ML102880370: 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 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:1 PilgrimRenewal NPEmails From: Regner, Lisa Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:30 PM To: rebeccajchin@hotmail.com Ms. Chin, I apologize for the delay in responding to your questions contained in a February 4, 2007 email concerning Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. At the time of your email, the questions concerned issues subject to the staff's evaluation of the license renewal application and a hearing. Therefore, the staff could not respond until the evaluation and hearing were completed.  
{{#Wiki_filter:PilgrimRenewal NPEmails From:                         Regner, Lisa Sent:                         Monday, May 10, 2010 2:30 PM To:                           rebeccajchin@hotmail.com Ms. Chin, I apologize for the delay in responding to your questions contained in a February 4, 2007 email concerning Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. At the time of your email, the questions concerned issues subject to the staffs evaluation of the license renewal application and a hearing. Therefore, the staff could not respond until the evaluation and hearing were completed.
Following issuance of NUREG-1891 Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in November of 2007 and the completion of the hearing, we should have identified and directed you to the relevant information regarding your questions; again, I apologize for the oversight and the delay in our response.
The responses below in blue are taken primarily from the staffs Safety Evaluation Report (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) accession number ML073241016) and the MIT report submitted by Entergy in a letter dated May 1, 2007 (ADAMS accession number ML071280251).
Sincerely, Lisa Regner Lisa M Regner, Senior Project Manager Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lisa.Regner@NRC.Gov Office: O 8 E6 Mail Stop: O 11 F1 (301) 4151906 "Rebecca Chin" <rebeccajchin@hotmail.com> 2/4/2007 11:50 AM >>>
Perry Buckberg Project Manager, License Renewal - PNPSphb1@nrc.gov Perry: After the Exit Meeting, January 30, 2007 in Plymouth, I am left with some concerns and questions. I find it troubling that the NRC staff are relying on the 'Applicant' aka Pilgrim to provide all the information and all NRC staff does is sit in a room, look over the proposal and decide if NRC regulations contain enough 'wiggle room' to be satisfied. NRC staff does a 1 - 2 week onsite visit to look over the paperwork, walk around a little - know nothing specific about the plant itself or the site/area. They approve 6 areas of concern immediately and seem to be heading on okaying the 7 area - dry well degradation that Pilgrim has now agreed to look at/sample? once before 2012 and again once more before 2032... Is that the extent of NRC Division of Reactor Safety's evaluation - to examine whether the plant's program for 1


Following issuance of NUREG-1891 Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in November of 2007 and the completion of the hearing, we should have identified and directed you to the relevant information regarding your questions; again, I apologize for the oversight and the delay in our response. 
managing the effects of aging on 'KEY SAFETY SYSTEMS', structures and components is adequate and appropriate for a 20-year license extension??? Again, the public notification of the meeting was woefully inadequate.
 
Please respond to the questions below and include the diagram of the reactor and containment that was used in the discussion. A timely response would be greatly appreciated.
The responses below in blue are taken primarily from the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) accession number ML073241016) and the MIT report submitted by Entergy in a letter dated May 1, 2007 (ADAMS accession number ML071280251).
Thank-you,Rebecca Chin, Vice-ChairTown of Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee Torus - unresolved issue Q. NRC staff stated that there was evidence of water in the Torus. Does NRC know for certain where it came from? If so what is the basis.
Sincerely, Lisa Regner
Based on a detailed evaluation by MIT, contracted by the applicant, it was determined to be groundwater migration through the reactor building base mat. This information was provided in a letter from Entergy dated May 1, 2007 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System, ADAMS accession number ML071280251).
 
