ML20064C971

Responds to AEC Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-201/72-03.Objects to Issues Raised in Rept.Rept Should Be Withheld from Placement in PDR Since Rept Contains Errors & Does Not Constitute Final Document

ML20064C971
Person / Time
Site:	West Valley Demonstration Project
Issue date:	03/12/1973
From:	Miller R NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES, INC.
To:	Nelson P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML20064C969	List: ML20064C971 ML20064C985
References
NUDOCS 7810300338
Download: ML20064C971 (9)

Text

"

• ! . \../ Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. 6000 Executive B:ulevarc. Suite 600. Attkvale M?.ry lEQ l ILE L% I A Guescarf cf Gcty 04 Company

'g g l

!009 -

March 12, 1973 Mr. Paul R. Nelson, Chief Radiological and Environmental Protection Branch Directorate of Regulatory Operations -

Region I U. S. Atomic Energy Commission 970 Broad Street Newark, New Jersey 07102

Dear Mr. Nelson:

This is in' response to your letter of February 5, 1973, which transmitted a copy of Inspection Report No. 50-201/72-03, hereinaf ter referred to as the " Report."

We request that the entire Report bc withheld from publication in the public document room.

The pertinent regulation that requires publication in the public docu:nent room applies only to " final" documer.ts. 10 C.F.R. 2.790(a). The Report is not a final document and is not within the purview of the regulation. On the contrary, the Report is more in the nature of an internal memorandum which serves to generata subsequent AEC action and documents, such as notices of violations, responses thereto, etc. It is these subsequent documents that are final documents.

The regulation also includes a specific exemption from publication in the public document room for investigatory files compiled for law enforcenent purposes. 10 C.F.R. 2.790(a)(8). The Report is part of the AEC's investi-gatory files compiled for law enforcement purposes and would be within the scope of the foregoing exemption whether or not it is a final document.

The content of the Report illustrates that it is interim in nature, not a final document, and that it is a typical part of the AEC's inves tigatory files compiled for law enforcement purposes. This content includes various matters which are presented in an extremely sensitive way.

7f/o300339

Mr. Teul R. Nelson, Chief March 12, 1973 Page 2 Some of these matters are not predicated upon cicher follow-up or the slightest allegation of a violation of law, regulation, or safety practice.

One of these matters appears to have been investigated and included in the Report only because of an anonymous letter while another is not even the result of our activities and is not within the EC's jurisdiction or related to the proper exercise of its law enforcement dutics, although the Report clearly implies the contrary. One of these matters appears to have been investigated and included in the Report only because we had furnished the AEC a prior informational letter with regard to our knowledge thereof (publication of these types of matters in the public document room might cause us to re-evaluate our policy of voluntarily furnishing the AEC information when not otherwise required by law to do so) . ,,

Undoubtedly, these matters constitute valuable information for future background or investigatory purposes and are properly a part of the AEC's investigatory files compiled in the normal course of business and retained as internal memoranda; but these matters are not appropriate for publica-tion in the public document room. Publication of these maccers in the pub 1' document room would be prejudicial to our best interests if for no other reason thah that publication alone implies our wrongdoing and involvement.

Finally, the Report contains a number of errors, certain miscalculations, and misstatements. We have addressed each of these below in discussing specific items in the Report. We presume that verified errors and miscalcu-lations will be corrected without further ado. We also hope that any mis-statements will be as readily corrected; however, should any of these

,, misstatements actually find their way into the public document room, we will

( be compelled to deny their accuracy and to rebut them by whatever means are available.

l

We now turn to a discussion of specific items in the Report to which we object, without withdrawing our request that the entire Report be withheld from publication in the public document room.

