IR 05000010/2005015: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 09/28/2006
| issue date = 09/28/2006
| title = IR 05000010-05-015, on 06/01/2006 & 09/20/2006, Dresden, Unit 1
| title = IR 05000010-05-015, on 06/01/2006 & 09/20/2006, Dresden, Unit 1
| author name = Cameron J L
| author name = Cameron J
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-III/DNMS/DB
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-III/DNMS/DB
| addressee name = Crane C M
| addressee name = Crane C
| addressee affiliation = Exelon Generation Co, LLC, Exelon Nuclear
| addressee affiliation = Exelon Generation Co, LLC, Exelon Nuclear
| docket = 05000010
| docket = 05000010
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:
{{#Wiki_filter:ber 28, 2006
[[Issue date::September 28, 2006]]


Mr. Christopher M. CranePresident and Chief Nuclear Officer Exelon Nuclear Exelon Generation Company, LLC 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555
==SUBJECT:==
NRC INSPECTION REPORT 050-00010/05-015 (DNMS)
DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 1


SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT 050-00010/05-015 (DNMS) DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 1
==Dear Mr. Crane:==
On September 20, 2006, the NRC completed inspection activities at the Dresden Nuclear Power Station Unit 1. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether the decommissioning activities were conducted safely and in accordance with NRC requirements.


==Dear Mr. Crane:==
Specifically, during onsite inspections on June 1, 2006 and September 20, 2006, the inspectors evaluated decommissioning activities, management oversight of decommissioning activities, radioactive waste management, and radiological safety. At the conclusion of the on-site inspections on June 1 and September 20, 2006, the inspector discussed the inspection findings with members of your staff.
On September 20, 2006, the NRC completed inspection activities at the Dresden NuclearPower Station Unit 1. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether the decommissioning activities were conducted safely and in accordance with NRC requirements. Specifically, during onsite inspections on June 1, 2006 and September 20, 2006, the inspectors evaluated decommissioning activities, management oversight of decommissioning activities, radioactive waste management, and radiological safety. At the conclusion of the on-site inspections on June 1 and September 20, 2006, the inspector discussed the inspection findings with members of your staff.This inspection consisted of an examination of decommissioning activities at the DresdenNuclear Power Station Unit 1 as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations. Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the enclosed report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures and representative records, and interviews with personnel. Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC did not identify any violations. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and itsenclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public DocumentRoom or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system(ADAMS). The NRC's document system is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
 
.
This inspection consisted of an examination of decommissioning activities at the Dresden Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations. Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the enclosed report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures and representative records, and interviews with personnel.
C. Crane-2-We will gladly discuss any questions you may have regarding this inspection.
 
Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC did not identify any violations.
 
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). The NRCs document system is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. We will gladly discuss any questions you may have regarding this inspection.


Sincerely,/RA/Jamnes L. Cameron, ChiefDecommissioning BranchDocket No. 050-00010License No. DPR-2
Sincerely,
/RA/
Jamnes L. Cameron, Chief Decommissioning Branch Docket No. 050-00010 License No. DPR-2


===Enclosure:===
===Enclosure:===
Inspection Report 050-00010/05-015(DNMS)cc w/encl:Site Vice President - Dresden Nuclear Power StationDresden Nuclear Power Station Plant Manager Dresden Nuclear Power Station Decommissioning Plant Manager Regulatory Assurance Manager - Dresden Chief Operating Officer Senior Vice President, Nuclear Services Senior Vice President - Mid-West Regional Operating Group Senior Vice President - Operations Support Vice President - Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Director Licensing - Mid-West Regional Operating Group Manager Licensing - Dresden and Quad Cities Director Project Management Senior Counsel, Nuclear Mid-West Regional Operating Group Document Control Desk - Licensing Assistant Attorney General Illinois Emergency Management Agency State Liaison Officer Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission A. C. Settles, Emergency Management AgencyDISTRIBUTION w/encl
Inspection Report 050-00010/05-015(DNMS)
:Docket File J. Hickman, NMSS G. Grant, RIII S. Reynolds, RIII S. Lee, RIII RIII PRR ROPreports@nrc.govDOCUMENT NAME:E:\Filenet\ML062710375.wpd Publicly Available G Non-Publicly Available G Sensitive Non-SensitiveTo receive a copy of this document, indicate in the concurrence box "C" = Copy without attach/encl "E" = Copy with attach/encl "N" = No copyOFFICERIII:DNMSERIII:DNMSNRIIIRIIINAMEWGSnell:dhJLCameronDATE09/26/0609/28/06OFFICIAL RECORD COPY EnclosureU.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONREGION IIIDocket No.050-00010License No. DPR-2 Report No.050-00010/05-015(DNMS)
 
