ML20217F176
| ML20217F176 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/30/1997 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0940, NUREG-0940-P01, NUREG-0940-V16-N1-P1, NUREG-940, NUREG-940-P1, NUREG-940-V16-N1-P1, NUDOCS 9710070386 | |
| Download: ML20217F176 (422) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:i' , );: .;l<M:" . V m ;; 7 / L Q:? ;y-W 4 5% Bk@;g 1 j f . l- 4 j- . k {;[.i *q 0 g j,jQ fj ' T v . w . . ,, ,. m w: a[ n e a.u. .c wrun g m ,y % ,4. . g r. g ( Q g'.
.yl.f.l .
. . .L ' (. .
; . y m.
} .f-l( 2 .4
- a. . , . . . v. ,
J.. '.
.,..m.,
MR .,' . r f)
- s. ; .
- <..u , q. w; s . ..,.m.. - + ,, .
- v. ,,W ., h.,. . ;
)
- R ~ .[ ;%}, m-Q; :[. f% ,.9,Y,.s 3....L s
a... . , .ec. o ,, .w.. ..>. f.g:q.h.Q. w f .l
~. .
. a; p\ Y; -:. 4
' , ' ~. -l .. ,; L . - ** -
)
g y si
* , . . . .s .- -. , y 'V}
.m. . '...y;;.; s ,
. ' .- _ m. '. ; ) . ]y [.(,;
[ } .,;..;~^ Q,.: ,.v
- , - ..-~ ~,. 2 s . . ..
. s. ' , .
....*). 4 n:. a;m. Q %s : 2,5* ... ., *; 3:. &
. ; fl . .L' l*
,.-?w ,t~z; p'y r;,... n w ac.n.a.g s g.m...m>,
~
g ' P. :.y
- i. a. - - . w.w.-. # w . . ' ,
'O ' ' '
4,
.l y _ ,: 0 l }: [, l ' ' . . .[: ? , ., ' .' ysi[_; } ; [:*. j'L ' -
h e ?'[ n >,; . . . . - ; . _. g,
.q..,. . . . ,. .
... v ..;
. . . +
.4 . ,.. . ;. ,w
'.3. x.
. ~ . - . m f..
r pf.. m. o; , .l.. v< .W. o; M
- y. < . g o.ll. [ j;%?, ' L..+t.L.-Q ,p
.j3.- ; . . ; ,)
-p . , .
. , u. ~. . . . , . . . p. . -
., -L..
s . t
.. . . . 3. ..:
,s<
y g . .g, r
.. M.$ht;.m. ,L'-
;w s..,.
.,4;g
't r'* ' hu n e
- k. ,%g,- .g. / y3.g, d g' ,'y. S; q j 47p6
~ >
... . . . ., . .,..g- % ", ,,' .
;. ,, .. ., !j .
.s 3 ;w.
x AL..;y . c
,m. .. ,s
, m. ;
- . n f. 4 &y ; p;asg.
;.. ~ , . .
l m g M; y . 3 yg
~ u e . , .= .. ,0t w
.,- .l 7,,,.,,
s
.f
. ,o .
*,,. . $ . , . w a%,4p,4, '. . . c
.q : s 9* ,
. . . . , . - c. 9r., .. .- , j ,.. '. . .l,. .r.4x,j . g. . ,. ..,. ..ma..: g( 3
, ....~. .
.. , , . c. v. .. . . , . ..
'g,
.e ,
a 4 6 . ,' '
.m . . ; / .s~wc
- . ,. , .m4=
.. .. . ^ .
. l .,. _
l l m . *
. .,'. m.S. i c 4.. %u. m . yy;. .,.
;. ~
' y!.
_ j - 3; .. - . ,- 14: . ; :24 . . ..393. ' ..,.s.. . , 1..y.3, p . . . t ..
.s. yg g. R g;gg@f$ g Ag3,.,s%
2.g ; % y . s. 99 ._ g
,.p.:. : ,4 3 4.3;a.,g;:y : wmc.y4 y$-
,. . , _. ; . --. ,.. . . .>. . . .; , ; .._ w y y,.:.
_ ll' .l ::i l, ' [ .
-l. Q. . :
l x . ,. .. .;.., ; ,. o :.. .- .c
. i -w;-. m, g. x.F. .4 . i m e...m.. .
m m.,,.,r.w .,4. :. .a w g gr. m. g 7. m y p.3 . p..s; - m. - .- . . . .Le.. s. , *.; ;c., .* y ::.ym, q..., . y. . -l.;.m.;s.w k;.M., %, pk. .;.. .' w+. .y.. s,.
'.... m. , :. ;yn. '.. : ,2 xe n y M1,g . 6-'g. .'.. .,.
y
+. ,. *
,v..i.....g, ....)..,.' :,(, . . . g
,.....,,pc....g.'
ui . . . ' . . . . 4'., t ,.: - - *
...: ;; .1,; 1- 7 8
- v. r 4 .g..,
s ! s .
..,,. g,. ,;/*a.s'.o,.3.p'
'. . .,%g , ,,p , ; .,.y . s.g,
,s ,.: ,
. 9-
. c , ;. , .
. . ; i .,. ? ,. ,.*
- 3. f /:.. ,f7:)s* ;.q, 'cp 1' . . .. jf;p,,. .,-i
,.s ;,. . : . g: :.y.., .w j;..:. .;7,,q,q w,0 .
;. 9.. 1- t i. t ,gw.
. r. . t n.a. y.y,z.
. < . .. g .r , t; :.4' ., ,M ,,,,pg.g3.n t, : . , , . . N .g.s. . 7, . >.
- . .. : , . 9 : . .e,,, A .y .,O.
gp .
, ' ,.e- _ .- c. . . y, ; .,yi .n :+R K.s.j.pa j,9 . -%v.yy
. .. .s
; , . . . ..f,....,,.',,.,,.:.4i , ., ; , c . ;i ;, , . . .; j ,
;yp ; ,3 .g
. . _ Y . _*, , .g [, (; , ; - [. '
~. ~ m . y ({..
' [ G, s ., l ,{.1
, [ . g ,., , ; ,
- . : ... , ,; w .- 3 n y :... ..n w .p
. T i I.T :11 f. ' , e . H ., k [ ~ , l. i[;;;;$d M.3 7]3 [Ch,$g{ {$M
'[ : :
. . . . . - . .,~. . , ;
. . , , . k:. ; an. . . .m. .v. g,.4. ,w s.y. y y4. , ;cp
.. ; :. ', w
- . . .; ' ;p.,y.w. :,.pn.v.,y' ., g. g,* y. m.n . a p .c
' $i [j '
k . ,! '
. I ..
.!- 7 ;.,* ; . , [. ) ' ' '.,b ;.j ~
; .{'f3i *.
b.'i. {r . . , , ,
. ., ,. - 'j ,;.p, - . g q 3#MW ,y :A sp.9 g ] ].,g g,n,' 3:.g 4 g g% 4 a , g' q.g/
4.; - 7 7 ]r. .; . g,
.p...e.m g e,9. c .U w . 6.4
.A.....
.u ,- . . . m. ,. ...., . . s.; .. .. g
,; g, g s .. ,.7. . . .g .g. .y;, g; . p d g .c ':-l;[ q ' M ,'.,
r d,Y
. . 7.. - ... ' -. '.p. . ' 'u. >,; a;f',n' _ C T. 2 x, :?9 ..?, .e :.M; a
f w &; y :.'i: % .u. p.3.W .m y y j'.$ f q, y
&g t % y% :.
, ' , ' . , ' ' l
, ' _ . . A [ " ;; -
, . .. , w.'m ;. 3 yk. .r .fl,,Q};? ?; g W:n.4%
c . p. : m .m.u ,4;N:h'l'f my g .u
. ;;y ; . . ; 9.; .y lg ps'g ,. yn; w ,[: y; w; w;;y p 3 9y;%w g.(g
- g. y . : y ; 9.f )x., +.
.g;t g.;.,m.gg a , 4.,
m;f 3; . . . ._ . :; f n ; +. ,g,(;Q , . ,. y
. l Qy,,m .
- .- k_g
,.- .. .. .; m . . 7,j i } o 7 ';W. ' .ytl X j % e f f ;.. i ;, (. ;tg,,f k.e jg,Q : ([,. '
. i .%, ,' , QM h, '
... m... w , m. ~.. . ..
- ~ .c y . ; y S.yy
_.,_,c_.,. 7.....
. , - . . . .. . j , .g .
,g.
.v. , . . ,.g.. . wm,;j... .. ~m.4.,.. .
_q,
. . .;g.
oy
.w.
. . . :. ; ;>:s . y ' : g:.w; :,. np 7.4, g:: JM d
.n .v. ,. .~.p.mr., .w wy L;wg,fR, y(.:y@.949 m .g y ,,
.g. . . . .. .. ,+ ... :. ::
.c . .w .
- 7, -:
,m
.yf.f
- f.
.[N.. .a.}) ,3 y qu;p. . .. :vy-n;fn ll.h .
_;' 5 : f. u v.g ~.mpw
.,,eoy.,.7 y'q.u
,; ; . y p;
. .. .. . .a a: : .q w ~m gt ,-.-
. g .~ , s s p.R .a.:w. ww.:..z . y 1,yp..;qs p .(q.c ;d7.g
. . :au ; ;. .. .;. . V .d ma"mp
; -..-. . 4.x a p3.~ e;g .s
. - m n
.p M; n 1
.'..E ncv' :. C: 's:. .K;/*q;'l,g.;\'isig. - it -4 gy .,:r ( '
Y ik*
- 2 7' ' W -
.l
-{pk . s g..-4 L. ..
. E- g. N
. t. 3,
[*L3.i$qQQ .- [h .J. n. .t.
.m m +
' (.y
, l; -
f, . . n-
> .:.: :. : . c}m.. . a;; .w.yM 3 y
,1 , 9 i
'..l', '.: ' .;. R'c.; , . . . . _ . . . .. ., ,. , g. ,. ;-
.. . A -%' #,:- ). * -'
g'
}' :
R. '.f-( ' . f . . . .
. 3 ze,
ymmy s ng ew 9mman gam p ,
,mmmwmp e17m
,rioy cb,w M ,3 m' y ow
--y , yw w g n' v
Si%qp 4py wh .w 7,93 WQM:e u go. ,.
. yp ;
4 W,4 Wh*pM eb*
,- :h r M s%,, . m%d f ;i,j?f61 % Q' w#M M
mm , ~xPa' m~ * /A > W ^H 4
++*n A. * "
W;vy9h ~ m, w M 3 - %n w# *w- m- s p w~ n, : ;
- B;ym$ _y+ l y- -
c 2 q&mwkng n i m nmgmy _+Lmm mg< m ew w
.+# _w%aw
~ ~n mm ma n
. u sussiis Yh 'M i
]
% M y bg h hdQ Q gk%ILMBldt h'Q M i %o
$bbk (kbNkmww>bfh n[Oh,,
l bk hnum h m N k b{k n 4 We
,I wmam um um i
b
,a Kme MkyQ k e.m k@e%em nnu Jwesion@Q$Mo@s*n%n@MMty+rMIMyd aW M E gnsh M MM
$$MMMSM
@ $ & @ m%
eprAfo M~p a Mid
%n&W
%mew 3Rd a n mn y, unw i
cwo4masn ngppy#an%w wcmw mw n snaww w
,am h a ra un h
m . N h W !$pws & astn n%ngw w
# ^
ub 1a Jwn w eumm a@skp WUW C wM g s wh gfpoefmehQffjf nw'Qgg,{ _; ;,my776p 4 A M* S *E we m% p M6ew s s o m s w s w a s w %y e @r i MNW 1 p dmus m uM d N *WW i M M aan neMMME F pAPH&ww***me@n%@ha
- ywksbe= ehmenm .n ws- A g;q
$w p!
c sy ga,M- nphm%r khk awww< mange%e hhNA khMh nws N m,h h 3 agem 1w, w 9~7w% a< w f gAw W~ m. ym ta ; i U',', Ds Ap ".:qp y
;gdm d nn&MWuMW v , 6 A.a w m%
m %h amu 7tJW hW u- 5% M M my mm W"'Mn ~ . rk- .$hh,, N+tMG Tdrw gwp. n y gwny y yug ay y - - ym - JfpM,aA qgP idgp@g] h.7 7 N $ hNOSbkNYGCh$wnO N kk kh
. m
- W*t M yRm4.h0f Y k &pgCIMaq]rQ I
L J M MS 0sa3*MWa Qtp M w mwaam ww%ww}%asa
- L g,
mesowpomakowmggwppwww&n q MgqJWmww gggggg ggggggggg ggg g MWl@b 4 w %g s n l g**We e ws hWWWa n6Me we @n 4 e w# 3 P eaWebM mpwy* W M WmnWggMg essn@ed MM (, j 6 y s _ M d @g% w m @ % m m m po M %* @ #eeWaoMseWMmeM%%wp e owwww M W9W @8% A$g$y s
,Qmy3qm pan y %enWegMpq l; mm%wwwmp%p.pneyemeomneag waggmy p @gu m ma g s k'
i ~ i u J - Cp% M my y%gg&@R$M@bahatSaponsorQMubusMh?W@apM
-a n -r 8
%tWor .
MMpb WWW d f. f. 7 4%md _I k ,k inh 6 n-Nhhh hhd ,hd Nh
; 3h
[ h qA@$kd@Ngistyf@g$$hd%j$ihyMgg hh $ g(gghjg i y-o k W Nw=Wwwnnemasa
?%W8*m%m m m m mesq a n m mw r%#
(- .TN*MkcM*WWac .3%%%8?MMhMdM @p%s(@n@hrOrM%w@eg( dfd p ned MAMW M oN14i/ Tf*T k- gwng&ng ~
\u f g$ $ M W@W9MM*W@h%Dh6W Wi%%i WW L M.neawmmy%g2,m; h C eg W y,sjg + ' . > v m;
w+~ @ a n.
, ;% @ V-( yp g '
Q s 2 % 'j@ h pL gqywggy nyg$wympkw; yg , y;n y/ w s ~[: ,~ 8 fdr. qppMX MM RMdN ~ Sg #w< W n !k A 3 ' e s _,, mkmkswamwn k b
. _m
(~~ t ' ij; , ;il ,i Q:, , t... 7 NUREG-0940 ip ;Vol.116, No.1, Part 1 ;
.. .. . y 0
- g Individual' Actions- 1 J
L s Enforcement Actions:' . o L Significant ActionstResolved $ Individual Actionst a .
,o s
!i n l lL lSeniiannual: Progress Report; '1 @ January - June 1997~ o i
, .i a
[ LU.S.1 Nuclear Regulatory CommissionJ e w4 jj [Omce of Enforcement' r 2 i t. .-
- 't --
i lh
.i h .I >
S
.g'.<
a
; %,...../ lifil;l!II:lllllyl;lllll t 9710070386 970930 PDP NURE G 0940 R PDP
"P ' '
E s iV' t . o +
+
- s. -
p -
, ,9- J: 4 q -
. 4
.i n;( ,
,^
- g. -H _-, ,
. L AVAILABILITY NOTICE 4
~ " ,, ., ,.
,. _ . --=,,
1 'I EAvailabiljty - , of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications:
~
, .i.
L Most ddcUments cited in NRC pbiicadons will bb a^vailabio from one of the fdilowing sour
?
!t, 5The'NRC Public Document RooN1l 2120 L Street NWk L6wedeOl,' LWashi 20555-0001- v ~
^
-2. '
LThe Superintendent of D6cume.its, U.S. Govemment Printing ONice P,~OiBox 37082h
. Washington,' DC _ 20402-9328 - "'
~
1 ~ The National Technical Inforrnatibn Service, Springfie}d,' VA 22i61-0002! -
" Altnougn the listing that follows represents the rnajoritp of documents cited Iri NR'O publida9 6 4n
' tions,,lt is not intended to b6 exhaustive. '
n> MM ,. 3
' Referenced, documents,available for inspectbn andl copying for a^ foe from the NRC Public J % i
~
Document Room includo NRC correspondence and internal.NRC memoranda; NRC bulletins,\ M circulars, inforrnation notices, inspoction and lovestigation notices; licensee event reportsy . W /
^
vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and ' applicant and licensee d6 cue monts and cortespondence, i 1 g- e k,
~
The following documents in the NUREG serion ore availab!e for purchase from the Govern 51ent 2 .
. Printing Ollicei ~ formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored. conference ~ pros ceedings, international' agreement:roports, grantee seports.2:end.NRC bookletsta_nd brof V4 ;'
churesi Also availab!e'aro regulatory guides NRC regulations in the Code ciiodoral Regula.' , p
' tions, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuances.
X ;t _' ,
,u M ,
Documents availabib from the National Technical information Servise include i NUREG seriesi - Geports and technical.roports prepared by other Federal agencies land reports prepared bpthel3 M*- ' Atomic Energy Commission, fdrerunner agency to the Nucibar Regulatory Commissionf ' , l
~
Documents available from public and.special technical libraries include all open literature ) items,- such as boo _ks, journal articlos,;and transactions' 7, Federal Begister notices. Federali -> ' H
-and Stato lo0i slation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries [ ^ 'j Documents such as thoses,~ dissertations, foreign reports and'translationsfand non-NRC Aony
' Nrenco procoodings are availabio for purchase from tho' organization sponsoring the publica? ,g it_ ion cited.' -
4' . S50lo copios of.NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent' o_f supply..upon writterf request to the Office of Administrholon Distribution and Mail Services Section; U.S. Nucleare
'_ ' -Rogulatory Commission. . Washington ') 20555-0001.
C5plos of industry codes and stanc ased in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory ; 4 2 1 process are maintained at the NRC Lita ary, Two White Flint North,11545 Rockville Pike, Rock-f i wito.;MD _.20852-2738, for use by the public. Codes and standards a~ re usually copyri0hted : and may be purchased from the originating organ!zation or, if they are American National
' Standards, from the American National Standards institute,1430 Broadway. New York, NY' 10018-3308, s
\
[-
I NUREG-0940 Vol. 16, No.1, Part 1 Individual Actions Enforcement Actions: ! Significant Actions Resolved
- Individual Actions
- M l Semiannual Progress Report January - June 1997 4
Manuscript Completed: September 1997 Date Published: September 1997 OITice of Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
,jr* ****g
)
I
ABSTRACT This compilation summarizes significant enforcement actions that have been resolved during the period (January - June 1997) and includes copies of Orders and Notices of Violation sent by the. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to individuals with res)ect to these enforcement actions. It is anticipated that the information in t11s publication will be widely disseminated to managers and employees engaged in activities licensed by the NRC. The Commission believes this information may be useful to licensees in making employment decisions. g;ri NUREG-0940. PART I iii
l CONTENTS i E0.92 ! ABSTRACT........... .............................. ....... .......... 111 INTRODUCTION.......... .. ........................................... 1 SUMM@ r ee... ............................................................ 3 _ 08DERS (* cases printed in previous volumes)
.Shashi K. Agarwal IA 97-006....................................... .............A-1
- Nash Babcock IA 95-058.................................... ..................A-8
- Paul A. Bauman IA 94-020... ......... ... ....................................A-32
- Michael J. Berna IA 94-032.... ......................... .......................A-44
- Jerome E. Bodian. M.D.
IA 94-023....... ..............................................A-52
- Eugene Bolton IA 96-009 ..................... .... ......................,,.A-62
- John W. Boomer IA 94-015........ .......... ....................... ..........A-70 Joseph R. Bynum IA 96-101................... ........ .........................A-79
- Richard J, Gardecki IA 93-001........................ . .................. ........A-90
- Juan Guzman IA 96-020.... ............... .... ..... . ... . .............A-100
- Mark Jensen IA 96-042....... ....... . .................................A-119 David F. Johns. P. E.
IA 97-026.............................. ..... . ... ..........A-127
- William Kimbley, Joan Kimbley I IAs 95-015 and 95-016................... ....... ............A-138 Krishna Kumar IA 97-011.......... ... ... .. . . .. . ... ... . ...A-146
- Larry S. Ladner IA 94-019....... ..... . . .. . .. ................ .........A-158 NUREG-0940. PART I v
CONTENTS (Continued) John Maas IA 96 100.................................. ...... ..........A-168
- Daniel J. McCool IA 94-017............................................ . ......A-176
- Donald J. Mcdonald, Jr.
IA 96-018.....................................................A-186 Darryl D. McNeil IA 97-001.......... ............... ..........................A-195 James Mulkey IA 97-012....... ............... ... ...... ...... .........A-204 James C. Nelson IA 97-004....... . . .........................................A-215
- Richard E. Odegard
.4 IA 94-018.................................... ........ .......A-225
- Jesus Osorio IA 96-043................................ ....................A 235
-Cecil Ray Owen IA 96-103........................ .. ...... ... ...... .......A-244 I
- Hartsell S. Philli IA 94-001. ..... ....ps................ ................. ...A-255
- Douglas D. Preston IA 94-004............................ ................. ......A-274 Roy Sadovsky. D.V.M.
IA 97-024........... .................... ...................A-283 Derek Stephens IA 97-008............ ..... ............ . ..... ............A-293 Rex Allen Werts IA 94-035.............. .... ........... ....................A-303
- Larry D, Wicks IA 94-024.............. ................... ............, ..A-312
- Marc W. Zuverink IA 95-022.....................................................A-348 NOTICES OF VIOLATION David Kirkland IA 97-010.... . ... . ....... . .. . .. ...... .... . . .B-1 NUREG-0940. PART I- vi
Michael S. Krizmanich IA 97-014.......................................................B-6 Lee Myers. Ph.D. IA 97-017......................................................B-10 John R. Raskovsky IA 97-037......................................................B-15 James P. Ryan IA 97 007................................................ .....B 21 A9N05. ..............................................B-25 Ronald Stewart I. 97-018...... ..............................................B-29 NUREG-0940. PART I vii
i ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS: SIGNIFICANT ACTIONS RESOLVED INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS January - June 1997 INTRODUCTION- j This issue and Part of NUREG 0940 is being published to inform all Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensees about significant enforcement actions taken against individuals for the first half of 1997. Enforcement actions are issued in accordance with the NRC's Enforcement Policy, published as NUREG 1600. " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions." In promulgating the regulations concerning deliberate misconduct by unlicensed persons (55 FR 40664. August 15. 1991), the Commission directed that a list of all persons who are currently the subject of an order restricting their employment in licensed activities be made available with copies of the Orders. These enforcement actions will be included for each aerson as long as the actions remain effective. The Commission believes t11s information may be useful to licensees in making employment decisions. The NRC publishes significant er.forcement actions involving reactor and mate:'ials licensees as Parts 11 and III of NUREG 0940, respectively. NUREG-0940. PART 1 1
SUMMARIES ORDERS Shashi K. Agarwal, M.D.. Orange, New Jersey EA 96-152 An Order Suspending License (Effective immediately) and Demand for Information was issued September 12. 1996. The action was based on ins)ections which concluded that Dr. Agarwal repeatedly failed to comply wit 1 numerous NRC requirements, )rovided inaccurate information to the NRC, and failed to cooperate wit 1 the NRC or appear for an enforcement conference scheduled to discuss numerous apparent violations identified at his facility. A Settlement Order Terminating License and Prohibiting l Involvement in Licensed Activities was issued on January 6, 1997. in which Dr. Agarwal agreed not to be involved or exercise any control over licensed activities within the jurisdiction of the NRC for a period of five years from the date of the settlement agreement. Nash Babcock IA 95-058 ! An Order was issued December 1. 1995 prohibiting the individual and the companies (Five Star Products, Inc., Construction Products Research, Inc..) from providing products and services asserted to meet 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B, or Part 21 requirements until certain provisions specified in the Order are satisfied. The Order was based on Mr, Babcock's and the abova companies' refusal to permit NRC-inspection of CPR's ter facility and the provision of inaccurate and incomplete informat' ' the NRC in violation of 10 CFR 50,5(a)(2). Following the issuance Order, the ccmpanies and the individual and the NRC staff entereu o settlement agreement that essentially implemented the Order. Paul A. Bauman IA 94-020 An Order Requiring Notification to NRC Prior to Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately) was issued August 26, 1994 to the above individual. The action was based on the failure to train and certify personnel, creation of false records, and providing false information to the NRC. The Order requires for a period of three years that the individual arovide notice to the NRC of his acceptance of each employment offer in 4RC-licensed activities. Michael J. Berna IA 94-032 An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately) was issued November 15, 1994 to the above individual. The Order was based on inspection and investigation findings which concluded that the individual deliberately violated 10 CFR 30.10 by failing to perform field audits of radiographers, created false audit records, and requested others to create false records. The Order removes the NUREG 0940. PART I 3
1 i individual from NRC-licensed-activities for a period of three yee . In addition, the individual is to notify the NRC the first time that he engages-in licensed activities following the prohibition period. Jerome E. Bodian. M.D. IA 94-023 A Confirmatory Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-licensed Activities (Effective immediately) was issued September 8. 1994 to the above individual. The action was based on an inspection and investigation which concluded that the individual deliberately violated 10 CFR 35.53 by failing to measure the activity of radiopharmaceuticals prior to medical use and 10 CFR 30.10 by deliberately providing inaccurate-information to the NRC. The Order prohibits the individual from engaging in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years, in addition. -the individual shall 3rovide notice to NRC the first time following the prohibition that le engages in NRC-licensed activities. Eugene Bolton IA 96-009 An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective immediately) was issued February 23, 1996 to the above individual. The Order was based on an investigation which concluded that the above individual violated the fitness for duty requirements by submitting a surrogate urine sample and by admittedly submitting surrogate urine samples successfully on previous occasions. The Order prohibits the individual from seeking unescorted access to facilities licensed by the NRC for a period of five years from March 9.1993, the date that the individual's unescorted access was terminated by the licensee. John W. Boomer IA 94-015 An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately) was issued July 14. 1994 to the above individual. The Order was based on investigation findings which concluded that the individual deliberately violated 10 CFR 35.70(e) and 10 CFR 30.10 while he was President of Chesapeake Imaging Center Chesapeake. West Virginia, by failing to conduct weekly surveys for removable contamination. The Order prohibits the individual fran engaging in NRC- ' licensed activities for a period of three years. In addition, for that same period he shall 3rovide a . copy of the Order to any prospective-employer engaged in NRC-licensed activities, provide notice to NRC the first time following the prohibition that he engages in NRC licensed activities, and cease activities if he is currently involved in NRC-licensed activities. Joseph R. Bynum IA 96-101 An Order Prohibiting in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately) was issuedInvolvement,13. January 1997 to the above individual. The Order was based on an NRC investigation and testimony before the Department of Labor. The staff concluded that the individual deliberately violated-Section 211 of the ERA and 10 CFR 50.5 (Deliberate Misconduct), causing the licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 50.7 (Employee Protection). The issue emanated from the individual ordering NUREG-0940. PART I 4
the forced resignation of a former corporate manager of Chemistry and Environmental Protection (CEP), based on the former CEP manager having engaged in protected activities. The Order prohibits the individual from engaging in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years, and shall provide notice to the NRC the first time following the prohibition he engages in NRC-licensed activities. Richard J. Gardecki IA 93 001 An Order Prohibiting involvement in Certain NRC-Licensed Activities was issued May 4, 1993 to the above individual. The Order was based on the deliberate submittal of false information to former employers to obtain
- employment in licensed activities and to NRC investigators. The Order prohibits the individual, for a period of five years, from being named on an NRC license as a Radiation Safety Officer or supervising licensed l activities for an NRC licensee or an Agreement State licensee while
! conducting activities within NRC jurisdiction, It also requires for the same period notice by copy of the Order to prospective employers engaged in licensed activities and notice to the NRC on acceptance of employment in licensed activities. l l Juan Guzman IA 96 020 An Order Prohibiting Unescorted Access or Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately) was issued April 19, 1996 to the above individual. The Order was based on an investigation which concluded that the individual falsified his background information to his employer, Baltimore Gas and Electric. The individual requested a hearing on April 29, 1996. A settlement order was signed October 4, 1996 and approved by the Licensing Board on October 16, 1996. The settlement stipulates that the individual agrees that from October 18, 1994, the date of his termination of unescorted access, until October 17, 1997, he is prohibited from seeking or obtaining unescorted access at any NRC-licensed facility and may not be involved in any NRC-licensed activities. Also for a period of two years following the prohibition, should he seek employment with any person who operations involve any NRC-licensed or regulated activity, he will provide a copy of the April 19, 1996 order and the agreement prior to employment. Mark Jensen IA 96-042 An Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities was issued July 16, 1996 to the above individual. The Order was based on a violation of 10 CFR 30.10 which caused his former employer to be in violation of NRC requirements by failing to utilize trained and qualified individuals for the conduct of radiographic operations. In addition, the individual attempted to generate a falsified training record for a radiographer. The Order prohibits the individual from engaging in NRC-licensed activities for a Seriod of five years, and for a period of five years following the prohi31 tion is required to notify the NRC when he engages in or exercises control over NRC-licensed activities. NUREG-0940. PART I 5 l
David F. Johns IA 97-026
-An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities was issued May 15, 1997 to the above individual. The Order was based on an inspection and investigation which concluded that the individual, the President of Capital Engineering Services, deliberately violated the l conditions of an order suspending CES's license by continuing to use l moisture density gauges on numerous-occasions. The Order removes the individual from licensed activities for a )eriod of three years,-
. requires the individual, for a period of t1ree years to 3rovide a copy of the order to any prospective employer who engages in VRC-licensed ,
activities, and to notify the NRC the first time the individual is ' employed in NRC-licensed activities following the three-year prrhibition. William Kimbley IA 95 016 Ms. Joan-Kimbley IA 95-015 A Confirmatory Order was issued June 12, 1995 based on an investigation which concluded that Midwest Testing, Inc., through its president.-- deliberately violated NRC requirements by: (1) allowing operators to use moisture density gauges without personnel monitoring devices (2) not performing leak tests of two moisture density gauges (3) not requesting a license amendment to name a new Radiation Protection Officer, (4) storing licensed material at an unauthorized location..and (5) allowing moisture density gauges to be used with an expired license. The investigation also concluded that the licensee's General Manager / Treasurer (the_ wife of the licensee's president) was involved in .! the deliberate violations noted in items (1), (2), and (5) above. The i Order prohibits both the president and the General Manager / Treasurer. 'as well as Midwest Testing. Inc, and any successor entity, from applying to the NRC for a license and from engaging in, or controlling, any NRC- l licensed activity for a period of five years. ' Krishna Kumar -IA 97-011 > l An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective Imnediately) was issued February 18. 1997 to the above individual. The
-Order was based on an inspection and investigation which concluded that I the individual President of Power Inspection. -Inc., engaged in deliberate misconduct by-deliberately submitting to NRC licensees I inaccurate information concerning: 1) eddy current qualification certification examination results and personnel certification summaries, and 2) the trustworthiness and reliability of two individuals, when Mr.
Kumar knew that the individuals had used illegal substances. In addition. Mr. Kumar engaged in deliberate misconduct by directing Power Inspection employees to fabricate source utilization logs for radiography performed and by providing to the NRC a letter which contained inaccurate information relating to whether corrective actions had been taken in response to violations listed in a previous NOV. The Order prohibits Mr. Kumar from engaging in NRC-licensed activities for a period of ten years. 4 J NUREG-0940 PART I 6
Larry S. Ladner IA 94 019 An Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC Licensed Activities-(Effective immediately) was issued August 26. 1994, to the above individual. The action was based on the individual's failure to supervise radiographer's assistants performing licensed activities falsifying a large number of quarterly personnel audits and providing false information to NRC officials. The Order prohibits the individual from engaging in NRC-licensed activities for a period of three years and for a two year period after the prohibition has expired, regt. ires him to provide notice to the NRC when he will be involved in NRC-licensed activities. John Maas IA 96-100 A Confirmatory Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately) was issued December 12.-1996, to the above individual. The action was based on an inspection and a plea of guilty in U.S. District Court, in which the staff concluded that the individual deliberately violated the Deliberate Misconduct rule while serving as President of National Circuits Caribe. In:,, by abandoning devices containing by)roduct material at the licensee's facility in Puerto Rico. The Order pro 11 bits the individual from engaging in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years. In addition, for a period of five years after the prohibition, he is to provide notice to the NRC of his involvement in NRC-licensed activities. The individual agreed to the action. Daniel J, McCool IA 94-017 An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately) was issued August 26, 1994 to the above individual. The action was based on an investigation which determined that the above individual deliberately concpired with other AMSPEC officials to deceive the Commission and provided false testimony, under oath to NRC officials. In addition the individual failed to train ano certify employees in radiation safety as required by the AMSPEC license. The Order prohibits the individual from engaging in NRC licensed activities for a period of five years, and for a period of five years after the prohibition to notify the NRC when he will be involved in NRC-licensed activities. Donald C. Mcdonald, Jr. IA 96-018 An Order Prohr.>iting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately) was issued March 27, 1996 to the above individual. The action was based on the individual providing incomplete and inaccurate information on forms he filed for unescorted access authorization at an 4
-NRC-licensed facility, The Order prohibits the individual from engaging in NRC licensed activities, and obtaining unescorted access to protected and vital areas of facilities licensed by the NRC, for a period of three years from the date of the Order.
NUREG-0940. PART I 7
.. . . _ _ _ ~ . _ _ _ __ ~. ___ _
Darryl D. McNeil IA 97 001 An O Ner Prohibiting involvement in NRC Licensed Activities (Effective immei.ately) was issued March 24. 1997 to the above individual, a former security officer at Crystal River. The action was based on an investigation which determined that the individual deliberately conspired-to cover up the loss of control of a security badge. The order removes the individual from engaging in NRC-licensed activities for a period of one year. In addition, following the prohibition, he is to provide notice of involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a one ! l year period. l l 4 James Mulkey lA 97-012 An Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective immediately) was issued February 18. 199/ to the above individual a former Vice President and Radiation Safety Officer at Power Inspection. Inc. The action wat based on an inspection and investigation wnich concluded that the individual engaged in deliberate misconduct by: 1) submitting inaccurate information concerning eddy current qualification certification examination results and personnel certification summaries:
- 2) providing to the NRC a letter which contained inaccurate information relating to whether corrective actions had been taken in response to a arevious Notice of Violation; and 3) aroviding false information to the 4RC during a tele) hone discussion wit 1 a representative of the NRC. The Order prohibits t1e individual from eqaging in NRC-licensed activities
) for a period of five years. and that if currently engaged in NRC-licensed activities to cease. In addition, the first time the individual engages in NRC-licensed activities following the five year prohibition, he is required to notify the NRC prior to the performance of NR?-licensed activities. James C. Nelson IA 97-004 . An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately was issued January 27, 1997 to the above individual. The action was based on the deliberate misconduct involving: (1) use of a moisture density gauge after the license had been sus] ended. (2) supplying inaccurate information as to the Radiation 3rotection Officer, and (3) failure to have a Radiation Protection Officer for over eight years. The Order prohibits the individual's involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years. Richard E OMgard IA 94-018 An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately) was issued August 26. 1994 to the above individual. The action was based on the individual providing false testimony to the NRC, and deliberately failing to train and certify emaloyees in radiation safety as required by the license conditions. T1e Order prohibits the individual from engaging in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years and after the prohibition has expired requires J.;m to provide notice to the NRC of acceptance of any employment in NRC-licensed activity for an additional five year period. NUREG-0940. PART 1 8
Jesus Osorio IA 96-043 An Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities was issued July 16, 1996 to the above individual. The Order was based on a violation of 10 CFR 30.10. which caused his former employe' to be in violation of NRC requirements by failing to utilize trained and qualified individuals for the conduct of radiographic operations, and providing to the NRC materially inaccurate and incom)lete information relating to radiographers training. The Order prohi)1ts the individual from engaging in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years. and for a period of five years following the prohibition is required to notify the NRC when he engages in or exercises control over NRC licensed activities. Cecil Ray Owen IA 96-103 An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities was issued January 2. 1997 to the above individual. The action was based on an i investigation which determined that the individual completed a , background questionnaire for a position at North Anna and deliberately did not identify his previous employment where he was terminated for a positive drug test. The Order prohibits involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of one year and required him to notify NRC of his first involvement in NRC-licensed activities for one year following the pronibition period. Hartsell S. Phillips IA 94-001 I An Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective immediately) was issued March 10. 1994 to the above individual. The action was based on the individual's deliberate fals(. statements to NRC officials and deliberate violations involving: (1) administration of excessive radiopharmaceutical dosages. (2) failure to provide training to nuclear medicine technologists. (3) failure to perform daily constancy checks of the licensee's dose calibrator. (4) failure to perform the required daily and weekly contamination radiatien surveys, and (5) failure to maintain accurate and comp 1 ate records required oy NRC. The Order prohibits the individual from engaging in NRC-licensed activities for an NRC licensee or an Agreement State that is subject to NRC jurisdiction. The individual requested a Hearing on March 30, 1994. A settlement was signed September 19. 1995 with the agreement that the individual would refrain from involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years from the date of the Order and, for a period of five years after the prohibition, will notify NRC of becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities. Douglas D. Preston IA 94-004 An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately) was issued April 5. 1994 to the above individual. The action was based on the individual's falsification of information on his application for unescorted access to the licensee's Duane Arnold Energy Center. When interviewed by the investigators, the individual admitted that he had falsified his criminal history and indicated he would do so NUREG-0940. PART I 9
i again. The Order prohibits the individual from involvement in licensed activities for.a period of five years. Roy Sadovsky. D.V.M. IA 97-024 , An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities was issued May 1. 1997 to the above individual. The action was based on: (1) the deliberate use of licensed material at an location not authorized on the ,~ license. (2) failure to secure from unauthorized removal or access licensed material that were stored in an unrestricted area. (3) failure to perform radiation surveys. (4) failurd to supply and require the use i of an individual monitoring device. (5) failure to conduct operations so that the dose in any unrestricted area from external sources does not exceed 2 millirem in any one hour, and (6) several failures to comp'. sith DOT regulations. The order was issued precluding involvement in NRC-licensed material fc.r a period of one year becade of the deliberate violation. Derc4 Stephens IA 97-008 A Confirmatcry Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities was issued April 15. 1997 to the above individual. The action was based on an inspection and investigation which concluded that the indivioaal deliberately violated 10 CFR 30.10 and 10 CFR 34.33(a) by failing to wear persona' monitoring devices while conductirg radiographic activities rad by failing to supervise his assistant as the assistant approached the exposure device without a survey instrument and attempted to disassemble the equipment. The Order removes the individual trom engaging in NRC-licensed activities for a period of three years. Rex Allen Werts IA 94-035 An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities and Unescorted Access (Effective Immed'ately) vas issued December 12. 1994 to the above individual. The action was based on an investigation that concluded that the above individual had deliberately falsified his identity to gain employment and unescorted access to the Brunswick facility. The Order prohibits the individual from engaging in NRC-licensed activities and from gaining unescorted access to protected and vital areas of NRC-licensed facilities for a period of three years. After the three year prohibition the individual shall provide ' notice to the NRC of any employment in NRC-licensed activity for an addit' al five year period. I Larry D. Wicks IA 94-024
- An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective l
Immediately) was issued September-27, 1994 to the above individual. The action was based on inspections and investigations which concluded that the individual deliberately violated NRC requirements as to submitting a dosimeter for evaluation, evaluating an employee's radiation exposure, providing calibrated ratemeters, and by providing false information to the NRC. The Order-removed the individual from NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years. In addition the Order requires the NUREG-0940. PART I 10
individual to provide notice to the NRC the first time followin9 the prohibition-that the individual engages in NRC-licensed activities. The individual requested a hearing on October 14, 1994. In a settlement a) proved on November 16, 1995,- the individual agreed to withdraw from tie hearing proceeding. Marc W, Zuverink IA 95-022 An Order Prohibiting I'1volvement in NRC-Licensed Activities and Requiring Certain Notification to NRC was issued June 27, 1995 to the above individual. The action was based on an investigation which determined that the individual stole tritium from the licensee's facility and transferred it to members of the The Order prohibits the individual from engaging in NRC public. licensed activities for a period of ten years and recuires that he provide notice to NRC for an additional five year perioc if he becomes involved in 3C-licensed activities. Notices of Violation David Kirkland IA 97 ul0 A Notice of Violation was issued April 1, 1997 based on a violation involving the deliberate failure to follow procedures which require that a written directive be signed by an authorized user prior to administering radioactive material to a patient. Michael S. Krizmanich IA 97-014 A Notice of Violation was issued February 18, 1997 based on a violation involving the falsification of utilization logs by the individual's management at Power Inspection, Inc. The individual acknowledged that he was involved in the creating of one dozen false source utilization logs. Lee Myers. Ph.D. IA 97-017 A Notice of Violation was issued March 7, 1997 based on a violation involving the patient treatment with the High Dose Rate Afterloader (HDRA) even though the individual knew the HDRA hau not received its required monthly quality assurance checks. John R. Raskovsky IA 97-037 A Notice of Violation was issued June 18, 1997 based on investigations which ~ determined that the individual had deliberately falsified access authorization documents in order to obtain unescorted access to numerous NRC-regulated nuclear power plants, in February 1990, the individual had tested positive for cocaine metabolite and cubsequent to that positive testing had obtained unescorted access to other NRC-regulated nuclear power plants by deliberately failing to disclose on the appropriate licensee forms the positive testing. NUREG-0940. PART I 11
l James P. Ryan IA 97-007 A Notice of Violation was issued January 31, 1997. based on communication
-with Southern Nuclear Operating Company. informing us of the operator's confirmed positive test for marijuana. l George W Stewart IA 97-015 A Notice of Violation was issued February 18. 1997 based on an inspection and investigation which determined that the individual helped to create false utilization logs. The logs were neither current nor created on the date of use of the source, but were created at a later time in order to address questions asked by the NRC during a previous NRC inspection.
Ronald Stewart IA 97-018 A Notice of Violation was issued April 4. 1997 based on a violation involving the apparent falsification of access authorization program documentation associated with Crystal River. The individual failed to provide information concerning his multiple criminal convictions on his personnel history ouestionnaire, l NUREG-0940. PART I 12
i i f I A- ORDERS
- NUREG-0940. PART I
Jarmary 6,1997 edesignated as IA 97-006 EAs 96 152 and 96-30) Shashi K. Agarwal, M.D. 290 Central Avenue Orange, New Jersey 07050 3414
Dear Dr. Agarwal:
The Settlement Agreemcnt that you agreed to on November 27, 1996, has been executed. A signed copy of the Agreement is enclosed (Enclosure 1). Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, NRC is issning the enclosed Settlement Order Terminating License and Prohibiting Involvement in Licensed Activities (Order) (Enclosure 2). Under the-terms of this Order for a period of five years beginning November 22, 1996, you,aswellasanysuccessorentity,areprohibitedfrom i engaging in, or controlling, any NRC-licensed activity. Should you violate l the terms of this Order, you may be subject to civil and criminal sanctions under sections 233 and 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. If you have questions concerning this Order, you may reach me at 301-415-2741. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "P.' ales of Practice", a copy of this letter and its enclosures will'be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. Sinc re y hNS c James Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement
Enclosures:
- 1. Settlement Agreement
- 2. Settlement Order cc: Steven 1. Kern, Esq.
1120 Route 22 East Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807 Docket No. 030-32908 License No. 29-28784-01 i NUREG-0940, PART I A- 1
I Redesignated as IA 97-006 UNITED STATES j NUCLEAR REGULATORY Cop 0115510N l 4 REFDRE THE OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT in the Matter of) " 1 Docket No. 030-32908
$NASNI K. AGARWAL, M.D. h License No. 29-28784-01 Orange, New Jersey j EA 96-152 SETTLEMENT Ar.REEMENT
- 1. Shashi K. Agarwal, M.D. (Dr Agarwal or licensee) is the holder of ,
Byproduct Naterials License No. 29-28784-01 (license) issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Cosmission (NRC or Consission) pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 35. l The Itcense authorizes the possession and use of any byproduct material identified in 10 CFR 35.200 for any imaging and localization procedure approved in 10 CFR 35.200. The license was issued on Novembe.- 27, 1992, and is due to expire on December 31, 1997,
- 2. On September 12, 1996, an Order suspending License (Effective lunediately) and Demand for Information (0roer and Demand) was issued to the licensee based on the licensee's: (1) failure to comply with numerous NRC requirements, as identified during an NRC inspection conducted at the licensee's facility April 18 and 30, 1996; (2) providing apparent inaccurate informatica to the NRC; and (3) failure to cooperate with the NRC or appear for a predecisional enforcement conference. The Order and Demand required
) -that the licensee provide responses in writing by October 2, 1996, and contained instructions for providing the responses. The licensee did not j
provide the required written responses. On October 7, 1996, Dr. Agarwal, through his attorney, contacted the NRC and indicated that he desired to terminate his license and enter into a settlement agreement to resolve all
- matters pending between the licensee and the NRC. .
l i I l l NUREG-0940, PART I A- 2 l __._ - _ _ _ . _ _ . _ , _ _ _. .- l
.t.
- 3. Dr. Agarwal and the NRC staff conclude that the following Settlement Agreement best serves the interests of the parties and the purposes of the Atomic Energy Act and the NRC's requirements:
A. Dr. Agarwal agrees to transfer all NRC-licensed material to an authorized recipient within 30 days of the date that this Settlement Agreement is signed. B. Dr. Agarwal agrees to provide to the Regional Administ- tor, t Region I, within seven days following the completion of the j transfer: l
- 1. a completed NRC Fom 314 to certify that the licensed material has been transferred, and
- 11. the results of a radiation survey, conducted and prepared in accordance with 10 CFR 30.36(j)(2), of the premises where Itcensed activities were performed.
C. Dr. Aganval agrees that NRC-Byproduct Materials License No. 29-28784-01 shall be teminated upon written approvai by NRC Region I of the information submitted under Section B above. D. Dr. Agarwal ag eas that, for a period of five years from the date of the execution of this Settlement Agreement, neither he nor a successor entity shall be involved in or exercise any control over NUREG-0940, PART I A- 3
3 licensed activities within the jurisdiction of the NRC, including, but not limited to, involvesent as owner, authertred user, controlling shareholder, or radiation safety officer. E. The NRC will issue a Settlement Order to impose the requirements in A. through 0, above. Dr. Aearwal waives the right to contest the Confirmatory Order in any manner, inciWing the right to request a hearing on the Settlement Order. F. The NRC agrees to take no further enforcement action for the satters set forth in the Order and Demand dated September 12, 1996. FOR THE LICENSEE Dated: BY: /
\ Shashi K. Agarwal, M.D.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0P911SS10N Dated: I 4 49 BY: J b s Liebeman, Director
// ice of Enforcement NUREG-0940, PART I A- 4
Redesignated as IA 97-006 UNITED STATES MUCLEAR REGULATORY C0mlS$10N in the Matter of Docket No. 030-32908 SHASHI K. AGARWAL, M.D. License No. 29-28784-01 Orange, New Jersey EAs 96-152 and 96-301 SETTLEMENT ORDER TE m!NATING LICENSE AND PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN LICENSED ACTIVITIES I Shashi K. Agarwal, M.D. (Dr. Agarwal or licensee) is the holder of Byproduct Materials License No. 29-28784-01 (license) issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 35. The license authorizes the possession and use of any byproduct material identified , in 10 CFR 35.200 for any imaging and localization procedure approved in 10 CFR 35.200. The license was issued on November 27, 1992, and is due to expire on December 31, 1997. On September 12, 1996, anOrderSuspendingLicense(Effectiveimmediately)and Demand for Information (Order and Demand) was issued to the licensee based on the licensee's: (1) failure to comply with numerous NRC requirements. as identified during an NRC inspection conducted at the licensee's facility April 18 and 30, 1996; (2) providing apparent inaccurate information to the NRC; and (3) failure to cooperate with the NRC or appear for a predecisional enforcement conference. The Order and Demand required that the licensee provide responses in writing by October 2,1996, and contained instructions for providing the responses. To date, the licensee has not provided the required written responses. NUREG-0940, PART I A- 5
III On October 7,1996. Dr. Agarval, through his attorney, contacted the NRC and indicated that he desired to teminate his license and resolve all matters pending between himself and the NRC. As the parties desire to resolve all matters pending between them, the licensee has entered into a Settlement l Agreement with the MC execuied on January 3,1997. Under the tems of the i Settlement Agreement Dr. Agarwal agrees to the termination of his NRC license j i and that he will not apply for an NRC license or engage in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years from tiie date of the execution of the Settlement Agreement; and the NRC agrees that it will take no further enforcement action for the matters set forth in the Order and Demand. 1 IV i I l Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81, 161b, 1611, 1610, 186, and 224 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.107, 2.204, and 10 CFR Parts 30 and 35. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT; A. By February 7, 1997, Dr. Agarwal shall transfer all NRC-licensed material to an authorized recipient. B. Within seven days following the completion of the transfer, Dr. Agarwal l shall provide to the Regional Administrator, Region I: NUREG-0940, PART I A- 6
- l. a completed Mr.C Form 314 to certify that the licensed material has been transferred, and .
I i
- 2. the results of a radiation survey, conducted and prepared in accordance with 10 CFR 30.36(j)(2), of the proelses where licensed activities were carried out. I 1
C. Upon written approval by NRC Region I of the information submitted under Section IV.B., NRC Byproduct Materials License No. 29-28784-01 is hereby
- terminated.
D. For a period of five years from November 22, 1996, neither Dr. Agarwal nor a successer entity shall be involved in or exercise any control over licensed activities within the jurisdiction of the NRC, including, but not lir.ited to, involvement as owner, authorized user, controlling shareholder, or radiation safety officer. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP 9115510N h ulines Lieberman, Of ector ffice of Enforcement Dated at Rockville, Maryland this d day of January 1997 NUREG-0940, PART I A- 7
.. = - - - - - - -.
g,[,W '00 ce g'h
, umito states NUCt. EAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION
} womotow. o c. mue b .', , /}j tecenber 1, 1995 1A 95-0$8 Five Star Products, Inc.
Construction Products Research, Inc. ATTN: Mr. H. Nash Babcock, 401-534 $tillson Road - Fairfield, Coenecticut 06430
$UBJECT: ORDER
Dear Mr. Babcock:
This ref i 3 the limited inspection conducted on August 18 and 19, 1992, of the Five -:u Produatt. Incorporated (Five Star) facilities in Fairfield . Connecticut. A copy of the inspection report is in.luded as Enclosure 1 to this letter. This letter also addresses the NRC Office of Investigations (01) Case 1-92-037R,'cnich hat been completed. A copy of the 01 Report synopsis is incluied as Enc'..,;ure 2 to this letter.
- Enclosure 3 is an Order being issued to Five Star, Construction Producta Research, Inc. (CPR), and H. Nash 6abcock based on the results of the inspection and investigation. The Order prohibits Five Star, CPR, or H. Nash Babcock from selling products or providing associated services to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B and 10 CFR Part 21. Further, the ;
Order provides that if Five Star, CPR or H. Nash Babcock desires to resume providing t>asic components and associated services to the nuclear industry ! that merst those requiremeras, then Five Star, CPR and H. Nash Babcock must comply with certain provisions of the Order. A written response is not required to the Order. However, you may respond as provided in the Order. If Five Star CPR or H. Nash Babcock desires to resume providingbasiccomponentsandassoc}atedservicestothenuclearindustryfor use in safety-related applications. Five Star, CPR, and H. Nash Babcock must respond to the Order, as well as comply with the other requirements stated in the Order. This Order is effective in 20 days unless a hearing is requested. Pursuant to Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, any person who willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any proAion of this Order once it is effective shall be subject to criraical prosecul ma as set forth in that section. The NRC is centinuing to review various actions by Five Star and CPR and issuance of this Order does not preclude the NRC from taking further action in the future based on the outcome of those reviews. l l l NUREG-0940, PART I A- 8 l
l Five Star Products, Inc. ! Questions conc 6cning this Order should be addressed to James Lieberman, Director. Office of [nforcement, who can be reached at (301) 415-2741. in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice " a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. Sincerely, 1 w b. ames L.-Milhoen eputy Executive Director or Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Regional Operations and Research
Enclosures:
As Stated NUREG-0940,'PART I A- 9
t l UNITCD STATES l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N i in the Matter of FIVC STAR PRODUCTS, INC. ) and IA 95 054 CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS RESEARCH !' Fairfield, Connecticut and - H. NASH BABC0CK i ORDIR 1 FiveStarProducts,Inc.(FSP),isacompanylocatedinFairfield, Connecticut, and was formerly known as U.S. Grout Corporation. FSP manufactures and sells grout and concrete products to the nuclear industry and ; has done so for about 20 years. Through a holding company, Mr. Babcock owns, FSP and several related bu'inesses, including Construction Products Research, Inc. (CPR), which performs laboratory tests of FSP products. Mr. Babcock is Vice-President of FSP and President of CPR. 11 l FSP submitted its grout and concrete products to CPR for testing. Following the tests, CPR issued certifications that it tested FSP products in conformance with certain specifications of the American Society for Testing andliatorials. FSP subsequently utilized those certifications as the basis ; for certifying that its products satisfied Appendix 8 and customer Purchase Order (PO) requirements. At various times since 1980, FSP has advertised and represented to NRC licensees that its products are manufactured in accordance 4 with the requirements of Appendix B. It has supplied products pursuant to purchase orders requiring FSP to meet the requirements of Appendix B, and 10 i l I L NUREG-0940, PART I A-10 ; l
t CFR Part 21. Licensees who have purchased material from FSP under FSP's certification of quality have used the grout and concrete in safety-related appitcations and as basic components. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Connission) issued 10 CFR Part 21 (Part 21) to implement Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. Part 21 imposes, Inter alfa, evaluation and reporting requirements on directors and responsible officers of firms which supply basic components of any facility or activity which is Itcensed or otherwise regalated pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Energy Reorgantration Act of 1974 Basiccomponentsarestructures, systems,orpartsinwhichadefectgr j failure to comply with applicable requirements could create a substantial safety hazard. 10CFR21.3(a). Part 21 is implemented in conjunction with Appendix B, which contains the quality assurance (QA) criteria appitcable to design, fabrication, construction, and testing of safety-related structures, systems, and comoonents in commercial nuclear power plants. Together, these requirements are intended to assure the safety of safety-related components, materials, and services for nuclear power plants. Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 requires directors and responsible officers of firms constructing, owning, operating or supplying the basic components of a facility or activity licensed or regulated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, who obtain information regarding defects in tnose basic components, or failures of basic components, or of the facility to comply with NRC requirements, to notify the NRC of those defects and failures to comply. Section 206(d) authorizes the Commission to conduct inspections NUREG-0940, PART I A-ll
3 and other enforcement activities necessary to insure compliance with that section. 10 CFR 21.41 and 21.51 implement Section 206(d). l l Ill The NRC conducts inspections of vendors who supply safety related components pursuant to Appendix B and who supply basic components pursuant to Part 21. On August 18, 1992, the NRC began an unannounced inspection of FSP, and of its laboratory contractor, CPR, to determine the extent to which FSP supplied basic components to NRC, licensees, the adequacy of FSP's QA Program, the adequacy of CPR's testing of FSP products, and the adequacy of FSP products; Shortly after the inspection began, Mr. Babcock met with the inspection team and questioned the NRC's authority to conduct the inspection. Mr. Babcock was presented with two identical letters from the NRC staff, dated August 13, 1992, each addressed separately to FSP and CPR. The letters outlined the l NRC's inspection authority under 10 CFR Part 21, Section 1610 of the Atomic ' Energy Act of.1954, as amended (AEA), and Section 206(d) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA). Despite this, Mr. Babcock continued to question the NRC's authority and, throughout the inspection, denied the inspectors access to inspect CPR's testing laboratory, which we2 located in the basement of FSP's Fairfield, Connecticut, headquarters, and access to inspect CPR's laboratory records. During the inspection of August 18 and 19, 1992, the inspection team reyttwed NRC power reactor licensee P0s submitted to Five Star in order to determine l NUREG-0940, PART I A-12
,.. .. _v - - _ - - . - . - . _ _ _ _ , - - - -.. .- - . - - _ - . - 4 i 5 4 the scope of F$P's nuclear involvement. The team was provided with P0s for the period 1988 to 1992. Those P0s demonstrate that at least seven NRC l reactor licensees and one licensee contractor had issued P0s to FSP for l l safety-related grout and concrete six products, and had specified compliance with Appendix B and Part 21. 1 The inspection team reviewed copies of several NRC licensee audit reports of FSP and CPR. These reports documented that NRC licensee requests to audit CPR's test laboratory and records were consisten;1y denied by FSP. Further, several NRC licensee audit reports found that FSP's QA program was not acceptable and did not meet certain requirements of Appendix B. u The NRC inspection team requested copies of all audits performed by FSP of CPR to determine CPR's compliance with the quality assurance criteria of Appendix B and Part 21. Only one FSP audit of CPR was performed, by the FSP QA Manager, and it was provided to the NRC inspection team by the FSP QA Manager. The July 31, 1992 audit report concluded that CPR's June 10, 1992 QA program was satisfactory. The format and most of the language of this report were identical to a report of an audit conducted by Toledo Edison, an NRC Part 50 reactor licensee, of FSP's QA program in February 1991. The FSP QA Manager later admitted that he had not in fact conducted an audit of CPR, and that ne had used the Toledo Edison audit report to fabricate the July 31, 1992 audit ! report of CPR.
- On August 19, 1992, the second day of the inspection, Mr. Babcock told the 4
inspectors to leave at the end of that day and not return until after Labor k NVREG-0940, PART I A-13
5 Day. At 4:45 p.m. that day, Mr. Babcock was presented with another letter from the NRC staff which was witnessed by members of the inspection team and Mr. Henry Allen of FSP. This letter retterated the legal authority of the NRC to conduct the inspection, and notified Mr. Babcock that continued refusals to permit inspection of FSP or CPR would be treated as a violation of 10 CFR
!!.41, could result in enforcement action, and could be subject to treatment as a criminal violation in accordance with Sections 1610 and 223 of the AEA.
Notwithstanding this second letter ,Mr. e Babcock continued to deny the NRC inspectors access to the CPR 1aboratory and to records of the CPR laboratory. The inspectors left the site at 5:00 pm as Mr. Babcock had requested. e The inspection team also requested copies of QA manuals for both FSP and CPR which would provide the basis to support FSP's certifications to Itcensees that its products were manufactured under an Appendix B Quality Assurance (QA) program. Copies of these documents were not furnished by FSP due to Mr. Bebcock's suspension of further inspection activities. As a result of FSP's and Mr. Babcock's curtailing the inspection, the inspection team was unable to review the implementation of FSP's QA Program against Itcensee P0s or to inspect CPR's testing of FSP's grout and concrete mix products, and thus was unable to determine whether those products were produced, tested and provided in compilance with Appendix B and Part 21. Therefore, the NpC staff could not determine whether there was reasonable assurance that those FSP rout and concrete mix products were acceptable for use in safety-related appitentions in nuclear power plants. NUREG-0940, PART 1 A-14
j 6 $hortly thereafter, the NRC obtained a federal criminal searc'h warrant, which was executed on September 1, 1992. Certain documents and testimonial evidenc6 were taken. Additionally, the NRC Office of Investigations conducted an investigation of the allegations leading to and the events surrounding the inspection. (01 Case No. 1-92-037). During the course of the 01 investigation Mr. Babcock instructed his attorney to forward to the NRC a letter dated February 18, 1994, which Mr. Babcock had composed and signed. The attorney forwarded the letter, in which Mr. Babcock stated: 'We did not deny the NRC inspectors access to the laboratory in August 1992. Mr. John S. Ma, a civil engineer o,n-the NRC inspection team, was escorted to the lab where he conducted an inspection of the test laboratory." As indicated above, and as known to Mr. Babcock, no NRC inspectors were allowed in the laboratory at any time during the August 1992 inspection and, therefore, the statement concerning Mr. Ma's access to and inspection of the CPR laboratory is deliberately false. The letter was material because it provided incorrect information to the NRC on a matter that was under investigation. IV Based on the facts discussed above, the NRC' concludes that the following violations of NRC requirements occurred: A. 10 CFR 50.5, " Deliberate misconduct" prohibits any contractor (including a supplier or consultant), subcontractor, or any employee of a NUREG-0940, PART I A-15
- - = _ . . ~ . - . ~ - - . - - . . . - _ _ _ - - . . - - - . - - - -
l I 1 contractor or subcontractor who knowingly provides to any licensee, { contractor, or subcontractor, components, equipment, materials, or other goods or services, that relate to a licensee's activities subject to this part, from deliberately submitting to the NRC, a licensee, or a licensee's contractor or subcontractor, information that the person submitting the information knows to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. Contrary to the above, the Quality Assurance Manager of Five Star Products, and Five Star Products through its Quality Assurance Manager, prepared an audit report for Five Star Products of the Construction Products Research QA Program, dated July 31, 1992, without conducting an audit of Construction Products Research, and provided that audit report ' to NRC inspectors during an inspection of Five Star Products on August 18 19, 1992, knowing that no such audit had been conducted. This audit report was material to the NRC because it was capable of influencing its determination of whether the Construction Products Research QA Program complied with Appendix B, and 10 CFR Part 21 requirements. B. Contrary to 10 CFR 50.5, Mr. H. Nash Babcock, the Vice President of Five
- Star Products, Inc. and the President of Construction Products Research, prepared and cauwd to be sent to the NRC a letter, in which Mr. Babcock stated that one NRC inspector had been allowed to and did in fact inspect the laboratory test facility of Construction Products Research on August 19, 1992. In fact, as Mr. Babcock knew, no NRC inspector was i
NUREG-0940, PART I A-16
l 8 permitted to inspect the laboratory fact 11 ties of Construction Products Research during the August 18 19, 1992 inspection. The letter was material to the NRC because it provided information directly related to a matter under investigation by the NRC, specifically, whether Mr. Babcock had deliberately denied NRC inspectors access to the Construction Products Research test facility in violation of NRC 4 i requirements. C. 10 CFR 21.41 requires that each individual, corporation, partnership or other entity subject to the regulations in Part 21 shall permit duly authorized representa!!ves of the Commission to inspect its records, premises, activities, and basic components as necessary to effectuate the purposes of Part 21. I 10 CFR 21.51(b) requires, in part, that each individual, corporation, I partnership or other entity subject to the regulations in Part 21 must l l afford the Commission, at all reasonable times, the opportunity to inspect records pertaining to basic components. Contrary to the above, on August 18 and 19. 1992, Five Star Products, Inc., through H. Nash Babcock, Vice President of Five Star Products, and l Construction Products Research, Inc., through H. Nash Babcock, President of Construction Products Research, denied NRC inspectors access necessary to conduct an inspection of Five Star Products' contracted laboratory test facility, Construction Products Research, for, and of Construction Products Research records of test data associated with, NVREG-0940, PART I A-17
[ 9 safety related grout and concrete mix products sold by Five Star Products to nuclear power plants licensed under 10 CFR Part 50, pursuant to purchase orders specifying compliance with Appendix B and 10 CFR Part
- 21. Mr. Babcock also refused to allow NRC inspectors reasonable access to CPR laboratory personnel. By terminating the inspection Mr. Babcock also prevented NRC inspectors from completing their examination of Five Star records.
