ML20126L149

Partially Withheld Transcript of 900517 Investigative Interview of E Silberstein (Closed),In Cincinnati,Oh. Pp 1 - 48.W/related Documentation

ML20126L149
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/17/1990
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20126K503	List: IA-91-533, Partially Withheld Transcript of 900716 Investigative Interview of Jf Wiot (Closed),In Cincinnati,Oh.Pp 1 - 37. W/Related Documentation ML20126K500 ML20126K521 ML20126K833 ML20126K869 ML20126K932 ML20126K951 ML20126L128 ML20126L149 ML20126L163
References
FOIA-91-533, FOIA-92-A-1 NUDOCS 9301070349
Download: ML20126L149 (58)

Text

. . . . . , . . ~~s.u u-

' /,e o

01$\f{

g. OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDhNGS Agency: nuclear Regulatory commi . ton Investigative Interview of IillC: Edward Silber tein (C LOS E D)

Docket No.

Cincinatt1, Ohio LCCGON.

Thursday. Hay 17, 1990 p3cg3 1 - 48 CATI.

EXHIBIT Ib PAGE _1, _ OF $b P '.7.2'3)

< ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

l

' 1612 K St N.W, Suite 300 3389d01 1  % % gg a 7g,01ggy2992o707

~

(202) 293-3950 gi 7 ' ,4 y i RESNICK92-A-1 fing ,

I e 1 UNITED STATES

-u 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 4 ...... ..... ... . .. ....X 5 Interview oft 6 EDWARD SILBERSTEIN  :

1 l

7 (Closed)  !

---

X J 8 l 9

10 University of Cincinatti l 11 5 Basement, H Pavillion 12 237 Goodman Cincinatti, Ohio 13 14 15 Thursday, May 17, 1990 16 17 The above entitled interview was conducted, 18 - pursuant to notice, at 9:41 a.m., before:

19 20 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 21 RICHARD C. PAUL, NRC Investigator 22 JAMES D. DOCKERY, NRC Investigator J AMES - N . KALM1AN , NRC Inyesi.a,gater h

- 23 24 KENNETH S. RESNICK, Esquire, on Behalf of the

~

1, ,

University of Cincinnati 25 g 9y--< m.. -.

y.7+p_q .g . , .

.e-- e- qy w.,

. . . . .w.-.. .

n' ,

2 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 (9:41 a.m.)

3 MR. PAUL: On the record. This an interview of 4 Dr. Edward Silberstein, spelled S-i-1-b-e-r-s-t-e-1-n, who 5 is currently employed by the University of Cincinnati.

6 The location of this interview is the University-7 of Cincinnati in Cincinnati, Ohio. Present at this 8 interview in addition to Dr. Silberstein are Kenneth 9 Resnick, an attorney representing Mr. Silberstein, and 10 Richard C. Paul, P-a-u-1, and James D. Dockery, D-o-c-k-e-r-11 y, who are Inve .igators with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 12 Commission.

13 As agreed, this interview is being transcribed by 14 Court Reporter Lincoln Davis. The subject matter of this 15 interview concerns the University of. Cincinnati Hospital.

16 Dr. Silberstein, please stand and raise your right 17 hand.

18 Whereupon, 19 EDWARD SILBERSTEIN, 20 a witness, was called for examination, and,-having been 21 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

22 MR. PAULt Mr. Silberstein, is Mr. Resnick here as 23- your personal counsel'in this mattar?

- 24 THE WITNESS: No.

a 25- MR. PAUL: Who does he represe,nt?

- .,wn--a - -. . ~ , - - , - - , , , , e . . , - s- . -- _.,

'% 1 w y a . aa -n.. ,w w x l

,3 1 THE WITNESS The University of Cincinnati. 1;ould T' 2 that be fair?

3 MR. RESNICK Fair. .

4 KR. PAUL Do you wish him here as your 5 representative at the interview?

6 THE WITNESS: I do.

7 KR. pat!L: Mr. Resnick, earlier, before the 8 interview, ww discussed a matter regarding obtaining the 9 transcript. There were some things that you wanted to make 10 apparent to us.

MR. RESNICK: Sure. Before we went on the record, 11 12 we had discussions relating to receiving copies of the

( 13 transcript, number one; number two, whether it would be 14 appropriate for Dr. Silberstein or myself to make a tape 15 recording of this interview.

16 We are notified by Mr. Paul that that would not be 17 appropriate under apparently some unwritten policy. I 18 object to this type of proceeding vnere no record is 19 permitted to be made by the Witness or his counsel, and that 20 transcripts of the interview won't become available until 21 after the investigation has ended, which may not be until 22 after a notice of violation or after referral to the 23 Department of Justice, years hence.

24 So we object to that. We're going to go ahead and 25 let the interview-take' place with'the understanding that at I

- - -- - - _ - - . . _ . . - - = _ _ - . . . _ . - _ - _ . - - - - - - _ - --

- 4 1

the time that Dr. Silberstein reads the transcript for C. :. 2 transcription errors, both Dr. Silberstein and counsel be 3 permitted, without making a verbatim copy of the transcript, 4 to take notes from it.

5 KR. PAUL Mr. Resnick, do you represent Dr.

6 Silberstein personally at this interview?

7 MR. RESNICK: I'm represen*.ing him as University 8 counsel.

9 KR. PAULt Do you anticipate any conflicts of 10 interest between Dr. Silberstein's position and the 11 University's position in this matter?

12 KR. RESNICKt No, I don't.

t

[ If you perceive this problem or a

( 13 KR. PAUL:

14 conflict of interest arising, could you let us know at that 15 point?

16 THE FITNESS: Could you explain what that means?

17 MR. PAUL Well, obviously, there's two parties 18 here at the' interview. The University is a separate entity.

P 19 They're the licensee before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 20 Commission. You're an employee of the University.

21 I'm interviewing you as a person, a separate 22 entity from the University. As two different people, 23 obviously, I don't know what you have to say, but there-24 could be a conflict between the University's position as a 25 licensee and-your personal position if, in fact, you had any

, ,l 5

1 culpability in that.

Y 2 THE WITNESS: I see. I see. I understand.

3 MR. PAUL: And with Mr. Resnick representing the 4 University, their interest may not be the same as yours.

5 THE WITNESS: I understand.

6 MR. RESNICK: I've heard what you said and I've 7 told you what my response was, and at some point that 8 analysis breaks down because I'm not representing an 9 abstract institution where there are no people. The people 10 that run the institution and make policy are people like Dr.

11 Silberstein and others. So there is no conflict of 12 interest, as I see it.

13 MR. PAUL: Currently, I don't perceive this 14 conflict of interest, but if I do, I'm going to stop the 15 interview and we'll make a decision at that point, because I 16 don't know what Dr. Silberstein --

17 MR. RESNICK: It's up to you.

10 MR. PAUL But you do want Mr. Resnick present, 19 understanding that he also represents the University, which 20 is the licensee in the matter.

21 THE WITNESS: Yes; since my actions in relation to 22 what I believe this investigation concerns have all been f

1 23 University-related roles. Virtually all of thea have been 24 in University-related roles. Yes. I perceive no personal 2S conflict, nor have any concern of culpability whatsoever.

~ _ _ _

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

I I T 6

EXAMINATION r- 1 I* 2 BY HR. PAUL 3 0 Dr. Silberstein, could you give us your background 4 for the record in relation to nuclear medicine and the 5 handling and use of radioisotopes?

6 A My initial training came during hematology 7

fellowship at Newman Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, 8

where I took my first course in radioisotope physics at the 9

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and was certified by 10 the New England Roentgen Ray Society.

11 Subsequently, I came to the University of 12 Cincinnati beginning at the Assistant Professor level, now 13 as Full Professor, where, for 22 years, I have been involved in the handling of radioactive materials. I have been 14 15 certified by the American Board of Nuclear Medicine.

16 I am -- you'll have to tell me if there's conflict 17

-- a consultant for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 18 misadministration concerns for several of the regions, 19 including the Glenn Ellyn region and the King of Prussia 20 region, and have been involved in the administration of and 21 research with radioactive materials since 1967.

22 Q- So you're currently a consultant to'the Nuclear 23 Regulatory Commission.

24 A That is correct. I am a paid consultant.

25 Q What is your current position here at the

=

+

g - . - - - . . v- r- y'

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

l

. , , f 7

1 University of Cincinnati? l Professor of Radiology'and tenured, and separately 2 A l 3 a Professor of Internal Medicine, also tenured. _

i 4 Q Do you -- are you listed on the University's  !

t 5 Nuclear Regulatory material license as an authorized user or 6 in any other capacity?

7 A I can't answer the questio'n.

8 Q You just -- you' don't know?

9 A I don't know. I have always assumed that that was 10 a Radiation Safety Office function and that if all those who 11 are certified as users are up here on'the list, I sure as 12 hell should be because I've been around a long time, and 13 have been on the Radiation Safety Committee, etcetera.

