ML11311A222
| ML11311A222 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/07/2011 |
| From: | Mel Gray Reactor Projects Branch 2 |
| To: | Joseph E Pollock Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| Mel Gray | |
| References | |
| IR-11-004 | |
| Download: ML11311A222 (34) | |
See also: IR 05000286/2011004
Text
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
W
REGION I
475 ALLENDALE ROAD
KING OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415
November 7 , 2OLI
Mr. Joseph E. Pollock
Site Vice President
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center
450 Broadway, GSB
Buchanan, NY 1051 1-0249
INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT 3 - NRC INTEGRATED
TNSPECTTON REPORT 05000286/201 1 004
Dear Mr.
On September 30, 2011, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an
inspection at Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3. The enclosed integiated 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 youi 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
91clo1ure, and your response (if any) will be available electronically for pubtic 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
htto://www.nrc.oov/readinq-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
%/'{r{
Mel Gray, Chidf
Reactor Projects Branch 2
Division of Reactor Projects
Docket No. 50-286
License No. DPR-26
Enclosure: lnspectionReport05000286/2011004
w/Attachment: Supplementary lnformation
cc Wencl: Distribution via ListServ
November 7,2011
Mr. Joseph E. Pollock
Site Vice President
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center
450 Broadway, GSB
Buchanan, NY 1051 1-0249
INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT 3 - NRC INTEGRATED
I NSPECTTON REPORT 05000286/201 1 004
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 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.oov/readinq-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/
Mel Gray, Chief
Reactor Projects Branch 2
Division of Reactor Projects
Docket No. 50-286
License No. DPR-26
Distribution: (see attached
SUNSI Review Complete: SCM (Reviewer's Initials) ML113114222
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\DRP\BRANCH2\a - Indian Point 3\lnspection Reports\2011\2011-004\lP3 2011.004.r5.docx
After declaring this document "An Official Agency Record" it will be released to the Public.
To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: 'C" = Copy without attachmenUenclosure "E" = Copy
with attachmenUenclosure "N" = No
11t07t11
2
Distribution: (via email)
W. Dean, RA
D. Lew, DFIA
D. Roberts, DRP
D. Ayres, DRP
C. Miller, DRS
P. Wilson, DRS
M. Franke, Rl OEDO
M. Gray, DRP
B. Bickett, DRP
S. McCarver, DRP
M. Jennerich, DRP
P. Cataldo, SRI
M. Halter, Rl
D. Hochmuth, DRP
RidsNrrPMlndianPoint Resource
RidsNrrDorlLpl 1 -1 Resource
ROPreport Resource@nrc. gov
1
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
License No.: DPR-26
Report No.: 05000286/2011004
Licensee: Entergy Nuclear Northeast (Entergy)
Facility: lndian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3
Location: 450 Broadway, GSB
Buchanan, NY 1051 1-0249
Dates: July 1 ,2011through September 30,2011
Inspectors: P. Cataldo, Senior Resident Inspector - Indian Point 3
M. Halter, Resident Inspector - Indian Point 3
S. Barr, Senior Emergency Preparedness Specialist - Region I
S. McCarver, Project Engineer - Region I
J. Noggle, Senior Health Physicist - Region I
T. O'Hara, Reactor Inspector - Region I
Approved By: Mel Gray, Chief
Reactor Projects Branch 2
Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosure
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. REACTOR SAFETY .....................,.4
1R01 Adverse Weather Protection ..................4
1R04 Equipment Alignment ...........5
1 R05 Fire Protection........... ...........5
1 R07 Heat Sink Performance.............. ...........6
1R1 1 Licensed Operator Requalification Program.............. ..............6
1R12 Maintenance Effectiveness.......... ..........7
1R13 Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Control ..................7
1R15 Operability Determinations and Functionality Assessments.......... ............8
1R18 Plant Modifications ...............9
1R19 Post-Maintenance Testing .....................9
1R22 Surveillance Testing ........... 10
1EP2 Alert and Notification System (ANS) Evaluation. ....................10
1 EP3 Emergency Response Organization (ERO) Staffing and Augmentation System ......11
1EP4 Emergency Action Level (EAL) and Emergency Plan Changes...............................11
1 EP5 Correction of Emergency Preparedness Weaknesses............. ...............12
1 EP6 Drill Evaluation.......... .........12
2. RADIATTON SAFETY ................... 13
2RSO Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluent Treatment ............. 13
4. OTHER ACTlVlTlES............... ......16
4OA1 Performance Indicator Verification .......16
4OA2 Problem ldentification and Resolution ..................17
4OA3 Follow-Up of Events and Notices of Enforcement Discretion ..................18
4OAO Meetings, Including Exit........... ............20
ATTACHMENT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ..........20
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION .......... ........ A-1
KEY POTNTS OF CONTACT ............. A-1
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, DISCUSSED, AND UPDATED ................... A-2
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ........... ....... A-2
LtsT oF ACRONYMS............... ....... A-11
Enclosure
3
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
f R 0500028612011004; 711111
-9130111; Indian Point Nuclear Generating (lndian Point) Unit 3;
Resident Integrated Inspection Report.