V The NRC and its licensees must be able to rely on Itcensee contractors and ' officers of licensee contractors, including providers of safety-related basic components such as Five Star Products, Inc., and suppliers of services . associated with basic components, such as Construction Products Research, Inc., to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirements to provide accurate and complete information in all material respects and the requirements to permit inspection of their records, premises, activities and components, five Star Products' and Mr. H. Nash Babcock's violations of 10 CFR 21.41, 21.51(b), and 50.5 demonstrate that Five Star Products and its Vice President, Mr. Babcock, are unable or unwilling to comply with NPC requirements to permit inspections and to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC in all material respects. In addition, they did not permit NRC licensees access to CPR's facilities in order to conduct necessary audits . Construction Products Research's and Mr. Babcock's violation of 10 CFR 21.41, 21.51(b), and 50.5 demonstrate that Construction Products Research and its President, Mr. Babcock, are unable or unwilling to comply with NRC i NUREG-0940, PART I A-18 l
10 requirements to permit inspections by the NRC or its licensees and to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC in all material respects. Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that the NRC and NRC
- licensees can rely on the statements or certifications of Five Star Products.
l l Inc., Construction Products Research, Inc., or Mr. H. Nash Babcock, that basic l components of Five Star Products, Inc. or associated services of Construction Products Research, Inc. meet NRC requirements necessary to protect public health and safety. Therefore, I find that the public health, safety, and interest require that Five Star Products, Inc., Construction Products Research, Inc. and Mr. Babcock (1) be prohibited from providing structures, systems, and components subject to a procurement contract specifying compliance with Appendix B, or basic components subject to a procurement contract specifying compitance with 10 CFR Part 21, and (2) must respond to this Order and take certain other actions if they d) sire to provide such products to NRC licensees who specify that they must meet the requirements of Appendix B, or 10 CFR Part 21'.- VI Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103, 161b, 1611, 1610, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, Section 206 of the Energy
'This does not prohibit FSP from supplying comercial grade materials to NRC licensees, or CPR from testing and certifying commercial grade materials to NRC licensees, provided that no representations are made with regard to FSP products being qualified for safety-related applications in nuclear power plants-based on compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, or that 10 CFR Part 21 requirements have been met.
NUREG-0940, PART I A-19
1 11 i Reorganization Act, as amended, and the Commission's regulations at 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR Parts 21 and 50, and 10 CFR 50.5, IT IS HERE8Y ORDEREO, THAT: 3 l
- 1. Until Five Star Products, Inc., Construction Products Research, Inc., H.
t Nash Babcock, and any concern which is owned, controlled, operated or managed by H. Nash Babcock, satisfy the provisions of paragraph 2,, below, they are prohibited from: A. providing or supplying structures, systems, or components, including grout and concrete, subject to a procurement contract specifying compliance with Appendix 8 and
- 8. providing or supplying basic components, including grout and concrete, subject to a procurement contract specifying that the contract is subject to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21; 2.A. If Five Star Products, Inc., Construction Products Research Inc., or any concern owned, controlled, operated or managed by H. Nash Babcock, 1 desires to lift the prohibition specified in paragraph 1, above, then Five Star Products, Inc., Construction Products Research, Inc., H. Nash '
Babe.ock or the concern owned, controlled, operated, or managed by H. Nash Babcock, shall, at least 90 days prior to the date it desires to have the prohibition liftedt (1) Advise the NRC of that intent in writing; (2) Respond in writing under oath or affirmation specitically as to each of the violations listed in Section IV, including: (a) an admission or denial of the alleged violation, (b) the reasons for the violation if admitted, and if denied, the reasons why, (c) the 1 l HUREG-0940, PART I A-20
12 corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved. (d) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further vioistions, and (e) the date when full compliance will be achieved; (3) Agree in writing, under oath or affirmation, and in fact, to permit the NRC, NRC licensees, and contractors performing QA functions for such licensees, to inspect the records, premises, basic components and activities of Five Star Products, Inc., of Construction Products Research, Inc., or of any concern owned, controlled, operated or managed by H. Nash Babcock that desires to provide safety related products or basic components, or to perfore tests to support claims that those products or components and those testing services meet the standards of Appendix B and 10 CFR Part 21, and to signify in writing a willingness to do so in the future; (4) Agree in writing under oath or affirmation to demonstrate and in fact to demonstrate that tho:t basic components and services associated with basic components meet the standards of. Appendix B by having tests performed by an independent third party and having that third party provide copies of the results of those tests directly to the NRC; and (5) The officers, managers, and supervisors of Five Star Products, Inc. and Construction Products Research, Inc. provide statements NVREG-0940, PART I A-21
13 that they understand that the activities anc records of the organization are subject to NRC inspectior, that communications with the NRC must be complete and accurate, and that any employee may provide information to the NRC at any time without fear of retribution and B. When all conditions of paragraph 2.A. above have been satisfied, and the NRC has conducted inspections of the QA program and Part 21 program of Five Star Products, Inc., Constructions Products l Research, Inc., and any concern owned, controlled, operated, or managed by H. Nash Babcock, and any necessary corrective _ action has been completed, the prohibition of paragraph 1, above, will be lifted in writing. The Director, Office of Enforcement, say, in writitig, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Five Star Products, Inc., Construction Products Research, Inc., and Mr. H. Nash Babcock of good cause. Vli in accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Five Star Products, Inc., Construction Products Research, Inc., and H. Nash Babcock, or any other person adversely affected by the Order, may subalt an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the date of this Order. The answer NUREG-0940, PART I A-22
14 may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Five Star Products, Inc., Construction Products Research, Inc., and H. Nash Onbcock, and any other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall 1,e submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attnt Chief. Docketing and j Service Section Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement and the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, both at the same address. If a person other than Five Star Products, Inc.,
' Construction Products Research, Inc., or H. Nash Babcock requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d).
If a hearing is requested by Five, Star Products, Inc., Construction Products Research, Inc., H. Nash Babcock, or any other person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. l i 1 T NUREG-0940,-PART I A-23
15 In the absence of any request for hearing, the provisions specified in Section VI above shall be effective and final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMIS$10N [\
~
QamesL.MilhoanL.7/l.iL.,- eputy Executive Director for uclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research Dated at Rockville. Maryland this lWday of December 1995 l NUREG-0940, PART I A-24 !
i C*A M 4'd ; 4 SYNOPS!S OnSeptember 30,1992. an investigation was initiated concerning an allegatten that Five Star Products, Inc. (Five Star), impre>erly tested and falsely certified material that was purchased from them >y the nuclear power industry. I During an unannounced August 18 and 19, 1992, inspection conducted by the hRC Vendor inspection Branch (V!B), the NRC inspectors were denied access to Five Star's certification testing laboratory (i.e., Construction Products Research i (CPR)). Also, during the course of the inspection, a potentially false audit : report was provided to the inspectors for their review. This audit report of i CPR was produced by Five Star's Quality Assurance (CA) Manager. On September 1,1992, as a result of the denial of access, a Federal search warrant was obtained and executed on Five Star, with documents and other physical and testimonial evidence taken. The O! investigation concludes that Five Star provided three inaccurate ! product certifications to nuclear power plants, in that Five Star's laboratory (CPR) did not possess the proper equipment to perform a specific test referenced on the certifications. However, from the evidence developed, it has not been substantiated that the creation of the inaccurate certifications was deliberate. The O! investigation also concludes that the President of CPR willfully denied tne NRC inspectors access to the testing laboratory. The 01 investigation further concludes that the Five Star QA Manager , celiberately generated an audit report of CPR, without conducting the audit,
~
and provided this report to the inspectors during the inspection. In addition, during the course of the investigation. the president of CPR caused a letter to be sent the NRC, in which he stated that one of the NRC inspectors had been allowed to inspect the laboratory. That information is refuted by the inspectors. It is therefore concluded that the letter was submitted, knowingly containing false information. i Case No. 1 92 037R l' NUREG-0940, PART_I A-25 s-
December 28. 1995 Michael F. McBride Esq. Letoeuf. Lamb. Greene & MacRae 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington. 0.C. 20009 5728
$UtJECT:
ORDER - IA 95-054 FIVE STAR PRODUCT INC. CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS RESEARCH. INC.. AND H. NA5H BABC0CK Dear Mr. McBride I have received your letters of December 27. 1995 in regard to the
$tipulationtoresolvethematterandalsoMr.WilliamN. Babcock'sposition regarding a heartne. I have executed the Stipulation and a signed copy is enclosed along witfi a letter concerning Mr. William N. Sabcock. I will forward the $tipulation to the Federal Register.
I appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely.
/s/
James 1.teberman. Otractor Office of Enforcement
Enclosure:
As Stated cc J. Goldberg OGC SECY 1 NUREG-0940. PART-1 A-26 4 A -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUt.At0RY COMMISSION In the Matter of 1
)
FIVE STAR FRODUCTS, IN". ) und ) No. IA 95 058 C-T5TPUCTION PRODUCTS RESEARCH ) Fairfield, Connecticut ) i and ) H. i? ASH 4/2tOQ4 ) l STIPULATION BETWEEN NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND PIVE STAR PRODUCTS, INC., COMSTRUCTION PRODUCTS RESEARCH, INC., AND N. NA5H BABCOCK Representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory Cor"ission ("NRC") and Five St e Products. Inc., Construction Products Research. Inc. ("the Companies"), and H. Nash Babcock have met and have decided to resolve this matter as addressed in this stipulation as set out below. STIPULATION The NRC, the Companies, and H. Nash Babcock stipulate to the following:
- 1. The Companies and H. Nash Babcock are free to sell commercial-grade products to anyone in the nuclear industry, as they now do. " Commercial grade" is defined as in 10 C.F.R. Part 21 of the Commission's regulations. Five Star Products' commercial grade materials may be used in any safety-related applications provided that NRC licensees properly dedicate the materials for use as basic components and verify their suitability for the applications. As of the date of the NUREG-0940, PART I A-27
. . . _ . . _ . ~ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
4 i l 2 l settlement, NRC has-not evaluated the quality of Five star , Products' materials, nor has the ;iRC received reports that Five d Star Products' materials contain defects. ' t
- 2. The NRC hereby relaxes and modifies paragrapne 1 l
and 2 of Secticn VI of the Order as follows: : al. ! Until the Companies or H. Nash Babcock or any concern which is owned, controlled, operated or managed by H. ! Nash Babcock, actisfy the provisions of paragraph 2 below, they l are prohibited fromi A. providing or supplying structures, systems, or t j components, including grout and concrete, subject to a procurement contract specifying compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Ap9endix 3; and B. providing or supplying basic components, including grout and cor. crete, subject to a procurement contract specifying that the contract is subject to the ' requirements of 10 CFR Part 21; ! 2.A. If the Companies, or any concern owned, controlled. operated or managed by H. Nash Sabcock, desire to lift the prohibitions specified in paragraphs 1.A and 1.B, above, ! then the Companies, H. Nash Babcock, or the concern owned, controlled, operated, or managed by H. Nash Babcock, shall, at least 90 days prior to the date it desires to have the prohibition lifted (1) Advise the NRC of that intent in writingi (2) Deleted. i l NUREG-0940 PART I A-28
(3) Agree in writing, under oath or affirmation, and in fact, to permit the NRC, NRC licensees, and contractors performing CA functions for such licensees, to inspect the records, premises, basic components and activities of the l Companies or of any concern owned, controlled, operated er ' managed by H. Nash Babcock that desires to provide safety related products or basic components, or to perform tests to support claims that those products or components and those testing services meet the standards of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B and 10 CFR Part 21, and to signify in writing a willingness to do so in the futures (4) Agree in writing under oath or affirmation to demonstrate and in fact to demonstrate that those basic components and services associated with basic components meet the standards of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B by having tests performed by a mutually acceptable third party and having that third party provide copies of the results of those tests directly to the NRCs and (5) The of ficers, managers, and supervisors of tLe Companies provide statements that they understand that the activities and records of the organization are subject to NRC inspection and that communications with the NRC nust be complete and accurate; B. When all conditions of paragraph 2.A.,above have been satisfied, and the NRC has conducted inspections of the QA program and Part 21 program of the Companies or of any concern owned, controlled, operated, or managed by H. Nash Babcock, and NUREG-0940, PART I A-29
any necessary corrective action has been completed, the prohibitions of paragraphs 1.A and 1.B, above, will be lifted in writing." 1. Except for the enforcement action reflected in the above relaxed Order and this stipulation, the NRC will neither impose, nor seek to impose, any sanction (other than as set forth in the relaxed order and stipulation) on the Companies or their officers and employees or H. Nash Babcock for the alleged violations described in the NRC order issued on December 1, 1995. 4. All matters involving the termination of employment of Mr. Edward p. Holub are not covered by, or affected by, this stipulation, the Stipulation is without prejudice to the parties' positions with respect to the Commission's jurisdiction or lack thereof over employment matters, and the NRC, the Companies, any other related company, and H. Nash Babcock retain all rights in any such case, matter, proceeding, or litigation now pending or which may hereinafter be instituted.
- 5. In light of this Stipulation, tue Companies and H.
Nash Babcock agree not to request a hearing on the matters addressed in the order issued on December 1, 1r90 and relaxed as described herein, despite their vigorous disagreement with some of the allegations contained in the December 1, 1995 Order.
- 6. The NRC, the Companies, and H. Nash Babcock agree that the allegations in the Order have not been made. subject to an evidentiary hearing, and that this Stipulation will obviate the necessity for such a nearing, and they therefore agree that those allegations shall not estop any party from taking a I
1 NUREG-0940, PART I A-30
l different position on such matters in any other case, litigation. 1
- matter, or proceeding.
i j 7. The order as relaxed herein shall be effective upon j execution of this Stipulation. This Stipulation shall be i published in the Federal Reaister. } The persons signing below certify by their 8. t-signatures that they have authority to sign this stipulation for j the entities appearing below their names. l-
% [ L -.
nos Lieberman
) M S Q L4 Michael F. McBride
! rector LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene
- ffice of Enforcement & MacRae, L.L.P.
j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. . Commission Suite 1200 i Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington,-D.C . 20009-5728 (301) 415 2741 (202) 986-8000 For the United States Nuclear Attornav for Five Star i Raoulatorv comminaion Protueta. Inc. canatruction i Proeucts Raamarch. Inc. and H. Nash anheock December {[,1995 i Dated: i i i ] I NUREG-0940, PART I A-31
- j a a
- e s,.9.
- UNITED STATES
{ NUCLEAR MEGULATORY COMMISSION WASHIN0foN o C. mese coot ,
.. /'
i mua IA 94 020 l Mr. Paul A. Bauman (HOME ADDRESS DELETED UNDER 10 CFR 2.790) Dear Mr. Bauman
SUBJECT:
ORDER REQUIRING + NOTIFICATION TO NRC PRIOR 70 INVOLVEMENT IN NRC. ! LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFErl!VE IMMEDIATELY) The enclosed Order Requiring Notification of involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective imediately) is being issued as a consequence of your actions while emoloyed by the American inspection Company, Inc., (AMSPEC
- between late 1989 and March 1, 1992. The NRC Office of Investi conducted an investigation and concluded that you deliberately:gations ( !)
(1) falsified employee training records of numerous radiography employees of AMSPEC; (2)- failed to train numerous radiography employees nf AMSPECi ) provided examinees with answers to examination questions and persona ( ly aided and assisted employees in order to achieve required test scores; (4) provided false information to the Comission regarding the qualification of AMSPEC employees in an NRC license amendment application; (5) falsified records of quarterly personnel radiation safety audits; and (6) submitted false informationregardingthetrainii19andriualificationoftwoindividualstothe Commission in an app,1 cation for an NRC license renewal. As detailed in the e.1 closed Order, your actions caused AMSPEC to be in violation of 10 CFR 10.9, 34.11, and 34.31 of the Comission's requirements. Your assistance to the United States Attorney in his developawnt of cases against others is appreciated. As a result, we are not prohibiting you from working in Nk.. licensed activities. However, we believe that it is appropriate that the NRC be notified when you become involved in NRC licensed activities. Therefore, the enclosed order is being issued to you. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Order may result in civil or crimihal sanctions. Questions concerning this Order should be addressed to Mr. James Lieberman, , Director, Office of Enforcement, who reay be reached at (301) 504-2741. NUREG-0940, PART I A-32
._._ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _. _ -- _ .m___ .... _ _ _ _.
- .____._m._____m_______._..
4 I Paul A. lawman 2 I. 4 i in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ' Rules of Practice." a copy of 4 this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document
! Room.
Sincerely, I
- % & L_-
ames Lieberman, Director j ffice of Enforcement i i Enclosurest
- 1. Order-l 2. Synopsis 1
4 a 1-o l-l 4 4 3-1 4 1 i 4 f i 1-4 s e i 4 1 1 4 4 1 1 NUREG-0940, PART I. A-33 wr-m ,--- . -,,.yi-v,-w ,y y c,,.g.-2.,_-w,,-v.--m9.cw+- r--- - ry w --a-- m r v e-+ m r * ---n 'v +w 1---en-rs--sew-w-~esev.-w,.-wy,-v,- w w- yw-v-=-m+rer ae
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N In the Matter of )
) lA 94-020 Paul A. Bauman )
)
ORDER REQUIRING NOTIFICATION PRIOR TO INVOLVEMENT IN NRC LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) Paul A. Bauman has been tmployed in the field of industrial radiography since approximately 1981. In April 1987. Mr. Bauman was hired by the American Inspection Company, Inc., (Licensee or AMSPEC). AMSPEC held Materials License No. 12-24801-01 (License) issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CfR Parts 30 and 34. This license authorized t:te conduct of industrial radiography activities in accordance with specified conditions. On April 30. 1992, the License was suspended as a result of significant safety violations and related safety concerns. Mr. Bauman was a Vice President anJ Radiation Protection Officer of AMSPEC when a majority of the violations discussed below occurred. Il Between August 22, 1991 and November 12. 1992. the NRC Office of Investigations conducted an investigation of licensed activities at AMSPEC. During the course of this investigation, the License was suspended because a significant number of safety violations were uncoverc1. In addition, the investigation revealed that Mr. 84usan, in his capar ty as a Vice President and Radiation Protection Officer of AMSPEC, deliberately: (1) falsified employee training records of numerous radiography employees of AMSPEC (2) fallej to train and certify numerous radiography employees of AMSPEC; (3) i NUREG-0940, PART I A-34 l
2 provided examinees answers to examination questions and personally aided and assisted employees in order to achieve required test scores; (4) providad, with co-conspirator Daniel McCool, f alse information to the Comission regarding the Qualification of AMSPEC employees in an NRC license amendment { application; (5) falsified records of quarterly personnel radiation safety audits; and (6) submitted false information regarding the training and qualification of two individuals to the Commission in an app 1tcation for an NRC license renewal. 10 CFR 34.31(a) provides that a licensee shall not permit any individual to act as a radiographer until such individual: (1) has been instructed in the subjects outlined in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 34; (2) has received copies of and instruction in NRC regulations contained in 10 CFR Part 34 and in the applicable sections of 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20. NRC license (s) under which the radiographer will perform radiography, and the licensee's operating and emergency procedures; (3) has demonstrated competence to use the licensee's radiographic exposure devices, se6 led sources, related handling tools, and survey instruments; and (4) has deconstrated understanding of the instructions in this paragraph by successful fospletion of a written test and field examination on the subjects covered. AMSPEC submitted a Radiation Safety Manual as a part of its license application dated September 20. 1986. A part of this manual prescribes the licensee's employee training program to satisfy the requirements of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 34. This manual was incorporated as a part of License Condition 17 of the AMSPEC license. In addition, 10 CFR 34.11(d)(1) requires, in part, that an appitcant have an inspection program that includes the observation of the performance of each radiographer and radiographer's assistant during an actual radiographic NVREG-0940, PART I A 35 i
3 operation at intervals not to exceed three months. AMSPEC had an apr oved audit program that was incorporated as part of License Condition 17 to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 34 ll(d)(1). 10 CFR 30.9(a) requires, in part, that information provided to the Commission by a licensee, or information required by the Commission's regulations to be maintained by the licensee, shall be complete and accurate in all material respects. 10 CFR 30.10(a) l requires, in part, that any licensee or any employee of a licensee may not: (1) engage in. deliberate misconduct that ca'uses a licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulation, order, or term of any license, issued by the Comission, or (2) deliberately submit to the NRC information that the person submitting the information knows to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the HRC. Between late 1989 and March 1, 1992, Mr. Bauman deliberately caused AMSPEC to violate 10 CFR 34.31 by failing to train and certify numerous radiography employees of AMSPFC as required and caused'ASMPEC to violate 10 CFR 30.9 by deliberately falsifying training records to show that numerous employees of AMSPEC stationed at the Hess facility on St. Croix were properly trained in radiation safety. During 1990 and 1991, Mr. Bauman violated License Condition 17 by providing unauthorized and improper aid to AMSPEC employees taking radiation safety examinations in that Mr. Bauman: (1) allowed the use of reference material during closed-book examinations; (2) permitted examinees to complete examinations in an untimed, unmonitored setting, and (3) directly l provided the examinees with answers to test questions. In June of 1990, Mr. Bauman caused AMSPEC to violate 10 CFR 30.9 by preparing an MRC license amendment letter to the NRC that deliberately contained false information regarding the qualification of three AMSPEC employees. InJulyandAugustof NUREG-0940, PMT I A-36
4 1991, Mr. Bauman caused AMSPEC to violate 10 CFR 30.9 anc 10 CFR 34.11 by deliberately falsifying records of quarterly personnel radiation safety audits. In Noverher of 1991, Mr. Bauman caused AMSPEC to violate 10 CFR 30.9 by conspiring with and directing his secretary to physically write answers on a required radiation safety test by annotating on the test the name of an AMSPEC employee and placing it in that employee's radiation safety records. Mr. Bauman violated 10 CFR 30.10 by deliberately submitting false information regarding the training and ' qualification (.two individuals to the Commission in a December 20, 1991 application for an NRC license renewal. l On December 17, 1992, Mr. Bauman pled guilty to two felony counts. The first count involved conspiracy to violate 42 U.S.C. 2273 (section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act). The second count consisted of deliberately providing falso information to the NRC in violation of 42 U.S.C. 2273 and 42 U.S.C. 220lb (section 161b of the Atomic Energy Act) and 10 CFR 30.9 and 10 CFR 30.10(a)(2) of the Commission's regulations. The NRC must be able to rely on the Licensee and its employees to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement to provide inforsation and maintain records that are complete and accurate in all material respects. As a Vice President and Radiation Protection Officer (RPO) of AMSPEC, Mr. Bauman was responsible for ensuring that the Conuitssion's regulations and License conditions were met and that records which wete required to demonstrate compliance with the Cosmission's regulations and License conditions were true and accurate in all material aspects. Mr. Bauman's deliberate actions in NUREG-0940, PART I A-37
. _ . _ _ . . _ . __ .___._.__.__._______..__.._...m _ . _ . _ -
5 causing the Licensee to_ violate 10 CFR 30.9, 34.11, and 34.31 and License Condition 17, and his deliberate misrepresentations to the NRC, are unacceptable and raise a question as to whether he can be relied on at this time to comply with NRC requirements and to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC. l Consequently, the NRC needs the capability to monitor his performance of licensed activities in order to be able to maintain the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in compliws, with the Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of
- public will be protected if Mr. Bauman is employed in NRC-licensed activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that for a period of three years from the date of this Order, Mr. Bauman shall notify the NRC of his emioyment by any person or entity engaged in NRC-licensed activities to ensure that the NRC can monitor the status of Mr. Bauman's compliance with the Commission's requirements and his understanding of his connitment to I compliance. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of the conduct described above is such that the pubile health, I safety and int 6 test require that this order be effective immediately.
IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81, 161b, 1611, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 30.10, and 10 CFR 150.20, IT IS HERE8Y ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IMEDIATELY, THAT: l l NUREG-0940, PART I A-38
6 For a period of three years from the date of the Order, paul A. Bauman shall: Within 20 days of his acceptance of each employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities or his becoming involved in NRC- + licensed activities, provide notice to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, of the name, address, and telephone number of the employer or the entity where he is, or will be, involved in the NRC-licensed activities. NRC-licensed activities are those activities which are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including, but not limited to, those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20. In the first notification Mr. Bauman shall include a statement of his consnitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis why the Commission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements. The Director Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Bauman of good cause. V in accordanc. with 10 CFR 2.202, Paul A. Bauman must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the date of this Order. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and NUREG-0940, PART I A-39
1 shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Bauman or any other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn: Chief Docketing
- and Service Section, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant Genera 1 Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region !!,
101 Marietta Street, N. W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323, and to . Paul A. Bauman if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Paul A. Bauman, if a person other than Paul A. Bauman requests a hearinf that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). 1 If a hearing is requested by Paul A. Bauman or another person whose interest ! is adversely affected, the Coannission will issue an Order designat'ng i the time and place of any hearing, if a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at I such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(1), Paul A. Bauman, or any other person adversely affected by this Order, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidencebutonmeresusplcion,unfoundedallegations,orerror. 1 1 l NUREG-0940, PART I A-40
. . - - - . . . _ . - . . - _ ~ .- - -. _ _ . . .-_- . - _ - . .- . . -
8 in the absence of any request for hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 dcys from the date of this Order without .i further order or proceedings. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION 4 w ~ ames Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement Dated Lt Rockville, Maryland j thisJe7ay of August 1994 4 d 1 NUREG-0940, PART I A-41
- - - - - - - - _ ~ - - ~_ - - - - -.. . -_- .._ . .
l SYNOPSIS on August 22, 1991, the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear pequlatory Commission (HRC), Region II,-requested an investigation to determine whether officials, managers, and/or employees of The American Inspection Company, Inc. (AMSPEC), the licensee, had intentionally violated regulatory and license condition requirements set forth in 10 CFR parts 20, 30, and 34 and the NRC license of January 15, 1987, respectively. According to reported allegations, licensee management officials had permitted unqualified technicians to perform radiography operations at the Hess 011 Virgin Islands Company (HOVIC) facility, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, which had contracted with AMSPEC for nonde,structive examination services. Additionally, lictnsee officials allegedly (1) discriminated (involuntary termination) against technicians for reporting radiation health and safety concerns, (2) falsified radiation safety training documents, (3) provided falso and misleading information to the NRC, and (4) used source material in a manner not authorized by the license (irradiation of mice). The office of Investigations (OI) reviewed the circumstances of ^ the alleged regulatory and ifconse condition violations during which other improprieties by the licenses were identified. The investigation by OI did not substantiate that licensee management officials had terminated radiography technicians for reporting radiation health and safety concerns. It was concluded, however. that these licensee officials at the HOVIC facility appeared insensitive to employee concerns of all topics, including radiation safety, and they were perceived by technicians as acting with apparent disregard concerning this issue. The investigation further determined that licensee officials deliberately provided false and misleading radiation safety-related information to NRC representatives which was pertinent to the regulatory process. The investigation substantiated that the i licensee, through actions of some radiation protection officers ' (RPos), deliberately falsified radiation safety training records, inserted false records ir technician files to give the impression required training was accomplished, and they also conspired to conceal these training deficiencies and improprieties from the NRC. The investigation surfaced and substantiated the allegation that licensee officials and RPCs deliberately falsified required
. personnel radiation safety audits and accompanying reports and they also created audit reports to make complate the radiation safety files of some technicians.
The investigation also disclosed and confirmed numerous instances of radivgraphers' assistants pergtrriag radi.ography without supervision and the deliberate falsification of source utilization logs to give the appearance that required supervision was present, all with the apparent knowledge and concurrence of licensee management officials. It was also determined during the investigation that licensee training officials (RPCs) frequently case No. 2-91-010R 1 1 NUREG-0940, PART I A-42
failed to provide the operation and Energency Procedures (0&EP) Manual to new employees prior to source utilization. The investigation also determined that some licensee RPos were not trained, examined Prog' ram requiremen,ts a65~KR5PEC officials, including theand certified according radiation safety officer (RS0) and several RPos, were aware of some of these violations and failed to correct them. Further, on at least,one occasion, the RSO and an RPO conspired to concoct a plausible explanation for the NRC as to why RPO examination / certification requirements were violated. The investigation substanticted the allegation that radioactive source material was utilited improperly when an AMSPEC night shift supervisor, in the presence of technicians radiographed a mouse during two to three consecutive source expo,sures at the HOVIC facility. The OI investigation, and a previous NRC inspection at the St.*Croix location, also revealed instances in which AMSPEC technicians failed to observe required surveying and posting activities during radiography operations, actions which demonstrated either an apparent disregard for regulations and/or radiation safety training deficiencies. Finally, the investigation disclosed that the EJBL and other licensee management officials deliberately failed to perform required, radiation safety review, evaAussion, and oversight functions and responsibilities during the past 3 years. I l Case No. 2-91-010R 2 NUDES-0940, PART I A-43
*%q - I\ UNITED STATES i
NUCLEAR WEQULATORY COMMIS810N WADmefoN D C. asseHest Nosenber 15. 1994 IA 94-032 Michael J. Berna (A00RESS DELETED UNDER10CFR2.790]
SUBJECT:
ORDER PROHl81 TING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 030-04325-92001) (NRC INVESTIGATION REPORT NO. 3-92-035R)
Dear Mr. Berna:
The enclosed Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective immediately) (Order) is being issued as a consequence of your actions while employed as the Radiation Safety Officer at the Amoco Refinery, Whiting, Indiana, in 1992. This Order prohibits your involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of three years from the date of this Order. Pursuant to section 223 of the Atomic Energy Ar.t of 1954, as amended, any person who willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of this Order shall be subject to criminal prosecution as set forth in that section. Questions concerning this Order may be addressed to Mr. James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, who can be reached at (301) 504-2741. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice." a copy of this letter and the enclosure with your home address removed will be placed in the NRC's Public Occument Room. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ug L. Thompson, . De ty Executive re for Nuclear Materials Saf y, Safeguards and Operations Support
Enclosures:
- 1. Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC Licensed Activities
- 2. Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties to Amoco NUREG-0940, PART I A-44
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) lA 94 032
)
MICHAEL J. BERNA ) ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT ; IN NRC LICENSED ACTIVITIES l
-(EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY)
Amoco 011 Company (Amoco or Licensee) was the holder of Byproduct Material License No. 13-00155-10 is, sued by the Nucigar Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 34. The license authorized the use of byproduct material (tridium-192 and cobalt-60) for industrial radiography in devices approved by the NRC or an Agreement State. The factitty where licensed materials were authorized for use and storage was. located at 2815 Indianapolis Boulevard,-Whiting, Indiana. The use of Itcensed material was authorized at temporary job sites anywhere in the United States where the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission maintains jurisdiction for regulating the use of licensed material. The License was originally issued on February 4, 1958, and was terminated on October 19, 1993. Mr. Michael J. Berna performed duties as the Licensee's Radiation Safety Officer (RS0) from March 1990 until he was relieved of those duties on October 16, 1992. II On July 27, 1992, the NRC Region III office received information that~ Mr. Berna had not conducted field audits of radiographers and radiographer's assistants as required by license conditions and that Mr.-Berna fabricated reports for the audits that he did not perform by documenting that the audits NUREG-0940, PART I A-45
1 i 4 2 , 1 , had been performed. The NRC conducted an inspection at the Licensee's i Whiting, Indiana, refinery from September 15 to October 9,1992. The NRC OfficeofInvestigations(01)subsequentlyconductedaninvestigation. ine } Licensee conducted an investigation contemporaneously with the NRC inspection I l and investigation. Deliberate violations of NRC requirements were identified as a result of the NRC inspection and the investigation. l , l i Condition 18.A of License No. 13-00155-10 incorporates the statements, 1 representations, and procedures contained in the license application dated j
)
March 28, 1990, item 10.3 of that application required, in part, that ]
- practicing radiographers and radiographer's assistants are to be audited at intervals not to exceed 3 months to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 34 4
and the Licensee's Operating and Emergency Procedures, and that the audits j should be unannounced insofar as possible. Item 10.5 of that application required, in part, that certain records he generated and maintained, including a record of quarterly audits of radiographers and radiographer's assistants, l 4 Mr. Berna admitted to the NRC in a sworn, transcribed interview on October 7, l 1992, that he knowingly failed to perform the required audits and that he deliberately falsified records to show that audits had been performed on at least ten occasions (February 6, 10, 12, and 29, April 11, 22, 24, and 29, May 12, and September 1, 1992). In addition, during the September 15, 1992, inspection the NRC inspector asked Mr.. Berna if the field audits of radiographers and radiographer's assistants were unannounced. Mr. Berna told the NRC inspector that he did not give any advance notification to raotography personnel. However, the testimony of 1 J l I NUREG-0940, PART I A-46 , 1
3 eight radiographers or radiographer's assistants indicated that Mr. Berna always informed them when he would be performing an audit. l l Testimony provided by an Assistant Radiation Safety Officer (ARS0) on November 5, 1992, indicated that at the reauest of Mr. Berna on or about September 15, 1992, the ARSO falsified at least two records of audits of radiographers and radiographer's assistants for May 1992. Alto, testimony provided to O! by another'ARSO on December'17, 1992, indicated that at the request of Mr. Berna during August 1991, this ARSO falsified at least two records of audits of radiographers and radiographer's assistants. These actions are contrary to the audit requirements and the rec.ords generation and maintenance requirements of the License, and a violation of 10 CFR 30.9(a), " Completeness and Accuracy of-Information," and 10 CFR 30.10(a)(1) and (2), " Deliberate Mtsconduct," of the Commission's regulations. The Licensee conducted an internal investigation and based on the results of its investigation the Licensee suspended Mr. Berna's employment for one month without pay. On December 1,1992, a Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Effective immediately) was issued to the Licensee, which confirmed, among other things, that the Licensee would prohibit Mr. Berna from participating in any NRC licensed activities, including the position of RSO, NUREG-0940, PART I A-47
4 Based on the above, it appears that Mr. Berna engaged in deliberate misconduct from August 1991 through approximately September 15, 1992, by failing to conduct field audits of radiographers and radiographer's assistants at the interval specified in the NRC Cyproduct Material License, and by creating false records for audits which he did not conduct, thus making the record appear as though a field audit was perforsIed at the specified interval. Mr. Berna also engaged in deliberate misconduct when he requested *,wo AR50s to falsify field audit records. Mr. Berna engaged in additional misconduct wh2n he told an NRC inspector that field audits of radiographers or radiographer's assistants were unannounced. Mr. Berna's actions caused the Licensee to'be in violation of the Amoco License, as well as 10 CFR 30.9, and constituted violations of 10 CFR 30.10 of the Commission's regulations. As the Licensee's RSO, Mr. Berna supervised the radiation safety program associated with NRC Byproduct Material License No. 13-00155-10 and was responsible for ensuring that the Commission's regulations an'd license conditions werc met. Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. Ber a were permitted at this time to be involved in NRC-licensed activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Mr. Berna be prohibited from any involvement in NRC-Itcensed activities for a period of three years from the date of this Order. Additionally, Mr. Berna is required to notify the NRC of his first employment in NRC-licen53d activities licensed by the NRC following the prohibition period. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR i NUREG-0940, PART I A-48
5 2.202, I fine that the significance of Mr. Berna's conduct described above is such that the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be immediately effective. A longer period was not imposed because of the issuance of the December 1, 1992 Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Effective immediately). IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81, 161b, 1611, 1610, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in ! 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR Part 30, and 10 CFR Part 34, IT IS HERE8Y ORDERED, l EFFECTIVE IMME0lATELY, THAT: l A. Michael J. Berna is prohibited for-three years from the date of this l Order from engaging in NRC-licensed activities. NRC-licensed activities are those activities that are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including, but not limited to, those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20.
- 8. The first time Mr.' Berna is employed in NRC-licensed activities following the three-year prohibition, he shall, within 20 days of his acceptance of =the employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities, notify the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and the Regional Administrator, NRC Region !!I. The notice shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the er.ployer or the entity where he is, or will be, involved
\ NUREG-0940, PART I A-49
6 in the NRC-licensed activities, in the first notification, Mr. Berna shall include a statement of his commitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis why the Commission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements. The Director. Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Berna of good cause. V in accordance with 10 (,FR 2.202, Mr. Berna must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing within 20 days of the date of this Order. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made-in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Berna or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Chief, Docketing and Service Section, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to ti,e Dir?ctor, Office of Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address; to the Regional Administrator, Region !!!, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532-43El; and to Mr. Berna, if'the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Mr. Berna. If a person other than Mr. Berna requests a hrsaring, that person l NUREG-0940, PART I A-50
i 7 shall set forth with particularity the manner in which bis or her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.?!4(d). If a hearing is requested by Mr. Berna or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing, if a hearing it held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Ord're should be sust'ained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(1),~Mr. Berna, or any other person adversely affected by this Order, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IMME0! ATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N I Hu h . Thompson' De y Executiv re or for Nuclear Materials ety, Safeguards and Operations Support Dated at Rockville, Maryland this/ft2 day of November 1994 NUREG-0940, PART I A-51
**pe %q umiso STATas f'*kj NUCLEAR REQULATOR'? COMMISSION
\...}
WASMINo?oN o C. 30006 0001 D 0 0 is$4 Docket No. 030-02551 License No. 29-12417-01 IA 94-023 Jerome E. Bodlan, M.D. [HOME ADORESS DELETED UNDER2.790) Dear Dr. Bodiant
SUBJECT:
CONFIRMATORY ORDER (EFFECTIVE I M EDIATELY) On June 24, 1993, the NRC sent you a Demand for Information (DFI) based on several apparent violations of NRC requirements including (1) administration of doses to patients without first checking the dose in a dose calibrator, and (2) making false statements to the NRC during an NRC inspection at your facility on April 6, 1992, and subsequent telephone conversation on AprtT 7, 1992 with NRC staff. The DFl required, in part, that you provide the reasons why, in light of the apparent violations described therein, the NRC should not issue an Order that precludes you from any involvement in NRC licensed activities in the future. In your sworn resoonse dated July 20, 1993, to the DFI you: (1 stated that on infrequent occasions, a precalibrated doss of radiolodine was) administered without prior use of a dose calibrator; (2) reiterated a previous request that your license be terminated; and (3) pointed out that you have never used the Englewood Hospital's license on a personal basis and any administration of radiopharmaceuticals to your patients at the Englewood Hospital was done under the supervision cf the hospital radiology department. Based on a NRC Office of Investigation report issued on July 26, 1993, the NRC Staff has determined that you deliberately failed to measure doses before administration to patients, and deliberately provided inaccurate information to the NRC during the April 6, 1992 inspection and the April 7, 1992 telephone conversation. A cupy of th2 synopsis of the investigdion is enclosed. 3 Although the NRC issued amendment No. 07 on September 27, 1993, terminating your license, in telephone conversations between Dr. Ronald R. Jellamy of the NRC Region I office and yourself on July 18, 19, and 20, 1994, you agreed to the issuance of an Order that would confirm that you would not participate in activities licensed by the NRC at any facility for a period of five years, and would notify the NRC the first time (if any) you engage in licensed activities after the five year prohibition expires. The enclosed Confirmatory Order (Effective immediately) confirms these coauttaents. Question concerning the Order say be address 4d to Ms. Patricia Santiago. Assistant Director for Materials, Office of Enforcement, at telephone number (301) 504-3055. NUREG-0940, PART I A-52
Jeroes E. Sodian M.D. 2 in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ' Rules of Practice,' a copy of this letter, its enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC's Pubite Document Room. Sincerely, l Hug Qd.
. hoopson, Dep Executive O for N ear Materials y, Safeguards, and Operations Support
Enclosures:
- 1. Confirmatory order (Effective Iseediately)
- 2. 0! Report Synopsis cc w/encls:
Public Document Room (POR) Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC) State of New Jersey Englewood Hospital l l NUREG-0940, PART I A-53
SYNOPSIS On May 22, 1992, the office of Investigations (01), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corsnission (NRC), Field Office Region 1 initiated an investigation to determine if the licensee intentionally violated NRC regulations by providing inaccurate and/or false information to NRC staff during an April 6,1992, inspection, and April 7, 1992, telephone conversation. Specifically, the information concerned the licensee having doses of iodine-131 (1-131) assayed by a technologist at Englewood Hospital (EN) prior to the administration of the I-131 to patients. Based on the evidence 01 concludes that the Itcensee deliberately failed to measure the activity of each radiopharmaceutical dose before medical use. In addition, the licensee deliberately provided inaccurate and/or falso r information to NRC staff du'in 1992, telephone conversation. g the April 6,' 1992, inspection and April 7, 01 also concludes that the licensee deliberately failed to conduct annual survey meter calibrations. There is insufficient evidence to conca,de that the Itcensee deliberately failed to possess a dose calibrator for the measurement of patient doses. . There is also insufficient evidence to conclude that the licensee deliberately failed to possess appropriate radiation detection and radiation measurement survey instrumentation. Case No. 1-92-020R 1 i NUREG-0940, PART I A-54
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N in the Matter of )
) Docket No. C30-02551 ,
JER0!!E E. bODIM H.D. ) License No. 29-12417-01 Englewood, New Jersey ) IA 94-023 CONFIPMTCRY ORDER (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) ! I Jerome E. Bodian (Licensee er Jr. Bodian) was the holder of NRC License No. 29-12417-01 (License) issued oy the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 35 on September 11, 1967 and last renewed in its entirety on August 20, 1990. The License authorized ths Licensee to possess and use iodine-131 as todide for uptake studies, thyroid imaging, and the treatment of hypothyroidism and cardiac disfunction. The License was due to expire on August 30, 1995; however on January 25, 1993, the Licensee requested that the License be terminated. The NRC granted this request for termination, and Amendment No. 07 was issued to the Lic9rsee on September 27, 1993, terminating the License. II On April 6,1992, an NRC inspection was conducted at the Licensee's facility in Englewood, New Jersey. During the inspection, the NRC identified several violations of NRC requirements, including the failure to possess and use a dose calibrator to assay therapeutic doses of iodine-131 prior to administration to patients. Also during the inspection, Dr. Bodian told the inspector that he took doses of iodine-131 to Englewood Hospital for calibration. During a telephone conversation with Region i 1;taff on April 7, 1992, Dr. Bodian stated that. (1) although he did not possess a dose NUREG-0940, PART I A-55
d 2 calibrator, he had a technologist at Englewood Hospital perform the dc;e measurements for almost all patients he had treated; (2) all measurements of i doses were within i 10 percent of the prescribed dose; and (3) the results of j thsse mer.surements were recorded in the patient charts. t Shortly after the inspection, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Action Letter to 1 1 the Licensee on April 9,1992, which confirmed,1.1 part, the Licensee's ( agreement to terminate patient treatments with any radiopharmaceutical j authorized by the NRC until such time as the Licensee established, and
- submitted to the NRC for approval, a program that included all of the required j
equipment and procedures required by 10 CFR Part 35. Such a program was not l established and patient treatment has not resumed. The NRC Office of Investigations initiated an investigation on May 22, 1992. Dr. Bodlan requested, in a letter dated January 25, 1993, that the License be terstnated, in view of Dr. Bodlan's willful failure to adhere to NRC requirements, as well j as the apparently willful failure to provide complete and accurate information j to the NRC, thereby endangering patients to whom the doses were admir,istered, the NRC needed certain information to detersine whether there existed reasonable assurance that Dr. Sedian's activities conducted under other NRC licenses would be perfereed safely and in accordance with requirements. , Accordingly, a Demand for Information (DFI) was issued to Dr. Sodian on June I 24, 1993, that requested him to list all NRC licenses on which he was then I listed as an authorized user, and to explain why the NRC should not issue an 1 j order to preclude his from any involvement in licensed activities in the future. I' 1 1 1 1 1 { NUREG-0940, PART I A-56
3 On July 20, 1993, Dr. Bodian responded to the Demand for Information stating that(1)oninfrequentoccasionsaprecalibrateddoseofradiolodinewas administered without prior use of dose calibratori (2) a request for termination of his license (No. 29-12417-01) was made on January 25, 1993; and-(3) his listing (as an authort:ed user) on the Englewood Hospital license (No. 29-08519-01) was a carry over from years ago, and that any administration of radiopharmaceuticals to hi,s patients at Englewood Hospital was done under the supervision of the hospital radiology department. The NRC 0! report issued July 26, 1993 determined that notwithstanding Dr. Bodlan's statements to the NRC, the doses, with a few exceptions, were not assayed with a dose calibrator prior to administration, even though Dr. Bodian w1s aware that such assays were required. This finding is based on the fact l that although the Licensee's records indicate that 30 todine-131 doses were provided to patients between January 1990 and April 1992, the NRC has found that most doses were not assayed for the Licenses in the Hospital's dose calibrator during that time. This willful failure to adhere to this requirement, as well as the willful false statements to the NRC during the inspection on April 6. 1992 and the April 7, IV92 telephone conversation, constitute violattens of 10 CFR 35.53, 10 CFR 30.9, and 10 CFR 30.10. Based on the above, it appears thkt Dr. Bodian, the Licensee, engaged in deliberate misconduct that constitutes a violation of 10 CFR 30.10(a)(1) and that has caused the Licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 35.53. It further NUREG-0940, PART I A-57 u
- h. 4
- appears that Dr. Bodian deliberately provided to NRC inspectors information that he knew to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the
! NRC, in violation of IC CFR 30.09 and 10 CFR 30.10(a)(2). Dr. Bodian has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with Cosmission requirements. NRC j must be able to rely on its licensees to comply with NRC requirements, ! including the requirement to provide complete and accurate information. 1 Willful violations are of particular concern to the Commission because they 4 undemine the Commission's reasonable assurance that licensed activities will l be conducted in accordance with NRC requirements. Dr. Bodlan's actions have j raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC
- requirements and to provide complete and accurate infomation to the NRC.~
Consequently, protection of the public health, safety and interest require l that Dr. Bodian be prohibited free engaging in NRC-licensed a:tivities for a i period of 5 years and to notify the NRC prior to resumption of any NRC-Itcensed activities at any facility after termination of the five year j prohibition. { In telephone conversations on July 18, 19, and 20, 1994, with Dr. Ronald R. ! Bellamy of the NRC Reglen I office, Dr. Sodian agreed not to be involved in I any NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years, and to notify the NRC l prior to resumption of any licensed activities at any facility after that five year prohibition. I find that the Dr. Bodian's commitments as set forth in that conversation are acceptable and necessary and conclude that with these commitments the protection of the public health and safety is reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined that the public health and safety require that the Dr. Sodian's cosnitments in the telephone NUREG-0940, PART I A-58 ll
5 conversations of Jul', 18, 19, and 20, 1994 be confirmed by this Order. Dr. Bodian has agreed '.o this action. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I have also determined that the significance of the violations described above is such that the public health and safety require that this Order be imediately effective. IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 41, 161b, 1611, 1610, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Parts 30 and 35, IT AS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1
- 1. For a period of five years from the date of this Confineatory Order, Jerome E. Bodlan, M.D., shall not engage in any NRC-licensed activities.
NRC-licensed activities are those activities which are conducted pursuant to a specific or general Itcense issued by the NRC, including, but not limited to, those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20.
- 2. When, for tne first time, Dr. Bodlan is employed in NRC-licensed activities following the five year prohibition, he shall notify the Regional Administrator, NRC Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, within 20 days prior to engaging in NRC-itcensed activities, including activities under an Agreement State license when activities under that license are conducted in areas of NRC NUREG-0940, PART I A-59
6 jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20. The notice shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the NRC or Agreement State licensee and the location where Itcensed activities will be perfonned. The Director, Office of Enforcen.nt, nay, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon a showing by Dr. Lodlan of good cause. V
.At ,;erson adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order (Effectt've immediately), other than Dr. Bodlan, may request a hearing within 20 days of its issuance. Any request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cosnission, ATTN: Chief, 00cketing and Service Section, Washington. 0.C. 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Otrector, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, D.C.
20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, and to Dr. Bw lan. If such a person requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his er her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requestej by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any i NUREG-0940, PART I A-60
7 i { hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order (Effective Isandiately) should be l sustained. i i Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(1), any person adversely affected by this
- Order, other than Dr. Bodian, say, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside j the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, f including the need for immediate effectiveness is not based on adequate' evidence but on more suspicion, unfounded allegations, or errer.
4 I In the absence of any request for hearing, the provisions specified in Section l IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. AN ANSWER OR REQUEST FOR A HEARING SHAli. NOT STAY THE INiEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THis ORDER. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONI!S$10N l' 1 - l Thompson, r, i Do y Executive 01 er for j Nuclear Naterial fety, Safeguards, , and Operations Support Dated 4 Reckville, Maryland l this@-YN day of Septemmer 1994 NUREG-0940, PART I A-61 l
i l p3 sf og I
/ I\ UNITED STATES NUCLEAR RC'lVLATORY COMMISSION L., waown.aton, o.c. asespoos s.,
..... February 23, 1996 IA 96-009 Mr. Eugene Bolton-
[HOME ADDRESS DELETED UNDER2.790)
SUBJECT:
ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES-(EFFECTIVE IM EDIATELY)
Dear Mr. Bolton:
The enclosed Order is being issued as a result of an NRC investigation by the Office of Investigations (0!) which in part, concluded the following: 1) you knowingly maintained and substituted a cold urine sample at the time you were required to submit to a Fitness-For-Duty (FFD) test, lnd that you knew your actions were in violation of procedures when you submitted the surrogate sample; and 2) you admitted to being successful in providing surregate samples. in the past. Subsequent to the O! investigation, on October 6, 1995, a Cemand for Information (DFl? was issued to you based on the O! findings. A copy of the synopsis of the investigation was enclosed. The DFl requested that you: (1) identify Lether you currently are employed by a company subject to NRC regulation, and if so, describe in what capacity; and (2) describe why the NRC should have confidence that you will meet NRC requirements to provide complete ard eccurate information to the NRC and its licensees in the future. As of this date you have not responded. The DFI further stated that if no answer was' filed, the Commission may institute a proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 or take some other actions as may be necessary to insure compliance with regulatory requirements and that if you did not respond as specified, the NRC would proceed on the basis of availeble information. Therefore, the NRC has determined, based or the available information and to insure compliance with regulatory requirements, that the enclosed lunedtately Effective Order prohibiting your involvement in NRC-licensed activities is appropriate. The Order states the following: you are prohibited for five years from March 9,1993, the date your unescorted access was tenninated by New York P7wer Authority (NYPA), from seeking unescorted access to facilities licensed by the NRC. Pursuant to Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as :. mended, any person who willfully violates, or attempts to violate, or empires to violate, any p ovision of this Order shall be subject to criminal prosecution as set forth in that section. NUREG-0940, PART I A-62
Mr. Eugene Bolton ! A copy of this letter and its enclosures are being sent to Mr. Leslie M. Hill, Jr., Site Executive Officer, NYPA, Indian Point 3. The NYPA is not required to provide a response to the Order, but may do 50 if it desires within 30 days under oath or affirmation. Questions concerning this Order should be addressed to Mr. James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, who can be reached at (301) 415-2741. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (POR). Sincerely, a L71L ames L. Milhoan eputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional operations and Research i . Docket No. 50-286 License No. OPR-64
Enclosure:
Isumediately Effective Order f cc w/encis: L. Hill, Site Executive Officer 4. NUREG-0940, PART I A-63
UNiit0 STAft$ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N In the Matter of Mr. Eugene Bolton lA 96-009 ORDER PROHit! TING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE !* EDIAT[LY) I tugene Bolton (Mr. Bolton) was employed as a Senior Nuclear Production TechnicianattheNewYorkPowerAuthority(NYPA)(Licensee). Licensee is the holder of License No. OPR 64 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50. The license authorites the operation of Indian Point 3 (facility) in accordance with the conditions specified therein. The facility is located on the Licensee's site in Buchanan. New York. On March 10, 1993, the NRC, Region I, received information from NYPA that Mr.Soltonhadattemptedtosubstitutea' cold *(surrogate)urinesamo?e during randon Fitness-for-Duty (FFD) testing required by NRC regulations, that a subsequent witnessed sample provided by Mr. Soltor, had tested pcsttive tot marijuana, that Mr. Bolten had been referred to the Employee Assistance Program, and his authorization for access to ths Indian Point 3 facility had been suspended, in response to this information,i4RC initiated an investigation by the Office of Investigations (01) of this matter. The investigation estabitshed thatt NUREG-0940, PART I A-64 _ __ I
-t-
- 1. When called for a FF0 test on March 9, 1993, Mr. Bolton knowingly submitted a surrogate urine sample which he had collected on a previous date and maintained for that purpose.
; 2. Mr. Bolton admitted that he provided surrogate urine samples in the past when selected for FF0 testing in order to avoid detection of the presence of illegal substances.
I 1 On October 6,1995, a Demand for Information, (DF1) was issued to Mr. Bolton , based on the findings of the 0! investigation. The DFI indicated that Mr. Bolton had engaged in deliberate misconduct in violation of 10 CFR i 1 50.5(a)(2), in that he provided to the factitty licenste information which he knew to be inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. Mr. Bolton's 4 actions also constituted a violation of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(1) in that he deliberately provided a urine sample that he knew to be inaccurate and which, but for detection, would have caused the Licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 50.9, ' Completeness and accuracy of information." The DFI requested that Mr. Bolton provide a response, within 30 days from the date of the DFI, that would: (A) Identify whether he currently is employed by any company subject to Nhc regulation, and if so, describe in what capacity; and(B)DescribebytheNRCshouldhaveconfidencethatMr.Boltonwillmeet NRC requirements to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC and its licensees in the future. 1 A W NUREG-0940, PART I A-65
3 The DFl further stated that, if Mr. Bolton did not respond as specified, the NRC would proceed on the basis of available information and could take other actions as necessary to ensure cortpliance with regulatory requirements. Although a response to the DFI was due on November 6, 1995, as of the date of this Order, Mr. Bolton has not responded. Based on the above, it appears that Mr. Bolton, an employee of the Licenses at the time of the incident, engaged in deliberate misconduct in violation of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2), in that he submitted to the Licensee information which he knew to be inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC, and 10 CFR 50.5(a)(1), in that he deliberately provided a urine sample that he knew to be inaccurate and which, but for detection, would have caused the facility licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 50.9. l 1 The NRC must be able to rely on its Licensees and their employees to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement to provide infermation and maintain records that are complete and accurate in all material resper.ts. Mr. Bolton's actions,in using illegal drugs and attempting to circumvent FF0 requirements have raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NAC requireasots and to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC and ito Licensees. Although a DFl was issued on October 6, 1995,
'which provided Mr, Bolton an opportunity to describe why the NRC should have l
NUREG-0940, PART I A-66
- - _ _ - . _ - _ ___- = _ . _ - _ _ _ . .- ._ - _
l 4 confidence that he will meet NRC requirements to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC and its Licensees in the future, Mr. Bolton has not f responded to the DFl. Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that: (1) Mr. Bolton will conduct any NRC-licensed activities in compliance with the Comission's requirements; and (2) that the health and safety of the public will be protected with Mr. Bolton granted unescorted access to NRC- licensed facilities at this time. Therefore, I find that the public health, safety, and interest require that Mr. Solton be prohibited from seeking unescorted access to NRC-Itcensed factitties for five years from the date of his termination of unescorted access by NYPA on March 9, 1993. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of the misconduct described above is such that the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be inmediately effective. IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 161b, 1611, 1610, 182, and 186 of the AtomicEnergyActof1954,asamended,andtheCommission'sregulationsin 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR 50.5, IT !$ HERESY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THAT: Mr. Bolton is prohibited for five years from the date of his termination of unescorted access by NYPA on March 9, 1993, from seeking unescorted access to facilities licensed by the NRC. NUREG-0940, PART I A-67
The Director, OE, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Bolton of good cause. V in accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. Bolton must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order say, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the date of this Order, j Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writ,ing ! I l to the Director, 0
- ice of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, j Washington, D. C. 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the ;
extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents
- to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Bolton or other I j person adversely affected relles and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted I to t$e Secretary, U.S. kclear Regulatory Commission, Attn Chief Docketing l and Service Section Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region I, l 475 Allendtle Pond, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, and to Mr. Bolton if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Mr. Bolton, if a person other than Mr. Bolton requests a hearing, that person shall set forth i
NUREG-0940, PART I A-68
6-with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.114(d). If a hearing is requested by Mr. Bolton or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Connission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(1), Mr. Bolton, or any other person adversely affected by this Order, say, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the inmediate effectiveness of the Order on thu ground that the Order, including the need for inmediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING $4ALL NOT STAY THE imEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF TH15 ORDER. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMIS$10N N. hoa puty Executive Otractor for clear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations, and Research Dated at Rockville Maryland thisd3rd day of February 1996 NUREG-0940, PART I A-69
.. ___ A
o eeg [ k UNITED STATES j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHileof 0N, o.C. asseHan
$g'
**..* IAL ! 4 19N i
IA 94-015 Mr. John W. Scomer l ADDRESS DELETED Dear Mr. Soo w s i l SUSJECT: ORDER PROH181 TING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC LICENSED ACTIVITIES ' (EFFECTIVEIlg4EDIATELY) ) The enclosed Order Prohibiting Involvement In NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective immediately is being issued as a consequence of your deliberate violation of 10 CFR 35).70(e) West Virginia. laagtt.d Center, Chesapeake, and to CFR 30.10 while President of Chesapeake Based en an investigation conducted by the NRC's Office of Investigations (01), the NRC staff has determined that you deliberately violated NRC requirements by falling to conduct weekly surveys for removable contamination. After being advised by your staff of the regulatory requirement and the fact that instrumentation was not avellable to perform the required survey, you failed to provide the required instrumentation and peruttted Itcensed activities to continue. A copy of the synopsis of the 01 investigation was provided to you by letter , and again by letter dated february 28, 1994. An ; dated December enforcement 2, IM3,by telephone was held with you en March conference The 8,1994. summary of this conference was sent to you on March 16, 1994. Such conduct is unacceptable to the NRC. Therefore, after consultation with l the Commission, I have been authorized to issue the enclosed Order Prohibiting Involvement In NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective Ismodtately). Failure to comply with the provisions of this Order may result in civil or criminal sanctions. Questions concerning this Order should be addressed to Mr. James Lieberman, Otrectri, Office of Enforcement, who can be reached at (301) 504-2741.
,. ?
l NUREG-0940, PART I A-70
1 I
- 2 in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ' Rules of Practice.' a copy of this letter with your address deleted and the enclosure will be placed in the i NRC's Public Document Room.