1. It is indicated that no other AEC personnel accompacied the principal inspector during the inspections (cover page). However, Mr. Kinney was also present during at least p Trt of the inspections.

r 5

g-

Mr. Paul R. Nelson, Chief March 12, 1973 Page 3

2. The origin of paragraph 17 of the Report. is described as " licensee letter of September 12, 1972, to Directorate of Regulatory Operations, reporting external overexposure of nine contractor e=ployees" (second page, under " Unusual Occurrences," item G). However, this is parcially mislead-ing and partially in error. First, it implies that the occurrence resulted from our activities and is subject to the jurisdiction of the AEC when, in fact, the occurrence resulted from a Net '.*7rk State licensee's activities, involved exposure to that licensee's rad..ation source, and is subject to the jurisdiction of New York State and not the AEC. The only reason that we furnished a letter concerning the occurrence to the AEC was that we happened to have significant knowledge thereof because it occurred on our site while the New York State Licensee was making radiographs of welds, and vc wished to voluntarily pass such information to the AEC out of courtesy. The only s possible relationship the occurrence ever had with respect to our operations was to limit deployment of certain of the contractor a=ployees on our si:e during the short term future. Second, although nine contractor e=eloyees were exposed to radiation as a result of the New York State licensee's activities, only three such employees received an overexposure, i.e. , an exposure exceeding the applicable State of New York regulations. Addi-tionally, we have made further conuments concerning paragraph 17 of the Report as a.whole below.

3. The title of W. A. Oldha= (third page, under " Management Intervies") .

should be corrected to read " Manager, Engineering and Construction."

4. The names and titles of various persons sre wrong and should be corrected to read as follows: (fourth page, under " Persons Contacted,"

item 1):

T. K. Wenstrand Manager, Health and Safety 4 D. Couhig Assistant Operations Manager R. T. Smokowski -

Contract Administrator and Secretary of the Safety Cocznittee J. P. Maier Health Physics Technician 11 .Tump Technical Services Manager P. Burns Process Engineer R. May Maintenance Manager

;_; -- == .

..

. _ ___ . _ . . . = -=~

.-

-- q.;;;.,.._. T.2:? "2"~....

. . . . . ' ~ " }. .

'=

2 i}s?.2.

g.;:.... ;.=

.=

_..;..,. ;_.... _[_" ~~;;;?2 ====.;g=z .  ;.yM ... .;

5%== sa5==== @E"g.g.f].l._ [7 i=f..,...

. eE,.;.;]Q.3 Ti =g._

Mr. Paul R. Nelson, Chief March 12, 1973 Page 4

= -

???^" '::::-~*~~~ ___ ., -. -..

E. S . Rothschild, M. D.

H. Benz Vice President, Benz Labor Agency G. W. Mcdonald Plant Assistance Engineer J. E. Birchler Plant Assistance Supervisor Additionally, actually identifying the contractor employees by na:ne raises another problem. They are such a s=all, select group that subsecuently setting forth details of their radiation exposure and medical treatment in paragraph 17 of the Report (although not 'specifically by i name) would appear to constitute an unwarranted invasion of their privacy in violation of tne spirit, if not the letter, of the exenption from pub-lication in the public document room provided for such information.

10 C.F.R. 2.790(a)(7). We have made further comments concerning paragraph 17 of the Report as a whole below.

5. Fourth page, item 2, sentence 3 (unnumbered), should read

" Licensee representatives stated that corrective action was achieved by rerouting the Condenasta and Cooling Water to an interceptor."

6. Fifth page, itam 5, paragraph 2 (unnu=bered), sentence 2 (unnumbered), should read "The inspector made a confirming survey through-cut the Process Building and adjacent areas."

7. Sixth page, itam 6 continued, sentence 1 (unnumbered) on that page, should read " Nasal swabs are r.aken, according to records, after each zone entry and the swabs are routinely counted in a beta and alpha counter."

(- 8. Seventh page, item 8, paragraph 6 (unnumbered), sentence 2 (unnumbered) , should read "The inspector noted that the operation of these monitors are checked daily and that the results of checks are entered in a los maintained by the Health and Safety Department."

9. 'Nelf th page, item 13, paragraph 2 (unnumbered) (throughout),

delete the word " underground."