This report covered a three-month period of inspection by resident inspectors and announced
inspections performed by region inspectors. No findings of significance were identified. The
NRC's program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is
described in NUREG-1649, "Reactor Oversight Process," Revision 4, dated December 2006.
Enclosure
4
REPORT DETAILS
Summarv of Plant Status
fndian Point Unit 3 began the inspection period at 100 percent power. On August 19,2011, Unit
3 experienced a loss of normal offsite power (138kV feeder 95331) during severe weather. This
condition resulted in the loss of three circulating water pumps and subsequent degraded main
condenser vacuum conditions that necessitated a load reduction by operators to approximately
74 percent power. Operators returned the unit to full power on August 20, following recovery of
appropriate plant systems and equipment which were impacted by the loss of the 138kV normal
offsite power. The unit remained at or near 100 percent power for the remainder of the
inspection period.
1. REACTOR SAFEW
Gornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, and Barrier Integrity
1R01 Adverse Weather Protection (71111.01 - 1 sample)
lmpendino Adverse Weather
a. Inspection Scope
Hurricane lrene was forecast in the vicinity of the facility forAugust 27-28,2011. The
inspectors reviewed Entergy staff's overall preparations/protection for the expected
severe weather conditions. The inspectors walked down systems required for normal
operation and shutdown conditions because their safety-related functions could be
aifected, or required, as a result of flooding. The inspectors evaluated the plant staff's
preparations in accordance with site procedures to determine if actions were adequate.
The inspectors focused on plant-specific design features and station procedures used to
respond to adverse weather conditions. The inspectors also toured the site to determine
whether Entergy staff had identified and secured loose debris that could become
projectiles during the high winds usually associated with hurricanes. The inspectors
evaluated the operator staffing plan and the accessibility of controls and indications for
those systems required to controlthe plant. Additionally, the inspectors reviewed the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and performance requirements for the
systems selected for inspection, and reviewed whether operator actions were
appropriate as specified by plant specific procedures. The inspectors also reviewed a
sample of corrective action program (CAP) items to verify whether Entergy personnel
identified adverse weather impact issues at an appropriate threshold and dispositioned
them through the CAP in accordance with station corrective action procedures.
Documents reviewed for each section of this inspection report are listed in the
Attachment.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
Enclosure
5
1R04 EquipmentAliqnment
Partial Svstem Walkdowns (71111.04Q - 4 samples)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors performed partial walkdowns of the following systems:
. 31 control room air conditioner (CCRAC) during 32 CCRAC out of service on
August 3
o 31133 emergency diesel generators (EDGs) during 32 EDG outage on
August I - 10
. 32133 auxiliary boiler feed pumps (ABFPS) during 31 ABFP maintenance on
September 1
. 31/32 EDGs during 33 EDG outage on September 7 - 9
The inspectors selected these systems based on their risk-significance relative to the
reactor safety cornerstones at the time they were inspected. The inspectors reviewed
applicable operating procedures, system diagrams, the UFSAR, technical specifications
(TS), work orders, condition reports (CRs), and the impact of ongoing work activities on
redundant trains of equipment, to identify conditions that could have impacted system
performance of their intended safety functions. The inspectors also performed field
walkdowns of accessible portions of the systems to verify system components and
support equipment were aligned correctly and were operable. The inspectors examined
the material condition of the components and observed operating parameters of
equipment to verify that there were no deficiencies. The inspectors also reviewed
whether Entergy staff had properly identified equipment issues and entered them into
the corrective action program for resolution with the appropriate significance
characterization.
b. Findinos
No findings were identified.
