EA-96-450 - NJS Engineering

January 8, 1997

EA 96-450

Mr. Neil J. Stodolski, President
NJS Engineering
P. O. Box 226
123 East Jackson, Suite 1
Spearfish, South Dakota 57783

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC Inspection Report No. 030-30133/96-01)

Dear Mr. Stodolski:

This refers to the inspection which was conducted on October 16, 1996, at your Spearfish, South Dakota facility. The reactive inspection was conducted in response to your telephonic notification on August 29, 1996, concerning a moisture/density gauge damaged by construction equipment at a temporary job site. The inspection findings were discussed with you during a telephonic exit briefing on November 1, 1996, and were documented by letter dated November 15, 1996. One apparent violation was identified to you which was being considered for escalated enforcement. Our November 15 letter provided you with the opportunity to either request a predecisional enforcement conference within 7 days, or to respond in writing to the apparent violation within 30 days. You provided a written response by letter dated December 3, 1996.

Based on the information developed during the inspection and the information that you provided in your December 3 response to the inspection report, the NRC has determined that a violation of NRC requirements occurred. The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) and the circumstances surrounding it were described in detail in the subject inspection report. The violation was discovered by an NRC inspector when he found a portable moisture/density gauge which was stored in an unlocked case in an unlocked vehicle at a temporary job site and the gauge user did not have the device under his immediate surveillance. The NRC considers failures to provide adequate security or surveillance of licensed materials that are stored or in use in unrestricted areas to be a significant regulatory concern. Therefore, this violation has been categorized in accordance with the"General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600 at Severity Level III.

In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a civil penalty with a base value of $2,500 is considered for a Severity Level III violation. Because your facility has not been the subject of escalated enforcement actions within the last 2 years or last two inspections, 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. We noted that the corrective actions described in your December 3 letter included investigating the cause of the violation, reviewing the cause of the violation with the employee, training sessions with all company employees certified to use the moisture/density gauge, and enacting a company policy to conduct refresher training twice a year. As such, the NRC determined that credit was warranted for corrective action.

Therefore, to encourage prompt and comprehensive correction of violations, and in recognition of the absence of previous escalated enforcement action, I have been authorized, not to propose a civil penalty in this case. However, significant violations in the future could result in a civil penalty. In addition, issuance of this Severity Level III violation constitutes escalated enforcement action, that may subject you to increased inspection effort.

The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the violation, the corrective actions taken and planned to correct the violation and prevent recurrence and the date when full compliance was achieved is already adequately addressed on the docket in the subject inspection report and your December 3, 1996, letter. Therefore, you are not required to respond to this letter unless the description therein does not accurately reflect your corrective actions or your position. In that case, or if you choose to provide additional information, you should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's"Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, the subject inspection report, and your December 3 letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

Sincerely,

L. J. Callan Regional Administrator

Docket No. 030-30133
License No. 40-26894-01

Enclosure: Notice of Violation

cc w/encl:
State of South Dakota

---

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

NJS Engineering Spearfish, South Dakota

Docket No. 030-30133 License No. 40-26894-01 EA 96-450

During an NRC inspection conducted on October 16 through November 1, 1996, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the"General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violation is listed below:

10 CFR 20.1801 requires that the licensee secure from unauthorized removal or access licensed materials that are stored in unrestricted areas. 10 CFR 20.1802 requires that the licensee control and maintain constant surveillance of licensed material that is in an unrestricted area and that is not in storage. As defined in 10 CFR 20.1003, unrestricted area means an area, access to which is neither limited nor controlled by the licensee.

Contrary to the above, on October 16, 1996, the licensee did not control and maintain constant surveillance of licensed material. Specifically, a Troxler Model 3411B portable nuclear moisture/density gauge had been stored in an unlocked case inside an unlocked vehicle at a temporary jobsite without the licensee maintaining constant surveillance of the gauge. The gauge contains a nominal 8-millicurie cesium-137 sealed source and a nominal 40-millicurie americium-241 sealed source (01013).

This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VI).

The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the violation, the corrective actions taken and planned to correct the violation and prevent recurrence and the date when full compliance was achieved is already adequately addressed on the docket in NRC Inspection Report No. 030-30133/96-01, and your letter dated December 3, 1996. However, you are required to submit a written statement or explanation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 if the description therein does not accurately reflect your corrective actions or your position. In that case, or if you choose to respond, clearly mark your response as a"Reply to a Notice of Violation," and send it to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region IV, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas 76011, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice).

Dated at Arlington, Texas,
this 8th day of January 1997