IA-91-533, Partially Withheld Transcript of 900716 Investigative Interview of Jf Wiot (Closed),In Cincinnati,Oh.Pp 1 - 37. W/Related Documentation
| ML20126L163 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/16/1990 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126K503 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-91-533, FOIA-92-A-1 NUDOCS 9301070352 | |
| Download: ML20126L163 (47) | |
Text
.
3 p?,: ()WblNAL OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS,
-(-
l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission MCil@ . Office of Investigations Tide: ruvtsizcArzyn rarenvlew Dr. Jerome F. viot (Closed)
Docket No.
2 LOCATIOR Cincinnati, Ohio Honday, July 16, 1990- PAG S: ' 1 - 37 '
DATI; ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1 1612 K 5t. RW. Suke 300 -
. 3 E A 9 M 01 1. 7 , ~ ,:
W ac 29xHIBIT - I7 p S.
9301070352 920707 (202) 293-3W
[-.. PDR
' d .q R SNIC 2-A-1 ..
a, . , ;
, _1 r I w 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I
3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
4 5 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 7 In the Matter oft :
8 INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW :'
9 DR. JEROME F. WIOT :
10 (CLOSED) :
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 13 Dinsmore and Shohl 14 511 Walnut Street, Suite 2100 15 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202:
16 Monday, July 16, 1990 17 18 The above-entitled matter commenced at 2:55 19 o' clock p.m., when were present:
20 21 22 23 24 25
m ,
~
_9 ,
2 1
On. behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7- '
k2.* ' 2 3 RICHARD C. PAUL 4 -Investigator 5 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6 799 Roosevelt Road 7 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 8
9 On behalf of the witness:
10 11 ROBERT A. PITCAIRN, JR., ESQUIRE 12 KATZ, TELLER, BRANT AND HILD 13 1400 Tri-State Building-14 432 Walnut Street 15 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 16 17
-18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .
%g
. 3 d
4 1 I N D'E X D*
2 Witness Examination DR. JEROME F. WIOT, 4 3-4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1
17 18 19 20 21 22-23 24 25
4 g 1 PROCEEDINGS 9""~ 2 (2:55 p.m.)
3 MR. PAULt This is an interview of Dr. Jerome F.
4 Wlot, spelled W-I-0-T. Who's currently employed by the 5 University of Cincinnati; is that correct?
6 MR. WIOT: That's correct.
7 MR. PAULt The location of this interview is 8 Cincinnati, Ohio.
9 Present at this interview, in addition to Dr.
10 Wiot, are Richard C. Paul, Investigator, U.S. Nuclear 11 Regulatory Commission, and Robert A. Pitcairn, attorney, 12 representing Dr. Wiot.
13 As agreed, this interview is being tape recorded 14 by Court Reporter, Lincoln Davis.
15 Subject matter of this interview concerns the 16 University of Cincinnati Medical Center.
17 Whereupon, 18 DR. JEROME F. WIOT, 19 a witness, having been first duly sworn, was examined and 20 testified as follows:
21 MR. PAUL: Please be seated.
22 EXAMINATION 23 BY MR. PAUL:
24 Q Dr. Wiot, what is your current position with the 25 University of Cincinnati?
m m ve .l c *
'l 5 d 1
1 A I'an Professor and Chairman of Radiology.
i 2 Q And are your currently the Chairman of the 3- Radiation Safety Committee?
No. i 4 A And were you Chairman at one point in time?
M 5 Q N 6 A Yes. .
7 Q And what vera the dates.of --
8 A I was appointed in November of 198 6. g l'n-9 di4ffEsef 10 January of '80 -- of '90 and they appointed at that time, en 11 Acting Chairman in my stead, ,
12 Q As Chairman of the Radiation Safety Committee, how-13 many people actually sat on the committee that you.were 14 Chair of?
15 A I don't recall the exact number.. I'd have to 16 guess; and I don't really know. Probably 12, close to 12.
17 Q And, it's my understanding,._up until. August of; 18 1989, Kenneth Fritz was the Radiation Safety Officer; isa 19 that correct?
20 A That's correct.
21- Q And did Mr. Fritz report to you directly, as 22 Chairman?
23 A No. He reported to the Committee, essentially.
24 Not to me directly.
%- In regards to Mr. Fritz's duties as RS0; how did 25 Q
, . Y
y- . -- - _ ,
4 6 1 the Committee -- did they oversee the duties of the
? 2 Radiation Safety Of ficer, or did they direct the duties?
3 What was the relationship between the Radiation Safety 4 Committee? ,
5 A Well, it was an oversight committee in that senset 6 but they did not direct his duties, no.
7 Q Did they set radiation safety policy -- the 8 Committee?
9 A The Committee -- the Committee, as far as polici'es 10 were concerned, there was none set necessarily, while I was 11 the Chair, but -- so I can't comment on what happened before 12 --
13 Q Did --
9 14 A -- as far as the -- as far as the operation of the 15 Committees was concerned -- or the offices were concerned.
16 Q Who had the responsibility to run the day-to-day 17 affairs of the Radiation Safety Office at the University?
18 A Ken Fritz.
19 Q And did you at all, as Chairman, get involved in 20 any day-to-day affairs?
21 A No. Not really.
22 Q The issue has come up, and there is a series of 23 memos that came out that I can show you here, relates to the 24 Radiation Safety Office's problem notification process. And I
~
25 over the years, there were three memos that detailed -- I
(.
L
e v i
( -,
?
1 believe it was procedures related to internal notification,-
kg;& 2 regarding safety problems and they're marked attachment one, 3 which is a UC memorandum, dated July 1, 1986. And it's to 4 Radiation Safety Office Personnel, and it's from George W.
5 Alexander, Ketineth R. Fritz, subject: Proper channel of 6 communications for Radiation Safety Office Personnel.
7 Attachment two is the memo -- University of 8 Cincinnati memo, dated June 30, 1988. It's to itadiation 9 Safety Personnel, University of Cincinnati, from George W.
10 Alexander and Kenneth M. Fritz, subject: Problem 11 notification process for Radiation Safety Office personnel.
12 And attachment three is a July 31, 1989 13 memorandud. It's Radiation Health Physics Technicians in 14 the Radiation uafety office and it's from Jerome F. Wiot, 15 M.D., Chairman, Radiation Safety Committee; Problem:
16 Notification process.
17 Doctor, could you look at these memoranda please?
18 [ Witness perusing documents.)
19 A Yes. I know -- I know of two of the three.
20 Q And which two are those?-
21 A The June 30th of '88 and the_ July 31 of #89 one.
22 Q on the June 30, '88, when did_you becomeLaware of 23 the existence of that memorandum?
24 A In December of '88 it was brought to my attention 25 -- well"it may have been January of '89. It was brought to
.~ .. ~ % ak M g ;3g & & g y f)' <l f '*
c ,
8 1 the attention of the committee by the Radiation Safety 7-O' 2 Techs, as a complaint -- as one of numerous complaints about 3 the status of the office and the way it was being run.
4 Q Do you recall specifically what the complaint was 5 as to attachment to the memorandum?
6 A Basically that the techs were not allowed to 7 report difficulties, without going, first through the 8 University system, basically.
9 Q Did their complaint involve anything to do with 10 reporting safety problems to the NRC? Did they have -- did 11 the technicians --
12 A Well, basically, they came to me in December and said that there were certain tnings which they f elt -- Jef f (c 13 14 Barbro, or one of them, came to me -- that there were 15 certain things that were going on in t'e Radiation Safety 16 Office, which they felt were -- were not approprihte and 17 that they wanted to have them addressed.
16 And I said " fine," and I set up a separate meeting 19 where -- a meeting other than the standard Radiation Safety 20 Committee Quarterly Meeting, in which they came to address
- 1 the Committee. This was in the first part of January, and I 22 don't remember exactly when.
23 And they came and talked about the various 24 problems which they perceived. I don't remember any more 25 what they were; but, as I recall, there were something like
9
- 13 points, or 12 points which I picked up out of it. And 1
@' 2 they gave us all some information concerning what they felt 3 was an inappropriate activity on the part of the Radiation 4 Safety officer and his deputy.
S And that -- this was one of the -- one of the 6 problems which they brought up.
7 Q Did you have any discussions with either Fritz or 8 Alexander, related to the -- either attachment one or two?
9 A No. No, nothing direct, no. I didn't even knov 10 about number one. Number two I didn't have any -- as I 11 recall, I didn't have anything -- direct discussion with 12 them. I may have, but I don't remember.
13 Q As a result of your -- the initial meeting on 14 January 4th, 1989, of the Health Physics Technicians, with 15 the Radiation Safety committee?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Did you subsequently appoint a subcommittee --
18 A Yes.
19 -Q -- to look into their concerns?
20 A Yes. Ted Silverstein chaired it I remember, and 21 we had a -- we had the -- had a lawyer on the Committee -- I 22 forget his name -- oh, he's the lawyer that works for the 23 hospital -- he was on the Committee.
24 And I, I appointed somebody else, and I don't
- 25. remember to the subcommittee -- to really review the things
5 . - ... - -
3 g .,, .
3 10 e
r 1 to -- that they presented and to _ make decisions and comments-k 2 back to the major Committee to meet their concerns. _
3 Q Did the subcommittee eventually _ issue:a report _on- ,
4 5 A Yes. With one -- I think there were 17 Jtems, and-6 I think they added one more. There were 13 items,.aslI 7 recall, 8 Q Did it -- were there any -- did it address the 9 issue bought up in regard to attachront two?
10 A Yes. In the sense thbi they were going-to -- they were going to carry it to Personnel. The attorney's name --
11 12 Gary something -- Gary Harris?
