ML19290H199
| ML19290H199 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/17/1980 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | EMVSUPX |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290H197 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-80-029, EA-80-29, NUDOCS 8012230532 | |
| Download: ML19290H199 (13) | |
Text
.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATOR? COF"ilSSION IN THE MATTER OF:
)
Superior Industrial X-Ray Company
)
Byproduct Material 126th and Homan Avenue
)
License No. 12-02370-01 Blue Island, IL 60406
)
EA-80-29 ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES I
Superior Industrial X-Ray Company, Blue Island, Illinois (the " licensee") is the holder of Byproduct Material License Nc. 12-02370-01 (the " license")
issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the " Commission") which authorizes the licensee to perform industrial radiography at temporary job sites in accordance with the conditions specified therein.
The license was issued on April 5,1957, and has a tertination date of November 30, 1984.
II A routine inspection was conducted of licensed activities under the license during the period April 25 through April 30, 1930.
As a result of this inspection it appears that the licensee has not conducted its activities in full compliance with the conditions of the license and with the requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's " Notices, Instructions and Reports to Workers; Inspections", Part 19, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation",
Part 20, and " License for Radiographer and Radiation Safety Requirements for Radiographic Operations," Part 34, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.
A written Notice of Violation was served upon the licensee by h tter dated June 23, 1980, specifying the items of noncompliance in accordance with 10 CFR 2.201.
A Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties was served concurrently 22230 53 1 upon the licensee in accordance with Sectic, 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC 2282), and 10 C:R 2.205, which incorporated by reference the Notice of Violation.
An answer from the licensee to the Notice of Violation and the Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties was received on July 21, 1980.
III Upon consideration of the answers received and the statements of fact, explanation, and argument for deferral, cor:romise, mitigation, or cancellation contained therein, as set forth in Appendix A to this Order, 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 should be imposed except for Item 3(a).
Item 3(a) is withdrawn and the corresponding penalty for Items 3(a) and 3(c) is mitigated by $750.00.
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 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The licensee pay civil penalties 'n the total amount of Nine Thousand Fif ty Dollars ($9,050) within twenty-five days of the date of this Order, by check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States and mailed to the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
3_
V The licensee may, within twenty-five days of the date of this Order, request a hearing.
A request for a hearing shall be addressed to the Secretary to the Commission, U.S.N.R.C., Washington, D.C.
20555.
A copy of the hearing request shall also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U.S.N.R.C., Washington, D.C.
20555.
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-five days of the date 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 requests a hearing as provided above, the issues to be considered at such a hearing shall be:
a.
whether the licensee was in noncomplinace with the Commission's regulations and the conditions of the license as set forth in the Notice of Violation referenced in Section II and III above; and, b.
whether on the basis of such items of noncomplinace, this Order should be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f,
f feg Gd.yn-Victor Stello, Jr.
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this /7M day ofdece r-1980
Attachment:
Appendix A, Evaluation and Conclusions
APPENDIX A EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS For each item of noncompliance and associated civil penalty identified in the Notice of Violat ion (dated June 23, 1980) the original item of noncompliance is restated and the Office of Inspection and Enforcement's evaluation and conclusion regarding'the licensee's responses to each item (received July 21, 1980) is presented.
1.
STATEMENT OF NONLOMDLIANCE FOR ITEM 1 10 CFR 20.207(b) requires that licensed material in an unrestricted area and not in storage be under the constant surveillance and immediate control of the licensee.
Contrary to the above, a Technical Operations Model 533 radiographic exposure device containing a 45 curie iridium-192 sealed source was left in an unrestricted area for periods up to one hour without being under the constant surveillance and immediate control of the licensee.
This occurred at a field site in Bolingbrook, Illinois, on April 25 and 29, 1980.
This violation had the potential for causing an occurrence related to health and safety.
(Civil Penalty - 53,000.00).
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO ITEM 1 The response f rom the licensee stated, in part:
We contend the radiographer did not expropriate his responsibilities to 10 CFR 20.207(b) during radiographic operations as inferred, but that he returned the source to its shielded container, surveyed it to assure its proper position and locked it.
We assert that the irmediate control of the licensed material was mair,tained through surveying and locking the exposure device.
The radiographer then developed his film.
This was when constant surveillance lapsed.
The radiographic exposure device was not maintained under constant eyesight while the radiographer developed his film.
