IR 05000003/2011008: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| issue date = 10/11/2011 | | issue date = 10/11/2011 | ||
| title = IR 05000003-11-008, on 09/01/11, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Buchanan, New York Site (Corrected Copy) | | title = IR 05000003-11-008, on 09/01/11, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Buchanan, New York Site (Corrected Copy) | ||
| author name = Kauffman L | | author name = Kauffman L | ||
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-I/DNMS/DB | | author affiliation = NRC/RGN-I/DNMS/DB | ||
| addressee name = | | addressee name = | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter | {{#Wiki_filter:U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION | ||
==REGION I== | |||
INSPECTION REPORT Docket N License N DPR-5 Inspection N /2011008 Licensee: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. | |||
Facility: Indian Point Energy Center (lPEC) Unit 1 Location: 450 Broadway Buchanan, New York 10511-0249 Inspection Dates: August 30 - September 1, 2011 Inspector: Laurie A. Kauffman Health Physicist Decommissioning Branch Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Approved By: Judith A. Joustra, Chief Decommissioning Branch Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Document Name: C:\MyFiles\Checkout\CORRECTED COpy RDPR-S.201100B.doc | |||
=EXECUTIVE SUMMARY= | =EXECUTIVE SUMMARY= | ||
Indian Point Energy Center Unit 1 NRC Inspection Report No. 05000003/2011008 An announced routine safety inspection was conducted on August 30 -September 1, 2011, at Indian Point Energy Center (lPEC) Unit 1 (Unit 1) by a Region I inspector. The NRC's program for overseeing the safe operation of a shut-down nuclear power reactor is described in Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2561, Decommissioning Power Reactor Inspection Program. The inspection included a review of the programs associated with Unit 1 while in long-term safe storage (SAFSTOR) status. There are no ongoing decommissioning activities being conducted at Unit 1. Within the scope of this inspection, no safety concerns or violations were identified. A brief summary of each area inspected is described below. Organization and Management Oversight The licensee's organization and management oversight was adequate to support Unit 1 activities. The roles and responsibilities for the Unit 1 activities were consistent with the IPEC Site Management Manual, Control of Indian Point 1 and the Technical Specifications (TS). Safety Reviews, Design Changes and Modifications There were no plant modifications since the previous inspection conducted in June 2010. Audit and Corrective Action Programs The licensee maintained an adequate audit program and effectively utilized the established corrective action program to identify, evaluate, and correct issues and problems. Condition reports were appropriately prioritized and corrective actions were tracked in accordance with approved procedures. Decommissioning Performance and Status Reviews No dismantlement or decommissioning activities were performed since the previous inspection. Maintenance and Surveillance The licensee effectively implemented the preventive maintenance and surveillance program and associated procedures in accordance with TS and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) requirements. Occupational Radiation Exposure The licensee provided adequate controls to limit exposures of workers to external sources of radiation. Posting and labeling of radioactive materials and radiation areas were in compliance with regulatory requirements. Radiological controls and dose estimates associated with Unit 1 activities were effective to achieve dose goals. Implementation and oversight of the SAFSTOR program was effective for the safe storage of radioactive material. Effluent, Environmental Monitoring and Radioactive Waste and Transportation The licensee effectively implemented and maintained the radioactive effluent controls program, the groundwater monitoring program related to Unit 1, the radiological monitoring program, and the radioactive waste management and transportation programs. | Indian Point Energy Center Unit 1 | ||
NRC Inspection Report No. 05000003/2011008 An announced routine safety inspection was conducted on August 30 - September 1, 2011, at Indian Point Energy Center (lPEC) Unit 1 (Unit 1) by a Region I inspector. The NRC's program for overseeing the safe operation of a shut-down nuclear power reactor is described in Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2561, Decommissioning Power Reactor Inspection Program. The inspection included a review of the programs associated with Unit 1 while in long-term safe storage (SAFSTOR)status. There are no ongoing decommissioning activities being conducted at Unit 1. Within the scope of this inspection, no safety concerns or violations were identified. A brief summary of each area inspected is described below. | |||
Organization and Management Oversight The licensee's organization and management oversight was adequate to support Unit 1 activities. | |||
The roles and responsibilities for the Unit 1 activities were consistent with the IPEC Site Management Manual, Control of Indian Point 1 and the Technical Specifications (TS). | |||
Safety Reviews, Design Changes and Modifications There were no plant modifications since the previous inspection conducted in June 2010. | |||
Audit and Corrective Action Programs The licensee maintained an adequate audit program and effectively utilized the established corrective action program to identify, evaluate, and correct issues and problems. Condition reports were appropriately prioritized and corrective actions were tracked in accordance with approved procedures. | |||
Decommissioning Performance and Status Reviews No dismantlement or decommissioning activities were performed since the previous inspection. | |||
Maintenance and Surveillance The licensee effectively implemented the preventive maintenance and surveillance program and associated procedures in accordance with TS and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM)requirements. | |||
Occupational Radiation Exposure The licensee provided adequate controls to limit exposures of workers to external sources of radiation. Posting and labeling of radioactive materials and radiation areas were in compliance with regulatory requirements. Radiological controls and dose estimates associated with Unit 1 activities were effective to achieve dose goals. Implementation and oversight of the SAFSTOR program was effective for the safe storage of radioactive material. | |||
Effluent, Environmental Monitoring and Radioactive Waste and Transportation The licensee effectively implemented and maintained the radioactive effluent controls program, the groundwater monitoring program related to Unit 1, the radiological monitoring program, and the radioactive waste management and transportation programs. | |||
=REPORT DETAILS= | =REPORT DETAILS= | ||