'13- Q Harris.-
14 A Garry Harris. They.were going to address it'with' 15 _ Bill -- Gary, in the guise of his_ attorney position, and:
16 Bill,-were going to look at the thing and devise-one which 17 was more within the guidelines.which,-I assume-the Nuclear 18 Regulatory Commission wanted.
19 So'this was given to them to do the' job.
20 Q. In any of the -- other.than at the Radiation 21 safety committee Meeting of-January-4the _sca you-meet:at 22 other times with~the Health Physics. Technicians?.
23 A Yes. Periodically, Jeff Barbro.- Well, I met with
---I met with_three or four of them. I guess:I met with all:
24 _
25 .four-of them, just prior.to the meeting -- because they --
e m&t % us :w-i 8 5 4 4 .
. 11 g ~. 1 before the meeting, because they came to me with their Sh?'* 2 complaints and I told them, "put them in writing,"-and that 3 I would -- then we would meet with:themt which we did. _
4 I met with them kind of informally, to-listen to 5 them af terwards; but I don't remember particularly what the 6 issues were. I don't -- it didn't address this, but I don't 7 know really what the issues were.
8 Q Do you recall that the Health Physics Technician m Mt 9 ever referring two attachment twv as a gag order?
10 A I don't recall whether they have referred to it in 11 that cense. I know it has been referred to as a gag otdart 12 and whether they were the instigators of it; I don't know.
13 Q Do you recall if that was one of their concerns, 14 that this memorandum was --
15 A It was definitely one of their concerns.
16 Q Okay.
17 During the meetings, I guess -- it culminated in 18 the end of July 1989, beginning August 1989, some 19 allegations that came forward through the -- I believe the 20 Radiation Safety Committee, regarding concealment of a 21 sealed source, inventory cards from the NRC of an inspection 22 back in -- that took place in August of '88. Are you 23 familiar with the allegation?
24 A Yes. I know about that.
25 Q During your meetings that took place in late '88,
C
.. s 12 1 early 1989; did the health, or the Health Physics 2 Technicians ever bring that particular concern up?
3 A No.
4 Q' Do you recall when you first became aware of this 5 allegation?
A On August 2, 1989. I know exactly.
6 7 Q And, how did it -- how were you notified of the 8 allegations?
9 A Jeff Barbro, one of the techs, asked to see me.
10 He said he had something he wanted to tell eb He said that 11 Nd4W _
12 ,gi Jf. / ..;- 1.1 k ;_[ .' ( [
,L ,. 'y'j., '
13 1 14 15 There was a whole series of things which he-16 presented to me. And he said, at the same time,.that Ken-17 Fritz had told Prince Jason,-to conceal documents at tne 18 last inspection, when the Nuclear Regolatory Commission was 19 here. And I said, "that's fine, Jeff, but I have to have 20 that in writing from Prince Jason, I can't just take your.
21 Word for it. Would you-get it for me?" He said "yes."
22 And the following morning on my desk, was a letter from Prince Jason to the effect that Ken Fritz had told him 23 24 to conceal documents and the actual cards End the'w g6 25 tests which weren't performed, or so and so, were given to b:7c fnbh
e
, 'y pfmay1hnewelurlus2mAm e ]
l a
j 13 I l
1 me -- I mean, they were there. And that's the first time I
N "' 2 that I had heard about that at all. ;
3 Q Up to this time, were you ever aware of missing 4 sealed sources being an issue within the Radiation Safety l 5 office?
6 A No.
7 Q You had never heard of that --
8 A No.
9 Q -- as being a problem?
10 okay let me go through -- I have some more memos 11 I'd like you to look at, to see if you can -- make this.
12 The first set was one, two, three. These will be --
13 attachment four will be a July 28, 1989 memorandum to Edward 14 Silberstein, M.D., from Health Physics Technicians, 15 Radiation Safety office.
16 Have you ever seen that before?
17 A I don't recall it. I don't think so.
18 Q Okay.
19 (Witness perusing document.)
20 A I don't recall seeing it --
21 Q Okay.
22 A -- but that doesn't mean I didn't.
23 Q Okay.
24 And attachment five will be a University of 25 Cincinnati letter, dated August 2, 1989. It's addressed to
.- - -_ . _ . . a, :
=.
y J. u--
' . a c- 1, 4
- - 1 Dr. Jerome 'F.;Wlot, and it's signed _ by Prince Jason. ,
3tT'E 2 Is this what Barbro'~came -forward with then, as to; ,
3 - ..
4 A Yes. This is- what Jef f sent to' me --L I mean, I 5- don't_know hcw this got there - but it was on my desk. I 6 was doing something and it appearad on my desk with -- there 7 was an attachment with it and thost were the -- the --- P 8 Q The notecards themselves?
9 A 'Notecard themselves, yes. _
10 Q Do you recall how many inventory -- or how many-11 sources were missing?
12 A ~No.
- 13 Q What the issue was?
14 A No.
15 Q okay.
16 Evidently, then on August 18, 1989 - we'll make 17 this attachment 'six -- it's a letter to Prince; Jason,1from 18- - Jerome F. Wiot, dated August 18, 1989.
-19 He-wrote back asking you for supplemental
'20 - information.- Do-you recall'that?-
21 A Yes. Yes.
22 Q And what happened in the:. interim, between August 23' 2nd and August 18th? Did.anything happen on this specific 24 issue?
. 25 ,
A Well, yes. When I got' the _ information- from - -
~, e, i v,. (( x.,...r,---, , w n .m, y yem,_.e.- - 3ayf ,.[ M w yi, ,wy-,
ww ,,e, - w - U.-
m # , .. , w we .. og ' a 2e l 15 r- 1- this information back --
d4 2 Q Attachment-five information?
3 A Yes. Attachment five back, with the cards, I 4 called the President of the University and I told him I 5 thought we had a significant problem; because_there was 6 documentation that -- that material had been hidden from the 7 Huclear Regulatory Commission and I felt that, despite the 8 fact that we had been trying to address the problems which 9 the radiation techs felt were problems; which Ken Fritz did 10 not feel were problems, nor did Prince Jason feel were 11 problems, nor_did most of the people in nuclear medicine who 12 were on the Radiation Safety Committee feel were problems.
Although, we had been trying to address some of
( 13 14 these alleged violations, I felt that this particular 15 complaint was obviously something which needed more than an 16 inside investigation, as to how -- whether this was true and 17 how it happened.
18 And I asked the President if I could-have the 19 right to call in an outside consulting firm and he said 20 "yes, and I will give you my full support to do whatever --
21 do whatever is necessary to rolve the problem."
22 I didn't really know who to call, because I don't 23 know those kind of people. And I called the office in L 24 Chicago and I spoke to -- pardon me for having problems with
- 25. names -- I talked to one of the people in your office, who
igaLWJ MDuM*J 4
16 1 I'd met before one time, when he was down. And'he 2 recommended NES, and specifically, Francisco Trejo, who he 3 said was -- the company was good. They had done this 4 before. They were good at it and they understood the 5 problems of how to straighten your problem. And he said 6 " fine."
7 I then called Mr. Trejo. Darryl Weidman is who I I called Mr. Trejo and he wasn't in. And then, B talked to.
9 subsequently he returned me call, a couple of days later --
he was out; but he returned my call shortly. Well, no, in 10 11 fact, he may have returned my call the same day -- that's --
12 he did, from the airport. He called me at home.
13 And I told him the problem. I told him that I had 14 spoken to Mr. Weidman and he suggested that I call him and 15 that -- would he and his company come in and see what are 1 16 major -- what our problems were and try to straighten out 17 the problem.
18 He agreed to come. In fact he agreed to come --
19 this all happened on like a Friday, or a Thursday or Friday.
20 He agreed to come on Monday, but I happened to be going on 21 vacation and I was -- had it all planned and there was no 22 way I could change. And I didn't want him to start actually 23 -- or for his company to start until I was in town.
24 So we delayed the actual beginning one week, until 25 I got back from vacation. So, whatever that would be --
l
- y
'4
- ,4 -
-~.,
1 August 9th or loth, or 12th, or whatever that -- about'that--
y,- 2- was, is when Mr. Trejo_ cama ~1n and we? started the process 3 and he looked over a lot of the: allegations;and looked-over-4 the situation.
5 And then the decision was made early on that it' 6 was appropriate that, in view of what-the allegations were,-
- 7. that we ought to talk with the university-officials; and 8 which I did. I talked to the President,.I talked to Dr.
9 Harrison, as I recall, about what was going-on. Mr. Trajo 10 did too. 1 11 And it was the feeling of everyone that we should 12 relieve both Prince Jason ~and Ken Fritz of their 13 responsibilities for the Radiation Safety office. But we
(
14 had to get a Radiation Safety officer in order to continue-15 as it'was.-
16 And we got -- we looked over -- well actually, Mr.-
17' Trejo looked over the credentials of the vario'us people who 18 could potentially do it and the ---we then went up to 19 Chicago -- it was someplace like the 22nd, or something like
- 20 that --
21- Q of August?-
22 A- Yes, of August. In order to see the group in 23 Chicago, as to whether our choice was okay. And they.said-24 fine. And so:we came back and then we called both Prince.
25 -Jason and Ken Fritz in'and put them on administrative-leave
% =em -
18 I with salary, while the process of finding out eve ything was a f.-
D- 2 -- was being done.
3 Q I notice on attachtnant six, which is the August 4 18th letter that you wrote to Prince -- or Prince -- let's 5 see --
6 A Yes. That's to Prince Jason.
7 Q -- yes -- that you wrote to Prince Jason, it's 8 cc'd to Trejo -- by this --
9 A Yes.
10 Q -- so by this point --
11 A Francisco was on board.
12 Q He was on board by then?
( 13 A Yes.
