[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 175 (Friday, September 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55360-55365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22627]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 030-20836, NRC-2009-0119, License No. 25-21479-01, EA-10-
100]
In the Matter of Mattingly Testing Services, Inc. Molt, MT; Order
Revoking License (Effective Immediately)
I
Mattingly Testing Services, Inc., (Mattingly or licensee) is the
holder of Materials License 25-21479-01 issued by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 34,
last amended on May 28, 2010, to change the facility's permanent
storage location and to name a new radiation safety officer, and due to
expire on February 28, 2016. The license authorizes Mattingly to
possess and use byproduct material for industrial radiography
operations in NRC jurisdiction, and in
[[Page 55361]]
areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction within Agreement States. The
license currently authorizes storage at licensee facilities in Molt and
Billings, Montana. The license further authorizes the possession of
natural or depleted uranium, as solid metal, for shielding in
radiography equipment. On the same date this Order (EA-10-100) is
issued to Mattingly, the NRC is also issuing Mr. Mark Ficek, President
of Mattingly, an Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed
Activities (IA-10-028).
Currently, both Mattingly (EA-08-271) and its president (IA-08-028)
are subject to Confirmatory Orders issued on March 6, 2009, which
resulted from alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mediation sessions
conducted on February 5, 2009. Those Orders were made immediately
effective upon issuance. The ADR mediation session and resultant
Confirmatory Orders dispositioned nine violations, five of which were
willful, identified during an NRC inspection and an investigation by
the NRC's Office of Investigations. The 2008 investigation identified
several violations: (1) A failure to provide complete and accurate
information to the NRC; (2) a radiographer assistant performing
radiographic operations without a dosimeter; (3) a radiographer
assistant using a radiographic exposure device without supervision of a
radiographer; (4) failure to secure a radiographic exposure device with
a minimum of two independent physical controls; (5) failure to remove a
radiographic exposure device from service after it had sustained damage
to the locking mechanism; (6) failure to notify the NRC after discovery
of damage to a radiography device; (7) an individual acting as a
radiographer assistant without completing a practical examination on
use of the radiography equipment; (8) failure to ensure that all
personnel dosimeters were checked for proper response to radiation
every 12 months; and, (9) failure to have a functional alarm system to
allow the licensee to monitor, detect, assess, and respond to
unauthorized access to radioactive material when the radioactive
material is not under direct observation by Mattingly staff and stored
in a portable darkroom, as required by Increased Controls Order (EA-05-
090). The NRC also found that willfulness was involved in violations 1,
3, 5, 7, and 8, above.
The NRC offered ADR to Mattingly and its president in order to
disposition the violations listed above. As a result of ADR, the NRC
issued separate confirmatory orders to Mattingly and Mr. Ficek. The
Confirmatory Order (EA-08-271) to Mattingly required, among other
things, that Mattingly retain an expert consultant, to be approved by
the NRC, and that the consultant would take specific actions within
strict deadlines. The Confirmatory Order required the Mattingly expert
consultant to: (1) Evaluate the effectiveness of Mattingly's radiation
safety and compliance programs by commencing an assessment of
Mattingly's radiation safety program within 30 days of NRC's approval
of the consultant; by reviewing Mattingly's training program and
recommending improvements; by reviewing Mattingly's operating and
emergency procedures and recommending improvements; by providing a
report of the consultant's findings and recommended improvements to
both the licensee and NRC; by performing an annual audit of Mattingly's
radiation safety program through calendar year 2012; and by performing
semi-annual field audits of radiography performance at temporary
jobsites; and (2) provide training to the Mattingly staff who engage in
licensed activities, including: a review of radiation mishaps involving
radiography; a review of the consequences of and potential actions that
NRC may take against an individual for deliberate violations; a review
of NRC requirements and Mattingly's license conditions; a review of
Mattingly's operating and emergency procedures; lessons-learned from
the circumstances surrounding each of the violations identified by the
NRC in its December 15, 2008, letter; reporting requirements of 10 CFR
30.50 and 10 CFR 34.101; and, NRC's employee protection requirements in
10 CFR 30.7. The expert consultant was approved by the NRC on April 3,
2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090930661). As a result, the Order required
Mattingly to begin the radiation safety procedure assessment and
complete the radiation safety training for Mattingly staff by May 3,
2009. The Confirmatory Order (EA-08-271) also required Mattingly,
within 30 days of the date of the Order, to submit a license amendment
incorporating updated procedures in a number of areas. The deadline for
this requirement was April 5, 2009.
