IR 05000155/2005005
| ML060050581 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/05/2006 |
| From: | Jamnes Cameron NRC/RGN-III/DNMS/DB |
| To: | Haas K Consumers Energy |
| References | |
| IR-05-005 | |
| Download: ML060050581 (8) | |
Text
January 5, 2006Mr. Kurt M. HaasGeneral Manager Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant Consumers Energy Company 10269 U.S. 31 North Charlevoix, MI 49720SUBJECT:BIG ROCK POINT INSPECTION REPORT 050-00155/05-005(DNMS)
Dear Mr. Haas:
On December 13, 2005, the NRC completed inspection activities at the Big Rock PointRestoration Project. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether decommissioning activities were conducted safely and in accordance with NRC requirements. Specifically, duringonsite inspections on October 18 through 20 and December 9 through 13, 2005, the inspector evaluated decommissioning and demolition activities, management oversight of decommissioning activities, radioactive waste management, and radiological safety. At the conclusion of on-site inspections on October 20 and December 13, 2005, the inspector discussed the inspection findings with you and members of your staff. This inspection consisted of an examination of decommissioning activities at the Big Rock PointRestoration Project 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, observations of activities in progress, 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 letterand its enclosure will be available electronically in the NRC Public Document Room 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.
K. Haas-2-We will gladly discuss any questions you may have regarding this inspection.
Sincerely,
/RA by G. McCann Acting for/Jamnes L. Cameron, ChiefDecommissioning BranchDocket No.: 050-00155License No.: DPR-6
Enclosure:
Inspection Report 050-00155/05-005(DNMS)
REGION IIIDocket No.:050-00155License No.:DPR-6 Report No.:050-00155/05-005(DNMS)
Licensee:Consumers Energy Company Facility:Big Rock Point Restoration Project Location:10269 U.S. 31 NorthCharlevoix, MI 49720Dates:October 18 through 20, 2005, andDecember 9 through 13, 2005Inspector:William G. Snell, Senior Health Physicist Approved by:Jamnes L. Cameron, ChiefDecommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety 2EXECUTIVE SUMMARYConsumers Energy CompanyBig Rock Point Restoration ProjectNRC Inspection Report 050-00155/05-005(DNMS)This routine decommissioning inspection involved a review of the Consumers EnergyCompany's and its contractors' performance related to decommissioning and demolition activities, management oversight of decommissioning activities, radioactive waste management, and radiological safety. During this inspection period, major activities included dismantlement of the containment sphere and demolitions to soften the containment interiorconcrete.Decommissioning Performance and Status Review*The inspector determined that the licensee's meetings, pre-job briefs, and post-jobdebriefs, were properly focused and work was performed in a safe manner. The licensee and its contracted workforce conducted the sphere dismantlement and the controlled detonations safely and in accordance with license requirements, and with good radiological work practices. (Section 1.0)Solid Radioactive Waste Management*The inspector determined that the licensee adequately controlled sections of thecontainment sphere as it was dismantled. (Section 2.0)Inspection of Final Surveys*The inspector determined that the licensee's documentation of final status surveys of the dismantled sections of the containment sphere were complete and consistent withprocedural requirements and release criteria. (Section 3.0)Occupational Radiation Exposure*The inspector concluded that the radiological work practices of the licensee andcontractor staff were adequate, and that the licensee employed adequate radiologicalcontrols associated with the three detonations to soften the containment buildingconcrete. (Section 4.0)
1A list of acronyms used in the report is included at the end of the Report Details.
3Report Details 11.0Decommissioning Performance and Status Review (71801)1.1Inspection ScopeThe inspector attended and observed the conduct of licensee meetings regardingdecommissioning activities, including daily management team meetings, a sphere dismantlement pre-job brief, and containment interior concrete demolition pre-job briefs and post-job debriefs. The inspector performed plant tours to evaluate decommissioning activities and verify that the licensee and its contracted workforce conducted work safely and in accordance with license requirements, and that radioactively contaminated material was controlled. 1.2Observations and FindingsThe licensee's meetings were well attended, addressed pertinent work activities,adequately covered issues and concerns, and ensured that expectations were communicated to the work force. Although the radiological source term at the site hassignificantly decreased, licensee management continues to stress the need for workers to employ good radiological work practices. During site tours, licensee staff were observed beginning the dismantlement of thecontainment sphere and conducting two controlled detonations to soften the containment interior concrete. As part of these activities the licensee established and maintained radiological and safety boundaries, and performed radiological surveys and air sampling. The licensee implemented required work practices and key activities were effectively coordinated with all onsite work groups. 1.3ConclusionThe inspector determined that the licensee's meetings, pre-job briefs, and post-jobdebriefs, were properly focused and work was performed in a safe manner. The licensee and its contracted workforce conducted the sphere dismantlement and the controlled detonations safely and in accordance with license requirements, and with good radiological work practices. 2.0Solid Radioactive Waste Management (86750)
2.1Inspection ScopeThe inspector reviewed the licensee's control of sections of the containment sphere as itwas dismantled.
