ML062220655: 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)
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:August 10, 2006Richard M. RosenblumChief Nuclear Officer
{{#Wiki_filter:August 10, 2006
Richard M. Rosenblum
Chief Nuclear Officer
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Edison Company
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
P.O. Box 128
San Clemente, CA 92674-0128
SUBJECT:        NRC INSPECTION REPORT 050-00206/06-012
Dear Mr. Rosenblum:
This refers to the inspection conducted on July 17-21, 2006, at Southern California Edison
Companys (SCE) San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Unit 1 facility. This
inspection was an examination of decommissioning 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. The inspection included an examination of selected procedures and
representative records, observations of activities, and interviews with personnel. The enclosed
report presents the results of that inspection. The inspection determined that you were
conducting decommissioning activities in compliance with regulatory and license requirements.
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 NRCs 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 the undersigned at
(817) 860-8191 or Mr. Emilio M. Garcia, Health Physicist, at (530) 756-3910.
                                              Sincerely,
                                                      /RA/
                                              D. Blair Spitzberg, Ph.D., Chief
                                              Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch
Docket No.: 050-00206
License No.: DPR-13
Enclosure: NRC Inspection Report
  No.: 050-00206/06-012


P.O. Box 128
Southern California Edison Co.           -2-
San Clemente, CA  92674-0128SUBJECT:NRC INSPECTION REPORT 050-00206/06-012Dear Mr. Rosenblum:
cc w/enclosure:
This refers to the inspection conducted on July 17-21, 2006, at Southern California EdisonCompany's (SCE) San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Unit 1 facility.  Thisinspection was an examination of decommissioning activities conducted under your license as
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
they relate to safety and compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations and with the
conditions of your license.  The inspection included an examination of selected procedures and
representative records, observations of activities, and interviews with personnel.  The enclosed
report presents the results of that inspection.  The inspection determined that you wereconducting decommissioning activities in compliance with regulatory and license requirements. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, itsenclosure, and your response (if any) will be made available electronically for public inspectionin 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 the undersigned at(817) 860-8191 or Mr. Emilio M. Garcia, Health Physicist, at (530) 756-3910.Sincerely, /RA/D. Blair Spitzberg, Ph.D., ChiefFuel Cycle and Decommissioning BranchDocket No.:  050-00206License No.:  DPR-13Enclosure:  NRC Inspection Report  No.: 050-00206/06-012
Southern California Edison Co.-2-cc w/enclosure:Chairman, Board of Supervisors
County of San Diego
County of San Diego
1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335
1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335
San Diego, CA 92101Gary L. NolffPower Projects/Contracts Manager
San Diego, CA 92101
Gary L. Nolff
Power Projects/Contracts Manager
Riverside Public Utilities
Riverside Public Utilities
2911 Adams Street
2911 Adams Street
Riverside, CA 92504Eileen M. Teichert, Esq.Supervising Deputy City Attorney
Riverside, CA 92504
Eileen M. Teichert, Esq.
Supervising Deputy City Attorney
City of Riverside
City of Riverside
3900 Main Street
3900 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92522Ray W. WaldoSouthern California Edison Company
Riverside, CA 92522
Ray W. Waldo
Southern California Edison Company
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
P.O. Box 128
P.O. Box 128
San Clemente, CA 92674-0128David Spath, ChiefDivision of Drinking Water and  
San Clemente, CA 92674-0128
  Environmental Management  
David Spath, Chief
Division of Drinking Water and
Environmental Management
California Department of Health Services
California Department of Health Services
P.O. Box 942732
P.O. Box 942732
Sacramento, CA 94234-7320Michael R. OlsonSan Onofre Liaison
Sacramento, CA 94234-7320
Michael R. Olson
San Onofre Liaison
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
P.O. Box 1831
P.O. Box 1831
San Diego, CA 92112-4150Ed Bailey, ChiefRadiologic Health Branch
San Diego, CA 92112-4150
Ed Bailey, Chief
Radiologic Health Branch
State Department of Health Services
State Department of Health Services
P.O. Box 997414 (MS 7610)
P.O. Box 997414 (MS 7610)
Sacramento, CA 95899-7414Mayor City of San Clemente
Sacramento, CA 95899-7414
Mayor
City of San Clemente
100 Avenida Presidio
100 Avenida Presidio
San Clemente, CA 92672  
San Clemente, CA 92672
Southern California Edison Co.-3-James D. Boyd, CommissionerCalifornia Energy Commission
 
Southern California Edison Co.       -3-
James D. Boyd, Commissioner
California Energy Commission
1516 Ninth Street (MS 34)
1516 Ninth Street (MS 34)
Sacramento, CA 95814Douglas K. Porter, Esq.Southern California Edison Company
Sacramento, CA 95814
Douglas K. Porter, Esq.
Southern California Edison Company
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue
Rosemead, CA 91770James T. ReillySouthern California Edison Company
Rosemead, CA 91770
James T. Reilly
Southern California Edison Company
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
P.O. Box 128
P.O. Box 128
San Clemente, CA 92674-0128Daniel P. BreigSouthern California Edison Company
San Clemente, CA 92674-0128
Daniel P. Breig
Southern California Edison Company
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
P.O. Box 128
P.O. Box 128
San Clemente, CA 92674-0128A. Edward SchererSouthern California Edison Company
San Clemente, CA 92674-0128
A. Edward Scherer
Southern California Edison Company
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
P.O. Box 128
P.O. Box 128
San Clemente, CA 92674-0128Brian KatzSouthern California Edison Company
San Clemente, CA 92674-0128
Brian Katz
Southern California Edison Company
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
P.O. Box 128
San Clemente, CA 92674-0128


P.O. Box 128
Southern California Edison Co.               -4-
San Clemente, CA  92674-0128
cc w/enclosure (via e-mail distribution):
Southern California Edison Co.-4-cc w/enclosure (via e-mail distribution):LDWert
LDWert
DBSpitzberg
DBSpitzberg
HAFreeman
HAFreeman
Line 85: Line 133:
RJEvans
RJEvans
KEGardin
KEGardin
FCDB FileSUNSI Review Completed:   EMG     ADAMS:
FCDB File
O Yes G No           Initials:   EMG  
SUNSI Review Completed: EMG             ADAMS: O Yes G No       Initials: EMG
O Publicly Available
O Publicly Available G Non-Publicly Available   G Sensitive O Non-Sensitive
G Non-Publicly Available
DOCUMENT NAME: s:\dnms\!fcdb\!emg2\6050206012.wpd                    final r:\_so1\2006
G Sensitive
RIV:DNMS:FCDB                C:FCDB
O Non-SensitiveDOCUMENT NAME: s:\dnms\!fcdb\!emg2\6050206012.wpd                    final r:\_so1\2006RIV:DNMS:FCDBC:FCDBEMGarciaDBSpitzberg/RA//RA/08/10/0608/10/06OFFICIAL RECORD COPY T=Telephone           E=E-mail       F=Fax  
EMGarcia                      DBSpitzberg
ENCLOSUREU.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV Docket No:       050-00206License No:DPR-13
/RA/                         /RA/
Report No:050-00206/06-012
08/10/06                      08/10/06
Licensee:Southern California Edison Co. P.O. Box 128  
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY                               T=Telephone         E=E-mail       F=Fax
San Clemente, California 92674Facility: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1Location:San Clemente, California
 
