ML20217J480
| ML20217J480 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 15000038 |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1998 |
| From: | Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Theilsch H THIELSCH ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217J482 | List: |
| References | |
| 150-00038-98-01, 150-38-98-1, EA-98-161, EA-98-162, NUDOCS 9804300250 | |
| Download: ML20217J480 (5) | |
See also: IR 015000038/1998001
Text
4
.
O Msg
g
UNITED STATES
[
g
NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$
j
REGION I
o,
p
475 ALLENDALE ROAD
%*****,d
KING OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415
April 23, 1998
98-162
Mr. Helmut Theilsch, President
Theilsch Engineering, Inc.
195 Frances Avenue
Cranston, Rhode island 02910-2211
SUBJECT:
(NRC Inspection Report No. 150-00038/98-001)
This letter refers to the NRC inspection conducted on March 9,1998, at a temporary job site
located in Bridgeport, Connecticut, of activities authorized by an NRC general license granted
to you pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20(a). The inspection was conducted after the NRC was
informed by the State of Connecticut that your staff had performed radiography at the
Bridgeport Rosco facility in Bridgeport, Connecticut (using a radiography device you possessed
under a license issued to you by the State of Rhode Island), and that an unauthorized
individual was inside the restricted area at the facility for a short period while an iridium-192
radiography source was exposed.
During the inspection, the NRC confirmed that an
unauthorized Individual was in a restricted area when the radiography source was exposed.
The NRC also learned that the performance of radiography at the Bridgeport Resco facility was
done without you first filing the required reciprocity forms with the NRC so as to provide
notification that the radiography device authorized by your Rhode Island license would be
used in Connecticut and therefore subject to NRC jurisdiction. These two findings constituted
apparent violations of NRC requirements which were described in the NRC inspection report
sent to you on April 6,1998. On April 21,1998, an enforcernent conference was conducted
at our Region I office with Ms. Nancy Hoffman, Vice President, and other members of your
staff to discuss the violations, their causes and your corrective actions. A copy of the
Enforcement Conference Summary is enclosed.
Based on the information developed during the inspection, and the information provided during
the conference, two violations of NRC requirements are being cited. The violations are
described in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) and the circumstances surrounding them
are described in detail in the subject inspection report. The violations involve: (1) failure to
file with the NRC, Form-241, " Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States," prior to
engaging in actmties in Connecticut, a Non-Agreement State; and (2) the failure to keep an
unauthorized individual out of a restricted area when radiography was being performed.
With respect to the first violation, the NRC is concerned that radiography was t,eing performed
in the State of Connecticut without the NRC being aware of such use. Notification of the NRC
is particularly important since the NRC, rather than the State of Rhode Island, regulates the
use of radiography devices in the State of Connecticut. Your failure to obtain the required
NRC authorization to work in Conne.cticut denied the NRC the opportunity to assure, through
field inspections, that radiography activities were being conducted in compliance with all NRC
.
radiation safety requirements. At the enforcement conference, you acknowledged this
violat!ui occurred, noting that the request for such work was made by Bridgeport Resco on
k
ro
9804300250 980423
/J
STPRG ESGRI
/
w
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
1
..
.
Theilsch Engineering Inc.
2
short notice and the radiographer who promptly responded, although trained in reciprocity
requirements, apparently overlooked those requirements when responding. You also described
a number of corrective actions to address this finding. The violation is classified at Severity
Level ill in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC
Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600,(Enforcement Policy).