42.2Observations and FindingsAs the steel containment sphere was torch cut and dismantled, the removed sectionswere surveyed for radiological contamination, cut into smaller pieces, and segregated based on the level of PCB (polychlorinatedbiphenyl) contamination in the paint on eachindividual piece. Radiological surveys conducted on each piece verified that the sphere was minimally contaminated. The sections containing PCB in the paint in excess of 50 parts per million will be disposed of at a disposal facility licensed by the State of Michigan to receive waste containing low levels of radioactivity as well as PCB contamination. The rest of the sphere pieces will be transported to the local l andfill fordisposal.
2.3ConclusionThe inspector determined that the licensee adequately controlled sections of thecontainment sphere as it was dismantled. 3.0Inspection of Final Surveys (83801)
3.1Inspection ScopeThe inspector evaluated final status survey documentation to verify that the dismantledsections of the containment sphere had been decontaminated to radiological levels consistent with procedural requirements and release criteria. The inspector reviewed the Containment Shell Bulk Monitoring Release (BMR) work package 2005-0069, for Sections 1.1-1.3, 8.1-8.4, 20.1-20.3, 37.1-37.5, 52.1-52.5, and 86.1-86.12.3.2Observations and FindingsThe reviewed work packages were complete, clearly identified the areas beingsurveyed, documented survey results as required, and contained appropriate sign-offs.
The survey results indicated that all sections reviewed contained radiological contamination below the release criteria of 5,000 disintegrations per minute per 100square centimeters.3.3ConclusionThe inspector determined that the licensee's documentation of final status surveys of the dismantled sections of the containment sphere were complete and consistent withprocedural requirements and release criteria. 4 .0Occupational Radiation Exposure (83750)
4.1Inspection ScopeThe inspector observed the radiological work practices of licensee and contractor staffwho conducted decommissioning activities to verify proper radiological work practices were employed. The inspector evaluated the radiological precautions taken by the licensee in regard to the controlled detonations to soften the containment interiorconcrete.
54.2Observations and FindingsThe inspector observed that workers adhered to the radiological work practices andexpectations employed at Big Rock Point. Workers leaving radiologically controlled areas used the portable and/or fixed radiation monitoring equipment as required.Due to the significant amount of scabbling that was done on the concrete surfaces in thecontainment building, the licensee did not expect a radiological airborne problem to exist as a result of the three concrete softening detonations that were to occur. However, to minimize this risk, the holes that were drilled in the concrete to hold the explosive charges were placed away from areas where imbedded piping existed, even though these pipes were previously cleaned and grouted. In addition, air samples were collected immediately following each detonation to determine whether any airborne radioactivity existed. No airborne radioactivity was detected by any of the air samples collected. Following the detonations, radiation protection workers conducted radiological surveys to determine the radiations levels in the areas where the detonations occurred. No relevant changes in the area dose rates occurred as a result of the detonations.4.3ConclusionThe inspector concluded that the radiological work practices of the licensee andcontractor staff were adequate, and that the licensee employed adequate radiologicalcontrols associated with the three detonations to soften the containment buildingconcrete. 5.0Exit Meeting SummaryThe inspector presented preliminary inspection findings to members of the licenseemanagement team at the conclusion of onsite inspection activities on October 20 and December 13, 2005. The licensee did not identify any documents or processes reviewed by the inspector as proprietary.PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTEDConsumers Energy Company* Kurt Haas, Site General Manager* Ken Pallagi, Radiation Protection & Environmental Services Manager
- William Trubilowicz, Cost, Scheduling and Purchase Manager* Persons present at the exit meetings.INSPECTION PROCEDURES USEDIP 71801Decommissioning Performance and Status ReviewIP 83750Occupational Radiation Exposure IP 83801Inspection of Final Surveys at Permanently Shutdown Reactors IP 86750Solid Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation of RadioactiveMaterials 6ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED OpenedNoneClosedNoneDiscussedNonePARTIAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWEDLicensee documents reviewed and utilized during the course of this inspection are specificallyidentified in the "Report Details" above.LIST OF ACRONYMS USEDADAMSAgencywide Documents Access and Management SystemBMRBulk Monitoring Release DNMSDivision of Nuclear Materials Safety NRCNuclear Regulatory Commission PCB Polychlorinatedbiphenyl