ML20140G362
| ML20140G362 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 15000004 |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1997 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140G352 | List: |
| References | |
| 15000004-97-03, 15000004-97-3, NUDOCS 9706160184 | |
| Download: ML20140G362 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _______ _ _ . _ . _ . _
ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Industrial Marine Testing Labs, Inc. Docket No.: 150-00004 ;
National City, California License No.: 2799-37 '
(California) {
During an NRC inspection conducted on April 18 through May 16,1997, seven violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy l and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violations are listed below:
A. 10 CFR 34.31(a)(2) requires, in part, that the licensee not permit any individual to act as a radiographer until such individual has received copies of, and instruction in, l NRC regulations contained in 10 CFR Part 34 and in the applicable sections of 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20. '
Contrary to the above, the licensee permitted an individual to act as a radiographer on 26 occasions between January 18,1996 and April 15,1997, at several job sites l under exclusive Federal jurisdiction in San Diego, California, without the individual
)
having received copies of, and instruction in,10 CFR Part 34 and the applicable i sections of 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20.
I This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VI). 1 B. 10 CFR 34.31(b) requires that the licensee not permit any individual to act as a radiographer's assistant until such individual: has received copies of, and
]
instruction in, the licensee's operating and emergency procedures; has i demonstrated competence to use, under the personal supervision of the l radiographer, the radiographic exposure devices, sealed sources, related handling ]
tools, and radiation survey instruments that the assistant will use; and has '
demonstrated understanding of the instructions in this paragraph by successfully l completing 'a written or oral test and field examination on the subjects covered.
Contrary to the above, on several occasions between March 7 and April 15,1997, the licensee permitted an individual to act as a radiographer's assistant whose understanding of the licensee's operating and emergency procedures and competence to use the radiographic exposure devices, sealed sources, related i handling tools, and radiation survey instruments was not demonstrated by successfully completing a written or oral test and field examination on the subjects covered. The individual used an INC Model IR-100 radiographic exposure device, related handling tools, and radiation survey instruments while conducting radiography on the USS Rushmore and USS Duluth.
l i
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VI).
e
\
9706160184 970609 PDR STPRG ESGCA PDR
C. 10 CFR 150.20(b)(4) requires the licensee to comply with all terms and conditions of the specific license issued by an Agreement State except such terms or conditions as are contrary to the requirements of this section.
Condition 13(a) of the California License No. 2799 37 requires, in part, that the licensee possess and use radioactive materialin accordance with the statements, representations, and procedures in the licensee's application dated January 7,1997.
Item 8.1 of the application dated January 7,1997, requires the licensee to audit the performance of radiographers and radiographers' assistants once each calendar quarter for the purpose of assessing the compliance with California's Radiation Control Regulations, the licensee's operating and emergency procedures, and the conditions of its California Radioactive Material License.
Contrary to the above, as of April 22,1997, the licensee had not audited the performance of a radiographer involved in radiographic operations on the USS Essex, USS Rushmore, USS Denver, and USS Duluth since August 7,1996, an interval exceeding two calendar quarters.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VI).
D. 10 CFR 34.28(b) requires that the licensee conduct a program for inspection and maintenance of radiographic exposure devices, storage containers, and source changers at intervals not to exceed three months or prior to the first use thereafter to ensure proper functioning of components important to safety.
Contrary to the above, on six occasions between April 1 and April 15,1997, the licensee used a radiographic exposure device on the USS Duluth after inspection and maintenance of the device was last performed on December 9,1996, an interval exceeding 3 months.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VI).
E. 10 CFR 34.42 requires, in part, notwithstanding any provisions in 10 CFR 20.1903, l that areas in which radiography is being performed be conspicuously posted as l required by 10 CFR 20.1902(b).
l l 10 CFR 20.1902(b) requires that each high radiation area shall be conspicuously l posted with a sign or signs bearing the radiation caution symbol and the words l " CAUTION, HIGH RADIATION AREA" or " DANGER, HIGH RADIATION A9EA."
Contrary to the abc,.e, during radiography performed on multiple occasions at areas under er:lusive Federal jurisdiction between December 11,1996,and
)
l l
( .
l !
l l
April 15,1997, the licensee did not routinely post the high radiation areas in which l industrial radiography was being performed.
l This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VI.) '
l F. 10 CFR 34.20(b)(1)(v) requires that each radiographic exposure device have attached to it by the user, a durable, legible, clearly visible label bearing the ;
licensee's name, address, and telephone number. '
l Contrary to the above, a radiographic exposure device used on multiple occasions in i areas under exclusive Federal jurisdiction between January 18,1996 and April 15, 1997, had not been labeled with a durable, legible, clearly visible label bearing the licensee's name, address, and telephone number.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VI). !