1.0 Background Unit 1 is a pressurized water reactor that has been permanently shut down since October 31, 1974, and is being maintained in long-term storage (SAFSTOR). Units 1 and 2 are physically contiguous and share systems and facilities as well as a common operating organization. The Technical Specifications (TS) for Unit 1 recognize this commonality as well as the intended use of the Unit 1 facilities to support Indian Point Unit 2. The systems associated with Unit 1 are divided into three classifications: a) systems required per the Unit 1 TS that support the SAFSTOR condition of the unit; b) systems required to support the operating units (e.g. Liquid Waste Processing); and c) systems that are not required to support the TS, SAFSTOR condition, or the operating units. 2.0 Organization and Management Oversight | |||
1.0 Background Unit 1 is a pressurized water reactor that has been permanently shut down since October 31, 1974, and is being maintained in long-term storage (SAFSTOR). Units 1 and 2 are physically contiguous and share systems and facilities as well as a common operating organization. The Technical Specifications (TS) for Unit 1 recognize this commonality as well as the intended use of the Unit 1 facilities to support Indian Point Unit 2. The systems associated with Unit 1 are divided into three classifications: | |||
a) systems required per the Unit 1 TS that support the SAFSTOR condition of the unit; b) systems required to support the operating units (e.g. Liquid Waste Processing); and c) systems that are not required to support the TS, SAFSTOR condition, or the operating units. | |||
2.0 Organization and Management Oversight | |||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
(Inspection Procedure (IP) 36801) The inspector reviewed procedure IP-SMM-DC-90S, IPEC Site Management Manual, Control of Indian Point 1, Revision 6 (IPEC-SMM), issued February 4,2010, regarding the roles and responsibilities for the operation, maintenance and control of Unit 1. The inspector discussed organization, management and/or staffing changes as outlined in TS, Sections 3.1 and 3.2, and in IPEC-SMM, Section S.O. The inspector also interviewed the personnel in the Employee Concerns Program (ECP). | (Inspection Procedure (IP) 36801) | ||
The inspector reviewed procedure IP-SMM-DC-90S, IPEC Site Management Manual, Control of Indian Point 1, Revision 6 (IPEC-SMM), issued February 4,2010, regarding the roles and responsibilities for the operation, maintenance and control of Unit 1. The inspector discussed organization, management and/or staffing changes as outlined in TS, Sections 3.1 and 3.2, and in IPEC-SMM, Section S.O. The inspector also interviewed the personnel in the Employee Concerns Program (ECP). | |||
====b. Observations and Findings==== | ====b. Observations and Findings==== | ||
| Line 34: | Line 62: | ||
====c. Conclusions==== | ====c. Conclusions==== | ||
The licensee's organization and management oversight was adequate to support Unit 1 activities. The roles and responsibilities for the Unit 1 activities were consistent with the IPEC-SMM and the TS. No safety concerns or violations were identified. 3.0 Safety Reviews, Design Changes, and Modifications | The licensee's organization and management oversight was adequate to support Unit 1 activities. The roles and responsibilities for the Unit 1 activities were consistent with the IPEC-SMM and the TS. No safety concerns or violations were identified. | ||
3.0 Safety Reviews, Design Changes, and Modifications | |||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
(IP 37801) Procedure IP-SMM-DC-90S, Rev. 6, provides guidance for modifying or working on Unit 1 structures, systems and components (SSCs) that have been "retired in place" and | (IP 37801) | ||
Procedure IP-SMM-DC-90S, Rev. 6, provides guidance for modifying or working on Unit 1 structures, systems and components (SSCs) that have been "retired in place" and that remain in place to support the operation of Unit 2. The inspector discussed Engineering Change (EC) reports to determine if the licensee conducted safety reviews and engineering design change screening in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59. | |||
====b. Observations and Findings==== | ====b. Observations and Findings==== | ||
| Line 43: | Line 74: | ||
====c. Conclusions==== | ====c. Conclusions==== | ||
No safety concerns or violations were identified. 4.0 Audit and Corrective Action Program | No safety concerns or violations were identified. | ||
4.0 Audit and Corrective Action Program | |||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
(IP 40801) The inspector reviewed the quality assurance (QA) audit report QA-12/18-20 11-IP-1 , Operations/Technical Specifications, dated June 6-27, 2011 related to Unit 1 SAFSTOR activities. The inspector also reviewed selected condition reports (CRs) and any associated corrective actions to evaluate the licensee's ability to assess, identify, resolve, and prevent issues that could impact safety or the quality of SAFSTOR activities. | (IP 40801) | ||
The inspector reviewed the quality assurance (QA) audit report QA-12/18-20 11-IP-1 , | |||
Operations/Technical Specifications, dated June 6-27, 2011 related to Unit 1 SAFSTOR activities. The inspector also reviewed selected condition reports (CRs) and any associated corrective actions to evaluate the licensee's ability to assess, identify, resolve, and prevent issues that could impact safety or the quality of SAFSTOR activities. | |||
====b. Observations and Findings==== | ====b. Observations and Findings==== | ||
The purpose of the audit was to evaluate the effectiveness of Operations, compliance with TS requirements and to evaluate selected elements of the Master Audit Plan for Operations and TS. The audit contained 10 scope elements including: Test Control; Inspection, Test and Operating Status; Limiting Conditions for Operations; Conduct of Operations; Operator Knowledge and Performance; Work Coordination and Control; Corrective Action; Self Assessment and Benchmarking; Instruction, Drawings and Procedures; and Leadership and Management. The audit was adequate and identified strengths and weaknesses related to the Unit 1 activities. The priority for addressing CRs and implementation of corrective actions were appropriate based upon safety significance. Corrective actions were implemented to address identified issues, and were being tracked to closure using the licensee's corrective action program. The licensee did not identify any adverse trends or safety concerns. | The purpose of the audit was to evaluate the effectiveness of Operations, compliance with TS requirements and to evaluate selected elements of the Master Audit Plan for Operations and TS. The audit contained 10 scope elements including: Test Control; Inspection, Test and Operating Status; Limiting Conditions for Operations; Conduct of Operations; Operator Knowledge and Performance; Work Coordination and Control; Corrective Action; Self Assessment and Benchmarking; Instruction, Drawings and Procedures; and Leadership and Management. The audit was adequate and identified strengths and weaknesses related to the Unit 1 activities. | ||
The priority for addressing CRs and implementation of corrective actions were appropriate based upon safety significance. Corrective actions were implemented to address identified issues, and were being tracked to closure using the licensee's corrective action program. The licensee did not identify any adverse trends or safety concerns. | |||
