ML20148D202: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
'g' UNITED STATES 3h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON E,cM ) .. h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ayvgp gy/ z October 24, 1978 Union Boiler Company LidenseNo. 47-16182-01 ATTN: Mr. J. W. McDavid / | 'g' UNITED STATES 3h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON E,cM ) .. h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ayvgp gy/ z October 24, 1978 Union Boiler Company LidenseNo. 47-16182-01 ATTN: Mr. J. W. McDavid / | ||
President P. O. Box 161f, Huntington, West Virginia 25717 Gentlemen: | President P. O. Box 161f, Huntington, West Virginia 25717 Gentlemen: | ||
This refers to your letters of September 5,1978, submitted by your legal representatives, in response to the Notice of Violation and Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties forwarded to you with our letter dated August 14, 1978. Our letter concerned items of noncom-pliance found during a special inspection conducted at your Huntington Testing Division Facility and the Philip Sporn Steam Plant on June 6-7, 1978. The inspection covered your activities under NRC License No. 47-16182-01 relating to excessive persnnnel exposures. | This refers to your letters of September 5,1978, submitted by your legal representatives, in response to the Notice of Violation and Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties forwarded to you with our {{letter dated|date=August 14, 1978|text=letter dated August 14, 1978}}. Our letter concerned items of noncom-pliance found during a special inspection conducted at your Huntington Testing Division Facility and the Philip Sporn Steam Plant on June 6-7, 1978. The inspection covered your activities under NRC License No. 47-16182-01 relating to excessive persnnnel exposures. | ||
We have given careful consideration to your itemized responses. For Item A of the Notice of Violation, your contention is (1) that the 1.9 rem exposure to the whole body did not constitute an overexposure since the employee's accumulated occupational dose has been determined and does not exceed the 5(N-18) formula and (2) that the 123 rem dose to the left hand constituted an overexposure but the proposed civil penalty | We have given careful consideration to your itemized responses. For Item A of the Notice of Violation, your contention is (1) that the 1.9 rem exposure to the whole body did not constitute an overexposure since the employee's accumulated occupational dose has been determined and does not exceed the 5(N-18) formula and (2) that the 123 rem dose to the left hand constituted an overexposure but the proposed civil penalty | ||
($2,000) is excessive. With respect to overexposure to the whole body, 10 CFR 20.102(b) requires that, in addition to the accumulation of dose data, the licensee complete certification and signing of Form NRC-4 or its equivalent prior to the time the employee receives a radiation exposure greater than 1.25 rems per quarter. The form was not produced at th. inspection nor did the inspection reveal any evidence that the form had been completed prior to exposure. Although the licensee states that it has completed Form NRC-4, the licensee did not complete the form prior to the employee's exposure as required by the regulation. Therefore, the 1.25 rem limit applies and was clearly exceeded by the 1,91 rem whole body dose received by the radiographer. Our decision regarding the overexposure of the left hand is that the 123 rems dose to the hand was the dose warranting the classification of violation rather than infraction or deficiency, and the commensurate monetary penalty of $2,000. | ($2,000) is excessive. With respect to overexposure to the whole body, 10 CFR 20.102(b) requires that, in addition to the accumulation of dose data, the licensee complete certification and signing of Form NRC-4 or its equivalent prior to the time the employee receives a radiation exposure greater than 1.25 rems per quarter. The form was not produced at th. inspection nor did the inspection reveal any evidence that the form had been completed prior to exposure. Although the licensee states that it has completed Form NRC-4, the licensee did not complete the form prior to the employee's exposure as required by the regulation. Therefore, the 1.25 rem limit applies and was clearly exceeded by the 1,91 rem whole body dose received by the radiographer. Our decision regarding the overexposure of the left hand is that the 123 rems dose to the hand was the dose warranting the classification of violation rather than infraction or deficiency, and the commensurate monetary penalty of $2,000. | ||
Latest revision as of 23:04, 11 December 2021
| ML20148D202 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/24/1978 |
| From: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Mcdavid J Union Boiler Co. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148D206 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811020271 | |
| Download: ML20148D202 (2) | |
Text
e
[? )
h6 A
'g' UNITED STATES 3h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON E,cM ) .. h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ayvgp gy/ z October 24, 1978 Union Boiler Company LidenseNo. 47-16182-01 ATTN: Mr. J. W. McDavid /
President P. O. Box 161f, Huntington, West Virginia 25717 Gentlemen:
This refers to your letters of September 5,1978, submitted by your legal representatives, in response to the Notice of Violation and Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties forwarded to you with our letter dated August 14, 1978. Our letter concerned items of noncom-pliance found during a special inspection conducted at your Huntington Testing Division Facility and the Philip Sporn Steam Plant on June 6-7, 1978. The inspection covered your activities under NRC License No. 47-16182-01 relating to excessive persnnnel exposures.