14 Q okay. But you don't know whether you're on --

15 A I haven't looked at the license for that. That is 16 correct.

17 Q Are you currently on the Radiation. Safety 18 Committee?

19 A Ho.

20 Q Were you at one time on the Radiation Safety 21 Committee?-

22 .A I was.

23 Q And what was the timeframe that you were on the 24 Radiation Safety Committee?.

25 A I can't recall when I initially joined. Probably-

- ~ ~~

%m,mn1 m m e., m,J _ w w ,o w ~ '~- ~~~-^^' - ~~^- - - - '

i l

8 r 1 in the early '80s, possibly before my duty was terminated at ko . '

2 the end of '89 or early '90 when the Radiation Safety 3 Committee was restructured, made smaller as part of the 4 agreements in working with the NRC, and also at the time 5 which I was asked by the President of the University to act l 6 as Deputy Radiation Safety Of ficer for the University, at 7 which time there would be a conflict where I, on the B Committee, supervising the Deputy Radiation Safety Office, 9 the Officer.

10 Q Do I understand you right; you were the Deputy 11 Radiation Safety --

12 A I am the Deputy Radiation Safety --

13 Q You currently are the Deputy Radiation Safety --

14 and it's my understanding that an_ individual by the name of 15 Prince Jason was in that position prior to you?

16 A That is correct.

17 Q And who --

18 A Either Deputy or Associate or Assistant, I can't 19 be certain of his title.

20 Q In the timeframe 1988-1989, it's my understanding >

21 that Ken Fritz was the Radiation Safety Officer; is that 22 correct?

23 A That is correct.

24 Q And do you recall at what point.in time that he 25 was removed as Radiation Safety Officer?

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

.9 1 A Well, I'm certain that it's a matter of record in

? 2 someone else's hands. I heard about it secondhand and would 3 believe that this would have been af ter July of 1989, but I 4 can't give you a date since I was not involved in that 5 action.

6 Q Who is the current Radiation Safety Officer?

7 A Howard Elson, Ph.D.

8 Q Is he acting or has he been forna11y appointed?

9 A He has been --

10 HR. RESNICKt What do you mean by formally 11 appointed --

12 THE WITNESS: He --

MR. PAULt There's a formal notification process

( 13 14 that --

15 THE WITNESS: I believe the NRC has been notified 16 --

17 MR. RESMICK: That's what I thought. Okay.

18 THE WITNESS: -- that he is the Radiation Safety 19 Officer for the University at this point. However, the 20 University, since he is -- he came from the Division of 21 Radiation Oncology and wishes to return there, and the 22 University is involved in a search for a Radiation Safety 23 officer at this time.

24 Therefore, I cannot be certain whether he is s

25 appointed as the acting or as the permanent, since it was

g,..a ... g 10 1 understood that there would be a search for'a permanent C#S 2 Radiation Safety Officer, permitting Dr. Elson's return to 3 his radiation oncology duties. ,

4 BY KR. PAULt 5 Q In your position now, who is your immediate 6 supervisor?

7 A In the table of organization, Dr. Elson would be, 8 since he is the Radiation Safety Officer. ,

9 Q Prior to you becoming Deputy Radiation Safety 10 Officer, at the timeframe you were in the Radiation Safety 11 Committee, who was your immediate supervisor?

12 A on the Radiation Safety Committee?

Right.

( 13 Q 14 A The Chairman, Dr. Jerome Wlot, and before him, Dr.

15 Eugene L. Saenger would have worked -- be supervisors of 16 that -- the Directors of that Committee.

17 Q What about in your day-to-day activities as a 18 Professor at the University and the hospital?

19 A Dr. Eugene Saenger was Professor and Director of the Division, and followed by Dr. Harry R. Maxon, III, who 20 21 is the current Director of the Division at the University of 22 Ciccinnati.

23 Q In the timeframe 1988 and 1989, how'many members 24 were on the Radiation Safety Committee?

(p 25 A 7 would have to guess, since I was not responsible p-,---e -,v.-, , w y-,- ,p. -v,-- .e w- -

- - . - . . _ . . . .- = - = . . . - .

• ' , l 11 1 for keeping attendance, that there were between 15 and 20.

C.'" 2 Q And how often did the Radiation Safety Cobaittee 3 meet?

4 A Qua rterly.

5 Q And in regards to radiation safety, did the ,

6 Radiation Safety Committee -- what was their objectives?

7 Did they handle the day-to-day activities of the Radiation 8 Safety Department or were they a policy-setting type body?

9 A I would characterize the activities as policy-10 setting, with the addition that all protocols involving 31 human use, and then at my insistence, all protocols 12 involving in vitro use; t!.at is in animals or in laboratorys

( 13 were brought to the Radiation Safety Committee for final 14 ratification.

15 Q Did the Radiation Safety Officer report to the 16 Radiation Safety Committee, or how was the organization 17 structure as f ar as the RSO, meaning Radiation Safety 18 Officer, set up?

19 A In the table of organization, the RSO reported to 20 the Radiation Safety Committee.

21 Q Did the Radiation Safety Officer, who, 1 22 understand, in that~timeframe, was Ken Fritz --

23 A Yes.

24 Q Did he attend all the meetings of the Radiation-25 Safety Committee?

4

• 12 1 A To the best of my recollection.

C$* 2 O Would -- I believe it was Dr. Wlot you said 3 carlier was the Chairman of the Committee.

4 A Yes.

5 Q Was he the immediate supervisor of the Radiation 6 Safety officer?

7 A The pause is because many communication -- I think 8 many -- since the table of organization indicated the 9 Officer was reporting to the Committee, it would be 10 difficult for me to say that Dr. Wlot was Mr. Fritz' direct il supervisor. Practically, there were communications from the 12 Committee that would go through Dr. Wlot to Mr. Fritz, but

( 13 it would be difficult to characterize Dr. Wiot's role as Mr.

14 Tritz ' supervisor.

15 Q The Radiation Safety Officer, Mr. Fritz, was he 16 responsible for the day-to-day activities of the Radiation 17 Safety Department?

18 A He was. And Mr. Resnick, correct me if I'm wrong, 19 but that is a University-wide committee. I mean, that's not 20 a committee that's appointed by.Dr. Wlot or by the 21 Department of Radiology --

22 MR. RESNICK: The Radiation Safety--- Yes.

23 THE WITNESS: -- Safety Officer, is appointed by 24 the President of the University, if I'm not mistaken, as a

( University-wide committee.

25 w -.*'-'

mu a.x m ow u w un - w w~

13 1 BY KR. PAULt

~"

2 Q Well, then how did they appoint ths Radiation 3 Safety Committee? Is that University-wide also?

4 A Yes.

5 HR. RISHICKt That's what he was talking about.

THE WITNESS: Yes. This is a University as 6

7 opposed to a departmental or a medical center committee.

8 It's a University-wide committee, since this campus --

9 basically, we look on it as an east and west campus 10 geographically, and there are some users on the west campus, 11 some, although there has been some large sources, for 12 example, that -- and laboratories that are over there.

13 And so this has had representation from the entire 14 University. So this is not a medical center committee, 15 which is why, when you asked if Dr. Wiot is his supervisor, 16 I would -- I can't answer that. I don't think that that 17 would be structurally true.

18 BY MR. PAULt 19 Q I believe it was late '88, early '89, there was --

l 20 several of the -- I believe they call them the Health 3 21 Physics Technicians, appeared before the Radiation Safety 22 Committee; do you recall that particular meeting?

l 23 A I recall at least one or two coming -- wanting to ,

l l

24 come before the Committee. I also recall some concern of x..-

25 Mr. Fritz or -- that they should come before the Committee.

-l

l l

14 t

1 I honestly can't recall individuals making statenents at f

1. 2 that time. Subsequently, in -- it was agreed by the 3 Radiation safety Committee that a technician could be an observer at the Radiation Safaty Committee meetings. But in 4

5 1988, I believe that that was -- that had not been settled  ;

6 by Mr. Fritz, their supervisor. I can't recall that.

7 Q Did you have any discussions prior to this with 8 any of the Health Physics Technicians regarding their 9 concerns?

10 A Prior to which date, pis '

97 11 A The meeting where the Health Physics Technician  :

12 sat as observers, prior to the issues that they -- that the Health Physics Technicians raised to the Committee. It's my

( 13 14 understanding that they raised several radiation safety 15 issues to the committee at this timeframe. The question is-16 did they come to you personally before that?-

17 A The Radiation Safety Technologists, most, if not 18 all, came to this office with concerns during a period 1988-

- 19 1989. I cannot--relate that to the times that_they appaared -

20 before the Committee. The answer to your- question, did ' they 21 come to.ne, yes. -I just don't have'the chronology.

