IR 015000001/1999001: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
{{Adams
| number = ML20205Q304
| number = ML20206R127
| issue date = 04/08/1999
| issue date = 05/07/1999
| title = Insp Rept 15000001/99-01 on 990317-18.Violation Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Mtg Oversight,Personnel Radiation Protection,Observation of Radiographic Operations & Office Insp
| title = Discusses Insp Rept 15000001/99-01 Conducted on 990317-18 & Forwards Notice of Violation Re Failure of Radiographer Assistant to Wear Alarm Rate Meter on 990216,while Performing Radiographic Operations
| author name =  
| author name = Reyes L
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
| addressee name =  
| addressee name = Lambert R
| addressee affiliation =  
| addressee affiliation = AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
| docket =  
| docket =  
| license number =  
| license number =  
| contact person =  
| contact person =  
| document report number = 15000001-99-01, 15000001-99-1, NUDOCS 9904210160
| document report number = 15000001-99-01, 15000001-99-1, EA-99-074, EA-99-74, NUDOCS 9905200006
| package number = ML20205Q289
| package number = ML20206R131
| document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
| page count = 8
| page count = 4
}}
}}


Line 19: Line 19:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION ll
{{#Wiki_filter:May 7, 1999
,
Docket No.:
150-00001 License No.:
General License (10 CFR 150.20))
Report No.:
150-00001/99-01 Licensee:
Code Services, Inc., Madison, Alabama Location:
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama Field Office, Madison, Alabama inspection Date:
March 17 and 18,1999 Inspector:
Richard Gibson, Jr., Radiation Specialist j
i
!
Approved by:
Mark S. Lesser, Chief l
Materials Licensing / Inspection Branch 2 Division of Nuclear Materials Safety l
'
i l
l
,
Enclosure 1 9904210160 990408 PDR STPRG ESGAL PDR


l EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Code Services, Inc.
==SUBJECT:==
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND EXERCISE OF DISCRETION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 150-00001/99-001)


NRC Inspection Report No. 150-00001/99-01 An unannounced reciprocity field inspection pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20 was conducted on March 17 and 18,1999, at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), Huntsville, Alabama, an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, and the Code Services, Inc., field office in Madison, l
==Dear Mr. Lambert:==
Alabama. The field inspection involved Code Services, Inc., a State of Alabama licensee, conducting radiographic operations at the Marshall Space Flight Center under a general NRC license pursuant to the reciprocity requirements of 10 CFR 150.20. The inspection included interviews with licensee representatives, selective examination of records, and direct observations of licensed activities. Areas inspected included: management oversight; j
This refers to the inspection conducted on March 17 and 18,1999, at the NASA Marshall Space
personnel radiation protection; observation of radiographic operations; and office inspection.
;
 
Flight Center (MSFC), Huntsville, Alabama, an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, and your
The inspector determined that the licensee's management, which is new, appears to be directly involved with the radiation safety program.
;
 
field office in Madison, Alabama. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether activities authorized by a general license granted by the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 150.20 were conducted safely and in accordance with NRC requirements. The results of the inspection including one apparent violation were discussed with members of your staff at an exit meeting on March 18,1999, and formally transmitted to you by letter dated April 18, 1999. An open, predecisional enforcement conference was conducted at the NRC Region ll
During the field inspection on March 17,1999, the inspector determined that licensee's activities were appropriate to support the radiographic operations being conducted and to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials. However, one apparent violation was identified.
.
 
office in Atlanta, Georgia, on April 22,1999, to discuss the apparent violation, the root cause, j
Through interviews with cognizant licensee personnel at the temporary job site and field office, and review of documentation, the inspector determined that on February 16,1999, at NASA MSFC, a radiographer's assistant entered a radiography boundary during the conduct of radiography without an alarm ratemeter. Further discussions and review of records with the State of Alabama Department of Public Health, Office of Radiation Control, indicated two similar events had occurred within the last year within the State of Alabama jurisdiction.
and your corrective actions. The conference afforded you the opportunity to present your
 
l l
l l
l
 
l l
!
REPORT DETAILS 1.
 
