ML20055C737
| ML20055C737 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/20/1990 |
| From: | Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | ST. LOUIS TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055C736 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-90-009, EA-90-9, NUDOCS 9006250008 | |
| Download: ML20055C737 (13) | |
Text
.
s g.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMf11SSION St., Louis Testing.
Docket No. 030-05004 Laboratories, Inc.
License No. 24-00188-02 St. Louis, Missouri EA 90-009 ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY I
St. Louis Testing Laboratories, Inc. (Licensee) is the holder of Byproduct Material License No. 24-00188-02 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC or Comission) on April 19, 1985. The license authorizes the Licensee to
(
perform industrial radiography in accordance with the conditions specified l'
therein.
l 11 L
l_
An inspection of the Licensee's activities was conducted on December 20 and 21, 1989, and January 17, 1990. The results of this inspection indicated that
)
the Licensee had not conducted its activities in full compliance with NRC L
requirements. A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil L
Penalty (Notice) was served upon the Licensee by letter dated March 6, 1990.
l l
The Notice states the nature of the violations, the provisions of the NRC's requirements that the Licensee had violated, and the amount of the civil penalty proposed for the violations. The Licensee responded to the Notice on
. April 4 and April 25, 1990.
In its responses, the Licensee denied Violation l
1.A and Part 2 of Violation I.D.
In addition, the Licensee protested the imposition of the civil penalty and requested remission.
I 4
ggg2ff@g900620 l
24-o0188-62 PDC
1 111
-After consideration of the Licensee's responses and the stateuents of fact, explanation, and argurient for mitigation cor.teined therein, the NRC staff has '
determined, as set forth in the Appendix to this Order, that the violations occurred as stated and that the penalty proposed for the violations designated in the Notice should be-imposed.
IV In view'of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ( Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205, IT'IS HEREBY
-0RDERED THAT:
1 The Licensee pay a' civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 within 30 days of the date of this Order, by check, draf t, or -
money order, payable to the Treasurer of the United States and mailed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: ~ Docunient Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555.
l V
The Licensee may. request a heoring within 30 days of the date of this Order.
A request for a hearing should be clearly marked as a " Request for an t
h
. Enforcement Hearing" and shall be addressed to the Director, Office of Enforceaeist,' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTH: Document Control Desk,
' Washington, D.C.-20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Assistant' General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address and to the Regionel Adn.inistrctor, NRC Region III, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137.
If u hearing is requested, the Commission will issue an Order designating the
. time and place of the hearing.
If the Licensee fails to request a hearing Lwithin.30 days of the date of this Order, the provisions of this Order shall be effective without further proceedings.
If payment has not been made by that time, the matter may'be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
In the event the Licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the issues to be-considered at such hearing shall be:
e.
(a)' whether the licensee was in violation of NRC requirements as described in Violation I.A and Part 2 of Violation 1.D set forth in the Notice referenced in Section 11 above, which the licensee denied, and 1
4 (b)_ whether on the basis of those violations, and the: additional violations set forth in'the Hotice of Violation, which the licensee admitted, this' Order should be sustained.
FOR Tn: NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION lhl..Thompso Hug L Jr.
De y Executiv Dire t for Nu ear Materials Sa y, Safeguards and Operations. Support Dated at Rockville, Maryland this g day of' June 1990 1
e.
?O
!i,
!) -
S.
APPENDIX 1
EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS On March 6,1990, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of' Civil Penalty (Notice) was issued for violations identified during an NRC inspection. St. Louis Testing Laboratories, Inc. responded to the Notice in letters dated April 4, and April 25, 1990.
In its response, the licensee denied Violation I.A and Part 2 of Violation I.D.
In addition, the licensee protested imposition of the penalty and requested remission of.the civil pena lty.
The NRC's evaluation and conclusion regarding the licensee's requests
!are as follows:
Violation 1. A.
Statement of Violation L
!10 CFR 20.101(b) provides, in part, that a licensee may permit an individual E
- in a restricted area to receive a total occupational dose to the whole body L
greater than that permitted under paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 20.101 provided that during any calendar-quarter the total occupational dose to the whole body shall not exceed 3 rems.