22 Q Eventually, they wrote-several memos, or at least 23 one or two memos regarding their concerns.

24' 'A - Yes.

v

.Q Do you recall that?

ti-a- t-fe e-u -t T e bw iwww-*- eye r-+-- g --yy--*g---eeyw -*y y3ytur-- ---- '-- w g-g. r -*--+-+' -- a-*'-gg--y-w-yy

n.a u n 15 1 A Yes.

f-~ *

'S.. 2 Q And maybe I have some paperwork that may help you.

3 MR. PAUL: We'll make this Exhibit 1 to the 4 interviev.

5 [silberstein Interview Exhibit No.

6 1 was marked for identification.

7 MR. PAUL It.'s a draf t minutes of the meeting 8 held January 4, 1989, and in the attendees, it lists Dr.

9 Silberstein, and also Mr. Barbro Boyd, Estes, Harris, Jason 10 and Williams.

11 I'll give that to you and you can look over that.

12 MR. RESNICK: Let me make another question. Do we

-- are we entitled to copies of exhibits?

(. .

13 14 MR. PAUL: It will be an attachment to the --

15 MR. RESNICK: In other words, we're not allowed to 16 -- you will not provide him with a copy now, but you're 17 marking it as an exhibit.

18 MR. PAUL: I don't see --

19 KR. DOCKERY: It might be available through the 20 University.

21 MR. PAUL: Yes. I assume'that this was --

22 MR. RESNICK: Is that where you got it?

23 MR. PAUL: Hight.

24 MR. RESNICK: Okay.

v. I assume that they have this.

25 MR. PAUL:

I a

16 HR. RESHICK: All right. Well, I'just wanted to 1

2 know where you got it.

3 NR. PAULt Yes. Right.

4 MR. RESNICK: All right.

5 KR. PAULt It wouldn't be proper for me to give

?

you a copy of their correspondence. I mean, I'm sure it's 6

7 available; you can get it.

8 THE WITNESS: I do remember -- actually remember 9 the meeting, yes.

10 BY KR. PAULt 11 Q Could you -- what did you understand their 12 concerns to be?

13 A I felt that if -- let me just refer to the 14 document.

15 Q Sure.

16 A There were cicar conflicts between the 17 technologists and their supervisor over a variety of areas.

18 These included whether they vero being permitted to do their 19 duties as they saw fit; when problems were noted, were 20 contamination procedures being followed fully.

21 There were some administrative concerns within the 22 office as to job descriptions and there were concerns, as 23 noted in here, that the technicians had been told that they 24 could not take time during their work veek for professional 25 courses, etcetera. I do recall that one.

i

17 1

They wanted to be -- they wanted to have -- the 2 felt that Mr. Fritz was not representing the technologist group concerns to the Radiation Safety Committee. That was 3

4 perhaps the most important focus of the meeting'that was 5 held. And you will notice that at that meeting, Mr. Fritz 6 was not present. And I --

7 Q Why was that?

8 A And I believe that was because Dr. Wlot wanted to 9 have the input of the technologists without any concerns 10 that their supervisor would in any way inhibit testimony or 11 free discussion between them.

12 There were other questions that the exhibit -- I recall the contents of what I'm reading as corresponding to

( 13 my recollection of technologist concerns at that time. The 14 15 response to that, to this document, you perhaps have as 16 another document, which was a meeting of a group to attempt 17 to solve some of these problems, which I volunteered to 18 chair.

19 Q Was that later than this meeting?

20 A That would be something like sometime in early 21 February of 1989, where a subcommittee developed 22 recommendations to bring back to the Radiation Safety 23 Committee on the issues as raised. Unionization was an 24 issue in there. The document speaks for itself. But we v

25 addressed virtually every one.of their -- there were some 13.

i

.. a

.18 -

1 issues that our subcommittee that I chaired addressed those.

C**E 2 Q And that subcommittee was formed subsequent to 3 this particular Radiation Safety Committee meeting?

4 A And because of it, yes.

5 Q Was it your understanding that some of the-6 concerns expressed by the Health Physics Technicians were 7 related to safety, radiation safety, in addition to being .

8 administrative?

9 A It was -- yes. Yes. Such concerns were raised at. ,

10 that time.

11 Q And it's my -- would -- who appointed _ you Lto the  ;

t 12 subcommittee?

13 A Dr. Wlot.

14 Q So then you issued the report as of February 1989..

15 A That's -- yes.

16 Q And who was that addressed to?

17 A Radiation Safety Committee and its Chairman.

18 Q And were there any. actions taken as a result of-19 your findings?

20 A The report's -- all of the report's 21 recommendations were adopted by the Radiation Safety 22 Committee.

23 Q Did the -- I don't have a . copy _ of the' report, but 24 did the report address. the concerns of the . technicians

w. .

25 related to Mr.:Fritz, their ability to interact with him or-

19 1 the problems that they thought they had with him?

J 'y 6 A It addressed some of them. The major concern had 2

3 been brought to the attention of the Radiation Safety 4 Committee concerning the --

5 KR. PAULt Let's go of f the record.

6 (Discussion off the record.)

7 MR. PAUL Back on the record.

8 THE WITNESS: -- concerning the method by which a 9 radiation technologist who found a problem could communicate 10 with his supervisor. And if there had been -- if there was 11 a disagreement for how to resolve that problem, what to do 12 in further communication.

13 And our Committee made it clear that the path of 14 communication was, indeed, to the immediate supervisor first, but then on to the Committee and its Chairman. And 15 16 if there still was a problem, we made it very clear and 17 reenforced that which I believe is already in the CFR, 18 direct communication -- Code of Federal Regulations direct 19 communication with the NRC, but tried to spell out a series 20 of problems all in steps that had been, in the committee's 21 mind, an area of technologist concern which we addressed at 22 that time.

23 BY MR. PAUL:

24 Q Did the Subcommittee have any findings regarding 25 whether, at that time, the current relationship between the .

1

• 20 1

technicians and Mr. Fritz, as RSo, was that impeding the C-e '.

2 reporting and addressing of safety concerns, health concerns 3 related to radiation safety?

Let's take them one at a time. What 4 MR. RESHICK 5 kind of concerns' 6 BY MR. pAULt Health and safety concerns. Were they being 7 Q 8 ef fectively addressed before any changes took place as a 9 result of the subcommittee's findings?

10 A It was impossible to tell. The specific concerns 11 at that time had not been brought to the Radiation Safety Committee or to me, to the best of my recollection. The 12

( 13 issue -- one of the issues that we addressed had to do with 14 preventing any impedance to direct communication should 35 conflicts arise.

16 Conflict resolution was not satisfactorily being approached in the Radiation Safety Office. There was no 17 18 clear appeal mechanism for a technologist disagreeing with 19 his supervisor, and our subcommittee and the Radiation 20 Safety Committee, to whom I -- Full Committee, to whom-I 21 reported, adopted a policy that made it very clear that 22 there was always and had to be an appropriate appeal i

23 rechanism when there was disagreement.

24 The individual disagreements or concerns were not

'%.s So we were addressing a 25 addressed nor known at that time.

21

, 1 policy of conflict resolution. l 2 Q What specific actions were implemented as a result 3 of the subcommittee's findings in regards to radiation 4 safety as opposed to administrative prnblems? I'm not 5 really interested in what -- they had administrative 6 concerns, the Health Physics Technicians, in addition to the 7 radiation safety concerns. I'm just asking you to respond 8 to what changes were implemented in this regard as a result 9 of your findings.

10 A I would have to go to my file to look up my report 11 of early February as to specific details, since many of the 12 areas we were dealing with were of an administrative nature.

( 13 At that time, we were unaware of safety concerns, to the 14 best of my recollection, that there was no concern for 15 anyone's safety being or health being in any way affeceed by 16 the operation of the Radiation Safety Office.

17 These were administrative matters as to the 18 communication within the office between the Committee and 19 the Radiation Safety Officer and the people he supervised.

20 I don't recollect that there were safety issues to be dealt 21 with.

22 Q At this point, I'd like to show you another --

23 it's a University of Cincinnati letter or -- it's a 24 memorandum, and it's dated June 30, 1988. It was to the-25 Radiation Safety personnel, University of Cincinnati, from

22 The subject

- 1 George W. Alexander, Jr., and Kenneth H. Fritz.

2 is problem notification process for Radiation Safety Office 3 personnel.

4 KR. PAULt This will be Exhibit 2 to this 5 interview.

6 [Silberstein Interview Exhibit No.

7 2 was marked for identification.)

8 BY MR. PAULt 9 Q And I'm going to ask you if you ever saw this 10 before?

(Perusing document. ) .v 11 A 12 Yes.

