ML20209H084
| ML20209H084 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/27/1985 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209H086 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-740 EA-85-001, EA-85-1, NUDOCS 8510010033 | |
| Download: ML20209H084 (13) | |
Text
b37d SEP 2 W MEMORANDUM FOR: James Lieberman, Director and Chief Counsel Regional Operations and Enforcement Office of the Executive Legal Director FROM:
James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement SUBJEd?t HEARING ON CIVIL PENALTY ORDER TO NORTH AMERICAN INSPECTION, INC. (EA 85-01)
As requested in your September 5,1985 memorandum to me, Ed Flack is designated as the person to serve as the focal point for the Office of Inspection and Enforcement in the Civil Penalty proceeding against North American Inspection, Inc.
CQi.nl O!gned By Js.ms i.l. Iaylor James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement cc:
T. Martin, RI Distribution l
J. Taylor, IE J. Axelrad IE E Flack, IE
%Y f
f IE:ES F
I IE:
EFlack rad RV mer JT 1.r 9/sy/85 9
85 9
/85 9/ f/85 I
o A4+%
$5.100lG63 2 J. KA 7
//C st? eS~~c t North American inspection, inc.
Ng
+
I.I.
P.O. Box 8B
-L:urys Station, PA 18059 (215)262-1100
~
August 16, 1985 Director
' Office of Inspection and Enforcement United States Nuclear Regulatory Cormiission Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
North American Inspection, Inc.
License # 37-23370-01 Referer$ce: (A)
Docket #30-20982 (8)
Inspection EA85-01 (C)
N.A.I.I.'s Letter w/ Enclosures dated 2-21-85 (D)
U.S.N.R.C. Letter dated 8-7-85 imposing Civil Penalties, signed by J.M. Taylor Gentlemen:
In accordance with Item V of your order imposing civil rnonetary penalties, North American Inspection is herewith requesting a hearing in the matter con-cerning said imposition of penalties for reasons as stated in our letter dated February 21, 1935 with enclosures and attachments.
We do not feel, based on your Appendix captionec (Evaluation and Conclusion),
that you have adequately justified the penalties defined as Severity Level 111 based on the U.S.H.R.C. 's' Rules and Regulations that apply to us as a licensee.
Being that thic will be my first e icounter with such a hearing, I am heresith requestir.g that I be advised of my rights and the fcrmat normally used for a hearing of this type.
Further, is it necessary or permissable for N. A.I.I. to be represented by Legal Counsel?
~.
Respectfully recuested, NO AME IC
.tgECTION, INC.
obert K. Shumway President RKS/ces cc:
Executive Legal Director, U.S.N.R.C.
Washington, D.C. 20555 A%
O M[t Radiography
- Magnetic Particle
- Ultrasonic Penetrants Leak Testing
- Eddy Curfent - Vlsual NON DESTRUCTIVE EXAMINATION SERVICES W;lder Qualification a inspection Management
- Film interpretation
- Quality Assurance Overview Empeditm.-
o 3d$ Er2 b d _1 T/ j "g'"
- SHOP LAeoRAfoRY e g
6O[,
OCT 151905 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Samuel J. Chilk-Secretary to the Consnission
.FROM:
James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcemera
SUBJECT:
CIVIL PENALTY HEARING NORTH AMERICAN INSPECTION, If;C.
LICENSE NO. 37-23370-01; EA-85-01 An Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalties was issued on August 7,1985 to North American Inspection, Inc. pursuant to 10 CFR $ 2.205. The Order required the licensee to pay total penalties of $5,000 and provided an opportunity to request a hearing on the Order. By letter dated August 16, 1985, the licensee requested a hearing. Copies of the hearing request and the Order are enclosed.
For your convenience we have developed the enclosed draf t Notice of Hearing which should be published in the Federal Register.
f.h James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
- 1. Proposed Notice of Hearing and Service List
- 2. Request for Hearing
- 3. Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalties CC:
William Dircks, EDO Herzel H.E. Plaine, GC bcc:
POR Enforcement' Coordinators J. Taylor, IE RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV J. Axelrad. IE L. Cobb IE E. Flack, IE V. Miller, NMSS J. Lieberman, ELD D. Nussbaumer, OSP i
L. Cuoco ELD IE:ES File S. Chidakel, ELD IE:EA File T. Murley, RI DCS CONTACT:
Lillian M. Cuoco, OELD x27036 o
M 3.O-2 1 is l'
0.