14 Actually, Francisco felt that these were the 45 documents that we needed and, you know, it's got my 16 signature o:: it as Radiation Safety, but Francisco was the 17 one who developed the letter, as to what we really needed in 18 order to get the information.
19 Q Did Mr. Trejo then follow up on -- well,'I'll give 20 you the last exhibit, which would be attachment seven; which 21 is Prince Jason's response to you, dated August 21, 1989.
22 He specifically addressed each item --
23 A Yes, I remember --
24 Q -- by number.
25 A -- this letter, yes.
1.
- 19 1 Q Did Mr. Trejo then do the follow up, as to Prince (7' 2 Jason's response, or was there anything done with the 3 information?
4 A I can't answer thatt except that, you know, it 5 became part of the -- part of the in-house investigation of 6 what was going on. Because at this point it was -- it was -
7 - we were still on an in -- on an in-house evaluation of the 8 situation.
9 Q And who did the in-house evaluation?
10 A Well, primarily -- well, Francisco, but actually 11 Bob -- it's been a long time since I've been involved -- Bob 12 --
13 Q Was he an NES employee?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Bob Burgin?
16 A Bob Burgin. Yes. Bob Burgin did. Francisco was 17 in and out on a regular basis, you know, to San Francisco 18 and to here and to there; but Bob Burgin stayed with us; and 19 there were a couple of other people involved who were NES 20 employees, that I don't really know.
21 Q Did they issue a report as to the specific 22 allegation -- the concealment of the cards?
23 A There is -- there is a report which they have 24 issued to the -- Dr. Harrison, who's the Vice President of 25 the University, concerning their findings.
- g ', 4, 4 20 1 Q Okay.
!..' 2 Do you recall what those-findings were?-
3 A No.
4 Q Did you see the report?
5 A Probably, but I didn't read it.
6 Q Oksy.
7 And Drv Harrison's the President of the 8 University?
9 A Ho. He's Vice President -- well, he's Senior Vica 10 President and Provost of Medical Affairst and actually the -
11 - everything reports through him.,
12 Q Did you ever talk to Dr. Silberstein'regarding 13 these specific allegations -- tne allegation related to the 14 concealment?
15 A I don't recall.
16 Q Did you ever t:1k to either Cason or Fritz about 17 the allegations?
18 A Yes, on the 25th -- 24th, 25th of August, er 1
19 something in that neighborhood. I relieved them of'their 20 responsibilities and I told them ---
21 Q Did'they --
22 A -- I~ told them the reason that I relieved them.
23 Q And what was'that specifically?
24 A Specifically that -- that Prince Jason alleged
~ 25 that Een Fritz had -< had ordered him to conceal documents
~
' gmm kw t itA 21 1 from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and that, in view of
(( 2 the f act that this was an allegation of cria against the i 3 other; until the facts were determined, I was putting then 4 both on administrative leave.
5 In other words, I was given the responsibility by 6 the University to do that, in my position as Chairman of the 7 Radiation Safety Committee.
8 Q Did the'! respond to the allegation?
9 A In writing?
10 o verbally or in writing?
11 A Ho. Except -- one to say he didn't do it, and the 12 other to say he did.
13 Q k'ho said he did and who said he didn't?
14 A Prince Jason said Ken Fritz told him and Ken Tritz 15 denied it.
16 Q As a result of receiving these series of 17 allegations from the Health Physics Technicians, did you 18 have any concerns as to the operation of the Radiation 19 Safety Office, as far as being effective in radiation ~~ in 20 the Radiation Safety area?
71 A Ho, I did not.
22 Q Did you think that there was a basis for these 23 allegations?
24 A Hy information was from people in -- who were more 1 25 knowledgeable of it than I was -- was that it was -- they
22 r"" 1 were blowing smoke. Except until this issue, and that is Nte I mean, I had been 2 the issue of concealment of documents.
3 informed that in July or June of '88, why, we passed 4 inspection, I assumed we were active. The committee had 5 been in place a long time. There was an obvious hatred of 6 the radiation technicians; for Ken Fritz and so -- you know, 7 the combination of events was such that.
8 Although I felt that we should address their 9 concerns, my information led me to believe that it was all 10 an attempt, on their part -- wall, they were very frank to 11 admit they wanted to get rid of Ken Fritz. They told me 12 that in person -- that they intended to get rid of Ken
( 13 Fritz.
14 Q Were you in a position to evaluate Fritz? Was 15 that one of your responsibilities?
16 A As a Radiation Safety Officer? ,
17 Q Yes?
18 A Was I in the position to do that?
19 Q Right?
20 A Personally?
21 Q Right?
22 A No. I was not personally.
23 Q Who handles evaluation?
14 A Well, the evaluation of his performance was 25 essentially at the level of the committee. If you ask me if
. , . **R I i
23
,_ 1 I personally was -- was -- was able to do that, and the kd? 2 answer was, no. But there were people on the committee who 3 could well evaluate his performance as a Radiation Safety 4 officer, in the technical sense.
5 We had physicist, Jim Kerlakes on there, Howard 6 Elson was on there, Gene Sanger was still on the Committee, 7 Since most of the business was related to nuclear medicine -
8 - nuclides -- radio-nuclides, why we had people on there who 9 were very much -- very much knowledgeable of radio nuclides 10 and so -- and their handling and the proper things -- so --
11 from that perspective -- the Committee _was composed of 12 people who could do that.
13 We'd had no problems with anybody, and had had no 14 problems with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And the 15 only people who were pounding the drums, saying things were 16 bad, were the four techs; who, f rankly, were determined --
17 and they were complaining that Ken Fritz was not responding 18 to it.
19 And there was complaints about certain things to 20 do with improper cleaning of bathrooms. And they were also-21 angry because I had made the decision that it was 22 appropriate for them to be re.sponsible to clean up spills.
23 And they became very angry at me and at everyone, because we 24 had made the. decision that they were the appropriate 25 individuals to clean up spills.
r e* .
'* 24 ;
,. 1 So, their complaints -- you had to temper 1a bit j 1/I' 2 with their attitude towards what was going on, to be honest. i Up until then -- August of 1989 -- was the. [
3 Q 4 Committee satisfied with Ken Fritz's performance?
5 A Yes. I think we had no reason not to -- we had no [
6 reason to think that he was not performing adequately. He 7 had some interpersonal problems, but, as far as the e technical aspects of the running of the Radiation Safety 9 Office, we had no real reason, except, as I say -- the .
complaints which we picked up in December, which we started 10 11 to address, from the techs.
I 12 We had no complaints .from your of fice'-- not your-but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office.- We
( 13 office, 14 had no -- we passed inspection. We had no user complaints, 15 we had none of this type of problem.
16 So, we had only -- and we had people on the 17 Committee who -- addressing some of the complaints -- some 18 of their complaints -- felt that they were unfounded and 19 theyLdidn't necessarily -- they were not necessarily counter 20 to Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules, so, we:had no' reason-7 21 to get terribly upset with them.
22 Q DidEt he. Radiation Safety Committee conduct-L 23 periodic audits of.the Radiation Safety Office?
24 A Financial audits?
L 25- Q No. Performance. audits?-
I
4 25 1 A Performance-audits? .
]
ej. 2 No. I don't think so. Not in that true since, -I i
3 mean, Ken Fritz brought the material to the committee each 4 time -- at our quarterly meeting, as to what was going on in 5 the committee, and how many people were being studied and so 6 on. But there was no formal audit.
7 Q Based on the information you received as to this 8 allegation, regarding the concealment of sources; did you 9 make any decision as to who was responsible for the 10 concealment?
11 A I- only know what I was told by Prince Jason and 12 Ken Fritz, that's all.
13 Q And basically, when Jason says that he was told by
(
14 Fritz --
15 A Told Fritz to do it and Fritz said, "that's not 16 true."
17 Q other.than that, you weren't involved in'any of 18 the other follow-up?
19 A' No. Absolutely not.
20' MR. PAUL: 'can we go-off the record here?
21 .[ Discussion off.the record.)
22 (On-the record.)
23 BY MR. PAUL:
24 Q On another subject, were ever made aware in 25 January 1989, at the time the Health. Physics technicians
.un - wn u_w . w 26 e
- 1 came forward ,to the Radiation Safety Committee, that one of 2
the technicians by the name of Melvin Boyd had concerns that 3 he was being identified as a soures of allegations to the 4 Huclear Regulatory Commission? Do you recall?
5 A Yes. He wrote to me saying that that wasn't true.
6 There was apparently, it was reported to the office, I 7 guess, in Chicago that there had been, there had been two 8 phone calls, anonymous phone calls concerning allegations 9 that we're doing things badly.
10 I didn't get the phone call. The phone call -- I 11 don't know who the phone call came to, to be.very honest 12 with you. But I got the letter from him and I also got a 13 letter f rom Jef f Barbro, in reference to the fact that they 14 hadn't done it.
15 fgjh, 16 4JiGW])M' 1' & Y 18 F!!E.
19 @2?sf1.:ib-)
20 Q Prior to getting the letter, were you aware that 21 the ,NRC had even received allegations?
22 A No. No,' because when I was told -- oh, yes. Yes, 23 someone told me that they had received the thing because I 24 was supposed to meet with them.
A 25 . Q With the NRC7 l l Of On
9, '% -
3 * $ . %$ ag..
, -d 27 1 A No. I was supposed to meet with the techs. I was P 2 going to meet with the techs to address some of their 3 questions. What I was trying to do was meet with them on a 4 nomewhat of a regular basis to find out really what their 5 problems were and to tor to make them work better with Ken 6 Tritz and tell them that we were trying to work through 7 their concerns, because their concerns were related also to 8 such things as promotions. They needed a ladder, a 9 promotional ladder, and so on. So, I was trying to meet 10 Vith them.