====c. Conclusions==== | ====c. Conclusions==== | ||
The licensee maintained an adequate audit program and effectively utilized the established corrective action program to identify, evaluate, and correct issues and problems. CRs were appropriately prioritized and corrective actions were tracked in accordance with approved procedures. No safety concerns or violations were identified. | The licensee maintained an adequate audit program and effectively utilized the established corrective action program to identify, evaluate, and correct issues and problems. CRs were appropriately prioritized and corrective actions were tracked in accordance with approved procedures. No safety concerns or violations were identified. | ||
5.0 Decommissioning Performance and Status Reviews | |||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
(IP 71801) The inspector reviewed the licensee's current decommissioning status with respect to the Decommissioning Plan for Indian Point Unit 1, approved by the NRC in an Order dated January 31, 1996. | (IP 71801) | ||
The inspector reviewed the licensee's current decommissioning status with respect to the Decommissioning Plan for Indian Point Unit 1, approved by the NRC in an Order dated January 31, 1996. | |||
====b. Observations and Findings==== | ====b. Observations and Findings==== | ||
| Line 61: | Line 100: | ||
====c. Conclusions==== | ====c. Conclusions==== | ||
No dismantlement or decommissioning activities were performed since the previous inspection, conducted in June 2010. No safety concerns or violations were identified. 6.0 Maintenance and Surveillance | No dismantlement or decommissioning activities were performed since the previous inspection, conducted in June 2010. No safety concerns or violations were identified. | ||
6.0 Maintenance and Surveillance | |||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
OP 62801) The inspector evaluated the maintenance program, required by TS, Section 5.0 and described in the IPEC SSM, Section 6.0. The inspector reviewed the surveillance requirements for the Unit 1 radioactive effluent monitoring instrumentation, required by TS, Section 5.2 and the ODCM. The inspector examined the shift logs and the maintenance and calibration records for the liquid discharge monitor (R-54) and the stack vent noble gas monitor (R-60) for the period July 2010 through August 2011. The inspector conducted a plant tour, including the nuclear service building (NSB), the chemical systems building (CSB), the fuel handling building (FHB), the containment building, and containment sphere [Le. vapor containment (VC)]. The inspector also discussed the biennial SAFSTOR engineering and structural assessment inspection with the licensee. | OP 62801) | ||
The inspector evaluated the maintenance program, required by TS, Section 5.0 and described in the IPEC SSM, Section 6.0. The inspector reviewed the surveillance requirements for the Unit 1 radioactive effluent monitoring instrumentation, required by TS, Section 5.2 and the ODCM. The inspector examined the shift logs and the maintenance and calibration records for the liquid discharge monitor (R-54) and the stack vent noble gas monitor (R-60) for the period July 2010 through August 2011. The inspector conducted a plant tour, including the nuclear service building (NSB), the chemical systems building (CSB), the fuel handling building (FHB), the containment building, and containment sphere [Le. vapor containment (VC)]. The inspector also discussed the biennial SAFSTOR engineering and structural assessment inspection with the licensee. | |||
====b. Observations and Findings==== | ====b. Observations and Findings==== | ||
The inspector verified that the maintenance and surveillance program for selected systems and components had been conducted in accordance with TS, implementing procedures, and the ODCM. The inspector determined from a review of maintenance and calibration records that the preventative maintenance, routine surveillance, and calibration results were complete and the results were within acceptable limits. The inspector also determined that the radioactive effluent monitoring instrumentation were calibrated and that the set points were appropriate. The biennial SAFSTOR engineering and structural assessment inspection will be conducted in November 2011. The inspector will review the engineering and structural assessment report during the next inspection. | The inspector verified that the maintenance and surveillance program for selected systems and components had been conducted in accordance with TS, implementing procedures, and the ODCM. The inspector determined from a review of maintenance and calibration records that the preventative maintenance, routine surveillance, and calibration results were complete and the results were within acceptable limits. The inspector also determined that the radioactive effluent monitoring instrumentation were calibrated and that the set points were appropriate. | ||
The biennial SAFSTOR engineering and structural assessment inspection will be conducted in November 2011. The inspector will review the engineering and structural assessment report during the next inspection. | |||
====c. Conclusions==== | ====c. Conclusions==== | ||
The licensee effectively implemented the preventive maintenance and surveillance program and associated procedures in accordance with TS and ODCM requirements. No safety concerns or violations were identified. 7.0 Occupational Radiation Exposure | The licensee effectively implemented the preventive maintenance and surveillance program and associated procedures in accordance with TS and ODCM requirements. | ||
No safety concerns or violations were identified. | |||
7.0 Occupational Radiation Exposure | |||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
(IP 83750) The inspector evaluated the licensee's implementation of the occupational radiation exposure program to determine the licensee's capability to monitor and control radiation exposure to employees, and to determine the adequacy of the radiation protection program. The inspector reviewed procedure EN-RO-101, Nuclear Management Manual, Access Control for Radiologically Controlled Areas, Rev. 6, issued June 23, 2011, RP-STD-17, Satellite RP Key Issuance and HRA, LHRA, and VHRA Boundary Verification, Rev. 10, issued May 17, 2010, and EN-RP-108, Radiation Protection Posting, Rev. 10, issued August 4, 2011. The inspector interviewed responsible individuals, reviewed radiological survey plans, survey maps of the radiologically controlled area, and conducted field observations of radiological postings. The inspector evaluated the radiation work permits (RWP) related to Unit 1, and the dose totals for 2010 and January 2011 through August 2011. | (IP 83750) | ||