Dates:July 17 - 21, 2006
                              ENCLOSURE
Inspectors:Emilio Garcia, Health PhysicistFuel Cycle & Decommissioning BranchApproved and Accompanied By:D. Blair Spitzberg, Ph.D., ChiefFuel Cycle & Decommissioning BranchAttachment:Supplemental Inspection Information
              U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
ADAMS Entry:IR05000206-06-012 on 07/17/2006 - 07/21/2006; SouthernCalifornia Edison Co., San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station;
                                REGION IV
Unit 1. Decommissioning Report. No VIOs.  
Docket No:         050-00206
-2-EXECUTIVE SUMMARYSan Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1NRC Inspection Report 050-00206/06-012This inspection was a routine, announced inspection of decommissioning activities beingconducted at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 facility. Areas inspected incl
License No:       DPR-13
udedorganization, management, and cost controls; safety reviews, design changes and
Report No:         050-00206/06-012
Licensee:         Southern California Edison Co.
                  P.O. Box 128
                  San Clemente, California 92674
Facility:         San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1
Location:         San Clemente, California
Dates:             July 17 - 21, 2006
Inspectors:       Emilio Garcia, Health Physicist
                  Fuel Cycle & Decommissioning Branch
Approved and
Accompanied By:   D. Blair Spitzberg, Ph.D., Chief
                  Fuel Cycle & Decommissioning Branch
Attachment:       Supplemental Inspection Information
ADAMS Entry:       IR05000206-06-012 on 07/17/2006 - 07/21/2006; Southern
                  California Edison Co., San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station;
                  Unit 1. Decommissioning Report. No VIOs.
 
                                              -2-
                                    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
                          San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1
                            NRC Inspection Report 050-00206/06-012
This inspection was a routine, announced inspection of decommissioning activities being
conducted at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 facility. Areas inspected included
organization, management, and cost controls; safety reviews, design changes and
modifications; decommissioning performance and status review; and radioactive waste
modifications; decommissioning performance and status review; and radioactive waste
treatment and environmental monitoring. The inspection determined that you were conductingdecommissioning activities in compliance with regulatory and license requirements. Organization, Management, and Cost Controls at Permanently Shutdown Reactors*The licensee's organizational structure was consistent with the requirements of theSONGS Unit 1 Technical Specifications. All managerial positions were staffed with
treatment and environmental monitoring. The inspection determined that you were conducting
experienced individuals (Section 1.1).*The licensee's decommissioning funding status as reported in their DecommissionFunding Report was reviewed and found to meet applicable requirements. Based on
decommissioning activities in compliance with regulatory and license requirements.
licensee projections of decommissioning costs and the amount of work completed at the
Organization, Management, and Cost Controls at Permanently Shutdown Reactors
end of 2005, adequate funding would be available to complete Unit 1 decommissioning
*       The licensees organizational structure was consistent with the requirements of the
(Section 1.2).Safety Reviews, Design Changes, and Modifications at Permanently Shutdown Reactors*The licensee's safety review and design change program was in compliance with10 CFR 50.59 requirements (Section 2). Decommissioning Performance and Status Review at Permanently Shutdown Reactors*The licensee was controlling the radiologically restricted area in accordance withrequirements. The licensee continued to make progress decommissioning the Unit 1
        SONGS Unit 1 Technical Specifications. All managerial positions were staffed with
site (Section 3). Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring*The licensee's programs for monitoring radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent releasesand environmental monitoring were in compliance with license requirements. All
        experienced individuals (Section 1.1).
required samples had been collected, no sample result exceeded applicable limits, and
*       The licensees decommissioning funding status as reported in their Decommission
no adverse trends were identified (Section 4).
        Funding Report was reviewed and found to meet applicable requirements. Based on
-3-Report DetailsSummary of Plant StatusSan Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Unit 1 was permanently shut down duringNovember 1992 and was permanently defueled by March 1993. The unit remained in
        licensee projections of decommissioning costs and the amount of work completed at the
SAFSTOR until June 1999 when decommissioning was initiated. At the time of this inspection,
        end of 2005, adequate funding would be available to complete Unit 1 decommissioning
        (Section 1.2).
Safety Reviews, Design Changes, and Modifications at Permanently Shutdown Reactors
*       The licensees safety review and design change program was in compliance with
        10 CFR 50.59 requirements (Section 2).
Decommissioning Performance and Status Review at Permanently Shutdown Reactors
*       The licensee was controlling the radiologically restricted area in accordance with
        requirements. The licensee continued to make progress decommissioning the Unit 1
        site (Section 3).
Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring
*       The licensees programs for monitoring radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent releases
        and environmental monitoring were in compliance with license requirements. All
        required samples had been collected, no sample result exceeded applicable limits, and
        no adverse trends were identified (Section 4).
 
                                                -3-
                                          Report Details
Summary of Plant Status
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Unit 1 was permanently shut down during
November 1992 and was permanently defueled by March 1993. The unit remained in
SAFSTOR until June 1999 when decommissioning was initiated. At the time of this inspection,
the licensee was conducting decommissioning activities under the DECON option as stated in
the licensee was conducting decommissioning activities under the DECON option as stated in
its Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report dated December 15, 1998. DECON is
its Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report dated December 15, 1998. DECON is
defined as the immediate removal and disposal of all radioactivity in excess of levels which
defined as the immediate removal and disposal of all radioactivity in excess of levels which
would permit the release of the facility for unrestricted use.Work completed since the previous inspection included segmentation and removal of the spentfuel pool liner and continued demolition of the concrete in containment. 1Organization, Management, and Cost Controls at Permanently ShutdownReactors  (36801)1.1Organization   a.Inspection ScopeThe inspector reviewed the licensee's organizational structure against the requirementsof the SONGS Unit 1 Technical Specifications, the De-fueled Safety Analysis Report
would permit the release of the facility for unrestricted use.
(DSAR) and the Topical Quality Assurance Manual (TQAM).    b.Observations and FindingsSection 6.2 of the Technical Specifications requires that the lines of authority,responsibility and communications be established and defined for the highestmanagement levels through intermediate levels to include all organizations. The
Work completed since the previous inspection included segmentation and removal of the spent
Technical Specification also requires that a Southern California Edison Company (SCE)
fuel pool liner and continued demolition of the concrete in containment.
Vice President shall be responsible for overall unit safety and that a SCE Vice President
1      Organization, Management, and Cost Controls at Permanently Shutdown
shall have corporate responsibility for decommissioning activities. The July 2006, amendment to the DSAR designated the Senior Vice President as theChief Nuclear Officer and to whom all levels of the organization report. Previously, this
        Reactors (36801)
position was designated as the Executive Vice-President. The Senior Vice-President
1.1    Organization
reports to the SCE Chief Executive Officer. The Vice-President Nuclear Generation had
   a.   Inspection Scope
ultimate responsibility for the safe operation of the three units. The Vice-President ofEngineering and Technical Services had responsibility for the decommissioning ofUnit 1. The DSAR further defined the lines of authority, responsibility andcommunications through the intermediate levels of all onsite organizations. This
        The inspector reviewed the licensees organizational structure against the requirements
organization was consistent with that described in Chapter 1-B of the Topical QualityAssurance Manual, with the exception that the title of Executive Vice-President had notyet been revised to Senior Vice-President. The licensee maintained an updated
        of the SONGS Unit 1 Technical Specifications, the De-fueled Safety Analysis Report
Organization Chart to reflect the individuals assigned to each position.
        (DSAR) and the Topical Quality Assurance Manual (TQAM).
-4-The incumbents to the positions of Senior Vice-President, Vice-President NuclearGeneration, Vice-President of Engineering and Technical Services, Station Managerand Manager, Unit 1 Decommissioning had been appointed to their positions since
   b.   Observations and Findings
December 2004, but all had many years of experience in the nuclear field and of service
        Section 6.2 of the Technical Specifications requires that the lines of authority,
with the licensee.   c.ConclusionThe licensee's organizational structure was consistent with the requirements of theSONGS Unit 1 Technical Specifications. All managerial positions were staffed with
        responsibility and communications be established and defined for the highest
experienced individuals. 1.2Cost Controls
        management levels through intermediate levels to include all organizations. The
  a.Inspection ScopeThe inspector reviewed the licensee's implementation of the requirements of10 CFR 50.75(f)(1) regarding status of decommissioning funding.     b.Observations and Findings10 CFR 50.75(f)(1) requires each power reactor licensee to submit a report on a 2-yearbasis of (1) the amount of decommissioning funds estimated to be required for
        Technical Specification also requires that a Southern California Edison Company (SCE)
decommissioning; (2) the amount accumulated to the end of the preceding calendaryear; (3) a schedule of annual amounts remaining to be collected; (4) the assumptions
        Vice President shall be responsible for overall unit safety and that a SCE Vice President
used regarding the rates of escalation in decommissioning cost; (5) the rates of
        shall have corporate responsibility for decommissioning activities.
earnings on decommissioning funds; (6) rates of other factors used in funding
        The July 2006, amendment to the DSAR designated the Senior Vice President as the
projections; (7) any contracts upon which the licensee is relying pursuant to
        Chief Nuclear Officer and to whom all levels of the organization report. Previously, this
10 CFR 50.75(e)(1)(v); (8) any modifications occurring to a licensee's current method of
        position was designated as the Executive Vice-President. The Senior Vice-President
providing financial assurance; and (9) any material changes to trust agreements. This
        reports to the SCE Chief Executive Officer. The Vice-President Nuclear Generation had
regulation requires the biennial report to be submitted by March 31 of the reporting year. The report covering the decommissioning fund status through calendar year 2005 wassubmitted to the NRC on March 13, 2006. This timely report included information on thenine items required in 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1).  c.ConclusionThe licensee's decommissioning funding status as reported in their DecommissionFunding Report was reviewed and found to contain all information required by 10 CFR
        ultimate responsibility for the safe operation of the three units. The Vice-President of
50.75. Based on licensee projections of decommissioning costs and the amount of work
        Engineering and Technical Services had responsibility for the decommissioning of
completed at the end of 2005, adequate funding would be available to complete Unit 1
        Unit 1. The DSAR further defined the lines of authority, responsibility and
decommissioning.2Safety Reviews, Design Changes, and Modifications at Permanently ShutdownReactors  (37801)  
        communications through the intermediate levels of all onsite organizations. This
-5-2.1Inspection ScopeThe purpose of this portion of the inspection was to ascertain whether the licensee'straining program provides effective periodic training for personnel preparing, reviewing,
        organization was consistent with that described in Chapter 1-B of the Topical Quality
and approving safety evaluations. 2.2Observations and FindingsRegulation 10 CFR 50.59 addresses the change control process, a process used by thelicensee to determine if a proposed change to the facility, procedures, tests, orexperiments is subject to a license amendment and  
        Assurance Manual, with the exception that the title of Executive Vice-President had not
NRC approval. The process isimplemented through site procedure SO123-XV-44, "10 CFR 50.59 and 72.48
        yet been revised to Senior Vice-President. The licensee maintained an updated
Program." This procedure provided instructions for both initial screening and
        Organization Chart to reflect the individuals assigned to each position.
subsequent full evaluation, if necessary, of facility or procedure changes to confirm if thelicensee can implement these changes without  
 