Management Oversight (87120)
a.
 
Scope Code Services, Inc., was acquired by new management in October 1998. During that time, the licensee hired a new Radiation Safety Officer to oversee licensed activities and the radiation protection program. The new management had retained most of the radiographers and radiographer's assistants who were conducting radiography. The inspector interviewed knowledgeable licensee representatives to understand the licensee's management oversight in order to determine whether the organization and staffing were as required by the license and commensurate with the complexity of the radiation safety program.
 
b.
 
Observation and Findinas Through interviews with cognizant licensee representatives and review of records, the inspector determined that the licensee's management is actively involved with the radiation protection program. The inspector determined through interview with licensee representatives at the temporary job site that the Managing Partner and Technical Manager, who is also the Radiation Safety Officer, have performed regular job site visits since the company was taken over by new management. In addition, both managers are listed as persons to contact on the emergency procedures. The licensee has approximately 12 certified radiographers, one assistant radiographer and two helpers.
 
Radiographic operations are conducted by the licensee at several locations in the State of Alabama and at federal facilities under the jurisdiction of the NRC.
 
Radiographic operations at temporary job sites are conducted by at least one radiographer and a radiographer's assistant. The radiographer and radiographer's assistant are evaluated in the field during radiographic operations by either the Radiation Safety Officer, the Managing Partner or their designee every six months. During the time of this inspection, the licensee was conducting radiographic operations for Brown Mechanical, a contractor of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
 
c.
 
Conclusions The inspector deterrnined that the licensee's management and staffing were adequate. The inspector also determined that the licensee's management appears to be directly involved with the radiation safety program.
 
i l
l l
l
!
 
l
'
'
 
assessment of the effectiveness of your corrective actions and to address similar violations l
2.
occurring in 1998 and documented by the State of Alabama's Department of Public Health, j
 
Office of Radiation Control. By facsimile dated April 27,1999, you provided additional
Personnel Radiation Protection (87120)
a.
 
Scope i
Code Services, Inc., is licensed by the Alabama Department of Public Health, Office of Radiation Control (license number 1075) to possess and use Iridium-192 for industrial radiography within the jurisdiction of the State of Alabama. On January 8,1999, the licensee filed an NRC Form 241 for an NRC generallicense I
in accordance with 10 CFR 150.20 to conduct licensed activities at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabarna.
 
b.
 
Observation and Findinas l
During the inspection at the temporary job site and the licensee's field office, the inspector determined through interviews with a radiographer, radiographer's assistant and the Radiation Safety Officer for Code Services, Inc., that on February 16,1999, the MSFC RSO conducted a field audit of Code Services, Inc., performing radiography at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. The inspector determined through interviews with licensee personnel and review of
)
records, that the MSFC RSO observed the radiographer's assistant enter the radiography boundary and approach the exposed source without an alarm ratemeter. This was immediately brought to the attention of the radiographer and corrected. NASA MSFC held a meeting on February 18,1999, with the managers of Code Services, Inc., to discuss the findings identified by the MSFC RSO. Code Services, Inc., responded to NASA MSFC in a letter dated February 22,1999, signed by the Managing Partner, addressing the findings identified by the MSFC RSO and their implementation of corrective actions.
 
Performing radiographic operations without an operating alarm ratemeter on February 16,1999, is an apparent violation of 10 CFR 34.47(a), which states, in part, that the licensee may not permit any individual to act as a radiographer or a radiographer's assistant unless, at all times during radiographic operations, each individual wears, on the trunk of the body, an operating alarm ratemeter.
 
The inspector determined that within the past year, the Alabama Department of I
Public Health, Office of Radiation Control, had conducted a field inspection of Code Services, Inc., on May 4,1998, and an office inspection on October 8, 1998, following an incident that occurred on August 31,1998, with the licensee.
 
