Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Notices 69053

1974, the level of knowledge about these

topics has been greatly expanded. The

NRC staff concurs that this increased

knowledge permits relaxation of the

ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G,

requirements by application of ASME

Code Case N–640, while maintaining,

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the

underlying purpose of the ASME Code

and the NRC regulations to ensure an

acceptable margin of safety.

III.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the

Commission may, upon application by

any interested person or upon its own

initiative, grant exemptions from the

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when (1)

the exemptions are authorized by law,

will not present an undue risk to public

health or safety, and are consistent with

the common defense and security; and

(2) when special circumstances are

present. Special circumstances are

present whenever, according to 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii), ‘‘Application of the

regulation in the particular

circumstances would not serve the

underlying purpose of the rule or is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule. . . .’’ The underlying purpose of the

requirement to use the K1a curve to

develop P–T limits is to provide an

adequate margin of safety against brittle

failure of the RPV. Code Case N–640

permits application of the lower bound

static initiation fracture toughness value

(K1a) equation as the basis for

establishing the curves in lieu of using

the lower bound crack arrest fracture

toughness value equation (i.e., the K1a

equation, which is based on conditions

needed to arrest a dynamically

propagating crack, and which is the

method invoked by Appendix G to

Section XI of the ASME Code). Use of

the K1c equation in determining the

lower bound fracture toughness in the

development of the P–T operating limits

curve is more technically correct than

the use of the K1a equation since the rate

of loading during a heatup or cooldown

is slow and is more representative of a

static condition than a dynamic

condition. The K1c equation

appropriately implements the use of the

static initiation fracture toughness

behavior to evaluate the controlled

heatup and cooldown process of a

reactor vessel. Therefore, use of the K1c

curve in developing P–T limits provides

an adequate margin against brittle

failure of the RPV. As a result, the

application of the regulation in the

particular circumstances is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule. Therefore, the staff concludes that

requesting an exemption under the

special circumstances of 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii) is appropriate and that the

methodology of Code Case N–640 may

be used to revise the P–T limits for

LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2.

IV.

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR

50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by

law, will not endanger life or property

or common defense and security, and is,

otherwise, in the public interest, and

that special circumstances are present.

Therefore, the Commission hereby

grants Commonwealth Edison Company

an exemption from the requirements of

10 CFR 50.60(a) and 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix G, for LaSalle County Station,

Units 1 and 2.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, an

environmental assessment and finding

of no significant impact has been

prepared and published in the Federal

Register (65 FR 60986). Accordingly,

based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission has

determined that the granting of this

exemption will not result in any

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment.

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day

of November 2000.

John A. Zwolinski,

Director, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–29249 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[IA–00–039]

In the Matter of Mr. David D. Klepadlo;

Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRCLicensed Activities (Effective

Immediately)

I

Mr. David D. Klepadlo (Mr. Klepadlo)

is currently the President of David D.

Klepadlo & Associates (K & A). K & A

was the holder of Materials License No.

37–30236–01 issued by the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) on

September 11, 1995, pursuant to 10 CFR

Part 30, until such License was revoked

on August 9, 1999, for non-payment of

fees. The license authorized possession

and use of two Troxler Electronics

Laboratories (Troxler) portable nuclear

density gauges (gauges).

II

On July 9, 1999, an Order Revoking

License was issued to K & A for nonpayment of fees, and on August 9, 1999,

the license was revoked. Following the

revocation of K & A’s license, Mr. Oberg,

an NRC inspector, contacted Mr.

Klepadlo by telephone on August 12,

1999. Mr. Klepadlo told Mr. Oberg that

he no longer possessed the two Troxler

gauges, having returned them to Troxler,

and further stated that he would look for

the documentation showing the gauges

were returned to Troxler and would

contact the NRC. In a letter to the NRC

dated September 3, 1999, Mr. Klepadlo

stated, ‘‘These test gauges were returned

to Troxler in North Carolina in the Fall

of 1997 and have not been in our

possession since that time.’’ However,

Mr. Klepadlo did not provide any

documentation supporting that the

gauges were returned to Troxler.

On October 25, 1999, the NRC sent a

letter to K & A indicating that the NRC

had not yet received any documentation

from K & A that the gauges had been

returned to Troxler, and that Troxler

had no record of receipt of the gauges.

This letter also requested that K & A

verify the final disposition of the

gauges. Since repeated attempts by the

NRC failed to ascertain the disposition

of the gauges, an NRC inspection was

conducted at the K & A facility on

February 22, 2000, during which both

Troxler gauges were found to be stored

at the facility.

III

The NRC requirement of 10 CFR

30.10(a)(1) prohibits deliberate

misconduct that causes a licensee to be

in violation of any license issued by the

NRC. Also, the NRC requirement of 10

CFR 30.10(a)(2) prohibits an individual

from deliberately submitting to the NRC

information that the individual knows

to be incomplete or inaccurate in some

respect material to the NRC.

The NRC has concluded that Mr.

Klepadlo violated 10 CFR 30.10(a)(1)

and (a)(2). Specifically, after the NRC

revoked K & A’s Materials License No.