0 h',R IE:ES ELD %
2' I
IE limer JM y or xelrad EFlack JLieberman
/4/N85 teg/85 M /4 /85 to/g/85
/G/ /85
[4h r
.pr
,.,-, n, - o - o _
, b D
(n p
9p+'
f-p
%ZLk
'r Licensee j
Note to: Betty and Reviewer Please MAKE a new FILE hk
/ f /[
ASSIGN EA i FILE ORIGINAL IN:
[f._/
l MAKE COPIES FOR:
ELD ( LIEBERMAN)
Reviewer (2 copies)
[
AXELRAD DeYoung M
Taylor
- Jordan
- Grace V'
- Gagl1ardo
- D. Chapell(11 MSS)
/
- E. Case (;mR)
'* W. Haass l
Assign to:
d Special Instructions:
l Thank You, I
Jane A. Axelrad
- For Information:
If you have coments, please contact reviewer or Axelrad l
within five days if at all possible.
i l
ps g$g
+-'
N
rx Licensee I
Note to: Betty and Reviewer Please MAKE a.new FILE k
/ f /[
i ASSIGN EA t j
FILE ORIGINAL IN:
1 NEW EA FILE l
EA FILE !
[T
/
MAKE COPIES FOR:
ELD ( LIEBERMAN) h' I
. Reviewer (2 copies) l AXELRAD I
DeYoung l
Taylor
- Jordan
- Grace
- Gagliardo
- D. Chapell(NMSS) l
- E. Case (NP.R)
/
- W. FMass s
l Assign to:
d i
Special Instructions:
Thank You, Jane A. Axelrad
- For Information:
If you have connents, please contact reviewer or Axel rad l.
within five, days if at all possible.
ROED C0!! TROL 5HEET
- 1/t (24 (M
' I
, rit! ALREADY P.ADE 85-Licensee (4
f-
~.' -l/}
P AKE 'A 1;D.' ' TILE Date 1
OP 85 -
P.A E5 -
01 85 -
FREY!DUSLY C0h' TROLLED MColiTRdt Assien to: dL [
Due dite:
.ll. Al r
t
! t0FIES FOR:
Liebe-man
~
RH KC LC SC ALL Reviewer ROUTE TO:
Cunt.ing ham /P.urr ay Ed RH KC
'. C 5t ALL Regier,zl Co:insel (f
)
]
11
))]
]V V
ALL AFTER ROL'TII;G:
_ '.~
DESTROY Olmstead FILE Ragan RETURis TO i
Christenbury Axelrad C DP.'iE!?TS :
James Liebernzn hko
, A 40
BRIEFING North American Inspection. Inc. (NAII)
Purpose of OI Participation:
Allegations received from neighbor (Mrs. Judy LEIBY) indicating that NAII may be conducting radiography at the facility in Laurys Station, Pennsylvania.
1 If allegation were true, NAII may be guilty of " willful noncompliance" of NRC mandate. On November 14, 198(, NAII Representatives Robert K. SHUMWAY and Joel E. GUTHRIE attended an Enforcement Conference at NRC and agreed not to conduct radiography on the premises.
01:RI assisted in conducting inquiry to ascertain if radiography had been performed at NAII facility in Laurys Station.
Interviewees 6/12 Ronald COSBON Purchasing Agent, Bethlehem Steel (BS)
Or,1y work performed by NAII for BS was completed at BS.
6/13 Mrs. Judith LEIBY Alleger - 150 Church Street, Laurys Station (House within 30 feet of NAII facility)
She and her husband, Keith LEIBY, spoke to Mike GENTIS, owner of Highway Restaurant on Friday, June 7 and found out people (NFI) stopped in restaurant while waiting for work to be per-formed at NAII. Saw activities at NAII at night. No positive information. Generally concerned about her health. Called K. ABRAHAM.
6/13 Mihail E. GENTIS Owner - Highway Restaurant Sometime "before Easter 1985" (April
- 7) two drivers at restaurant waiting for job to be done.
Drivers did not tell him that radiography was being performed. More concerned about damage to business by adverse news articles of February 22.
6/13 Rayburn KRAUSE Postmaster, Laurys Station 3892 Main Street Lives next door to NAII No pertinent information.
MlW
6/14 Miss Luane L. ZERFASS 1118 Broad Street N. Catasaugua, Pennsylvania Former Secretary at NAII (Jan. 1985 - May 24, 1985)
Boyfriend is David HOPKINS, former NAII Radiographer.
She said radiography was performed about eight times during her period of employment.
r Boyfriend told her he did radiography, 6/14 Joel E. GUTHRIE Salesman, Magnaflux Former Operations Manager at NAII (Dec. 1983 to May 1985 - laid off)
No radiography at NAII facility.
SHUMWAY's problems are financial.
Too much overhead.
6/14 Kerry FRACK Radiographer, NAII No radiography at Laurys Station facility.
6/14 George WEAVER Radiographer, NAII No radiography at Laurys Station facility.
