ML19290B377
| ML19290B377 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/30/1979 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912060027 | |
| Download: ML19290B377 (3) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Byproduct Material The University of Wisconsin
)
License No. 48-09843-18 Madison, Wisconsin 53706
)
ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES I
The University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, (the " licensee"), is the holder of Byproduct Material License No. 48-09843-18 (the " license"), issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("the Commission"), which authorizes the use of radioactive byproduct materials in a broad medical and academic licensed program in accordance with conditions specified therein.
The license was issued on August 8, 1956, and has been renewed periodically since.
The license has an expiration of February 28, 1979, but continues in effect because of a timely application for renewal.
II An i.; pection of the licensee's activities under the license was conducted du-ing the period of February 26 through March 2, 1979.
As a result of the findings of this inspection, 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 19, " Notices, Instructions and Reports to Workers; Inspections;" and Part 20,
" Standards for Protection Against Radiation." A written Notice of Violation was served upon the licensee by letter dated August 15, 1979, specifying the items of noncompliance, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.201.
A Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of Two Thousand Three Hundred Dollars (S2,300) dated August 15, 1979, was served concurrently upon the licensee in accordance with Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 2116 179 79120 60 (h52f7
. amended (42 USC 2282), and 10 CFR 2.205, incorporating by reference the Notice of Violation, which stated the NRC regulations with which the licensee was in noncompliance.
An answer, dated September 21, 1979, to the Notice of Violation, and to the Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties was received from the University of Wisconsin.
III Upon consideration of the answer received and the statements of fact, explanation anr argument in denial or mitigation contained therein, the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement has determined that the penalties proposed for the items of noncompliance designated in the Notice of Violation as Items 2, 3, 5, and 6 should be imposed.
The Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement has determined that the proposed penalty for Item 1 should be mitigated from Three Hundred Dollars ($300) to Two Hundred ($200),
and the proposed penalty of Four Hundred Dollars (5400) for Item 4 should be remitted in its entirety.
IV In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (42 USC 2282), and 10 L R 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The licensee pay civil penalties in the total amount of One Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($1,800) within twenty (20) days of the date of receipt of this Order, by check, draf t, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States and mailed to the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
2116 180
.,.. - V The licensee may, within twenty (20) days of the receipt 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 request a hearing within twenty (20) days of the date of receipt of this Order, the provisions of this Order shall be effective without further proceedings and, if payment has not been made by that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
VI In the event the licensee requer ts a hearing as provided above, the issues to be considered at such hearing shall be:
(a) whether the licensee was ir. noncompliance with the Commission's regulations and the conditions of the license in the respects set forth as Items 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 in the Notice of Violation referenced in Section II above; and (b) whether, on the basis of such items of noncompliance, the order should be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
G Victor Stello, Jr.
~~~
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Dated at Bethesda, Maryland 2l}f lgl this 30th day of October 1979 l
G h A d z. N N,
K%
dd
[
Cc; 3 0 W9 The University of Wisconsin License No. 48-09843-18 AT N:
Dr. Irving Shain, Chancellor Madison, WI 53706 Gentlemen:
This is in response to your letters dated September 21, 1979, entitled "Statenent and Explanation in Response to Notice of Violation as Required uncer 10 CFR Part 2.201," and " Request for Remission or Mitigation of Penalties as Provided under 10 CFR 2.205."
The University's September 21, 1979 response denies that noncompliance exists regarding part of Item No. 1 and all of Item No. 4 in the Notice of Violation.
Based on our review, we are mitigating Item No. 1 from S300.00 to $200.00 and remitting the prcposed penalty for Item No. 4 in its entirety.
The basis for our position with respect to each of tnese items is discussed in Appendix A.
With respect to Item No. 4, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is presently reviewing the existir.g license condition regarding incineration to assure the clarity of this requirement and to assure that releases are as low as reasonably achievable, and appropriate records are kept.
Regarding the comment that the alleged noncompliance Item No. 5 was not a willful violation, we nr>te that willfulness was not a basis for the proposed civil penalty.
Had willfulness been a consideration, the resultant enforcement action would have been much more severe.
Accordingly, we are enclosing an Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalties in the amount of One Thcusand Eight Hundred Dollars ($1,800) for the items of noncompliance set forth in Appendix A to our letter dated August 15, 1979.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Sincerely, 2116 182 C:i;i:=1 sigac:i tf n= mua twy 5 1979 Victor Stello, Jr.
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement pt-/,pd/h
((800%
Enclosures:
f (See next page)
Wh h'p.e' X005;$ $ n.4
/
fin 4 4 ELD k X0[
A/DDIIE D:IE WPU:SM TW Vp/79 10/25/79 ckett JH.iezek JLieberman GCG <er DThompson VStello 1031-10 79 10/2(./79
/]/79 10/.
79 10/ /79 JOE W cm
- a ti t l e. o v v p
University of Wisconsin
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix A - Evaluation of Licensee's Response to Items Denied in Whole or in part 2.
Order Imposing Civil Penalties cc w/ enclosures:
Lionel Lieberman M.D., Chairman University Radiation Safety Committee Frank Larson, M.D.,
- Chairman, Medical Center Radiation Safety Committee Robert R. Radtke, M.S., Director, Safety Department Elsa Nimmo, M.S., University Health Physicist Distribution:
State of Wisconsin V. Stello, IE J. H. Sniezek, IE
' CA F.
!ngram, PA J. R. Murray, ELD J. Lieberman, ELD R. Bachmann,-ELD V. Miller, NMSS Enforcement Coordinators: I, II, III, IV, V IE Files Central Files CP Book (Brockett)
CON X005 Reading File EDO Reading File IE Reading File 2116 183 J. Crooks, MPA T. W. Brockett, IE R. Fortuna, OIA
de APPENDIX A Comments on Items of Noncompliance Which Were Denied by the University of Wisconsin 1.
Inadequate training (License Condition 21 and 10 CFR 19.12).
The licensee acknowledges noncompliance with 10 CFR 19.12, and admits that the incinerator operator had not received instruction in the training manual, did not take the written examination and filed no evidence of this in the quarterly listing as provided for in your instruction set forth in Forms '13 and 120.
However, the licensee points out that contrary to the last sentence of the citation, one of the two cited individuals did not violate License Condition 21.
In these circumstances some mitiga-tion for this Item is reasonable.
2.
Incineration Linit Exceeded (License Condition No. 13)
The contention cf the University is that they may have exceeded an incineration linit of iron-59 in excess of 1 millicurie per day, but not per incineratior., as specified in the requirement.
While the distinction is made between "per day" and "per incineration" in this response, the licensee's records did not make such a distinction.
Additionally, there is an indication of poor management with respect to mislabeling the items to be incinerated.
In our review of the licensee's response we agree that our analysis of residue could not determine whether the radioactivity was per incineration or several incinerations.
Because this distinction could not be mace, Item No. 4 is remitted in its entirety, but again we wish to emphasize cur concerns over the poor management of the licensed program that led to the confusion concerning how much was actually incinerated per incineration.
2116 184