37–30236–01 on August 9, 1999, Mr.

Klepadlo violated 10 CFR 30.10(a)(1)

and (a)(2) when he knowingly and

deliberately provided false information

to the NRC, which caused K & A to

violate 10 CFR 30.9. The violation

occurred when Mr. Klepadlo: (1) told an

NRC inspector during a telephone

conversation on August 12, 1999, that

he no longer possessed the gauges,

having returned them to Troxler; and (2)

signed and submitted a letter to the NRC

on September 3, 1999, that the gauges

were returned to Troxler in North

69054 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Notices

Carolina in the Fall of 1997 and have

not been in K & A’s possession since

that time. This was false information

because the gauges were at the K & A

facility at the time of Mr. Klepadlo’s

August 12, 1999, statement and

September 3, 1999, letter.

Before the NRC made this final

enforcement decision, a letter from the

NRC dated September 18, 2000, afforded

Mr. Klepadlo an opportunity to request

a predecisional enforcement conference

or respond in writing to the apparent

violation. Mr. Klepadlo responded to

the apparent violation in a letter dated

October 17, 2000, stating that the NRC’s

conclusion that he made false

statements to the NRC concerning the

location of the gauges was incorrect. Mr.

Klepadlo stated that as President of K &

A, he cannot personally know the

location of every piece of equipment

owned by the company, and therefore,

was not aware of the specific location of

the gauges at each and every moment.

Notwithstanding Mr. Klepadlo’s

contention, the NRC maintains that the

violation was deliberate. In making this

conclusion, the NRC considered that: (1)

the Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) at

K & A, who cared for the gauges, was

laid off in January 1998; (2) Mr.

Klepadlo, during a transcribed interview

with an NRC investigator on June 13,

2000, stated under oath, that once the

RSO had left employment at K & A, Mr.

Klepadlo’s ‘‘only objective in life’’ was

to get rid of the gauges, and that’s what

he tried to do, spending a lot of time

contacting everyone he knew; and (3)

the gauges were found at the K & A

facility during an NRC inspection on

February 22, 2000. Mr. Klepadlo, having

been unsuccessful in his attempts to get

rid of the gauges and having stated that

his only objective after the RSO left was

to get rid of the gauges, must have

known the gauges were at K & A at the

time of his August 12, 1999, oral

statement to Mr. Oberg, and in his

September 3, 1999, letter to the NRC.

Therefore, the NRC concludes that his

false statements were also deliberate.

IV

The NRC must be able to rely on the

integrity of Licensee employees to

comply with NRC requirements,

including the requirement to provide

information that is complete and

accurate in all material respects. Mr.

Klepadlo’s actions in deliberately

violating Commission regulations, and

deliberately and knowingly providing

false information to the NRC calls into

question his trustworthiness and

reliability, and raises serious questions

as to whether he can be relied upon to

comply with NRC requirements and to

provide complete and accurate

information to the NRC.

Consequently, I lack the requisite

reasonable assurance that any future

licensed activities could be conducted

in compliance with the Commission’s

requirements, and that the health and

safety of the public would be protected,

if Mr. Klepadlo were permitted to be

involved in NRC-licensed activities.

Therefore, the NRC has determined that

the public health, safety and interest

require that David D. Klepadlo be

prohibited from any involvement in

NRC-licensed activities for a period of

three years from the date of this Order.

Additionally, Mr. Klepadlo 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 and

willfulness of Mr. Klepadlo’s conduct

described above is such that the public

health, safety and interest require that

this Order be immediately effective.

V

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, 10 CFR part 30, and 10 CFR

150.20, It Is Hereby Ordered, Effective

Immediately, That:

(1) David D. Klepadlo is prohibited

from engaging in NRC-licensed

activities for three 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) If Mr. Klepadlo is currently

involved with another licensee in NRClicensed activities, he must immediately

cease those 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.

(3) For a period of one year after the

three year period of prohibition has

expired, Mr. Klepadlo shall, within 20

days of his acceptance of each

employment offer involving NRClicensed activities or his becoming

involved in NRC-licensed activities, as

defined in Paragraph V.1 above, provide

notice to the Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, 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 the first

notification Mr. Klepadlo shall include

a statement of his commitment to

comply 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. Klepadlo of good

cause.

VI

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202,

David D. Klepadlo 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 Mr. Klepadlo 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:

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

Materials Litigation and Enforcement at

the same address, to the Regional

Administrator, NRC Region I, 475

Allendale Road, King of Prussia,

Pennsylvania 19406, and to Mr.

Klepadlo if the answer or hearing

request is by a person other than Mr.

Klepadlo. If a person other than Mr.

Klepadlo 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.

Klepadlo 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Notices 69055

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Mr.

Klepadlo 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 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 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 immediate effectiveness of

this order.