L Contrary to the above, a radiographer employed by the licensee received a whole. body occupational dose of 4.02 rems while perforraing radiography in a restricted area during the first calendar quarter of 1989.
-Summary of Licensee's Response to Violation 1. A.
l The licensee denies this violation but agrees that the radiographer was exposed to an iridium-192 source. The licensee states that based upon its calculations, the dose received by the radiographer was within the 10 CFR I
Part 20 limits. The licensee further states that the dose received by the badge and the dose received by the individual. can vary, and that the licensee's calculations are more reliable than the badge readings.
NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Response While the calculations conducted by the licensee and used to evaluate this l
exposure appear to indicate that neither the hands nor the head area were exposed in excess of the 10 CFR Part 20 limit (18.75 rems and 3 rems, l
respectively), there are numerous unknowns involved in those calculations, l
including the licensee's assumption that the source was fully collimated by a I
tungsten collimator.
Further, the licensee's calculations did not address the l'
potential exposure to a part of the body other than the hands or head (i.e.,
. chestarea). According to the radiographer's statements to the inspector-during the inspection, both the film badge and the dosimeter were worn in the chest pocket of his shirt. NRC must assume that any exposure to these devices-y
.was also received by the chest of the individual wearing the devices. The l
L
,v Appendix ~- dosimeter.(500 raillirem) was off-scale and the filu badge reports indicate 3.77 rems for that period and 4.02 rems for the quarter. The Canunission considers a non-extremity, non-skin exposure to a significant ulume (greater than or equal to one cubic centimeter) of tissue in excess of 3 rems in a-calendar quarter to be a whole body exposure pursuant to 10 CFR 20.101. Thus, the HRC concludes that the radiographer received a 4.02 rem whole body exposure,.
which is in excess of the'3 rem limit allowed in 10 CFR 20.101(b), and that the violation occurred as stated in the Notice.
Violation 1. B.
Statement of Violation 10 CFR 34.43(b) requires that the licensee ensure that a survey with a calibrated and operable radiation survey instrument is made after each exposure to determine that the sealed source has been returned to its shielded position.
Contrary to the above, on April 8,1989, a radiographer failed to perform a survey with a calibrated survey instrument af ter each exposure to determine that the sealed source had been returned to its shielded position.
Sunnary of Licensee's' Response to Violation 1. B.
The licensee did not dispute this violation.
Violation I. C.
Statement of Violation 10 CFR M 33(d) requires that if an individual's pocket dosimeter is discharged beyond its ranse, his film badge or TLD shall be immediately sent for. processing.
Contrary to the above, on April 8, 1989, an individual's pocket dosimeter was discharged beyond its range and his film badge was not sent for processing until April 10, 1989.
Sunnary of Licensee's Response to Violation I. C_
The. licensee does not deny this violation and does agree that the badge was not sent in immediately as required.
However, the licensee further states
. that since the incident occurred on a weekend (Saturday), the badge was sent as soon as it could have been (Monday) and in that respect was sent immediately.
NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Response The NRC staff does not agree with the licensee's opinion that Monday was the soonest that the badge could be sent for processing. The film badge vendor provides emergency processing of badges on the weekend upon request.
In addition, the U. S. Postal Service Express Mail provides service between
4 4 -
Appendix <
St. Louis and Chicago (the filn badge vendor is located in a Chicago suburb) seven days a week including holidays. The inspector was able to identify several courier ccmpanies which would have accepted the badge on Saturday and delivered the badge early Monday morning.
Had the licensee wanted to send the badge for processing on Saturday, numerous ' options were available for delivery te the film badge vendor.
It is also noted in the inspection report that the badges were not sent in Monday until af ter the individual. had completed additional radiographic work for that day.- Further, when the badges were sent, they were sent via normal mail with no request for emergency processing. The NRC concludes that a violation of 10 CFR 34.33(d) did occur as stated in the Notice.
Violation I. D.