1R05 Fire Protection
Resident Inspector Quarterlv Walkdowns (71111.05Q - 6 samples)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors conducted tours of the areas listed below to assess the material
condition and operational status of fire protection features. The inspectors verified that
Entergy staff controlled combustible materials and ignition sources in accordance with
administrative procedures. The inspectors verified that fire protection and suppression
equipment was available for use as specified in the area pre-fire plan, and passive fire
barriers were maintained in good material condition. The inspectors also verified that
station personnel implemented compensatory measures for out of service, degraded, or
inoperable fire protection equipment, as applicable, in accordance with procedures.
Enclosure
6
a 31 EDG cubicle (FZ-10) in September 2011
a 32 EDG cubicle FZ-101A) in September 2011
a 33 EDG cubicle (FZ-102A) in September 2011
a Control Building (CB) exhaust fan room (FZ-34A) in September 2011
a Atmospheric steam dumps (FZ-574) on September 21,2011
a Auxiliary feedwater building (FZ-23) on September 21,2011
b. Findinqs
No findings were identified.
1 R07 Heat Sink Performance (71111.07 - 1 sample)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors evaluated the 32 EDG jacket water heat exchanger to determine its
readiness and availability to perform its required safety function. The inspectors
reviewed the design basis for the component and verified Entergy's commitments to
NRC Generic Letter 89-13. The inspectors reviewed the results of the most recent
inspection, which was conducted on August 9. The inspectors discussed the results with
engineering staff and reviewed pictures of the as-found and as-left conditions. The
inspectors verified that Entergy personnel initiated appropriate corrective actions for
identified deficiencies. The inspectors also verified that the number of tubes plugged
within the heat exchanger did not exceed the maximum amount allowed.
Findinqs
No findings were identified.
1R11 Licensed Operator Requalification Proqram (71111.11Q- 1 sample)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors observed licensed-operator simulator training on July 26, which included
the loss of both main boiler feed pumps and a failure of the main turbine to auto trip, as
well as other component failures, plant transients and upsets. The scenario ultimately
required implementation of emergency operating procedures and the emergency plan.
The inspectors evaluated operator performance during the simulated event and verified
completion of risk significant operator actions, including the use of abnormal and
emergency operating procedures. The inspectors assessed the clarity and effectiveness
of communications, implementation of actions in response to alarms and degrading plant
conditions, and the oversight and direction provided by the control room supervisor. The
inspectors verified the accuracy and timeliness of the emergency classification made by
the shift manager and the technical specification action statements entered by the shift
technical advisor. Additionally, the inspectors assessed the ability of the crew and
training staff to identify and document crew performance problems.
Enclosure
7
b. Findinqs
No findings were identified.
1R12 Maintenance Effectiveness (71111.12Q - 2 samples)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the samples listed below to assess the effectiveness of
maintenance activities on structure, system, and component (SSC) performance and
reliability. The inspectors reviewed system health reports, corrective action program
documents, maintenance work orders, and maintenance rule basis documents to ensure
that Entergy personnelwere identifying and properly evaluating performance problems
within the scope of the maintenance rule. For each sample selected, the inspectors
verified that the SSC was properly scoped into the maintenance rule in accordance with
10 CFR 50.65 and verified that the (aXz) performance criteria established by Entergy
staff was reasonable. As applicable, for SSCs classified as (aX1), the inspectors
assessed the adequacy of goals and corrective actions to return these SSCs to (a)(2).
Additionally, the inspectors ensured that Entergy staff was identifying and addressing
common cause failures that occurred within and across maintenance rule system
boundaries.
. Appendix R Diesel Generator in August 2011
. Nuclear Instrumentation System in August 2011
b. Findinos
No findings were identified.
1R13 Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emerqent Work Control (71111 .13 - 5 samples)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed station evaluation and management of plant risk for the
maintenance and emergent work activities listed below to verify that Entergy personnel
performed the appropriate risk assessments prior to removing equipment for work. The
inspectors selected these activities based on potential risk significance relative to the
reactor safety cornerstones. As applicable for each activity, the inspectors verified that
Entergy personnel performed risk assessments as required by 10 CFR 50.65(a)(a) and
that the assessments were accurate and complete. When Entergy personnel performed
emergent work, the inspectors verified that operations personnel promptly assessed and
managed plant risk. The inspectors reviewed the scope of maintenance work and
discussed the results of the assessment with the station's probabilistic risk analyst to
verify plant conditions were consistent with the risk assessment. The inspectors also
reviewed the technical specification requirements and inspected portions of redundant
safety systems, when applicable, to verify risk analysis assumptions were valid and
applicable requirements were met.