With respect to the second violation, on February 27,1998, your radiographer performed
radiography (one three-minute exposure) on the attemperator above the superheater penthouse
on the 9* level (uppermost level) of a boiler at the Bridgeport Resco facility. During that time,
an individual was located within the boiler room on the 9th floor which was within the
restricted area. The NRC recognizes that the radiographer established a restncted area on the
7*,8* and 9* levels of the facility by (1) placing yellow and magenta ropes and restricted area
caution signs at elevator openings on the 9*,8*, and 7* levels, (2) clearing the three levels of all
personnel, (3) placement of ropos and signs across the stairways at the 6* level to restrict access,
and (4) making an announcement over the facility's public address system, prior to exposing
the radiography source. However, these controls were not sufficient to preclude a Bridgeport
Resco employee, from entering the superheater penthouse on the 9* level (the area below
which the source was exposed), without the radiographer being aware of this condition until
the Bridgeport Rosco employee exited the superheater penthouse through the access hatch and
was seen by the radiographer, at which time the source was immediately retracted
While subsequent evaluations by your staff, determined that the exposure received by the
individual was approximately 0.005 mrom, the violation is, nonetheless, of serious concern
since the failure to ensure that no unauthorized individuals were in the restricted area when
the source was exposed created the potential for more significant exposure to the individual,
given the potential high radiation levels generated by exposure of the 27.6 curie iridium-192
source. Therefore, this violation is also classified at Severity Level lli in accordance with the
" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600,
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, the base civil penalty for each Severity Level ill
violation is $5,500. Because your facility has not been the subject of an escalated
enforcement action within the last two years', the NRC considered whether credit was
warranted for Correct /ve Action for both Severity Level ill violations in accordance with the
civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. The NRC notes
j
that your corrective actions, which were described during the inspection, as well as during the
conference, were prompt and comprehensive and included: (1) retraction of the radiography
j
source to the shielded position immediately after the radiographer recognized that a Rosco
worker was located in the boiler, and immediate discussions with management of that facility
to ensure that the workers understood the need to stay outside the restricted area;
(2) issuance of a memorandum to all of your Nondestructive Examination Personnel (including
The NRC conducted prior inspections of this Rhode Island License in 1996 and
'
1997 because it has previously conducted work periodically in Non-Agreement States, and has
apparently filed for reciprocity, when required, in the past. There were two Severity Level IV
violations identified during the prior inspections but no escalated enforcement issues.
.
.
Theilsch Engineerkg Inc.
3
i
l
radiographers) reminding them of their responsibilities with respect to filing of reciprocity, and
maintaining control of access to restricted areas; (3) discussion of these events with your
staff; and (4) creation and posting of a reciprocity reminder to remind the radiographers of
their responsibilities in this area. However, we question the thoroughness of certain aspects
of your analysis of the root causes of these violations. Specifically, you indicated that the
responsible radiographer, (who has since left your company) provided vague responses when
questioned regarding the filing of reciprocity. However, you did not pursue the matter to gain
a complete understanding as to why he failed to file for reciprocity. Also, your investigation
did not include an interview of (1) the Resco employee that entered the restricted area, to
ascertain his recollection of the events that led up to him entering the restricted area or (2) the
l
assistant radiographer on site the day of the event to ascertain his recollection of the event.
However, after considering all of the comprehensive actions that were promptly taken
following these events, the NRC has determined that credit for your corrective actions is
l
warranted.
l
Therefore, to emphasize the importance of appropriate corrective actions, I have been
authorized not to propose a civil penalty in this case. However, any similar violations in the
future could result in significant enforcement action.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the
enclosed Notice when preparing your respont.e. The NRC will use your response, in part, to
determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with
regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and
its enclosure, will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).
- Sincerely,
Hubert J. Miller
Regional Administrator
N
1
1
Docket No. 150-00038
i
Rhode Island License No. 3D-065-01
!
l
J
4
.
.
. Thellsch Engineering Inc.
4
Enclosures:
1.
2.
Enforcement Conference Report
cc w/encis:
State of Connecticut
State of Rhode Island
l
1
,
t
4
,
l
Theilsch Engineering Inc.
DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC
SECY
CA
LCallan, EDO
.
AThadani, DEDE
JLieberman, OE
HMiller, RI
FDavis, OGC
CPaperiello, NMSS
,
DCool, NMSS
Enforcement Coordinators
Rl, Rll, Rill, RIV
BBeecher, GPA/PA
GCaputo, 01
DBangart, OSP
HBell, OlG
TMartin, AEOD
i
I
DScrenci, PAO-RI
NSheehan, PAO-Ri
OE:Chron
OE:EA
LAS:DNMS (RI)
Nuclear Safety information Center (NSIC)
NUDOCS
rgn0020
l
!
I