11 And I don't know whether George Alexander. called l
12 me or someone called me and told me that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had received two anonymous phone calls
( 13 14 from people saying that we were doing something bad. I 15 really, when I got this information I had already planned 16 this meeting with them, with the four techs to sit down and 17 talk with them. Just, as I say, I was trying to get things 18 together so that they would be more-responsive and they 19 would Work better with Kent because I felt the major problem 20 was that they weren't working together.
21 When I got this, I wrote to them and I said,:in 22 view -- I wrote them a letter and said that in view of-some 23 allegations that had been made concerning something which Ii 24 felt was ' inappropriate, that in ' view of what we were 'doing .
25 addressing, that I would not meet with them until I met with
i e
O 28 2 1
the Radiation Safety Committee so that we could discuss the allegations that had been made. That's when I got the 2
3 letter back from Jeff and I got the letter back from Melvin 4 aoyd.
5 How, I assume -- maybe Ken Fritz got the phone 6 call. I think, I think, you know, I'm kind of vague, but I 7 think Een Fritz did get the phone call and Ken Fritz was the one who called me and told me that. So, I told him I 8
9 wouldn't meet -- that's when I got the letters back from 10 Melvin, Jeff Barbro. One of them typewritten and one of 11 them handwritten, as I recall.
12 O In regard to this incident, was it ever discussed e
C, 13 with Tritz or Alexander that this allegation had been 34 reported to the 11RC and in violation of the, what I showed 15 you as Attachment 2, the June 30, '88, problem notification 16 process?
17 A Did I discuss that with Ken and George?
18 Q Right, or did they discuss it with you, that this 19 was outside the proper procedure?
20 A Well, no. That whole business started in January 21 of '88 when we started to attract this._ .And that was part 22 of the points which they brought, the techs brought to the 23 Committee.
24 Q You mean, January '89.
25 A '89, excuse me. Yes, January in '89. They
', . i
29 1 brought that information as part of their business. That's ;
2 when I pointed the subcommittee. That's when the subcommittee recommended the change. Then the change was ,
3 4 not forthcoming because it kind of fell through the cracks l 5 is what happened. It fell through the cracks, I think, at 6 the University level, probably Personnel office because I 7 finally wrote by myself, 8 Q Which is Attachment 3. i 9 A Yes.
10 Q The July 31, '89.
11 A Yes.
12 Q Well, yes. That is July 31, '89, but actually=
13 what I did is I wrote it and I sent it off to Gary Harris 14 and he said he'd run it by Bill Lodge and make sure' it was' E 15 okay before we did it because I wanted to make certain it' 16 was right. And it was something which I -- it was;not 17 vritten by a lawyer. It'was. written by me to address the.
18 problem. And when they approved,-I then sent'it off to 19- these people, to the health techs in the office.-
20 Q As f ar as the procedure: of problem notification, t 21 it doesn't specifically addressLthe ability of the 22 technicians to go'to theLNRC. Was'there_any--specific reason 23 for this?
24' A No.
25 -Q What was the procedure? Was this covering the
- ,....-~......-,-,-,c,,.-,......,,-.mm,,..-, . . . - _ , , - , . . . , . . , , , . , , _ , , , . . , , - - .,y..- . . , , - _ . - - - . , . _ ,m. ._,:..A., r~,. S
I
. i
$ .* 30 .
,,-. 1 procedure whether they could contact the NRC7 3 i
di ' 2 A Ho. This was really a basic problem that_they had j t
3 that -- you see, their original complaint was not that they ;
i 4 had to go to the, they couldn't go to the NRC. Their 1 i
5 original complaint was the fact that_the way that thing was 6 written, it talked about 3, they had to write 3 times to Ken 7 Tritz or something. They said that's wrong and that's not 8 the way it should be. And they really were more concerned 9 about the fact that when they found a problem that was not 10 being addressed, this was to address that.
11 Now, any original comments were such _that, you -
12 know, anyone can talk to anybody at any time. In my meno to
( 13 Gary Harris, it said , you know,-this is my understanding, -
that anyone can go to the NRC at any. time and that should be 1 14 15 in there.
16 But this memo was primarily to address their i 17 concern about all this business about, we've got to do it 3 18 times and, you know, write him again'and write'him again.
t-
-19 And I' felt that was totally _ inappropriate. -
And if they felt-
-20 that they had'a problem and it wasn't addressed by Ken Tritz 21 -immediately'it should come to'the Committee. -And Ken Tritz !
had a responsib'ility to' report in 30 days as to what- he did. ,
23 about the concern. :
24 -Q Do-you feel that Ken-Fritz's reporting procedures, ,
25 as detailed in Attachment i and 2.here, inhibited:the
-T vy,y-.g,- yer,--w,w---ee--ev-- ,v ~.y. v r-w w. +,+vgr+.
v..w,-r-...v, -
%,- e~yv- v .,%--,
v -,v m. ,v,,-r w - w w .w w ev ve y- - ,. -,w-c.- v v- w 7- wy- v.e, vy
M 31 1 technicians from going to the NRC to date?
\Ca 2 A Ho. I think that that's smokescreen on their 3 part. They know the rules. They know that anybody can go 4 to NRC. They were using that as a hit against Ken. That's 5 all. They know the rules better than most people, so to 6 suggest that that would restrain them from doing anything, I 7 think for them to suggest that's inappropriate on their a part.
9 Q I don't know if I asked you thist did you ever 10 ask the technicians -- I believe you mentioned Barbro -- in 11 connection with the concealment allegation, why it took then 12 a year to bring it forward? 2 13 A Well, in the discussion I said, Jeff, what in the 14 hell are you coming here a year after the fact for. I mean, 15 why didn't you tell me this earlier. You know, he said,-I 16 don't know, he said, but I-tell you we're going to get Ken 17 Fritz. I mean, he said that right in my office sitting 18 right across the desk, we're going to get Ken Fritz.
19 Q Did you feel that any of these concerns that came 20 up, you know, over the period January '89 forward, they were 21 the ones that came to the Radiation Safety committee. Would 22 you characterize them as more personnel problems, 23 administrative-type problems, health safety-type problems?
24 A Yes. Well,-the people that were on the Radiation 25 safety committee, who, as I said, were knowledgable,-we'took
32 1 the complaints and looked at them. There were letters
? written by Jeff Barbro, something to do with the restroom 2
3 and the home hospital. And I brought these all to the 4 Committee to evaluate because, as I said, I'm not 5 sophisticated in that particular area enough to know whether 6 the facts are -- and I had good people on the Committee and 7 I trusted them. And I knew that theru was this terrible 8 interpersonal problem between Ken Fritz and the Radiation 9 Safety techs. There was no question -- I mean, there was no 10 question about that.
11 So, it was a matter that you had to take many of 12 their complaints and look at them in light of, one, the 13 office had been inspected a year earlier and looked okay, 14 and two, the people who were knowledgable said that many of 15 these complaints did not need, and I had people who'd been -
16 - Gene Sanger's an example. He's been chairman of the 17 Radiation Safety Committee. Radiation accidents are his 18 primary interest.
19 I had to go on the basis of these types, this type 20 of information to determine, but I felt that they had 21 problems like this type of a thing where they had, 22 administrative 1y they had to do something that was really 23 kind of cumbersome and that was one cf the problems that I 24 wanted to address. And I also wanted to address the other 25 problems which they had concerning promotions, et cetera,
m ._
m l
33 l 1
1 that type of thing. So, that was part of my reason. for :
^#
2 having the additional meeting, was to try to show them that 3 we were concerned about them and that we did want to make it 4 right and try to, really, to try to get a better working ,
i 5 relationship in the office so things would go smoother.
6 But as I say, they were so angry about Ken, and [
7 then they were angry at me and the Committee because of the 8 business about cleaning up spills, that was the beginning of 1 9 the problem that you had a difficult time weeding out what 10 was personal and what was really factual in there with them.
11 Q When did they become part of-a union, do you 12 recall?
ch, that was in this same particular area. They 13 A ,
14 came -- what happened, early on, Bill Lodge and I met with ,
15 them and I don't remember when it was, and Cyril Xupfeberg. ,
16 Cyril, he's the assistant _to Dr. Harrison. We met in Dr.
17 Harrison's office, well, in Kupfeberg's office in his 18 conference room. When they had decided to go union, and 19 they had decided to joint-ask me, we' met with them, and I 20 met with them to ask them, you know, what their problems 21- were that wanted to make them join the union and could we 22 address those problems.
23 Again, it was, I think, as I recall, it was J6ff Barbros who made the comments and made the statements. And 24 25 my-concern was only for them because, to be'very honest with
I 34 1 you, they were joining and asked me, there are four people 2 joining a union which was primarily heusekeeping and some of the clerical people, and they would be a small issue. And 3
4 the union was not going to do much for them; they were such 5 a small part of the situation and they would be paying 6 whatever the duas are a month and they are debt-well paid 7 anyway.
8 So, I went to this thing primarily to try to say, 9 look, we will address -- that was the first time that I not 10 with them, where I said, we will address your concerns about 11 promotions, et cetera, et cetera. They did, they chose to ,
12 join the union.
That predated the January subcommittee?
( 13 Q 14 A Yes. That was before that. I don't remember 15 exactly when that was, but that was before that.
26 Q Was Prince Jason part of management, as the 17 assistant RSO?
18 A ch, I guess. But in the sense that the techs 19 reported to him or to Ken, so I guess he would be considered 20 managemant, yes.
21 Q Was he part of the group that came forward to the 22 Radiation Safety Committee with concerns?
23 A I think it was primarily the four techs. Yes, I 24 think it was primarily the four, five techs null and void, s..
25 and the other three, four techs.
