ML20210T843
| ML20210T843 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000734 |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1999 |
| From: | Gaskin C NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210T822 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9908190171 | |
| Download: ML20210T843 (2) | |
Text
p f
U%
p-4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION If WASHINGTON, D.C. 20565 4 001 August 12, 1999 DOCKET NO:
70-734 LICENSEE:
General Atomics (GA)
San Diego, California
SUBJECT:
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT: PREVIOUSLY REMOVED UNDERGROUND RADIOACTIVE LIQUID WASTE TANKS - RELEASE TO UNRESTRICTED USE BACKGROUND in accordance with their application dated May 17,1999, GA requested their license be amended to release for unrestricted use those areas where the underground radioactive liquid waste storage tanks associated with Buildings 9,21,31, and Laboratory 540 of Buildings 2 had been previously located. In addition, GA requested that the areas be deleted from their license.
i NRC approved a Decontamination Plan in 1985 for decontaminating portions of its site to include the radioactive waste process area and surrounding undeveloped land. GA subsequently included these decontamination and decommissioning efforts in the overall site Decommissioning Plan dated April 29,1998 (Amendment No. 45 to SNM-696). Following its previously approved plan, GA removed underground tanks from six locations in 1984 and 1985.
This submittal addresses four of the underground storage tank locations. One of the locations J
was discussed in an earlier submittal and the other two will be addressed in a separate future j
submittal.
At the time of the tank removals in 1984 and January 1985, GA decontaminated each of the q
discrete excavated areas associated with the tank removals. A final radiological survey also 4
demonstrated that each of those areas met the approved criteria for release to unrestricted use.
In February 1985 GA documented the results of its final radiological surveys and measures in a report entitled," Final Report, Removal of Underground Liquid Radioactive Waste Storage Tanks."
During the decontamination and decommissioning of these areas (Buildings 9,21,31, and Laboratory 540 of Buildings 2) NRC observed the work and obtained split samples. The result of these analyses showed nothing above natural background levels.
It should be noted that the associated drain lines were addressed when the various buildings (Buildings 9,21,31, and Laboratory 540 of Buildings 2) were released.
DISCUSSION GA has completed the surveys of Buildings 9,21,31, and Laboratory 540 of Buildings 2.
l l
These surveys included the locations of the underground storage tanks. The final report dated February 11,1985, supports their request for unrestricted release and removal from their materials license of the areas where the underground storage tanks had been located. The survey methodology and decontamination procedures and techniques were the same rigorous procedures as used in subsequent releases such as the Group 6, Group 7, Group 8 Group 9 9908190171 990812 PDR ADOCK 07000734 C
p, p.
m g
L 2
L laboratories and Building 30 Phases I and ll which have since been released. At the time of the tank removals GA decontaminated each of the discrete excavated areas associated with the tank removals. Regional inspectors have obtained samples of the soil and conducted in-process inspections and verified the licensees survey results.
~ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
' Based on the information submitted by GA, the staff has determined that the changes to the license are related to decreased operations at the facility resulting from the proposed overall decommissioning of the site. Accordingly, the staff has determined that the criteria in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11) for categorically excluding an action from an environmental review have been met.
- Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor Environmental Impact Statement is necessary for this action.
CONCLUSION The staff concludes that GA's request to reduce licensed activities meets regulatory requirements and that there is reasonable assurance that the proposed action will not adversely impact upon the health and safety of the public or the environment.
The Region IV Principal Inspector has no objection to this proposed action.
Princioal Contributgr
- Charles E. Gaskin i
l J
l' l
4 c