13 Q And when did you first see this memorandum?

14 A Hy recollection is that it was sent to the 15 Radiation Safety Committee anonymously with a cover letter 16 from what I believed at that time to be one or more of the 17 Radiation Saf ety Technologists, and that memorandum was sent 18 at the end of 1988. I had not seen that memorandum before 19 that time, to the best of my recollection.

20 Q Was this e policy of the University of 21 Cincinnati's Radiation Safety Committee? Did they 22- promulgate this policy --

A Unequivocally not. This was not a policy of the-23 24 Radiation Safety Committee.

(.

25 0 Was this one of the concerns that the technicians

~,a.

m-u m u. . .-s._ .->m~'

23 ,

e-- 1 addressed as part of their numerous concerns that they I" 2 brought to the Committee early 19897  :

3 A This was a concern that they addressed and a 4 concern that I addressed strongly in early 1989, having seen 5 that memorandum, and perhaps it's the reason that I became 6 the Chairman of that Committee, because my reaction to this memorandum was a very strong one. But it was not University 7

8 policy and was, in fact, inappropriate and violated the 9 right of a radiation -- anyone to contact the NRC.

10 0 Did the -- did you ever have any individual 11 discussions with the technicians concerning this particular 12 memorandum?

13 A I think any discussions concerning that memorandum 14 occurred -- would have occurred at the meeting that we had 35 with them. That meeting -- I think Exhibit 1 indicates that 16 meeting was in early January, and this document -- the cover 17 letter to that document was, if I recall, at the end of --

18 just before the New Year's holiday. And so as soon as -- ,

19 that was -- we didn't need to meet one-on-one with any one 20 individual. We sort of all got together, and this was an 21 issue at that time.

22 Q Did the technicians ever represent to you that 23 they felt that this particular memorandum would have impeded 24 them from contacting the NRC? Did it have an effect-on s.

25 _them, did it prevent them from contacting the NRC7

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

24 f

1 A The technicians' behavior, to the best of my "b 2 recollection, has always been, at this University, that if 3 there were significant problems, that someone was going to 4 call the NRC or write the NRC. So that operationally, I ,

5 don't think that this would have stopped or did stop them 6 from doing it. But, yet, it is theoretically possible it 7 might have inhibited someone -- I have no knowledge that 8 someone had a burning issue which would not have gone to the 9 NRC at least in anonymous form with or without that policy.

10 That policy did inhibit issues from coming to the 11 Radiation Safety Committee over, apparently, some period of 12 time, however. I think that would be a fair statement.

13 Q Did you discuss the memorandum at all with Mr.

14 Fritz or Mr. Alexander?

15 A Mr. Alexander.

16 Q And what was the essence of that discussion?

17 A The essence of that discussion was that this was 18 an absolutely incorrect, wrong, probably illegal way to deal 19 with the individuals being supervised.

20 Q Did he ever discuss why this memorandum was 21 issued? What was the purpose of this memorandum?

22 MR. RESNICKt Who is he?

23 MR. PAULt Mr. Alexander.

24 THE WITNESS: Yes. To the best of my I w l 25 recollection, we had had, the University had had an-i i

25

<- 1 Individual on the Radiation Safety Office -- a technician of

2 the Radiation Safety Office who had communicated a wide 3 variety of concerns directly to'the NRC without ever going 4 to the Radiation Safety Committee or its Chairman or anyone 5 else.

6 And my impression at the time of the writing of 7 this was that there was ferment-in the Radiation Safety 8 office, which I suspect the technologists -- you've already 9 talked, am I correct, to some of the radiation 10 technologists?

11 MR. PAULt That's correct.

12 THE WITNESS: That they've probably detailed to e, a s, 13 you, and my -- it would be only. speculation, because1--

14 MR. RESNICK: Don't speculate. He's not here to 15 ask you to speculate or guess.

16 THE WITNESS: Okay. Fair.

17 KR. RESNICK: Just testify to what you'know.

18 THE WITNESS: Fair.

19 BY MR. PAUL:

20 Q As to Mr. Alexander,_what he told you is what --

21 for_the reason why he authored this meno.

22 A I recollect'his telling me that we -- that'ha did 23 not want to have the proper channels bypassed, as they had 24' been-bypass (d in 1986, thati the Radiation-Safety Office and

,. N... .

- - - 25' Radiation Safety Committee should_have an opportunity _to

ver 26

. . I solve problems detected by its technologists without a 8

' leapfrog over all of the problem-solving capabilities at the

'versity to the FRC. That was the -- and my response was

< +

' hat's not what this says.

If a

! This ishibits conflict. resolution.

6

/-chnologist finds something and you or Mr. Fritz disagree

~~ with their find'ngs or choose not to implement or whatever,

! 8 the implication is that you could sensor what they are 9 saying, and you may not do that. ,

10 Q I believe the technician that you referred to as c.RC was an indiv.iduQ .by 11 bringing These allegations to L 22 the name o $$.4 is that correct? h D A Yes. M%$M

c. And va y the University? Do you 2 !.

leaving?

15 know the reason for 16 A I don't know if h M % G L

and the 17 I was not involved in the hearings at -- that 18 University had. So I don't know what -- how that happened.

19 Obviously, no longer employed, but I don't know whether 2o (@gggpflie l 21 Q As a result of the subcommittee's, that you 22 chaired, investigahion or whatever it was actually termed, 23 when you looked into the concerns of the technicians, did 24 W2 have any findings specific as to Mr. Friit' performance V .

25 as RSO?

/.1p onSo -

27 1 A At that time, there were none that I recollect 2

that indicated that his actions were impeding the safety, 3

radiation safety or health-related radiation effects within 4 the University.

5 The concerns of that Committee were largely 6 administrative. Mr. Fritz was viewed as a knowledgeable Radiation Safety Officer. Mr. Alexander was appointed as 7

8 Administrative Director of -- I think that was his title.

You'd have to ask him his precise ti'cle. My 9

Because Dr. Saenger, 10 recollection was that was his title.

11 who I believe made the appointment, he was Chairman of the 12 Radiation Safety Committee, felt that Mr. Fritz needed 13 administrative assistance. The workload was such that Mr.

14 Alexander could help administratively.

15 So the concerns that we dealt with were 16 administrative. For example, we made it clear that 17 technologists had the right to take courses during -- to 18 improve their skills during their work day, etcetera, 19 etcetera. But there were no allegations brought to -- that 20 that subcommittee dealt with that Mr. Fritz was not doing 21 the job of Radiation Safety- Of ficer.

22 Q Going back to the memorandum again, Exhibit 2, was 23 it your understanding that Mr. Alexander wrote the 24 memorandum or Mr. Fritz?

25 A They both signed it, and I honestly don't know who

, y g u. g m m 3 - u n u r m u w e 28 1 was the first author. I would believe that they both wou3d 39 2 have had the same motivation in writing it to have a'prorer 3 chain of command. I don't -- my belief is_it wasn't done 4 right.

5 MR. RESNICK: Don't guess.

6 THE WITNESS: Okay.

7 MR. RESNICK: Tell him what you know.

8 THE WITNESS: Fair. I don't know which co-authored -- I mean, which was the primary author. They both i 9 10 signed and agreed on it, however, clearly.

l 11 BY MR. PAUL:

12 Q To your understanding, did Alexander have any line 13 authority over the Health Physics Technicians?

14 A I never understood how the table of organization 15 worked when there were two directors. Mr. Fritz is a 16 technical director, Mr. Alexander is an administrative 17 director, and it was never clear to me how the -two meshed, 18 since they both had to deal with tne Radiation Safety 19 Technologists, since radiation safety matters and 20 administrative matters merge so closely.

21 Q As a result of your review of the policies set 22 forth in Exhibit 2 and the memorandum --

23 MR. RESNICK: I'm going to object to the

~

24 characterization. I think he said it wasn't University

( 25 policy.

• -- 2 9 1 MR. PAUL: As far as the ---

A' 2 MR.- RESNICK: -To the document.

3 MR. PAUL: To the steps outlined-in-the document.-- -

4 BY MR.- PAUL:

5 Q Was there a revision-or.another memorandum sent-6 out as to what the current method: of reporting problems?- _

i 7 Was that ever authored as a result'of --

8 A Yes.

9 Q -- your concerns?

10 A -And appeared in the minutes of the Radiation 11 Safety Committee during mid-1989.

12 Q And basically what did that entail as to the 13 process of~ reporting safety concerns?-

14 A To the best of my recollection,:thezRadiation 15 Safety Technician was to bring concerns,1first, to his 16 immediate supervisor, the Radiation- SafetyJ officer. If 17 these concerns were not-answered,-dealt with,- oriif there 18 was a-disagreement,Lthe technician,. technician-19 technologist, clearlyLhad the-right to bring-these-toLthe--

20 Radiation Safety Committee through its Chairman.

21 Q Did it discuss-at_$1; the ability of the 22 technicians to'go'to the NRC viuh any concerns?

23' A I: don't believe thst the document did, because 24 there is. posted the statement that anyone can do that.