Statement of Violation 10 CFR 20.403(b)(1) requires that each licensee, within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of discovery of the event, report any event involving licansed material possessed by the licensee that may have caused or threatens to cause exposure of the whole body of any individual to 5 rems or more of radiation; exposure of the skin of the whole body of any individual to 30 rems or nure of radiation; or any exposure of the feet, ankles, hands, or forearms to */5 rems or more of radiation.
Reports required by this section must be rade to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 20.403(d)(2).
10 CFR 20.201(b) requires that each licensee make or cause to be made such surveys as (1) may be necessary for the licensee to comply with the regulations in 10 CFR Part P0, and (2) are reasonable under the circumstances to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards that may be present. As defined in 10 CFR 20.201(a), " Survey" means an evaluation of the radiation hazards incident to the production, use, release, disposal, or presence of radioactive materials or other sources of radiation under a specific set of conditions.
Contrary to the above:
1.
On April 8-9, 1989, the licensee failed to make an adequate survey to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 20.403(b)(1) af ter an individual was exposed to a 91 curie iridium-192 source. Specifically, the licensee failed to evaluate the dose received by'a radiographer after it was
' determined that the radiographer's 500 millirem dosimeter had gone-off-scale.
2.
On April 8, 1989, a radiographer entered an area containing an exposed 91 curie iridium-192 sealed source which, according to the information available at that time, may have caused a personnel radiation exposure in excess of that specified in 10 CFR 20.403(b)(1), and the licensee failed.
to report this event to NRC.
Sumary of Licensee's Response to Part 1. of Violation I. D.
The licensee does not dispute Part 1. of this violation.
1 A_L_-._____-___-_____________
Appendix Sumary of Licensce's Respense to Part 2. of Violation J D.
The licensee agrees that the incident was not reported to the NRC, but denics that this constitutes a violation. The licensee indicates that a report of the incident was not made at the tirae because the facts which the licensee believed to be true did not clearly reflect a reportable situation. The licensec further cites the erroneous initial reading of the film badge as support for having to rely on its own survey information in evaluating the incicent, anG states that its own survey information showed that the radiographer did not receive a dose above the Authori:ed level.
NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Response The initial reading of the film badge by the vendor was reported to the licensee as " faultily manufactured", indicating that the badge could not be read; however, the badge was not sent for processing until the Monday following the incident and therefore, the erroneous initial reading of the film badge could not have affected the licensee's decision regarding the reporting of the incident to NRC within the initial 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
[In December 1989 the vendor, at the NRC's request, re-evaluated the badge and was able to determine an exposure of 3.77 rem.]
10 CFR 20.403(b)(1) requires that the licensee repcrt any event that "may have caused or threatens to cause" exposure in excess of the limits stated therein temphasis added). Based on the information available to the licensee, within the initial 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> that the regulation allows for reporting, the licensee could not conclusively rule out the possibility that an exposure to the whole body of 5 rems or more had occurred. Therefore, in accordance with the regulation, the report was required. Specifically, as they were known at that time, the facts were that a radiographer had walked into a room where a 91 curie iridium-192 source aos exposed and had worked in close proximity to the exposed source while he changod a film and prepared to do another radiograph before he realized that the source was fully exposed, and that the radiation exposure reading on his 500 millireia dosimeter was off-scale.
Further, the calculations referenced by tt; ' licensee as the basis for not reporting the event did not address any creas of the body other than the head and hands. According to the film badge reading, the chest area of the body received exposure in excess of 3 rems. Depending upon the position of the radiographer at the time of this event, a portion of the body could have received an exposure greater than the 5 rems whole body referenced in the regulation. Also, the licensee's calculations were not conducted until several days af ter the incident had occurred and therefore, could not have been of any benefit to the licensee in determining whether or not this was a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />
- reportable event.
Based upon the significant potential for an exposure to the whole body in excess of 5 rems, the NRC conclusion is that Part 2 of the violation occurred as set forth in the Notice.
l
,,..m.
l-Appendix,
Violation 1. E. 1.