The State of Alabama on two occasions identified the licensee's failure to wear alarm ratemeters while performing radiography. The inspector dettrmined that Code Services, Inc., was cited for a violation by the State during en inspection on May 4,1998, in which a radiographer was wearing an alarm rate meter that was not turned on during radiography operations. On Oct6cer 8,1998, the State of Alabama cited Code Services for a violation relating tc an incident that occurred on August 31,1998, at a facility in Alabama, in which '.he raangrapher's alarm ratemeter was not turned r n at the time of the incidert, and the helper did not have an alarm ratemeter caring radiographic operatic ns. The incident involved the helper carrying the radiographic exposure device to the next set up location.
 
The source was not fully retracted and secured into its shield and the helper received a whole body dose of 1100 millirem.
 
j i
i
 
c.
 
Conclusions The inspector concluded that recurring problems appear to exist regarding failure of licensee personnel to properly wear alarming ratemeters. An apparent violation was identified where on February 16,1999, the radiographer's assistant failed to wear an alarm ratemeter.
 
;
;
3.
information regarding your corrective actions and documented statements of the employees
!'
interviewed by the NRC during the March 1999 inspection.


Observation of Radiographic Operations and Office inspection (87120)
,
a.
Based on the information developed during the inspection and the information that you provided during and following the conference, the NRC has determined that a violation of NRC requirements occurred. The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice), and i
the circumstances surrounding it are described in detail in the subject inspection report. The violation involves the f ailure of a radiographer's assistant to wear an alarm rate meter on l
February 16,1999, while performing radiographic operations at the NASA MSFC, an area under NRC j.urisdiction, as required by 10 CFR 34.47(a). This violation was identified by the l{
NASA Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) while observing Code Services, Inc. at MSFC. Your review of the incident with the individuals involved resulted in statements that conflicted with those of the NASA RSO: however, we believe that you adequately addressed the conflicting statements as part of your corrective actions. Based on the evidence available, we conclude that the radiographer's assistant was not wearing the alarm rate meter during the radiographic operations observed by the NASA RSO.


Scope The inspector observed the licensee perform a radiography operation, discussed plans for the operation, and reviewed selected records to determine if the licensee was operating safely and in accordance with NRC requirements.
Although, no occupational exposure limits of 10 CFR Part 20 were exceeded during the February 16,1999 radiographic operations, the failure of personnel to use appropriate protective devices is a significant safety issue. Alarm rate meters are intended to give prompt and audible indication of high radiation levels so as to permit initiation of appropriate protective measures to avoid unnecessary or unexpected radiation exposures. Based on the safety l
significance of this issue, in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedures 9905200006 990507 p
PDR STPRG ESQAL PDR ($$) J I
.


b.
-
%
Code Services Inc.


Observation and Findinas On March 17 and 18,1999, the inspector conducted a reciprocity inspection of Code Services, Inc., performance of radiographic operations at a temporary job site located on NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, and at the field facility in Madison, Alabama. The radiographic operations involved the licensee performing radiography on 3/4 inch piping, approximately nine shots, outside the nitrogen building, S-4659. The work area was a pipe shed located
for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, the violation described in the Notice has been categorized at Severity Level lit.
'
approximately 30 yards from the nitrogen building. Radiographic operations were performed by a licensee's radiographer and a radiographer's assistant.