~

-- 2 5 Q You're referring to the.NRC Form 3?

..,, . . . _, .m.,

_ = . . _ _ . , ..

i .

.30 1 A I have to see it to -- it has a map of -- and the districts and a statement that -- yes. And that just needs 2

3 to be posted and --

4 Q Is that posted here at the University?

I've certainly seen it posted. I couldn't point 5 A 6 to it if I walked out in the hall, but I know what it looks 7 like. I know it pretty well.

8 Q You are familiar in some way --

9 A Yes.

-- Safety Department. Did the Radiation Safety-10 Q 11 Committee conduct any types of audits on the Radiation Safety Program, per se, as a routine matter? Did you 12 13 periodically review the Radiation Safety Committee?

14 A The Radiation Safety Program --

15 0 Excuse me. Not Radiation Safety Committee, but 16 the Radiatioa Safety Program.

17 A Program, an annual audit is required in which the 18 Committee -- to the Committee were brought the data on the 19 numbers of protocols reviewed, problems with protocols, 20 amount of waste disposed of, a summary of the actions of the 21 Radiation Safety Officer through the year with temporal 22 trends over -- compared to previous years, with discussions 23 of problems of waste disposal, of individuals who might --

24 who were -- studying individuals who were offenders and h, s 25 where had they been an offendert the i.e. or e.g., food in

?. -

31 f- 1 the refrigerator was found more than once.

O' 2 So these kinds of things were reviewed at least 3 annually.

4 Q Who actually performed the audits?

5 A The Radiation Safety Officer brought the data 6 requested by the Committee to a Committee meeting and 7 discussed his actions, answered questions. _

8 Q In the timeframe -- well, in '89, was there an 9 audit conducted?

10 A To the best of my recollection, that -- if it was 11 -- were, it should be found in the Radiation Safety ,

12 Committee minutes, which I obviously don't have before me.

13 But that was to be an annual affair.

14 Q So if I understand you correctly, the audit didn't 15 actually involve members of the Safety Committee or their 16 designee going out and physically looking at various aspects 17 of the problem. It was a process where the RSO, Mr. Fritz, 18 came in and responded te questions. Is that a correct 19 characterization of the process?

20 A That is correct.

21 Q Regarding the NRC's periodic inspections, do you

~

22 have any particular involvement in when the NRC came out on 23 their annual inspections or periodic --

24 A No. No. I don't -- there may have been times

~-

25 where Gene Saenger or Harry Maxon weren't there that I would

~ .- . . . . . - -

32

,e 1 have tried to obtain any requested information, but I don't Q-w 2 really recall interacting with NRC Inspectors when here.

3 It's possible someone stopped in to ask some questions, but 4 I really don't recall that.

5 Q Regarding the Health Physics Technicians, there 6 were a number of personnel turnovers in the timeframe '86 7 nrough #88. Did you notice that there was any or consider 8 that that was a high frequency of turnover in that position?

HR. RESNICK: I'm going to object. Assuming 9

10 that's the case, you're assuming that's the case and you're 11 asking him to respond, you might want to find out if that 12 was the case or if he believes that to be the case, first.

2 BY HR. PAUL:

C. 13 14 Q It's my understanding that there were three --

15 there was a total of four technicians in the Health . Physics 16 -- Health Physics technicians, is that correct?

17 A Yes. That sounds like -- okay.

18 Q And from the information I obtained so far, I 19 understand there have been three who resigned or quit in the 20 last three or four years. Is that.your understanding, also?

21 A I don't have knowledge of that. I know my -- what 22 I had believed was that an understaffed office was trying to-23 find the funds to bring on more technologists. 'So that when 24 I heard new names in the office, I assumed that this was an 25 attempt to increase an understaffed office. I was unaware

mm .au m a u w w,- m m,n my j s

33 1 of high turnover in the Radiation-Safety office.

g.3 2 Q So that " articular concern was never brought up to 3 the Radiation Safety Committee. '

4 A It was not brought to me, that I remember. Just 5 refresh my memory one moment, if you would. This was 6 Exhibit 2 and Exhibit I was the minutes of the -- okay, 7 great.

8 [Silberstein Interview Exhibit No.

9 3 was marked for identification.)

10 BY MR. PAUL:

11 Q I'll show you Exhibit 3, and it's a memorandum 12 dated July 28, 1989, and it's to Edward Silberstein, M.D.

13 Radioisotope Laboratory, from Health physics Technicians, 14 Radiation Safety Office. Could you please look at that, and 15 the question is do you recall that specific memorandum?

15 A (Perusing document. )

17 I do.

18 Q -And did you have any knowledge that this 19 memorandum was coming to you? Did they first contact you by 20 phone or was there a meeting in regards to this memorandum?

21 A Technologists, one or several, began bringing to 22 me concerns about the Radiation Safety Office, allegations, 23 and sometimes in writing, sometimes verbally. And there 24 came a point where I responded to some of the allegations, m

25 that we can bring this up to the Radiation Safety Committee,

" d 34 1 or you haven't talked to your supervisor about this and r.. .

2 you're coming to me and that's not appropriate, we have a 3 procedure for handling that.

4 But at some point in the late spring or summer, 5 the allegation was made to me that during an NRC inspection, 6 there was a piece of data that was concealed from the 7 Inspector. And whichever of the technologists brought that 8 to me, my immediate reaction was that is a profoundly 9 serious allegation; that if you make this allegation, be 10 prepared to swear to it, to put it in writing, because this 11 could be -- this sounds, to a non-legal mind, as a possible 12 violation of law; and, if the Radiation Safety Committee is 13 to deal with this by discussing the problem with the 14 University -- my personal intention was to determine 15 precisely what the legal implication was with the University 16 Counsel.

17 And then if it was as I feared, bring it to NRC.

18 First I indicated that I-wanted _that in-writing and signed 19 by those people who were making the allegation, so that the

'20 Radiation Safety Committee could proceed in dealing with 21 what I perceived to be a very serious charge.

22 Q And did they, in fact, do that?

23- A The document, Exhibit 3 --

~

24 Q Well, this is a result'of --

Qj 25 A It is a result of the conversations and multiple-

35 1 meetings in this office by Radiation Safety Technologists k 2 saying we've got a problem, what do we do about it.

3 Q What happened as a result of this memorandum?

4 What were the events that took place after that that you 5 were involved with?

6 A To the best of my recollection, I called Dr. Wlot 7 to tell him that we had a serious allegation, and I think 8 that I must have sent him a copy of this, because I wasn't 9 going to hide it. This was something that I had asked for 10 that we needed to take action on.

11 From that point, I was not involved in the -

12 University's actions with the NRC in regard to that. After

( 13 I had obtained that piece of information and had these 14 individuals sign it, I sent that on to Dr.-Wlot, as I almost 15 certainly did. I can't give you 100 percent certainty, but 16 I can't believe that I would have done anything else but 17 send it to him and phone him, that Dr. Wiot then took the-18 lead, to the best of my knowledge, in contacting the NRC 19 about this.

20 0 This was the first you became aware of this 21 particular incident?

22 A When the technologists came to me with the 23 allegation was the first that I knew anything about the 24 allegation that during an inspection, a record had been n,

25 concealed.

p= =r y - --_ - - --___ _ _ _ -__ _ _

I -,

.36 1 Q As part of the Radiation Safety Committee, was the g

2 subject of missing sources ever -- did that ever come up 3 before the Committee?

4 A There were reports of sources, generally small 5 sources which occasionally, perhaps once or twice wculd have 6 been discarded. I can't rec 4;l precise details, but I 7 recall a COBALT-57 source found missing from a laboratory, 8

that it was believed to be discardad, and that was reported 9 to the Radiation Safety Office, and a number of us spent a 10 great deal of time going through a lot of garbage trying to 11 find that source, end reported the loss of what.

This is a 12 I believe it was a COBALT-57 source.

13 somewhat hazy recollection, but I -- you're asking have lost 14 sources been brought to the Radiation Jafety Committee, and 15 I know that I had knowledge of lost sources and that we 16 tried to deal with that.

17 And the Radiation Safety Officer, to the best of 18 my knowledge, was instructed to contact the NRC about these 19 which were considered kind of a small -- a small COBALT-57 source, but it was still -- we felt it serious. And when 20 21 you .21.and in a lot of garbage, you remember the experience.

22 We tried very hard to find the source, and then Mr. Fritz 23 was told to report that sort of thing to the NRC.

24 Q In your discussions with Mr. Barbro Boyd and s

25 Harris in relation to this memo which is Exhibit 3, did they l

~ ,_ _ _ ._

' 37

<- 1 ever explain to you what took them a year to bring.this

4. 2 allegation forward?

