Prospective relief related to the License conditions I
is beyond the jurisdiction of this forum.                                                  This is a licensing j        appeal, not an enforcement appeal.                            Because the Interveners failed to testify or submit
* exhibits at the hearing, they have failed to                                                                  ,
I meet their burdens of persuasion, and their requests for hearing are dismissed.
PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Discussion, I conclude,            as a matter of law,                    that hearing requests of the i
;        Intervenors shall be dismissed for failing to meet the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence; and that the hearing l        request of NPI be dismissed for failing to meet its burden of l
persuasion            by    a    preponderance                of          the              evidence.              COMAR j        26.01.02.28B(1).                                                                                                                      '
1 l                                                            PROPOSED ORDER 1
I PROPOSE that the requests for hearing of NPI, William Moore
[        and Heather Rae, Michael and Carol Oberdorfer, and Gerald and Yvonne Mulgrew be DISMISSED; and 1
I PROPOSE that the decision of the Maryland Department of the Environment to issue Amendment 43 of License No. MD-31-025-01 be AFFIRMED.
j
{    June 26, 1998                                                  ddl                            4A b
W
,      Date                                                          Judith Finn Plymyer' )
Administrative Law 'Utfdge JFP/sh neutr106.ade 1
 
  -    -4 _ . _ _ . .  . _ . . . - _ _ _ _ . - _ . _ - _ . _ . . _ . . _ . _ . _ _ - . _.. _ . _ _ . - _ . . . _ _ __ ._ _ . ,
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE EXCEPTIONS Any party adversely affected by this proposed decision may                                                    i file written exceptions with the Secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment within twenty-one (21) days after                                                            ;
receipt of the decision, in accordance with COMAR 26.01.02.35.                                                            ,
t
                                                                                                                                  .b t
a
                                                                                                                            +
s s                          .        _ . _ .
 
l t
1 i
NEUTRON PRODUCTS, INC., et al.*                  BEFORE JUDITH FINN PLYMYER,                              )
1 AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE v.
OF THE MARYLAND OFFICE OF i
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF
* ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS THE ENVIRONMENT          "  -
* OAB No. 96-MDE-ARMA-047-106 e          *    *  *    *  *          *    *            * *    *            *
* i APPENDIX A - EXBIBIT LIST NPI submitted 89 documents of which 83 were admitted en the record, and 6 were not admitted.
MDE submitted 107 documents which were admitted on the record with the exception of one page which was not admitted.
1 i
i The Interveners submitted no documents during the hearing, but i
Moore and Rae, enclosed news articles in support of their written
:          closing arguments.
4 i
i 4
a
)
i I
i
)
1 4
g d                                                                                                                      >
________m
 
The Respondent, Neutron Products, Inc. (NPI), submitted the following exhibits which were admitted into evidence:                                                                          !
i NPI Ex. #                  1      -
Correspondence dated August 1, 1994,                                        i from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron                                    i Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher,                                      !
Administrator, Radiological Health                                          {
Program, Department of the Environment,                                      ;
with a copy of NPI's application for                                        l license renewal attached.
NPI Ex. #                  2      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #                  3      -
Not offered.                                                                  -
NPI Ex. #                  4      -
Not admitted.
NPI Ex. #                  4A -              Not admitted.
NPI Ex. #                  5    -
Not offered.                                                                  ,
NPI Ex. #                  6    -
Correspondence dated June 13, 1985, from F. Schwoerer, Vice President, Technical                                      i Director Division 3, Neutron Products,                                        '
Inc., to Robert Corcoran, State of                                            !
Maryland, Division of Radiation Control,                                        ;
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
NPI Ex. #                  7    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #                  8    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #                  9    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #                10    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #                11    -
Not offered.
i NPI Ex. #                12    -
Correspondence dated June 7, 1985, from                                        i M. M. Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron                                        '
Products, Inc., to Robert Corcoran,                                            j State of Maryland, Division of Radiation                                        :
Control, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.                                                                        ;
NPI Ex. #                13    -
Not offered.
An asterisk denotes confidential exhibits.                                              -
l 1
 
NPI Ex. #      14                  -
Correspondence dated July 30, 1985, from  -
F. Schwoerer, Vice President, Technical Director, Division III, Neutron Products, Inc., to Robert Corcoran, State of Maryland, Division of Radiation control, Department of Health and Mental
                      .                              Hygiene.
NPI Ex. #      15                -
_ No,t offered.
NPI Ex. #      16                -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #      17                -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #      18                -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #      19                -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #      20                -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #      21                -
Not effered.
NPI Ex. #      22                -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #      23              -
Not offered.                        .
NPI Ex. #    24                -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #      25              -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #      26              -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #      27              -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #      28              -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #      29              -
Not offered.
        ~
NPI Ex. #      30              -
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG-1530 entitled " Reassessment of NRC's Dollar Per Person - Rem Conversion Factor Policy.
NPI Ex. #    31            -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    32            -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    33            -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    34            -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    35            -
Not offered.
2
 
i NPI Ex. #  36    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #  37    -
                                      .Not. offered.
NPI Ex. #  38    -
Not . offered.
NPI Ex. #  39    -
Not admitted.
l NPI Ex. #  40-ar _      Not offered.
NPI Ex. #  41    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #  42    -
Not offered.                              ,
NPI Ex. #  43    -
Radioactive Material License No. MD                                        025-01, Amendment No. 26, dated July 5, 1985, issued by the Maryland Department of the Environment to Neutron Products, Inc.
4 NPI Ex. #  44    -      Correspondence dated July 30, 1985, from  ;
F. Schwoerer, Vice President, Technical Director, Division III, Neutron Products, Inc., to Robert Corcoran, State of Maryland, Division of Radiation  !
Control, Department of Health and Mental  1 Hygiene.
NPI Ex. #  45    -
Not offered.
l            NPI Ex. #  46    -      Correspondence dated September 16, 1985, i                                      from Wayne J. Costley, for Frank
!                                    Schwoerer, Vice President, Technical Director, Division III, to Robert Corcoran, Chief, Division of Radiation Control, State of Maryland, Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
NPI Ex. #  47    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #  48    -
Not offered.                            -
NPI Ex. #  49    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #  50    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #  51    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #  52    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #  53    -
Not offered.
3                ,
 
i NPI Ex. #    54        -
Not offered.                      -
NPI Ex. #    55        -
Not offered.                            l l
NPI Ex. #    56        -
Not offered.                            l l
NPI Ex. #    57        -
Not offered.                            I NPI Ex. #
58      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    59      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    60      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    61      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    62      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    63    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    64    -
Not offered.                            i NPI Ex. #    65    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    66    -
Not offered.      ,
i NPI Ex. #    67    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    68    -
Not offered.
l NPI Ex. #    69    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    70    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    71    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    72    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    73    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    74    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    75  -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    76  -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    77  -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #    78  -
Not offered.                              t
    .                                      4
 
I. .      . :. . . - . -. . .      . .-. - -
NPI-Ex. #        79      -
Correspondence dated January 23, 1991, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Department of the Environment, to Frank Schwoerer, Neutron Products, Inc.
NPI Ex. #        80    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #        81    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #      82      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #      83    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #        84    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #        85    -
                                            .Not offered.
NPI Ex. #        86    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #        87    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #        88    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #        89    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #        90    -
Correspondence dated February 16, 1989, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Center for Radiological Health, Department of the Environment, to Wayne Costley, Neutron Products, Inc.
NPI Ex. #        91    -
Correspondence dated March 3, 1989, from Roland Fletcher, Administrator, Center for Radiological Health, Department of the Environment, to Jackson A.
Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc.
NPI Ex. #        92  -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #        93  -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #        94  -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #        95  -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #        96  -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #        97  -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #        98  -
Not offered.
5                  ,
 
NPI Ex. #  99      -
Not offered.                              -
NPI Ex. # 100        -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 101      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 102      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 103      -
J ot offered.
NPI Ex. # 104      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 105      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 106      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 107    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 108    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 109    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 110    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 111    -
Not offered.        .
NPI Ex. # 112    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 113    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 114    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 115    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 116    -
Correspondence dated July 19, 1989, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice Precident, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Center for Radiological Health, Naryland Department of the Environment, with two (2) page " Plan for Enclosure of Courtyard" attached.
NPI Ex. # 117  -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 118  -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 119  -
Not offered.
6
 
NPI Ex. # 120            -
Correspondence dated August 23, 1989, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Center for Radiological Nealth, Naryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc.                          ,
l NPI Ex. # 121            -
Not offered.
                          -as        _
j NPI Ex. # 122          -
Correspondence dated September 12, 1989, from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron .
Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Center for Radiological Health, Maryland Department of the Environment, with attachments.
NPI Ex. # 123            -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 124          -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 125          -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 126          -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 127          -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 128          -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 129          -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 130          -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 131          -
Not offered.                                  ,
I NPI Ex. #~132          -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 133          -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 134          -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 135          -
Not offered.                                  !
I NPI Ex. # 136          -
Not offered.
1 NPI Ex. # 137          -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 138          -
Not offered.                                  I i
NPI Ex. # 139          -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 140        -
Not offered.
7                    ,
 
j i
NPI Ex. # 141      -
Not offered.                              *
;        NPI Ex. # 142      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 143        -
Not offered.
l      NPI Ex. # 144      -
Not offered.
i NPI Ex. # 145      -
Not offered
.      NPI Ex. # 146      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 147      -
Not offered.
i
(
NPI Ex. #148A      -
Correspondence dated May 4, 1990 from J.
A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron
* Products, Inc., to Roland Fletcher, Administrator, Radiation Health Project, i
l Department of the Environment, with-attachment.
NPI Ex. #148B    -
Correspondence dated August 29, 1990, i                              from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland i
State Department of the Environment, to l                              Frank Schwoerer, Neutron Products, Inc.
1 NPI Ex. #148C    -
Correspondence dated September 25, 1990, i
'                              from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G.
)                              Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological i                              Health Program, Department of the
;                              Environment, with attachments.
,      NPI Ex. #148D    -
Correspondence dated November 28, 1990, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Frank Schwoerer, Neutron Products, Inc.
NPI Ex. #148E  -
Correspondence dated December 6, 1990 from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., with Description of Violations attached.
8
 
a : , _ ; . = .= = .      =- -        - - " -  - - -      - - -
NPI Ex. #148F            -
Correspondence dated December 12, 1990, from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron I                                              Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the l                                              Environment.
,            NPI Ex. #148G            -
Correspondence dated December 20, 1990, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G.
Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, with attachment.
NPI Ex. #148H            -
Correspondence dated January 9, 1991, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland    i Department of the Environment, to
.                                            Neutron Products, Inc., with attachment.
NPI Ex. #148I            -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #148J            -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #148K            -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #148L          -
Not offered.
l NPI Ex. #148M          -
Not offered.                              !
!          NPI Ex. #148N          -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 149          -
Not offered.                              1 NPI Ex. # 150          -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 151          -
Not offered.
l          NPI Ex. # 152          -
Not offered.                              I i
l NPI Ex. # 153          -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 154          -
Not offered.
I NPI Ex. # 155          -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 156          -
Not offered.
9            .
 
i NPI Ex. # 157        -
Correspondence dated August 15, 1994,      .
i from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health i
Program,. Department of the Environment, with attachment entitled "The Proposed l
i Location, Functioning and Operation of a Low Level Radioactive Waste Storage
_, facility for Neutron Productsf Dickerson Plant.".
NPI Ex. # 158        -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 159        -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 160        -
Not offered.
* NPI Ex. # 161      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 162      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 163      -
Not offered.
i NPI Ex. # 164      -
Not offered.
                                                          ~
NPI Ex. # 165      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 166      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 167      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 168      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 169    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 170    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 171    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 172    -
Correspondence dated December 31, 1990, from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.
NPI Ex. # 173  -
Correspondence dated December 31, 1990, from J. A. Ranschoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Lawrence M. Ward, Maryland Department of the Environment, with attachment.
10
 
  ~
NPI Ex. # 174      -
Not offered.                              ,
NPI Ex. # 175      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 176    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 177    -
Not offered.                                -
NPI Ex. # 178 -am . Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 179    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 180    -
Not offered.                                l NPI Ex. # 181    -
Not offered.                                ;
NPI Ex. # 182    -
Not offered.
l NPI Ex. # 183    -
Not offered.
l NPI Ex. # 184    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 185    -
Not offered.
                                                            .                  1 NPI Ex. # 186    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 187    -
Not offered.                              'i NPI Ex. # 188  -
Not offered.
I NPI Ex. # 189  -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 190  -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 191  -
Correspondence dated February 20, 1992, from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health            ,
Program, Naryland Department of the          i Environment, with attachments.
NPI Ex. # 192  -
Correspondence dated November 14, 1991,
,                                from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Naryland Department of the Environment, to
!                                Jackson A. Ransohoff, Neutron Products, Inc.
l l
i i
11                ,
 
                                                                                                            ._.._c__
                                                                                                                      ~
]
NPI Ex. # 193                                    -
Correspondence dated October 7, 1991,
* from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron                      !
Products, Inc., to Carl Trump, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, with attachments.
NPI Ex. # 194                                  -
Not offered.                                                  I NPI Ex. # 195                                  -
Correspondence dated August 30, 1991, from Robert Perciasepe, Secretary, i
Maryland Department of the Environment, to The Honorable Laurence Levitan,                            r Chairman of the Budget and Taxation Committee.
                                                                                                          .                i NPI Ex. # 196                                  -
Correspondence dated July 3, 1991, from                        !
Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator,                              l Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson Ransohoff, Neutron Products,                            -
Inc.
NPI Ex. # 197                                -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 198                                  -
Correspondence dated April 12, 1991, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Frank Schwoerer, Neutron Products, Inc.
NPI Ex. # 199                                -
Memorandum dated March 8, 1991, from Alvin Bowles, Administrator, Hazardous Weste Progr,am, Maryland Department of                          ,
the Environment, to Roland Fletcher, Director, Radiological Health Program,                          ;
Maryland Department of the Environment.
NPI Ex. # 200                                -
Not offered.                                                    !
NPI Ex. #200A                                -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 201                                -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 202                              -
Not offered.                                                    !
NPI Ex. # 203                              -
Not offered.                                                    ;
NPI Ex. # 204                              -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 205                              -
Not offered.
t 12 l
 
      , . . . .. - - . - . - .. ~ . _ .    . _ - .      _ _ _ - . _ _ . _ - - .-. -.. - -.... _- - - . . - . .
s
'                            NPI Ex. # 206    -
Correspondence dated December 12, 1990, from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron I                                                    Products, Inc. , to Lawrence M. Ward, i'
Assistant Secretary, Toxies, Environmental Science and Health,
,                                                    Maryland Department of the Environment.
1 l                            NPI Ex. # 207  -
Not offered.
;                          NPI Ex. # 208    -
Correspondence dated August 27, 1990,                                                                  I j                                                    from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator,
;                                                    Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to
:                                                    Jackson Ransohoff, Neutron Products, 4                                                    Inc., with attachments.
l                          NPI Ex. # 209  -
Correspondence dated May 18, 1990, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron
:                                                    Products, Inc., with attachments.
t j                          NPI Ex. # 210  -
Correspondence dated April 12, 1990, from J. A. Ranschoff, President, Neutron i
Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, l                                                    Administrator, Radiological Health I                                                    Program, Maryland Department of the
  .                                                  Environment, with attachments.
j                          NPI Ex. # 211  -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 212* -          Correspondence dated October 29, 1985, i                                                    from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Technical Director, Division III, Neutron Products, Inc., to Robert Corcoran, Division of Radiation Control,                                                                -
Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.                                                                                                ,
NPI Ex. # 213* -          Correspondence dated December 10, 1985, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Robert E.
Corcoran, Chief, Division of Radiation                                                                  '
control, Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, with attachment.
13                                                                                      ,
 
~ " - ~  .
i                                                                                                        . i
{                                                                                                              '
i                        NPI Ex. # 214* -                    Correspondance dated December 30, 1985,          i l                                                            from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, j                                                            Neutron Products, Inc. to Robert E.              t
!                                                            Corcoran, Chief, Division of Radiation          !
j                                                            control, Maryland Department of. Health
,                                                            and Mental Hygiene, with attachment.
I                      NPI Ex. # 215* -                    Correspondence dated March 4, 1986, from        !
Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron        ,
!                                                        ~*>rbducts, Inc., to Robert E. Corcoran,            i i                                                            Chief, Division of Radiation Control,            '
l                                                          Maryland Department of Health and Mental l                                                          Hygiene, with attachment.
Correspondence dated August 8, 1985, j                      NPI Ex. # 216* -
:                                                          from F. Schwoerer, Vice President, *              ,
j                                              -
Technical Director, Division III, to              ;
i                                                                                                            '
Robert Corcoran, Division of Radiation l                                                          Control, Maryland Department of Health            ;
and Mental Hygiene.
                                                                                                              ~
j NPI Ex. # 217                  -
Not offered.                                      '
}                    NPI Ex. # 218                  -
Not offered.
;                    NPI Ex. # 219                  -
H.R. 1083 entitled " Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act            !
of 1985" i
I                  NPI Ex. # 220                  -
Correspondence dated June 5, 1991, from            ,
j J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron                l l                                                          Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher,              '
i                                                          Administrator, Radiological Health l
Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, with attachments.-
il 4
NPI Ex. # 221                  -
Correspondence dated August 23, 1991, j-                                                        frca J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Troducts, Inc., to Lawrence M. Ward,                ,
j TESH, and Richard W. Collins, Hazardous Waste, Maryland Department of the i                                                        Environment, with attachment.
i NPI Ex. # 222                  -
Drawing dated May 31, 1991, and entitled
                                                          " Conceptual Design Courtyard Enclosure and Waste Management Shield" of Neutron Products, Inc.
NPI Ex. # 223                  -
Drawing dated August 20, 1991, and entitled " Proposed Courtyard Enclosure with Interin Waste Storage" of Neutron              ;
Products, Inc.                                      ;
t 14                                    i
 
      .    : - , - -      . . . . . . . .    .      -~.    -
                                                                ~--=~~--          -  ---    - - - - - -
1 l
i NPI Ex. # 224                -
Correspondance dated January 11, 1991, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator,          .
Radiological Health Progra. to Jackson A. Ransohoff, President, Ni tron
;                                                        Products, Inc.
NPI Ex. # 225                -
Correspondence dated January 24, 1991, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator,          ;
4            Radiological Health Program, Maryland
                                                        ~ Department of the Environment, to              l Jackson A. Ransohoff, Neutron Products,          :
)                                                        Inc.
* HPI Ex. # 226                -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 227                -
Correspondence dated June 7, 1990, from Jackson A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland'G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health                ;
;                                                        Program, Maryland Department of the              l
;                                                        Environment, with attachments.
NPI Ex. # 228                -
Not offered.
l'                NPI Ex. # 229                -
Correspondence dated August 22, 1988, from George E. Hofferber, Consulting Health Physicist, NUS Corporation, to 1
Wayne Castley, Neutron Products, Inc.,
j                                                      with attachment.
NPI Ex. # 230A -                    Not admitted.
NPI Ex. # 230B -                    Not admitted.
,                  NPI Ex. # 231              -
Not admitted.
i                  NPI Ex. # 232              -
Correspondence dated August 9, 1989, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, i
4 Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G.
Fletcher, Administrator, Center for Radiological Health, Haryland Department of the Environment, with attachments.
j NPI Ex. # 233              -
Correspondence dated December 2,    1992,          !
l                                                  from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, to Frank              ,
Schwoerer, Neutron Products.                      '
1 15                ,
 
NPI Ex. # 234        -
Correspondence dated August 24, 1992,              '
from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G.
Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, with attachment.
NPI Ex. # 235      -
Correspondence dated October 27, 1992, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G.
Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.
NPI Ex. # 236      -
Correspondence dated August 13, 1992, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Frank
                                    .Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.
NPI Ex. / 237      -
Correspondence dated July 9, 1992, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, with Radiation Work Permit attached.
NPI Ex. # 238    -
Correspondence dated May 5, 1992, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Frank Schwoerer, Neutron Products, Inc.
I NPI Ex. # 239    -
Correspondence dated January 30, 1992, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G.
Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, with attachments.
NPI Ex. # 240    -
Correspondence dated October 9, 1991,
'                                  from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc.
NPI Ex. #241A-F-          Photographs of sump (various views)
NPI Ex. # 242    -
Not offered.
16                  .
i
 
NPI Ex. # 243      -
Procedure for Entrance To and Exit From Contamination Control Areas (Procedure R 1003) dated May 6, 1974.
NPI Ex. # 244      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 245      -
Correspondence dated April 5, 1994, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., countersigned in agreement by Jackson A. Ransohoff on April 5, 1994.
NPI Ex. # 246      -
Correspondence dated April 4, 1994, from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.
NPI Ex. # 247    -
Correspondence dated March 29, 1994, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc.
NPI Ex. # 248    -
Correspondence dated March 1, 1994, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc. to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.
NPI Ex. # 249    -
Correspondence dated November 22, 1993, i                                from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G.
i                                Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological i
Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.
NPI Ex. # 250  -
Correspondence dated November 3, 1993, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Frank Schwoerer, Neutron Products, Inc.
NPI Ex. # 251  -
Correspondence dated September 29, 1993, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland F.
17                ,
2 l
l
 
Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.
NPI Ex. # 252        -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 253        -
Diagram of Neutron Products, Inc. site.
NPI Ex. # 254        -
J o,t offered.
NPI Ex. # 255        -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 256        -
                                  " Understanding the ALARA Concept" dated October 24, 1997, and prepared by R. E.
Alexander, Certified Health Physicist.
NPI Ex. # 257      -
Not offered.
      'NPI Ex. # 258      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 259      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 260      -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 261      -
Correspondence dated. April 28, 1993, from Roland G. Fletcher, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Teresa H. Darden, Acting State Agreements Officer, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission / Region I, with attachments.
NPI Ex. # 262    -
Correspondence dated January 4,  1994, from Richard L. Bangart, Director, Office of State Programs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to Roland G.
Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, with attachment.
NPI Ex. # 263    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 264  -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 265  -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 266  -
Correspondence dated September 27, 1990, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G.
Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Project, Maryland Department of the Environment, with diagram entitled 18 l
 