Licensee:Exelon Nuclear Facility:Dresden Nuclear Power Station Unit 1Location:6500 N. Dresden RoadMorris, IL 60450 Dates:June 1, 2006September 20, 2006Inspectors:William Snell,Senior Health Physicist Approved by:Jamnes L. Cameron, ChiefDecommissioning Branch Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Enclosure 2EXECUTIVE SUMMARYDresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1NRC Inspection Report 050-00010/05-015(DNMS)This routine decommissioning inspection included a review of the licensee's currentperformance related to decommissioning activities, management oversight of decommissioning activities, radioactive waste management, and radiological safety.Organization, Management and Cost Controls*The inspector concluded the licensee's decommissioning program continued to makeprogress towards SAFSTOR dormancy, although work was often delayed due to a higher priority provided to work activities on Units 2/3. (Section 1.0)Self-Assessment, Auditing and Corrective Action *The licensee was actively addressing deficiencies identified during the 2005 5-yearstructural audit of Unit 1. (Section 2.0)Decommissioning Performance and Status Review*The licensee was adequately controlling radiological work areas. The licenseeadequately addressed the one industrial safety issue involving an operating dehumidifier sitting in a puddle of water with it's electrical cord laying in the water. (Section 3.0)Occupational Radiation Exposure*The inspector concluded that the licensee was implementing adequate radiologicalcontrols throughout the Unit 1 structures and work areas. (Section 4.0)Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring*The licensee continues to make progress in the processing of the liquid radioactivewastes associated with Unit 1. (Section 5.0)Solid Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation*The inspector determined that the licensee complied with NRC and Department ofTransportation requirements for the shipment of radioactive waste from Dresden Unit 1.
REGION III==
Docket No. 050-00010 License No. DPR-2 Report No. 050-00010/05-015(DNMS)
Licensee: Exelon Nuclear Facility: Dresden Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 Location: 6500 N. Dresden Road Morris, IL 60450 Dates: June 1, 2006 September 20, 2006 Inspectors: William Snell, Senior Health Physicist Approved by: Jamnes L. Cameron, Chief Decommissioning Branch Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Enclosure
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 NRC Inspection Report 050-00010/05-015(DNMS)
This routine decommissioning inspection included a review of the licensees current performance related to decommissioning activities, management oversight of decommissioning activities, radioactive waste management, and radiological safety.
 
Organization, Management and Cost Controls
* The inspector concluded the licensees decommissioning program continued to make progress towards SAFSTOR dormancy, although work was often delayed due to a higher priority provided to work activities on Units 2/3. (Section 1.0)
Self-Assessment, Auditing and Corrective Action
* The licensee was actively addressing deficiencies identified during the 2005 5-year structural audit of Unit 1. (Section 2.0)
Decommissioning Performance and Status Review
* The licensee was adequately controlling radiological work areas. The licensee adequately addressed the one industrial safety issue involving an operating dehumidifier sitting in a puddle of water with its electrical cord laying in the water. (Section 3.0)
Occupational Radiation Exposure
* The inspector concluded that the licensee was implementing adequate radiological controls throughout the Unit 1 structures and work areas. (Section 4.0)
Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring
* The licensee continues to make progress in the processing of the liquid radioactive wastes associated with Unit 1. (Section 5.0)
Solid Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation
* The inspector determined that the licensee complied with NRC and Department of Transportation requirements for the shipment of radioactive waste from Dresden Unit 1.