3 A No.

4 Q Did you ever ask them? Did you have any concern 5 that this was a year later?

I think that that -- let's see. That's August of 6 A 7 '88.

B Q The inspection --

The inspection takes place August of '88. No, I 9 A 10 didn't.

11 Q They never brought this -- is it correct that thay 12 never brought this particular concern-up to the committee at 13 the time there were these meetings between the technicians 14 and the Committee?

15 A At that time, that is correct. A process of trust 16 was being established between the technologists and certain 17 members of the Radiation Safety committee, and the p 18 allegations that begon to come to-my office came as a. result l

19 of that process of trust-which had to do with my chairing 20 the subcommittee and making it clear that there was free 21 access to the Committee if there were problems.

l 22 Q Did you ever have discussions with Ken Fritz or 23 Prince Jason concerning this particular allegation?

24 A I did not.

l L

25 Q So if I ubaerstand you correct, you raised the l.

, _ %w: mu,, uts w em na m &

38 I

concern to Dr. Wiot, an$ that was basically the and of your

'# 2 participation in the affair?

3 A That's correct, because he is chairman of the 4

Committee; then, to the best of my knowledge, took this to S the NRC.

6 Q There was one other incident I wanted to go back 7 on. It involved Mr. Boyd. He's a Health Physics 8 Technician. Do you recall him coming to you in early '89 in 9 regards to an allegation that was made to the NRC, and he 10 had concerns that he was being identified as the source of 11 that allegation?

12 A I do recall that.

13 Q Do you recall any of the specifics as to that 14 matter?

15 A No. No. I recall that he was concerned that he 16 was -- my recollection is that he was concerned he was being 7at I 17 singled out as a troublemaker, and my recollection i 18 told him the Radiation Safety Committee didn't -- had not 19 shared such a concern, and tried to reassure him that the 20 Radiation safety Committee was not fingering him in any --

21 pointing a finger to him, as accusing him as being a 22 troublemaker in any way, that we had no knowledge of the 23 author of communication with the NRC, which, I believe, was 24 done anonymously.

~ . .

25 My recollection is that that was -- that whatever t )

39 f.

1 vent -- I just -- I don't recall which allegation or 2 allegations went to the KRC, but I believe that there were allegations going to the NRC around this time. Am.I.

p 3 4 correct?

5 Q Yes.

And I believe they were anonymous. And I simply 5 A 7 reassured Melvin we had no knowledge of who was the author, 8 but the allegations had to be dealt with.

9 Q Did you have any direct communications with anyone 10 from Region III in regards to these anonymous allegations?

11 A I don't recall Region III calling me, and any I

12 communication with Region III would have been done through a

13 the Chairman of the Committee.

14 O As a result of the allegations detailed in Exhibit 15 3, the missing cards that were withhold from-the Inspector, 16 that was certainly after that series of events in which the 17 University retained Nuclear Energy Services, a consultant.

18 Is that correct?

19 A Yes.

20 Q Did you participate.at all in the hiring of --

21 A No, I did not.

22 Q Who was the one who hired them as --

23- MR. RESNICK: Do you know?

24 BY MR. PAUL:

.s ,

Do you know?

25 Q

.40 1 A I 40 not know whether that was -- no. No. I do CII 2 not know which individual in the University of Cincinnati I 3 was responsible for that choice.

4 MR. PAUL: At this time, I'd like to go off the 5 record for a second.

6 (Discussion off the record.)  !

7 MR. PAUL: Back on the record. I just have a 8 couple of followup things here.

9 BY MR. PAUL:

10 Q When the Health Physics Technicians came to you in 11 regards to their concern, specifically ths .7uly 28th 12 concern, did they indicate that they had ever attempted to-bring thosa concerns forward through Ken Fritz or any other

( 13 14 source within the University?

15 A I don't recall. There were a series of meetings r

16 which almost became a weekly parade of technologists through 17 this office with rather amorphous allegations-that were 18 often administrative. When, however, certain allegations 19 became safety matters, I then said these must be put in 20 writing, you must docurent -- if you feella license 21 violation has occurred, this must be documented with 'he c 22 part of the license that you feel is being violated, so the 23 Radiation Safety Committee can deal with these at once.

24 There are certain issues -- if they're personality 25 issues, that's something administrative that is not an

. g aa n a . u wm .

41 1 immediate concern'to the Radiation Safety Committee.

E 2 License violations we must deal with at once,'and it -- so 3 that they began to draw up, and did draw up a documenc with-4 written allegations.

5 This -- when they brought this-one to me, this was-6 the one that I said put it in writing immediately; we must, ,

7 at once, act on this.

MR. DOCKERY: Richard, if.I may.

8 9 MR. PAUL: Sure.

10 BY MR. DOCKERY:  ;

11 Q Doctor, procedurally,-how should that have'been 12 addressed, that particular allegation? Under the normal 13 circumstances, who should they have addressed that. concern 14 to? Would that have been you?

15 A Procedurally, first to their supervisor, 'since - -

look at the -- let's see. If I may just refer to the - '

16 17 allegation is -- Deputy is quoted, and so procedurally;-fthis--

18 should then have gone to the Radiation Safety Officer saying 19 your Deputy has told us to do something - that I; think is o---

% and if the Radiation Safety Officer then sent back up the-21 Deputy, then that should have gone according to the policy 22 that we developed in the -- following that1 January. meeting,-

23 to the Radiation Safety-Committee, presume ofl innocence.

24 . Procedurally,.one does that through a member _of -

\i-25 the committee, so that -- whether this was brought to the

42 g-- i Radiation _ Safety Of ficer, I have no knowledge of that, but, I 2 procedurally, this was brought to a member of the' Radiation

- 3 Safety. Committee to go to th,e Pull Committee. And from that 4 point of view, I felt that the procedure was -- that we had 5 set out was being followed.

6 And my reaction was to get it to the Chairman to 7 get it out to the whole Committee, to deal with it, find out 8 if this was a violation of, as I feared it was, of not only 9 license, but law, or license and law, and to then bring it 10 to the NRC.

11 Q Did they represent to you in any way -- by they, I 12 mean the three cosignatories on this -- represent to you in

( 13 any way that they had tried to go another route? Was this 14 an alternative route in any way coming to you via the note?

15 A With respect to this concern?

16 Q Yes.

17 A Not that I recall. I recall that a series of 18 concerns were brought -- about the office and this 19 performance were brought to me, and when the concerns --

20 when I demanded specifics, that they began to produce 21 specifics. And when I asked them to refer to the license, 22 parts of the license, if they could give me a name and a 23 source or whatever had problems, they had brought.

24 And when they got around to telling me -- and I 25 can't -- I can't give you the date they first told me this,

.. s% %di' M d Q M d A"Cfa r..i ? i 1 -. il 7%g 43 but I can tell you that as soon as they told me, I.said r' 1 2;v 2 that's got to go in writing, you've got to sign this, we've That is very serious.

3 got to deal with this gt once. ,

4 Q And this document results --

5 A And this document results and was brought then, 6

with what I considered and do consider proper procedure, at 7

once to the Radiation Safety Committee through its Chairman, 6 and subsequently NRC contacted and no forth.

9 BY MR. PAUL:

10 0 Did the Full Radiation Safety Committee ever 11 address this specific incident that you participated in?

12 A I can't answer that, because when I brought this 13 to Dr. Wlot's attention, I don't know what his actions were, 14 vis-a-vis University counsel, NBC, President of the 15 University. I know that he took action to contact the NRC, 16 and took action administratively with the individual or 17 individuals involved, but I cannot recall subsequent 18 detailed discussions in the Radiation Safety Committee.

19 But the Safety Committee was being restructured 20 and I may not have been on the Radiation Safety Committee 21 much longer after this, because it was very -- as I 22 remember, it was made -- the President acted very quickly to 23 make it a smaller, more responsive Committee, more --

24 opposite unwieldy, if the word wieldy exists -- by being m

25 smaller.

i 44 1

And at that point, I was off the Committee and 2 Deput*, Radiation Safety Officer, and I don't have that 3 chronology solidly. My impression was that actions took_

I was 4 place very rapidly. I learned of these secondhand.

5 not present at decisions on administrative leave or hiring 6

of consultants, but I was aware that they were happening

• / Very quickly once these data were brought to light.

8 MR. PAUL Mr. Resnick, there was a matter you 9 vanted to clear up?

Yes. On Exhibit 3, Doctor, you 10 MR. RESNICK:

11 testified that the technicians first came to you with an 12 oral allegation regarding the subject matter of Exhibit 3.

C, 13 Is that. right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, that's right.

14 MR. RESNICK: And how long -- what was the period 15 16 of time between the time they came to you with the oral 17 charge and you told them to put it in writing?

