IR 015000001/1999001
| ML20206R127 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 015000001 |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1999 |
| From: | Reyes L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Lambert R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206R131 | List: |
| References | |
| 15000001-99-01, 15000001-99-1, EA-99-074, EA-99-74, NUDOCS 9905200006 | |
| Download: ML20206R127 (4) | |
Text
f 1
,
,
UNITED STATES
[sA Hog % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
"
8 o REGloN il !
{ j
SAM NUNN ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FoRsYTH STREET. sW. sulTE 23T85
'
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303 8931 j
May 7, 1999 EA 99-074 l
! Code Services, Inc.
ATTN: Mr. Reggie Lambert ,
Managing Partner l 26412 Old Highway 20 Madison, AL 35758 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND EXERCISE OF DISCRETION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 150-00001/99-001)
Dear Mr. Lambert:
This refers to the inspection conducted on March 17 and 18,1999, at the NASA Marshall Space ;
Flight Center (MSFC), Huntsville, Alabama, an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, and your ;
field office in Madison, Alabama. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether activities authorized by a general license granted by the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 150.20 were conducted safely and in accordance with NRC requirements. The results of the inspection including one apparent violation were discussed with members of your staff at an exit meeting on March 18,1999, and formally transmitted to you by letter dated April 18, 1999. An open, predecisional enforcement conference was conducted at the NRC Region ll .
office in Atlanta, Georgia, on April 22,1999, to discuss the apparent violation, the root cause, j'
and your corrective actions. The conference afforded you the opportunity to present your assessment of the effectiveness of your corrective actions and to address similar violations l occurring in 1998 and documented by the State of Alabama's Department of Public Health, j Office of Radiation Control. By facsimile dated April 27,1999, you provided additional ;
information regarding your corrective actions and documented statements of the employees !'
interviewed by the NRC during the March 1999 inspection. ,
Based on the information developed during the inspection and the information that you provided during and following the conference, the NRC has determined that a violation of NRC requirements occurred. The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice), and i the circumstances surrounding it are described in detail in the subject inspection report. The !
violation involves the f ailure of a radiographer's assistant to wear an alarm rate meter on l February 16,1999, while performing radiographic operations at the NASA MSFC, an area !
under NRC j.urisdiction, as required by 10 CFR 34.47(a). This violation was identified by the NASA Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) while observing Code Services, Inc. at MSFC. Your review of the incident with the individuals involved resulted in statements that conflicted with those of the NASA RSO: however, we believe that you adequately addressed the conflicting l{
statements as part of your corrective actions. Based on the evidence available, we conclude that the radiographer's assistant was not wearing the alarm rate meter during the radiographic operations observed by the NASA RSO.
Although, no occupational exposure limits of 10 CFR Part 20 were exceeded during the February 16,1999 radiographic operations, the failure of personnel to use appropriate protective devices is a significant safety issue. Alarm rate meters are intended to give prompt and audible indication of high radiation levels so as to permit initiation of appropriate protective measures to avoid unnecessary or unexpected radiation exposures. Based on the safety l significance of this issue, in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedures 9905200006 990507 p PDR STPRG ESQAL PDR
. ($$) J I
-
%
Code Services Inc. 2 for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, the violation described in the Notice has been categorized at Severity Level lit.
In addition, the failure of Code Services, Inc. personnel to wear proper equipment during radiographic operations is a recurring problem. Code Services, Inc. was cited by the State of Alabama for a violation identified during an inspection on May 4,1998, in which a radiographer was wearing an alarm rate meter that was not turned on during radiographic operations. On October 8,1998, the State of Alabama again cited Code Services, Inc. for a violation that occurred on August 31,1998, during which a radiographer's alarm rate meter was not turned on, and the assistant did not have an alarm rate meter during radiographic operations.
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $5500 is considered for a Severity Level lll violation. Because you have been the subject of escalated enforcement actions involving similar violations issued by the State of Alabama within the last two years, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for ldentification and Corrective i
Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. The MSFC site RSO identified and reported the February 16,1999, alarm rate meter incident to you; therefore, credit for the factor of /dentirication was determined not to be warranted. Code Services, Inc.'s corrective actions for the Severity Level 111 violation included: 1) promptly conducting a mandatory safety meeting with staff on February 16,1999:
2) attending a meeting with MSFC officials on February 18,1999; 3) implementing a recovery plan with goals to achieve and maintain compliance with regulatory requirements; 4) issuing a follow up letter to MSFC reiterating Code Services, Inc.'s commitment to safety and compliance; 5) increasing field audit frequencies of radiographers by the RSO from quarterly to monthly; 6) conducting weekly safety meetings with staff; and 7) implementing strong disciplinary action against the individual involved. Based on these actions, the NRC determined that corrective actions for the violation were prompt and comprehensive, and that credit was warranted for the factor of Corrective Action.
Based on the previously described assessment of Identification and Corrective Action. under our Enforcement Policy we would normally issue a base civil penalty of $5500 for the Severity Level ill violation. However, af ter review of this violation and consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, the NRC has concluded that while a violation did occur, enforcement discretion is warranted, and the issuance of a civil penalty is not appropriate in this case.
Discretion is being exercised pursuant to Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy based on 1) the new management / ownership of the company (as of November 1998) has taken steps to improve staff compliance with safety requirements; 2) significant disciplinary action was taken demonstrating to the employees that this violaiion would not be tolerated; 3) initial corrective actions taken by Code Services, Mc. In response to NASA's finding were prompt; and 4)
radiographic operations directly observed by the NRC inspector in March 1999 were conducted safely and in accordance with regulatory requirements. However, Code Services, Inc. is on notice that should a similar violation occur in the future, more significant enforcement may be taken.
'
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, its enclosures, and your response will be placed in the Public Document Room (PDR). To the
. ..
.
.
.
_______2
. . . . _ . .. .
.
.
.
'
Code Services Inc. 3 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.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Douglas M. Collins, Director, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety at (404) 562-4700.
Si cerel
Luis A. Rey Regional A nistrator Enclosures: 1. Notice of Violation 2. Conference Attendees 3. Material Presented by Licensee (redacted)
4. Material Presented by NRC 5. Facsimile sent by Licensee dated April 27,1999 (redacted)
Docket No. 150-00009 License No. General (10 CFR 150.20)
cc w/encls:
.
i
7.
,
,
i Distribution w/encis: '
WTravers, EDO FMiraglia, DEDO MKnapp, DEDE DDamby, OGC DCool, NMSS EJulian, SECY BKeeling, CA Enforcement Coordinators RI, Rlli, RIV JLieberman, OE JDelMedico, OE GCaputo, Of WBeecher, OPA HBell, OlG BSmith, NMSS CEvans, Rll ,
DMCollins, Ril i CHosey, Rll l MLesser, Ril ABoland, Rll WMcNulty, Ril MSatorius, OEDO ,
RGibson,Rll l KClark, Ril RTrojanowski, Ril Ril Docket Files, DNMS I OE:EA File (BSummers, OE) l PUBLIC l l
.b r-SEND TO PUBUC DOCUMENT ROOM 7 YES f OFFICE All.ONMS . ICS Ril: ORA gg . ORA /
Sqnature #LO NAME OComns CE UgMyt JJohn DATE h[/99 ' /99 $ /99 b (f /99
~
/! /99 / S8 / /98 COPY?(,
'
O fYE NO YES YES ho ES NO ras no YES NO l OFFICIAL RECORD COP'[ DOCUME!TP NAME:H \1990 PEN.ENF\99074CSI.DIR\CSI.ARJ I
N