The inspector observed the licensee set up the area for radiography by
In addition, the failure of Code Services, Inc. personnel to wear proper equipment during radiographic operations is a recurring problem. Code Services, Inc. was cited by the State of Alabama for a violation identified during an inspection on May 4,1998, in which a radiographer was wearing an alarm rate meter that was not turned on during radiographic operations. On October 8,1998, the State of Alabama again cited Code Services, Inc. for a violation that occurred on August 31,1998, during which a radiographer's alarm rate meter was not turned on, and the assistant did not have an alarm rate meter during radiographic operations.
<
establishing a posted rope boundary around the shed prior to exposing the source. After ensuring that the area was free of unnecessary personnel and the individuals in the nitrogen building were informed of the radiography, the radiographer removed the camera, an Amersham Model 660B, S/N B-3410 containing 58 curies of irid'm-192, from the secured dark room of the vehicle and set it up in the area fc radiography. The radiographer assembled the camera with the necessary equipment and posted the high radiation area sign prior to performing radiography. While the radiographer was performing radiography, the radiographer's assistant was conducting confirmatory radiation surveys in unrestricted areas and maintaining surveillance of the roped boundary. The inspector observed that the radiographer and the radiographer's assistant each wore a combination of a current TLD, a calibrated self-reading pocket dosimeter and a calibrated operating alarm ratemeter during radiography, in addition, the inspector observed that the survey instruments possessed by the radiographer and the radiographer's assistant were calibrated and properly functioning.


At the completion of each radiography operation, the inspector observed the radiographer approach the camera from the rear with the survey meter and his alarm raiemeter on, survey the entire circumference of the camera and the guide
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $5500 is considered for a Severity Level lll violation. Because you have been the subject of escalated enforcement actions involving similar violations issued by the State of Alabama within the last two years, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for ldentification and Corrective i
,
Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. The MSFC site RSO identified and reported the February 16,1999, alarm rate meter incident to you; therefore, credit for the factor of /dentirication was determined not to be warranted. Code Services, Inc.'s corrective actions for the Severity Level 111 violation included: 1) promptly conducting a mandatory safety meeting with staff on February 16,1999:
tube and ensure that the source had been completely retracted. The inspector,
2) attending a meeting with MSFC officials on February 18,1999; 3) implementing a recovery plan with goals to achieve and maintain compliance with regulatory requirements; 4) issuing a follow up letter to MSFC reiterating Code Services, Inc.'s commitment to safety and compliance; 5) increasing field audit frequencies of radiographers by the RSO from quarterly to monthly; 6) conducting weekly safety meetings with staff; and 7) implementing strong disciplinary action against the individual involved. Based on these actions, the NRC determined that corrective actions for the violation were prompt and comprehensive, and that credit was warranted for the factor of Corrective Action.
'
on occasion performed independent radiation surveys at the roped boundary during radiographic operations and on the surface of the camera after the source had been retracted at tne completion of radiography. Independent measurements by the inspector indicated 0.7 mr/hr maximum along the roped boundary and approximately 30 to 35 mr/hr on the surface of the camera.


!
Based on the previously described assessment of Identification and Corrective Action. under our Enforcement Policy we would normally issue a base civil penalty of $5500 for the Severity Level ill violation. However, af ter review of this violation and consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, the NRC has concluded that while a violation did occur, enforcement discretion is warranted, and the issuance of a civil penalty is not appropriate in this case.


l During the inspection at the field office of Code Services, Inc., the inspector interviewed the RSO and selectively reviewed records to determine certification and qualifications of the radiographer and radiographer's assistant who were conducting radiography at the temporary job site at NASA MSFC, Huntsville, Alabama. Through discussion with the RSO and review of records, the inspector
Discretion is being exercised pursuant to Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy based on 1) the new management / ownership of the company (as of November 1998) has taken steps to improve staff compliance with safety requirements; 2) significant disciplinary action was taken demonstrating to the employees that this violaiion would not be tolerated; 3) initial corrective actions taken by Code Services, Mc. In response to NASA's finding were prompt; and 4)
)
radiographic operations directly observed by the NRC inspector in March 1999 were conducted safely and in accordance with regulatory requirements. However, Code Services, Inc. is on notice that should a similar violation occur in the future, more significant enforcement may be taken.
determined that both the radiographer and radiographer's assistant received l
required safety training. The inspector verified that the State of Alabama j
approved the radiography training received by both the radiographer and the i
radiographer's assistant and that they were certified under the State of Alabama.


