Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 1997 / Notices 43361

Pursuant to 10 CFR 30.10, deliberate

misconduct on the part of a licensee or

its employee or contractor is prohibited.

The term ‘‘deliberate misconduct’’

includes an intentional act that the

person knows would violate a

Commission requirement. The evidence

to date demonstrates that Dr. Elamir,

acting in violation of 10 CFR 30.10,

deliberately violated NRC 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. Elamir were permitted at this time

to be involved in NRC-licensed

activities. Therefore, the public health,

safety and interest require that Dr.

Elamir be prohibited from any

involvement in NRC-licensed activities

pending further order. Furthermore,

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the

significance of Dr. Elamir’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,

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 and 10 CFR 30.10, Part 35,

and 10 CFR 150.20, It is hereby ordered

that, effective immediately:

1. Pending further order, Dr. Elamir is

prohibited from engaging in NRClicensed activities. This prohibition

applies to Dr. Elamir as an employee,

contractor, consultant, or other agent of

a license and includes, but is not

limited to: (1) Any use of NRC-licensed

materials; (2) supervising licensed

activities, including (but not limited to)

hiring of individuals engaged in

licensed activities or directing or

managing individuals engaged in

licensed activities; (3) radiation safety

activities including (but not limited to)

functions of the Radiation Safety

Officer; and (4) development of license

applications, procedures, and policies to

meet license requirements, providing

training to meet license requirements,

and providing professional services to

meet license requirements. NRClicensed 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. If Dr. Elamir is currently involved

in NRC-licensed activities other than at

Newark Medical Associates, P.A., he

must, as of the effective date of this

Order: (1) Immediately cease such

activities; (2) inform the NRC of the

name, address and telephone number of

the NRC-licensed entity or entities

where the activities are being

conducted; and (3) provide a copy of

this order to all such NRC-licensed

entities.

The Director, Office of Enforcement,

may, in writing, relax or rescind any of

the above conditions upon

demonstration by the licensee of good

cause.

V

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Dr.

Elamir 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, DC 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. Elamir 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, 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

Dr. Elamir if the answer or hearing

request is by a person other than Dr.

Elamir. If a person other than Dr. Elamir

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. Elamir

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), Dr.

Elamir 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, 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 a hearing

shall not stay the immediate

effectiveness of this order.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Edward L. Jordan,

Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory

Effectiveness.

[FR Doc. 97–21363 Filed 8–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[IA 97–060]

Steven F. Nevin; Order Prohibiting

Involvement in NRC-Licensed

Activities (Effective Immediately)

I

Mr. Steven F. Nevin (Mr. Nevin) was

formerly employed by PECO Energy

Company at the Limerick Generating

Station (PECO, Limerick, or Licensee) as

a chemist. PECO holds Facility License

No. 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.
43362 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 1997 / Notices

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 Mr. Nevin, 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, as changed by Mr. Nevin, 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, Mr. Nevin, and the

PECO chemistry technician, deliberately

falsified RECW sample documentation,

at the direction of Ms. Blacklock, the

former PECO Primary Chemistry

Manager.

Mr. Nevin was interviewed by OI on

July 24 and December 10, 1996. During

the interviews, Mr. Nevin indicated

initially that he corrected the sample

time recorded in the Gamma Spectrum

Analysis from 12:15 p.m. to 11:00 a.m.

because he was told that another sample

(taken earlier) had been found. Upon

further questioning, Mr. Nevin admitted

to the initial fabrication and stated that

he and the chemistry technician

falsified the surveillance test documents

to record the sample time of 11:00 a.m.

at the direction of the former Primary

Chemistry Manager.

III

Based on the above, the NRC has

concluded that Mr. Nevin engaged in

deliberate misconduct. Mr. Nevin’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,

Mr. Nevin 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. Mr.

Nevin’s action in falsifying records, and

his collusion with others to hide that

falsification, constitute deliberate

violations of Commission regulations,

and by doing so, 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 in the future, and raises

doubt about his 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 Mr. Nevin were permitted at this time

to be involved in NRC-licensed

activities.

Therefore, the public health, safety

and interest require that Mr. Nevin be

prohibited from any involvement in

NRC-licensed activities for a period of 3

years from the date of this Order, and

if Mr. Nevin is currently involved with

another licensee in NRC-licensed

activities, Mr. Nevin 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. Nevin 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. Nevin’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. Steven F. Nevin is prohibited from

engaging in activities licensed by the

NRC for 3 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 3-year period of

prohibition has expired, Mr. Nevin

shall, within 20 days of his acceptance

of the first 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, 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

notification, Mr. Nevin 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, OE, may, in writing,

relax or rescind any of the above

conditions upon demonstration by Mr.