II
On June 30, 2009, the NRC inspected the Licensee's facility in
Molt, Montana, after the NRC, Region IV received a police report
stating that the County Sheriff's office had recovered, from a member
of the public, a radiographic exposure device Mattingly had lost. The
NRC-initiated investigations and inspections identified several
violations of regulatory requirements, four of which involved
deliberate misconduct by Mattingtly's president, including providing
false information to the NRC. Since the 2009 Confirmatory Orders, the
NRC has determined that Mattingly has violated several NRC regulations
and orders:
(1) Mattingly's president deliberately put Mattingly in violation
of Confirmatory Order (EA-08-271). Specifically, the Confirmatory Order
required Mattingly to select an independent consultant to review
Mattingly's radiation safety program and to conduct training for
Mattingly's staff. The NRC approved the independent consultant on April
3, 2009, which set May 3, 2009, as the date by which the consultant was
to commence the assessment of the Mattingly radiation safety program,
as well as complete the specified training for Mattingly staff.
Testimony provided by the independent consultant to the NRC
investigator on June 30, 2009, revealed that the consultant was not
aware of the May 3, 2009 deadline. The consultant indicated that the
president had directed him to complete his actions by the end of 2009,
but he did not at that time have a specific plan to do so, nor was he
aware of the deadlines for other actions assigned to the independent
consultant in the Confirmatory Order. Moreover, testimony provided by
the president and the consultant to the NRC investigator revealed that
the president did not give the consultant a copy of the Confirmatory
Order that described the required actions and respective deadlines. The
president knew the Confirmatory Order's requirements, but rather than
sharing the Confirmatory Order with the consultant or another Mattingly
official to ensure compliance, he withheld the information and allowed
the Confirmatory Order's deadlines to pass, putting Mattingly in
violation of the Confirmatory Order (EA-08-271). The NRC showed the
consultant the Confirmatory Order for the first time during the NRC
investigation. If the NRC had not interdicted at that time, then
implementation of required improvements to the Licensee's radiation
safety program and safety training programs would have been even
further delayed, if completed at all. The assessment of the Mattingly
radiation programs was not begun until May 30, 2009, and the initial
safety training of the Mattingly staff was not completed until July 19,
2009.
The NRC identified several additional examples of the licensee's
failure to adhere to the Order, including: (i) The consultant's report
and recommendations for program improvements were provided 65 days
[[Page 55362]]
after the consultant completed the required reviews, contrary to the
specified requirement of 30 days; (ii) the consultant failed to provide
a copy of his calendar year 2009 annual audit results to the NRC, as
specified; (iii) the consultant conducted the initial field audit of
radiography at temporary jobsites on August 29, 2009, almost 3 months
after the May 3, 2009 deadline; and, (iv) the licensee submitted an
amendment request on June 30, 2009 instead of May 3, 2009, as required.
(2) From May 13, 2006, through September 9, 2009, Mattingly, as a
result of its president's deliberate inaction, failed to establish and
maintain a prearranged plan with the local law enforcement agency to
respond to any attempt to gain unauthorized access to radioactive
materials, as required by Increased Controls Order (EA-05-090).
Specifically, Increased Controls Order, Attachment B, Section IC-2(b),
requires that the licensee shall have a prearranged plan with a local
law enforcement agency for assistance in response to an actual or
attempted theft, sabotage, or diversion of such radioactive material or
of the devices, which is consistent in scope and timing with a
realistic potential vulnerability of the sources containing such
radioactive material. During an NRC inspection of the Mattingly
facility in March 2007, the president informed the NRC inspector that
he had established a prearranged plan with the Laurel Police
Department, when in fact he had not established a prearranged plan with
the Laurel Police Department, and in any event, Mattingly's facility
was not located in the Laurel Police Department's jurisdiction. Upon
further investigation the NRC determined that Mattingly's facility was
in the Yellowstone County Sheriff's jurisdiction, and Mattingly had not
established a prearranged plan with the Yellowstone County Sheriff's
Office. The president's false statement to the NRC inspector--which
made clear that the president was aware of the requirement, but had not
implemented it--caused the NRC to find that the failure to meet the
Increased Controls Order, Appendix B, Section IC-2(b), was deliberate.