The inspector evaluated the licensee's implementation of the occupational radiation exposure program to determine the licensee's capability to monitor and control radiation exposure to employees, and to determine the adequacy of the radiation protection program. The inspector reviewed procedure EN-RO-101, Nuclear Management Manual, Access Control for Radiologically Controlled Areas, Rev. 6, issued June 23, 2011, RP-STD-17, Satellite RP Key Issuance and HRA, LHRA, and VHRA Boundary Verification, Rev. 10, issued May 17, 2010, and EN-RP-108, Radiation Protection Posting, Rev. 10, issued August 4, 2011. The inspector interviewed responsible individuals, reviewed radiological survey plans, survey maps of the radiologically controlled area, and conducted field observations of radiological postings. The inspector evaluated the radiation work permits (RWP) related to Unit 1, and the dose totals for 2010 and January 2011 through August 2011. | |||
====b. Observations and Findings==== | ====b. Observations and Findings==== | ||
The radiologically controlled areas were appropriately posted for radioactive material. Radiological postings were readily visible, well-maintained, and reflected radiological conditions. The radiological survey maps and related information maintained at the Unit 1 access point were current. High radiation areas and technical specification locked high radiation areas were properly posted and locked as required. The RWPs were commensurate with the radiological significance of the tasks and included the appropriate exposure control measures for the safe implementation of the activities. The RWP dose totals were below the dose goal totals for 2010 and January 2011 through August 2011. | The radiologically controlled areas were appropriately posted for radioactive material. | ||
Radiological postings were readily visible, well-maintained, and reflected radiological conditions. The radiological survey maps and related information maintained at the Unit 1 access point were current. High radiation areas and technical specification locked high radiation areas were properly posted and locked as required. The RWPs were commensurate with the radiological significance of the tasks and included the appropriate exposure control measures for the safe implementation of the activities. The RWP dose totals were below the dose goal totals for 2010 and January 2011 through August 2011. | |||
====c. Conclusions==== | ====c. Conclusions==== | ||
The licensee provided adequate controls to limit exposures of workers to external sources of radiation. Posting of radioactive materials and radiation areas were in compliance with regulatory requirements. Radiological controls and dose estimates associated with Unit 1 activities were effective to achieve dose goals. Implementation and oversight of the SAFSTOR program were effective for the safe storage of radioactive material. No safety concerns or violations were identified. | The licensee provided adequate controls to limit exposures of workers to external sources of radiation. Posting of radioactive materials and radiation areas were in compliance with regulatory requirements. Radiological controls and dose estimates associated with Unit 1 activities were effective to achieve dose goals. Implementation and oversight of the SAFSTOR program were effective for the safe storage of radioactive material. No safety concerns or violations were identified. | ||
------- | |||
~-- ~--------~~------ | |||
8.0 Effluent and Environmental Monitoring Programs | |||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
(IP 84750) The inspector evaluated the radioactive effluent control and the site radiological environmental monitoring programs. The evaluation included a review of the annual radioactive effluent release report for 2010, the annual radiological environmental operating report for 2010, and the associated analytical results for each program. The inspection also included a review of the Unit 1 TS and the ODCM. The inspector reviewed the associated radioactive liquid release permits, the analytical sample results, and the projected doses to the public associated with the groundwater in-leakage into the North Curtain Drain (NCD) and Sphere Foundation Drain (SFD) sumps. The inspector also reviewed the gaseous effluent results, the projected doses to the public associated with the stack vent, and the radiological environmental monitoring program, including the analytical results associated with samples of shoreline sediment, fish, and water from January 2011 through August 2011. | (IP 84750) | ||
The inspector evaluated the radioactive effluent control and the site radiological environmental monitoring programs. The evaluation included a review of the annual radioactive effluent release report for 2010, the annual radiological environmental operating report for 2010, and the associated analytical results for each program. The inspection also included a review of the Unit 1 TS and the ODCM. The inspector reviewed the associated radioactive liquid release permits, the analytical sample results, and the projected doses to the public associated with the groundwater in-leakage into the North Curtain Drain (NCD) and Sphere Foundation Drain (SFD) sumps. The inspector also reviewed the gaseous effluent results, the projected doses to the public associated with the stack vent, and the radiological environmental monitoring program, including the analytical results associated with samples of shoreline sediment, fish, and water from January 2011 through August 2011. | |||
====b. Observations and Findings==== | ====b. Observations and Findings==== | ||
The annual effluent and environmental monitoring reports demonstrated that the calculated doses were well below regulatory dose criteria of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I. The radioactive liquid effluent release permits were completed in accordance with the ODCM. From a review of the analytical data, the inspector verified that the projected doses to the public from the liquid and gaseous effluent from Unit 1 were below TS limits and were performed in accordance with the ODCM and the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50.36a) for maintaining doses to the public from radioactive effluents as low as is reasonably achievable. The inspector verified that the licensee collected and analyzed the stack vent samples, NCD and SFD sump samples, and the liquid discharge monitor samples within the required frequencies and that the sample collection was conducted in accordance with applicable procedures. The inspector reviewed the analytical water sample results related to the groundwater monitoring program, specifically the NCD and SFD analytical sample results from January 2010 through December 2010. The levels of tritium ranged from 13,500 picoCuries per Liter (pCi/L) to 3,340 pCi/L for the NCD and from 642 pCi/L to 480 pCi/L for the SFD. The licensee informed the inspector that the levels of radioactivity appear to be trending downward. The inspector's review of this data confirmed the licensee's conclusion. The inspector reviewed the analytical results for shoreline sediment, fish, and water from January 2011 through August 2011 for the radiological environmental monitoring program and noted that the results indicated that no significant radioactivity was identified in fish and the environment. | The annual effluent and environmental monitoring reports demonstrated that the calculated doses were well below regulatory dose criteria of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I. The radioactive liquid effluent release permits were completed in accordance with the ODCM. | ||
From a review of the analytical data, the inspector verified that the projected doses to the public from the liquid and gaseous effluent from Unit 1 were below TS limits and were performed in accordance with the ODCM and the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50.36a) for maintaining doses to the public from radioactive effluents as low as is reasonably achievable. The inspector verified that the licensee collected and analyzed the stack vent samples, NCD and SFD sump samples, and the liquid discharge monitor samples within the required frequencies and that the sample collection was conducted in accordance with applicable procedures. | |||
The inspector reviewed the analytical water sample results related to the groundwater monitoring program, specifically the NCD and SFD analytical sample results from January 2010 through December 2010. The levels of tritium ranged from 13,500 picoCuries per Liter (pCi/L) to 3,340 pCi/L for the NCD and from 642 pCi/L to 480 pCi/L for the SFD. The licensee informed the inspector that the levels of radioactivity appear to be trending downward. The inspector's review of this data confirmed the licensee's conclusion. | |||
The inspector reviewed the analytical results for shoreline sediment, fish, and water from January 2011 through August 2011 for the radiological environmental monitoring program and noted that the results indicated that no significant radioactivity was identified in fish and the environment. | |||
====c. Conclusions==== | ====c. Conclusions==== | ||
The licensee effectively implemented and maintained the radioactive effluent controls program, the groundwater monitoring program, and the radiological monitoring program. No safety concerns or violations were identified. | The licensee effectively implemented and maintained the radioactive effluent controls program, the groundwater monitoring program, and the radiological monitoring program. | ||
No safety concerns or violations were identified. | |||
Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation of Radioactive Materials | |||
====a. Inspection Scope==== | ====a. Inspection Scope==== | ||
(IP 86750) The inspector evaluated and discussed the radioactive waste management and transportation programs to determine whether the licensee properly processed, packaged, stored, and shipped radioactive materials. The inspector also conducted a tour of the Unit 1 FHB. | (IP 86750) | ||
The inspector evaluated and discussed the radioactive waste management and transportation programs to determine whether the licensee properly processed, packaged, stored, and shipped radioactive materials. The inspector also conducted a tour of the Unit 1 FHB. | |||
====b. Observations and Findings==== | ====b. Observations and Findings==== | ||
The inspector noted that there were no radioactive waste shipments since the previous inspection conducted in June 2010. Additionally, the inspector determined from the Unit 1 FHB tour and discussions with individuals cognizant of the radioactive waste management and radioactive materials transportation programs that the Class B waste from the cleanup of the spent fuel pool is still being maintained in the Unit 1 FHB until an appropriate disposal option is available. | The inspector noted that there were no radioactive waste shipments since the previous inspection conducted in June 2010. | ||
Additionally, the inspector determined from the Unit 1 FHB tour and discussions with individuals cognizant of the radioactive waste management and radioactive materials transportation programs that the Class B waste from the cleanup of the spent fuel pool is still being maintained in the Unit 1 FHB until an appropriate disposal option is available. | |||
====c. Conclusions==== | ====c. Conclusions==== | ||
The licensee effectively implemented the radioactive waste management and transportation programs. No safety concerns or violations were identified. Exit Meeting Summary On September 1, 2011, the inspector presented the inspection results to Donald Mayer, Director, Unit 1, and other members of the licensee's staff. The inspector confirmed that proprietary information was not provided or examined during the inspection. | The licensee effectively implemented the radioactive waste management and transportation programs. No safety concerns or violations were identified. | ||
===Exit Meeting Summary=== | |||
On September 1, 2011, the inspector presented the inspection results to Donald Mayer, Director, Unit 1, and other members of the licensee's staff. The inspector confirmed that proprietary information was not provided or examined during the inspection. | |||
A-1 | |||
=SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION= | =SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION= | ||
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee | |||
: [[contact::C. English]], Superintendant, Unit 1 | PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED | ||
: [[contact::J. Doroski]], Health Physics and Chemistry Specialist | Licensee | ||
: [[contact::W. Henries]], Senior Engineer Consultant, Unit 1 | : [[contact::C. English]], Superintendant, Unit 1 | ||
: [[contact::F. Inzirillo]], Quality Assurance Manager | : [[contact::J. Doroski]], Health Physics and Chemistry Specialist | ||
: [[contact::D. Mayer]], Director, Unit 1 | : [[contact::W. Henries]], Senior Engineer Consultant, Unit 1 | ||
: [[contact::J. Michetti]], System Engineering Support -RMS | : [[contact::F. Inzirillo]], Quality Assurance Manager | ||
: [[contact::S. Sandike]], Senior Chemistry Engineer | : [[contact::D. Mayer]], Director, Unit 1 | ||
: [[contact::W. Scholtens]], Radioactive Waste Engineer | : [[contact::J. Michetti]], System Engineering Support - RMS | ||
: [[contact::D. Smith]], Health Physicist, Radiation Protection | : [[contact::S. Sandike]], Senior Chemistry Engineer | ||
: [[contact::G. Dahl]], Licensing Engineer | : [[contact::W. Scholtens]], Radioactive Waste Engineer | ||
: [[contact::B. Taggart]], Employee Concerns Program | : [[contact::D. Smith]], Health Physicist, Radiation Protection | ||
: [[contact::R. Tagliamante]], Radiation Protection Manager INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED 36801 Organization, Management, and Cost Controls at Permanently Shutdown Reactors (PSRs) 37801 | : [[contact::G. Dahl]], Licensing Engineer | ||
ITEMS OPEN, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Opened, Closed and Discussed -None | : [[contact::B. Taggart]], Employee Concerns Program | ||
: [[contact::R. Tagliamante]], Radiation Protection Manager | |||
INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED | |||
36801 Organization, Management, and Cost Controls at Permanently Shutdown | |||
Reactors (PSRs) | |||
37801 Safety Reviews, Design Changes, and Modifications at PSRs | |||
40801 Self Assessment, Auditing, and Corrective Action at PSRs | |||
2801 Maintenance and Surveillance at PSRs | |||
71801 Decommissioning Performance and Status Reviews at PSRs | |||
83750 Occupational Radiation Exposure | |||
84750 Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring | |||
86750 Solid Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation of Radioactive | |||
Materials | |||
ITEMS OPEN, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED | |||
Opened, Closed and Discussed - None | |||
LIST OF ACRONYMS USED | |||
ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems | |||
CFR Code of Federal Regulations | |||
CR condition reports | |||
CSB chemical systems building | |||
EC Engineering Change | |||
ECP Employee Concerns Program | |||
FHB fuel handling building | |||
IMC Inspection Manual Chapter | |||
IP Inspection Procedure | |||
IPEC Indian Point Energy Center | |||
IPEC-SMM IPEC Site Management Manual, Control of Indian Point 1 | |||
NCD North Curtain Drain | |||
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission | |||
NSB nuclear service building | |||
ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual | |||
PSRs Permanently Shutdown Reactors | |||
QA quality assurance | |||
RMS radiation monitoring system | |||
RWP radiation work permits | |||
SAFSTOR long-term safe storage | |||
SFD Sphere Foundation Drain | |||
SSCs structures, systems and components | |||
TS technical specification | |||
Unit 1 Indian Point Unit 1 | |||
Unit 2 Indian Point Unit 2 | |||
VC vapor containment (containment sphere) | |||
Attachment | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 20:48, 20 March 2020
| ML112840312 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/11/2011 |
| From: | Laurie Kauffman Decommissioning Branch I |
| To: | Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2016-0148 IR-11-008 | |
| Download: ML112840312 (10) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
INSPECTION REPORT Docket N License N DPR-5 Inspection N /2011008 Licensee: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Facility: Indian Point Energy Center (lPEC) Unit 1 Location: 450 Broadway Buchanan, New York 10511-0249 Inspection Dates: August 30 - September 1, 2011 Inspector: Laurie A. Kauffman Health Physicist Decommissioning Branch Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Approved By: Judith A. Joustra, Chief Decommissioning Branch Division of Nuclear Materials Safety Document Name: C:\MyFiles\Checkout\CORRECTED COpy RDPR-S.201100B.doc
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Indian Point Energy Center Unit 1
NRC Inspection Report No. 05000003/2011008 An announced routine safety inspection was conducted on August 30 - September 1, 2011, at Indian Point Energy Center (lPEC) Unit 1 (Unit 1) by a Region I inspector. The NRC's program for overseeing the safe operation of a shut-down nuclear power reactor is described in Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2561, Decommissioning Power Reactor Inspection Program. The inspection included a review of the programs associated with Unit 1 while in long-term safe storage (SAFSTOR)status. There are no ongoing decommissioning activities being conducted at Unit 1. Within the scope of this inspection, no safety concerns or violations were identified. A brief summary of each area inspected is described below.
Organization and Management Oversight The licensee's organization and management oversight was adequate to support Unit 1 activities.
The roles and responsibilities for the Unit 1 activities were consistent with the IPEC Site Management Manual, Control of Indian Point 1 and the Technical Specifications (TS).
Safety Reviews, Design Changes and Modifications There were no plant modifications since the previous inspection conducted in June 2010.
Audit and Corrective Action Programs The licensee maintained an adequate audit program and effectively utilized the established corrective action program to identify, evaluate, and correct issues and problems. Condition reports were appropriately prioritized and corrective actions were tracked in accordance with approved procedures.
Decommissioning Performance and Status Reviews No dismantlement or decommissioning activities were performed since the previous inspection.
Maintenance and Surveillance The licensee effectively implemented the preventive maintenance and surveillance program and associated procedures in accordance with TS and Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM)requirements.
Occupational Radiation Exposure The licensee provided adequate controls to limit exposures of workers to external sources of radiation. Posting and labeling of radioactive materials and radiation areas were in compliance with regulatory requirements. Radiological controls and dose estimates associated with Unit 1 activities were effective to achieve dose goals. Implementation and oversight of the SAFSTOR program was effective for the safe storage of radioactive material.
Effluent, Environmental Monitoring and Radioactive Waste and Transportation The licensee effectively implemented and maintained the radioactive effluent controls program, the groundwater monitoring program related to Unit 1, the radiological monitoring program, and the radioactive waste management and transportation programs.
REPORT DETAILS
1.0 Background Unit 1 is a pressurized water reactor that has been permanently shut down since October 31, 1974, and is being maintained in long-term storage (SAFSTOR). Units 1 and 2 are physically contiguous and share systems and facilities as well as a common operating organization. The Technical Specifications (TS) for Unit 1 recognize this commonality as well as the intended use of the Unit 1 facilities to support Indian Point Unit 2. The systems associated with Unit 1 are divided into three classifications:
a) systems required per the Unit 1 TS that support the SAFSTOR condition of the unit; b) systems required to support the operating units (e.g. Liquid Waste Processing); and c) systems that are not required to support the TS, SAFSTOR condition, or the operating units.
2.0 Organization and Management Oversight
a. Inspection Scope
(Inspection Procedure (IP) 36801)
The inspector reviewed procedure IP-SMM-DC-90S, IPEC Site Management Manual, Control of Indian Point 1, Revision 6 (IPEC-SMM), issued February 4,2010, regarding the roles and responsibilities for the operation, maintenance and control of Unit 1. The inspector discussed organization, management and/or staffing changes as outlined in TS, Sections 3.1 and 3.2, and in IPEC-SMM, Section S.O. The inspector also interviewed the personnel in the Employee Concerns Program (ECP).
b. Observations and Findings
Procedure IP-SMM-DC-90S defines roles and assigns responsibility for the operation, maintenance and control of Unit 1. There were no organizational structure changes made by the licensee since the previous inspection. The inspector verified that procedure IP-SMM-DC-90S and associated implementing procedures were consistent with the TS. Implementation of the TS and the IPEC-SMM was adequate. ECP personnel provided the inspector with details regarding the licensee commitment to maintain a high level of awareness to safety.
c. Conclusions
The licensee's organization and management oversight was adequate to support Unit 1 activities. The roles and responsibilities for the Unit 1 activities were consistent with the IPEC-SMM and the TS. No safety concerns or violations were identified.