1
, - . ~ ,
35 1 Q What was George Alexander
- role within the 2 Radiation Safety Office? Was he a manager?
3 A Actually, the Radiation Safety office from an 4 administrative point within the University was in Radiology, 5 in the sense that we had their budget, their budget was part 6 of my budget in radiology. That was because Gene Sanger had 7 been the radiation safety officer and they kind of kept it.
8 But Nuclear Medicine is a part of Radiology, and I'm the 9 chairman of Radiology.
10 When I really got involved in looking at the 11 Radiation Safety office, I really felt that 4 >
- 12 administrative 1y, Xen, you know, Ken was not really good at r a And this was on the advice of my fiscal officer, who 13 it.
14 said, you know, their records are sloppy and that's not 15 good.
16 So, we decided that George Alexander, who was 17 administrator of Nuclear Medicine area, would help us get a more functional and workable Radiation Safety office. So we 18 19 asked George to move into that job because he had the 20 Nuclear Medicine laboratory running quite efficiently. So 21 we moved him in there to help with the administrative 22 responsibilities. You know, make sure that the documents 23 went out on time and that everything went out on time was 24 really what his responsibility was, and that we fulfilled V 25 all the requirements as necessary because he was just a
~~wvu . mammp_n u - w w ,, . , w
.* ,e 36 1 better manager in that sense. It, nothing to do with the
't 2 technical aspects, just to do with the paperwork of the 3 office, so to speak.
4 Q Did Alexander report to Fritz?
5 A No, he reported to me really.
6 Q To you. ,
7 A Yes. He reporte6 to me in the sense, initially 8 early on, because the budget was in my area, but then 9 reported to me when I became the chairman of the Radiatior, 10 Safety Committee.
11 Q Dr. Wiot, have I or any other NRC representative 12 here threatened you in any manner, offered you any rewards 13 in return for this statement?
14 A No.
15 0 Have you given the statement freely and 16 voluntarily?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Is there anything further you care to isdd for the-19 record on the matter?
20 A I don't think so, no.
21 Q The interview is concluded.
22 MR. PITCAIRN: We would like Dr. Wlot to have the 23 opportunity to read and sign his statement before it's used.
24 You can make the arrangements through me. Why don't you Q. -
25 make them through me.
37 1 MR. PAULt We're off the record.
%' Y 2 (Whereupon, the deposition was concluded at 4:10 3 p.m.)
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 -
12 C 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 b
as .
_ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - ~ ~ ~ ~
, _ . . . . ~"'*~~
3% ,
[
h', REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceed- .
ings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission t
in the matter oft .
HAHE OF PROCEEDING: Investigat!?e Interview DOCKET NUMBER PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Cincinnati, Ohio were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United Statis 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 foregoing proceedings. .
hA fa [A_. A Lincoln Davis Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
hyc TcAD d /L4d8 0M
[ .
P c.
.. e, n*.
39 Unlemity of Cincinnell Mail Location #601 Mediation Safety Committee Telephone (613) 872-4116 f 234 Goodman Street ,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45267 0591 ,
1 July 1986 i
TO: Radiation Safety Office Personnel University of Cincinnati PROM:
h'.
Coorge W. Alexander, Jr. . Kenneth R. Fritz - C Administrative Directot Radiation Safety Officer
SUBJECT:
Proper channel of commu nications for
- Radiation Safety Office, Personnel University of Cincinnati Policy dictates that you must report all problems first to your immediate supervisor. Your immediate supervisor is the Deputy Radiation Safety Officer - Mr. Prince
( ~
Jason. Problems relating to Radiation Safety which have not been addressed by the Deputy Radiation Safety Officer should be directed to the Radiation Safety Officer - Mr. Kenneth R. Fritz.
Administrative Matters should be directed to the Administrative Director - Mr. George - Alexander. All correspondence including ,
anything that has financial implications should be directed to the Administrative Director.
M the event that-the Radiation Safety Officer and/or Administrative Director deem it necessary to direct problems to the Chairperson of the Radiation Safety Committee or the Radiation Safety. Committee, it is their job to perform this function.
In the event that any member of the Radiation Safety Office staff deters from this procedure,--it is grounds for disciplinary action.
Further,' University Policy states that unauthorized discussion of information pertaining to students, patients or other employees -
of the' University with-friends, relatives, the general public or the news media is considered inappropriate : behavior, and that it .
shall result in disciplinary action up to and including-immediate discharge.
Take pride in your office. Do not encourage - conversetion rengarding '
-what is happening in this area. If you spread derogatory information elsewhere, you can only-hurt yourselves,-- the Radiation Safety .
Office of the University of Cincinnati.
GWA/sk' A&tAHttW [ ,, y ?7
~ .
a .lle <
s r LWeetelty of Cincinnell Mall tocation $$91 I
~ hadletie,t 8elety Cemmitt** Telephones: @
i, Medletion Safety Office 6584110 234 Goodman Street Administration 666 9001 CbcInnatl Ohlo 4526T 0591
- J/una 30, 198E it; Rodi e w. safety Personnel .
Univ. cf Cincinnati e'
TROMt Georgz C. Alexander, Jr. B . S .* *N'
- y,ennie:.r ft. Fritz, M.S.
p ,I l
SUBJCCT: P r >=: ~ ~~r tiotification Process for '
l ,f patr euen Safety of fice Personnel ,(
'/n the event :.r..t : there are any problems telated to Radiation ,
Safety Of fic e F '7 tams, Radiation llealth Technicians must i notify eithe: t.: a Deputy Radiation Safety Officer, Radiation <
r Safoty Of fic:e: c-r Administrative Director of Radiation Safety , , 1, immadiately. 'mder
. no circumstances should any employee stato either p:Meios or problems rel' ated to radiation safety I
cnyone wi. : r.i*- the University of Cincinnati or outside of Un!.verst:y c f Cincinnati unless told to do so by one of * [y
).o above me* :it ned supervisors. Please be reminded that the ,
lp
- Radiation Sa f ety Commit. tee makes radiation safety policies for ,
the Univers: y, and we act upon the provisions of our NRC Broad License. Your specific jobs are to comply with assigned d..
duties from tee s u pe rvisor s . In this event that there is f.!
a discrepanc;. rela ted to this policy by an employee, disciplinary , di cetion will :e taken.
( -
! W it DATE ,
,.-s'.;
a b,
x y t t
9
- t
{ ..
patient Care
- Education
- Research
- Community Service An effirmative action /ttrust Opportuntly institution * % * *,'*-
%Agg
= July 28, 1989 o.
10 ydvard Silberstein, M.D.
Radioisotope 1.aboratory Health rhysics Technicians C' ' s Eadiation Safety Office -
We the undersigned state that prior to the Nuclear Regulatory Commaission (HRC) inspection of August 22-25, 1988, of our Broad scope License that the Deputy Radiation Safety Officer 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 identified as follows: *
- Card i WH Isotope Hi-63 Activity on 5-24-69 was 10 mci
- Card i 106 - Isotope Hi-63 Activity on 5-24-69 was 10 sci Both of these sources were originally purchased by Dr. Henry Tan.
Affirmed on July 28. 1989 by:
Le .% W bc n
( di) . Y
]h '
4 9
9 0
I e
4 9 4 7
s.. t .
. )'
- ggumr 34 .
, . . .. q w , ",. . . . . , ,
, , , , , 3,
, 1 g.'vt . . .
,3 p's .'g.,, .
' ..e,'t.flt : C,
, )
. < pz .... .
g3 UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
- RADIATION SAFETY OFFICE' tu oooemen svees 7 ,
(... *f af.. d .d..(.j :,*. $ . no
.c- c " ., , tud Operstaae Pod 8'on 8.*uamed
.s.. ,
o
- ' ' ' em. - .:
,y. fps. '.- ..,
.f . . .r s 3 *
',. . ('
.g :fM, .,.. gust 2, 1989 " ;
- y' W:Qi ..
< ~n.,.
, A',
{, .Y ~ ..
Dr. Jerome F. Viet Chairman Radiology Professor M.1,. 742 Dear Dr. Vict This meno serves to certify that I do have knowledge of various documents which were intentionsuy concealed from a Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspector Kenneth M. Frits, the Dai-during an on-site inspection of our broad license.
versity of Cincinnati's Radiation Safety Officer, directly ordered me to do so-Enclosed and 1 felt as if I had no other choice but to fonov that directive. .
you vin find other documents en sealed radioactive sources that have been sr..
" missing" for some time now as is evidenced by the dates of their last being tested for leakage. To the bett of my reco uection, Mr. Frits has seen this information. This report is freely and willing furnished to you with the hope that it vin help to rectify the problems with which we all are currently con-fronted. My signature belov verifies the aforesaid.
Respectfuny yours, Prince Jason Deputy Radiation Safety Officer .
University of Cimeinna,t.1 I
e y.
t
- f f
~ T . ~ T. .; ; .
j g f.i.'. >,th:.y } . .
{i.f.l 7,y;,%:jjy.yky'_.QQudiocM - 'g-
'. !. M-'$'l
.! W 7 une ) 4..r.!lO'E((O
'r,td R.4mn s.t.ty commm icinoni.
- ~
- T.i. phon.c . 2 .
.: . Radiation Safety Office sse-4lio I*;* ' .
' a.. , * *; " -
- .L.lm .- ' t. Aamini .>an<
\ f*e y, , e.d~ v5.neo u.tr tion ase.oos M? ',;, n4 coo inn 6m n str et sg3pssg
.r ! ~ ,y. *'
t , canc,. :. .ets.,m.ym.y
}qo.n.,io asts1 oses ytudg 9 i ;r:, '.;l&*f,r f;;l..f<,, ,
e .* . ;. - .,
r ;q,i
,'/ j _ ,$.
