IR 05000312/2007001

IR 05000312-07-001, on 01/29/2007 - 02/01/2007, Rancho Seco

ML070400449
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	02/09/2007
From:	Spitzberg D NRC/RGN-IV/DNMS/FCDB
To:	Shetler J Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)
References
IR-07-001
Download: ML070400449 (16)

Text

ary 9, 2007

SUBJECT:

NRC INSPECTION REPORT 050-00312/07-001

Dear Mr. Shetler:

An NRC inspection was conducted on January 29 through February 1, 2007, at your Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station. At the conclusion of the inspection an exit briefing was conducted with the Plant Manager and other members of your staff. The enclosed report presents the scope and results of the inspection.

The inspection was an examination of activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license. Within these areas, the inspection included reviews of your organization management and cost control, safety reviews, design changes and modifications, and decommissioning performance.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response (if any) will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRC's document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/Adams.html. To the extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made available to the public without redaction.

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact Mr. Emilio Garcia, Health Physicist, at (530) 756-3910 or the undersigned at (817) 860-8191.

Sincerely,

/RA/

D. Blair Spitzberg, Ph.D., Chief Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch Docket No.: 050-00312 License No.: DPR-54

Sacramento Municipal Utility District -2-

Enclosure:

NRC Inspection Report 050-00312/07-001

REGION IV==

Docket No.: 050-00312 License No.: DPR-54 Report No.: 050-00312/07-001 Licensee: Sacramento Municipal Utility District Facility: Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station Location: 14440 Twin Cities Road Herald, California Dates: January 29 through February 1, 2007 Inspector: Emilio M. Garcia, Health Physicist Approved By: D. Blair Spitzberg, Ph.D., Chief Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch Attachments: Supplemental Information Partial List of Documents Reviewed

-2-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station NRC Inspection Report 050-00312/07-001 This inspection was a routine, announced inspection of decommissioning activities being conducted at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station. Areas inspected included organization management and cost controls; safety reviews, design changes, modifications, and decommissioning performance.

Organization, Management and Cost Controls

• All managerial positions were staffed with experienced individuals familiar with their job responsibilities. The Plant Manager now reports to the Power Generation Manager.

The audit function had suffered an unexpected loss of two lead auditors which had resulted in delays in conducting and issuing audit reports and conducting audit surveillance. (Section 1.1).

• The licensee had maintained their program for plant personnel to identify safety concerns. A recent survey conducted by the licensee indicated that most individuals were comfortable or very comfortable reporting safety concerns. (Section 1.2).

Safety Reviews, Design Changes, and Modifications

• Safety evaluations were conducted in accordance with the licensees procedures and applicable regulations. Training of safety screeners, reviewers, and Commitment Management Review Group (CMRG) members and alternates met applicable requirements (Section 2).

Decommissioning Performance and Status Review

• The licensee continued the dismantlement and removal of contaminated components and remediation of contaminated surfaces in a safe manner. The licensee was controlling the radiologically restricted area in accordance with regulatory requirements.

(Section 3).

-3-Report Details Summary of Facility Status The Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station was permanently shut down in June 1989. All spent reactor fuel has been moved to an onsite Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). At the time of this inspection, the licensee was conducting decommissioning under the provisions of the incremental decommissioning option of Rancho Secos Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report dated March 20, 1997.

Decommissioning work activities included the auxiliary building, reactor building, spent fuel building and exterior areas. All major components in the auxiliary building had been removed, packaged and shipped for disposal. In the reactor building, the major piping, the four reactor coolant pumps, the core flood tanks, reactor vessel head, pressurized drain tank, and the two steam generators had been removed, packaged and shipped offsite for disposal. In the fuel handling building, the spent fuel pool (SFP) water had been processed and released and the pool liner plates had been cut, removed and shipped for disposal. Remediation of contaminated concrete in the SFP building was continuing. The reactor vessel internals had been segmented, packaged and either shipped for disposal or stored onsite. The reactor vessel segmentation was continuing. Eleven of 21 sections of the reactor vessel had removed.

Final status surveys were progressing in a number of outside locations.

1 Organization, Management and Cost Controls (IP 36801)

1.1 Organization a. Inspection Scope The inspector compared the licensees organizational structure against the requirements of the Rancho Seco Quality Manual,Section I, Organization.

b. Observations and Findings On January 2, 2007, procedure RSAP 0101, Nuclear Organization Responsibilities and Authorities, was revised, to reflect the change that the Manager, Plant Closure &

Decommissioning now reported to the Power Generation Manager. At the time of the inspection, this change had not been made to licensing basis documents, the Rancho Seco Quality Manual (RSQM),Section I, Organization, the Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR), Section 6.1, nor the ISFSI Safety Analysis Report (SAR), Volume 1, Section 9. These documents state that the Manager, Plant Closure & Decommissioning (Plant Manager) reports directly to the Assistant General Manager Energy Supply. This organizational change had been evaluated by the 10 CFR 50.59 process and the licensee had determined that the change was administrative and it did not affect the facility nor operation of the facility. The inspector concluded that the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation had been properly performed. The Supervising Quality Engineer, stated that the licensee intended to revise the RSQM by the end of first quarter 2007.