NRC approval. The program was acommon program for the two operating units and the decommissioning unit. The initial
                                              -4-
screens and full evaluations are documented through the computerized Action Request
    The incumbents to the positions of Senior Vice-President, Vice-President Nuclear
System. This computerized system checks to verify that the individual preparing,reviewing and approving safety screens and full evaluations were current in their
    Generation, Vice-President of Engineering and Technical Services, Station Manager
training.During the period of July 1, 2005 to July 17, 2006, no 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluationswere conducted for Unit 1 activities and 35 safety screens were created or closed. The
    and Manager, Unit 1 Decommissioning had been appointed to their positions since
inspector reviewed the training records and determined that all preparers and reviewers
    December 2004, but all had many years of experience in the nuclear field and of service
were current with their training.The inspector reviewed On-site Review Committee meeting minutes for the period ofJune 1, 2005 to June 21, 2006. This committee had a standing agenda item to review
    with the licensee.
10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations. The minutes indicated that no Unit 1 10 CFR 50.59safety evaluations had been performed during this period. The minutes of the
  c. Conclusion
February 15, 2006, meeting note that the Director, Unit 1 Decommissioning was nolonger a member of the Committee. This change was favored by the Director, Unit 1
    The licensees organizational structure was consistent with the requirements of the
Decommissioning and in view of the status of Unit 1 was acceptable.2.3ConclusionsThe licensee's safety review and design change program was in compliance with10 CFR 50.59 requirements.3Decommissioning Performance and Status Review at Permanently ShutdownReactors  (71801)3.1Inspection ScopeThe inspectors evaluated whether the licensee and its contracted workforce wereconducting decommissioning activities in accordance with license and regulatory
    SONGS Unit 1 Technical Specifications. All managerial positions were staffed with
requirements.  
    experienced individuals.
-6-3.2Observations and Findings  a.Site Tours/Control of Decommissioning ActivitiesThe inspector conducted tours of the Unit 1 facility to observe radiological area postingsand boundaries. Access to the restricted and contaminated areas was controlled by
1.2  Cost Controls
radiation caution signs, barricades, boundary lines, locked doors, and locked gates.  
  a. Inspection Scope
Radiological boundaries were well defined and postings were up-to-date in all areas.The inspector conducted independent radiological surveys in the radiologically restrictedarea using a Ludlum Model 2401-EC survey meter (NRC No. 21173G, calibration duedate 09/23/06). No abnormal radiological survey results were observed and all ambient
    The inspector reviewed the licensees implementation of the requirements of
gamma exposure rate measurements were in agreement with posted radiation levels.During this inspection, the licensee completed solidifying previously collectedradiologically contaminated water. The licensee intended to ship the resulting solid to
    10 CFR 50.75(f)(1) regarding status of decommissioning funding.
an offsite disposal site.Removal of the steel spent fuel pool liner had been completed. The steel spent fuelpool liner anchors imbedded in the concrete were being removed during this inspection.  
  b. Observations and Findings
Contaminated concrete surface in the spent fuel building was being scabbled to reduce
    10 CFR 50.75(f)(1) requires each power reactor licensee to submit a report on a 2-year
contamination to levels acceptable for open-air demolition.Work was continuing with the demolition and removal of the concrete in containment. Amechanical excavator had inadvertently pierced the steel containment resulting in flow
    basis of (1) the amount of decommissioning funds estimated to be required for
of water into the containment. The licensee concluded that the containment spherecould become buoyant if it was not attached to the concrete base as originally
    decommissioning; (2) the amount accumulated to the end of the preceding calendar
envisioned. The licensee had developed a plan to anchor the steel sphere to the
    year; (3) a schedule of annual amounts remaining to be collected; (4) the assumptions
concrete base and to de-water the ground around the base to assure that the steel
    used regarding the rates of escalation in decommissioning cost; (5) the rates of
sphere did not become buoyant. The location of some of the de-watering wells required
    earnings on decommissioning funds; (6) rates of other factors used in funding
prior removal of the turbine building North extension. The turbine building North
    projections; (7) any contracts upon which the licensee is relying pursuant to
extension was needed for the demolition of the upper portions of the spent fuel building.The licensee had completed construction of the new yard sump and was preparing to isolate the original intake and outfall canals. The eventual goal was to have these
    10 CFR 50.75(e)(1)(v); (8) any modifications occurring to a licensees current method of
structures released from the license. The licensee stated that they would keep NRCinformed of their schedule for sampling these structures. The licensee had removed more than 46 percent (by weight) of the waste to beremoved. 3.3ConclusionsThe licensee was controlling the radiologically restricted area in accordance withregulatory requirements. The licensee continued to make progress in decommissioning
    providing financial assurance; and (9) any material changes to trust agreements. This
of the Unit 1 site.4Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring (84750)  
    regulation requires the biennial report to be submitted by March 31 of the reporting year.
-7-4.1Inspection ScopeThe inspector reviewed the licensee's program to control, monitor, and quantify releasesof radioactive materials to the environment in liquid, gaseous, and particulate forms.4.2Observations and Findings  a.Effluent MonitoringSection D6.8.4.a of the Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications states that aradioactive effluent control program shall be established, implemented, and maintained. The methodology used to monitor, sample, and analyze the liquid and gaseous effluents
    The report covering the decommissioning fund status through calendar year 2005 was
is provided in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). The inspector compared
    submitted to the NRC on March 13, 2006. This timely report included information on the
the program requirements specified in the ODCM to the sample results as documented
    nine items required in 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1).
in the licensee's 2005 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (ARERR) dated April
   c. Conclusion
24, 2006. This report was submitted on time and the licensee collected all samples
    The licensees decommissioning funding status as reported in their Decommission
required by the ODCM. No sample result exceeded the applicable reporting level.The report states that doses to an individual due to liquid effluents, airborne releasesand direct radiation were all a fraction of a millirem and well below the applicable limits.The report notes that the ODCM was revised on February 25, 2005, with Revision 23. This revision incorporated 1) removal of all the "notes" and applicable sections regarding
    Funding Report was reviewed and found to contain all information required by 10 CFR
the completion of fuel transfer to the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
    50.75. Based on licensee projections of decommissioning costs and the amount of work
(ISFSI), 2) addition of notes supporting the planned demolition of the liquid radwaste
    completed at the end of 2005, adequate funding would be available to complete Unit 1
treatment system, 3) updates related to the 2003-2004 Land Use Census, 4) correcteddilution flow rate values, and 5) a minor change to a radiological environmental
    decommissioning.
monitoring program (REMP) sampling location. The report also notes that Liquid
2    Safety Reviews, Design Changes, and Modifications at Permanently Shutdown
Radwaste Treatment System (LRTS) was permanently removed from service on May
    Reactors (37801)
13, 2005. The sump pumps, piping and radiation monitoring system skid were removedto support the demolition of the radwaste building.The 2005 annual radioactive effluent release report also included solid waste shipmentinformation. During 2005, the licensee shipped solid wastes to disposal sites in Utah
 