Enclosure
I
Elevated risk due to 31 EDG, 13.8kV feeder 13W92, and MS-PCV-1135 out of
service on July 14
Elevated risk due to planned 22A reactor protection system (RPS) relay
replacement on July 21
Elevated risk as a result of solar flare activity on August 5 - 6,
Elevated risk during 3-PT-M13A1 and Consolidated Edison activities in the
138kV switchyard on August 15
Elevated risk during 32 ABFP maintenance as a result of solar flares on
September 27
b. Findinqs
No findings were identified.
1R15 OperabilitvDeterminationsand FunctionalitvAssessments (71111.15-2samples)
a. lnspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed operability determinations for the following degraded or non-
conforming conditions:
r Loss of coolant accident calculation errors on July 26
r External corrosion on the 10-inch service water (SW) supply piping to EDGs on
August 4
The inspectors selected these issues based on the risk significance of the associated
components and systems. The inspectors evaluated the technical adequacy of the
operability determinations to assess whether technical specification operability was
properly justified and the subject component or system remained available such that no
unrecognized increase in risk occurred. The inspectors compared the operability and
design criteria in the appropriate sections of the technical specifications and UFSAR to
Entergy's evaluations to determine whether the components or systems were operable.
Where compensatory measures were required to maintain operability, the inspectors
determined whether the measures in place would function as intended and were
properly controlled by Entergy personnel. The inspectors determined, where
appropriate, compliance with bounding limitations associated with the evaluations.
b. Findinos
No findings were identified.
Enclosure
I
1R18 Plant Modifications (71111.18 - 1 sample)
Permanent Modification
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors evaluated a modification to the 31 and 32 CCRAC units implemented by
engineering change package 26365. The inspectors verified that the design bases,
licensing bases, and performance capability of the affected systems were not degraded
by the modification. In addition, the inspectors reviewed modification documents
associated with design change, including the removal of zinc anode plates from the
reversing heads of the CCRAC condensers. The inspectors also reviewed the CCRAC
preventative maintenance procedure to verify the procedure was appropriately revised to
reflect the new equipment configuration.
b. Findinqs
No findings were identified.
1R19 Post-Maintenance Testino (71111.19 - 6 samples)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the postmaintenance tests for the maintenance activities listed
below to verify that procedures and test activities ensured system operability and
functional capability. The inspectors reviewed the test procedure to verify that the
procedure adequately tested the safety functions that may have been affected by the
maintenance activity, that the acceptance criteria in the procedure was consistent with
the information in the applicable licensing basis and/or design basis documents, and that
the procedure had been properly reviewed and approved. The inspectors also
witnessed the test or reviewed test data to verify that the test results adequately
demonstrated restoration of the affected safety functions.
. 31 EDG maintenance outage on July 14
. 33 steam generator low level mismatch bistable replacement on July 15
. RPS relay 22Areplacement on July 21
. 32 EDG maintenance outage on August 10
. 32 CCRAC SW inlet strainer replacement on August 12
o RPS relay 214 replacement on August 25
b. Findinqs
No findings were identified.
Enclosure
10
1R22 Surveillance Testinq (71111.22- 4 samples)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors observed performance of surveillance tests and/or reviewed test data of
selected risk-significant SSCs to assess whether test results satisfied technical
specifications, the UFSAR, and Entergy procedure requirements. The inspectors
verified that test acceptance criteria were clear, tests demonstrated operational
readiness and were consistent with design documentation, test instrumentation had
current calibrations and the range and accuracy for the application, tests were performed
as written, and applicable test prerequisites were satisfied. Upon test completion, the
inspectors considered whether the test results supported that equipment was capable of
performing the required safety functions. The inspectors reviewed the following
surveillance tests:
. 3-PT-Q1 168, 32 safety injection pump on July 12 (in-service test)
. 3-PT-Q83, refueling water storage tank level instrument check and calibration
(LlC-921) on August 1 1
. 3-PT-Q94A, pressurizer level functional test - channel 1 on August 17
. 0-SOP-LEAKRATE-001, RCS leakrate surveillance, evaluation, and leak
identification on September 11 (reactor coolant system)
b. Findinqs
No findings were identified.
Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness (EP)
1EP2 Alert and Notification Svstem (ANS) Evaluation (71114.02 - 1 sample)
a. Inspection Scope
An onsite review was conducted to assess the maintenance and testing of the Indian
Point Energy Center (IPEC) ANS. During this inspection, the inspectors interviewed
Entergy and contractor staff responsible for implementation of the ANS testing and
maintenance, and reviewed CRs pertaining to the ANS for causes, trends, and
corrective actions. The inspectors reviewed the ANS procedures and the ANS design
report to ensure Entergy's compliance with design report commitments for system
maintenance and testing. The inspection was conducted in accordance with Inspection
Procedure (lP) 71 1 14, Attachment 02. Planning Standard, 10 CFR 50.47(b) (5) and the
related requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, were used as reference criteria.
b. Findinqs
No findings were identified.
Enclosure
11
1EP3 Emerqencv Response Orqanization (ERO) Staffino and Auqmentation System
(71114.03 - 1 sample)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors conducted a review of the IPEC ERO augmentation staffing requirements
and the process for notifying and augmenting the ERO. This was performed to ensure
the readiness of key Entergy staff to respond to an emergency event and to ensure
Entergy staff's ability to activate their emergency facilities in a timely manner, The
inspectors reviewed the IPEC ERO roster, training records, applicable procedures, drill
reports for augmentation, quarterly EP drill reports, and CRs related to the ERO staffing
augmentation system. The inspection was conducted in accordance with lP 71114,
Attachment 03. Planning Standard, 10 CFR 50.47(bX2) and related requirements of
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, were used as reference criteria.
b. Findinqs
No findings were identified.
1EP4 Emersencv Action Level (EAL) and Emerqencv Plan Chanqes (71114.04 - 1 sample)
a. Inspection Scope
Since the last NRC inspection of this program area in September 2010, Entergy staff
have implemented various revisions of the different sections of the Indian Point
Emergency Plan. Entergy staff had determined that, in accordance with 10 CFR
50.54(q), any change made to the Plan, and its lower{ier implementing procedures, had
not resulted in any decrease in effectiveness of the Plan, and that the revised Plan
continued to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part
50. The inspectors reviewed EAL changes that had been made since September 2010,
and conducted a sampling review of other Emergency Plan changes, including the
changes to lower-tier emergency plan implementing procedures and EP-related
equipment, to evaluate for any potential decreases in effectiveness of the Emergency
Plan. However, this review was not documented in an NRC Safety Evaluation Report
and does not constitute formal NRC approval of the changes. Therefore, these changes
remain subject to future NRC inspection in their entirety. The inspection was conducted
in accordance with lP 71114, Attachment 04. The requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(q)
were used as reference criteria.
b. Findinos
No findings were identified.
Enclosure
12
1EPs Correction of Emerqencv Preparedness Weaknesses (71114.05 - 1 sample)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed a sample of self-assessment procedures and reports to assess
Entergy staff's ability to evaluate IPEC EP performance and programs. The inspectors
reviewed a sample of CRs from October 2Q10 through August 2011, initiated by Entergy
staff from drills, self-assessments, audits, and the November 7,2010, Unit 2 transformer
explosion which had resulted in an actual Alert declaration at Unit 2. Additionally, the
inspectors reviewed Quality Assurance audits, including 10 CFR 50.54(t) audits, and
several self-assessment reports. This inspection was conducted in accordance with lP
71114, Attachment 05. Planning Standard, 10 CFR 50.47(b) (14) and the related
requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix E were used as reference criteria.
b. Findinqs
No findings were identified.
lEPO Drill Evaluation (71114.06 - 1 sample)
Traininq Observations
a. lnspection Scope
The inspectors observed a simulator training evaluation for Unit 3 licensed operators on
July 26, which required emergency plan implementation by an operations crew. Entergy
planned for this evolution to be evaluated and included in performance indicator data
regarding drill and exercise performance. The inspectors observed event classification
and notification activities performed by the crew. The inspectors also attended the post-
evolution critique for the scenario. The focus of the inspectors' activities was to note any
weaknesses and deficiencies in the crew's performance and ensure that Entergy
evaluators noted the same issues and entered them into the corrective action program.
b. Findinqs
No findings were identified.
Enclosure
13
RADIATION SAFETY
Gornerstone: Occupational/Public Radiation Safety
2RS6 Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluent Treatment (71124.06 - 1 sample)
a. Inspection Scope
Entergy's program was evaluated against the requirement to provide adequate
protection of the public from effluent releases resulting from normal operations of the
plant by maintaining the dose to the maximally exposed member of the public as far
below the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 and 40 CFR Part 190, as is reasonably
achievable (ALARA). General Design Criterion 60 in 10 CFR 50 Appendix A requires
the control and appropriate mitigation of radioactive materials released as plant
effluents. In addition, Paragraph 50.34a (and the associated Appendix l) to 10 CFR Part
50 provide dose based design criteria to ensure the effectiveness of plant effluent
processing systems in maintaining effluent releases to the plant environs ALARA.
