IR 015000042/1996008
| ML20133D005 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 15000042, 015000042 |
| Issue date: | 01/02/1997 |
| From: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Robinson W ROBCO PRODUCTION LOGGING, INC. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133D010 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-96-378, NUDOCS 9701080167 | |
| Download: ML20133D005 (6) | |
Text
. , .. .. . . . - . . - - - ~ . - . , - - ~ . ..-_. - - . . ~ , . .. . . .
.
a nth UNITED STATES
.
1 . ./.
\o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
7 g REGION IV
% 8 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 400
- '+9 / ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-8064 l January 2, 1997 I
EA 96-378
- William President
'
i Robco Production logging. Inc.
Post Office Box 1423 1001 East Highway l Snyder. Texas 79550 I I
'
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY -
- $1.100 (Ref. NRC Inspection Report No. 150-00042/96-08 and
- Investigation Report 4-96-024)
.
Dear Mr. Robinson:
$ This is in reference to the matters discussed with you and other Robco Production Logging. Inc. (Robco) representatives at a predecisional enforcement conference conducted on November 19. 1996. in the NRC's Arlington.
L Texas office. The conference was conducted to discuss several apparent i
violations of NRC requirements that occurred when Robco, a state of Texas i
licensee, conducted licensed activities in NRC jurisdiction in June 1996.
r including an apparent deliberate failure to file NRC Form 241 with the NRC prior to conducting these activities and an apparent deliberate failure to follow company operating and emergency procedures. The apparent violations were described in an inspection report issued on November 4. 1996.
Based on the information developed during the inspection and investigation, and the information that you provided during the conference, the NRC has determined that certain violations of NRC requirements did occur, although not entirely as described in the inspection report. The violations.that occurred are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty ($1.100) and involve: 1) a failure to file NRC Form 241; 2) a logging supervisor's failure to wear vinyl gloves when required: 3) a failure to make records of each use of licensed material: 4) a failure to make radiation-surveys before and after each tracer study: 5) a failure to include all required information on shipping papers: and 6) a failure to follow other transportation requirements associated with transporting material in an ejector tool. The circumstances surrounding these violations were described in detail in the inspection report.
The only violation for which a civil penalty is being assessed consists of:
1) Robco's failure in June 1996 to follow procedures described in 10 CFR 150.20. including the recuirement to file a Form-241 with the NRC: and 2) Robco's failure in August anc September 1995 to inform the NRC that it 9701080167 970102 l PDR STPRG ESGTX PDR u I
. .. _ _ _ -
._ _ __ __ _
,
.
William intended to conduct additional work outside of that described on a Form-241 submitted on May 9. 1995. As you were aware prior to conducting this work.
Robco was required to file a Form 241. " Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States." file copies of a valid state license and pay the associated fees. Had the NRC not telephoned you regarding tnis matter in 1996, it is not clear that Robco would have complied with this important requirement. However, we are not characterizing this violation as deliberate because. as you discussed at the conference, you had complied with these requirements in several prior years, an indication of your willingness to comply, and were distracted at the time by personal matters.
The NRC considers the occurrence of this violation in 1996 a significant violation because: 1) such failures can deny the NRC an opportunity to assure that licensed activities are being conducted by appropriately trained personnel and in accordance with all safety requirements; and 2) Robco's corrective action for a previous, similar violation issued in December 1992 was totally ineffective in preventing a violation of 10 CFR 150.20 from occurring in 1995 and again in 1996. In 1992. Robco was cited by the NRC for failing to revise information submitted with a Form 241 for work that was conducted beyond the scope of that described on the form. In response to the Notice of Violation you stated. in part. "The reason is that some personnel were not fully aware of the proper procedure for doing tracer work in a non-agreement state under the reciprocity provisions of 10 CFR 150.20. All personnel have now been fully informed as to the correct procedure for ;
Agreement state licensees conducting activities in a non-agreement state under ;
the reciprocity provisions . . Any time tracer work is to be performed in a !
non-agreement state the NRC will be informed 3 days prior to entry into the state."
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 section VI.B of the Enforcement Policy, a civil penalty with a base value of $2.500 is i considered for a Severity Level III violation. Because your facility has not
'
been the subject of escalated enforcement actions within the last 2 years, 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. Your corrective actions consisted of coming into compliance in June 1996 and paying the associated fees, familiarizing your l assistant manager with filing requirements and providing him copies of NRC
- Form 241. While the NRC agrees, given the size of your company, that your l corrective actions may prove to be adequate and is, therefore, giving credit '
'
for corrective action, the NRC remains concerned that its enforcement action in 1992 and the corrective actions that you claim to have implemented then i were not effective. One of the primary purposes of NRC's enforcement actions is to encourage corrective action to preclude recurrence. Since you told the
'
.
I
-. , . . - .. - -. - - - - - - - . - - - - . - . _ --
..
William NRC in 1993 that all personnel had been fully informed as to the correct procedures, but these corrective actions were not fully effective in 1995 and 1996, the NRC is exercising' discretion under Section VII.A.1 of its Enforcement Policy and assessing a civil penalty of $1.100 for the 1996 violation, to emphasize the importance of taking action to preclude further violations. This amount-is less than the base civil penalty for a Severity Level III violation and reflects the circumstances of this case.
