ML090540162

NRC Government to Government Meeting Slides - NRC Assessment: Indian Point Contaminated Groundwater

ML090540162
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	05/31/2008
From:	NRC Region 1
To:
References
Download: ML090540162 (7)

Text

NRC Inspection and Assessment Team Principal Inspection Contributors:

NRC ASSESSMENT:

• NRC Region I INDIAN POINT - James Noggle, Senior Health Physicist CONTAMINATED - James Kottan, Senior Health Physicist

- John White, Chief, Plant Support Branch 2 GROUNDWATER

• NRC Office of Research

- Thomas Nicholson, Senior Technical Advisor-Radionuclide Transport

• US Geological Survey

- John Williams, Senior Hydrologist

( ) i _.Coordinating c*2 Purpose Government Agencies Federal: Evaluate Entergy's performance and provide status of inspection findings associated with

• US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the following:

- Cause of the groundwater contamination

• US Geological Survey (USGS)

- Extent and migration of the groundwater releases

- Radiological significance of these releases New York State:

Ensure that public health and safety and

• Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) protection of the environment were maintained

• Department of Public Health (DPH)

C~J2 Purpose c* Scope

• Ensure Entergy's groundwater transport

• Assess Entergy's investigation of the Unit 2 model is correct and tested spent fuel pool leak since August 2005

• Research prior opportunities for leak

• Examine Entergy's investigation of previous discovery and evaluate Entergy's response Unit 1 and Unit 2 spent fuel pool leaks

• Determine Entergy's conformance with identified in 1992 regulatory requirements 1

Scope Scope

• Independent Assessment Effort:

• Comprehensive assessment of groundwater

- Collection and analysis of groundwater samples transport pathways and contaminant plume

- Verification of licensee's hydrological conclusions behavior

- Verification of dose assessment to the public

• Historical conditions

- Verification of water inventory losses from Unit 1 and Unit 2 spent fuel pools

- Verification of no detectable environmental impact through the analysis of aquatic food samples from the Hudson River. U NRC Assessment NRC Assessment

• Independent analysis confirms offsite migration During site visits and teleconferences, questions is limited to the Hudson River posed:

• The groundwater transport model was based on well-developed data, measurements, and field > to evaluate the Conceptual Site Model observations assumptions, and

> to pro-actively engage Licensee's contractor in developing corroborating field data

> to understand ground-water plume sources, extent, and behavior .

Y ....

. . .NRC Inspection Focus and Activities NRC Assessment Questions

• NRC Staff from Region Iand Office of Nuclear Regulatory What are the source(s) of the ground-water contamination?

Research provided technical oversight of IPEC ground-water contamination studies Where do they intersect the accessible environment?

Are there fast and preferential pathways?

U.S. Geological Survey scientist provided technical support to the Do the contaminant plumes move under the Hudson River?

technical oversight Are local drinking water sources affected?

Initial ground-water contamination identified in leak from Unit 2 Are the plumes captured by the Discharge Canal?

Spent Fuel Pool What are the hydraulic controls on the plume(s)' behavior as reflected in the Conceptual Site Model?

• Site visits focused on technical questions concerning the contaminant sources, pathways, potential receptors, and What remediation is appropriate?

monitoring to detect future leaks How can future leaks be detected?

What surveillance is needed to confirm dose, assessments

• Field data from rock cores, monitoring wells, geophysical surveys, remain below regulatory limits?

hydraulic tests and tracer tests independently reviewed 2

C *  !"NRC Assessment Fundamental Understanding for the Conceptual Site Model NRC Assessment Conclusions Unit1 and 2 are the source(s) of the ground-water contamination U

• Nature of the leaks and initial pathways through backfills and fractured rock at or above the local water table. Plumes move west, intersect the Hudson River but not under to Rockland County

• Role of fractures and possibility of solutioning A connectivity Bfackfillsand connected fractures are the preferential pathways

• Interaction of ground-water flow with the Hudson River No local drnking water sources are affected Discharge Canal captures some but not all of the plume

• Location and relationships to local drinking water sources Ground-water gradient and flowdirection controlled by local hydrology

• Ground-water flow gradients, vertical and horizontal flow directions related to the sources, Discharge Canal, and River Monitored natural attenuation is the appropriate remediation approach