You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the
'
'
The inspector also reviewed records of audits and utilization logs of the radiographer and the radiographer's assistant and determined that they were audited by the RSO within the last six months and the utilization logs were properly completed and up to date.
enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response,in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.


c.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ' Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosures, and your response will be placed in the Public Document Room (PDR). To the
 
.
Conclusions From the observation of radiographic operations and the inspection at the field office, the inspector determined that the licensee conducted activities in accordance with the license conditions and NRC regulatory requirements.
..
 
.
EXIT MEETING SUMMARY An exit meeting was held with the licensee representative on March 18,1999. The overall findings from the inspection were discussed, including the concerns that were identified by the MSFC RSO and the associated apparent violation of 10 CFR 34.47(a). The licensee reemphasized that management is new to the radiation protection program; however, they expressed a commitment towards the support of the radiation protection program and compliance with NRC regulatory requirements. The licensee did not specify any information reviewed during the inspection as proprietary in nature.
.
 
.
l l
_______2
l


.... _.
..
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 1.
PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee
*Chris Chandler, Technical Manager and Radiation Safety Officer James Chandler, Radiographer Tim McMurry, Radiographer's Assistant
* Attended the March 18,1999, Exit Meeting
INSPECTION PROCEDURE USED IP 87120 Industrial Radiography Programs 3.
ABBREVIATICNS USED CFR Code of Federal Regulation Ir-192 Iridium 192 MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center mci millicurie mrem /hr millirem per hour NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission RSO Radiation Safety Officer
.
.
.
.
l JPEN PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFER '
'
.f AGENDA CODE SERVICES, INC.


APRll 22,1999, AT 1:00 P.M.
Code Services Inc.


l NRC REGION ll OFFICE, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1.
extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.


OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS L. Reyes, Regional Administrator 11.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Douglas M. Collins, Director, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety at (404) 562-4700.


NRC ENFORCEMENT POLICY A. Boland, Enforcement Officer Enforcement and Investigations Coordination Staff Ill.
Si cerel
*
Luis A. Rey Regional A nistrator Enclosures:
1.


SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES L.Reyes IV.
Notice of Violation 2.


STATEMENT OF CONCERNS / APPARENT VIOLATION D. Collins, Director Division of Nuclear Materials Safety V.
Conference Attendees 3.


LICENSEE PRESENTATION R. Lambert, Managing Partner Code Services, Inc.
Material Presented by Licensee (redacted)
4.


VI.
Material Presented by NRC 5.


BREAK /NRC CAUCUS Vll.
Facsimile sent by Licensee dated April 27,1999 (redacted)
Docket No. 150-00009 License No. General (10 CFR 150.20)
cc w/encls:
State of Alabama NASA RSO
.
i


NRC FOLLOWUP OUESTIONS Vill.
7.


CLOSING REMARKS L.Reyes
,
 
,
l l
i Distribution w/encis:
.
'
Enclosure 3 i
WTravers, EDO FMiraglia, DEDO MKnapp, DEDE DDamby, OGC DCool, NMSS EJulian, SECY BKeeling, CA Enforcement Coordinators RI, Rlli, RIV JLieberman, OE JDelMedico, OE GCaputo, Of WBeecher, OPA HBell, OlG BSmith, NMSS CEvans, Rll
,
DMCollins, Ril i
CHosey, Rll MLesser, Ril ABoland, Rll WMcNulty, Ril MSatorius, OEDO RGibson,Rll KClark, Ril RTrojanowski, Ril Ril Docket Files, DNMS OE:EA File (BSummers, OE)
PUBLIC
.b r-SEND TO PUBUC DOCUMENT ROOM 7 YES f
OFFICE All.ONMS.
ICS Ril: ORA gg.
ORA
/
Sqnature
#LO NAME OComns CE UgMyt JJohn
/!
b (f h[/99 '
/99
$
/99 DATE
/99
/99
/
S8
/
/98 COPY?(,
O
'
fYE ho
~
ES NO ras no YES NO NO YES YES OFFICIAL RECORD COP'[
DOCUME!TP NAME:H \\1990 PEN.ENF\\99074CSI.DIR\\CSI.ARJ I
N
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 18:57, 23 May 2025