-4-At the time of this inspection, all of the managerial positions were staffed with experienced individuals having many years of service with the licensee. The managers interviewed by the inspector were familiar with their responsibilities.

Due to personal reasons, two of the four lead auditors were no longer available to perform their duties and another lead auditor had been assigned to back shift duties.

This unexpected reduction in auditors had resulted in one audit scheduled for 2006 not being performed and delays in conducting four other audits. As of February 1, 2007, three 2006 audit reports had not been issued. Also of the 27 audit surveillances conducted in 2006, only two had been performed after September 28 and only two in 2007. The Supervising Quality Engineer stated it was not yet clear when the strains on audit and surveillance program would be eased.

The audit which was not conducted, Facility Operation Conformance to Technical Specifications and License Conditions, was a minor audit performed to assure that all technical specification or license condition were audited during the year. Other audits conducted during the year 2006 audited the conformance to license conditions and technical specifications, therefore the areas intended to be examined by this audit had been examined in other audits.

c. Conclusion All managerial positions were staffed with experienced individuals familiar with their job responsibilities. The Plant Manager now reports to the Power Generation, Manager.

The audit function had suffered an unexpected loss of two lead auditors which had resulted in delays in conducting and issuing audit reports and conducting audit surveillances.

1.2 Employee Safety Concern Program a. Inspection Scope The inspector reviewed the licensees employee safety concerns program.

b. Observations and Findings The licensees employee safety concern program was part of their problem identification and resolution process and was described in procedure RSAP-1308, Potential Deviation from Quality, also known as the PDQ process. The inspector selected three site personnel to interview regarding their knowledge of the PDQ process. These individuals indicated that they felt comfortable bringing concerns to their supervisors. All of the employees were aware that they could initiate a PDQ or alternatively bring concerns to the NRCs attention. These individuals also indicated that they had received training on the safety concerns program while working for the licensee.

A total of 31 PDQs were opened in 2006, and two in 2007 as of January 29, 2007.

None of the these issues had been submitted anonymously. All of the PDQs had been

-5-reviewed or were pending review by the Commitment Management Review Group (CMRG) and were either closed or were being resolved.

The licensee had conducted a voluntary Industrial/Nuclear Health and Safety survey during the week of November 7, 2006. The survey was provided to both Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) employees and contractors. A total of sixty-nine individuals responded to at least some portion of the survey, equating to a forty nine percent participation rate. In 2005, the participation was sixty eight percent participation.

In 2006, 89.8% of respondents felt comfortable or very comfortable reporting safety concerns with 1.45% not comfortable reporting safety concerns. This compared with 77.9% and 11.60% respectively for 2005.

c. Conclusion The licensee had maintained their program for plant personnel to identify safety concerns. A recent survey conducted by the licensee indicated that most individuals were comfortable or very comfortable reporting safety concerns.

2 Safety Reviews, Design Changes, and Modifications (IP 37801)

a. Inspection Scope The inspector reviewed selected 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations conducted since the previous inspection in this area.

b. Observations and Findings 10 CFR 50.59(c)(1) states, in part, the licensee may make changes in the procedures as described in the final safety analysis report (as updated) without obtaining a license amendment, only if the change to the technical specification is not required. Further, 10 CFR 50.59(d)(1) states, in part, that the licensee shall maintain records of the written evaluations which provides the bases for the determination that the change does not require a license amendment.

The inspector reviewed revisions 6 and 7 to the list of procedures that require a safety evaluation and the table of contents of procedure books, and interviewed cognizant personnel. These sources identified 24 procedure revisions that had received at least a safety screening since August 2006. An additional safety screening was performed regarding the use of a helicopter and placement of antennas on the West Cooling Tower. Three of the 24 screens determined that a full evaluation was required. None of the evaluations concluded that prior to implementation, NRC approval was required.

Records of the CMRG meetings indicated that the screening/safety evaluations packages had been reviewed, discussed and unanimously approved by the Group.

Records maintained by the licensee indicated that CMRG members and alternates had been trained as qualified reviewers.

-6-The inspector reviewed the safety screening packages for the 21 procedure revisions that had not required a full safety evaluation. The packages were complete and had been reviewed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 requirements. The packages were signed by both a qualified reviewer and a second level reviewer. All reviewers were on the list of qualified reviewers. Training records indicated that they had successfully completed training as a 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR 72.48 reviewer and had received refresher training within the last 12 months.

c. Conclusion Safety evaluations were conducted in accordance with the licensees procedures and applicable regulations. Training of safety screeners, reviewers, and CMRG members and alternates met applicable requirements.