Q. I recollect that it was stated by the 'applicant' that the water in the Torus room/floor came from groundwater; is that correct?
LisaMRegner ,SeniorProjectManagerDivisionofLicenseRenewalOfficeofNuclearReactorRegulationU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionLisa.Regner@NRC.GovOffice:O8E 6MailStop:O11F 1(301)4151906 "Rebecca Chin" <rebeccajchin@hotmail.com
Correct.
> 2/4/2007 11:50 AM >>>
Q. 1) If the water is thought to have come from groundwater, how did it get there - from rain/moisture seeping down through the ground; from the water table, water coming up; from the ocean; a combination?
Perry Buckberg Project Manager, License Renewal - PNPSphb1@nrc.gov Perry: After the Exit Meeting, January 30, 2007 in Plymouth, I am left with some concerns and questions. I find it troubling that the NRC staff are relying on the 'Applicant' aka Pilgrim to provide all the information and all NRC staff does is sit in a room, look over the proposal and decide if NRC regulations contain enough 'wiggle room' to be satisfied. NRC staff does a 1 - 2 week onsite visit to look over the paperwork, walk around a little - know nothing specific about the plant itself or the site/area. They approve 6 areas of concern immediately and seem to be heading on okaying the 7 area - dry well degradation that Pilgrim has now agreed to look at/sample? once before 2012 and again once more before 2032... Is that the extent of NRC Division of Reactor Safety's evaluation - to examine whether the plant's program for 2managing the effects of aging on 'KEY SAFETY SYSTEMS', structures and components is adequate and appropriate for a 20-year license extension???   Again, the public notification of the meeting was woefully inadequate. Please respond to the questions below and include the diagram of the reactor and containment that was used in the discussion. A timely response would be greatly appreciated.  
Entergy determined that it was groundwater seepage through the concrete base mat caused by water pressure which pushed groundwater through vertical joints and minute cracks in the concrete slab. (Entergy 5/1/07 letter - MIT contracted to evaluate torus water)
 
: 2) What is the height of the water table; what is the distance from the water table to a specified location on the building; indicate on diagram provided at Exit Meeting?
Thank-you,Rebecca Chin, Vice-ChairTown of Duxbury Nuclear Advisory  
The reactor building is founded at elevation -25.5 ft. mean sea level (msl) on dense to very dense silty sand and sand and gravel. The ground water table is typically at about -1 ft. msl. (Entergy letter 3/13/2007)
 
: 3) Was the water in the Torus tested for salinity - especially important considering the corrosive effect of salt on concrete? If so, what was the result?
Committee Torus - unresolved issue Q. NRC staff stated that there was evidence of water in the Torus. Does NRC know for certain where it came from? If so what is the basis.
Yes, the water was tested for salinity and based on that testing it was determined that it would not have an appreciable effect on the structural performance of the Torus base mat.
Based on a detailed evaluation by MIT, contracted by the applicant, it was determined to be groundwater migration through the reactor building base mat. This information was provided in a letter from Entergy dated May 1, 2007 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System, ADAMS accession number ML071280251). Q. I recollect that it was stated by the 'applicant' that the water in the Torus room/floor came from groundwater; is that correct?
: 4) Was the water tested for radionuclides? If so, what was the result?
Correct. Q. 1)     If the water is thought to have come from groundwater, how did it get there - from rain/moisture seeping down through the ground; from the water table, water coming up; from the ocean; a combination?
Yes, the water was tested for radioactive isotopes. Levels detected were consistent with what would be expected in that portion of an operating nuclear facility.
Entergy determined that it was groundwater seepage through the concrete base mat caused by water pressure which pushed groundwater through vertical joints and minute cracks in the concrete slab. (Entergy 5/1/07 letter - MIT contracted to evaluate torus water)     2)   What is the height of the water table; what is the distance from the water table to a specified location on the building; indicate on diagram provided at Exit Meeting?
: 5) If the water got in, we can assume it can get out. Is this correct? If correct, where would it go; what tests are performed on said water for its radiological and chemical content?
The reactor building is founded at elevation  
-25.5 ft. mean sea level (msl) on dense to very dense silty sand and sand and gravel. The ground water table is typically at about
-1 ft. msl. (Entergy letter 3/13/2007)     3)     Was the water in the Torus tested for salinity - especially important considering the corrosive effect of salt on concrete? If so, what was the result?
Yes, the water was tested for salinity and based on that testing it was determined that it would not have an appreciable effect on the structural performance of the Torus base mat.     4)     Was the water tested for radionuclides? If so, what was the result?
Yes, the water was tested for radioactive isotopes. Levels detected were consistent with what would be expected in that portion of an operating nuclear facility.     5)     If the water got in, we can assume it can get out. Is this correct? If correct, where would it go; what tests are performed on said water for its radiological and chemical content?
It is possible, but unlikely that the water would seep out of the building due to the pressure difference between the water inside the Torus room floor and outside the Torus room floor.
It is possible, but unlikely that the water would seep out of the building due to the pressure difference between the water inside the Torus room floor and outside the Torus room floor.
3    6)     Is the Torus checked for water now and what will be required from 2012-2032? If required, what is the schedule and method used to check for water now and during 2012-2032?
2
If groundwater continues to collect on the Torus Room floor, Entergy will obtain samples and test it to determine its pH and verify the water is non-destructive once prior to the period of extended operation and once within the first ten years of the period of extended operation. (Commitment 45)     7)     Will monitoring wells be required to test for leakage into the ground?
: 6) Is the Torus checked for water now and what will be required from 2012-2032? If required, what is the schedule and method used to check for water now and during 2012-2032?
Entergy implemented a groundwater monitoring initiative in 2007 and voluntarily installed four monitoring wells. They are installing additional wells this week as part of the industry-wide Voluntary Initiative on Groundwater Monitoring.  
If groundwater continues to collect on the Torus Room floor, Entergy will obtain samples and test it to determine its pH and verify the water is non-destructive once prior to the period of extended operation and once within the first ten years of the period of extended operation. (Commitment 45)
 
