ML20010E573
| ML20010E573 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/21/1981 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010E572 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-81-064, EA-81-64, NUDOCS 8109040279 | |
| Download: ML20010E573 (3) | |
Text
,P*
APPENDIX NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES 1
Mustang Services Company License No. 42-17552-01 Houston, Texas EA 81-64 As a result of an investigation conducted at the licensee's facility in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on June 29, 1981, into the circumstances surrounding the licensee's loss of a cesium-137 sealed source, it appears that several violations of NRC requirements have occurred.
The most serious concern is that the loss of the source could have been prevented if the individual handling the source had performed required radiation surveys.
During the dismantling of the tube wall caliper containing the source late in the evening of June 18, 1981, the source apparently dropped into the belly pan of the truck trailer.
The source had been installed in the truck trailer.
The individual handling the source, who was neither authorized himself to handle the material without supervision nor supervised by an authorized individual, conducted no radiation surveys during the operation, used no personnel monitoring equipment, and did not realize that the source had fallen out of the source holder.
Because the loss of the source was not detected, the source was inadvertently transferred to the purchaser of the truck trailer in which the source had been installed and eventually fell out of the truck trailer onto a bridge near Lewisville, Texas.
As a result, the source created radiation levels in unrestricted areas greater than is permitted l
and caused an exposure to the purchaser's driver that was greater than a l
member of the general public is permitted to receive.
The loss of control over i
the source could have resulted in much more serious overexposures to members j
of the general public.
i i
Because the loss of the source posed a serious hazard to the public and could
(
have been prevented, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose l
civil penalties in tne cumulative amount of $6,000 for this matter.
In accordance with the Interim Enforcement Policy, 45 FR 66754 (October 7, 1980),
and pursuant to section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ("Act"),
42 U.S.C. 2282, PL 96-295, and 10 C.F.R. 2.205, the particular violations and their associated civil penalties are set forth in Section I below:
I CIVIL PENAL 1Y VIOLATIONS i
A.
10 CFR 20.201 (b) requires that the licensee make or cause to be made such surveys as may be necessary to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20.
License condition 16 requires that licensed activities be conducted in accordance with the statements, representations and procedures contained in the application dated July 27, 1977.
Part II, Secticn 3, Item B(6) of the application states that "a survey must be made and recorded for each operatien employing sealed radiation sources."
I 8109040279 510821 NMS LIC30 42-175*2-01 PDR
Appendix (Continued) 10 CFR 20.207(b) requires that licensed materials in an unrestricted area and not in storage shall be tended under the constant surveillance and immediate control of the licensee.
10 CFR 20.105(b)(1) requires that a licensee not use, possess or transfer radioactive material such that there is created in an unrestricted area radiation levels which, if an inc'ividual were continuously present in the area, could result in his receiving a dose in excess of two millirems in any one hour.
Contrary to the above, an individual, who was empicyed by the licensee to transfer a tube wall caliper containing a 1.5 curie cesium-137 radioactive sealed source from a truck trailer to another vehicle, did not perform radiation surveys before, during, or after the attempted transfer of the source on or about June 18, 1981.
Consequently, the licensee lost control of the source in the truck trailer and the trailer containing the source was transferred to a new owner who was not licensed to possess the source.
The source subsequently fell out of the trailer on or about June 23, 1981, onto a bridge near Lewisville Texas, while in transit to the new owner's facilities.
As an added consequence, a member of the general public may have received a dose of radiation of as much as 1.4 rems.
This is a Severity Level II Violation (Supplement VII).
(Civil Penalty $4,000)
B.
License Condition 12 requires that licensed material shall be used by, or under the supervision of, specified individuals.
Contrary to this requirement, an individual who was not specified in the license as a user of radioactive materials, and who was not supervised by an authorized individual, used licensed material on June 18, 1981, during a source holder dismantling operation.
This is a Severity Level II Violation (Supplement VII).
(Civil Penalty $2,000).
II VIOLATION NOT ASSESSED A CIVIL PENALTY A.
10 CFR 20.202(a)(1) requires that each licensee shall supply appro-priate personnel moaitoring equipment to, and shall require the use of such equipment by, each individual who enters a restricted area under such circumstances that he receives, or is likely to receive, a dose in any calendar quarter in excess of 25 percent of the appli-cable value specified in 10 CFR 20.101(a).
Contrary to this requirement, oersonnel monitoring equipment was not supplied to a licensee individual who received approximately 600 mrems during an operation involving a sealed radioactive sourc+ ca June 18, 1981.
t
Appendix (Continued) This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement VII)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Mustang Services Company is hereby required to submit to this office within 30 days of the date of this Notice a written statement or explanation, including for each alleged violation:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged violation; (2) the reasons for the violation if admitt7d; (3) th? corrective :;teps wnich have been taken and the results achieved; (4) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further vio-lations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act. 4? U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Withia the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, Mustang Services Company may pay the civil penalties in the cumulative amount of Six Thousand Dollars or may protest imposition of the civil penalties in whole or in part by a written answer.
Should Mustang Services Company fail to answer within the time specified, this office will issue an order imposing the civil penalties in the amounts proposed above.
Should Mustang Services Company elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalties, such answer may:
(1) deny the violations listed in this Notice in whole or in part; (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances; (3) show error in this Notice; or (4) show other reasons why the penalties should not be imposed.
In additicn to protesting the civil penalties in whcle or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalties.
Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or exp1Laation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate by specific reference (e.g., giving page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition.
Mustang Services Company's attention is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for impusing a civil penalty.
Upon failure to pay any civil penalties due, which have been subsequently determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalties, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be callected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282.
The responses directed by this Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION priginsd Signed By A&Moung Victor Stello, Jr., Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 21 day of August 1981