3 Decommissioning Performance and Status Review (IP 71801)

a. Inspection Scope The inspector interviewed cognizant personnel, reviewed selected documents and toured portions of the site to observe work activities including housekeeping, safety practices, fire loading and radiological controls.

b. Observations and Findings The inspector conducted independent radiological surveys using a Ludlum Model 2401-EC survey meter (NRC No. 21176G, calibration due date August 4, 2007).

No abnormal radiological survey results were observed and all ambient gamma exposure rate measurements were in agreement with posted radiation levels.

Tours of the reactor, auxiliary, fuel handling, and turbine buildings were conducted to observe dismantling and decommissioning activities in progress. The work observed was being conducted in a safe and orderly manner. Radiological controls, including postings and barriers, were in place. Good housekeeping and fire protection practices were noted in areas observed.

The Dismantlement Superintendent-Radiological stated that approximately thirty three percent of the surfaces in the auxiliary building that they expect will need to be remediated had been remediated. In the Spent Fuel Building, characterization surveys were continuing but no remediation had been initiated since the removal of some walls.

The reactor vessel segmentation project was continuing. Approximately eighty five percent of the cuts that were planned had been completed. Eleven of 21 sections of the reactor vessel had been cut, packaged and shipped to a low level radioactive waste disposal site. These pieces were the three flange sections and the eight nozzle sections. During the inspection the licensee was completing the segmentation of the six belt region sections into the reactor vessel. At the time of the inspection, the schedule projected completing the reactor vessel segmentation and

-7-other preparatory work in the reactor building before April 2, 2007. The reactor building concrete and steel removal project was scheduled to begging on April 27, 2007. This project involved the removal of 34,541,000 pounds of contaminated concrete and reinforcing steel from the reactor building. The licensee projected using 1,220 lift liner bags, 310 inter-modal loads, 135 gondola rail shipments and 40 ABC rail shipments.

Projected completion of the reactor building concrete and steel removal project was March 27, 2008.

Concurrently, the licensee intended to conduct the waste water system removal project.

This project involved:

1. Placement of a bypass line around the retention basins, 2. Removal of buried piping from the turbine building to the retention basins.

3. Removal and the retention basins, and 4. Final Status Surveys of trenched areas and the retention basins site.

The projected completion of this project was late Fall of 2007.

The licensee was projecting completing decommissioning by June 2008.

c. Conclusion The licensee continued the dismantlement and removal of contaminated components and remediation of contaminated surfaces in a safe manner. The licensee was controlling the radiologically restricted area in accordance with regulatory requirements.

4 Exit Meeting Summary The inspector presented the inspection results to the plant manager and other members of licensee staff at the exit meeting on February 1, 2007. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any information provided to, or reviewed by, the inspector.

ATTACHMENT 1 PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Sacramento Municipal Utility District M. Bua, Radiation Protection/Chemistry Superintendent D. Clark, Sr. Mechanical Engineer W. Hawley, Dismantlement Superintendent - Operations, Acting Plant Manager L. Hoist, Nuclear Document Control Supervisor R. Jones, Supervising Quality Engineer S. Redeker, Manager, Nuclear Plant Closure and Decommissioning (Plant Manager)

E. Ronningen, Dismantlement Superintendent - Radiological P. Terry, Principal Mechanical Engineer J. Witte, Principal Mechanical Engineer INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 36801 Organization, Management and Cost Controls IP 37801 Safety Reviews, Design Changes, and Modifications IP 71801 Decommissioning Performance and Status Review ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Opened None Closed None Discussed None

-2-LIST OF ACRONYMS CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMRG Commitment Management Review Group DSAR Defueled Safety Analysis Report IP Inspection Procedure ISFSI Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation PDQ Potential Deviation from Quality RSQM Rancho Seco Quality Manual SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District SAR Safety Analysis Report SFP Spent Fuel Pool

ATTACHMENT 2 PARTIAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Audits and Surveillances

• Audit Log, 2006.

• Surveillance Log, 2006 and 2007 through January 29, 2007.

Correspondences and Memorandums

• MPC&D 06-044, Qualified Reviewer List, from Plant Manager to Qualified Reviewers, dated March 30, 2006.

• MPC&D 06-082, CMRG Membership, from Plant Manager to CMRG Members and Alternates, dated August 10, 2006.

• MPC&D 06-085, Revision 6 to the List of Procedures that Require a Safety Evaluation, from Plant Manager to Qualified Reviewers, dated August 17, 2006.

• NQA 06-041, Rancho Seco Defueled Safety Analysis Report Amendment 7, from Supervising Quality Engineer to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated

• October 23, 2006.

• NQA 07-004, Qualified Reviewer List, from Supervising Quality Engineer to Qualified Reviewers, dated January 31, 2007.

