[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 64 (Friday, April 3, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16588-16591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-8772]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No: 030-17711, License No: 52-19438-01, EA 98-108]
In the Matter of NDT Services, Inc., Caguas, Puerto Rico; Order
Suspending License (Effective Immediately)
I
NDT Services, Inc. (Licensee or NDTS) is the holder of Material
License No. 52-19438-01 (License) issued by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30. The License
authorizes possession and use of up to 100 curies of Iridium 192 in
each sealed radiography source and up to 20 curies of Cobalt 60 in each
sealed radiography source for performing industrial radiography. The
License was originally issued on August 21, 1980, was most recently
amended on December 12, 1995, and is due to expire on January 31, 2002.
II
On August 6 and October 4, 1997, the NRC Region II staff performed
inspections at the Licensee's facility and a temporary job site at the
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority's San Juan Power Station. The
inspections determined that the Licensee had not conducted its
activities in accordance with NRC requirements. On November 7, 1997,
the NRC issued Inspection Report No. 52-19438-01/97-01 and Notice of
Violation (Notice) citing the Licensee for five violations identified
during the inspections. Briefly summarized, the violations involved the
Licensee's: (1) use of a set of Operating and Emergency Procedures that
were not evaluated or approved by the NRC; (2) certification of
individuals as radiographers who had not received required training;
(3) failure to conduct surveys or continuous monitoring where a source
was being exposed; (4) failure of an assistant radiographer to recharge
his pocket dosimeter at the beginning of his shift; based upon the
inspector's observation and the assistant radiographer's statement to
the inspector that he usually recharged his dosimeter when it reached a
reading of about 50 millirem and that he was unaware of the requirement
to recharge the dosimeter at the beginning of each shift; and (5)
failure to provide hazardous materials transportation training to its
employees. In an unsigned and undated written response, which was sent
by facsimile to the NRC on December 5, 1997, the Licensee responded to
the Notice. As a result of NRC questions concerning the Licensee's
response, the Licensee submitted a second signed but undated response
to the NRC, which was received by the NRC on March 17, 1998. In its
second response, the Licensee did not contest four of the violations;
however, with regard to the hazardous materials training violation, the
Licensee disputed the violation.
On August 26, 1997, the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) initiated
an investigation to determine whether the Licensee and any of its
employees had willfully violated NRC requirements. In addition, on
February 6, 1998, the NRC inspected the Licensee's activities at a
temporary job site, Puerto Rico Power Authority's Costa Sur Power
Station. The OI investigation of these matters is still ongoing.
Nonetheless, based on the February 6, 1998 inspection and the OI
evidence to date, the following violations, in addition to the
violations
[[Page 16589]]
described in the November 7, 1997 Notice, have been identified to date:
A. On February 6, 1998, the Licensee failed during two separate
source exposures at the Costa Sur Power Station to conduct operations
so that the dose in any unrestricted area did not exceed 2 millirem in
any one hour, as required by 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(2). Specifically, during
the first exposure the Licensee performed radiography operations in a
manner that created a dose in an unrestricted area of 22 millirems in
an hour based on a radiation field of 73 millirems per hour (mR/hr)
during an 18-minute exposure. Following identification of this example
by the NRC inspector, the NRC inspector reminded the Licensee
radiographer of the NRC requirements to survey and monitor areas
surrounding the radiography area to ensure that radiation areas in
unrestricted areas were not inadvertently created or that members of
the public were not being unnecessarily exposed to radiation. However,
approximately 30 minutes after the inspector's reminder, the Licensee
radiographer again performed radiography such that a dose was created
in another unrestricted area of 6 millirems in an hour based on a
radiation field of 19 mR/hr during an 18-minute exposure. The 19 mR/hr
radiation level was confirmed by the Licensee radiographer using two
survey meters.
B. On February 6, 1998, the Licensee failed during two separate
source exposures (described in Paragraph II.A of this Order) to perform
adequate surveys and continuous monitoring, as required by License
Condition No. 21 (which requires the Licensee to comply with Section
6.3.1 of its application dated October 25, 1991). Specifically, during
these source exposures, no surveys or continuous monitoring were
conducted on levels above or below the level where radiography was
being conducted to ensure that radiation levels were within permissible
limits and that no one was being inadvertently exposed to radiation.
The failure to perform adequate surveys and continuous monitoring is a
repeat of a violation identified during the August and October 1997
inspections.
C. On February 6, 1998, the Licensee failed during two separate
source exposures to post radiation areas, as required by 10 CFR
20.1902(a). Specifically, during these source exposures, the Licensee
radiographer failed to post the radiation areas described in Paragraphs
II.A and II.B of this Order. In addition, notwithstanding the
inspector's reminder of the need to post radiation areas, during the
second source exposure, the radiographer did not comply with 10 CFR
20.1902(a) in that the radiographer continued to perform radiography
activities (i.e., the second source exposure) without posting the
radiation area.