Dated this 3rd day of November 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Carl J. Paperiello,

Deputy Executive Director for Materials,

Research and State Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–29248 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 70–784]

The Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards Environmental

Assessment, and Finding of No

Significant Impact Related to the

Approval of the Remediation

(Decommissioning) Plan for the

Formerly Licensed Union Carbide

Corporation Facility (UCC),

Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, License

Nos. SNM–720 and SNM–724

(Terminated)

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (hereafter referred to as

NRC staff) is considering approval of the

remediation (decommissioning) plan

(DP) for the formerly licensed Union

Carbide Corporation facility (UCC),

Lawrenceburg, Tennessee (UCAR,

1998). This DP was submitted by UCAR

Carbon Company, Inc. (UCAR) to NRC

on August 19, 1998. UCAR is obligated

to remediate the UCC site to meet the

release criteria established in the Action

Plan to Ensure Timely Remediation of

Sites Listed in the Site

Decommissioning Management Plan

(hereafter known as the SDMP Action

Plan) (NRC, 1992), and 10 CFR part 20

subpart E.

Introduction

On August 26, 1963, UCC was issued

Special Nuclear Materials License No.

SNM–724 (SNM–724), for testing

equipment and nuclear fuels

development. License No. SMB–720

(SNM–720), which authorized the

possession of source material, was also

held by the site. SNM–724 was

terminated on June 4, 1974, and the U.S.

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)

released the site for unrestricted use.

SMB–720 was superceded by the State

of Tennessee License No. S–5002–H8

and was terminated on August 28, 1975.

SNM–724 authorized possession of up

to 500 grams (g) of fully-enriched (<94

percent) uranium for testing of

equipment and processes in the

Lawrenceburg Fuel Development

Facility located at Highway 43 South,

Lawrenceburg, Tennessee. On May 22,

1964, the license was amended to

authorize possession of 150 kilograms

(kg) of U235 to make graphite-coated

uranium-thorium carbide particles and

graphite-matrix fuel elements. The

possession limit was increased to 475 kg

on June 12, 1964.

By letter dated February 4, 1974, the

UCC submitted ‘‘closeout’’ survey

information and requested that SNM–

724 be terminated and the facility be

released for unrestricted use. On April

5, 1974, Region II performed a closeout

inspection which was documented in

their Inspection Report 70–784/74–1.

Region II recommended that the license

be terminated, and the facility be

released for unrestricted use. By AEC

letter dated June 4, 1974, SNM–724 was

terminated and the UCAR facility

released for unrestricted use.

In 1991, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory (ORNL) was contracted by

NRC, to review and evaluate all nuclear

material licenses terminated by NRC or

its predecessor agencies, since inception

of material regulation in the late 1940s.

One of the objectives of this review was

to identify sites with potential for

residual contamination, based on

information in the license

documentation. NRC evaluated the

available survey data to determine if the

information was sufficient to conclude

that the site meets the existing

guidelines for unrestricted use.

Radiological assessments performed

at the UCAR facility and immediate

vicinity have identified the presence of

enriched and depleted uranium in soil

excess of current radiological release

criteria. Sampling identified soil/

sediments contamination in small areas

around the processing buildings.

Volumetric contaminations were

found to be above the release criteria in

four areas around Building 10: (1) Soil

surrounding the incinerator pad; (2)

sediment in the manholes and cooling

water tanks; (3) laundry sump tank; and

(4) the surface layer of concrete flooring.

A number of core samples as well as

near surface samples were taken near

the incinerator pad and the range for

total uranium concentration was 1.33 to

3,655 pCi/g. The estimated average

depth of the soil contamination is one

foot resulting in a contaminated soil

volume estimate of 500 cubic feet.

Volumetric contamination above the

release critieria was found in three areas

in and around Building 5: (1) Sink trap;

(2) concrete flooring; and (3) asphalt

outside exit.

There was no indication of

radioactive material above the release

criteria beyond the former restricted

area boundary in the ground water,

settling basins, or former sanitary sewer

system.

UCAR will be conducting remediation

activities without a license, because its

license was terminated in 1974.

However, remediation will be

performed in accordance with current

regulations and release limits (UCAR,

1998).

Planned Decommissioning Action

Decommissioning of the UCAR

facility shall comply with 10 CFR part

20 subpart E for unrestricted use (NRC

1997) criteria. The conduct of

decommissioning and decontamination

in compliance with these criteria

provides adequate protection of the

public health and safety and of the

environment. In implementing the

decommissioning plan, UCAR shall

reduce residual contamination in soil to

be below the NRC’s unrestricted release

criteria identified in 10 CFR part 20,

subpart E (NRC, July, 1997). Soils which

exceed the derived concentration

guideline level (DCGL) will be removed

and disposed of as low level radioactive

waste.

General exposure rate levels will be

reduced to levels below 5 microroentgen

per hour (microR/hr) above background,

measured at 1 meter (m) above the

surface.

UCAR is proposing to conduct a final

survey to demonstrate: (1) That uranium

and thorium contamination levels in the

soil are below the [25 millirem per year

(mRem/yr)] DCGL’s and (2) that

exposure rate measurements are less

than 5 microR/hr measured 1 meter

above the surface. UCAR has committed

to conducting the final survey in

accordance with NRC approved site

survey plan, as well as any applicable

regulatory requirements.