ML20058D271

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Enforcement Conference Rept 150-00004/93-11 on 930819 & Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $25,000
ML20058D271
Person / Time
Issue date: 11/05/1993
From: Faulkenberry B
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To: Flagor G
RICHARDSON X-RAY, INC.
Shared Package
ML20058D277 List:
References
EA-93-201, NUDOCS 9312030116
Download: ML20058D271 (6)


See also: IR 015000004/1993011

Text

. _ . _-

.

l

f

"*%

'

t "ITED STATES

,

y

~,

NUCLEAR RLaOLATORY COMMISSION

)

,

{,

E

REGION V

,

l

%

/

1450 MARIA LANE

1

'% , ,

!

WAL. NUT CREEX, CAUFORNIA 94596-5368

November 5,

1993

l

l

Docket No.

15000004

California License No.

0373-70

l

EA 93-201

l

Richardson X-Ray, Inc.

l

ATTN:

Gail Flagor, President

12707 Rives Avenue, Suite F

l

Downey, California

90242

!

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL

-

4

PENALTIES - ($25,000)

(NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 15000004/93-10)

,

This refers to the inspection conducted on July 29 and 30, 1993,

of Richardson X-Ray, Inc., Downey, California.

The results of

the inspection were documented in NRC Inspection Report No.

15000004/93-10, dated August 13, 1993.

Six violations of NRC.

requirements were identified during observations of radiographic

operations performed under reciprocity at Vandenburg Air Force'

Base, California.

The violations, their causes, and your

,

corrective actions were discussed with you during an Enforcement

Conference on August 19, 1993.

The results of the Enforcement

.

'

Conference were documented in Report No. 93-11, which is

enclosed.

>

The six violations are described in the enclosed Notice of

Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties (Notice).

'

,

l

The violations involve:

1) failure to perform surveys of the

i

exposure device after each radiographic exposure, 2) failure of

,

l

the radiographer to provide supervision of a-radiographer's

(

assistant,

3) failure to wear an alarm ratemeter, 4) failure to

'

'

adequately post the radiation area and high radiation. area,

5) failure to train an individual working as a radiographer's

assistant, and 6) failure to block or brace radioactive material

I

during transport.

Violations I.A, B and C,

the failures to perform surveys,

properly supervise a radiographer's assistant, and wear an alarm

ratemeter, involved a disregard for personal safetyLand the

i

unsupervised conduct of licensed activities by an unqualified

j

individual.

These violations clearly' contravened the

j

requirements of 10 CFR Part 34.

During!the Enforcement

Conference, a violation was identified for the failure to provide

supervision of a radiographer's assistant as. required by 10 CFR 34.44.

The failure to provide supervision was cited because the

radiographer did not observe or direct the radiographer's

(h(

assistant during his performance of surveys to determine if the

sealed source had returned to the shielded position.

The root

9312030116 931105

\\\\-

PDR

STPRQ ESGCA

PDR.

.

.

.

-

.

. .

-

.

- _ _ - .

--

-

--

-

--

. -- --

i

.

t

.

>

.

.

-2-

causes of these violations appear to involve management's failure

h

to adequately 1) ensure that personnel assigned to perform

t

radiographic operations were fit to perform licensed activities

i

in a safe manner, 2) inform the assigned radiographer of the

,

capabilities and limited qualifications of his assistant, and 3)

provide training to licensee personnel before they worked with or

around sealed sources.

Therefore, in accordance with the

enclosed " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC

Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), 10 CFR Part 2,

!

Appendix C, Violations I.A, B and C have been categorized as a

i

Severity Level III problem and violation.

.

The NRC recognizes that after the inspector identified the .

violations, you took the same corrective actions that you took

for similar violations identified during an NRC inspection

performed on April 9 and 10, 1992, at Twentynine Palms,

California.

The corrective actions included a.30-day suspension

.

of the radiographer, training for radiographic personnel on the

initial NRC findings, and hiring a' consultant to perform audits

of radiographers.

Based on the repetitiveness of these

violations (third occurrence for failure to perform surveys and

second occurrence for failure to wear personal monitoring

devices), it appears that your immediate corrective actions in

1992 were not adequate to prevent additional radiographic

personnel from repeating the violations identified on April 9 and

,

j

10, 1992.

Accordingly, you need to consider additional

l

corrective actions to prevent further repetition of these

violations.

To emphasize the need for effective management oversight of your

i

Radiation Safety Program, I have been authorized, after

consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to issue

.

the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil

!

Penalties (Notice) in the amount of.$25,000 for the Severity

Level III problem and violation.

The base value of a civil

penalty for a Severity Level III violation is $5,000.

The civil penalty adjustment factors in the Enforcement Policy

were considered.

Both civil penalties were escalated 50% based

on the NRC's identification of the violations.

Both civil

penalties were escalated 100% based on your poor past

performance.

Specifically, the failure to perform complete

surveys of the exposure device was preceded by similar failures-

identified in inspections performed on December 5 and 6,

1991'

4

,

and April 9 and 10, 1992. .The failure to wear personal

monitoring devices and the failure to adequately post the

radiation and high radiation areas were preceded by'similar

j

failures identified in the inspection performed on April 9 and

10, 1992.

.

Both civil penalties could have been escalated 100% because you

had prior notice alerting you to the actions required to assure

-

.

. - - . . . - . ~ . - , . ~ _ . . - , , - - . - . -

.-, -

, _ . .

.. -

. , .

- . , . .

r~

.

.

.

.