To emphasize the importance of correcting violations in a manner that is sufficient to preclude recurrence. I have been authorized after consultation with the Director. Office of Enforcement. and the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety. Safeguards and 0.oerations Support, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice)
in the amount of $1.100 for the Severity Level III violation described above and-in the Notice.
The other potentially significant ap)arent violation discussed at the conference involved an apparent deli aerate failure to follow Robco operating
'
and emergency procedures that stated you would eject all remaining tracer material into the well following logging operations. Although there was much discussion regarding the meaning of that requirement it became ap)arent following discussions.with state of Texas health officials that .Ro)co was-utilizing, and had provided the NRC inspector. a version of operating and
.
emergency procedures which were more restrictive regarding this activity than the procedures approved by the state. The procedures submitted to, and approved by, the state did not contain such a requirement. Thus, we have concluded that Robco's practice of filling the ejector tool with tracer material and using it for several wells prior to emptying the tool was not in conflict with Robco's approved 3rocedures, and'no violation occurred.
However, it is apparent that Ro)co personnel were not aware that procedures
submitted to the state differed from those used by Robco employees. As noted during the conference, you should examine your procedures, compare them with those submitted to the state of Texas and ensure that you are using a version that has been reviewed and approved by the Texas Bureau of Radiation Control.
The remaining violations listed in the enclosed Notice. all'of which were discussed during the conference, are classified at Severity Level IV and l -involve no civil penalties.
You'are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions
.
specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your l response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional
actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future .
j inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is !
.
necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
!
-. . , _
_ _
.
i l
William l l
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 j Document Room (PDR). To the extent possible, your response should not include ,
any personal privacy, proprietary or safeguards information so that it can be l placed in the PDR without redaction. !
Sincerely
.
lf l
' hL.J. allan Regional Administrator Docket No. 150-00042 License No. LO4925 (Texas) )
,
Enclosure: Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty 1 cc w/ Enclosure:
Mr. Keith Moon !
Independent Wireline Well Loggers Association !
,
'
Route 2. Box 254 De Leon. Texas 76444 States of Texas and Oklahoma l
i I
. .
,
.
William l
l DISTRIBUTION:
~PDR IE 14 SECY Enforcement Coordinators CA RI. Ril. Rlll JTaylor. EDO (0-17G21) JGilliland. OPA (0-2G4) ,
HThompson. DEDS (0-17G21) PLohaus. OSP (0-3D23) l JLieberman. OE (0-7H5) HBell. OlG (T-5028) !
LChander. OGC (0-15B18) EJordan. AE0D (T-4018) '
JGoldberg. OGC (0-15B18) GCaputo. 01 (0-3E4) '
CPaperiello. NMSS (T-8A23) DCool NMSS or (T-8FS)
OE:EA (0-7H5) DE:ES (0-7H5)
LTremper. OC/LFDCB (T 9E10) !NUDOC"
,
j RIV DISTRIBUTION:
E-mail tc:
0EMAIL OKunihiro (DMKl) i SJCollins (SJC) RWise (RXW)
'
BHenderson (BWH) MHammond (MFH2) !
CHackney (CAH) JHorner (JWH3) .
l WBrown (WLB) RScarano (RAS 1) l LWilliamson (ELWl) LHowell (LLH)
CCain (CLC) FWenslawski (FAW)
BSpitzberg (DBS) WRadcliffe (WHR2)
Copies to:
RIV Files GSanborn*EAF11e NMI&FCDB File MIS Coordinator PA0/Henderson RSLO/ Hackney LJCallan> Reading File I
i
!
t
!
GW'
w 6 ., , M v .c3,f. w w: v .cor,.un..cu,. v .uo,orr OE[N -
PA:RIVM lD:0E[
CCent LJCallan i MLiebermanN l 12/ M 96 1299/96 )lt/d/96 N N
,j 080022
~ - -
.
.
William DISTRIBUTION:
PDR IE 14 SECY Enforcement Coordinators i CA JTaylor. E00 (0-17G21)
RI. RII. Rill l JGilliland. OPA (0-2G4) l HThompson. DEDS (0-17G21) Pl.ohaus. OSP (0-3023) '
JLieberman. OE (0 7H5) HBell. OIG (T-5D28)
LChander. OGC (0-15B18) EJordan. AE00 (T-4018)
JGoldberg. 0GC (0-15B18) GCaputo. 01 (0-3E4)
CPaperiello. NMSS (T-8A23) DCool, NMSS or (T-8FS)
OE:EA (0-7H5) OE:ES (0-7H5)
LTremper. OC/LFDCB (T-9E10) NUDOC RIV DISTRIBUTION:
E-mail to:
DEMAll DKunihiro (DMK1)
SJCollins (SJC) RWise (RXW)
BHenderson (BWH) MHammond (MFH2)
CHackney (CAH) JHorner (JWH3)
WBrown (WLB) RScarano (RAS 1)
LWilliamson (ELWl) LHowell (LLH)
CCain (CLC) FWenslawski (FAW)
BSpitzberg (DBS) WRadcliffe (WHR2)
Copies to:
RIV Files GSanborn>EAFile
.
l NMI&FCDB File MIS Coordinator PA0/Henderson RSLO/ Hackney LJCallan Reading File
. i
'
- w e.< %
GW'n a 6 . % = ,w n . % .a .m. ,c . m .
OEI D .
JtA:RIVb lD:0Ef GCent LJCallan i diebermanY '
It/M/96 17/4/96 912/d/96 M .
,