ML20247P688
| ML20247P688 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000734 |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1998 |
| From: | Weber M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247P660 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9805280090 | |
| Download: ML20247P688 (2) | |
Text
_
/p%.%,t -
. UNITED STATES j
l s
j' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
wase:mos ow, u.c. -==i
,, g May 8, 1998 i
L DOCKET NO:
70-734 LICENSEE:
General Atomics (GA)
San Diego, Califomia
SUBJECT:
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT: MINOFt REVISIONS TO HOT CELL DECOMMISSIONING PLAN l
l BACKGROUND By License Amendment 35 dated May 1,1996, GA was grantad interim approval of the Hot Cell Decommissioning Plan. Interim approval was granted to allow GA to instigate decommissioning while the staff completed the detailed review of the Plan and a supporting Safety Evaluation l
Report. This documentation was completed, and the NRC granted final approval of the l
Decommissioning Plan by letter dated January 29,1997.
i By letter dated May 22,1990, GA submitted a revision of the Hot Cell Decommissic ting Plan, which incorporated one change conceming liquid effluents. This revision was not considered by the NRC in the January 29,1997, Safety Evaluation Report. By letters dated January 19 and April 22,1998, GA submitted further minor revisione to the Plan. The April 22,1998, submittal included the " General Atomics Hot Cell Decommist.ioning Plan," Revision 4, in its entirety.
l' DISCUSSlQN l
The following six changes have been reflected in Revision 4 of the Hot Cell Decommissioning l
Plan.
1.
The Decommissioning Plan originally stated that "no radioactive liquid effluent discharge
[is] planned from this Facility, nor is it intended that licensed materials be disposed of to sanitary sewage." This statement is misleading and was deleted from the Plan. It was j
L intended to indicate that liquid effluents would not be discharged from the Hot Cell l
facility. However, slightly contaminated liquid effluents such as respirator wash water and mop water are generated during the decommissioning project, and these effluents are transferred to the site Nuclear Weste Processing Facility for treatment prior to licensed disposal. This is now clearty indicated in the Decommissioning Plan.
l i
2.
The Plan has been revised to reflect that the frequency of refreshar training in radiological safety has been extended from 15 months to 27 months to be consistent with the training requirements specified in (1) GA's Califomia Radioactive Materid License, (2) GA's NRC Special Nuclear Material License, and (3) GA's Radiological Contingency Plan. This is appropriate in view of the reduced radiological contamination present in the Hot Cell facility since initiation of the decommissioning project and will allow more efficient use of GA's resources.
i i
3.
The Plan has been revired to reflect that the Metallurgical Cell will be dismantled after removal of the roof instead of before removal of the roof. GA has determined that it is more efficient to dismantle the Metallurgical Cell concurrent with the Het Cell and the 9905200090 990509 PDR ADOCA 07000734i C
4 2
. Low Level Cell after the roof of the building has been removed. Prior to roof removal, decontamination of the facility will be completed and a radiation survey will be conducted to verify that the High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filter may be shut down.
4.
Reference in the Plan to a temporary building built to surround the HEPA system prict to dismantlement has been deleted. Localized containment such as bagging or tenting will be employed instead. These altemate containment methods are corisidered by the NRC to provide equivalent protection and are consistent with the approach described in the Plan for handlin0 contaminated duct work and other localized areas of contamination.
l l
5.
Reference in the Plan to removal of the concrete of the Hot Ceti roof by jack hammering l
and to construction of a support floor under the Hot Cell rcof has been deleted. The Hot Cell roof will be dismantled by i, awing it into manageable sized sections for disposal, which eliminated the need for a support roof for jack hammering. Prior to removal of the roof, contamination will be removed or fixed in place. Therefore, reference to the use of a " plastic sheeting membrane" for containment has also been deleted.
6.
The paragraph in the Plan on Building Demolition has been revised to reflect that permits i
may not be required by the City of San Diego but may be required by other local agencies.
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION These changes are considered adrninia trative and proceduralin nature. The staff has determined that the proposed changes do not adversely affect public health and safety or the i
environment and are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare a site-specific environmental assessment. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11), neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is warranted for this action.
CONCLUSION The sta*f concurs with GA that the changes to the Hot Cell Decommissioning Plan are minor and will cot adversely affect worker or public health and safety or the environment. Therefore, the staff recommends approval of this amendment request.
The Region IV inspection staff has no objection to the proposed licensing action.
Princioal Contnbutor Susan D. Chotoo
,,[
g fAf
l 1
I