                                                    " Cobalt Adjuster Unit As Received From CNEA, Central Nuclear En Embalse" dated
(,                                            September 21, 1990, attached.            .
NPI Ex. # 267          -    Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 268          -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 269          -    Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 270          -    Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 271          -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 272          -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 273          -    Correspondence dated June 11, 1996, from Jeffrey Williams, Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.
NPI Ex. #'274          -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 275        -
Correspondence dated May 18, 1995, from Jeffrey Williams, Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.
NPI Ex. # 276        -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. #277-1A-            Correspondence dated October 18, 1994, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiologica3 Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron
)                                                  Products, Inc., with Description of
:                                                  Violations attached.
NPI Ex. #277-1B-            Correspondence dated November 14, 1994, 4                                                  from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc. to Roland G. "letcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.
NPI Ex. #278A      -        Not offered.
l l
N'                                                      19
 
  ~
NPI Ex. #278B    -  Correspondence dated September 28, 1993 from J. A. Ransohof f, President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiolo,gical Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.                                .
NPI Ex. # 279    -  Correspondence dated December 24, 1992, from Harvin H. Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc. to Roland G.
Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Cepartment of the Environment, with attachment.
NPI Ex. # 280    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 281    -
Not offered.                                          ,
NPI Ex. # 282    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 283    -  Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 284    -  Not offered.
Correspondence dated August 29, 1988, 4
NPI Ex. # 285    -
from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Center for Radiological Health, Maryland Department of the Environment.
NPI Ex. # 286    -  Correspondence dated August 6, 1992, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G.
Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Haryland Department of
.l                      the Environment, with attachment.
NPI Ex. # 287      -
Not offered.
I NPI Ex. # 288    -
Not offered.
4  NPI Ex. # 289    -
Not offered.
$  NPI Ex. # 290      -
Not offered.
J  NPI Ex. # 291    -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 292    -  Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 293    -
Not offered.
20
 
NPI Ex. # 294 -
Not offered.
NPI Ex. # 295 -
Not admitted.
NPI Ex. # 296 - Not admitted.
O 21 t
 
                .                                                                                            l
      ,                The Department submitted the following exhibits which were admitted into evidence:
e State's Ex. # 1        -
                                                  . Radioactive Material License No.
MD-31-025-01, Amendment No. 43,                          l dated January 18, 1996, issued by                      j the Maryland Department of the                          ;
Environment to Neutron Products,                        1 Inc.
                                                                                                              )
State's Ex. # 2A        -
Correspondence dated July 26, 1988,                      1 from Roland G. Fletcher,                                  )
Administrator, Center for                                l Radiological Health to Jackson A.                        1 Ransohoff, President, Neutron                            l Products,-Inc., with Description of                      ,
Violations attached.                                    '
State's Ex. # 2B      -
Memorandum dated February 27, 1989,                        :
from F. Schwoerer to W. J. Costley,                      !
                                                  ' Radiation Safety Officer, regarding                      i
                                                    " Contamination found on
[Schwoerer's] clothing in Rochester, New York, on February 23                      ,
and 24, 1989."                                            -
State's Ex. # 3        -
Order No. 0-88-01 of the Maryland                        !
Department of the Environment, In the Matter of Neutron Products, Inc., dated June 23, 1988.
State's Ex. # 4      -
Reports of Home Contamination                              ,
,                                                  surveys (3)                                              {
i
* j                    State's Ex. # 5      -
Correspondence dated September 7,                          i i
!                                                  1988, from Wayne J. Costley, i
Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron
!                                                Products, Inc., to Roland G.
l                                                Fletcher, Administrator, Center for i                                                Radiological Health, Maryland l                                                Department of the Environment.
I State's Ex. # 6      -
Memorandum dated April 18, 1989,
,                                                from Raymond E. Manley, Maryland l                                                Department of the Environment, to                          !
Carl E. Trump, Jr., with                                  ;
attachments, regarding " Chronology of Radioactive Materials Section                          ,
Acts Following the Modification of
,                                                Neutron Products, Inc. (MD-31-025-3 01)."                                                      "
e                                '
i 4
                                                                . . _ , , .  - - - . , ,,__,__,,,-v.. , , _
 
State's Ex. # 7          -
Radioactive Material License No.      -
MD-31-025-01, Amendment No. 30, dated March 3, 1989, issued by the Maryland Department of the Environment to Neutron Products,
                                                  . Tac .
State's Ex. # 8        -
Not offered.
State's Ex. # 9  ~"I
                                            ~ Radioactive Material License No.
MD-31-025-01, Amendment No. 33, dated May 23, 1989, issued by the Maryland Department of the Environment to Neutron Products, Inc.
State's Ex. # 10 Correspondence dated May 24, 1989, from Lawrence M. Ward, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Toxics, Environmental Science and Health, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A.
Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc.
State's Ex. # 11    -
Not offered.
State's Ex. # 12      -
Not offered.
State's Ex. # 13    -
Not offered.
State's Ex. # 14    -
Not offered.
State's Ex. # 15    -
Aerial photograph of Neutron Products, Inc. facility, to be used as a demonstrative exhibit.
State's Ex. # 16    -
Not offered.
State's Ex. # 17 Plat of the Dickerson Community designating the location of the Neutron Products, Inc. facility and surrounding residences.
State's Ex. # 18  -
Amended Complaint for Civil Penalties and Injunctive Relief dated May 15, 1992, in the case of Maryland Department of the Environment v. Neutron Products, Inc., Civil No. 76639, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.
2
    .        1
 
      ,            State's Ex. #              19        -
Memorandum and Opinion Order dated    :
December 29, 1993, in the case of Maryland Department of the Environment v. Neutron Products, Inc., Civil No. 76639, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery            i County.                                ;
State's Ex. #-dt0-                  -
Stipulation and Settlement in the case of Maryland Department of the Environment v. Neutron Products, Inc., Civil No. 76639, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.
State's Ex. #          21          -
Summary of Neutron Products, Inc.
contamination incidents from May        i 31, 1989, through February 4, 1992.    ,
State's Ex. #        225          -
All contamination reports made to Neutron Products, Inc. by the Maryland Department of the Environment for the period from May, 1993, through June, 1995.
State's Ex. # 23                  -
Radioactive Material License No.
MD-33-021-02, Amendment No. 19, dated April 2, 1993, issued by the Maryland Department of the
,                                                            Environment to Radiation Service Organization.                        ,
Radioactive Material License No.
State's Ex. #      24            -
'                                                          PA-0678, dated December 7, 1993, issued by the commonwealth of
;                                                          Pennsylvania, Department of l                                                          Environmental Resources, Bureau of        I 5
Radiation Protection, to ALARON
{                                                          corporation.
1 j                State's Ex. #      25            -
Correspondence dated August 23, j                                                          1996, from John R. McGrath, Senior Health Physicist, Division of j                                                          Nuclear Materials Safety, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to Michael
.                                                          A. Roller, President and CEO of ALARON Corporation, transmitting Materials License No. 37-20826-01, i
!                *The first page of this Exhibit was not admitted into l            ovidence.                                                                                l i
3                  -
e
:                                                                              .              l Amendment No. 9 (attached to                -
i
;                                        correspondence) dated August 23, J
1996.
State's Ex. # 26        -
Radioactive Material License No. R-01078-LOO, dated December 5, 1995,                    4 issued by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Radiological. Health, to Manufacturing Sciences Corporation.
State's Ex. # 27        -
Materials License No. 030-08681, dated May 12, 1996, issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Teledyne Environmental, Inc'., dba*
Teledyne Brown Engineering -
Environmental Services.
State's Ex. # 28      -
Correspondence dated August 30, 1994, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.,
to Roland G. Fletcher, Administ.ator, Radiological Health Prograra, IIaryland Department of the Envirennent, transmitting radioactive waste inventories from January 1, 1994, through June 30, 1994.
State's Ex. # 29      -
Correspondence dated February 21, 1994, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.,
to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, transmitting radioactive waste inventories from July 1, 1994, through December 31, 1994.
State's Ex. # 30      -
Correspondence dated September 6, 1995, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.,
to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrato'r, Maryland Department of the Environment, transmitting radioactive waste inventories from January 1, 1995, through June 30, 1995.
4
 
      ,        State's Ex. # 31    -  Correspondence dated August 22, 1996, from Jeffrey Williams, Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron Products, Inc., to Alan Jacobson, i                                      . Radiological Health Program, i                                    Maryland-Department of the Environment.
i              State's Ex. # 32    -  American National Standard N.43.10
(                                      (cover sheet and p. 13).
4 j              State's Ex. # 33    -  Inspection Report of Neutron.
Products, Inc., by Raymond Manley
;                                      dated April 25, 1990.
1
:              State's Ex. # 34    -    Radioactive Material Inspection l                                      Findings and Licensee Acknowledgement dated March 13, 14 and 15, 1990, by Raymond Manley, Maryland Department of the
: l.                                      Environment, for Neutron Products, i                                      Inc.
l' State's Ex. # 35  -    Not offered.
i l              State's Ex. # 36  -
Not offered.
j              State's Ex. # 37  -
Not offered.
State's Ex. # 38  -    Inspection Findings and Licensee i                                      Acknowledgement dated November 1,
;                                      1988, by Raymond Manley and Alan Jacobson, Maryland Department of
!                                      the Environment, for Neutron i                                      Products, Inc.
1 State's Ex. # 39  -    Correspondence dated November 15, l                                      1989, from Vandy L. Miller, i                                      Assistant Director for State i                                      Agreements Program, State, Local j                                      and Tribe Programs, Office of j                                      Governmental and Public Affairs, 4                                      Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to i                                      Roland F. Fletcher, Administrator, i
Center for Radiological Health,
;                                      Office of Toxics, Environmental j                                      Science and Health, Maryland Department of the Environment, with attachments.
I i
5                ,
 
State's Ex. # 40            -
Correspondence dated March 29, 1991, from Thomas E. Potter to Jackson Ransohoff, Neutron Products, Inc., accompanied by Potter's evaluatio'n of the two melt campaigns and cleanups conducted by Neutron Products, Inc. during 1990.          l State's Ex. # 41  -""
Copy of three (3) Polaroid                    !
i photographs of bagged waste located at Neutron Products, Inc.
State's Ex. # 42          -
Not offered.
State's Ex. # 43          -
Not offered.
4 State's Ex. # 44          -
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Information Notice on Extended Interim Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste (SP-90-27) dated February 16, 1990, transmitting Nuclear Regulatory Commission Information Notice on Extended Interim Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste by Puel Cycle and Materials Licen' sees (No. 90-09) dated February 5, 1990.
State's Ex. # 45        -
Nuclear Regulatory Commission /CR-4062 entitled " Extended Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste:
Potential Problem Areas."
State's Ex. # 46      -
Not offered.
State's Ex. # 47      -
Memorandum dated May 25, 1993, from Ray Manley to Accident Incident File, regarding " Investigation and limited inspection of NPI regarding the uncontrolled release of a fifty microcurie cobalt-60 particle into the Dickerson community."
State's Ex. # 48      -
Summary of One Kilometer Surveys dated May 20, 1992.
State's Ex. # 49    -
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Guidance for Land Clean-up Involving CO-60 Contamination.
State's Ex. # 50    -
Not offered.
6
 
  ~
l l
State's Ex. # 51              -
Not offered.
State's Ex. # 52              -
Neutron Products, Inc. 1995 Boundary Monitoring Report.        l State's Ex. # 53              -
Correspondence dated June 26, 1997, from Roland G. Fletcher, Manager, Radiological Health Program,
                                          ~
Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A.
Ranschoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., with Description of Violations attached.
State's Ex. # 54            -
Correspondence dated January 24, 1997, from Roland G. Fletcher, Environmental Manager, Radiological
                                                    . Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A.
Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., with Description of Violations attached.
State's Ex. # 55            -
Correspondence dated September 12, 1996, from Roland G. Fletcher, Environmental Manager, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A.
Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., with Description of Violations attached.
State's Ex. # 56            -
Correspondence dated May 13, 1996, from Roland G. Fletcher, Environmental Manager, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A.
Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., with Description of l
d Violations attached.                  i State's Ex. # 57          -
Not offered.
State's Ex. # 58          -
Correspondence dated April 24,        '
1995, from Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager, II, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A.
Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., with Description of violations attached.
7 1
 
                ~
{                                                                                                                                                                                                  .
O
;            State's Ex. # 59    -  Maryland Department of the
* Environment, Radiological Health Program, Radioactive Materials Inspection Format dated October 16, 1995, for Neutron Products, Inc.
State's Ex. # 60    -
Radioactive Material Inspection Findings and Licensee Acknowledgement dated August 30 and 31, 1994, by Alan Jacobso' ,n Maryland Department of the Environment, for Neutron Products,
                                    . Inc.
State's Ex. # 61    -    Maryland Department of the Environment, Radiological Health Program, Radioactive Materials Inspection Format dated April 20 -
22, 1994, for Neutron Products, Inc.
State's Ex. # 62    -
Correspondence dated August 30, 1993, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryla,nd Department of the Environment, to Jackson A.
Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., with Description of Violations attached.
State's Ex. # 63  -
Correspondence dated November 30, 1992, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the
,                                    Environment, to Jackson A.
I                                    Ransohoff, President, Neutron
!                                    Products, Inc., with Description of i                                    Violations attached.
I i
State's Ex. # 64  -
Correspondence dated January 13, 1995, from Jackson A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc.,
to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health i
Program, Maryland Department of the
;                                    Environment.
State's Ex. # 65A -
Photograph of Neutron Products, j                                    Inc. plant from the west, with dry pond enclosed by a chain link fence i
in the foreground.
8 1
 
w          - - ..    ..
      ~
* Photograph of view from the north State's Ex. / 65B    -
side of the dry pond, looking south to the railroad tracks.
State's Ex. # 65C    -  Photograph of railroad tracks with Neutron Products, Inc. plant in the background.
State's Ex. # 65D    -  Photograph of south side of railroad tracks, including additional property maintained by Neutron Products, Inc.
State's Ex. / 66    -  Neutron Products, Inc. -
Specifications, Procedures, and Quality Control for Sealed Cobalt-60 Sources (October, 1971).
State's Ex. # 67    -    Procedure R 5002, Revision 1, July 15, 1976, entitled " Opening Hot Cell Door After Processing Single and Double Encapsulated Cobalt-60."
State's Ex. / 68    -
Procedure NR 5003, Revision 1, July i                                        15, 1976, entitled " Opening Hot cell Door After Processing Exposed Cobalt-60."
State's Ex. / 69    -
Correspondence dated May 11, 1992,    !
from Roland G. Fletcher,              i Administrator, Radiological Health    l Program, to Jackson A. Ranschoff,    !
Neutron Products, Inc.                l l
State's Ex. # 70    -
Correspondence dated March 2, 1993,  l from Marvin M. Turkanis, Vice
.                                          President, Neutron Products, Inc.,
to Roland G. Fletcher,                j Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.
State's Ex. # 71    -
Correspondence dated March 3, 1993, from Charles R. Flynn, Program Administrator, Radioactive Material  ,
Licensing, Maryland Department of    l the Environment, to Marvin V.        l Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.
l l
9 I
 
State's Ex. # 72      -
Correspondence dated March 23,
* 1993, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice 4
President, Neutron Products, Inc.
to Roland G. Fletcher, j                                          Administrator, Radiological Health l                                          Program, Maryland Department of the l                                          Environment.
:                State's Ex. # 73 Correspondence dated March 24,
)                                        - 1993, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice j                                          President, Neutron Products, Inc.
4 to Roland G. Fletcher,
!                                          Administrator, Radiological Health j
Program, Maryland Department of the i                                          Environment.
i                .
l                State's Ex. # 74    -
Correspondence dated March 25,
;                                          1993, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice 1                                          President, Neutron Products, Inc.
j                                          to Roland G. Fletcher, 2
Administrator, Radiological Health
{                                          Program, Maryland Department of the i                                          Environment.
i i
State's Ex. # 75    -
Correspondence dated April 1,.1993, from Charles R.~Flynn, Program Administrator, Radioactive Material Licensing, to Marvin v. Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.
State's Ex. # 76  -
Correspondence dated November 29, 1993, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.
to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.
State's Ex. # 77  -
Correspondence dated December 7, 1993, from Charles R. Flynn, Program Administrator, Radioactive Material Licensing, to Marvin V.
Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.
10
 
        .                                                                                      i i
e State's Ex. / 78      -
Correspondence dated December 9, 1993, from Marvin V. 'Itrusnic, vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.
to Roland G. Fletcher,                            -
Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.
State's Ex. # 70      -      Correcpondence dated Dacamber 13, 1993, from Charl.es R. Flynn,                    i Program Administrator, Radioactive Material Licensing, to Marvin V.                  ,
Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.
f; tate's Ex. # 20    -      Correspondence dated Deccabcr 13, 1993, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.
to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.                                      .
State's Ex. # 81      -      Correspondence dated December 20,                ;
1993, from Charles R. Flynn, Program Administrator, RadioactiVC Material Licensing, to Marvin V.
Turkanic, Vice President, Neutron                '
Products, Inc.
State's Ex. # 82      -      Correspondence dated April 27, 1984, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice 4
President, Neutron Products, Inc.
l                                            to Roland G. Fletcher,                            l l
Administrator, Radiological Health          , ,
;                                            Program, Maryland Department of the                ,
j                                            Environment.                                      l 1                                                            .
;              state's Ex. / 83      -
Correspondence dated April 27, 1994, from Charles R. Flynn, Program Administrator, Radioactive Material Licensing, to Marvin V.
:                                            Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron l                                            Products, Inc.
I I
i
!                                              11 i
 
l J
state's Ex. # 84  - Correspondence dated September 22, 1995, from Jeffrey D. Williams,                            l Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron                      .
Products, Inc. to.Roland G.
Fletcher, Program Manager II, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the              -
Environment.                                            ,
state's Ex. # 85  - Correspondence dated September 28, 1995, from Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager-II, Radiological Health Program, to Jeffrey D.
Williams, Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron Products, Inc.
State's Ex. # 86  - Correspondence dated September 28, 1995, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.
to Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager II, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the 1
Environment.
-    State's Ex. # 87  - Correspondence dated October 6,
>                        1995, from Roland G. Fletcher, j
Program Manager-II, Radiological Health Program, to Jeffrey D.
~
Williams, Radiation Safety officer,                    '
Neutron Products, Inc.
;    State's Ex. # 88  -
Correspondence dated October 23, i                        1995, from Harvin V. Turkanis, Vice i                        President, Neutron Products, Inc.
to Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager II, Radiological Health                        ,
Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.    .
State's Ex. # 09  -
Correspondence dated October 27, 1995, from Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager-II, Radiological Health Program, to Jeffrey D.
Williams, Radiation satety officer, Neutron Products, Inc.
1 12 o
 
'o State's Ex. ( 90      -        correspondence dated November 10,                        ;
1995, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice                    l
'                                              President, Neutron Products, Inc.                        1
-                                                to Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager II, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Invironment.                                      -
State's Ex. // 91      -        Correspondence dated November 14,                        !
1995, from Roland G. Fletcher, I
Program Manager-II, Radiological l                                              Health Program, to Jeffrey D.
1 Williams, Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron Products, Inc.
State's Ex. # 92      -        correspondence dated December 5, 4                                                1995, from Harvin V. Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.
to Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager II, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.
State's Ex. f 93      -
Correspondence dated December 6, l
1995, from Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager-II, Radiological                        :
l Health Program, Radioactive Material Licensing, to Jerrrey D.
Williams, Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron Froducts, Inc.
State's Ex. # 94      -
Correspondence dated December 15, J                                              1995, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.
!                                            to Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager II, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environnent.            _
State's Ex. # 95      -
Correspondence dated December 22,                        I 4
1995, from Carl E. Trump, Jr.,                          i Program Manager, Radioactive Materials License, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Marvin V. Turkanis, vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.                                    !
l l
13
 
State's Ex. # 96    - Correspondence dated June  6, 1997, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.,
to Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.
State's Ex. # 97    - Correspondence dated July 2,  1997, '
from Carl E. Trunp, Jr., Program Manager, Radioactive Materials Licensing, Compliance and safeguard Division, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Marvin V.
Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.
State's Ex. # 98    - Correspondence dated July 10, 1997, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.,
to Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.
State's Ex. # 99    - Correspondence dated July 10, 1997, from Carl E. Trump, Jr., Program Manager, Radioactive Materials Licensing, Compliance and Safeguard Division, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Marvin V.
Turkanis, vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.
t State's Ex. # 100  - Correspondence dated July 14, 1997,
!                      from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice l
President, Neutron Products, Inc. ,
j                      to Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager, Radiological Hen 1th Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.
! State's Ex. # 101  - Correspondence dated July 16, 1997, from Carl E. Trump, Jr., Program Manager, Radioactive Materials Licensing, compliance and Safeguard Division, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Marvin V.
i                      Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.
14
 
'~
O State's Ex. # 102      -    10 C.F.R. Part 20 dated September 29, 1995.
?
State's Ex. # 103      -
Radioactive Material License No.
;                                    MD-31-025-01, Amendment No. 28, j                                    dated September 18, 1985, issued by j                                    the Maryland Department of the                    l 1
Environment to Neutron Products,                  ;
I Inc.
State's Ex. # 104      -    Radioactive Material Inspection Findings and Licensee Acknowledgement dated January 28 -
31, 1991, by Raymond Manley, Maryland Department of the Environment, for Neutron Products, Inc.
i        State's Ex. # 105      -
Correspondence dated October 25, i
1989, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health
!                                    Program, Maryland Department of the
!                                    Environment, to J.A. Ransohoff, I                                    President, Neutron Products, Inc.,
j with Description of Violations and
!                                    Order to Stop attached.
State's Ex. # 106      -
correspondence dated December 28, i                                    1989, from Wayne J. Costley, Vice
                          .          President, Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron Products, Inc., to
-                                    Roland Fletcher, Administrator,
.                                    Radiological Health Program, l                                    Maryland Department of the Environment, with Radioactive Respiratory Protection Program, Revision 7, dated December 28, 1989, attached.,
State's Ex. # 107      -
National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) Report No. 89 entitled "Use of Bioessay Procedures for Assessment of Internal Radionuclide Deposition."
l      State's Ex. # 108      -
Radioactive Material License No.
MD-31-025-01, Amendment No. 09, dated November 25, 1975, issued by                i the Maryland Department of the                    !
Enviromnant to Ncutron Products,                    i Inc. - Page 4 of 4.
l 15 o
w'-vr                          _ . , _
 
        . State's Ex. i 109          -      Correspondence dated April 18,
;*                                              1994, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the
                                            , Environment, to Jackson A.
Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc.
State's Ex. #-dia          -      Correspondence dated June 17, 1994, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice President, Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron Products, Inc.
State's Ex. # 111          -      Correspondence dated June 21, 1995, from Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager II, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to J. A. Ransohoff, Neutron Products, Inc.
State's Ex. # 112        -
Radioactive Material License No.
MD-31-025-04, Amendment No. 22, dated March 14, 1996, issued by the Maryland Department of the
!                                              Environment to Neutron Products, Inc.
1 i
State's Ex. # 113        -
Radioactivt daterial License No.
MD-31-025-05, Amendment No. 12 (RENEWAL), dated October 26, 1995, issued by the Maryland Department 4                                              of the Environment to Neutron i                                              Products, Inc.
]-          State's Ex. # 114        -        Sampling Procedure, Procedure 1002,
,                                            Revision 5, June 7, 1989.
i State's Ex. # 115        -
Curriculum Vitae of Alan Jacobson.
State's Ex. # 116        -        Not offered.
State's Ex. # 117      -
Correspondence dated September 29, 1995, from Jeffrey Williams, Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron              :
Products, Inc., to Roland G.
Fletcher, Program Manager,
                              ,              '' Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the d
Environment, with a copy of the HP
                                .    .      Consultant Report for August 1995, prepared by R.E. Alexander, CHP, attached.
16}}

Revision as of 00:51, 1 January 2021

Submits follow-up on Ltr Dtd 980428 from L Callan in Response to P Sarbanes Ltr Dtd 980324 Re Constituent Concern About Neutron Product,Inc in Dickerson,Md.Proposed Decision Encl
ML20203D156
Person / Time
Issue date: 01/19/1999
From: Travers W
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To: Sarbanes P
SENATE
References
NUDOCS 9902160045
Download: ML20203D156 (109)
v • d • e


Text

- _ _ _ _ . ..

g  %

k

[e g j UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COlWMISSION 3

. . . . . ,o January 19, 1999 The Honorable Paul Sarbanes United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Sarbanes:

' The purpose of this letter is to follow-up on a letter dated April 28,1998, to you from Mr. L. Joseph Callan, Executive Director for Operations. This letter responded to your March 24,1998, letter to Mr. Dennis K. Rathbun, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs,

, regarding a constituent's concerns about Neutron Products, Inc. (NPI) in Dickerson, Maryland.  ;

In our letter, we indicated that NPI and the State of Maryland were in court hearings related to issues associated with the license renewal and we would provide further information once a ruling on the court case was rendered. Although, a ruling has not been reached, we would like to provide you with some additionalinformation at this time.