G. 10 CFR 71.5(a) requires that a licensee who transports licensed material outside of l
the confines of its plant or other place of use, or who delivers licensed material to a i carrier for transport, comply with the applicable requirements of the regulations appropriate to the mode of transport of the Department of Transportation (DOT) in 49 CFR Parts 170 throt gh 189.
1
- 1. 49 CFR 172.200(a) requires, with exceptions not applicable here, that each l 1
_ person who offers a hazardous material for transportation describe the hazardous material on a shipping paper in the manner required by subpart C of 49 CFR Part 172. Pursuant to 49 CFR 172.101, radioactive materialis classified as hazardous material.
- a. 49 CFR 172.203(d) requires, in part, that the description for a shipment of radioactive materialinclude: 1) the category of label applied to each package (e.g., RADIOACTIVE YELLOW-il), and 2) the transport index assigned to each package in the shipment bearing RADIOACTIVE YELLOW-Il OR -Ill labels.
- b. 49 CFR 172.203(c) requires that the letters "RQ" be entered on the shipping paper either before or after the basic description required for each hazardous substance.
- c. 49 CFR 172.201(d) requires that a shipping paper contain an j emergency response telephone number, as prescribed in subpart G of
! 49 CFR Part 172.
- 2. 49 CFR 173.25 requires, in part, for packages containing hazardous i l materials and offered for transportation in an overpack, that: 1) the l overpack be marked with the proper shipping name and identification j l
. v l
)
number, and labeled as required by 49 CFR Parts 171-177 for each hazardous material contained therein unless markings and labels representative of each hazardous materialin the overpack are visible; and 1
- 2) the overpack be marked with a statement indicating that the inside (inner) l packages comply with prescribed specifications when specification packagings are required, unless specification markings on the inside l packages are visible. Pursuant to 49 CFR 172.101, radioactive materialis l
classified as hazardous material.
l
- 3. 49 CFR 172.406(f) requires that a radioactive category label must be clearly j visible and may not be obscured by rnarkings or attachments.
]
Contrary to the above, between January 18,1996 and April 15,1997, the licensee transported iridium-192 sealed sources outside the confines of its laboratory facility on public highways and: 1) the description on the shipping papers accompanying the shipments did not include the category of label applied to each package, the transport index, the letters "RO" before or after the basic description, and the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> emergency response telephone number; 2) the overpack enclosing the radiographic exposure device was not marked with the proper shipping name and identification number, nor with any statement indicating that the inner package complied with the prescribed specifications, and the markings on the inside package were not visible; and 3) the RADIOACTIVE YELLOW-Il label on the steel overpack container, which was bolted to the bed of the vehicle used for transport, was not visible during transport of the container when the vehicle's rear tailgate was closed.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement V).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, industrial Marine Testing Laboratory, Inc. is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region IV,611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas 76011, and the Walnut Creek Field Office,1450 Maria Lane, Walnut Creek, California 94596, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may I
be proper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to j extending the response time.
! i
5-Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the "
extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of '
withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial information).
j Dated at Arlington, Texas this 9 day of June 1997
)
I i
i t
.g -
l v ,
UNITED STATES J NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAf[ GUARDS l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 l 1
May 1, 1996 l NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 96-28: SUGGESTED GUIDANCE RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT AND l IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION I 1
Addressees All material and fuel cycle licensees.
Puroose l
=
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this information i notice to provide addressees with guidance relating to development and implementation of corrective actions that should be considered after identification of violation (s) of NRC requirements. It is expected that l s euipients will review i.his informat. ion for applicaoliity to (nelr racilities '
and consider actions, as appropriate, to avoid similar problems. However, suggestions contained in this information notice are not new NRC requirements; therefore, no specific action nor written response is required.
83ckaround On June 30, 1995, NRC revised its Enforcement Policy (NUREG-1600)' 60 FR 34381, to clarify the enforcement program's focus by, in part, emphasizing the importance of identifying problems before events occur, and of taking prompt, comprehensive corrective action when problems are identified. Consistent with the revised Enforcement Policy, NRC encourages and expects identification and prompt, comprehensive correction of violations.