We have given careful consideration to your itemized responses. For Item A of the Notice of Violation, your contention is (1) that the 1.9 rem exposure to the whole body did not constitute an overexposure since the employee's accumulated occupational dose has been determined and does not exceed the 5(N-18) formula and (2) that the 123 rem dose to the left hand constituted an overexposure but the proposed civil penalty
($2,000) is excessive. With respect to overexposure to the whole body, 10 CFR 20.102(b) requires that, in addition to the accumulation of dose data, the licensee complete certification and signing of Form NRC-4 or its equivalent prior to the time the employee receives a radiation exposure greater than 1.25 rems per quarter. The form was not produced at th. inspection nor did the inspection reveal any evidence that the form had been completed prior to exposure. Although the licensee states that it has completed Form NRC-4, the licensee did not complete the form prior to the employee's exposure as required by the regulation. Therefore, the 1.25 rem limit applies and was clearly exceeded by the 1,91 rem whole body dose received by the radiographer. Our decision regarding the overexposure of the left hand is that the 123 rems dose to the hand was the dose warranting the classification of violation rather than infraction or deficiency, and the commensurate monetary penalty of $2,000.
For Item B of the Notice of Violation, your contention is that the required physical survey was made and the radiographer's inaccurate assessment of the meaning of the survey meter reading, or his ignoring it, was a failure on his part personally that should not be charged to his employer, the licensee. 10 CFR 20,201(a) defines surveys as being broader than the physical survey itself. As stated in 10 CFR 34.2(b), i the radiographer is the person "who is responsibl.e to the licensee for assuring compliance with the requirements of the Conmission's regulations and the conditions of the license." The licensee, not the Commission, chose the employee who served as radiographer and therefore the licensee CERTIFIED MAIL 7 2 //C A 04'7/
RETURNED RECEIFT REnUESTED
4
.0ctober 24, 1978 bears the responsibility to supervise its radiographer, as well as other employees to ensure that they comply with NRC requirements. We therefore hold the licensee responsible for the violation identified in Item B and impose a civil penalty of $2,000.
As stated in your letter of September 5,1978, and as clarified in a telephonic conversation on September 25, 1978, between the licensee's counsel, Mr. Ricklin Brown, Esq., and Stephen Burns of the NRC staff, the licensee accepts full responsibility for the infraction identified in Item C and accepts imposition of the $1,000 civil penalty.
In summary, we conclude that the items of noncompliance occurred as stated in the Notice of Violation and that no adequate reason.s have been stated as to why the penalties for these . items shouk not be % posed.
Accordingly, we hereby serve the enclosed Order on Union Boiler Company imposing civil penalties in the cumulative amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000).
Sincerely, A /A-Jbhn G. Davis Acting Director :
Office of Inspection and 1 Enforcement
Enclosure:
Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalties cc: Mr. Ricklin Brown, Esq.
Bowles, McDavid, Graff & Love i 1200 Commerce Square !
Charleston, West Virginia 25325 l l
I l
. _ _ . . __ _ _ - - - _ - - _ _ - . . - _ _ .: