ML19324C300
| ML19324C300 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000734 |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1989 |
| From: | Fish R, Hooker C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19324C296 | List: |
| References | |
| 70-0734-89-05, 70-734-89-5, NUDOCS 8911160098 | |
| Download: ML19324C300 (4) | |
Text
...s>pM q
7 o:.)in[::D p. n ; '
\\; w ' $y UO./
4 s,
'73,9
- r <
e,
. M-U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,,s REGION V'
>c
. ' Report No.L70-734/89-0S-v
'4
?
-Docket No.70-734
$X Licenso No. SNM-696 m
. Priority 0 Category ULFF Safeguards Group 11 s
Ocensee:. General Atomics 1
i' P. 0.' Box 85608 4
San Diego, California 92138 Facility Name:
Torrey Pine's Mesa and Sorrento Valley Sites' l
J Inspection at:l San Diego, California j
i
- Inspection Conducted:
October 11 and 16, 1989 Inspector:
MM
- i N/4//F S
C. A. Hooker, Fuel
- acilities Inspector Date Signed.
1
//[S[89 Approved by:.
O 4
'R. Fish, Chief Dato Signed
- l. cc Emergency Preparedness Section j
u I
Summary:
y h'
.a..
Areas Inspected:
J i
1 l
This was an announced inspection of activities involving a
[
closecut' inspection / surveys of certain Geiseral Atomics facilities and a routine inspection of waste generator requirements..The 4
inspection also included. tours of the licensee's facilities, i
ay.
~
. Inspection procedures 30703, 83890 and 84850 were addressed.
i
{su.,
b..
Results:
lIn the areas inspected, the licensee's performance appeared adequate-i l';'
to' accomplish their safety objectives.
No violations or deviations
}
',?.
were identified.
4 i
.{
e,. T,s i
y 9
\\ :,
4 C
t W
.. +
y-DETAILj 1.
Persons Contacted f
Licensee i'
'
- K. E. Asmussen, Manager, Licensing, Safety and Nuclear Compliance 7
L. R. Quintana, Manager, Health Physics h
R. K.. Krueger, Manager TRIGA Fuel fabrication
[
- R.'P.'Vanek, Manager, Nuclear Waste Processing Facility
- C. L. Wisham, Manager,-Nuclear Materials Accountability i
E. C.'Rudgers. Health Physics Technician (HPT)
T. W. Keim, Senior Nuclear fuel Waste Processor c
r NRC Contractor P. R. Cotten, Oak Ridge Associate Universities (0RAU)
'
- Denotes those attending the exit interview on October 16, 1989.
l 1
I In addition to the individuals noted above, the inspector met'and held l
+
' discussions with other members of th.) licensee's and NRC's contractor's-
,t 4
- staffs, P
2.
Closcout Inspection / Surveys (83890)
On October 11, 1989, the inspector interfaced with NRC contracted ORAU personnel who were conducting confirmatory radiological surveys of certain licensee facilities for ultimate release for unrestricted use.-
l The surveys were being conducted (October 9-13,1989) as the result-of l
i..
the licensee's letters dated August 31 and September 13, 1989, requesting confirmatory surveys of certain areas in Building 9 (Experimental l
Building - Stage 2) and Building 2 (L' Building - Group 4). _ Surveys for Building 9 involved about 587 sq. ft. of the Hot Suite" area previously used for TRIGA fuel fabrication. Surveys for Building 2 2ncluded 11 i
laboratories (3 with mezzanines) that consisted of about about 3749'sq.
ft. total area.
The following observations were made during this inspection:
(1) The inspector observed surveys being performed by ORAU personnel in f
rooms No. 40-43 and 47 of the " Hot Suite" area.
The survey
{
equipment being used was determined to be of the appropriate type and fully operational and survey techniques appeared adequate.
The inspector noted two plugged openings (one about 3 inches in diameter l
and one about 1.5 inches in diameter) that appeared to be drains in the floor of room No. 40.
The cement floor area around these openings had been chipped out by the licensee to remove contamination in th h area prior to ORAU's surveys.
A At tne request of the inspector, a licensee HPT surveyed the openings.
The 3 inch opening indicated a maximum of about 150 cpm with a thin window pancake probe.