(3) On March 6, 2007, Mattingly's president deliberately provided
false information to an NRC inspector by stating that he had
established a prearranged plan with the local law enforcement agency in
accordance with Increased Controls Order (EA-05-090), violating 10 CFR
30.10(a)(2), and putting Mattingly in violation of 10 CFR 30.9,
``Completeness and Accuracy of Information.'' As described above, the
president stated to an NRC inspector that the prearranged plan had been
established with the Laurel Police Department in Laurel, Montana. The
NRC determined that neither the president nor any Mattingly official
had contacted the Laurel Police Department to establish a prearranged
response plan. The NRC also determined during its 2009 investigation
that the Laurel Police Department had no jurisdiction for the Mattingly
facility in Molt, Montana. Further, testimony by a representative of
the appropriate local law enforcement agency (Yellowstone County
Sheriff's Office) revealed that no prearranged plan had been
established with them, or had been sought by the president or any other
Mattingly officials. The president's false statement to the NRC
inspector was a significant contributor to the duration of the
Increased Controls Order violation since Mattingly did not implement
the local law enforcement plan until September 9, 2009, more than 2
years after the NRC inspector initially questioned the Licensee's
actions to establish the prearranged plan, and only after an NRC
investigation revealed the violation.
(4) On October 22, 2009, while under oath, Mattingly's president
deliberately provided false testimony to the NRC investigator, again
violating 10 CFR 30.10(a)(2) and putting Mattingly in violation of 10
CFR 30.9, ``Completeness and Accuracy of Information.'' The president
claimed that two witnesses could confirm that he had conversations
during a lunch engagement with the Laurel Police Chief regarding the
required local law enforcement agency prearranged plan. Testimony
provided by witnesses to the lunch engagement, including the Laurel
Police Chief, refuted the president's statements. Further, in addition
to testimony that the Laurel Police Chief recalled no discussion of a
response plan, and that he knew that the Laurel Police Department had
no jurisdiction to respond to the Mattingly facility, the Laurel Police
Chief offered evidence that the lunch engagement at issue took place on
July 13, 2003, some 28 months before the Increased Controls Order was
issued to Mattingly. Therefore, the NRC found that the president
deliberately provided false testimony while under oath when he
attempted to cite a lunch engagement with the Laurel Police Chief in
2003 to demonstrate to the NRC that Mattingly was in compliance with
the Increased Controls Order.
(5) On July 4, 16, and August 29-30, 2009, Mattingly failed to
implement the Increased Controls Order (EA-05-090), Appendix B, Section
IC-2(c), requirement to have a dependable means to transmit information
between and among, the various components used to detect and identify
an unauthorized intrusion, to inform the assessor, and to summon the
appropriate responder at all times. Specifically, on the dates noted, a
radiographic exposure device was left in one of Mattingly's trucks at a
radiographer's residence, while the radiographer left the premises in
another vehicle. Mattingly directed the radiographer to drive the truck
between the temporary job site and his residence and depended on the
radiographer to respond appropriately to any intrusion. While he was
away from his residence, however, there was no dependable means in
place to comply with Increased Controls Order (EA-05-090), Appendix B,
Section IC-2(c).
While this violation involved different circumstances, the
inability to assess and respond to unauthorized access to the
radioactive materials while stored in the transport vehicle, is similar
to one of the violations resolved through the 2009 ADR mediation
session.
(6) On June 22, 2009, Mattingly staff failed to properly secure a
radiographic exposure device for transport, contrary to 10 CFR 20.1802,
10 CFR 34.35(d), and 10 CFR 71.5. Specifically, Mattingly's RSO placed
a radiographic exposure device on the back of the Mattingly truck, but
failed to physically secure the device with proper blocking and bracing
to prevent loss during transport. The device was left on the tailgate
of the vehicle with no means of security.