On June 26,1998, Administrative Law Judge Judith Finn Plymyer issued a proposed order i

regarding, " Neutron Products, Inc., v. Md. Department of the Environment OAH No. 96-MDE-ARMA-047-106." A copy of the proposed order is enclosed. Dickerson Citizens Association (DCA) was an intervener in this case (see pages 4, and 6 through 7 of the enclosed document).

In the Petition to Intervene, DCA made three requests for relief: (1) DCA seeks to intervene as a party in the NPI licensing proceedings; (2) DCA requests a continuance of the NPI licensing proceedings to allow it sufficient time to retain counsel and conduct adequate discovery; and (3) DCA requests that NPI's " timely renewal" license be revoked, or, in the alternative, that the .

proposed license be implemented as written, with NPI operations being suspended until the proposed licensing terms are fully met. j

, in the proposed order, the hearing requests of the Interveners and NPI would be dismissed for '

failing to meet the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence (see page 60 of  !

-the enclosed document). In addition, the proposed order would affirm the issuance of the NPI l l license Amendment 43 by the Maryland Department of the Environment. Parties in the case

, were given twenty one (21) days to file a written exception with the Secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment concerning the proposed order. NPI filed a written exception l

which is currently being reviewed by the Maryland Department of the Environment. We will provide further information on this matter once a ruling on the court case is rendered.

Since NPI is regulated by the State of Maryland, an Agreement State, NRC must obtain I information from the State to fully address the concerns expressed by your constituent. We will address those remaining concerns in future correspondence. For your information, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, Maryland became an Agreement State in 1971 l

\

12 0. ,, r-W C4p Cki

  1. m li QW 9902160045 PDR 990119 STPRC ESGMD PDR '$ fl N'I N I

1 l l

The Honorable Paul Sarbanes 2 ,

and NRC discontinued regulatory authority for certain types of uses of radioactive material, including operations such as those at NPl. NRC's role is to provide oversight of Agreement States to assure their regulatory programs adequately protect public health and safety and that these programs are compatible with NRC's program. ,

Sincerely, l

/c- ,

William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

As stated cc: Roland Fletcher, Manager Radiological Health Program ,

Air and Radiation Management Administration l Maryland Department of the Environment j i

i l

l h

I l

l I

a

]

l l

1 I

I

'l l

i

January 19, 1999 The Honorable Paul Sarbanes 2 and NRC discontinued regulatory authority for certain types of uses of radioactive material, including operations such as those at NPl. NRC's role is to provide oversight of Agreement States to assure their regulatory programs acequately protect public health and safety and that these programs are compatible with NRC's program.

Sincerely, William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

As stated cc: Roland Fletcher, Manager Radiological Health Program Air and Radiation Management Administration Maryland Department of the Environment l

i I

1

)

i l

l 1

Distribution- 1 DIR RF DCD (SP05) PDR (YES)

EDO RF (G19980209) Maryland File ,

BUsilton l DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ CHM \NPl.WPD *See previous concurrence.

Ta receive e copy of thle document, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachmentlenclosure *E" = Co >y with attachment / enclosure *N" = No co?y _

OFFICE OSP OSP:DD l OSP:D OGC OCA;D DEDR l $@/l NAME CHMaupin:nb:kk PHLohaus RLBangart FCameron DKRkthbun FMiraglia W h M rs / ,

DATE 12/16/98* 12/21/98* 12/22/98* 12/30/98* /7//'/ /Fr N l (/[2 l OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-14  ;

) )

6

[p)gp f' cy

l ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP  !

DATE: DECEMBER 23,1998

CONCURRENCE REQUESTED INITIALS D TEj i

( W(1d j l F. CAMERON, OGC -

_/ 1 /99 l f

LETTERS TO: REPRESENTATIVE CONSTANCE A. MORELLA SENATOR PAUL SARBANES FROM: WILLIAM D. TRAVERS i EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS l

SUBJECT:

CONCERNS ABOUT NEUTRON PRODUCTS,INC. (NPI)

(NOTE: PLEASE RETURN INCOMING DOCUMENTS TO OSP.)

4 i

l YOUR COMMENTS / CONCURRENCE ARE REQUESTED BY JANUARY 6.1999 OSP CONTACT: CARDELIA MAUPIN (415-2312)

PLEASE CALL KATHALEEN KERR (415-3340) FOR PICK UP.

~

Tha Honor:bla Paul S rbin:s #

Unit:d Stat:s S:n:ts Wcshington, DC 20510 f

~

l

Dear Senator Sarbanes:

The purpose of this letter is to follow-up on a letter dated Ap i 28,1998 to you from Mr. L. Joseph Callan, Executive Director for Operations. This letter responded to your March 24,1998 letter to Mr. Dennis K. Rathbun, Director, ice of Congressional Affairs, regarding a constituent concerns about Neutron Products, I c. (NPI) in Dickerson, Maryland.

In our letter, we indicated that NPI and the State of Maryta were in court hearings related to issues associated with the license renewal and we would p ovide further information once a ruling on the court case was rendered. Although, a ruling as not been reached, we would like to provide you with some additionalinformation at this tim .

On June 26,1998, Administrative Law Judge Judith Finn lymyer issued a proposed order

< regarding," Neutron Products, Inc., v. Md. Department of he Environment OAH No. 96-MDE-ARMA-047-106." A copy of the proposed order is encio d. Dickerson Citizens Association (DCA) was an intervener in this case, pages 4, and 6 thr ugh 7 of the enclosed document. In the Petition to Intervene, three requests for relief were ade, which follow: DCA seeks to intervene as a party in the NPI licensing proceedings; A requests a continuance of the NPI licensing proceedings to allow it sufficient time to retain counsel and conduct adequate discovery; and DCA requests that NPI's " timely renew " license be revoked, or, in the alternative, that the proposed license be implemented s written, with NPI operations being suspended until the proposed licensing terms are fully met.

In the proposed order, the hearing requests of the Int rveners and NPI would be dismissed for failing to meet the burden of persuasion by a prepon erance of the evidence, page 60 of the enclosed document in addition, the proposed order affirmed the issuance of the NPI license Amendment 43 by the Maryland Department of the nvironment. Parties in the case were given twenty-one (21) days to file a written exceptio with the Mretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment concerning the pro , osed order. N filed a written exception which is currently being reviewed by the Maryland epartment of 1 a Environment. We will provide further information on this matter once a r ing on the court case is rendered.

Sincerely, William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

As stated cc: Roland Fletcher, Manager Radiological Health Program Air and Radiation Management Admini tration Maryland Department of the Environm nt Distribution:

DlR RF DCD (SP05) PDR (YES) ,

EDO RF (G19980209) Maryland File BUsilton DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ CHM \NPl.WPD *See previous concurrence.

T= recalve a cop r of thle document, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without a chrrHpnt/ enclosure *E's Copy wtth attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE OSP l OSP:DD OSF{:D[j $/ OCA:D DEDR l EDO l NAME CHMaupin:nb:kk PHLohaus RLBa'ngbr't "' DKRathbun FMiraglia WTravers DATE 12/17/98* 1PJ21/98* 1s/3298 12/ /98 12/ /98 12/ /98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-14 l

The Honor bb Paul S:rbin:s l United States Senate  !

Washington, DC 20S10 j

Dear Senator Sarbanes:

i The purpose of this letter is to follow-up on a letter dated April 28,1998 to you from Mr. L Joseph Callan, Executive Director for Operations. This letter responded to your  !

March 24,1998 letter to Mr. Dennis K. Rathbun, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, regarding a constituent concerns about Neutron Products, Inc. (NPI) in Dickerson, Maryland.  !

In our letter, we indicated that NPI and the State of Maryland were in court hearings related to issues associated with the license renewal and we would provide further information once a ruling on the court case was rendered. Although, a ruling has not been reached, we would like to provide you with some additional information at this time. i On June 26,1998, Administrative Law Judge Judith Finn Plymyer issued a proposed order regarding, " Neutron Products, Inc., v. Md. Department of the Environment OAH No. 96-MDE-ARMA-047-106." A copy of the proposed order is enclosed. Concerned Citizens of Dickerson (DCA) was an intervener in this case, pages 4, and 6 through 7 of the enclosed document. In j the Petition to intervene, three requests for relief were made, which follow: DCA seeks to j intervene as party in the NPI licensing proceedings; DCA requests a continuance of the NPI licensing proceedings to allow it sufficient time to retain counsel and conduct adequate discovery; and DCA requests that NPI's " timely renewal" license be revoked, or, in the alternative, that the proposed license be implemented as written, with NPI operations being suspended until the proposed licensing terms are fully met.

In the proposed order, the hearing requests of the Interve'ners and NPI would be dismissed for failing to meet the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence, page 60 of the enclosed document. In addition, the proposed order affirmed the issuance of the NPI license Amendment 43 by the Maryland Department of the Environment. Parties in the case were  !

i given twenty-one (21) days to file a written exception with the Secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment concerning the proposed order. NPI filed a written exception which is currently being reviewed by the Maryland Department of the Environment. We will provide further information on this matter once a ruling on the court case is rendered.

l Sincerely, !

l

\

Travers William Executive Dl Director for Operations

Enclosures:

/

As stated j cc: Roland Fletcher, Manager f Radiological Health Program i Maryland Department of the Environment j i

DistributioD: /

DlR RF (8G209)  !

EDO RF (G980209) l SECY (CRC-98-0286) l Allegations File (C. Maupin) l DOCUMENT

. r i . e NAME:ni.G:\

, .e ini. ii.eu ina CHM main

.i. in in. \NPl.WPS . Coor without  ! ture attachmen"pf  :'

"E% Cory wt h attachment / enclosure "NN No copy OFFICE QQ!yff l OSF@/l OCA l OSP:D DEDR l EDO l NAME CHMadih:nb PHLolials i DKRathbun : RLBangart FMiraglia WTravers DATE 12/M/98 12/2 //98 12/ /98 12/ /98 12/ /98 12/ /98

E p,

Perris N. Glend;ning Governot gh~h c, , am,,._ u. ....

l

+,

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS Too plo)229 42s7 (410) 229-4100 ADMHSTRATIVE LAW BULLDING FAX (410) 229-4111 (goo) ass.9805 11101 Gilroy Road

-a Hunt VaBey, Maryland 21031 1301 June 26, 1998 Francis John Kreysa, Esq. Christina Gerstung Beusch, Esq. )

4 Professional Dr., Ste. 118 Valerie J. Smith, Esq.

Gaithersburg, MD 20079 office of the Attorney General ,

Dept of the Environment  !

Gerald and Yvonne Mulgrew 2500 Broening Bighway 22138 Dickerson Road Baltimore, MD 21224 Dickerson, MD 20342 Beather Rae and William Moore, Jr.

Michael and carol Oberdorfer 22170 Dickerson School Rd. l 22030 Big Woods Road Dickerson, MD 20842 Dickerson, MD 20842 RE: Neutron Products, Inc. v. Md. Department of the Environment OAH No. 96-MDE-ARMA-047-106

Dear Parties:

I rnelosed is a copy of my proposed order in above-referenced matter.

You have twenty-one (21) days from the receipt of this order to I file written exceptions with the Secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment. Reccipt is presumed to occur three (3) days after mailing. Please refer to COMAR 26.01.02.35 for the specific procedures for filing exceptions.

Very truly yours,

\[4(dl h /1  %

Judith Finn Plymyer Administrative Law Judge III1E1oaure -

cc: Merrylin Zaw Mon 'h" G

01tice et The Attoin?? t"e'31 Deptment of the gwisonnient TOTAL P.02

NEUTRON PRODUCTS, INC., et al.* BEFORE JUDITH FINN PLYMYER, l

  • I
v. ,

AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE  :

OF THE MARYLAND OFFICE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF

  • i ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS THE ENVIRONMENT -* -
  • l OAH No. 96-MDE-ARMA-047-106  :

/ 1 PROPOSED DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE I PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND '

MOTIONS ISSUE  !

EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD

SUMMARY

OF THE ARGUMENTS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT DISCUSSION PROPOSkiD CONCLUSIONS OF IJLW PROPOSED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On March 12, 1996, the appeal of Neutron Products, Inc. (NPI or Licensee) was filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH),

contesting certain terms and conditions of Radioactive ,

Materials License No. MD-31-025-01, Amendment 43, (License). The <

License was issued on January 18, 1996, to NPI by the Radiological Health Program of the Air and (RHP) Radiation Management Administration (ARMA) of the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE or Agency).

In addition to the Licensee and the Agency, this caso involved several interveners, Heather Rae, William Moore, Michael and Carol Oberdorfer, and Gerald and Yvonne Mulgrew. The Licensee's appeal of its radioactive materials license issued by MDE is governed by Title 8 of the Environment Article and Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.12.01.01.

e'

\

t A hearing on the merits was conducted by Administrative Law -

1 Judge Judith Finn Plymyer (ALJ) at the Office of Administrative Hearings, 11101 Gilroy Road, Hunt Valley, Maryland, beginning on September 30, 1997, and continuing on the following days: October 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, and 31, 1997. At this point in the hearing, HPI concluded its case, with the right to offer rebuttal following MDE's case. The hearing reconvened on January 13, 1998, and continued on January 15, 20, and 21, 1998.

During this period, MDE presented its case and NPI presented rebuttal. Closing arguments were submitted in writing at the request of the participating parties. The record closed on April 6, 1998.8 Procedure in this case is governed by the contested case provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, Md. Code Ann.,

State Gov't SS10-201 through 10-226 (1995 & Supp. 1997), Md. Code Ann., Envir. SS 1-601 through 1-606 (1996 & Supp. 1997), COMAR 26.01.02, and the Rules of Procedure of the Office of Administrative Hearings, COMAR 28.02.01.

The Appellant was represented before the OAH by Francis John Kreysa, Esq., 4 Professional Drive, Suite 118, Gaithersburg, MD 20879.'

The Agency was represented by Assistant Attorneys General 1

1998. The original closing date for all briefs was March 13, 13, 1998. The ALJ then allowed reply briefs to be postmarked March Corrections submitted by NPI on April 6, 1998, were received without the objection of any party.

2 Bruce Musico, HPI's in-house counsel and a member of the Pennsylvania bar, requested permission to appear in hac vice, but subsequently withdrew, having taken a position in another state.

~ ^ ' ^ ^ ^ ' ~

'L'^

~

. . L . . _ .- . . - ..

?

Christina Geratung Beusch and Valerie J. Smith, 2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, MD 21224. The Intervener were not represented by counsel and appeared sporadically, if at all, during the hearing. '

" PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND NPI is a Delaware corporation which has conducted its radioactive materials business since the late 1960's, primarily in Montgomery County at its plant at 68 Mt. Ephraim Road',

Dickerson, Maryland 20842. NPI was licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. In the 1970's, the State of Maryland received approval of its own program and took over NPI's License. The License was canended on numerous occasions over the years, until the most recent amendment, Amendment 43, issued by MDE on January 18, 1996. On March 12, 1996, NPI filed an appeal concerning many of the amended 1

j conditions of its license. At the request of the parties, the appeal remained in inactive status for purposes of negotiation. On

! September 6, 1996, counsel for MDE asked OAH to schedule a prehearing conference on the unresolved issues.  ;

On December 5,1996, ALJ Sondra Spencer conducted an in person prehearing meeting and advised the parties that she would not be conducting a hearing because of a scheduling conflict. The case was then reassigned to ALJ Judith Finn Plymyer for a prehearing conference on January 16, 1997.

On January 3, 1997, Jackson A. Ransohoff (Ransohoff), l President of NPI, filed a Motion to Intervene. On January 8, 1997, l

l

MDE filed a Motion to Prevent Unauthorized Practice of Law by Ransohoff, apparently based on representations at the December 5th prehearing conference that Ransohoff intended to examine witnesses and argue on behalf of NPI at the hearing. On January 13, 1997, MDE filed a Memoradtium in Opposition to Motion to Intervene of Jackson A. Ransohoff.

On January 14, 1997, OAH received a statement from Heather Rae (Rae) on behalf of the Dickerson Citizens Association (DCA),

advising of the organization's intent to participate in the prehearing conference on January 16, 1997, and re-questing permission to intervene. OAH advised the parties of DCA's intentions and converted the prehearing conference to a hearing on motions.

On January 16, 1997, a hearing on preliminary motions was conducted by ALJ Plymyer at the Administrative Law Building, 11101 Gilroy Road, Hunt Valley, Maryland. Attendees at the motions hearing included Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Christina Gerstung Beusch on behalf of MDE; Ray Manley, Inspector, RHP; Ed Herbert, Environmental Manager, Montgomery Department of Environmental Protection, Francis John Kreysa, Esq., representing NPI; Bruce John Musico, Esq., in-house counsel for NPI; Mr. and Mrs. Jackson A. Ransohoff; and Heather Rae on behalf of DCA.

At the conclusion of the hearing, ALJ established a briefing schedule on the intervention issues. MDE, NPI, Mr. Ransohoff, and several other intervener filed legal memoranda as previously agreed. The other intervener filings were received by MDE, although not by ALJ

Plymyer. Additionally, Rae forwarded to OAH a letter from Reeva Jonas (.Tc nos ; of 22101 Dickerson Road, Dickerson, Maryland '?0842, which was addressed to Assistant Attorney General Beusch dated January 27, 1997. In her latter, Jones detailed a history of alleged violations and noncompliance by NPI and requested "an up-dated investigation with citizen input to include all the facts...

both zoning and also the 1982 Agreement." Jones' letter did not 1

address the issue of intervention. As Jones' purpose seemed to be to request a meeting and an investigation from MDE, her letter was deamed irrelevant to the issue of intervention. I Following the final rulings on the preliminary motions, a prehearing conference was held on June 2, 1997. The parties in attendance included counsel for NPI and MDE, Ransohoff, Rae, and j l

Carol Oberdorfer, representing herself and her husband. ALJ Plymyer issued a Prehearing Order on July 10, 1997, limiting the i substantive issues, clarifying certain procedural matteru, and setting pretrial deadlines for motions and discovery. ,

1 In August,1997, NPI filed three motions which were opposed by MDE. All were denied by ALJ Plymyer, as further described below.

MDE filed a Motion for Summary Decision, which was held sub curia.

At the conclusion of the hearing on the merits, MDE decided to withdraw this motion. I' MOTIONS Three preliminary motions were filed in early January, 1997, prior to the prehearing conference scheduled for January 16, 1997, before ALJ Plymyiar. Motions to intervene were filed by Jackson A.

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - -- I

Ransohoff, individually, and by Heather Rae on behalf of Dickerson "

Citizens Association (DCA), an unincorporated citizens interest group. MDE filed a motion to prevent the unlawful practice of law I

by Mr. Ransohoff.

ALJ Plymyer orally granted MDE's Motion to Prevent -

Unauthorized Practice of Law at the January 16th hearing, concurring with MDE's argument and legal citations that an individual who is not licensed to practice law may not be permitted to represent a corporation in this administrative hearings. Md.  !