6/14 Mrs. Cynthia E. SHUMWAY Vice President, NA!!
Called in Larry THOMPSON on part time basis on Saturday 6/8/85. He did radiography. Keith SHUMWAY in New York and was not aware of job.
Interview of Robert "Keith" SHUMWAY on 6/13/85 and 6/14/85 6/13 Are you permitted to use radiography at Laurys Station? "In my mind, it is up in the air."
Has not done any radiography. Only x-ray. Later - admitted "some" had been done but not sure of number of instances.
Together, WALSH, DAVIS, and SHUMWAY examined NAII invoices from January 1, 1985 to present (519 to 762). Fou'nd eight.(8) jobs performed at "Allentown location."
He assumed they were at Laurys Station. Could not find matching survey reports. Declined to give written statement.
DAVIS and WALSH to return Friday, 6/14/85.
M\\
F 6/14 Partially recanted his previous day admission. Out of eight invoices where he thought work was performed at Laurys Station, he found that majority were " destructive" or x-ray jobs.
Only )ositive instance was the 6/8/84 job by THOMPSON. Two jobs by David 10PKIN5 are questionable.
Survey by Jack DAVIS - He will speak on this.
Examination of Training Records - He will speak on this.
Conclusion One (1) mitigated instance of radiography on 6/8/85 Two jobs in doubt but could possibly'be proved with interview of David HOPKINS - now at school in Columbus, Ohio.
Footage listed on at least two survey reports for Laurys Station work are " inaccurate and guesstamations."
SHUMWAY has possible defense because NRC failed to respond to his lengthy rebuttal letters of February 21 and 26, 1985.
el
- D W W/
P
SHUMWAY's EXPLANATION OF INVOICES / SURVEYS Date Radiographer Source Used Explanation 1/21/65 D. HOPKINS IR-192 Done outside (questionable) 3/27/85 K. FRACK X-ray N/A 4/3/85 K. FRACK X-ray N/A 4/24/85 D. HOPKINS IR-192 Done outside (questionable) 4/30/85 J. GUTHRIE Wrap Destructive 5/20/85 K. FRACK IR-192 At Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania 5/22/85-R. K. SHUMWAY X-ray N/A 5/23/85 R. K. SHUMWAY X-ray N/A 6/8/85 L. THOMPSON IR-192 At NAII e
Federal Register / V;l. 50. Ib 159 / Frid:y. August 16, 1985 / Notices
. En 33130 r
NRC Conclasion retnission or mitigation of the proposed Imposition of CGilnaaltiae dated h
Fo'r the above reasons, the NRC staff cin] penalties contained therun. as set February 8. less. the licensee denies be!uves that the violation occurred as forth in the Appendix to this Order, the some of the violations and admita eaw AstrM% sty stated, although Director. Office ofInspecnon and others: requesta reduction of the seve ity the NRC staff does recognize that the Enforcement. has determined that the level of the violations: and requesta that beensee has taken corrective actions, violations occurnd as stated and that the penalties be waived, claiming that mitigation of the proposed penalty is not the peralties proposed for the violations imposition of the civil penalties will be a wctranted. Thus, the violation occurred designated in the Notice of Violation financial burden to the company.
cs stated and a civil penalty in the and Proposed Imposition of Civil Nvided below era (1) a restatement of sm:unt of S50.000 is appropriate.
Penalties should be imposed.
each violation:(2) a summary of the
[FR Doc. 45-19619 Filed 4-15-45, a s$ am) gy licensee s responsa segarding e.c.h viole tion: and (3) the NRC's evaluation awa ecos ra In view of the foregoing and pursuant of the licensee's response.
to secton 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2282.
Restotement of Violation A I
~
2 Pub. I.96-295), and 10 CFR 2.205, it la hereby ordered that 10 CFR 34.31(a) requires thet no North American inspection,Inc.; Order The beensee pay civil penalties in the individual act as a radiographer until imposing Civil Monetary Penattsee amount of Five Thousand Douars that individual can demonstrate his (55.000) within thirty days of the date of understanding of the instructions which this Order by check. draft, or money he has received regarding the subjects I
N:rth Ame-ican Inspection.Inc 3906 order, payable to the Treasurer of the covered in Appendix A of Part 34 and Main Street. P.O. Bcx 88. Laurys Station. United States and mailed to the D. rector has successfully completed a written l
Pennsylvania (the " licensee"). is the of the Office ofInspection and test sad a field emanunation on the
" h:Id:r of License No. 37-23370 01 (the Enforcement. USNRC. Wa shmgton. D.C.
subjects covered.
" license") issued by the Nuclear
.05 5..
y ath s h n Oc h a 1984, at a field site in Bethlehem.