..." . ;. .g.3 August ,18,1989 0 y -
. - j;4(, v f'Y ,.= ..' .t g . % 1.. .,.,. qc.;m.y.ps
.c.. e. .. 3 f .
.c. ,, s. . .
. ...g.g:. .. .
f ; .
. /,0.1/3 Ng.
- );. ' -f , -(. [1" ..j.(4 f $['
- Mr. Prince Jason Deputy Radiation Safety Officer University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio 45267-0591 t
D' ear Mr. Jasont >
Please be assured that the matters to wideh you Thank you for your letter. in that regard, could you please pro-refer will be thoroughly investigated. .
vide me with the following supplemental informations ~
- 1. Can you identify the documents (specifically or by category) which were
' intentionally concealed from a Nucicar Regulatory Commission inspector during an on-site investJgation of our broad license?"
- 2. When did the concealment occurf Ilow long did it last? What on-site inspection did It affect?
[ 3. !!ow was the concealment accomplished - were the documents Were remov files, misfued so they _wouldn't be noticed, or never fU 4.
Are the 'other documents
- you enclosed with your
- letter different from .
ones that were conecaled from the NRC inspector 7 ,
for some _
- 5. What do you mean when you say the documents have been *' missing #If time now a t , Itave they also been deliberately concealed 7If not, were th whom were they concealed?If so, who is responsible 7 were lost or misfiled?
1 appreciate your assistance in our contlntdng efforts to achieve full an slon requirements.
complete compliance with all Nuclear Regulatory Co I -
S rely. -.
i erome F. Wlot, M.D.
' .. Chairman .
Radiation Safety Committee .
~.
JFW/kam .
~
cc: F. Trejo * .
p.tient c r.
- Education
- Reheerch
- community Serhe g 7[,,],
I.f. Q4%DlE73.s*g"}Q.'JayM.J:f.Df'%..- a t
w.w,.s
. p.
w:0 m . .
,vels7 Y OF' CINCINNATI
- RAD @TIOthSAFETY OFFICE
~ .. 3 .s . 1
. S.. C. .
a.,. . . . .
- n. - p . ..
Mnt;. : .'
' \ yf. g. r .~ . .,. eg -1 ! y : $ : % t 9,cw.un,
. ; brea.oo .y;.'1,,,,,s %.cu,acos.
M N".,
. . .r i
- 1. . . . k, , -
.. e..
Canckmu. orino 45m.oses *
' * ,j ' y . . $...
~,.<
pEetY" - ~Y'
,2!. . .?
, . .' ' ' s. ~,,',9{t't4.??.
i l-il4 *fyTr# ' h '
' i' " ~
y r : -
- a
- . g ss isse s e ' :"l
.s -).s %gf 4 c: ! .7 m.H.?."
2 s t Y ,
tytW* * -
y s .. '.
pr.'Jerome Viot bg h's.I.g
'I .
Chairman Radiology &
Professor
- Univoretty of Cincinnati cincinnati, Ohio 45267-0742 Dc.ar Dr. Viott I cpprecista your concerns and actions in regard to the information which has beca given to you.
I shall bere commence to answer the questions pose in your letter dated August, 18, 1989. In doing so, there are a few corrections cad /cr clarifications which I must make.
- 1. The incident whereupon sealed source documents were " concealed" from the !
'C inspector did not actually occur while be was on-site. My technical
.ff made me aware of this as they, too, are knowledgeable of the hap-
,,ning. It was the yriday before the inspector arrived (August 19, 1988) that Mr. yrits reviewed all of the scaled source documents and sorted out l
those that he could see had any type of discrepancy. Ele then handed those documents to me and told me to "... bere, do something with these" , or
" ... bere, put these somevbere." I then took the documents from his j
office, brought them out to the of fice area vbere our technicians' desks
' are and gave them to one of our staf f meshers who placed them to the back .
of a desk drawer. A1.1 of us - wyself, Mr. Fritz and the technicians - ;
knew that the inspector was due to arrive the following Monday August 22, 1988. I can identify these documents as I have them in my possession. I .
l!
s4ct you photocopies of most or all of them in wy original letter.
- 2. As stated in item 1 above, this action took place on Friday August 19, 1988 and has endured until the present. It af fected the inspection of gj August 22-25, 1988.- A copy of that inspection report is enclosed. 1 g
l 3.- There was no alteration of the documents and item 1 above describes the '
manner in which they were withheld.
4.- No. Those are the ones. As stated,-I have " '
them. There may be more; I do l i
have others. ,
- 5. I do not believe that I said any documents were missing. If I did, it was arroneous wording on my part. Yet, this also, is probably the case as is I
e p
.-- ~ -
W. . ..t
- W. @.
@... @...10 ?.. " 4 M. %. < W. ,.;'.*..'rp w : .+.. s,.p w .:
so g,'*ced by the f act that we could find. . ' records in our ef fico cf ,the7 N.h f, l' res tritium fails which were found in roon 524 of the '1DE building on
-t I/(v,e[ doe sday,y, July 16d 1989.'g.None
d Ni 5 ' w" the les s it wha
~
' t '.1(did g.:.
,s J- ,.Q,
.y'
.' .l f (" ce the . .show. tha t '" . .. s .,.,> . Y. w
!'{ d.
h.a t,'[
ocum,i. d. .. souNeIb . ve th,e.s. e. Y..i!Ne ocume..ntsn. s.. .stis.s.in.g . o. . so., .c..e.. . .me.
p; .ut
. ?
e n t s .a t.. t.e s t. . t o . "
e an -
.' d;kt. t'ation as toikeir disksition',"priorm.d s, ince j1986Q. d t
.f ,, .,the re' has not: been *a, leak, test
/
i
- then theldestion' besones, ."Where are M~,
'l;.-Q*['.thesesourceit".'
^^.'.?
lh.l.1 ? :'.!-;riy Tj. ,l,' .
- [.!![. 3'W'4PQ'
,,_tlo$ '.l.'E.'I f what b occurred.
$.'$ kIf $ '
go 4 3;..*.I hope these rejponses represent 'a clear understand * -
I,f 1 may be of further assistance, pleise.let.ne know'.y.!llO'r Stacerely, Whh Prince Jasony Deputy RSO FJ/pj .
onclosure -
ces F. Trejo ,
O 4
- l .
.' O f.
l*;
e . e
.p' 4
e g 0
}, .
-~ - - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ .
r- t y - .*4 --- Y-
iis zaisi_;11su mito+a d
. .......m. ,
f, .. _
U.S. NUCLE AR RE GUL ATORY C0YMisitON .. g e via at out st Ni., ei siisi
( )lA 91-533 s
g,a e - .i von 5i n,i
./g RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF flNat i leaniat t '/+ INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST o*'t g g 1993 e..e. _vou.it Nsa s n i, wner 4
RioVtSith Mr. Kenneth 5, Resnick PART 1.-AGENCY RtCORDS Hl LL A$t D OR NOT LOC A1L D ISee(twa ed Mo Aes/
No agency twords sutpct to the travest be e bMn taaled Nn add.tionat aancy records subint to the teq ,est have been located.
Requntid records s'e avadab e theout another pobhc d'stribution pro 9 rem See Comments section.
are alteef y ava.lable for pubhc inspection ard copying at the Agency set.ords sub;Mt to the teasest that are identified in Apperdalesi _
NRC Pubhc Dmment Room 71?0 L St'eet, N W , Wash.ngton. OC.
are being rr.ade avadable for pubbt inspection and copying Agency teo.was sstynt to the reauest that s'e k1entihed in Appen$in(es) _
at the NHC Pwbbc Dxument Room 21?O L Street. N W., Washirigton, DC. in a foldte wreet this F OIA numter, The nonpropt.etar, bon of the proposal (s) that you aveed to accept in a tetephone conve uten w th a merr.be' of any staff it non being made avai'able for pubbc inspntun and copyeg at the .eRC Pub bt Du ument Room 2120 L Street, N W , Washington, DC. in a folde# urWet th.s F OI A number, tney be intented arid copied at the N RC Local Pubhc Docurnent A rncyfM ondslutant to the rewest that are identified in Appen< hales)
Rwm idsobMd in the Cowents section.
L Miosed a in'ot".abon on hen you tea r ot tem daest to and the ctarr6 tot cct,mg re.otcs located at the NRC 8%bl.c Document Room. 2120 L Stent, N W , Wohnpon DC A rncy tee ordi swb.er.1 to ttt <twest a*e enc!oned Recoecs setwt to the rentst ta.e t.ern seierred to anothee f Mfeta' ageno bes) for rev'en and d*rMt respor'se to you.
~ _-
F ees You will bt bled by the N R C f o' fees tctahng $ . _
You wit! enene a #ebna feom ite NRC in the amount of 5 In vien of N RC s f ewonse to tha f ewest no fu ther r action a being 146 en on appeal letter dated
,No FART !! A-INF ORM ATION WIT HME L D F ROV PUbtiC D15CtOSUHE Carisin ir f oemab:* in see teaumN reco'en is tems e.ittheld itom pvDhc desclc ss ee ow'swant to the e nemptions desc'ited in and for the reasons stated an Part is, p, C, and D Aq ee'essec ptions of the docurrents for wh ch only cart of the 'ecord is be ng withheld are being reade s ailab e tof public X
iestection and cc ;pr g ie ise NHC Puboc Do wment Room 2170 L Street. N W., Washinirca DC in a foldet u ncier this F0f A number.