$1ncerely,
[ 1
/
Hu L. Thompson, . De y Executive D re for Nuc ear Materials Safety, Safeguards and Operations Support (nclosure Order Prohibiting involvement In NRC-Licensed Activities (Effectivelamediately) cc w/ enclosure PublIc Document Roos 4 State of West Virstria. Otrector Department of Public Health State of California, Otrector Department of Public Health All States Chesapeake Imaging Center. Inc. 11940 MacCorkle Avenue Chesapeake, West Virginia 25315 i i NUREG-0940, PART I A-71
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMI5510N In the Matter of ) [A g4.ogg 3 John W. Boomer ) A00RE55 DELETED j J ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVENENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVEImEDIATELY) I t John W. Becaer has been a nuclear endicine ' technologist since 1972. On February ll,1993 Mr. Besser, as the president of Chesapeake Imaging Center, Inc. (CIC or Licensee) applied for an NRC license. On March 23, 1993 Naterials License No. 47-15238-01 was issued to CIC by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRCorCommissten)pursuantto10CFRParts30and35. The Itcense authertred the possession and use of radiopharmaceuticals for nuclear medtcine activities in accordance with the conditions specifted therein. The license was terstaated this date. On July 30, 1993, the NRC conducted an initial inspection of CIC at its factitty located in Chesapeake, West Virginia. As a result of the inspection, mult1 pie vielatiens ef NRC requ1raments were idontified. One spec 1f1e v1olation idontified iavelved the fallure to perfors weekly surveys for removable contamination in the nuclear medicine department between Marce 24 and July 30, 1993. As a result of this inspection, a Notice of Violation is being i sved contemperaneously w1th this Order. NVREG-0940, PART I A-72
2 letween August 3 and September 30,1993, an investigation was conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations (01) to detemine if certain violations identified during the July 30, 1993, inspection wre the result of deliberate misconduct. Based on investigative findings, the NRC staff concludes that Nr. loomer deliberately caused CIC to violate the requirement to perfom the wekly contastnation surveys, after being advised by the CIC factitty Manager and CIC technical consultant that such surveys w re required. Mr. Boomer was aware of the NRC requirement to perfom weekly contastnation surveys, yet l deliberately failed to meet the requirement in violation of 10 CFR 35.70(e) and 10 CfR 30.10. A transcribed telephone enforcement conference between the NRC staff and Mr. Boomer was held on March 4, 1994. Mr. Sooner indicated during the enforcement conference that he had significani difficulties in obtaining the funds from investors and did not recognize the severity of the noncompliance but rather focused en the needs of patients traveling elles to obtain the studies. Mr. Boomer also stated during the enforcement conference that he did accept responsibility for not obtaining the equipment in a more timely fashion and for not notifying NRC and indicated that he would exercise better judgment in the future. Free the discussions at the enforcement conference, the staff believes an order to remove Mr. Sooner free involvement in NRC-licensed activitiesiswarrantedbasedon(1)thedeliberatenoncompliancewiththe NRC's weekly survey requirement, (t) the fundamental lack of assurance that he will in the future comply with Commission requirements (3) his position as President (4) his approximate to years experience in NRC-Itcensed activities, NUREG-0940, PART I A-73
l 3 and(5)hisdecisiontocontinueoperationsalthoughheknewhewasnotin I compilance with the weekly survey requirement. Based on the above, Nr. Boomer engaged in deliberate af sconduct which caused theIlconseetobeinviolationof10CFR35.70(e). The NRC sust be able to rely on the Licensee and its employees to comply with NRC requirements. l including the requirement to perfom weekly contamination surveys. Compliance-I with the NRC requirement to perfom weekly contestnation surveys is necessary to protect sombers of the pubite as well as Licensee employees from unnecessary radiation exposun that could Msult from undetected radioactive , contastnation. Perfomance of weekly contestnation surveys is an important l safety requirement intended to pmvent radioactive contestnation of patients, i saployees and other esebers of the public. Mr. Boomer's deliberate actions in l causing the Licensee to violate these requirements have raised serious doubts as to whether he can be relied on to be involved in NRC-Itcensed activities. l Consequently, I lack the requisite ressenable assurance that Ilconsed t activities can be conducted in compilance with the Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the pubite will be protected if Mr. Boomer were pemitted at this time to be involved in NRC licensed activities. l Therefore, the public health, safety and intenst require that Mr. Boomer be prohibited from any involvement in NRC-Itcensed activities for a period of three years from the date of this Order, and if he is currently involved with another Itcensee in NRC-Itcensed activities, he must immediately cease such o NUREG-0940, PART I A-74
4 activities, and infore the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer, and provide a copy of this order to the employer. During this period Mr. Boomer also shall be required to provide a copy of this Order to any prospective employer who engages in NRC. licensed activities prior to the time that Mr. Sooner accepts employment with such prospective employer. The purpose of this notice is so that any prospective employer is aware of Mr. Boomer's prohibition free engaging in NRC Itcensed activities. Additionally, i dr. looser is required to notify the NRC of his first employment in NRC-licensed activities following the prohibition period. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of Mr. tooser's conduct described above la such that the pubite health, safety and interest require that this Order be lamediately effective. l IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81,161b,161c,1611,161o,182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1964, as amended, and the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 30.10, and 10 CFR 150.20, IT !$ HERERY ORDEREO, EFFECTIVE 1mt0!ATEl,Y, THAT:
- 1. Mr. John W. Seemer is prohibited for three years from the date of this Order free any involvement in NRC-Itcensed activities. NRC-Itcensed activities are these activities which are conducted pursuant to a specific or general Itcense issued by the NRC, including, but not limited to, these activities of Agreement state Itcensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.10.
NUREG-0940, PART I A-75 I
5
- 2. For a period of thne years from the date of this Order, Mr. John W.
looser sl.all provide a copy of this Order to any prospective employer whoengagesinNRC.Itcensedactivities(asdefinedin1above)priorto his acceptance of employment with such prospective employer. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that tts employer is aware of Mr. Boomer's prohibition free engaging in NRC-Itcensed activities.
- 3. The first time Mr. Boomer is employed in NRC-licensed activities following the three year prehlbition, he shall nettfy the Regional Administrator, NRC Region !!, 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900, l
Atlanta, Georgia 30323, at least f1ve days prier to the performance of licensed activities or his being employed to perfem NRC-licensed activities (as described in 1 above). The notice shall include the . name, address, and telephone number of the NRC or Agreement State licensee and tha locatten where the Itcensed activities util be performed.
- 4. If Mr. Beemer is currently involved in NRC-licensed activities at an employer er entity, Mr. Boomer shall, in accordance with Paragraph 1 above, lamediately cease such activities and provide notice within 20 days of the date of this Order to the Otrector, Office of Enforcement, U. 5. thoclear Regulatory Countaston, Washington, DC 20555 of the name, address and telephone number of the employer er entity where the licensed activities are being conducted. Further, Mr. Boomer shall provide a copy of this Order to his employer if his employer is engaged in NRC-Itceesed activities.
NUREG-0940, PART I A-76
J
)
i 4 6 l The Director Office of Enforcement, say, in writing, relax or rescind any of j the above conditions upon a showing by Mr. Boomer of good cause. I i V i
! In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. Boomer must, and any other person J
l adversely affected by this Order say, submit- an answer to this Order, and say j request a hearing on this Order, within to days of the date of tht Order. l The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this i ) onier, the anser shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation. 4
- sp6cifically admit or denv each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Boomer er any other i
- person adverse 1;/ affected rolles and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any ansmr er request for a hearing shall be submitted f( to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cemeission Atta Chief, Docketing 4 and Service Section, Washington, DC 20585. Copies also shall be sent to the I Director, Office of Enforcement, U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
) Washington, DC 10585 to the Asstatant General Counsel for Hearings and i Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region !!,
; 101 Marietta Street, N. W., Suite 1900, Atlanta, Georgia 30323, and to
- Mr. Boomer if the answer er hearing request is by a person 6ther than Mr. Boomer. If a persen ether than Mr. Boomer requests a hearing, that person l shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in
! 10CFRt.714(d). l l
) ;
4 NUREG-0940, PART I A-77
1 If a hearing is requested by Mr. Boomer or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be con 1dered at such hearing shall be whether this order should be sustained. Pursuantto10CFP.2.202(c)(t)(1),Mr. Boomer,oranyotherpersonadversely affected by this onder, nay, in additten to. demanding a hearing, at the time the answer to filed or scener, move the presiding officer to set aside the I immediate effectiveness of the Order en the ground that the Order, including l the need for famediate effectiveness, is ret based en adequate evidence but on more suspielen, unfounded allegations, or errer. In the absence of any request for hearing, the previsions specified in section IV above shall be final 20 days free the date of this Order without further Order or processing. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IlgqEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS 07 THl$ ONDER. l FOR THE NUCLEAR RESULATMY CamilS$10N 1 L. Thomps , Jr. ty Executive 01 o for Nuc ear Materials Saf , Safeguards and Operations Support Dated ille Maryland this tyofJulyIgN NUREG-0940, PART I A-78
jp* *%9 f \. UNITED STATES p, 1 NUCLEAR REOULATORY COMMISelON
. wa6motow, o.c. seamen
***** January 13. 1997 IA M-101 Mr. Joseph R. Bynum HOME ADDRESS DELETED
- [UNDER10CFR2.290) '
SUSJECT: ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVENENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVELY !!#1E0lATELY)
Dear Mr. Bynus:
The enclosed Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities is being issued because of your deliberate misconduct, in violation of 10 CFR 50.5 of the Comission's regulations. Specifically, in April of 1993, while performing duties and responsibilities as the Vice President of Nuclear Operations for the Tennessee Valley Authority, you discriminated against Mr. William F. Jocher for engaging in protected activities, contrary to the requirements of Section til of the Energy ReJrgantration Act, as amended, and 10 CfR 50.7, Employee Protection. Based on your deliberate actions, the attached Order prohib",s your involv e nt in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years. However, because of your transfer from TVA huclear in April 1993 the Order is retroactive to May 1, 1993, and will be effective untilApril 30, 1998. , Pursuant to Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2273 any person who willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of this Order shall be subject to criminal prosecution as set forth in that section. Violation of this order may also subject the person to civil monetary penalty. Questions concerning this ceder should be addressed to James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, who can be reached at (301) 415-2741. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ' Rules of Practice,' a copy of this lotter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Doi:ument Room (PDR). Sincerely,
. dr'84 W Deputy E cutiva Director for Regula y Effectiveness Program Oversight.
Invisgitations, and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC Licensed Activities (Effectively Imediately) 4 cs w/ enc 1: (Naxt Page) 4 NUREG-0940, PART I A-79
i Mr. Joseph R. Bynum 2-ccw/ enc 1(H0 MEA 004t$$Otttit0): Tennessee Valley Authority ATTN: Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr. i President. TVA Nuclear and 1 Chief Nuclear Officer i 6A Lookout Place i 1101 Market Street Chattanooga,TN 37402 2401 i Nr. W11114e F. Jocher i 133 Gheidston Ortve
- Dayton, TN 37321 .
1 i 1 i l 1 l l l l NUREG-0940. PART I A-80
UNIf[0 $1AT[$ NUCLEAR R[GULATORf (Oml5$10N in the Matter of IA 96 101 J0$[PH R. BYNUM ORDER PROHillTING INVOLVtM[NT IN NRC-LICEN5ID ACTIVlilIS ([FFECilVEIm[01AT[LY) 1 Since April 1993 Joseph R. Bynum has held the position of Vice President, rossil Operations in the Fossil and Hydro Power organization of the Tennessee ValleyAuthority(TVAorLicensee). At the time of the events described in this Order, Mr. Bynum was employed as Vice President, Nuclear Operations, in the Licensee's corporate organization and was responsible for the oversight of TVA's nuclear program at its four nuclear reactor sites. During this time, the Licensee held five operating Ilconses and four construction permits issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC or Comission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50. License Nos. DPR-77 and OPR-79 authorized the Licensee's operation of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant in Soddy-Daisy. Tennessee; Licenso Nos. OPW-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68 authorized operation of the Browns Ferry NuclearPlantinAthens,Alahnma;ConstructionPermitNos.CPPR-91(now Operating License NPF-90) and CPPR 92 authorized the construction of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Sp*ing City. Tennessee; and Construction Permit Nos. CPPR It! and CPPR-123 authorized the construction of the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant in Scottsboro, Alabama. NUREG-0940, PART 1 A-81 . - - . _ _..m___ - - - . - -
.t.
Il Fel10 wing receipt of information regarding alleged discrimination against Mr. William F. Jocher, former Manager, Chemistry and Environmental Protection in IVA't corporate organization, the NRC Office of Investigations (01) initiated #9 investigation Case No. 2-93 015 on April 15, 1993. 01 completed its investigation on August 31, 1995, and concluded thatt (1) Mr. Jocher 'was engaged in protected activities during his employment at TVA, and retelved an adverse employment action in the form of a threat of termination by IVA if he did not resign'i (2) *the reason proffered by TVA for this adverse action, namely that J:cher's performance in the area of management skills was inadequate, was primarily pretextual'8 and (3) 'despite denials by the TVA managers involved, the methodology of Jocher's engy ement in protected activity was the primary reason for the adverse action' against him. In addition, on June 29, 1993 Mr. Jocher, filed a complaint with the U. 5. Department of Labor (00L). In his 00L complaint, Mr. Jocher alleged that he was forced to resign from employment with TVA as a result of carrying out activities protected by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. He further stated that his forced resignation was based on his activities in revealing deficiencies in the plant chemistry programs at the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, revealing TVA's non-compliance with NRC approved guidelines, and revealing inconsistencies between actual facts and TVA management's reports to the NRC and other TVA oversight groups. NUREG-0940 PART I A-82
. - . _ - - - . - - . ~ . . - . - . . - - - - - - - .
3 00L efforts to conciliate the matter between Mr. Jocher and TVA were unsuccessful, and on April 29,1994, the DOL District Otrector (D0) issued the initial finding of the 00L compliance action in the case.- The DOL 00 concluded that Mr. Jocher was a protected employee engaged in protected activit/ within the scope of the Energy Reorganization Act, and that discrimination, as defined and prohibited by the statute, was a factor in 16e actions which comprised his complaint. Following an appeal by TVA, administrative hearings were conducted before the 00L Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). On July 31, 1996, the DOL ALJ issued a 1 Recommended Decision and Order (R00) in the case (DOL Case No. 94-ERA-24) finding that TVA discriminated against Mr. h cher in violation of Section til of the Energy Reorganization Act. On November 20, 1996, the ALJ issued a Recommended Order of Dismissal, based on a conciliation agreement between Mr.
-Jecher and TVA, and on November 22, 1996, the DOL Administrative Review Board issued a Final Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint. 3 Both the ALJ and 01 stated that Mr. Joseph R. Bynum, the former Vice President of Nuclear Operations of TVA, ordered the forced resignation of Mr. Jocher.
By letter dated August 26, 1996 Mr. Bynum was informed of the 00L findings
*nd the 0! investigation results and requested to attend a predecisional enforcement conference. On September 23, 1996, a closed, transcribed conference was conducted with Mr. Bynum, legal counsel, and management representatives of TVA. -During the conference and in a written statement provided to NRC Region !! prior to the conference, Mr. Bynum vigorously denied any violation of 10 CFR 50.5, Dolit,erate Misconduct, and stated that he did 1
i NUREG-0940, PART I A-83
. 4 not discriminate against Mr. Jocher for engaging in protected activities. He attrib'ated his decision to ask for Mr. Jocher's resignation to Mr. Jocher's poor management skills, and stated that he (Mr. Bynum) used poor , judgement in not coo.dinating the personnel action with the appropriate TVA offices (i.e.,
Human Resources, Office of General Counsel). Mr. flynum provided a detailed de:cription of the events and circumstances surrounding Mr. Jocher's departure and addressed specific conclusions drawn by the DOL ALJ. Based on tt e NRC staff's review of the evidence gathered by 01, the ALJ decision, .nd the views p esented by Mr. Bynum at the predecisional enforcement conference, the NRC staff is satisfied that discrimination against Mr. Jocher by Mr. Bynum, who is currently the TVA Vice President for Fossil Operations, as described in thi ALJ RDO and the 01 Report, had occurred w'an Mr. Bynum ordered the forced resignation of Mr. Jocher. In reachthg this determination the staff considered among other things: (1) the close timing between some of the protected activities in March 1993. i.e., formal notification by the NRC that it would be investigating the safety issues raired by Mr. .locher, and the adverse action taken against Mr. Jocher on April 5, 1993; (2) sta ements made by TVA managers that Mr. Bynum ordered the forced resignation of M'. Jocher; (3) inconsistent statements made by Mr. Bynum and the two managers, who carried out the forced resignation of Mr. Jocher with respect to why and how the employment decision was made, and whether Mr. Jocher was placed in a six month imprcvement prog'am in % PCh, 1993i 4 (4) inconsistencies in the various statements given by Mr. bynum regarding his knowledge of Mr. Jocher's protected activities, most notably the post-polygraph interview where he stated that he was aware that Mr. Jocher had NUREG-0940, PART I A-84
.n. - , ..--. ,..- .n.,
subeltted several safety complaints and Significant Corrective Action Reports, in 11ght of TVA's processes for handling safety issues of which Mr. Bynum should have been fully cognizant: (5) the results of Mr. Bynus's voluntary polygraph examination which indicated deception with respect to key questions related to the termination of Mr. Jocher: and(6)thelackofadequate documentation by TVA as to Mr. Joclier's-inadequacies as a TVA manager. The staff adopts, in essence, the conclusions reached by 01 and the DOL ALJ j i and believes that Mr. Jocher would not have been forced to resign on April 5, ; 1993 but for his engaging in protected activities. Therefore, it is concluded that, on April 5,1993, Mr. Bynus's deliberate actions against Mr. Jocher were in violation of Section til of the [nergy Reorganization Act and 10 CFR 50.6, Deliberate Misconduct. Further, Mr. Bynum's actions caused TVA to be in violation of 10 CFR 50.7. Employee Protection. 1 111 Based on the above, the staff concludes that Mr. Joseph R. Bynum, an employee of the Licensee, has engaged in deliberate misconduct in violation of 10 CFR 50.5 that has caused the Licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 50.7. NRC must be able to rely on the Licensee and its employees to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement that prohibits discrimination against employees for engaging in protected activities. Joseph R. Bynum's actions in causing the Licensae to violate 10 CFR 50.7 have raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements in the future. NUREG-0940, PART I A-85
6-Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that Itcensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Joseph R. Synus were permitted at this time to be involved in NRC-licensed activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Joseph R. Bynum be prohibited from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years retroactive to May 1,1993, the date in which he was transferred out of the 1.icensee's nuclear organization. If Mr. Bynum is currently involved in or overseeing NRC-licensed cctivities at TVA or any other licensee t.f the NRC, he must immediately cease such activities, and inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer, and provide a copy of this order to the 6mployer. Additionally, Joseph R. Bynum is required to notify the NRC of his first involvement in NRC-licensed activities following the prohibition period. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of Mr. Bynum's conduct described above is such that the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be immediately effective. IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 161b, 1611, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 19C4, as amended, 6nd the Corsission's regulations in 10 CtR 2.202, 10 CFR 50.5, and 10 CFR 150.20, IT 15 HEREBY ORDERED THAT: A. For a period of five years from May 1, 1993, Joseph R. Bynum is prohibited from engaging in, or exercising control over individuals NUREG-0940, PART I A-86
.y.
engage) in NRC-Itcensed activities. NRC-Itcensed activities are those activities which are conducted pursuant to a specific or general Itcense issued by the NRC, including, but not limited to, those activities of . Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20. This prohibition includes, but is not limited tot (1) using licensed materials or conducting licensed activities in any capacity within the jurisdiction of the NRC and (2) supervising or directing any licensed activities conducted within the jurisdiction of the NRC. B. Following the five year period of prohibition in Section IV.A above, at least five days prior to the first time that Joseph R. Bynum engages in, or exercises control over, NRC-licensed activities, he shall notify the Director Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Washington. 0.C. 20555, of the name, address, and telephone number of the NRC or Agreement State licensee and the location where the licensed activities will be performed. The notice shall be accompanied by a statement that Joseph R. Rynum is committed to compliance with NRC requirements and the reasons why the Commission should have confidence that he will corply with applicable NRC requirements. The Director Office of Enforcement, say, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Synum of good cause. NUREG-0940, PART I A-87
.g.
V In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Joseph R. Bynum must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration wt11 be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must he i.ade in writing to the Director. Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Rer,J1 story Commission Washington 0.C. 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer any consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of 4 act and law on which Joseph R. Bynum or other persoi adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hesring shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.L Nuclear Regulatory Commissio1, Attn: Chief. Docketing and Service Section, Washington, DC 00555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearing.t and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region !!, 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900. Atlanta, GA 30323, and to Joseph R. Bynum if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Joseph R. Bynum. If a person other than Joseph R. Bynum requests a hearing, that person shall set for'.h with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is aoversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). l NUREG-0940, PART I A-88
.g.
If a hearing is requested by Joseph R. Bynum or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuantto10CFR2.202(c)(2)(1),Mr.Josephk.Bynum,oranyotherperson adversely affected by this Order, say, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiventss, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or wr'tten approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the ?rovisions specified in Sectior. IV above shall be effective and final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extens',on of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified d lection IV shall he final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. AN ANJER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE 1mE01 ATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0mlSS10N
/
f6 war . Jo a Deputy ecutive Director for Regulat y Effectiveness, Program Oversight, Invesgitations, and Enforcement Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 13thday of January 1997 NUREG-0940, PART I A-89
**;,ge* *8e. ,,** i UNITED STATES 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, g wAsmotoN. o e assusei
%* .. * /
May a. 19M IA 93-001 i Mr. Richard J. Gardocki (Address) Dear Sirl SUSJECT ORDER PRONIBITING INVOLVENENT IN CERTAIN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IW5DIATELY) The enclosed order is being issued because of your violations of 10 CPR 40.10 of the Cosmission's regulations as described in the Order.
- Failure to comply with the provisions of this order may result in civil or criminal sanctions.
Questions concerning this order should be addressed to Mr. James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, who can be reached at (301) 504-2741. In accordance with 10 CPR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules cf Practice *, a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the I NRC's Public Document Room. sincerely, Mu fL. Tho so V ty Exe ti e rector Nuclea fals Safety, safeguards and operations support Enclosure As statend ces Allied-signal, Inc. All Agreement States ; SECY
\
i 1 l l l NUREG-0940 PART I A-90 l m.--. i,,. _ _ - . . ~ , ., m --
. UNITED STATES l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j In the Matter of )
) IA 93-001 i Richard J. Gardocki )
! )
4 ] ORDER PROHISITING INVOLVEMENT IN CERTAIN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES i (ETFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) I Richard J. Gardecki wa's recently emp'loyed by Allied-Signal, Inc., Metropolis, Illinois. Allied-signal, Inc. (Licensee) holds License No. SUB-526 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 40. The license authorizes possessien and-conversion of uranium in accordance i with the conditions specified therein. Mr. Gardecki was employed by the Licenses from about June 1991 through December 1992 in the position of Assistant Health Physicist, with responsibilities involving compliance with NRC requirements for radiation protection. Under the Licensee's organisation and qualifications
- requirements, as specified in ticanse Condition No. 9, an i I Assistant Health Physicist is required to hold a bachelor's degree. Failure to have a bachelor's degree holder in that i
position constitutes a violation of License Condition No. 9. . II On October 5-7, 1992, an inspection was conducted at the Licensee's facility at Metropolis, Illinois, as a result of concerns raised within the NRC staff as to the education and 1 experience of Richard J. Gardocki. As a result of information 1 NUREG-0940, PART I A-91 l
pg developed in that inspection, an investigation was condy ted la !I*k November and December 1992 by the office of Investigatiot.s (oI) . The inspection and investigation revealed that Mr. Gardocki intermittently took courses at the University of Delaware between 1962 and 1967 and in 1978, but did not accumulate sufficient credits to earn a bachelor's degree. While employed at the University of Delaware,between 1977 and 1981, Mr. Gardocki prepared a transcript that falsely reflected sufficient hours of credit at that University to entitle him to a Bachelor of Science degree. Mr. Gardecki s.ibsequently used the falso transcript to obtain ) employment at tne University of Nebraska in about 1983, at Westinghouse Radiological Services Division in about 1985, at Environmental Tescing Inc., in 1988, and at the Licensee in about June 1991. In eat.h of these positions, Mr. Gardecki was involved in activitias licensed by the NRC or an Agreement State, pursuant to an agreeneri i>u the NRC under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of xt24, an Amended. In addition, Mr. Gardocki obtained employment as a Radiation Specialist at the NRC in 1987 by submitting a Standard Form 171 (SF171), Applicat2sn for Federal Employment, which contained the same f also inforLation regarding a bachelor's degree at the University of Delaware. He was allowed to resign his NRC employment following identification of the falsehood. Also, 1 NUREG-0940, PART I A-92
3 during the oI investigation, he admitted that he nod proviC9d j falso information to the KRC regarding prior esployment by
- General Dynamics in Denver, Colorado.
Further, in a transcribed sworn statement on December 1, 1992, Mr. Gardocki deliberately provided falso information to 0I
- investigators when he stated that he graduated from the University of Delaware in 1961. When asked about the University records indicating that he had not received a degree, Mr.
j Gardocki fabricated a story about the University having mixed his record with that of his brother. He also deliberately provided { falso information as to the accuracy of a University of Delaware transcript that he had submitted to the Licensee. In a ! transcribed, sworn statement to OI investigators on December 14, { 1.992, Mr. Gardocki admitted that he had provided false information in his sworn statements previously given to oI investigators on December 1, 1992 concerning his academic record
- and applications for employment.
i 4 , III i 4 Based on the above, Mr. Gardocki engaged in deliberate i
- misconduct, which through his employment (from about June 1991
{ through December 1992) in a position with educational 1 requirements that Mr. Gardecki did not meet, caused the Licenses to be in violation of the organisation and qualifications i i NUREG-0940, PART I A-93
l l 4 requirements of License Condition No. 9. This is a violation of 10 CTR 40.10. itr. Gardocki also deliberately provided to NRC investigators information that he knew to be inaccurate and vus in some respects material to the NRC which also constitutes a violation of 10 CTR 40.10. As an Assistar.t Health Physicist for the Licensee, Mr. Gardecki was responsible for performance of i required surveys and keeping of required records, all of which provide evidence of compliance with Commission requirements. The NRC aust be able to rely on the Licensee and its employees to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement to provide information and maintain records that are complete and accurate in all material respects. Mr. Gardocki's deliberate actions in causing this Licensee to be in violation of License Condition No. 9, a violation of 10 CFR 40.10, and his violation of 10 CFR 40.10 caused by his deliberste aisrepresentations to the NRC have raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements and to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC or to an employer.- Mr. Gardocki's misconduct (repeated on several occasions over several years with several employers) caused this Licensee to violate a Commission requirement; and his falso statements to Commission officials demonstrate conduct that cannot and will not be tolerated. Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that
- licensed activities in NRC jurisdiction can be conducted in l
l NUREG-0940, PART I A-94
I i 5 t compliance with the commission's requirements and that the health i and safety of the public will be protected, if Mr. Gardecki were permitted at this time to be named as a Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) on an KRC license or permitted to supervise licensed i activities (i.e., being responsible in any respect for any individual's performance of any licensed activities) for an NRC ) licensee or an Agreement State licensee while conducting licensed activities in NRC jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20. f \ Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that ! Mr. Gardocki be prohibited from being named on an NRC license as l an RSO or from supervising licensed activities (i.e., being responsible in any respect for any individual's perforsance of any licensed activities) for an NRC licensee or an Agreement State licensee while conducting licensed activities in NRC jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20 for a period of five years e
- from the date of this order. In addition, for the same period, j Mr. Gardecki is required to give notice of the existence of this j order to a prospective employer engaged in licensed activities, i described below (Section IV, paragraph 2), to assure that such employer is aware of Mr. Gardecki's previous history. Mr.
Cardecki is also required to notify the NRC of his employment by 1 l any person engaged in licensed activities, described below (section IV, paragraph 2), so that appropriate inspections can be j performed. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CrR 2.202, I find that the significance of the conduct described above is such that the 4 i 4 NUREG-0940, PART I A-95
6 l public health, safety and interest require that this order be immediately effective. l. t IV l l Accordingly, pursuant to sections 61, 81, 103, 161b, 1611, 182 l and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the
- Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 40.10, and 10 l.
CFR 150.20, IT IS HERESY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THAT i < 1. Richard J. Gardecki is prohibited for five years from the date of this order from being named on an l NRC license as a Radiation Safety officer or from supervising licensed activities (i.e., being I responsible in any respect for any individual's performance of any licensed activities) for an NRC licensee or an agreement state licensee while , conducting licensed activities in NRC jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20. 4
- 2. Should Richard J. Gardecki seek employment with any person engaged in licensas activities during the five year period from the date of this ordce, Mr. Gardocki i
shall provide a copy of this order to such person at l the time Mr. Gardecki is soliciting or negotiating } saployment so that the person is aware of the order 4 , prior to making an employment decision. For the i 1 1 e 4 4 NUREG-0940, PART I A-96
k i
- 7 purposes of this paragraph licensed activities include licensed activities.of 1) an NRC license?, 2) an Agreement State licensee conducting licensed activities in NRC jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20, and 3) l
, an Agreement State licensee involved in distribution of I products that are subject to NRC jurisdiction. l 3. For a five y. ear period fro.a the date of this order, Richard J. Gardocki shall provide notice to the i Director, office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555,.of the q name, address, and telephone number of the employer, within 72 hours of his acceptance of an employment offer, involving licensed activities described in paragraph 2, above. The Director, office of Enforcement, say, in writing, relax or fascind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. ardecki of good cause. V In accordance with 10 CFR 2.201, Richard J. Gardecki aust, and any other person adversely affected by this order may, submit an answer to this order, and may rsquest a hearing on this order, within 20 days of the date of this order. The answer may consent to this order. Unless the answer consents to this order, the NUREG-0940, PART I A-97 )
?
l
l I 8 answer shal1, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Richard J. Gardocki or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn Chief, Docketing and service Section, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,' W&shington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcament at the-same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region III, 799 Roosevelt Rd., Glen Illyn, IL 60137, and to Richard J. Gardecki, if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Richard J. Gardocki. If a person other than Richard J. Cardecki requests a hearing, that person shall wet forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by this order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by Richard J. Gardecki or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall ' be whether this Order should be sustained. NUREG-0940, PART I A-98
9 Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(1), Richard J. Gardecki, or any I other person adversely affected by this order, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the order on the ground that the order, ! including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on j adequate evidence but on more suspicion, unfounded allegations, l or error. i In the absence of any request for hearing, the provisions i specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this order without further order or proceedings. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR NEARING SHAIL NOT STAY THE IMMEDIATE I EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Thomp , ty Execu e actor f Nuclear aterials Safety, Safeguards and operations Support l Dated at Rockville, Maryland this TA. day of May 1993 4 ) NUREG-0940, PART I A-99
l
**e 4* UNITED STATES
's NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
% wasMewatow, p.c. aseawoot
*..* April 19, 1996 IA 96-020 Mr. Juan Gu man HOME ADORE.is DELETED UleER 2.790
SUBJECT:
ORDER PROHIBITING UNESCORTED ACCESS OR INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMEDIATELY)
Dear Mr. Guzman:
The enclosed Order is being issued to you as a result of an NRC investigation by the Office of Investigations (01) which, in part, concluded that you intentionally made false statements in your application for a security clearance at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, and deliberately submitted false information to Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (BG&E). As noted in the Demand for Information that the NRC issued to you on January 2, 1996 BG&E revoked your unescorted access authorization for the Calvert Cliffs facility, and you were denied unescorted access to the protected area in October 1994 after BG&E became aware, through an investigation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and State Department, that you were an illegal alien who had received a passport under another name. Your unescorted access to the plant initially had been granted by BG&E on February 23, 1993, based, in part, on your submittal of a " green card" and social security card during the initial interview process, both of which were represented as authentic when, in fact, they were not. In addition, when questioned by the licensee regarding an arrest record revealed during FBI fingerprint checks, you repeatedly denied that the arrest record belonged to i you. Your falsification of NRC-required background information, as well as your subsequent denials to the licensee, constitute a signi'icant regulatory concern. The NRC regulations in 10 CFR 73.56 and 73.57 were established, in part, to provide high assurance that individuals granted unescorted access to nuclear power plants are trustworthy and reliable. Your actions in this matter did not demonstrate trustworthiness and constitute a violation of the requirements of'10 CFR 50.5, " Deliberate Misconduct," because you deliberately submitted to BG&E information you knew to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. Following your termination from employment at the Calvert Cliffs plant, the NRC sent you a Demand for Information (DFI) on January 2, 1996 which requested that you provide the NRC a response which: (1) identifies whether you currently are employed by any company subject to NRC regulation, and if so, in what capacity; (2) describes why the NRC should permit you to be involved in licensed activities in the future or have NUREG-0940, PART I A-100
Mr. Juan Guzman 1 confidence that you will comply with NRC requirements if currently employed in an NRC-regulated activity, including requirements to provide complete and accurate information; and your actions in providing false (3) explains whytothe information theNRC should licensee werenot done conclude that deliberately. l In your February 7, 1996 response to the DFI, you indicated that you were not currently employed by any company subject to NRC regulation; at no time were you cited for a procedure or safety violation while employed at Calvert Cliffs; and that the sole reason you did not disclose that you were an illegal alien was your fear of deportation. You also admitted that you did deliberately, but without malice or intent, deceive the licensee about your work background and experience, but did so solely out of fear of deportation; pointed out an inaccuracy in the DFI in that while you did apply for a passport under another name, you never pursued the document; requested that, if the NRC decided to prohibit you from working for an NRC licensee, i consideration be given to the 15 months that had elapsed since your termination; and noted that the Immigration and Naturalization Service granted you legal resident status in the United States in January 1996. Notwithstanding your response, the NRC has determined that to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, the enclosed immediately Effective Order is appropriate, to prohibit you for a period of five years from seeking unescorted access to any NRC-licensed facility and prohibit your involvement in NRC-licensed activities, for the reasons set forth in the enclosure. Pursuant to Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, any person who willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate,
! any provision of this Order shall be subject to criminal prosecution as set forth in that section. ,
Please note that you are required to respond to this Order, and should follow the instructions specified in Section V of the Order when preparing your response. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Order may result in civil or criminal sanctions. Questions concerning this Order should be addressed to Mr. James 1.ieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, who may be reached at (301) 415-2741. A copy of this letter and Order are belag sent to Mr. Charles H. Cruse, Vice-President-Nuclear Energy, Calvert Cliffs. BG&E is not required to provide a response to the Order, but may do so, if it desires, within 30 days under oath or affirmation. t 5 NUREG-0940, PART I A-101
Mr. Juan Guzman In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (POR). Sinceraly, n L.7/{L ames . Milhoan puty Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research Docket Nos. 50-317; 50-318 License Nos. OPR-53; OPR-69
Enclosure:
Ordsr Prohibiting Unescorted Access or Involvement in NRC-licensed activities (Effective imediately) cc w/encli Charles H. Cruse Vice President - Nuclear Energy Baltimore Gas & Electric Company NUREG-0940, PART I A-102
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION In the Matter of )
) lA 96-020 MR. JUAN GUZMAN )
ORDER PR0HIBITING UNESCORTED ACCESS OR INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) .a Mr. Juan Guzman was employed as a contractor by the Baltimore Ga' 'a Electric Company (BG&E) at the Calvert Cliffs facility (Licensee), which holds a license issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50. The license authorizes the operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2 (facilities) in accordance with the conditions specified therein. The facility is located on the Licensee's site in Lusby, Maryland. In a Licensee Event Report issued by BG4E on November 16, 1994, the NRC received information from BG4E indicating that BG&E had revoked Mr. Guzman's unescorted access authorization and removed him from the protected area in October 1994 after it became aware through an investigation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and State Department, that Mr. Guzman was an illegal alien. Mr. Guzun's unescorted access to s.te site initially had been granted by BG4E , on February 23, 1993 based, in part, on his submittal of a " green card" and social security card during the initial interviet process, both of which were represented as authentic when, in fact, they were not. In addition, when NUREG-0940, PART I A-103
questioned on prior occasions by the Licensee regarding an arrest record chtMned as a result of fingerprints submitted to the FBI, Mr. Guzman repeatedly denied that the arrest record belonged to him, even though it did. Mr. Guzman's falsification of background information, combined with his subsequent denials to the Licensee, constitute a significant regulatory concern. The NRC regulations in 10 CFR 73.56 and 73.57 were established, in part, to provide high assurance that individuals granted unescorted access are , trustworthy and reliable. Mr. Guzman's actions in this matter did not demonstrate that trustworthiness, and constitute a violation of the requirements of 10 CFR 50.5, ' Deliberate Misconduct," because Mr. Guzman deliberately submitted to the Licensee information that he knew was incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. 111 Although Mr. Guzman was terminated from employment at Calvert Cliffs in October 1994, his actions in this matter raise serious concerns as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requiremenss. Therefore, pursuant to sections 161c, 1610, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 C'FR 2.204, in order for the Commission to determine whether further enforcement action should be taken against Mr. Guzman to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements, the NRC sent him a Demand for Information (DFI) on January 2, 1996. The DFI required Mr. Guzman to provide the NRC a response that: (1) identifies whether he is NUREG-0940, PART I A-104
3 currently employed by any company subject to NRC regulation and, if so. 1 describes in what e.apacity; (2) describes why the NRC should permit him to be involved in licensed activities in the future or have confidence that he will comply with NRC requirements if currently employed in an NRC-regulated i activity, including requirements to provide complete ar.d accurate information; and (3) explains why the NRC should not conclude that his actions in providing false information to the Licensee were done deliberately. In a letter dated February 7, 1996. Mr. Guzman respondtd to the DFl. In that
- response, Mr. Guzman stated that
- (1) he was not currently employed by any l company subject to NRC regulation; (2) at no time was he cited for a procedure or safety violation while employed at Csivert Cliffs; and (3) the sole reason he did not disclosn that he was an illegal alien was his fear of deportation, He also admitted that he did deliberately, but without malice or intent, deceive the Licensee about his work background and experience, but did so solely out of fear of deportation; pointed out an inaccuracy in the DFI in that while he did apply for a passport under another name, he never pursued 4
the document; requested that, if the NRC decided to prohiolt him from working for an NRC licensee, consideration be given to the 15 months that had elapsed since his termination; and noted that the lumigration and Naturalization ! Service grante,i him legal resident status in the United States in January 1996. k 4 4 f NUREG-0940, PART I A-105
_ _ . ___ _. - _._ _ . _ ._ _ _ _ . . . _ . . _ . _ . ~ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . 1 1 4 - IV 4 t-4 i Notwitnstanding his motives in providing false information to the Licensee, it is clear,- as Mr. Gesan admitted in his response, that he provided false information to the Licensee, and did so deliberately. In doing so, Mr. Guzman L j engaged in deliberate misconduct in violation of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2) _in that he ' deliberately submitted to the Licensee information that he knew to be " inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. Such behavior cannot be tolerated by the NRC. a l The f.RC must be able to rely on its licensees and their employees, including 4 contractor employees, to comply with NRC requirements, including the
- requirement to provide information that is complete and accurate in all material respects. - Mr. Guzman's actions in knowingly falsifying background l information and his identity in an attempt-to avoid discovery and gain access g to the Calvert Cliffs facility, and l'is falso statements to Licensee officials i 1-when questioned about his background and identity, have raised serious doubt as to whether he can ba relied upon to cumply with NRC requirements and to provide complete and accurate infomation to the NRC.and its licensees.
l t' Consequently,.I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that: (1) Mr. Guzman i will conduct NRC-licensed activities in compilance with the Commission's
- requirements; and (2) the health and safety of the public will be protected if
!- - Mr. Guzman is granted unescorted access to NRC-licensed facilities at this
' time. Therefore, I find that the public health, -safety, and interest require that Mr.- Guzman be' prohibited from involvement in NRC-licensed activities for i
NUREG-0940,.PART I A-106
l five years from the date of the termination of his unescorted access by BG&E on October 18, 1994. Furthtrmore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of the misconduct described above is such that the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be immediately effective. V Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 161b, 1611, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR 50.5, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IMEDIATELY, THAT: A. For a five-year period from .",ctober 18, 1994, the date of the termination of his unescorted access by BG&E, Mr. Juan Guzman is prohibited from engaging in NRC-licensed activities. For the purpose of this paragraph. NRC-licensed activities include licensed activities of: (1) an NRC licensee; (2) an Agreement State licensee conducting licensed , activities in NRC jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20; and (3) an Agreement State licensee involved in distribution of products that are 4 subject to NRC jurisdiction. B. For a five-year period from October 18, 1994, the date of the temination of his unescorted access by BG&E, Mr. Juan Guzman is prohibited from obtaining unescorted access at a NRC-licensed facility. The Director, OE, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Guzman of good cause. NUREG-0940, PART I A-107
6-VI d in accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. Guzman must, and any other person adversely affected by thi; order may, submit an arswer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing - to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Guzman or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Attn: Chief, Docketing and Service Section, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and
- Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, and to Mr. Guzman if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Mr. Guzman. If a person other than Mr. Guzman requests a hearing, that person shall set forth
^ with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the c'riteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(J). NUREG-0940, PART I A-108
7 If a hearing is requested by Mr. Guzman er a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time 4 and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuantto10CFR2.202(c)(2)(1),Mr.Guzmanoranyotherpersonadversely affected by this Order may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the innediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate offectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IME01 ATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMIS$10N sL[.Nilhoan puty Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations, and Research Dated Rockville, Maryland 4 thisl day of April 1996 NUREG-0940, PART I A-109
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .LBPd?o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- WTOMIC SATETY AND LT07,NSING BOARD
.g 7. g 7 , $
Before Administrative Judgest Of ', . G. Paul Bo11werk, III, Chairman 00;r Dr. Charles N. Kelber . Dr. David R. Schink , SERVED 0CT 16 WS6 In the Matter of Docket No. IA 96-020 JUAN GUZMAN ASLBP No. 96-715-0J-EA (Order Prohibiting Unescorted Access or Involvsment in NRC-Licensed Activities) October 16, 1996 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Scttlement Agreement and Dismissing Proceeding) In a joint motion f41ed October 4, 1996, petitioners Juan and Laurene Guzman and the NRC staff ask the Licensing Board to approve an attached settlement agteenent and dismiss this proceeding. Finding their settlement accord is consistent with the public interest, we approve the agreement and terminate this case. At issue in this prcceeding is an April 19, 1996 staff enforcement order issued in connection with Mr. Curman's , activities while employed as e contractor employee performing piping insulation work at Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's (BG&E) Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2. The immediately effective order precludes Mr. Guzman for a period of five years from (1) any involvement in KRC-licensed activities; and (2) obtaining OGC 004289 NUREG-0940, PART I A-110
. . _ . _ _ . _ _ ~__ ~ .-.- __ , _ . . . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _
d i 1, unescorted access to an NRC-licensed facility. The order
- turther provides this-five-year period began on october 18,
-t j 1994, the date on which- BG&E revoked Mr. Gurman's unescorted j access authorization and removed him from the protected area f at the Calvert Clif fs f acility for purported misrepresentations regarding his immigration status at that time. As the basis for its order, the staff relies on Mr. Guzman's alleged attempts to falsify background information ] regarding himself, including providing a fraudulent ' green 3 card
- and social security card and denying that an arrest record obtained by submitting his fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation belonged to him. Eis 61 Fed. Reg. 18,630, 18,630-31 (1996).
In a one-paragraph letter dated April 29, 1996, Mr.-Guzman and his spouse, Laurene, requested a hearing in I accordance with 10 C.F.R. I 2.202 to contest the staf f's April-1996 order. In its May 31, 1996 initial prehearing order the Board sought to convene an early July 1996 prehearing conference, but subsequently granted a series of postponements to provide the Guzmans with additional. time to find an attorney.8 Their efforts to obtain counsel, l, 3
- Because the Guzmans appeared to be in some financial distress, 133, e.c., Reply to NRC Staff Response-Dated
- July 10, 1996 (Aug. 2, 1996) at 1, and based on our belief that in this enforcement proceeding-the overall efficiency of the adjudicatory process would be materially aided if the Guzmans had counsel, the Board provided.the Guzmans with information on organizations that could assist them in 1
(continued...) J ! NUREG-0940, PART I A-lll _ . _ . . . , . _ - - ,,-,3 _
4 l j however, ultimately were unsuccessful. Accordingly, on August 28, 1996, the Board conducted a prehearing conference during which Mr. Guzman (aided by a United States Department of State-certified Spanish interpreter 8 ) and Mrs, cuzman l appeared pro se. At the orehearing conference, the Board hoard presentations en the pending issues of the staf f's challenge to Mrs. Guzman's standing and the ef ficacy of the staf f's immediate effectiveness de'.ormination.8 Egg Tr. at 9-64. The Board also considered the admissibility of certain L
' central litigation issues
- proposed by the parties. We l
concluded, among other -things, that we would permit the enforcement order to be chs11enged on the ground the five-year prohibition term is excessive when compared to other, similar cases. Egg Tr. at 68-70; p.gg algg Radia(ign , Oncoloav Center at Marlton (Marlton, New Jersey), LBP-95-25, 42 NRC 237, 238-39 (1995). We also decided we wished to 8(... continued) obtaining free or reduced cost legal services. Egg Board Memorandum and Order (Scheduling Prehearing Conference) (Aug. 12, 1996) at 3 n.2 (unpublished); Board Memorandum and Order (Second Prehearing Order) (June 21, 1996) at 4 n,1 (unpublished). 8 The terms and conditions governing the use of that interpreter were specified in an attachment to an August 26, 1996 Board issuance. Egg Board Memorandum (Use of Spanish Interpreter) (Aug. 26, 1996) attach. 1 (unpublished); ggg algg Tr. at 3-6.- 3 Because we approve the settlement reached by the participants, we need not resolve these issues. i 1 i l l NUREG-0940, PART I A-112 l
! ] receive additional submissions addressing the question of permitting litigation on the.Guzman-proposed issue whether Mr. Guzman's status as a Mexican immigrant was a factor affecting the severity of the_ imposed prohib1 tion. 133 Tr.
1 at 70-73. Finally, the Board and the participants discussed future scheduling for the proceeding, which resulted in a directive that a sixty-day discovery period would bcgin immediately. E13 Tr. at 74-83. ERA Alan Board order
- (Memorializing Filing Dates and Initiation of Discovery and Requesting Settlement Status Report) (Aug. 30, 1996) at 1-2
] (unpublished). Following the August 28 prehearing conference, the C.12 mans and the staff initiated settlement discussions. To permit negotiations to centinue, on September 9, 1996, the Guzmans and the staff oaked that we hold the proceeding, including the discovery and issue bricting schedules, in abeyance through the end of September. We granted this request, as well as a September 25, 1996 motion to continue the schedule suspension through mid-October. Thereafter, the participants filed the joint settlement motion now before us. ! Under the terms of the October 4, 1996 settlement , agreement, the staff agrees to modify the April 1996 enforcement order to reduce from five to three years the term of the prohibition on Mr. Guzman having any involvement
- in NRC-licensed activities or seeking / obtaining onescorted I
1 i NUREG-0940, PART I A-ll3 i l 1
.- . .. . - . ~ . . - . . - . - . . . . - - - - . - - - - - . - - - . . . - . -
access to any NRC-licensed facility. Therefore, as revised,
=
this prohibition would be in place until October 17, 1997. In addition, the settlement agreement provides that for a i , subsequent two-year period (i.e., October 17, 1997, through
- . October 16,' 1999),- if Mr. Guzman seeks employment with any 1
person whose operations he knows, or reasonably should know, l involve NRC-licensed or' regulated activity, prior to being._ j i hired.he must provide that person with a copy of_the April _ 1996 order and the settlement agreement. In turn, the j ' Guzmans agree to withdraw their hearing _ request. i Pursuant to subsections (b) and (o) of section 161 of
- the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. $ 2201(b), (o), and 10 C.F.R. $ 2.203, we have reviewed the participants' joint settlement agreement to determine whether approval of the agreement and termination of this proceeding is in the I
public interest. Based on that review, and according due' ' weight to the position of the staff, we have concluded both , l actions c.re consonant with the public interest. We thus grant the participants' joint motion to approve the settlement agreement and dismiss this proceeding For the foregoing reasons, it-is this sixteenth day of October 1996, ORDERED that:
- 1. The October 4, 1996 joint motion of Juan and Laurene Guzman and the staf f is oranted -and we approve their l
l NUREG-0940, PART I A-ll4
.-.. . . . . - _ . . - -. .-. , . . - . . - , - ~ ~ - . . . . - . - . . - . - . - - - - -
)
i i 2 I ' October 4, 1996 ' Joint Settlement Agreement,' which is attached to and incorporated by reference in this memorandum i and order.
- 2. This procooding is dismissad.
i I TME ATOMIC SAFETY f AND LICENSING BOARD t-4 b M' u k. b G. Paul Bollwerx, III, Chairman 4 ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
/
- - h'
, Charles N. Kolber ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
/ C i Davif R. Schink ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland October 16, 1996-i 4
? i 4 NUREG-0940, PART I A-115 n i
UNITED STATES OF AMERJCA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMh0SSION REFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of )
-)
- JUAN GUZMAN ) Docket No IA 4020
) ASLBPNo %715 03 EA
)
(Order Prohibiting Unescorted Access or ) Involvement in NRC. Licensed Activities) l) JOINT SETTI FMENT AGREEhENT On April 19,1996, the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (StaN) issued an O'rder Prohibiting Unesconed Access or involvement in NRC licensed Activities (Effective Immediately)to Juan Guzman 61 Fad Reg 18,630. On April 29,1996, Juan Guzman along with his spouse, Laurene Guzman, requested a hearing on the April 19,1996 order.3 In response to Mr and Mrs Guzman's hearing request, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was established on May 20,1996. 61 Fed. Reg 26,549. AAer discussions between the Saff and the Guamans, both the Staff and the Guzmans agree that it is in their respective interests and in the public interest to settle this proceeding without funher litigation, and agree to the following terms and conditions:
' Mrs Guanan's righ: to participate in the proceedmg was challenged by the Staff, and the issue of her status is pending before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Ba d
-1 l
NUREG-0940, PART I A-116 e- _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ .
.- - ~ --- -- _. -, - . - - . . - - . - . . . - -
2
- 1. Juan and Laurene Guzman agree to withdraw their request for a heanng, dated April 29, Io96-
- 2. 'Ihe NRC Staff agrees to the moddication of the Order Prohibiting Unescorted Access or involvement in NRC-licensed Activities $ffective immediately),
dated April 19,1996, es set forth in Paragraphs 3 and 4, below.
- 3. Juan Guzman agrees that from October 18,1994, the date of his termination ofunesconed access, until October 17,1997, he is prohibited from seeking or obtaining unescorted access at any NRC-licensed faality and may not be
! involved in any NRC-licer4 activities. For the purposes of this agreement, he term," licensed activities" includes any and all activities which a licensee must or is permrtted to perform in order to conduct activities authorized by its NRC. issued license, including those nece sry to achieve compliance with all regulatory requirements imposed by the Commission 4 Juan Guzman agrees that for two years following the three year prohibition, (that is, from October 17, 1997 to October 16, 1999), should he seek , employment with any person (meaning an individual, a business, or other ! entity) whose operations he knows or reasonably should know involve any NRC licensed or regulated activity, Mr. Guzman will provide a copy of the April 19,1996 order and this agreement to that person prior to being hired, so that the person is aware of the Order in deciding whether to hire him 4 1 NUREG-0940, PART I A-ll7 n
. .- . _- .- = . . -- .-. -.
3 5 By signing this agreement, Mr. Guzman acknowledges his obligation, under federal statute and the Commission's regulations, to proWde information to the WRC, an NRC licensee, or a contractor of an NRC licensee that is complete eM accurate in all material respects Mr. Guzman agrees that he will comply with all applicable NRC requirements. 6 Mr. Guzman acknowledges that he has read and fully understands the terms of this settlement cgreement. 7. The Staff and Juan Guzman shall jointly move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated in the above-captioned proceeding for an order
- approving this agreement and terminating this proceeding. Laurene Guzman shall file a notice of withdrawal of her hearing request at the same time the motion of the Staff and Mr. Guzman is filed. The terms of this agreement shall become effective upon approval of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board e
Juan Guzman anan L Zob er Counsel for h taff-
. h .- ww~
Lautene Guzman uw & Dated this Day of * ;^ ' 1996 oc5cher NUREG-0940, PART I A-118 n.
i l
- ases ,,
.y i UNITED STATES E B NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- I wAsmwotow, o.c. sones.oooi
\ ****
July 16. 1996 l 1A 96-042 Mr. Mark Jenson [HOME ADORESS DELETED UNDER2.790)
SUBJECT:
ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES
Dear Mr. Jenson:
The enclosed Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities is being issued because of your deliberate misconduct, in violation of 10 CFR 30.10 of the Commission's regulations, as described in the Order. The Order becomes effective in 20 days unless a hearing is requested within this time. Pursuant to Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, any, person who willfdly violates, attempts to violate, or~ conspires to violate, any provision of this Order, once it _becomes effective, shall. be subject to criminal prosecution as set forth in that section. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Order may also result in civil sanctions. (Mstions concerning this Order should be addressed to Mr. James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, who may be reached at (301) 415-2741. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be place in the NRC's Public Document Room. Sincerely, u'h . Thompson, . DeputyExecutiveDireqdr or Nuclear Material Safet afeguards and Operations Support
Enclosure:
Order Prohibiting involvement
-in NRC-Licensed Activities cc: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 4
NUREG-0940, PART I A-119 n
UNIT [0 STAl[$ NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ptil$$10N in the Matter of ) 1 Mark A. Jenson i IA 96 042 HOME ADDRESS DEttit0 ? [UNDER10CFR2.2790) J ORDER PROHl8171NG INVOLVEM(NT IN WRC LIC(N$t0 ACilVITIES I Mark A. Jenson was e,91oyed as President of NOT Services, Inc. in Caguas, Puerto Rico, in 1993. NOT Services, Inc. (N0i$ or Licensee) holds License j No. 52 19438-01, issued to the Licensee in 1987 and last amended by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC or Cosumission) pursuant to 10 LFR Part 30 i on March 9, 1995. The license authorizes industrial gamma ray radiography in accordance with the conditions specified therein. Mr. Jenson was identified { in a letter from the Licensee to NRC, dated September 4,1993, and in other ~ 10 nir.g and inspection correspondence, ss the President. NOTS. II On December 16-17, 1993, a special inspection of NOTS' activities was conducted at the Licensee's factitty in Caguas, Puerto Rico, in response to notifications received in the NRC Region !! office that on September 4,1993, two contract radiographers' employed by N015 had been unable to return a radiography source to its shielded position following radiographic operations, which resulted in the evacuation of the Sun Oil Company refinery in Yabucca,
- n. c.ei.orener inv.iv.s in in ev.ni wr. .nicut.e i, ein vr nation.i in. etion ene c ii.ni. nici. .a aer no si.e. iie.n. in ei ries. *ii. n citt.a e nirut .. utatin.e te w it,. a. u
.ri ,.cr.r .n s.no e.neit.ien.
e . i m .e . orn.
.. c e.r,.e o.n
= rn.n. inver pr..iian....iinie. in. c s nciw.e inet in.
i.n. . n. e is ite.n... NUREG-0940 PART I A-120 2 _ - - . -
1 l Puerto Rico, for several hours. Based on the results of the inspection, an i investigation was initiated by the NRC Office of Investigations (01) on Decesser 30, 1993. i l 1 i i' On December 21, 1995. 01 completed its investigation and concluded. in part, i j that N0f$. with the knowledge and approval of the former Radiation $4fety i Officer (R$0) and former President, deliberately utilized radiographers ! untiained in N0f$ operating and emergency procedures. During an August 31, 1995 interview with 01, Mr. Jenson stated that he was aware that even a highly qualified radiographer from another company must receive additional training before operating under NOTS' program. Mr. Jenson further stated that, prior I to the September 4, 1993 incident NOT5' former R$0 told Mr. Jenson that the radiographers needed additional ~trainin? prior to performing radiography. 3 Nonetheless, Mr. Jenson allowed the radiographers to condect licensed 4 activities without the required treining. In addition Mr. Jenson stated I that, following the September 4,1993 incident, he requested both J radiographers to sign a document cenifying that the radiographers had been trained by NOTS, when in fact, they had not been. The radiographers refused l to sign the document. Furthermore, during a May 10, 1995 transcribed interview with 01, one of the radiographers corroborated Mr. Jenson's admission (i.e., that Mr. Jenson asked the radiographer to sign a document f indicating that the radiographer had been trained). i.
- By letter dated February 20. 1996, Mr. Jenson was informed of the inspection
- and investigation results and was provided the opportunity to participate in a predecisional enforcement conference. Although the NRC has confirmation that NUREG-0940, PART I A-121 x
3 Mr. Jenson received the letter (i.e., returned certified mail receipt as well as a telephone acknowledgement by his spouse to the NRC on February 29. 1996), Mr. Jenson never responded to the letter and, therefore, no conference has been conducted with him. However, on May 17, 1996, a teleconference was conducted with Mr. Jenson to further discuss this case. Additionally, on February 29 and March 4, 1996, predecisional enforcement conferences were conducted with one of the contract radiographers, and N0i$. respectively. Based on the information gathered during the inspection, investigation, predecisional enforcement conferences, and subsequent interviews in this case, the NRC has determined that: (1) Mr. Jenson deliberately permitted unqualified radiographers to perform radiography for NOTS on September 4, 1993, in that he knew the radiographers had not been trained in NOTS procedures or equipment and (2) Mr. Jenson attempted to generate a false. NRC. required training record for the contract radiographers involved in the source disconnect event when, subsequent to September 4,1993, he requested both individuals to sign a document indicating that the individual had been trained in the NOTS radiation safety manual and procedure, when in fact, the contrart radiographer had not been trained. Based on the above, the staff concludes that Mr. Jenson er. gaged in deliberate misconduct, a violation of 10 CFR 30.10, which caused the Licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 34.31(a) by fatilng to utilize trained and qualified individuals for the conduct of radiographic operations at the Sun Oil Company NUREG-0940 PART I A-122 s
i j -4* refinery on September 4, 1993. Mr. Jenson's attempt to generate a falsified training record for the radiographer also demonstrates a lack of integrity l which cannot be tolerated. As the former President of NOTS, Mr. Jenson was responsible for ensuring that N015 conducted activities in accordance with NRC requirements. The NRC must be able to rely on the Licensee, its officials and employees to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirements to train radiographers in accordance with NRC regulations and to maintain complete and 1 . i ! accurate information required by the NRC. Mr. Jenson's deliberate misconduct i in causing the Licensee to violate 10 CFR 34.31(a) is a violation of 10 CFR 30.10 and has raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements. Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the Connission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. Jenson were permitted at this time to be involved in NRC-licensed activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Mr. Jenson be prohibited from any involvement in NRC licensed activities for a period of five yenn , and, if he is currently involved with another licensee in NRC-licensed activities, he must, following the effective date of this Order, cease such activities, and inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer, and provide a copy of this Order to the employer. Additionally, Mr. Jenson is required to notify the NRC of his first employment involving NRC-licensed activities within a period of five years following the five-year prohibition period. NUREG-0940, PART I A-123
L i IV i Accordingly, pursuant to sections 41, 161b, 1611, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, and 10 CFR 30.10, IT 15 HEREBY ORDERED THAT: A. For a period of five years from the effective date of this Order, Mark A. Jenson is prohibited from engaging in, or exercising control over individuals engaged in. NRO-licensed activities. NRC-licensed activities are those activities which are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including, but not Ilmited to, those activities of Agreement State itcensees conducted pursusnt to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to: (1) using licensed materials or conducting licensed activities in any capacity within the jurisdiction of the NRCi and (2) supervising or directing any licensed activities conducted within the jurisdiction of the NRC. i B. At least five days prior tc the first time that Mark A. Jenson engages in, or exercises control over, NRC-licensed activities within a period of five years following the five-year prohibition period outlined in Section IV.A above, he shall notify the Directoi, Office of Enforcement. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington. 0.C. 20555, of the name, address, and telephone number of the NRC or Agreement State licensee and the location where the licensed activities will be performed. The notice shall be accompanied by a statement, under oath i NUREG-0940, PART I A424 ( - -- __ _ _ -
6-or affirmation, that Mark A. Jenson understands NRC requirements, that he is comitted to compliance with NRC requirements, and that provides a basis as to why the Comission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicabic NRC requirements. The Director, Office of Enforcement,-may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demnreation by Mr. Jenson of pod cause. i in accordance with 10 CfR 2.202, Mark A. Jenson must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, witnin 20 days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time l to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing i to the Director Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington 0.C. 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Jenson or other person adversely affected relles and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Attn: Chief. Docketing and Service Section, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, NUREG-0940, PART I A-125
. ~ . - . - - _ _ . - . - - - - . - - . - - - - - -. .- - _ _ , - - ._. - . . ..- -.- -. -
1 Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Adelnistrator, NRC Region !!, ! Suite 2900, 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, GA 30323, and to Mark A. Jenson, if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Mark A. Jenson. If a ' person other than Mark A. Jenson requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely ' affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by Mark A. Jenson, or another person whose interest is adversely affected, the Comission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an sxtension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' /??l Hugh . Thompson,Jr. ,
De y Executive sir r for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards and Operations Support Dated at Rockville, Maryland j this 16tiday of July 1996 l NUREG-0940, PART I A-126 4
-, ,w- - - . . . , . . , . - - - - - - - ,--.-..-.,-,.-,.4r _
r-- yy.w-. .-- _ - , - - - . - - ,v
l
*us ug y*
- 4 UNITED STATES
! NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
", w Asmaetow. o.c, asesse ;
s,*...e May 15, 1997 IA 97-026 Mr. David F. Johns, P.E. President and Radiation Safety Officer Capital Engineering Services, Inc. 101 Weston Drive Unit 3 Dover Delaware 19901 i
SUBJECT:
ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICEN$ED ACTIVITIES (NRCInspectionNo. 030-33244/96-001 and NRC Office of Investigation Report No. 1-96-042)
Dear Mr. Johns:
The enclosed Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities i ([ffective immediately) is being issued because of your deliberate use of licensed material on numerous occasions after Capital Engineering Services, Inc.'s License had been suspended, a violation of 10 CFR 30.10. The Order
- requires, in part, that
- (1) for a period of three years, you are prohibited from engaging in NRC-licensed activities; (2) for a period of three years, you provide a copy of the Order to any prospective employer who engages in i NRC-licensed activities prior to your acceptance of employment involving non-NRC-licensed activities with such prospective employer; and (3) the first time you are employed in NRC-licensed activities following the three-year prohibition, you notify the NRC prior to engaging in NRC-licensed activities.
