[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 175 (Friday, September 10, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54816-54818]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-20496]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 030-35059; License No. 34-06943-02; EA-03-204]


In the Matter of U.S. Inspection Services, Dayton, OH; Order 
Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty

I

    Materials License No. 34-06943-02 was issued by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) to U.S. Inspection Services 
(Licensee) on August 31, 1999. The license authorizes the Licensee to 
receive, acquire, possess, and transfer iridium-192 and cobalt-60 in 
sealed sources for use in industrial radiography and depleted uranium 
for shielding in industrial radiography equipment in accordance with 
the conditions specified therein. The license was renewed in its 
entirety on June 22, 2004, with Amendment No. 7 and is to expire on 
September 30, 2011.

II

    An inspection of the Licensee's activities was conducted on 
September 12, 2003. The results of this inspection 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 
June 15, 2004. 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 a letter dated July 12, 
2004. In its response, the Licensee did not deny the violations, in 
whole or in part, did not dispute the severity level assigned to the 
violations, and did not contest the application of enforcement 
discretion to increase the amount of the civil penalty. The amount of 
the civil penalty was increased because of a lack of management 
oversight of the radiation safety program that significantly 
contributed to the conditions leading to the overexposure event 
described in the June 15, 2004, letter and Notice. However, the 
Licensee protested the proposed imposition of a civil monetary penalty 
in the amount of $19,200 indicating that the civil penalty adjustment 
factor for Identification was applied incorrectly. The Licensee also 
claimed that credit was not given for the corrective actions the 
Licensee had implemented.

III

    After considering 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 civil penalty of 
$19,200 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 $19,200 within 30 
days of the date of this Order, in accordance with NUREG/BR-0254. In 
addition, at the time of making the payment, the Licensee shall submit 
a statement indicating when and by what method payment was made, to the 
Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear

[[Page 54817]]

Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852-2738.

V

    The Licensee may request a hearing within 30 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, DC 20555, and include a 
statement of good cause for the extension. A request for a hearing 
should be clearly marked as a ``Request for an Enforcement Hearing, EA-
03-204'' and shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, ATTN: 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 Materials Litigation and 
Enforcement at the same address, and to the Regional Administrator, NRC 
Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 210, Lisle, IL 60532-4351, 
Because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States 
Government offices, it is requested that requests for hearing be 
transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of 
facsimile transmission to (301) 415-1101 or by e-mail to 
[email protected] and also to the Office of the General Counsel 
either by means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-
mail to [email protected].
    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 (or if 
written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing 
has not been granted), 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.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Dated this 1st day of September 2004.
Frank J. Congel,
Director, Office of Enforcement.

APPENDIX--Evaluation and Conclusion

    A response to the Notice was provided by U.S. Inspection 
Services (Licensee) in a letter dated July 12, 2004. In its 
response, the Licensee did not deny the violations, in whole or in 
part, and the Licensee did not contest the severity level assigned 
to the violations. The Licensee also did not dispute the use of 
enforcement discretion to increase the amount of the civil penalty. 
The amount of the civil penalty was increased due to a lack of 
management oversight of the radiation safety program which 
significantly contributed to the conditions leading to the 
overexposure event. However, the Licensee protested the proposed 
imposition of a civil monetary penalty in the amount of $19,200 
because the Licensee believed that the civil penalty adjustment 
factor for Identification was incorrectly applied and credit was not 
given for the corrective actions taken by the Licensee.

Licensee's Request for Recission or Mitigation of the Civil Penalty

    In the response to the Notice, the Licensee contended that the 
NRC incorrectly applied the civil penalty assessment process 
described in Section VI.C.2 of the ``General Statement of Policy and 
Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions'' (Enforcement Policy), 
NUREG-1600. In its presentation, the Licensee indicated that a prior 
escalated enforcement action, EA-02-201, that occurred within two 
years or two inspections of the current enforcement actions should 
be withdrawn. With EA-02-201 withdrawn, the Licensee contended that 
the Licensee would no longer have an escalated enforcement history 
within the prior two years or two inspections; therefore, the NRC 
Staff was not required to assess the civil penalty adjustment factor 
for Identification in accordance with Section VI.C.2.b(1) of the 
Enforcement Policy. In requesting that EA-02-201 be withdrawn, the 
Licensee argued that 10 CFR 34.41, the regulation cited in the 
Notice associated with EA-02-201, does not require that radiographic 
personnel be in direct line-of-site with each other; rather, the 
radiographic personnel present on August 29, 2002, maintained 
contact with each other by radio which is sufficient to meet the 
requirements of 10 CFR 34.41.
    The Licensee also contended that credit was not given for the 
Corrective Action civil penalty adjustment factor.

NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Request for Recission or Mitigation of the 
Civil Penalty

    A. The Licensee is correct that the previous escalated 
enforcement action, EA-02-201, should not have been considered in 
determining the application of the civil penalty adjustment factor 
for Identification. Section VI.C.2.b(1) of the Enforcement Policy 
provides that the NRC will consider the civil penalty adjustment 
factor for Identification for the second non-willful Severity Level 
III violation within a period of two years or two inspections, 
whichever is longer. The violations in the current escalated 
enforcement action, EA-03-204, were categorized as a Severity Level 
II problem.
    In accordance with Section VI.C.2.b(1) of the Enforcement Policy 
the NRC Staff is not required to consider a Licensee's enforcement 
history in assessing the civil penalty adjustment process for a 
Severity Level II violation. Since the current violations are 
categorized as a Severity Level II problem, the NRC Staff was not 
required to consider a previous escalated enforcement action to 
assess the Identification civil penalty adjustment factor. 
Therefore, the existence of EA-02-201 is not a factor in assessing 
the civil penalty adjustment factor for Identification.
    The NRC Staff concludes that the civil penalty adjustment factor 
for Identification was properly assessed in accordance with the 
Enforcement Policy and consideration of the previous escalated 
enforcement action, EA-02-201, was not required by the Enforcement 
Policy to complete that assessment. Since the NRC Staff identified 
the violation, no credit for the Identification factor was 
warranted.
    B. As part of its argument regarding the civil penalty 
adjustment factor for Identification, the Licensee contended that 
the prior enforcement action, EA-02-201, should be withdrawn. On 
November 29, 2002, the NRC issued a Severity Level III violation 
associated with the Licensee's failure to have two qualified 
individuals present during radiographic operations on August 29, 
2002, at a field location in Indianapolis, Indiana, in violation of 
10 CFR 34.41(a), ``Conducting Industrial Radiographic Operations.'' 
The Licensee contends that 10 CFR 34.41(a) does not require 
radiographic personnel to maintain direct visual line-of-site 
contact. Rather, the Licensee personnel used radios on August 29, 
2002, to maintain communications at the temporary site in 
Indianapolis, Indiana, and the use of radios improved their ability 
to provide immediate assistance to prevent unauthorized entry into 
the radiation field. Therefore, EA-02-201 should be withdrawn.
    The Commission's regulations at 10 CFR 34.41 provide that during 
field radiography, the radiographer must be accompanied by at least 
one other qualified individual and the other qualified individual 
must observe operations and be capable of providing immediate 
assistance to prevent unauthorized entry. Additionally, 10 CFR 
20.1902, ``Posting Requirements,'' provides, in part, that the 
Licensee will post each radiation area with a conspicuous sign or 
signs marking the radiation hazard.
    A ``radiation area'' is defined in 10 CFR 20.1003 as an area, 
accessible to individuals, in which radiation levels could result in 
an individual receiving a dose equivalent in excess of 0.005 rem in 
1 hour at 30 centimeters or 30 centimeters from any surface that the 
radiation penetrates. For the purposes of 10 CFR 20.1003, individual 
means any human being. Measurements and assessments of the radiation 
level at the Indianapolis, Indiana, job site indicated a level of 25 
milliroentgen per hour, exterior to the building, at 65 feet from 
the exposure device containing 41 curies of iridium-192, assuming a 
point source, a gamma constant