3.0 Safety Reviews, Design Changes, and Modifications
a. Inspection Scope
(IP 37801)
Procedure IP-SMM-DC-90S, Rev. 6, provides guidance for modifying or working on Unit 1 structures, systems and components (SSCs) that have been "retired in place" and that remain in place to support the operation of Unit 2. The inspector discussed Engineering Change (EC) reports to determine if the licensee conducted safety reviews and engineering design change screening in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59.
b. Observations and Findings
There were no plant modifications since the previous inspection conducted in June 2010.
c. Conclusions
No safety concerns or violations were identified.
4.0 Audit and Corrective Action Program
a. Inspection Scope
(IP 40801)
The inspector reviewed the quality assurance (QA) audit report QA-12/18-20 11-IP-1 ,
Operations/Technical Specifications, dated June 6-27, 2011 related to Unit 1 SAFSTOR activities. The inspector also reviewed selected condition reports (CRs) and any associated corrective actions to evaluate the licensee's ability to assess, identify, resolve, and prevent issues that could impact safety or the quality of SAFSTOR activities.
b. Observations and Findings
The purpose of the audit was to evaluate the effectiveness of Operations, compliance with TS requirements and to evaluate selected elements of the Master Audit Plan for Operations and TS. The audit contained 10 scope elements including: Test Control; Inspection, Test and Operating Status; Limiting Conditions for Operations; Conduct of Operations; Operator Knowledge and Performance; Work Coordination and Control; Corrective Action; Self Assessment and Benchmarking; Instruction, Drawings and Procedures; and Leadership and Management. The audit was adequate and identified strengths and weaknesses related to the Unit 1 activities.
The priority for addressing CRs and implementation of corrective actions were appropriate based upon safety significance. Corrective actions were implemented to address identified issues, and were being tracked to closure using the licensee's corrective action program. The licensee did not identify any adverse trends or safety concerns.
c. Conclusions
The licensee maintained an adequate audit program and effectively utilized the established corrective action program to identify, evaluate, and correct issues and problems. CRs were appropriately prioritized and corrective actions were tracked in accordance with approved procedures. No safety concerns or violations were identified.
5.0 Decommissioning Performance and Status Reviews
a. Inspection Scope
(IP 71801)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's current decommissioning status with respect to the Decommissioning Plan for Indian Point Unit 1, approved by the NRC in an Order dated January 31, 1996.
b. Observations and Findings
Unit 1 is currently in the SAFSTOR condition. The licensee informed the inspector that they plan to actively decommission Unit 1 in parallel with the decommissioning of Unit 2 after that unit has been permanently shutdown.
c. Conclusions
No dismantlement or decommissioning activities were performed since the previous inspection, conducted in June 2010. No safety concerns or violations were identified.
6.0 Maintenance and Surveillance
a. Inspection Scope
The inspector evaluated the maintenance program, required by TS, Section 5.0 and described in the IPEC SSM, Section 6.0. The inspector reviewed the surveillance requirements for the Unit 1 radioactive effluent monitoring instrumentation, required by TS, Section 5.2 and the ODCM. The inspector examined the shift logs and the maintenance and calibration records for the liquid discharge monitor (R-54) and the stack vent noble gas monitor (R-60) for the period July 2010 through August 2011. The inspector conducted a plant tour, including the nuclear service building (NSB), the chemical systems building (CSB), the fuel handling building (FHB), the containment building, and containment sphere [Le. vapor containment (VC)]. The inspector also discussed the biennial SAFSTOR engineering and structural assessment inspection with the licensee.
b. Observations and Findings
The inspector verified that the maintenance and surveillance program for selected systems and components had been conducted in accordance with TS, implementing procedures, and the ODCM. The inspector determined from a review of maintenance and calibration records that the preventative maintenance, routine surveillance, and calibration results were complete and the results were within acceptable limits. The inspector also determined that the radioactive effluent monitoring instrumentation were calibrated and that the set points were appropriate.
The biennial SAFSTOR engineering and structural assessment inspection will be conducted in November 2011. The inspector will review the engineering and structural assessment report during the next inspection.
c. Conclusions
The licensee effectively implemented the preventive maintenance and surveillance program and associated procedures in accordance with TS and ODCM requirements.
No safety concerns or violations were identified.
7.0 Occupational Radiation Exposure
a. Inspection Scope
(IP 83750)
The inspector evaluated the licensee's implementation of the occupational radiation exposure program to determine the licensee's capability to monitor and control radiation exposure to employees, and to determine the adequacy of the radiation protection program. The inspector reviewed procedure EN-RO-101, Nuclear Management Manual, Access Control for Radiologically Controlled Areas, Rev. 6, issued June 23, 2011, RP-STD-17, Satellite RP Key Issuance and HRA, LHRA, and VHRA Boundary Verification, Rev. 10, issued May 17, 2010, and EN-RP-108, Radiation Protection Posting, Rev. 10, issued August 4, 2011. The inspector interviewed responsible individuals, reviewed radiological survey plans, survey maps of the radiologically controlled area, and conducted field observations of radiological postings. The inspector evaluated the radiation work permits (RWP) related to Unit 1, and the dose totals for 2010 and January 2011 through August 2011.
b. Observations and Findings
The radiologically controlled areas were appropriately posted for radioactive material.