In many cases, . licensees who identify and promptly correct non-recurring Severity Level IV v',olations, without NRC involvement, will not be subject to formal enforcement actLii. Such violations will be characterized as "non-cited" violations as provided in Section Vll.B.1 of the Enforcement Policy.
Minor violations are not subject to formal enforcement action. Nevertheless, the root cause(s) of minor violations must be identified and appropr'iate corrective action must be taken to prevent recurrence.
! If violations of more than a minor concern are identified by the NRC during an l inspection, licensees will be subject to a Notice of Violation and may need to l provide a written response, as required by 10 CFR 2.201, addressing the causes i
of the violations and corrective actions taken to prevent recurrence. In some cases, such violations are documented on Form 591 (for materials licensees) 9604290193 h
^
l ' Copies of NUREG-1600 can be obtained by calling the contacts listed at l the end of the information Notice.
l
y , . _ _ . .. __ _ . _ _ -. ~ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .,_ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _
IN 96-28 l Hay 1, 1996 Page 2 of 6 i
! which constitutes a notice of violation that requires corrective action but does not require a written response. If a significant violation is involved, a predecisional enforcement conference may be held to discuss those actions.
The quality of a licensee's root cause analysis and plans for corrective 1 l
actions may affect the NRC's decision regarding both the need to hold a predecisional enforcement conference with the licensee and the level of sanction proposed or imposed.
Discussion Comprehensive corrective action is required for all violations. In most cases, NRC does not propose imposition of a civil penalty where the licensee j promptly identifies and comprehensively corrects violations. However,'a l
Severity level 111 violation will almost always result in a civil penalty if a licensee does not take prompt and comprehensive corrective actions to address
_the violation.
It is important for licensees, upon identification of a violation, to take the necessary corrective action to address the noncompliant condition and to i
prevent recurrence of tha violation and the occurrer.cc :f :imilar viciation,.
i Prompt comprehensive action to improve safety is not only in the public l
interest, but is also in the interest of licensees and their employees. In addition,
! it will lessen the likelihood of receiving a civil penalty. Compre-hensive corrective action cannot be developed without a full understanding of the root causes of the violation.
Therefore, to assist licensees, the NRC staff has prepared the following guidance, that may be used for developing and implementing corrective action.
i Corrective action should be appropriately comprehensive to not only prevent recurrence of the violation at issue, b0t also to prevent occurrence of I
similar violations. The guidance should help in focusing corrective actions broadly to the general area of concern rather than narrowly to the specific
! violations. The actions that need to be taken are dependent on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
The corrective action process should involve the following three steps:
- 1. Conduct a complete and thorouch review of the circumstances that led to the violation. Typically, such reviews include
- ,
l Interviews with individuals who are either directly or indirectly involved in the violation, including management personnel and those responsible for training or procedure development / guidance.
Particular attention should be paid to lines of communication between supervisors and workers.
\1
' IN 96-28
.May 1, 1996 Page 3 of 6
- Tours and observations of the area where the violation occurred, particularly when those reviewing the incident do not have day-to-day contact with the operation under review. During the tour, individuals should look for items that may have contributed to the violation as well as those items that may result in future violations. Reenactments (without use of radiation sources, if they were involved in the original incident) may be warranted to better understand what actually occurred.
Review of programs, procedures, audits, and records that relate directly or indirectly to the violation. The program should be reviewed to ensure that its overall objectives and requirements are clearly stated and' implemented. Procedures should be reviewed to determine whether they are complete, logical, understandable, and
- i meet their objectives (i.e., they should ensure compliance with the current requirements). Records should be reviewed to determine whether there is sufficient documentation of necessary tasks to orovide an auditable record and to determine whether similar i violations have occurred previously. Particular attention should be i paid to training and qualification records of individuals involved I with the violation. l l
- 2. Identify the root cause of the violation. ,
l Corrective action is not comprehensive unless it addresses the root i cause(s) of the violation. It is essential, therefore, that the root
. cause(s) of a violation be identified so that appropriate action can be ;
taken to prevent further noncompliance in this area, as well as other potentially affected areas. Violations typically have direct and indirect cause(s). As each cause is identified, ask what other factors i could have contributed to the cause. When it is no longer possible to identify other contributing factors, the root causes probably have been identified. for example, the direct cause of a violation may be a failure to follow procedures; the indirect causes may be inadequate training, lack of attention to detail, and inadequate time to carry out an activity. These factors may have been caused by a lack of staff resources that, in turn, are indicative of lack of management support.