Code Ann., State Gov't S10-206.1 (1995). The ALJ held all the motions to intervene sub curia pending written briefs.

pCA's Petition to Intervene On January 14, 1997, Dickerson Citizens Association (DCA) filed a Petition to Intervene. At the hearing on motions on January 16, 1997, Beather Rae (Rae) appeared and acted as the spokesperson for DCA.8 Rae, who is not an attorney, described DCA as an unincorporated group of about twenty concerned citizens, having no officers or membership requirements, no mailing address, and no funds. Rae argued that she and William Moore own property near NPI in Dickerson, Maryland. She described two decades of DCA concerns about NPI's violations and noncompliance with regulations, and MDE's indifference or inability to enforce the license conditions.

In its Petition to Intervene, DCA made three requests for relief, quoted here in pertinent part:

A. DCA seeks to intervene as party in the NPI 3

Rae was the only perr.n to appear from the DCA.

...m.- . . _ .,___ _.____ _ _.._ ._ _ - . .

,.+ g licensing proceedings.

{

B. DCA requests a cont 3 nuance of the NPI licensing  !

proceedings to allow it sulficient time to retain counsel i and conduct adequate discovery.

l C. DCA requests that NPI's " timely renewal" license be revoked or, in the alternative, that the proposed  ;

license be lamented as written, with NPI operations l being suspended until the proposed licensing terms are ,

fully met.  !

NPI argued in opposition to the intervention of f.he neighbors f and DCA. MDB argued that DCA had not proven an interest, but f

conceded tha't individual neighbors may be able to prove an  :

interest. ,

Jackson A. Ransohoff's Motion to Intervene On January 3, 1997, Jackson A. Ransohoff (Ransohoff) filed a motion to intervene as an individual. Ransohoff is the founder and  ;

president of NPI as well as a member of the board of directors and j the plurality shareholder. At the hearing on January 16, 1997,  !

Ransohoff argued that his interests are different from those of other NPI officers or shareholders because he is the corporations's sole personal guarantor with outstanding personal liability and has the prospect of liability for future' risks due to his role as president and a director of the board. MDE contested the Ransohoff Motion to Intervene, but NPI did not.

At the conclusion of the motions hearing on January 16, 1997, ALJ Plymyer established a briefing schedule. Briefs were filed by MDE and NPI, and a letter was received from Reeva Jones addressed to Ms. Beusch. Ms. Jones' letter did not address the issue of I

\

1

4

~

intervention directly, but detailed a history of alleged violations ,

I by NPI and requested an undated investigation with citizen input. 1 1

ALJ Plymyer recommended . denial of all of the motions to intervene in a written decision on March 24, 1997. Exceptions were timely filed to the Secretary of MDE and arguments were heard on May 27, 1997. On May 29, 1997, the Secretary's designee, Michael Haire, Esq. , ruled that Mr. Ransohoff's Motion to Intervene should be denied, but he granted the neigFhoring intervener' requests to intervene.' The intervener included Heather Rae and William Moore, who list the same address, Michael and Carol Oberdorfer, and Gerald and Yvonne Mulgrew. William Moore and Michael Oberdorfer made opening remarks on the first day of the hearing. Thereafter, Mr.

Oberdorfer was the only intervener to participate regularly in cross examination. None of the intervener put on a case; however, written arguments were filed by the Oberdorfers and by Beather Rae and William Moore.

As indicated above, the July 10, 1997, Prehearing Order identified of issues and established certain deadlines for prehearing discovery and motions. The issues identified included License Conditions 6A, 7A, 8A, 9G, 10, 12B-G, 13 through 21, 22B, 23 through 26, 27A, 27B, 27C2, 28, 29, 31, and 34 through 37.

Condition 9A was inadvertently omitted, but the parties agreed that condition 9A continued to be disputed.

4 Mr. Ransohoff appealed MDE's denial of his Motion to Intervene to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, but the appeal was unsuccessful.

l NPI's Motion to Stav i i

on August 4, 1997, NPI moved to stay the administrative j

hearing, pending a ruling by the Circuit Court for Montgomery j County on Mr. Ransohoff's appeal of his unsuccessful attempt to intervene. ALJ Plymyer denied the motion under COMAR 26.01.02.37B because it was untimely and should have been directed to the final decision maker, rather than to the ALJ.

NPI's Motion to Reconsider Scoce of Hearina On August 6, 1997, NPI moved to expand the scope of the hearing and MDE objected. ALJ Plymyer denied the motion, based on the parties' prior agreement to certain contested License Conditions at the June 2, 1997 prehearing conference, the

, Prehearing order of July 10, 1997, and Md. Code Ann., Envir. S 1-605(a)(2) (1996).

NPI's Motion for Continuance On August 29, 1997, NPI moved to continue the hearing based on Mr. Bruce Musico's decision to terminate his position as in-house counsel for NPI in order to accept another position out of state.

ALJ Plymyer denied the motion but agreed to accommodate NPI by holding no hearings on Mondays, and by limiting the hearing time from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. with an hour for lunch, thus providing counsel to NPI the time to prepare his witnesses and to handle other cases. These accommodations were accepted by the parties.

MDE's Motion for Summary Decision on August 4, 1997, MDE moved for summary decision. ALJ Plymyer held the motion sub curia. Subsequently, MDE decided to l

withdraw its motion in order to limit its closing arguments to a

~

discussion of the merits.

. ISSUE i

4 The issue is whether certain Conditions of Amendment 43 of the I

License issued by MDE to NPI were inconsistent with the applicable 4

law and regulations, or arbitrary and capricious. The contested License conditions include 7A, 8A, 9A par. I and 2, 9G, 10, 12B ,

through G, 13 through 21, 22B, 23, 24, 26, 27B, 27C2, 28, 29, 35 through 37.5 I EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD

+

The administrative record in this matter consists of the ,

following:

1. The Administrative File in four binders containing the transmittal of the Agency decision and the request for hearing, correspondence, hearings notices, and pleadings.

~

2. MDE Exhibits in two binders. '
3. NPI Exhibits in two binders.
4. A Radiation Regulations Manual prepared for the ALJ by MDE.

5.

A Law Notebook of relevant federal and State laws and regulations compiled by OAH.

6. Hearing Tapes and Transcripts.

A. EXHIBITS NPI submitted 89 documents of which 83 were admitted on the record, and 6 were not admitted.

5 Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, NPI voluntarily withdrew its challenge to License Conditions 6A, 9A par. 4, 25, 27A, 31, and 34.

. ,7 , , - _ _

MDE submitted 107 documents which were admitted on the record with the exception of one page which was not admitted.

The Interveners submitted no doct[ments du'rin'g the hearing, but Moore and Rae enclosed news articles in support of their written .

closing arguments. ,

The exhibits are individually described in Appendix A of this decision. ,

B. WITNESSES NPI presented the testimony of the following witnesses:'

Jackson A. Ransohoff, with expertise in chemical and nuclear engineering.

Jeffrey D. Williams, Radiation Safety Officer (RSO), NPI.

Roland Fletcher, Director, RHP, MDE.

Raymond E. Manley, Lead Health Physicist, RHP, MDE, called as a hostile witness.

Robert E. Alexander, Health Physics Consultant, NPI, with i expertise in radiation protection and/or health phys 2.cs. l l

MDE presented the testimony of the following witnesses:

Raymond E. Manley, Lead Health Physicist, RHP, MDE.

Alan Jacobson, Lead Health Physicist, REP, MDE, with expertise in the area of health physics inspections with special knowledge of State of Maryland health physics regulations as applied to Maryland licensees. .

The Interveners presented no testimony.

! 6 NPI attempted to present the testimony of James V.

Muckerheide with regard to the effects of low dose rates of radioactivity, but ALJ Plymyer ruled that his testimony was

irrelevant, and granted MDE's Motion in Limine to prevent the introduction of evidence in this area because it is contrary to
federal law.

l

SUMMARY

OF THE ARGUMENTS l Oral opening arguments were made by the following parties, )

2 NPI, MDE, Michael D. Oberdorfer, and illiam N,. Moore, Jr. Written j closing arguments were submitted by NPI, MDE, Michael and Carol .

] Oberdorfer, and Heather Rae and William Moore, jointly. Because i .

l the record contains the transcript of the oral arguments and the l actual written arguments, only a brief summary of the arguments is i

) offered here.

Arcuments of NPI J

d Preliminarily, NPI makes certain procedural arguments. NPI complains that it was not allowed to expand the scope of the

hearing beyond a challenge of the License conditions enumerated at the prehearing. conference on June 2, 1997. NPI contends that it should have been allowed to contest the procedure followed by MDE in issuing Amendment 43 to NPI.

According to NPI, under COMAR 26.12.01.01, S C.50 Modification and Revocation of Licenses, MDE should have afforded NPI the opportunity to comply with the law before taking punitive action against its License for alleged violations. NPI also contends that MDE should have issued a tentative determinat-ion on the License application under Md. Ann. Code, Envir. S 1-604 (1996'), rather than making a final determination only. By failing to issue a tentative determination, MDE has failed to follow its own policy, NPI argues.

To remedy this error, NPI suggests that the ALJ rule that MDE must meet with NPI in an attempt to resolve the contested conditions.

~

c- - - . - - - - - - . - + -

(

Additionally, NPI proffers revisions to Conditions 9A, 24> and 27C j for MDE to considar.

Following these procedural concerns, NPI mikes two arguments with regard to the specific disputed conditions of its License. ,

First, NPI contends that MDE has abused its discretion in imposing i conditions which are more stringent than the requirements of the NRC absent " overwhelming evidence that such stringency contributen in a major way to public and/or employee health and safety [ . )"

l (NPI's Closing Argument at 3) Second, NPI argues that the conditions " effectively restrain trade without valid cause...."

(Ibid.) NPI argues that this restraint of trade is contrary to the policy of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Md. Code Ann., Envir. S 8-102 (1996). j Finally, NPI makes certain general arguments about its philosophy concerning radiation safety, including the Linear No Threshold Model and'its interpretation of ALARA, which means "as low as reasonably achievable" with regard to the maintenance of exposures to radiation as far below the dose limits as is practical. COMAR 26.12.01.01 S A.2.

2 NPI's written Closing Argument then contaihs discussion of the disputed License Conditions. NPI also offers suggested language to substitute for MDE's wording of the conditions. NPI would have the ALJ adopt its suggested language.

Aronments of MDE Preliminarily, MDE disputes NPI's characterization of Amendment 43 as a punitive action under COMAR 26.12.01.01 S C.50.

_13_

\- - -. . ..- . ... - _ - .

i .

MDE maintains that Amendment 43 is a renewal of an expired license '

e-and was issued by MDE under SS C.20, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, and 31. --

Envir. ,5 1- 604 does . require tentative According to MDE, determinations, but the section applies only to the types of licenses listed, and radioactive materials licer.ses are not listed.

MDE admits that Envir. 51~605 applies to the intervention process,

, but argues that' the burden of going forward and the burden of persuasion rest on the Licensee under COMAR 26.01.02.28B(1).

With regard to the License Conditions, MDE maintains that the negotiations have ended, and that only Conditions 6A, part of 9A, 25, 27A, 31, and 34 have been resolved. MDE asserts that NPI -

offered no evidence or argument as to Condition 9G. MDE argues that NPI's request that the ALJ consider proffered alternative language and recommend continued negotiations is not appropriate. -

Finally, MDE offers discussion of the disputed License -

1 Conditions. '

Arcuments of Michael'and Carol Oberdorfer The Oberdorfers reside at 22030 Big Woods Road near the NPI facility in Dickerson, Maryland. While recognizing the social j benefits of nuclear-related industries, the Oberdorfers support the proposed license conditions in order to ensure the safe operation of the NPI facility, noting that radioactive contamination of neighboring properties and streams could ultimately impact the Chesapeake Bay. They emphasize the need for strict prospective i

j enforcement and oversight by MDE of the license conditions governing use and disposal of hazardous materials. The Oberdorfers e

= . - . . - - . . - .

question NPI's willingness and ability to be accountable for the impact of its operations on the environment in view of its history of regulatory violations and' contempt for State regulators and concerned neighbors. The Oberdorfers believe NPI relies to its detriment on an antit}uated business plan, in-house experts, decentralized paper record-keeping, and ill-defined standards. In cum, the Oberdorfers view the License as fair and reasonable and ceek assurance that it will be strictly enforced by MDE to protect the public from the potential consequences, including clean-up costs, of a hazardous materials accident.

Arcuments of Heather Rae and William Moore Moore and Rae reside at 22170 Dickerson School Road, close to the NPI facility in Dickerson, Maryland. According to Moore, he and Rae intervened to ensure that NrI complies with existing regulations and to allow the Dickerson community a chance to understand the process by which the license and its conditions are granted. Moore and Rae request the following relief: 1) MDE limit NPI's inventory of radioactive material to zero curies. 2) NPI be required to employ a full-time health physics consultant to report to MDE and the Dickerson community to ensure regulatory compliance,

3) the amount of radioactive waste generated by NPI be limited with waste removal strictly monitored, 4) MDE review NPI's and its principals' finances, assess decommissioning costs of the NPI facility, and not allow NPI to delay payment of decommissioning costs, and 5) MDE order NPI to cease all further Cobalt-60 melts.

Moore and Rae submitted numerous quotes from interested individuals c

in the field and photocopies of newspaper articles about NPI dating from 1980 through 1997 in support of their position. They maintain that NPI has for years continued to release radioactive I contamination to the environment and to violate the conditions of  ;

its license and of court orders, with little regard for the danger  :

to the surrounding community, and with insufficient oversight from MDE. '

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT General Backcround

1. Neutron Products, Inc., (NPI or Licensee) is a Delaware i t

corporation with its principal facility in Dickerson, Maryland,  ;

located in Montgomery County.

2. Among other activities, NPI manufactures radioactive sources l

for use in cancer therapy from Cobalt-60 (or co-60).

3. Cobalt-60 is produced as a radioactive by-product of the operation of a nuclear reactor.
4. The Radiological Health Program (RHP) of the Air and Radiation Management Administration (ARMA) of the Maryland Department of the  !

Environment (MDE) regulates the use of radioactive materials in  ;

t Maryland under an agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC), a federal agency.

  • 4 5.

NPI's use of radioactive materials in Maryland was initially regulated through licensure by the NRC.

6.

In the early 1970's after Maryland's radiological health '

program was approved by the NRC and Maryland became what is called i

i  !

, i i

r '

f

an " Agreement State," NPI's radioactive materials license was taken over by a predecessor State agency to MDE.7

7. The State of Maryland has modified the NPI License from time to time because of changes in NPI's operations, new regulations, and the need to improve radiation safety.
8. NPI agreed to cease its Cobalt-60 melting operation for four months in 1981 following the discovery of a Cobalt-60 particle or

" hot spot" along the railroad tracks adjoining its Dickerson plant in November, 1980.

9. NPI filed for bankruptcy in 1986, and is still in debt to some of its creditors.
10. In 1989, the NRC adopted more stringent radiation safety standards and required agreement States to adopt them.
11. In May, 1989, MDE shut down NPI's manufacturing operations

~

because of radiation safety violations.

12. NPI was allowed to restart some of its operations in July, j 1989, under revised License conditions designated as Amendment 33.  ;
13. In 1991 MD2 brought an enforcement action against NPI in the

! Circuit Court'for Montgomery County. j

14. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment on certain counts, f I

i and the parties entered into a Stipulation and Settlement on the i I

l day of trial on the remaining counts dated January 3, 1994. NPI I

j failed to submit to MDE certain plans for a waste compactor and for construction of a court yard enclosure which would meet all i

j 7 NPI operates under three other licenses issued by MDE 1

which are not at issue here.

_17 1

I

I applicable legal requirements as required by the Stipulation and '

Settlement. (State Ex. 20)

15. Certain aspects of the Stipulation and Settlement were before the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for resolution when closing arguments were being submitted in this case.
16. Between 1989 and 1996, approximately 150 radioactive particles of Cobalt-60 were found within one kilometer of the Dickerson facility.
16. On August 2,1994, NPI applied for the renewal of 'its License, No. 31-025-01.
17. On January 18, 1996, MDE issued Amendment 43, renewing and revising the prior version of License No. 31-025-01.
18. On March 12, 1996, NPI filed a request for hearing to contest many of the License conditions or parts of c>nditions.
19. In May 1997, MDE permitted six individuals with property interests in Dickerson to intervene in the case. '

Contested License Conditions

20. NPI contested the following conditions or the License by 4

offering evidence and argument at the hearing:

7A, BA, 9A par. I and 2, 9G, 10, 12B-G, 13 through 21, 22B, 23, 24, 26, 27B, 27C par. 2, 28, 29, 31, and 35 through 37.

21. Conditions 7A, 9A (par. 2), and 13 relate to the Licensee's j authority to possess and use stellite:
7. Chemical and/or physical form A. 1. Sealed sources, singly or doubly encapsulated.

i i

~

\

2. Stellite bearings and axle rods mounted in stainless steel corners sheared from the top end of BWR control rod assemblies.
9. Authorized use:

A. 2. Radioactive material authorized in Item 7.A(2) is for possession and storage only. No additional receipt of stellite is authorized.

13. Ownership. possession, or control of radioactive materials authorized in Item 7.A.(2) including incidental activation products, shall not be transferred to other persons, (as

" person" is defined in COMAR 26.12.01.01.) except to a licensed burial site. I

22. Stellite is a radioactive metal alloy which is composed of about 60% Cobalt-60. I
23. Unclad stellite hearings are used in the control rod followers of boiling water nuclear reactors (BWR).
24. After the useful life of a control rod, the stellite bearings in the ends of the rods may be sheared off for other uses.
25. In 1985, HPI proposed a pilot project using encapsulated atellite bearings to create sealed sources for use in irradiators and requested approval from MDE.
26. NPI would receive the bearings for free from the owners of the BWRs, and would bear the expense of removing, encapsulating, and transporting them to Dickerson, Maryland.
27. In 1985, MDE modified the License to allow NPI to remove otellite bearings after use in BWRs, to encapsulate them, and then l

l i

)

I

to transport the encapsulated stellite for storage at its plant in Dickerson, Maryland.

28. In 1985 and 1986, MDE staff considered NPI's proposal to convert the stellite into useful products, and expressed concerns to NPI regarding te-control of contamination.
29. NPI had the opportunity to remove stellite bearings from Peach Bottom 2 BWR, but did not do so.
30. In March 1986, NPI wrote to MDE, stating that it had selected a recycling process for stellite, but needed to conduct tests and design equipment before seeking a license amendment.
31. NPI has not shared any additional plans with MDE regarding its recycling process for stellite.
32. With the passage of 12 years, the Cobalt-60 content of the stellite brought to Dickerson in 1985 has lost about 80% of its activity to radioisotope decay, thus greatly reducing its potential value for other uses.
33. In its August 1, 1994 application to renew its License, NPI did not include procedures for a new process involving stellite.
34. Condition 8A of the License limits NPI to a total possession of two million curies of radioactive material at any one time, including product and waste:
8. Maximum amount of radioactivity which licensee may possess at any one time A. 2,000,000 curies.
35. The prior amendment to the License had allowed three million curies inventory.
36. NPI inventories of radioactivity which were produced at the hearing showed totals of 1,281,750 curies in January,1991, and of 1,695,045 curies in Apgust,1996. No records of higher inventories were submitted to the record.
37. If the NPI facility in Dickerson would need to be '

dccommissioned due to closure or disaster or some other reason, all the radioactive materials would have to be lawfully disposed of.

38. NPI possesses more Cobalt-60 than any other licensee in the United States.
39. Disposal of two million curies of Cobalt-60 would be difficult cnd could involve transporting product out of the country to other users.
40. NPI does not have an approved decommissioning funding plan for its Dickerson facility.
41. Condition 9A, paragraph 1 requires sealed source fabrication and manufacturing operations and operations involving bare (that i is, unencapsulated) Cobalt-60 to be performed in the hot cell .
9. Authorized use:

A. 1. Manufacture of special form cobalt-60 sealed sources.

Sealed source fabrication and manufacturing operations shall be conducted opql.y in the hot cell. Operations involving bare cobalt-60 shall be performed in the hot cell. Sources distributed shall meet the current American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard. The receipt of unencapsulated cobalt-60 is not permitted.

. . _ .. . ~

42. The hot cell at NPI is a restricted, controlled area which is specifically designed for operations involving bare Cobalt-60. )
43. Operations involving bare Cobalt-60 are the major source of radioactive waste generation and contar.ination of equipment and personnel at NPI.
44. In its application for this License, NPI submitted no protocol or procedures for activities involving bare Cobalt-60 outside the hot cell.
45. Condition 90, in conjunction with Condition 7G, allows NPI to possess an AECL Gamma Cell 220 irradiator at its Dickerson facility, but it does not allow NPI to use the irradiator to irradiate research materials:
9. G. Possession and storage only.
46. In its application for this License, NPI submitted no protocol e or procedures for the AECL Gamma Cell 220 irradiator, b-
47. Condition 30 allows NPI to conduct its licenas activities at the Dickerson facility only:
10. The authorized place of use is the licensee's address
stated in Item 2. The licensee must notify the Radiological Health Program 30 days prior to vacating a permanent use address as is required by Section D.1301 of COMAR 26.12.01.01.
48. NPI may remove or replace a radioactive source at another licensed facility under that facility's license.
49. In its application for this license, NPT submitted no general procedures for irradiator source replacement.

4 v -

M 50. conditions 128 through 120 describe in detail the requi'roment's

  • d.R s

for testing for leaks from radioactive materials:

12. m. Each sealed source as defined in iteam 6, 7, 8, line B, C, D, & F, containing radioactive material, shall be tested for leakage and/or contaminatica at intervals not to exceed six (6) months. In the absence of a certificate from a transferor indicating that a test has been made within six months prior to the source transfer, the sealed source shall not be used until tested. If the test reveals the presence of 0.005 microcuries or more of removable contamination, the licensee shall immediately withdraw the sealed source from use and shall cause it to be decontaminated and repaired or disposed of in accordance with Departmental regulations. A report shall be filed within five days with the Maryland Department of the Environment, Radiological Health Program, 2500 'Drocning Highway Baltimore, Maryland 21224, describing ,

, the equipment involved, the test results, and the corrective action (s) taken.