Nevin of good cause.

V

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr.

Nevin 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 Mr. Nevin 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 Mr. Nevin

if the answer or hearing request is by a
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 1997 / Notices 43363

person other than Mr. Nevin. If a person

other than Mr. Nevin 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 Mr. Nevin

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), Mr.

Nevin 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. 97–21362 Filed 8–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389]

Florida Power and Light Company (St.

Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2);

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations for Facility Operating

License Nos. DPR–67 and NPF–16,

issued to Florida Power and Light

Company, et. al. (the licensee), for

operation of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit

Nos. 1 and 2, located in St. Lucie

County, Florida.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would exempt

the licensee from the requirements of 10

CFR 70.24, which requires a monitoring

system that will energize clear audible

alarms if accidental criticality occurs in

each area in which special nuclear

material (SNM) is handled, used, or

stored. The proposed action would also

exempt the licensee from the

requirements to maintain emergency

procedures for each area in which this

licensed SNM is handled, used, or

stored to ensure that all personnel

withdraw to an area of safety upon the

sounding of the alarm, to familiarize

personnel with the evacuation plan, and

to designate responsible individuals for

determining the cause of the alarm, and

to place radiation survey instruments in

accessible locations for use in such an

emergency.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption dated February 19, 1997, and

supplemented July 10, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose of 10 CFR 70.24 is to

ensure that if a criticality were to occur

during the handling of SNM, personnel

would be alerted to that fact and would

take appropriate action. At a

commercial nuclear power plant the

inadvertent criticality with which 10

CFR 70.24 is concerned could occur

during fuel handling operations. The

SNM that could be assembled into a

critical mass at a commercial nuclear

power plant is in the form of nuclear

fuel; the quantity of other forms of SNM

that is stored on site is small enough to

preclude achieving a critical mass.

Because the fuel is not enriched beyond

5.0 weight percent Uranium-235 and

because commercial nuclear plant

licensees have procedures and features

designed to prevent inadvertent

criticality, the staff has determined that

it is unlikely that an inadvertent

criticality could occur due to the

handling of SNM at a commercial power

reactor. The requirements of 10 CFR

70.24, therefore, are not necessary to

ensure the safety of personnel during

the handling of SNM at commercial

power reactors.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that there is no significant

environmental impact if the exemption

is granted. Inadvertent or accidental

criticality will be precluded through

compliance with the St. Lucie, Units 1

and 2 Technical Specifications (TS), the

design of the fuel storage racks

providing geometric spacing of fuel

assemblies in their storage locations,

and administrative controls imposed on

fuel handling procedures. TS

requirements specify reactivity limits

for the fuel storage racks and minimum

spacing between the fuel assemblies in

the storage racks.

Appendix A of 10 CFR part 50,

‘‘General Design Criteria for Nuclear

Power Plants,’’ Criterion 62, requires the

criticality in the fuel storage and

handling system shall be prevented by

physical systems or processes,

preferably by use of geometrically-safe

configurations. This is met at St. Lucie,

Units 1 and 2, as identified in the TS

and the Updated Final Safety Analysis

Report (UFSAR). St. Lucie TS Section

5.6.1.c (Unit 1) and 5.6.1.b (Unit 2), state

that the new fuel storage racks are

designed for dry storage of unirradiated

fuel assemblies having a U–235

enrichment less than or equal to 4.5

weight percent, while maintaining a keffective of less than or equal to 0.98

under the most reactive condition.

UFSAR Section 9.1.1, New Fuel Storage,

for both Units 1 and 2 specify that the

fuel racks are designed to provide

sufficient spacing between fuel

assemblies to maintain a subcritical (keffective less than or equal to 0.98) array

assuming the most reactive condition,

and under all design loadings including

the safe shutdown earthquake. The

UFSAR also specifies that the new fuel

racks are designed to preclude the

insertion of a new fuel assembly

between cavities.

The proposed exemption would not

result in any significant radiological

impacts. The proposed exemption

would not affect radiological plant

effluent nor cause any significant

occupational exposures since the TS

design controls (including geometric

spacing of fuel assembly storage spaces)

and administrative controls preclude

inadvertent criticality. The amount of

radioactive waste would not be changed

by the proposed exemption.

The proposed exemption does not

result in any significant nonradiological environmental impacts. The

proposed exemption involves features

located entirely within the restricted

area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It

does not affect non-radiological plant

effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant non-radiological