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)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
| author name = Gray M
| author name = Gray M
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-I/DRP/PB2
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-I/DRP/PB2
| addressee name = Pollock J E
| addressee name = Pollock J
| addressee affiliation = Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc
| addressee affiliation = Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc
| docket = 05000286, 05000247
| docket = 05000286, 05000247
Line 14: Line 14:
| page count = 3
| page count = 3
}}
}}
See also: [[followed by::IR 05000286/2011004]]
See also: [[see also::IR 05000286/2011004]]


=Text=
=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
{{#Wiki_filter:RIV000085
----------------------------. 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 
                                                                        Submitted: December 22, 2011
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 
                                                                                              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 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"