Statement of Violation License Condition No. 22 (Amendment No. 25) requires the licenste to conduct its program in accordance with statements, representations, and procedures contained in the application dated September 6, 1978, and letters dated June 26, 1954 April 2, 1985, with revised attachments, and April 15, 1989, with enclosed manuals. oftheapplicationdatedSeptember6,1978,statesinItem6(f) that the attached Radiographic Training Program will be followed in training radiographers and radiographer's assistants. The Radiographic Training Prograta states that any new equipment will be shown :nd demonstrated by the Radiation Safety Officer (RS0) or his assistant to all radiographers prior to their using the equipment. The use, application, safety precautions, and all pertinent information will be thoroughly explained.
in addition, a semiannual refresher course will be given to all radiographers.
The letter dated April 15, 1988, (with enclosed manuals) states in an enclosed letter dated February 16, 1988, that the Amershara/ Tech 0ps " Operation and Maintenance Manual" for the Model 660 gamma radiography systeras has been incor> orated into the licensee's Operating and Emer ency Procedures. The Amerslam/ Tech 0ps " Operation and Maintenance Manual,g' Page 15, Item 7 states that to return the source to the exposure device [shicided position] after the desired exposure time has elapsed, the crank should be turned rapidly in the
" RETRACT" (clockwise) direction until the crank will no longer move.
Contrary to the above:
a.
A radiographer who was involved in an overexposure incident with a Tech 0ps Model 560 exposure device on April 8, 1989, had not been given a e
demonstration of this equipment by the RSO or his assistant prior to using it whrh it was new and had not received instruction in the use, application, and safety precautions for this equipment.
In addition, semiannual ref resher training had not been arovided for eight radiographers during the period July 1988 tirough December 21, 1989.
b.
On April 8,1989, the radiographer atteroted to retract the radiography source into a Model 660 exposure device )y trying to turn the crank in the counterclockwise direction. This caused the source to remain in the fully exposed position.
. Suurnary of Licensee's Response to Part a. of Violation 1. E.1.
The licensee did not dispute Part a. of this violation.
Appendix Surianary of Licensee's Response to Part b. of Violation 1. E.1.
The licensee ogrees thet the radiographer f ailed to fc119w the roanuf acturer's instructions. However, the licensee does not believe that the reason the radiographer did not follow the instructions w6s because the radiographer had not been treined properly. The licensee contends that the r6diographer had used the equipraent on nuraerous occcslons and Lntw how to properly use the equipment and that the radiographer was just careless and inattentive of his wor k.
NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Respcnse The NRC agrees with the. licensee that the radiographer was careless. However, for whatever the reason, the individual did fail to follow the uanufacturer's instructions in operation of the equipment which constitutes a violation as described abcve. The NRC concludes t16t this violation occurred as stated in the Notice.
Viciation 1. E. 2.
Statement of Violation LicenseConditionNo.22(AmendmentNo.25)requiresthelicenseetoconduct its program in accordance with statements, representations, and procedures contained in the application dated September 6, 1978, and letters dated June 26, 1984, April 2, 1985, with revised attachments, and April 15, 1989, with enclosed manuals. oftheapplicationdatedSeptember6,1978,statesinItem6(6) thattheRadiographer'smanualwillbefollowedforpersonnelmcnitoring procedures. Section 3.5 of this manual requires that any time a person s pocket dosimeter is discharged beyond its range, the individual is to imediately cease radiographic operations.
Contrary to the above, on April 8,1989, a radiographer's dosimeter was discharged beyond its range and the individual failed to cease radiographic operations imediately.
Instead, the individual completed radiography work on April 8, 1989, and perforued additional radiography work on April 10,1989, before he was removed from radiographic operations.
Summary of Licensee's Response to Violation 1. E. ?
The licensee does not dispute this violation.
l
o Appendix Violation II (Violation not assessed a Civil Penalty)
Statement of Violation License Condition No. 2? (Aniendment No. 25) requires the licensee to conduct its orcyram in accordance with statements, representations, and procedures snked in the cpplication dated September 6,1978, anc letters dated June <
1984, April 2, 1985, with revised attachments, and April 15, 1989, with aclosed manuals.
letter dated June 20, 1984, specifies that a designated individual will function as the Radiation Safety Officer (RS0) for the licensed program.