~

18 THE WITNESS: Only within a day or a few days, because that seemed to me to be so serious that, at that 19 20 point, I felt I couldn't wait to compile a list of alleged 21- license violations for us to look into. This was much more 22 serious, and I wanted that in writing, that they were all 23 prepared. My words I do remember very clearly, saying to 24 the technologists, if you make this allegation, be prepared

w. -

25 to swear to it in a court of law, because I felt it was so

45 I serious.

MR. RESNICK: So if July 28th is, indeed, the day

~

2 3 that you received this meno, because it's not clear.that you 4 did, but if it is, assuming it is the date you received 5 this, you would have first learned about this orally when in 6 relation to that date?

THE WITNESS: I would guess no earlier than July 7

8 20 to 25, somewhere in that vicinity.

9 BY KR. PAUL:

10 Q Did you ever consider contacting the NRC directly 11 yourself on this allegation?

12 A No, because the channel was to go to the Committee 13 chairman and the entire Committee, and then to contact the 14 NRC through t..et mechanism. If the Committee had refused to 15 deal with this or had said this is not something which did t

16 not happen, I would have called -- under.those 17 circumstances, I would have called the NRC with the 18 allegation, because of its serious nature.

19 But the Radiation Safety Committee and the 20 Chairman were responsive to the memorandum, and at that-21 point, I felt it appropriate to follow the channels of the 22 Committee, which I was, in part, responsible for setting up.

23 Q So if I understand, Dr. Wiot hed that 24 responsibility, being to notify the NRC of this allegation.

He took that responsibility.

25 A i

p. - - -

,_ n 46 1- Q Dr. Silberstein, have I or any other NRC 2 ' representative here threatened you in any manner, offered 3- you any rewards in return for this statement? ~

4 A No.

5 Q Have you given the statement freely and 6 voluntarily?

7 A I have.

l 8 Q- Is there anything further that you care to add for 9

the record on the matter that we didn't address here, that 10 you want to add? Do you want to discuss --

11 MR. PAUL: Let's go off the record.

12 (Discussion off the record e

Back on'the record. As we were 13 MR. PAUL:

s-14- discussing off the record, there is possibly one otherc 15 document that we mentioned in~ the ' interview, and it -concerns 16 the findings of the subcommittee. I've looked through my; 17  ; records and-I don't have it. But from what I understand, it j i

18 does exist and you or possibly Dr. WiotLhave that?-

19 THE WITNESS: I was its-author and sent --

[ certainly sent a copy to Dr. Wlot, because it was the basis 20

-21 for the subsequent policy on notification, problem-solving, But I I

22 channels to go through before one went to the NRC.  ;

23 want to be really, really clear that the purpose of' all of 1 24 this was not to block Nnc communication, but to allow w

l~ 25 internal problem-solving, which-is why I asked.the j

- , _ _a

i 47 l

e 1 technolcgists to bring to me specifics of license violations

'u .

2 so that we could correct those ourselves, and then say to 3

the NRC at the time of next inspection, here are problems, 4 this is what we're doing about them.

5 So that there was never -- becausa I've never 6 given deposition before, I want to be really clear that we 7

vere -- I was data collecting for the purpose of complying B

with a license where allegations were being made we were out 9 of compliance, MR. PAUL: I guess when I cone back down for you 10 11 to review your transcript, I was wondering if you could make 12 this document available at that point in time?

13 MR. RESNICK: I'll talk it over with Dr.

14 Silberstein.

MR. PAUL: Is there anything *urther that you 15 16 gentlemen care to add for the record?

MR. RESHICK: No. Just give me a call to let me 17 18 know, please, when you're coming so I can schedule that with 19 Dr. Silberstein.

MR. PAUL: Sure.

20 MR. RESNICK: If you would do that, I'd appreciate 21 22 it.

23 MR. PAUL: Okay. This interview is concluded.

24 Off the record;

[Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the interview was 25  !

- - - - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ - ' ' - ~ - - - - - . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __

.. _-_- __=___

. 48 g I concluded.)

2 3

4 5

6 8

9 10 11 12 13 a

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

. . _ . _, _ =- . - - - . _ . = - _ - . . _ _ _

~- .5

- -m . . .m. .. . .. .. -* -- ..,  :' = u :-

- ~- -

qs. ,

.;  :. + ........,y_.. . _ _ ,

-,Q j _:.j y y..

.. .. y9-

- ;. .. = . : - - -

..: : - .: : q--

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE-aj i This is to certif y that.' _ he attached- proceed-ings before'the United States Nuclear-Regulatory Commission in the matter oft

. Investigative Interview NAME OF PROCEEDING:

DOCEET NUMBER:

PLACE -.0F -PROCEEDING: Circinnati, Chio vere held as herein appears .and that this is the original transcript thereof for'the file'of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of.the court report-ing company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of,the--fo egoing proceedings.

l .

Lincoln. Davis.

Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.

,7 4

4 n+

4

60 Universtty of Cincinnatl Hospital Evne L Saenger Radosotope Latastory Univoretty of Cincinnati Mail Locaton #577 Wdical Center TELEPHONE (513) $$64282 234 Goodman Street p /

\ ona,e .,

Cincinnati, Ohc 45267 0!,77 4

' * ' r' Y ) -y /

yI"; f , k(Q

- we%.- ."T'i i - ; e 4 g' -

f b . D / 4 l '. 'v .

e f '

lc . . . - -  : g... / .. . l., , A p .: r , e,f F.. , (:; .

g, .)

o I.2 $'I a v e t J. , , ., _ ;_ ..,

, ,> .. (* 1 -l,e = +1, y kp&h i' )

l 5

C 1 , _- {--n.__

)

's d' fi

. r;

• rt '

. C. i  ! i.

~ l ' j" m '

) > t. ri o ., n; r,J o r o. f

', e . i

. I w ,, )

T l' fR  %-

L'L[ ' -r; . _

< M r s ,,

I',' ;' y ' ~j & p ., Q

(

,- c.a r .

ed , , , . , , , , _,g C. . e '^A~t n ,, .j,j . , ,

,I, ,.i o.tj i .Q /, -).[ Y ^: . . 7,l n,e,

) !!

.) qj (' .) _

I g>/o,, ,.

i t - , - ,- ,.4 /w ( . (,-

, j , ,, , f}... I sr r%

e h.'. l..a b' r d,a~h..

i ~

l ~I J I 'I 9 C ,

~...

Patient Care . Educat on . Research Community Sennce An aMirmat've action / equal opportunsty instrtuton

s.

.A ' 4- (g .

v,, .:;. .

,ww <~..

v, v IMAGE EVALUATION 6'%

NO st'

/ I?

\~ TEST TARGET (MT-3) p! <

4g

'"]Cy ~ 4f Q

N'N#. 9#q[g> /g 4;J'

~

%h 'hi 1.0 -

J.

m m" , 2, t,

vl 2__0 l,l _

Ws ll!Il a=s I8 1.25 I l.4 i

====  ! aan r%.6

_ __. - -- 150mm >

4__

4 .- - - 6" 6/,Ao A

a:n s%>

q .9

,/

4 ra

- ~

se s s a as Kf;pf),

,a n,.

/AD

' g' 7 y ,y 0,/j .

=:!

%f&

.i

' Y i' , N _

, ,j .l l

• W. ~

i

/to

., % ~

fs e s* .-s,_. -o9. .

t, x , 4;^

• IMAGE EVALUATION A' %

</ [,js}<(p

/g '*

'I' fEST TARGET (MT-3)

~ '

C ,5@

N'

\ d!!!& e&

y//// >g, '*"

4 4' l.0 - -n m

U r --

g,

• - ;1 M 2.0 l,l iumz

~

I!!!Idi 1.25 7 == I.4

== ill dg!'=i.6 s 150mm >

4.__.__

6" -

4 -- -- -

9 Ji 4) #$ /jff*\\\

~[gy J ,,NPy- kag gs f4N y pg qv , y 0, y op .

u s T %:q

.3. . - A wl( _akS

-e _ . , , .,j

o /

%. c

^ g IMAGE EVAL.U ATION /[f

/j i V g

TEST TARGET (MT-3) hlj, f? ,, ,

%g\gF ~

^ 4*, ?j 4

'%o#, Q>

4((g,ky%,

l.0 ~

~. m no u  ?

H l8 NE:2 y 1.25 g I.4 91.6 1 == il e= km

~~

4______------ 150mm -

4_______.-- .__ __. - _-- - - -- - 6" - - -

A 49 s A -

% " $"% h ,kg, &

'h fj/o%

g:%

pe,, - +

NN .

v g\

.\

s. -s^,} Q cp

~-

3 j/

.% .- e . ,

C .

~

19 ,

!' ,;g ef%'**

• 9 i_ ,a tyt* v4t" lll,

y __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1

[ .