[[Page 54818]]

of 5.2 roentgen per hour per curie at 30 centimeters, and 
considering shielding inherent to the facility including structures 
and equipment.
    On August 29, 2002, a radiographer and a radiographer's 
assistant were assigned by the Licensee to conduct field 
radiographic operations at a temporary job site in Indianapolis, 
Indiana. The radiography consisted of eight exposures, including 
uncollimated panoramic exposures, of a heat exchanger inside of a 
building. The radiographer and the radiographer's assistant did not 
conspicuously post the radiation area exterior to the building to 
warn of the radiation area created during the radiographic 
exposures. While the radiographer remained inside the building to 
observe the radiographic operation, the radiographer's assistant was 
to stay outside of the building to warn anyone approaching the area 
of the radiation hazard.
    One section of the radiation area was behind a wooden fence and 
that area was accessible to the public. That section was not posted 
as a radiation area and the fence blocked the view of that area for 
the radiographer's assistant. Therefore, neither the radiographer 
nor the radiographer's assistant could provide immediate assistance 
to prevent unauthorized entry into the radiation area because the 
radiographer's view of the area was blocked by the building wall.
    While controlling access outside of the building to prevent 
unauthorized entry into another section of the radiation area, the 
radiographer's assistant was approached by the owner of an adjacent 
building with questions about potential radiation hazards in that 
person's building. The radiograph's assistant left the radiation 
area where he was posted to control access to prevent unauthorized 
access and went to the near-by building to answer questions about 
potential radiation hazards. While inside the adjacent building, the 
radiographer's assistant could not view the radiation area and the 
radiographer could not maintain visual surveillance of the area 
because of the intervening building wall. The absence of a qualified 
individual to maintain surveillance to prevent unauthorized access 
to a radiation area and the failure to post warnings of the 
radiation hazard are violations of 10 CFR 34.41(a) and 10 CFR 
20.1902.
    The NRC Staff concludes that the radiographer's assistant could 
not observe a section of the radiation area at the temporary job 
site in Indianapolis, Indiana, and therefore could not observe 
radiographic operations or provide assistance to prevent 
unauthorized entry into a radiation area and the area was not marked 
as a radiation area. The NRC Staff also concluded that the 
radiographer's assistant left another section of the radiation area 
unattended and the radiation area was not posted; therefore, no 
means existed to warn individuals of the presence of a radiation 
area or to prevent unauthorized entry into that area. The use of 
radios between Licensee personnel would not have adequately 
compensated for the absence of the radiographer's assistant or 
appropriate postings to warn of the radiation hazard.
    Since qualified individuals could not observe the radiation area 
exterior to the building while radiographic operations were taking 
place, they were not in a position or capable of providing immediate 
assistance to prevent unauthorized entry into the radiation area 
exterior to the building, and radio communication would not have 
provided any assistance to prevent unauthorized entry into the 
radiation area. Therefore, EA-02-201 remains valid and will not be 
withdrawn.
    C. The Licensee contended that the NRC did not give credit for 
the civil penalty adjustment factor associated with Corrective 
Action. As explained in the June 15, 2004, letter from the NRC, 
credit was warranted for the Corrective Action adjustment factor and 
no additional civil penalty was assessed for the Corrective Action 
factor.
    The NRC gave appropriate credit to the Licensee for the 
corrective actions implemented by the Licensee, as described in the 
June 15, 2004, letter from the NRC to the Licensee.
    Section VI.C of the Enforcement Policy, provides, in part, that 
management involvement, direct or indirect, may lead to an increase 
in the civil penalty. Section VII.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy 
provides for escalating the amount of the civil penalty by the base 
or twice the base civil penalty to ensure that the civil penalty 
reflects the significance of the circumstances. The NRC escalated 
the amount of the civil penalty by the base amount due to a lack of 
management oversight of the radiation safety program which 
significantly contributed to the conditions leading to the 
overexposure event described in the June 15, 2004, letter and 
Notice. The Licensee, however, did not contest this application of 
enforcement discretion in its July 12, 2004, response to the Notice.

NRC Conclusion

    The NRC has concluded that the violations occurred as stated and 
neither an adequate basis for a reduction of the severity level nor 
for recission or mitigation of the civil penalty was provided by the 
Licensee. Consequently, the proposed civil penalty in the amount of 
$19,200 should be imposed.

[FR Doc. 04-20496 Filed 9-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P