Contrary to the above, f rom December I through 5,1989, an individual other than the designated individual authorized by the NRC functioned as the RSO for the licensed program.
Summary of Licensee's Response to Violation !!
The licensee responded to this violation in a separate letter dated April 25, 1990.
In that letter, the licensee did not dispute the violation.
Summary of Licensee's Request for Remission of the Civil Penalty In addition to the arguments set forth above, the licensee concluded its response with a general statement indicating that in the future it will report l
to the NRC each event and let the NRC decide if it is reportable or not. The l
licensee further stated that the reporting requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 are vague and require the licensee to make a judgement call regarding certain issues. The licensee also indicates that no attempt was made on its part to i
hide any actions from che NRC, and that it used its best judgement as required by the regulation.
Finally, the licenst;e states that it is " disheartened" with a system that incourages an employee to intentionally create conditions detrimental to fellow workers and members of the public and does not hold that individual accountable and provides that individual protection.
[ Note:
It appears that the licensee is referring to the former Radiation Safety Officer (RS0) em)1oyed at the facility until December 1989.) it was almost as if the The licensee further states tlat, in participating in allegations to NRC, employee had reported himself to tto NRC, and that this constitutes a strong reason for mitigation.
NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Request for Remission l
The regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 re.luire licensees to report, within the first 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, any incident that may have caused an exposure in excess of the regulatory limits, it is clear that certain events which meet specific i'
criteria, as outlined in 10 CFR Part 20, must be reported to the NRC.
If the j
event does not clearly meet those criteria, and if it is not possible to conclusively rule out such an overexposure within the first 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, then a j
conservative approach must be taken >y the licensee by reporting the event.
I Moreover, hithough the NRC may provide some guidance on the reportability of a l
particular event, the decision to report an event is the responsibility of the L
licensee.
L
Appendix Regarding the licensee's statement that it di? not try to hide anything from the NRC, this was never alleged by the Coumist sn.
Furthermore, this issue had no bearing on the proposed imposition of 'he civil pen 61ty.
Regarding the licenste's staterntnts on indivioual accountability Section V.E.
of the Enforcetnent Policy provides for enforcen,ent action against individuals in sonie circumstances; however, the Coranission also holds its licensees accountable for the acticns of their en.ployees. NRC expects acequate uanagement oversight of a licensee's program to determine whether individuals given responsibility for inanagen,ent of the prograu (i.e., the R50) are conducting it in compliance with NRC rules and regulations and license conditions.
Concerning the licensee's argument that mitigation is appropriate because the employce's participation in allegations to the NRC were almost as if he had reported himself to the NRC, the Enforcement Policy does allow initigation where the licensee self-identifies a violation, takes innediate action to correct the problem, and, if required, raakes a pronipt and con.plete repoi t to the NRC. Since that did not occur in this case, niitigation based on this factor is not appropriate.
Conclusion Af ter reviewing the licensee's response to the viol.. **>ns and request for remission of the civil penalty, the NRC has determined that the violations occurred as stated and that the licensee has not provided any basis for reduction or remission of the civil penalty. Therefore, the proposed civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 should be iuposed.
0
JUN 2 0 2 n
HQ DISTRIBUTION:
PDR SECY CA JMTaylor, EDO HThompson, DEDS JLieberman, OE Regional Administrator, RIII l
JGoldberg, OGC RBernero, HMSS RCunningham, NMSS Enforcement Coordinators RI, Ril, RIII, RIV, RV Fingram,GPA/PA BHayes 01 DW1111ams, OlG J
VMiller, GPA/SP EJordan, AE00 OE:JDe1 Medico OE:DBurrier (MRA File)
OE:Chron OE:EA DCS G. Johnson, RM 1
1 l
/
DE I 1
JDe1 Medico RBernero ABDavis JGoldberg i erman n
06/08/90 06/4/90 06//$/90 06//[/90 06/g /90 06//y/90
.. -. _