D. On February 6, 1998, the Licensee failed to control the
restricted areas that are described in Paragraphs II.A and II.B of this
Order, as required by License Condition 21 (which requires the Licensee
to comply with Sections 6.1.1 and 6.4 of its application of October 25,
1991). Specifically, during the inspection, a non-licensee employee of
the Costa Sur Power Station, a member of the public, indicated he had
observed the radiographic operations while standing within the
radiation areas that should have been posted.
E. Transcribed sworn statements by one or more individuals indicate
that, on multiple occasions between 1994 and 1997, the Licensee allowed
multiple individuals to work as radiographers when the individuals
failed to meet the training requirements, as required by License
Condition 12 ( which requires that licensed material be used by or
under the supervision and in the physical presence of trained
individuals).
F. Transcribed sworn statements by one or more individuals indicate
that, on multiple occasions in 1994 and 1995, the Licensee permitted
assistant radiographers to conduct radiographic operations without
wearing dosimetry, as required by 10 CFR 34.33 (the requirement in
effect at the time of occurrence), and that, in 1995, Licensee
employees who retrieved a disconnected source at the Phillips Chemical
Company facility in Guayama, Puerto Rico, intentionally removed their
dosimetry and thereby failed to comply with 10 CFR 34.33.
G. Transcribed sworn statements by one or more individuals indicate
that, in 1995, the Licensee failed to report the source disconnect
event that occurred at the Phillips facility, referenced in Paragraph
II.F of this Order, as required by 10 CFR 34.30 (the requirement in
effect at the time of occurrence).
H. The Licensee failed to maintain, or provide to the NRC, complete
and accurate information, contrary to 10 CFR 30.9. Specifically:
1. A daily pocket dosimeter reading log, required to be maintained
by 10 CFR 34.83(a) (the requirement in effect at time of occurrence),
reflected that, prior to the beginning of the shift on October 4, 1997,
a pocket dosimeter had been recharged when, in fact, it had not.
2. The Licensee's undated responses to the November 7, 1997 Notice,
which are described above, were inaccurate. Specifically, in response
to the violation involving the failure of the assistant radiographer to
recharge his pocket dosimeter at the beginning of his shift, the
Licensee stated in both responses that the [assistant] radiographer
``did not remember making the statement that he recharged his dosimeter
when it reached about 50 mR or that he was unaware of the requirement
to recharge the dosimeter at the beginning of each shift.'' This
assertion was not correct in that the employee was directed to sign an
internal document indicating that he did not recall making such
statement, when he had made the statement.
3. Training records required by 10 CFR 34.31(c) (the requirement in
effect at time of occurrence) and License Condition 21 (which requires
the Licensee to conduct classroom training in accordance with Section I
of its application dated October 25, 1991), documented that two
individuals had received 40 hours of radiation safety training on
August 31, 1994, and January 10, 1995, respectively. However, the
Licensee only gave the individuals NUREG BR-0024, ``Working Safely in
Gamma Radiography,'' and asked them to read it.
4. Radiation exposure records for calendar year 1995, required to
be maintained by 10 CFR 20.2106(a), did not reflect actual doses
received by Licensee employees who retrieved a disconnected source in
1995 described in Paragraph II.F of this Order because the involved
employees removed their dosimetry.
I. Transcribed sworn statements by one or more individuals indicate
that, on multiple occasions between 1994 and 1997, and with the
knowledge of the Licensee's President/Radiation Safety Officer and the
Assistant Radiation Safety Officer, Licensee radiographers allowed
radiographers' assistants to conduct radiographic operations while
unsupervised, in violation of 10 CFR 34.44 (the requirement in effect
at the time of occurrence).
J. Transcribed sworn statements by one or more individuals indicate
that, on multiple occasions between 1994 and 1997, Licensee
radiographers failed to stop work when Licensee employees' pocket
dosimeters went off-scale, in violation of License Condition 21 (which
requires the Licensee to meet Section 2.5.2 of its application dated
October 25, 1991).
III
In addition to the above, the Licensee's previous enforcement
history is pertinent to this Order in that on July 16, 1996, the NRC
issued to the Licensee
[[Page 16590]]
a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice)
for numerous and significant violations (EA 94-029). This Notice
included violations that directly resulted from the misconduct of the
Licensee's former President and former Radiation Safety Officer (RSO),
who willfully disregarded regulatory requirements, falsified documents,
and provided inaccurate and incomplete information to the NRC in
violation of 10 CFR 30.9. The Notice cited the Licensee for, among
other things, failure to utilize personnel who were trained and
qualified as radiographers in accordance with the requirements of 10
CFR 34.31(a), providing false information to the NRC regarding the
qualifications of two radiographers, and failure of two radiographers
to wear alarming ratemeters during radiographic and source disconnect
activities. In addition, on July 16, 1996, the NRC issued two
individual Orders against the Licensee's former President and former
RSO as a result of their deliberate misconduct. The Orders prohibited
the former President and former RSO from engaging in any licensed
activities for a period of five years. By letter dated August 15, 1996,
the Licensee responded to the July 16, 1996 Notice. In its response,
the Licensee admitted all of the violations. Among other things, it
acknowledged that ``NDTS Company officials ignored NRC and company
regulations and procedures,'' and outlined its corrective actions.