CCM V E N T S SIGN AtURL, D4RiC TOR, Dev15CN Of f HL EDOM Cr INf ORMA160N AND PU8ucA1 SONS st avtCt5 Di$1mitivTION -Of IPS 5 tyt, Av *o+. 8'ae Ch et Direcot of Admimitranon Othee :
- * **. r*' . =. .
. .m . . , .
s.... . . . . . . . ,
, o,. ovoe n o.fi RESPONSE TO 6 .!EDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST FOlA - 93 533 JM 9 N ,
(CONTINUATION) __
P ART 4: B - APPilC ABit [1[MPTIONS _
Arco'd: ht;ect to t*-e ecust that a e dewribed set the enc estd Appendentesi are t.e.ng
- thht ld in theit entitely of it' pa t U" ice' tN E sempt,on Noln) and for tt e reston!s) g ven beion pvwent to $ U S C Mhb1 e >d 10 CF R 9.tha) of NRC revabons.
1 The *4hheed w.wrksi.oa is pecc4n, classAed wswast tc, (s ecvt 4e O oe'. (t se<*pt+a il 2, the e46# #'d inloerret $a seistes soleig to the snte'me' c4'scorsel rules $$d P c'c ed. des of N81C (I 8e*pbo9 II 3 1*4 .ithood wm me,pa . sc4c,f 4 c., e emmed tec.m put,ac d sch we be e?stvie si ca'ed (Es emplica 31
$ect ons 14114$ of F4 L Alomic ( hergy Act, eh.ch gn oh hag i the d:geloiste et Peithried D814 o' Iof the'ly Rettf ec1ed Osts (42 U S C. 2161 f t65L e e' Sect.on 147 cd tN Au,%c (*rge Act h.ch p oh bos i the d setove ei Urcau f ed Sa'egset's laforre.stion (42 U.S C. 2t$7L 4*4
.4 T M a.tu oc #c.7 r or .i a te ase sec'ei o c ornme's s' os i+ sac.e Wo,er ei.on tho 's te.es nahe vd toe the 'e ssoaisi ind<sief (t eempt.on 4)
-. s t re wome.oa .s c cer s.ovec io t>e c odeents' tivsmess trov vem c imma,,on
"[t i, *$
dy, the clo"e st on .s ec+ree ed ic te p cv. eta , Wu-an aopesvam to 10 C8 8 2 790 oit h f t, weest or .,5 sene s eno .e;e .es c o,1cem , pe say ie it t s
- 2 7950"2i e' f < - . , _
a _
!S Y.4 .w e,3 .e'o* r c s ce s os o' .^ r e cci o. +' ene<ci ,wei e r e e no+ ... at .e i+ es g* o .c e .e , een, aganea (tie +pt.on O Apoi44t,4 Pneaeye Oe<trao.e *-c: tit 0 sc < is e c+ c-e ce c 6t' c- a . rice av' o s r
- oi it, ere e es i'ea e e i.* ar pe oi oe st esse *i e to i+-e ce teist4e p,0c ess e 'e:15 d'errce e tD c et ,'r *'e"*#e"ad' 't ., e rec 4 r/ d *it
- 8 ?cd' T * ,* e 4 %C 4'e he '18%D* 4tue seyegebe 48:1963 l A ' e e 'et o' On d 's a l' Ae i* + t*, e *0'e l i or r i e n.. .e r e e e .,e o. i, e < w n o ose oe. . .- n.-, . u t. , r e ce ; ,,, e m e, o, i e esey e W *e, .e. erm e e e;e Doc - e u t.u e e - c . c ." e. r co -c c.e + i. e e. -
j
..emem, g , A -,. . .M r . .e , e e m . -~ u ra r- e e .. ., - e , .s, I
e te t vc .,e e r s e i,+ri,o .r. na .4 e s: c ve es ,ae 4s e $: e ve . x .e ,it , e c .e .", ,,*. .m e e +.. e o+ w p-..:. it a,+c.a $i 19 ..o.* e<c Mur-o.cin c c,as in c' .ec o.es c ce paec to' is
- ertuee" evoc se n ec o t e s aw oo to' t*e se ssom o epa rte (E n e-ptica 7)
Y C u cwe c:. a t,w . ti eipt: e: sc me"e r a e *- e wew e~ r ox
- a tre.ie ' cow o reos 9 e ucr4 o reci o* eao oeus e' l X 'etoo*r ee-em e"v i a se " .$ ccw e te n : i e c. rec > ens te i4* e ecter ic 6*
- e we"t * **vpu as c..o._sc o 9 itic s o' the U $ h.c s a Arasoo's Comen o' 'ep, r o^i a het t.eea cem
- ned te.ai 1% .atoreno em e,1bnete si esempt fro + per
-t, ro%c or o' o is ove s ccr i e, to ike puo.< nirw The re soan 'esceast4 fo* t** cea.e a e those oH4 e i comil ec betoa es cear as auctie c e ic+ cue. est 94 D a ect o-c4 e a i 4,e tee D 'etio*, D . s r o' F 'temr of M'rmapoa sac 'wb ca' cas Se i.ces OH ce o' Asm a st'enoa, to aat cea 4 i that een be epcme ec tc the fietut to' Oc.e's oas if 00
' Aeetu AY( Of fiCIAL O(Ni AG sficiAL [ 11TL( Of fiCl #1C08405 D(N'(D Jo :swiw c j
Diren o h 0ffic_e of Enforctment: A/1 ._ X l ._
_la m e s L i e ttema.n l
l l
i i l l PART 11 D.- APPE At RIGHTS 4 8 9 w 4
' - -u----mm__m,_,__ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ , , _ ,
. - .. .. ~. . _ _ . . . . . - - -. . -. -.
+
w........ -
, . , g.
(..
t Ret FO!A-91-533 APPENDIX A .
EEC0FDS T9TM4Y WITIDfEID NUMDEB DATE DESCRIPTION & CXEMPTLQR Various Tho. Office of Investigations entire
- 1. EX. 7A file.
i 6
I i
f
. - - -- .. , , , - - - - , , . . - - - , . . , . - , - - - - - - , , , , - , - . , . , -. . -, , + - , , . . . , - . . . , . . - . . , - . .
id w ysh aMM2d W u f i 1 DINSMO RE & SHOH L
- o. . . . e . , i n A1 o % E Y G AT @W ,,,,,,,,,,,,,g,,,,,g
,;o .r.t: :(.*t*
.....***;+'<u**** ********<**'**
- e. .e s w
- .**u**+s.
.o = . o.o ..iii
. .>........;.6 . ,, w . n a..,.....u...n. .-........-4n e s i sis * * * - a a t e' , , o i ., ; , , . . . . , e . . . , n n . *'****"'**" *-"'+'
m '"<** <
.",,,"'n'.n..... ' tie ss" e e4s o.s - -
C.scis *". C : 4 202 3172: ....ns...: noer.
....c,i .. are: -
.i..;2.- 5.....-
w:rtn c c:nt-: pWe (61); 9" 7)J)
Novertber 27, 1991 FRCEDOM Of INFORMATION ACTREQUEST terial Sefety Branch W'O3 ie u 5e U.S. Nuclear Rogulatory Comission 62u /d /2-2 -9/
Region III 799 Rciosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illino18 60137 Re M m uh.Es.Tr_ity]_Lm hersity of Cinc_ilmatl Dear Kr. Grcbes This vill request that the Nuclear Re; .:latory Commission provide r.e ceptes of the f ollowing asterie' e under the troodom of Inf ometion Act, 5 U.S.C. 5 522 and your agency's implementing regu'ations, 10 C . T . R . S 9, et eeg.: 1) Evidentiary summary or report supporting the synopsis and,of2)allegsd any referralvio;ations by yourwhichagency is attached hereto as Exhibit A, to the Justico popartment or a U.S. Attorney's office for criminal prencution of Kenneth F.. Fritz , P; :nce Jason or the University of Cincinnati with regard to the evente described in the synopsis ettoched hereto as Exhibit A and any written response to such referra' from the Department of Justice and/cr a U.S. Attorney's office.
In compliance with the applicable regulations, I pro = lee to pay reasonable charges incurred for eenrch and copying coste.
Please send ne your invoice along with the copies which I haveI in Cincinnati.
requested to ry attention at the above address or earlier if look forward to your response within 10 days possible. Thank you very much.
Yours very truly, DINSh0RE T S OHL
/ /
/
[m//nneth S. Resnick KSR: 'mm gyug -
+ ~%, ,
. t 4
$TbMill V.S. kgt1HT F41N i tMt Dn Citttt<t l0,19!9 tht F6*,1pnt) ACalM6trator,hlt M tpititt4 t 6h ihyastigts(cr. be Epiler. lll (Mll),hti traled 69wrce rvvpWe vert 6e4119s t{or ', a 1sta inspott(ot. et Cer.ilifor.
intilitud (MitNe (MC) tt(ied fror, R)11in in6M Met durtn; Office of
- ). The lu>'er interMor.t11) the Vt.itersity cohict of Cincir.n6tt Mieti cratar h t tht
!nyt$tilitichtf,01)(titelli VWO llc 161foi!.Litty Offl(ttlich $Ubiteht{ttet thi 411tp I(61tt Seur(t N:CCIT5 (001' thi MC it.5ptCter EL; ring hil AVSVlt 1$M 1nsitCtiOb.
DyP!Ej the inititigttiCf. 4r. 4051 tic'bli the6119 f tith Cf trat)tigttion. ThediscrtMfM10h O! ' Val broppht it Ol'6 6Wt.tich th( parlkts durih his 441r15tret.1V6 directcP N< aver, the irastigitter, stbitAr tt4MC that, thi F50 f ttitutt( 4 pl{ry wt.{ch vit dinf(ninnf 6Py, th (Met.ticr:11/
W eltigatit6 ailed ts fln! whtrt tt6 discrtMrMory policy 6ffected or (f -
prtycr.tt( UCV.! (giopas frc.t poing to the RC.