: 7)   Will monitoring wells be required to test for leakage into the ground?
The NRC does not require monitoring wells to be installed for aging management purposes associated with license renewal.  
Entergy implemented a groundwater monitoring initiative in 2007 and voluntarily installed four monitoring wells. They are installing additional wells this week as part of the industry-wide Voluntary Initiative on Groundwater Monitoring.
 
The NRC does not require monitoring wells to be installed for aging management purposes associated with license renewal.
Current NRC and industry initiative concerning buried piping can be found at:  
Current NRC and industry initiative concerning buried piping can be found at:
 
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/buried-piping-activities.html 3
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/buried-piping-activities.html


Hearing Identifier: PilgrimRenewalNonPublic_EX Email Number: 305   Mail Envelope Properties   (28C67094311E124FBAF1AA3E42B881910E504BF320)
Hearing Identifier:   PilgrimRenewalNonPublic_EX Email Number:         305 Mail Envelope Properties     (28C67094311E124FBAF1AA3E42B881910E504BF320)


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
Sent Date:  5/10/2010 2:29:37 PM  Received Date:  5/10/2010 2:29:49 PM From:    Regner, Lisa Created By:  Lisa.Regner@nrc.gov Recipients:    "rebeccajchin@hotmail.com" <rebeccajchin@hotmail.com>
Tracking Status: None
Post Office:  HQCLSTR02.nrc.gov Files    Size      Date & Time MESSAGE    6629      5/10/2010 2:29:49 PM 


Options Priority:     Standard   Return Notification:   No   Reply Requested:   No   Sensitivity:     Normal Expiration Date:     Recipients Received:}}
Sent Date:            5/10/2010 2:29:37 PM Received Date:        5/10/2010 2:29:49 PM From:                  Regner, Lisa Created By:            Lisa.Regner@nrc.gov Recipients:
"rebeccajchin@hotmail.com" <rebeccajchin@hotmail.com>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:          HQCLSTR02.nrc.gov Files                          Size                  Date & Time MESSAGE                        6629                  5/10/2010 2:29:49 PM Options Priority:                     Standard Return Notification:           No Reply Requested:               No Sensitivity:                   Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:}}

Revision as of 07:55, 13 November 2019

2010/05/10 Pilgrim Renewal Hearing -
ML102880370
Person / Time
Site: Pilgrim
Issue date: 05/10/2010
From:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
06-848-02-LR
Download: ML102880370 (4)
v • d • e


Text

PilgrimRenewal NPEmails From: Regner, Lisa Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:30 PM To: rebeccajchin@hotmail.com Ms. Chin, I apologize for the delay in responding to your questions contained in a February 4, 2007 email concerning Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. At the time of your email, the questions concerned issues subject to the staffs evaluation of the license renewal application and a hearing. Therefore, the staff could not respond until the evaluation and hearing were completed.

Following issuance of NUREG-1891 Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in November of 2007 and the completion of the hearing, we should have identified and directed you to the relevant information regarding your questions; again, I apologize for the oversight and the delay in our response.

The responses below in blue are taken primarily from the staffs Safety Evaluation Report (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) accession number ML073241016) and the MIT report submitted by Entergy in a letter dated May 1, 2007 (ADAMS accession number ML071280251).

