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 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY  
{{#Wiki_filter:RIV000085
COMMISSION  
                                                                        Submitted: December 22, 2011
REGION I 475 ALLENDALE  
                                                                                              EXCERPT
ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA  
                                          UNITED STATES
19406-1415  
                            NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Joseph E. Pollock Site Vice President  
                                              REGION I
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB Buchanan, NY 10511-0249  
                                        475 ALLENDALE ROAD
November 7, 2011 SUBJECT: INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING  
                              KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415
UNIT 3-NRC INTEGRATED  
                                      November 7, 2011
INSPECTION  
Mr. Joseph E. Pollock
REPORT 05000286/2011004  
Site Vice President
Dear Mr. Pollock: On September  
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
30, 2011, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory  
Indian Point Energy Center
Commission (NRC) completed  
450 Broadway, GSB
an inspection  
Buchanan, NY 10511-0249
at Indian Point Nuclear Generating  
SUBJECT:       INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT 3- NRC INTEGRATED
Unit 3. The enclosed integrated  
                INSPECTION REPORT 05000286/2011004
inspection  
Dear Mr. Pollock:
report documents  
On September 30, 2011, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an
the inspection  
inspection at Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3. The enclosed integrated inspection report
results, which were discussed  
documents the inspection results, which were discussed on October 24, 2011, with you and
on October 24, 2011, with you and other members of your staff. The inspection  
other members of your staff.
examined activities  
The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and
conducted  
compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.
under your license as they relate to safety and compliance  
The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed
with the Commission's  
personnel.
rules and regulations  
Based on the results of this inspection, no findings were identified.
and with the conditions  
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its
of your license. The inspectors  
enclosure, and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the
reviewed selected procedures  
NRC Public Document Room of from the Publicly Available Records component of the NRC's
and records, observed activities, and interviewed  
document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC website at
personnel.  
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Based on the results of this inspection, no findings were identified.  
                                                        Sincerely,
In accordance  
                                                      ~~:!T
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  
                                                        Reactor Projects Branch 2
electronically  
                                                        Division of Reactor Projects
for public inspection  
Docket No. 50-286
in the NRC Public Document Room of from the Publicly Available  
License No. DPR-26
Records component  
Enclosure:     Inspection Report 05000286/2011004
of the NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible  
                w/Attachment: Supplementary Information
from the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic  
cc w/encl: Distribution via ListServ
Reading Room). Docket No. 50-286 License No. DPR-26 Sincerely,
 
Reactor Projects Branch 2 Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure:  
                                                      ---   ------
Inspection  
                                              15
Report 05000286/2011004  
  Dose Calculations
w/Attachment:  
  The inspectors reviewed three radioactive liquid waste discharge permits and three
Supplementary  
  radioactive gaseous waste discharge permits from Unit 2; and five radioactive liquid
Information  
  waste discharge permits and four radioactive gaseous waste discharge permits from
cc w/encl: Distribution  
  Unit 3. The inspectors verified that the projected dose to members of the public were
via ListServ
  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
15 Dose Calculations  
  applicable radionuclides were included, within delectability standards. The inspectors
The inspectors  
  reviewed the current 10 CFR Part 61 analyses to ensure hard-to-detect radionuclides
reviewed three radioactive  
  were included in the source term.
liquid waste discharge  
  The inspectors reviewed changes in Entergy's offsite dose calculations since the last
permits and three radioactive  
  inspection. The inspectors verified that the changes were consistent with the ODCM
gaseous waste discharge  
  and Regulatory Guide 1.1 09. The inspectors reviewed meteorological dispersion and
permits from Unit 2; and five radioactive  
  deposition factors used in the ODCM and effluent dose calculations to ensure
liquid waste discharge  
  appropriate factors were being used for public dose calculations. The inspectors
permits and four radioactive  
  reviewed the latest Land Use Census and verified that changes have been factored into
gaseous waste discharge  
  the dose calculations.
permits from Unit 3. The inspectors  
  GPI Implementation
verified that the projected  
  The inspectors reviewed the identified leakage or spill events, and entries recorded in
dose to members of the public were accurate and based on representative  
  the station's decommissioning file as required by 10 CFR 50.75 (g). The inspectors
samples of the discharge  
  verified that the recent soil excavation from the demolished Nuclear Environmental
path. The inspectors  
  Monitoring Laboratory preliminarily indicated some trace cesium contamination, was
evaluated  
  being characterized and was documented in the decommissioning file.
the methods used to determine  
  The inspectors verified that onsite groundwater sample results and a description of any
the isotopes in the source term to ensure applicable  
  significant onsite leaks/spills into groundwater for each calendar year were documented
radionuclides  
  in the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report (AREOR) for radiological
were included, within delectability  
  environmental monitoring program (REMP) or the Annual Radiological Effluent Release
standards.  
  Report (ARERR) for the RETS.
The inspectors  
  Problem Identification and Resolution
reviewed the current 10 CFR Part 61 analyses to ensure hard-to-detect  
  The inspectors verified that problems associated with the effluent monitoring and control
radionuclides  
  program were being identified by Entergy staff at an appropriate threshold and were
were included in the source term. The inspectors  
  properly addressed for resolution in the corrective action program.
reviewed changes in Entergy's  
b. Findings and Observations
offsite dose calculations  
  No findings were identified.
since the last inspection.  
  Groundwater Contamination
The inspectors  
  On June 27, 2011 while reviewing the second quarter 2011 groundwater monitoring well
verified that the changes were consistent  
  sample results, Entergy personnel identified an increase in tritium concentrations in Unit
with the ODCM and Regulatory  
  1 monitoring wells MW-56 and MW-57 (76,000 pCi/L and 20,000 pCi/L, respectively).
Guide 1.1 09. The inspectors  
  Subsequently, Entergy personnel conducted an investigation of this unexpected
reviewed meteorological  
                                                                                    Enclosure
dispersion  
 
