Special Testing Laboratories, Inc., P.O. Box 200, Bethel, Connecticut 06801-0200; Order Suspending License (Effective Immediately)

[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 199-200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34793]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 030-34318, License No. 06-30361-01, EA 98-521]


Special Testing Laboratories, Inc., P.O. Box 200, Bethel, 
Connecticut 06801-0200; Order Suspending License (Effective 
Immediately)

I

    Special Testing Laboratories, Inc. (Special Testing or Licensee) is 
the holder of Byproduct Nuclear Material License No. 06-30361-01 issued 
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 
CFR Part 30. The license authorizes possession and use of Troxler 
Electronics Laboratories, Campbell Pacific Nuclear, Humbolt Scientific, 
Seamen Nuclear, or Soiltest nuclear gauges. Mr. Richard Speciale (Mr. 
Speciale) is the President and Radiation Safety Officer of Special 
Testing Laboratories. The license was issued on August 6, 1997, and is 
due to expire on August 31, 2007.
    License No. 06-19720-01 authorizing possession and use of portable 
nuclear density gauges was previously issued to Testwell Craig 
Laboratories of Connecticut, Inc. (Testwell Craig), but was suspended 
on July 1, 1996, due to non-payment of fees. Mr. Speciale was also the 
President of Testwell Craig.

II

    On October 14, 15, and 16, 1998, and November 9-10, 1998, an NRC 
Region I inspector, accompanied by an investigator from the NRC Office 
of Investigations, conducted an inspection at the Licensee's facility 
in Bethel, Connecticut. During the inspection, the NRC determined that: 
(1) portable gauges containing NRC-licensed material were routinely 
used by some Licensee employees who had not received the required 
training; (2) some Licensee employees were using the gauges without 
being provided the required personnel dosimeters; and (3) leak tests of 
the gauges were not being performed at the required frequency.
    During the October inspection, Mr. Speciale was interviewed by the 
inspector and investigator. In that interview, Mr. Speciale, when 
questioned concerning the scope of the Licensee's program, informed the 
NRC that the Licensee possessed four Troxler portable gauges that were 
used by three or four authorized users, including himself. He also 
stated that he did not believe any of his field technicians were 
operating gauges without training.
    The NRC inspector and investigator returned to the facility on 
November 9-10, 1998, to complete the investigation, at which time the 
NRC was provided records indicating that nine individuals had received 
manufacturer's training on October 29, 1998, which was subsequent to 
the NRC's October 1998 visit. Mr. Speciale was questioned as to why 
nine individuals had received such training when he had previously 
stated that gauges were used by three or four users. Although Mr. 
Speciale initially maintained that only three individuals were using 
four gauges, he subsequently stated, and available records showed, that 
Speciale Testing possessed 13 gauges, and these gauges were used by as 
many as 14 individuals. Also, during the November inspection, seven 
gauge users stated that they used portable gauges without formal 
training for periods ranging from several weeks to four years prior to 
October 29, 1998. In addition, the NRC learned, based on discussions 
with Mr. Speciale, that there were periods when gauge users were not 
provided personnel dosimeters. Further, five gauge users stated that 
they operated portable gauges without wearing ``film badges'' for 
periods ranging from one to several months prior to October 1998. When 
questioned as to why individuals were using gauges without training or 
personnel dosimeters, Mr. Speciale indicated that the required training 
and dosimeters were not previously provided due to financial 
considerations, even though he continued to direct the individuals to 
use the gauges.
    Based on this November review by the NRC, Mr. Speciale, during the 
October 1998 communications with the NRC regarding the review of gauges 
being used, the number of users, and the training of those users, 
provided information to the NRC that he knew at the time was not 
complete and accurate in all material respects.
    Furthermore, during a subsequent interview with the OI investigator 
on November 19, 1998, Mr. Speciale also admitted that he ``never 
stopped using nuclear gauges'' after the Testwell Craig license was 
suspended for non-payment of fees and before the Special Testing 
license was issued. He stated that he failed to do so because Testwell 
Craig had ``job commitments to finish.''

[[Page 200]]

III

    The NRC investigation is continuing. However, in light of the facts 
set forth in Section II, the NRC finds that the Licensee has 
deliberately violated NRC requirements by: (1) directing untrained 
individuals to use gauges, contrary to License Condition II.A; (2) not 
providing these individuals with the necessary dosimetry while they 
were using the gauges, contrary to License Condition 19; (3) making 
false statements to the NRC, contrary to 10 CFR 30.9. Furthermore, the 
facts show that Mr. Speciale used gauges between July 1, 1996 and 
August 6, 1997, even though Testwell Craig's license had been suspended 
for nonpayment of fees and Special Testing's license had not yet been 
issued, contrary to 10 CFR 30.3 and the Order Suspending License issued 
to Testwell Craig.
    Deliberately violating NRC requirements is significant because the 
NRC must be able to rely on the integrity of Licensee employees to 
comply with NRC requirements. Moreover, providing false information to 
the NRC is of significant regulatory concern because the Commission 
must be able to rely on its licensees to provide complete and accurate 
information. Directing untrained individuals to conduct NRC-licensed 
activities and not providing dosimetry is also of significant 
regulatory concern because misuse of gauges (which contain NRC-licensed 
material) could result in unnecessary radiation exposures to workers or 
members of the public. Given the above, it appears that the Licensee is 
either unwilling or unable to comply with the Commission's 
requirements.
    Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that the 
Licensee's current operations can be conducted under License No. 06-
30361-01 in compliance with the Commission's requirements, and that the 
health and safety of the public, including the Licensee's employees, 
will be protected. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest 
require that License No. 06-30361-01 be suspended, with the exception 
of certain requirements enumerated in Section IV below, pending 
completion of the NRC investigation and further Order by the NRC. 
Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of 
the 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 Part 30, it is hereby ordered, 
effective immediately, that:
    A. Except as provided below, the authority to perform NRC-licensed 
activities under License No. 06-30361-01 is hereby suspended pending 
completion of the NRC investigation and further Order by the NRC.
    B. All NRC licensed material in the Licensee's possession shall be 
placed in locked storage at 21 Henry Street, Bethel, Connecticut and 
shall not be used.
    C. The Licensee shall not receive any NRC licensed material while 
this order is in effect.
    D. All records related to licensed activities shall be maintained 
in their original form and shall not be removed or altered in any way.
    E. Within 2 days of the date of the Order, all Licensee employees 
shall be informed of this Order.
    F. Within 7 days of the date of the Order, the NRC shall be 
provided a list of all clients for whom the Licensee has performed 
activities that involve use of the gauges within the past 12 months.
    G. Within 24 hours of receipt of this Order, a copy of this Order 
shall be posted at the facility, pursuant to 10 CFR 19.11(a)(4).
    The Regional Administrator, Region I, 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, the Licensee 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. 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 set forth the matters of fact and law on 
which the Licensee 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 Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff, 
Washington, D.C. 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, 
Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
D.C. 20555, to the Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement at 
the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region I, 475 
Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406, and to the 
Licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the 
Licensee. If a person other than the Licensee requests a hearing, that 
person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his 
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 the Licensee 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), the Licensee, 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, the provisions specified 
in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order 
without further order or proceedings. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR 
HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDER.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of December 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Malcolm R. Knapp,
Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Effectiveness.
[FR Doc. 98-34793 Filed 12-31-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P