Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 1997 / Notices 43359

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[IA 97–059]

Susan A. Blacklock; Order Prohibiting

Involvement in NRC-Licensed

Activities (Effective Immediately)

I

Ms. Sue A. Blacklock (Ms. Blacklock)

was formerly employed by PECO Energy

Company at the Limerick Generating

Station (PECO, Limerick, or Licensee) as

the Primary Chemistry Manager. PECO

holds Facility License Nos. NPF–39 and

NPF–84 issued by the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC or

Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR part

50. These licenses authorize PECO to

operate the Limerick Station, Units 1

and 2, in accordance with the

conditions specified therein.

II

On February 7, 1996, while a Reactor

Enclosure Cooling Water (RECW)

radiation monitor was inoperable, the

Licensee was required, in accordance

with Technical Specification 3.3.7.1,

ACTION 72, to obtain and analyze at

least one grab sample from the RECW

system at least once per 24 hours. On

that date, the sample needed to be taken

by 11:00 a.m. to meet that requirement.

The sample was not taken until 12:15

p.m. on that date, approximately 1 hour

and 15 minutes after the time it was

due. However, the record of the grab

sample RECW Surveillance Test (ST–5–

026–570–1, ‘‘Inop Reactor Enclosure

Cooling Water Rad Mon Grab Sampling

and Analysis’’), signed by a chemistry

technician and the chemist (as

chemistry supervision), was inaccurate

because (1) page one of attachment 1 of

the test record indicated that the time of

the sample was 11:00 a.m., and (2) the

attached computer printout of the

Gamma Spectrum Analysis (required by

step 4.3.1 of the surveillance test) also

indicated that the sample was taken at

11:00 a.m. The creation of this

inaccurate record caused the Licensee to

be in violation of 10 CFR 50.9,

‘‘Completeness and accuracy of

information.’’

Afterwards, an investigation of this

matter was conducted by PECO, and the

NRC was informed of the findings.

Subsequently, an investigation was

conducted by the NRC Office of

Investigations (OI), that determined,

based upon the evidence developed

during its investigation, and a review of

evidence contained in the investigation

report provided by PECO, that on

February 7, 1996, the former PECO

chemist and the PECO chemistry

technician deliberately falsified RECW

sample documentation, at the direction

of Ms. Blacklock, the former PECO

Primary Chemistry Manager.

Ms. Blacklock denied, both in her

November 7, 1996, interview with OI, as

well as during a June 3, 1997

predecisional enforcement conference

with the NRC, that she had instructed

the chemistry technician to rewrite the

surveillance test, and also denied that

she had instructed the chemist to

change the sample time in the

computer. Notwithstanding that denial,

both the chemistry technician and the

chemist stated in their interviews with

OI, that it was Ms. Blacklock’s idea to

rewrite the surveillance test document

and that she subsequently ordered that

the sample time in the computer be

changed. In addition, the original data

sheet corroborates that the chemistry

technician originally entered the proper

sample time as 12:15 p.m. Therefore,

contrary to Ms. Blacklock’s denials, the

NRC has concluded that Ms. Blacklock

instructed the former PECO chemist and

chemistry technician to falsify the

RECW sample documentation.

III

Based on the above, the NRC has

concluded that Ms. Blacklock engaged

in deliberate misconduct by directing

falsification of the time of the RECW

grab sample. Ms. Blacklock’s actions

constitute a violation of 10 CFR

50.5(a)(1), which prohibits an

individual from engaging 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. In this case,

Ms. Blacklock caused the Licensee to be

in violation of 10 CFR 50.9,

‘‘Completeness and accuracy of

information.’’

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 maintain

information that is complete and

accurate in all material respects. Ms.

Blacklock’s action in directing

falsification of records, and her

collusion with others to hide that

falsification, constitutes a deliberate

violation of Commission regulations,

and her doing so raises serious doubt as

to whether she can be relied upon to

comply with NRC requirements and to

maintain complete and accurate

information for NRC Licensees and

Licensee contractors in the future, and

raises doubt about her trustworthiness

and reliability.

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 would be protected

if Ms. Blacklock were permitted at this

time to be involved in NRC-licensed

activities. Therefore, the public health,

safety and interest require that Ms.

Blacklock be prohibited from any

involvement in NRC-licensed activities

for a period of 5 years from the date of

this Order, and if Ms. Blacklock is

currently involved with another

licensee in NRC-licensed activities, Ms.

Blacklock 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,

Ms. Blacklock is required to notify the

NRC of her first employment in NRClicensed activities following the

prohibition period. Furthermore,

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the

significance of Ms. Blacklock’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, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, and the Commission’s

regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR

50.5, and 10 CFR 150.20, It is hereby

ordered, effective immediately, that:

1. Sue A. Blacklock is prohibited from

engaging in activities licensed by the

NRC for 5 years from the date of this

Order. 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.