(Section 6.0)
(Section 6.0)
1A List of acronyms used in the report is included at the end of the Report Details.Enclosure 3Report Details 11.0Organization, Management and Cost Controls (36801)1.1Inspection ScopeThe inspectors reviewed the licensee's decommissioning program to verify that it waseffective in progressing towards SAFSTOR dormancy. 1.2Observations and FindingsThe licensee continued to manage activities associated with Unit 1 through two separategroups. Routine activities that were generally non-unit specific in content, such as periodic maintenance, radiation surveys, and surveillances, were completed by plantpersonnel assigned to Units 2/3. Work associated with achieving SAFSTOR dormancy for Unit 1 was assigned to three employees who were dedicated to Unit 1 activities.
2  Enclosure
 
Report Details1 1.0 Organization, Management and Cost Controls (36801)
1.1 Inspection Scope The inspectors reviewed the licensees decommissioning program to verify that it was effective in progressing towards SAFSTOR dormancy.
 
1.2 Observations and Findings The licensee continued to manage activities associated with Unit 1 through two separate groups. Routine activities that were generally non-unit specific in content, such as periodic maintenance, radiation surveys, and surveillances, were completed by plant personnel assigned to Units 2/3. Work associated with achieving SAFSTOR dormancy for Unit 1 was assigned to three employees who were dedicated to Unit 1 activities.


Most of the SAFSTOR work on Unit 1 was contracted out, and much of that was done during outages on Units 2/3 when additional contract workers were already on-site.
Most of the SAFSTOR work on Unit 1 was contracted out, and much of that was done during outages on Units 2/3 when additional contract workers were already on-site.


Because work on Units 2/3 is normally a higher priority due to their operational status, work on Unit 1 is often delayed until workers can be made available. None of the work deferred for Unit 1 resulted in delays to address issues related to safety. 1.3ConclusionThe inspector concluded the licensee's decommissioning program continued to makeprogress towards SAFSTOR dormancy, although work was often delayed due to a higher priority provided to work activities on Units 2/3. 2.0Self-Assessment, Auditing and Corrective Action (40801)2.1Inspection ScopeThe inspectors reviewed the licensee's activities associated with addressing issuesidentified during the 2005 5-year structural audit of Unit 1.2.2Observations and FindingsThe inspectors discussed with the licensee the results of 2005 5-year structural audit ofUnit 1, in which a number of deficiencies were identified. None of the deficiencies were of significant concern, but the licensee was addressing all the items to ensure the longterm integrity of the Unit 1 structures.2.3ConclusionThe licensee was actively addressing deficiencies identified during the 2005 5-yearstructural audit of Unit 1.
Because work on Units 2/3 is normally a higher priority due to their operational status, work on Unit 1 is often delayed until workers can be made available. None of the work deferred for Unit 1 resulted in delays to address issues related to safety.
 
1.3 Conclusion The inspector concluded the licensees decommissioning program continued to make progress towards SAFSTOR dormancy, although work was often delayed due to a higher priority provided to work activities on Units 2/3.
 
2.0 Self-Assessment, Auditing and Corrective Action (40801)
2.1 Inspection Scope The inspectors reviewed the licensees activities associated with addressing issues identified during the 2005 5-year structural audit of Unit 1.
 
2.2 Observations and Findings The inspectors discussed with the licensee the results of 2005 5-year structural audit of Unit 1, in which a number of deficiencies were identified. None of the deficiencies were of significant concern, but the licensee was addressing all the items to ensure the long term integrity of the Unit 1 structures.
 
2.3 Conclusion The licensee was actively addressing deficiencies identified during the 2005 5-year structural audit of Unit 1.
 
A List of acronyms used in the report is included at the end of the Report Details.
 