DRAFT Minutes T'/

DRAFT sp .

Minutes of Meeting held January 4, 1980 Attendees: 0.s. Elson, Maxon, Vestal and Silbersteing Messrs.

Alexander, Barbro, Boyd, Estes, Harris, Jason and Williams. The meeting was chaired by Jerome F. Wiot, M.D. , Chairman of the Radiation Safety Committee. Mrs. S. Karns served as racording secretary.

Dr. Wiot opened the meeting by expressing the hope that the Health Physics Technicianc of the R'adiation Safety Office would feel that this was an open forum where they could state their concerns to the Committee membership. He also stated that there was no objection to the technicians' membership in the union. Mr.

Frit: was not invited to the meeting so as to foster a sense of open communication between the technicians and the Committee.

Mr. Barbro served as spokesman for the group. He first explained that the technicians opted to join the union due to their c.ocern for the status of the radiation safety program and its administration (attachments il - 15b). They felt uncomfortable with some of the decisions regarding their assigned duties. In order to serve their best interests, they joined the union. One ,

assigned duty for which Mr. Barbro has (had?) initiated a grievance concerned the decontamination of hospital rooms by RSO personnel instead of RIL personnel. UC stated that the Radiation Safety Committee is the policy making body with regard to radiation 6x. H i67 I

2 DRATT Minutos 9 gr safety. The techs Mistakenly thought that the RSC merely went along with Mr. Fritz's recommendations. The techs felt that the changing membership of the Committee could result in continual changes in their duties and responsibilities; this would not guarantee any consistency in the future.

Mr. Jason commented that he had been disuaded from joining the union by Mr. Fritz and Mr. Williams (UC Labor Relations) based on the fact that he is considered a supervisor in the table of organization.

Dr. Wiot responded that his personal opposition to the union was limited only to the money issue, i.e. the out of pocket cost to its members. The Committee has no feelings regarding union membership. However, Dr. Wiot is concerned about why the techs feel compelled to join the union.

Mr. Jason stated that job description changes could be initiated at the whim of the Committee based partly on the changing membership. Mr. Alexander noted that there was only one change in membership from 1988 to 1989.

He Mr. Barbro again noted the I-131 decontamination problem.

said the techs see their role as inspection and enforcement and that to be responsible for decontamination of hospital rooms was a conflict of interest.

Mr. Boyd concurred and stated that it was a 1

conflict of interest for the Senior Health Physics Technician to be

' 6&Ly M ,

, . ,-l .

L._ DRAFT Minutes c.. '3

,, the Deputy Radiation Safety Officer.

This results in the other

~ staff techs doing the Senior, Health Physics Technician's duties.

In effect, there was no job ladder for-promotion or advancement available.

Commentary on a memo dated June 30,-1988 (attachments (Sa and- I I 5b.) was distributed.

The techs felt the memo should be rephrased.

to suggest employees use properly approved channels for.

communication.

Mr.

Barbro said the techs felt there was a slow response from management regarding safety concerns as well as environmental and -

occupational health issues.

, He stated the techs felt an " ostrich syndrome

• situation existed in which management did not' respond to their concerns and questions.

An example of'their_ concerns is the '

public restroom facility at the Holmes RIL. 'This problem was discussed briefly and will be investigated further.

The techs stated they had been discouraged from taking courses, attending professional meetings and seminarc or any other type of continuing education (attachment #6). They had-inquired of Mrs. _ Clayton regarding educational _ advancement: and were told there -

was no money available . for this purpose.

Dr. Wiot will-check this=

with the Business Office.

Mr.

Barbro stated the techs recommended a) that the permanent-L Committee membership include a representative from Environmentcl f

m. . _ _ _ + . .- - . _ . - , - , , - - , _ _ _ ,_ y - . . , - - -- ~~

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

4 DRAFT Minutes 9

and occupational Health;.and b) that a health physics technician be I

a member of the Committee.

The techs' concern over non-human use protocols was addressed ,

(attachment 17). They feel that changes initiated via telephone.

result in confusion and that all requests should be made in writing.

Concern for adherence to regulatory guidelines was addressed (attachment #8). The techs felt that principal investigators and The their laboratory personnel should have documented instruction.

Lab Animal Medicine program was suggested as a model. (See also the NRC Regulatory Guide 8.29 appended).

The transport of radioactive materials in private and rented vehicles was discussed (attachment 19) . Mr. Williams stated this Mr.

issue had been discussed at length with UC Legal Department.

Barbro said UC was in violation of DOT requirements. Dr. Wiot asked Mr. Barbro to supply the appropriate DOT regulations and requirements that bear on this issue for further review.

The use of our license for commercial purposes was discussed (attachment #10). Evidently, there still exists on the premises of This UC radium sourcer i sed for calibration of instruments.

s

~

calibration is dere by Mr. Fritz and Dr. Kereiakes and-the techs

.r. Boyd M

feel this is a violation of our non-commercial license.

noted we need to dispose of this radium prior to 1992 when-this

c .4 ', -5

• DRAFT Minutes ,

(' disposal would be very dif ficult due to new low level waste

( .

Dr. Wlot asked that a plan to inform the PI, ,

disposal regulations.

find a replacement for calibration and the dispose of the radium, i If costs of this disposal, etc. be prepared for Committee rev ew.

d t to such a change in ca.'.ibration methods is undertaken, an amen men our license would be required.

Mr. Boyd suggested that a lab hazard classification system This similar to that used at Purdue University be investigated.

the system is based on the amount of radioactive materials present, This information will inherent hazards, the written protocol, etc.

be provided to the Committee for further review.

The techs also suggested that a schedule of radiation safety infractions and appropriate disciplinary measures be. instituted.

This could be published and distributed to principal investigators.

The meeting was concluded with Dr. Wiot stating that he was most interested in discussing the techs' concerns and that he could He felt that be reached at any time to discuss these problems.

ding this meeting served as a beginning to more open dialogue regar i

l i hip the operation of the Radiation Safety office and the re at ons h i technicians.

.between the Committee and-the health p ys cs l

l

(

' .- a_m,,,, ,__

4 J

li Unhevetty of Cincinnett fAalt tocation $591 l

//p.

Redtetton Safety Committee Telephones: 8,

, Radiation Sately Office 558-41to i F 234 Goodman Street Administration 555-9081

• I Cincinnett Ohio 452610591 r -

I June 30, 1988 TO: Radiation Safety Personnel .

Univ. of Cincinnati r '

l' ROM: George H. Alexander, Jr. B.S.

Kenneth ti. F ri t z , 14. S .

p I

SUBJECT:

Problem Notification Process for Radiation Safety Office Personnel _

In the event that there are any problems related to Radiation l i l' Sa fety Of fice programs, Radiation Health Technicians must fi notify either the Deputy Radiation Safety Officer, Radiatkn Safety of ficer or Administrative Director of Radiation Safety Under no circumstances should any employee t

immediately. }I state either policies or problems rel'ated to radiation safety 1 to anyone within the University of Cincinnati or outside of ',I i

tjl* niversity of Cincinnati unless told to do so by one of

>ove mentioned supervisors. Please be reminded that the L

t i ..stion Sa f ety Committee makes radiation safety policies for lp the University, and we act upon the provisions of our tinc

)

Broad License. Your specific jobs are to comply with assigned L In the event that there is duties f rom the supervisors.

a discrepancy related to this policy by an employee, disciplinary  !

action will be taken. _

tlAttE DATC I

4

(-

,1 i

Patient Cave

• Education a nesearch

• Community Service  !

An etit<matlee action /egvat oppo'tunity insmutton ct p, (

=

f.:hY& h l

.ai;

July 28, 1989 l

.: 1 TO: Mward Silberstein. H.D.

Radioisotope Laboratory TkIM: Bealth Physics Techniciana *

. O, Radiation Safety Office We the undersigned state that prior to the Nuclear Regulatory Connission (HRC) inspection of August 22-25, 1988, of our Broad Scope License that the Deputy Radiation Safety Of ficer handed the Staf f Health Physics Technicians sealed source wipe test records for seal sources that had been unaccounted for.

The approximate wording used by the Deputy Radiation Safety Officer were,

" Here, do something with these."

During the NRC inspection these records were kept from the NRC inspector and were essentially unavailable for his inspection.

These sealed source wipe test records are l'i ~ ified as follows: *

- Card i VH Isotope Ni-63 Activit> 5-24-69 was 10 sci

- Card i 106 - Isotope Hi-63 Activity on 5-24-69 was 10 mci Both of these sources were originally purchased by Dr. Henry Tan.

Af fir.ed on July 28, 1989 by: .

g

. e.%W C 9 /dd M"/

g,., '

4 9

6 a.

( g y b4 rauw

_ _ . _ _ . - . - - _ . _ _ _ . . - . _ . . _ . _._.___._.m.