Radiological postings were readily visible, well-maintained, and reflected radiological conditions. The radiological survey maps and related information maintained at the Unit 1 access point were current. High radiation areas and technical specification locked high radiation areas were properly posted and locked as required. The RWPs were commensurate with the radiological significance of the tasks and included the appropriate exposure control measures for the safe implementation of the activities. The RWP dose totals were below the dose goal totals for 2010 and January 2011 through August 2011.
c. Conclusions
The licensee provided adequate controls to limit exposures of workers to external sources of radiation. Posting of radioactive materials and radiation areas were in compliance with regulatory requirements. Radiological controls and dose estimates associated with Unit 1 activities were effective to achieve dose goals. Implementation and oversight of the SAFSTOR program were effective for the safe storage of radioactive material. No safety concerns or violations were identified.
~-- ~--------~~------
8.0 Effluent and Environmental Monitoring Programs
a. Inspection Scope
(IP 84750)
The inspector evaluated the radioactive effluent control and the site radiological environmental monitoring programs. The evaluation included a review of the annual radioactive effluent release report for 2010, the annual radiological environmental operating report for 2010, and the associated analytical results for each program. The inspection also included a review of the Unit 1 TS and the ODCM. The inspector reviewed the associated radioactive liquid release permits, the analytical sample results, and the projected doses to the public associated with the groundwater in-leakage into the North Curtain Drain (NCD) and Sphere Foundation Drain (SFD) sumps. The inspector also reviewed the gaseous effluent results, the projected doses to the public associated with the stack vent, and the radiological environmental monitoring program, including the analytical results associated with samples of shoreline sediment, fish, and water from January 2011 through August 2011.
b. Observations and Findings
The annual effluent and environmental monitoring reports demonstrated that the calculated doses were well below regulatory dose criteria of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I. The radioactive liquid effluent release permits were completed in accordance with the ODCM.
From a review of the analytical data, the inspector verified that the projected doses to the public from the liquid and gaseous effluent from Unit 1 were below TS limits and were performed in accordance with the ODCM and the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50.36a) for maintaining doses to the public from radioactive effluents as low as is reasonably achievable. The inspector verified that the licensee collected and analyzed the stack vent samples, NCD and SFD sump samples, and the liquid discharge monitor samples within the required frequencies and that the sample collection was conducted in accordance with applicable procedures.
The inspector reviewed the analytical water sample results related to the groundwater monitoring program, specifically the NCD and SFD analytical sample results from January 2010 through December 2010. The levels of tritium ranged from 13,500 picoCuries per Liter (pCi/L) to 3,340 pCi/L for the NCD and from 642 pCi/L to 480 pCi/L for the SFD. The licensee informed the inspector that the levels of radioactivity appear to be trending downward. The inspector's review of this data confirmed the licensee's conclusion.
The inspector reviewed the analytical results for shoreline sediment, fish, and water from January 2011 through August 2011 for the radiological environmental monitoring program and noted that the results indicated that no significant radioactivity was identified in fish and the environment.
c. Conclusions
The licensee effectively implemented and maintained the radioactive effluent controls program, the groundwater monitoring program, and the radiological monitoring program.
No safety concerns or violations were identified.
Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation of Radioactive Materials
a. Inspection Scope
(IP 86750)
The inspector evaluated and discussed the radioactive waste management and transportation programs to determine whether the licensee properly processed, packaged, stored, and shipped radioactive materials. The inspector also conducted a tour of the Unit 1 FHB.
b. Observations and Findings
The inspector noted that there were no radioactive waste shipments since the previous inspection conducted in June 2010.
Additionally, the inspector determined from the Unit 1 FHB tour and discussions with individuals cognizant of the radioactive waste management and radioactive materials transportation programs that the Class B waste from the cleanup of the spent fuel pool is still being maintained in the Unit 1 FHB until an appropriate disposal option is available.
c. Conclusions
The licensee effectively implemented the radioactive waste management and transportation programs. No safety concerns or violations were identified.
Exit Meeting Summary
On September 1, 2011, the inspector presented the inspection results to Donald Mayer, Director, Unit 1, and other members of the licensee's staff. The inspector confirmed that proprietary information was not provided or examined during the inspection.
A-1
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
Licensee
- C. English, Superintendant, Unit 1
- J. Doroski, Health Physics and Chemistry Specialist
- W. Henries, Senior Engineer Consultant, Unit 1
- F. Inzirillo, Quality Assurance Manager
- D. Mayer, Director, Unit 1
- J. Michetti, System Engineering Support - RMS
- S. Sandike, Senior Chemistry Engineer
- W. Scholtens, Radioactive Waste Engineer
- D. Smith, Health Physicist, Radiation Protection
- G. Dahl, Licensing Engineer
- B. Taggart, Employee Concerns Program
- R. Tagliamante, Radiation Protection Manager
INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED
36801 Organization, Management, and Cost Controls at Permanently Shutdown
Reactors (PSRs)
37801 Safety Reviews, Design Changes, and Modifications at PSRs
40801 Self Assessment, Auditing, and Corrective Action at PSRs
2801 Maintenance and Surveillance at PSRs
71801 Decommissioning Performance and Status Reviews at PSRs
83750 Occupational Radiation Exposure
84750 Radioactive Waste Treatment, and Effluent and Environmental Monitoring
86750 Solid Radioactive Waste Management and Transportation of Radioactive
Materials
ITEMS OPEN, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
Opened, Closed and Discussed - None
LIST OF ACRONYMS USED
ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CR condition reports
CSB chemical systems building
EC Engineering Change
ECP Employee Concerns Program
FHB fuel handling building
IMC Inspection Manual Chapter
IP Inspection Procedure
IPEC Indian Point Energy Center
IPEC-SMM IPEC Site Management Manual, Control of Indian Point 1
NCD North Curtain Drain
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NSB nuclear service building
ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
PSRs Permanently Shutdown Reactors
QA quality assurance
RMS radiation monitoring system
RWP radiation work permits
SAFSTOR long-term safe storage
SFD Sphere Foundation Drain
SSCs structures, systems and components
TS technical specification
Unit 1 Indian Point Unit 1
Unit 2 Indian Point Unit 2
VC vapor containment (containment sphere)
Attachment