Regulatory Comrnission (the "NRC")
V se rad a be,
' ' Ponm Pennsylvania. Individuals were atenals L4 The licensee may, within thirty days per nitted to act as radiographers prior '
l n
I ace rdance with con 6tions specified of the date of this Order, request a to demonstrating their understanding of therein. License No. 37-23370-01 was heanng. A request for a hesnns shaU be the subjects outlined in Appendix A 3f issu:d on Apnl 5.1984.
eddressed to the Director. Office of Part 34. prior to passing a wntten test.
Inspection and Enforcement. A copy of and prior to demonstrating their U
the beanng request shaU also be sent to ccmaetence to use the bcensee's A safety ir:spection of the licensee's the Executive Legal Deector. USNRC.
ra6cgraphic exposure devices. survey activities under the license was Washmgton. D C. 20555.1f a hearing is instruments. and related handling tools.
c nducted on October 16-19.1964 at the requested, the Corn. mission Mllissue an licensee's facility in Lautys Station.
Order designating the time and place of SummafyofLjg,ase,,g,,pon,,
Pennsylvania, and at a radiography field the hearing Upon failure of the licensee Rescrding Violation A site in Bethlehem. Fennsylvania.
to request a hearing within thirty days The licensee concedes that. for Another NRC safety inspection was of the date of this Order.the provisions In6n6.al B. management did not ecnducted on Jerwy 10.1985 at the of this Order shaU be effective without produce documents to support licensee's facility in Laurys Station.
further proceedegs end. if pe>1nent has In6vidual L's radjographer status at the Pennsylvania. and on January 16.1985 at not been made by that time, the matter time of the inspection.
a ra6c J:rsey. graph) field site in Lebanon. New may be referred to the Attorney General As a result of the inspections. the for collection.
3.RC Ercluotion of Licrasce's Response NRC staff deter-.ined that the licensee g,p.gj,g yj,jgj,3 3 yg had not conducted its activities in full At the time of the inspection the compliance with NRC requirements. A In the event the licensee requests a licensee's President (who was also the hearing as prodded above, the Isaues to actty Radiation Safety Officer). the wntien Notice of Violation and Proposed Irnposition of Civil Penalties be considered at such hearig shall be-lice"ce's Operations Manager, and was sened s:pon the licensee by letter (a) Whether the licensee violated NRC Ind edual A, who is the husband of datsd Febnwv A tom The Notice requirernents as set forth in the Notice Indiodual B. each told the NRC stat:d the naidre cf the violations, the of Violation and Proposed Imposition of inspectors that Individual B was only provisions of the NRC's requirements Civil Penalties: and qua! fed to be a Ra6ographer's I
that'the licensee had violated, and the (b) Whether, on the basis of such Assistant. At the time of the inspection arneunt of the civil penalties. Responset dolations, this Order should be and at the enforcernent conference on dated Februa y 21 and 25.1985 to the s ustained.
Nm ember 14.1984. the licensee did not N:tice of Violation and Proposed Dated et Bethesda. Mar > and this 7th day proude anyinformation to indicate that Impisition of Cidl Penalties were of August 1965.
In6udual B had completed all trainig rec ived from the licensee. In addition.
For the %clur Regulatory Commission.
requirements of the I cense and 10 CFR at the request of the NRC, a financial jamn M. Taylor.
Part 34 A recent inspectico conducted stat: ment was prodded by the licensee oa,cror. of,ce of/nspeer,oa and on June 13 and 14.1985 at NA! revealed by 1:tter dated Apn! 10.1985.
9/mensenc that in6ddual B had completed the Appeodi.u-Es aluation and Conclusion radiographer's examination in April 111 1984, but did not compete the required Upon consideration of the licensee's in the licensee's February 21 and 28.
practacal factors test until February rep:nses and the statements of fact.
1985 and April 10.1985 responses to the 1985 Since Indiodual D performed as a explanations. and a guments for Notice of Violation and Proposed radiographer without having satisfied hh p
Federal Regist:r / Vgl. 50. N2.159 / Friday. Augu.st til 1983 / Nn%-
33333 the required program for qualification.
surwy and control access to the storage Restatement of MofationD the violation remains as state <L bay adjacent to the end of the building ECm W W g hah U The fact that Individual C also where radiography was taking place.