] ! Pursuant to Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, any person who willfully violates, attempts to vio? ate or conspires to violate, any provision of this Order shall be subject to criminal prosection as set forth in that section. Violation of the Order may also subject the person to a civil monetary penalty, l By separate letter being issued today, the NRC is taking enforcement action against Capital Engineering Services, Inc.
- In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ' Rules of Practice,' a copy of i this letter, its enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
4 NUREG-0940, PART I A-127
David F. Johns. P.E. Questions concerning these actions should be addressed to Mr. James Lieberman. Director. Office of Enforcement, who may be reached at (301) 415-2741. Sincerely. E J l Deputy ocutive Director for Regulatory Effec iveness. Program Oversight. Investigations and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-licensed Activities (Effective immediately) cc w/encis: State of Delaware 1 I NUREG-0940. PART I A-128
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N in the Matter of IA 97-026 David F. Johns, P.E. Dover, Delaware ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVEIMMEDIATELY) l David F. Johns, P.E., is the Owner / President, and Radiation Safety Officer at Capital Engineerine Services, Inc. (Licensee), an NRC licensee who is the holder of Byproduct Nuclear Material License No. 07-30056-01 (License) issued l by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC or Comission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30. The License authorizes possession and use of moisture / density gauges containing sealed sources. The License was originally issued on September 14, 1993, and is due to expire on September 30, 1998. On February 12, 1996, the License was suspended by an NRC Order for nonpayment of fees. However, on May 17, 1996, the NRC issued a Conditional Order Extending Time that granted the Licensee's request to pay the delinquent fees in twelve monthly installment payments and extended the effective date of the February 12, 1996 Order to March 15, 1997. In addition, the Conditional Order stated that, in the event the Licensee fails to pay an installment during the 12-month period, each and every term and condition set forth in the February 12, 1996 Order will become imediately effective without further notice. The Licensee failed to make the first installment due June 15, 1996, after the Conditional Order was issued. Accordingly, on June 16, 1996, the terms of the February 12,1996 Order Suspending License" again became effective. i NUREG-0940, PART-I A-129
-t-11 On October 30, 1996, November 19, 1996 February 20, 1997, and March 5, 1997, the NRC conducted an inspection at the Licensee's facility in Dover, Delaware.
During the inspection, the inspector determined that the Licensee had continued to use licensed radioactive material after issuance of the NRC Order Suspending the License on February 12. 1996. Specifically, the Licensee used licensed material on numerous occasions between February 12, 1996, and May 16, 1996, before the Conditional Order Extending Time was granted, a violation of Condition A of the February 12, 1996 Order and 10 CFR 30.3. Additionally, the Licensee continued to use the gauges on numerous occasions after June 16, 1996, the date on which the Order Suspending License once again l became effective because of the lu ensee's failure to pay the first fee installment required by the May 17, 1996 Order Extending Time, a violation of Condition A of the February 12, 1996 Order and 10 CFR 30.3. On October 2, 1936, the NRC issued to the Licensee a letter reiterating that, given the Licensee's failure to abide by the installment plan, the License had been suspended as specified in the February 12, 1996 Order Suspending License. During an NRC inspection on October 30, 1996, the Licensee informed the NRC inspector that it continued to use licensed material because it had not received the October 2, 1996 letter untti October 28, 1996. As a result, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) to the Licensee on November 1, 1996, which confirmed the Licensee's commitments to cease use NUREG-0940, PART I A-130
1 3 and/or receipt of licensed material. The CAL references a telephone conversation between Mr. David Johns, the Licensee's Presidient, and Mr. Frank Costello, NRC Region 1, that took place on October 31, 1996, in which ] Mr. Johns agreed to the terms of the CAL. Concurrently with NRC inspection, the NRC Office of Investigations (01) conducted an investigation of these matters. During the investigation, Mr. Johns stated that he did not recall receiving by mail, or being informed of, the February 12.-1996 Order. However, Mr. Johns recalled requesting from ! l , the NRC that an installment plan be established for payment of the delinquent inspection and annual fees. , When questioned as to why the Licensee continued to use licensed material after Mr. Johns failed to make the installment due June 15, 1996, Mr. Johns stated that he forgot about the language in the May 17, 1996 Conditional Order (i.e., should the Licensee fall to pay an installment during the 12-month period, each and every term and condition set forth in the February 12, 1996 Order will become immediately effective without further notice). As to his agreement to the terms of the CAL, Mr. Johns stated that he recalled the October 31, 1996 telephone conversation, but he understood that once he fully paid the outstanding debt, he cot d use the gauges. Mr. Johns, however, did not pay the outstanding debt' and, yet, allowed continued use of licensed i material on numerous occasions from October 29 to, at least,
,, .' . . m:us - ". '~ ~ " ~ ~"' ~ ~
4 NUREG-0940, PART I A-131
. - . = - - _ . - - - - - . - - . . -.. - - . - . - - - - -
. 4 !
November 19, 1996, a violation of Condition A of the February 12, 1996 Order and 10 CFR 30.3. In addition, based on the 0! investigation and inspection , findings, the NRC determined that the Licensee failed to test sealed sources for leakage and/or contamination, a violation of License Condition 13. On April 10, 1997, an enforcement conference was scheduled with the Licensee. However, the Licensee failed to appear for the enforcement conference. In a subsequent telephone conversation between Mr. Johns and Mr. R. 81ough, Director, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, NRC Region I, Mr. Johns indicated that he was not planning to attend the conference. During that telephone conversation, Mr. Johns wa: also informed that the NRC would proceed with appropriate infucement action. I Based on the above, the NRC has concluded that Mr. Johns engaged in deliberate misconduct, a violation of 10 CFR 30.10(a)(1), by causing the Licensee to be in violation of Condition A of the February 12, 1996 Order and 10 CFR 30.3. , This conclusion is: (1) based on the Licensee's continued use of licensed material in violation of NRC requirements despite Mr. Johns receiving numerous written communications that specifically informed him of the License suspension; and (2) supported by the fact that Mr. Johns requested from the NRC that an installment plan be established to remove the suspension of the License; Mr. Johns recalled the October 31, 1996 telephone conversation in which he was specifically informed that the License was suspended and in which he agreed not to use licensed material; and Mr. Johns failed to ensure that l NUREG-0940,.PART I A-132
. . , , - - . . - - - , - . . . . , _ , _ . - - , ,,y.--,-- -,i,---...,,.,.,,,,.#,_yw ,,.,.,.om, ,.,,y-_,, . + , . , ,- ,,7....m, , my -,.m,,,,,,r- - , ,
5-the Licensee paid the outstanding debt before permitting resumption of licensed material use, in addition, as the Licensee's Radiation Safety Officer, Mr. Johns failed to ensure that the Licensee tested sealed sources for leakage and/or contamination, a violation of License Condition 13. Given Mr. Johns' deliberate misconduct, and Mr. Johns' failure to ensure that the Licensee complied with other NRC requirements, the NRC no longer has the necessary assurance that Mr. Johns, should he engage in NRC-licensed l activities under any other NRC license, would perform NRC-licensed activitias safely and in accordance with NRC requirements. Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that NRC-licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. Johns were permitted at this time to be involved in NRC-licensed activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Mr. Johns be l prohibited from any involvement in NRC-licensed activitists for a period of three years from the date of this Order, and if he is currently involved with another licensee in NRC-licensed activities, he must immediately cease such activities, and infom the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer, and provide a copy of this order to the employer. Mr. Johns is also required, for a perio of three years from the date of this Order, to provide a copy of this Order to any prospective employer who engages in NRC-licensed activities prior to his acceptance of employment involving non-NRC-licensed activities with such prospective employer. Additionally, for NUREG-0940, PART I A-133 m
6-a period of three years following the three-year prohibition, the first time Mr. Johns is employed in NRC-Itcensed activities, Mr. Johns is required to notify the NRC of his first employment in NRC-Itcensed activities. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of Mr. Johns conduct described above is such that the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be immediately effective. IV Accordingly, pur'.uant to sections 81, 161b, 1611, and 1610 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR 30.10, and 10 CFR 150.20, IT l$ HEREBY ORDERED THAT, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY:
- 1. For a period of three years from the date of this Order, Mr. Johns is prohibited from engaging in NRC-licensed activities. NRC-licensed activities are those activities that are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including, but not limited to, those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted in areas of NRC jurisdiction pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150,20.
l
- 2. For a period of three years from the date of this Order, Mr. Johns shall provide a copy of this Order to any prospective employer who engages in NRC-licensed actisties (as described in Paragraph IV.1 above) prior to his acceptance of employment involving non-NRC-licensed activities with NUREG-0940, PART I A-134
such prospective employer. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the employer is aware of Mr. Johns' prohibition from engaging in NRC-licensed activities.
- 3. For a period of three years following the three-yeaf prohibition, the first time Mr. Johns is employed in NRC-licensed activities, Mr. Johns shall notify the Regional Administrator NRC Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406-1415, prior to engaging in NRC-Itcensed activities, including activities under an Agreement $ tate license when activities under that license are conducted in areas of NRC jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20. The notice shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the NRC or Agreement State licensee and the location where licensed activities will be performed.
The Director, Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of f the above conditions upon demonstration by the Licensee of good cause. V In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. Johns must, and any .ther person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington 0.C. 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the NUREG-0940, PART_1 A-135
- extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in tK ' Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Johns or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn
- Rulemaking and Adjudications staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Of fice of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region 1, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406-1415, to Mr. Johns if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Mr. Johns. If a person other than Mr. Johns requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d),
if a hearing is requested by Mr. Johns or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing, if a hearing is held, the issue to be consideret at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(1), Mr. Johns may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on tne ground that the NUREG-0940, PART I A-136
1
... t Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error, i in the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THl$ ORDER.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N Deput/ xecutive Director for Regulatory Effectiveness, Program Oversight, investigations and Enforcement Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 15th day of May 1997 NUREG-0940, PART I A-137
. _ . ~ . .. ._-n _ . _ . . ~ - - . . . - - _ _ . - . . . . . _ .. -._n_ . . ._ -._. .__ _. --. - ~ -.. . -
i g68 #f ew 4
/ 4*'
k O UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSION l 3 [ wasMio.otou, o c. mounes
. . . . . 'o* i l June 12. 1995 EA 94-240 1A 95-015 1A 95-016 Midwest Testing, Inc.
ATTN Mr. William Kimbley, President Ms. Joan Kimbley, General Manager and Treasurer l 2421 Production Drive i Indianapolis, Indiana 46241 !
$UBJECT: CONFlRMATORY ORDER AND NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF LICENSE (0! INVESTIGAil0N REPORT NO. 3-93 022R)
Dear Mr. and Ms. Kimbley:
TheConfirmatc,ryOrder(Order)towhichyouagreedonJune2,1995,hasbeen ' executed. A signed copy of the Order is enclosed. In addition, your license I has been terminated as of the date of this letter in accordance with the Order Suspending License dated August 26, 1994. Enclosed is a copy of Amendment I terminating License No. 030-24866 02. We consider this matter settled. Under the terms of this Order, for a period of five years beginning June 2, 1995, you, as well as Midwest Testing, Inc. and any successor entity, are and prohibited from prohibitedfromapplyingtotheNRCforalicense\vity. engaging in, or controlling, any NRC-licensed act Should you violate the terms of the Order, you may be subject to civil and criminal sanctions under Sections 233 and 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Questions concerning this Order should be addressed to me at (301) 415-2741. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ' Rules of Practice', a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Fublic Document Room.
$1ncerely, D hk ~
James Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement
Enclosures:
As Stated Docket No. 030-32827 License No. 13-24866 02 NUREG-0940, PART I A-138
UNITED STAT [$ NUCLEAR REGULATORf COMMIS$10N In the Matter of ;l
) Docket No. 030 32827 MIDWEST TESTING, INC. ;l License No. 13 24866-02 Indianapolis, Indiana ) [A 94-240 1
MR. WILLIAM G. KIM8 LEY h IA 95 0l$ 1 MS. JOAN KIM8 LEY h IA 95-016 ll CONFIRMATOM ORDER I MidwestTesting,Inc.(Licensee)isholderofNRCLicenseNo. 13-24866-02 (License) issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC or Comission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30. 1he License authorized the Licensee to possess and use cesium-137 and americium-241 as sealed sources in moisture / density gauges. The License was issued on August 19, 1992, and is being terminated by Amendment No. 1, which is being issueu on the date of this Order. 11 On July 27,1993, a routine inspection of licensed activities was conducted at Midwest Testing, Inc. (Licensee) by NRC Region !!!. During the inspection the inspector identified that licensee management had allowed workers to operate moisture density gauges without personnel monitoring devices (film badges) and that required leak tests of the gauges had not been performed. The NRC Office of Investigations (01) conducted an investigation to determine l whether willful violations of NRC requirements had occurred. Based on the NRC inspection and O! investigation, it appears that Mr. William G. Kimbley, owner NUREG-0940, PART I A-139 =
i 2-of Midwest Testing, deliberately violated NRC requirements by:
- (1) allowing operators to use moisture density gauges without personnel monitoring devices between December 24,1991, and August 25, 1993, in violation of Condition 18. A of License No. 13 24866 01 (expired on l
March 31, 1992) and Condition 20.A of License No. 13 24866-02 (issued on l August 19,1992):
)
(2) not performing leak tests of two moisture density gauges between j August 19, 1992, and July 31, 1993, in violation of Condition 13.A of License No. 13-24866-021 (3) not requesting a license amendment to name a new Radiation Protection Officer, in violation of Condition 11 of License No. 13-24866 02, when the individual named on the License left !iidwest Testing in October 1993 (4) storing licensed material at an unauthorized location since March 1994 in violation of Condition 10 of License No. 13-24866-02 and 10 CFR 31.34(c) and (5) allowing moisture density gauges to be used between April 1, ICH, and August 19, 1992, with an expired license in violation of 10 CFR 30.3 and 10CFR30.36(c)(1)(1)and(iii). NUREG-0940. PART I A-140
l 3 in addition, it appears that Ms. Joan Kimbley, General Manager and Treasurer of Midwest Testing, Inc., deliberately violated items (1), (2), and ($) above. These actions appear to have been a result of Midwest Testing, Inc. financial constraints, inexperience of the General Manager and, in general, a lack of appreciation on the part of the Owner and the General Manager of the regulatory significance and consequences of the violations.
)
A Confirmatory Action Letter was issued to the Licensee on March 21, 1994, confirming that the Licensee would secure its moisture density gauges in locked storage until the Licensee: (1) designated a Radiation Protection Officer (2) obtained NRC approval via a license amendment for its designated Radiation Protection Officer and its current moisture density gauge storage location, (3) demonstrated that all its moisture density gauges were l appropriately tested for leakage, and (4) demonstrated that personnel radiationmonitoringdeviceswereprovidedforthosepersonsdesignatedtouse moisture density gauges. The Licensee did not use its moisture density gauges after issuance of the Confirmatory Action Letter. Subsequently, an Order Suspending License (Effective immediately) was issued to the Licensee on August 26, 1994, for nonpayment of fees, which required:
- (1) the Licensee to suspend NRC licensed activities 4.nd dispose of its 1 Itcensed material
- and(2)NRCterminationofLicenseNo. 13-24866-02 following disposal of the licensed material. The Licensee disposed o' its licensed material in December 1994. NRC Region !!! verified that the listised material was properly transferred to authorized recipients.
i 4 NUREG-0940, PART I A-141 a _ . , - , . ~ . - -
. . . - . . . . _,o _~,
4 A transcribed enforcement conference was conducted between the NRC and the Licensee on March 15, 1995, to discuss the apparent violations, their causes and safety significance. Mr. Kimbley stated during the enforcement conference, 'And the question about would we ever pursue an NRC license again,
- the answer to that is no. If there is any way I can give you ass'.)nce of that I'll be glad to do that.' Ms. Kimbley stated during the Enforcement Conference, 'Like we stated earlier, we don't intend to continue with any licensed material in the future.'
Further, in a telephone conversation on May 2,1995, with Mr. Paul Pelke, NRC Region !!!, Mr. and Ms. Kimbley agreed to the provisions and to the issuance of this Order to resolve all matters pending between them. Specifically, Mr. Kimbley agreed, for a period of five years from the date he signs this Confirmatory Order, that Mr. Kimbley, Midwest Testing, Inc., or any successor entity wherein Mr. Kimbley is an authorized user, radiation safety officer, owner, an officer, or a controlling stockholder, will not apply to the '.RC for a new license, nor shall Mr. Kimbley, Midwest Testing, Inc., or a successor entity, as described above, engage in licensed activities within the jurisdiction of the NRC for that same period of time. Ms. Kimbley agreed, for a period of five years from the date she signs this Confirmatory Order, that Ms. Kimbley, Midwest Testing, Inc., or any successor entity wherein Ms. Kimbley is an authorized user, radiation safety officer, owner, an officer, or a controlling stockholder, will not apply to the NRC for a new itcense, nor shall Ms. Kimbley, Midwest Testing, Inc., or a successor entity, NUREG-0940, PART I A-142
asdescribedabove,engageinlicensedactivitieswithinthejurisdictionof the NRC for that same period of time. I find that the Licensee's comitments as stated in the May 2,1995 conversation with Paul Pelke, NRC Region Ill, are acceptable and necessary and i conclude that with these commitments the pubite health and safety are reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined that the ! public health and safety require that the Licensee's comitments be confirmed by this Order. i IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81, 161b, 1611, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, and 10 CFR Part 30, IT IS HERE8Y ORDERED that: t
- 1. For a period of five years from the date Mr. William G. Kimbley signs this Confirmatory Order, Mr. Kimbley, Midwest Testing, Inc., or any successor entity wherein Mr. Kimbley is an authorized user, radiation safety officer, owner, an officer, or a controlling stockholder, will not apply to the NRC for o new license, nor shall Mr. Kimbley, Midwest Testing, Inc., or a successor entity, as described above, engage in licensed activities within the jurisdiction of the NRC for that same period of time.
NUREG-0940, PART I A-143
6
- 2. For a period of five years from the date Ms. Joan Kimbley signs this Confirmatory Order, Ms. Kimbley, Midwest Testing, Inc., or any successor entity wherein Ms. Kimbley is an authorized user, radiation safety officer, owner, an officer, or a controlling stockholder, will not apply to the NRC for a new license, nor shall Ms. Kimbley, Midwest Testing, ;
inc., or a successor entity, as described above, engage in licensed 1 activities within the jurisdiction of the NRC for that same period of l time.
- 3. Mr. Kimbley, Ms. Kimbley, Midwest Testing, Inc., or any successor entity, as described above, waive the right to contest this Order in any manner, including requesting a hearing on this Order. 1 The Regional-Administrator, NRC Region !!!, may relax or rescind, in writing, any of the above conditions upon a showing by the Licensee, Mr. William G.
Kimbley, or Ms. Joan Kimbley of good cause. 1 V Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other than the Licensee, Mr. William G. Kimbley, and Ms. Joan Kimbley may request a hearing within 20 days of its issuance. Any request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ATTN: Chief, Docketing and Service Section, Washington, D.C. 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. 0.C. 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and NUREG-0940, PART I A-144
7 Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region 111, 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532, and to the Licensee, if such a person requests a hearing, that perf.on shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the critaria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Comission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained, in the absence of any request for hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be ftM120 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. This Order was consented to: FOR THE LICENSEE, WILLIAM G. KIM8 % AND J0AN KIMSLY BY: N C# " Dated:ho{/15 Wtiliam G. Kimbley [R n
"[I"TYh,
, 4- (Y W *D G %',),l'"i5D Hu*y l Dated: 0 *. ., W. .f
'ba -
BY[.N Qoan Ktiibtey Q"g"""j,'/re g Notary:f;AcLL is,ws.. a war.m [ -r h'a b SEAL a FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORIE.%m1551B S BY: % k ' b fptmesLieberman Order Dated: Rockville,Ma61and
/k ['l '/ I NUREG-0940, PART I A-145
/ge eseg*g'.
y'I* UNITED STATES
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
., wAsMiwof ow, o.c. seemasoi
..... February 18, 1997 IA 97-0!!
Mr. Krishna Kumar (NOREADDRES$ DELETED UISER10CFR2.790)
SUBJECT:
000ER PROH! BITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFLCTIVEIMME0!ATELY)
Dear Mr. Kumar:
The enclosed Order, effective immediately, is being issued to you as a result of the findings of an NRC inspection conducted on December 2-3, 1993, and an investigation by the NRC Office of Investigations (01), initiated in 1993 which found that you engaged in deliberate misconduct with respect to NRC-licensed activities while you were President of Power inspection, Inc. The enclosed Order prohibits you from engaging in NRC-licensed activities for a period of 10 years. Further, for a period of five years after the ten-year prohibition, the Order also requires you to provide notice to the NRC of any future employment or involvement in NRC-licensed activities. Pursuant to Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, any person who ' willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of this Order shall be subject to criminal prosecution as set forth ! in that section. Violation of this order may also subject the person to a civil monetary penalty. In addition. the NRC is issuing a $40,000 civil penalty to Power Inspection, Inc., (see Enclosure 2) on this date based, in part, on your actions. Questions concerning this Order should be addressed to Mr. James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, who can be reached at (301) 415-2741. NUREG-0940 PART I A-146
Mr. Krishna'Kus.ar- 2 In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ' Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter. Its enclosures, and your rc:Wse will be placed in the NRC Pubite Document Room. Sincerely,
/Wc L ad . Jordan
~
Deputy xecutive Director for Reg story Effectiveness, Program Oversight, Investigations and Enforcement
Enclosures:
- 1. Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC. Licensed Activities (Effective immediately)
- 2. Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties cc w/encist Consenwealth of Pennsylvania State of Florida i
NUREG-0940, PART I A-147
o l UNITED STATES . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N In the Matter of 4 Krishna Kumar i IA 97-011 d
-j ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN
- NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY)
Krishna Kumar (Mr. Kumar) was President of Power Inspection, Inc. (P! or-Licensee). P! is the holder of Byproduct License No. 37-21428-01 (License)~ i. issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to d 10 CFR Parts 20 and 34. The License authorizes the Licensee to use , tridium-192 and cobalt-60 sealed sources for the performance of industrial i radiography at its facility in Wexford, Pennsylvania, a* well as at temporary Job sites. The License was most recently renewed on January 31, 1989, and expired on January 31, 1994 In addition, the Licensee submitted a request, dated December 30, 1993, that the license be terminated. Action on that request has been held in abeyance pending further NRC review, l in addition, P1 acted as a vendor supplying services to nuclear power plants, including the performance of nondestructive testing services, such as eddy 4 current testing. Such services were provided to the Perry and Cooper nuclear , power plants in 1993, 1 4 4
- On December 2 and 3,1993, the NR' performed an inspection at the Licensee's i
Wexford facility of activities conducted under the License. During the l
\
i 4 NUREG-0940, PART I A-148
2 inspection, the NRC found numerous violations of NRC requirements. The violations included: the failure of the Radiation Safety Officer A W! ,amed on the License to perform required duties; the failure to conduct qunrterly audits of all radiographers; the failure to provide the required annual refrasher training to the radiograrners; the failure to perform, at the required frequency, the required inspection and maintenance on the exposure device (camera) containing an iridium-192 scarce; the failure to perform leak tests of the sealed sources at the required frequency; the failure to promptly I collect and submit film badges for processing; and the failure to maintain f radiography utilization logs. I f Furthermore, the NRC found during the December 1993 inspection that the utilization-logs for the iridium-192 source, covering the period of July through November 1993, as well as the utilization logs for the cobalt-60 source, covering the period of July through October 1993, were also unavailable for inspection at the time of the NRC inspection on DecOber 2, 1993. On December 2, 1993, an NRC investigation was also initiated by the NRC Office of Investigations (01). During its investigation 01 concluded that:
- a. with respect to the vendor-related activities: (1) false Eddy Current Testing (ET) qualification certifications were deliberately generated by PI for at least three employees who performed ET examinations at Perry and Cooper nuclear power plants during 1*93 and false ET qualification certification examination results and Personnel Certification Summaries NUREG- M O, PART I A-149
1 3 were deliberately generated for four employees, and these falsifications were condoned or directed by the former President (i.e., Mr. Kumar), the former Vice President /RSO, and the former Quality Assurance Manager; and (2) three P! employees tested positive for illegal drug use prior to working at Perry and Cooper in 1993, and the former Pr sident of P1 was aware of this and did not notify Perry and Cooper.
- b. with respect to the materials License: (1) a minimum of 38 source uttilzation logs (for radiography performed) were falsely created by P!
employees to satisfy questions asked during an April 1993 NRC inspection regarding the lack of utilization logs, and this activity was undertaken at the direction of the former President'of P!; (2) the former President of PI knowingly failed to notify the NRC of a change of radiation safety officer in approximately August 1993; and (3) responses in PI's letter, dated July 14, 1993, to the NRC, were deliberately incomplete and inaccurate, and the former President and individual identified on P!'s NRC license as the RSO were responsible for knowingly providing this false information to the NRC. The inaccurate information provided to the'NRC in the letter dated July 14, 1993, was in response to a previous Notice of Violation issued to the Licensee on June 16, 1993, for numerous violations identified during an inspection conducted in April 1993. One of the violations identified during the April 1993 inspection involved the failure to maintain personnel monitoring records for the radiographers at the facility. In the July response, signed by the former RSO (i.e., the NUREG-0940, PART I A-150
4 individual identified on PI's NRC license as the R50), the Licensee stated that records of such personnel monitoring had been misplaced at the time of the April inspection. In fact, the NRC learned, during the December 2 and 3, 1993 inspection, that Mr. Kumar knew that those records alluded to in the licensee's July 1993 response did not even exist at the time of the April inspection, since the film badges had not been processed until after the April inspection was completed. III Based on the above, Mr. Kumar, former President of PI, a contractor to licensees of the NRC, engaged in deliberate misconduct, a violation of 10 CFR 30.10(a)(2), by deliberately submitting in March and in October 1993 to the Cleveland Electric 111uminating Company (CEIC) and Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), both-licensees of the NRC, ET qualification certification examination results and Personnel Certification Summaries which were inaccurate. Mr. Kumar also violated 10 CFR 30.10(a)(2) by submitting on March 5, 1993, and on October 6, 1993, to each NPPD and CEIC, respectively, three inaccurate letters stating that the trustworthiness and reliability of two individuals had been established by an investigation, when Mr. Kunar knew that the individuals had used illegal substances. In addition, Mr. Kumar, an employee of PI, a licensee of the NRC, engaged in deliberate misconduct, a violation of 10 CFR 30.10(a)(1), which caused PI to i be in violation of 10 CFR 30.9(a) and 10 CFR 34.27. Specifically: NUREG-0940, PART 1 A-151
4 6 a. As a result of Mr. Kumar's direction to fabricate source utilization logs, PI violated 10 CFR 30.9(a) and 10 CFR 34.27 by maintaining a minimum of 38 inaccurate logs for radiography performed by Pl; and
- b. As a result of Mr. Kumar's direction, PI violated 10 CFR 30.9(a) by providirg to the NRC a letter dated July 14, 1993, which contained inaccurate information relating to whether corrective actions had been taken in response to violations listed in an NRC Notice of Violation dated June 16, 1993.
The NRC must be able to rely on its licensees and their employees to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement to provide information.and maintain records that are complete and accurate in all material respects. Mr. Kumar's actions in deliberately violating NRC requirements and in causing the Licensee to be in violation of NRC requirements have raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements and to provide complete and accurate information to both the NRC and NRC licensees. Moreover, given Mr. Kumar's indictment on April 28, 1988', there is a pattern of record falsification which raises further doubt about Mr. Kumar's integrity l and whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements. i I Mr. Kuner and PI mere indicted by the United States Attorney in the Wstern District of Perveylvenl4 fee fraud er41 falso statsoants in connection with testing that uns to be performed et the tusseene Light Company, e licensee of the mac. In this case. Mr. Ki.suor eenitted that he directed falsificellen of sedr current test equipment cellbretten certificatiers to save Pt ties and money, and einsegsently provided the falso certificates to Dumasene tight Company. I NUREG-0940, PART I A-152 l
.m
6-Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that information provided to the NRC by Mr. Kumar, or records required to be maintained by the 1.icensee, will be complete and accurate in all material- respects if Mr. Kumar were permitted to be involved in any NRC-licensed activities. I also lack the requisite assurance that NRC-licensed activities will be conducted safely or in accordance with NRC requirements or that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. Kumar were involved in NRC-licensed activities. In addition, I find that Mr. Kumar is either unable or unwilling j to assure that NRC requirements are being and will be followed. l Therefore, I find that the public health, safety, and interest require that Mr. Kumar be prohibited from involvement in NRC-licensed activities for ten years from the date of this Order, and if he is currently engaged in NRC-licensed activities with another NRC licensee, he must immediately cease such activities, and inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer, in addition, for a period of five years commencing after the ten-year period of prohibition, Mr. Kumar must notify the NRC of his employment or involvement in NRC-licensed activities to ensure that the NRC can monitor the status of Mr. Kumar's compliance with the Commission's requirements and his understanding of his cornitment to compliance. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of the misconduct described above is such that the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be innediately effective. NUREG-0940, PART I A-153
- - U
7 IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 57, 62, 81, 103, 161b, 1611, 1610, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 30.10, 50.5, and 150.20, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IMEDIATELY, THAT: A. Mr. Krishna Kumar is prohibited for ten years from the date of this Order from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities. For purposes of this Order, licensed activities include the licensed activities of: (1) an NRC licensee; (2) an Agreement State licensee conducting licensed activities in NRC jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20; and (3) an Agre n t nState licensee involved in the distribution of products that are subject to NRC jurisdiction. In addition, if Mr. Kumar is currently engaged in NRC-licensed activities with another NRC licensee, he must immediately cease such activities, and inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer. B. For a period of five years, after the above ten-year period of prohibition has expired, Mr. Kumar shall, within 20 days of his acceptance of each employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities er his becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, as defined in Paragraph IV.A above, provide notice to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washi nton, DC 20555, of the name, address, and telephone number of the employer or the entity where he is, or will be, involved in the NRC-licensed activities. 'In i NUREG-0940, PART I- A-154
4 8 the first such notification, Mr. Kumar shall include a statement of his comitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis as to why the Comission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements. The Director, Office of Enforcement (OE), may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the atae conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Kumar of good cause. V in accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. Kumar must, and any other persan adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D. C. 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order, and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Kumar or other person adversely affected relies, and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Attn: Chief, Docketing and Service Section, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the
-Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, i
NUREG-0940, PART I A-155
9 Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, and to Mr. Kumar if the answer or hear; 1 request is by a person other than Mr. Kumar, if a person other than Mr. Kumar requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). l
.lf a hearing is requested by Mr. Kumar or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(1), Mr. Kumar or any other person adversely I affected by this Order, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the I inmediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error, in the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been
. approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final when the NUREG-0940, PART 1 A-156
i ' 10 extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST _FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDER. . FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION
/ k.
Tdward L: ordan Deputy ecutive Director for Re atory Effectiveness, Program Oversight, Investigations and Enforcement Dated at Rockville, Maryland this ['hday of February 1997 NUREG-0940, PART,I A-157 l
l l fp ,. *
. UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSION
. wAomerom, o.c. saaes.esa
\...*
g n g4 7 !A 94-019 Mr. Larry S. Ladner 1 (HOME A00RESS DELETED UNDER 10 CFR 2.790)
SUBJECT:
ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN HRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) The enclosed Order is being issued because of your violations of 10 CFR 30.10 of the Comission's regulations as described in the Order. Based on an investigation conducted by the NRC's Office of Investigation, the NRC Staff has determined that you deliberately failed to supervise radiographers' assistants performing licensed activities, falsified a large number of quarterly personnel audits and provided false information to NRC officials. A copy of the synopsis of the investigation is enclosed. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Order may result in further civil or criminal sanctions. Questions concerning this Order should be addressed to Mr. James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, who can be reached at (301) 504-2741. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. Sincerely, ames Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement
Enclosures:
- 1. Order
- 2. Synopsis NUREG-0940, PART I A-158
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COWilS$10N In the Matter of ) !A 94-019
)
Larry S. Ladner )
)
ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) Larry S. Ladner has been employed as a radiographer in the field of industrial radiography since'approxima'tely 1964. In October, 1989, Mr. Ladner was hired by the American Inspection Company, Inc. (AMSPEC). AMSPEC held Materials License No. 12-24801-01 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Comission) pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 34. This license authorized the conduct of industrial radiography activities in accordance with certain specified conditions. On-April 30, 1992, the license was suspended as a result.of significant safety violations and related safety concerns. Mr. Ladner worked as both a radiographer and a supervisor until his dismissal by AMSPEC-in the latter part of 1991, 11 Between August 22, 1991 and November 12, 1992, the NRC Office of Investigations (01) conducted an investigation of licensed activities of C AMSPEC. During the course of this investigation, the AMSPEC license was suspended when a significant number of _ safety violations were identified. In addition, the investigation revealed that Mr. Ladner, in his position as a supervisor'(1) deliberately allowed radiographers' assistants to work-NUREG-0940, PART I A-159 - J 4
)
4 2 unsupervised on numerous occasions, (2) deliberately falsified in excess of 100 quarterly personnel audits, and (3) deliberately gave false information to NRC officials regarding the unauthorized use of licensed material. 10 CFR 34.44 requires that a radiographer's assistant shall be under the personal supervision of a radiographer whenever he uses radiographic exposure devices, sealed sources or related source handling tools, or conducts radiation surveys required by 10 CFR 34.43(b) to determine tnat the sealed source has returned to the shielded position after an exposure. The personal supervision shall include: (a) the radiographer's personal presence at the site where the sealed sources are being used; (b) the ability of the radiographer to give inmediate assistance if r.autred; and (c) the radiographer watching the assistant's performance of the operations referred 4 to in this section, in addition, 10 CFR 34.ll(d)(1) requires, in part, that an applicant have an inspection program that requires the observation of the performance of each radiographer and radiographer's assistant during an actual radiographic operation at intervals not to exceed three months. 10 CFR 30.9(a) requires, in part, that information provided to the Commission by a licensee, and information required by the Commission's regulations to be maintained by the licensee, shall be complete and accurate in all material respects. d While functioning as a radiation protection' officer, Mr. Ladner deliberately caused a violation of 10 CFR 34.44 in December 1990 and February through May 1991 by allowing three radiographers' assistants to work independently and without personal supervision. During this same period, Mr. Ladner also 1 1 1 NUREG-0940, PART I A-160
3 authorized others to use his name on check-out logs, in violation of 10 CFR 30.10. Moreover, Mr. Ladner's employer (AMSPEC) had an approved program that required the observation of radiographers and radiographers' assistants at the required interval as prescribed by 10 CFR 34.ll(d); however, between September 1990 and November 1991, he deliberately disregarded the licensee's program in excess of 100 times by falsifying records of audits that were never performed, causing a violation of 10 CFR 30.9. During an NRC inspection conducted on July 22-23, 1991 Mr. Ladner deliberately p'rovided inaccurate information to NRC inspectors when he claimed no knowledge of a reported unauthorized use of licensed material, when in fact he was aware of such use. On January 15, 1993, Mr. Ladner pied guilty to one felony count involving l deliberate violations of the Atomic Energy Act based on his violations of these requirements. l Based on the above, Mr. Ladner engaged in deliberate misconduct which caused AMSPEC to be in violation of 10 CFR 30.9 and 34.ll(d). The NRC must be able to rely on licensees and their employees to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirements to supervise radiographer's assistants performing licensed activities and to maintain and compile records that are complete and accurate in all material respects. Mr. Ladner's deliberate actions in causing AMSPEC to be in violation of NRC requiremotas (e.g. 30.9 and 34.ll(d)), and his deliberate submittal to AMSPEC of false audit records, which are violations of 10 CFR 30.10, have raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied on to comply with NRC requirements and to provide complete and accurate NUREG-0940, PART I A-161
4 information to the NRC. Mr. Ladner's deliberate misconduct, including his deliberate false statements to Comission officials, cannot and will not be
; tolerated.
Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed f activities can be conducted in compliance with the Comission's requirements l and that the health and safety of the public will be protected, if Mr. Ladner ~ were permitted at this' time to supervise or perform licensed activities in any area where the NRC maintains jurisdiction. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Mr. Ladner be prohibited from engaging in NRC licensed activities (including supervising, training and auditing) for either an NRC licensee or an Agreement State licensee in areas of NRC jurisdiction in accordance with 10 CFR 150.20 for a period of three years from the date of , this Order. In addition, for a period of two years commencing after completion of the three year period of prohibition, Mr. Ladner is required to notify the NRC of his employment by any person or entity engaged in NRC-licensed activities to ensure that the NRC can monitor the status of Mr. Ladner's compliance with the Commission's requirements and his understanding 4 of his commitment to compliance. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of the conduct described above is such that-the public health, safety and interest require that this order be effective imediately. IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81, 161b, 1611, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Comission's regulations in 1 l NUREG-0940, PART I A-162 1
l , 5 10 CFR.2.202, 10 CFR 30.10, and 10 CFR 150.20, li IS HEREBY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE imEDIATELY, THAT: r
- 1. Larry 5, Ladner is prohibited for three years from the date of this Order frem engaging in NRC-licensed activities. NRC-licensed activities are those activities which are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, includi'g, but not limited to, those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20. During this time period Nr. Ladner must also provide a copy of this Order to prospective employers who engage in NRC-licensed activitie's, at the time he accepts employment.
- 2. For a period of two years after the three-year period uf prohibition has expired, Larry S. Ladner shall within 20 days of his acceptance of an employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities or his becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, as defined in Paragraph IV.1 above, provide notice to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington. 0.C. 20555, of the name, address, a.d telephone number of the employer or the entity where he is, or will be, involved in the NRC-licensed activities. In the first notification Mr. Ladner shall include a statement of his coassitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis why the Comunission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements.
The Director, 0ffice of Enforcement, may in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Ladner of good cause. NUREG-0940, PART I A-163
6 V In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Larry S. Ladner must, and any other person adversely a?fected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Oroer, and may rtquest a heartig on this Order, within 20 days of the date of this Order. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall,,in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Larry S. Ladner or any other person acversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing khall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conssission, Attn: Chief, Docketing and Service Section, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the 01rsctor, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, W m ington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the.same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region !!, 101 Marietta Street, N. W., Suite 2900, Atlanta, Georgia 30323, and to Larry S. Ladner if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Larry S. Ladner, if a person other than Larry S. Ladner requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity thimanner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by Larry S. Ladner or another person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. l i NUREG-0940, PART I A-164
7 1 Pursuantto10CFR2,202(c)(2)(1),LarryS.Ladner,oranyotherperson adversely affected by this Order, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the 1 mediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for imediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing; the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without
- further order or processing. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IM EDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF TH15 ORDER.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0m !SSION G _ James Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement Dateda4Rockville, Maryland
- this & day of August 1994 5
J k NUREG-0940, PART I A-165
SYNOPSIS on August 22, 1991, the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear gegulatory Commission (NRC), Region II, requested an investigation to determine whether of ficials, managers, and/or employees of The-American Inspection Company, Inc. (AHSPEC), the licensee, had intentionally violated regulatory and license condition requirements set forth in 10 CTR Parts 20, 30, and 34 and the NRC license of January 15, 1987, respectively. According to reported allegations, licensee management officials had permitted unqualified technicians to perform radiography operations at the Hess oil Virgin Islands Company (HOVIC) facility, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, which had contracted with AMSPEC for nondestructive examination services. Additionally, licensee officials a~11egedlyt (1) discriminated (involuntary termination) againw. technicians for reporting radiation health and safety concerns, (2) falsified radiation safety training documents, (3) provided falso and misleading information to the NRC, and (4) used source material in a manner not authorized by the license (irradiation of mice). The office of Investigations (oI) reviewed the circumstances of the alleged regulatory and license condition violations during which other improprieties by the licensee were identified. The investigation by OI did not substantiate that licensee management officials had terminated radiography technicians for reporting radiation health and safety concerns. It was concluded, however, that these licensee officials at the HOVIC facility appeared insensitive to employee concerne of all topics, including radiation safety, and they were perceived by technicians as l' acting with apparent disregard concerning this issue. The invest'igation further determined that licensee officials deliberately provided falso and misleading radiation safety-related information to NRC representatives which was pertinent to the regulatory-process. The investigation substantiated that the licensee, through actions of some radiation protection officers (RPCs), deliberately falsified radiation safety training records, inserted falso records in technician files to give the impression required training was accomplished, and they also conspired to conceal these training deficiencies and improprieties from the NRC. The investigation surfaced and substantiated the allegation that licensee officials and RPCs deliberately falsified required personnel radiation safety audits and accompanying reports and they also created audit reports to make complete the radiation safety files of some technicians. The investigation also disclogpd and confirmed numerous instances of radigraphers' assistants pe.rforming radi.ography without supervision and the deliberate falsification of source utilization logs to give the appearance that required supervision was present, all with the apparent knowledge and concurrence of licensee management officials. It was also determined during the investigation that licensee training officials (RPCs) frequently case No. 2-91-010R 1 NUREG-0940, PART I A-166
f ailed to provide the Cporation and Energency Procedures (o&EP) Manual to new employees prior to source utilization. Tne investigation also determined that aggt licensee RPos were not trained, examined, and certified according to Radrat' ion Safety-
' Prog' ram r"equirements anf~KR3PEC officials, including the radiation safety officer (RS0) and several RPCs, were aware of some of these violations and failed to correct them. Further, on at least one occasion, the RSO and an RPO conspired to concoct a plausible explanation for the NRC as to why RPO examination / certification requirements were violated.
The investigation substantiated the allegation that radioactive source material was utilized improperly when an AMSPEC night shift supervisor, in the presence of technicians radiographed a mouse during two to three consecutive source expo,sures at the
!!0VIC f acility. The OI investigation, and a previous NRC inspection at the St. Croix location, also revealed instances in which AMSPEC technicians failed to observe required surveying and posting activities during radiography operations, actions which demonstrated either an apparent disregard for regulations and/or radiation safety training deficiencies. Finally, the investigation disclosed that the JUBE and other licensee management officials deliberately failed to perform required radiation safety review, evaAusston, and oversight functions and responsibilities during the past 3 years.
I Case No. 2-91-010R 2 NUREG-0940, PART I A-167 l l
on ase oq s* It umTro STATES j * .j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION w A6 MIN 0f oN, D.C. 700eH001 o $
***** December 12, 1996 l l
IA 96-100 Mr. John Maas clo Mr. Paul M. Sandler, Esq. Freishtat & Sandler , 201 East Baltimore Street Suite 1500 Baltimore, Maryland 21202
SUBJECT:
CONFIRMATORY ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMEDIATELY)
Dear Mr. Maas:
The enclosed Confirmatory Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities is being issued because of your deliberate misconduct, in violation of 10 CFR 30.10 of the Commission's regulations, as described in the Order. The Confirmatory Order which you consented to by letter dated October 22, 1996 from your counsel, prohibits your involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years and requires notification to the NRC of your first involvement in NRC-licensed activities within a period of five years following the prohibition period. Pursuant to Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, any person who willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of this Order shall be subject to criminal prosecution as set forth in that section. Violation of this Order may also subject the person to civil monetary penalty. Questions concerning this Order should be addressed to me at (301) 415-2741. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. Sincerely,
}p,; L . . -- -
... James Lieberman Office of Enforcement
Enclosure:
Confirmatory Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-licensed Activities cc w/ encl: Comonwealth of Puerto Rico i NUREG-0940, PART I A-168
I i UNITED STATES l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l In the Matter of John Maas ) IA 96-100 CONFIRMATORY ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICE:15ED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) 1 Mr. John Maas was employed as President of National Circuits Caribe, Inc. ~ (NCCl) in Fajardo, Puerto Rico, in 1991. NCCI possessed and used radioactive 1 materials at its Fajardo, Puerto Rico facility under the authority of a ! general license issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) pursuant to
- 10 CFR 31.5. The general license authorized the licensee to use byproduct material contained in devices designed and manufactured for the purpose of gauging or controlling thickness of materials during industrial processes. >
1 NCCI filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 in Puerto Rico in March 1991 but the case was dismissed in October 1991 due to lack of response from the company. The Fajardo facility was abandoned sometime around October 1991. ! 11 4 On June 23, 1993, the NRC was notified by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's Bureau of Radiological Health (Bureau) of the discovery of radioactive sources and a quantity of hazardous chemicals on property leased from the Puerto Rico 1 Industrial Development Corporation (PRIDCO) by NCCI. Bureau personnel indicated that the abandoned sources had been found in an abandoned building by PRIDC0 personnel. s k ( NUREG-0940, PART I A-169
2 The NRC, Region II, staff performed an inspection of the site on June 30, 1993, and determined there were five sources containing microcurie amounts of Thalliu.r204 or Fromethium-147. The sources were in backscatter gauges that were authorized for use by NCCI under an NRC general license, specified in 10 CFR 31.5. The staff determined that the source / gauges had been abandoned at the site since October 1991. NRC and PRIDC0 oversaw the disposal of the gauges, which was completed in September 1994. The NRC Office of Investigations (01) conducted an investigation, documented in O! Report No. 2-93-044 dated January 31, 1996, to determine whether NCCI had deliberately abandoned licensed material at the plant site. Based on the evidence developed and reviewed 01 determined that during approximately October 1991, the five generally licensed backscatter gauges were deliberately abandoned by the licensee, with the knowledge of the President of the company, Mr. Maas. Mr. Maas, the former President of NCCI, was prosecuted by the Department of Justice and on December 5,1995, pled guilty to the charges of 1) willfully and knowingly storing or causing to be stored hazardous wastes for longer than ninety days without having first obtained a permit or interim status for said storage, in violation of Title 42 United States Code, Section 6928(d)(2)(a) and 2) willfully and knowingly abandoning devices containing byproduct radioactive materials, in violation of Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, Title 42, United States Code, Section 2273 and 10 CFR 31.5(c)(6). On August 8, 1996, Mr. Maas was sentenced to probation and required to perform community service. NUREG-0940, PART I A-170
Ill The Consiission's regulation in 10 CFR 30.10 requires, in part, that any employee of a licensee may not engage in deliberate misconduct that causes a licensee to be in violation of any regulation issued by the Commission. Based on the facts set forth above, the staff concluded that Mr. Maas engaged in deliberate misconduct that caused the licensee to abandon devices containing byproduct material in violation of 10 CFR 31.5(c)(6). As President of NCCl, Mr. Mats was responsible for ensuring that NCCI conducted activities in accordance with NRC requirements. The NRC must be able to rely on licensees and their officials and employees to comply with NRC requirements. Mr. Maas' actions in causing NCCI to violate 10 CFR 31.5 have raised serious doubts as to whether he can be relied on to comply with NRC requirements. The NRC staff sent a letter dated October 10, 1996, to Mr. P. M. Sandler, Mr. Maas' attorney, containing the proposed terms of this Order which are set out in Section IV of this Order. The prort,;cd terms are that Mr, Maas be prohibited from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years from the date of this Order, and is required to notify the NRC of his first involvement in NRC-licented activities during the five years following the prohibition period. The NRC staff requested Mr. Sandler to review the proposed items with Mr. Maas and, if Mr. Maas agreed to the proposed terms of this Order, have him indicate his agreement with those terms by signing an enclosed acknowledgement. By letter dated October 22, 1996 Mr. Sandler transmitted the acknowledgement of the _ proposed provisions of the Order which had been signed by Mr. Maas. In the acknowledgement, Mr. Maas NUREG-0940, PART I A-171 m
indicated that he understood the proposed provisions, comitted to complying with them, and consented to the issuance of an Order confirming these provisions. In the acknowledgment, Mr. Maas also waived his right to have a hearing on such an Order. I find that Mr. Maas' commitments as set forth in the letter of October 22, 1996, are acceptable and necessary and conclude that with these commitments public health and safety are reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined that public health and safety require that Mr. Maas' commitments in the October 22, 1996 letter be confirmed by this Order. As stated above, Mr. Maas has agreed to this action. Pursuan'. to 10 CFR 2.202, I have also determined, based on Mr. Maas' consent and on '.ne significance of the conduct described above, that public health and safety require that this Order be imediately effective. IV a Accoroingly. pesuant to sections 81,161b,1611,1610, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 30.10 and 10 CFR 150.20, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THAT: 1
- 1. For a period of five years from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Mr. Maas is prohibited from engaging in or exercising control over individuals engaged in NRC-licensed activities. NRC-licensed activities are those activities which are conducted pursuant to a specific or NUREG-0940, PART I A-172 l
l 5-general license issued by the NRC, including, but not limited to, those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the , authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20. This prohibition includes, but is ) not limited to: (1) using licensed materials or conducting licensed 2 activities in any capacity within the jurisdiction of the NRC; and (2) supervising or directing any licensed activities conducted within the jurisdiction of the NRC.
- 2. At least five days prior to the first time that Mr. Maas engages in, or exercises control over, NRC-licensed activities within a period of five years _following the five-year prohibition in Section IV.! above, he shall notify the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, of th'e name, address, and telephone number of the NRC or Agreement State licensee and the location where the licensed activities will be performed. The notice shall be accompanied by a statement, under oath or affinnation, that Mr. Maas I
understands NRC requirements, that he is committed to compliance with 4 NRC requirements, and that provides a basis as to why the Commission should have confidence that-he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements. The Regional Administrator, Region II, may relax or rescind, in writing, any of the above conditions upon a showing by Mr. Maas of good cause. NUREG-0940, PART I A-173
V in accordance with 10 (FR 2.202, any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other than Mr. Maas, may submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing within 20 days of its issuance. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington 0.C. 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The request for a hearing shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, spee " c411y set forth the matters of fact and law on which any other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Confirmatory Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to 1 the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn: Chief, Docketing and Service Section, Washington, D.C. 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, D.C. 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, and to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region II, 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900, Atlanta, Georgia 30323 and to Mr. Maas. If a person other than Mr. Maas requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any NUREG-0940, PART I A-174
4 hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained. i In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension ] of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Confirmatory Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for reouesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\p W- "
Jqnos Lieberman, Director W fice of Enforcement Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12thday of December 1996 NUREG-0940, PART I A-175 l
i
*h. UNITSO STATES
. ) *( fi NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSION S waemi,etom, o.c. seens ,
g
- s. ,,;,, )! ana IA 94 017 ,
Daniel J. McCool (HOME ADDRESS DELETED UNDER10CFR2.790) SUBJD T: ORDER ' PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EiFECTIVEIMMEDIATELY) The enclosed Order is being issued because of your violations of 10 CFR 30.10 of the Commission's regulations as described in the Order. Based on an investigatten conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's , Office of Investigation, the NRC Staff has determined that you deliberately conspired with other AMSPEC officials to deceive the Commission and provided false testimony, under oath, to NRC officials. In addittor,, you deliberately failed to train and certify employees in radiation safety as required by the AMSPEC license conditions. A copy of the synopsis of the investigation is enclosed. Far $ to comply with the provisions of this Order may result in further cis ' criminal sanctions. Quest ns cencerntr.g this Order should be addressed to Mr. James Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement, who can be reached at (301) 504-2741. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ' Rules of Practice
- a copy of thisletterandtheenclosureswillbeplacedintheNRC'sPub1IcDocument Room.
Sincerely, p N(.= - ames Lieberman, Director ffice of Enforcement
Enclosures:
- 1. Order
- 2. 01 Synopsis NUREG-0940, PART I A-176
l l UNITED STATES l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of IA 94-017 Daniel J. McCool ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) I Daniel J. McCool has been employed as a radiographer in the field of industrial radiography since approximately 1968. On approximately January 1, 1987, Mr. McCool initiated licensed activities at the American Inspecticn Company. Inc., (AMSPEC), in his capacity as President. AMSPEC held Materials License No. 12-24801-01 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC or Comission) pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 34. The license authorized the conduct of industrial radiography activities in accordance with specified conditions. On April 20, 1992, the license was suspended as a result of significant safety violations and related safety concerns. Mr. McCool was President of AMSPEC at the time of license suspension. l 11 Between August 22, 1991 and November 12, 1992, the NRC Office of Investigations conducted an investigation of licens e activities at AMSPEC. During the course of this investigation, the AMSPEC license was suspended when a significant number of safety violations were identified. In addition, the investigation revealed that Mr. McCool, in his capacity as President of AMSPEC, conspired with other AMSPEC ofnicials to deceive the Commission l NUREG-0940, PART I A-177
a 2 J regarding training of employees and, in addition, deliberately provided false , sworn testimony to NRC officials. AMSPEC submitted a Radiation Safety Manual as a part of its license application dated September 20, 1986. A part of this manual refers to .l employee training to satisfy the requirements of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 34. This manual was incorporated as a part of License Condition 17 of the AMSPEC license, in addition, 10 CFR 30.9(a) requires, in part, that information provided to the Comission by a licensee, and information required by the Commission's regulations to be maintained by the licensee, shall be complete and accurate in all material respects. 10 CFR 30.10(a) requires, in part, that any licensee or any employec of a licenset may nots (1)engagein deliberate misconduct that causes a licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or limitation of any license, issued by the Comission, or (2) deliberately submit to the NRC information that the person submitting the information knows to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. From 1990 through April 1992, Mr. McCool deliberately violated License Condition 17 by failing to train new Radiation Protection Officers (RPGs), and by allowing others to administer the RPO qualification process, including exams and certification, although this was contrary to the Radiation Safety Program established in the Radiation Safety Manual. For over two years, from late fall 1989 through April 1992 Mr. McCool failed to perform the radiation safety audit function required by the Radiation Safety Program. In addition
-to the above, Mr. McCool deliberately provided false information under oath to NUREG-0940, PART I A-178
3 an investigatt- and an inspector on May 4, 1992, regarding training of an l l individual in order to qualify that individual for work as an RPO. l On September 22. 1993 Mr. McCool pied guilty to two felony violations of the Atomic Energy Act based on his violations of these requirements. The violations to which Mr. McCool pled were (1) conspiracy to violate the Atomic Energy Act, and (2) providing falso information to the NRC. 111 Based on the above, Mr. McCool engaged in deliberate misconduct which caused the licenses to be in violation of the training requirements of License Condition 17 and 10 CFR 30.9. The NRC must be able to rely on licensees and their employees to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirements to train and certify employees in radiation safety and procedures and the requirement to provide information that is complete and accurate in all material respects. Mr. McCool's actions in deliberately causing AMSPEC to be in violation of NRC requirements regarding training and completeness and accuracy of information and his deliberate false statements to NRC officials in violation of 10 CFR 30.10 have raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied on to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC. Mr. McCool's deliberate misconduct, including his false statement to Comission officials, cannot and will not be tolerated. Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the Comission's requirements NUREG-0940 PART.1 A-179 9
i 4 and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. McCool were permitted at this time to supervise or perform licensed activities in any area where the NRC maintains jurisdiction. Therefore, the public health, safetyand'interestrequirethatMr.McCoolbeprohibitedfromengagingin NRC licensed activities (including any supervising, training or auditing) for either an NRC licensee or an Agreement State licenses performing licensed activitiesinareasofNRCjurisdictioninaccordancewith10CFR150.20 fora 4 period of five years from the date of this Order. In addition, for a period of five years commencing after completion of the five year period of prohibition, Mr. McCool is required to notify the NRC of his employment by any. perse.1 or entity engaged in NRC-ittensed activities to ensure that the NRC can monitor the status of Mr. McCool's compliance with the Commission's requirements and his understanding of his commitment to compliance. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of the conduct described above is such that the public health, safety and interest require that this order be effective tamediately. IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81,161b,1611,182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 30.10, and 10 CFR 150.20, IT IS HERE8Y ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IMME01ATEL.Y. THAT: 1, Daniel J. McCool is prohibited for five years from the date of this Order from engaging in NRC-licensed activities. NRC-licensed activities are those activities that are conducted pursuant to a specific or NUREG-0940, PART I A-180
l l l l 5 l l general license issued by the NRC, including, but not limited to, those I activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20. During this time period, Mr. McCool l must also provide a copy of this Order to prospective employers who engage in NRC-licensed activities, at the time he accepts employment. 1 l 2. For a period of five years after the five-year period cf prohibition has expired Daniel J. McCool shall, within 20 days of his acceptance of each employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities or his becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, as defined in Paragraph IV.1 above, provide notice to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commtssion, Washington 0.C. 20555, of the name, address, and telephone number of the employer or the entity where he is, or will be, involved in the NRC-11 censed activities, in the first notification Mr. McCool shall include a statement of his commitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis why the Commission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements. The Otrector, Office of Enforcemenc, may in writing, relsx or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. McCool of good cause. V in accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Daniel J. McCool must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the date of this Order. NUREG-0940, PART I A-181
6 The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny eAch allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set Wrth the matters of fact and law on which Daniel J. McCool or any other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn Chief, _.00cketing and Service Section. Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement-at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, [ NRC Region 11, 101 Harietta Street, N. W., Suite 2900, Atlanta, Georgia 30323, and to Daniel J. McCool if the answer or hearic; request is by a person other than Daniel J. McCool, if a person other than Dettel J. McCool requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by Daniel J. McCool or another person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing, if a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at the hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(1), Daniel J. McCool or any other person adversely affected by this Orde:, say, in addition to demandtog a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set-aside the inmediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, NUREG-0940, PART I A-182 1
! 1 l including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. in the absence of any request for hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or processing. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THl$ ORDER. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N W b _ ames Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement DatedagRockville, Maryland this h day of August 1994 NUREG-0940, PART I A-183
1 SYNOPSIS i L on August 22, 1991, the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear l Regulatory Commission (NRC), Region II, requested an ! investigation to determine whether officials, managers, and/or esployees of The American Inspection Company, Inc. (AMSPEC), the l ' licensee, had intentionally violated regulatory and license condition requirements set forth in 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, and 34 l and the NRC license of January 15, 1987, respectively. According to reported allegations, licensee management officials had i 4 permitted unqualified technicians to perform radiography operations at the Hess 011 Virgin Islands company (HOVIC) ' facility, st. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, which had contracted with AMsPEC for nondestructive examination services. Additionally, licensee officials allegedlys (1) discriminated (inve).untary termination) against technicians for reporting-radiation health and safety concerns, (2) falsified radiation safety training documents, (3)-provided falso and misleading information to the NRC, and not authorized by the license (4) used source material in a manner (irradiation of mice). The office of Investigations (01) reviewed the circumstances of the alleged regulatory and lloonse condition violations during which other improprieties by the licensee were identified. The investigation by o! did not substantiate-that licensee management officials had terminated radiography technicians for reporting radiation health and safety concerns. It was concluded, however, that these licensee officials at the H0VIC facility appeared insensitive to employee concerns of all topics, including ' radiation safety, and they were perceived by technicians as acting with apparent disregard concerning this issue. The invest'igation-further determined that licensee officials deliberately provided falso and misleading radiation safety-related information the regulatory to NRC representatives which was pertinent to process. The investigation substantiated that the ; licensee,-through actions of some radiation protection officers
-(RPos), deliberately falsified radiation safety training records, ,
inserted falso records in technician files to give the impression required training was accomplished, and they also conspired to conceal NRC. these training deficiencies and improprieties from the The investigation surfaced and substantiated the allegation . that licensee officials and Rpos deliberately falsified required-Personnel radiation safety audits and accompanying reports and they also created audit reports to make complete the radiation safety files of some technicians.- The investigattan also disclosed and confirmed numerous instances of radigrapheis' assistants performing radi_ogt.aphy without supervision and the deliberate falsification of source ' utilisation lgs to give the appearance that r91 red supervision
- was present, all with the a p rent knowledge a u concurrence of licensee management officials.. It was also determined during the +
investigation that licensee training officials (RPos) frequently case No.. 2-91-010R 1
. NUREG-0940, PART I A-184
failed to provide the Operation and Emergency Procedures (0&EP) Manual to new employees prior to source utilization. The investigation also determined that Agat licensee RPos were not examined and certified according to Radfat' ion Safety' trained,'squiremen,ts Progian r a65 KRSPEC officials, including the radiation safety officer (RS0) and several RPos, were aware of some of these violations and failed to correct them. Further, on at least one occasion, the R50 and an RPO-conspired to concoct a plausible explanation for the NRC as to why RPO examination / certification requirements were violated. The investigation substantiated the allegation that radioactive-source material was utilised improperly when an AMSPEC night shift supervisor, in the presence of technicians, radiographed a nouse during two to three consecutive source exposures at the H0VIC facility. The OI investigation, and a previous NRC i inspection at the r*.. Croix location, also revealed instances in ' which AMSpEC technicians failed to observe required surveying and posting activities during radiography operations, actions which demonstrated either an apparent disregard for regulations and/or radiation safety training deficiencies. Finally, the investigation disclosed that the juBL and other licensee management officials deliberately failed to perform required radiation safety review, evaAussaan, and oversight functions and responsibilities during the past 3 year. Case No. 2-91-010R 2 NUREG-0940. PART I A-185
pa eseg
/ *
. UMTED STATES j }
f NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSION wAsMinatoN, O C. We464ept
,% *****/
% rch 27. 1996 IA 96-018 Mr. Donald J. Mcdonald, Jr.