and South Carolina, and to a volume reduction service in Utah. The licensee sent 85
                                            -5-
shipments by rail and 153 shipments by truck. In addition, two shipments went to a
2.1 Inspection Scope
volume reduction contractor. The contractor subsequently shipped the compacted
    The purpose of this portion of the inspection was to ascertain whether the licensee's
wastes to the disposal site in Utah.   b.Environmental MonitoringSection D6.8.4.b of the Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications states that aradiological environmental monitoring program shall be established, implemented and
    training program provides effective periodic training for personnel preparing, reviewing,
maintained. Program requirements are contained in the ODCM. The inspector
    and approving safety evaluations.
compared the ODCM requirements with the information provided in the licensee's 2005
2.2 Observations and Findings
radiological environmental operating report dated April 24, 2006. The report "Annual
    Regulation 10 CFR 50.59 addresses the change control process, a process used by the
Radiological Environmental Operating Report (AREOR)" was applicable to all three
    licensee to determine if a proposed change to the facility, procedures, tests, or
Units and ISFSI). This report was submitted on time and all ODCM required samples
    experiments is subject to a license amendment and NRC approval. The process is
had been obtained. No sample result exceeded the applicable regulatory limit.  
    implemented through site procedure SO123-XV-44, "10 CFR 50.59 and 72.48
-8-Ambient radiation levels were measured at least 30 locations with calcium sulfate(CaSO4) thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). The environmental dosimeters were
    Program." This procedure provided instructions for both initial screening and
exchanged quarterly. During 2005, the average routine indicator location dose was
    subsequent full evaluation, if necessary, of facility or procedure changes to confirm if the
17.19 millirem with a range of 10.13 to 29.32 millirem. The average control locationdose was 16.12 millirem with a range of 12.96 to 20.05 millirem. The report concludedthat statistically, the control and indicator doses were equivalent. The results suggests
    licensee can implement these changes without NRC approval. The program was a
that plant operation had a negligible effect on the ambient dose rates.Air particulate samples were collected on a weekly basis from eight indicator locationsand from one control location. The samples were analyzed for gross beta activity, I-131,
    common program for the two operating units and the decommissioning unit. The initial
and composited quarterly for gamma isotopic analysis. Per the requirements of ODCM,
    screens and full evaluations are documented through the computerized Action Request
the licensee evaluated the gross beta activity of the indicators to the control locations. The indicator location's maximum gross beta activity in air in 2005 was 0.0791
    System. This computerized system checks to verify that the individual preparing,
    reviewing and approving safety screens and full evaluations were current in their
    training.
    During the period of July 1, 2005 to July 17, 2006, no 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations
    were conducted for Unit 1 activities and 35 safety screens were created or closed. The
    inspector reviewed the training records and determined that all preparers and reviewers
    were current with their training.
    The inspector reviewed On-site Review Committee meeting minutes for the period of
    June 1, 2005 to June 21, 2006. This committee had a standing agenda item to review
    10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations. The minutes indicated that no Unit 1 10 CFR 50.59
    safety evaluations had been performed during this period. The minutes of the
    February 15, 2006, meeting note that the Director, Unit 1 Decommissioning was no
    longer a member of the Committee. This change was favored by the Director, Unit 1
    Decommissioning and in view of the status of Unit 1 was acceptable.
2.3 Conclusions
    The licensees safety review and design change program was in compliance with
    10 CFR 50.59 requirements.
3  Decommissioning Performance and Status Review at Permanently Shutdown
    Reactors (71801)
3.1 Inspection Scope
    The inspectors evaluated whether the licensee and its contracted workforce were
    conducting decommissioning activities in accordance with license and regulatory
    requirements.
 
                                              -6-
3.2  Observations and Findings
   a. Site Tours/Control of Decommissioning Activities
    The inspector conducted tours of the Unit 1 facility to observe radiological area postings
    and boundaries. Access to the restricted and contaminated areas was controlled by
    radiation caution signs, barricades, boundary lines, locked doors, and locked gates.
    Radiological boundaries were well defined and postings were up-to-date in all areas.
    The inspector conducted independent radiological surveys in the radiologically restricted
    area using a Ludlum Model 2401-EC survey meter (NRC No. 21173G, calibration due
    date 09/23/06). No abnormal radiological survey results were observed and all ambient
    gamma exposure rate measurements were in agreement with posted radiation levels.
    During this inspection, the licensee completed solidifying previously collected
    radiologically contaminated water. The licensee intended to ship the resulting solid to
    an offsite disposal site.
    Removal of the steel spent fuel pool liner had been completed. The steel spent fuel
    pool liner anchors imbedded in the concrete were being removed during this inspection.
    Contaminated concrete surface in the spent fuel building was being scabbled to reduce
    contamination to levels acceptable for open-air demolition.
    Work was continuing with the demolition and removal of the concrete in containment. A
    mechanical excavator had inadvertently pierced the steel containment resulting in flow
    of water into the containment. The licensee concluded that the containment sphere
    could become buoyant if it was not attached to the concrete base as originally
    envisioned. The licensee had developed a plan to anchor the steel sphere to the
    concrete base and to de-water the ground around the base to assure that the steel
    sphere did not become buoyant. The location of some of the de-watering wells required
    prior removal of the turbine building North extension. The turbine building North
    extension was needed for the demolition of the upper portions of the spent fuel building.
    The licensee had completed construction of the new yard sump and was preparing to
    isolate the original intake and outfall canals. The eventual goal was to have these
    structures released from the license. The licensee stated that they would keep NRC
    informed of their schedule for sampling these structures.
    The licensee had removed more than 46 percent (by weight) of the waste to be
    removed.
3.3 Conclusions
    The licensee was controlling the radiologically restricted area in accordance with
    regulatory requirements. The licensee continued to make progress in decommissioning
    of the Unit 1 site.
4    Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring (84750)
 