Discusses Insp Rept 15000001/99-01 Conducted on 990317-18 & Forwards Notice of Violation Re Failure of Radiographer Assistant to Wear Alarm Rate Meter on 990216,while Performing Radiographic Operations
ML20206R127
Person / Time
Site: 015000001
Issue date: 05/07/1999
From: Reyes L
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To: Lambert R
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20206R131 List:
References
15000001-99-01, 15000001-99-1, EA-99-074, EA-99-74, NUDOCS 9905200006
Download: ML20206R127 (4)
v • d • e


Text

May 7, 1999

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND EXERCISE OF DISCRETION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 150-00001/99-001)

Dear Mr. Lambert:

This refers to the inspection conducted on March 17 and 18,1999, at the NASA Marshall Space

Flight Center (MSFC), Huntsville, Alabama, an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, and your

field office in Madison, Alabama. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether activities authorized by a general license granted by the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 150.20 were conducted safely and in accordance with NRC requirements. The results of the inspection including one apparent violation were discussed with members of your staff at an exit meeting on March 18,1999, and formally transmitted to you by letter dated April 18, 1999. An open, predecisional enforcement conference was conducted at the NRC Region ll

.

office in Atlanta, Georgia, on April 22,1999, to discuss the apparent violation, the root cause, j

and your corrective actions. The conference afforded you the opportunity to present your

'

assessment of the effectiveness of your corrective actions and to address similar violations l

occurring in 1998 and documented by the State of Alabama's Department of Public Health, j

Office of Radiation Control. By facsimile dated April 27,1999, you provided additional

information regarding your corrective actions and documented statements of the employees

!'

interviewed by the NRC during the March 1999 inspection.

,

Based on the information developed during the inspection and the information that you provided during and following the conference, the NRC has determined that a violation of NRC requirements occurred. The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice), and i

the circumstances surrounding it are described in detail in the subject inspection report. The violation involves the f ailure of a radiographer's assistant to wear an alarm rate meter on l

February 16,1999, while performing radiographic operations at the NASA MSFC, an area under NRC j.urisdiction, as required by 10 CFR 34.47(a). This violation was identified by the l{

NASA Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) while observing Code Services, Inc. at MSFC. Your review of the incident with the individuals involved resulted in statements that conflicted with those of the NASA RSO: however, we believe that you adequately addressed the conflicting statements as part of your corrective actions. Based on the evidence available, we conclude that the radiographer's assistant was not wearing the alarm rate meter during the radiographic operations observed by the NASA RSO.

Although, no occupational exposure limits of 10 CFR Part 20 were exceeded during the February 16,1999 radiographic operations, the failure of personnel to use appropriate protective devices is a significant safety issue. Alarm rate meters are intended to give prompt and audible indication of high radiation levels so as to permit initiation of appropriate protective measures to avoid unnecessary or unexpected radiation exposures. Based on the safety l

significance of this issue, in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedures 9905200006 990507 p

PDR STPRG ESQAL PDR ($$) J I

.

-

%

Code Services Inc.

for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, the violation described in the Notice has been categorized at Severity Level lit.

In addition, the failure of Code Services, Inc. personnel to wear proper equipment during radiographic operations is a recurring problem. Code Services, Inc. was cited by the State of Alabama for a violation identified during an inspection on May 4,1998, in which a radiographer was wearing an alarm rate meter that was not turned on during radiographic operations. On October 8,1998, the State of Alabama again cited Code Services, Inc. for a violation that occurred on August 31,1998, during which a radiographer's alarm rate meter was not turned on, and the assistant did not have an alarm rate meter during radiographic operations.