(HOME ADDRESS DELETED UNDER 10 CFR 2.790)
SUBJECT:
ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMEDIATELY) ; (NRCOFFICEOFINVESTIGATIONSREPORTNO. 3 95-007) Dear Mr. McDonaldt The enclosed Order is being issued as a result of an investigation by the NRC Office of Investigations (01) which concluded that you deliberately provided Incomplete and inaccurate information on applications you made for access l i authorization at Illinois PowerThe Company's Clinton Power Station. A copy of the 01 Synopsis is enclosed. Order proh (licensee)ibits your involvement in. NRC-licensed activities, and your obtaining unescorted access to protected and vital areas of facilities licensed by the NRC, for a period of three years from the data of the Order. In addition, for your first acceptance of employment in NRC-licensed activities after the three year period of prohibition has expired, the Order requires you to notify the NRC of your acceptance of such employment and requires you to certify that you will comply with NRC requirements in engaging in such activities. 1 On March 22, 1994, you indicated on your background screening questionnaire for Clinton Power Station that you had not been arrested or convicted of a criminal offense other than a driving while under the influence (DWI) conviction. However, unescorted access was not pursued further at the time. You completed a second questionnaire on November 3,1994, in which you listed no criminal history. After submitting your fingerprint cards to the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the licensee was informed that you had a criminal record of three convictions. Furthennore it was learned that you had not achievedtheeducationallevelthatyouclaimedinyourapplication. 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2), ' Deliberate Misconduct,' prohibits an employee of a licensee contractor from deliberately submitting information to the licensee that the employee knows to be inconolete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. The incomplete information you deliberately provided regarding your criminal history is a violation of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2l. Information concerning criminal history and educational history is materia, to the determination the licensee must make in granting or denying unescorted access pursuant to 10 CFR 73.56(b)(2). Pursuant to section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, any person who willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of this Order shall be subject to criminal prosecution as set forth in that section. Violation of this Order may also subject the person to civil monetary penalty. NUREG-0940, PART I A-186
i l 0. Mcdonald, Jr. 2 l During a telephone conversation with Paul Pelke, NRC Region !!!, on February 15, 1996, you declined an opportunity to participate in a l predecisional enforcement conference on this matter. You are required to respond to this Order and should follow the instructions specified in Section V of the Order when preparing your response. Questions concerning this Order should be addressed to James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, who can be reached at (301) 415-2741. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ' Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (POR). Sincerely, s L. i
$putyExecutiveDirector for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations, and Research
Enclosures:
As Stated cc w/ enc): The National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors . Comercial Union Contract inspection Services R. Morgenstern, Plant Manager, Citnton Power Station NUREG-0940, PART-1 A-187
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the Natter of )
) lA 96-018 Donald J. Mcdonald, Jr. )
)
ORDER PROHIBITING INYOLVENENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVEIMME0!ATELY) 1 Mr. Donald J. Mcdonald, Jr., was employed as an Authorized Nuclear in-service inspector for Factory Mutual Engineering, which is owned by Arkwright Mutual Insurance Company, Inc., a contractor of the Illinois Power Company (Licensee). Licensee is the holder of License No. NPF-62 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Connission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 on April 17, 1987. The license authorizes the operation of Clinton Power-Station (facility)inaccordancewiththeconditionsspecifiedtherein. The facility is located on the Licensee's site in Cilnton, Illinois. 11 Mr. Mcdonald first applied for unescorted access to the Clinton Power Station by completing a background screening questionnaire on March 22, 1994 In response to a question on the questionnaire as to whether he had ever been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor, he listed one driving while under the influenceconviction(DWI). However, unescorted access was not pursued further at the time. Mr. Mcdonald completed a second background screening questionnaire on November 3, 1994, in which he listed no criminal history in NUREG-0940, PART I A-188
2 response to the same question. Subsequently, the Licensee submitted fingerprint cards to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and was informed that Mr. Mcdonald had a record of three convictions. Illinois Power Company denied Mr. Mcdonald unescorted access to the Clinton Power Station. The investigation also determined that Mr. Mcdonald had falsified his educational record. l The NRC Office of Investigations conducted a transcribed interview of Mr. Mcdonald on November 30, 1995. When asked by the NRC Investigator about the failure to itst the convictions on the background screening questionnaires, Mr. Mcdonald admitted that he knowingly provided inaccurate and incomplete information. Based on the above, Mr. Mcdonald engaged in deliberate misconduct on March 22, 1994, and November 3, 1994, in that he deliberately provided incomplete and inaccurate inform. tion un two different access authorization applications. The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.5, in part, prohibit any employee of a contractor of a licensee from deliberately submitting to the licensee infomation that the employee knows to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. Infomation concerning criminal history and educational history is material to the determination the licensee must make in granting or denying unescorted access to its facility pursuant to 10 CFR 73.56(b)(2). Mr. Mcdonald's actions constituted a violation of 10 CFR . 50.5(a). NUREG-0940, PART I A-189 I
__- _ _ ~ - - - _ . - . . _ - . . .. 3 The NRC must be able to rely on the Licensee, its contractors, and contractor employees to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement to provide information that is complete and accurate in all material respects. Mr. Mcdonald's actions in deliberately providing incomplete and inaccurate information to the Licensee constituted deliberate violations of Comission regulations and raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements and to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC in the future. Consequently, ! lack the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the Comission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. Mcdonald were permitted at this time to be involved in NRC-licensed activities or were permitted unescorted access to protected or vital areas of NRC-licensed facilities. Therefore, the pubile health, safety and interest require that Mr. Mcdonald be prohibited from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities and be prohibited from obtaining unescorted access for a period of three years from the date of this Order and, if Mr. Mcdonald is currently involved with an employer in NRC-licensed activities, he must immediately cease such activities, inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer, and provide a copy of this Order to the employer. Additionally, for his first acceptance of an employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities or the assumption of duties in an existing job involving NRC-licensed activities following the three year period of prohibition, Mr. Mcdonald shall provide notice to the NRC within 20 days of the acceptance of the name, address, # Mlephone number of the employer or the entity where he is, or NUREG-0940, PART I A-190
4 will be, involved in the NRC-licensed activities, and certify that he will comply with NRC regulatory requirements in such employment. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of Mr. Mcdonald's conduct described above is such that the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be inmediately effective. IV I Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 161b, 1611, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of-1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, and 10 CFR 50.5, IT 15 HEREBY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IMEDIATELY, THAT:
- 1. (a) Mr. Donald J. Mcdonald, Jr., is prohibited from engaging in NRC-licensed activities and from obtaining unescorted access to protected and vital areas of facilities licensed by the NRC for a period of three years from the date of this Order. For the purposes of this Order, licensed activities include the activities licensed or regulated by: (1)
NRC; (2) an Agreement State, limited to the licensee's conduct of activities within NRC jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20; and (3) an Agreement State where the Itcensee is involved in the distribution of products that are subject to NRC jurisdiction. (b) If Mr. Mcdonald is currently involved in NRC-licensed activities with an employer, he shall lamediately cease such activities, inform the NUREG-0940, PART I A-191 i
' ' ^ '
5
~
NRC cf the name, address and telephone number of the employer, and provide a copy of this Order to the employer.
- 2. Following the three year period of prohibition, at the time of his first I
acceptance of an employment offer involving NRC licensed activities as defined in Paragraph IV.) above, or the first assumption of duties in an existing job that involve licensed activities, Mr. Mcdonald shall provide notice to the NRC within 20 days of the acceptance or assumption of duties of the name, address, and telephone number of the employer or the entity where he is, or will be, involved in the NRC-licensed activities. This notice (a) shall be provided to the Director, Offic6 of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission, Washington, D.C. 20555, and (b) shall certify Mr. Mcdonald's connitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and provide the basis as to why the commission should have confidence that Mr. Mcdonald will now comply with applicable NRC requiremer.ts. The Director, OE, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Mcdonald of good cause. V in accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. Mcdonald must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time NUREG-0940, PART I A-192
6 to request a hearing. A request for exteMion of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.l. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. 0.C. 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. McDonalu or other person adversely affected rolles and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Attnt Chief Docketing l and Service Section, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Olrector Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region 111, 801 Warrenyt11e Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351, and to Mr. Mcdonald if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Mr. Mcdonald, if a person other than Mr. McDonalt requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner 1 which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by Mr. Mcdonald or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. NUREG-0940, PART I A-193
1 Pursuantto10CFR2.202(c)(2)(l),Mr. Mcdonald,oranyotherpersonadversely affected by this Order, say, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for imediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING SitALL NOT STAY THE imEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMIS$10N l Y Milhoan puty Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations, and Research Dated at Rockville, Maryland this g G4ay of March 1996 I NUREG-0940. PART 1 A-194
o ((.. ass,*,,t;
- UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSION
% wasniwovow, o c. asenwom March 24. 1997 IA 97-001 Mr. Darryl D. McNeil [HOMEADDRES$ DELETED UNDER10CFR2.790)
$U6 JECT: ORDER PR0HIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACT!V! TIES (EFFECTIVEIMMEDIATELY)
Dest Mr. McNeil The enclosed Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective lamediately) is being issued because of your deliberate misconduct in violation l cf 10 CFR 50.5 of the Comission's regulations. Specifically, on February 9 l 1996, you deliberately conspired to cover up the loss of control of a security badge at Florida Power Corporation's Crystal River site. 9ased on your actions, the Order prohibits your involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of one year and requires your notification of the NRC of your first involvement in NRC-licensed activities for one year following the prohibition period. Pursuant to section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, any person who willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of this Order shall be subject to criminal prosecution as set forth in that section. Violation of this Order may also subject the person to civil monetary penalty. Questions concerning this Order should be addressed to James Lieberman, Dire.: tor, Office of Enforcement, who can be reached at (301) 415-2741. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ' Rules of Practice.' a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). Sincerely, b dwa'd L dan Deputy ocutive Director for egulatory Effectiveness, Pro am Oversight, Investigations and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC Licensed Activities NUREG-0940, PART I A-195
D. McNeil oc w/ enc 1 (Mont ADDktil K LETED): Florida Power Corporation Mr. Roy Anderson ($AtAl Sr. VP. Nuclear Operat l ons 16760 West Power Line street Crystal River. FL 34428-6708 l l l 1 1 NUREG-0940. PART I A-196
UNITED $TATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMIS$10N In the Matter of IA 97-001 DARRYL D. NCNEIL ) ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMEDIATELY) Darryl D. McNeil was employed by $41 as a Seiurity Lieutenant at Florida Po er l Corporation's (FPC) Crystal River site. $81 '.s a contractor to FPC and provides security services for the site. FPC holds License No. OPR-72 for Crystal River Unit 3, issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC or Comission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 60 on January 28. 1977. The license authorizes FPC to operate Crystal River Unit 3 in accordance with the conditions specified therein. 10 CFR 73.55(d) requires, in part, that nuclear power plant licensees control all Points of poisonnel access into a protected area. 10CFR73.55(d)(5) requires that a numbered picture badge identification system be used for all individuals who are authorized access to protected areas without escort. The objective of the regulation is to provide high assurance that only individuals who require access and have been found to be trustworthy and reliable and do not constitute an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public are allowed to enter the protected area. The Crystal River Unit 3 Operating License section 2.D, Physical Security, requires FPC to maintain in effect all provisions of the NUREG-0940, PART I A-197
t Cannission-approved Mirsical Geourity Plan. MC's Miysical Security plan, Revision 6 9, Section 6.4.3 states: 'When badges / key cards are allowed to leave the Protected Area, they will be under the observation and control of Security l Force personnel. ... Lost and missing badges / key cards are immediately removed from the security Computer as soon as security Supervision is made aware of the ) loss. Prior to removal from the Security Computer, an investigation is conducted to determine any unauthorized use.' On February 9, 1996, a Quality Assurance employee at Crystal River Unit 3 left the site while wearing hit security badge. During the period of March 6, 1996, through December 13, 1996, the Nuclear Regulatory Counission (NRC) Office of
.nvestigations (01) conducted an investigation of the circumstances surrounding the loss of control of the security badge at the Crystal River site. From its investigation, the NRC concludes that contract security employees intentionally and deliberately conspired to cover up the loss of the security badge.
Specifically, the evidence revealed that, prior to the return of the employee to the site, two security officers became aware that this event had occurred, and notified their supervisor, Darryl D. McNeil, of the event. Although Mr. McNeil admitted to the 01 investigator that he was aware of the requirements to deactivate a missing badge in the security access computer. and to initiate an investigation upon being informed of the mistake, he did not comply with these retairements. Instead, he permitted the security officers: (1)toretrievethe individual's badge when he returned to the site later that day (2) to card the badge out as if it had been processed properly upon the individual's exit from the plant; and (3) to return the badge to the badge rack. l l NUREG-0940, PART 1 A-198
._ -. _ - --. ~
3 en January 16,1p37, the IRC sent a certified letter te Nr. NoNeil advising him that his actions appeared to have violated 10 CFR 60.5, Deliberate Misconduct, and offering him the opportunity to attend a predecisional enforcement conference, ty letter dated February 10,19g7, Mr. McNet) provided a written response to the January ll, Igg 7, letter in lieu of participation in an enforcement conference. Mr. McNell's letter indicated that he was aware an employee had left the facility with his badge and that he had been informed that l the security officer planned to retrieve the badge and return it to the badge rack. Mr. McNeil stated that in his judgement, these actions posed no security risk to the plar.t. Based on the above, it appears that Mr. McNet) engaged in deliberate misconduct in that, although he was aware of badge security requirements, he deliberately allowed security officers to improperly .itrieve, card out, and return a badge which had been taken off-site to the badge rack, and deliberately failed to remove the employee's badge from the security access computer or initiate an investigation of the incident. These actions were not authorized by plant procedures. Mr. McNeil's deliberate misconduct caused the Licensee to be in violation of Section 5.4.3 of its physical Security Plan and is, therefore, a violation of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(1). The NRC must be able to rely on licensees, contractors and their employees to fully comply with NRC requirements. This is essential with respect to access authorization programs at nuclear power plants because the NRC relies on members of a nuclear facility's security force to ensure that all individuals who are allowed to access the facility meet high NUREG-0940, PART I A-199 1
4 standards of trusterthiness and reliability. Hr. ItsNell's deliberate miseenduct raises serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements. Ctnsequently, ! lack the requisite reasonable assurance that Itcensed activities can be conducted in compliance with Commission requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. McNeil wre permitted at this time to be involved in NRC-Itcensed activities. Therefore, public health and safety and the public interest require that Mr. McNeil be prohibited from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of one year from the date of this Order and, if he'is currently involved with another licensee in NRC-licensed ' activities, he must innediately cease such activities, and inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer, and provide a copy of this Order to the employer. Additionally, Mr. McNeil is required to notify the NRC of his first employment in NRC-licensed activities for one year following the prohibition period. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of Mr. McNeil's conduct described above is such that the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be immediately effective. IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 161b, 1611, 1610, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commissbn's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202,10 CFR 50.5 and 10 CFR 150.20, if !$ HERE8Y ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THAT: NUREG-0940, PART I A-200
1 l i l 5 l A. Mr. Derryl D. McNeil is prehlbited for one year from the date of this Order free engaging in er exercising control over individuals engaged in NRC-licensed activities. If Mr. McNeil is currently involved in NRC licensed activities, he must immediately cease such activities, inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer, and provide a copy of this Order to the employer. NRC-licensed activities are those activities that are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including, but not limited to, those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20. B. For a period of one year following the period of prohibition set forth in Paragraph IV.A. above, Mr. Darryl D. McNeil shall, within 20 days of his acceptance of his first employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities as defined in Paragraph IV. A above, provide notice to the Director Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington 0.C. 20555, of the name, cddress, and telephone number of the employer or the entity where he is, or will be, involved in NRC-licensed activities. The notice shall include a statement of his connitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis why the Coenission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements. The Director, Office o.* Enforcement, may relax or rescind, in writing, any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. McNet) of good cause. NUREG-0940, PART I A401
)
6 V In accordance with 10 CFR t.202, Mr. McNeil must, and any other Person adversely affected by this Order say, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Un1sss the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. McNeil or other person adversely affected relias and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, ATTW: Chief, Docketing and Service Section, Washington, D.C. 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555, to the' Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, and to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region !!,101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 and to Mr. McNet) if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Mr. McNeil. If a person other than Mr. McNeil requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10CFR2.714(d). NUREG-0940, PART I A402
7 f If a hearing is requested by Mr. Remell er a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of l any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this order should be sustained. 4 Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(1), Mr. McNeil, or any other person adversely affected by this Order, say, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for j innedtate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error.
- In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final to days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENES$ 0F THis ORDER.
FOR THE NUCLEAR RESULATORY COMMIS$10N S
.)
Deput xecutive Director for Re latory Effectiveness, Program Oversight, Investigations and Enforcement Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 24thday of March 1997 NUREG-0940, PART I A-203
f-p- jo%q
. UNITED STATES ,
y "g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. f wasHINQf oN, o.C. sosee-ecot
***** February 18, 1997 IA 97-012 Mr. James Mulkey (HOME ADDRESS DELETED UlOER 10 CFR 2.790]
SUBJECT:
ORDER PROHlBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY)
Dear Mr. Mulkey:
The enclosed Order, effective immediately, is being issued to you as a result of the findings of an NRC inspection conducted on December 2-3, ;993, and an investigation by the NRC Office of Investigations (01), initiated in 1993 which found that you engaged in deliberate misconduct with respect to NRC-licersed activities while you were Vice President and Radiation Safety Officer of Power Inspection, Inc., (PI). The Order prJhibi's you for five years from any involvement in NRC-licensed activit13s, and afterwards, requires that you notify the NRC the first time that you engage in NRC-licensed activities. Further, the Order requires you to provide a written arswer within 20 days. Pursuant to Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, any person who willfully violates, attempts te violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of this Order shall be subject to criminal prosecution as set forth in that section. Violation of this order may also subject the person to a civil monetary penalty. In addition, the NRC is issuing a $40,000 civil penalty to PI (see Enclosure 2) on this date based, in part, on your actions. Questions concerning this Order should be addressed to Mr. James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, who can be reached at (301) 415-2741. l ) NUREG-0940, PART I A404 l
. . _ - . . .. . _-. _ . . _ _ _ . _ . -. =,.- . _ -
Mr. James Mulkey 2 In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ' Rules of Practico," a copy of this letter, its enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC i Public Document Room. Sincerely, 1
/
dar L.'of
- Deputy E cutive Director for Regula cry Effectiveness, Program Oversight, Investigations and Enforcement
Enclosures:
- 1. Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective Innedtately)
- 2. Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties cc w/encls:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State of Florida 1 4 i 4 4 r NUREG-0940, PART I A-205 i
UNITED STATES ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0lWIS$10N in the Matter af-' James L. Mulkey IA 97-012 ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES 4' (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) James 1. Hulkey (Mr. Mulkey) was employed as Vice President by Power inspection, Inc.-(P1 or Licensee), and was identified on PI's NRC license as the Radiation Safety Officer (RS0) for Pl. P! is the holder of Byproduct License No. 37-21428-01 (License) issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 34. The License
- authorizes the Licensee to use iridium-192 and cobalt-60 sealed sources for i the pirformance of industrial radiography at its facility in Wexford, l Pennsylvania, as well as at temporary job sites. The License was*most recently renewed on January 31. 1989, and expired on January 31, 1994. In l addition, the Licensee submitted a reque s , dated December 30, 1993, that the license be terminated. Action on that request has been held in abeyance pending further NRC review.
In addition, P1 acted as a vendor supplying services to licensees of nuclear power plants, including the performance of nondestructive testing services, such as eddy current testing (ET). Such services were provided to the licensees of Perry-and Cooper nuclear power plants in 1993. NUREG-0940, PART I A-206
2 On December 2 and 3, 1993, the NRC performed an inspection at the Licensee's Wexford facility of activities conducted under the License. During that inspection, the NRC found numerous violations of NRC requirements. The violations included: the failure of the R50 named on the License to perform required duties; the failure to conduct quarterly audits of all radiographers; the failure to provide the required annual refresher training to the radiographers; the failure to perform, at the required frequency, the required inspecti n and maintenance on the exposure device (camera).containing an iridium-192 source; the failure to perform leak tests of the sealed sources at
'the required frequency; the failure to promptly collect and submit film badges for processing; and the failure to maintain radiography utilization logs.
On December 2, 1993, an NRC investigation was also initiated by the NRC Office of Investigations (01). During its investigation. 01 concluded that:
- a. with respect to the materials license, responses in PI's response letter dated July 14, 1993, to the NRC were deliberately incomplete and inaccurate, and the President and former RSO were responsible for providing this false information to the NRC, Specifically, the inaccurate information provided to the NRC was in response to a previous
-Notice of Violation issued to the Licensee on June 16, 1993. for-numerous violations identified during an NRC inspection conducted in April 1993.
s NUREG-0940, PART I A-207
3 in a response, signed by Mr. Mulkey, to the violations listed in the June 16, 1993 Notice of Violation, the licensee stated that: (1) observations of the licensee's radiographers had been made when, in fact, the observations had not been made; (2) a ratemeter had been sent for calibration, when, in fact, the ratemeter had not been sent; (3) pocket dosimeters had been calibrated, when, in fact, the dosimeters had not been calibrated; (4) source utilization logs had been maintained, when, in fact, the logs had not been maintained; (5) personnel monitoring reports were available, when, in fact, the reports had not beer, available,
- b. with respect to the vendor-related activities, false ET qualification certifications were deliberately generated by P1 for at least three employees who performed ET examinations at Perry and Cooper nuclear power plants during 1993 and ET qualification certification examination results and Personnel Certification Summaries were generated for four employees, and these falsifications were condoned or directed by the ,
former President, former Vice President /RSO (i.e., Mr. Mulkey), and the former Quality Assurance Manager. In addition, Mr. Mulkey deliberately provided false information to the NRC during a December 2, 1993 telephone discussion with a representative of the NRC in that Mr. Mulkey stated he was the RSO, and that in September of 1993 he had visited the Wexford office and executed the duties of an RSO. These statements were false in that: (1) interviews with P! employees established that Mr. Mulkey had not visited the Wexford office during 1993, and they were NUREG-0940, PART I A408
4 not aware of Mr. Mulkey performing any audits related to radiographic operations out of the Wexford office; and (2) Mr. Mulkey indicated during the predecisional enforcement conference on October 2, 1996, that he left the position of R$0 for the Wexford facility at the end of 1992 to work in Florida. However, during the conference, Mr. Mulkey also indicated that at the time he responded to the NRC in the July 14, 1993 letter, he was the RSO and was responsible for compliance with the license. 111 1 Based on the above, Mr. Mulkey, former Vice President and RSO of P!, a licensee of the NRC, engaged in deliberate misconduct, a violation of 10 CFR l 30.10(a)(1), which caused P1 to be in violation of 10 CFR 30.9(a). Specifically, as a result of Mr. Mulkey's actions, P! violated 10 CFR 30.9(a) by providing to the NRC a letter dated July 14, 1993, which contained inaccurate information relating to whether corrective actions had been taken in response to violations listed in an NRC Notice of Violation dated June 16, 1993. Mr. Hulkey also engaged in deliberate misconduct, a violation of 10 CFR 30.10(a)(2) by deliberately providing false information to the NRC during the December 2, 1993 telephone discussion with a representative of the NRC. Specifically, Mr. Mulkey stated he was the RSO, and that in September of-1993 he had visited the Wexford office and executed the duties of an RSO. Moreover, Mr. Mulkey, an employee of PI, a contractor to licensees of the NRC, engagedindeliberatemisconduct,aviolationof10CFR30.10(a)(2),by deliberately submitting in March and in October 1993 to the Cleveland Electric i NUREG-0940, PART I A-209
5 Illuminating Company (CEIC) and Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), both licensees of the NRC, ET qualification certification examination results and Personnel Certification Sunnaries which were inaccurate. The NRC must be able to rely on its licensees and their employees to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement to provide information and maintain records that are complete and accurate in all material respects. Mr. Mulkey's actions in causing the Licensee to be in violation of NRC requirements and in deliberately violating NRC requirements have raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC , requirements and to provide complete and accurate information to both the NRC and NRC licensees. Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that information provided to the NRC by Mr. Mulkey, or records required to be maintained by the Licensee, will be complete and accurate in all material respects if Mr. Mulkey were permitted to be involved in any NRC-licensed activities. I also lack the requisite assurance that NRC-licensed activities will be conducted safely or in accordance with NRC requirements or that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. Mulkey were involved in NRC-licensed activities. In addition, I find that Mr. Mulkey is either unable or unwilling to assure that NRC requirements are being and will be followed. Therefore, I find that the public health, safety, and interest require that Mr. Mulkey be prohibited from involvement in NRC-licensed activities for five years from the date of this Order, and if he is currently engaged in NUREG-0940, PART I A-210 l
6 WRC-licensed activities with another NRC licensee, he must imediately cease such activities, and inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of the misconduct described above is such that the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be immediately effective. IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 57, 62, 81, 103, 161b, 1611, 1610, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 30.10, 50.5, and 150.20, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THAT: A. Mr. James L. Mulkey is prohibited for five years from the date of this Order from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities. For purposes of this Order, licensed activities include the licensed activities of: (1) an NRC licensee; (2) an Agreement State licensee conducting licensed activities in NRC jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20; and (3) an Agreement State licensee involved in the distribution of products that are subject to NRC jurisdiction, in addition, if Mr. Mulkey is currently engaged in NRC-licensed activities with another NRC licensee, he must imediately cease such activities, and inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer. B. The first time that Mr. Mulkey engages in an NRC-licensed activity following the five year prohibition, he shall notify the Director, HUREG-0940, PART I A-211 n
T Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, at least five days prior to the performance of the licensed activity or his being employed to perform NRC-licensed activities (as described in A. above). The notice shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the employer or the entity where he will be involved 2 in the NRC-licensed activity. In the notification, Mr. Mulkey shall include a statement of his commitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis as to why the Commission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements. The Director, Office of Enforcement (OE), may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the acove conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Mulkey of good cause. V in accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. Mulkey must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the c..ce of this Order. Where good cause,is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order, ?nd shtl1 set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Mulkey or other NVREG-0940, PART I A-212 ____-_e---__---
8 person adversely affected relies, and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Setretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ce m ission, Attn: Chief. Docketing and Service Section, Washingtori, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, and to Mr. Mulkey if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Mr. Mulkey, if a person other than Mr. Mulkey requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by Mr. Mulkey or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Comission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be consijered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(1), Mr. Mulkey or any other person adversely afft ted by this Order, say, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for imediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence, but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. NUREG-0940, PART I A413 uo
9 in the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order-or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THl$ OR FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP 911SS10N W hwar L. Jo Deputy- ecutive Director for Regu atory Effectiveness, Progr.m Oversight, Investigations and Enforcement 1 Dated at Rockville, Maryland this i T day of February 1997 g NUREG-0940, PART I A-214
~_ .
"'"8
%g y '* k UNITED STATES g .j a
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e wassmof ow, o c. scea+4m k' [ January 27, 1997 1A 97-004 Mr. James C. Nelson (HOMEADDRESSDELETED UNDER10CFR2.790)
SUBJECT:
ORDER PROHIBITING INYOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY)
Dear Mr. Nelson:
The enclosed Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities l (Effective immediately) is be ng issues because of your deliberate misconduct, in violation of 10 CFR 30.10 of t6:e Commission's regulations. Specifically, you deliberately permitted use of a portable moisture density gauge containing NRC-licensed material while under an October 24, 1995, Order Suspending License (Effective immediately) prohibiting such use causing the licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 30.34. Further, you deliberately provided information to the NRC regarding the identity of the Radiation Protection Officer on your license that you knew was inaccurate. Based on your deliberate actions, the Order prohibits your involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five p ars. Pursuant to Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2273, any person who willfully violate , attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of this Order shall be subject to criminal prosecution as set forth in that section. . Violation of this Order may also subject the person to civil monetary penalty. Questions concerning this Order should be addressed to James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, who can be reached at (301) 415-2741. In accordance with-10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's. " Rules of Practice " a copy of . this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). Sincerely, g _ Edward L. Jordan, Deputy Executive-DirectofforRegulatoryEffectiveness, Progr m Oversight, Investigations - and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC Licensed Activities (Effective immediately) cc w/ enc (HOME ADDRESS DELETED]: State of West Virginia NUREG-0940, PART I A-215 1
- n. \
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the Matter of James C. Nelson IA 97-004 ORDER PROHIB.' TING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICEllSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTI)EIMMEDIATELY) I Mr. James C. Nelson owns and operates Nelson Excavating, Inc. in Thomas, West Virginia. Nelson Excavating, Inc. (Licensee) holds By-product License No. 47-24923-02, issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30. The License was initially issued on June 24, 1987, and last renewed on September 17, 1992. The License authorizes the Licensee to use a Troxler Electronic Model 3400 series portable moisture density gauge for soil compaction measurement: in accordance with the conditions specified therein. The License was extended for a period of five years on March 1.1996, and will expire on September 30, 2002. On August 15, 1996, the Licensee discontinued licensed activities and transferred its gauge containing nominally 11 millicuries (mC1) of Cesium-137 and 44 mci of Americium-241 to an authorized recipient. On August 15, 1996, the Licensee formally requested termination of its NRC License. The License is being terminated separately in accordance with this request. 11 On October 24, 1995, the NRC's Office of the Controller issued an Order Suspending License (Effective immediately) to Nelson Excavating, Inc. suspending its License for the non-payment of fees in the amount of $2873.48, HUREG-0940, PART I A-216 n _ .
'I 2 including late penalties of 5753.48. The Order required, among other things, that the Licensee immediately restrict its activities involving licensed material to safe, secure storage or appropriate disposal until notified by the NRC in writing that the License had been terminated. The Order became final o,' November 24, 1995, following the Licensee's failure to respond to the NRC or pa) the fees within the 30 days specified in the Order. During the period' March 19 through April 1, 1996, NRC Region !! conducted a special safety 1.nspection of licensed activities to determine the status of the gauge and compliance with the October 24, 1995 Order. The inspection determined the following: (1) The Licensee used the gauge containing by-product material on November 6, 1995, and January 4, 1996, contrary to the'
~
requirements of the October 24, 1995, Order; (2) The Licensee was using a different Radiation Protection Officer than that identified in Condition 11 of the License. The Licensee also represented 'to the NRC in a letter, dated September 17,'1992, that the individual named in the License was still acting as Radiation Protection Officer, when in fact the individual was not, contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 30.9; and (3) The Licensee failed to test the licensed material for leakage at the required frequency contrary to Condition 14 of the License. On May 15, 1996, NRC Region 11 management contacted the Licensee to discuss compliance with the October 24, 1995 Order. Mr. Nelson indicated that his licensed material had been used for the work conducted on November 6, 1995, and January 4, 1996,'under another license and not that issued to Nelson i NUREG-0940, PART I A-217 n
, i 3 Excavating, Inc._ Additionally, he affirmed that he understood the provisions of the Order _that the gauge was to be placed in storage.and not used, 9 On June 11, 1996, a Demand for Information (DFI) was issued to the Licensee in orde: 'o obtain a written response regarding the two apparent uses of licensed material and the potential submittal of inaccurate information to the NRC on September 17, 1992. The Licensee's response was due on July 11, 1996.
- Since the licensee was unresponsive to NRC's request in the DFl and numerous f
telephone inquiries NRC Region !! conducted another inspection at the Licensee's facility in Thomas, West Virginia, on August 14 and 15,1996. During that inspection, eleven additional uses of the Licensee's gauge after issuance of the Order were identified through a review of gauge utilization records. Ten of the uses occurred following the May 15, 1996, discussions between NRC Region 11 and the Licensee confirming the Licensee's understanding of the Order. As a result of this inspection, the Licensee transferred the gauge to an authorized recipient and documented the transfer appropriately on August 15, 1996. As a result of the NRC inspection and prompting by the NRC, the Licensee-also submitted a written response to the DFI on August 15, 1996. The response admitted that the gauge was used on 13 occasions during the prohibition period. As an explanation, Mr. Nelson stated that he had reading and , comprehension difficulties, and following his March 19, 1996, payment of
'backfees and receipt of a March 1, 1996, notice from NRC extending his license until September 30, 2002, he felt that he could use his license material. in NUREG-0940, PART I A-218 m
l l l 4 addiM on, he stated that he paid for it (the gauge), he owned it, and would use it accordingly. The OFI response further provided statements by two employees of the licensee that they had not been instructed by Mr. Nelson not to use the gauge. By letter, dated September 25, 1996, the licensee and Mr. Nelson were requested to attend a predecisional enforcement conference to discuss the apparent violations, their root causes, and the corrective actions to preclude recurrence. As of the date of this Order, NRC has not received .ny response from Mr. Nelson, despite numerous attempts to contact him. Contatt with the Office Manager for Nelson Excavating, Inc, however, indicated that due to personal problems, Mr. Nelson did not intend to respond. Despite the lack of a response to NRC's September 25, 1996, letter, based on the information gathered during the inspections and in the response to the DFl the following was concluded regarding Mr. Nelson's activities: (1) he deliberately provided information that he knew was inaccurate to the NRC regarding the identity of the Radiation Protection Officer in a September 17, 1992, letter; and (2) he deliberately permitted the use of the gauge containing licensed material on 13 occasions during the period that use of the gauge was prohibited by the October 24, 1995 Order. In addition, Mr. Nelson has failed to respond to numerous requests from the NRC regarding oversight of his NRC license. This failure caused the NRC to perform two onsite inspections to assure licensed activities were conducted in accordance with NRC regulations. NUREG-0940, PART i A-219
5 Based on the above, it appears'that James C.' Nelson, the owner and operator of the Nelson Excavating, Inc., has engaged in deliberate misconduct in violation of 10 CFR 30.10(a)(1), in that he deliberately caused the Licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 30.34 li). Terms and Conditions of License, by permitting
. the use of the gauge containing licensed material on 13 occasions following the October 24,.1995 Order prohibiting use of the gauge, and in violation of 10 CFR 30.10(a)(2) 11 that he deliberately submitted information to the NRC regarding the ittentify of the RP0 in a September 17, 1992 letter that he knew '
was inaccurate. Mr. Nelson's disregard for and failure to adhere to NRC
. regulations and an Order strongly suggests a-lack of integrity which cannot be tolerated. As owner and operator of Nelson Excavating, Inc., Mr. Nelson was responsible for ensuring that Nelson Excavating, Inc. conducted activities-
-safely and in accordance with NRC requirements and the October 24, 1995, Order.
The NRC must be able to rely on the Licensee, its officials, and employees to comply with NRC requirements and the terms of NRC Orders prohibiting the use of licensed materials, and to communicate to the NRC with candor and honesty. Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed
- activities can be conducted in compliance with the Con ission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. Nelson were permitted at this time to be involved in NRC-licensed activities.
Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Mr. Nelson be prohibited from any oversight of or involvement in NRC-licensed activities for HUREG-0940, PART 11 A420
l 6 a period of five years from the date of this Order. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of Mr. Nelson's conduct described above is such that the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be immediately effective. IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81, 16 % 1611, 1610, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Co aission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 30.10, and 10 CFR 150.20, ii 15 HEREBY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IttiEDIATELY, THAT: A. For a period of five years from the date of this Order, James C. Nelson is prohibited from any involvement in or exercising control over NRC-licensed activities. NRC-licensed activities are those activities which are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including, but not limited to, those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to: (1) using licensed materials or conducting licensed activities in any capacity within the jurisdiction of the NRC; and (2) supervising or directing any licensed activities conducted within the jurisdiction of the NRC. B. Following the five-year period of prohibition outlined in Section IV.A above, at least five days prior to the first time that James C. Nelson engages in, or exercises control over, NRC-licensed activities, he shall NUREG-0940, PART I A421
-____-___ N
7 notify the Director, Office of Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, of the name, address, and telephone number of the NRC or Agreement State licensee and-the location where the licensed activi'.ies will be performed. The notice shall be accompanied by a statement that James C. Nelson is committed to compliance with NRC requirements and the basis why the Commission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements. The Director, Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of 1 the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Nelson of good cause. V
\
In accordance with 10 CfR 2.202, James'C. Nelson must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of.the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555,-and include a statement of good'cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents: to this Order, the answer shall. in writing and under oath or affirmation, t.pecifically admit or deny eaa' allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters af fact and law on which James C. Nelson or any other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall- be s. NUREG-0940, PART I A-222
8 submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Attn: Chief, bocketing and Service. Section, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Otractor Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region 11, 101 Marietta Street N.W., Suite 2900, Atlanta, GA 30323, and to James C. Nelson if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than James C. Nelson. . If a person other than James C. Nelson requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d), if a hearing is requested by James C. Nelson or any other person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), James C. Nelson, or any other person adversely affected by this Order, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for imediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error, in the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV NUREG-0940, PART I A-223
9 above shall be effective and final-20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N I,!
/<--
M<f f.~ Edward Jordan, Deputy Executive Directo or Regulatory Effectiveness, Program Oversight, investigations and Enforcement Dated at Rockville, Maryland thisjrf4-day of January 1997 NUREG-0940, PART I A-224
gfja *as. k uwTao sTAtas NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION { %, waemoton. o.c. messam
- *e.
- WC L6 39 l
l IA 94-018 l Richard E. Odegard (HOME A00RESS DELETED UNDER 10 CFR 2.790)
SUBJECT:
ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) The enclosed Order is being issued because of your violations of 10 CFR 30.10 of the Commission's regulations as described in the Order. Based on an investigation conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office of Investigation, the NRC Staff has determined that you deliberately conspired with other AMSPEC officials to deceive the Commission and provided falso testimony, under oath, to NRC officials. In addition, you deliberately failed to train and certify employees in radiation safety as required by the AMSPEC license conditions, A copy of the synopsis of the investigation is enclosed. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Order may result in further civil or criminal sanctions, Questions concerning this Order should be addressed to Mr. James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, who can be reached at (301) 504-2741. In accordance with 10 CFR 2,790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. Sincerely,
.w -
James Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement
Enclosures:
- 1. Order
- 2. 01 Synopsis NUREG-0940, PART I A-225
_ . . _ . ____J
I UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) lA 94-018
)
Richard E. Ocegard )
)
i' ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES 1 (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) l I Richard E. Odegard has been employed as a radiographer in the field of industrial radiography since approximately 1978. On approximately June 20, 1989, Mr. Odegard was hired by the American Inspection f.ompany, Inc. (AMSPEC), AMSPEC held Materials License No. 12-24801-01 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Conunission (NRC or Conunission) pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 34. This license authorized the conduct of industrial radiography activities in accordance with specified conditions. On April 30, 1992, the license was suspended as a result of significant safety violations and related safety concerns. Mr. Odegard was a Vice-President of AMSPEC at the time of license suspension. Between August 22, 1991 and November 12, 1992, the NRC Office of Investigations conducted an investigation of licensed activities at AMSPEC. During the course of this investigation, the AMSPEC license was suspended when a significant number of safety violations were identified. In addition, the investigation revealed that Mr. Odegard, in his capacity as a Vice-President and Area Manager for AMSPEC, conspired with other AMSPEC officials to deceive NUREG-0940, PART I A426
2 the Coassission regarding training of employees and, in addition, deliberately provided f alse sworn testimony to NRC officials. AMSPEC submitted a Radiation Safety Manual as a part of its license application dated September 20, 1986. A part of this manual refers to employee training to satisfy the requirements of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 34 This manual was incorporated as a part of License Condition 17 of the AMSPEC license. 10 CFR 30.9(a) requires, in part. that information provided to the Consnission by a licensee, and information required by the Commission's regulations to be maintained by the licensee, shall be complete and accurate in all material respects. 10 CFR 30.10(a) requires, in part, that any licensee or any employee of a licensee may not: (1) engage in deliberate misconduct that causes a licensee to be in violation cf any rule, regulation, er limitation of any license, issued by the Coaunission, or (2) deliberately submit to the NRC information that the person submitting the information knows to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. Betweeri late 1989 and March 1, 1992, Mr. Odegard deliberately created false documents concerning the training of AMSPEC employees (documents that were required by the Commission's regulations to be maintained by AMSPEC), causing a violation of 10 CFR 30.9 by AMSPEC. During 1990 and 1991, Mr. Odegard deliberately provided unauthorized and improper aid to AMSPEC employees taking radiation safety examinations, a violation of License Condition 17. Between late 1989 and the end of 1991, Mr. Odegard d:.liberately falsified recorL of quarterly personnel radiation safety audits, causing violations of 10 CFR 30.9 and 34 ll(d). On April 13, 1993, Mr. Odegard deliberately provided false NUREG-0940, PART I A-227
3 testimony under oath during the NRC investigation, a violation of 10 CFR 30.10. On January 29,1993, Mr. Odegard pled guilty to one felony count involving deliberate violations of the Atomic Energy Act based on his violations of these requirements. Based on the above, Mr. Odegard engaged in deliberate misconduct which caused AMSPEC to be in violation of the training requirements of License Condition 17 and NRC regulations, including 10 CFR 30.9 and 34.ll(d). The NRC must be able to rely on licensees and their employees to comply with NRC requirements, inclu, ding the requirements to train and certify employees in radiation safety and procedures and the requirement to provide information that is complate and accurate in all material respects. Mr. Odegard's actions in deliberately causing AMSPEC to be in violation of NRC requirements regarding training and completeness and accuracy of information and his deliberate misrepresentations to NRC officials in violation of 10 CFR 30:10 have raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied on to comply with NRC requirements, specifically the requirement to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC. Mr. Odegard's deliberate misconduct, including his false statement to Commission officials, cannot and will not be tolerated. Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the Conuitssion's requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. Odegard NUREG-0940, PART I A-228
~ ~ - _-_
i 4 were permitted at this time to supervise or perform licensed activttles in any area where the NRC maintains jurisdiction. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Mr. Odegard be prohibited from engaging in NRC licensed activities (including supervising, training or auditing) for either an NRC licensee or an Agreement $ tate licensee performing licensed activities in areas of NRC jurisdiction in accordance with 10 CFR 150.20 for a period of five years from the date of this Order. In addition, for a perted of five years commencing after completion of the five-year period of prohibition, Mr. Odegard is required to notify the NRC of his employment by any person or entity engaged in NRC-licensed activities, to ensure that the NRC can monitor the status of Mr. Odegard's compliance with the Commission's requirements and his understanding of his commitment to compliance. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 I find that the significance of the conduct described above is such that the public health, safety and interest require.that this order be effective immediately, t IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81, 161b, 1611, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the conmission's regulations in t 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 30.10, and 10 CFR 150.20, IT IS HERE8Y ORDERED, EFFECTIVE
!LuiOIATELY, THAT:
- 1. Richard E. Odegard is prohibited for five years from the date of this Order from engaging in NRC-licensed activities. NRC-licensed activities are those activities which are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issueo by the NRC, including, bu't not limited to, those NUREG-0940, PART I A 229
-+-,.1. L ~ -A- J m- .w n r. -.A--
5 activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the. authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20. During this time period, Mr. Odegard must also provide a copy of this Order to prospective employers aho engage in NRC-licensed activities, at the time he accepts employment.
- 2. For a period of five years after the five-year period of prohibition has expired, Richard E. Odegard shall, within 20 days of his acceptance of an employment offer involving NRC-Itcensed activities or his becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, as defined in Paragraph IV.1 above, provide notice to the Otractor, Office of Enforcement U. S. Nuclear, Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, of the name, address, and telephone number of the employer or the entity where he is, or will be, involved in the NRC-licensed activities. In the first notification Mr. Odegard shall include a statement of his commitment to compilance with regulatory requirements and the basis why the Commission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements. The Director Office of Enforcement, may in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upos demonstration by Mr. Odegard of good cause. l , V I l In accordance with 1,0 CFR 2.202, Richard E. Odegard must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order say, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the cate of this Order. l l NUREG-0940, PART I A-230 l l
6 The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consants to this
- 0. der, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, sp6cifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Richard E. Odegard or any other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission, ATTN: Chief, Docketing and Service Section, Washington 0.C. 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington 0.C. 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region 11, 101 Marietta Street, N. W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323, and to Richard E. Odegard if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Richard E. Odegard. If a person other than Richard E.
Odegard requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by Richard E. Odegard or another person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time arid place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Richard E. Odegard or any other person adversely affected by this Order, say, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or socier, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, NUREG-0940, PART I A-231
7 including the need for isswdiate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or processing. AN ANSWER OR A REQUE$T FOR HEAh!NG SHALL NOT
$ FAY THE IMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THl3 0RDER.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY ComlS$10N w 2.14b-ames Lieberman, Olvector Office of Enforceer-t Dated 41 Rockville, Maryland this3A9ay of August 1994 l l I l \ 4 l NUREG-0940, TART I A-232
SYNOPSIS
+n August 22, 1991, the Regional Administrator. U.S. Nuclear jogulatoryCommission(NRC), Region II, requested an investigation to determine whether officials, managers, and/or
,,ployees of The American Inspection Company, Inc. (AMSPEC), the licensee, had intentionally violated regulatory and license condition requirements set forth in 10 CTR Parts 20, 30, and 34 and the NRC license of January 15, 1987, respectively. According to reported allegations, licensee management officials had permitted unqualified technicians to perform radiography operations at the Hess 011 Virgin Islands company (MOVIC) facility, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, which had contracted w,th AMsPrc for nondestrue',1ve examination services.
I %dditionally, licensee officials allegedlys 1) discriminated I (involuntary termination) against techniclans(for reporting ! radiation health and safety concerns, (2) falsified radiation safety training documents, (3) provided falso and misleading information to the NRC, and l not authorized by the license (4) used source (irradiation of atterial mice). in a manner The Office of Investigations (OI) reviewed the circumstances of ~ the alleged regulatory and license condition violations during which other improprieties by the licensse were identified. The investigation by oI did not substantiate that licensee management officials had terminated radiography technicians for reporting radiation health and safety concerns. It was concluded, however, that these licensee officials at the HOVIC facility appeared insensitive to employee concerns of all topics, including radiation safety, and they were perceived by technicians as acting with apparent disregard concerning this issue. The investigation further determined that licensee officials deliberately provided false and misleading radiation safety-related information to NRC representatives which was pertinent to the regulatory process. The investigation substantiated that the licensee, through actions of some radiation protection officers (RPCs), deliberately falsified radiatior, safety training records, inserted falso records in technician files to give the impression required training was accomplished, and they also conspired to conceal these training deficiencies and improprieties from the NRC. The investigation surfaced and substantiated the allegation that licensee officials and RPos deliberately falsified required personnel radiation safety audits and accompanying esports and they also created audit reports to make complete the radiation safety files of some technicians. The investigation also disclosed and confirmed reaerous instances of redigraphers' assistants pgrforming radi.ography without supervision and the deliberate falsification of source utilisation logs to give the appearance that required supervision was present, all with the apparent knowledge and concurrence of licensee management officials. It was also determined during the investigation that licensee training officials (RPos) frequently case No. 2-91-010R 1 NUREG-0940, PART I A433
failed to provide the Operation and Emergency Procedures (c&gp) Manual to new employees prior to source utilization. The investigation also determined that 11EL licensee RPos were ect trained, examined, and certified according to Radfat' ion Safet/ Program requirements a:,3 XH5pIC officials, including the radiation safety officer (RS0) and several RPCs, Vere aware of sere of these violations and failed to correct them. Turther, on at least one occasion, the RSO and an RPO conspired to concoct a plausible explanation for the NRC as to Why RPO examination / certification requirements were violated. The investig& tion substantiated the allegation that radioactive source materitl was utilized improperly when an AMSPEC nignt shift supervisor, in the presence of technicians radiographed a mouse during two to three consecutive source expo,sures at the l HOVIC facility. The 01 investigation, and a previous NRC l inspection at the St. Croix location, also revealed instances in which AMSPEC technicians failed to observe required surveying and posting activities during radiography operations, actions which demonstrated either an apparent disregard for regulations and/or radiation safety training deficiencies. Finally, the investigation disclosed that the juBL and other licensee management officials del _iberately railed to perform required j radiation safety review, evaAustaan, and oversight functions and responsibilities during the past 3 years. Case No. 2-91-010R 2 NUREG-0940, PART I A434
ps esen
/ ".
. UNITED STATSS
{ 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e wAsMiwofow, o c. someweet
***** July 16. 1996 IA 96-043 Mr. Jesus Osorio HOME ADDRESS DELETED (UNDER2.790)
SUBJECT:
ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES
Dear Mr. Osorio:
The enclosed Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities is being issued because of your deliberate misconduct, in violation of 10 CFR 30.10 of the Commission's regulations, as describsd in the Order. The Order becomes effective in 20 days unless a hearing is requested within this time. Pursuant to Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, any person who willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of this Order, once it becomes effective, thill be subject to criminal prosecution as set forth in that section. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Order may also result in civil sanctions. Questions concerning this Order should be addressed to Mr. James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, who may be reached at (301) 415-2741. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be place in the NRC's Public Document Room. Sincerely. O1 M) )) Hu h . Thompton, Jr/ De y Executive Di ect r or Nuclear Material Safety, afeguards and Operations SLpport
Enclosure:
Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities cc: Commonwealth of Puorto Rico NUREG-0940, PART I A435
1 i UNIT [0 STATES NUCLEAR R[GULATORY COMMIS510N in the Matter of ) 1 lA 96 043 Jesus N. Osorio 1 (NOMEA00Rt$$DELETCO i UNDER10CFR2.790) ) OR0(R PRONIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN , NRC LICENSED ACTIVIT![5 l 1 Jesus N. Osorio was employed as the Radiation Safety Officer (R$0) of NOT Services, Inc. (NOTS or Licensee) in Caguas, Puerto Rico, in 1993. NOTS holds License No. 52-19438 01, issued to the Licensee in 1987 and last amended by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30 on Narch 9, 1995. The license authortu s industrial gamma ray radiography in accordance with the conditions specified therein. Mr. Osorio was identified in consecutive amendments to NRC License No. 52-19438-01, dated January 12, 1992 and October 26, 1993, and in other licensing correspondence, as the R$0 for NOTS. II On December 16-17, 1993, a special inspection of NOTS' activities was conducted at the Licensee's facility in Caguas, Puerto Rico, in response to notifications received in the NRC Region 11 office that on September 4, 1993, two contract radiographers employed i by NOTS had been unable to return a radiography source to its shielded position following radiographic operations, th. f.dl greskers inv.Lv.d in the ev.at u r. 4.ntr.ct.d by ett f rom u.tlen.L in.p.ction
.nd C.n. ult.nt. (NIC), .6 .tr.o n in Ft. rte., Whit e no we t t ten contr.ct w.. ..t.bii.h.d t.
.uin n. a. ..
ra ,.cv r d .n s.ei
- consit e .. ion. ms. ..t, ri, St.t.
p.,ver
.. .16co.n.
in. inver u .n ...it e in. pr vi i.n. .,i..o.ineto weus.n..,
.=ium.e in in.
-NUREG-0940,-PART I A-236
.t.
which resulted in the evacuation of the Sun Oil Company refinery located in Yabucca, Puerto Rico, for several hours. Based on the results of the inspection, an investigation was initiated by the NRC Office of Invest)3ations (01) on December 30, 1993. I i On December 21, 1995, 01 completed its investigation and concluded, in part, thatt (1) NOTS, with the knowledge and approval of the former R50 and former President, deliberately utilized radiographers untrained in NOTS operating and emergency procedurest and (2) NDTS, through the actions of the former RSO, provided the NRC with documentation that falsely certified the radiographers' training. During an August 31, 1995 interview with 01, Mr. Osorio stated that he was aware that the radiographers needed training and that they were required to { pass a proficiency test prior to working at the Sun Oil Company refinery. Mr. Osorio added that, prior to hiring the radiographers, he informed NOTS' former President that the radiographers would have to be trained and tested on NOTS equipment. Nonetheless, Mr. Osorio did not train the radiographers because they left for their accommodations and he was tired and went home, although he knew that they would work their shift without the required training. As to the false training documentation, Mr. Osorio stated that he knew he signed fal;e documentation and that such falsification constituted a violation of NRC regulations, but he signed the documentation because he
'needed to have something."
NUREG-0940, PART I A-237
l 3-Based on the 01 conclusions, the NRC further concluded that during the December 16-17, 1993 inspection, the former R$0 orally represented to an NRC inspector that he demonstrated the safe use of the NOTb ndiography equipment
- l prior to allowing two contract radiographers to operate the equipment on September 3, 1993, when he knew that he had not conducted such a demonstration.
On February 15, 1996, Mr. Osorio was contacted by telephone and initially informed of the inspection and investigation results and was provided the opportunity to participate in a predecisional enforcement conference. During this telephone conversation, Mr. Osorio declined to attend this conference. . By letter dated February 20, 1996 Mr. Osorio was transmitted the Inspection Report and the synopsis of the 01 investigation and again offered the opportunity to attend a conference. To date, Mr. Osorio has not responded - to the February to, 1996 letter. No conference has been conducted with hint however, on May 16, 1996, ,; teleconference was conducted with Mr. Osorio to further discuss this case. Additionally, on February 29 and March 4, 19M. predecisional enforcement conferences were conducted with one of_the contract _ radiographers, and NOTS, respectively. Based on the information gathered during the inspection, investigation, predecisional enforcement conferences, and subsequent interviews in this case.
-the NRC has determined that: (1) Mr. Osorio deliberately permitted unqualified radiographers to perform radiography for NOTS on September 4, 1993, in that he knew the radiographers had not been trained in NOTS proceduresorequipment;(2)onDecember 16, 1993, Mr. Osorio provided an NRC NUREG-0940, PART l- A-238
1 i i. l 1 4 l j inspector with written certification of the qualifications of the two contract 4 radiographers, dated September 3. 1993, which falsely indicated that the l radiographers had been qualified based on records obtained from their } principal employer and by the experience demonstrated by the contract
- radiographers to him; and (3) on December 16, 1993 Mr. Osorio provided false 1
oral statements to an NRC inspector indicating that he had demonstrated the safe se of the NDi$ radiography equipment to the radiographers on { September 3.-1993, when, in fact, he had not conducted such a demonstration. I I . . l Based on the above, the staff concludes that Mr. Osorio engaged in deliberate i j misconduct, a violation of 10 CFR 30.10, which caused the Licensee to be in l violation of 10 CFR 34.31(a) by deliberately failing to utilize trained and qualified individuals during the conduct of radiographic operations at the Sun j Oil Company refinery on September 4, 1993. Mr. Osorio also violated 10 CFR 30.10(a)(2), and caused the Licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 30.9, by .
. deliberately providing materially inaccurate and incomplete information to the NRC. As the former R$0 of NOTS, Mr. Osorio was responsible to assure that 1
NOTS conducted activities in accordance with NRC requirements and the NOTS i radiation safety program. The NRC must be able to rely on the Licensee, its
- 1. officials and employees to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirements to train radiographers in accordance with NRC regulations and to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC; Mr. Osorio's deliberate misconduct in causing the Licensee to violate 10 CFR-34.31(a), and his deliberate submission to the NRC materially inaccurate and incomplete i
4 NUREG-0940, PART I A439
,.. - ~ .- . - , - , . . - . - - . - - - - , - , - , - . -. - . - , , . . . .-
information, are violations of 10 CFR 30.10 and have raised serious doubt as ! to whether he can be relied epon to corply with NRC requirements. i l Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. Osorio were permitted at this time to be involved in NRC-licensed activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Mr. Osorio bs prohibited from any involvement in NRC-Itcensed activities for a period of five years, and, if he is currently involved with another licensee in NRC-licensed activities, he must, following the effective date of this Order, cease such activities, and inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer, and provide a copy of this Order to the employer. Additionally, Mr. Osorio is required to notify the NRC of his first employment involving NRC-licensed activitias within a period of five years following the five-year prohibition period. IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81, 161b, 1611, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Comunission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, and 10 CFR 30.10, IT IS HERE8V ORDERED THAT: A. For a period of five years from the effective date of this Order, Jesus N. Osorio is prohibited from engaging in, or exerci'ing control over individuals engaged in NRC-licensed activities. NRC-Itcensed activities NUREG-0940. PART I A-240
1 l are those activities which are conducted pursuant to a specific or general Itcense issued by the NRC, including, but not limited to, those ; activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to (1) using licensed materials or conducting Itcensed activities in any capacity within the jurisdiction of the NRC; and (2) supervising, directing, or serving as Radiation Safety Officer for any i licinsed activities conducted within the jurisdiction of the NRC. l l
- 8. At least five days prior to the first time that Jesus N. Osorio engages in, or exercises control over, NRC-Itcensed activities within a period of five years following the five-year prohibition in Section IV.A above, a, he shall notify the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. 0.C. 20555, of the name, address, and telephone number of the NRC or Agreement State licensee and the location where the licensed activities will be performed. The notice shall be accompanied by a statement, under oath or affirmation, that Jesus N. Osorio understands NRC requirements, that is committed to compliance with NRC requirements, and that provides a basis as to why the Commission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements.
The Director. Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Osorio of good cause. NUREG-0940, PART I A-241
1 V in accordance with 10 CFR 2.202 Jesus N. Osorio must, ant! any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time l to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director. Office of Enforcessnt, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. 0.C. 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Osorio or other person adversely affected rolles and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Attnt Chief. Docketing and Service Section, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, DC 20$55, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region !!, Suite 2900, 101 Marietta Street, Atlanta, GA 30323, and to Jesus N. Osorio, if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Jesus N. Osorio, if a person other than Jesus N. Osorio requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by this Urder and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). NUREG-0940, PART I A-242
l l 8-l If a hearing is requested by Jesus N. Osorio, or another person whose interest i is adversely affected, the Comission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing, if a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV l above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings, if an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. FOR T E NUCLEAR REGULATOR COMMIS$10N f / Hug L. Thompson / r. De ty Executiv tr e r for Nuclear Material Safety, Safeguards and Operations Support Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 16tWay of July 1996 NUREG-0940 PART I A-243
( j * . 1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. g wAswikofow, o c. sones.eset January 2, 1997 IA 96-103 Mr. Cecil Ray Owen
[HOME ADDRESS DELETED UNDER10CFR2.790)
SUBJECT:
ORDER PROH18111NG INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVEIMMEDIATELY)
Dear Mr. Owen:
The enclosed Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities CEffective imediately) is being issued because of your deliberate misconduct
'n violation of 10 CFR $0,5 of the Commission's regulations. Specifically, in 1995, you deliberately failed to state your complete employment history on your application for employment with Westinghouse Electric Corporation at the North Anna Power Station in order to conceal that you had tested positive for use of controlled substances while working for a previous employer. Based on your actions, the Order prohibits your involvement in NRC-Itcensed activities for a period of one year and requires your notification of the NRC of your first involvement in NRC-licensed activities for one year following the prohibition period.
Pursuant to Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, any person who willfully violater attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of this Order si. 11 be subject to criminal prosecution as set forth in that section. Violation of this urder may also subject the person to civil monetary penalty, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a ropy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response, if you choose to submit one, will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (POR). To the extent possible, any response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. However, if you find it necessary to include such information, you should clearly indicate the specific information that you desire not to be placed in the PDR, and provide the legal basis to support your request for withholding the information from the public. NUREG-0940, PART I A444 1
Mr. Cect) Ray Owen Questions concerning this order should be addressed to James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, who can be reached at (301) 415 2741.
$1ncerely, LIM L. Milhoan
$puty Executive Director
'or Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Research, and Regional Operations Enclosuret Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC Licensed Activities ccw/ enc 1I;HGMEADDRESSDELETEQ):
Virginia Electric and Power Company ATIN: Mr. J. P. O'Hanlon Senior Vice President - Nuclear Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominton Boulevard Glen Allen VA 23060 NUREG-0940, PART I A-245
- a
UNiitD STAits NUCl[AR REGULATORY COP 9115510N In the Matter of i CECll RAY OWtN IA 96 103 ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVtMENT IN NRC LICEN$t0 ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) Between January 25. 1995 and May 23. 1995 Mr. Cecil Ray Owen was employed by Westinghouse Electric Corporation (WEC) as a millwright at Virginia Etertric and Power Company's (VEPCO) North Anna Power Station-(NAPS). VEPC0 holds (8 tense Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7 for North Anna Units 1 and 2. issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 on April 1. 1978 atA August 21, 1980, respectively. The licenses authorize VEPCO to operate NAPS in accordance with the conditions specified therein. WEC is a contractor to VEPC0 and provides various services at NAPS. 11 10 CFR 73.56 requires, in part, that nuclear power plant licensees implement access authorization programs or accept a contractor's access authorization program for individuals seeking unescorted access to protected and vital areas of nuclear power plants. The objective of the regulation is to provide high assurance that individuals granted unescorted access are trustworthy and reliable and do not constitute an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public. The unescorted access authorization program must include a background investigation, including an individual's employment history. The decision to grant unescorted access authorization must be based upon the licensee's review and evaluation of all pertinent information developed. NUREG-0940. PART I A-246
_ _._____. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ - _._____m._.. i 4 -2 ! 111 i i In order to be certified for unescorted access at NAPS, Mr. Owen was required
- to complete a WEC preemployment security questionnaire which included a 4
} requirement that he list all prior employment for the last five years. l l Mr. Owen completed the questionnaire in January 1995. The questionnaire was { used by WEC to conduct a background investigation. Mr. Owen was granted unescorted access authorization to NAP $ on the basis of information he submitted on this WEC preemployment security questionnaire. Informat'>n - l regarding prior drug usage is material to the NRC in that licensee fitness. for-duty programs must provide reasonable assurance that plant personnel will perform their tasks in a reliable and trustworthy manner and are not under the influence of any substance, legal or illegal, which in any way adversely affects their ability to safely and competently perform their duties. Fitness-for duty programs must also provide reasonable measures for early detection of persons not fit to perform activities. Withholding information regarding prior drug usage circumvents these provisions of the fitness-for-duty programs. Deliberate misconduct demonstrates untrustworthiness to conduct activities at an NRC-licensed facility. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of investigations (01) conducted an investigation, completed on June 26, 1996, which found that Mr. Owen completed the WEC background questionnaire for a position at NAPS and deliberately failed to identify previous employment, within the five year period, where his employment was terminated for a positive drug test. NVREG-0940, PART I A-247 m
3 The deltberate misconduct rule in 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2) provides, in part, that an employea of a licensee, or employee of a contractor or subcontractor of a liter.see, may not deliberately submit to the licensee, or the licensee's contractor or subcontractor, information that the employee knows to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. Mr. Owen violated this provision in that he was employed by WEC, a contractor to VEPC04 an NRC licensee, and deliberately provided inforection to WEC that was not complete, in that he did not identify one previous employer on an access authorization questionnaire he filled out at WEC's request. This information ' was material to the NRC as WEC and VEPC0 relied on it in order to satisfy the requirement of 10 CFR Part 26 (Fit':iess for Duty Programs) and 10 CFR 73.56 (Personnel access authorization .equirements for nuclear power plants). Other pertinent information call into question Mr. Owen's credibility and trustworthiness. Mr. Owen, when questioned by 01, did not admit that he had falsified the questionnaire, nr. Owen asserted that the questionnaire he complcted had a statement on the bottom that only those periods of employment in excess of 30 days be included. When confronted with a photocopy of the questionnaire he signed, which contained instructions to list all employment for the previous five years, Mr. Owen remained steadfast in his assertion that the form he signed only required periods of employment in excess of 30 days. During the 01 interview, Mr. Owen repeatedly denied using 111egal drugs. However, when confronted with the laboratory results from his previous employer, Mr. Owen admitted that he used marijuana on isolated occasions. NUREG-0940, PART I A-248 n .- - . -
4 Mr. Owen also told 01 that he had not begun working at NAPS when he was advised of his dental of unescorted access when, in fact, he was employed at NAPS during the period Fetween January 25 and May 23. 1995. On August 19. 1996, the NRC sent a certified letter to Mr. Owen advising him of the apparent violation of NRC requirements and offering him the opportunity to attend a predecisional enforcement conference. The letter required a written response within 30 days of receipt and advised Mr. Owen that if he dec8Jed not to participate in a conference, the NRC would poceed based on the 01 findings. After Mr. Owen received the letter, he telephoned Mr. A. Gibson, Director. Division of Reactor Safety, in the Region !! office. Mr. Owen commented that a ban would affect his livelihood in that a large portion of his work was at nuclear sites. Mr. Gibson said that Mr. Owen should address this potential impact in his written response. As of the date of this Order, the NRC had not received a written response from Mr. Owen. IV Based on the results of the 01 investigation and the lack of any additional information from Mr. Owen, the staff concludes that Mr. Owen's omission was deliberate and in violation of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2). , The NRC must be able to rely on licensees, contractors and their employees to provide information that is complete and accurate in all material respects. This is essential with respect to access authorization programs at nuclear power plants because: (1) temporary access determinations are made on the NUREG-0940, PART I A-249
, __J
basis of information provided by individuals prior to completion of a full background checkt and, (2) the purpose of an access authorization program is to assure the trustworthiness and reliability of individuals granted unescorted access. Mr. Owen's deliberate omission raises serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements and to provide complete and accurate information to NRC licensees and their contractors. His omission also raises doubts about his trustworthiness and reliability. Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with Commission requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. Owen were permitted at this time to be involved in NRC-licensed activities. Therefore, public health and safety and the public interest require that Mr. Owen be prohibited from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of one year from the date of this Order and, if he is currently involved with another licensee in NRC-licensed activities, he must immediately cease such activities, and inform the NRC of-the name, address and telephone number of the employer, and _ provide a copy of this Order to the employer. Additionally, Mr. Owen is required to notify the NRC of his first-employment in NRC-licensed activities for one year following the prohibition period. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 I find that the significance of Mr. Owen's conduct described above is such that the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be immediately effective. NUREG-0940, PART 1 A-250
6-V Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 161b, 1611, 1610, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Comission's regulations in 10 C/R 2.202, 10 CFR 50.5 and 10 CFR 150.20, IT 15 HEREBY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IME01ATEl.Y. THAT: A. Mr. Cecil Ray Owen is prohibited for one year from the date of this Order from engaging in or exercising control over individuals engaged in NRC-licensed activities, including obtaining unescorted access at an NRC-licensed facility. If Mr. Owen is currently involved in NRC l licensed activities, he must imediately cesse such activities, inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer, and l provide a copy of this Order to the employer. NRC-Itcensed activities are those activities that are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including, but not limited to, those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the av.hority granted by 10 CFR 150.20. B. For one year following the period of prohibition set forth in Paragraph V.A. above, Mr. Cecil Ray Owen shall, within 20 days of his acceptance of his first employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities as defined in Paragraph V.A above, provide notice to the Director, Office of Enforce-v M, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington. 0.C. 20555, of the name, address, and telephone number of the employer or the entity where he is, or will be, involved in NRC-licensed activities. NUREG-0940, PART I A-251
7 The notice shall include a statement of his mitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and the bar ..f the Commission .hould have confidence that he will now comply wi applicable NRC requirements. The Director, Office of Enforcement, may relax or rescind, in writing, any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Owen of good cause. i VI In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. Owen must, and any other' person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request'a hearing on this OrdGr within 20 days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the-answer shall, in writing and uider oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Owen or other person adversely affected reites and the reasons as to why the Orcer should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, ATTN: Chief, Docketing and Service Section, Washington, D.C. 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission,
- NUREG-0940, PART 1 A452 i
3 Washington, D.C. 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, and to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region !!,101 Marietta Street, W. Suite 2900, Atlanta, Georgia 30323 and to Mr. Owen if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Mr. Owen. If a person other than Mr. Owen requests a hearing, that person shall set i forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d), i 1 If : hearing is requested by Mr. Owen or a person whose interest is adversely affected the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearinl. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shali be whJther this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(1), Mr. Owen may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is flied or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error, in the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been NVREG-0940, PART I A-253
f approved, the provisions specified in Section V shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE 1 mE01 ATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMIS$10N l l. N<L.M11hoan puty Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation. - Research, and Regional Operations Dated at Rockville Maryland thisd *ft ay d of January 1997
)
l NUREG-0940 PART I A454
j
./ \ UNITED STATES lP NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON. O C. asseHe01
]
3 MMI 10154 IA 94-001 Mr. Hartsell S. Phillips (Address deleted) i Dear Sirl
SUBJECT:
ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) The enclosed order is being lunued because of your violations of 10 CFR Part 30 of the Commission's regulations as described in the order. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Order may result in civil or criminal sanctions. Questions concerning this order should be addressed to Mr. James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, who may be reached at (301) 504-2741. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
. Sincarcly, Hu L. Thomps .
Do y Executive actoe for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards and operations Support Enclosures As stated cc: Logan General Hospital State of West Virginia s NUREG-0940, PART I A-255
UNITED STATES NUCLFAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
) IA 94-001 Hartsell S. Phillips )
ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) I Hartsell S. Phillips is employed by Logan General Hospital, Logan, West Virginia. Logan General Hospital (Licensee) holds License No. 47-19919-01 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and
- 35. The license authorizes possession and use of byproduct material in accordance with the conditions specified therein.
Mr. Phillips has been employed by the Licensee since approximately June 1991 as the Chief Technologist, Radiation Safety Officer (RS0), and Chairman of Radiation Safety Committee with responsibilities involving compliance with NRC requirem6nts for radiation protection. Mr. Phillips was removed as Chairman # of the Radiation Safety Committee on January 1, 1994, and removed as RSO on February 18, 1994. On February 22, 1994, the Licensee informed the NRC that it had suspended, subject to termination, Mr. Phillips on February 16, 1994, based on information the Licensee had received through interviews with its staff and other information developed by the Licensee. NUREG-0940. PART I A-256 ___ --__ - - - - - - J
2 II l on December 7-s, 1993, an KRC inspection was conducted at the Licensee's facility in Logan, West Virginia. As a result of information developed during that inspection, an investigation by the office of Investigations (01) was initiated in January 1994. Although this investigation is continuing, oI interviews of Licensee personnel and review of documents provided by or reveal that nuclear medicine technologists under Mr. Phillips' supervision and at his direction, and Mr. Phillips himself, deliberately increased radiopharmaceutical dosages administered to patients above the dosages prescribed by the authorized user and set forth in the Licensee's procedures manual, and falsified the dosage records of those patients by making them appear as if the prescribed dosages had been administered. The OI interviews indicate that this practice of increasing dosages and of falsifying records continued for an extended period of time. The exact number of patients affected is not clear, but involved numerous administrations. In addition, Mr. Phillips falsified records and directed nuclear medicine technologists under his supervision to falsify records relating tot training of nuclear medicine technologists, required by 10 CFR 19.12; daily dose calibrator constancy checks, required by 10 CFR 35.50(b)(1); daily and weekly surveys in nuclear medicine areas, required by 10 CFR 35.70(a), (b), and (e); and NUREG-0940, PART I A457
3 surveys related to the receipt and shipment of licensed material, required by 10 CTR 20.205(d) and Licanse condition 16. Specifically, these records indicated that the training, checks and surveys had been performed when in fact they had not been performed. The records falsification occurred for an extended period o! time and may have been as long as 15 months during 1992 and 1993, and involved the falsification of records for surveys and training in nuclear medicine required during this period of time. The investigation also revealed that Mr. Phillips specifically instructed one nuclear medicine technologist te deny having falsified records and advised others to be untruthful when questioned by NRC inspectors. III Although the NRC investigation is continuing, based on the above, Mr. Phillips engaged in deliberate misconduct, a violation of to CFR 30.10, which caused the Licensee to be in violation of a I number of NRC requirements including (1) administration of radiopharmaceutical doses that differed from the prescribed doses, required by 10 CFR 35.25 and License Condition 16; (2) failure to provide training to nuclear medicine technologists, required by 10 CFR 19.12; (3) failure to perform the daily constancy checks of the dose calibrator, required by 10 CFR 35.50(b) (1); (4) failure to perform the required daily and weekly contamination and radiation surveys, required by NUREG-0940, PART I .- A458 l
4 10 CFR 35.70(a), (b), and (e); (5) failure to perform the required surveys for radioactive material receipt, required by 10 CrR 20.205(d) and License condition 16; and (6) failure to maintain accurate and complete records involving NRC-licensed activities (i.e., records of ' Jose calibrator constancy checks (10 CPR 35.50(e)), radiation and contamination surveys (10 CFR 35.70(a), (b), and (h), and 10 CrR 20.401(b) and (c)), required by 10 CrR 30.9. Mr. Phillips also deliberately provided , KRC inspectors information he knew to be inaccurate which was material to the KRC, also in violation of 10 CFR 30.10, which caused the Licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 30.9. As the RSO for the Licensee, Mr. Phillips was responsible, pursuant to 10 CrR 35.21(a), for ensuring that radiation safety activities were being performed in accordance with approved procedures and regulatory requirements, including the administration of radiopharmaceuticals, performance of required surveys, and keeping of required records which evidence compliance with Commission requirements. The KRC must be able to rely on the Licensee and its esployees to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement to provide information ant intain records that are complete and accurate in all ma t, .a1 respects. Mr. Phillips enga;ed in deliberate misconduct, a violation of 10 CFR 30.10(a)(1), causing the Licensee to be in violation of NRC requirements, as noted above, NUREG-0940. PART I A459
5 and submitted to tho NRC information he knew to be incomplete or 3 inaccurate, e violation of 10 CFR 30.10(a) (2) . d i d Mr. Phillips' delib6 rate misconduct has caised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements and to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC. In additiva, Mr. Phillips' deliberate misconduct caused this Licensee to violate numercius Commission requirements and his f deliberate f alse statements to Cor4 mission of ficials demonstrate
- conduct that cannot, and will not., be tolerated.
Consequently, in light of the numerous violations caused by Mr. Phillips' conduct, the langth of time the noncompliances existed, and the deliberate nature of Mr. Phillips' actions, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities , enn be conducted in compliance with the commission's requirements 1 and that the health and safety of the public would be protected. if Mr. Phillips were permitted at this time to be involved in any NRC-licensed activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require, pending further action by the NRC, that Mr. Phillips be prohibited from involvement in licensed activities. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of the conduct described above is such that the public health, safety and interest require that this order be ! immediately effective. l l NUREG-0940, PART I Af60 i
6 IV Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81, 103, 161b, 1611, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulationa in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 30.10, and 10 CFR 150.20, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THAT Pending further action by the NRC, Hartsell S. Phillips is prohibited from participation in any respect in NRC-licensed activities. For the purposes of this paragraph, NRC-licensed activities include licensed activities of: 1) an NRC licensee, 2) an Agreement State licensee conducting licensed activities in NRC jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20, and 3) an Agreement State licensee involved in distribution of products that are subject to NRC jurisdiction. The Director, Office of Enforcement, nay, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Phillips of good cause. V In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Hartsell S. Phillips must, and any other person adversely affected by this order may, submit an answer to this order, and may request a hearing on this order, within 20 days of the date of this order. The answer may consent NUREG-0940, PART I A461
7 to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Hartsell S. Phillips or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons why the order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulato'ry Commission, Attna Chief, Docketing and Service Section, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistanc General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region II, Suite 2900, 101 Marietta Street, NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30323, and to Hartsell S. Phillips, if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Hartsell s. Phillips. If a person other than Hartsell S. Phillips requests a hearing, that person shall set fortn with particularity the manner in which his or her interest I is adversely affected by this order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by Hartsell S. Phillips or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an order designating the time and place of any he3 ring. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this order should be sustained. I NUREG-0940, PART I A462
8 Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 (c) (2) (1), Hartsell S. Phillips, or any other person adversely affected by this order, nay, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the same time the answer is filed or sooner, move the preciding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this order without further order or proceedings. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS-OF THIS ORDER. ; FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (L. T cap / Hug D ty 2xecu ve D ector for Nuclear Mater Safety, Safeguards, and Operations Support Dated at Rockville, Maryland this /ot1- day of March 1994 NUREG-0940, PART I A42463 o
LBP-95-16 September- 19, 1995 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEN3ING BOARD-Before Administrative Judges: Peter B. Bloch, Chairman
-Dr. Jerry-R. Kline Frederick J. Shon l 'In the matter of Docket No.-IA-94-001 i
, RARTSELL D. PHILLIPS, JR. Re: Allegation of Deliberate l- West Virginia Violations _ ASLBP No. 94-694-05-EA MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Dismissal Pursuant to Agreement) On September 14, 1995, the parties to the above-captioned proceedings, Hartsell Phillips (Phillips) and the Staff of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff), informed
'the AtomicLSafety and' Licensing Board (" Licensing Board") of the following developments concerning this matter:
First, on June 5, 1995, Mr.-Phillips pied guilty to a one-count Superseding Information stating a . violation of law, related to the matters -which are the subject- of this proceeding. A copy of . the United States District Court's Order of June 6, 1995, adjudging Mr. Phillips to be guilty und convicting him of the count charged in the Information, is attached. Sentencing of Mr. Phillips was conducted _by the 353,605 NUREG-0940, PART-I A464
2 Court on August 22, 1995, in accordance with the Court's order of June 6, 1995. Second, the parties have reiched an agreement in settlement of this proceeding. Accordingly, we approve of the stipulation in the agreement and provide the requested relief. l ORDER i For all the foregoing reasons and upon consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 19th day of September, 1995, ORDERED, that:
- 1. Hartsell D. Phillips, Jr. is permitted to withdraw ,
his request for hearing on the Staff's " Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective i Immediately)," dated March 10, 1994, and he is dismissed-as a party in the proceeding pertaining to that Orders NUREG-0940, PART I A465
3
- 2. The attached Stipulation is adopted as an order of this Boards and
- 3. The proceeding is dismissed with prejudice.
THE ATCHIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i . rl O( M literry R. / Kline
' Administrative Judge
/7 '
~
/. /s, m / / .c/l/ , n Frederick ~'J. Shen ,
Administrative. Judge
;Q ms 6f n -
1%2t-Peter B. Bloch Chairman Rockville, Maryland NUREG-0940, PART I A 266
4
. STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT OF PROCEEDING THIS AGREEMENT is made by :nd betweet Hartsell Phillips
("Phillips") and the Staf f of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC Staff" or " Staff"), to wit WHEREAS . Logan General Hospital, Logan, West Virginia l (" Logan" or the " Licensee"), holds . License No. 47-19919-01
~
issued by the NRC pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Parts 30 and 35, which l license' authorizes possession and use of byproduct material in l accordance with the conditions specified therein; and WHEREAS Phillips was employed by Logan, commencing in January 1991, as Chief Technologist, Radiation Safety Officer ("RSO"). and Chairman of the Radiation Safety Committee ("RSC"), with responsibilities, Inter alia, involving compliance with NRC requirements for radiation protection, until'a date'on which his employment was suspended by Logan in or about February 1994 and
- WHEREAS on March 10, 1994,, the NRC' Staff issued an " Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities '(Ef fective Immediately) , " 54 Fed. Reg. 13346 i(March 21, 1994) , -based,-
-Inter -alla, upon a finding that. Phillips - had engaged in deliberate misconduct in violation of 10 C.F.R. S 30.10, which caused the Licensee to be in violation of a number of NRC regulatory requirements; and NUREG-0940, PART I- A-267
l WHEREAS the Order prohibited Phillips, pending further action by the NRC, frcm participation in any respect in NRC-licensed activities, to includo licensed activities of (1) an NRC licensee, (2) an Agreement State licensee conducting licensed activities in NRC jurisdiction pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 150.20, and - (3) an Agreement State licensee involved in distribution of products that are subject to NRC jurisdiction; and WHEREAS en March 30, 1994, Phillips filed a " Request for Hearing and Answer of Hartsell D. Phillips" concerning the Order, pursuant to 10 C. F.R. 5 2.202, in response to which adjudicatory proceedings have been convened and remain pending before an Atomic Safety and Licensing- Board (" Licensing Scard") at this time; and WHEREAS the undersigned parties recognize that certain advantages and benefits may be obtained by each of them-through settlement and compromise of the matters now pending in litigat on between them, including, without limitation, the elimination-of further litigation expenses, uncertainty and delay, and other tangible and intangible benefits, which the parties recognize and believe to be in the public jnterest; and -- WHEREAS, pursuant ' o 10 C. F.R.
. $ 2.203, the Staff and Phillips have stipulated and agreed to the following NUREG-0940, PART I A-268
6 provisions for settlement of the above-captioned proceeding, subject to the approval of the Licensing Board, before the taking of any testimony or trial or a ljudication of any issue of fact or lawi and ! WHEREAS Phillips is willing to waive his hearing and, l appeal rights regarding this matter, in consideration of the terms and provisions of this Stipulation and settlement agreement; and-WHEREAS the terms and provisions of this Stipulation, once approved by the Licensing Board, shall be incorporated by reference into an order, as that term is used in subsections Ib) and (o) of section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the "Act"), 42 U.S.C. 5 2201, and shall be subject to enforcement pursuant to the Commission's regulations and Chapter 18 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. S 2271 et seq.; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
- 1. Phillips agrees to refrain from engaging in, and is hereby pr:hibited from engaging in, any NRC-licensed activities up to and including March 9, 1999, five years from the date of the NRC " Order Prohibit g Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately)," dated March 10, 1994. In addition to the definition of "NRC-licensed activities" set forth above, said definition is understood to include any and all activities that are conducted pursuant to NUREG-0940, PART I A469
7 a specific or general license issued by the NRC,-including, but not limited to, those activities of Agreement Statt licensees conducted pursuant to :he authority granted by 10 C.F.R.:5 150.20. .
- 2. For a period of five years after the above-specified, five-year period of prohibition has expired, J.e., from March-10, 1999 through March 9, 2004, Phillips-shall, within 20 days of his acceptance of each and any employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities or his becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, as defined-above; provide written notice to- the Director, Office of- Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, of the name, address, and telephone number of the employer or the entity where he is, or will be, involved in the NRC-licensed activities, and a detailed description of his duties and the activities in which he is to be involved.
- 3. In the first notification provided pursuant to Paragraph 2 above, Phillips shall include a statement of his commitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and-an explanation of the basis why the Commission should have confidence that he will comply with applicable NRC requirements.
- 4. The parties agree that, as an integral.part_of this
. Stipulation and upon execution hereof, and subject to the NUREG-0940, PART'I A-270
3 approval -of this. Stipulation by the Licensing Board, (a) Phillips will withdraw his March 30, 1994 request for hearing on the NRC Staff's Ordtr of March 10, 1994, and (b) the parties will file a joint request for dismissal ei the proceedings on that Order, with prejudice, it being understood, and agreed that the Staff will take no further enforcement or other action against Phillips in connection with that Order.1
- 5. It is understood and agreed that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be binding on, or preclude lawful action by, any other Government agency or department, including, without limitation, the United States Department of ,
Justice and/or the United States Attorney.
' The panies recognize and agree that nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to prohibit the NRC Staff fmm taking enforcement or other action (a) against Phillips for violation of this Agreement, or (b) agains persons other than Phillips in connection with or related to any of the matters addressed in the Order of March 10, 1994, should the Staff determine, in its sole discretion, that it is appropriate to do so.
NUREG-0940, PART I A-271
l l 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we set our hand and seal this 14th 9 day of September, 1995. FOR HARTSELL PHILLIPS: FOR THE NRC STAFF: [ signed] (signed) Charles L. Woody Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for Hartsell Phillips Counsel for NRC Staff [ signed] Hartsell D. Phillips, Jr. N!JREG-0940, PART 1 A-?72 _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _A
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RESULATORY C0fel!55!0N In the Matter of NARTSELL 3. PHILLIPS Docket No.(s) IA-94-001 l l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB NEMO & ORDER (LBP-95-15 have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, ex) cept as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirem ats of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712. Administrative Judge Administrative Juq* Peter 5. Bloch, Chairman Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Office of Comission Appellate Frederick J. Shon Adjudication Atomic safety and Licensing neare Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Charles L. Woody Esq. Office of the General Counsel Thomas & Battle Rail Stop 0-15 B 18 spilaan, 500 Virg inia St., East, #1200 Union Ctr U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Charleston, WV 26321 Washington, DC 20555 Dated at Rockville, Nd. this 19 day of September 1995 Ct SL _ A. . - T!rieg of tne secretary of the commission NUREG-0940, PART I A-273
,p aeeg 7
.*~ g" I [ UNITED STATES 5
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C,OMMISSION WASMHeQTON, O C. 20e464001
#R 0 51994 IA 94-004 Mr. Douglas D. Preston (Address deleted Under 10 CFR 2.790)
Dear Mr. Prestont SU8 JECT: ORDER PRCHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) (NRC INSPECTION REPORT No. 50-331/93020) The enclosed Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities is being issued at a consequence of your deliberately providing falso information on applications you made for access authorization at the Iowa Electric Light and Power Company's (licensee) Duane Arnold Energy Center. On or about June 19, 1990, and on June 23, 1993, you indicated on your acceas authorization applications that you had not been arrested or convicted of a criminal offense other than minor traffic violations. The licensee subsequently learned that you had been arrested and convicted several times for crimes other than traffic violations and that you ' were incarcerated for some of those offenses. As a result of your deliberate falso statements, you were granted unescorted access to the Duane Arnold facility in 1990 and again in 1993. A licensee investigator interviewed you about the falso information at which time you indicated that you had lied on your applications in 1990 and 1993 and that you would lie again about your criminal record. The deliberate false information on your criminal history in your June 23, 1993 application caused you to be personally in violation of 10 CFR 50.5, " Deliberate Misconduct". While you deliberately made the same falso statements on your access authorization application of June 19, 1990, that instance is not being cited in the enclosed Order because it occurred prior to September 16, 1991, the date that 10 CFR 50.5 became effective. Failure to comply with the provisions of the enclosed order may result in civil or criminal sanctions. Questions concerning the order may be addressed to James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement. Mr. Lieberman can be reached at telephone number (301) 504-2741. NUREG-0940, PART I A-274 1
Kr. Douglas D. Preston 2 In accordance with 10 CTR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice", a copy of this letter and the enclosure with your home address removed will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. Sincerely, W rames Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement Enclosuret order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately) cc w/enclosuret L. Liu, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive officer D. Wilson, Plant Superintendent Nuclear Licensing K. Young, Manager, Nuclear Licensing Resident Inspector, RIII Stephen Brown, Iowa Department of Commerce Licensing Project Manager, NRR I Berry construction Company NUREG-0940, PART 1 A475 l l
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION , In the Matter of )
)
MR. DOUGLAS D. PRISTON ) IA 94-004 ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) I Mr. Douglas D. Preston was employed by the Berry Construction Company at the Iowa Electric Light and Power Company's (IELPC or l Licensee) Duane Arnold Energy Center where he was granted unescorted access. IELPC holds Facility License DPR-49, issued by 1 I the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to ' 10 CFR Part 50 on February 22, 1974. The license authorizes IELPC to operate the Duane Arnold Energy Center located near Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in accordance with the conditions specified therein. l II Mr. Preston first applied for employsent with Berry construction Company and was subsequently granted unescorted access to the Duane Arnold Energy Center on or about June 19, 1990, based in part on the representations he made on his access authorization applications. One of the representations was that he had not been arrested and convicted for any criminal offense other than minor traffic violations. The Licensee submitted fingerprint cards to the rederal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and subsequently was NUREG-0940, PART I A476
i l 2 informed that Mr. Preston had a record of arrests, convictions, and imprisonments prior to 1978. However, while waiting for the results cf the FBI fingerprint check, Mr. Preston's employment at the Duane Arnold Energy Center was terminated for a lack of work. Mr. Preston's deliberate false statements on his access authorization application on or about June 19, 1990 were essentially the same as his 1993 false statements (addressed below), but are not being cited in this Order as a violation because they were made before the effective date of 10 CFR 50.5. On June 21, 1993, Mr. Preston again applied for a position at the Duane Arnold Energy Center and was hired on June 21, 1993 by the Berry Construction company as a laborer with responsibilities involving NRC-licensed activities. On June 23, 1993, Mr. Preston tilled out an access authorization application and again denied having a criminal history. The Licensee granted Mr. Preston temporary unescorted access to the plant on or about July 15, 1993. On or about August 13, 1993, the Licensee received the results of a second FBI fingerprint check which again detailed Mr. Preston's criminal history. Mr. Preston, when questioned by an IELPC investigator on August 13, at first denied having a criminal history and then admitted that he had lied about his criminal history to gain employment in 1990 and again in 1993. He further stated that he would lie again to gain employment in the future. The Licensee then revoked Mr. Preston's unescorted access baced on the deliberately false information regarding his criminal history NUREG-0940, PART I A477
3 on his access authorization application. Based on the above, Mr. Preston engaged in deliberate misconduct on or about June 23, 1993, by deliberately falsely stating on the access authorization application that he had no criminal history for crimes other than minor traffic offenses. The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50. 5, in part, prohibit any employee of a contractor of a licensee from deliberately submitting to the licensee information that the employee knows to be incomplete.or inaccurate in some rest.ect material to the NRC. Mr. Preston't actions constitute a violation of 10 CFR 50. 5 (a) . Information ' concerning criminal history is material to the determination the licensee must make to meet 10 CFR 73.56(b)(2). III The NRC must be able to rely on the Licensee, its contractors, and the licensee and contractor employees to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement to provide information that is complete and accurate in all material respects. Mr. Preston's actions in deliberately providing false information to the Licensee constitute deliberate violations of Commission regulations and his statement to the Licensee that he would do it again have raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NUREG-0940, PART I A478
l t 4 NRC requirements and to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC in the future. Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that nuclear safety activities within NRC jurisdiction can be conducted in compliance with the Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public would be protected if Mr. Preston were permitted to be engaged in the performance of licens2d activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Mr. Preston be prohibited from being involved in the performance of activities licensed by the NRC for a five year period. In addition, Mr. Preston is required to notify the NRC, for an additional five year period, of his acceptance of employment in NRC-licensed activities so that appropriate inspections can be performed. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of the deliberate misconduct described above is such that the public health, safety and interest require that this order be immediately effective. IV Accordirgly, pursuant to sections 103, 161b, 1611, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR 50.5, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THAT : NUREG-0940, PART I A479 a
5 A. Mr. Douglas D. reston is prohibited from engaging in activities licensed by the NRC for five years from the l date of this Order. For the purposes of this Order, licensed activities t.iclude the activities licensed or regulated by: (1) NRC; (2) an Agreement State, limited to the Licensee's conduct of activities within NRC jurisdiction, pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20; and (3) an Agreement state where the licensee is involved in the distribution of products that are subject to NRC jurisdiction. B. After the five year prohibition has expired as described in paragraph A above, Mr. Preston shall provide notice to the Director, office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear 3 Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, for acceptance of any emple wnt in licensed activity for an additional five year period. The Regional Administrator, Region III, say, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Presten of good cause. V In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. Prestoa must, and any other person adversely affected by this order may, submit an answer to NUREG-0940, PART I A-280 _ _ _ . ~_
6 this order, and mat request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this order. The answer may consent to this order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Preston or other person adversely affected rel,ies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN Chief, Docketing and Service Section, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, Region III, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351, and to Mr. Preston, if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Mr. Preston. If a person other than Mr. Preston requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by Mr. Preston or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether NUREG-0940, PART I A-281
7 this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2. 202 (c) (2) (1) , Mr. Preston, or any person l adversely affected by this Order, may in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time that answer is filed or sooner, nove the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the order on the ground ,that the Order, including the need for , immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on l i mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR A HEARING SMALL NOT STAY THE IMMEDIATE EFFICTIVENESS OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^
s Lieberman, Director ffice of Enforcement Dated at Rockvi da, Maryland thisytA. day of April 1994 HUREG-0940, PART I A-282
y e aseg\ UNITED STATES g ,1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e, j' w AsHINGTON, D.C. 3000H001
%*****./ May 1, 1997 EA 97-019 EA 97-150 IA 97-024 Roy Sadovsky, D.V.M.
Post Office Box 20243 Floral Park, New York 11002 4 SVBJECT: NOTICE OF DENIAL OF LICENSE RENEWAL AND ORDER TERMINATING LICENSE; ORDER PR0ft! BITING INVOLVEMENT IN LICENSED ACTIVITIES; AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY - $4,000 (NRC Inspection No. 030-31085/96-001)
Dear Dr. Sadovsky:
The enclosed Notice of wnial ot .icense Renewal and Order Terminating License, Order Prohibiting Involvement in Licensed Activities (Effective immediately), and Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty are being issued because of your violation of NRC requirements, including the deliberate violation of certain NRC requirements. Your license, originally issued on December 22, 1989, was due to expire on January 31, 1095. The license has remained in effect, however, pursuant to 10 CFR 30.36s a ), based on a timely request made by you in an application for renewal filed on January 24, 1995. On September 13, 1996, the NRC issued an Order Suspending License'(Effective Immediately) and Demand for Information (DFI), due to your apparent willful use of licensed material at a location not authorized by your license, as well as your failure to comply with numerous additional NRC requirements. The violations were identified during an NRC inspection conducted in August and September 1996, the report of which was forwarded to you on December 10, 1996. In addition, an investigation was conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations (01) subsequent to the inspection. As noted in the synopsis of the 01 report forwarded to you with our February 14, 1997 letter, 01 determined that you deliberately violated a condition of your license by implanting gold-198 seeds in horses at a location not authorized by your license. As a result, an enforcement conference was conducted with you on February 26, 1997, to discuss the violations, their causes, and your corrective actions. The September 13, 1996 Suspensten Order required that you: 1) place all NRC-licensed material in your possession in locked storage; 2) suspend all activities under your license to use, receive, or transfer 1 consed material; and (3) maintain all records related to licensed activities in their original form and not alter or remove any of the records in any way. The DFI required that you submit information, in writing and under oath or affirmation, as to: (1) why your license should not be revoked, or in the alternative not renewed; (2) all locations where licensed material has been used since February 1992, and the dates thereof; and (3) the identity of all persons who have assisted NUREG-0940, PART I A-283
Roy Sadovsky, D.V.M. with treatments or cared for treated horses and an estimate of the radiation exposure received by each such person. In your October 15, 1996 response to that Order, you indicated that you had no NRC-licensed material in your possession; you had suspended all activities under your license material since your; you had not received, used or transferred any licensedlicense was su records. Also, in response to the DFI, you indicated that you could not offer any adequate response why your license should not be revoked, and stated that, in fact, you had submitted a-letter requesting that your license be terminated. You also indicated, as you subsequently did during the February 26, 1997 enforcement conference, that you did not willfully use the material at a location not authorized by your license,' and you believed your license had been amended to include authorization for work at the location in question, namely, the White Birch Farm in Allentown, New Jersey. You also stated that if there was any attempt to willfully use the material at a location not listed on records. Subsequently,inyour license, you would not have kept such accurate your January 7, 1997 response to the December 10, 1996 inspection report, you stated that, upon reconsfieration, you did not wish to voluntarily terminate your license and requested that the NRC reinstate the operational status of your license upon the completion of its , inquiry. You also retterated your belief that you had submitted a lit b se amendment to allow use of licensed material at White Birch Farm. Finasty, you noted that you had retained the services of a consultant to provide operational review of your radiation safety practices after your license was reinstated. Notwithstanding your contentions during the enforcement conference and in your two letters, we have concluded that your cetions in violating NRC requirements by continuing to perform work at White Birch Farm, an unauthorized location, were deliberats. Particularly disturbing is the fact that you used the licensed material at the unauthorized location in February and March 1992 only a short time after you were cited in a Notice of Violation (NOV) issued in January 1992 for the same violation, and you informed the NRC, in your February 1992 response to the NOV, that you would confine use of the material to the authoriled locations. Although you asserted that you believed you had submitted Farm, this request a license amendment was to allow not submitted use of licensed until January 1995. material at White Birch Therefore, given this deliberate violation, as well as the potential safety consequence of the other violations, including inadequate security of licensed material and inadequate control of exposure to the gold-198 seeds, the NRC has determined that your license should not be renewed, that your license should be terminated, and that you should be precluded from involvement in licensed activities for a period of one year. The NRC considered prohibiting you from involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a longer period, but has decided not to do so because: (1) you accepted res;'onsibility for the violations at the conference; (2) you have already been prohibited from performing licensed activities since issuance of the September 13, 1996 Suspension Order; and (3) you retained a consultant who has described plans to upgrade and monitor NUREG-0940, PART I A484
Roy Sadovsky, D.V.M.- - your program, should the NRC allow you to be engaged in licensed activities in the future. , Pursuant to Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.:any . person who willfally violates - attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of these Orders shall be subject to criminal prosedion as set forth in that section. Vio11 tion of these Orders may also subject the person to civil monetary penalty. , In a'ddition to these Orders, the enclosed Notice of Violatir,n and Pioposed imposiiton of Civil Penalty (Notice) are-being issued in view of.the nature, number, and significance of the violations identified during the insper. tion. Given the deliberate violation, as well as the significant lack of attention to ensuring your activities were conducted safely and in accordance with NRC requirements, the violations have beef classified in the aggregate as a
. Severity Level !! problem in accordance with the ' General P.atement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Acti.ons" (Enforcement rolicy), NUREG-1600.
The violation involving the delibtrate use of licensed material at an unauthorized location 1s of particular cone.e n.because the regulatory program is based on licensees acting with integrity and communicating with candor. The remaining violations art also of significant concern because such failures pose a potential safety. consequence to the pubile including your workers. In the aggregata, the vit14tions in the enclosed Notice are of very sig,nificant regulatcry concern. Therefore, to emphasize the s'ignificance that the NRC attaches to delibhnte violations, as wc11 as the importance of strict adherence to NRC requirem6nts, I as issuing the enclosM Notice and proposed civil penalty in the base'amourt of $4 000 for 21s Severity Level !! problem. This penalty is based on exv.lse of. enforcement discretion pursuant to Sections Vll.A.I.(a) and (c) of - the Enforcement Policy.- You are required to respond to this letter and the enclosed Notice and should follow the instructions The NRC will use yoursponse,re,specified in part,intothe Notice when determine preparing whether further your response. enforcement action.is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.- - In the inspection report sent.to you with our letter dated December 10, 1996,
- we discussed potential exposures to you in excess of regulatory limits. We have reviewed your letter dated venuary 7, 1997, in which you concluded that no exposures in e:: cess of regulatory limits occurred. Based on the ;information available to the NRC,4here is uncertainty a's to whether exposures' in excess of regulatory limits occurred and, therefore, no enforcement action is being taken on that specific issue. However, there is sufficient-evidence :
that the gold-198 seed treatment procedure has the potential to result-in doses to persons in excess of regulatory limits if proper radiation safety
. practices are not rigcrously-implemented. We expect meticulous attention to the radiation safety measures described in any future application to the NRC for use of. licensed material. --
NUREG-0940, PART I A-285
- _-_ - - - ------ - - ~ Roy Sadovsky, D.V.M. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice " a copy of this letter, its enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. Questions concerning these actions should be addressed to Mr. James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, who may be reached at (301) 415-2741. Sincerely, n dwarc . Jordan Deputj/ Executive Director for Regulatory Effectiveness, Program Oversight, Investigations and Enforcement Docket No. 030-31085 License No. 31-28369 0)
Enclosures:
1. 2. Notice of Denial of License Renewal and Order Terminating License Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective imediately) 3. Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty ec w/encis: State of New York State of New Jersey NUREG-0940, PART I A-286
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N In the Matter of 3 1A 97-024
)
Roy Sadovsky, D.V.M. ) . Floral Park, New York ) ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVEIMEDIATELY) Roy Sadovsky, D.V.M., (Licensee or Dr. Sadovsky) is the holder of Byproduct Nuclear Material License No. 31-28369-01 (License) issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC or Coenission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30. The License authorizes possession and use of licensed material (i.e., gold-198 seeds) for implantation in horses for the treatment of leg injuries and diseases in accordance with the conditier.s specified therein. Condition 10 of the License requires that licensed material be used only at the Meadowlands Race Track in East Rutherford, New Jersey, or Showplace Farm and Gaitway Farm in Millstone Township, New Jersey. The License, originally issued on December 22, 1989, was amended on January 10, 1992, and was due to expire on January 31, 1995. The Itcense has remained in effect, however, pursuant to 10 CFR 30.36(a) based on a request made by the Licensee in an application for renewal filed on January 24, 1995. 11 As noted in a Notice of Denial of License Renewal and Order Terminating License issued to Dr. Sadovsky concurrently on this date, the NRC has found, based on an inspection and investigation, that Dr. Sadovsky has deliberately engaged in violations of NRC requirements, as detailed in the Notice of Dental NUREG-0940, PART I A-287 _a
I
-t-l of License Renewal and Order Teminating License. Notwithstanding the dental of Dr. Sadovsky's licens.: renewal, given Dr. Sadovsky's daliberate failure to adhere to regulatory requirements, as well as the significance of additional l violations of other requirements as set forth in the Notice of Denial of License Renown) and Order i m inating License, the NRC nu longer has the necessary assurance that Dr. Sadovsky's activities, if performed under any other NRC license, weuld be perfomed safely and in accordance with requirements.
Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Dr. Sadovsky were permitted at this time to be involved in NRC-licensed activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Dr. Sadovsky be orchtbited from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of one year from the date of this Order, and if he is currently involved with another i licensee in NRC-licensed activities, he must tunedtately cease such activities, and inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer, and provide a copy of this order to the employer. Additionally, Dr. Sadovsky is required to notify the NRC of his first employment in NRC-licensed activities fo110 wing the prohibition period. Furthennore, j pursuant to 10 CFR t.207, I find that the w111 fulness and significance of Dr. Sadovsky's conduct described above is such that the public health, safety l and interest require that this Order be immediately effective. I l 1 1 1 NUREG-0940, PART I A-288
111 Accordingly, pursuant to sections 41,161b,1611,1610,182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR 30.10. Part 35, and 10 CFR 150.20, IT 15 HERE8Y ORDERED, IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE, THAT:
- 1. For a period of one year from the date of this Order, Roy Sadovsky, 0.V.M., is prohibited from engaging in NRC-licensed activities.
NRC-licensed activities are those activities that are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including, but not limited to, those activities of Agreement state licensees conducted in areas of NRC jurisdiction pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20.
- 2. For a period of ono year from the date of this Order, Dr. Sadovsky shall r.rovide a copy of this Order to any prospective employer who engages in NRC-Itcensed activities (as described in Section !!!.1 above) prior to his acceptance of employment involving non-NRC-licensed activities with such prospective employer. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the employer is aware of the prohibition on Dr. Sadovsky from engaging in NRC-licensed activities.
- 3. The first time Dr. Sadovsky is employed in NRC-licensed activities following the one year prohibition, he shall notify the Regional Administrator NRC Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, NUREG-0940, PART I A-289
4 Pennsylvania 19406, prior to engsging in NRC licensed activities, including activities under an Agreement State license when activities under that license are conducted in areas of NRC jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20. The notice shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the NRC or Agreement State licensee and the location where licensed activities will be perfonned. The Director Office of Enforcement, say, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the Licensee of good cause. IV i i In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Dr. Sadovsky must, and any other person l adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Dr. Sadovsky or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Attn: Chief. Docketing NUREG-0940, PART 1 M 90
t 5-and Service Section, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and [nforcement st the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region 1, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, to Dr. Sadovsky if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Dr. Sadovsky. If a person other than Or. Sadovsky requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by Dr. Sadovsky, or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Comission vill issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing, if a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(1), Dr. Sadovsky may, in addition to oemanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding
- officer to att aside the imediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on more suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been NVREG-0940, PART I A491
6-approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. AN ANSWER OR A l REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE 109tEDIATE EFFECT!VEN($$ OF TH15 ORDER. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP 9115510N h-Edwa kh
. Jordan Deput xecutive Director for Regulatory Effe tiveness, Program Oversight, Investigations and Enforcement Dated at Rockville. Maryland this let day of May 1997 NUREG-0940, PART I A492
l g....s p- .k UNITED STATES
- S I
NUCLEAM REQULATORY COMMISSION waoneweton, o.c. asses.essi
\ . . . . . )'
April 15. 1997 IA 97-008 Mr. Derek Stephens [ Address removed pursuant to10CFR2.790) SUBJECit CONFIRMATORY ORDER
Dear Mr. Stephens:
The enclosed Order is being issued because of your violation of 10 CFR 30.10, as described in the Order. .The Order prohibits your involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of 3 years from the date of the Order. You agreed to the issuance of a Confirmatory Order in your signed statement dated March 11, 1997. Pursuant to Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, any person who willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of this Order shall be subject to criminal prosecution as set forth in that section. Violation of this order may also subject the person to civil monetary penalty. Questions concerning this Order should be addressed to me at (301) 415-2741. In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part d. Title 10. Code of Federal Regulations, records or documents compiled for enforcement purposes are placed in the NRC Putlic Document Room (FOR). A copy of this letter with your eddress removed will be placed in-the POR. Sincerely, 4k1 James Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement Docket No. 030-30691 License No. 35-26953-01
Enclosure:
As Stated cci (see next page) 5 NUREG-0940, PART I A-293
__ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._.__.m _ . - ____. - _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ . _ . _
= Mr. Derek Stephens cc w/ Enclosures
- State of Oklahoma Mr.-Loyd Barnett Barnett Industrial X-Ray, Inc.
. P.O. Box 1991-Stillwater,-Oklahoma 74076 American Society of Nondestructive Testing, Inc. I ATTN: Technical Services Manager 1711 Arlingate Lane P.O. Box 2s518
- Columbus,'OH 43228-0518 ,
i i i 1 1
~
NUREG-0940, PART:I. A 294 i j i av v -- t -et>-r -'-t '- - E -' Y W - e t + 7 r *e-
- t w-m e mmv pe rw- W-
- w t= ww - eare-w o-mvwu*t w e 4'* rw 9 W - ***w--- + - - + --e---~-v-rr- e d2*""" +4'*-
e' ? r e-r "*- m-*'
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the Matter of IA 97-008 Derek F. Stephens CONFIRMATORY ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVEIMMEDIATELY) 1 Mr. Derek F. Stephens was employed as a radiographer by Barnett Industrial X-Ray,Inc.(Licensee). The Licensee is the holder of License No. 35-26953-01 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 34 and last renewed on March 21, 1996. The license authorizes possession and use of byproduct material in accordance with the conditions specified therein. 11 On October 3,1996, Mr. Stephens and a radiographer's assistant were conducting radiography activities at a refinery in Ponca City, Oklahoma, Mr. Stephens was the more senior of the two and had received training regarding his responsibilities for conducting activities in accordance with Licensee procedures and NRC regulations. NRC regulations require, in part, that at all times during the conduct of radiography activities, each individual wear a direct reading pocket dosimeter, an alarm ratemeter, and either a film badge or a thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) (10 CFR 34.33). NRC regulations also require that a survey be cade after each exposure to determine that the sealed source has been returned NUREG-0940, PART I A 295
.t. 'oitsshieldedposition(10CFR34.43). NRC regulations further require that whenever a radiographer's assistant uses radiographic exposure devices or conducts radiation surveys required by 10 CFR 34.43(b), and the radiographer's assistut shall be under the personal supervision of a radiographer, including the radiographer providing immediate assistance if required and the radiographer watching the assistant's performance of the operations (10 CFR 34.44).
During radiography activities on October 3, 1996 Mr. Stephens and the radiographer's assistant were assigned to complete two radiographs. The exposure device was placed on a scaffold approximately 6 feet above the ground with the drive cable controls located on the ground. After the second exposure, Mr. Stephens instructed the radiographer's assistant to trank the source back in and remove the source guide tube. Mr. Stephens then left to remove the barricades and did not watch the radiographer's assistant. Without a survey meter, the radiographer's assistant approached and disconnected the source guide tube. After disconnecting the source guide tube, the radiographer's assistant observed that the source was not fully retracted into ' the exposure device and was still exposed. The radiographer's assistant immediately left the vicinity of the source and informed Mr. Stephens. As a result of this event, the radiographer's assistant received a higher-than-normal exposure, but the exposure did not exceed regulatory limits. In violation of NRC requirements, Mr. Stephens did not wear a direct reading pocket dosimeter, an alarm ratemeter, and either a film badge or a TLD. Further, Mr. Stephens did not effectively supervise the radiographer's NUREG-0940, PART I A496
3 assistant to ensure that the radiographer's assistant conducted a proper survey,asrequiredby10CFR34.43(b). Because he was not properly supervising the radiographer's assistant, Mr. Stephens did not notice that when the radiographer's assistant approached the soutce, the radiographer's assistant could not have performed the proper survey because he did not have a survey meter.. NRC's investigation and inspection of this incident began on October 4, 1996. In a sworn, signed statement provided by Mr. $tephens to NRC's Office of Investigations (01),Mr.StephensstatedbehadbeenworkingfortheLicensee since August 1995, and that he had received written and oral training, on-the-job training, and formal classroom training. He stated he had been a level !! radiographer for about 3 months and that he had been taught his responsibilities as a supervisor, including ensuring that the radiographer's assistant and others comply with safety and regulations. Further, he stated that both he and the radiographer's assistant forgot their personal dosimetry and realized it only when they discovered the source was not retracted. The results of NRC's investigation and inspection are documented in NRC Inspection Report 030-30691/96-01 dated December 23, 1996. A predecisional enforcement conference was conducted with the License 6 on January 6,=1997, and on February 24, 1997, . the NRC issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $4000 to the Licensee for the violations described in this Section 11 of this Order. NUREG-0940, PART I - A-297
~
i l
-4 l I
i Based on its r6tlew of all available information, the NRC has concluded that Mr. Stephens, a former employee of the Licensee, engaged in deliberate { misconduct in violation of 10 CFR 30.10 by causing the Licensee to be in violationof10CFR34.33(a). Specifically, notwithstanding Mr. Stephens' assertion that he forgot his personal dosimetry, the NRC has cuncluded that Mr. Stephens deliberately failed to wear the required personal monitoring devices. Tliis conclusion is based on the fact that: (1) Mr. Stephens was trained on using personal monitoring devicesi (2) Mr. Stephens was provided
- personal monitoring devices, which he had in the Licensee's truck used in traveling to the work site; (3) prior to conducting licensed activities.
Mr. Stephens is required to perform daily preoperational tests, such as checking the operability of the alarming ratemeter and zeroing the pocket dosimeter assigned to him; and (4) in an October 8, 1996 signed, written statementto01,Mr.Stephensstatedthathe'knewitwas[his) responsibility-toensureKevin(AssistantRadiographer)hadhisdosimetrybutdidnotdoso." ' In addition, the NRC has concluded that Mr. Stephens' failure to supervise, through direct observation, the radiographer's assistant as he approached the exposure device without a survey instrument and atternpted to disassemble the equipment, represents careless disregard for regulatory requirements. Given his training and experience Mr..Stephens knew or should have known of the requirements of 10 CFR 34.44 that a radiographer's assistant must be under the personal supervision of a radiographer, including the radiographer providing insediate assistance if required and the radiographer watching the assistant's NUREG-0940, PART I A-298
5-performance of operations. This conclusion is also supported by Mr. Stephens' October 8, 1996 signed, written statement to 01 that he had been taught tnat his responsibility as a supervisor included insuring the assistants and others complied with safety and regulations. These willful acts are significant because Mr. Stephens, the senior radiographer, failed to observe the safeguards designed to protect him, the , radiographer's assistant, and others from unnecessary and potentially i dangerous radiation exposures. These willful acts contributed to an unnecessary radiation exposure to the radiographer's assistant. The NRC must be able to rely on the Licensee and its employees to comply with NRC requirements. Mr. Stephen's actions during this incident have raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements. IV j By letter dated February 19, 1997, the NRC described its t.onclusions to Mr. Stephens. The letter documented the NRC's understanding that Mr. Stephens did not wish to participate in fs .aer discussions of the above issues, and that Mr. Stephens agreed to a cotStment that he be prohibited from engaging in NRC-licensed activities for a period of 3 years. Mr. Stephens signed a statement dated March II, 1997, consenting to the issuance of this Order with the commitment as described in Section V below. Mr. Stephens further agreed in his signed statement, that this Order is to be effective upon issuance and that he has waived his right to a hearing. NUREG-0940 PART I A-299 J
l l 1 find that Mr. Stephens' commitments as set forth in Section V are acceptable and necessary and conclude that with the comitment the public health and l safety are reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined that the public health and safety require that Mr. Stephens' commitments be confirmed by this Order. Based on the above and Mr. Stephens' consent, this Order is immediately effective upon issuance. V . i Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b,1611,182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in
-10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 30.10, and 10 CFR 150.20, IT IS HERE8Y ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IMME0!ATELY, THAT:
Mr. Stephens is prohibited from engaging in NRC-licensed activities, I including work conducted as an employee of an Agreement State licensee if the work is performed in a non-Agreement State or an area of ' exclusive federal jurisdiction, for a period of 3 years from the date of this order. The Director, Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Stephens of good cause. i NUREG-0940, PART I A-300
7 V Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other than Mr. Stephens, may request a hearing within 20 days of its issuance. Where goo's cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. 0.C. 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. Any request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, ATTN: Chief Docketing and Service Section, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region IV, 6.1 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas 76011 and to Mr. Stephens. If such a person requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by this Order and
-shall address the criteria sat forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d),
if a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained. NUREG-0940, PART I A-301
.g.
In the absence of any requ6st for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order-or proceedings, if an extension of_ time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIV(NESS OF THIS OR0tR.
~
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N James Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement Dated at Rockville. Maryland this M day of April 1997 NVREG-0940, PART.1 A-302
"ag y *. UNITED STATES j* W
] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[j W AaMmotoN. D.C. 80eeHoot
, December 12. 1994 IA 94-035 Mr. Rex Allen Werts (Address deleted under10CFR2.790)
SUBJECT:
ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES AND UNESCORTED ACCESS (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) O!INVESTIGATIONREPORTSYNOPSlS(2-93-052R)
Dear Mr. Werts:
The enclosed Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities and Onescorted Access (Effectively Immediately) is being issued as a consequence of the deliberate falso statements you made on an application for access authotizatibn at the Carolina Power and Light Company's (Licensee) Brunswick Nuclear Plant. On or about March 11, 1993, you used an alias on your access authorization application and indicated on the application that you had not been arrested or convicted of any criminal offense. As a result of your deliberate falso statements, you were granted unescorted access to the Brunswick Nuclear Plant on March 24, 1993. The Licensee subsequently learned of your use of an altas and that you had been arrested and convicted several times for crimes and were incarcerated for some of those offenses. A itcensee supervisor interviewed you about your application, at which time you admitted that you had submitted false information on your application. 10CFR50.5(aD(2),'Deliberatemisconduct,"prohibitsanemployeeofanNRC licensee or lleensee contractor from deliberately submitting information to the licensee or licensee contractor that the employee knows to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C,
' General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions," in particular Section Vlli, ' Enforcement Action involving Individuals,' provides guidance and considert.tions for enforcement sanctions against individuals who deliberately violate NRC requirements.
The NRC Office of Investigations (01) conducted an investigation (2-93-052R) to determine whether you committed a willful violation in connectton with your making falso statements regarding your criminal background. The 01 investigation concluded that you had deliberately provided false information concerning your criminal arrest and conviction record in order to gain unescorted access to the site protected area. By letter dated September 14, 1994, the NRC attempted to provide you with a copy of the 01 investigation synopsis and afford you an opportunity for an enforcement conference prior to making a final decision regarding escalated enforcement action in your case. The letter has been returned by the post office as undeliverable and wc have been unable to locate you. A copy of the September 14, 1994, letter with the 01 synopsis attached is enclosed (Enclosure 1). If attempts to deliver this letter and the enclosed Order are not successful, it will not delay the tiffective date of the enclosed Order nor the placement of this letter and enclosed Order in the Pubite Document Room. NVREG-0940, PART I A 303
)
Mr. Rex AIIen Werts The false information you provided regarding your criminal history on the March 11, 1993 access authorization application is a violation of 10 CFR 50.5,
" Deliberate misconduct.' Such conduct is unacceptable to the NRC. Therefore, af ter consultation with the Connission, I have been authorized to issue the enclosed Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities and Unescorted Access (Effective immediately). Pursuant to section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, any person who willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of this Order shall be subject to criminal prosecution as set forth in that section.
You are required to provide a response to this Order and should do so within 20 days. Questions concerning the Order may be addressed to James Lieberman, 01 rector, Office of Enforcement. Mr. Lieberman can be reached at telephone number (301) 504 2741. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter with your home address removed, its enclosures and any response To the extent possible, your response should not include an persona will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room (POR)l p or safeguards information so that it can be p aced in the POR w t out redaction. However, if you find it necessary to include such infors.ation, you should clearly indicate the specific information that you desire not to be placed in the POR, and provide the legal basis to support your request for withholding the information from the public. Sincerely. W b. / [i amos L. M11hoan yeputyExecutiveDirectorfor Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research
Enclosures:
- 1. September 14, 1994 letter with 0! synopsis
- 2. Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities and Unescorted Access (Effective Inmediately) cc w/encls (See next page) i NUREG-0940, PART I A-304
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMIS$10N In the Matter of REX ALLEN WERTS IA 94 035 (Also Known Ast MICHAELALLENHUNTER) ORDER PROHl81 TING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES ANO UNESCORTED ACCESS l (EFFECTIVE 1 MEDIATELY)
=
1 Mr. Pex Allen Werts (Also Known Ast Michael Allen Hunter) was employed by Power Plant Maintenance, Inc., (PPM) a contractor of the Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L or Licensee), from March 24, 1993 until his unescorted access was revoked on July 26, 1993. Licensee is the holder of License Nos. OPR-62 and OPR-71 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Comission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 on December 27, 1974 and November it, 1976, respectively. The licenses authorize the operation of the Brunswick Nuclear Plant in accordance with the conditions specified therein. The facility is located on the Licensee's site in Southport, North Carolina. 11 On March 24, 1993 Mr. Werts was granted unescorted access to the Brunswick Nuclear Plant, based in part on representations he made on an access authorization application, dated March 11, 1993, which he submitted to Power PlantMaintenance,Inc.,(PPM),acontractoroftheLicensee. In the application, Mr. Werts falsely represented himself as Michael Allen Hunter and stated that he had not been arrested or convicted of any criminal offense. In addition, Mr. Werts failed to correct that infomation after he was granted unescorted access and continued to hold that status on the basis of his false HilREG-0940. PART I A-305 t m
.t.
Identity. The Licensee submitted fingerprint cards completed by Mr. Werts to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and subsequently was informed that Mr. Werts (alias Mr. Hunter) had a record of arrests, convictions, and imprisonments prior to 1990. Based on the above, Mr. Werts engaged in deliberate misconduct in violation of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2) which prohibits any employ u of a licens u or licensee contractor from deliberately submitting to the licensee or licensee's . contractor inforwatton the employee knows to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. Info,wation concerning an individual's true identity and criminal history is material in that it is used by the Licensee to make determinations relative to the grant or dental of access authorization. If the Licensee had been given accurate information regarding Mr. Werts' criminal record, the Licensee would not have granted unescorted access to Mr. Werts. The NRC must be able to rely on the Licensee, its contractors, and licensee and contractor employees to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement to provide inforsation that is complete and accurate in all material respects. Mr. Werts' actions have raised serious concerns as to whether he can be reited upon to comply with NRC requirements and to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC or to NRC licensees in the future. Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that nuclear safety activities can be conducted in compliance with the Conuitssion's requirements l l l NUREG-0940, PART I A-306 l
3 and that the health and safety of the public would be protected if Mr. Werts were permitted at this time to be involved in the performance of licensed activities or were permitted unescorted access to protected or vital areas of NRC-licensed facilities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Mr. Werts be prohibited from being involved in the performance of activities licensed by the NRC and be prohibited from obtaining unescorted access for a period of three years from the.date of this Order. For a period of five years from the date of this Order, Mr. Werts is required to inform the NRC of his acceptance of employment with ahy employer whose operations he knows or has reason to believe involve NRC-Itcensed activities. Furthermors, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of the deliberate misconduct described above is such that the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be immediately effective. IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 161b, 1611, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, anc the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 50.5, and 10 CFR 150.20, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IM E0!ATELY, THAT: A. For a three-year period from the date of this Order, Mr. Rex Allen Werts is prohibited from engaging in activities licensed by the , NRC and is prohibited from obtaining unescorted access to
. protected and vital areas of fat 11 ties licensed by the NRC. For the purposes of this Order, licensed activities include the NUREG-0940, PART I b307
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ - - _ - - - - - - - _ ~
~4-activities licensed or regulated bya (1) NRC: (2)anAgreement State, limited to the Licensee's conduct of activities within NRC jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20; and (3) an Agreement 5 tate where the licensee is involved in the distribution of products that are subject to NRC jurisdiction.