12. C. The t'est shall be capable of detecting the presence of 0.005 microcuries of stadioactive material on the test sample.

The test sample shall be taken from the sealed source or from the surfaces of a' device in which the sealed source is permanently mounted or stored on which one might expect contamination to accumulate.

I

12. D. Records of leak tests shall be kept in units of microcuries and maintained for inspection by the Department in '

the records room.

  • s

, 12. E. If the test of singly encapsulated cobalt-60 sources reveals the presence of 0.05 microcuries or more of the removable contamination, the licensee shall immediately withdraw the sealed source from use or storage and shall cause it to be decontaminated and repaired. Records of such leak tests shall be maintained for inspection by the Department in the records room.

12. F. If the test of doubly encapsulated cobalt-60 or any other doubly encapsulated radioisotopic sources reveals the presence of 0.005 nd.crocuries more or of removable contamination, the licensee shall immediately withdraw the - '

scaled source from use and shall cause it to be decontaminated and repaired. Records of such leak tests shall be maintained for inspection by the Department in the records room.

12. G. Tests for leakage and/or contamination shall be performed by the licensee or by other persons specifically authorized by the Department, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or another

, Agreement State to perform such services.

51.

MDE does not intend the provisions of Condition 12B to apply to newly irradiated targets.

52.

In its application for this License, NPI did not submit leak test procedures different from those in Condition 12E which has been in NPI's license since 1980.

53. The leak test required in condition 12E may result in a false positive test.
54. Condition 14 was modified to include prior approval rostrictions on NPI's receipt of Cobalt-60 from a ve'ndor:
14. A. Neutron Products, Inc. may receive cobalt-60:

)

(1.) From a vendor who, has produced cobalt-60 in a reactor (after approval of the specifications by the Department); or (2. ) From a teletherapy unit when Neutron Products, Inc.

installs a replacement source.

14. B. Neutron Products, Inc. may not receive cobalt-60:

(1.) That is contaminated with other isotopes; other than activation products normally present in activated materials e.g., (manganese-54) and received from a reactor.

(2.) As any material contaminated with cobalt-60; or (3.) As a sealed source which is not received in exchanga for a replacement source unless prior approval has been granted by the Radiological Health Program. Such prior .

1

. approval may be granted only after a thorough review of l a specific proposal that describes the source of cobalt, the total activity and quantity involved, other isotopes involved, the proposed use and the potential market of any product thus produced and the plan for disposal of any waste generated. i 1

- 1

55. The modifications to Condition 14 allow MDE to monitor the amount and nature of the Cobalt-60 that NPI wishes to receive, in order to control NPI's inventory of newly irradiated Cobalt-60 and low level radioactive waste.

I

56. In September --P99J , NPI requestod MDE approval to receive Cobalt-60 radiation processing sources from Rockwell International in addition to low activity sources originally manufactured by Lockheed.
57. NPI's request was not routine because the sources were radiation processing sources rather than the teletherapy sources, which NPI routinely received.
58. In April 1994, after several exchanges of written questions and answers between MDE and NPI, MDE allowed NPI to receive the radiation processing sources from Rockwell International, but disallowed receipt of the low activity sources which originated from Lockheed.
59. Conditions 15 through 20 continue the radiation safety provisions of the current license issued in 1989, Amendment 33; Amendment 33 was issued in response to numerous findings of Cobalt-60 contamination involving NPI in 1988 and 1989.
60. On May 25, 1988, Cobalt-60 contamination was found on the clothing of Frank Schwoerer (Schwoerer), an NPI employee, as he passed through a monitor at the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant in New York state.

l

- l

)

61. An investigation of the NPI Dickerson facility by MDE in 1988, l

. l showed the monitoring devices outside the IAA were not sufficiently .

j sensitive to detect Cobalt-60 contamination on employees. l l

62. Cobalt-60 contamination was found in Mr. Schwoerer's office in an unrestricted area and on his clothing at home, on the floor of the NPI cafeteria, on the steps leaving the LAA, on the steps to j Mr. Ransohoff's office in an unrentricted building, in an employee's car, and on an employee's hands.  !
63. Further investigation in 1988 showed Cobalt-60 contamination l in the homes, beddinn, clothing, washing machines, and vacuum j cleaners of NPI employees.
64. In February, 1989, Cobalt-60 contamination was again found on l

l Schwoerer as he passed through a monitor at a nuclear power plant i

! in New York.

i i

65. Conditions 15 through 20 provide:
15. A. A gas proportional portal monitor equivalent to the i Belguson HECM-2 capable of detecting 2500 dpm at three inches

! shall be utilized in a location approved by the Department.

The monitor shall be used by all personnel who exit the

Limited Access Area ("LAA"). They shall remain standing in i
the sensitive detection zone of the monitor for at least two 1411 minutes. Each person shall expose his/her back, front, right and left sides to the detectors for thirty seconds each.

i The monitor shall be maintained and used in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications at all times. At a minimum, this monitor shall be inspected by the manufacturer in l accordance with the terms of the Agency approved, service I

contract dated September 15, 1989, Agreement #SA/89/1. The monitor shall be maintained and used in such a manner as to  ;

ensure its ability to accurately detect levels of l radioactivity of 2500 dpm on the hands and 5000 dpm on the f whole body. The monitor must be fully operational and kept free from contamination at all times unless unforeseeable and l unavoidable operational problems arise. The Department must t

be notified by telephone within one workday in the event that '

the portal monitor is not operational. The contingency plan describing personnel monitoring procedures for use during f downtime shall be conducted as submitted in referenced letter of May 26, 1989. The portal monitor must be located in the access and egress area as identified in Attachment 7 to plans submitted by the licensee on April 21, 1989.

B. Background radiation levels at the portal monitor shall not {

exceed 50 micro /R per hour unless otherwise authorized by the Department.

C. The radiation Safety Officer shall perform monthly evaluations of the portal monitoring area, the use of the portal monitor by employees, its functioning and the radiation .

safety training of employees, and submit monthly reports to the Department based upon such evaluations. These reports shall include the review of incidents of radioactive i

contamination above 22,000 dpm detected on personnel.

J.

4 i

j 1

16. A health physics consultant shall be retained by the licensee. This consultant shall be retained subject to the approval of the Department concerning qualifications. The licensee shall be deemed responsible for any failure of the consultant to s b '"t reports or perform required evaluations

! and analyses. The health physics consultant shall perform, i but not be limited to, the following functions:

. i A. Submit monthly evaluations to the Department regarding the l l

health physics radiation safety status of the facility as it relates to on going and future operations under this license.

4 Monthly reports by the licensee's consultant shall be submitted to the Department by the last day of the next calendar month. Such evaluations shall be in accordance with NPI letter dated January 13, 1995 and RHP letter dated 1

i February 9, 1995.  ;

i B. Ensure that the portal monitor is properly installed and l <

maintained; C. Oversee the maintenance of the pertal monitor area as required in order to assure that background radiation levels 4 do not exceed 50 micro /R per hour; 1

i D. Oversee and evaluate the RSO report in Item 14.C and submit this evaluation to the Agency as part of Item 15.A.

17. A full-time trained health physics technician or full-time equivalent health physics technicians shall be retained subject to e

the approval of the Department concerning their qualifications.

, The licensee shall maintain a log which documents the work of the i

' ~

health physics technician. The health physics technician shall perform the following functions:

A. During working hours the technician shall ensure the proper use of the portal monitor, hand-held frisker and any other devices-* employed to detect levels of radioactivity present on persons or items which exit the LAA; B. Ensure that all persons log in and out upon entering ari exiting the LAA; C. Ensure the proper use of hand-held friskers by all persons who incur levels of contamination detected by the portal monitor:

D. Report immediately to the Radiation Safety Officer any contamination levels above 10,000 dpm which are detected by the portal monitor, or if the portal monitor is inoperative, under contingency monitoring procedure date (put date in license]. In the event that contamination is detected above 22,000 dpm such incidents must be evaluated by the RSO and must be reported to the Department in monthly reports submitted to the Department by the health physics consultant.

Evaluations of such incidents of contamination detected shall include the name of the person contaminated and the activity of contamination detected. The Department shall be notified within two hours concerning all contaminations above 50,000 dpm which are detected by the portal monitor, or if inoperative, under contingency monitoring. During non-work l

~

hours, call (410) 243-8700 and ask the operator for " Radiation i Assistance." .

E. Document, for evaluation be the RSO all sources of radioactive contamination of employees in excess of 22,000 1 dpm.

F.

Conduct radiation surveys within the eiltire facility in accordance with documented procedures set forth elsewhere in 4 this license.

1 G. Conduct water sampling of the main source pool, canals and waste water generated in the LAA in accordance with NPI's documented procedures set forth elsewhere in this license.

t B. Conduct radiation surveys of soil and water contamination levels in accordance with NPI's plan titled, " Environmental Surveillance Plan", Procedure R1004, July 6, 1989, for the surveillance of. radioactive contamination in surface and i

ground water at the plant's boundary and within a one ,

kilometer radius of the licensee's facility. This plan shall f

include but not be limited to a decontamination plan, a i schedule for remedial action and contingencies for obtaining j t i

access to private dwellings and commercial property.  !

I.

Conduct radiation surveys of all personnel, vehicles, equipment, and personal belongings exiting the gate of the courtyard area in accordance with the limits specified in Condition 13a of this license, MPI Procedure R 1011, and U.S.

Department of Transportation Regulations.

18. Following any detection of contamination by the portal monitor, hand-held friskers capable of measuring levels of radioactivity as low as 500 dpm shall be used to detect the precise areas of contamination. Upon discovery of a level of contamination at or above 500 dpm, conteminated individuals must be promptly decontaminated to a level as low as reasonably achievable and remonitored.
19. A. NPI shall maintain an established " clean room" which shall be operated and maintained so that radioactive contamination shall be limited to less than 500 dpm per 100 cm2 smearable, removable contamination on any surface area.

The clean room shall be located immediately inside the entrance door to the LAA and shall provide storage space for all street clothing and equipment which shall not be worn or transported into other areas of the LAA.

B. Any clothing worn outside the LAA shall not be worn in the LAA except in the clean room. Conversely, any clothing worn in other areas of the LAA shall not be worn outside the area.

Such clothing may be worn in the clean room if a thorough if a thorough frisking of a person detects no contamination in excess of 2500 dpm on the hands and 5000 dpm on the whole body.

C. An NPI random inspection plan shall be conducted in accordance with NPI's " Random Inspection Program" revision dated May 14, 1993.

. 1

1. Each documented monthly inspection shall be completed by the second week of the next month.
2. Quarterly inspections be shall documented and i available for RHP inspector review within six (6) weeks of the end of each calendar quarter.

D. All tools, containers, materials, equipment and facilities in the restricted area shall be maintained in a clean, orderly manner and properly identified to prevent unnecessary risk of  !

personnel contamination or injury. Radioactive contaminated material (s) not properly maintained shall be declared waste and properly disposed of accordingly.

20. The licensee shall maintain and implement a detailed Radiation Safety Training Program as approved by the Department. At a minimum, this Program shall provide, on a quarterly basis, training sessions provided by the Health Physics Consultant to all employees who, under any circumstances, may have access to the LAA. Attendance at such 1

training sessions shall be mandatory and documented. I

66. Following imposition of Conditions 15 through 20 in 1989, i l

contamination of NPI personnel has decreased.

67. In its application for the License, NPI did not submit a i radiation safety manual for approval.

68.

condition 21 prescribes how long and in what amounts NPI may maintain radioactive waste at the NPI facility before shipping the waste to an off-site disposal facility.

i'

21. A. The compaction of radioactive waste prior to storage or disposal is prohibited unless the Department approves of a plan submitted by the licensee for conducting this activity in a safe manner.

B. Within 904ays from the issuance of this license,'NPI shall submit to the Department for approval a comprehensive plan for disposal of all low level radioactive wastes in accordance with the following:

(1.) Any radioactive waste storage, either temporary or long term shall only be located in the LAA with the only exception being the underground waste water storage tank.

Waste storage not in the main pool / canals shall not exceed a period of two (2) years. Waste storage in the main pool / canals shall not exceed four (4) years from date of placement in the pool.

(2.) Radioactive waste inventory not in the main pool / canals shall not exceed 600 curies and not more than 200 cubic feet at. any one time. Radioactive waste inventory and any waste like materials at NPI located in the main pool / canals shall not exceed 5000 curies.

(3.) All radioactive waste must be identified and dated as to when generated and containerized.

(4.) All radioactive waste shipments shall be composed of the oldest waste first.

(5.) copies of radioactive waste shipment records shall be provided to KBP and Hazardous and Solid Waste

4 1

!=

I Management Administration within 14 days of shipment dates.

i i

(6. ) Procedures for radioactive waste handling, packaging 1

and transportation must include personnel and equipment  ;

4

) that will be used. i

! Failure to meet this schedule may result in the possession and 1

i s storage of radioactive materials until actual shipment l

3 schedules are met.

69. If NPI were to store its radioactive waste on site, it would take approximately 50 years for the radioactivity to decay, and ,

then the material would still be required to be disposed of as radioactive material.

70. Cobalt-60 has a half life of 5.2 years.

l

71. NRC guidelines allow storage for decay for radioactive isotopes with half-lives of less than 40, and sometimes as many as 90 days. (State Ex. 45)
72. Regulatory radiation waste storage limits of from several months to several years are routine in Maryland and in other states and federal licenses.
73. Indefinite on-site storage of radiation waste subjects personnel to the potential of exposure and decommissioning problems.

74.

Condition 22B provides that soils with levels of radioactivity l above 8 picoeuries per gram above background must be removed and properly disposed of:

i i

22.B. Evaluation and remediation of unrestricted areas, dry j pond and ground areas surrounding the facility shall be conducted in accordance with NPI procedure "R 1004" titled

]

! " Neutron Products, Inc. - Environmental Surveillance Plan" i

dated July 6, 1989. The criteria for acceptability of cobalt-

{

60 contamination of ground areas are:

(1.) The gamma exposure at one (1) meter above the ground I surface shall not exceed 10 microR/hr above background i

for an area greater than 900 Sq. Ft. and shall not exceed 2,0 microR/hr above background for any discrete area (i.e.

! less than 900 sq. ft.).

l (2.) The concentration limit for cobalt-60 soil i contamination is 8 picoeuries per gram above background for an area. All soil exhibiting levels of radioactivity in excess of the above, wherever found, shall be removed and properly stored / disposed of as radioactive waste by the licensee. The Department shall be furnished with documentation of the discovery, survey dates and disposition of such radioactive material found off-site on a monthly basis.

c. A floor radiation monitor of a type approved by the Department shall be used on a weekly basis to detect surface levels of radioactive contamination on all surf aces within the facility outside of the LAA. The licensee shall maintain records regarding the use of this monitor, the contamination found and any decontamination performed.  ;

i

75. NPI agreed to comply with the standards found in Condition 22B in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement of January,1994, State Ex. 20, at para. 13.
76. Condition 23 requires NPI to conduct surveys of employees' homes and vehicles, If tTiey consent, in order to detect radioactive particle contamination:
23. Licensee shall, with employee permission, conduct or cause to be conducted employee home and vehicle surveys on an annual frequency, utilizing NPI procedure " Guideline for NPI Home Contamination Survey" R-8010 dated June 29, 1988.
77. Condition 23 provides a mechanism to check the effectiveness of a licensee's radiation safety control program.
78. Condition 24 requires that NPI maintain a central records room in an unrestricted area and to keep certain records there:
24. NPI shall establish a records room in an unrestricted area l within 90 days from the issuance of this license. The records in this room shall be inclusive of but not limited to legible i copies of all health physics records, copies of bound logs,
IRC and Jiadiation Safety meeting, radioactive waste inventories, surveys, environmental surveillance records, pool / canal conditions, radioactive material inventories, plant and personnel radiation incidents, calibrations performed, source melts conducted, personnel monitoring, NPI policies, Procedures and drawings, and employee training and exposure records.

i ,

a f

. . . . . - - - - - . --. - . - -.-... .. - ~_ - - - - - _ .. . . - - -

l

- l l \

79. A central records room allows REP staff to review NPI l i documents more efficiently and allows NPI staff a central.

unrestricted location to store and access documents efficiently and I i without fear of contamination.

80. Monthly updattne of records and placement in the records room t satisfies condition 24.  !
81. Condition 26 is a new condition that requires NPI to develop l a procedure for cleanup of its hot cell
26. NPI shall develop and issue within 90 days of the issuance  !

of this license for Agency approval a procedure specific to  ;

the clean-up of the cell following a cobalt-60 melt. The I procedure shall include at least the following" A. Pre-entry cell dose-rate assessments.

f B. Hot cell personnel entry requirements. .

C. LAA health physics requirements.

D. Methods of radioactive waste handling and removal.

i E. Management oversight. ,

l F. Record keeping requirements. <

G. Written post melt assessment.  ;

82. Clean up of NPI's hot cell after a Cobalt-60 melt is a  ;

hazardous activity that may expose its employees to high levels of ,

radiation.

t

83. The wording of Condition 26 allows NPI to draft a procedure which allows flexibility to meet the particular circumstances of a  !

melt.

I E

~--

f l- .  ;

84.

Condition 275 is a new condition that requires NPI to clean

\

its pool and canals annually and to submit a procedure for this i activity to REP for its review and approval

  • I
27. B. The main pool and canals shall be cleaned on an annual  ;

i basis beginning on or before 90 days following the issuance of this i license in order to remove all foreign material which accumulates on the bottom and sides of the pool. Any vacuum system used for i

this purpose shall be equipped with an in-line filter (s). The i i

licensee shall develop procedures and equipment prior to performing i this operation. i These procedures shall be submitted for approval '

by RHP 90 days following the issuance of this license.

85. The pool and canals are used to store radioactive materials and offer significant shielding.  ;
86. Cleaning the pool and canals is necessary to remove -

radioactive particles and other debris.

87. The cleanup of the pool and canals is a hazardous activity which exposes NPI employees to potentially dangerous levels of radiation.

88.

Condition 27c2 sets standards for the conductivity of the pool and canal water, and requires operations to cease if there standards are exceeded for more than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> until water quality  ;

if restored:

27. c. Pool Operating Parameters:

l 2.

Main pool / canal water conductivity must not exceed 10 micro siemens-cm.

- l 1

When pool / canal water exceed theses values for a period' greater than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, all operations must cease until water quality is restored and maintained at these levels.

89. Failure to maintain low conductivity can cause encapsulating materials to corrode and the possibility of leaking sources.
90. NPI has had instances of high conductivity in its pool and canal waters.
91. The standards set out in Condition 27C2 are consistent with federal standards for irradiator waters and with NPI's current internal standards.
92. Because the pool and canals water is tested daily, the 72-hour period allows NPI some leeway to make to take corrective action before having to cease operations.
93. Condition 28 requires NPI to label equipment in the LAA which is used in connection with radioactive materials and to keep a log of all maintenance and repairs in the LAA:
28. A. all LAA facility equipment, controls, piping and filters etc. dealing with RAM [ radioactive material], shall be clearly labelled as to its purpose or function.

B. The licensee shall maintain a log for review by the Department, of facility maintenance that has been performed.

This log shall include repairs, replacement of safety equipment or building, plumbing and electrical equipment under areas affected by this license.

i

94.

Condition 28 helps prevent contaminated equipment from leaving the LAA and tracks maintenance in this area of potentially high  !

contamination. i

95. Condition 29 requires NPI to give RHP 30 days notice prior to i a Cobalt-60 melt: " -

I

[ l i 29. NPI shall notify RHP in writing a minimum of 30 calendar i

days prior to any melt operation. '

96. The notice requirement in condition 29 gives REP staff time to adjust their schedules so that REP staff can be present for the E j melt and cleanup at the Dickerson facility. I
97.  !

Condition 35 requires an annual body count for NPI employees f 4

who work in the LAA: i

35. NPI employees shall be monitored via a whole body counter 4

at least once annually for those individuals performing tasks  !

in the Limited Access Area. Additionally, individuals found I with internal contamination following an incident of i

inhalation or ingestion of radioactive material shall have additional whole body counting performed within a time period necessary to determine the activity and personnel exposure.

98.

Condition 35 assures that NPI employee safety precautions are being followed and that employees are not exceeding the recommended j

annual doses set by federal and State regulations.

l 99. Condition 36 requires a licensee to maintain a financial assurance mechanism for decommissioning if its business ceases:

i '

i a

l l

36. Financial assurance and record keeping for decommissioning '

of the licensee's facility shall be conducted in accordance-i with Section C.29 of these regulations. I 100. Condition 36 is required by federal and State regulations so that the expense of d ojing or cleaning up a hazardous site does not fall on the public if the licensee is unable to perform.

101. Condition 37 requires that 'NPI operate in accordance with -

procedures and protocols that it has submitted to RBP and that RHP t

has approved:  !

37. Except as specifically provided otherwise by this license, -

the licensee shall possess and use radioactive material  !

authorized by this license in accordance with statement, representations, and procedures contained in application dated t August 1, 1994 and the documents as submitted by the licensee and approved by the REP for safe operation of the facility. t As currently constructed, the facility and equipment utilizing radioactive material under this license are considered a part l i

of this license and any changes must have prior cpproval by 1 j RHP. Additionally, all changes in procedures, forms and l l

checklists used under this license shall be submitted to REP for approval and are also a part of this license. COMAR l ..

26.12.01.01. " Regulations for Control of Ionizing Radiation" shall govern the licensee's statement in applications, letters or procedures unless these requirements are more restrictive '

than the regulations. The following documents are hereby [

incorporated as binding / mandatory parts of this license:....

i i

i

~

l l

102. Condition 37 includes a listing of 62 NPI written procedures and 12 NPI drawings which have been submitted to REP and approved.

l DISCUSSION On January 18, 1996, MDE issued a renewal of a specific license for radioactive materials (License or Amendment 43) to NPI ,

under Title 8, Radiation, of the Environment Article of the I Annotated Code of Maryland, and COMAR 26.12.01.01, Regulations for '

the Control of Ionizing Radiation. NPI objected to many of the i

conditions of the License and requested a contested case hearing on i

March 12, 1996. Six neighboring property owners wh, support the ,

conditions of the License and want to see the License strictly  !

enforced by MDE were allowed to intervene. .

