ML20058D257

Insp Rept 70-0734/93-07 on 930927-1001.No Deviations or Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Radwaste Mgt Program, Ep,Environ Protection Program,Environ Monitoring Program & Followup on Previous Insp Findings

ML20058D257
Person / Time
Site:	07000734
Issue date:	10/17/1993
From:	Cillis M, Reese J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20058D256	List: ML20058D252 ML20058D257
References
70-0734-93-07, 70-734-93-7, NUDOCS 9312030114
Download: ML20058D257 (4)

Text

.

t i

l l

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

REGION V

-l Report No.: 70-734/93-07 Docket No.: 70-734 License No.:

.SNM-696 i

i Licensee:

General Atomics (GA) l P. O. Box 85608 San Diego, California 92186-9784 l

Facility Name:

Torrey Pines Mesa and Sorrento Valley Sites Inspection at:

San Diego, California l

l Inspection Conducted-September 27 through October 1, 1993 2 0 / 2 9 3I f

hs Inspector:

Mik Clllis, Se i Radiation Specialist Date Signed' l

c IO [7!4) l llI Approved by:

I."Reefe,"Chfef Date 9igned acill;ies Radiolobical Protection Branch

-l Summary:

Areas Inspected: This was a routine announced inspection of the licensee's-I radioactive waste management program, environmental protection program, environmental monitoring program, emergency preparedness, and followup on previous inspection findings.

Inspection procedures 30703, 88035, 88045,-

88050, and 92702 were addressed.

j f

Results: In the area inspected, the licensee's programs appeared fully capable of accomplishing of their safety objectives.

No violations or deviations were identified.

9312030114 931017

' ' ~

{DR ADOCK 07000734-L PDR

]

DETAILS i

l 1.

persons Contacted

• R. N. Rademacher, Vice President, Human Resources

• K. E. Asmussen, Director, Licensing, Safety and Nuclear Compliante

• L. R. Quintana, Manager, Health Physics (HP)

• J. M. Brock, Supervisor of Emargency Services

• J. Razir, Director,.Triga Reactor Facility

• W. Stowe, Security Chief

• B. Laney, Licensing P. R. Maschka, Health Physics Supervisor, Decommissioning Activities T. W. Keim, Nuclear Waste Processing Specialist

• Denotes those individuals attending the exit interview on October.1, 1993.

In addition to the individuals noted above, the inspectors met and held discussions with other members of the licensee's and contractor's staff j

2.

Radioactive Waste Management (MC 88035)

The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for compliance with 10 CFR Part 20, regulatory requirements delineated in Part II, Section 6 of the?

j SNM-696 License, and licensee procedures to verify that the licensee was

?

adequately evaluating and controlling site effluent discharges.-

The licensee continues to solidify high activity radioactive liquid 3

waste on an as needed basis. Occasionally. low -level activity liquid discharges are made from Buildings 25 and 41.

Liquid discharge records since the previous inspection were reviewed.

Records of weekly stack j

gaseous effluent sampling data since the previous-inspection were also reviewed. The lower limit of detection of samples being counted were l

noted' to be well below the concentration limits'specified in 10 CFR j

Appendix B, Table II.

The inspector noted some improvements in the licensee's radioactive waste processing program had been made since the. previous. inspection.

The liquid solidification facility at Building 41 was modified to a fully enclosed facility, a filtration system was installed at the liquid effluent release point, and a berm was installed around the Building 41 radioactive waste processing yard.

l The licensee's semiannual effluent report for the period of January 1, j

1993, through June 30, 1993, was reviewed in-office subsequent to the inspection. The report was submitted in accordance with 10 CFR Part 70.59 and provided a summary of the radioactive gaseous and liquid i

effluents released from the licensee's facilities.

The effluent releases were noted to be well below the limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II. The data provided in the report was reviewed during the inspection period. No anomalies were identified.

1 l

1 l

-)

i g

A review was conducted to determine the dispositioning of solid radioactive wastes resulting from the dismantlement of Building 37.

It was noted from observations and discussions held with-the licensee's staff that the radioactive wastes were being processed and dispositioned in accordance with the SVA Decontamination and De66mmissioning Plan.

l The inspector concluded that the licensee's waste management program was adequate to accomplish its safety objectives. No violations or deviations were identified.

I-3.

Environmental Protection (MC 88045) l The inspector examined the licensee's environmental protection program l

for compliance with delineated in Part II, Section 6, " Environmental l

Protection," SNM-696-license, and 10 CFR Part 20.

Licensee environmental protection procedures, and sample collection and -

analysis records for air, water, soil, vegetation and external radiation were reviewed.

The number of_ sampling. stations and the minimum.

detection sensitivities for the period of June 1992 through June.1993 i

were noted to be consistent with the conditions specified in the license. The inspector noted that the environmental monitoring data i

collected since the previous inspection were well below the regulatory _

limits. Selected environmental air monitoring stations and direct radiation monitoring stations were inspected and checked for

.)

operability. The location of the stations were consistent with licensee procedures and the equipment appeared to adequately maintained.

l The inspector _ concluded that the licensee's environmental protection' program was adequate in the accomplishment of its safety objectives.

No j

i violations or deviations were identified.

r i

4.

Emergency Preparedness (MC 88050)

The licensee's emergency preparedness (EP) program was examined to i

determine compliance with Section 8.2, " Radiological Contingency Plan"

)

(RCP) prescribed in Part II of the SNM-696 license. Section 8.2 requires that the licensee maintain and implement the response measures described in the RCP, dated 1992. The license also requires that the licensee maintain implementing procedures for.the RCP as necessary to implement the plan.

The examination included the review of the following:

a.

Emergency implementing procedures b.

Training records c.

RCP, dated December 1992 d.

General Emergency Plan, dated June 1988

~ ~.

i 3

=

e.

Records of drills required by the RCP f.

Records of the licensee's annual review of the RCP i

The inspector also held discussions with various mdmbers of the licensee's staff to determine their awareness of the RCP and related implementing procedures, and an inspection of the emergency equipment delineated in the RCP was conducted.

Improvements in the area of the licensee's emergency preparedness training program, and in maintenance of records, and awareness of the RCP by the licensee's emergency response team were noted during the inspection.

The licensee's performance in this area was adequate and their emergency preparedness program appeared capable of accomplishing its safety objectives. No violations or deviations were identified.

5.

Followup - Violation / Deviation (MC 92702)

Violation 70-734/93-03-02 (Closed): This item involved the failure to test and inspect self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) at Building 37.

The inspector verified that the corrective actions addressed in the licensee's timely response to the Notice of Violation, dated August 24, 1993, had been completed.'"' The following corrective action was taken:

The Emergency Services Supervisor (ESS) instructed his staff on a.

the importance for ensuring that all safety equipment is tested and inspected as required by applicable procedures, b.

An audit program was implemented to assure that all tests and inspections are being accomplished.

Administrative support had been provided to the ESS to assist in c.

maintenance of applicable records, documents, and files.

d.

The licensee replaced the older model SCBAs with a newer model SCBA units.

Applicable procedures had been revised to include a new inspection e.

checklist for assuring the monthly inspections are accomplished.

This matter is considered closed.

6.

Exit Interview (MC 30703)

The inspector met with the licensee representatives, denoted in Section 1, at the conclusion of the inspection on October 1, 1993. The scope and findings of the inspection were summarized. The licensee was informed that no violations or deviations were identified.

.