- r*'e-
- ed as a radiographer without and in this area.the MtC inspector entrance ased for personnel access to ccinpleting the requised training was not measured a radiation dose rate choo the high radiateon area in a permanent radographic instattation how both 6sputed in the licensee a response.
mithrems per hour. Ahhough the Therefore. the violation rema ns as
, licensee contends that Bethlehem wins usible and awhbie warning signals to proposed.
warn of the presertoe of red atlan.De
.w 7, cf as ra6agraphy actmty and usible signalis reqwred to be actuated Rntetement of Violetica 3 reatncted personnel from beg in the by rudsation erbanever the aceroe ia g
eres. Seth!ehem Steel repre:entatsvee esponed and the audible alssalla or rad $o r pbr s s~s stant to informed the inspectors that their Fire required to be actuated when en ettempt 6 rect surveillance of the cperation to Af arshau was required to enter this area is made ao enter the installation wtute p;otect against unauthorized entry into a pen dicaDy dunas his routane sours of the source la esposed.
high ra6ation area.
the ehem facday.ne hansu Contrary to the abon. as of October Contrary to the above. on October 18.
'Ck80* ledges that it 6d not maintain it tm. the pe macent radiormphic 1SR at a f. eld site in Bethlehem, duect surved:ance of tiua area.
instaHation located in the Laurp pennsylvania. a h'gh radiation area Lerefore. the nelations remam as Station. Penns)hania facilny did not
' existed in a buil&ng adiscent to the proposed.
hsw the eequired warning signals area where radiog aphic operations ins aued.
w cre being performed. and 6tect Reatalemene of FIolanon CJ sun ei!!ance was not maintained to 10 CR 2010Mb) requires that SummaryofLoensee's Aasponse Regenbag Moloteen D protect against unauthonted entry into-radiation levels in unrestneted areas be the,h:gh ra6 anon area.
hmited so that an indiddual who was De licensee e niends that the facthty o
Restntement of Mo/cten CJ contboonsly present in the area could loca W in Lac ys Statien. Pennsylvama n tte a dose b ucus of 2 is not a pe-rnenent radiograpYc 10 CFR 20.105{b) requtres that milhrema in any hour or 100 sull: rems in
"*U'""*
r=&atica levels in unrestncted areas be.
hrr.ited so that sa indmdual who was any sesen consecutive dan.
NRCEroluoten o/Leenece's Asepense Contrary to the abow.co OcJober 4.
Regard.rg Molotson D e
in de a a could n
ece d
19n radiation levels in eacess of the to CFR 34.29 definas a permaneos milbrems in any hour or 100 miltrees la limits set f th in to Cm an10Mbj ra6eg aphic instaDation as "...a
' any seven consectin e days.
esisted in a rutaurant which is located shie!ded insta!'ation or structure Contr:ty 1o the above. on October 18 44 feet from the hcenace's facihty in dests :ed or in*tnded for radopraphy 1984 at a field site in Be*hlehem.
Laurys Station. Pent.s>lverus in wtac:,:
and tn which radiog+aphy is regalar!)
Pennsylvania, ra6atien levels of 200 ra6cgraphy tcok place.
pe: formed."
r :1;irems per hour enisted tn an
"V*"'**
Summary of Licenser's Response indicatn dat 6 kas Stau"en facNy unrestncted area of an educent buJang gegeg.g no/ct,on cs when ra6cgraphy was being conducted is a shieMed s* JCrure and also..
uses a cobah 60 source Access to this The licensa contends that the an& cates that two dderent t.diography area was not contic!!ed for the peposes ra diation lesels outside the I;eensee's firrns have per'ormed radiography there of ra&ation protecdon.
facihty in Laurys Station. Penns>kania str.ce a. ! cast IC, Tert::er. information Sv tmery cf Licensee's Response neser exceeded the limits ofic CTR sap;hed by the hcensee to the NRC 20'105*
t-6cated that this facihty was used Rescrdmg %olctions B cad C1 resndnriy betmven April and October 1.
The beensee's response states that as NRCEroluotion cfLicensee's Response 195( Smce the facihty as shielded.
a service cc:npany they were R'EC'ddW %.8I8on C2 apparently intended for radicaraphy.
sabor6nate to Bet 1Jehem Steel ne licensn's smey report for and ra6ography was regular:y Corporation's Ra&ation Sclety Program. October 4.1984. which was enamned a:
perf rmed there the Laurys Ssation The licensee's censdtant states that the NRC Inspector did not identify the area the tne of the NRCinspection.
{acitr> met the defin. tion of a indicated that a re&ation lewl cf two permanent ra6cgra; hic installation, co rect'). access was hm:ted and
,... 2. nl r.:f.;t.n:e ""
milbrems per hour existed at 200 feet as deTned b) 10 CFR 34.2lb) nerefore.