The issue is whether the conditions of the License which NPI I is contesting were inconsistent with the applicable law and regulations, or arbitrary and capricious. The contested License t

conditions include 7A, 8A, 9A (in part), 9G, 10, 12B through G, 13 through 21, 22B, 23, 24, 26, 27B, 27C2, 28, 29, and 35 through 37.'

Preliminary Procedural Matters .

1 j Preliminarily, I will address the burden of proof and the i i

standard of review in an appeal from this MDE licensing decision.

NPI contends that under Md. Code Ann., Envir. SS 1-604 and 1-605 j (1996), MDE was required to issue a tentative decision and allow a pariod of comment before issuing a final decision on a license.

B Pri7r to the conclusion of the hearing, NPI voluntarily withdrew 27A, 31, and its challenge

34. to License Conditions 6A, 9A para. 4, 25, l

_ , , _ . , - . m _ - _ _ _ . - __ _ _ - ~ . _ .

. l Furthermore, NPI argues that under 5 1-605,' it must show that  !

MDE's final decision is legally inconsistent with applicable law or bas 3d upon an incorrect determination of a relevant and material fact. MDE disagrees, arguing that radioactive materials licenses are not covered by 5 1-604, but are specifically covered by the licensing provisions of COMAR 26.12.01.01 Part C and the contested '

case hearing procedures of COMAR 26.01.02.

Subtitle 6 of Title One of the Environment Article, Public Participation in the Permitting Process, was enacted in 1993, and clarified MDE's procedures for public involvement in its permitting process. Radioactive materials licenses are not among the ,

departmental permits listed in S 1-601(a) which require public notice of permit applications under S 1-603 and tentative determinations under S 1-604. In fact, under 5 1-601(b), MDE need not provide a contested case hearing to any party besides the applicant for a permit that is not listed under 5 1-601(a):

, (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the t l

contrary, the Department is not required to provide an opportunity for a contested case hearing to any party other than the applicant in connection with any permit issued  ?

l pursuant to this article except the permits listed in

subsection (a) of this section.

I l Section 1-605 at (a) sets criteria by which a person may request a contested case hearing to appeal a final determination:

j (a) A person may request a contested case hearing to appeal a

\

final determination if the person makes factual allegations 4

with sufficient particularity to demonstrate that: -

i 9 Unless otherwise noted, statutory citations in this  ;

Discussion are to the Environment Article of the Annotated Code  :

of Maryland, (1996 & Supp. 1997). t I ,

I l

r

~

(1) The person is aggrieved,by the final determination; )

and (2) The final determination is: I (1) Legally inconsistent with any provisions of law l applicable to the final determination being challenged; or (ii) Based upon an incorrect determination of a relevanj and material fact. l The procedures for MDE's contested case hearings, COMAR 26.01.02, provide for intervention of a nonapplicant, such as the Interveners here, if the person: i Claims an interest relating to the property or transaction j that is the subject of the action, and the person is so i' Lituated that the disposition of the action as a practical matter impair or impede the ability to protect that interest j unless it is adequately represented by existing parties.

(COMAR 26.01.02.24A(2))

l It was on this basis that the Secretary's designee allowed the Intervenors to participate in NPI's appeal of the License l

conditions.

COMAR 26.01.02.28B places "the burden of going forwitrd to ostablish a prima facie case" and "the burden of persuasion" on a J

Party contesting the Department's intent to issue or renew a permit or license, absent a specific statute or regulation to the contrary. COMAR 26.01.02.28D describes the standard of proof: ,

D. (An administrative law judge) shall find against a party I with the burden of:

(1) Going forward if that party has not presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for that party's claim or defense; or (2) Persuasion if that party has not presented evidence sufficient to establish the correctness of its claim or defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

The burdens of going forward and of persuasion, therefore, rested on NPI which was contesting the Amendment 43 License conditions.

i

.. . . . . . . . - . ~ , .. . . . . . - . . . . _ . .. .

~

"'he Interveners supported these License conditions, and offered no evidence, other than th'e newspaper e.rticles submitted with the written closing argument of Moore and Rae.

In its Closing Argument, MDE argues that 5 1-605 does not apply to radioactive materials licenses. Construing Envir. Article 51-605 and COMAR 26.01.02.28B tooether, I find that the burdens of going forward and of persuasion rested on NPI to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the License conditions proposed by MDE were legally inconsistent with any provisions of applicable law or based upon an incorrect determination of a relevant and material f act. While I agree that much of Subtitle 6 does not apply to t'his licensing action, nothing in S 1-605 appears to exempt radioactive materials licenses from requests for contested case hearings. I note that the Secretary *z designee also relied on 1 Subtitle 6 in his Final Decision of May 29, 1997. , , .

In its closing Argument, NPI contends that MDE is required to issue a tentative determination under 51-604 along with a factual basis for its tentativo determination. NPI contends that MDE f ailed to follow this procedure and f ailed to allow NPI a chance to comment on the tentative or proposed License. 'rhis position is not legally correct. First, 5 1-601(a) provides that only cartain permits shall be issued in accordance with Subtitle 6, and a radioactive materials license is not one of those enumerated.

Secondly, CDMAR 26.12.01.01, MDE's regulations for the control of ionizing radiation, at Part C, specify subject areas to be included in the issuance of radioactive materials licenses. A tentative L

-~~ _ .

. decision and comument period is not required under Part C.

1-

".'. Furthermore, this case was' held in an inactive status from March j 1996 until September 1996, to allow the parties to negotiate. The l actual hearing was convened on September 30, 1997, thus providing the parties another year in which to negotiate. In fact, the  ;

parties did reach agreement on certain contested Conditions and these Conditions were withdrawn during the course of the hearing.

These delays and negotiations provided NFI the opportunity to comment and successfully amend certain License conditions. A separate comment period, therefore, would be duplicative. For all

.j of these reasons I find that NPI's interpretation on the lic'ensing procedure is without merit.

According to NPI, under COHAR 26.12.01.01, 5 c.30 Modification and Revocation of Licenses, MDE should have afforded NPI the opportunity to comply with the law before taking punitive action i against its License for alleged violations. This procedural argument is also without merit. MDE issued its renewal of the revised License, Amendment 43, on January 18, 1996, in response to NPI'm application for a renewed license under COMAR 26.12.01.01, 55 l C.24, Filing Application for Specific Licenses. The conditions in Amendment 43 are based on the regulatory requirements for a specific license under 55 c.25, General Requirements for the Issuance of Specific Licenses; C.28, Special Requirements for a Specific License to Manufacture, Assor.ble, Repair, or Distribute Commodities, Products, or Devices which Contain Radioactive Material; C.29, Financial Assurance and Record Eceping for i

Decomntissioning; C.30, Issuance of Specific Licenses; and C.31, .

Specific Terms and Conditions of Licenses. COMAR 26.12.01.01. It g

is true that MDE has used its considerable enforcement powers

, against NPI in court in the recent past because of alleged violations. I understand that the instant licensing action may in fact encompass some language which NPI interprets as punitive.

Under S C30(a), hcwever, MDE has broad discretion to include in a license "such conditions and limitations as it deems appropriate or

'i necessary." This does not mean that MDE's action' was a modification or partial revocation of the License under, S C.50, 1

Modification and Revocation of Licenses. ~Section C.50 in clearly intended to allow MDE to address changes mandated by statute or j regulation, false statements in applications, and violations. I

find that MDE's issuance of Amendment 43 was a licensing action in -

3 response to an application under S C.24, and not a punitive action l under S C.50.

I Preliminarily, NPI asked to expand the scope of the hearing in ways which were denied. In its Closing Argument and reply to MDE's Cloning Argument, NPI asks that I review draft revisions to the 4

proposed conditions and become involved in what amounts to a t

negotiation between the parties. Although ALJs do sit as mediators j and also conduct settlement conferences in certain cases, an ALJ l assigned to hear a contested case does not have such authority.

OAH has the jurisdiction to hear only those cases and issues which a State agency delegated. Md. Code Ann., State Gov't 5 10-205 l l (1995) In this instance, MDE delegated an appeal of a licensing i

~48-l l

t _ _ _ _ _

decision made in January, 1996, for a proposed decision.

Exceptions from the ALJ's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law may then be taken to the Secretary by a party. The ALJ must evaluate the underlying licensing action by RHP on the laws, the regulations, and the record available to MDE at that time. An ALJ is bound by agency regulations and policies under Md. Ann.

Code, State Gov't S10-214 (1995). An ALJ does not have equitable t

powers or the authority to act outside the contested case procedures contained in the Administrative Procedure Act, Md. Code Ann. , State Gov't SS10-201 et sec. (1995 & Supp.1997), and in the applicable agency regulations.  :

Following its preliminary procedural arguments, NPI raised two substantive arguments, that MDE abused its discretion and that the ,

License conditions are a restraint of trade.

Abuse of Acency Discretion i NPI contends that MDE abused its discretion in imposing conditions which are more stringent than the requirements of the NRC absent " overwhelming evidence that such stringency contributes i

in a major way to public and/or employee health and safety [.]"

(NPI's Closing Argument at 3) MDE presented the testimony of Jackson Ransohoff, NPI's founder and president, Jeffrey Williams, NPI's Radiation Safety Officer, and Robert Alexander, NPI's Health Physics Consultant, to support NPI's position that its radiation safety procedures and its personal and environmental contamination i I

lovels meet legal standards, and that MDE's insistence on prior i i

i approvals and incorporation of NPI's internal procedures into the I

l

License are excessive and unnecessary. NPI argues that based on its record and greater familiarity with its facility and business needs, it should be allowed to operate under a Radiation Safety Manual that is not incorporated into the License. NPI argues that MDE incorporates NPI's procedures so that MDE can create a record of License condition violations for which it can assess penalties and that MDE greatly exaggerates the significance of NPI's violation history, much of which NPI blames on MDE. For example, Ransohof f testified that MDE's failure to approve NPI's HECM portal monitor promptly in 1989 allowed personal contamination problems to go undetected, thus creating violations. Williams and Alexander testified concerning the specific conditions which they believe to be are unnecessary, unuseful, expensive, or inefficient or to be restrictive of NPI's ability to adapt to its commercial needs. In many instances Williams and Alexander conceded that the conditions are based on regulations or were already in the 1989 license, Amendment 33. I found the testimony of Williams to be detailed and knowledgeable of NPI procedures and MDE regulatory requirements.

The testimony of Alexander was less persuasive; for example, Alexander was unsure whether NPI had an approved decommissioning plan, he admitted to knowing nothing about NPI's economic factors related to Condition 8A's 2 million curie level, and whether NUREG 15-30 (NPI Ex. 30) was incorporated into the relevant CFR. When applying the ALARA requirement to the construction of the Dickerson facility, Alexander testified that "the ALARA requirement is extremely difficult to analyze because of constraints, I believe,

that have been placed on - I just can't answer that." *(Tr. 1887, 2d-22)

MDE responds to the " abuse of discretion argument" that under federal law an Agreement State program must be compatible with the NRC's regulatory prNraTn and adequate to protect the public health and safety. 42 U.S.C. S 2021(d)(2). Furthermore,,according to MDE, a state program may be more stringent than the NRC program.

42 U.S.C. S 2021(o). MDE points out that Maryland's program was approved by the Atomic Energy Commission, NRC's predecessor.

Section 2021(o) of 42 U.S.C. provides in pertinent part:

In the licensing and regulation of byproduct material, as defined in section 2014 (e)(2) of this title, or of any activity which results in the production of byproduct material as so defined under an agreement entered into pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, a State shall require-(2) compliance with standards which shall be adopted by the State for the protection of the public health, safety, and the environment from hazards associated with such material which are equivalent, to the extent practicable, or more strincent than, standards adopted and enforced by the Commission for the same purpose, including requirements and standards promulgated by the Commission and the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to sections 2113, 2114,and 2022 of this title,....

(Emphasis added.)

Nothing in S 2021(o) requires a state to show " overwhelming evidence that such stringency contributes in a major way to public and/or employee health and safety" to justify more stringent otandards as NPI suggests in its Closing Argument at p. 3. In its i Rasponse to the Closing Arguments of MDE, et al. , NPI concedes this l Point, and substitutes the words " convincing," " demonstrable," or "for good cause clearly documented" for " overwhelming" and "in a j

major way." (NPI's Response to MDE's Closing Arguments Concerning Applicable Law, n. 2, at p. 2 )

I find that under State law and current regulations, MDE is not required to make such a showing under any of the alternative terms suggested by.mI. and set out above. Nevertheless, I advised counsel at the onset of the hearing that I expected MDE to defend its licensing action in response to NPI's charges. In response to my direction, MDE cross examined NPI's witnesses, produced MDE witnesses, submitted exhibits, and made legal arguments in defense of the License conditions. MDE presented the testimony of three experienced RHP employees with training or graduate work in the area of radiation safety and licensing: Roland Fletcher, RHP Director, Raymond E. Manley, and Alan Jacobson, both Lead Health Physicists in RHP. I found the testimony of the MDE witnesses to be detailed, candid, responsive, and credible. Where their familiarity with the license history or their knowledge of an area was limited they admitted such. MDE's witnesses remained professional and unbiased under cross-examination despite NPI's repeated attacks on the expertise and credibility of their Program.

The testimony of the MDE witnesses addressed the licensing and enforcement history of NPI with regard to this License, the MDE exhibits, and each of the contested Conditions. In additional support of its licensing decision, MDE submitted 107 exhibits.

The evidence on the record, particularly the testimony of Fletcher, Manley, Jacobson, Alexander, and Williams, demonstrated that the following License Conditions were required by or

l consistent with federal and State laws and regulations: Conditions 7A, 9A, 10, 12B-D, F, G, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21 23, 24, 2 6, 27, 35, 36, and 37.

NPI's witnesses, Alexander and Williams, rarely disputed that these Conditions flowed from specific regulatory requirements, but they argued that RHP should allow NPI to maintain a safety manual which was not incorporated into the License. They also suggested that the Conditions be worded to require NPI to meet performance standards, rather than to comply with defined procedures. MDE's witnesses responded that C.23(a)(2) and CC.25(a)(2) require a licensee to submit procedures and that C.25(a) requires MDE's approval of those procedures prior to a license application. In light of NPI's large inventory of Cobalt-60, its enforcement history, and unresolved courtyard enclosure issues, I conclude that MDE was well within its discretion to incorporate NPI's procedures into the License and to def.tne  !

required procedures rather than using performance-based language. i NPI complains that MDE incorporates some of NPI's procedures which are more stringent than the State's regulations. MDE responds th'at it has invited NPI to revise its procedures, most of l

t which were drafted in the 1970's, but NPI has failed to do so. In l support of the incorporation of NPI's internal procedures, MDE l offered examples of several other licenses of other licensees, both 1

i federal and out-of-state, which incorporate the licensee's internal ,

procedures. NPI

offered no authority suggesting that such incorporation of internal procedures is improper.

i l

l

It was reasonable for MDE to require a licensee to follow its own protocols or procedures, particularly as NPI was permitted to, and invited to, amend and resubmit its procedures to RHP. I conclude that MDE's practice of incorporating NPI's internal procedures is not inconsistent with law or regulations, nor arbitrary or capricious.

Restraint of Trade NPI's second substantive argument is that many of the License conditions " effectively restrain trade without valid cause. . . . "

(NPI's Closing Argument at 3) NPI argues that this restraint of trade is contrary to the policy of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, as well as the policy of the Maryland General Assembly at Envir. S 8-102. To support its proposition NPI cites 42 U.S.C.

Section 2011:

Atomic Energy is capable of application for peaceful as well as military purposes. It is therefore declared to be the policy of the United States that-(a) the development, use, and control of atomic energy shall be directed so as to make the maximum contribution to the general welfare, subject at all times to the paramount objective of making the maximum contribution to the common defense and security; and (b) the development, use, and control of atomic energy shall be directed so as to promote world peace, improve the general welfare, increase the standard of living, and strengthen free competition in private enterprise.

NPI then cites Envir. Section 8-102:

(a) The General Assembly finds.that radiation:

(1) If used properly, can help to improve the health, welfare and productivity of the public; (2) If used carelessly or excessively, may destroy life or health; and (3) If used improperly, may impair the industrial and agricultural potential of this State.

l l

t

i 1

I (b) It is the policy of this States l

(1) To encourage the constructive uses of radiation; and (2) To control radiation.

According to NPI, MDE's overly restrictive License conditions, its insistence on preapprovals of activities and procedures, and the slow response of RHy" staff to its approval requests have all hindered NPI from capitalizing on business opportunities and making internal changes in order to operate effectively in the  !

marketplace. NPI contends that MDE's alleged concern for radiation safety is not supported by evidence of serious violations by NPI.

i NPI argues that MDE's restrictive License conditions act to create l technical violathws, thus placing NPI in a regulatory trap. NPI f argues that in its 30-year history, it has a good radiation safety l record and it is a leader in the field of supplying Cobalt-60 l sources for. cancer therapy. Based on its record, NPI argues that j MDE should respect NPI's expertise and grant it more flexibility to operate in response to the market. The License conditions which NPI deems to place restraints on trade-include Conditions 7A, 9A, and 13 which restrict NPI to storage or disposal of its stellite; Condition 8A which limits NPI to 2,000,000 curies of radioactivity; condition 10 which Limits NPI to operations at its Dickerson site; Condition 14 which requires approval prior to receipt of Cobalt-60 targets; and Conditions 15 through 20, 22, 23, 26, 32, 35, and 37 1

regarding radiation safety; Conditions 16 and 17 which require j NPI's health physics consultant and health physics technician to be approved by REP and their duties prescribed by MDE; Condition 18 1 4 4 i i

i i .

j which requires use of hand-held friskers in certain circumstances; and condition 21B requiring an accelerated waste disposal schedule.

In response to NPI's restraint of trade argument, MDE l responded that NPI failed to meet its burden to present evidence in support of its abaims regarding the Conditions mentioned i

immediately above. For example, with regard to Condition 8A which limits total radioactivity to 2,000,000 curies, MDE argues that Ransohoff testified vaguely about a contract with the nuclear plant in Argentina, but failed to introduce a contract. MDE notes that i

! such evidence would be uniquely within NPI's control and yet it was l never produced.

I 1 I concur with MDE's assessment of NPI's proof. NPI's experts i

j clearly are knowledgeable about the operation of the Dickerson 1

facility, legal requirements within their areas of expertise, the I

License conditions, as well as about NPI's sometimes difficult relationship with the RHP staff. What was not forthcoming was specific testimony or documentary evidence of actual financial losses suffered by NPI or estimates of potential loss as a result of MDE's licensing treatment. The anecdotal testimony of the NPI witnesses, particularly the often rambling, argumentative, and hyperbolical testimony of Ransohoff, was not as persuasive as the focused testimony of the RHP staff. MDE produced both documentary evidence and credible testimony of RHP staff regarding numerous, repeated uncontrolled discharges of radioactive contamination to individuals and to the environment, as well as evidence of regulatory or licensing violations, such as monthly reports and

. l i

pool cleanups which were missed by NPI. In addition, the RBP !

witnesses testified concerning the specific COMAR regulations which supported the various License conditions. NPI's witnesses conceded  !

that many of the Conditions are COMAR requirements.

j NPI argues that MDE has failed to show any harm to individuals or the environment and that personal contamination limits have not been exceeded. This argument ignores the conservative position taken by the NRC in 1995 regarding the effects of low level radiation.

As an Agreement State, MDE was bound under 42 U.S.C. 5 2021(d)(2) by the NRC's regulatory position at the time Amendment 43 wan issued in January, 1996. (State Ex. 102) The NRC spent more than a decade reviewing radiation safety issues and a multitude of public comments, before adopting the " Fundamental Radiation Protection Principles," including the following:

The radiation protection standards in this final rule are based upon the assumption that (1) Within in the range of exposure conditions usually encountered radiation work, there is a linear relationship, without threshold, between dose and probability of stochastic health effects (such as latent cancer and genetic effects) occurring; (2) The severity of each type of stochastic health effect is independent of dose; and (3) Nonstochastic (nonrandom) radiation-induced health effects can be prevented by limiting exposures so that doses* are below the* thresholds for* their induction.

1 In the absence of convincing evidence that there is a dose threshold or that low levels of radiation are beneficial, the Commission believes that the assumptions regarding a linear nonthreshold dose-effect mode for cancers and genetic effects and the existence of thresholds only for certain nonstochastic effects remain appropriate for formulating protection radiation standard and planning radiation protection programs.

(State Ex. 102, 10 CFR Part 20 at 20-SC-7 and 8.)

Accordingly, in January,1996, MDE required the NPI License to be consistent with the NRC position, that is, because low levels of radiation were statistically likely to prove dangerous to some people, allowable per person dose levels had to be revised downward. Agreement States were given three years to bring their regulations into compliance with federal dose limits. COMAR 26.12. 01. 01 S D.2 01( a) , and S D.301. These revisions caused the "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) principle to be a mandatory requirement for licensees. Id. at 10 CFR Part 20, 20-SC-13-14 and COMAR 26.12.01.01 S D.101(a). In several instances Ranschoff testified that he had lobbied for different standards or policies than those which were eventually adopted. NPI attempted to introduce documentary evidence which indicates a recent change in NRC policy which I ruled was irrelevant to MDE's 1996 decision.

Because I am bound by current regulations, I cannot agree with NPI's position that RHP should not take se:-iously NPI's repeated uncontrolled low level discharges of radiation. I find that under the policy statement of S 8-102, the State has a duty to balance the encouragement of constructive uses of radiation by licensees with the control of radiation which may destroy life or health if used carelessly or excessively.