No detectable activity was noted at the 1.5 inch opening. When the material used to plug the 3 inch l
t r
6 L
_m
.c
't g
2
[is
,j u
'I
. opening was removed no detectable activity was observed on a second
.i
/
y reading.
Swipe tests from inside both openings also indicated no detectable activity.-
( &, 1 The'lic2nsee could not readily confirm at the. time, what the 1
openings had been previously used for.
A cognizant licensee representative informed the inspector that he,was sure the openings
. ere not part of the old. liquid drain line, and he would check' w
facility drawings to confirm his belief.
The inspector discussed
+
i.
the need to perform an adequate survey of the insides of these openings with the ORAV person in charge of.the survey team, and the j
need to document the survey results in their report.
01 October 16, i
1989, the inspector noted on a facility blue print that the 3 inch
'j t
opening was part of a vacuum break system for the old drain system i
l(previously released).
The 1.5 inch line was determined to be an.
]
-4 old electrical conduit pipe
'The inspector had no further questions I
regarding these openings, if (2) The inspector toured the areas' of Building 2 that had been surveyed i
4 earlier in the week by ORAV.
Based on the tour and discussions with y
ORAU personnel, no concerns were identified.
1 L
The inspector also noted that some of the Labs previously released i
,f-for unrestricted use by the NRC, had been leased from General Atomics (GA) by tenants that were using small quantities of radioactive material under their own state license.
It was also l
noted that GA maintained a listing of these areas and the State j
materials.being used.
By letter dated October 19, 1989, the NRC i
informed GA of the need to submit a license amendment request to remove. areas release to unrestricted use from their NLC license.
l The review of ORAU's final survey report will be covered in a subsequent j
inspection (70-734/89-05-01).
No violations or deviations were identified during this inspection.
3.
Radioactive Waste Generator Requirements (84850) l The inspector reviewed the licensee's radioactive waste program for
' compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Parts 20 and 61.'
the inspection also included a tour of the licensee's waste processing facility and selected site areas where waste was collected.
r Solid radioactive waste generated at various site areas is packaged and h.
transferred to the Nuclear Waste Processing Facility (NWPF).
Prior to i
each transfer, a Radioactive Material Transfer Request (RMTR) form was prepared and sent to the NWPF for review and acceptance.
The RMTR form i
l' delineated the radioactive content, chemical form, type of hazardous material, and certification of waste content being transferred.
Once L
accepted, compactable waste was compacted into bales which were placed in appropriate strong tight containers for ultimate disposal.
)f i
Non-compactable waste was either disposed of.in its original container (drums) or repackaged into metal boxes for disposal.
Non-aqueous liquids 1
,p were appropriately absorbed or solidified prior to disposal.
Each p
1,
!w 2
7.
't M
,.4,.w L'
i V h, 3'
x.
, a.,. 3.. <
C
( *,.
a o
f container was inspected by the Quality Control (QC) organization prior to i
and af ter sealing sealing their lids.
/
J
.The inspector examined licensee procedures and records associated with five shipments of' solid waste sent for commercial land burial during the,
y.
period of May 30 through June 7,1989.
Based on these reviews and
)
?e observations made during facility tours, the inspector determined that M'
the licensee had classified waste pursuant to 10_CFR 41.55; that the
?
J.
. - ic ^
waste met the characteristics of 10 CFR 61.56; and that the prepared 1
waste manifest and marking of packages were in accordance with 10 CFR A'
20.311.
Licensee inspections of waste handling and packaging were conducted in accordance with 10 CFR 20.311(d)(3). The licensee also,
.],
maintained a current copy of the disposal site's License.
l (
4 C'
The licensee's performance in this area appeared 3dequate and their -
program seemed capable of meeting its safety objectives.
No violations or deviations were identified.
(
I U.
Exit' Interview (30703)
The inspector met with the licensee representatives, deno+.ed in paragraph
'1, at the conclusion of the. inspection on October 16, 1989.
The scope j',
and findings of the inspection were summarized.
[
The licensee was informed that no apparent violations or deviations were identified.
i
. 5 l
-c l
t
.b4 s
t I
o.
w
.h:
V c
,u
, ^
.