                                              -7-
4.1  Inspection Scope
    The inspector reviewed the licensees program to control, monitor, and quantify releases
    of radioactive materials to the environment in liquid, gaseous, and particulate forms.
4.2  Observations and Findings
   a. Effluent Monitoring
    Section D6.8.4.a of the Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications states that a
    radioactive effluent control program shall be established, implemented, and maintained.
    The methodology used to monitor, sample, and analyze the liquid and gaseous effluents
    is provided in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). The inspector compared
    the program requirements specified in the ODCM to the sample results as documented
    in the licensees 2005 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (ARERR) dated April
    24, 2006. This report was submitted on time and the licensee collected all samples
    required by the ODCM. No sample result exceeded the applicable reporting level.
    The report states that doses to an individual due to liquid effluents, airborne releases
    and direct radiation were all a fraction of a millirem and well below the applicable limits.
    The report notes that the ODCM was revised on February 25, 2005, with Revision 23.
    This revision incorporated 1) removal of all the "notes" and applicable sections regarding
    the completion of fuel transfer to the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
    (ISFSI), 2) addition of notes supporting the planned demolition of the liquid radwaste
    treatment system, 3) updates related to the 2003-2004 Land Use Census, 4) corrected
    dilution flow rate values, and 5) a minor change to a radiological environmental
    monitoring program (REMP) sampling location. The report also notes that Liquid
    Radwaste Treatment System (LRTS) was permanently removed from service on May
    13, 2005. The sump pumps, piping and radiation monitoring system skid were removed
    to support the demolition of the radwaste building.
    The 2005 annual radioactive effluent release report also included solid waste shipment
    information. During 2005, the licensee shipped solid wastes to disposal sites in Utah
    and South Carolina, and to a volume reduction service in Utah. The licensee sent 85
    shipments by rail and 153 shipments by truck. In addition, two shipments went to a
    volume reduction contractor. The contractor subsequently shipped the compacted
    wastes to the disposal site in Utah.
  b. Environmental Monitoring
    Section D6.8.4.b of the Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications states that a
    radiological environmental monitoring program shall be established, implemented and
    maintained. Program requirements are contained in the ODCM. The inspector
    compared the ODCM requirements with the information provided in the licensees 2005
    radiological environmental operating report dated April 24, 2006. The report Annual
    Radiological Environmental Operating Report (AREOR) was applicable to all three
    Units and ISFSI). This report was submitted on time and all ODCM required samples
    had been obtained. No sample result exceeded the applicable regulatory limit.
 
                                          -8-
Ambient radiation levels were measured at least 30 locations with calcium sulfate
(CaSO4) thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). The environmental dosimeters were
exchanged quarterly. During 2005, the average routine indicator location dose was
17.19 millirem with a range of 10.13 to 29.32 millirem. The average control location
dose was 16.12 millirem with a range of 12.96 to 20.05 millirem. The report concluded
that statistically, the control and indicator doses were equivalent. The results suggests
that plant operation had a negligible effect on the ambient dose rates.
Air particulate samples were collected on a weekly basis from eight indicator locations
and from one control location. The samples were analyzed for gross beta activity, I-131,
and composited quarterly for gamma isotopic analysis. Per the requirements of ODCM,
the licensee evaluated the gross beta activity of the indicators to the control locations.
The indicator locations maximum gross beta activity in air in 2005 was 0.0791
picocuries per cubic meter and the 2004 control location average was 0.0245 picocuries
picocuries per cubic meter and the 2004 control location average was 0.0245 picocuries
per cubic meter. No indicator location value exceeded ten times the annual average
per cubic meter. No indicator location value exceeded ten times the annual average
gross beta activity of the control location data from the previous year. All iodine-131
gross beta activity of the control location data from the previous year. All iodine-131
sample results were below the lower limit of detection. Quarterly composite gamma
sample results were below the lower limit of detection. Quarterly composite gamma
spectral analysis analyses identified only naturally occurring beryllium-7 (Be-7).The licensee collected monthly ocean water samples from locations in the vicinity ofeach station discharge and from the control location. The samples were analyzed for
spectral analysis analyses identified only naturally occurring beryllium-7 (Be-7).
naturally-occurring and licensee-related radionuclides. Quarterly composite ocean
The licensee collected monthly ocean water samples from locations in the vicinity of
water samples were analyzed for tritium. Naturally occurring potassium-40 (K-40) was
each station discharge and from the control location. The samples were analyzed for
detected in all ocean water samples obtained in 2005. No licensee-related
naturally-occurring and licensee-related radionuclides. Quarterly composite ocean
radionuclides were detected in ocean water samples during 2005.Drinking water samples were collected on a monthly basis from one indicator locationand from a control location. Samples were analyzed for tritium, gross beta, and 26
water samples were analyzed for tritium. Naturally occurring potassium-40 (K-40) was
naturally-occurring and licensee-related radionuclides. No station-related radionuclides
detected in all ocean water samples obtained in 2005. No licensee-related
were detected in drinking water during 2005.Fish, crustacea and mollusks, were collected on a semi-annual basis at the SONGSUnit I outfall and from a control location. The flesh portion of each sample type was
radionuclides were detected in ocean water samples during 2005.
analyzed for 26 station-related and naturally-occurring radionuclides. Naturally-
Drinking water samples were collected on a monthly basis from one indicator location
occurring K-40 was detected in most marine samples collected during 2005. No
and from a control location. Samples were analyzed for tritium, gross beta, and 26
plant-related isotopes were reported above the minimum detectable concentration(MDC).The licensee conducted an internal quality assurance audit of the ODCM programduring August-September 2004, which was reviewed in a previous inspection. The next
naturally-occurring and licensee-related radionuclides. No station-related radionuclides
audit of this area was scheduled for August 2006.In summary, the licensee concluded that the site had a negligible radiologicalenvironmental impact during 2005. The inspector found that the sample results
were detected in drinking water during 2005.
supported this conclusion. Further, no adverse trends were identified.  
Fish, crustacea and mollusks, were collected on a semi-annual basis at the SONGS
-9-4.3ConclusionsThe licensee's programs for monitoring radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent releasesand environmental monitoring were in compliance with license requirements. All
Unit I outfall and from a control location. The flesh portion of each sample type was
required samples had been collected, no sample result exceeded applicable limits, and
analyzed for 26 station-related and naturally-occurring radionuclides. Naturally-
no adverse trends were identified. 5Exit Meeting SummaryThe inspector presented the preliminary inspection results to members of licenseemanagement at the exit meeting on July 21, 2006. The licensee did not identify asproprietary any information provided to, or reviewed by, the inspector.  
occurring K-40 was detected in most marine samples collected during 2005. No
ATTACHMENTPARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTEDLicenseeD. Brieg, Station ManagerS. Enright, Unit 1 Health Physics Manager
plant-related isotopes were reported above the minimum detectable concentration
(MDC).
The licensee conducted an internal quality assurance audit of the ODCM program
during August-September 2004, which was reviewed in a previous inspection. The next
audit of this area was scheduled for August 2006.
In summary, the licensee concluded that the site had a negligible radiological
environmental impact during 2005. The inspector found that the sample results
supported this conclusion. Further, no adverse trends were identified.
 
