United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-98-82 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 13, 1998

NRC CITES BREITLING USA, INC., FOR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF

AGENCY REQUIREMENTS, PROPOSES $26,400 FINE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a $26,400

fine against Breitling USA, Inc., for willful violations of NRC

requirements involving the possession, use and distribution of

watches containing NRC-licensed material without having NRC

licenses authorizing such activities.

Located in Stamford, Conn., the company receives shipments

of watches containing tritium from its parent company in

Switzerland, attaches the watchbands and sends the watches to

jewelry stores for sale. The stores also return watches to the

Stamford facility for repair.

On March 10, the NRC conducted an inspection at the

Connecticut facility. The violations concern the distribution

since 1989 of more than 70,000 wristwatches containing small

amounts of tritium, a radioactive material, without an NRC

license, and the repair of watches since 1990 without an NRC

license authorizing possession. The company has since applied

for and received the appropriate NRC licenses.

The watches pose no hazard to the public or their owners.

Small amounts of tritium are safely used in many timepieces, but

the NRC requires distributors to obtain a license from the agency

to use the material.

In a letter to the company forwarding the notice of

violation, NRC Region I Administrator Hubert J. Miller said the

agency was concerned that for an extended period of time the

company had “bypassed the regulatory framework.” Because of

that, Mr. Miller said, the NRC was unable to conduct inspections

to determine whether methods and controls the company established

were in accordance with the terms and conditions of an NRC

license. “In fact, during the inspection, the NRC identified
contamination at your facility, although the amount of

contamination was low and was subsequently cleaned,” the

administrator said.

The NRC is also concerned that the company had indications

since early 1997 that it needed an NRC license, but no action was

taken until after the agency’s inspection. Said Mr. Miller: “The

failure to act sooner to either obtain an NRC license, or contact

the NRC to determine if a license was needed, constitutes, at a

minimum, careless disregard of NRC requirements. ...”

Mr. Miller told the company that NRC set the amount of the

fine at $26,400 considering: 1) the regulatory significance,

including the NRC’s inability to conduct inspections for nine

years; 2) the company’s saving the cost of an NRC license for

nearly a decade; and 3) the company’s failure for economic

reasons to contact the agency promptly once it learned that it

likely needed a license.

In addition, the NRC has issued a “demand for information”

requiring the company to inform the agency as to why its licenses

should not be revoked and why the NRC should believe the firm

will comply with NRC requirements in the future.

The company has 30 days to pay the proposed fine or to

request in writing that all or part of it be withdrawn.

#