2. After the 5-year period of

prohibition has expired, Ms. Blacklock

shall, within 20 days of her acceptance

of the first employment offer involving

NRC-licensed activities or her 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, D.C. 20555,

of the name, address, and telephone

number of the employer or the entity

where she is, or will be, involved in the

NRC-licensed activities. In the

notification, Ms. Blacklock shall include

a statement of her commitment to

compliance with regulatory

requirements and the basis why the
43360 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 1997 / Notices

Commission should have confidence

that she will now comply with

applicable NRC requirements.

The Director, OE, may, in writing,

relax or rescind any of the above

conditions upon demonstration by Ms.

Blacklock of good cause.

V

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Ms.

Blacklock 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, specifically admit or deny

each allegation or charge made in this

Order and shall set forth the matters of

fact and law on which Ms. Blacklock 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,

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff,

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, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory,

475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia,

Pennsylvania 19406, and to Ms.

Blacklock if the answer or hearing

request is by a person other than Ms.

Blacklock. If a person other than Ms.

Blacklock requests a hearing, that

person shall set forth with particularity

the manner in which that person’s

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 Ms.

Blacklock 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)(i), Ms.

Blacklock 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

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

this order.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day

of August 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ashok C. Thadani,

Acting Deputy Executive Director for

Regulatory Effectiveness.

[FR Doc. 97–21361 Filed 8–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[IA 97–064]

Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRCLicensed Activities (Effective

Immediately) Pending Further Order;

Magdy Elamir, M.D., Newark, New

Jersey

I

Magdy Elamir, M.D., (Dr. Elamir), is

the Owner/President of Newark Medical

Associates, P.A. (licensee), an NRC

licensee who is the holder of Byproduct

Nuclear Material License No. 29–30282–

01 (license) issued by the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC or

Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR part

30. The license authorizes possession

and use of any radiopharmaceutical

identified in 10 CFR 35.200 for any

imaging and localization procedure

approved in 10 CFR 35.200. The license

was originally issued on September 25,

1996, and is due to expire on September

30, 2001.

II

On January 29, 1997, the NRC

conducted an inspection at the

licensee’s facility in Newark, New

Jersey. During the inspection, several

apparent violations of NRC

requirements were identified. One of the

violations involved the continued use of

radioactive material by the licensee

despite the fact that the only authorized

user listed on the license (who was also

listed as the Radiation Safety Officer

(RSO)), had not ever performed any

authorized user or RSO duties and had

not ever been affiliated with the

company. Specifically, Gerard W.

Moskowitz, M.D. (Dr. Moskowitz), was

listed on the application as the RSO and

authorized user without his knowledge.

Dr. Moskowitz did not become aware

that he was listed on the application

and the license until notified by the

NRC on February 6, 1997, more than

four months after the license was

originally issued.

Subsequent to the inspection, the

NRC verified, based on an investigation

by the NRC Office of Investigations (OI),

that the licensee’s letter, dated February

22, 1996, signed by Dr. Elamir,

transmitting the license application

(NRC Form 313), dated February 2,

1996, was inaccurate in that it listed Dr.

Moskowitz as the authorized user and

Radiation Safety Officer without Dr.

Moskowitz’s consent or knowledge and

without Dr. Moskowitz ever having been

affiliated or associated with the

licensee. Further, Dr. Moskowitz did not

ever perform the role of RSO at the

licensee’s facility. As such, the

licensee’s application for a material

license to possess and use byproduct

material was provided with information

that was not complete and accurate in

all material respects. These inaccurate

statements in the licensee’s application,

signed by Dr. Elamir, formed, in part,

the basis for the issuance of the license

to Newark Medical Associates on

September 25, 1996. Further, the

licensee continued to conduct NRClicensed activities even though Dr.

Elamir knew that the licensee did not

have an RSO.

III

Although the NRC staff’s review of the

results of the OI investigation is

ongoing, the evidence that NRC has

obtained indicates that Dr. Elamir’s

actions in causing violations of NRC

requirements were deliberate. The NRC

must be able to rely on the licensee and

its employees to comply with NRC

requirements. Condition No. 13 of the

license required that each use of

licensed material be done by, or under

the supervision of Dr. Moskowitz as the

authorized user named therein. NRC

requires that the RSO named on the

license implement a radiation safety

program pursuant to 10 CFR 35.21. NRC

also requires that all communications

between the licensee and the NRC be

complete and accurate in all material

respects, pursuant to 10 CFR 30.9.