                                          -9-
4.3 Conclusions
    The licensees programs for monitoring radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent releases
    and environmental monitoring were in compliance with license requirements. All
    required samples had been collected, no sample result exceeded applicable limits, and
    no adverse trends were identified.
5  Exit Meeting Summary
    The inspector presented the preliminary inspection results to members of licensee
    management at the exit meeting on July 21, 2006. The licensee did not identify as
    proprietary any information provided to, or reviewed by, the inspector.
 
                                        ATTACHMENT
                          PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
Licensee
D. Brieg, Station Manager
S. Enright, Unit 1 Health Physics Manager
N. Hansen, Technical Specialist, Environmental
N. Hansen, Technical Specialist, Environmental
M. Kelly, Engineer, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs
M. Kelly, Engineer, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs
Line 223: Line 455:
M. Mason, Unit 1 Health Physics Supervisor
M. Mason, Unit 1 Health Physics Supervisor
J. Morales, Manager, Decommissioning
J. Morales, Manager, Decommissioning
J. Scott, Technical Specialist, Nuclear Regulatory AffairsINSPECTION PROCEDURES USEDIP 36801Organization, Management and Cost ControlsIP 37801 Safety Reviews, Design Changes, and Modifications
J. Scott, Technical Specialist, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs
IP 71801 Decommissioning Performance and Status Review
                              INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED
IP 84750 Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental MonitoringITEMS OPENED AND CLOSED
IP 36801        Organization, Management and Cost Controls
OpenedNoneClosedNone
IP 37801       Safety Reviews, Design Changes, and Modifications
DiscussedNoneLIST OF ACRONYMSAREOR Annual Radiological Environmental Operating ReportARERRAnnual Radioactive Effluent Release Report
IP 71801       Decommissioning Performance and Status Review
DSAR De-fueled Safety Analysis Report
IP 84750       Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring
ISFSI Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
                                ITEMS OPENED AND CLOSED
ODCMOffsite Dose Calculation Manual
Opened
K-40 Potassium-40
None
LRTS Liquid Radwaste Treatment System
Closed
MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration
None
REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program
Discussed
SCESouthern California Edison Company
None
TLDs Thermoluminescent Dosimeters
                                      LIST OF ACRONYMS
TQAM Topical Quality Assurance Manual
AREOR          Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report
ARERR          Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report
DSAR           De-fueled Safety Analysis Report
ISFSI           Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
ODCM            Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
K-40           Potassium-40
LRTS           Liquid Radwaste Treatment System
MDC             Minimum Detectable Concentration
REMP           Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program
SCE            Southern California Edison Company
TLDs           Thermoluminescent Dosimeters
TQAM           Topical Quality Assurance Manual
}}
}}

Revision as of 15:06, 23 November 2019

IR 05000206-06-012, on 07/17-21/2006, SONGS, Unit 1
ML062220655
Person / Time
Site: San Onofre Southern California Edison icon.png
Issue date: 08/10/2006
From: Spitzberg D
NRC/RGN-IV/DNMS/FCDB
To: Rosenblum R
Southern California Edison Co
References
IR-06-012
Download: ML062220655 (14)


See also: IR 05000206/2006012

Text

August 10, 2006

Richard M. Rosenblum

Chief Nuclear Officer

Southern California Edison Company

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

P.O. Box 128

San Clemente, CA 92674-0128

SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT 050-00206/06-012

Dear Mr. Rosenblum:

This refers to the inspection conducted on July 17-21, 2006, at Southern California Edison

Companys (SCE) San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Unit 1 facility. This

inspection was an examination of decommissioning 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. The inspection included an examination of selected procedures and

representative records, observations of activities, and interviews with personnel. The enclosed

report presents the results of that inspection. The inspection determined that you were

conducting decommissioning activities in compliance with regulatory and license requirements.

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 NRCs 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 the undersigned at

(817) 860-8191 or Mr. Emilio M. Garcia, Health Physicist, at (530) 756-3910.

Sincerely,

/RA/

D. Blair Spitzberg, Ph.D., Chief

Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch

Docket No.: 050-00206

License No.: DPR-13

Enclosure: NRC Inspection Report

No.: 050-00206/06-012

Southern California Edison Co. -2-

cc w/enclosure:

Chairman, Board of Supervisors

County of San Diego

1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335

San Diego, CA 92101

Gary L. Nolff

Power Projects/Contracts Manager

Riverside Public Utilities

2911 Adams Street

Riverside, CA 92504

Eileen M. Teichert, Esq.

Supervising Deputy City Attorney

City of Riverside

3900 Main Street

Riverside, CA 92522

Ray W. Waldo

Southern California Edison Company

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

P.O. Box 128

San Clemente, CA 92674-0128

David Spath, Chief

Division of Drinking Water and

Environmental Management

California Department of Health Services

P.O. Box 942732

Sacramento, CA 94234-7320

Michael R. Olson

San Onofre Liaison

San Diego Gas & Electric Company

P.O. Box 1831

San Diego, CA 92112-4150

Ed Bailey, Chief

Radiologic Health Branch

State Department of Health Services

P.O. Box 997414 (MS 7610)

Sacramento, CA 95899-7414

Mayor

City of San Clemente

100 Avenida Presidio

San Clemente, CA 92672

Southern California Edison Co. -3-

James D. Boyd, Commissioner

California Energy Commission

1516 Ninth Street (MS 34)

Sacramento, CA 95814

Douglas K. Porter, Esq.

Southern California Edison Company

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue

Rosemead, CA 91770

James T. Reilly

Southern California Edison Company

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

P.O. Box 128

San Clemente, CA 92674-0128

Daniel P. Breig

Southern California Edison Company

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

P.O. Box 128

San Clemente, CA 92674-0128

A. Edward Scherer

Southern California Edison Company

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

P.O. Box 128

San Clemente, CA 92674-0128

Brian Katz

Southern California Edison Company

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

P.O. Box 128

San Clemente, CA 92674-0128

Southern California Edison Co. -4-

cc w/enclosure (via e-mail distribution):

LDWert

DBSpitzberg

HAFreeman

JCShepherd, NMSS/DWMEP/DD

CCOsterholtz, SRI

EMGarcia

RJEvans

KEGardin

FCDB File

SUNSI Review Completed: EMG ADAMS: O Yes G No Initials: EMG

O Publicly Available G Non-Publicly Available G Sensitive O Non-Sensitive

DOCUMENT NAME: s:\dnms\!fcdb\!emg2\6050206012.wpd final r:\_so1\2006

RIV:DNMS:FCDB C:FCDB

EMGarcia DBSpitzberg

/RA/ /RA/

08/10/06 08/10/06

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY T=Telephone E=E-mail F=Fax

ENCLOSURE

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

Docket No: 050-00206

License No: DPR-13

Report No: 050-00206/06-012

Licensee: Southern California Edison Co.

P.O. Box 128

San Clemente, California 92674

Facility: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1

Location: San Clemente, California

Dates: July 17 - 21, 2006

Inspectors: Emilio Garcia, Health Physicist

Fuel Cycle & Decommissioning Branch

Approved and

Accompanied By: D. Blair Spitzberg, Ph.D., Chief

Fuel Cycle & Decommissioning Branch

Attachment: Supplemental Inspection Information

ADAMS Entry: IR05000206-06-012 on 07/17/2006 - 07/21/2006; Southern

California Edison Co., San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station;

Unit 1. Decommissioning Report. No VIOs.

-2-

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1

NRC Inspection Report 050-00206/06-012

This inspection was a routine, announced inspection of decommissioning activities being

conducted at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 facility. Areas inspected included

organization, management, and cost controls; safety reviews, design changes and

modifications; decommissioning performance and status review; and radioactive waste

treatment and environmental monitoring. The inspection determined that you were conducting

decommissioning activities in compliance with regulatory and license requirements.

