EA-98-017 - Rosel Company, The

March 2, 1998

EA 98-017

George F. Rosel, President
The Rosel Company
302 South Clay
Liberal, Kansas 67901

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT 150-00005/97-015)

Dear Mr. Rosel:

This refers to the review of documents submitted to the NRC by The Rosel Company (TRC). These documents detailed work performed in NRC jurisdiction during calendar years 1996 and 1997. The findings of the review were discussed with you during a telephone call on January 8, 1998, and were documented in a letter dated January 13, 1998. Our January 13 letter described one apparent violation that was being considered for escalated enforcement action. The apparent violation involved a failure to file an NRC Form 241 as required by 10 CFR 150.20. TRC was provided the opportunity either to respond to the apparent violation in writing within 30 days or request a predecisional enforcement conference. TRC did not request a predecisional enforcement conference, and instead TRC provided a written response to the apparent violation in its letter dated January 20, 1998.

Based on information developed during our review, and information that you provided in your January 20 response to the apparent violation, 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 our January 13 letter. The violation involved a failure to obtain authorization from the NRC, as required by either 10 CFR 30.3 or 10 CFR 150.20, before conducting licensed activities in non-Agreement States in 1996 and 1997.

Specifically, on December 3, 1997, Mr. Roger Taylor, the Open Hole Manager for TRC, informed NRC Region IV that during a review of company records, he had discovered that TRC had failed to file an NRC Form 241, "Report of Proposed Activities in Non-agreement States," prior to performing licensed activities in the State of Oklahoma, a non-Agreement State, during 1997. On December 12, 1997, TRC submitted the NRC Form 241 and appropriate fees required to perform licensed activities in NRC jurisdiction for both the remainder of 1997 and 1998. At the NRC's request, TRC was asked to review any licensed activities that may have been performed in NRC jurisdiction during 1996. On January 6, 1998, Mr. Taylor provided additional information that showed that TRC had also failed to file an NRC Form 241 for licensed activities performed in the State of Oklahoma in 1996.

The NRC considers the failure to obtain authorization to use byproduct material in areas under its jurisdiction, by either obtaining an NRC license or filing an NRC Form 241, to be a matter of significant regulatory concern because it denies the NRC an opportunity to assure that the activities are conducted in compliance with all NRC radiation safety requirements. Therefore, the violation has been categorized in accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, at Severity Level III.

In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $2,750 is considered for a Severity Level III violation. Because your facility has not been the subject of escalated enforcement actions within the last 2 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 once TRC recognized the violation, TRC took appropriate corrective actions and is deserving of corrective action credit. These actions included promptly informing the NRC, submitting appropriate notification and fees, implementing new filing procedures, and improving communications with its staff encouraging all safety and compliance concerns.

Therefore, to encourage prompt identification 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, similar 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 a letter from TRC dated January 20, 1998. 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, and your response, should you choose to provide one, will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).

Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact D. Blair Spitzberg, Ph.D., at (817) 860-8191.

Sincerely, Ellis W. Merschoff Regional Administrator

Docket No.: 150-00015
License No.: Kansas 27-C057-01

Enclosure: Notice of Violation

cc: Kansas Radiation Control Program Director
Oklahoma Radiation Control Program Director

 

---

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

Rosel Company, The Liberal, Kansas

Docket No. 150-00005 License No. Kansas 27-C057-01 EA-98-017

During an NRC review completed on January 8, 1998, 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 30.3 requires, in relevant part, that no person shall possess or use byproduct material except as authorized by a specific or general license issued by the NRC.

10 CFR 150.20(a) provides, in part, that any person who holds a specific license from an Agreement State is granted an NRC general license to conduct the same activity in non-Agreement States subject to the provisions of 10 CFR 150.20(b).

10 CFR 150.20(b)(1) requires, in part, that any person engaging in activities in non-Agreement States shall, at least 3 days before engaging in each such activity, file four copies of NRC Form 241, "Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States," with the Regional Administrator of the appropriate NRC regional office.

Contrary to the above, on numerous occasions in 1996 and 1997, The Rosel Company, a licensee of the State of Kansas, utilized well logging devices containing americium-241 and cesium-137 in the state of Oklahoma, a non-Agreement State, without a specific license issued by the NRC and without filing Form 241 with the NRC.

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 will be achieved is already adequately addressed on the docket in a letter dated January 20, 1998. 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).

If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response to the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

Because your response, if you provide one, 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 Arlington, Texas
this 2nd day of March 1998