COMPLIANCE INFO_FILE 9 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Inspection Report ' Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories Site 300 Inspection date - 08/16-17/2001 May. Alan explained that he would be using a Ludlum 19 as did Don Eggleston, DTSC's industrial hygienist during the previous inspection. We were interested in seeing if Alan would get the spikes on the Ludlum 19 as previously obtained. The monitoring activities for the previous inspection were documented in a report dated 05/16-18/01 (Attachment E). I added that I would want to see the permitted storage Bldg. 883 and Magazine 816 and Magazine two. I added that I also wanted to go to Bldg. 851 and one other firing table. Dan said that if we were looking for monitoring data on radiation at the site, LLNLS300 had lots of data. I said that the inspection was not focusing on locating sources of radiation. I stated that I while I was choosing some of the same locations as visited in the May inspection, I would be choosing these locations anyway, as these are permitted areas and must be included in an inspection. I stated that I was choosing Bldg. 851 because Don had reported a very intense spike just as he entered this building. I added that we were not trying to locate sources activities that may produce radioactivity at the site, i.e., classified experiments. I stated that Alan was here to provide Industrial Hygiene (IH) support. It is Departmental policy for IH staff to go with field staff during inspections of those facilities which may generate, treat or store mixed hazardous waste. Dan asked if he could bring up some questions he had regarding the violations which were issued in an Addendum Report subsequent to the previous inspection. I said that was fine with me. (There were two violations issued in the addendum report which was mailed to the facility on 08/06/01.) He stated that Mr. Sadlacek's had received the report in his office on 08/15/01. He asked me if they were going to be required to provide a response 30 days from the date of the letter. He pointed out that if that was the case, they have already lost seven days, allowing for two days to be received. He also asked me if the letter had been mailed on 08/06/01. 1 replied that it is Department policy that certified mail goes out on the date of the letter. I said that I would check into confirming the mail out date upon my return to the office. He again expressed concern about the time lag because the 9 day gap between the date on the cover letter (08/06/01) and the date received (08/15/01) was significant in terms of LLNLS300 preparing a response to the violations. I stated that they could use 08/15/01 as the start date of the 30 day requirement for responding to the violations. I asked for a copy of just the first page of the cover letter and placed a note on it stating, "Verbal-They have 30 days from this date, Jo Ann Knight" (Attachment C). He asked if this meant I was giving them 30 days from 08/15/01. 1 replied, "yes, this meant that LLNLS300 had 30 days from 08/15/01 in which to provide a response to the violations. Dan then asked some questions regarding the violations themselves. He stated that he understood violation number one. However, he was not clear about the second violation: He said that he didn't understand being cited for failing to keep a copy of a waste analysis that they had not done. I told him that I did receive a waste DTSC (3/95) Page 6 of 11