and deposition  
                                                  16
factors used in the ODCM and effluent dose calculations  
        condition. Previously, in 2008, the Unit 1 spent fuel was removed and the Unit 1 spent
to ensure appropriate  
        fuel pools were subsequently drained, which terminated the previously known source of
factors were being used for public dose calculations.  
        groundwater contamination from the Unit 1 facility. Currently, the source of the
The inspectors  
        contamination has not been identified; however, several possible causes are being
reviewed the latest Land Use Census and verified that changes have been factored into the dose calculations.  
        evaluated by Entergy staff. This condition has been captured in CR-IP2-2011-3173.
GPI Implementation  
        The inspectors determined there is no dose impact to the public based on the current
The inspectors  
        scope of this groundwater contamination condition and will continue to follow-up the
reviewed the identified  
        issue via normal baseline inspection modules.
leakage or spill events, and entries recorded in the station's  
4.       OTHER ACTIVITIES
decommissioning  
40A 1 Performance Indicator (PI) Verification (71151)
file as required by 10 CFR 50.75 (g). The inspectors  
.1       Mitigating Systems Performance Index (5 samples)
verified that the recent soil excavation  
    a. Inspection Scope
from the demolished  
        The inspectors reviewed Entergy's submittal of the Mitigating Systems Performance
Nuclear Environmental  
        Index for the following systems for the period of July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011:
Monitoring  
        *       Unit 3 Emergency AC Power System
Laboratory  
        *       Unit 3 High Pressure Injection System
preliminarily  
        *       Unit 3 Heat Removal System
indicated  
        *       Unit 3 Residual Heat Removal System
some trace cesium contamination, was being characterized  
        *       Unit 3 Cooling Water System
and was documented  
        To determine the accuracy of the performance indicator data reported during those
in the decommissioning  
        periods, the inspectors used definitions and guidance contained in NEI Document 99-02,
file. The inspectors  
        "Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline," Revision 6. The inspectors
verified that onsite groundwater  
        also reviewed Entergy's operator narrative logs, CRs, event reports, and NRC integrated
sample results and a description  
        inspection reports to validate the accuracy of the submittals.
of any significant  
    b. Findings
onsite leaks/spills  
        No findings were identified .
into groundwater  
.2     Emergency Preparedness (3 samples)
for each calendar year were documented  
  a.   Inspection Scope
in the Annual Radiological  
        The inspectors reviewed data for the IPEC Emergency Preparedness Performance
Environmental  
        Indicators (EP Pis), which are: (1) Drill and Exercise Performance; (2) ERO Drill
Operating  
        Participation; and (3) Alert and Notification System Reliability. The last NRC EP
Report (AREOR) for radiological  
        inspection at IPEC was conducted in the third quarter of 2010, so the inspectors
environmental  
        reviewed supporting documentation from EP drills, training records, and equipment tests
monitoring  
        from July 2010 through June 2011, to verify the accuracy of the reported PI data. The
program (REMP) or the Annual Radiological  
        review of these Pis was conducted in accordance with IP 71151, using the acceptance
Effluent Release Report (ARERR) for the RETS. Problem Identification  
        criteria documented in NEI 99-02, "Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator
and Resolution  
        Guidelines," Revision 6.
The inspectors  
                                                                                        Enclosure
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
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 11:20, 12 November 2019

Riverkeeper (Riv) Pre-Filed Evidentiary Hearing Exhibit RIV000085, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3 - NRC Integrated Inspection Report 05000286-2011004 (November 7, 2011)
ML11356A520
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 11/07/2011
From: Mel Gray
Reactor Projects Branch 2
To: Joseph E Pollock
Entergy Nuclear Operations
SECY RAS
References
RAS 21642, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML11356A520 (3)
v • d • e


See also: IR 05000286/2011004

Text

RIV000085

Submitted: December 22, 2011

EXCERPT

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

475 ALLENDALE ROAD

KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415

November 7, 2011

Mr. Joseph E. Pollock

Site Vice President

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Indian Point Energy Center

450 Broadway, GSB

Buchanan, NY 10511-0249

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).

Sincerely,

~~:!T

Reactor Projects Branch 2

Division of Reactor Projects

Docket No. 50-286

License No. DPR-26

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 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

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML11356A520&oldid=2108363"