EA-00-002 - Maxim Technologies of New York, Inc.
January 10, 2000
Mr. Joseph D. Tario, P.E.
Maxim Technologies of New York, Inc.
5 Knaber Road
Mechanicsville, New York 19402-2847
Dear Mr. Tario:
|SUBJECT:||NOTICE OF VIOLATION
(NRC Inspection Report Nos. 150-00031/99-002;150-00031/99-03)
This letter refers to the NRC inspection conducted on December 22, 1999, at the Maxim Technologies of New York, Inc. (Maxim) offices in Mechanicsville, New York. The purpose of this inspection was to determine whether activities performed in non-agreement states under the general license described in 10 CFR 150.20(a)(1) (reciprocity), and approved by the NRC, were conducted safely and in accordance with NRC requirements. During the inspection, the NRC identified problems with your radiography safety program, including certification of radiography technicians and the failure to monitor radiation exposure for one radiographer. In a telephone conversation on January 5, 2000, Mr. Eric Reber of my staff informed you that the NRC had sufficient information regarding the violation and your corrective actions to make an enforcement decision without a predecisional enforcement conference or a written response from you. On January 7, 2000, you indicated that Maxim did not believe that a predecisional enforcement conference or written response was needed.
Based on the information developed during the inspection, two violations of NRC requirements were identified and are being cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice). The first violation involves the performance of radiography in Vermont and Connecticut (states under NRC jurisdiction) during the time period from August through October 1999 by individuals who were not certified through a radiographer certification program by a certifying entity. Certification is required by NRC regulations for radiographers performing radiography work in areas subject to NRC jurisdiction.
During the inspection, the NRC determined that this violation appeared to be an isolated occurrence for which you took appropriate corrective action. Nonetheless, the violation was significant because certification demonstrates that the person has received appropriate radiation safety training to ensure that radiography activities are conducted safely and in accordance with requirements. Therefore, the first violation is categorized as a Severity Level III problem in accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, dated November 9, 1999.
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $2,750 is considered for a Severity Level III violation or problem. Because your facility has not been the subject of an escalated enforcement action in past, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. Credit for corrective actions is warranted because your corrective actions, at the time of the inspection, were considered prompt and comprehensive. These actions include, but are not limited to, (1) discontinuing the use of non-certified radiographers in non-agreement states; and (2) plans to certify the radiographers who perform radiography in jurisdictions where certification is required.
Therefore, to encourage prompt and comprehensive correction of violations, I have been authorized to not propose a civil penalty in this case. However, similar violations in the future could result in further escalated enforcement action. In addition, issuance of this Notice constitutes escalated enforcement action, that may subject you to increased inspection effort.
The second violation involves the failure to monitor, over a period of approximately one month, any occupational radiation exposure to a radiographer. This violation is categorized as a Severity Level IV.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should specify the status of your plans to certify the radiographers, as well as the corrective actions taken to address the second violation. The NRC will use your response, in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). To the extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.
|ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
JAMES T. WIGGINS for
|Hubert J. Miller
Docket No. 150-00031
License No. NY 2505-3627
Enclosure: Notice of Violation
State of New York
State of Vermont
State of Connecticut
|Maxim Technologies of New York, Inc.
|Docket No. 150-00031
NY License No. NY 2505-3627
During an NRC inspection conducted on December 22, 1999, two violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, dated November 9, 1999, the violations are listed below:
|A.||10 CFR 34.43 (a)(1) requires, in part, that licensees
may not permit any individual to act as a radiographer until the individual
is certified through a radiographer certification program by a certifying
entity in accordance with the criteria specified in Appendix A of
10 CFR Part 34.
Contrary to the above, from August to October 1999, the licensee permitted two individuals to act as radiographers in the states of Vermont and Connecticut, and at the time, the two individuals were not certified through a radiographer certification program by a certifying entity in accordance with the criteria specified in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 34. (01013)
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VI).
|B.||10 CFR 20.1502 (a)(1) requires that each licensee shall monitor
occupational exposure to radiation from licensed and unlicensed radiation
sources under the control of the licensee and shall supply and require
the use of individual monitoring devices by adults likely to receive,
in 1 year from sources external to the body, a dose in excess of 10
percent of the limits in 10 CFR 20.1201(a).
Contrary to the above, from August 5, 1999 to September 4, 1999, the licensee did not monitor occupational exposure to radiation from licensed and unlicensed radiation sources under the control of the licensee and supply and require the use of individual monitoring devices by adults likely to receive, in 1 year from sources external to the body, a dose in excess of 10 percent of the limits in 10 CFR 20.1201(a) (500 millirem in this circumstance). Specifically, the licensee did not have film badge results from an individual monitoring device for a radiographer who performed work in Connecticut for the time period from August 5, 1999 to September 4, 1999. As of November 4, 1999, film badge results indicated a year-to-date total dose of 1170 millirem to the radiographer. Therefore, the radiographer was likely to receive dose in excess of 10 percent of the limits in 10 CFR 20.1201(a). (01014)
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement IV).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Maxim Technologies of New York, Inc. is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region I, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation or severity level, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response, with the basis for your denial, to the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.
In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within two working days.
Dated this 10th day of January 2000