ML20128E475
| ML20128E475 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/03/1993 |
| From: | Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | CAPITAL MATERIALS TESTING, INC. (CMTI) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128E463 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99990001-930203 EA-92-203, NUDOCS 9302100466 | |
| Download: ML20128E475 (7) | |
Text
_ _
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
In the Matter of
)
)
Capital Materials Testing, Inc.
)
Docket No. 9999-0001 Ballston Spa, New York 12020
)
License No. 2467-3128
)
EA 92-203 ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY a
l I
Capital Materials Testing, Inc.
(Licensee) is the holder of a 1
Byproduct Material License issued by the State of New York which authorizes the Licensee to use byproduct materials in industrial radiography and replacement of sources in accordance with the conditions specified therein.
On October 6-7, 1992, the New York Ctate Licensee was working at a
field site in Pittsfield, f
Massachusetts under NRC jurisdiction subject to the reciprocity 4
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 150.20 and t0 CFR Part 34, Subpart B.
II 4
An inspebi on off the Licensee's activities was conducted on y
October 6-7/.1992'.^ ~ The results of the inspection indicated that CMT had not conducted its activ'ities in full compliance with NRC requirements.
A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) was served upon the Licensee 2
by letter dated November 20, 1992. The Notice stated 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
~
9302100466 930203 REN1 GA999 EMV1CAPT 99990001 PD9
4 2
for the violations'.
The Licensee responded to the Notice in a letter, dated-December 9, 1992.
In its response, the Licensee did not deny the violations, but requested. remission of the civil penalty.
III After consideration of the. Licensee's response and the statements of
- fact, explanation, and argument for mitigation contained therein, the NRC staf f has determined, as set forth in the ?J indix to this Order, that.the violstions occurred as stated and tnat'the penalty proposed for Violation I 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 ORDERED THAT:
The Licensee pay a civil penalty in the amount of $7,500 within 30 days of the date - of this Order, by check, drafti monef order, or electronic transfer, payable-to the Treasurer -- of the. United States and mailed to the Director, Office.of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-
. i Commission, ATTN:
Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C.
20555.
l l-_;.-.
~...
. - ~.. --
+ '
]
I 3
I V
The Licensee may request-a' hearing within 30_ days of the-date of this order.
A request for a hearing should be clearly marked as a-i l
" Request for an Enforcement Hearing" and shall be addressed to the
- Director, Office of
' Enforcement, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory-h Commission,-ATTN:
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 Regional s
l Administrator, NRC Region I,.475 Allendale Road, King-'of' Prussia, j
Pennsylvania.19406.
i
{
If a hearing is requested, the commission will issue an order i
designating the time and place of the. hearing..
If the Licensee fails.to request a ' hearing within. 30 days of_the date of this Ordor, 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 issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether,'on the
._\\
s
)
4 i
l 4
i basis of Violation I set forth in the Notice, this order should be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a.
f g
. Thomp n
- H, De ty Execu e
ector for Nuclear Materials sa ety, Safeguards
-and operations Support l
Dateda(Rockville, Maryland this 3 day of February 1993-1 4
!j.
l i,
l j
i i
i L
i i
t 5
i k
i i
1 l
1 8
-n ear--,
e-vw
.-v v-w,,
--,<nwe-~vv-
i APPENDIX EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSION i
On November 20, 1992, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) was issued to Capital Materials Testing (CMT), Inc. for five violations identified during an NRC inspection i
on October 6-7, 1992, at a field site in Pittsfield, Massachusetts.
CMT responded to the Notice on December 9, 1992.
CMT did not deny the violations, but requested full mitigation of the civil penalty.
The NRC's evaluations and conclusions regarding CMT's requests are as follows:
1.
Restatement of Violation Assessed a Civil Penalty 10 CFR 34.43 (b) requires, in part, the licensee to ensure that a survey with a calibrated and operable radiation survey instrument is made after each radiographic exposure to determine that the sealed source has been returned to its shielded position.
The survey must -include the entire circumference of the radiographic exposure device and any source guide tube.
Contrary to the above, on October 6, 1992, at a temporary job site at a gas pipeline installation for Berkshire Gas of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, a licensee radiographer's assistant did not perform an adequate survey af ter each radiographic exposure to determine that the sealed source has been returned to its shielded position, in that although the radiographer's assistant walked toward the exposure device with the survey instrument, the survey did not include _ the entire circumference of the radiographic exposure device and the source guide tube.
This violation is classified at Severity Level III (Supplement VI).
Civil Penalty - $7,500 2.
Summary of Licensee Response CMT, in its response, does not deny the. violation, but does request remission of the penalty on the basis that CMT, a State of New York (Agreement. State) licensee, had never been cited for failure to survey; the magnitude of the fine would be detrimental, financially, to CMT; CMT took corrective actions which included voluntary initiation of an audit; and the violation was an inconsistent and isolated infraction of radiation safety procedures.
e
-2 3.
NRC Evaluation of Licensee Response The NRC has evaluated CMT's response, and based upon that evaluation, the NRC has concluded that CMT did'not provide an adequate basis for mitigation of the civil penalty.
With respect to CMT's contentions that it had never been cited for the failure to
- survey, and the violation was an inconsistent and isolated infraction _of a radiation safety procedure, the NRC notes that these considerations, in~
themselves, do not provide a basis -for mitigation of the penalty.
CMT is responsible for the acts of its employees.
Performing proper surveys after use of a radiography device is fundamental to radiation safety; the failure by other NRC licensee personnel to do :so has resulted, at times, in-significant radiological exposures to radiography personnel.-
While CMT may not have been cited for such a violation in the
.past by the.NRC, this was the first NRC-inspection-conducted of CMT.
Therefore, these licensee contentions =do not provide a basis for mitigation of the civil penalty.
With respect to CMT's contention-that the civil penalty would be financially detrimental, CMT provided no details.to-support that contention, and therefore mitigation is not warranted.
With respect to CMT's corrective action, the NRC notes that while those actions were acceptable,- they were not of a prompt and comprehensive nature because while the licensee was aware of the findings of the NRC inspection on October-7,.1992, it did not issue a memorandum to its employees-describing the violation and corrective action until November-6,-1992.
Therefore, those actions do-not provide a basis for any mitigation of the penalty.
4.
NRC Conclusion The NRC has concluded that CMT has not previded an adequate basis for mitigation of.the civil penalty.
Consequently, the proposed civil penalty in the amount of $7,500 should be imposed.
I
.~--.-n--
--wa
e 3
Capital Materials Testing, Inc.
DISTRIBUTION:
PDR SECY CA HThompson, DEDS l
-JLieberman, OE
-TMartin, RI JGoldberg, OGC LChandler, OGC RBernero, NMSS RCunningham, NMSS t
LKasner, OE Enforcement Coordinators RI,-RII, RIII, RIV, RV FIngram, GPA/PA BHayes, OI VMiller, SP i
DWilliams, OIG EJordan, AEOD OE:Chron OE:EA DCS
/p
\\
OE (
NMSi OGC OE LKasner RBernero JGoldberg JLieberman HThompson 01//B/03 01/
93 01/3/93 01/31/93 1/3 /93 9
h W
s t
1
.