As a result of the failure to properly secure the radiographic
exposure device for transport, the device fell off the vehicle on a
public road in Molt, Montana, between the licensee's facility and a job
site, and was lost in the public domain. The device was found by a
member of the public who picked the device up, placed it in his truck,
drove to a neighbor's house, and then contacted a local deputy sheriff
. While this violation involved a different security requirement, the
failure to physically secure the radiographic exposure device is
similar to one of the violations resolved during the 2009 ADR mediation
session.
(7) On June 22, 2009, Mattingly's president willfully caused
Mattingly to violate the immediate reporting requirement for lost
radioactive materials, 10 CFR 20.2201, for the lost device described in
violation (6). Specifically, after the device was returned to Mattingly
by the local police, the licensee president and the RSO discussed the
reporting aspects of the event. The president sent the RSO to a job
site and said that he, the president, would research the reporting
[[Page 55363]]
requirements for the lost device. The president stated to NRC
investigators that he believed there was either a 24-hour or 30-day
reporting requirement, but he did not research the requirement within
24 hours to determine the appropriate reporting requirement. If he had
performed the research, then he would have known that Mattingly needed
to report the lost device to the NRC as soon as it was lost.
The next day, June 23, 2009, the Yellowstone County Sheriff's
Office provided the NRC's Region IV office with the police report of
the lost device, which was how the NRC became aware of the loss. The
Region IV staff was unsuccessful in its attempt to contact Mattingly's
RSO on the afternoon of June 23, 2009, and left a message for him to
contact Region IV. Mattingly's RSO returned the telephone call after
work hours on June 23 and left a message. Region IV staff members spoke
with Mattingly's RSO on the morning of June 24, 2009, and informed the
RSO that the loss of the device should have been immediately reported
on June 22, 2009. Subsequently, the licensee made the lost device event
report to the NRC Operations Center on June 24, 2009. While this event
involves a different reporting requirement, the failure to notify the
NRC of the loss of radioactive material is similar to the reporting
requirement violation dispositioned during the 2009 ADR mediation
session.
III
Mattingly has violated NRC requirements, including deliberate and
willful violations by the Mattingly president and owner who also
provided material false information to an NRC inspector and
investigators. These violations jeopardized its workers and the public
health and safety, and the security of the radioactive materials that
the licensee possesses, and represent a significant regulatory concern.
The deliberate violations also demonstrate that Mattingly's president
and owner is unwilling to comply with the Commission's requirements to
protect the public health and safety and provide for the security of
the radioactive materials in Mattingly's possession. These deliberate
violations resulted in the NRC issuing an individual order to the
president prohibiting his involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a
period of 7 years.
The numerous failures to implement the requirements of Confirmatory
Order (EA-08-271) as specified herein are of concern, since those
actions were meant to timely correct a number of safety violations
identified at Mattingly. The repetitive nature of several of these
violations reveals the ineffectiveness of the corrective actions
Mattingly committed to implement. The NRC must have reasonable
assurance that its licensees will operate safely and comply with NRC
requirements. The deliberate nature of the violations, including the
material false statements made by the president, demonstrate that the
NRC's past enforcement action was inadequate to ensure that Mattingly
would comply with NRC requirements, and that Mattingly is unwilling to
comply with NRC requirements.
Consequently, I lack reasonable assurance that Mattingly will
provide for the safe use and security of the radioactive materials in
its possession or that the public health and safety is adequately
protected by continuing activities under the existing license. If, at
the time the license was issued, the NRC had known of the licensee's
inability or unwillingness to control licensed activities in accordance
with the NRC's requirements, or the questionable integrity of the
licensee's president, the license would not have been issued.