Organization, Management, and Cost Controls at Permanently Shutdown Reactors

  • The licensees organizational structure was consistent with the requirements of the

SONGS Unit 1 Technical Specifications. All managerial positions were staffed with

experienced individuals (Section 1.1).

  • The licensees decommissioning funding status as reported in their Decommission

Funding Report was reviewed and found to meet applicable requirements. Based on

licensee projections of decommissioning costs and the amount of work completed at the

end of 2005, adequate funding would be available to complete Unit 1 decommissioning

(Section 1.2).

Safety Reviews, Design Changes, and Modifications at Permanently Shutdown Reactors

  • The licensees safety review and design change program was in compliance with

10 CFR 50.59 requirements (Section 2).

Decommissioning Performance and Status Review at Permanently Shutdown Reactors

  • The licensee was controlling the radiologically restricted area in accordance with

requirements. The licensee continued to make progress decommissioning the Unit 1

site (Section 3).

Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring

  • The licensees programs for monitoring radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent releases

and environmental monitoring were in compliance with license requirements. All

required samples had been collected, no sample result exceeded applicable limits, and

no adverse trends were identified (Section 4).

-3-

Report Details

Summary of Plant Status

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Unit 1 was permanently shut down during

November 1992 and was permanently defueled by March 1993. The unit remained in

SAFSTOR until June 1999 when decommissioning was initiated. At the time of this inspection,

the licensee was conducting decommissioning activities under the DECON option as stated in

its Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report dated December 15, 1998. DECON is

defined as the immediate removal and disposal of all radioactivity in excess of levels which

would permit the release of the facility for unrestricted use.

Work completed since the previous inspection included segmentation and removal of the spent

fuel pool liner and continued demolition of the concrete in containment.

1 Organization, Management, and Cost Controls at Permanently Shutdown

Reactors (36801)

1.1 Organization

a. Inspection Scope

The inspector reviewed the licensees organizational structure against the requirements

of the SONGS Unit 1 Technical Specifications, the De-fueled Safety Analysis Report

(DSAR) and the Topical Quality Assurance Manual (TQAM).

b. Observations and Findings

Section 6.2 of the Technical Specifications requires that the lines of authority,

responsibility and communications be established and defined for the highest

management levels through intermediate levels to include all organizations. The

Technical Specification also requires that a Southern California Edison Company (SCE)

Vice President shall be responsible for overall unit safety and that a SCE Vice President

shall have corporate responsibility for decommissioning activities.

The July 2006, amendment to the DSAR designated the Senior Vice President as the

Chief Nuclear Officer and to whom all levels of the organization report. Previously, this

position was designated as the Executive Vice-President. The Senior Vice-President

reports to the SCE Chief Executive Officer. The Vice-President Nuclear Generation had

ultimate responsibility for the safe operation of the three units. The Vice-President of

Engineering and Technical Services had responsibility for the decommissioning of

Unit 1. The DSAR further defined the lines of authority, responsibility and

communications through the intermediate levels of all onsite organizations. This

organization was consistent with that described in Chapter 1-B of the Topical Quality

Assurance Manual, with the exception that the title of Executive Vice-President had not

yet been revised to Senior Vice-President. The licensee maintained an updated

Organization Chart to reflect the individuals assigned to each position.

-4-

The incumbents to the positions of Senior Vice-President, Vice-President Nuclear

Generation, Vice-President of Engineering and Technical Services, Station Manager

and Manager, Unit 1 Decommissioning had been appointed to their positions since

December 2004, but all had many years of experience in the nuclear field and of service

with the licensee.

c. Conclusion

The licensees organizational structure was consistent with the requirements of the

SONGS Unit 1 Technical Specifications. All managerial positions were staffed with

experienced individuals.

1.2 Cost Controls

a. Inspection Scope

The inspector reviewed the licensees implementation of the requirements of

10 CFR 50.75(f)(1) regarding status of decommissioning funding.

b. Observations and Findings

10 CFR 50.75(f)(1) requires each power reactor licensee to submit a report on a 2-year

basis of (1) the amount of decommissioning funds estimated to be required for

decommissioning; (2) the amount accumulated to the end of the preceding calendar

year; (3) a schedule of annual amounts remaining to be collected; (4) the assumptions

used regarding the rates of escalation in decommissioning cost; (5) the rates of

earnings on decommissioning funds; (6) rates of other factors used in funding

projections; (7) any contracts upon which the licensee is relying pursuant to

10 CFR 50.75(e)(1)(v); (8) any modifications occurring to a licensees current method of

providing financial assurance; and (9) any material changes to trust agreements. This

regulation requires the biennial report to be submitted by March 31 of the reporting year.

The report covering the decommissioning fund status through calendar year 2005 was

submitted to the NRC on March 13, 2006. This timely report included information on the

nine items required in 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1).

c. Conclusion

The licensees decommissioning funding status as reported in their Decommission

Funding Report was reviewed and found to contain all information required by 10 CFR

50.75. Based on licensee projections of decommissioning costs and the amount of work

completed at the end of 2005, adequate funding would be available to complete Unit 1

decommissioning.

2 Safety Reviews, Design Changes, and Modifications at Permanently Shutdown

Reactors (37801)

-5-

2.1 Inspection Scope

The purpose of this portion of the inspection was to ascertain whether the licensee's

training program provides effective periodic training for personnel preparing, reviewing,

and approving safety evaluations.

2.2 Observations and Findings

Regulation 10 CFR 50.59 addresses the change control process, a process used by the

licensee to determine if a proposed change to the facility, procedures, tests, or

experiments is subject to a license amendment and NRC approval. The process is

implemented through site procedure SO123-XV-44, "10 CFR 50.59 and 72.48

Program." This procedure provided instructions for both initial screening and

subsequent full evaluation, if necessary, of facility or procedure changes to confirm if the

licensee can implement these changes without NRC approval. The program was a

common program for the two operating units and the decommissioning unit. The initial

screens and full evaluations are documented through the computerized Action Request

System. This computerized system checks to verify that the individual preparing,

reviewing and approving safety screens and full evaluations were current in their

training.

During the period of July 1, 2005 to July 17, 2006, no 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations

were conducted for Unit 1 activities and 35 safety screens were created or closed. The

inspector reviewed the training records and determined that all preparers and reviewers

were current with their training.

The inspector reviewed On-site Review Committee meeting minutes for the period of

June 1, 2005 to June 21, 2006. This committee had a standing agenda item to review

10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations. The minutes indicated that no Unit 1 10 CFR 50.59

safety evaluations had been performed during this period. The minutes of the

February 15, 2006, meeting note that the Director, Unit 1 Decommissioning was no

longer a member of the Committee. This change was favored by the Director, Unit 1

Decommissioning and in view of the status of Unit 1 was acceptable.

2.3 Conclusions

The licensees safety review and design change program was in compliance with

10 CFR 50.59 requirements.

3 Decommissioning Performance and Status Review at Permanently Shutdown

Reactors (71801)

3.1 Inspection Scope

The inspectors evaluated whether the licensee and its contracted workforce were

conducting decommissioning activities in accordance with license and regulatory

requirements.

-6-

3.2 Observations and Findings

a. Site Tours/Control of Decommissioning Activities

The inspector conducted tours of the Unit 1 facility to observe radiological area postings

and boundaries. Access to the restricted and contaminated areas was controlled by

radiation caution signs, barricades, boundary lines, locked doors, and locked gates.

Radiological boundaries were well defined and postings were up-to-date in all areas.

The inspector conducted independent radiological surveys in the radiologically restricted

area using a Ludlum Model 2401-EC survey meter (NRC No. 21173G, calibration due

date 09/23/06). No abnormal radiological survey results were observed and all ambient

gamma exposure rate measurements were in agreement with posted radiation levels.