NPI has demonstrated that RHP sometimes took months to renolve NPI's concerns, sometimes unsatisfactorily to NPI. The fact that RHP staff may not have responded as swiftly or as favorably to NPI requests as HPI would have liked is not sufficient to show that a license condition requiring agency prior approval should be l

deleted. In many instances MDB showed that NPI's proposals were preliminary and that it failed to follow through with final proposals and written procedures which REP could approve. Three cxamples of this failure of NPI to respond to REP's need for documentation incluH$ the courtyard enclosure plans, the stellite procedures, and the plans for waste containers. Whether or not NPI has greater expertise or familiarity with its operations is not at losue here. MDE is charged by law with the duty to regulate and control radiation in Maryland. It cannot allow a licensee to embark on new projects or use new equipment without the necessary rcdiatira safety protocols in place. Only the regulatory body can decide when an approval can be given. The evidence showed that MDE was neither arbitrary nor capricious in issuing the License. In summation, I find that NPI failed to meet its burden of persuasion on the issue of restraint of trade by failing to produce factual or l

documentary proof of economic hardship.  !

l The Interveners Arcuments The Intervenors played a limited role in the hearing process.

Some of them made opening arguments orally and some submitted written closing arguments. None testified during the hearing.

Only Mr. Oberdorfer actively followed the majority of the testimony and participated with incisive cross examination questions. Moore and Rae submitted with their Closing Argument news articles ,

1 partaining to NPI's violations and relations with the community.

The Interveners supported issuance of the License and want to cggressively enforce its conditions. Some honestly state that they l

5 h

would like the Dickerson facility to close and the License to be

]

l terminated. Prospective relief related to the License conditions I

is beyond the jurisdiction of this forum. This is a licensing j appeal, not an enforcement appeal. Because the Interveners failed to testify or submit

  • exhibits at the hearing, they have failed to ,

I meet their burdens of persuasion, and their requests for hearing are dismissed.

PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Discussion, I conclude, as a matter of law, that hearing requests of the i

Intervenors shall be dismissed for failing to meet the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence; and that the hearing l request of NPI be dismissed for failing to meet its burden of l

persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence. COMAR j 26.01.02.28B(1). '

1 l PROPOSED ORDER 1

I PROPOSE that the requests for hearing of NPI, William Moore

[ and Heather Rae, Michael and Carol Oberdorfer, and Gerald and Yvonne Mulgrew be DISMISSED; and 1

I PROPOSE that the decision of the Maryland Department of the Environment to issue Amendment 43 of License No. MD-31-025-01 be AFFIRMED.

j

{ June 26, 1998 ddl 4A b

W

, Date Judith Finn Plymyer' )

Administrative Law 'Utfdge JFP/sh neutr106.ade 1

- -4 _ . _ _ . . . _ . . . - _ _ _ _ . - _ . _ - _ . _ . . _ . . _ . _ . _ _ - . _.. _ . _ _ . - _ . . . _ _ __ ._ _ . ,

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE EXCEPTIONS Any party adversely affected by this proposed decision may i file written exceptions with the Secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment within twenty-one (21) days after  ;

receipt of the decision, in accordance with COMAR 26.01.02.35. ,

t

.b t

a

+

s s . _ . _ .

l t

1 i

NEUTRON PRODUCTS, INC., et al.* BEFORE JUDITH FINN PLYMYER, )

1 AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE v.

OF THE MARYLAND OFFICE OF i

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF

  • ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS THE ENVIRONMENT " -
  • OAB No. 96-MDE-ARMA-047-106 e * * * * * * * * * * *
  • i APPENDIX A - EXBIBIT LIST NPI submitted 89 documents of which 83 were admitted en the record, and 6 were not admitted.

MDE submitted 107 documents which were admitted on the record with the exception of one page which was not admitted.

1 i

i The Interveners submitted no documents during the hearing, but i

Moore and Rae, enclosed news articles in support of their written

closing arguments.

4 i

i 4

a

)

i I

i

)

1 4

g d >

________m

The Respondent, Neutron Products, Inc. (NPI), submitted the following exhibits which were admitted into evidence:  !

i NPI Ex. # 1 -

Correspondence dated August 1, 1994, i from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron i Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher,  !

Administrator, Radiological Health {

Program, Department of the Environment,  ;

with a copy of NPI's application for l license renewal attached.

NPI Ex. # 2 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 3 -

Not offered. -

NPI Ex. # 4 -

Not admitted.

NPI Ex. # 4A - Not admitted.

NPI Ex. # 5 -

Not offered. ,

NPI Ex. # 6 -

Correspondence dated June 13, 1985, from F. Schwoerer, Vice President, Technical i Director Division 3, Neutron Products, '

Inc., to Robert Corcoran, State of  !

Maryland, Division of Radiation Control,  ;

Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

NPI Ex. # 7 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 8 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 9 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 10 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 11 -

Not offered.

i NPI Ex. # 12 -

Correspondence dated June 7, 1985, from i M. M. Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron '

Products, Inc., to Robert Corcoran, j State of Maryland, Division of Radiation  :

Control, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.  ;

NPI Ex. # 13 -

Not offered.

An asterisk denotes confidential exhibits. -

l 1

NPI Ex. # 14 -

Correspondence dated July 30, 1985, from -

F. Schwoerer, Vice President, Technical Director, Division III, Neutron Products, Inc., to Robert Corcoran, State of Maryland, Division of Radiation control, Department of Health and Mental

. Hygiene.

NPI Ex. # 15 -

_ No,t offered.

NPI Ex. # 16 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 17 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 18 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 19 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 20 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 21 -

Not effered.

NPI Ex. # 22 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 23 -

Not offered. .

NPI Ex. # 24 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 25 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 26 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 27 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 28 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 29 -

Not offered.

~

NPI Ex. # 30 -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG-1530 entitled " Reassessment of NRC's Dollar Per Person - Rem Conversion Factor Policy.

NPI Ex. # 31 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 32 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 33 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 34 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 35 -

Not offered.

2

i NPI Ex. # 36 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 37 -

.Not. offered.

NPI Ex. # 38 -

Not . offered.

NPI Ex. # 39 -

Not admitted.

l NPI Ex. # 40-ar _ Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 41 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 42 -

Not offered. ,

NPI Ex. # 43 -

Radioactive Material License No. MD 025-01, Amendment No. 26, dated July 5, 1985, issued by the Maryland Department of the Environment to Neutron Products, Inc.

4 NPI Ex. # 44 - Correspondence dated July 30, 1985, from  ;

F. Schwoerer, Vice President, Technical Director, Division III, Neutron Products, Inc., to Robert Corcoran, State of Maryland, Division of Radiation  !

Control, Department of Health and Mental 1 Hygiene.

NPI Ex. # 45 -

Not offered.

l NPI Ex. # 46 - Correspondence dated September 16, 1985, i from Wayne J. Costley, for Frank

! Schwoerer, Vice President, Technical Director, Division III, to Robert Corcoran, Chief, Division of Radiation Control, State of Maryland, Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

NPI Ex. # 47 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 48 -

Not offered. -

NPI Ex. # 49 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 50 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 51 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 52 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 53 -

Not offered.

3 ,

i NPI Ex. # 54 -

Not offered. -

NPI Ex. # 55 -

Not offered. l l

NPI Ex. # 56 -

Not offered. l l

NPI Ex. # 57 -

Not offered. I NPI Ex. #

58 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 59 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 60 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 61 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 62 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 63 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 64 -

Not offered. i NPI Ex. # 65 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 66 -

Not offered. ,

i NPI Ex. # 67 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 68 -

Not offered.

l NPI Ex. # 69 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 70 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 71 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 72 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 73 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 74 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 75 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 76 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 77 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 78 -

Not offered. t

. 4

I. . . :. . . - . -. . . . .-. - -

NPI-Ex. # 79 -

Correspondence dated January 23, 1991, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Department of the Environment, to Frank Schwoerer, Neutron Products, Inc.

NPI Ex. # 80 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 81 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 82 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 83 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 84 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 85 -

.Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 86 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 87 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 88 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 89 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 90 -

Correspondence dated February 16, 1989, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Center for Radiological Health, Department of the Environment, to Wayne Costley, Neutron Products, Inc.

NPI Ex. # 91 -

Correspondence dated March 3, 1989, from Roland Fletcher, Administrator, Center for Radiological Health, Department of the Environment, to Jackson A.

Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc.

NPI Ex. # 92 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 93 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 94 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 95 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 96 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 97 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 98 -

Not offered.

5 ,

NPI Ex. # 99 -

Not offered. -

NPI Ex. # 100 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 101 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 102 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 103 -

J ot offered.

NPI Ex. # 104 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 105 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 106 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 107 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 108 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 109 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 110 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 111 -

Not offered. .

NPI Ex. # 112 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 113 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 114 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 115 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 116 -

Correspondence dated July 19, 1989, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice Precident, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Center for Radiological Health, Naryland Department of the Environment, with two (2) page " Plan for Enclosure of Courtyard" attached.

NPI Ex. # 117 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 118 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 119 -

Not offered.

6

NPI Ex. # 120 -

Correspondence dated August 23, 1989, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Center for Radiological Nealth, Naryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc. ,

l NPI Ex. # 121 -

Not offered.

-as _

j NPI Ex. # 122 -

Correspondence dated September 12, 1989, from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron .

Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Center for Radiological Health, Maryland Department of the Environment, with attachments.

NPI Ex. # 123 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 124 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 125 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 126 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 127 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 128 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 129 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 130 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 131 -

Not offered. ,

I NPI Ex. #~132 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 133 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 134 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 135 -

Not offered.  !

I NPI Ex. # 136 -

Not offered.

1 NPI Ex. # 137 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 138 -

Not offered. I i

NPI Ex. # 139 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 140 -

Not offered.

7 ,

j i

NPI Ex. # 141 -

Not offered. *

NPI Ex. # 142 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 143 -

Not offered.

l NPI Ex. # 144 -

Not offered.

i NPI Ex. # 145 -

Not offered

. NPI Ex. # 146 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 147 -

Not offered.

i

(

NPI Ex. #148A -

Correspondence dated May 4, 1990 from J.

A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron

  • Products, Inc., to Roland Fletcher, Administrator, Radiation Health Project, i

l Department of the Environment, with-attachment.

NPI Ex. #148B -

Correspondence dated August 29, 1990, i from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland i

State Department of the Environment, to l Frank Schwoerer, Neutron Products, Inc.

1 NPI Ex. #148C -

Correspondence dated September 25, 1990, i

' from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G.

) Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological i Health Program, Department of the

Environment, with attachments.

, NPI Ex. #148D -

Correspondence dated November 28, 1990, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Frank Schwoerer, Neutron Products, Inc.

NPI Ex. #148E -

Correspondence dated December 6, 1990 from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., with Description of Violations attached.

8

a : , _ ; . = .= = . =- - - - " - - - - - - -

NPI Ex. #148F -

Correspondence dated December 12, 1990, from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron I Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the l Environment.

, NPI Ex. #148G -

Correspondence dated December 20, 1990, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G.

Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, with attachment.

NPI Ex. #148H -

Correspondence dated January 9, 1991, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland i Department of the Environment, to

. Neutron Products, Inc., with attachment.

NPI Ex. #148I -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. #148J -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. #148K -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. #148L -

Not offered.

l NPI Ex. #148M -

Not offered.  !

! NPI Ex. #148N -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 149 -

Not offered. 1 NPI Ex. # 150 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 151 -

Not offered.

l NPI Ex. # 152 -

Not offered. I i

l NPI Ex. # 153 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 154 -

Not offered.

I NPI Ex. # 155 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 156 -

Not offered.

9 .

i NPI Ex. # 157 -

Correspondence dated August 15, 1994, .

i from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health i

Program,. Department of the Environment, with attachment entitled "The Proposed l

i Location, Functioning and Operation of a Low Level Radioactive Waste Storage

_, facility for Neutron Productsf Dickerson Plant.".

NPI Ex. # 158 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 159 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 160 -

Not offered.

  • NPI Ex. # 161 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 162 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 163 -

Not offered.

i NPI Ex. # 164 -

Not offered.

~

NPI Ex. # 165 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 166 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 167 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 168 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 169 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 170 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 171 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 172 -

Correspondence dated December 31, 1990, from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.

NPI Ex. # 173 -

Correspondence dated December 31, 1990, from J. A. Ranschoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Lawrence M. Ward, Maryland Department of the Environment, with attachment.

10

~

NPI Ex. # 174 -

Not offered. ,

NPI Ex. # 175 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 176 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 177 -

Not offered. -

NPI Ex. # 178 -am . Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 179 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 180 -

Not offered. l NPI Ex. # 181 -

Not offered.  ;

NPI Ex. # 182 -

Not offered.

l NPI Ex. # 183 -

Not offered.

l NPI Ex. # 184 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 185 -

Not offered.

. 1 NPI Ex. # 186 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 187 -

Not offered. 'i NPI Ex. # 188 -

Not offered.

I NPI Ex. # 189 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 190 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 191 -

Correspondence dated February 20, 1992, from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health ,

Program, Naryland Department of the i Environment, with attachments.

NPI Ex. # 192 -

Correspondence dated November 14, 1991,

, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Naryland Department of the Environment, to

! Jackson A. Ransohoff, Neutron Products, Inc.

l l

i i

11 ,

._.._c__

~

]

NPI Ex. # 193 -

Correspondence dated October 7, 1991,

  • from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron  !

Products, Inc., to Carl Trump, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, with attachments.

NPI Ex. # 194 -

Not offered. I NPI Ex. # 195 -

Correspondence dated August 30, 1991, from Robert Perciasepe, Secretary, i

Maryland Department of the Environment, to The Honorable Laurence Levitan, r Chairman of the Budget and Taxation Committee.

. i NPI Ex. # 196 -

Correspondence dated July 3, 1991, from  !

Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, l Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson Ransohoff, Neutron Products, -

Inc.

NPI Ex. # 197 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 198 -

Correspondence dated April 12, 1991, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Frank Schwoerer, Neutron Products, Inc.

NPI Ex. # 199 -

Memorandum dated March 8, 1991, from Alvin Bowles, Administrator, Hazardous Weste Progr,am, Maryland Department of ,

the Environment, to Roland Fletcher, Director, Radiological Health Program,  ;

Maryland Department of the Environment.

NPI Ex. # 200 -

Not offered.  !

NPI Ex. #200A -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 201 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 202 -

Not offered.  !

NPI Ex. # 203 -

Not offered.  ;

NPI Ex. # 204 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 205 -

Not offered.

t 12 l

, . . . .. - - . - . - .. ~ . _ . . _ - . _ _ _ - . _ _ . _ - - .-. -.. - -.... _- - - . . - . .

s

' NPI Ex. # 206 -

Correspondence dated December 12, 1990, from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron I Products, Inc. , to Lawrence M. Ward, i'

Assistant Secretary, Toxies, Environmental Science and Health,

, Maryland Department of the Environment.

1 l NPI Ex. # 207 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 208 -

Correspondence dated August 27, 1990, I j from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator,

Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to
Jackson Ransohoff, Neutron Products, 4 Inc., with attachments.

l NPI Ex. # 209 -

Correspondence dated May 18, 1990, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron

Products, Inc., with attachments.

t j NPI Ex. # 210 -

Correspondence dated April 12, 1990, from J. A. Ranschoff, President, Neutron i

Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, l Administrator, Radiological Health I Program, Maryland Department of the

. Environment, with attachments.

j NPI Ex. # 211 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 212* - Correspondence dated October 29, 1985, i from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Technical Director, Division III, Neutron Products, Inc., to Robert Corcoran, Division of Radiation Control, -

Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. ,

NPI Ex. # 213* - Correspondence dated December 10, 1985, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Robert E.

Corcoran, Chief, Division of Radiation '

control, Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, with attachment.

13 ,

~ " - ~ .

i . i

{ '

i NPI Ex. # 214* - Correspondance dated December 30, 1985, i l from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, j Neutron Products, Inc. to Robert E. t

! Corcoran, Chief, Division of Radiation  !

j control, Maryland Department of. Health

, and Mental Hygiene, with attachment.

I NPI Ex. # 215* - Correspondence dated March 4, 1986, from  !

Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron ,

! ~*>rbducts, Inc., to Robert E. Corcoran, i i Chief, Division of Radiation Control, '

l Maryland Department of Health and Mental l Hygiene, with attachment.

Correspondence dated August 8, 1985, j NPI Ex. # 216* -

from F. Schwoerer, Vice President, * ,

j -

Technical Director, Division III, to  ;

i '

Robert Corcoran, Division of Radiation l Control, Maryland Department of Health  ;

and Mental Hygiene.

~

j NPI Ex. # 217 -

Not offered. '

} NPI Ex. # 218 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 219 -

H.R. 1083 entitled " Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act  !

of 1985" i

I NPI Ex. # 220 -

Correspondence dated June 5, 1991, from ,

j J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron l l Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, '

i Administrator, Radiological Health l

Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, with attachments.-

il 4

NPI Ex. # 221 -

Correspondence dated August 23, 1991, j- frca J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Troducts, Inc., to Lawrence M. Ward, ,

j TESH, and Richard W. Collins, Hazardous Waste, Maryland Department of the i Environment, with attachment.

i NPI Ex. # 222 -

Drawing dated May 31, 1991, and entitled

" Conceptual Design Courtyard Enclosure and Waste Management Shield" of Neutron Products, Inc.

NPI Ex. # 223 -

Drawing dated August 20, 1991, and entitled " Proposed Courtyard Enclosure with Interin Waste Storage" of Neutron  ;

Products, Inc.  ;

t 14 i

.  : - , - - . . . . . . . . . -~. -

~--=~~-- - --- - - - - - -

1 l

i NPI Ex. # 224 -

Correspondance dated January 11, 1991, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, .

Radiological Health Progra. to Jackson A. Ransohoff, President, Ni tron

Products, Inc.

NPI Ex. # 225 -

Correspondence dated January 24, 1991, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator,  ;

4 Radiological Health Program, Maryland

~ Department of the Environment, to l Jackson A. Ransohoff, Neutron Products,  :

) Inc.

  • HPI Ex. # 226 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 227 -

Correspondence dated June 7, 1990, from Jackson A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland'G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health  ;

Program, Maryland Department of the l
Environment, with attachments.

NPI Ex. # 228 -

Not offered.

l' NPI Ex. # 229 -

Correspondence dated August 22, 1988, from George E. Hofferber, Consulting Health Physicist, NUS Corporation, to 1

Wayne Castley, Neutron Products, Inc.,

j with attachment.

NPI Ex. # 230A - Not admitted.

NPI Ex. # 230B - Not admitted.

, NPI Ex. # 231 -

Not admitted.

i NPI Ex. # 232 -

Correspondence dated August 9, 1989, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, i

4 Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G.

Fletcher, Administrator, Center for Radiological Health, Haryland Department of the Environment, with attachments.

j NPI Ex. # 233 -

Correspondence dated December 2, 1992,  !

l from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, to Frank ,

Schwoerer, Neutron Products. '

1 15 ,

NPI Ex. # 234 -

Correspondence dated August 24, 1992, '

from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G.

Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, with attachment.

NPI Ex. # 235 -

Correspondence dated October 27, 1992, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G.

Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.

NPI Ex. # 236 -

Correspondence dated August 13, 1992, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Frank

.Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.

NPI Ex. / 237 -

Correspondence dated July 9, 1992, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, with Radiation Work Permit attached.

NPI Ex. # 238 -

Correspondence dated May 5, 1992, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Frank Schwoerer, Neutron Products, Inc.

I NPI Ex. # 239 -

Correspondence dated January 30, 1992, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G.

Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, with attachments.

NPI Ex. # 240 -

Correspondence dated October 9, 1991,

' from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc.

NPI Ex. #241A-F- Photographs of sump (various views)

NPI Ex. # 242 -

Not offered.

16 .

i

NPI Ex. # 243 -

Procedure for Entrance To and Exit From Contamination Control Areas (Procedure R 1003) dated May 6, 1974.

NPI Ex. # 244 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 245 -

Correspondence dated April 5, 1994, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., countersigned in agreement by Jackson A. Ransohoff on April 5, 1994.

NPI Ex. # 246 -

Correspondence dated April 4, 1994, from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.

NPI Ex. # 247 -

Correspondence dated March 29, 1994, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc.

NPI Ex. # 248 -

Correspondence dated March 1, 1994, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc. to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.

NPI Ex. # 249 -

Correspondence dated November 22, 1993, i from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G.

i Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological i

Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.

NPI Ex. # 250 -

Correspondence dated November 3, 1993, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Frank Schwoerer, Neutron Products, Inc.

NPI Ex. # 251 -

Correspondence dated September 29, 1993, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland F.

17 ,

2 l

l

Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.

NPI Ex. # 252 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 253 -

Diagram of Neutron Products, Inc. site.

NPI Ex. # 254 -

J o,t offered.

NPI Ex. # 255 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 256 -

" Understanding the ALARA Concept" dated October 24, 1997, and prepared by R. E.

Alexander, Certified Health Physicist.

NPI Ex. # 257 -

Not offered.

'NPI Ex. # 258 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 259 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 260 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 261 -

Correspondence dated. April 28, 1993, from Roland G. Fletcher, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Teresa H. Darden, Acting State Agreements Officer, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission / Region I, with attachments.

NPI Ex. # 262 -

Correspondence dated January 4, 1994, from Richard L. Bangart, Director, Office of State Programs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to Roland G.

Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, with attachment.

NPI Ex. # 263 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 264 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 265 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 266 -

Correspondence dated September 27, 1990, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G.

Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Project, Maryland Department of the Environment, with diagram entitled 18 l

" Cobalt Adjuster Unit As Received From CNEA, Central Nuclear En Embalse" dated

(, September 21, 1990, attached. .

NPI Ex. # 267 - Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 268 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 269 - Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 270 - Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 271 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 272 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 273 - Correspondence dated June 11, 1996, from Jeffrey Williams, Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.

NPI Ex. #'274 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 275 -

Correspondence dated May 18, 1995, from Jeffrey Williams, Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.

NPI Ex. # 276 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. #277-1A- Correspondence dated October 18, 1994, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiologica3 Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron

) Products, Inc., with Description of

Violations attached.

