ML19242C943
| ML19242C943 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/12/1979 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Henning N TWIN CITY TESTING CORP. (FORMERLY TWIN CITY TESTING |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908140217 | |
| Download: ML19242C943 (3) | |
Text
(um d'-
(, $t CN
- l o
UNITED STATES 5
j NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,, c,
- .pyj/.c WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 m*%,.'.'., #"
July 12, 1979 Twin City Testing and Engineering Laborato ry, Inc.
License No. 22-01376-02 ATTN:
Norman E. Henning, PE President 662 Cromwell Avenue St. Paul, MN 55114 Gentlemen:
This is in response to your letter dated March 20, 1979, in response to the Notice of Violation and Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties sent to you in our letter dated March 2, 1979.
The March 2, 1979 letter concerned apparent items of noncompliance found during an inspection conducted on November 21 and 22, 1978, regarding the overexpcsure of a radiographer at a temporary job location in Wheatland, Wyoming, on Novemb - 15, 1978.
Your letter agrees that Items 1 and 2 of the Notice of trolation are correct as stated. Your clarification of Item 3 is correct.
Item 3 wts intended to address only four examples of items of noncompliance (two for each c' the persons involved) as described in paragraph Cive of our inspectivu report.
In your view the cause of this incident, as 'ndicated in your response to the Nctice of Violation, was that the radiograpFer was in error in not performing a ec=plete survey, that the survey made s L ;ty and inadequate, and the ace: dent did not occur because of willful negi gence on the part of management but rather human error. Nevertheless, the Licensee is responsible for the failure involved because the Licensee is res,ansible for the acts of both the management and employees.
Incidents such as that which occurred here do not just happen, they are caused by the failure to follow procedures.
They are preventable by following such procedares, and as you recognize " vigilant scruting" is requiced.
This is especially true where radiographers are performing work at field sites withcut direct s upe rvis ion.
In this case, it is apparent that the Company's procedures, in effect, were not adequate to assure compliance with each of the requirements at issue.
The corrective action described in your letter indicated a number of steps to be taken both by supervisors and employees to avoid recurrence.
The corrective action you have taken, including the additional surveillance by branch managers, the certainty of disciplinary action for employees, monetary awards for lower personnel exposure, purchase of personnel alarming devices, and assuring that the second man on the crew checks the actions of the operatcr to assure adequate surveys, indicates an apparent commi tment on the part of management toward safe operation.
As you are probably aware, a possible CERT:F:EJ MAIL RETGN FtECEIPT REQESTED 79081402o
.,,l
,l 6.% r,
Twin City Testing and Engineering Labora tc ry, Inc.
negative effort that could occur, if yocr proposal for monetary awards for lower personnel exposures is implemented, is failure by your employees to use monitoring devices in order to demonstrate low exposure records.
Measures should be taken to assure that personnel menitoring devices are worn at all appropriate times.
In the interest of understanding your statement concerning the certainty of disciplinary action, we would like you to clarify your policy as it relates to reinstating employees who violate safety requirements.
Specifically, what factors are considered in such reinstatements.
If properly implemented, the corrective actions described in your March 20 letter, together with a positive attitude toward safety, should contribute ta redacing the possibility of future items of nonccapliance involving overexposures.
In respect to your corrective action, you should request the NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards to amend the procedures incorporated in your license in order to reflect these changes in your program.
Please notify us i=cediately if you do not intend to do so.
Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, we have mitigated the civil penalty for Item 1 from $2,500 to $1,500 and the penalty for Item 2 from
$2,000 to $1,000.
Item 1 and Item 2 remain separate items of ncnccmpliance as each of these items involve separate regulatory requirements.
An order is enclosed imposing civil penalties in the amount of $2,500.
We will review implementation of your corrective actions during subsequent inspections.
If implementation of these procedures is not successful in assuring cocpliance with regulatory requirements, consideration will be given to further escalated enforcement act on such as additicnal civil penalties or the issuance of orders to suspend, modify, or revoke the license.
Sincerely, f
,n w-VictorSt4fo,J[,
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
(See next page)
F
.n U
(.
Twin City Testing and Engineering Laboratorf, Inc.
Enclosure:
Order Ic: posing Civil Moneta r/ Penalties o
,n I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Twin City Testing and
)
Byproduct Material Engineering Laborato ry, Inc.
)
License No. 22-01376-02 662 Cromwell Avenue
)
St. Paul, MN 55114
)
ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES I
! win City Testing and Engineering Laboratory, Inc., 662 Cromwell Avenue, St.
Paul, Minnesota, (the " licensee"), is the holder of Byproduct Material License No. 22-01376-02 (the " license"), issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
("the Commission"), which authorizes the licensee to use sealed sources of byproduct material to calibrate survey instruments and conduct industrial rad ography at temporary job sites in accordance with conditic.s specified therein.
The license was issued on January 28, 1958, and has been renewed periodically since.
The license had an expiration date of Ncvember 3C, 1978, but continues.in effect because of a timely applicatian for renewal.
II An investigation of the licensee's activities under the licensee was conducted on November 21 and 22, 1978. As a result of thir investigation, it appears that the licensee has not conducted its activities in full compliance with the requirements of the license and with the requirements of the NRC's Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, " Standards for Protection Against Radia-tion;" and Part 34, " Licenses for Radicgraphy and Radiation Safety Requirements for Radiographic Opera tions." A written Notice of Violation was served upon the licensee by letter dated March 2, 1979, specifying the items of acacom-pliance, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.201.
A Notice of Proposed Imposition of f\\
k Civil Penalties in the amount of Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($4,500) dated Harch 2, 1979, was served concurrently upon the licensee in accordance with Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (42 USC 2282),
and 10 CFR 2.205, incorporating by reference the Notice of Violation, which stated the nature of the items of noncompliance and the provisions of the NRC regulations with which the licensee was in nonccmpliance.
An answer, dated March 20, 1979, to the Notice of Violation, and to the Notice of Proposed Impcsition of Civil Penalties was received from Twin City Testing and Engineering Laboratory, Inc.
III Upon consideration of the answers received and the statements of fact, explanatten, and argument in denial or mitigation contained therein, the Acting Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement has determined that the penalty proposed for the item of noncompliance designated in the Notice cf Violation as Item I be mitigated from Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500) to One Thousand Five Hundred Dolla, ($1,500), and the pena ty for the item of nonccmpliance designated as Item 2 be mitigated f rom l
Twc Thousand Dollars (S2,000) to one Thousand Do11ars ($1,000).
IV In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (42 USC 2280), and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS EEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(
3-The licensee pay civil penalties in the total amount of Two Thousand Five Hundrea Dollars ($2,500).
The penalties may be paid by check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States and mailed to the Acting Director of the Office of lospection and Enforcement.
Payment shall be due and payable within twenty (20) days of the date of receipt of this Order.
V The licensee may, within twenty (20) days of the re.eipt of this Order, request a hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of hearing.
Upon failure of the licensee to hearing within twenty (20) days of the date of receipt of this request a 3rder, the provirions of this Order shall be effective without further pro-ceedings and, if payment bas not been made by that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
VI In the event the licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the issues to be considered at such a hearing shall be:
(a) whether the licensee was in noncompliance with the Commission's regulations in the respects set forth in the Notice of Violation; and s'
(,Ii. f..
)
l-
4 (b) whether, on the basis of such items of noncompliance the Order should be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGLIATORY CO." MISSION f
w
[/ ) A VfcIo r S tM o,,Js f Director Office at Irspection and Enforcement Dated At Bethesda, Ma ryland this 12th day of July, 1979
,\\ 7
,1, ',
)iJ