• NQA 07-005, CMRG Membership, from Supervising Quality Engineer to CMRG Members and Alternates, dated January 31, 2007.

• Watts Happening, January 22, 2007 issue.

• Watts Happening, January 29, 2007 issue.

Data Sheets

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, District Design Change Notification T-779, Second Level Review approved August 22, 2006.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, CAP-0002, Revision 18, Commitment Management Review Group approved August 23, 2006.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, CAP-0003, Revision 11, Second Level Review approved September 21, 2006.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, CAP-0006, Revision 21, Second Level Review approved August 17, 2006.

-2-

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, DSIP 0010, Revision 3, Second Level Review approved January 8, 2007.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, DSIP 0020, Revision 0, Second Level Review approved January 8, 2007.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, DSIP 0050, Revision 3, Second Level Review approved September 26, 2006.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, DSIP 0100, Revision 0, Second Level Review approved January 8, 2007.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, DSIP 0101, Revision 1, Second Level Review approved October 26, 2006.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, DSIP 0110, Revision 2, Second Level Review approved October 23, 2006.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, DSIP 0120, Revision 0, Second Level Review approved January 8, 2007.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, DSIP 0200, Revision 1, Second Level Review approved October 24, 2006.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, DSIP 0300, Revision 0, Second Level Review approved January 8, 2007.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, DSIP 0310, Revision 0, Second Level Review approved January 8, 2007.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, DSIP 0510, Revision 6, Second Level Review approved October 23, 2006.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, DSIP 0520, Revision 1, Second Level Review approved January 8, 2007.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, DSIP 0540, Revision 1, Second Level Review approved October 5, 2006.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, Historical Site Assessment, Revision 1, Second Level Review approved August 28, 2006.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, OP-C.53, Revision 15, Second Level Review approved January 22, 2007.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, RP.309.I.06 Curie Calculation, Revision 3, Second Level Review approved December 7, 2006.

-3-

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, RSAP-0101, Revision 31, Commitment Management Review Group approved December 20, 2006.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, RSAP-0808, Revision 9, Second Level Review approved September 11, 2006.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, RSAP-1003, Revision 15, Second Level Review approved December 20, 2006.

• 10 CFR 50.59/72.48/71.107(c) Screening and Evaluation, RSAP-1007, Revision 4, Second Level Review approved October 24, 2006.

• Class Attendance Printout, ST01N0100, 50.59 Training as of January 31, 2007.

• Potential Deviation from Quality Log, 2006 and 2007 through January 29, 2007.

• Table of Contents Annunciator, dated April 15, 2003.

• Table of Contents Casualty Plant Operations Manual, dated June 15, 2006.

• Table of Contents Chemistry Department Procedures Manual, dated October 3, 2006.

• Table of Contents Emergency Plan Manual, dated June 16, 2005.

• Table of Contents Maintenance Administrative Procedures, dated August 19, 2002.

• Table of Contents Maintenance Surveillance Procedures, dated January 19, 2006.

• Table of Contents Nuclear Security Administrative Procedures, dated January 31, 2006.

• Table of Contents Operation Administrative Procedures, dated June 16, 2003.

• Table of Contents Operations Surveillance Procedures, dated May 13, 2004.

• Table of Contents Plant Operations Manual, dated June 15, 2006.

• Table of Contents Plant Performance Surveillance Procedure, dated June 5, 2006.

• Table of Contents Radiation Control Manual, dated October 17, 2006.

• Table of Contents Radiation Detection Instrument Manual, dated August 15, 2006.

• Table of Contents Radiation Protection Surveillance Proc, dated October 7, 2004.

• Table of Contents Radwaste Control Manual, dated January 8, 2007.

• Table of Contents Rancho Seco Administrative Procedures, dated January 24, 2007.

-4-

• Table of Contents Rancho Seco Quality Manual, dated September 15, 2005.

• Table of Contents Respiratory Protection, dated June 25, 2003.

• Table of Contents Routine Test Procedures, dated January 02, 2007.

• Table of Contents TSAP/NEAP Administrative Procedures, dated November 15, 2005.

• Safety Survey Results 2005 verse 2006

• 2006 Industrial/Nuclear Safety Survey -Results-Meeting Minutes

• CMRG Meeting Held on August 23, 2006, NQA 06-034. Subject CAP-0002, Rev 18, 50.59 evaluation review and approval

• CMRG Meeting Held on December 20, 2006, NQA 06-050. Subject RSAP-0101, Rev 31, 50.59 evaluation review and approval.

• CMRG Meeting Held on January 10, 2007, NQA 07-001. Subject CAP-0002, Rev 19, 50.59 evaluation review and approval.

Procedures

• Rancho Seco Administrative Procedure RSAP-0101,.

Reports

• Historical Site Assessment, Revision 1, August 2006.