B. For a five-yea,r period from the date of this Order, Mr. Werts is required to provide notice to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, of his acceptance of employment with any employer whose operations he knows or has reason to believe involve NRC-licensed activities. l The Director, Office of Enforcement, say, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conottions upon demonstration by Mr. Werts of good cause, l V in accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. Werts must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the date of this Order. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answea shall, in writing and ender oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Werts or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the NUREG-0940, PART I A-308
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, ATTN: Chief. Docketing and Services Section, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, Region !!, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission,101 Marietta St. N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30323, and to Mr. Werts, if'the answer or henring request is by a person other than Mr. Werts. If a person other than Mr. Werts requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by Mr. Werts or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of I any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained, i Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(1), Mr. Werts, or any other person adversely affected by this Order, say, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the tunedtate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without NUREG-0940, ? ART I A-309
)
6-further order or proceedings. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR A HEAR!bG SHALL NOT STAY THE IM4EDIA1E EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDER. , FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0 m !SS10N l
/)
L..k
. Milhoen i
()eputy Executive Director for ' Nuclear Reactor Regulation, i Regional Operations and Research Dated a o kville, Maryland this ay of December 1994 l l l NUREG-0940, PART 1 A-310
l SYNOPSIS On August 20, 1993, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensee, Carolina Power and Light Company, submitted a Security Event Report to the NRC regarding an event at the licensee's Brunswick Nuclear Flant (BN?). The event . described by the licensee involved an employee of a contractor who was granted .x unescorted access to the BNP vital and protected areas based on falsified , employment and background information. This matter was referred to the NRC -- < Office of Investigations (01) Region !! Field Office on September 1,1993, for - evaluation. . Based on 01 review of the documentation and evidence obtained in this investigation, it is concluded that the subject deliberately falsified
>ersonal identification and background information to deceive the contractor, )PM, the licensee and the NRC in order to freudulently obtain employment and "
unescorted access at the BNP. . . a 4 Case No. 2 93 052R 1 NUREG-0940, PART I A-311
l j "%y y- 8% UNITED STATES j* '*
} NUCl. EAR REQULATORY COMMISSION g W ASHINST 4. D.C.3066 H oot
%, *****/
September 27. 1994 1A 94-024 Larry D. Wicks, President Western Industrial X-Ray Inspection Company, Inc. 5354 Highway 89 North Evanston, Wyoming 82931
SUBJECT:
ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVEIMMEDIATELY) The enclosed Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective immediately) is being issued because you engaged in deliberate misconduct as defined in 10 CFR 30.10. As described in the Order in more detail, the NRC has concluded that you deliberately failed to send an employee's thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) in for processing after you learned of an incident on July 31 1993 perform an evaluation of this employee's; that you radiation deliberately exposure failed to after becoming aware of the incident; that you were not truthful in responding to NRC inspectors and investigators about this incident; and that you deliberately failed to ensure that properly calibrated alare ratemeters were provided and used by your radiography personnel. A copy of the synopsis of the 01 report is enclosed. The Order prohibits your involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years from the date of the Order, except as necessary to maintain licensed material in possession of WlX in safe storage or to transfer that material to an authorized recipient. Other than this exception, you are prohibited from any involvement in managing, supervising, or performing activities that are regulated by the NRC, including conducting or supervising radiography activities and acting as a Radiation Safety Officer for an NRC licensee. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Order may result in further civil or criminal sanctions. Questions concerning this Order should be addressed to Mr. James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, who can be reached at (301) 504-2741. NUREG-0940, PART I A-312
Larry D. Wicks In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ' Rules of Practice", a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I I Hug . Thompson, r. Deputy Executive tre goor Nuclear Materials Safety Safeguards, and Operations Support Docket No. 030-32190 License No. 49-27356-01 1A 94-024
Enclosures:
- 1. Order
- 2. 01 synopsis cc w/ enclosures State of Wyoming NUREG-0940, PART I A-313
I l l l l' UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of IA 94-024 LARRY D. WICKS ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) I tarry D. Wicks is the President and Radiation Safety Officer for Western Industrial X-Ray inspection Company, Inc. (WlX), Evanston, Wyoming. WlX holds License No. 49-27356-01 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 34. The license authorizes the Itcensee to possess sealed sources of iridium-192 in various radiography devices for use in performing industrial radiography in accordance with the conditions of the license. The license was suspended by NRC Order on June 16 1994, and remains suspended while a hearing requested by the licensee is pending. 11 The suspeaston of License No. 49-27356-01 was based on the results of NRC staff inspections and Office of Investigations (01) investigations of WlX conducted in April 1993 and in January and March 1994. These inspections and investigations identified numerous violations of NRC's radiation safety requirements, including some violations that were found to have recurred after being identified in previous inspections and some which were found to have been committed deliberately by Mr. Wicks and other employees of WlX. These violations were described ir. inspection reports 030-32190/93-01 and NUREG-0940, PART I A-314
2 030-32190/94-01 issued on May 12, 1994, and were the subject of th enforcement
~
conference held April 1,1994 in Arlington, Texas, during thich Mr. Wicks was given the opportunity to provide additional information concerning each violation, in investigation Report 4-93-017R Issued August 2, 1993, 01 found , three deliberate violations and in Report 4 93-049R issued July 8, 1994, O! found four deliberate violations. Based on its review all available information, the NRC concludes that fir. Wicks violated the ,.vytsions of 10 CFR 30.10, which prohibits individuals from deliberately causing a licensee to violate NRC requirements and from deliberately providing materially incomplete or inaccurate information to the = NRC or to a licensee of the NRC. Specifically, as discussed below in more detail, the NRC concludes that: 1) Mr. Wicks deliberately failed to send an employee's thermeluminescent dosimeter (TLD) in for immediate processing after L ,, he learned of a radiography incident that occurred on July 31, 1993, a violation of 10 CFR 34.33(d); 2) Mr. Wicks deliberately failed to perform an evaluation of the same employee's radiation exposure after becoming aware of the incident, a violation of 10 CFR 20.201; 3) Mr. Wicks deliberately provided inaccurate information to NRC investigators about f.he July 31, 1993, incident and his follow-up to the incident, a violation of 10 CFR 30.10; and
- 4) During March, April, and July of 1993 and January 1994, Mr. Wicks deliberately failed to ensure that calibrated alarm rateme'.ars were provided and used by WlX radiography personnel, a violation of 10 CFR 34.33(f)(4).
The first three violations above are directly related to the July 31, 1993, radiography incident. That incident, which was reported to Mr. Wicks on the a NVREG-0940, PART I A-315
3 date it occurrea, by the two WlX employees who were involved in it, involved a I radiation source in a radiographic exposure device not being properly returned to its shielded position before the device was moved by one of the employees. Ris resulted in the self-reading pocket dosimeter of one of the employees, a radiographer's assistant, going off-scale, indicathg that the radiographer's assistant received a radiation exposure beyond ti iange of the pocket 4 dosimeter.' When the pocket dosineter of someone engaged in radiography is I discharged beyond its normal range, NRC regulations in 10 CFR Parts 34 and 20, i respectively, require: 1) that the licensee send the individual's TLD in for immediate processing to determine the individual's radiation exposure; and 2) W that the Itcensee perform evaluations as necessary, whether or not a TLD reading is available, to determine the indisidual's rad'ation
. exposure anJ tn ensure comp 1 hnce with NRC erposure limits. In this case, the NRC concludes that Mr. Wicks deliberately did neither and that he has not been truthful in~
providing information about this '.acident to NRC personnel and cthers. When the NRC began its investigation of this incident in January 1994, Pr. Wicks had no record of the radiographer's assistant's Uposure for the day or month in question. Mr. Wicks stated during the investigation and at the
- enforcement conference tha+. after learning of the incident ie sent all TLDs worn by company personnel during the month of July 1993 in one package to L.andauer, Inc., the company that processes TLDs for WlX, and that he included a note requesting immediate processing of the TLD worn by the radiographer's assistant, licwever, a representative of Landauer, Inc., stated to NRC
' Later reenactments of the incident resulted in an estimate that the radiographer's assistant received 6 vens, an exposure in excess of the NRC occupational quarterly limit of 3 rces in effect at the time of the incident.
e a i NUREG-0940. PART I A-316
personnel that while it had received TLDs from WlX for other employees for the month of July 1993, it had no record of receiving a TLD for the radiographer's assistant for that month and no record of receiving a request from Mr. Wicks for expedited processing of any TLDs sent in for that month. In fact, exposure records for the month of July 1993 and quarterly records for the months of July-September 1993 which were mailed by Landauer to WlX and retained by W1X contain no information regarding the radiographer's assistant's exposure for the month of July 1993 (her exposure records for all other months are available).: Mr. Wicks told NRC investigators that he had never provided an exposure estimate to the radiographer's assistant because he had none to gi u her, i.e., he did not have a report from Landauer. However, this is inconsistent 3 with statements by: 1) the radiographer's assistant that she persisted in trying to obtain from Mr. Wicks her exposure for the month of July and that Mr. Wicks eventually -- about three weeks after the incident -- told her she had received 350 millires, 2) the radiographer involved in the incident that-Mr. Wicks had informed him that "everything was OK" and that the radiographer's assistant had received 600 millires for the quarter, and 3) the assistant's husband, also a WIX employee, that Mr. Wicks had called his wife two to three weeks after the incident and had given her a number "which was lower and we were happy." 2 Mr. Wicks claims that he was unaware of this fact until the NRC questioned him in January 1994. NUREG-0940, PART I A-317
Mr. Wicks contended during the enforcement conference that he had been mi:14d by the employees involved in the incident into believing that the incident was not seriour. While both employees admit to providing Mr. Wicks false accounts of f te d acident in an attempt to cover up their own mistakes, the radiographer's assistant and her husband both told NRC investigators that Mr. Wteks was informed when the reports were turned in on July 31, 1993, that the reports were false and that Mr. Wicks was told that the radiographer involved in the incident had been asleep in the truck instead of supervising the radiographer's assistant (as required by NRC regulations). Mr. Wicks denied having been told that the reports were false. Mr. Wicks also told NRC personnel during the enforcement conference thti he did not realize that Landauer had not provided him a July 1993 exposure record for the r diographer's assistant and had not called Landauer until the NRC began its investigation in January 1994. The only explanation Mr. Wicks has offered for not pursuing the question of the radiographer's assistant's July 1993 exposure is that he was very busy. However, the following events raise significant questions about Mr. Wicks' credibility:
- 1. In August 1993, Mr. Wicks received Landauer's report for the month of July 1993 which, as indicated earlier, contained no monthly exposure record for the radiographer's assistant. Despite, according to Mr. s Wicks, having requested imediate processing of the assistant's badge from Landauer, Mr. Wicks told the NRC investigator that he didn't read the monthly report.
NUP. -0940, PART I A-318
f - 6-l 2. Mr. Wicks stated at the enforcement conference that he placed the assistant on limited duty as soon as he was informed of the incident pending the receipt of a report from Landauer and that she was limited to working in the darkroom and " completely away from my shooting area" 4 from July 31, 1993,-until she left WlX toward the end of September 1993.3 Mr. Wicks stated that having an employee in a restricted status for nearly two months did not remind him of the fact that he had never received a response to his request for immediate processing of her July 1993 TLO.
- -3. On October 1,-1993, Mr. Wicks provided a summary of the radiographer's assistant's radiation exposure history, including the period in question (July 1993), to her new employer, an NRC licensee, in doing so, Mr.
Wicks relied not cr. Landauer records, even though records were available for all months but July and September 1993, but by adding up daily cosimeter records, which were blank for July 31, 1993. Despite making these calculations for the radiographer's assistant, Mr. Wicks stated at the enforcement conference that he was not reminded of the fact that he had never received a response to his request for Ismediate processing of i her July 1993 TLD.
- 4. Later in October 1993, Mr. Wicks responded to a request from the NRC for the radiation exposure reports of terminated employees, as required by 3
- The NRC notes that the radiographer's assistant disputes Mr. Wicks' account, stating tt.at she was permitted to resume work involving exposure to radiation about three weeks after the incident when Mr. Wicks called her and told her that her exposure we.s 35( ':d C irems. NUREG-0940, PART I A-319
7 10CFR20.408(b). In responding to this request, Mr. Wicks did not provide a report for the radiographer's assistant despite having provideil one for her husband, whose termination date occurred five days after hers. Mr. Wicks had not provided the NRC a termination report for the radiographer's assistant when the NRC began its investigation in January 1994. Moreover, Mr. Wicks is an experienced radiographer and has been trained on the significance of overexposures. Considering that this appears to be the first time that his firm had the potential for an overexposure warranting immediate processing of the assistant's badge and assuming that-the badge was sent a's he states, then it is not credible that he would not have followed up on it. The NRC also does not consider credible Mr. Wicks' statement that he sent the TLD in for processing. According to Landauer, the incidence of TLDs being lost in delivery is very small. In this case, the loss of the radiographer's assistant's TLD in the mail is not an issue because Mr. Wicks has indicated on a number of occasions that he packaged all WlX TLDs together for shipment to Landauer and Landauer received the package. Landauer representatives have informed the NRC staff that all TLDs are electronically scanned upon receipt, and that Landauer employs the use of a data base to verify that TLDs which are scanned after processing match those which are scanned upon receipt. The process is designed to alert Landauer to situations in which a TLD is lost during processing. Landauer's automated reporting system includes controls to flag any TLD number which was scanned upon receipt and was not scanned again after processing. Lost TLDs are noted on dosimetry reports provided to Landauer customers. NUREG-0940, Pf', I A-320 1
i Based on its review of the evidence gathered during its investigation, as well as the information obtained during the enforcement conference, the NRC concludes that Mr. Wicks did not send the radiographer's assistant's in for processing; that Mr. Wicks deliberately failed to conduct an evaluation of this individual's radiation exposure fron,the incident; and that Mr. Wicks deliberately provided false information regarding the incident to the NRC and false information regarding the individual's radiation exposure history to another licensee of the NRC. In addition, with regard to the NRC's requirement that all radiography personnel be equipped with alarm ratemeters that have been calibrated at periods not to exceed one year, the NRC's investigations found that Mr. Wicks repeatedly failed to ensure that this requirement was met. This violation was first discovered and discussed with Mr. Wicks following an inspection and investigation in April 1993. When the NRC conducted its investigation beginning in January 1994, this same violation was found to have occurred in July 1993, two months after it was first discussed with Mr. Wicks, and again in January 1994 when Mr. t"cks could not produce current calibration records for alars ratemeters worn by either of two radiography personnel on January 18, 1994. When questioned by NRC tavestigators, Mr. Wicks provided conflicting statements as to whether he had even supplied ratemeters to his radiographers but he said he understood it was his responsibility to ensure that alarm ratemeters were calibrated. Given the repetitive nature of this
, violation and Mr. Wicks' knowledge of this requirement, the NRC concludes that Mr. Wicks deliberately caused the licensee to violate this requirement.
NUREG-0940, PART I A-321
4 1 1 1 1 :111 ) ' 1 Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that Larry D. Wicks, President and l 1 Radiation Safety Office for WlX, has engaged in deliberate misconduct that has
- caused the Licensee to be in violation of,10 CFR 34.33(d), 34.33(f)(4), and
- 20.201. It further appears that Nr. Wicks has deliberately provided to NRC
, personnel and to another licensee of the NRC information that he knew to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC, in violation of 10 CFR 30.10. The NRC must be able to rely on the Licensee and its employees j to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement to provide information that is complete.and accurate in all material respects.
- Mr. Wicks' actions in causing the Licensee to be in deliberate violation of i
radiation safety requirements and his misrepresentations to the NRC have raised serious doubts as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements and to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC. NRC confidence in Nr. Wicks' conducting NRC-licensed activities safely and in
- - compliance with NRC requirements is further eroded by the fact that he was the President of the company and the Radiation Safety Officer when he engaged in deliberate misconduct. In both of these positions, particularly in his role as the Radiation Safety Officer, Nr. Wicks is relied upon by the NRC to ensure that all radiation safety requirements are met. Conduct of this nature cannot and will not be tolerated by the NRC.
Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in ccepliance with the Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected, if Mr. Wicks i 1 l i I-i NUREG-0940, PART I A-322 l 1 L
I were permitted at this time to engage in NRC-licensed activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Larry D. Wicks be prohibited from engaging in NRC-licensed activities (including any supervising, training, or auditing) fcr either an NRC licensee or an Agreement State licensee performing licensed activities in areas of NRC jurisdiction in accordance with 10 CFR 150.20 for a period of five (5) years from the date of this Order. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of the violations and conduct described above is such th9t the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be imediately effective. IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81,161b,1611,182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR 7.202 and 10 CFR 30.10, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IM EDIATELY, THAT:
- 1. Larry Dale Wicks is prohibited for five years from the date of this Order from engaging in NRC-licensed activities, except as provided in item 3, below. NRC-licensed activities are those activities that are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including but not limited to, those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority by 10 CFR 150.20.
NUREG-0940, PART I A-323
- 2. The first time Mr. Wicks is employed in NRC-licensed activities following the five-year prohibition, he shall notify the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission, Washington, D. C. 20555 and the Regional Administrator. HRC Region IV, at least five days prior to the performance of licensed activities (as described in 1 above). The notice shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the NRC or Agreement State licensee and the location where the licensed activities will be performed. The notict shall be accompanied by a statement that Mr. Wicks is committed to compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis why the Cossiission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements.
- 3. Mr. Wicks is permitted to conduct licensed activities only as necessary to maintain licensed material in the possession of Western Industrial X-Ray Inspection Company in safe storage and transfer the material to an authorized recipient.
The Director, Office of Enforcement, say, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Wicks of good cause. V In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. Wicks must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request < t earing on this Order, within 20 days of the date of this Order. The answer may consant to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this NUREG-0940, PART I A-324
Order, the answer shalliin writing and under oath or affirmation. - specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and i shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Wicks or other person ~ adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn: Chief, Docketing and - Service Section, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sont-to the-Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region IV, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas 76011, and to Mr. Wicks ,. the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Mr. Wicks. If a person other than Mr. Wicks requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by Mr. Wicks or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the-issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(1), Mr. Wicks, or any other person adversely affected by this Order, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that-the Order, including - HUREG-0940, PART I A-325
- U
the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE I MEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION
!!b -
Hu L. Thomps , Jr 0 uty Executi e 0 ec r for Nuclear Materials ty, Safeguards and Operations Support Dated at Rockville, Maryland thitffl % ay of September 1994 NUREG-0940, PART I A-326
a SYW)PSIS I l On January 27, 1994, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Reg 1on IV. Office of Investigations. initiated an investi deliberately allowed a radiographer'gation to determine s assistant whether to work without a radiographer supervision and whether the licensee deliberately failed *.o evaluate a potential overexposure incident. During the conduct of the investigation alleged a false report regarding the potential overexposure was.deliberately It was submitted to the licensee by the radiographer and the radiographer's assistant. During the conduct of this investigation, there were additional l allegations that the licensee had deliberately failed to provide calibrated alarm ratemeters to radiographers and the licensee's radiographers had deliberately fail 3d to supervise radiographer's assistants. Evidence developed during the investigation substantiated the allegation that a raoiographer deliberately allowed a radiographer's assistant to perform radiographic operations without proper supervision. and the licensee deliberatelv did not conduct an evaluation of a potential overexposure incident. Additionally, this investigation determined that a radiographer and a radiographer's assistant deliberately prepared and submitted falso reports about the potential overexposure incident to the licensee. This investigation further deterrined that on January 18. 1994, the licensee deliberately failed to provide calibrated alars ratameters to a radiographer and radiographer's assistant. 1his investigation detemined that in a separate incident from that previously addressed, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the licensee's radiographers had deliberately failed to supervise radiographer's assistants while conducting radiographic operations. Case No. 4 93 049R 1 liVREG-0940, PART I A-327 i =
LBP-95-22 November 16, 1995 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judgest Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Dr. Jerry Kline Dr. Charles Kelber In the Matter of Docket Nos. 30-32190-EA 30-32190-EA-2 WESTERN INDUSTRIAL X-RAY INSPECTION CO., INC. and ASLBP Nos. 94-699-09-EA LARRY D. WICKS 95-702-01-EA-2 FINAL INITIAL ORDER (Apprcvel of Settlement and Dismissal) l Western Industrial X-Ray Inspection Co. , Inc. (WIX), a Larry D. Wicks, and the Staff of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) have reached an agreement in settlement of these proceedings, the terms of which agree-ment are set forth in full in Attachment A, " Stipulation for Settlement of Proceedings." After studying this agree-ment, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board had some ques-tions concerning the appropriateness of the settlement. Accordinglf, it held a transcribed teleconference, on Novem-ber 3, 199f, which resolved the Board's questions. t I NUREG-0940, PART I A-328
1
. 2 ..
In the course of the teleconference, we became satis-fied a WIX has an adequate reason for selecting Mr. Heath as Radiation Safety Officer. Though he is not a trained RS3, he has an engineering degree and radiography background and will be requireu to take appropriate training. Paragraph 5 of the Settlemenc Agreement provides further assurance by requiring audits of operations. The Staff is satisfied with this arrange-ment. Tr. 17-19. Mr. John Phillips, who has a 1/3 financial interest in the company and is the company lawyer and a local municipal court judge, will take management responsi-bility. Mr. Larry Wicks will u restricted to a role in sales and business acquisition and as an advisor to Mr. Phillips about commercial practices in the indus-try. Mr. Wicks will not play any role in employee evaluation. Tr. 20-25, 29-30, 30-32. Although Mr. Wicks may be reinstated in WIX after two years upon application to the Staff, this process will not be automatic and will entail Staff discretion. Tr. 25-29, 32-33, 34. NUREG-0940, PART I A-329
.. 3 ..
- 1. ORDEa For all the foregoing reasons and upon consideration of l the entire record in this matter, it is this 15th day of November, 1995, ORDERED, thats l 1. The Western Industrial X-Ray Insper: tion Co., Inc.
( (WIX) motions to withdraw its requests for hearing are granted. The withdrawn requests for hea:t ing relate to (a) the Staff *p Order to WIX of June 16, 1914 (" Order Sus-pending License (Effective Immediately) and Demand for Information," 59 Fed. Reg. 33027 (June 27, 1994) ("Suspen-sion Order"), dated July 1, 1994, and (b) the Staff's Orders to WIX of September 27, 1994 (" Order to Transfer Material (Effective Immediately) and Order Revoking License" 59 Fed. Reg.- 50931 (October 6, 1994) (" Revocation Order"), dated October 14, 1994.
- 2. WIX is dismissed as a party in the proceedings pertaining to those Orders and to this proceeding.
- 3. The motion of Larry Wicks t3 withdraws his request for hearing on the Staff's Order to Mr. Wicks of September 27, 1994 (" Order prohjbiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately)," 59 Fed. Reg. 50932 (October 6, 1994) (" Prohibition Order"), dated October 14, 1994, is granted.
- 4. Mr. Wicks is dismissed as a party in one proceeding pertaining to that Order.
( NUREG-0940, PART I A-330
,@ n W.s - d*--
- -- 4 --
- 5. The " Stipulation for Settlement of Proceedings," ;
contained in Attachment A to this Memorandum and order is adopted as an order of this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD b< W $ Dr. Jer Kline Administrative Judge
's it ,
/)
J/k Dr. Charles Kelber Administrative Judge
.. Y. ft' k Peter B. Bloch Chairman Rockville, Maryland NUREG-0940, PART I A-331
--- u
. . . .- - . . . .- - . - - -.. - . - . - _ - . -- . = . . . - - . ..
- -- 5 --
11/2/95 Attachment A* t i STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT OF PROCEEDINGSI I THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between Western Industrial X-Ray Inspection Co., Inc. ("WIX" or the Li-consee"), Larry D. Wicks (" Wicks") and the Staff of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC Staff" or
" Staff"), to wit WHEREAS WIX holds Byproduct Material License No.
49-27356-01 issued by the NRC pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Parts 30 1 a rid 34, which license authorizes WIX to possess sealed sources of iridium-192 in various radiography devices for use in performing industrial radiography activities in accordance with the conditions specified therein, and is due to expire on August 31, 1996; and
'The heading cor.tained in the stipulation of the parties has been omitted as redundant. Page numbers have been changed for consistency with this document.
3 In the course of the Teleconference of November 3, the Board admitted two exhibits. Tr. 16. On further consideration, it is not necessary that those exhibits be admitted. This Attachment is sufficient. Accordingly, the two Board exhibits shall not be admitted. This Order and its attachment may be read in conjunction with the official Transcript. No further exhibits are necessary. l 1 HUREG-0940, PART I A-332
) -- 6 -- WHEREAS Wicks is and has been at all times relevant hereto the principal shareholder, President, and Radiation Safety Officer ("RSO") of WIX, with responsibili-ties, inter alle, involving compilance with NP.C requirements for radiation protection; and WHEREAS on June 16, 1994, the NRC Staff issued an "
" order Suspending-License (Effective Immediately) and Demand for Information," 59 Fed. Reg. 33027 (June 27, 1994) (" Sus-pension Order"), based, inter alla, upon a finding that WIX had engaged in numerous violations of NRC radiation safety regulatory requirements, including several violations which were found to be of a remarring nature and/cr were' committed deliberately by Licensee employees, including WIX's President and RSO, in violation of 10 C.F.R. $ 30.10; and WHEREAS the Suspension order suspended License No. 49-27356-01, pending further order, effective immedi-ately; and also demanded information from the Licensee in order to assist the NRC in determining whether the license should be revaked and whether Wicks should be prohibited from performing NRC-licensed activities; and WHEREAS on September 27, 1994,- the NRC Staff 1seued (1) further Orders directed to WIX, " Order to Transfer Material (Effective Isenediately) and Order Revoking License" 59 Fed. Reg. 50931 (October 6, 1994) (" Revocation Order");
and (2) an 07 der directed to Wicks, " Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective Immed3-NUREG-0940, PART I A-333 ( l __ A
- . .. - . - - . . -- - -. .- - ~ , . . - . ~ , - .- ~-.- .~ _ -
1 ;
) , -- 7 --
l ately)," 59 Fed. Reg. 50932 (October 6, 1994) (" Prohibition order"), based, inter alla, upon a finding that the NRC j 1 lacked adequate assurance that the public health and safety l would be protected , if WIX retains possession of licensed , material, or if licensed activities are conducted by WIX and/or its President and RSO in the future; and l WHEREAS the Revocation Order required the Li-consee, inter alla, to transfer all NRC-regulated material in its possession to the manufacturer or other person authorized to possess the material and revoked L* cense No. 49-21356-01, effective immediately; and WHEREAS the Prohibition order, inter alla, i prohibited Wicks from engaging in NRC-licensed activities (including any supervising, training or auditing) for either an NRC licensee or Agreement State = licensee performing licensed activities in ateas of NRC jurisdiction in accor-dance with 10 C.F.R. $ 150.20 for a period of five (5) years from the date of that order; and I WHEREAS requests for hearing were filed by WIX concerning the Suspension Order and Revocation Order on July i 1 and October 14, 1994, respectively, and a request for hearing was filed by Wicks concerning the Prohitttion order on October 14, 1994, in response to which adjudicatory proceedings have been conv6ned and remain pending before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board") at this time; and i i l l NUREG-0940, PART I A-334
L . 8 .. WHEREAS the undersigned parties recognize that certain advantages and benefits may be obtained by each of them through settlement and compromise of the matters now pending in litigation between them, including, without limitation, the elimination of further litigation expenses, ut< certainty and delay, and other tangible and intangible beaetits, which the parties recognize and believe to be in the public interest; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.203, the Staff, WIX and Wicks have stipulated and agreed to the following provisions for settlement of the above-captioned proceedings, subject to the approval of the Licansing Board, before the taking of any testimony or trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law; and WHEREAS WIX and Wicks are willing to waive their hearing and appeal rights regarding these matters, in consid-eration of the terms and provisions of this Stipulation and settlement agreement; and WHEREAS the terms and provisions of this Stipula-tion, once approved by the Licensing Board, shall be incorpo-rated by reference into an order, to be issued in accordance with subsections b, I and o of section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the "Act"), 42 U.S.C. $ 2201, and into License No. 49-27356-01, issued pursuant to section 81 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. S 2111, and shall be subject to NUREG-0940, PART I A-335 o
-- 9 ==
enforcement pursuant to the Commission's regulations and Chapter 18 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. $ 2271 et seg.; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED AS FOLLOWSt
- 1. Wicks agrees to refrain from engaging in, and is hereby prohibited from engaging in, any NRC-licensed activities up to and including June 15, 1999, five years from the date of the NRC " Order Suspending License (Effective Immediately)," dated June 16, 1994. Fot purposes of this Stipulation and Agreement, the definition of "NRC-licensed activities," as set forth above, is understood to include any and all activities that are conducted pursuant to a specific license issued by the NRC or general license conferred by NRC regulations, including, but not limited to, those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 C.F.R. $ 150.20, but does not include marketing, other business activities or ownership of an interest in WIX.
- 2. For a period of five years af ter the above-specified five-year period of prohibition has expired, i.e.,
from June 16, 1999 through June 15, 2004, Wicks shall, within 20 days of his acceptance of each and any employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities or his becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, as defined above, provide written notice to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region IV, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76011, of the name, NUREG-0940, PART I A-336 !
-- 10 --
address, and telephone number of the employer or the entity where he in, or will be, involved in the NRC-licensed activi-ties, and a detailed description of his duties and the activities in which he is to be involved.
- 3. In the first notification provided pursuant to Paragraph 2 above, Wicks shall include a statement of his commitment to compliance with NRC regulatory requirements and an explanation of the basis why the Commission should have confidence that he will comply with applicable NRC require-ments.
l 4. Notwithstanding the above, it is understood that Wicks may request reconsideration of the Prohibition Order atter WIX has conducted two (2) years of resumed NRC-licensed activities, however, it is understood that the NRC Staff shall have the sole discretion to determine whether any such reconsideration is warranted, with respect to which determination Wicks hereby waives any right to or opportunity for hearing or appeal before the NRC and/or a court of law.
- 5. It is hereby agreed by the parties that WIX shall be allowed to resume its conduct of NRC-licensed activities upon approval of this Stipulation and Agreement by the Licensing Board, but it is expressly understood and agreed that Wicks is prohibited from participation in the conduct of any such activities in accordance with Paragraph 1 above. In furtherance of this understanding, WIX and Wicks further agree that License No. 49-27356-01 shall be modified NUREG-0940, PART I A-337 !
. 11 ..
to include the following requiresents, prior to any resump-tion of NRC-licensed activities, which shall remain in effect up to and including June 15, 1999 or until such other time as may be explicitly stated hereins (a) WIX (1) shall retain Mr. Ray Heath, or other person approved by the NRC Staff to serve as RSO or successor RSO until at least June 15, 1999, who shall at all times be responsible for performing the duties of an RSO and shall be responsible for maintenance of all NRC-required records; (2) shall establish the minimum number of hours to be devoted to RSO duties; and (3) shall describe the responsibilities and audits to be performed by the RSO under the radiation safety program. WIX shall submit the I qualifications of any person it proposes to serve as RSO, other than Mr. Heath, to the NRC Staff for prior approval; the statement of qual-ifications should demonstrate that the person has not previously been employed by WIX, that he/she is likely to exercise independence from Wicks, and that he/she meets the NRC's minimum criteria established for an RSO. (b) prior to restart, Mr. Heath (if he is selected by WIX to serve as RSO) must success-fully complete an Industrial Radiography course NUREG-0940, PART I A-338
. 12 ..
l of at least. 40 hours duration. Within six months of restatt, Mr.' Heath must successfuily complete a Radiography Radiation Safety Officer training course of at least three days duration. Courses selected by the licensee to satisfy this condition must receive prior approval by NRC Region IV. (c) If Mr. Heath is selected to serve as RSO, WIX shall name an Assistant Radiation Safety Officer to the license. The designated Assistant RSO aust have at least five years experience as an industrial radiographer. The assistant RSO shall be readily available to respond to incidents and emergencies and shall be on call by means of a pagar, telephone, or radio at all times when radiographic operations ars scheduled or in progress. (d) If Mr. Heath is selected to serve as RSO, the RSO and Assistant R30 chall be identi-fled by name on the license. An Assistant RSO shall be carried on the license until Mr. Heath has gained the appropriate practical radiography training and experience, or a minimum of one year. (e) The RSO shall have full authority for radiation protection and safety, entirely inde-NUREG-0940, PART I A-339 z l 1
, _____I
-- 13 --
pendent froe any involvement or interference by Wicks, with full authority to direct all aspects of radiography operations including the author-ity to shut down operations that are unsafe or which violate the license or NRC requiremerits. The RSO shall report to the person who is re-tained pursuant to paragraph 5(g) below, and the RSO shall have the authority to report any con-corns directly to the NRC. The RSO sha11 notify the NRC immediately if Wicks participates or becomes involved in any NRC-licensed activities, or interferes with the RSO's independence in any way. (f) The RSO shall certify to the NRC Staff in advance of commencing NRC-licensed activities that he/she understands (1) the terms of this Stipulation and Agreesent, the license require-ments, and the Commission's regulations associ-ated with radiography, (2) that he/she may be held personally accountable for violations of the license or Commission requirements under 10 C.F.R. $ 30.10 for deliberate misMnduct, (3) that he/she is responsible for making re-parts required by NRC regulations, and (4) that Wicks is prohibited from having any involvement in NRC-licensed activities, and that the RSO is l I NUREG-0940, PART I A-340
l
. 14 ..
required to notify the NRC immediately if Wicks participates or becomes involved in any - NRC-licensed activities, or interferes with the RSO's independence in any way. (g) WIX will Letain the services of a per-son, to be approved in advance by the NRC Staff, to be responsible for management of those as-pects of the company's business that could af-fact the RSO or the conduct of radiation safety-related activities, including -the authority (1) to hire and terminate the employment of the RSO cr other employees engaged in the conduct of Nac-licensed activities, (2) to make and execute salary and other financial decirions which may affect such persons including the RSO, and/or the safe conduct of NRC-licensed activitieb, and (3) to have control over financial resources (e.g., through the establishment of an escrow account) sufficient to ensure the safe and pro-per conduct of NRC-licensed activities. This individual shall also notify the NRC immediately if he/she determines that Wic'es is or has been involved in NRC-licensed activities. (h) Neither Wichs nor any person related to, or in privity with, him shall have any direct or indirect involvement in or exercise control over NUREG-0940,-PART I A-341 l 1 U
d
-- 15 --
l NRC-licensed activities, including mat.agement, supervision and financial control or participa-tion in hiring and firing decisions which may L affect the RSO and/or the safe and proper con-duct of NMC-licensed activities. In addition, while Beverly Wicks (Wicks' wife) may continue to serve as WIX' secretary, she shall not par-ticipate in or have any involvement in NRC-li- j eensed activities (including, without limita-tion, such tasks as mailing and receiving film badges or radiation exposure reports, handling or distributing dosimeters, and any other tasks related to radiation safety). (I) WIX shall retain an outside independent auditor (and any successor auditor), who is to
)
be approved in advance by the NRC Staff based upon a review of the auditor's qualifications. The auditor (and any approved successor) shall submit an audit plan for NRC approvril that de. scribes the items to be audited and the kathod-ology to be employed, including the number of field inspections and the percentage of employ-ees engaged in radiography tho will be' audited in the field. The auditor'is to provide copies of all draft and final audit reports to the NRC Staff at the same time that such reports are NUREG-0940, PART I A-342
1
-- 16 --
provided to WIX. WIX shall provide a written response to the audit findings within 30 days af ter roceipt thereof, including a description of any corrective actions taken or an explana-tion of why such actions were not taken. The auditor shall perform audits and examinations of the radiation safety program and operations, including the performance of field audits, as follows: An independent program audit will be performed at about three months, and no later than six acnths, following the resumption by WIX of NRC-licensed activities, with the results of the audit submitted to NRC Region IV for review. Following the initial audit, audits will be performed every six months. one year after restart, the NRC RIV Regional Administrator may consider, at the request of the licensee, relief in the audit requirements based on good cause shown. Further, the timing and scope of such audits shall not be disclosed to WIX or Wicks in advance; and the auditor shall be informed in advance that Wicks is prohibited from participa-tion in any NRC-licensed activities. (j) Any notification required to be made pursuant to this Paragraph 5 shall be made in writing to the Regional Administrator, NRC Re-NUREG-0940, PART I A-343
-- 17 --
gion IV, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76011. (k) The Regional Administrator, NRC Region IV, may relax or rescind any of the conditions set forth in this Stipulation and Agrooment upon 1 a demonstration of good cause, however, it is understood that the Regional Adminietrator shall have the sole discretion to determine whether any such reconsideration is warranted, with respect to which determination WIX and Wicks hereby waive any right to or opportunity for hearing or appeal before the NRC and/or a court of law.
- 6. The parties agree that, as an integral part of this Stipulation and upon execution hereof, and subject to the approval of this Stipulation by the Licensing Board, (a) WIX and Wicks will withdraw their July 1 and October 14, 1994 requests for hearing on the Suspension order, Revocation order and Prohibition order, and (b) the parties will file a joint request for dismissal of the proceedings on the Suspen-sion Order, Revocation Order and Prohibition order, with prejudice, it being understood and agreed that this Stipula-tion and Agreement resolves all outstanding issues with respect to those orders, that WIX and Wicks hereby waive their hearing and appeal rights regarding the matters which are the subject of these orders, and that the Staff will take NUREG-0940, PART I A-344
(_- . .. 1
-- 18 --
no further enforcement or other action against WIX or Wicks in connection with those orders, subject to the terms of this Stipulation and Agreement.
- 7. WIX and Wicks hereby agree that a failure on their part to comply with the terms of this Stipulation and-Agreement will constitute a material breach of this Agree-ment, and that any such breach may result in the immediate revocation or suspension of the license, 993octive immedi-ately, if the NRC Staff, in its sole discretion, determines such action to be appropriate, and may result in further enforcement or other action as the NRC Staff may be deter-mine, in its sole discretion, to be appropriate.
- 8. It is understood and agreed that nothing contained in this Stipulation and Agreement shall relieve the Licensee from complying with all applicable NRC regulations and requirements. Further, it is understood and agreed that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to prohibit the NRC Staff from taking enforcement or other action (a) against any entity or person for violation of this Stipulation and Agreement, or (b) against persons other than WIX or Wicks in connection with or related to any of the matters addressed in the suspension order, Revocation order or Prohibition order, should the Staff determine, in its sole discretion, that it is appropriate to do so.
- 9. It is understood and agreed that this Stipula-tion and Agreement is contingent upon prior approval by the NUREG-0940, PART I A-345
4- , -- 19 -- Licensing Board and dismissal of the instant adjudicatory proceedings. ;
- 10. This stipulation and Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, legal representatives, successors and
! assigns of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we set our h*M and seal this l 2nd day of November, 1995.3 , i roR WESTEM INDUSTRIA!. X RAY MR THE NRC STAFFS INSPECTION CO., INC.. and LAPRY D. WICK $t .i Larry D. Wacks, andavtaually and She rwan E. Tur k as Pres & dent. Western Industrial Counsel for NRC Staff X Ray inspectton Co., Inc. John c. Fnallaps j Counsel for Western industraal X. pay inspection Co., Inc. and Larry D. Wicks i e i l 3 The signed original was filed with the Board. l i 1 i NUREG-0940, PART I A-346
tallTED STATES OF AMERICA IR8 CLEAR RESULATORY C0fWi!55!0N in the Matter of LARRY 9. WICKS Docket lie.(s) IA-N-024 (EVANST001, WYONING) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing FINAL INITIAL ORDER-L8p-95-22 have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712. Adelnistrative Judge Office of Commission Appellate poter B. Bloch, Chairman Adjudication . Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T-3 F 23 Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Iluclear Regulatory Cosmission Washington, DC 10555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge
. Jerry R. Kline Charles N. Kolber Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Rail Stop T-3 F 23 Mail Stop T-3 F 23 U.S. Iluclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Office of the General Counsel John C. phillips, Esq.
Mail Stop 0-15 8 la Counsel for Larry D. Wicks U.S. liuclear Regulatory Commission phillips Law Offices Washington, DC 20555 912 Main street Evanston, WY 82931 s Dated at Rockville, Md. this 15 day of Ilovember 1995 officegthesecretaryoftheCommission-NUREG-0940, PART I A-347
**e uq y t. UNIT 80 STATES
-g 'l NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSION I wasmoton, o.c. seenwen June 27, 1995 1A 95-022 Narc W. Zuverink (HOME ADDRESS DELETED UNDER10CFR2.790)
SUBJECT:
ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVENENT IN NRC-LICENSE 0 ACTIVITIES AND REQUIRING CERTAIN NOTIFICATION TO NRC (01 REPORT NO. 3-94-061)
Dear Mr. Zuverink:
The enclosed Order is being issued as a result of an investigation by the NRC Office of Investigations (01) which found that you stole NRC-licensed i material, hydrogen-3 (tritium), from the facility of Casmenga Associates, Holland, Michigan, and that you gave the material to members of the public. In doing so, you deliberately acquired, possessed, and transferred NRC-licensed material without an NRC license and needlessly exposed members of the l I public to radiation. The violation is fully described in the enclosed Order. The Order prohibits your involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of ten years from the date of the Order. In addition, for a period of five years after the ten year prohibition period, the Order also requires you to notify the NRC within 20 days of your employment or involvement in licensed activities. Pursuant to Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, any person who willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of this Order is subject to criminal prosecution as set forth in that section. ! l You are required to respond to this Order and should follow the instructions I specified in Section VI of the Order when preparing your response. Questions concerning this Order should be addressed to James Lieberman, Otractor, Office ) of Enforcement, who can be reached at telephono number (301) 415-2741. l In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice " a copy of this letter, with your address removed, and the encbsure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (POR) To the extent possible your response should not include any personal privacy information or propr,ietary information so that it can be placed in the POR without-redaction. However, if you find t it necessary to include such information, you should clearly indicate the specific information that you desire not be placed in the POR, and provide the legal basis to support your request for withholding the information from the public. NUREG-0940, PART I A-348
Marc W. Zuverink- The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Order are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Ptperwork Reduction Action of 1980, Public Law No. 96-511. Sincerely, f!?!, Hug L. Thompson J. D ty Executiv rec r for Nuclear Materials Sa ty. Safeguards and Operations Su port Docket No. 030-33009 License No. 21-26460-01
Enclosure:
Order Prc51 biting involvement in NRC Licensed Activities cc w/ enclosure: Edith A. Landman ) Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael P. Mcdonald Attorney for Mr. Zuverink Cammenga Associates, Inc. l l l l l l NUREG-0940, PART I A-349
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION In the Matter of ) lA 95-022
)
MARC W. ZUVERINK ) Holland, Michigan ) ORDER PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES AND REQUIRING CERTAIN NOTIFICATION TO NRC I Cannenga Associates, Inc. (Cammenga or Licensee) holds Byproduct Material License No. 21-26460-01 issued by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30 on September 27, 1993. The license authorizes the use of byproduct material, hydrogen-3 (tritium), in sealed vials for the 5,roduction of tritium radioluminescent devices. The license is due to expire on January 31, 1998. From July 29. 1994, to September 16, 1994, Marc W. Zuverink was contracted to Cammenga through a temporary hiring service. I The Licensee trained Mr. Zuverink as a radiation worker. The training included a discussion of potential sanctions against employees who misused, mishandled, or stole radioactive material. Mr. Zuverink's answers on a comprehensive written exam given by the Licensee indic te that he was aware of potential civil and criminal penalties for. employees who deliberately violate federal regulations or license requirements governing the use of tritium. The radiation safety training allowed Mr. Zuverink to enter the Licensee's restricted area and to have access to licensed material as part of the process NUREG-0940, PART I A-350
.g.
of manufacturing tritium illuminated compasses under contract to the United States military.
-Ill On September 30, 1994, the Licensee undertook an inventory of NRC-licensed material in its possession. Upon completion, the inventory determined that 1099 vials, containing a total of 49.11 curies of tritium, were missing. The Licensee notified the NRC and the Ottawa County, Michigan, Sheriff's Department. An inspection was conducted by NRC Region III personnel on October 7 and 8 -1994, to evaluate the radiological consequences of the missing material and to monitor the retrieval of the tritium sources.
Investigations were conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations (01), the Ottawa County Sheriff's Department, and the Department of Defense Criminal Investigation Service. Mr. Zuverink admitted to the investigators that he took tritium vials and completed compasses with tritium inserts from the Licensee on more than one occasion. The largest theft apparently took place on September 10, 1994, when he took nine bags of vials from the Licensee, each bag containing 100 vials of tritium, 50 millicuries per vial. Mr. Zuverink stated that he gave the tritium vials and compasses to various members of the public, including approximately 100 vials (5,000 millicuries) to a teenage skateboarder whom he did not know. Mr. Zuverink also admitted that he crushed a tritium vial on a kitchen table at his home in the presence of another individual. This action contaminated the tabletop and caused the other individual to receive a minor NUREG-0940, PART I A-351 i
tritium uptake (internal tritium contamination). Minor contamination of a countertop and tables was also found in a restaurant where Mr. Zuverink had given one or more vials to another member of the public. Mr. Zuverink was able to arrange for the return of 548 tritium vials, leaving 551 vials unaccounted for (401 vials at 50 millicuries, 57 vials at 25 millicuries, and l 93 vials at 5 millicuries). O! also found that Mr. Zuverink made false statements to an O! investigator i and an NRC inspector during an interview on October 7,1994. During that interview, Mr. Zuverink stated that he never had any tritium vials at his home, had given tritium vials to only two individuals, and had stolen only one l compass. These statements were contradicted by Mr. Zuverink's sworn testimony on October 17, 1994. J j- Mr. Zuverink's acquisition, possession and transfer of NRC-licensed material, { tritium, is a deliberate violation of 10 CFR 30.3, " Activities requiring l license." 10 CFR 30.3 requires that no person shall manufacture, produce, i transfer, receive, acquire, own, possess, or use byproouct material except as { authorized in a specific or general license. Mr. Zuverink was not authorized )( in a specific or general license to acquire, possess or transfer byproduct ! material,' including tritium. l Pursuant to a plea arrangement dated February 3, 1995, Mr. Zuverink agreed to I. 1 plead guilty in the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan to one criminal count of violating 18 U.S.C. 641, a misdemearor, i l Specifically, the agreement describes the charge as stealing compasses, j i NUREG-0940, PART I A-352
containing the radioactive substance tritium, which belonged to the United States and which were manufactured under contract for the United States. As a result..on April 18, 1995, a judgment was entered whereby Mr. Zuverink was sentenced to serve one year in federal custody, pay a fine of $500, make restitution to Cannenga in the amount of $1,000, and pay a $25 special assessment to the court. IV Based on the above, the NRC concludes that Marc W. Zuverink engaged in deliberate misconduct that constituted a violation of 10 CFR 30.3 when he stole and transferred NRC-licensed material. The NRC must be able to rely on its licensees, and the employees of licensees and licensee contractors, to comply with NRC requirements, thcluding the requirement that licensed material cannot be acquired, possessed or distributed without a specific or general license. The deliberate violation of 10 CFR 30.3 by Marc W. Zuverink, as discussed above, has raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied on to comply with NRC requirements, t Consequently, I lack the requisite assurance that Marc W Zuverink will conduct licensed activities in compliance with the Commission's requirements or that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Marc W. Zuverink were permitted at this time to be involved in NRC-licensed activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that for a pend of ten years from the date cf this Order, Marc W. Zuverink be prohibited from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities for either: (1) an NUREG-0940, PART I A-353
NRC licensee, or (2) an Agreement State licer. set performing licensed activities in areas of NRC jurisdiction in accordance with 10 CFR 150.20. In l addition', for a period of five years commenchg after the ten year period of prohibition, Mr. Zuverink must notify the NRC of his employment or involvement in NRC-licensed activities to ensure that the NRC can monitor the status of Mr. Zuverink's compliance with the Commission's requirements and his understanding of his commitment to compliance. V Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81,161b,1611,182, and 186 of the Atomic { Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR Part 30, and 10 CFR 150.20, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: . I
- 1. Marc W. Zuverink is prohibited for a period of ten years from the date of this Order from engaging in NRC-licensed activities. NRC-licensed activities are those activities that are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including, but not f
limited to, those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20. I
- 2. For a period of five years, after the above ten year period of prohibition has expired, Marc W. Zuverink shall, within 20 days of his acceptance of each employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities or his becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, as defined in Paragraph V.1 above, provide notice to the Director, Office of NUREG-0940, PART I A-354
i Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 'fashington, DC 20555, of the name, address, and telephone number of the 4 mployer or the entity wh,ere he is, or will be, involved in the NRC-lice. sed activities. In the first such notification, Marc W. Zuverink f. tall include a statement of his commitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis as to why the Cosmission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements. The Director, Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Zuverink of good cause, vi in accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Marc W. Zuverink must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 45 days of the date of this Order. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth tly matters of fact and law on which Mr. Zuvertak or other person adversely affected relies and the re.esons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn: Chief. Docketing and Service Section, Washington DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, DC 20055, and to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region !!!, 801 NUREG-0940. PART I A-355
l Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, of th6 name, address, and telephone number of the employer or the entity
.where he is,~or will be, involved in the N3C-licensed activities, in the first such notification, Marc W. Zuverink shall include a statement of his commitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and the
. basis as to why the Connission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements.
The Director, Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax t.r re aind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Isverink of good cause. VI in accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Marc W. Zuverink must, and any other person ! adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may equest a hearing on this Order, within 45 days of the date of this Order. l The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and
~
thall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Zuverink or other person adversely affected relles and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cosatssion, Attn: Chief, Docketing ;
- and Service Section, Washington DC 20555. Copies also shah p. . ant to the . Director, Office of Enforcement, U. Si Nuclear Regulatory Cosatssion, Washington, DC 20055, and to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region Ill, u
NUREG-0940, PART I A-356
1 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60632-4531, if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Mr. Zuverink. If a person other than Mr. Zuverink requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by the Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hesring is requested by Mr. Zuverink nr a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the t u o to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Since Mr. Zuverink is currently in Federal custody, if a hearing is requested, the Commission will not act on the hearing request until Mr. Zaverink is released from Federal custody. If Mr. Zuverink requests a hearing, the hearing reglest will not be granted unless Mr. Zuverink: (1) notifies the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at the address given above, within 20 days of his release from Federal custody, that hs has been released from Federal custody; and (2) provides in the notice hi; then-current address where he can be contacted and a statement that he continues to desire the hearing. A copy of the notice shall also be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement, at the address given above, in the absence of any request for hearing, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be effective and final 45 days from the date of ti,is Order without further order or proceedings. In the event that Mr. Zuverink makes the sole request for a hearing and fails to comply with the notification NUREG-0940, PART I A-357
7--___. g. requirements above, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be effective and final 20 days after he is released from Federal custody. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMIS$10N l 4 Hu L. Thompson Jr. ! De y Executiv Di or for i Nuc ear Materia s ty, Safeguards l and Operations Support j Dated at Rockville, Maryland thisBMNayJune1995 _
]
l l i t NUREG-0940, PART I A-358
5 B- NOTICES OF VIOLATION NUREG-0940. PART I
a
@** uWittDstATss p- M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N
{9 f RooioN av y s11 RYAN PLAZA onlVs. suits 400
, , AR LINO ton. T E KAs 76011 a064 Aprif 1.1997 l A 97 010 -
Mr. Oavid Kirkland (Address removed pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790)
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC Inspection Report No. 030 03509/96 01; NRC Inveuigation Report 4 96 029) Oear Mr. Kirkland: This refers to the predecisional enforcement conference conducted with you on February 27,1997,in the NRC Region IV's Walnut Creek Field Office. This conference was conducted to discuss an apparen , deliberate f ailure to follow procedures which requite that a written directive be signed by an authorized user pnot to administering radioactive material to a patient. The apparent violation and the circumstances surrounding it were investigated in an NRC Office of Investigations (Oli investigation concluded on January 23,1997, and described in an inspection report issued on February 11,1997. Based on the information developed during the inspection and investigation, and the information provided during the conference, the NRC has determined that a violation Of the NRC's rule prohibiting deliberate misconduct occurred. This violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation and involves your deliberate failure to obtain a signature of an authorized user on a written directive prior to administering sodium iodide iodine 131 to a patient on June 20,1996. A dosage of approximately 6,6 millicuries of I 131 was administered, significantly more than the intended dosage of 100 microcuries of I 131 for a thyroid scan, The NRC has concluded that you deliberately proceeded with the administration of this dosage without a written directive signed by an authorized user, At the enforcement conference, you stated that you did not obtain the authorized user's signature on the written directive because the patient was apprehensive and you feared that the patient would not tolerate the time delay required to obtain the signature. However, your actions circumvented the very purpose of having an authorized user sign and complete the written directive, as well as the intent of the hospital's NRC required quality management program. As discussed in the inspection report, the NRC's medical consultant reviewed this misadministration and found that the impact of this misadministration on this particular patient's health should be negligible, with no long term disability, 1 Nonetheless, the violation in this case, given its deliberate nature and the potential for patient harm from such a failure, is a matter of significant regulatory concern and is categorized at Severity Level 111in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and
- Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG 1600.
NUREG-0940, PART I B- 1 _ 1 J
David A Kirkland 2-Wu reported this misadministration to the NRC by telephone on June 21,1996, and acknowledged at that time that you had adm;nistered the dosage without the signature of an authorized user, Your employer, Fairbanks Memorial Hospital, took several corrective actions, including suspending you and removing you from AtMs involving nuclear medicine. At the conference, you stated that you took full gesponsibility for the incident, that it was an isolated incident, and that it will not recur, Given you, former position as radiation safety officer, one in which the NHC places a great deal of reliance for assuring compliance, the NRC considered whether stronger enforcement action should be taken against you. However, given your actions in reporting this incident to the NRC, including your acknowledgement from the beginning that you had not obtained the signature of an authorized user, the disciplinary action taken by your employer, and your acceptance of full responsibikty for this incident, we have determined that a Notice of Violation is suf ficient. The NRC is not taking any action that would restrict your future involvement in NRC-regulated activities, However, you should be aware that any future similar violation may subject you to more significant enforcement action, including prohsbiting your involvement in kcensed activities and criminal sanctions, in addition, as e result of your actions, a Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,500 is being issued to Fairbanks Memorial Hospital. A copy of that action is enclosed, The NRC has concluded that information regatoing the reason for the violation, the corrective actions taken and planned to correct the violation and prevent recurrence, and the date when full comphance was achieved, is already adequately addressed in the transcript of the February 27,1997 enforcement conference, Therefore, you are not required to respond to this letter unless you believe that the description therein does not adequately reflect you corrective actions or your position, in that case, or if you choose to provide additional information, you should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and anir response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PORL Your home address will be removed from all documents before placement in the PDR, Should you have any questions about this action, please contact Ms Linda Howell at (817) 860-8213, 1 Sincerely, [Y
]N Ellis W. Merschoff Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
(see next pagel l l NUREG-0940, PART I B- 2 l l [
{ David A. Kirkland 3-
Enclosures:
- 1. Notice of Violation
- 2. Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty to Fairbanks Memorial Hospital cc w! Enclosure 1:
Mike Powers, Administrator Fairbanks Memorial Hospital 1650 Cowles Street Fairbanks, Alaska State of Alaska NUREG-0940, PART I B- 3
i l NOTICE OF VIOLATION 1 David W. Kirkland lA 97-010 I l During ah NRC inspection conducted between June 26,1996, and February 6,1997, and j an NRC Office of Investigations (Oli investigation concluded on January 23,1997,a ' violation of NRC requiremer'ts was identified, in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG.1600, the violation is listed below: 10 CFR 30.10(a)(1) states, in part, th3t any employee of a licensee may not engage in de:, berate misconduct that causes or, kt for detection, would have caused, a licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order, or any term, condition, or hmitation of any license, issued by the Commission. 10 CFR 30.10(c)(2) specifies, in part, that deliberate misconduct by a person means an intentional act or cmission that the person knows constitutes a violation of a requirement, procedure, instruction, or policy of a licensee. 10 CFR 35.25(a)(2) requires, in part, that a licensee that permits the use of byproduct material by an individual under the supervision of an authorized user shall require the supervised individual to follow the wntten quality management procedures established by the hcensee. Fairbanks Memorial Hospital's written quality ma.iagement program states, at item il.A, that a written directive specific for each patient will be issued by an authorized user pnor to administration of any dosage of sodium iodide 1131 in excess of 30 microcuries. The directive willinclude identification of the radiopharmaceutical, the dosage to be administered, and the route of administration if other than 1131, and will be signed by the authorized user. Contrary to the above, on June 20,1996, while acting under the supervision of an authorized user, you caused Fairbanks Memorial Hospital to be in violation of 10 CFR 35.25(a)(2)in that you administered 6.6 millicunes of todine.131 to a patient without first obtaining the signature of an authorized user on a written directive, even though you knew that a signed written directive was required by Fairbanks Memorial Hospital's written cuality management program. (01013) This is a Severity Level ll1 violation (Supplement VI). The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the violation, the corrective actions taken and planned to correct the violation and prevent recurrence, and the date when full compliance was achieved is already adequately addressed in the transcript of the February 27,1997 enforcement conference. However, you are required to submit a written statement or explanation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 if the description therein does not adequately reflect your corrective actions or your position in that case, or if you choose to respond, clearly mark your response as a "Rsply to a Notice of Violation", and send it to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document NUREG-0940, PART I B- 4
2 Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, ATTN: Enforcement Officer Region IV,611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas 76011, and a copy to the NRC Region IV Walnut Creek Field Office,1450 Maria Lane. Walnut Creek. California 94596, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice), Dated at Arlington, Texas this 1st day of April 1997 E 3 NUREG-0940, PART I B- 5
[f% j '* _ 9 It j UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
., e wAsHINQToN, D.C aneswcet
%, *****/,
February 73. 1997 IA 97-014 Mr. Michael S. Krizmanich [HOME ADDRESS DELETED-UNDER 10 CFR 2.790]
SUBJECT:
N0flCE OF VIOLATION i (NRC Inspection Report No. 030-20644/93-002 and Investigation Report No. 1-93-069R)
Dear Mr. Krizmanich:
This refers to the inspection conducted on Decembar 2-3, 1993, at the Power Inspection. Inc., (PI) facility located in Wexford, Pennsylvania, as well as the findings of a subsequent investigation by the NRC Office of Investigations (01). The inspection report and 01 Synopsis were sent to you with our letter dated August 9, 1996. Thst letter also provided you with an opportunity to attend a predecisional enforcement conference. We have yet to receive a response from you to our letter and, therefore, the NRC is proceeding with appropriate enforcement action. l l L Based on the information developed during the inspection and subsequent I investigation by 01, the NRC has determined that=you were, in part, respotisible for a violation of NRC requirements that _ occurred, involving Pl. The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice), and the i circumstances surrounding it are described in detail in the subject 01 i investigation report. The 01 investigation report indicated that PI management directed the falsification of utilization logs. However, you did not object- to performing the falsifications. A minimum of 38 *sdio utilization logs were subsequently falsely created by PI emphues, graphy in violation of 10 CFR 30.9 and 10 CFR 34.27, to satisfy questions which were asked during an April 1993 NRC inspection. You were a radiagrkpher for P! at the time the falsification violations occurred, and you acknowledged to the 01 investigator that you were involved in creating one dozen false source utilization logs. As such, you caused the licensee to be in violation of NRC requirements and therefore you violated 10 CFR 30.10, as described in the Notice. As an individual engaged in NRC-licensed activities, you were in a position that conferred upon you trust and confidence in your ability to ensure that activities were conducted in accordance with NRC requirements, and information required to be maintained by NRC requirements was complete and accurate in all l material respects. Your deliberate creation of false records is of significant regulatory concern because it did not adhere to these standards, and resulted in the violation of 10 CFR 30.10. Therefore, this violation has been categorized in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600 at Severity Level !!!. NUREG-0940, PART I B- 6
Mr. Michael S. Krizmanich 2 Civen the significance of your actions, I have decided, after consultation with the Commission, to issue to you the enclosed Notice. I also gave serious consideration as to whether an Order should be issued that would preclude you-from any further involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a certain period. However, I have decided under the circumstances of this case, that this Notice of Violation is sufficient. You should be aware that the NRC's regulations allow the issuance of orders and other civil sanctions directly to unlicensed persons who, through their deliberate misconduct, cause a licensee to be in violation cf NRC requirements. Delibe, ate misconduct includes an intentional act or omission that the person knows constitutet a violation c' a requirement, procedure or training instruction. An order may also be issued to an individual to prevent his or her engaging in licensed activities at all NRC-licensed facilities. A violation of this regulation as set' forth in 10 CFR 30.10, and 50.5,
' Deliberate MisconJuct" (Enclosure 2), may also lead to criminal prosecution.