3  Enclosure


Enclosure 43.0Decommissioning Performance and Status Review (71801)3.1Inspection ScopeThe inspectors conducted plant tours to assess field conditions and decommissioningactivities and ensure that radioactively contaminated areas were being controlled. 3.2Observations and FindingsDuring site tours the inspectors noted that the material condition of facilities andequipment were commensurate with current decommissioning activities. Although little work was in process during the tours, work areas were observed to be adequately roped off and access controlled. The individuals conducting the tours with the inspectors were cognizant of the Unit 1 work activities in process, the dose levels throughout the Unit 1 facilities, and the locations of contaminated areas.While conducting the tours an industrial safety issue was identified on the 488 footelevation of the Unit 1 Containment Building near the Sub-Pile Room. The sump pump in the Sub-Pile Room had failed, and as a result of in-leakage of ground water there was a large puddle of water (about an inch deep) that had to be walked through to get into the Sub-Pile Room. In the middle of the puddle was an operating dehumidifier with it's electrical cord laying in the water. The licensee had a work order in place to address the sump pump, and planned actions to secure the electrical cord out of the puddled water.3.3ConclusionThe licensee was adequately controlling radiological work areas. The licenseeadequately addressed one industrial safety issue involving an operating dehumidifier sitting in a puddle of water with it's electrical cord laying in the water. 4.0Occupational Radiation Exposure (83750)4.1Inspection ScopeThe inspectors reviewed the radiological controls associated with Unit 1 structures andwork areas.4.2Observations and FindingsThe inspectors determined that access to the SFP Building required a keycard for entryand personal monitoring for contamination prior to exiting. Access to the Unit 1 Containment and the Radwaste Basement required dressing out in anti-contaminationclothing and entry through locked doors. Although no significant work was in progress at the time of the inspections, the licensee had established appropriate radiological boundaries around all observed work areas, appropriate radiation protection caution signs were posted, step-off pads were in use to control the spread of contamination, andradiation, high radiation, and contaminated areas were being adequately controlled.
3.0 Decommissioning Performance and Status Review (71801)
3.1 Inspection Scope The inspectors conducted plant tours to assess field conditions and decommissioning activities and ensure that radioactively contaminated areas were being controlled.


Enclosure 54.3ConclusionThe inspector concluded that the licensee was implementing adequate radiologicalcontrols throughout the Unit 1 structures and work areas.5.0Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring (84750)5.1Inspection ScopeThe inspectors reviewed the licensee's processing of liquid radioactive waste associatedwith Unit 1.5.2Observations and Findings The licensee was in the process of draining the water from the Unit 1 SFP. Thisevolution has been on hold since late in 2005 when the turbine building drain tank pumps, which were used to transfer the water to the Units 2/3 radwas te system, beganto fail. The licensee had obtained two new pumps and had completed the installation of one of the pumps. As soon as the tag-out on the installed pump was removed, the licensee would continue with the removal of the SFP water. Eventually the second pump, as well as the breakers for these pumps, will be replaced. The two spare breakers were currently being re-furbished. Once the SFP is drained, the filtration equipment will be moved to the Chem-Cleaning Building to begin processing the waterin the 102 Tank. This tank holds 155,000 gallons and is about 80 percent full. 5.3ConclusionsThe licensee continues to make progress in the processing of the liquid radioactivewastes associated with Unit 1.6.0Solid Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation (86750)6.1Inspection ScopeThe inspectors reviewed the shipping documents for two radioactive waste shipmentscontaining material from Dresden Unit 1 to verify compliance with NRC and Departmentof Transportation requirements.6.2Observations and FindingsThe inspector reviewed shipping documents for Shipment No. DW-06-101, containingDry Active Waste (DAW), and Shipment No. DW-06-098, containing dewatered fuel pool resin and dewatered filter media. The paperwork for both waste shipments were found to contain the required documents, which included survey reports of the shipments, NRC Form 540, Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (ShippingPaper), and NRC Form 541, Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (Containerand Waste Description). All forms were found to be properly filled out and signed off asnecessary. No issues were identified with the shipping documents for either shipment.
3.2 Observations and Findings During site tours the inspectors noted that the material condition of facilities and equipment were commensurate with current decommissioning activities. Although little work was in process during the tours, work areas were observed to be adequately roped off and access controlled. The individuals conducting the tours with the inspectors were cognizant of the Unit 1 work activities in process, the dose levels throughout the Unit 1 facilities, and the locations of contaminated areas.