Sincerely, Lisa Regner Lisa M Regner, Senior Project Manager Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lisa.Regner@NRC.Gov Office: O 8 E6 Mail Stop: O 11 F1 (301) 4151906 "Rebecca Chin" <rebeccajchin@hotmail.com> 2/4/2007 11:50 AM >>>

Perry Buckberg Project Manager, License Renewal - PNPSphb1@nrc.gov Perry: After the Exit Meeting, January 30, 2007 in Plymouth, I am left with some concerns and questions. I find it troubling that the NRC staff are relying on the 'Applicant' aka Pilgrim to provide all the information and all NRC staff does is sit in a room, look over the proposal and decide if NRC regulations contain enough 'wiggle room' to be satisfied. NRC staff does a 1 - 2 week onsite visit to look over the paperwork, walk around a little - know nothing specific about the plant itself or the site/area. They approve 6 areas of concern immediately and seem to be heading on okaying the 7 area - dry well degradation that Pilgrim has now agreed to look at/sample? once before 2012 and again once more before 2032... Is that the extent of NRC Division of Reactor Safety's evaluation - to examine whether the plant's program for 1

managing the effects of aging on 'KEY SAFETY SYSTEMS', structures and components is adequate and appropriate for a 20-year license extension??? Again, the public notification of the meeting was woefully inadequate.

Please respond to the questions below and include the diagram of the reactor and containment that was used in the discussion. A timely response would be greatly appreciated.

Thank-you,Rebecca Chin, Vice-ChairTown of Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee Torus - unresolved issue Q. NRC staff stated that there was evidence of water in the Torus. Does NRC know for certain where it came from? If so what is the basis.

Based on a detailed evaluation by MIT, contracted by the applicant, it was determined to be groundwater migration through the reactor building base mat. This information was provided in a letter from Entergy dated May 1, 2007 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System, ADAMS accession number ML071280251).

Q. I recollect that it was stated by the 'applicant' that the water in the Torus room/floor came from groundwater; is that correct?

Correct.

Q. 1) If the water is thought to have come from groundwater, how did it get there - from rain/moisture seeping down through the ground; from the water table, water coming up; from the ocean; a combination?

Entergy determined that it was groundwater seepage through the concrete base mat caused by water pressure which pushed groundwater through vertical joints and minute cracks in the concrete slab. (Entergy 5/1/07 letter - MIT contracted to evaluate torus water)

2) What is the height of the water table; what is the distance from the water table to a specified location on the building; indicate on diagram provided at Exit Meeting?

The reactor building is founded at elevation -25.5 ft. mean sea level (msl) on dense to very dense silty sand and sand and gravel. The ground water table is typically at about -1 ft. msl. (Entergy letter 3/13/2007)

3) Was the water in the Torus tested for salinity - especially important considering the corrosive effect of salt on concrete? If so, what was the result?

Yes, the water was tested for salinity and based on that testing it was determined that it would not have an appreciable effect on the structural performance of the Torus base mat.

4) Was the water tested for radionuclides? If so, what was the result?

Yes, the water was tested for radioactive isotopes. Levels detected were consistent with what would be expected in that portion of an operating nuclear facility.

5) If the water got in, we can assume it can get out. Is this correct? If correct, where would it go; what tests are performed on said water for its radiological and chemical content?

It is possible, but unlikely that the water would seep out of the building due to the pressure difference between the water inside the Torus room floor and outside the Torus room floor.

2

6) Is the Torus checked for water now and what will be required from 2012-2032? If required, what is the schedule and method used to check for water now and during 2012-2032?

If groundwater continues to collect on the Torus Room floor, Entergy will obtain samples and test it to determine its pH and verify the water is non-destructive once prior to the period of extended operation and once within the first ten years of the period of extended operation. (Commitment 45)

7) Will monitoring wells be required to test for leakage into the ground?

Entergy implemented a groundwater monitoring initiative in 2007 and voluntarily installed four monitoring wells. They are installing additional wells this week as part of the industry-wide Voluntary Initiative on Groundwater Monitoring.

The NRC does not require monitoring wells to be installed for aging management purposes associated with license renewal.

Current NRC and industry initiative concerning buried piping can be found at:

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/buried-piping-activities.html 3

Hearing Identifier: PilgrimRenewalNonPublic_EX Email Number: 305 Mail Envelope Properties (28C67094311E124FBAF1AA3E42B881910E504BF320)

Subject:

Sent Date: 5/10/2010 2:29:37 PM Received Date: 5/10/2010 2:29:49 PM From: Regner, Lisa Created By: Lisa.Regner@nrc.gov Recipients:

"rebeccajchin@hotmail.com" <rebeccajchin@hotmail.com>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQCLSTR02.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 6629 5/10/2010 2:29:49 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML102880370&oldid=2126316"