10. Thirteenth page, item 14 continued, first full paragraph on that page, sentence 4 (unnumbered), should read "Using 1 x 10-8 uC1/ml the limir express 9d in Appendix 3, Table I,10 C.F.R. 20 and an inhalation of 5 x 10' ml/40 hr. week, up to 500 aci could have been inhaled before the 40 MPC hrs. limit would have been exceeded." (Note: the change in sign of the second exponent).

I

Mr. Paul R. Nelson, Chief March 12, 1973 Page 5

11. Thirteenth page, itam 14 continued, second full paragraph on that page, sentence 1 (unnumbered), should read "A nasal smecr taken on 7/7/72 showed an activity of 5800 dpm, equivalent to 2.64 nC1." (Note:

the change from microcuries to nanocuries).

12. Thirteenth page, item 15, paragraph 2 (unnumbered), sentence 2 (unnumbered), should read "On 6/23/72 SWP No. 5034 which authorized the removal of the cement bricks, showed dose rate measurements of 15 R/hr.

whole body exposuro, 40 R/hr. skin of whole body exposure, and 250 R/hr.

extremity exposure."

I'*

13. Fourteenth page, item 15 continued (throughout), in every place "Ru-116" appears it should be changed to read "Ru-106," and in every place "ZrNi or ZrNi-95" appears it should be changed to read "ZrNb-95."

14. Fourteenth page, item 15 continued, second full paragraph on that page, sentence 3 method with 7.74 x 10+{' mi air /40 hr. work week instead of 5 x 10'7 unnumbered),

mi str/40 hr. work week, an exposure of 75.5 MPC hours or 1.89 x MFC was obtained." (Note: the change in the sign for both expunents).

15. Fourteenth page, item 16, paragraph 1 (unnumbered), sentence 5 (unnumbered), should read "The records also indicate an extremity and skin exposure, for 5.25 years , of 11. 7 rem." (Note: the change from " rad" to " rem'.') .

16. Fourteenth page, item 16 (general), sets forth details concerning an investigation undertaken in response to en anonymous 1cteer (see, the Report at page 2, item F) into the death of a former employee.

5 This employee was retired, was not on our premises at the time of his death, and did not die as the result of an injury suffered or disease incurred while on our premises. The employee's attending physician believed that the employee was advanced in age (72), smoked to an (xcess, and ultimately died of a malignancy unrelated to his prior employment with us (us,, the Report at page 15). The employee's radiation exposure never exceeded the 1.25 rem quarterly limit set forth in 10 C.F.R. 20 during the whole of his employment, and his entire urinalysis and whole body counting record during the whole of his amoloyment is without significance (sce, rhe l

Report at pages 14 - 15). Thus, we see no legitimate interest in includ-l ing all these details in the Report if, it is to be published in the public l document room, i.e., no public interest whatsoever in their disclosure.

This again proves the wisdom of treating the Report as an internal memoran-dum and as part of the AEC's investigatory files compiled for law O

t

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

l Mr. Paul R. Nelson, Chief ,

March 12, 1973 J Page 6 1

enforcement purposes, not subject to publication in the public document room. Indeed, the only reason that these details are in the Report appears to be the existence of the aforementioned anonymous Iceter. The death of employees and former employees who for all intents and purposes have , died of natural causes unrelated to our activities are not routinely investigated,'

, and we do not believe there is any intention to routinely investigate them in the future since we have numerous employees, all of whom must incscapably '

die for some reason at some time in the future. It seems very dangerous indeed to establish the precedent of publishing details of an employee's death in the public document room merely because cf an anonymous latter which has proven demonstrably false or baseless.

We cannot take solace in the fact that if this itcm is published in the public document room, the details of the employee's death are exculpatory in nature. On the contrary, at present there is no connection or associa-

tion between the employee's death and our activities. Publication of this item in the public document room will saw the seed of suspicion or raise j the questiots of a connection or association between the employec's death and our activities for the very first time; and no matter how much the details are exculpatory in nature, some residue of suspicion or question will remain.