T e
'i 4
i
'l 9
t
-e .v--- , ~ q mye- r s - ra ,- m , e gm-,- >e-- ew-r-- ,- ,w--- n,,,,-m----- --- ,rwen-a ,-me a w m-v,--or---~mu w- mv. ------ee--=-*\,v,~e-av=
.....m '
.T L ;
1.
W ,
D1NSMORE & SHOH L .........-
,,,g,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,g, ATToRN CVS AT LAW , , , , , , , , , ,, ,,,,, g
........ . ....n ....
..... .. ........ .... , n .... . .... .. ....
m m ....,c .... .....,,.
.........m......... ...........-....
......,,,,4....n, ,,....o ......... . ..... ...... ..........., "" ~,
~ ~ ~ ~ c~ - " ' " ..
cmem .u. c~o neoa.sa a ""*"~">~' t,','l"'.,,,,,,,
" " * " " + " "
...........,4n.,
..u...........
n.ws una nn.,
- ($U) 977 8 H2 December 26, 1991 OVERNICHT M_Alk Robert C. Hardzog Chief, FOIA-LPDR Branch Division of Freedom of Information Public Services Office of Administration United States Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Epl)LRecueAt No.91-513 / University of Cincinno_td Dear Mr. Hardzogs As I indicated to you on the telephone today, I represent the University of Cincinnati in connection with matters presently On November 27, 1991, I before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
made a FOIA request with respect to matters raised in a " synopsis" (attached to the FOIA request) received by In thethis University synopsis, the of Cincinnati from the NRC in November of 1991.
NRC indicates that it has ' substantiated' various allegations that vere made 'in connection with a prior NRC investigation. In conjunction with the transmittal of the " synopsis," the NRC invited the University to participate in an enforcement conference relating to the NRC's substantiation of the allegations raised during-the investigation. See 10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C(IV). -The enforcement-conference is currently scheduled in Chicago on January 29, 1992.
As I indicated to you on the telephone today, I would appreciate it if you would do everything in your power to expedite . This consideration of the University's prior FOIA request.
information is critical to the University's preparation 29, 1992. Itforisthe my enforcement conference to be held on January understanding that a decision will be made within a week and I will be notified by telephone as soon as that deci'.,lon has been made.
Since you indicated to me '. hat ~ my FOIA request will' in all likelihood be denied on the basis that there is an " ongoing investigation," I would like the Commission to reconsider based 0[h *
., _ -.m. m icate, that
c.
~
'~ * '
Robert.C. Hardrog December 26, 1991 Page 2 been " substantiated." It is inconceivable' that the Commission can take the position that an investigation is-still " ongoing,
- but on the other hand clain that various allegations raised in that very same investigation have been ' substantiated."
- 2) According to the NRC's regulations, one of the purposes of an enforcement conference is to '
- discuss the violations.' Again, I find it inconceivable that the NRC would invite the University to discuss ' violations" that have been ' substantiated," but at the same t12ne purport-to describe its investigation as ' ongoing." If the investigation is truly " ongoing," I suggest that the NRC-the enforcement conference be postponed until completes its investigation so the issues may be discussed thoroughly and intelligently.
- 3) Although the University has.been invited by the:NRC to participate in an enforcement conference to discuss the alleged violations, the NRC has provided the University with nothing more than a two paragraph bare bone synopsis of the alleged violations. Without the evidentiary summary and report that supports this synopsis,_ it will be impossible for the University to adequately prepare for the enforcement conference and will effectively prevent the University from raising mitigation factors and - developing other information which will help to-determine whether any enforcement action is appropriate.
It is simply- unfair to- invite the University to participate in an enforcement conference, yet deny _the University the information and background- material necessag to an effective and meaningful conference.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours very truly, DINSMO & SHO 3
Kenneth S. Resnick ces Mr. John A. Grobe Chief, Nuclear Material Safety Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region-III KSR:ymm DIN SM o A E (. SHoHL'
4 .
e D1NSMORE & SHOH L e, . . o, ,,c .:
ATTORN CYS AT LAW ,, ,,,,,, ,,,,g, ,, ,9,, ,, , , , , ,
I DOC C u t e. t o c g N Y t si Twarea, a oog ore.ca eens c oneonav a ,a vn.o= 4. cit, e s =v s a 300 cown'aowst 6434 e e.
v aso ivarea, noso, swer eso switt sao . vo w 6vosoe steget
,65 taST FIFTH STRECT F5carnet st=twcsvs'oetossa ets sowtw va so start, oattom omo electossa
- "o* co************''" ****-**
Cie.ciNN ATI, Owio 452o2 317 2
,a.........
' " " * - " * ~ '
- ".;"'..,..,,,, '""o-~""
,m u o.m ...........
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAtt
/PPEAL OF INITIAL rolA DECISION January 8, 1992 942 $9 / 6 ( 9/-s"3 3)
& 'd l- 9 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION APPEAL QYERNIGHT MAIL Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Ereedom of Information Act Recuest 91-533 Dear Sir or Madam This will appeal the denial of information requested by me as legal counsel for the University of Cincinnati under the Freedom of Information Act and Agency Regulations. My letter of request sent on November 27, 1991 was denied by James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement on January 8, 1992. A copy of the denial letter is attached.
In the denial letter, Mr. Liel rman invoked the terns of exemption 7(A) and concluded that access would be denied to the requested documents. The explanation of that denial- is insufficient in scope, lacking in legal basis and incapable of withstanding close scrutiny by the courts, should judicial de novo review be sought. In addition, the stated exemption is inconsistent with the position the NRC is taking with respect to an enforcement conference currently scheduled with the University of.'
Cincinnati on January 29, 1992 at Region III headquarters in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. I incorporate herewith by reference my letter to Robert Hardzog, Chief, FOIA/LPDR Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Public Services dated December 26, 1991.
In particular, there is absolutely no basis upon which
" disclosure could reasonably expect to interfere with an enforcement proceeding" as the NRC alleges in its denial of this request. There is no reasonable possibility that the material-
" requested would reveal the scope, direction and focus. of enforcement efforts or could possibly allow recipients to take
- qsnaoss=f W
Executive Director of Operations January 8, 1992 Page 2 action to shield potential wrongdoing" because the NRC has already conducted its investigation and has come to the conclusion that the violations occurred. Indeed, in the NRC's own terms, the violations have been " substantiated. " These violations will be the subject matter of an enforcement conference between the NRC Region III and the University of Cincinnati on January 29, 1992. -
Furthermore, the information requested is essential to the University's preparation for its enforcement conference with the NRC, Since the NRC will ask the University to comment on the accuracy of the facts underlying the violations; it is simply unfair to withhold those facts from the University prior to the enforcement conference.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 29, 1992. PLEASE NOTE THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE WITH REGARD TO THIS APPEAL. I WOULD APPRECIATE IF THIS APPEAL WOULD RECEIVE IMMEDIATE AND PROMPT ATTENTION.
Please call me should you have any questions or need further information. I would appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible.
Yours very truly, DINSMORE & SHOHL l (/(d '(
enneth d. Resnick ~
Legal Counsel for The University of Cincinnati cc: Robert Hardzog Chief, FOIA-LPDR Branch FAX: 301-492-7617 KSR:ymm DINSMORE & SHoHL
~
._. .., ., ;w bc W/4 7-9L ,
DI N S M O R E' & S H O H L o, . . ., o, , ,c , s ;
ATTORN CYS AT LAW ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,9,,,,,,,
ipoo enguto egwten vwn*** e.oes on e.c a .... io *. two6ow s as av
,soo ,e ..o no o.swa .ao swas aso o , ,ow,,,,.. , ,,,,,,
,,,, , o m o .'. .o, - , ,.
ass east nrtn s,acrT ,,,,,,,c ,,,,,,,c.,.. ..,,,,
co'w"'********"* * " *
'o******
CiNetNN ATi, Ohio 452o2 3t 72 ""a" ~ ~~'"'
,,2. ... . ......o.
" " " ~ ~ " " - " :;:;>l.,'".'..,,. ,,,,
.. ,co .... ... ...,
WRITER'8 DIRECT DIAL (513) 977-8332 January 21, 1992 VIA FAX 301/492-7617 Robert C. Hardzog Chief, FOIA-LPDR Branch Division of Freedom of Information Public Services Office-of Administration United States Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Appeal of FOI A Recuest No. 91533/ University of Cincinnati Dear Mr. Herdzog As a supplement to our telephone conversation this morning, I wish to remind you that my prior FOIA request on behalf of The University of Cincinnati sought the evidentiary summary of the alleged violations prepared by the Office of Investigations. The University does not seek any documents prepared by the Office of Enforcement that relate to any proposed action the Office of Enforcement may or may not take on the basis of the evidentiary summary prepared by the Of fice of Investigations. Since the Office of Investigations has completed its investigation, there is absolutely no legitimate basis under exemption 7(A) to withhold the evidentiary summary initially sought by the University in' its FOIA request. However, to the extent . that the evidentiary summary contains any reference to potential enforcement action,- the University would agree to the redaction of such references.
This letter should be considered an addendum to the appeal filed by the University in connection with the above action FOIA request.
Please do everything in your power to'expedito this appeal.
As you know, the enforcement conference is scheduled for January 29, 1992. If you have any questions please give me a call.
Yours very truly, DINSMORE & SHOHL Q & "
k) henneth S. Resnick-
-cc Mr.-John A. Grobe
-Chief, Nuclear Material Safety Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region-III KSRaymm 4
t
~
' DINSMO AE & SWOHL
. -- , . - , . .