NPI Ex. #277-1B- Correspondence dated November 14, 1994, 4 from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc. to Roland G. "letcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.

NPI Ex. #278A - Not offered.

l l

N' 19

~

NPI Ex. #278B - Correspondence dated September 28, 1993 from J. A. Ransohof f, President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiolo,gical Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment. .

NPI Ex. # 279 - Correspondence dated December 24, 1992, from Harvin H. Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc. to Roland G.

Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Cepartment of the Environment, with attachment.

NPI Ex. # 280 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 281 -

Not offered. ,

NPI Ex. # 282 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 283 - Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 284 - Not offered.

Correspondence dated August 29, 1988, 4

NPI Ex. # 285 -

from J. A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Center for Radiological Health, Maryland Department of the Environment.

NPI Ex. # 286 - Correspondence dated August 6, 1992, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc., to Roland G.

Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Haryland Department of

.l the Environment, with attachment.

NPI Ex. # 287 -

Not offered.

I NPI Ex. # 288 -

Not offered.

4 NPI Ex. # 289 -

Not offered.

$ NPI Ex. # 290 -

Not offered.

J NPI Ex. # 291 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 292 - Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 293 -

Not offered.

20

NPI Ex. # 294 -

Not offered.

NPI Ex. # 295 -

Not admitted.

NPI Ex. # 296 - Not admitted.

O 21 t

. l

, The Department submitted the following exhibits which were admitted into evidence:

e State's Ex. # 1 -

. Radioactive Material License No.

MD-31-025-01, Amendment No. 43, l dated January 18, 1996, issued by j the Maryland Department of the  ;

Environment to Neutron Products, 1 Inc.

)

State's Ex. # 2A -

Correspondence dated July 26, 1988, 1 from Roland G. Fletcher, )

Administrator, Center for l Radiological Health to Jackson A. 1 Ransohoff, President, Neutron l Products,-Inc., with Description of ,

Violations attached. '

State's Ex. # 2B -

Memorandum dated February 27, 1989,  :

from F. Schwoerer to W. J. Costley,  !

' Radiation Safety Officer, regarding i

" Contamination found on

[Schwoerer's] clothing in Rochester, New York, on February 23 ,

and 24, 1989." -

State's Ex. # 3 -

Order No. 0-88-01 of the Maryland  !

Department of the Environment, In the Matter of Neutron Products, Inc., dated June 23, 1988.

State's Ex. # 4 -

Reports of Home Contamination ,

, surveys (3) {

i

  • j State's Ex. # 5 -

Correspondence dated September 7, i i

! 1988, from Wayne J. Costley, i

Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron

! Products, Inc., to Roland G.

l Fletcher, Administrator, Center for i Radiological Health, Maryland l Department of the Environment.

I State's Ex. # 6 -

Memorandum dated April 18, 1989,

, from Raymond E. Manley, Maryland l Department of the Environment, to  !

Carl E. Trump, Jr., with  ;

attachments, regarding " Chronology of Radioactive Materials Section ,

Acts Following the Modification of

, Neutron Products, Inc. (MD-31-025-3 01)." "

e '

i 4

. . _ , , . - - - . , ,,__,__,,,-v.. , , _

State's Ex. # 7 -

Radioactive Material License No. -

MD-31-025-01, Amendment No. 30, dated March 3, 1989, issued by the Maryland Department of the Environment to Neutron Products,

. Tac .

State's Ex. # 8 -

Not offered.

State's Ex. # 9 ~"I

~ Radioactive Material License No.

MD-31-025-01, Amendment No. 33, dated May 23, 1989, issued by the Maryland Department of the Environment to Neutron Products, Inc.

State's Ex. # 10 Correspondence dated May 24, 1989, from Lawrence M. Ward, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Toxics, Environmental Science and Health, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A.

Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc.

State's Ex. # 11 -

Not offered.

State's Ex. # 12 -

Not offered.

State's Ex. # 13 -

Not offered.

State's Ex. # 14 -

Not offered.

State's Ex. # 15 -

Aerial photograph of Neutron Products, Inc. facility, to be used as a demonstrative exhibit.

State's Ex. # 16 -

Not offered.

State's Ex. # 17 Plat of the Dickerson Community designating the location of the Neutron Products, Inc. facility and surrounding residences.

State's Ex. # 18 -

Amended Complaint for Civil Penalties and Injunctive Relief dated May 15, 1992, in the case of Maryland Department of the Environment v. Neutron Products, Inc., Civil No. 76639, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.

2

. 1

, State's Ex. # 19 -

Memorandum and Opinion Order dated  :

December 29, 1993, in the case of Maryland Department of the Environment v. Neutron Products, Inc., Civil No. 76639, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery i County.  ;

State's Ex. #-dt0- -

Stipulation and Settlement in the case of Maryland Department of the Environment v. Neutron Products, Inc., Civil No. 76639, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.

State's Ex. # 21 -

Summary of Neutron Products, Inc.

contamination incidents from May i 31, 1989, through February 4, 1992. ,

State's Ex. # 225 -

All contamination reports made to Neutron Products, Inc. by the Maryland Department of the Environment for the period from May, 1993, through June, 1995.

State's Ex. # 23 -

Radioactive Material License No.

MD-33-021-02, Amendment No. 19, dated April 2, 1993, issued by the Maryland Department of the

, Environment to Radiation Service Organization. ,

Radioactive Material License No.

State's Ex. # 24 -

' PA-0678, dated December 7, 1993, issued by the commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, Department of l Environmental Resources, Bureau of I 5

Radiation Protection, to ALARON

{ corporation.

1 j State's Ex. # 25 -

Correspondence dated August 23, j 1996, from John R. McGrath, Senior Health Physicist, Division of j Nuclear Materials Safety, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to Michael

. A. Roller, President and CEO of ALARON Corporation, transmitting Materials License No. 37-20826-01, i

! *The first page of this Exhibit was not admitted into l ovidence. l i

3 -

e

. l Amendment No. 9 (attached to -

i

correspondence) dated August 23, J

1996.

State's Ex. # 26 -

Radioactive Material License No. R-01078-LOO, dated December 5, 1995, 4 issued by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Radiological. Health, to Manufacturing Sciences Corporation.

State's Ex. # 27 -

Materials License No. 030-08681, dated May 12, 1996, issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Teledyne Environmental, Inc'., dba*

Teledyne Brown Engineering -

Environmental Services.

State's Ex. # 28 -

Correspondence dated August 30, 1994, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.,

to Roland G. Fletcher, Administ.ator, Radiological Health Prograra, IIaryland Department of the Envirennent, transmitting radioactive waste inventories from January 1, 1994, through June 30, 1994.

State's Ex. # 29 -

Correspondence dated February 21, 1994, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.,

to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, transmitting radioactive waste inventories from July 1, 1994, through December 31, 1994.

State's Ex. # 30 -

Correspondence dated September 6, 1995, from Frank Schwoerer, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.,

to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrato'r, Maryland Department of the Environment, transmitting radioactive waste inventories from January 1, 1995, through June 30, 1995.

4

, State's Ex. # 31 - Correspondence dated August 22, 1996, from Jeffrey Williams, Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron Products, Inc., to Alan Jacobson, i . Radiological Health Program, i Maryland-Department of the Environment.

i State's Ex. # 32 - American National Standard N.43.10

( (cover sheet and p. 13).

4 j State's Ex. # 33 - Inspection Report of Neutron.

Products, Inc., by Raymond Manley

dated April 25, 1990.

1

State's Ex. # 34 - Radioactive Material Inspection l Findings and Licensee Acknowledgement dated March 13, 14 and 15, 1990, by Raymond Manley, Maryland Department of the
l. Environment, for Neutron Products, i Inc.

l' State's Ex. # 35 - Not offered.

i l State's Ex. # 36 -

Not offered.

j State's Ex. # 37 -

Not offered.

State's Ex. # 38 - Inspection Findings and Licensee i Acknowledgement dated November 1,

1988, by Raymond Manley and Alan Jacobson, Maryland Department of

! the Environment, for Neutron i Products, Inc.

1 State's Ex. # 39 - Correspondence dated November 15, l 1989, from Vandy L. Miller, i Assistant Director for State i Agreements Program, State, Local j and Tribe Programs, Office of j Governmental and Public Affairs, 4 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to i Roland F. Fletcher, Administrator, i

Center for Radiological Health,

Office of Toxics, Environmental j Science and Health, Maryland Department of the Environment, with attachments.

I i

5 ,

State's Ex. # 40 -

Correspondence dated March 29, 1991, from Thomas E. Potter to Jackson Ransohoff, Neutron Products, Inc., accompanied by Potter's evaluatio'n of the two melt campaigns and cleanups conducted by Neutron Products, Inc. during 1990. l State's Ex. # 41 -""

Copy of three (3) Polaroid  !

i photographs of bagged waste located at Neutron Products, Inc.

State's Ex. # 42 -

Not offered.

State's Ex. # 43 -

Not offered.

4 State's Ex. # 44 -

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Information Notice on Extended Interim Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste (SP-90-27) dated February 16, 1990, transmitting Nuclear Regulatory Commission Information Notice on Extended Interim Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste by Puel Cycle and Materials Licen' sees (No. 90-09) dated February 5, 1990.

State's Ex. # 45 -

Nuclear Regulatory Commission /CR-4062 entitled " Extended Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste:

Potential Problem Areas."

State's Ex. # 46 -

Not offered.

State's Ex. # 47 -

Memorandum dated May 25, 1993, from Ray Manley to Accident Incident File, regarding " Investigation and limited inspection of NPI regarding the uncontrolled release of a fifty microcurie cobalt-60 particle into the Dickerson community."

State's Ex. # 48 -

Summary of One Kilometer Surveys dated May 20, 1992.

State's Ex. # 49 -

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Guidance for Land Clean-up Involving CO-60 Contamination.

State's Ex. # 50 -

Not offered.

6

~

l l

State's Ex. # 51 -

Not offered.

State's Ex. # 52 -

Neutron Products, Inc. 1995 Boundary Monitoring Report. l State's Ex. # 53 -

Correspondence dated June 26, 1997, from Roland G. Fletcher, Manager, Radiological Health Program,

~

Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A.

Ranschoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., with Description of Violations attached.

State's Ex. # 54 -

Correspondence dated January 24, 1997, from Roland G. Fletcher, Environmental Manager, Radiological

. Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A.

Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., with Description of Violations attached.

State's Ex. # 55 -

Correspondence dated September 12, 1996, from Roland G. Fletcher, Environmental Manager, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A.

Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., with Description of Violations attached.

State's Ex. # 56 -

Correspondence dated May 13, 1996, from Roland G. Fletcher, Environmental Manager, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A.

Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., with Description of l

d Violations attached. i State's Ex. # 57 -

Not offered.

State's Ex. # 58 -

Correspondence dated April 24, '

1995, from Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager, II, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Jackson A.

Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., with Description of violations attached.

7 1

~

{ .

O

State's Ex. # 59 - Maryland Department of the
  • Environment, Radiological Health Program, Radioactive Materials Inspection Format dated October 16, 1995, for Neutron Products, Inc.

State's Ex. # 60 -

Radioactive Material Inspection Findings and Licensee Acknowledgement dated August 30 and 31, 1994, by Alan Jacobso' ,n Maryland Department of the Environment, for Neutron Products,

. Inc.

State's Ex. # 61 - Maryland Department of the Environment, Radiological Health Program, Radioactive Materials Inspection Format dated April 20 -

22, 1994, for Neutron Products, Inc.

State's Ex. # 62 -

Correspondence dated August 30, 1993, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryla,nd Department of the Environment, to Jackson A.

Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc., with Description of Violations attached.

State's Ex. # 63 -

Correspondence dated November 30, 1992, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the

, Environment, to Jackson A.

I Ransohoff, President, Neutron

! Products, Inc., with Description of i Violations attached.

I i

State's Ex. # 64 -

Correspondence dated January 13, 1995, from Jackson A. Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc.,

to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health i

Program, Maryland Department of the

Environment.

State's Ex. # 65A -

Photograph of Neutron Products, j Inc. plant from the west, with dry pond enclosed by a chain link fence i

in the foreground.

8 1

w - - .. ..

~

  • Photograph of view from the north State's Ex. / 65B -

side of the dry pond, looking south to the railroad tracks.

State's Ex. # 65C - Photograph of railroad tracks with Neutron Products, Inc. plant in the background.

State's Ex. # 65D - Photograph of south side of railroad tracks, including additional property maintained by Neutron Products, Inc.

State's Ex. / 66 - Neutron Products, Inc. -

Specifications, Procedures, and Quality Control for Sealed Cobalt-60 Sources (October, 1971).

State's Ex. # 67 - Procedure R 5002, Revision 1, July 15, 1976, entitled " Opening Hot Cell Door After Processing Single and Double Encapsulated Cobalt-60."

State's Ex. / 68 -

Procedure NR 5003, Revision 1, July i 15, 1976, entitled " Opening Hot cell Door After Processing Exposed Cobalt-60."

State's Ex. / 69 -

Correspondence dated May 11, 1992,  !

from Roland G. Fletcher, i Administrator, Radiological Health l Program, to Jackson A. Ranschoff,  !

Neutron Products, Inc. l l

State's Ex. # 70 -

Correspondence dated March 2, 1993, l from Marvin M. Turkanis, Vice

. President, Neutron Products, Inc.,

to Roland G. Fletcher, j Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.

State's Ex. # 71 -

Correspondence dated March 3, 1993, from Charles R. Flynn, Program Administrator, Radioactive Material ,

Licensing, Maryland Department of l the Environment, to Marvin V. l Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.

l l

9 I

State's Ex. # 72 -

Correspondence dated March 23,

  • 1993, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice 4

President, Neutron Products, Inc.

to Roland G. Fletcher, j Administrator, Radiological Health l Program, Maryland Department of the l Environment.

State's Ex. # 73 Correspondence dated March 24,

) - 1993, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice j President, Neutron Products, Inc.

4 to Roland G. Fletcher,

! Administrator, Radiological Health j

Program, Maryland Department of the i Environment.

i .

l State's Ex. # 74 -

Correspondence dated March 25,

1993, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice 1 President, Neutron Products, Inc.

j to Roland G. Fletcher, 2

Administrator, Radiological Health

{ Program, Maryland Department of the i Environment.

i i

State's Ex. # 75 -

Correspondence dated April 1,.1993, from Charles R.~Flynn, Program Administrator, Radioactive Material Licensing, to Marvin v. Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.

State's Ex. # 76 -

Correspondence dated November 29, 1993, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.

to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.

State's Ex. # 77 -

Correspondence dated December 7, 1993, from Charles R. Flynn, Program Administrator, Radioactive Material Licensing, to Marvin V.

Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.

10

. i i

e State's Ex. / 78 -

Correspondence dated December 9, 1993, from Marvin V. 'Itrusnic, vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.

to Roland G. Fletcher, -

Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.

State's Ex. # 70 - Correcpondence dated Dacamber 13, 1993, from Charl.es R. Flynn, i Program Administrator, Radioactive Material Licensing, to Marvin V. ,

Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.

f; tate's Ex. # 20 - Correspondence dated Deccabcr 13, 1993, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.

to Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment. .

State's Ex. # 81 - Correspondence dated December 20,  ;

1993, from Charles R. Flynn, Program Administrator, RadioactiVC Material Licensing, to Marvin V.

Turkanic, Vice President, Neutron '

Products, Inc.

State's Ex. # 82 - Correspondence dated April 27, 1984, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice 4

President, Neutron Products, Inc.

l to Roland G. Fletcher, l l

Administrator, Radiological Health , ,

Program, Maryland Department of the ,

j Environment. l 1 .

state's Ex. / 83 -

Correspondence dated April 27, 1994, from Charles R. Flynn, Program Administrator, Radioactive Material Licensing, to Marvin V.

Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron l Products, Inc.

I I

i

! 11 i

l J

state's Ex. # 84 - Correspondence dated September 22, 1995, from Jeffrey D. Williams, l Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron .

Products, Inc. to.Roland G.

Fletcher, Program Manager II, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the -

Environment. ,

state's Ex. # 85 - Correspondence dated September 28, 1995, from Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager-II, Radiological Health Program, to Jeffrey D.

Williams, Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron Products, Inc.

State's Ex. # 86 - Correspondence dated September 28, 1995, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.

to Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager II, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the 1

Environment.

- State's Ex. # 87 - Correspondence dated October 6,

> 1995, from Roland G. Fletcher, j

Program Manager-II, Radiological Health Program, to Jeffrey D.

~

Williams, Radiation Safety officer, '

Neutron Products, Inc.

State's Ex. # 88 -

Correspondence dated October 23, i 1995, from Harvin V. Turkanis, Vice i President, Neutron Products, Inc.

to Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager II, Radiological Health ,

Program, Maryland Department of the Environment. .

State's Ex. # 09 -

Correspondence dated October 27, 1995, from Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager-II, Radiological Health Program, to Jeffrey D.

Williams, Radiation satety officer, Neutron Products, Inc.

1 12 o

'o State's Ex. ( 90 - correspondence dated November 10,  ;

1995, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice l

' President, Neutron Products, Inc. 1

- to Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager II, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Invironment. -

State's Ex. // 91 - Correspondence dated November 14,  !

1995, from Roland G. Fletcher, I

Program Manager-II, Radiological l Health Program, to Jeffrey D.

1 Williams, Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron Products, Inc.

State's Ex. # 92 - correspondence dated December 5, 4 1995, from Harvin V. Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.

to Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager II, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.

State's Ex. f 93 -

Correspondence dated December 6, l

1995, from Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager-II, Radiological  :

l Health Program, Radioactive Material Licensing, to Jerrrey D.

Williams, Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron Froducts, Inc.

State's Ex. # 94 -

Correspondence dated December 15, J 1995, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.

! to Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager II, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environnent. _

State's Ex. # 95 -

Correspondence dated December 22, I 4

1995, from Carl E. Trump, Jr., i Program Manager, Radioactive Materials License, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Marvin V. Turkanis, vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.  !

l l

13

State's Ex. # 96 - Correspondence dated June 6, 1997, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.,

to Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.

State's Ex. # 97 - Correspondence dated July 2, 1997, '

from Carl E. Trunp, Jr., Program Manager, Radioactive Materials Licensing, Compliance and safeguard Division, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Marvin V.

Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.

State's Ex. # 98 - Correspondence dated July 10, 1997, from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.,

to Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.

State's Ex. # 99 - Correspondence dated July 10, 1997, from Carl E. Trump, Jr., Program Manager, Radioactive Materials Licensing, Compliance and Safeguard Division, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Marvin V.

Turkanis, vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.

t State's Ex. # 100 - Correspondence dated July 14, 1997,

! from Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice l

President, Neutron Products, Inc. ,

j to Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager, Radiological Hen 1th Program, Maryland Department of the Environment.

! State's Ex. # 101 - Correspondence dated July 16, 1997, from Carl E. Trump, Jr., Program Manager, Radioactive Materials Licensing, compliance and Safeguard Division, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Marvin V.

i Turkanis, Vice President, Neutron Products, Inc.

14

'~

O State's Ex. # 102 - 10 C.F.R. Part 20 dated September 29, 1995.

?

State's Ex. # 103 -

Radioactive Material License No.

MD-31-025-01, Amendment No. 28, j dated September 18, 1985, issued by j the Maryland Department of the l 1

Environment to Neutron Products,  ;

I Inc.

State's Ex. # 104 - Radioactive Material Inspection Findings and Licensee Acknowledgement dated January 28 -

31, 1991, by Raymond Manley, Maryland Department of the Environment, for Neutron Products, Inc.

i State's Ex. # 105 -

Correspondence dated October 25, i

1989, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health

! Program, Maryland Department of the

! Environment, to J.A. Ransohoff, I President, Neutron Products, Inc.,

j with Description of Violations and

! Order to Stop attached.

State's Ex. # 106 -

correspondence dated December 28, i 1989, from Wayne J. Costley, Vice

. President, Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron Products, Inc., to

- Roland Fletcher, Administrator,

. Radiological Health Program, l Maryland Department of the Environment, with Radioactive Respiratory Protection Program, Revision 7, dated December 28, 1989, attached.,

State's Ex. # 107 -

National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) Report No. 89 entitled "Use of Bioessay Procedures for Assessment of Internal Radionuclide Deposition."

l State's Ex. # 108 -

Radioactive Material License No.

MD-31-025-01, Amendment No. 09, dated November 25, 1975, issued by i the Maryland Department of the  !

Enviromnant to Ncutron Products, i Inc. - Page 4 of 4.

l 15 o

w'-vr _ . , _

. State's Ex. i 109 - Correspondence dated April 18,

  • 1994, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the

, Environment, to Jackson A.

Ransohoff, President, Neutron Products, Inc.

State's Ex. #-dia - Correspondence dated June 17, 1994, from Roland G. Fletcher, Administrator, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to Marvin V. Turkanis, Vice President, Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron Products, Inc.

State's Ex. # 111 - Correspondence dated June 21, 1995, from Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager II, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the Environment, to J. A. Ransohoff, Neutron Products, Inc.

State's Ex. # 112 -

Radioactive Material License No.

MD-31-025-04, Amendment No. 22, dated March 14, 1996, issued by the Maryland Department of the

! Environment to Neutron Products, Inc.

1 i

State's Ex. # 113 -

Radioactivt daterial License No.

MD-31-025-05, Amendment No. 12 (RENEWAL), dated October 26, 1995, issued by the Maryland Department 4 of the Environment to Neutron i Products, Inc.

]- State's Ex. # 114 - Sampling Procedure, Procedure 1002,

, Revision 5, June 7, 1989.

i State's Ex. # 115 -

Curriculum Vitae of Alan Jacobson.

State's Ex. # 116 - Not offered.

State's Ex. # 117 -

Correspondence dated September 29, 1995, from Jeffrey Williams, Radiation Safety Officer, Neutron  :

Products, Inc., to Roland G.

Fletcher, Program Manager,

, Radiological Health Program, Maryland Department of the d

Environment, with a copy of the HP

. . Consultant Report for August 1995, prepared by R.E. Alexander, CHP, attached.

16

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20203D156&oldid=3069224"