-3-

compliance with NRC requirements, and your response to that

notice was of questionable adequacy.

Specifically, you received

an NRC Region V letter dated August 12, 1992, from Gregory Yuhas,

Chief, Radioactive Materials Safety Branch, emphasizing the NRC's

requirements for performing radiography under reciprocity in NRC

jurisdiction, and noting the significant civil penalties

resulting from failures to perform surveys and wear alarm

ratemeters.

While you alerted your then current employees to

this letter, you failed to assure the adequacy of that action,

and you failed to follow up with new employees.

However, because

you took some action in response to the notice, and because the

failure to follow up with the new employee is being cited

separately, we have decided not to escalate for this factor.

The other adjustment factors in the Policy were considered but no

further adjustment to the base civil penalty is considered

appropriate.

We neither escalated nor mitigated the base civil

penalty for your corrective actions.

We did not escalate in view

of your immediate suspension of the radiographer, and in view of

your hiring of a consultant to audit and offer additional

)

training to your personnel.

Further, we did not mitigate the

base civil penalty for your corrective actions for two reasons.

First, similar corrective actions for past violations were

inadequate to prevent the current violations, raising the

,

question of why they should be effective this time.

Second, your

i

corrective actions were focused entirely on radiography personnel

rather than on a searching examination of your program, including

the adequacy of your procedures and the effect of management

attitudes on radiographer compliance with regulatory

requirements.

In reference to this latter factor, several

comments by licensee management at the Enforcement Conference led

us to infer that management does not share the NRC's concern as

to the need for surveys of the source guide tube in all work

environments and for wearing alarm ratemeters while working in

areas outside of NRC jurisdiction.

If this inference is

accurate, then it is not surprising that licensee radiographers

cut corners in these areas.

The repeated failure over the past few years to perform surveys

and wear personal monitoring devices demonstrates a lack of

regard for adherence to procedures and a lack of management

control and supervision over licensed activities, and raises a

question as to whether you will conduct activities in NRC

i

jurisdiction in accordance with the Commission's requirements.

Accordingly, in order for the Commission to determine whether you

j

should be permitted to conduct activities in NRC jurisdiction, or

other enforcement action should be taken to ensure compliance

with NRC regulatory requirements, a separate Demand for

Information is being issued to you.

In addition, a separate

Demand for Information has been sent to the radiographer,

requesting that he provide information concerning his activities

and understanding of regulatory requirements.

Both of these

__ _

.

._

.

.

.

-4

-

Demands for Information will be withheld from the PDR at this

time and we will otherwise attempt to withhold the Demands from

public disclosure pending our decision on the need for additional

.

enforcement action based on the responses to the Demands.

l

Following decisions as to further enforcement action, the Demands

l

and responses will be placed in the Public Document Room.

l

A second violation, the failure to provide instruction to a

radiographer's assistant as required by 10 CFR 34.31(b), was also

cited as a result of further discussions during the Enforcement

Conference.

The failure to provide instruction to a

radiographer's assistant was cited since the radiographer's

assistant performing work at Vandenburg Air Force Base had not

received instruction in or demonstrated competence in the

radiation safety requirements associated with the performance of

radiography with sealed sources.

The failure to maintain surveillance of the operation to prevent

entry into the high radiation area, as required by 10 CFR 34.41,

is not being cited.

Although the inspector gained undetected

access to the radiation area, it is possible that the inspector's

,

presence may have been detected if he had walked an additional 15

to 20 feet towards the exposure device, entering the high

radiation area.

Even though the violation is not being cited,

you need to ensure that radiographers maintain surveillance of

the restricted area boundary so that individuals are detected

entering the radiation area, with adequate time left to prevent

entry into a high radiation area.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the

instructions specified in the enclosed Notice and Demand when

preparing your responses.

In your response to the Notice, you

should document the specific actions taken and any additional

actions you plan to prevent recurrence.

After reviewing your

responses to the Notice and separate Demand, including your

proposed corrective actions, the NRC will determine whether

further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance

with NRC regulatory requirements.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice,"

l

a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the

l

NRC Public Document Room.

l

l

_

,

.

.

-5-

The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice and

Demand are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office

of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.

Sincerely,

,en erry

.

.

Regional Admi istr& tor

Enclosures:

1. Report 93-11

2. Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties

l

3. NRC Enforcement Policy, 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C

cc: State of California

l

5

,

h

!

.

t

-

-

, . _ _ . .

,

_

,.

.-

+

.

DISTRIBUTION:

fPDR

SECY

CA

JTaylor, EDO

HThorppson, DEDS

JLieberman, OE

BFaulkenberry, RV

LChandler, OGC

JGoldberg, OGC

RBernero, NMSS

CPaperiello, NMSS

Enforcement Coordinators,

RI, RII, RIII, RIV

FIngram, GPA/PA

DWilliams, OIG

BHayes, OI

OSP

EJordan, AEOD

GCant, OE

EA File (2)

DCS

bec w/ enclosure:

RV Docket File

Inspection File

GCook

RHuey

MBlume

bec w/o enclosure:

MSmith

JZollicoffer

l

.

OE

AD:OE

RA:RV

OGC

'

GCant

PSantiago

BFaulkenberry

JGoldberg

10/

/93

10/

/93

10/

/93

10/

/93

DD:OE

NMSS

D:OE

JGray

CPaperiello JLieberman

10/

/93

10/

/93

10/

/93

g:\\occases\\93201r5.gc

V {t

-

7

/

0'Y02 }.

\\

--- --

-

-