Therefore, I have determined that permitting this licensee to conduct
activities under License 25-21479-01 would be contrary to the public
health and safety and that this license should be revoked. Mattingly's
license authorizes possession of radioactive materials that are
considered high-risk, the loss of control of which, whether inadvertent
or through a deliberate act, has a potential to result in significant
adverse health impacts and could reasonably constitute a threat to the
public health and safety. Also, because of the risk to the public
health and safety and the deliberate and willful violations, I have
determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(a)(5), that the public health and
safety requires an immediate suspension of radiographic operations,
that the radioactive material in the licensee's possession must be
returned to the manufacturer or transferred to another entity
authorized to possess the material, and that the licensee shall only
provide for the safe, secure storage of the materials and other
activities necessary to support safe transfer of said materials pending
license revocation.
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 Parts 30 and 34, it is hereby
ordered, effective immediately, that license 25-21479-01 is modified as
follows:
1. All radiographic operations authorized by License 25-21479-01
involving the use of licensed material are hereby suspended pending
further action described below, including use of License 25-21479-01 to
conduct radiographic operations under reciprocity in any Agreement
State. All other requirements of the license remain in effect including
the actions required by Confirmatory Order (EA-08-271) and other orders
issued to the licensee, including the Increased Controls Order (EA-05-
090), as long as the licensee is in possession of NRC-licensed
material.
2. The licensee shall provide to Mr. Art Howell, Director, Division
of Nuclear Materials Safety, NRC Region IV, Arlington, Texas by the
close of business on the date of this Order, a detailed inventory
identifying the manufacturer, model, and serial number of each
radiographic exposure device, including the source activity for each
device, and the current location of each device.
3. All NRC-licensed material in the licensee's possession shall be
placed in secure storage at the licensee's Billings, Montana facility
as soon as practicable, but no later than 48 hours after Mattingly's
receipt of this Order.
4. The licensee shall remove from its possession all NRC-licensed
material acquired or possessed under the authority of License 25-21479-
01 within 30 days of the date of this Order, either by transferring the
material to the manufacturer or to another entity authorized to possess
that material.
5. Any sources that have not been leak tested within six months
prior to the transfer shall be leak tested by a person authorized to do
so, prior to transfer of the source.
6. The licensee shall notify Mr. Art Howell, Director, Division of
Nuclear Materials Safety, NRC Region IV, Arlington, Texas, by telephone
(817-860-8106) at least 5 business days prior to the date the
radioactive materials are to be transferred so that the NRC may, if it
elects, observe the transfer of the material.
7. The licensee shall, within 5 days after transfer of the
material, certify in writing, under oath or affirmation, to the
Regional Administrator, NRC Region IV, (Texas Health Resources Tower,
612 E. Lamar Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, Texas 76011-4125), that all
material has been properly transferred and provide the Regional
Administrator copies of transfer records required by 10 CFR 30.51.
It is further ordered that:
8. Following NRC confirmation of the transfer of all NRC-licensed
material currently possessed, as discussed above, License 25-21479-01
is revoked.
[[Page 55364]]
The Regional Administrator, Region IV, or designee, may, in
writing, at any time prior to final agency action sustaining the
revocation of License 25-21479-01, relax or rescind any of the above
conditions upon demonstration by the licensee, in writing and under
oath or affirmation, 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 within 20 days of its issuance. In addition, the licensee and any
other person adversely affected by this Order may request a hearing on
this Order within 20 days of its issuance. Where good cause is shown,
consideration will be given to extending the time to answer or request
a hearing. A request for extension of time must be directed to the
Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555 0001, and include a statement of good cause for
the extension.
If a hearing is requested by a licensee or a person whose interest
is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating
the time and place of any hearings. 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.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by e-mail at [email protected], or by
telephone at (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a digital ID certificate,
which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to
digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any
proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary
that the participant will be submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate).
Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic
docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not
already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software,
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance
in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange, users will
be required to install a web browser plug-in from the NRC Web site.
Further information on the web-based submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's
public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at (866) 672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format.
Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed
to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852,
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a
document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all
other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or
party to use E-Filing if
[[Page 55365]]
the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for
granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is available to the public at
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants
are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as
social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their
filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of
such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to
include copyrighted materials in their submission.
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 2.309(d).
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. 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 2nd day of September 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Roy P. Zimmerman,
Director, Office of Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2010-22627 Filed 9-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P