Enclosure 66.3ConclusionThe inspector determined that the licensee complied with NRC and Department ofTransportation requirements for the shipment of radioactive waste from Dresden Unit 1.7.0Exit Meeting SummaryThe inspectors presented the inspection results to licensee management at theconclusion of the onsite inspections on June 1 and September 20, 2006. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented. ATTACHMENT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AttachmentSUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATIONPARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTEDLicensee*J. Ellis, Regulatory Assurance Manager*J. Panozzo, Unit 1 Project Manager
While conducting the tours an industrial safety issue was identified on the 488 foot elevation of the Unit 1 Containment Building near the Sub-Pile Room. The sump pump in the Sub-Pile Room had failed, and as a result of in-leakage of ground water there was a large puddle of water (about an inch deep) that had to be walked through to get into the Sub-Pile Room. In the middle of the puddle was an operating dehumidifier with its electrical cord laying in the water. The licensee had a work order in place to address the sump pump, and planned actions to secure the electrical cord out of the puddled water.
 
3.3 Conclusion The licensee was adequately controlling radiological work areas. The licensee adequately addressed one industrial safety issue involving an operating dehumidifier sitting in a puddle of water with its electrical cord laying in the water.
 
4.0 Occupational Radiation Exposure (83750)
4.1 Inspection Scope The inspectors reviewed the radiological controls associated with Unit 1 structures and work areas.
 
4.2 Observations and Findings The inspectors determined that access to the SFP Building required a keycard for entry and personal monitoring for contamination prior to exiting. Access to the Unit 1 Containment and the Radwaste Basement required dressing out in anti-contamination clothing and entry through locked doors. Although no significant work was in progress at the time of the inspections, the licensee had established appropriate radiological boundaries around all observed work areas, appropriate radiation protection caution signs were posted, step-off pads were in use to control the spread of contamination, and radiation, high radiation, and contaminated areas were being adequately controlled.
 
4  Enclosure
 
4.3 Conclusion The inspector concluded that the licensee was implementing adequate radiological controls throughout the Unit 1 structures and work areas.
 
5.0 Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring (84750)
5.1 Inspection Scope The inspectors reviewed the licensees processing of liquid radioactive waste associated with Unit 1.
 
5.2 Observations and Findings The licensee was in the process of draining the water from the Unit 1 SFP. This evolution has been on hold since late in 2005 when the turbine building drain tank pumps, which were used to transfer the water to the Units 2/3 radwaste system, began to fail. The licensee had obtained two new pumps and had completed the installation of one of the pumps. As soon as the tag-out on the installed pump was removed, the licensee would continue with the removal of the SFP water. Eventually the second pump, as well as the breakers for these pumps, will be replaced. The two spare breakers were currently being re-furbished. Once the SFP is drained, the filtration equipment will be moved to the Chem-Cleaning Building to begin processing the water in the 102 Tank. This tank holds 155,000 gallons and is about 80 percent full.
 
5.3 Conclusions The licensee continues to make progress in the processing of the liquid radioactive wastes associated with Unit 1.
 
6.0 Solid Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation (86750)
6.1 Inspection Scope The inspectors reviewed the shipping documents for two radioactive waste shipments containing material from Dresden Unit 1 to verify compliance with NRC and Department of Transportation requirements.
 
6.2 Observations and Findings The inspector reviewed shipping documents for Shipment No. DW-06-101, containing Dry Active Waste (DAW), and Shipment No. DW-06-098, containing dewatered fuel pool resin and dewatered filter media. The paperwork for both waste shipments were found to contain the required documents, which included survey reports of the shipments, NRC Form 540, Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (Shipping Paper), and NRC Form 541, Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (Container and Waste Description). All forms were found to be properly filled out and signed off as necessary. No issues were identified with the shipping documents for either shipment.
 
5  Enclosure
 
6.3 Conclusion The inspector determined that the licensee complied with NRC and Department of Transportation requirements for the shipment of radioactive waste from Dresden Unit 1.
 
