25240 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 88 /Thursday, May 7, 1998 / Notices

employment offer involving NRClicensed activities or his becoming

involved in NRC-licensed activities, as

defined in Paragraph IV.A 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 first

notification, Mr. Johnson shall include a

statement of his commitment to

compliance with regulatory

requirements and the basis why the

Commission should have confidence

that he will comply with applicable

NRC requirements.

The Director, OE, may, in writing,

relax or rescind any of the above

conditions upon demonstration by Mr.

Johnson of good cause.

V

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr.

Johnson 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. Johnson 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. Johnson

if the answer or hearing request is by a

person other than Mr. Johnson. If a

person other than Mr. Johnson 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.

Johnson 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.

Johnson 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 28th day

of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James Lieberman,

Director, Office of Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 98–12182 Filed 5–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[IA 98–001]

Mr. Albert M. Nardslico, Jr.; Order

Prohibiting Involvement in NRCLicensed Activities (Effective

Immediately)

I

Mr. Albert M. Nardslico (Mr.

Nardslico) was formerly employed as a

contractor employee at the Niagara

Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC)

Nine Mile Point nuclear facility as a

computer programmer. NMPC holds

Facility License Nos. DPR–63 and NPF–

69 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC or Commission)

pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50. These

licenses authorize NMPC to operate the

Nine Mile Point facilities, Units 1 and

2, in accordance with the conditions

specified therein.

II

In May 1996, NMPC initiated an

investigation into whether Mr.

Nardslico and others were involved in

the alteration of a computer code used

to select individuals for random drug

and alcohol testing. Based on the

evidence developed during the NMPC

investigation, as well as a subsequent

review by the NRC Office of

Investigations (OI), OI concluded that

Mr. Nardslico and another contractor

computer programmer intentionally

altered the fitness-for-duty (FFD)

computer program to ensure that certain

individuals (including themselves)

would be excluded from random FFD

screening. Specifically, a patch had

been inserted into the computer

program to ensure certain individuals

would not be selected. Moreover, the

two individuals planned and executed a

scheme (and a number of precautions)

to elude detection and prevent tracing.

These actions caused NMPC to violate

10 CFR 26.24, which requires that

individuals be tested for drugs and

alcohol in a statistically random and

unpredictable manner. As a result of

this violation, Mr. Nardslico, the other

contractor employee involved in

planning the scheme, and others, were

prevented from being selected for

random FFD testing. In addition, during

the time in which his name was

excluded from random selection, Mr.

Nardslico had access to the site

protected area, which was also at a time

when Mr. Nardslico may have been

using marijuana offsite. (Mr. Nardslico

admitted, during the predecisional

enforcement conference in the NRC

Region I office on February 13, 1998,

and during a June 21, 1996 interview

with NMPC investigators, that he had

used marijuana while employed at Nine

Mile Point. While he did not recall the

periods of such use, he was unable to

confirm that he did not use marijuana

while his name had been excluded from

the FFD testing pool.)

During his interviews with NMPC, as

well as during the predecisional

enforcement conference with the NRC,

Mr. Nardslico denied that he was

involved in the alteration of the

computer program. Notwithstanding Mr.

Nardslico’s denials, another contractor

computer programmer, who had

admitted his involvement in the

alteration, implicated Mr. Nardslico as

also being involved in the alteration.

Specifically, in transcribed interviews

under oath, the other contract computer

programmer indicated: (1) That the

corruption of the FFD computer code

was a joint effort of him and Mr.

Nardslico; (2) that he and Mr. Nardslico
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 88 /Thursday, May 7, 1998 / Notices 25241

in the July/August 1993 timeframe

‘‘fleshed out’’ a way to make changes to

the fitness for duty program through the

use of the ‘‘C’’ program; (3) that Mr.

Nardslico had suggested adding

additional persons’’ names to the

scheme to ‘‘disperse’’ suspicion; and (4)

that he had observed Mr. Nardslico use

marijuana on at least one occasion

subsequent to the September 1993 code

corruption. In addition, Mr. Nardslico

admitted that he was aware of the

computer code alteration, was also

aware that his name was one of those

eliminated from the FFD testing pool as

part of the alteration, and was further

aware that he was subject to FFD

random testing because of his having

access to the Nine Mile Point site.

