[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 156 (Wednesday, August 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43359-43360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21361]



[[Page 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 NRC-licensed 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

[[Page 43360]]

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