ML11356A520: 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 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[IR 05000286/2011004]]
| number = ML11356A520
| issue date = 11/07/2011
| title = Riverkeeper (Riv) Pre-Filed Evidentiary Hearing Exhibit RIV000085, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3 - NRC Integrated Inspection Report 05000286-2011004 (November 7, 2011)
| author name = Gray M
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-I/DRP/PB2
| addressee name = Pollock J E
| addressee affiliation = Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc
| docket = 05000286, 05000247
| license number =
| contact person = SECY RAS
| case reference number = RAS 21642, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
| document type = Legal-Pre-Filed Exhibits
| page count = 3
}}
See also: [[followed by::IR 05000286/2011004]]
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
REGION I 475 ALLENDALE
ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA
19406-1415
Mr. Joseph E. Pollock Site Vice President
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB Buchanan, NY 10511-0249
November 7, 2011 SUBJECT: INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING
UNIT 3-NRC INTEGRATED
INSPECTION
REPORT 05000286/2011004
Dear Mr. Pollock: On September
30, 2011, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) completed
an inspection
at Indian Point Nuclear Generating
Unit 3. The enclosed integrated
inspection
report documents
the inspection
results, which were discussed
on October 24, 2011, with you and other members of your staff. The inspection
examined activities
conducted
under your license as they relate to safety and compliance
with the Commission's
rules and regulations
and with the conditions
of your license. The inspectors
reviewed selected procedures
and records, observed activities, and interviewed
personnel.
Based on the results of this inspection, no findings were identified.
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 available
electronically
for public inspection
in the NRC Public Document Room of from the Publicly Available
Records component
of the NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible
from the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic
Reading Room). Docket No. 50-286 License No. DPR-26 Sincerely,
Reactor Projects Branch 2 Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure:
Inspection
Report 05000286/2011004
w/Attachment:
Supplementary
Information
cc w/encl: Distribution
via ListServ 
----------------------------.
15 Dose Calculations
The inspectors
reviewed three radioactive
liquid waste discharge
permits and three radioactive
gaseous waste discharge
permits from Unit 2; and five radioactive
liquid waste discharge
permits and four radioactive
gaseous waste discharge
permits from Unit 3. The inspectors
verified that the projected
dose to members of the public were accurate and based on representative
samples of the discharge
path. The inspectors
evaluated
the methods used to determine
the isotopes in the source term to ensure applicable
radionuclides
were included, within delectability
standards.
The inspectors
reviewed the current 10 CFR Part 61 analyses to ensure hard-to-detect
radionuclides
were included in the source term. The inspectors
reviewed changes in Entergy's
offsite dose calculations
since the last inspection.
The inspectors
verified that the changes were consistent
with the ODCM and Regulatory
Guide 1.1 09. The inspectors
reviewed meteorological
dispersion
and deposition
factors used in the ODCM and effluent dose calculations
to ensure appropriate
factors were being used for public dose calculations.
The inspectors
reviewed the latest Land Use Census and verified that changes have been factored into the dose calculations.
GPI Implementation
The inspectors
reviewed the identified
leakage or spill events, and entries recorded in the station's
decommissioning
file as required by 10 CFR 50.75 (g). The inspectors
verified that the recent soil excavation
from the demolished
Nuclear Environmental
Monitoring
Laboratory
preliminarily
indicated
some trace cesium contamination, was being characterized
and was documented
in the decommissioning
file. The inspectors
verified that onsite groundwater
sample results and a description
of any significant
onsite leaks/spills
into groundwater
for each calendar year were documented
in the Annual Radiological
Environmental
Operating
Report (AREOR) for radiological
environmental
monitoring
program (REMP) or the Annual Radiological
Effluent Release Report (ARERR) for the RETS. Problem Identification
and Resolution
The inspectors
verified that problems associated
with the effluent monitoring
and control program were being identified
by Entergy staff at an appropriate
threshold
and were properly addressed
for resolution
in the corrective
action program. b. Findings and Observations
No findings were identified.
Groundwater
Contamination
On June 27, 2011 while reviewing
the second quarter 2011 groundwater
monitoring
well sample results, Entergy personnel
identified
an increase in tritium concentrations
in Unit 1 monitoring
wells MW-56 and MW-57 (76,000 pCi/L and 20,000 pCi/L, respectively).
Subsequently, Entergy personnel
conducted
an investigation
of this unexpected
Enclosure 
16 condition.
Previously, in 2008, the Unit 1 spent fuel was removed and the Unit 1 spent fuel pools were subsequently
drained, which terminated
the previously
known source of groundwater
contamination
from the Unit 1 facility.
Currently, the source of the contamination
has not been identified;
however, several possible causes
are being evaluated
by Entergy staff. This condition
has been captured in CR-IP2-2011-3173.
The inspectors
determined
there is no dose impact to the public based on the current scope of this groundwater
contamination
condition
and will continue to follow-up
the issue via normal baseline inspection
modules. 4. OTHER ACTIVITIES
40A 1 Performance
Indicator (PI) Verification
(71151) .1 Mitigating
Systems Performance
Index (5 samples) a. Inspection
Scope The inspectors
reviewed Entergy's
submittal
of the Mitigating
Systems Performance
Index for the following
systems for the period of July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011: * Unit 3 Emergency
AC Power System * Unit 3 High Pressure Injection
System * Unit 3 Heat Removal System * Unit 3 Residual Heat Removal System * Unit 3 Cooling Water System To determine
the accuracy of the performance
indicator
data reported during those
periods, the inspectors
used definitions
and guidance contained
in NEI Document 99-02, "Regulatory
Assessment
Performance
Indicator
Guideline," Revision 6. The inspectors
also reviewed Entergy's
operator narrative
logs, CRs, event reports, and NRC integrated
inspection
reports to validate the accuracy of the submittals.
b. Findings No findings were identified . . 2 Emergency
Preparedness
(3 samples) a. Inspection
Scope The inspectors
reviewed data for the IPEC Emergency
Preparedness
Performance
Indicators (EP Pis), which are: (1) Drill and Exercise Performance;
(2) ERO Drill Participation;
and (3) Alert and Notification
System Reliability.
The last NRC EP inspection
at IPEC was conducted
in the third quarter of 2010, so the inspectors
reviewed supporting
documentation
from EP drills, training records, and equipment
tests from July 2010 through June 2011, to verify the accuracy of the reported PI data. The review of these Pis was conducted
in accordance
with IP 71151, using the acceptance
criteria documented
in NEI 99-02, "Regulatory
Assessment
Performance
Indicator
Guidelines," Revision 6. Enclosure
}}

Revision as of 07:36, 30 April 2019

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML11356A520&oldid=1555208"