Nonetheless, Mr. Nardslico did not take

appropriate action to remedy the

situation or ensure that his management

was made aware that the computer code

had been altered, as he admitted during

the predecisional enforcement

conference.

Finally, some of Mr Nardslico’s

statements on this matter lack

credibility. For example, in his first

interview with NMPC on May 20, 1996,

he denied any involvement in, or

knowledge of, the alteration of the FFD

computer code; however, in a

subsequent interview with NMPC on

June 21, 1996, as well as during the

predecisional enforcement conference

with the NRC on February 13, 1998, Mr.

Nardslico admitted his knowledge of the

alteration of the computer code. Also,

although Mr. Nardslico indicated that

he did inform a licensee Purchasing

Supervisor of the alteration shortly after

he stated he became aware of it, that

individual denied Mr. Nardslico’s

assertion, and Mr. Nardslico admitted

that he did not raise this issue with

anyone else in the NMPC organization.

In addition, although Mr. Nardslico

indicated that he was not familiar with

the ‘‘C’’ programming language, which

was the language used for the FFD

computer code, his resume listed the

‘‘C’’ language as one of the languages

with which he was familiar, and others

testified that Mr. Nardslico was familiar

with this language. Further, Mr.

Nardslico, during his interviews with

NMPC, expressed a willingness to enter

into business relationships with the

other individual who was involved with

the alteration of the computer code,

while at the same time indicating that

he was disturbed by the other

individual’s actions and lack of

judgment.

III

Based on the above, the NRC has

concluded that Mr. Nardslico engaged

in deliberate misconduct. Mr.

Nardslico’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. Nardslico caused the Licensee to be

in violation of 10 CFR 26.24.

Specifically,

10 CFR Part 26.24, requires, in part, that as

a means to deter and detect substance abuse,

the licensee shall implement a testing

program that includes unannounced drug

and alcohol testing that is to be imposed in

a statistically random and unpredictable

manner so that all persons in the population

subject to the testing shall have an equal

probability of being selected and tested.

Contrary to the above, at some time prior

to May 1996, the actions of Mr. Nardslico and

another contractor computer programmer

resulted in the licensee maintaining an

altered FFD computer program used to

ensure that individuals were tested for drugs

and alcohol in a statistically random and

unpredictable manner, resulting in certain

individuals (including Mr. Nardslico) being

excluded from random FFD screening. As a

result, for a indeterminate period prior to

May 1996, individuals were selected for

testing in a manner that was not statistically

random and unpredictable.

The NRC must be able to rely on the

Licensee, its contractors, and the

Licensee and contractor employees to

comply with NRC requirements. Mr.

Nardslico’s involvement in the altering

of the FFD program, including his

collusion with another contractor

employee to hide that alteration,

constitute a deliberate violation of

Commission regulations, and by doing

so, raises serious doubt as to whether he

can be relied upon to comply with NRC

requirements, 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. Nardslico were permitted at this

time to be involved in NRC-licensed

activities. Therefore, the public health,

safety and interest require that Mr.

Nardslico be prohibited from any

involvement in NRC-licensed activities

for a period of five years from the date

of this Order. Additionally, for a period

of three years after the five year period

of prohibition has expired, Mr.

Nardslico is required to notify the NRC

of his acceptance of each employment

offer involving NRC-licensed activities.

Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202,

I find that the significance of Mr.

Nardslico’s conduct described above is

such that the public health, safety and

interest require that this Order be

immediately effective.

Accordingly, pursuant to Sections

103, 161b, 161i, 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:

A. Albert M. Nardslico Jr. is

prohibited from engaging in activities

licensed by the NRC for five 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. For a period of three years after the

five year period of prohibition has

expired, Mr. Nardslico 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 IV.A 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 first

notification, Mr. Nardslico shall include

a statement of his commitment to

compliance with regulatory

requirements and the basis why the

Commission should have confidence

that he will comply with applicable

NRC requirements.

The Director, OE, may, in writing,

relax or rescind any of the above

conditions upon demonstration by Mr.

Nardslico of good cause.

V

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr.

Nardslico 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
25242 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 88 /Thursday, May 7, 1998 / Notices

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. Nardslico 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.

Nardslico if the answer or hearing

request is by a person other than Mr.

Nardslico. If a person other than Mr.

Nardslico 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.

Nardslico 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.

Nardslico 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 28th day

of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James Lieberman,

Director, Office of Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 98–12181 Filed 5–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–282, 50–306]

Northern States Power Company

(Prairie Island Nuclear Generating

Plant, Units 1 and 2); Exemption

I

Northern States Power Company

(NSP, the licensee) is the holder of

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–42

and DPR–60, which authorize operation

of Prairie Island Nuclear Generating

Plant, Units 1 and 2, respectively. The

licenses provide, among other things,

that the licensee is subject to all rules,

regulations, and orders of the

Commission now or hereafter in effect.

The facility consists of two

pressurized-water reactors located at the

licensee’s site in Goodhue County,

Minnesota.

II

In its letter dated March 6, 1998, the

licensee requested an exemption from

specific requirements of Title 10 of the

Code of Federal Regulations Part 50,

Section 60, and Appendix G.

Specifically, NSP proposed to use

American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (ASME) Code Case N–514 to

permit setting the pressure setpoint of

each unit’s overpressure protection

system (OPPS) so that the pressuretemperature (P-T) limits required by 10

CFR Part 50, Appendix G, could be

exceeded by 10 percent during a low

temperature pressure transient.

The NRC has established

requirements in 10 CFR Part 50 to

protect the integrity of the reactor

coolant system pressure boundary. As a

part of these, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix

G, requires that P-T limits be established

for reactor pressure vessels during

normal operation, including anticipated

operational occurrences and vessel

hydrostatic testing and as stated in

Appendix G, ‘‘The appropriate

requirements on * * * the pressuretemperature limits * * * must be met

for all conditions.’’ In order to ensure

these P-T limit curves are not exceeded

and provide pressure relief during low

temperature overpressurization events,

pressurized-water reactor licensees have

installed protection systems (OPPS) as

part of the reactor coolant system

pressure boundary. NSP is required as

part of the Prairie Island Units 1 and 2

Technical Specifications to develop,

update, and submit reactor vessel P–T

limits and OPPS setpoints for NRC

review and approval.

By letter dated March 6, 1998, NSP

submitted an exemption request to

enable the use of ASME Code Case N–

514 as an alternative method for

determining the OPPS pressure setpoint.

NSP determined that the exemption

request from the provisions of 10 CFR

50.60 and Appendix G was necessary

since these regulations require, as noted

above, that the reactor vessel conditions

not exceed the P-T limits established by

Appendix G. In referring to 10 CFR

50.12 on specific exemptions, NSP cited

special circumstances as stated in 10

CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) on achieving the

underlying purpose of the regulations as

its basis for requesting this exemption.

III

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, 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 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix G, is to establish

fracture toughness requirements for the

RCS pressure boundary to provide

adequate margins of safety during any

condition of normal operation. NSP

stated that the OPPS provides a physical

means of protecting the vessel by not

exceeding the limits. NSP proposed that

establishing the OPPS pressure setpoint

per the N–514 provisions such that the

vessel pressure would not exceed 110

percent of the P-T limit allowables

would still provide an acceptable level

of safety and mitigate the potential for

an inadvertent actuation of the OPPS.

The finding of an ‘‘acceptable level of

safety’’ while using N–514 was made

based on the conservatisms that have

been explicitly incorporated into the

procedure for developing the P-T limit

curves. This procedure, referenced from

Appendix G to Section XI of the ASME

Code, includes the following

conservatisms: (1) A safety factor of 2 on

the pressure stresses, (2) a margin factor

applied to the determination of RTNDT