We cannot dispute this point.
The concept constant surveillance of licensed material in an unrestricted area, however, is ambiguous.
We received on a regular basis radioactive licensed material in unlocked containers which are not under the constant surveillance of a radiographer or a radio-grapher's assistant as they travel on common carriers and through busy airports. One of the reasons cited by the NRC for the potential occurrence detrimental to
Appendix A (Continued) health and safety was the possibility of thef t of our exposure device.
The interception of the unlocked transitory licensec material would be much more probable than in our case where the surveyed and locked exposure device was left in close proximity to the licensee.
We feel only an individual with a knowledge of the operation of exposure devices who had an intent to steal the source could have caused such an occurrence.
EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO ITEM 1 10 CFR 20.207(b) states that licensed materials in an unrestricted area shall be tended under constant surveillance and immediate control of the licensee.
Common dictionary definitions define surveillance as "close observation." Therefore, constant surveillance means constant close observation.
The radiographer's action of leaving the exposure device unattended for periods of greater than one hour cannot be construed as meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 20.207(b).
In addition, during radiographic operations, although the sealed source assembly was secured in the shielded position each time the source was returned to that position, as required by 10 CFR 34.22(a),
the exposure device was not kept locked when not under the direct surveillance of a radiographer or radiographer's assistant.
NRC shares your concern about the potential problems of transporting licensed radioactive material in unlocked containers by common carriers and through busy airports.
To minimize these risks, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations include a requirement for a security seal on the package while it is in transit.
This seal, while intact, provides evidence that the package has not been illicitly opened.
As you may be aware, common and contract carriers are not subject to licensing by, or requirements of the NRC; however, they are subject to the transportation requirements of D0T.
CONCLUSION The item as stated is an item of noncompliance.
The information presented by the licensee does not provide a basis for modification of this enforcement action.
2.
STATEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE FOR ITEM 2 10 CFR 34.42 requires areas in which radiography is being performed to be conspicuously posted with a sign or signs bearing the radiation caution symbol and the words:
" Caution - High Radiation Area" and
" Caution Radiation Area."
Contrary to the above, no " Caution - High Radiation Area" or
" Caution Radiation Area" signs were posted at a field site in Bolingbrook, Illinois, where radiographic exposures were being performed on April 25, and 29, 1980.
Appendix A (Continued) This is an infraction (Civil Penalty - $2,000.00).
LI_CENSEE'S RESPONSE TO ITEM 2 In the response the licensee stated, in part:
The failure to post these signs was not without contemplation and certainly was not a malicious disregard for 10 CFR 34.32 or our Operating Proce-dures.
The field site where the above infraction occurred is frecuented by automobile and truck traffic, only very rarely by pedestrians.
In these occasions we have felt that the less attention which is drawn to the area the better.
This assures normal traffic flow and the prevention of gapers wno might possibly accumulate an unwarranted radiation dose.
Our radiographer maintained constant control through visual contact with the entire area.
EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO ITEM 2 10 CFR 34.42 states that areas in wnich radiography is being performed shall be conspicuously posted with signs bearing the radiation symbol and the words:
" Caution - Radiation Area" and " Caution -
High Radiation Area." No provision is made in the regulations for exemption from this requirement at the whim of the radiographer or licensee.
Furthermore the radiographer stated that he seldom used warning signs on field jobs except when radiography was performed inside a huilding.
He also stated that posting signs during pipeline work added a lot of work and slowed down production.
This kind of attitude toward the requirements by a radiographer, in this case a Field Manager, shows a careless disregard for radiation safety.
hithough the site where the infraction occurred is most frequented by automobile and truck traffic rather than pedestrians, it should also be noted that the pipe trench passed through the back yards of houses in a residential area and did not necessarily preclude pedestrian traffic.
In the response the licensee stated that the radiographer maintained constant control through visual contact with the entire area.
This was not the case as demonstrated by the following events.
On April 25, 1980 two NRC inspectors observed the radiographer make several radiographic exposures.
During these exposures they observed that a pipeline company truck occupied by two individuals was parked on the shoulder of the road along Routs 53.
This was about 25 feet from the exposed radiographic source.
In the instant case, radiation from the exposed source was attenuated by the edge of an earth embankment and the individuals in the truck were not exposed to unnecessary radiation.