Notwithstanding the Licensee's response to the July 16, 1996 Notice
of Violation, the Licensee has again been either unwilling or unable to
comply with numerous NRC requirements established to protect public
health and safety. As described above, the Licensee has violated a
number of NRC requirements which are extremely important to protecting
public health and safety, including that of Licensee employees.
Specifically, the Licensee allowed the conduct of radiographic
operations by unsupervised, inadequately-trained radiographer's
assistants, conducted operations such that the dose limits in
controlled areas accessible to the public exceeded those specified in
10 CFR 20.1301, failed to post or control radiation areas, failed to
monitor or conduct surveys in areas where a source was being exposed,
failed to report a source disconnect event as required by NRC
regulations, and failed to maintain complete and accurate numerous
required records. These violations have potential serious adverse
consequences for public health and safety because they could directly
cause unnecessary exposures and overexposures to the public and
Licensee employees. Therefore, the violations are of very significant
regulatory concern, irrespective of whether they resulted from willful
misconduct on the part of the Licensee, particularly in view of the
potential safety consequences inherent in not controlling radiographic
work sites and failing to properly train or supervise radiographers. In
addition, the fact that many of the violations which have been
identified to date are either repetitive or appear to be the result of
willful misconduct on the part of Licensee employees is of further
significant concern to the NRC. In addition, the Commission must be
able to rely on its licensees to provide complete and accurate
information to the Commission to ensure protection of public health and
safety.
IV
Consequently, in light of the above, I lack the requisite
reasonable assurance that the Licensee's current operations can be
conducted under License No. 52-19438-01 in compliance with the
Commission's requirements and that public health and safety, including
the health and safety of Licensee employees, will be protected.
Therefore, public health, safety, and interest require that License No.
52-19438-01 be suspended pending further order by the NRC and that
licensed material be placed in locked, safe storage. Furthermore,
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of the
violations and conduct described above is such that public health,
safety, and interest require that this Order be immediately effective.
V
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81, 161b, 161i, 182 and 186 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's
regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Part 30, it is hereby ordered,
effective immediately, that:
A. The authority to perform radiographic operations under License
No. 52-19438-01 is hereby suspended pending further Order by the NRC.
The Licensee shall cease all radiographic operations and return all
byproduct material possessed under this license to locked, safe storage
at the Licensee's facilities. All other requirements of the License and
applicable Commission requirements, including those in 10 CFR Part 20,
remain in effect.
B. Within 24 hours following issuance of this Order, the Licensee
shall contact Mr. Douglas M. Collins, Director, Division of Nuclear
Materials Safety, NRC Region II, or his designee, through the NRC
Operations Center at telephone number (301) 816-5100, and advise him of
the current location, physical status, and storage arrangements of
licensed material. A written response documenting this information
shall be submitted, under oath or affirmation, to the Regional
Administrator, NRC Region II, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW, Suite 23T85, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3415 within seven days
of receipt of this Order.
C. If the Licensee removes licensed material from locked storage,
the Licensee shall notify NRC Region II 48 hours before removal of the
licensed material. The notice shall be provided to Mr. Douglas M.
Collins, Director, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, NRC Region II,
or his designee, at telephone number (404) 562-4700.
D. The Licensee shall not receive any NRC-licensed material while
this Order is in effect.
E. All records related to licensed activities shall be maintained
in their current form and must not be altered in any way.
The Regional Administrator, Region II, may, in writing, relax or
rescind this order upon demonstration by the Licensee of good cause.
VI
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any other
person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this
Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the
date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be
given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for
extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of
Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The
answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this
Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation,
specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this order
and set forth the matters of fact and law on which the Licensee or
other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the
Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing
shall be submitted to the Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, ATTN: Chief, Rulemakings Adjudications Staff, Washington,
D.C. 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of
Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, to the Deputy Assistant General Counsel
[[Page 16591]]
for Enforcement at the same address, and to the Regional Administrator,
NRC Region II, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite
23T85, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 and to the Licensee if the hearing
request is by a person other than the Licensee. If a person other than
the Licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with
particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by
this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d).
If a hearing is requested by the Licensee, the Commission will
issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a
hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be
whether this Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(I), the Licensee may, in addition to
demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move
the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the
Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate
effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion,
unfounded allegations, or error.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions
specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of
this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of
time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions
specified in Section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a
hearing request has not been received. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR
HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDER.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 27th day of March 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ashok C. Thadani,
Acting Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Effectiveness.
[FR Doc. 98-8772 Filed 4-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