Finally, this item contains the stateuent that " Licensee representatives, interviewed, all stated that no suit at law was pending from any interested party" (see, the Report at page 15). We consider this statement very pre-judicial to our best interests and believe that there is no jurisdictional concern of the AEC involved and no public right to know or be informed of such information.

17. Fifteenth page, item 17 (general). This item sets forth the

(. details of an investigation into the exposure of certain contractor employees 4

to an iridium source owned and being used by a New York State licensee to radiograph welds on our premises. Since neither our activities nor our radiation sources were involved, and the occurrence was the sole result of the activities of the New York State licensee, the occurrence is subject to the jurisdiction of New York State authoritics, not the AEC. Thus, details of the occurrence should not be in the Report and the Report should be limited in content to matters within the jurisdiction of the AEC and related to the law enforcement duties of the AEC.

18. Sixteenth page, item 17 continued, third full paragraph on that page, sentence 2 (unnumbered). One of the contractor employeer. is quoted as saying, "Look what that thing did to me."

1

---

.w_--,-, ._--,-m- r,,,-y,----.,-,,,,,---,,--,w -w,,-----, - * - , m. , . - , - - . . . , - - . , - - . . . - - - - . - - - - - _ - . . . . - , - - - - - - - - - --. - - , - -

n' ~

i. .

3

_s L '-

1 1

t Mr. Paul R. Nelson, Chief '

\l , 3 March 12, 1973 '

Page 7 i s n

\

We deny the accuracy of the foregoing quote. P. K. Morrow , Assistant ,

Manascr, Health and Safety, way present at all times during the conversations between the contractor employees and 'the AEC inspector and states. that no contractor employee made the quoted statement or any statement similar in nature at any time, w p o . .T

19. Sixteenth page, item 17 continued, third full paragraph on thai page, sentonce 4 (unnumbered) states tgst ,"The blistered area on each finger was noted to be approximately 0.2 ina .'i. ' Our recorda indicate that the blisters were approximately 1.0 cm . (Note: This would reduce the result of the calculations in Exhibit 3 in the' Report by a factor of S.) ,

20. Sisteenth page, item 17 continued, fif th t' il paragraph on that page, I. sentence 2 (unntembered), states that no one had previously informed the physician attending the' contractor employees of the actual circumstances of the exposure at the time the physician was interviewed by the inspector.

We deny the accuracy of that statement. According to both parties involved, T. K. Wenstrand, Manager, Health and Safety, informed the physician, E. S. Rothschild, of the circumstances of the exposure bcfore the physician everccade 16, 1972.

his initial examinations of theme contractor employces on August ,

1 t

21. Sixteenth page, ites 17y continued, fif th full paragraph on that page, sentence 4 (unnumbered) states "Af ter the employees ' 1cfe, the physician expressed the opinion that the blisters could represent a possible radiation syndrome, and that further expert 'avaluation was needed."

We deny tha accuracy of that sdatement. According to the physician, he clearly informed the AEC inspector that it was his opinion that the contractor >

( employec in all probability received the blisters in the routine performance of his work as a welder, i.e., in handling hot metal items.

l l 22. Seventeenth page, item 17 ' continued, only paragraph on tha t page, i

sentence 2 (unnumbered), quotes one of our representatives (T. K. Wenstrand, Manager, Health and Safety) as saying that "Me realized that the exposure rate (calculated for ore of the contractor employees) was low but that he had no other sources of information to refer to" and the Report states that the inspector referred him _to the Handbook of Health Physics, OSP-70, April, i

1963, page 158, which shown. a dose rate per curie Ir-192 at 1 cm. distance of 5,000 R/hr.

t l

l l

{

I l

'Mr. Paul R. Nelson, Chief March 12, 1973 Page 8

~4e deny the accuracy of that statement. According to Mr. Wenstrand, he never made such a statement and was never referred to the foregoing text.