7.0 Exit Meeting Summary The inspectors presented the inspection results to licensee management at the conclusion of the onsite inspections on June 1 and September 20, 2006. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented.
 
ATTACHMENT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 6  Enclosure
 
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee
*J. Ellis, Regulatory Assurance Manager
*J. Panozzo, Unit 1 Project Manager
*R. Christensen, Senior Project Manager
*R. Christensen, Senior Project Manager
*J. Griffin, Regulatory Assurance Specialist
*J. Griffin, Regulatory Assurance Specialist
*Indicates presence at the exit meeting held on September 20, 2006.INSPECTION PROCEDURES USEDIP 36801Organization, Management & Cost ControlsIP 40801Self-Assessment, Auditing and Corrective Action IP 71801Decommissioning Performance and Status Review IP 83750Occupational Radiation Exposure IP 84750Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring IP 86750Solid Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation of RadioactiveMaterialsITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSEDOpenedNoneClosedNone DiscussedNoneLIST OF ACRONYMS USEDCFRCode of Federal RegulationsDAW Dry Active Waste NRCNuclear Regulatory Commission SAFSTORSafe Storage Condition SFPSpent Fuel PoolDOCUMENTS REVIEWEDDocuments used during the inspection were specifically identified in the Report Details, above.
* Indicates presence at the exit meeting held on September 20, 2006.
 
INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 36801 Organization, Management & Cost Controls IP 40801 Self-Assessment, Auditing and Corrective Action IP 71801 Decommissioning Performance and Status Review IP 83750 Occupational Radiation Exposure IP 84750 Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring IP 86750 Solid Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation of Radioactive Materials ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Opened None Closed None Discussed None LIST OF ACRONYMS USED CFR Code of Federal Regulations DAW Dry Active Waste NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission SAFSTOR Safe Storage Condition SFP Spent Fuel Pool DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Documents used during the inspection were specifically identified in the Report Details, above.
 
Attachment
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 13:42, 23 November 2019

IR 05000010-05-015, on 06/01/2006 & 09/20/2006, Dresden, Unit 1
ML062710375
Person / Time
Site: Dresden Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 09/28/2006
From: Jamnes Cameron
NRC/RGN-III/DNMS/DB
To: Crane C
Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear
References
IR-05-015
Download: ML062710375 (9)
v • d • e


Text

ber 28, 2006

SUBJECT:

NRC INSPECTION REPORT 050-00010/05-015 (DNMS)

DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 1

Dear Mr. Crane:

On September 20, 2006, the NRC completed inspection activities at the Dresden Nuclear Power Station Unit 1. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether the decommissioning activities were conducted safely and in accordance with NRC requirements.

Specifically, during onsite inspections on June 1, 2006 and September 20, 2006, the inspectors evaluated decommissioning activities, management oversight of decommissioning activities, radioactive waste management, and radiological safety. At the conclusion of the on-site inspections on June 1 and September 20, 2006, the inspector discussed the inspection findings with members of your staff.

This inspection consisted of an examination of decommissioning activities at the Dresden Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations. Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the enclosed report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures and representative records, and interviews with personnel.

Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC did not identify any violations.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). The NRCs document system is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. We will gladly discuss any questions you may have regarding this inspection.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Jamnes L. Cameron, Chief Decommissioning Branch Docket No. 050-00010 License No. DPR-2

Enclosure:

Inspection Report 050-00010/05-015(DNMS)

REGION III==

Docket No. 050-00010 License No. DPR-2 Report No. 050-00010/05-015(DNMS)

Licensee: Exelon Nuclear Facility: Dresden Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 Location: 6500 N. Dresden Road Morris, IL 60450 Dates: June 1, 2006 September 20, 2006 Inspectors: William Snell, Senior Health Physicist Approved by: Jamnes L. Cameron, Chief Decommissioning Branch Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Enclosure

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 NRC Inspection Report 050-00010/05-015(DNMS)

This routine decommissioning inspection included a review of the licensees current performance related to decommissioning activities, management oversight of decommissioning activities, radioactive waste management, and radiological safety.