Each of these factors must be addressed before corrective action is considered to be comprehensive.
l
\
r . -
i '. .
lll 96-28 May 1, 1996 Page 4 of 6
- 3. Take orompt and comprehensive corrective action that will address the immediate cor.cerns and prevent recurrence of the violatinn.
- it is important to take immediate corrective action to address the specific findings of the violation. For example, if the violation was issued because radioactive material was found in an unrestricted area,
- inmediate corrective action must be taken to place the material under l licensee control in authorized locations. Af ter the immediate safety concerns have been addressed, timely action must be taken to prevent
~
future recurrence of the violation. Corrective action is sufficiently l comprehensive when corrective action is broad enough to reasonably i prevent recurrence of the specific violation as well as prevent similar violations.
- In evaluating the root causes of a violation and developing effective corrective action, consider the following:
- 1. Has management been informedlof the violation (s)?
l 2. Have the programmatic implications of the cited violation (s) and the potential presence of similar weaknesses in other program areas been considered in formulating corrective actions so that both areas are adequately addressed?
- 3. Have precursor events been considered and factored into the corrective actions?
- 4. In the event of loss of radioactive material, should security of radioactive material be enhanced?
- 5. Has your staff been adequately trained on the applicable requirements?
- 6. Should personnel be re-tested to determine whether re-training should be emphasized for a given area? Is testing adequate to ensure j understanding of requirements and procedures? j
- 7. Has your staff been notified of the violation and of the applicable corrective action?
- 8. Are audits sufficiently detailed and frequently performed? Should the !
frequency of periodic audits be increased?
l l
I
(
l l
l
IN 96-28 May 1, 1996 Page 5 of 6
- 9. Is there a need for retaining an independent technical consultant to audit the area nf concern or revise your. procedures?
- 10. Are the procedures consistent with current NRf. requirements, should the~
be clarified, or shou'd new procedures be developed?
- 11. Is a system in place for keeping abreast of new or modified NRC requirements?
- 12. Does your staff appreciate the need to consider safety in approaching daily assignments? ,
- 13. Are resources adequate to perform, and maintain control over, the
- licensed activities? Has the radiation safety officer been provided sufficient time and resources to perform his or her oversight duties?
- 14. Have work hours affected the employees' ability to safely perform the job?
l l 15. Should organizational changes be made (e.g.. changing the reporting l relationship of the radiation safety officer to provide increased independence)?
- 16. Are management and the radiation safety officer adequately involved in oversight and implementation of the licensed activities? Do supervisors:
adequately observe new employees and difficult, unique, or new operations?
- 17. Has management established a work environment that encourages employees to raise safety and compliance concerns?
- 18. Has management placed a premium on production over compliance and safety? Does management demonstrate a commitment to compliance and safety?
- 19. Has management communicated its expectations for safety and compliance?'
- 20. Is there a published discipline policy for safety violations, and are employees aware of it? Is it being followed?
3 I
p -
IN 96-28 -
l May 1,1995 '
i Page 6 of 6
- I i
This information notice requires no specific action nor written response. If i you have any questions about the information in this notice, please contact :
one of the technical contacts listed below. !
, f s i it 'f' h . '. . l _
Eliza eth Q. n Eyck, Di .ctor Donald A. Cool, Director Divi ion of Fuel Cycle Safety Division of Industrial l
and Safeguards- and Medical Safety I Office of Nuclear Material Safety Office of Nuclear Material S.afety ,
and Safeguards and Safeguards .
l Technical contacts: Nader L. Mamish, OE Daniel J. Holody, RI }
(301) 415-2740 (610) 337-5312 l Internet:nlm@nrc. gov Internet:djh@nrc. gov )
t Bruno Uryc, Jr., Ril Bruce L. Burgess, Rl!! j (404) 331-5505 (708) 829-9666 I n t e rr.e t : bx'Mn re . ;c .- !nternet:S!b?n :.;:/
Gary F. Sanborn, RIV (817) 860-8222 Internet:gfs@nrc. gov Attachments:
- 1. List of Recently.lssued NMSS Information Notices
- 2. List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices i
l l
- i. j i
! I1
.i
, - - - - - , , - - _