• Movement of H-3, Sr-90. Cs-137 and Ni-63 to the River Future leaks can be detected by monitoring wells near Units 1 and 2

• Benefits of a long-term ground-water monitoring program Lon-term monitoring is needed to confirm dose assessments remain bel regulatory limits during plant operations NRC Assessment. S-NRC Assessment Entergy implemented timely actions to

• Exposure pathway to man is aquatic food investigate source, and determine dose impact from Hudson River (fish, invertebrates)

Entergy conformed to regulatory survey

• Calculated exposure to maximum exposed requirements individual is 0.002 mrem/yr total body and

• Groundwater contamination resulted only from 0.01 mrem/yr maximum organ leakage attributed to Unit 1 and Unit 2 Calculated exposures are less than 0.1%

• Entergy's site characterization was based on of NRC regulatory limit state-of-the-practice monitoring wells, tests, and analysis methods NRC Assessment-Regulatory Requirements Radiation Dose Perspective

• Background (est.) 360 mrem/year (NCRP 94) Entergy is monitoring and reporting the

• Public Dose Limits groundwater effluent release condition in 100 mrem/year (10CFR20.1301) 25 mrem/year (40CFR190) accordance with NRC regulations

• Liquid Effluent Limit 3 mrermlyear, total body 10 mrem/year, organ (10CFR50, App. I) Relative to Unit 1, there was no condition in

• Estimated Dose Rate 0.002 inrem/year, total body which the licensee failed to meet a regulatory 0.01 mrem/year, bone requirement or standard that was reasonably within its ability to detect or correct EPA drinking water limits (40 CFR 141.16)

Tritium (H-3) 20,000 pCi/L Strontium (Sr- 90) 8 pCi/L (EPAmaxim= contamtiant level based on4 mrems pmryear) 3

NRC Assessment <:* '7 NRC Lessons-Learned NRC Lessons Learned Task Force Identified:

Removal of Unit 1 fuel and drainage of the pools will eliminate the source of Sr-90, Ni-63, Cs-137 - Lack of regulatory guidance for detecting, evaluating, and monitoring releases via unmonitored pathways Entergy has initiated a long-term monitoring - Lack of regulatory requirement / guidance for process to: remediation of groundwater conditions

- Report groundwater liquid releases - Lack of requirement to assure leaks and spills will be

- Measure the effectiveness of remediation and natural detected before migration off-site attenuation

- Detect new or changing groundwater contamination Actions have been initiated to address these and other identified issues.

conditions

) i Planned and Continuing NRC Additional Information Inspection and Assessment NRC Homepage

- www.nrc.gov

• Assessment of Long-Term Groundwater

• Indian Point 2 Current Performance Summary Monitoring Plan - www.nrc.gov/NRRIOVERSIGHTIASSESSIIP2/ip2_chart.html

• Inspection oversight of Unit 1 fuel removal and

• Indian Point 3 Current Performance Summary pool draining activities - www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/IP2/ip3_chart.html

• Indian Point "Specific Plant of Interest" Page Baseline inspection now includes aspects of - www.nrc.gov/reactors/plant-specific-itemsfindian-point-groundwater protection and assessment issues.html

• Indian Point License Renewal Review Status Inspection initiative to confirm licensee - www.nrc.aov/reactors/operatinqllicensinp/renewal/aapplicationsAn implementation of Industry Groundwater diSn-point.html Protection Initiative

• USGS Open-File Report on Flow-Log Analysis

- http://Hubs.usss.gov/of/2008/1123/

4

I I NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Community Fact Sheet Preparedfor the 5/09/08 NRC Government-to-Government Meeting on the Indian Point Energy Center Buhaan NY, GroundwaterInvestigation For more, information about the DEC or *1 To protect the interests of the citizens and the environment of the State of New York, scientists

DOHI activities relativet* the from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the NYS Department of

• .,,.roundat~er investigations at Indian Health (DOH) oversaw Entergy's investigation into the source and fate of the radionuclide Pitplease contact:

contamination in the groundwateron the Indian Point Energy Center site. The State'sgoals were TRice,'FProject Lead.

