[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62269-62270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29539]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 030-30947; License No. 37-28331-01 EA 94-089]


Advacare Management Services, Inc., Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania; 
Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty

I

    Advacare Management Services, Inc. (Licensee) is the holder of 
Materials License No. 37-28331-01 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC or Commission), issued April 4, 1989, renewed most 
recently on May 9, 1994. The license authorizes the Licensee to possess 
and use byproduct material for diagnostic nuclear medicine studies in 
accordance with the conditions specified therein.

II

    An inspection of the Licensee's activities was conducted on April 
26-28, 1994. Subsequently, an investigation was conducted by the NRC 
Office of Investigations. The results of the inspection and 
investigation indicated that the Licensee had not conducted its 
activities in full compliance with NRC requirements. A written Notice 
of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) was 
served upon the Licensee by letter dated August 30, 1995. The Notice 
states the nature of the violations, the provisions of the NRC's 
requirements that the Licensee had violated, and the amount of the 
civil penalty proposed for the violations.
    The Licensee responded to the Notice in two letters, dated 
September 21, 1995. In its responses, the Licensee admits the 
violations as stated in the Notice, but requests mitigation of the 
civil penalty.

III

    After consideration of the Licensee's response and the statements 
of fact, explanation, and argument for mitigation contained therein, 
the NRC staff has determined, as set forth in the Appendix to this 
Order, that the violations occurred as stated and that the penalty 
proposed for the violations designated in the Notice should be imposed.

IV

    In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205, 
It is hereby ordered that:
    The Licensee pay a civil penalty in the amount of $2,500 within 30 
days of the date of this Order, by check, draft, money order, or 
electronic transfer, payable to the Treasurer of the United States and 
mailed to Mr. James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.

V

    The Licensee may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of 
this Order. A request for a hearing should be clearly marked as a 
``Request for an Enforcement Hearing'' and shall be addressed to the 
Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, D.C. 20555, with a copy to the Commission's Document 
Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the 
Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same 
address and to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region I, 475 Allendale 
Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will issue an Order 
designating the time and place of the hearing. If the Licensee fails to 
request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order, the 
provisions of this Order shall be effective without further 
proceedings. If payment has not been made by that time, the matter may 
be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
    In the event the Licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the 
issues to be considered at such hearing shall be:
    Whether on the basis of the violations admitted by the Licensee, 
this Order should be sustained.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of November 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James Lieberman,
Director, Office of Enforcement.

Appendix--Evaluations and Conclusion

    On August 30, 1995 a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition 
of Civil Penalty (Notice) was issued for violations identified 
during an NRC inspection and subsequent investigation by the NRC 
Office of Investigations. Advacare Management Services, Inc. 
(Licensee) responded to the Notice on September 21, 1995. The 
Licensee admitted the Violations, but requested mitigation of the 
civil penalty. The NRC's evaluation and conclusion regarding the 
licensee's requests are as follows:

1. Summary of Licensee's Request for Mitigation

    In its responses, the Licensee contends that mitigating 
circumstances were not fully considered by the NRC. In support of 
its contention, the Licensee noted the following:
    a. A prior inspection at the Bala Cynwyd facility identified few 
items of non-compliance and thus provided a level of managerial 
assurance that the radiation protection/compliance program was 
acceptable.
    b. The term ``promptly'', as used on page 3 of Mr. Martin's 
letter dated August 30, 1995, is clearly a subjective word. The 
Licensee stated that its audit reports were received in January 1994 
and the NRC inspection was on April 26-28, 1994. The Licensee stated 
that it was in the process of correcting the multiple minor areas of 
non-compliance identified in the audits and although some of the 
corrections were not completed by April 1, 1994, the majority were 
corrected by the enforcement conference and by subsequent spot check 
inspections by Region I inspectors between the June 1994 enforcement 
conference and the time of the Licensee's responses. The Licensee 
contends that its response was, in fact, reasonably prompt.
    Therefore, the licensee requests that the combination of these 
factors should result in a modification of the proposed civil 
penalty from $2,500 to $1,250.
    The Licensee further noted that it recognized and self-
identified material weaknesses in its radiation safety program and 
contracted a consultant medical radiation physicist to assist the 
RSO in correcting those weaknesses and that the correction process 
was in place at the time of the inspection.

2. NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Request for Mitigation

    The fact that an inspection was conducted at the Bala Cynwyd 
facility, one of several Licensee facilities, and in which only a 
few items of noncompliance were noted, three years prior to the 
inspection conducted on April 26-28, 1994, does not alleviate the 
need for aggressive managerial oversight of the radiation safety 
program. In order to assure continued acceptable performance in the 
area of radiation safety, the Licensee is required to not only 
perform periodic audits of its radiation safety program in 
accordance with its commitments under the ALARA program, but in 
accordance with 10 CFR 35.23, through its Radiation Safety Officer 
(RSO) identify radiation safety problems, as well as initiate 
corrective actions and verify the implementation of those corrective 
actions.
    Although the Licensee had corrected some of the individual 
violations identified by the NRC, it had not corrected the majority 
of 

[[Page 62270]]
them by the Enforcement Conference. The day prior to that Conference, 
the Licensee submitted a lengthy letter addressing the violations 
and the status of corrective actions. The information in this letter 
was not completely accurate and at the Conference several 
corrections were requested. These corrections were later submitted 
by the Licensee. In addition, the NRC staff had questioned the RSO's 
ability to meet his responsibilities for the numerous facilities and 
Licensee management had indicated that it intended to request a 
separate license for a New Jersey facility in order to relieve the 
RSO of some responsibilities, but it had not yet done so. In 
addition, the Licensee did not consider the need to apply similar 
corrective actions at the other facilities covered by the license.
    Although the Licensee had recognized that it had weaknesses in 
its program and had engaged a consultant to assist the RSO, and 
these actions led to eventual good comprehensive corrective action, 
they were not sufficiently prompt and comprehensive as of the time 
of the Enforcement Conference to provide a basis for mitigating the 
civil penalty.

3. NRC Conclusion

    The NRC has concluded that the violations occurred as stated and 
an adequate basis for mitigation of the civil penalty was not 
provided by the licensee. Consequently, the proposed civil penalty 
in the amount of $2,500 should be imposed.

[FR Doc. 95-29539 Filed 12-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P