In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $5500 is considered for a Severity Level lll violation. Because you have been the subject of escalated enforcement actions involving similar violations issued by the State of Alabama within the last two years, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for ldentification and Corrective i

Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. The MSFC site RSO identified and reported the February 16,1999, alarm rate meter incident to you; therefore, credit for the factor of /dentirication was determined not to be warranted. Code Services, Inc.'s corrective actions for the Severity Level 111 violation included: 1) promptly conducting a mandatory safety meeting with staff on February 16,1999:

2) attending a meeting with MSFC officials on February 18,1999; 3) implementing a recovery plan with goals to achieve and maintain compliance with regulatory requirements; 4) issuing a follow up letter to MSFC reiterating Code Services, Inc.'s commitment to safety and compliance; 5) increasing field audit frequencies of radiographers by the RSO from quarterly to monthly; 6) conducting weekly safety meetings with staff; and 7) implementing strong disciplinary action against the individual involved. Based on these actions, the NRC determined that corrective actions for the violation were prompt and comprehensive, and that credit was warranted for the factor of Corrective Action.

Based on the previously described assessment of Identification and Corrective Action. under our Enforcement Policy we would normally issue a base civil penalty of $5500 for the Severity Level ill violation. However, af ter review of this violation and consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, the NRC has concluded that while a violation did occur, enforcement discretion is warranted, and the issuance of a civil penalty is not appropriate in this case.

Discretion is being exercised pursuant to Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy based on 1) the new management / ownership of the company (as of November 1998) has taken steps to improve staff compliance with safety requirements; 2) significant disciplinary action was taken demonstrating to the employees that this violaiion would not be tolerated; 3) initial corrective actions taken by Code Services, Mc. In response to NASA's finding were prompt; and 4)

radiographic operations directly observed by the NRC inspector in March 1999 were conducted safely and in accordance with regulatory requirements. However, Code Services, Inc. is on notice that should a similar violation occur in the future, more significant enforcement may be taken.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the

'

enclosed Notice when preparing your response. 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, its enclosures, and your response will be placed in the Public Document Room (PDR). To the

.

..

.

.

.

_______2

.... _.

..

.

.

.

.

'

Code Services Inc.

extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Douglas M. Collins, Director, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety at (404) 562-4700.

Si cerel

Luis A. Rey Regional A nistrator Enclosures:

1.

Notice of Violation 2.

Conference Attendees 3.

Material Presented by Licensee (redacted)

4.

Material Presented by NRC 5.

Facsimile sent by Licensee dated April 27,1999 (redacted)

Docket No. 150-00009 License No. General (10 CFR 150.20)

cc w/encls:

State of Alabama NASA RSO

.

i

7.

,

,

i Distribution w/encis:

'

WTravers, EDO FMiraglia, DEDO MKnapp, DEDE DDamby, OGC DCool, NMSS EJulian, SECY BKeeling, CA Enforcement Coordinators RI, Rlli, RIV JLieberman, OE JDelMedico, OE GCaputo, Of WBeecher, OPA HBell, OlG BSmith, NMSS CEvans, Rll

,

DMCollins, Ril i

CHosey, Rll MLesser, Ril ABoland, Rll WMcNulty, Ril MSatorius, OEDO RGibson,Rll KClark, Ril RTrojanowski, Ril Ril Docket Files, DNMS OE:EA File (BSummers, OE)

PUBLIC

.b r-SEND TO PUBUC DOCUMENT ROOM 7 YES f

OFFICE All.ONMS.

ICS Ril: ORA gg.

ORA

/

Sqnature

  1. LO NAME OComns CE UgMyt JJohn

/!

b (f h[/99 '

/99

$

/99 DATE

/99

/99

/

S8

/

/98 COPY?(,

O

'

fYE ho

~

ES NO ras no YES NO NO YES YES OFFICIAL RECORD COP'[

DOCUME!TP NAME:H \\1990 PEN.ENF\\99074CSI.DIR\\CSI.ARJ I

N

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IR_015000001/1999001&oldid=5484968"