"N * * *
'# 8I" **
mamta.ined.ne consultant further from the source in all daections. While h knwe nw contenda M We r 1 nstaDed. a violation of to CR 34.29 states. "...where the readings were taken by the inspector in the adjacent wrded amey is in e ror. 6 lete re:rai s as Prcposed-ba) was at an oserhead rolls,p position does not prende the reasons wty the Restatement of Vic/ations E f. E 2. and and wa the worst esposure enndit on record of the survey was incorrect. and EJ Y***
did not provide any iclormation to the.t i0 CR 715 a) requires that licensed response regar&og the actual radiation c.atertal beit:3 transported comply with NRC Ercluation o/l/ censer's Rerponse leteli measured by the ts&ographer in the applicable requirementa of the Re:ctding Violations B cad C1 the unrestncted area in the etcinity of regdstions appropriate to the mode of The bcensee's contention that it is the Laurys Stanon facihry.nis would t ansport of the Depa*tment of subordinate to BetFJehe= Steers include the areas outside the unshielded Transportation in 49 CTR Parts 170189.
Rad.atten Safety Program is incorrect.
bay doors on the south side of the
- 1. 49 Cm 172 403(c) requires that and demosstrates an inadequate facihty, and su other areas to which packages containing radioactive understanding of the responsibihties of acress is not contro!!ed by the beensee matenal with radiation lesels in excess an NPC licensee.De inspectors Therefore, the siolation remajns as cf 50 radhrem per hour at the cachate obtened that licensee personnel 6d not proposed sarface or 1 mdirem per hour at three b
~'
h-33132 Fed:rtl Regist:r / V:1. 50. NO.159 / Friday. August to.1965 / Notices
' feet be
- ffixed with a Radioactive compliance with DOT regulations the storage forms" wakbeing used as a i
Yellow IIllabel.
failure to implement these procedures etshzation los nelicenm states that Contrary to the above, on October 19.
and comply with the appropriate the storage utilization log would have 19N. a radioactive exposure device regulations were the bases for the been completed when the re6ographee's e-h b!e; sf;cticn levels of 80 milline vio!ation. nerefore, the violations shift was completed.
per hour at the surface and 1-2 millitem remain as proposed.
per hour at three feet was transported without a Radioactive Yellow 111 label Restatement of Violadon F NRC Evaluation of Ucensee's Response
.Regading Violouan G cffixed to the device.
10 CR 3423(b) requins that a
- 2. 49 CFR 17.504(a) requires that a physical radiation survey be made after 10 CR 34.27 requires that a leg be ech,icle ca.gpackages bear'ng the each radiographic exposure to maintained current where devices am
- r. u.
....s : u.a
.c.cl be determine that the sealed source has gg, gg pl: carded on each end and each side been retumed to its shielded position.
N "I#i" '" 8"* de *k" " '
with -Radioactive' placards.
The entire circumfereoce of the device is complete and the device le Contrary to the above. on October 19, radiographic exposure device must be returned to the storage location.ne 19H. a radroactive exposure dence that surveyed and. if the deece has a source storage utilisation log la intended to should have been labeled with a guide tube, the survey must include the record the location of the exposun I
Radioactive Yellow II!!abei was entire length of the guide tube.
devtces when they am in the field. ne transported in a vehicle which was not Contrary to the above, on October 18, NRC inspector verified, while reviewing properly placarded.
19M. a radiographer's aeststant did not the form that a device had been
- 3. 49 CFR 173 448(a) requires each perform a survey that was adequate to.
removed fraas storage and the storage shipment of radioactne matenal to be determine that the sealed source bad utilization log was not completed to secured in order to prevent shifting during normal transportation con 6tions. retumed to its shielded positico m that reflect this removal.nerefore, the the survey &d not eclude the entre violation resnaina as proposed.
C;ntrary to the above, on October 18.
circumference of the exposure devtce o 1964. a ra6oactive exposure device was and the entire length of the guide tube.
Restatemerstof Vaoloden N flicfe n or to rev ntlhi Summeryofucensee's Response to CTR 2tL406(b) requins that a report during normal transportation.
Regodmg Violodon y be sent to the NRC of am ladividual's Summary of!.s.censee's Response nelicensee acknowledges the exPosum to ndicon den be terminates employment.
Reg:Mir's Vic!ations E.1. E.2. and EJ
- l*f,},. con 1 ty, n, Ccutary to the above. since Apttl 5 The licensee states "... management perstnnel disclosed that there eusts a beensee urges these requirements be iss4. four individuals terminated 1:ck cf understan6ng in part of this administered and t=plemented mth eciployment but se of October 19.19M.
discretion.
proc: dure." refernng to 49 CFR 171 termtnation eeports were not prouded to the NRC.
through 177.ne licensee contends that NRCEroluotion of ucensee's Response the NRC inspector 6d not mitness the Regoding Violation F Su=~'ory of LicensWs Response use Cf the truck, but obtained hearsay The meatung of the requirement la A'I#d'#'I V##I#'### N t
inf:rmation f+om a heensee employee clear na: rely, that a complete survey of ne beenece acknowledges this and contends that the materials were in the entae circu=ference of the exposun violeton.
st rage.The Lcensee also contends that the procedure in its rranual specifies dedce and the entre length of the guide Me must :e made after each NRCfrCI*8fiO"'/UC'38"A'820^8' 8
c:mphance with DOT regulations.
ta6eraphic exposure. The inspectors A*f8 Min # Vio/88'08 #
NRC Evoluetion of ucensee's Response observed that neither In6vidual B nor Regading Violations E.1. E.2. and EJ Indmdual C performed these surveys as No evaluation required.
At the time of the inspection. the required. Therefare, the no!ation Restctementof Violatino/
inspec:trs w ere informed by !feensee remains as proposed. The inspector noted thatIndividual Atthe only Con 6ti:m 17 of Ucense No. 3?-23370-pers:nnel that the vehicle they had m npo M heenW maanal W inspected wes used the previous day to quahfied individual performing transpcrt licensed matenal and that the ra6cgraphy the day of the inspectaen.
p esessed and used in accordance mth truck w as in the same con 6 tion when did sutvey the guide tube.
statements representaticas, and proce bres contained in the appbcation tb inee h d 't se ff was the Restolement of Violotson C dated January 31.1334. and letters dad previ:us day-10 CFR 34 27 requires that a utlitation March M.1964 and May 4.19M.
The NRC utilizes observations by the inspectors, statements by licensee log be maintamed m6catmg the plant or ite:n 5 3.3 on page 52 of the site where the ra6ation expsoure apphe.stion dated january 31,1944, personnel. records maintained by the devices are used.
requires that a person hired with licens:e and measurements made by Contrary to the above, on October 19.
ra6cg aphee credentials from another inspectors as the bases for determin:ng 1984. a cobalt.60 exposure device was company complete a practical comp!iance with NRC regulations and used at a field site in liethlehem.
lic;rse conditions. In this instance. NRC pennsylvania, but such use was not perfor nance exa.ninstion before being measurement of the ra6ationlevels indicated in the utshcataan log assigned to perform radiography.
Contrary to the above, as of lanuary or li ebee mp$cyees 8"**#'T #IU"88' Reiponse 11.1985, a penon hind d e er s concemmg the con 6tions of transport of Regoding Voolotoon C rabovapher creder.tials from another the package provided the bases for the ne licensee contends that this was a company 6d not complete a practical vi latten. Further, regarding the misunderstanding by the NRC inspector Performance esammation before being lic:nsee's procedures which specify
', because he thought the "chech.out and a ssigned to perform radiography.
h%
.I Federal Register / Vel 50. No.159 / Frid:y. August 16. 1985 / Notices 33133 Summary of Licensee's Response At the request of NRC Region I.the and January 23'.1985 (49 nt 212) and (50 Regarding Violation J bcensee submitted financial statements FR 3051) respect vely.
The hcensee does not deny this in support of this position indicatmg that ne amendments as proposed by the It has a substantial accumulated debt. lt beensee, weald change the Unit 1 further maintains that this civil penalty.
Technical Specifications as follows:(1)
NRCErcluotion ofLicensee's Response when coupled with current tas habthties Page 3/4 3-55/ Table 4.34-1: Changing Regardens ViolationI and operatirut costs, will force the Channel Calibration surveillance No es aluation required.
company to file for protection under the intervals to be less conservative than Federal Bahkruptcy La ws. Chapter 11.
the present requirement. F.xperience has Restatement of Violation /
's esponse ehown that electneal equipment will n, C*n Mi.} requires that. during mP sed /mposition of Civil tend to dnft or fail and as a result radiography operations. the sealed p,3,j,,,,,
surveillance requirements were source assembly be secured in the established. The frequency of sh.elded position each time the source is The Enforcement Policy makes clear surveillance has been based on the returned to that position.
that is not the intent of a civil penalty to difficulty in conducting the surveillance Contrary to the above. on January te.
put a heensee out of business or test and the consequence of equipment 1985. a radiographer performed a adversely affect a licensee's ability to failun.The staff has defined the number of radiographic exposures and safely conduct licensed operations. The required surveillance intervals on a cranked the source from the end of the assessment of a civil penalty should genene basia in the standard Technical guide tube to the shielded posinon in the take into account a heensee's abihty to specificatione. The heensee has esposure device each time, but did not pay. However, after the staff analysis of proposed substannat dept.rtures from secure the source between each the financial statement submitted with the requiresnents in the standard exposure.
the beensee's letter of April 10.1985, the Technical Specifications. but has not I
Summary ofLicrisee's Response NRC is not connneed that civil provided an acceptable basis for this l
Regerdmg Veolation/
penalties of the magmtude proposed departure from the staffs judgment.
