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-97-13

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (Friday, February 21, 1997)

NRC ISSUES $40,000 FINE AGAINST PA. INSPECTION COMPANY;

TWO FORMER EXECUTIVES BARRED FROM LICENSED ACTIVITIES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a $40,000

fine against a Pennsylvania industrial inspection company for

numerous alleged violations of NRC rules, including deliberately

directing employees to fabricate records and deliberately

providing false information to NRC licensees. The violations

involved activities conducted by Power Inspection Inc., based in

Wexford (Allegheny County), Pa., as both a vendor performing

nuclear-related services for the nuclear industry and as an NRC

materials licensee.

In addition to the monetary penalties, the NRC has issued

orders affecting two former executives of Power Inspection. The

company's former president, Krishna Kumar, has been barred from

engaging in NRC-licensed activities for 10 years because of

deliberate misconduct while leading the firm. The order also

requires that Kumar, for five years after the conclusion of the

10-year period, notify the NRC of any future employment or

involvement in activities licensed by the agency. James Mulkey,

PI's former vice president and radiation safety officer, has been

prohibited from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities for

five years. Mulkey must also notify the NRC the first time he

engages in activities licensed by the agency.

Two other individuals who previously worked for the company

were issued notices of violation.

Edward L. Jordan, the NRC's Deputy Executive Director for

Regulatory Effectiveness, Program Oversight, Investigations and

Enforcement, wrote to Power Inspection that its actions

constituted a "significant regulatory concern because the conduct

of licensed activities in accordance with the Commission's

requirements depends in large part on the integrity of

individuals conducting licensed activities."

"These actions are particularly egregious given the prior

conviction of PI and its former president in 1988, for falsifying

ET (eddy current testing) equipment calibration certification

involving work performed at the Beaver Valley nuclear plant in
Shippingport, Pennsylvania. Despite the prior actions taken

against PI and its former president, your company and its

representatives continued to engage in wrongdoing," Jordan

continued.

The violations were identified through an NRC inspection

conducted on December 2-3, 1993, and a subsequent inquiry by the

agency's Office of Investigations. It was determined that while

acting as a contractor to the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.

(CEIC) and the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) -- both NRC

licensees -- Power Inspection deliberately submitted to the

licensees inaccurate information.

Specifically, the company:

ˇ On March 5, 1993, deliberately submitted to NPPD three

inaccurate letters stating the trustworthiness and reliability of

two individuals had been established by investigation, even

though Power Inspection knew the individuals had used illegal

substances. The lack of information deprived NPPD of a chance to

investigate the matter. On Oct. 6, 1993, Power Inspection again

deliberately submitted to CEIC three inaccurate letters regarding

three individuals who had used illegal substances.

ˇ Around March 1993, deliberately submitted to NPPD's Cooper

nuclear power plant three inaccurate eddy current qualification

certifications for three individuals. However, Power Inspection

knew the individuals had not obtained the required training to be

qualified and further, that the individuals had been given the

correct answers while taking the certification examination. In

October 1993, Power Inspection again deliberately submitted to

CEIC's Perry nuclear power plant two inaccurate eddy current

qualification certifications for two individuals. This

information is crucial to NRC licensees because they need to know

the individuals performing such work are knowledgeable and

capable when it comes to eddy current testing, which provides

information regarding the quality of equipment.

Other specific violations identified by the NRC included:

ˇ On July 14, 1993, Power Inspection provided the NRC with

inaccurate information. The information pertained to

observations of the company's radiographers; the calibration of a

ratemeter; the calibration of pocket dosimeters; the maintenance

of source utilization logs; and the availability of personnel

monitoring reports.

ˇ As of December 2, 1993, the company did not maintain, as

required, current radioactive material utilization logs. The

logs are to be kept for three years from the date of material

usage, for inspection by the NRC.

ˇ As of December 2, 1993, PI had not observed the
performance of a radiographer involved in radiographic operations

since April 1993. Such observations are required to be performed

at intervals not to exceed three months.

ˇ As of December 2, 1993, PI failed to maintain utilization

logs for radiographic operations conducted in May and June 1993

using a cobalt-60 source at its facility in Wexford, as well as

operations conducted from July through November 1993 with an

iridium-192 source at various locations in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

ˇ The company failed to ensure that radiographer film

badges, used to detect radiation exposure, were promptly returned

by the company to the vendor that provided them for processing;

failed to meet the requirement that periodic training be given to

radiographic personnel every 12 months; failed to perform routine

maintenance on an iridium-192 exposure device; did not name a

specific individual to serve as radiation safety officer, as

required; and failed to perform leakage tests on a cobalt-60

source and an iridium-92 source at intervals not to exceed six

months, as required.

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

request in writing that part or all of the penalty be withdrawn.

#