When questioned about
Appendix A (Continued) this matter the radiographer stated that he was not aware of the parked truck.
During another exposure sequence on April 25, 1980, the NRC inspectors observed a welder standing in the pipe trench about 25 feet from the exposed source The welder was in a position where the collimator would provice mi).imum attenuation of the radiation field.
Subsequent to this observation, the NRC inspectors made independent measurements during a re-enactment and noted the radiation level was 6 mR/hr at a pcsition similar to where the welder was standing.
When questioned about this matter, the radiographer stated he did not see the welder standing in the pipe trench during the time the radiography source was exposed.
The licensee's contention that g3pers might possibly accumulate unwarranted radiation doses is not well icunded since, if the radiographic area was properly pcsted and.the radiographer was controlling access to the area, gapers would be at a dis'.ance sufficient to assure their safety.
CONCLUSION The item as stated is an item of nonccmpliance.
The information presented by the licensee does not provide a basis for modification of this enforcement action.
3.
STATEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE FOR ITEMS 3(a) AND 3(b) 10 CFR 34.33(a) prohibits an individual from acting as a radiographer or a radiographer's assistant unless, at all times during radiographic operation, each such individual wears a direct reading pocket dosimeter and either a film badge or a thermoluminescent dosimeter.
10 CFR 34.33(b) requires pocket dosimeters to be read and exposures recorded daily.
a.
Contrary to 10 CFR 34.33(a), a radiographer made radiographic exposures without wearing a film badge or a thermoluminescent dosimeter.
Specifically, the radiographer made radiographic exposures during June 1979 while his film badge was lef t inside his tackle box which was left in the exposure room b.
Contrary to 10 CFR 34.33(b), another radiographer did not read his pocket dosimeter and record the exposures on April 24, 25, and 28, 1980, days on which ne made radiographic exposures.
This is an infraction.
(Civil Penalty - $1,500.00).
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO ITEM 3(a)
In the response the licensee stated, in part:
The radiographer who had a high film badge reading was neither operating an exposure
Appendix A (Continued) device ner wearing his film badge when it was exposed.
The film bacge was in his tackle box which was adjacent tc a projector which was left in what becare a radiation area.
The radiographer's intent was to have the film badge with him the next day to conform to 10 CFR 34.32(a).
To him, the most logical place to leave his film badge was in his tackle box that was left at the shop which subsequently became the radiation area.
He was not present nor was he performing radiographic operations when the exposure occurred.
EVALUATION OF LICENSEE RESPONSE TO ITEM 3(a)
During the April 30, 1980, inspection at the home office in Blue Island, Illinois, the NRC inspectors discussea this matter with the RSO and with the President of Superior Industrial X-Ray Company.
Also, on May 12, 1980, a meeting was held with the President of Superior Industrial X-Ray Company at the NRC's Region III office in Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
During both meetings the occurrence was reviewed with the President and based on his statements it was NRC's understanding that the radiographer made radiographic exposures without wearing a film badge or a thermoluminescent dosimeter.
However, the information supplied in the licensee's letter, received July 21, 1980, was not brought to our attention previously.
CONCLUSION Since we cannot confirr that an individual acted as a radiographer without wearing a film badge or a thermoluminescent dosimeter, this apparent item of noncompliance will be deleted from our records.
Accordingly, the information presented by the licensee provides a basis for mitigation of the proposed penalties for Items 3(a) and 3(b) by $750.
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO ITEM 3(b)
The licensee respondec in part, that the radiographer's error was not in the failure to monitor his dosimeter daily but in his failure to record the exposure.
EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO ITEM 3(b)
This item of noncompliance is based on statements made to two NRC inspectors by a licensee radiographer during a field inspection on April 29, 1980.
On that date, the radiographer stated he did not read his dosimeter on April 24, 25 and 28, 1980.
Therefore, this item of noncompliance is constituted both by the failure to read a dosimeter and for failure to maintain a record on three specific days on which the individual performed radiographic exposures.
The civil penalty is imposed primarily for the failure to read the dosimeter.
Reading of the dosimeter is an extremely important act for determining the safe conduct of radiographic operations.
It is also important for determining the radiographer's accumulating radiation exposure.
Appendix A (Continued) CONCLUSION The item as stated is an item of noncc pliance.
The information presented by the licensee does not provide a basis for modification of this enforcement action.
4.
STATEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE FOR ITEMS A'a) 4(b) AND 4(c)
License Condition No. 16 requires that the licensee possess and use licensed material in accordance with statements, representations and procedures contained in certain referenced documents, One of these documents, the license application dated January 22, a.
1979, as amended August 27, 1979, states in the licensee's Operating and Emergency Procedures that the radiographer will check the perimeter of the restricted area with a gamma radiation survey meter.
Contrary to the above, the radiog apher did not check the perimeter of the restricted area using a gamma radiation survey meter, at a field site in Bolingbrook, Illinois, where radiography was performed on April 25 and 29,1980.
This is an infraction.
(Civil Pe,alty - $1,000.00) b.
One of these documents, the license application dated January 22, 1979, states on page 18 of the Operating and Emergency Procedures Manual, "The outside surface of the vehicle shall be monitored with a survey meter to determine that the amount of radiation is not in excess of 2 milliroentgens per hour.
The cab of the vehicle shall be monitored to cetermine that the radiation level within the cab does not exceed 2 milliroentgens per hour."
Contrary to the above, no radiation survey was made on April 28, 1980, of a vehicle that was used to transport a radiographic exposure device from the licensee's home office in Blue Island, Illinois, to a field site in Bolingbrook, Illinois, and back to the Blue Island, Illinois location.
This is a deficiency.
(Civil Penalty - $300.00) c.
One of these documents, the license application dated January 22, 1979, as amended August 27, 1979, includes in the licensee's Management and Administrative Procedures Manual a description of the licensee's internal audit system.
Section 6 of this Manual states that the licensee's Internal Audit System shall be performed on the licensee's radiographers at least quarterly on an announced or unannounced basis.
Contrary to the above, a review of the licensee's Internal Audit records on April 30, 1980, showed the required audit was not made at the required interval for seven radiographers.
Appendix A (Continued) This is an infraction.
(Civil Penalty - 52,000.00)
LICENSEE'S RES?ONSE TO ITEM a(a)
In the response the licensee stated, in part:
This infraction concerns the failure to perform a survey of the restricted area.
We feel that this is a restatement of Item 2 of the Appendix A in which the restricted area was not posted.
This iter states that this unpcsted area was not surveyed.
The radiographer nowever maintained constant ccntrol over the entire area in which exposures were made.
We feel that there was not a potential for causing an occurrence detrimental to the health and safety of the general public.
EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO ITEM 4(a)
The licensee statec this item of noncompliance appears to be a restatement of Iter 2 of the Appendix A in which the restricted area was not postec.
However, the tw'c items of noncompliance are not related.
Radiation warning signs are used to inform nonradiation workers and members cf the public that a hazardous activity is in progress and the areas should be avoided.
The requirement for making a survey of the perimeter of the restricted area is to assure that the boundaries are defined in accorcance with radiation levels permitted in unrestricted area as defined in 10 CFR 20.105(b).
In addition, the licensee's Operating and Emergency Procedures state such curveys will be made and this commitment is incorporated into the license by reference.
One of the pu poses of defining the boundaries of the unrestricted area is tc determine the location or placement of the radiation caution signs and to determine the perimeter of **? area t.hich must be accessible only to authorized radiography personnel.
The licensee stated that the radiographer maintained constant control over the entire area.
This statement is unsupported as was previously discussed in our evaluation of the licensees' response to Item 2.
CONCLUSION The item as stated is an item of nonconpliance.
The information presented by the licensee does not provice a basis for modification of this enforcement action.
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO ITEM 4(b)
In the response the licensee stated, in part:
Our general policy is that tnis survey is to be made at the time the scurce is placed in the vehicle prior to leaving the home office.
Appendix A (Continued) Here again is a restatement of the radio-graphers failure to perform proper record keeping on a daily basis.
EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO ITEM 4(b)
The licensee stated the general policy is that the survey will be made at the time the source is placed in the vehicle and prior to leaving the home office.
The response also implies that the survey was made but the radiographer failed to make a proper record of the survey.
However, during a field inspection on April 29, 1980, a licensee radiographer stated to two NRC inspectors that no vehicle survey was performed on April 28, 1980.
Therefore, the basis of this item of noncompliance is failure to perform a required survey and not for failure to make a record of the results of a survey.
CONCLUSION The item as stated is an item of noncompliance.