23. Seventeenth page, item 17 continued, only paragraph on that page, sentence 4 (unnumbered), states that "The inspector calculated, using the same factor used by the licensee representative, a dose race of 160 rads per second to the area of the finger involved." However, we do not believe that the inspector's calculations used the same techniques or factors as our representative used. Our representative, Mr. Wenstrand, used known data on the handling of radium needles corrected for curie quantities and the difference between exposure rates per curie as compared to the inspactor's techniques seen La Exhibit B.

24. Seventeenth page, iten 17 continued, only paragraph on that page, sentence 6 (unnumbered), states that " Employee No. 2 could have roccived a calculated exposure to a limited portion of his finger during 30 seconds handling time of 4,800 rad. However, in the first full paragraph on page 16, the Report specifically sentes that " Reenactment [of the hendling at the time of occurrence] limited the handling time to 15 seconds." There appears to be an irreconcilable inconsistency within the Report.

25. Eighteenth page' (Exhibit A), entitled " Calculations." The second set of calculations contains certain errors and should read as follows:

ZrNb-95 = 3 x 10-8 uCi/ml x 7.74 x 10+7 mi a 2.32 uCi or 2320 nCi.

Ru-106 = 6 y 10-9 uCi/ml x 7.74 x 10+7 ml = 0.46 uci or 460 nC1.

Sr-90 = 1 x 10~' uCi/mi x 7.74 x 10* ml = .0774 uCi or 77.4 nCi.

Pu-239 - 2 x 10 -12 uci/mi x 7.74 x 10+7 ml = 15.5 x 10-5 uct or 0.155

26. Eighteenth page (Exhibit A), entitled " Calculations." The third set of calculations contains certain errors and should read as follows:

ZrNb-95 Ru-106 Sr=90 + Pu-239 611 + S44 nC1 22 + 19.6 nci 0.5 nci .10 + .109 1155 nCi + 41.6 + 0. 5 nci + 0.209 2320 460 390 0.155 = 1.94 x 40 0.50 + .09 0 1.94 x 40 = 77.5 MFC hrs i

m

.,w+- 9 m __y- ,,9 w ~ - p , . , ~.,, y

Mr. Paul R. Nelson, Chief March 12, 1973 Page 9

27. Eighteenth page (Exhibit A), entitled " Calculations." In centrast with the inspector's calculations, our calculations are shown below:

Zr-95 = (3 x 10-8 uCi/ml)(7.74 x 10+7 el) = 2.32 uCi = 2320 nCi Nb-95 = (1 x 10~7 uC1/ml)(7.74 x 10+7 ml) = 7.74 uCi = 7740 nCi Ru-106 = (6 x 10-9 uct/ml)(7.74 x 1@7 =1) = 0.46 uCi = 460 nCi Sr-90 = (1 x 10-9 uCi/ml)(7.74 x 10+7 ml) = 0.0774 uCi = 77.4 nCi Pu-239 = (2 x 10-12 uCL/ml)(7.74 x 10*7 ml) = 15.5 x 10-5 uCi = 0.155 nci Zr and Nb are in equilibrium, so we assumed that there were equal amounts of each.

1155 = 578 nCi 2r-95 and 578 nCL Nb-95 2

41.6 nCi Rn-106 0.5 nci Sr-i 40 MPC hrs. E S78 2320 nci nci Zr-95 ,5787740 nCi nCi Nb-95 460 nCi 77.4 nCi 0.209 nCi of Pu-239 ,

0.155 nCi 40 [ 0.25 + 0.075 + 0.09

• 0.006 + 1.35 3 MFC hrs. =

40 [ 1.77 ] = 72 MPC hrs.

t I

\

! The foregoing constitutes our major arguments for withholding the entire Report from publication in the public docu=ent room and points out specific items in the Report of which we are aware and to which we object. Should you have any questions or need for further information, please advise.

Ver- t ly yours, n s Rooert N. Miller President RNM/bjd A

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _