[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9216-9218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4999]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[IA 97-011]
In the Matter of Krishna Kumar; Order Prohibiting Involvement in
NRC-Licensed Activities; (Effective Immediately)
I
Krishna Kumar (Mr. Kumar) was President of Power Inspection, Inc.
(PI or Licensee). PI is the holder of Byproduct License No. 37-21428-01
(License) issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or
Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 34. The License authorizes
the Licensee to use iridium-192 and cobalt-60 sealed sources for the
performance of industrial radiography at its facility in Wexford,
Pennsylvania, as well as at temporary job sites. The License was most
recently renewed on January 31, 1989, and expired on January 31, 1994.
In addition, the Licensee submitted a request, dated December 30, 1993,
that the license be terminated. Action on that request has been held in
abeyance pending further NRC review.
In addition, PI acted as a vendor supplying services to nuclear
power plants, including the performance of nondestructive testing
services, such as eddy current testing. Such services were provided to
the Perry and Cooper nuclear power plants in 1993.
II
On December 2 and 3, 1993, the NRC performed an inspection at the
Licensee's Wexford facility of activities conducted under the License.
During the inspection, the NRC found numerous violations of NRC
requirements. The violations included: the failure of the Radiation
Safety Officer (RSO) named on the License to perform required duties;
the failure to conduct quarterly audits of all radiographers; the
failure to provide the required annual refresher training to the
radiographers; the failure to perform, at the required frequency, the
required inspection and maintenance on the exposure device (camera)
containing an iridium-192 source; the failure to perform leak tests of
the sealed sources at the required frequency; the failure to promptly
collect and submit film badges for processing; and the failure to
maintain radiography utilization logs.
Furthermore, the NRC found during the December 1993 inspection that
the utilization logs for the iridium-192 source, covering the period of
July through November 1993, as well as the utilization logs for the
cobalt-60 source, covering the period of July through October 1993,
were also unavailable for inspection at the time of the NRC inspection
on December 2, 1993.
On December 2, 1993, an NRC investigation was also initiated by the
NRC Office of Investigations (OI). During its investigation, OI
concluded that:
a. With respect to the vendor-related activities: (1) False Eddy
Current Testing (ET) qualification certifications were deliberately
generated by PI for at least three employees who performed ET
examinations at Perry and Cooper nuclear power plants during 1993 and
false ET qualification certification examination results and Personnel
Certification Summaries were deliberately generated for four employees,
and these falsifications were condoned or directed by the former
President (i.e., Mr. Kumar), the former Vice President/RSO, and the
former Quality Assurance Manager; and (2) three PI employees tested
positive for illegal drug use prior to working at Perry and Cooper in
1993, and the former President of PI was aware of this and did not
notify Perry and Cooper.
b. With respect to the materials License: (1) A minimum of 38
source utilization logs (for radiography performed) were falsely
created by PI employees to satisfy questions asked during an April 1993
NRC inspection regarding the lack of utilization logs, and this
activity was undertaken at the direction of the former President of PI;
(2) the former President of PI knowingly failed to notify the NRC of a
change of radiation safety officer in approximately August 1993; and
(3) responses in PI's letter, dated July 14, 1993, to the NRC, were
deliberately incomplete and inaccurate, and the former President and
individual identified on PI's NRC license as the RSO were responsible
for knowingly providing this false information to the NRC.
The inaccurate information provided to the NRC in the letter dated
July 14, 1993, was in response to a previous Notice of Violation issued
to the Licensee on June 16, 1993, for numerous violations identified
during an inspection conducted in April 1993. One of the violations
identified during the April 1993 inspection involved the failure to
maintain personnel monitoring records for the radiographers at the
facility. In the July response, signed by the former RSO (i.e., the
[[Page 9217]]
individual identified on PI's NRC license as the RSO), the Licensee
stated that records of such personnel monitoring had been misplaced at
the time of the April inspection. In fact, the NRC learned, during the
December 2 and 3, 1993 inspection, that Mr. Kumar knew that those
records alluded to in the licensee's July 1993 response did not even
exist at the time of the April inspection, since the film badges had
not been processed until after the April inspection was completed.
III
Based on the above, Mr. Kumar, former President of PI, a contractor
to licensees of the NRC, engaged in deliberate misconduct, a violation
of 10 CFR 30.10(a)(2), by deliberately submitting in March and in
October 1993 to the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEIC) and
Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), both licensees of the NRC, ET
qualification certification examination results and Personnel
Certification Summaries which were inaccurate. Mr. Kumar also violated
10 CFR 30.10(a)(2) by submitting on March 5, 1993, and on October 6,
1993, to each NPPD and CEIC, respectively, three inaccurate letters
stating that the trustworthiness and reliability of two individuals had
been established by an investigation, when Mr. Kumar knew that the
individuals had used illegal substances.
In addition, Mr. Kumar, an employee of PI, a licensee of the NRC,
engaged in deliberate misconduct, a violation of 10 CFR 30.10(a)(1),
which caused PI to be in violation of 10 CFR 30.9(a) and 10 CFR 34.27.
Specifically:
a. As a result of Mr. Kumar's direction to fabricate source
utilization logs, PI violated 10 CFR 30.9(a) and 10 CFR 34.27 by
maintaining a minimum of 38 inaccurate logs for radiography performed
by PI; and
b. As a result of Mr. Kumar's direction, PI violated 10 CFR 30.9(a)
by providing to the NRC a letter dated July 14, 1993, which contained
inaccurate information relating to whether corrective actions had been
taken in response to violations listed in an NRC Notice of Violation
dated June 16, 1993.
The NRC must be able to rely on its licensees and their employees
to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement to provide
information and maintain records that are complete and accurate in all
material respects. Mr. Kumar's actions in deliberately violating NRC
requirements and in causing the Licensee to be in violation of NRC
requirements have raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied
upon to comply with NRC requirements and to provide complete and
accurate information to both the NRC and NRC licensees. Moreover, given
Mr. Kumar's indictment on April 28, 1988,1 there is a pattern of
record falsification which raises further doubt about Mr. Kumar's
integrity and whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mr. Kumar and PI were indicted by the United States Attorney
in the Western District of Pennsylvania for fraud and false
statements in connection with testing that was to be performed at
the Duquesne Light Company, a licensee of the NRC. In this case, Mr.
Kumar admitted that he directed falsification of eddy current test
equipment calibration certifications to save PI time and money, and
subsequently provided the false certificates to Duquesne Light
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that
information provided to the NRC by Mr. Kumar, or records required to be
maintained by the Licensee, will be complete and accurate in all
material respects if Mr. Kumar were permitted to be involved in any
NRC-licensed activities. I also lack the requisite assurance that NRC-
licensed activities will be conducted safely or in accordance with NRC
requirements or that the health and safety of the public will be
protected if Mr. Kumar were involved in NRC-licensed activities. In
addition, I find that Mr. Kumar is either unable or unwilling to assure
that NRC requirements are being and will be followed.
Therefore, I find that the public health, safety, and interest
require that Mr. Kumar be prohibited from involvement in NRC-licensed
activities for ten years from the date of this Order, and if he is
currently engaged in NRC-licensed activities with another NRC licensee,
he must immediately cease such activities, and inform the NRC of the
name, address and telephone number of the employer. In addition, for a
period of five years commencing after the ten-year period of
prohibition, Mr. Kumar must notify the NRC of his employment or
involvement in NRC-licensed activities to ensure that the NRC can
monitor the status of Mr. Kumar's compliance with the Commission's
requirements and his understanding of his commitment to compliance.
Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of
the misconduct described above is such that the public health, safety,
and interest require that this Order be immediately effective.
IV
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 57, 62, 81, 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, 30.10, 50.5, and 150.20,
It is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that:
A. Mr. Krishna Kumar is prohibited for ten years from the date of
this Order from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities. For
purposes of this Order, licensed activities include the licensed
activities of: (1) an NRC licensee; (2) an Agreement State licensee
conducting licensed activities in NRC jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR
150.20; and (3) an Agreement State licensee involved in the
distribution of products that are subject to NRC jurisdiction. In
addition, if Mr. Kumar is currently engaged in NRC-licensed activities
with another NRC licensee, he must immediately cease such activities,
and inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the
employer.
B. For a period of five years, after the above ten-year period of
prohibition has expired, Mr. Kumar shall, within 20 days of his
acceptance of each employment offer involving NRC-licensed 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, 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 such notification, Mr. Kumar shall include a
statement of his commitment to compliance with regulatory requirements
and the basis as to why the Commission should have confidence that he
will now comply with applicable NRC requirements.
The Director, Office of Enforcement (OE), may, in writing, relax or
rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Kumar of
good cause.
V
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. Kumar 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
[[Page 9218]]
Order, and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr.
Kumar 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 Mr. Kumar
if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Mr. Kumar.
If a person other than Mr. Kumar 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 Mr. Kumar 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. Kumar or any other person
adversely affected by this Order, 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 18th day of February 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Edward L. Jordan,
Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Effectiveness, Program
Oversight, Investigations and Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 97-4999 Filed 2-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