Organization, Management and Cost Controls

  • The inspector concluded the licensees decommissioning program continued to make progress towards SAFSTOR dormancy, although work was often delayed due to a higher priority provided to work activities on Units 2/3. (Section 1.0)

Self-Assessment, Auditing and Corrective Action

  • The licensee was actively addressing deficiencies identified during the 2005 5-year structural audit of Unit 1. (Section 2.0)

Decommissioning Performance and Status Review

  • The licensee was adequately controlling radiological work areas. The licensee adequately addressed the one industrial safety issue involving an operating dehumidifier sitting in a puddle of water with its electrical cord laying in the water. (Section 3.0)

Occupational Radiation Exposure

  • The inspector concluded that the licensee was implementing adequate radiological controls throughout the Unit 1 structures and work areas. (Section 4.0)

Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring

  • The licensee continues to make progress in the processing of the liquid radioactive wastes associated with Unit 1. (Section 5.0)

Solid Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation

  • The inspector determined that the licensee complied with NRC and Department of Transportation requirements for the shipment of radioactive waste from Dresden Unit 1.

(Section 6.0)

2 Enclosure

Report Details1 1.0 Organization, Management and Cost Controls (36801)

1.1 Inspection Scope The inspectors reviewed the licensees decommissioning program to verify that it was effective in progressing towards SAFSTOR dormancy.

1.2 Observations and Findings The licensee continued to manage activities associated with Unit 1 through two separate groups. Routine activities that were generally non-unit specific in content, such as periodic maintenance, radiation surveys, and surveillances, were completed by plant personnel assigned to Units 2/3. Work associated with achieving SAFSTOR dormancy for Unit 1 was assigned to three employees who were dedicated to Unit 1 activities.

Most of the SAFSTOR work on Unit 1 was contracted out, and much of that was done during outages on Units 2/3 when additional contract workers were already on-site.

Because work on Units 2/3 is normally a higher priority due to their operational status, work on Unit 1 is often delayed until workers can be made available. None of the work deferred for Unit 1 resulted in delays to address issues related to safety.

1.3 Conclusion The inspector concluded the licensees decommissioning program continued to make progress towards SAFSTOR dormancy, although work was often delayed due to a higher priority provided to work activities on Units 2/3.

2.0 Self-Assessment, Auditing and Corrective Action (40801)

2.1 Inspection Scope The inspectors reviewed the licensees activities associated with addressing issues identified during the 2005 5-year structural audit of Unit 1.

2.2 Observations and Findings The inspectors discussed with the licensee the results of 2005 5-year structural audit of Unit 1, in which a number of deficiencies were identified. None of the deficiencies were of significant concern, but the licensee was addressing all the items to ensure the long term integrity of the Unit 1 structures.

2.3 Conclusion The licensee was actively addressing deficiencies identified during the 2005 5-year structural audit of Unit 1.

A List of acronyms used in the report is included at the end of the Report Details.

3 Enclosure

3.0 Decommissioning Performance and Status Review (71801)

3.1 Inspection Scope The inspectors conducted plant tours to assess field conditions and decommissioning activities and ensure that radioactively contaminated areas were being controlled.

3.2 Observations and Findings During site tours the inspectors noted that the material condition of facilities and equipment were commensurate with current decommissioning activities. Although little work was in process during the tours, work areas were observed to be adequately roped off and access controlled. The individuals conducting the tours with the inspectors were cognizant of the Unit 1 work activities in process, the dose levels throughout the Unit 1 facilities, and the locations of contaminated areas.

While conducting the tours an industrial safety issue was identified on the 488 foot elevation of the Unit 1 Containment Building near the Sub-Pile Room. The sump pump in the Sub-Pile Room had failed, and as a result of in-leakage of ground water there was a large puddle of water (about an inch deep) that had to be walked through to get into the Sub-Pile Room. In the middle of the puddle was an operating dehumidifier with its electrical cord laying in the water. The licensee had a work order in place to address the sump pump, and planned actions to secure the electrical cord out of the puddled water.