(
(15 000) will put this bcensee out of Therefore. the staff has denied the The licensee stated... we do not business. Although it is conceded that licensee's request. (2) Page 3/4 3-t consider secure,to having the same the company may have a cash flow Incorporating a husrterly surveillance meanmg as lock.Otherwise, why probiern. the hcensee's net sales for the interval for the c.annel functional test wocid both words be used in paragraph I
tu CFR 34t!a) & (b)if one word meant last nine months of CY 1964 should for the Scram Discharge Volume (SDV) the same as both., The beensee stated enable the licensee to pay the civil float switches.The staff has densed this that the ra6cgrapher picperly surveyed penalty and to ufely conduct licenud request and requires the licensee to test operations. This is especially true since on a monthly basis.The objecuve of the s
much of the company's debt is owed to SDV modificahon was te provide the ec red s t on an e me a was under his constant surveiDance at ett uits mai nty or mm nry mbable instrumentation which can
' U h* "'
stockholders.
accommodate a single random failure or L
- C###I"####
potential commnn.cause failures for all NRC Ero/uction of Licensee's Response postulated SDV filhng events. The basis Regerdms Mo/ction/
ne Lcensee's response does not for this denialis the same as that stated The requirement in to CMt 341.2 to justfy withdrawal of any of the above. Additionally experience has sesuic ths source assemb:y :r. the violahons. or reduct g the sever:ty level shown that probleres have $ een 2
sbelded position each time means that of the violations. Accordmgly civil empenenced in the past with these SDV tr:e bcensee rnust do more than merely penahties of Five Thousand DoUnrs are float switches and these problems have retract the source to the shielded imposed.
been discovered as a result of the pos.tien and keep it under observatan.
[nt Doc as-teco Filed s-thas. tas am) suiniUance tutsEenfon. the staff Some posit we scuon is required to finds the monthly tuting intuval to
% a ww present the inadvertent release of the serve a useful purpose. (3) Page 3/4 S-5/
source from the shielded posidonif th, Insert A:Includmg a new surveillance deuce or crank is moved. For most go,es,,s,..go.my; mquuement to tut the 1.OCAlfalu radiographic sources this may indeed LOCA logic in support of two unit mean using the locking device on the Penns ylvania Power and Ught Co. et operstic n. The staff has denied this reu~e Be the requirement to se:ure it al.; Donlet of Amendment to Factitty tcposa! due to the potentially long time fapses between testing of the LOCA/
after each exposure is separate from the Operating Ucenas and Opportunity for requirement to keep the source locked if Hearing false LOCA logic.The staff finds that it is net under direct surveillance. In this the hcensee's proposal does not provide case the desice was net locked or The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory good assurance that the LOCA/ false otherwise positivel) secured between Commission (the Commission) has LOCA logic will be surveilled on an exposures and the violation remains as derued in par 1 requests by the beensee appropnate schedule. The staff proposed.
for amendments to Factbry Operstmg understands that the beenece has Ucense NPF-14. issued to the undertaken a study to determine more Summary of Licensee's Response to pennsylvania Power and Usht accurately an appropriate surveiUance proposed /mpornion of Civi/ Penchties Company, for operation of the requirement based on this study. It is the The licensee maintains that the civil Susquehanna Steam Electric Stauon.
staff e understanding that when this penalty should be withdrawn due to its Unit 1 located in 1,uzerne County, study is completed the bcensee wdl financial condition. !: claims to have Pennsylvania. The Notice of submit it to the staff a!ons with a teen in business only a short tune Consideration of Issuance of request for new surveillance (approximately 16 monhts) and to have Amendments was pubbshed in the requirement for review and approval. (4) been undercapitahzed from the )utset.
Federal Register on December 31,1964 Page 3/4 7-e throusb 3/4 7-30/Enubbers:
\\
M3
~
'~
y
A[t LICENSEE A
,e m.
FILE ORIGINAL INi 3
/
l'I~'
[I C /
Ybd l
MAKE COPIES FOR:
REVIEWER REVIEWER r
l-AXELRAD L
4 TAYLOR L
(
l VOLLNER k
LIEBERMAN(ELD) k JORDAN O
PARTLOW P'
- GRIMES GAGLIARDO
- EISENHUT(NRR)
CHAPELL(NMSS) 4 Thank you, Jane A. Axeirad, Director Enforcement Staff IF YOU HAVE COMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT REVIEWER OR J. AXELRAD WITHIN FIVE DAYS IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.
l A+7 L