During this inspection, the licensee completed solidifying previously collected

radiologically contaminated water. The licensee intended to ship the resulting solid to

an offsite disposal site.

Removal of the steel spent fuel pool liner had been completed. The steel spent fuel

pool liner anchors imbedded in the concrete were being removed during this inspection.

Contaminated concrete surface in the spent fuel building was being scabbled to reduce

contamination to levels acceptable for open-air demolition.

Work was continuing with the demolition and removal of the concrete in containment. A

mechanical excavator had inadvertently pierced the steel containment resulting in flow

of water into the containment. The licensee concluded that the containment sphere

could become buoyant if it was not attached to the concrete base as originally

envisioned. The licensee had developed a plan to anchor the steel sphere to the

concrete base and to de-water the ground around the base to assure that the steel

sphere did not become buoyant. The location of some of the de-watering wells required

prior removal of the turbine building North extension. The turbine building North

extension was needed for the demolition of the upper portions of the spent fuel building.

The licensee had completed construction of the new yard sump and was preparing to

isolate the original intake and outfall canals. The eventual goal was to have these

structures released from the license. The licensee stated that they would keep NRC

informed of their schedule for sampling these structures.

The licensee had removed more than 46 percent (by weight) of the waste to be

removed.

3.3 Conclusions

The licensee was controlling the radiologically restricted area in accordance with

regulatory requirements. The licensee continued to make progress in decommissioning

of the Unit 1 site.

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

-7-

4.1 Inspection Scope

The inspector reviewed the licensees program to control, monitor, and quantify releases

of radioactive materials to the environment in liquid, gaseous, and particulate forms.

4.2 Observations and Findings

a. Effluent Monitoring

Section D6.8.4.a of the Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications states that a

radioactive effluent control program shall be established, implemented, and maintained.

The methodology used to monitor, sample, and analyze the liquid and gaseous effluents

is provided in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). The inspector compared

the program requirements specified in the ODCM to the sample results as documented

in the licensees 2005 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (ARERR) dated April

24, 2006. This report was submitted on time and the licensee collected all samples

required by the ODCM. No sample result exceeded the applicable reporting level.

The report states that doses to an individual due to liquid effluents, airborne releases

and direct radiation were all a fraction of a millirem and well below the applicable limits.

The report notes that the ODCM was revised on February 25, 2005, with Revision 23.

This revision incorporated 1) removal of all the "notes" and applicable sections regarding

the completion of fuel transfer to the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation

(ISFSI), 2) addition of notes supporting the planned demolition of the liquid radwaste

treatment system, 3) updates related to the 2003-2004 Land Use Census, 4) corrected

dilution flow rate values, and 5) a minor change to a radiological environmental

monitoring program (REMP) sampling location. The report also notes that Liquid

Radwaste Treatment System (LRTS) was permanently removed from service on May

13, 2005. The sump pumps, piping and radiation monitoring system skid were removed

to support the demolition of the radwaste building.

The 2005 annual radioactive effluent release report also included solid waste shipment

information. During 2005, the licensee shipped solid wastes to disposal sites in Utah

and South Carolina, and to a volume reduction service in Utah. The licensee sent 85

shipments by rail and 153 shipments by truck. In addition, two shipments went to a

volume reduction contractor. The contractor subsequently shipped the compacted

wastes to the disposal site in Utah.

b. Environmental Monitoring

Section D6.8.4.b of the Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications states that a

radiological environmental monitoring program shall be established, implemented and

maintained. Program requirements are contained in the ODCM. The inspector

compared the ODCM requirements with the information provided in the licensees 2005

radiological environmental operating report dated April 24, 2006. The report Annual

Radiological Environmental Operating Report (AREOR) was applicable to all three

Units and ISFSI). This report was submitted on time and all ODCM required samples

had been obtained. No sample result exceeded the applicable regulatory limit.

-8-

Ambient radiation levels were measured at least 30 locations with calcium sulfate

(CaSO4) thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). The environmental dosimeters were

exchanged quarterly. During 2005, the average routine indicator location dose was

17.19 millirem with a range of 10.13 to 29.32 millirem. The average control location

dose was 16.12 millirem with a range of 12.96 to 20.05 millirem. The report concluded

that statistically, the control and indicator doses were equivalent. The results suggests

that plant operation had a negligible effect on the ambient dose rates.

Air particulate samples were collected on a weekly basis from eight indicator locations

and from one control location. The samples were analyzed for gross beta activity, I-131,

and composited quarterly for gamma isotopic analysis. Per the requirements of ODCM,

the licensee evaluated the gross beta activity of the indicators to the control locations.

The indicator locations maximum gross beta activity in air in 2005 was 0.0791

picocuries per cubic meter and the 2004 control location average was 0.0245 picocuries

per cubic meter. No indicator location value exceeded ten times the annual average

gross beta activity of the control location data from the previous year. All iodine-131

sample results were below the lower limit of detection. Quarterly composite gamma

spectral analysis analyses identified only naturally occurring beryllium-7 (Be-7).

The licensee collected monthly ocean water samples from locations in the vicinity of

each station discharge and from the control location. The samples were analyzed for

naturally-occurring and licensee-related radionuclides. Quarterly composite ocean

water samples were analyzed for tritium. Naturally occurring potassium-40 (K-40) was

detected in all ocean water samples obtained in 2005. No licensee-related

radionuclides were detected in ocean water samples during 2005.

Drinking water samples were collected on a monthly basis from one indicator location

and from a control location. Samples were analyzed for tritium, gross beta, and 26

naturally-occurring and licensee-related radionuclides. No station-related radionuclides

were detected in drinking water during 2005.

Fish, crustacea and mollusks, were collected on a semi-annual basis at the SONGS

Unit I outfall and from a control location. The flesh portion of each sample type was

analyzed for 26 station-related and naturally-occurring radionuclides. Naturally-

occurring K-40 was detected in most marine samples collected during 2005. No

plant-related isotopes were reported above the minimum detectable concentration

(MDC).

The licensee conducted an internal quality assurance audit of the ODCM program

during August-September 2004, which was reviewed in a previous inspection. The next

audit of this area was scheduled for August 2006.

In summary, the licensee concluded that the site had a negligible radiological

environmental impact during 2005. The inspector found that the sample results

supported this conclusion. Further, no adverse trends were identified.

-9-

4.3 Conclusions

The licensees programs for monitoring radioactive liquid and gaseous effluent releases

and environmental monitoring were in compliance with license requirements. All

required samples had been collected, no sample result exceeded applicable limits, and

no adverse trends were identified.

5 Exit Meeting Summary

The inspector presented the preliminary inspection results to members of licensee

management at the exit meeting on July 21, 2006. The licensee did not identify as

proprietary any information provided to, or reviewed by, the inspector.

ATTACHMENT

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED

Licensee

D. Brieg, Station Manager

S. Enright, Unit 1 Health Physics Manager

N. Hansen, Technical Specialist, Environmental

M. Kelly, Engineer, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs

M. Kirby, Operations Supervisor Unit 1

M. Mason, Unit 1 Health Physics Supervisor

J. Morales, Manager, Decommissioning

J. Scott, Technical Specialist, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs

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

IP 84750 Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring

ITEMS OPENED AND CLOSED

Opened

None

Closed

None

Discussed

None

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AREOR Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report

ARERR Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report

DSAR De-fueled Safety Analysis Report

ISFSI Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation

ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

K-40 Potassium-40

LRTS Liquid Radwaste Treatment System

MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration

REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program

SCE Southern California Edison Company

TLDs Thermoluminescent Dosimeters

TQAM Topical Quality Assurance Manual