3.3 Conclusion The licensee was adequately controlling radiological work areas. The licensee adequately addressed one industrial safety issue involving an operating dehumidifier sitting in a puddle of water with its electrical cord laying in the water.

4.0 Occupational Radiation Exposure (83750)

4.1 Inspection Scope The inspectors reviewed the radiological controls associated with Unit 1 structures and work areas.

4.2 Observations and Findings The inspectors determined that access to the SFP Building required a keycard for entry and personal monitoring for contamination prior to exiting. Access to the Unit 1 Containment and the Radwaste Basement required dressing out in anti-contamination clothing and entry through locked doors. Although no significant work was in progress at the time of the inspections, the licensee had established appropriate radiological boundaries around all observed work areas, appropriate radiation protection caution signs were posted, step-off pads were in use to control the spread of contamination, and radiation, high radiation, and contaminated areas were being adequately controlled.

4 Enclosure

4.3 Conclusion The inspector concluded that the licensee was implementing adequate radiological controls throughout the Unit 1 structures and work areas.

5.0 Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring (84750)

5.1 Inspection Scope The inspectors reviewed the licensees processing of liquid radioactive waste associated with Unit 1.

5.2 Observations and Findings The licensee was in the process of draining the water from the Unit 1 SFP. This evolution has been on hold since late in 2005 when the turbine building drain tank pumps, which were used to transfer the water to the Units 2/3 radwaste system, began to fail. The licensee had obtained two new pumps and had completed the installation of one of the pumps. As soon as the tag-out on the installed pump was removed, the licensee would continue with the removal of the SFP water. Eventually the second pump, as well as the breakers for these pumps, will be replaced. The two spare breakers were currently being re-furbished. Once the SFP is drained, the filtration equipment will be moved to the Chem-Cleaning Building to begin processing the water in the 102 Tank. This tank holds 155,000 gallons and is about 80 percent full.

5.3 Conclusions The licensee continues to make progress in the processing of the liquid radioactive wastes associated with Unit 1.

6.0 Solid Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation (86750)

6.1 Inspection Scope The inspectors reviewed the shipping documents for two radioactive waste shipments containing material from Dresden Unit 1 to verify compliance with NRC and Department of Transportation requirements.

6.2 Observations and Findings The inspector reviewed shipping documents for Shipment No. DW-06-101, containing Dry Active Waste (DAW), and Shipment No. DW-06-098, containing dewatered fuel pool resin and dewatered filter media. The paperwork for both waste shipments were found to contain the required documents, which included survey reports of the shipments, NRC Form 540, Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (Shipping Paper), and NRC Form 541, Uniform Low-Level Radioactive Waste Manifest (Container and Waste Description). All forms were found to be properly filled out and signed off as necessary. No issues were identified with the shipping documents for either shipment.

5 Enclosure

6.3 Conclusion The inspector determined that the licensee complied with NRC and Department of Transportation requirements for the shipment of radioactive waste from Dresden Unit 1.

7.0 Exit Meeting Summary The inspectors presented the inspection results to licensee management at the conclusion of the onsite inspections on June 1 and September 20, 2006. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented.

ATTACHMENT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 6 Enclosure

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee

  • J. Ellis, Regulatory Assurance Manager
  • J. Panozzo, Unit 1 Project Manager
  • R. Christensen, Senior Project Manager
  • J. Griffin, Regulatory Assurance Specialist
  • Indicates presence at the exit meeting held on September 20, 2006.

INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 36801 Organization, Management & Cost Controls IP 40801 Self-Assessment, Auditing and Corrective Action IP 71801 Decommissioning Performance and Status Review IP 83750 Occupational Radiation Exposure IP 84750 Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring IP 86750 Solid Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation of Radioactive Materials ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Opened None Closed None Discussed None LIST OF ACRONYMS USED CFR Code of Federal Regulations DAW Dry Active Waste NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission SAFSTOR Safe Storage Condition SFP Spent Fuel Pool DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Documents used during the inspection were specifically identified in the Report Details, above.

Attachment

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IR_05000010/2005015&oldid=2185870"