The information presented by the licensee does not provide a basis for modification of this enforcement action.
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO ITEM 4(c)
In the response the licensee stated, in part:
Our Quality Assurance Manager performed an Internal Audit described in Section 6 of that manual.
We performed this action as required in our Operating and Emergency Procedures.
We appeal this Civil Penalty on the basis that it had been corrected internally prior to this audit and ask for mitigation.
EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO ITEM 4(c)
It appears from the licensee's letter that licensee management personnel completed the audit for all radiographers and radiographer's assistants prior to the NRC Inspection which was conducted on April 25, 29 and 30, 1980.
However, during the field inspection on April 29, 1980, Michael Turner, a radiographer, stated to two NRC inspectors he was the field manager and one of his duties was to perform field audits of all radiographers and radiographer's assistants.
However, because of the workload he had been unable to perform the required audits.
This statement was substantiated by the RSO, Helen T. Paluch, during the inspection at the home office in Blue Island, Illinois, on April 30, 1980.
In addition, the licensee's records showed that three radiographers, Michael Turner, Thomas Green and Roger Hickman, had never been audited and four other radiographers had not been audited between November 5, 1979, and April 30, 1980 (the date of this inspection).
The RSO, Helen T. Paluch, confirmed that these individuals all worked routinely as radiographers or radiographer's assistants during this period.
Appendix A (Continued) CONCLUSION The item as stated is an item of nonccmpliance.
The information presented by the licensee does not provide a basis for modification of this enforcement action.
5.
STATEMENT OF NON' JANCE FOR ITEM 5 10 CFR 19.13(a) requires that the licensee furnish a report of radiation exposure data to individuals on termination of employment and this report shall contain certain specified information.
Contrary to the above, reports submitted to two former employees did not contain the following statement as required by 10 CFR 19.13(a):
"This report is furnished to you under tne provisions of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulation 10 CFR Part 19.
You should preserve this report for further reference."
This is a deficiency.
(Civil Penally - 50.00)
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO ITEM 5 The licensee responded in part, that the deficiency was immediately rectified by its addition to said report while NRC auditors were present at our home office.
EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S tlESPONSE TO ITEM 5 The NRC inspection substantiated that the corrective action was completed during the inspection as statea by the licensee.
CONCLUSION Appropriate corrective action fo-this item of noncompliance was taken during the inspection.
As a result, no Civil Penalty.was proposed for this item of noncompliance.
6.
STATEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE FOR ITEM 6 10 CFR 34.27 requires that each licensee shall maintain current utilization logs showing for each sealed source the following information:
(a) a description of the radiographic exposure device in which the sealed source is located; (b) the identity of the radiographer to whom assigned:
and, (c) the plant or site where used and the dates of use.
Contrary to the above, no utilization log was maintained for radiographic exposures performed on April 24, 25 and 28, 1960 at the Bolingbrook, Illinois, field site.
This is a deficiency.
(Civil Penalty - 50.00)
Appendix A (Continued) LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO ITEM 6 In the response the licensee statec:
This deficiency, the failure of the radiographer to complete his daily utili:ation log has been specifically mentioned in Items 3(b), 4(b) and here again in Item 6.
The Civil Penalties proposed for our radiographe 's incomplete record keeping of a single cocument amount to eighteen hundred dollars, although no Civil Penalty is proposed in this carticular instance.
The corrective action statec in : tem 3 applies here again.
EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TC I EM 6 In the response the licensee states that the items of noncompliance noted in Items 3(b), 4(b) and 6 all related to a single document wnich shows incomplete recordkeeping.
However, NRC inspect on i
findings show that Item 3(b) was a citation for failure to read and record dosimeter results on April 24, 25, an: 28, 1980.
The civil penalty however, was primarily for failure to read the dosineter.
Also, NRC inspection findings show tna: Item 4(b) was a citation for failure to perform a survey of a vehicle on April 28, 1980, and not for failure to record the results cf a vehicle survey.
Therefore, the significance of these citations was not for failures to maintain records but instead were citations for failu e to read a dosimeter and to perform a survey as required.
- n tne case of the item of noncompliance noted in Item 6 this is clea-ly a failure to maintain a record.
CONCLUSION The item as stated is an item of nonco pliance.
However, no Civil Penalty was proposed for this item cf noncompliance.
It is adminis-trative in nature and has minor safety significance.