_Tim to ensure that Entergy performed a comprehensive characterization of site groundwater En adiation Specialist contamination, took appropriate actions to identify and stop the sources of the leaks, carried out any necessary remedial actions, and developed a comprehensive monitoring program to detect any F~iv .of Solid &lHazardous Materials future leaks.

6'ý25.1Broadway

,.,Abany, NY 12233-7255 General analysis. (See reverse side extent and levels of V(518ý)402-8579 for details.) contamination reported in tbrice@gw.dec state.ny. us In 2005, Entergy discovered its 1/7/08 "Hydrogeologic water leaking from a crack in

• Participated in periodic Site Investigation Report."

!,Mr Larry Rosenmann stakeholder calls and the exterior of the Unit 2 4'n'g6in~erih6Geologist

,NYSIDECK Divof Solid & Hazardous Materialsy'

.1 Spent Fuel Pool (SFP). The subsequent investigation meetings. " The planned remedy for the Sr-90 contamination identified tritium (removal of the spent fuel

'625 Br adway Key Findings and waterfrom the Unit 1 Abany, NY 12233-7258 (radioactivehydrogen or H-

3) contamination in e Groundwater from the site SFP) will remove the

ý"Iarosenmn~gw.dec.st'ate.ny.us groundwater coming from flows east to west - active source of the Unit 2 SFP and directly toward and into contamination for that WMr. Robert Snyder radioactive strontium-90 (Sr- the Hudson River - and plume, but residual

, Radiological Health Specialist 90) and other isotopes does not flow to contamination will.

ýNYýSDOH, coming from the Unit 1 SFP. surrounding properties. continue for many years.

Bureau of Env.- Radiation Protection iý-547,River'Streek .2 Contaminated groundwater

• The H-3 contamination

Troy N_12180 NYS Involvement is moving into the Hudson ý rimarily came from the (800) 45ik I 27550 .8ext. River, but the levels of nit 2 SFP.

BE RP@health.state.ny.uLs DEC and DOH provided radionuclides in the River State oversight for the " While the known leaks

• 1 are below State surface have been stopped in the hydrological investigation. water standards for H-3 During this process, we: Unit 2 SFP, because of an (20,000 pCi/1) and Sr-90 (8 inability to inspect the Frinformation about',State. pCi/1).

ýýJnvYlvemxeit in the NRC license. " Collected split samples of liner in the Umt 2 SFP 2ýrenew~al process forlIndian Point, groundwater from on-site " Concentrations of Sr-90 while the unit is operating, please contact: and off-site monitoring the full extent of the leaks have been detected on site wells. at up to 14 times the is not known.

JonLeary Matthews; Esq.

~Sleior Counsel for Special Projectst " Reviewed and made drinking water standard. " With the removal of the

.1 recommendations on the " No drinking water sources active contamination 6 o,6fcGe Genral

e Council work of Entergy's are affectedbecause the source, Entergy's planned 625ý'Broadway hydrology contractor. use of monitored, natural Alay'NY 12233-5500 Hudson River in this area (58)402-91 90 " Performed an independent is brackish and is not used attenuation is an

ýJlmatthe~gw. dec.state. ny. us assessment of potential as a drinking water source. acceptable approach to public health impacts. managing the remaining

" Because the Hudson River Sr-90 and H-3 plumes.

" Recommended that is not used as a drinking Entergy expand its Hudson water source in this area, " Because H-3 becomes part River ish sampling the only pathway for a of the water molecule, it program in 2007 to dose to the public from cannot be removed from address questions groundwater entering the site groundwater by regarding potential River is through current treatment methods.

impacts from Sr-90. consumption of fish. " Entergy's 2007 calculated

" Collected split samples of doses to the public through fish flesh from this Outcome of the fish consumption (0.00027 enhanced effort, as well as Investigation mrem whole body and unilaterally collecting 0.00099 mrem organ dose)

• DEC and DOH have are less than 1% of the bone samples for Sr-90 accepted Entergy's NRC dose limits.

characterization of the

Fl5 L-ti,.

.. ofInA- Nk PoE -gy C-, it,, th - No, Yo,S.

1

Cross-section of Tritium Plume shoMnq relationship to Source. Discharge Canal and River (GZA, 2008)

[to Source, ýpscharge 'Canal:andl Rivelý.(GZý,,'2008 2