EA-97-596 - Windsor Services, Inc.

December 22, 1997

EA No. 97-596

Mr. Scott Haines, President
Windsor Services, Inc.
Post Office Box 13787
Reading, Pennsylvania 19612-3787

Dear Mr. Haines:

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC Inspection Report No. 030-15179/97-001)

This refers to the NRC inspection conducted on November 6, 1997 at your facility in Reading, Pennsylvania to determine whether activities authorized by your license were conducted safely and in accordance with NRC requirements. The inspection continued at the Skippack and Blooming Glen , Pennsylvania facilities of Haines and Kibblehouse, Inc. (H&K), another NRC licensee, after the NRC learned that control of licensed activities under your license appeared to have been transferred to H&K. Specifically, all your records had been transferred to H&K and the inspector observed that one of your gauges was stored at H&K's Blooming Glen office.

As described in the NRC inspection report sent to H&K on November 28, 1997, several apparent violations of NRC requirements were identified during the inspection. On December 12, 1997, a predecisional enforcement conference was conducted with you, as well as personnel from H&K, to discuss the violations, their causes, and your corrective actions. A copy of the enforcement conference report is enclosed. While we understand, based on the conference, that a gauge had been transferred to H&K by your company, and certain employees have responsibilities at both companies, you indicated (1) that you and your associates purchased Windsor Service from its previous owners, (2) that your company and H&K are separate entities, and (3) responsibility for the Windsor license had not been transferred to H&K. Therefore, NRC has evaluated separately the inspection findings related to the two licenses. This letter deals with the findings related to the Windsor license.

Based on the information developed during the inspection, and the information provided during the conference, the NRC has determined that four violations of NRC requirements were identified. The violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) and the circumstances surrounding them are described in detail in the subject inspection report. These violations involve the (1) failure to notify the NRC, and secure NRC consent in writing, prior to a change in ownership which transferred control of the license to you and your associates from the previous owners of Windsor Service, Inc.; (2) failure to obtain a license amendment prior to using a new RSO; (3) failure to perform a review of the radiation safety program content and implementation; and (4) failure to provide annual refresher training to gauge users. The NRC is particularly concerned that the RSO had ceased performing the RSO duties in April 1997 and there was a lack of attention to your program.

Given the nature of the violations and the lack of control of, and attention to, licensed activities at your facility, the violations collectively represent a breakdown in control of licensed activities. Therefore, these violations have been classified in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem in accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600.

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 within the last two inspections in 1992 and 1988, 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 were both prompt and comprehensive. These actions are described in the enforcement conference report.

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.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. 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 and its enclosure, will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).

Sincerely, Hubert J. Miller Regional Administrator

Docket No. 030-15179
License No. 37-18494-01

1. Notice of Violation
2. Enforcement Conference Report

cc w/encls:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
John Reinhart, Radiation Safety Officer

Joseph A. LaFlamme
c/o Paul R. Ober & Associates
Attorneys At Law
234 N. 6th Street
Reading, PA 19601

Windsor Service, Inc. Docket No. 030-15179 Reading, Pennsylvania License No. 37-18494-01 EA 97-596

During an NRC inspection conducted on November 6, 19 and 21, 1997, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," (Enforcement Policy), NUREG 1600, the violations are listed below:

A. 10 CFR 20.1101(c) requires that each licensee periodically (at least annually) perform a review of the radiation safety program content and implementation.

Contrary to the above, in 1994, 1995, and 1996, the licensee did not perform a review of the radiation safety program content and implementation. (01013)

B. 10 CFR 30.34(b) requires, in part, that no license issued or granted pursuant to the regulations in 10 CFR Part 30, nor any right under a license be transferred, assigned or in any manner disposed of, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of any license to any person, unless the Commission, after securing full information, find that the transfer is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and give its consent in writing.

Contrary to the above, in October of 1996, Windsor Service, Inc. transferred control of its license from the previous owners to new owners and did not allow the Commission to secure full information of the transfer to ensure that the transfer was in accordance with the Act, and obtain the Commission's consent in writing. (01023)

C. Condition 12 of License No. 37-18494-01 requires that a specifically named individual perform the duties of the Radiation Safety Officer (RSO).

Contrary to the above, as of November 21, 1997, the specifically named individual was not performing the duties of the RSO. Specifically, the RSO stopped performing the duties of the RSO in April of 1997. (01033)

D. Condition 20 of License No. 37-18494-01 requires that the licensee conduct its program in accordance with the statements, representations and procedures contained in the application dated February 3, 1995.

Item 8 of the application requires the licensee to provide annual refresher training to authorized users of the portable gauges.

Contrary to the above, as of November 21, 1997, the licensee did not provide annual refresher training to authorized users of the portable gauges in 1995 and 1996. (01043)

These violations are categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem (Supplement VI).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Windsor Services, Inc. is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 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, (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.

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.

Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania
this 22nd day of December 1997

To top of page

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021