You are on notice that any similar conduct on your part in the future could result in significant enforcement action against you, j You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions ' specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your l response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional action, you plan to prevent recurrence, as well as your reasons as to why the l NRC shuuld have confidence that you will comply with NRC requirements in the future. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC reguletory requirements. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ' Rules of Practice.' a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room, if you have any questions or comments, please contact Ms. Jenny Johansen, i Branch Chief, Nuclear Materials Safety Branch 3, at (610) 337-5304. Sincerely, l l A ldn
+46w~ d I. ' Jordan l Deputy ecutive Director for Peg atory Effectiveness, Program Oversight, Investigations and Enforcement
Enclosures:
1, Notice of Violation
- 2. Deliberate Misconduct Rule cc w/ encl:
P. Chambers, Power inspection, Inc. NUREG-0940, PART I B- 7
NOTICE Of VIOLATION Mr. Michael S. Krizmanich IA 97-014 During an NRC 1,ispection conducted on December 2 3, 1993, and subsequent investigation by the NRC Office of Investigations (Olg a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC [nforcement Actions,' NUREG 1600, the violation ! is Itsted below: 10 CFR 30.10La)(1) requires, in part, any employee of a licensee may not engage in de'1 berate misconduct that causes or, but for detection, would have caused, a licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order, or any term, condition, or limitation of any license, issued by the Comission. 10 CFR 30.10(c) states, in part, that deliberate misconduct by a person means an intentional act or omission that the person knows: (1) would cause a licensee to be in violation of any ule, regulation, condition or Ilmitation, of any license issued by the Commission, or (2) constitutes a violation of a requirement, procedure, instruction, contract, purchats order or polic.y of a licensee, contractor, or subcontractor. 10 CF2 30.9(a) states, in part, that information required by the Comission's regulation; to be maintained by the licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material respects. 10 CFR 34.27 requires, in part, that each licensee shall maintain current utilization logs, which shall be kept available for three years from the date of the recorded event, for tespection by the Comission, j at the address epecified 5 the license, showina for each sealed source: the make and model number of the radiographic exposure device or storage container in which the sealed source is located; the identity of the radiogiapher to whom assigned; and the plant or site where used and the dates of use. Contrery to the above, as of April 7,1993, you caused Power Inspection, Inc. to be in violation of 10 CFR 30.9 and 10 CFR 34.27 in that you deliberately created false utilization logs. Specifically, the licensee's utilization logs maintilned at the licensee's Wexford, l Pennsylvania, office were inaccurate because they were neither ' current" nor created on the date of use of the source, but in fact, were created at a later time in order to address questions asked by the NRC during a previous NRC inspection. This information was material because it had the capability to influence NRC action and, in fact, was presented to the NRC as indication that P1 had completed the logs on the date of use. (01013) This is a severity Level !!! violation (Supplement Vil). Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington 0.C. 20555, with a copy to the NUREG-0940, PART I B- 8
Notice of Violation 2 Regional Administrator, Region I, within 30 days of the date of the letter 4 transmitting this Notice of Violation marked as a ' Reply to a Notice of Viola tion'(Notice). Thisinclude and should reply should for eachbe clearly violations (1 the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the v)iolation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response, if an adequate reply is not received within the time specifte1 in this Notice, an order or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why other action as may be proper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be g ten to extending the response time. Under the autnority of Section 182 of the Act. 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation. , t Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (POR), to i the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, or proprietary, information so that it can be placed in the PD9 without redaction. However, if you find it necessary to include such information, you should clearly indicate the specific information that you desire not to be placed in the POR, and provide the legal basis to support your request for
- withholding the information from the pubite.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this ,' .1-day of February 1997 l l NUREG-0940, PART I B- 9
- -. -- . -- . - - - . -- ~ _ - _ - . . . _ - _ _ - .
- aseg
*., UNn to stAtts
[ 3 rI a NUCLEAR REGUI. ATOMY COMMlas10N atoeog i 44 ALLENoAtt AoAD
%g***** UNO or Prussia. PENN$vivANIA temas 1415 Harch 7.1997 lA 97 017 Lee Myers, Ph.D.
HOME ADDRESS DELETED UNDER 2.Z.9Q
SUBJECT:
Notice of Violation
Dear Dr. Myers:
On December 31,1996, the NRC lesued you a Demand for Information (DFil because of our concern that you appeared to have engaged in deliberate misconduct while performing certsin duties in your position as the Senior Medical Physicist at Temple University. Specifically, you allowed patient treatments with the High Dose Rate Afterloader (HDR) to continue on certain occasions in 1996 and 1996 even though you knew the HDR had not received its required monthly quality dtsurance (QA) checks. Performing treatments without having performed the required monthiy calibration was a violation of the license issued to Temple University. That violation was discussed at an enforcement conference with Temple University on December 6,1996, and was,in part, the basis for a $10,000 civil penalty issued to Temple on December 31, 1996. Temple University responded to the civil penalty on December 31,1996, admitted all of the violations, and paid the civil penalty. As noted in the DFlissued to you, since you, as the Senior Medical Physicist, were responsible for conducting these tests, you were asked during the enforcement conference if you knew the tests were due and you confirmed that you did. You also were asked if you knew that < these were required tests and you confirmed that you did. You were then asked why the tests did not get done prior to treating the patients, and you indicated that the reason was
" scheduling problems
- and you did not want to interfere with the patient treatments, in your January 27,1997 response to the DFl, you indicated that you believed that the monthly spot checks of the HDR were a good practice, but did not recall being told that they were license conditions until late 1996, and while provided a copy of the license, you indicated that you had not been provided any of the letters (" tie down documents") which regulred the checks, and did not recall this matter being covered in training sessions You further stated that you did not realize that the monthly checks of the HDR were a condition of the license, and you postponed the monthly QA based on your belief that the monthly QA was part of Temple's QA program but not a condition of Temple's license, I
l l I NUREG-0940, PART I B-10
Lee Myers, Ph.D. 2 Notwithstanding your contention, the NRC maintains that a violation of ( n NRC requirement occurred and that you were deliberately responsible for the violation since you were aware, at a minimum, of Temple University's policy that the monthly checks be performed, as you acknowledged in your response to the DFI, yet you knowingly failed to perform the monthly checks, as you acknowledged at the enf orcement conf erence. For purposes of 10 CFR 30.10, knowledge Df a specific NRC requirement is not necessary for a finding of deliberate misconduct. It is enough that a person knows that he or she is violating a policy of the licensee. See 10 CFR 30.10(c)(2). The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice). As an individual engaged in NRC licensed activities, and in particular, a first line supervisor, you were in a position that conferred upon you trust and confidence in your ability to ensure that activiti6: were conducted in accordance with NRC requirements and licensee expectations. Your deliberate violation of this requirement did not adhere to these standards. As such, this violation constitutes a significant regulatory concern and has been categorized at Severity Level 111in accordance with the ' General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions * (Enforcement Policy), NUREG 1600. Given the significance of your actions, I have decided, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to issue to you the enclosed Notice of Violation. I also gave serious consideration as to whether en Order should be issued that would preclude you from any further involvement in NRC licensed activities for a certain period. However, I have decided, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, that this Notice of Violation is sufficient since you were not in a position above a first line suporvisor; this appears to have been an isolated event limited to the HDR checks; you appeared forthright during the enforcement conference regarding your failure to due the checks; you indicated that disciplinary action has been taken against you by the university; and you desenbed, in your response to the DFI, certain corrective actions to prevent recurrence. Those corrective actions included, but were not limited to, reading and understanding all of license requirements; reviewing procedures for improvement; adjusting clinical schedules to dedicate time for performance of the nonthly calibration; and meeting with the Chairman of the Radiation Oncology Department, the RSO, and the Chief Radiation The'apist monthly to review the monthly QA results However, any similar actions in the future may result in more significant action against you. The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the violation, the corrective actions taken and planned to correct the violation and prevent recurrence, and the date when full compliance was achieved, is already adequately addressed on the docket in your January 27,1996 response to the DFl. Therefore, you are not required to respond to this letter unless the description therein does not accurately reflect your corrective actions or your position, in that case, of if you choose to provide additional information, you should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice. NUREG-0940, PART I B-ll
a ,,r n I, j to. uy.r.,Ph.D. 3 In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter,its enclosure, the December 31,1996 DFl, your January 27,1997 response to the DFI, and any response to this letter and Notice of Violation, will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PORL Sincerely, ubert J. Mill r Regional Administrator M
Enclosure:
As Stated cc w/o enet: Leon Malmud, M.D., Vice President, Health Sciences Center, Temple University i Commonwealth of Pennsylvania l l NilREG-0940, PART I B-12
ENCLOSURE NOTICE OF VIOLA,11QN I Dr. Lee Myers IA 97 017 ! (HOME ADDRESS DELETED UNDER 10 CFR 2.790) I During an NRC inspection at Temple University completed on October 25,1996, and review of your January 27,1997 response to a Demand for information, as well as based on information obtained during an enforcement conference conducted with Temple University cn December 6,1996, a violation of NRC requirements was identified, in accordance with the
" General Ststement of Policy and Procedure f or NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG 1600, the violation is listed below:
10 CFR 30.101alli) requires,!n part, that any employee of a licensee not engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or, but for detection, would have caused, a licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order, or any term, condition, or limitation of any license, issued by the Commission. 10 CFR 30.10(c)(2) specifies, in part, that deliberate misconduct by a person means any intentional act or omission that the person knows constitutes a violation of a requirement, procedure, instruction, contract, purchase order, or policy of a licensee. 10 CFR 35.21(a) requires that the licensee, through the Radiation Safety Officer, ensure that radiation safety activities are being performed in accordance with approved procedures. Temple University's procedures for approving users of licensed materials and for performing spot checks of the high dose rate remote afterloader calibration are described in its letters dated March 20,1993 and March 8,1994, and were approved by License Condition No. 32 of License Nos. 37 00697 31 and 37 00697 02. Temple University's letter, dated March 8,1994, states in item No. Vill.C.5, that the calibration of the high dose rate remote afterloader will be performed following installation of a new source, before treatment is resumed, and monthly thereafter, Contrary to the above, for four months during 1995 and 1996, you caused Temple University to be in violation of 10 CFR 35.21(a)in that you allowed patient treatments to occur during those months with the high dose rate remote af terloader even though you knew that the monthly calibrations were not performed between April 25 and July 1,1995; between September 9 and November 6,1995: and between March 15 and May 10,1996, and even though you knew, at a minimum, that it was a policy of Temple University that the monthly calibrations be performed. (01013) This is a Severity Level ill violation (Supplement Vil). N NUREG-0940, PART I B-13
Enclosure 2 The NRC has concluded that information regarding the tesson for the violation, the corrective actions taken and planned to correct the violation and prevent recurrence and the date when full compliance was achieved is already adequately addressed in your January 27,1996-response to the Demand for information (DFil. However, you are required to submit a written statement or explanation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 if the description therein does not accurately fellect your corrective octions or your position. In that case, or if you choose to respond, clearly merk your response as a ' Reply to a Notice of Violation," and send it to the U.S. Nucleet Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20$55 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region 1, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice). Datedgt King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this '] day of March 1997 s NUREG-0940 PART I B-14
0** *' % . UNITED STAftS
,? \* NUCLEAR REOULATORY COMMISSION 3 ie' A(OtON iil E
801 WARRitMLLE ACAD fr LISLE. ILLINOIS 60!J2 4Mt June 18, 1997 1A 97-037 Mr. John R. Raskovsky 919 Ridge Road Ambridge, PA 15003
$UBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS REPORTS 3-94-051R & 3-94-0515)
Dear Mr. Raskovsky:
This refers to the NRC Office of Investigations (01) Reports of Investigation 3-94-051R and 3-94-0515 conducted between August 11, 1994, and October 11, l 1996. The investigations concerned the circumstances surrounding your failure l to provide accurate information on access authorization forms used by several NRC licensees to assist in their authorization decisions. A copy of the i synopsis of each investigation is enclosed. t Based on the investigations, the NRC has deterriined that a violation of NRC requirements occurred when you deliberately falsified access authorization documents in order to obtain unescorted access to numerous NRC-regulated nuclear power plants. The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice). Copies of the applicable NRC regulations are also enclosed. The NRC determined that in February 1990, while you were employed by Turkey Point, a Florida Power and Light Company factitty, you tested positive for cocaine metabolite during a fitness-for-duty test conducted on February 19, 1990. You were verbally advised of the test results on February 26, 1990, which you acknowledged in writing. This resulted in your unescorted access being revoked at this facility. Your appeal test report also shows that you tested positive for cocaine metabolite. Subsequent to your unescorted access authorization revocation in 1990, the NRC determined that you deliberately falsified, by omission, the material facts regarding your fitness-for-duty and employment history background information to obtain unescorted access to other NRC-regulated nuclear power plants, including Arkansas Nuclear One (Entergy Operations, Inc.), and Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Toledo Edison Company). Specifically, you were granted access through deliberately failing to disclose on the appropriate licensee forms the fact that you were employed by Turkey Point during February of 1990, and that during this employment period you tested positive for drug usage resulting in the revocatti,i a your unescorted access. While we recognize that, during your 01 interview, you stated that the reason you did not provide information in your access authorization forms related to the revocation of your access at Turkey Point was that you filed an appeal to the positive NUREG-0940, PART I B-15
1 J. R. Raskovsky result of the Turkey Point test. You also stated that you had neither been informed of the result of the appeal test nor been billed as you should have been if the appeal test result was positive. We have evaluated your statements and do not find your rationale for omitting information on subsequent access authorization documents persuasive. 01 determined in its subsequent investigation (3-94 0515) that the policy of re:luiring individuals to pay for their own appeal test, if the result was positive, was not being followed by the licensee because the policy was found
'to be unworkable and that you were not informed of this policy change or appeal test result because the Itcensee did not have your address or telephone number. In addition, you received no verbal or written confirmation that the licensee's revocation of your unescorted access had been reversed because of a negative appeal test result. Moreover, you made no attempt to contact Florida Power & Light Company to verify the status or result of your appeal test when you were required to submit access information on subsequent documents.
Notwithstanding your knowledge, or lack of knowledge, of the appeal test result at Turkey Point, you were in fact dented access at this plant in 1990 for testing positive for drug usage and you should have reported this access dental on all subsequent background authorization documents. Nuclear power plant licensees are required. In accordance with the NRC's Fitness-For-Duty requirements (10 CFR 26.27), to obtain background information from individuals to determine whether an individual was denied unescorted access to any other nuclear power plant, in addition, licensees are required to identify past actions that are indicative of an individual's future
. In failing to reliability within accurately and a protected completely or vital describe your area (10 background CFR 73.56) ion, you informat did not provide the licensees with material information necessary to determine whether you should be granted unescorted access to the nuclear power plant.
Deliberately providing information to a licensee or contractor that an individual knows is incomplete and inaccurate, in some respect material to the NRC, is a violation of 10 CFR 50.5. Therefore, under the circumstances of this case and after consultation with the Director Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Effectiveness, I have decided to issue the enclosed Notice to you for violating 10 CFR 50.5 while you were engaged in Itcensed activities. You should be aware of the seriousness with which the NRC views your actions. The public health, safety, and trust demand that nuclear power plant personnel conduct themselves with integrity at all times. You did not conduct yourself in this manner in this case. in the future, any similar violation may result in more s19atficant enforcement actions, including your removal from NRC-licensed activities. You are not required to respond to this letter. However, if you choose to provide a response, please provide it to me in writing and under oath within 30 days at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region 111, 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532. NUREG-0940, PART I B-16
J. R. Raskovsky In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's ' Rules of Practice ' Part 2 Title 10. Code of Federal Regulations, records or documents compiled for enforcement purposes are placed in the NRC Pubite Document Room (PDR). A copy of this letter with your address removed, the Notice, and your response, if you choose to submit one, will be placed in the PDR.after 45 days unless you provide sufficient basis to withdraw this letter and the Notice. If you have any ouestions, please contact Mr. Brent Clayton of my staff at (630)8299666. Sincerely, k N
% A Bill Beach I Regional Administrator Enclosures -- -
- 1. Notice of Violation
- 2. Synopsis of 01 Report No. 3-94-051R
- 3. Synopsis of 01 Report No. 3-94 0515
- 4. Management Actions and Sanctions to '
be imposed Rule, 10 CFR 26.27
- 5. Deliberate Misconduct Rule, 10 CFR 50.5
- 6. Personnel Access Authorization Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants Rule, 10 CFR 73.56 NUREG-0940 PART I B-17
NOTICE OF V10LAil0N Hr. John R. Raskovsky lA 97-037 During an NRC investigation conducted.by the NRC Office of Investigations LO! Report Nos. 3-94-051R & 3-94 0515) between August 11, 1994, and October L1, 1996, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. in accordance with the ' General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC [nforcement Actions,' NUREG-1600, the violation is set forth below: 10 CFR 50.5 employee of(a)(2) ' Deliberate a contractor misconduct" may deliberately states, submit to the in part, NRC,that no a licensee or a itcensee's contractor or subcontractor, information that the person, submitting the information knows to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. 10 CFR 26.27(a), ' Management actions and sanctions to be imposed,' ' requires, in part, that the licensee obtain a written statement from the i individual as to whether activities within the scope of Part 26 were ever denied the individual before the initial granting of unescorted access to a nuclear power plant protected area, it further requires, in part, that the licensee shall complete a suitable inquiry on a best-efforts basis to determine if that person was, in the past. (1) tested positive for drugs that resulted in on-duty impairment, (ii) removed from activittas within the scope of Part 26, or (iii) denied unescorted access at any other nuclear power plant, if such a record is established, granting unescorted access must be based upon a management and medical determination of fitness for duty and the establishment of an appropriate follow-up testing program. 10 CFR 73.56 , nuclear power p (b)lants,' requires, in part, that the licensee shall" Personnel access authoriz establish and maintain an access authorization program granting individuals unescorted access to protected and vital areas with the objective of providing high assurance that individuals granted unescorted access are trustworthy and reliable. The unescorted access program must include a background investigation designed to identify past actions which are indicative of an individual's future reliability within a protected or vital area of a nuclear power reactor. The licensee shall base its decision to grant, deny, revoke, or continue an unescorted access authorization on review and evaluation of all pertinent information developed. Contrary to 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2), Mr. John R. Raskovsky, a Babcock and Wilcox Nuclear Technologies contract employee at NRC licensees listed below, deliberately provided incomplete and inaccurate information to several licensees pertaining to previous fitness- for-duty test results and employment history. Specifically, Hr. John R. Raskovsky did not specify that he had been employed at Turkey Point Nuclear Power Station in February of 1990 on an August 2, 1993, Background investigation NUREG-0940, PART I B-18
Notice of Violation Questionnaire filed to obtain unescorted access authorization for Arkansas Nuclear One Power Plant, in addition, Mr. John R. Raskovsky did not state in any of the documents listed below that he had tested positive for cocaine metabolite during a drug test conducted on February 19, 1990, and was subsequently denied access at Turkey Point:
- 1. A February 15, 1993 Phillips Reliance Suttable Inquiry Questionnaire to obtain unescorted access authorization to the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station:
- 2. A March 1, 1993 Davis Besse Fitness For-Outy Questionnaire to obtain unescorted access authorization to the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station:
- 3. An August 25, 1993 BWNT Background investigation Questionnaire to obtain unescorted access authorization to Arkansas Nuclear One Power Plant:
- 4. A September 2, 1993 Security Clearance Information Questionnaire to obtain unescorted access authorization to Arkansas Nuclear One Power Plants and
- 5. A September 30, 1993 Arizona Public Service Company Suitable Inquiry.
The information that Mr. John R. Raskovsky provided regarding his background information was material because, as indicated above. - licensees are required to consider such information to ensure the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 26.27 for the fitness for duty program and 10 CFR 73.56 for the access authorization program are satisfied. This is a Severity Level !!! violation (Supplement Vll). Pg rsvant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Mr. John R. Raskovsky may submit a written statement or explanation to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C., 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region 111, 801 WarrenvilleRoad, Lisle, Illinois, 60$32, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice). The reply should be clearly marked as a ' Reply to Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation: (1) the reason for the . violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieveo, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or include previously docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response. NVREG-0940, PART I B-19
Notice of Violation Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation. Your response will be placed in the NRC Pubite Document Room (POR) unless you provide sufficient basis to withdraw this Notice. To the extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. However, if you find it necessary to include such information, you should clearly indicate the specific information that you desire not to be placed in the POR, and provide the legal basis to support your request for withholding the information from the public. Dated at Lisle, lilinois this 18tWay of June 1997 l NUREG-0940, PART I B-20 )
.l
Sesee UNrrs0 starts y' *o' NUCl. EAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N Monon n i 'f "*IAAr T 8 sl:$ 5 s*aiide"lE "
, , , , , +! January 31,1997 IA 97 007 Mr. James P. Ryan
[HOME ADDRESS DELETED UNDER 10 CFR 2.790)
Dear Mr. Ryan:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOt.ATION The Nuclear Regulatory Commission received telephone notification from Southem Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) on January 3,1997 which was foPowed up with formal correspondence dated January 24,1997, informing us of your confirmed positive test for marijuana (Enclosure 1). We plan to place this letter in your 10 CFR Part 55 docket file. This confirmed positive test identified a violation of 10 CFR 55.53(j). The purpose of the Commission's Fitness-for Duty requirement; is to provide reasonable assurance that nuclear power plant personnel work in an environtrer,t that is free of drugs and alcohol and the effe':ts of the use of these substances. The use of illegal drugs is a serious matter which undermines the special trust and confidence placed in you as a licensed operator. The violation is categorized as a Severity Level ill violation in accordance with the
- General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG 1600, because the use of illegal drugs by licensed operators is a significant regulatory concem. This violation is desenbed in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Enclosure 2). Please note thrat, in accordance with 10 CFR 26.27(b), future similar violations will substantially affect your authorization for unescorted access to the protected area of a licensed facility.
The purpose of this letter is to make clear to you the consequences of your violation of NRC requirements goveming fitness-for-duty as a licensed operator. Y, are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specifed in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence in order to ensure your ability and willingness to carry out the special trust and confidence placed in you as a licensed operator of a nuclear power facility. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements. In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, enforcement actions are placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). A copy of this letter (without Enclosure 1) and the enclosed Notice of Violation with your address removed will be placed in the POR after 45 days unless you provide a sufficiont basis to withdraw this violation. NUREG-0940, PART I B-21
J.Ryan 2 If you have any questions concoming this action, please contact Mr. Thomas A. Peebles of my staff. Mr. Peebles can be reached at eithr' the address listed above or telephone number (404) 3315541. Sincerely,
)7ps %
4 Johns P. Jeu on, ' rector Division of Reactor Safety Docket No. 55 20393 License No. SOP 20194 3
Enclosures:
1 January 24,1997 Letter from Facility Licensee
- 2. Notice of Violation cc w/enci 2 w/HOME ADDRESS DELETED Southem Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.-
ATTN: Mr. D. N. Morey Vice President P. O. Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201 cc w/enci i and 2 w/HOME ADDRESS DELETED Part 55 Docket File - NUREG-0940, PART I B-22
NOTICE OF VIOLATION , Mr. James P. Rysn Docket No. 55 20393 [HOME ADDRESS DELETED License No SOP 20194 3 UNDER 10 CFR 2.790(a)) lA 97-007 As a result of a notification from Southem Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) on January 3,1997 which was followed up with formal correspondence dated January 24,1997, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the
- General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions,' NUREG 1600, the violation is listed belowj 10 CFR 55.530) prohibits the use of m&:huana and prohibits the licensee from performing activities authorized by a license issued under 10 CFR Part 55 while under the infi':ence of marijuana "Under the influence" is definJd in 10 CFR 55.530) to mean that the " licensee exceeded, as evidenced by a confirmed positive test, the lower of the cutoff levels for drugs or alcohol contained in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix A, of this chapter, or as established by the facility licensee.
Contrary to the above, the licensee violated 10 CFR 55.530) as evidenced by the following examples:
- a. The licensee used marijuana as evidenced by a confirmed positive test for that drug resulting from a urine sample submitted on December 27,1996,
- b. The licensee pe, formed licensed duties authorized by a license issued under 10 CFR Part 55, on the night shift from 2300 on December 26,1996, through 0700 on December 27,1996, as a Unit Operator at the Joseph M. Fariey Nuclear Plant immediately before submission of a urine sample, which indicated that the licensee was under the influence of marijuana. (01013)
This is a Severity Level lil violation (Sepplement 1). Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Mr. James P. Ryan (Ucensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Regional Administrator, Region 11,101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suito 2900, Atlanta, Georgia 30323, with a copy to Mr. Thomas Peebles, Region ll,101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2000, Atlanta, Georgia 30323, both mark 6,d "Open by Addressee Only" and a copy to the NRC Resident inspector at the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,7388 N State Hwy 95, Columbia, Alabama 36319, with a similar marking within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice). This reply should be cleariy marked as a
- Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the viola' ion, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the Enclosure 2 NUREG-0940, PMT I 15-23
Notice of Violation . date when full compliance will be achieved, if an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order ci a Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act 42 U.S C. 2232, this response shall be submittect under oath or affirmation. Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this 31st day of January 1997 l NUREG-0940, PART I B-24
g a.% p' '* b.* Umfac sTAfas j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o, wA6*n etoN. D C. SettHsDt
* ..* February 18. 1997 IA 97-015 Nr. George W. Stewart (MONE ADDRES$ DELETED USER 10CFRt.790)
$UBJCCit NOTICE OF VIOLATION LNRC Inspection Report No. 030 20644/93 002 and lnvestigationReportNo. 1 93 069R)
Dear Mr. Stewart:
This refers to the inspection conducted on December 2 3, 1993, at the Power Inspection, Inc., (PI) facility located in Wexford, Pennsylvania, as well as the findings of a subsequent investigation by the NRC Office of Investigations 01). The inspection report and 01 Synopsis were sent to you with our letter ated August 9, 1996. That letter also provided you with an opportunity to attend a predecisional enforcement conference. We have yet to receive a response from you to our letter and, therefore, the NRC is proceeding with appropriate enforcement action. Based on the information developed durin the inspection and subsequent investi the NRC has determi ed that ou were, in part respons!ationby01bleforavlolationofNRCrequirementstatoccurredinvolvingPl. The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice), and the circumstances surroundin it s'1 described in detail in the subject 01
' investigation report. T e of ;.tvestigation report indicated that PI management directed the falsification of utilization logs. However, you did not object to performing the falsifications. A minimum of 38 radio utilization logs were subsequent 1 falsely created by PI employees, in graphy violation of 10 CFR 30.9 and 10 C R 34.27, to satisfy questions which were asked during an April 1993 NRC inspection. You were a radiographer for P1 at the time the falsification violations occurred, and you acknowledged to the 01
-investigator that you were involved in creating false source utilization logs.
=As such, you caused the licensee to be in violation of NRC requirements and therefore you violated 10 CFR 30.10, as described in the Notice.
As an individual engaged in NRC+1icensed activities, you were in a position that conferred upon you trust and confidence in your ability to ensure that activities were conducted in accordance with NRC requirements, and information required to be maintained by NRC regnelrements was complete and accurate in all material respects. Your deliberate creation of false records is of significaht regulatory concern because it did not adhere to these standards, and resulted in the violation of 10 CFR 30.10. . B erefore, this violation has been categortieo in accordance with the " Genera statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions' (Enforcement Policy). NVREG 1500 at Severity Level 111. NUREG-0940, PART I B-25 J
-Mr. George W. Stewart 2 I
Given the significance of your actions, I have decided, after consultation with the Commission, to issue to you the enclosed Notice of Violat19ni 1 also l gave serious consideration as to whether an Order should be issued that would preclude you from any further involvement in NRC.Itcensed activities for a l certain period. However. I have decided under the circumstances of this case that this Notice of Violation is sufficient. You should be aware that the NRC's regulations allow the issuance of orders and other civil sanctions directly to unlicensed persons who through their deliberatemisconduct,causeaItcensettobeinviolationofNRC requirements. Deliberate misconduct includes an intentional act or omission that the person knows constitutes a violation of a requirement procedure or training instruction. AnordermayalsobeissuedtoanindivIdualtoprevent his or her engaging in licensed activities at all NRC-licensed facilities. A violation of this regulation as set forth in 10 CFR 30.10. and 50.5 You are on notice that any similar co)nduct on your part in the future could" Deliberate Mis result in significant enforcement action against you. You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. in your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence, as well as your reasons as to why the NRC should have confidence
- hat you will comply with NRC re 'trements in the future. After reviewing your response to this Notice, incl.atng your proposed corrective actions, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice." a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). I If you have an Branch Chief.Nuclear y questions or comments, Materials please Safety Branch contact 3, at Ms, Jenny Johansen. (610) 337-5304. Sincerely, 9 d./lh ddrc e4 l . Jordan Deputy /:xecutive Director for Reg'ulatory Effectiveness, Program Oversight, Investigations and Enforcement Enclosures 1. Notice of Violation '
- 2. Deliberate Misconduct Rule P. Charabers, Power inspection, Inc.
110 REG-0940, PART I B-26 l
N0ilCE Of VIOLATION Nr. George Wesley Stewart IA 97 015 During an NRC inspection conducted on December 2-3, 1993, and subsequent investigationbytheNRCOfficeofInvestigations(Olg.aviolationofNRC re uir mwnis was identified. In accordance with the General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcebent Actions," NUREG-1600, the violation j is listed klow: 10CFR30.101a)(1) requires,inpart,anyemployeeofalicenseemaynot enenge in dehiberate alscoriduct that causes or, but for detection, would have caused, a licenses to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or Erdat, or any term, conditica. 9r limitation of any license, issued by the Comissiot. 10 CFR 30,19(c) states, in part, that deliberate misconduct by a person means an intentional act or omission that the person knows: (1) would cause a licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulati,n, condition or limitation, of any license issued by the Commission, or (2) constitutes a violation of a requirement, procedure, instruction, contract, purchase order or policy of a licensee, contractor, or subcontractor. 10 c.FR 30.9(a) states, in part, that information required by the Lt mission's regulations to be maintained by the licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material respects. 10 CFR 34.27 requires, in part, that each licensee shall maintain current utilization logs, which shall be kept available for three years from the date of the recorded event, for inspection by the Connission, 4t the address specified in the license, showing for each sealed sources the make and model number of the radiographic exposure device or storage co'itainer in which the sealed source is locatedt the identity of the radiographer to whom assigned; and the plant or site where used and the dates of use. Contrary to the above, as of April 7, 1993, you caused Power Inspection, Inc. to be in violation of 10 CFR 30.9 and 10 CFR 34.27 in that you deliberately created falso utilization logs. Specifically, the licensee's utilization logs maintained at the licensee's Wexford, Pennsylvania, office were inaccurate because they were neither ' current" nor created on the date of use of the source, but in fact, were created ; at a later time in order to address questions asked by the NRC during a previous NRC inspection. This information was mt.terial because it had the capability to influence NRC action and, in fact, was presented to the NRC as indication that PI had completed the logs on the date of use. (01013) T51s is a Severity level til violation (Supplement Vll). Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555, with a copy to the NUREC-0940, PART I B-27
l Notice of Violation 2 Regional Administrator, Region I, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice . marked as a ' Reply to a Notice of Violation' a)nd should include for eachThis reply should be clearly violations the reason for the violation, or, if cont:sted, the basis for disputing the(1)iolation v (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved. (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or include previous docketed corres correspondence adequately addresses the required response.pondence, If an adequate if the reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why other action as may be proper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be subeltted under oath or affirmation. Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Roor (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, or proprietary information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. if you find it necessary to include such information, you should However, clearly indicate the specific information that you desire not to be placed in the PDR, and provide the legal basis to support your request for withholding the information from the public. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this '
*d <!ay of February 1997 i
NUREG-0940, PART I B-28
/ '% NUCLEARMYU TokY COMMWSION
( )
- M m.'IAU =:""
*,,,,,* April 4, 199/
IA 97 018 Hr. Ronald Stewart (HOME ADDRESS DELETED UNDER 10 CFR 2.790]
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50 302/96 07)
Dear Mr. Stewart:
This refers to an NRC inspection conducted during the period July 29 through August 2. 1996, at Florida Power Corporation's (FPC) Crystal River Nuclear Plant Unit 3. The inspection included a review of an incident identified by FPC involving your apparent falsification of access authorization program documentation associated with the Crystal River Plant. The report documenting the NRC inspection contains Safeguards Information: however, an excerpt from the applicable portion of the report is provided as Enclosure 2. Based on the information developed by the licensee's investigation and our review of that investigation. the NRC has concluded that you engaged in deliberate misconduct in violation of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2) when you deliberately failed to provide complete inforination on your Personal History Questionnaire (PHQ) during the preemployment process at Crystal River. Specifically. while you were employed by Brock and Blevins (a division of Williams Power Company). you falsified the PHQ when you failed to include various instances of prior criniinal convictions. Based on the incomplete information you provided on the PHQ. you were granted temporary, unescorted access to the Crystal River site from February 17 through March 12. 1996, pending completion of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) fingerprint checks. Subsequently, T,rystal River personnel became aware of your criminal history as a result of the five. year background investigation conducted by Williams Power Company, and the FBI fingerprint check confirmed multiple criminal convictions which you had omitted from your PHQ. Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.56 the NRC requires each licensee to establish and maintain an access authorization program which provides a high degree of assurance that individuals granted unescorted access to protected and vital a.eas of nuclear power plants are trustworthy and reliable. Your omission of material information from your PHQ undermined this process. The NRC relies on complete and accurate documentation of activities and the inteority of individual workers at nuclear power facilities to assure compliance with regulatory requirements. Additionally. the NRC is concerned that you stated on your PHQ for Crystal River that you were previously employed and granted unescorted access at other nuclear sites: however. you failed to list these CERTIFIED HAIL NO. P 058 054 421 RETURN RECE!PT REQUESTED 4 - NUREG-0940, PART I B-29 w -
R. Stewart 2 places of employment. This calls into question the accuracy of your representations on the PH0s you completed at other facilities. Therefore, after consultation with the Director. Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Effectiveness. Program Oversight. Investigations, and Enforcement. the NRC has decided to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) to you based or, your violation of the NRC's regulttions regarding deliberate misconduct. In accordance with the ' General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enfurcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy). NUREG 1600, the violation has been classified at Severity Level III. The enclosed Notice carries no additional sanctions with it, i.e., the NRC is placing no restrictions on your ability to seek employment in NRC+ licensed activities in the future should you meet the applicable regulatory requirements. However, you should be aware that this letter and Notice will be a matter of public record and will be published in NUREG 0940, a ' compilation of significant agency enforcement actions which is made available to NRC licensees and the public. You should also be aware that any similar f ailures being in against taken the future you.could lead to additional civil or criminal actions You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's
- Rules of Practice." Part 2.
Title 10. Code of Federal Regulations, records or documents compiled for enforcement purposes are placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). A copy of this letter with your address removed and your response will be placed in the PDR 45 days after the date of this letter unless you provide sufficient basis to withdraw this letter. Upon placrent of these documents in the PDR. a copy of this enforcement action will also bo provided to Florida Power Corporation. Questions concerning this letter or the Notist may be addressed to Mr. Paul Fredrickson. Chief, Special Inspection Bran-1 at 404 331 5596. Sine rely. Luis A. Reye Regional Adm strator
Enclosures:
1, Notice of Violation
- 2. Excerpt from Inspection Report No. 50 302/96 07
- 3. 10 CFR 50.5. Deliberate Hisconduct NUREG-0940, PART I B-30
7 NOTICE OF V10l.ATION Hr. Ronald Stewart IA 97 018 (HOMEADDRESSDELETED UNDER10CFR2.790) During an NRC inspection conducted on July 29 through August 2, 1996, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the ' General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions " NUREG 1600, the violation is listed b>10w: 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2) stetes, in part, that no employee of a licensee may deliberately submit to a licensee information that the person submitting the information knows to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. Contrary to the above, on or before February 17, 1996. Mr. Ronald Stewart deliberately failed to provide complete and accurate information during the preemployment process at Florida Power Corporation's Crystal River Plant. Specifically, Mr. Stewart failed to include his history of criminal convictions on the Person 61 History Questionnaire, which was used as the basis for granting him unescorted access to the Crystcl River site from February 17 through March 12, 1996. This information is material to the NRC in that verification of an individual's criminal history and suitability for the granting of unescorted access is an essential element of the licensee's access authorization program required by 10 CFR 73.56. (01013) This is a Severity Level 111 violation (Supplement VII). Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Mr. Ronald Stewart is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Regional Administrator NRC Region II, 101 Marietta Street Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice). The reply should be clearly marked as a Reply to Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation the following: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation. (2) the corrective step tnit have been taken and the resulte achieved, (3) the corrective steps that wili be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or include previously docketed correspondence, it the correspondence adequately addresses the required response. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why such other actien as may be proper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act. 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation. Enclosure 1 NUREG-0940. PART I B-31
l l Notice of Violation 2 Because your res@nse will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction, However, if you find it necessary to include such information, you should clearly indicate the specific information that you desire not to be j placed in the PDR, and provide the legal basis to support your request for , withholding the information from the public. Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this 4th day of April 1997 5 NUREG-0940, PART I B-32
EXCERPT FROM NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50 302/96 07 6.0 Access Authorization (Tl 2515/127) By letter dated May 27, 1992, the licensee submitted Revision 6 to the Crystal River Nuclear Plant PSP (Physical Security plan) committing to the requirements of 10 CFR 73.56 and NRC Regulatory Guide 5.66, &cstu Authorization Prooram for Nuclear Power Plants. Upon discussion with licensee representatives, the inspector noted that four Williams Power Company employees had recently been terminated due to possible falsification. The inspector determined that the following contractors had falsified their Personal History Questionnaires (PI0s): A contractor was granted temporary unescorted access on January 18, 1996, and was terminated on April 12, 1996. The individual's access was terminated for falsification of the PFQ in which he failed to list previous criminal convictions. In addition, while employed at Crystal River, the contractor failed to report an arrest for Driving Under the Influence (0U1). The falsification was discovered by the licensee when the fingerprints were returned to the licensee. A contractor was granted temporary unescorted access on February 7, 1996, and was terminated on April 12, 1996. The individual's access was terminated for falsification of the PlQ in which he failed to list previous felony convictions. The falsification was discovered by the licensee when t!.e fingerprints were returned to the licensee. A contractor was granted temporary unescorted access on February l'i,1996, and was terminated on March 12, 1996. The individual's access was terminated for falsification of the PiQ in which he failed to list previous felony convictions. The falsification was discovered b were returned to the licensee.y the licensee when the fingerprints A contractor was granted temporary unescorted access on February 13. 1996, and was terminated on April 10. 1996. The individual's access was terminated for falsification of the PHQ in which he failed to list previous criminal convictions. Prior to the return of the fingerprints, the individual was arrested offsite on outstanding warrant charges. The return of the fingerprints noted this outstanding warrant also. The inspector noted that the PHQ given to the individuals to complete clearly requested that the applicant provide information concerning any arrest, conviction, indictment, charge or fined offense within their lifetime. The falsification of Access Authorization records discussed above is being considered further by the NRC. This will be tracked as Unresolved Item (UR!s 96 07 03. Enclosure 2 NUREG-0940, PART I B-33
CIC touw 33% U 8. NUCtt AA Kt gut A10HY COMMilbiON 1 t.tPONI NUM ;6H L'a?l, nw. L'ar;;1%,M1T;,7 aa. 8m n'" BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET
<5,,,,,,,,,,,.v.,,.,,, NUREG-0940. PART I t uiti ANui.vanite VOL. 16, No. 1 Enforcement Actions: Significant Actions Resolved Individual Actions 3 castairontrususnio Semiannual Progress Report ** ' a j u aK January - June 1997 _ September 1997 4 IIN OM GR ANT NUMBt R b Au f MOHi".) 61Yet 06 HirONI Office of Enforcement Technical
- i. ee a iou cov i n i o , ,. , o,,,,,
I
. ri- ,OaMi,~,0..DaGA,N,,AnuN-
. * ~ . . NAM ANuAvoaiss,,,..c.., .. o. .. . v,... . <. -,~ , ,,, . . .
Office of Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 205$5-0001 9 $PON50 RING ORG ANil A t lON - N AME AND ADDR t SS #it enc ers. ~se w as ete.e'. ,# ,oaer. m, s.,a.wh mac D,.s..a. o,en, , a,,,a, u s sur < .censeen,, c,wa,ae en m.ou., a+ven t . Same as above 10 $UPPttMENT ARY Nott$ 11 ABST R ACT #200 we,* e, tus This compilation summarizes significant enforcement actions that have been resolved during the period (January - June 1997) and includes copies of Orders and Notices of Violation sent by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to individuals with respect to these enforcement actions. It is anticipated that the information in this publicatic a will be widely disseminated to managers and employees engaged in activities licensed by the NRC. The Commission believes this information may be useful to licensees in making employment decisions.
- i c e. t v w u s u s o t sc a e i v s 5 ,t .v ...,,, ~ -,. , .. .. . .., ,. s.,. ..-. o . .. , - - - . . u . ..t...o n si . u wt u e Ur. limited Wrongdoess . u.v n u.ss,
- n. i iu,.
II* rmA Unelassified ar a u Unclassified Ib NUM8th Of PAGt $ 16 . HILT NHC 8 OR W 33*a t/ 89'
w- ,q f l I Printed on recycled - paper Federal Recycling Program
' ' - " ' ' - ' " ," .. - .."7'MwC'F""v-Y 'CM"'"'T"'"
o _ , _ 7 'FF' s , - .- , ,. . ,, .
P"W]
axa";<-r Q;: ww. . h h m y ,, g ? f
.g.
m, *" :y $f c' g , , _ g a ,;, 7'.. ;' ~w'y v, . 7_ ;a' m' ;V s,_ y,p,, r va
- 9. ,' ,
p u-n m'n- o . . . g. a' f.- . ,
,g
,.y-n-.:
-y s h , _7 ..b y; t w <
; ; : . _ . ~
7.cg: , d, u;g'a'y-rb,a. .y 4 s
- n. Qy ,> ; , ;) ,_ j ,; o , 'm~-L 4
mgg .c <,9 ;r -.. up. 4 . ,
,y m. u h e.nws-owm '.M1 :w h 4, ;t w 5 s ,C, 7
7 4,,W.,.,,Y O .k,' i t, .1 s, n 8-r 34 37 y, mrg v, 7 g , , v. &. gyf j/Q v,s'(f m @. ;.\s g__ .p,
, y: e. . . ,
t
. 0 ';; g j , a, .1-j 4 ,
>vs .> ., s gs-* . t m ., pW.# . . M M. y i>,.u :. u <>z 7
pa q@g . p v ,1, , g
.a o'm^aq : 'ng D = ,
7*c3 w e v.* t t. m,c, a$ i i . it , r
. o.
1
+
v- rs. m,A. s:3 ; r .
> c m.c p > '> n m , 1.- .a a ,
. . i n' ,a 1
e s
~.km.LEa '(
b ?... 1 'A l$' ,' j N :' ' , ' ^ :' *N .=_ ^. ,h );.Y , U l3N , % f' ; -
. m(. : , yy # ' C l"
% I. ,(cr ~1:
g & W 3 z
. @ Q: %'
=s 1 n ms. ?$'a c. . s , &, 3 i 1 -v su t. ,. - z h WM, < %, '
cs es h y ~ s.;, ' u 3_;;m\q,F.- . y: q \fh)eg/g' 4
.% ,-v > - +% ;W' s - v ,ap & > + ,.
y! ", s '. 4;; ,_Y_ w%
, - > e u 1 2 uc \
,y >f p,);
.- " c
,~,:
g . 9
'.,}D Nle45 ._ .nJ n- s m f 6 ; y l^ L- p ,a_ 61l e .
;; ,g tr ... t' y , $ ; f, ,
i [6 h,* N $
;T m;q ,e %.Q l, :' qy , d r ? 04 '?
du~ " ,ya 3. i - , g v.
% 4. . y"CQ.'4 } ."x 5 3;,wy ,, < 4,gQ; - & , ;w; _"h g' + )y, 6, %' g^
( / W e ~ K dx g y y 12 13 e+, Q.g / g y 3; Q_.K 4 y s , , e; W d h, ; 3, g g.g.y_p ydQ , s*d t v%.'s
- e. x - . pe. ...dsa - mc ge , 7_,
,y.I '% . m w%.jp t ,, 4 .,
m.- .gm , w3. . . q(p,1w _ _
- w. , , y ,
%sgn, q,-
n, ~ g 6.,t-scr 4
.n u ,x n~r w[;',3 e7 s 4m 7; m.w .n
< . . , , . .m' u/, ,f,.M 'i w,H, -m . r * $ '+ - t 3 gy j;. ,
.A- ~* 'l ;A . s 1 1 T;'l '
j Ib ' *' q -5 A
=
n' uh. s. -, m\ w' , , v o m.' 3' $,m. ' ';,.4, ~. k., ;wg. e .'. ya "f.y.. i,;* w). i -. i -
>A. .. . -
pevn.>>v u m n,, q..--h, vx . , ; -,yy .. n : , n w' ' $ ,r, oy' y wbt l% y
- o ..,
.t 9 vm. .' 4 u ,: ,: . ;, ; _ y -.v._.
g g ys
,\
s ,
, - ; h,$' y gA', Wy -' _
a v . ^(,k l,h j,-~v. y ,,y/-9, g, ,
- m. 'A;'I't ,4-W' 9 }(N h[# y(, 'J I f. e
# }ff , m :>1h'e ?i 7 \
*
- _ ^/O f m
1
-.h{ o {p'[sh, w.)".,$h g. ',p N,, q kh["q 4w.<<hw m e ( W. yep. ,.vo/
4 e - w' s , ~ Lg:. ,m' - ' t . b'1 . r ! a 3 k ,P 2,. : ._ t ( .
- @y y' Ey y .g4z j, .j ,'_ , A .p+& . .n _y9 g y+, J1n 3, n r i y.n J m .; 3 m g'
;g , v ;yw; , g
? f , -
MML an
? ,-
s t- -
- 6. j(.
y
': k urr _. ,u; 5 5-e s -i aX J $g g
g 6.9qya
. , , has ;1?
f.. t ,, fr 3 /r v f?,ju s
,i s @;:'ey rf
.4
.A (
^',D : .
3 t 31 m' a Y k ~:,$kd. -[. , h. Wo w., r.,~f C h. i$ Wpvt s, *l b 3 1 h[ d ,.-,,f' ' jg, '
.. ~bs..
*f n .l..M.
r g' O k(3
^ 5 d.S . . ' t ,pY W @N n
[ W. g [, N,. - - 3' $% .p N [ }h ?( D%nb 5 .
"f y
. ~ [k' , c
.,[
7 M.. YY Y : o , , c . ~ '+ )_ a . , < w w]n [+ ~ + . .. "d"
, n. cm , ,
g , i> N gg .
) . .. ds %
. m g r. , . . _.
w~ p n '2 e' , .g,;y
- ;yy W, 4 , po %. ~% .'* .g 7- 17, ,si? e A e-l, . . p. ; n n.-n j,t -
m.y v7, o ;3 ~j ;lJ,o * , r ;,., ....s ,.wy [y. p3 a. [;:m~ j .rW y;g;b y ig; r y ;pw et w s-- w, 3 ; w, . yn ww,. ,5 yt M3 .s, w, +? I + w, p - w a : 4
~ s . gmnw tr x w;;u,m 3 m
Y I '
) # l y
'. f .'
~ . f . ! 7. , i L y .
a . {., .
,;;n,[
.m e, sg o
&,7 m, 1 g ;.y 3 g, cg c. m uncm,._ p , 4e,
;h , . ~ n.g+ ,3a' . t ,i
+ :, .
s
;; cw y <p.Ay p y4-+ ,; Eof.. 3%;seg y m, b r ,sQv3 3%, t ,n_.. 32 .s
,i r4 , , f 1; , 8 Q.a Q. ,
ga i. s 1 y qu }N S,,
, , dW >-4 Y ';..g- 4 . .' '
e
;w i,
+
.n ,s , 0 1,s,y.< ,irss m
. . , ., in . : n gg, g+ s
+o. -Au, r -A >
y y ,rn. . wu s i s' . ,i.m@f;w us mn ; ,f
-y
> %y, soy > 39 g.a .. o.
i. w - u n s og, v, ma y-"p, -nm y a, w%y; t w &e , M, , e c~Few e m -z W >r t.ily m v yi;, , e ,- us - z c , u i, ,-
; a% ..s 4
.-- r
.b d -
. . - < m.. ;im,4 -gbMw:ik:-
( , v, - ;$ n_. m . p,y 5
- b. my ,
, u m, , w, e+
Di, m . ;
. ; nA+,s- , :
a, , n , ,e .
-v),, _
g ' y,Q
- c,
..g mi a . r ~e n,%
, M-9 s w q l' .MJ A', i ' '
4.)v,m' /I s- jQ GJ 3 I'- +
.(h u ' i j .*" ' ph Tgy g~y y' '
l X
.k
, m' U su m .. M~ . ,rse r y><+-s M 3 ; -m m a ,p,,,w 4 + > x g. , 7.4; /g Qs<U+x;p g:Rg .w. g- wng L4'_ n, , y; 4q5gy g.q.tm - g .7 p7 g. g s47a g 47
-n g4 4 p 17q p ,egg g ; m4 a .
4, g , , x 34; . s ,,g 7 i4 q >- e# 3 m s yp .gg7.- L u s , y-p mq y4:R:cg ;pyu p w;g~-s
- u,m ,, <eue n f \ w@;lb @ y-, a m3_q:g y, ., ,. p Xr ph ;+ 3< y. .,
, .y%. qqp ;w t
y m ,4 m% yg.p - w tg y:..t s.
,,yy2 e4 e
- u
.,~ m m. gA.n
+3g.. . "
. + mxW'4 ,s-s y 5
- w. 6 ,
m
%rg L' .
s
;g %. 4
-- .y;gb %q - - - .., 4_ :
y n c y . ,yg4ym4 .g; yim 3
~.' <h.6ik 3 m = a *. s (W. -
i sr -' Mh %, , c . g g 'j$p, V o t M$fS.it E q. . i ' . " . t
! ( .4. .a Mf -
q
/7 4; y E I% ; /g $ 0% i' %sws;dQw[w)w...%p([.$y Mpj b Mh'g,@R < ;;wh, su M%,% g@ @amS 3
34, yu ab h,MW @, Q MVD
#, ,, f $' ; hj ,hhM ,y ,
@4 @9'? M%- ym,$. p, y,p]g y-
, y g gy %npfNW,y@ngym p,p( g gy ~g-gy- i%7 vggy p, R
' g.m9; y; Mp@y @
p m4 t<aeux t >
;- eer. .v 4 1
( 7s-
...m.i_s.
Wya
-e x
^,..o.v,1t.om.yr.
g- s, , %-s
, m - m,, - mamp am,4,.r. We3 M gy , eqm,.e, 3. v;j; o s r
.- m.n,i ;2 ;3 -sw z
r2 u
\
l ,3, u
- . < " a. p .y :3 a s u vo Nt 3 . +
5w r mem m.%7 y
+
m~, ~p g n: > v't-k O M Y, b m, j c a'+ p s; c q n [Aytm e. xg , y> s< + tyg<ry y fsJ' ..4c b ty # ,N. w I s laeJ, (h4 (
,$ 4; J $ h.. s?t s,. ? f 9,y- G 'd a n wn: t e$e . t :@p i % 4 1
W e v . p 't i M.f.) w 'm% ' 1 Ne 6 'ma n4 .
.m E
(l . h >. 4 ijf $ i 30 Q-
\
T h hl ' 5 anif v y- a.M[y / - r %. 'i2 ?4 Nr N- %m :t mM u O i'!'
~ iY , as'N?t![. t e[A .N?s + ;w$ N.h-#f< -s+ n 1
i.4k ' , .ny cow' s a-n 4 s ,
~-s s,. r v
. p m a L e- ee.
m Q 6;e'r i w w apu~av7
- yt; W M y~ A;q.
. u a; p,ms4. p u w op w q r , . *a' a s
,g.;?hqqw n u n.o a v, t
[ ygw.);wy , . g\ h) v- V- t;
, .ge @m^ur e ,c; . p-r
-n iagt vm , y , g, .b,r , p up ., 7 s gy 3 -7 1 p a m f w p grL , t ep q c( n w.x, .# g cy M ih i
fw , @- M ,3 f x.] o a
- . ~
%& Ms e M6 Q&~MM ~
.. MQ t . Kg < , M+ W+ %+ % M A D W~MV@?@ #4
. hh w w a MNfbl/A.%mn_nnh Q h$ / v e
NN n p m,[4 [+ hV, , t., 6 _n[n$M (f,((w$ MM 9 wo, n[ C- _ mN YM bd@kNf((N OO mg hkc
- 7 -
. 4 w, A M.~s
- n. c ngnWs wy aa pn.y%
we>Nn $p%wx((g8m(f i n4@4 ;wWm mh a,A ss a'[ ;p~c e % Mg;yig& w3~+g 4 n.'o. > L Ns CQF.r%ms.o1 ww MS A r d WW,OWFNg pe&q p; m.v 3x"w 5 N
- C.
yon M o stN e t k sGM ihw - y u .m a r Tu,m. m p 4f y 4 9 , A:w ; L l, l ~ , 'r e p uf p );;Qgy Q9m 4 N%m 1%
%,8.',y)p +y 'cg ' i 1; [&
x Qa y a f: .Q;)$rQ w .' /n nQQJ% ~y@ %kw %lf;u o m& gg ?, WQy,%+g-Q'Q g Q %Q Q;\'g1.Ddy$ fh y: ad ' uG r ",y:Q~ta. t z. &uA-b
-2 su W m c%. TO:& p y m:.f@ ngn a ma l 1 w, y 9 +w> m , < m wn .yyW r4a: .
%m.; m,9 m,; t - np. w . .e.b J6w ~, m+' s p d hm ';i f '
~
W;j . 9 4 c- <~.. p %. w v D(3 rg
,-pn MMN iA a.
. %mm.n 1 --4.
F. >y# Dd% W ,' f h p.) y
%% h%g N
O3
%, see
@ 7. t, 5wb3 e 4$, #. - . s >A-w gx v-m g bM m w@ p.
MN,yif ,$m;; %y7 l I d.._'%,#s.r,s
&mg .
>--E,, S w -m s n
- e. x.13e;3!~
. Rwio gj ,n y ss >
- . N, .
p m m. , w, _n< --:zay we m m y-
%g jg n. 7-p.s.&u t.
., 4..&,.;;
. gs 3
u n.a-g s g t 4- v i n j,t 1 4 a. y 3
, 4 y
w&
; s 4 .< .,, t gg' v geg u .%
A]%, s ag g' y k; ;jf Q QQ NWf i . "' "qM l ygg !W 'i is , m?&*7 A s a~ n @ Mw ,a W,jQ,
- fm%w , n %
Q 4 m o n , w% Q %;;&y.f f fyp lW of % -fsi Q ~c%Llm < Jf )R yy? y' , MW $v)M,,%j-jj)}u& pf ' T'qf yr Q i s: en w <~, .
% s,. , # bv
? lw My .
T. n. u mt ewo33 %m' 7%, m' R- o - ~ ' M g~ ,,,w '^l4;M.
, n. , %, yWVlg%mu.Wy.c M %w ,e w< *s.p%.,
ms n pu<$.-.. %; @,<wp%.r o, 1
* . >o Q
m v , y. mll > 5w A"y}a m,Ws. om 4 m ma- , . 4 A > se; s c 1 w'm ass m,;~m ., Vi
# w. .
V' m ,v, g ?pyg n
.1 r,t p
,e : o,1 i
\jy.-W s , , ' . - ';u r : 4 . 3
, [ h:I.p g N , m y= ?Q.., :
37 QQb . :, .h M W W plfdgW- W :_? .<\ ,r
. + L+ X w:
; a %ve, V w r'y'mw%w, 2:)w T 'v,M~ asw m;,
, , s
-aman $ j.WQgj %g =. (.. % w~ C -S@ n: . b, ma g6 ca = >
A , Jg: dn ~ w , * ' u , V.r'y's
, nn 43 4 4, u.
M; q vqm Ayp:0...a. b, 3 u,- x
, -%i ,-. <m- q w+j, u, .u s ,
wa i mr .m s e >
-4' x.. y..'.n
+ u q, py .,x p' -
4 g.n. u
' W-w ,in e t 'f.
1 bm( (d ;L.b miq.g
,~
hi$: h YnI ,#3 p);
~ q3
$N 7+my 4kh y .
2
. S8 a .
- s. ,y :
1 q :- s
,hh4 . .-7 y w f' . ' kde, M ?)M I
~3 J' , 3^ j"I. '
' ~ ,
t t e :p y @<M s c . p, n , , w. s,< a . y'.
@i s- . N. .% +
"k T . . <
.. t
, s <
t _ - *, 4s,gn
. K. n
,'1 y i w l, * .*
3' ;'p}ll' b R
- Q1 w . -R Qr ' @,
> d-n' mpp * ' ' ' :rg 5
' % a p-(g w% .gj . vMn, -- .<7
\. t .
s..u s s < .a , s T' cJJfb fw u.c ?A)<)4;; :- l V i gf l t
~[y a;,w Q h, w w - jM r px.w m% w..lw
;. , ~ , . ,
4',- w 'e ' r -e w,;l: t
.z' ,). s i
'.,n,., -
. . ...{ F %
d. 1 g g'yb w -
. "L. a
.,y I;
.,.g.j --.,'
4
+'.;.- l' ' 6.! i- f I p' '
'-"2-.M
.J
,y' .h [ #
i # Y S ?. [ ,,'/A. { ' Lm L;- . &. h q
- ...s"qt{dy
,;. .;; g
-y , i 4
s
-%: t
' ' ^ '
+2 v
pg 1 s . s ., ~d
+ g,9
( ie - I . ,, ,4o _
,, S ,
; , m ,a .,ur w
.s ., s e
c' u. , - - 1 % , s
+
y< s. g.-s - 1 * ' t P -Ll,? i. Y - "
'. '4' -' $ 'N ~ ' ' b 'S
~ '
- 5. I 1
- 1Ap'M gf - Iy -
N - g . . , i
; e 4 +
Q( C-h- .! %y'.-
, ,_,j 3 5
g4 y "',h.,. - .q.' ( 4 l
,_ '. D'#
c 4 i p,E- ,:p , j% t 5 s., ',"' *
~!'
' ~
he WQ t # . ,- [ ; )q u
. <,.;iF 6 rv --
- y. , .r
- t
+
sc 'u ' ;;a 1 :: a w q;p- e t. , s,.nr n. , p
. m.
< y 3'v.( , , y,m e
, m wwp, 4 . , $ v- . n' b, g 7,.+,,
q . < , ,
,s>. c .
7 m e
;_y ..
, s 8 pp m we ; (
+
r r,C T a, :t t . 3 1
+
+ y+ ~;e +
' s ,' mr . ,
jf O 'p q }l , , $f'n ' W
\t ? Lu r ,; r .: -
s u
.[ , b"h.v u$${m. f',)' '-
l.)l ' # N
- c c A >
y
- EY>^ 1 Q_ Y. . .hy
(m g-ny g -mmmmwmymmr7:m
~ ~,..
y wwm.mm .mn , . mm m.s.gyng_ , _. .~
' Y
~
f :UN!TED STATES.-
;-SPECIALSTANDARD Mkkh ! ~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM;S310N.? '
-POSTAGE AND FEES PAID ' '
- 5 WASHINGTON,:DC 20555-0001D'
?USNRC' .
-- PERMIT N,O.G47 / . .
~
,~ A
'~.
> CFFICIAL BustNESSV "
>^
. PENALTY FOR PRNATEtJSE.$300' M ~
' by ? .
,;j
.c
?
4
" ' , r
, 4
~a w A .-
- e. i L,
) %Q f
' N, _
- - ';v .
3 ,
,iG
- g ,
M * - . E
?.'
, . , ~
i.,*. 1
, k - m.,
"7#,-'
4
- - ^
u s m." " v y
-}vy z .! -
- g. 3.r
_+ , y A..
'I$ 'e.E -
'p' .r r w .,"4
. .,a 3 P 4 ,
4
?
- =*"l l
T .- _==..- s h- I , ,4- q e ' A S'
+.A- * #
^
.t.', j
',4.. m j
z J-- ,_ _, , s: .% 4
" - ' ~'" , - .
l ': r -1 r b 1,
%* s'
,,--g -
_ g
=
l ,-f . , , i . . i ,. d' f .. ; I W ~
-% A s
" r~^ s
.'1
' ,P* c- %
k j
.4 . , . ' '
,e -
, , t , .
f
=.*!. y- 1 - ~' c x..-
3 3 - W. , j f , s d.,
+
_ , , h .: r-- n , e v -'y- . : y. - _g,.- ' u - -
- ~, ,' , --+. , ,s 3 4 r - "g5',
( - 4r- s a.,u; " -
*t -
. 1 , __ .
3 ", 5 7 f+ ,
,. A'" -
t ,'j- e .
.r~ ?~ 4
^ .
- I i J %
N q [p ,:W' , wax ~1m.mm&Mw M m m $6 ~. N NNDI' d51. N'.e $.$&. . , r.,.
$YN&. ., W0 "
i- , . .
- .'.OY-'
s.:%
.- :?'
'& mmKl}}