Event Report and Effluent Report Reviews
The inspectors reviewed the IPEC 2009 and 2010 Annual Radiological Effluent Release
Reports. Both of these reports included documentation of groundwater effluent releases
to the Hudson River and commensurate doses to the maximally exposed member of the
public with comparison to regulatory limits. The inspectors determined that the reports
were submitted as required by the Off-site Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM)/Technical
Specifications. The inspectors identified radioactive effluent monitor operability issues
reported by the licensee as provided in effluent release reports, and determined that the
issues were entered into the corrective action program and adequately resolved.
The inspectors reviewed changes to the ODCM made by the licensee since the last
Inspection, against the guidance in NUREG-1301 ,1302 and 0133, and Regulatory
Guides 1 .1 09, 1 .21 and 4.1 . The inspectors determined that Entergy staff had not
identified any non-radioactive systems that had become contaminated as disclosed
either through an event report or are documented in the ODCM since the last inspection.
Groundwater Protection Initiative (GPl) Proqram
The inspectors reviewed the reported groundwater monitoring results, and changes to
the licensee's written program for identifying and controlling contaminated spills/leaks to
groundwater.
Walkdowns and Observations
The inspectors walked down selected components of the gaseous and liquid discharge
systems to verify that equipment configuration and flow paths align with the UFSAR
documented descriptions, and reviewed and assessed equipment material conditions.
For equipment or areas associated with the systems cited above that were not readily
accessible due to radiological conditions, the inspectors reviewed Entergy's material
Enclosure
14
condition surveillance records. The inspectors walked down those filtered ventilation
systems whose test results were reviewed during the inspection. The inspectors verified
that there were no conditions, such as degraded high efficiency particulate air
(HEPA)/charcoal banks, improper alignment, or system installation issues that would
impact the performance, or the effluent monitoring capability of the effluent system. The
inspectors determined that Entergy staff had not made any significant changes to their
effluent release points.
The inspectors observed the routine processing and discharge of effluents (including
sample collection and analysis). The inspectors verified that appropriate effluent
treatment equipment was being used and that untreated groundwater effluent was
designated as an abnormal liquid effluent, and its discharge into the Hudson River was
appropriately calculated and reported in accordance with ODCM specifications, and in
accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix I regulatory limits.
Samplinq and Analyses
The inspectors selected effluent sampling activities and verified that adequate controls
had been implemented to ensure representative samples are obtained (e.9., provisions
for sample line flushing, vessel recirculation, composite samplers, etc.). The inspectors
reviewed Entergy staff's use of compensatory sampling, in lieu of adequate system
maintenance, based on the frequency of compensatory sampling since the last
inspection.
The inspectors reviewed the results of the inter-laboratory comparison program to verify
the quality of the radioactive effluent sample analyses. The inspectors verified that the
inter-laboratory comparison program include hard{o-detect radioisotopes as
appropriate.
lnstrumentation and Equipment
Effluent Flow Measuring Instruments
The inspectors reviewed the methodology that Entergy personnel use to determine the
effluent stack and vent flow rates. The inspectors verified that the flow rates were
consistent with radiological effluents technical specifications (RETSyODCM or FSAR
values, and that differences between assumed and actual stack and vent flow rates do
not affect the results of the projected public doses,
Air Cleaning Systems
The inspectors verified that surveillance test results since the previous inspection for
technical specification required ventilation effluent discharge systems (HEPA and
charcoal filtration) meet technical specification acceptance criteria.
Enclosure
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 detectability standards. The inspectors
reviewed the current 10 CFR Part 61 analyses to ensure hard{o-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 1.109. The inspectors reviewed meteorologicaldispersion 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 lmplementation
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
Problem ldentification 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. Findinos and Observations
No findings were identified.
Groundwater Contam ination
On June 27, 2011 while reviewing the second quarter 201 1 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-lP2-2011-3173.
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
4OA1 Performance Indicator (Pl) Verification (71151)
.1 Mitiqatinq Svstems 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:
o 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. Findinqs
No findings were identified.
.2 Emerqencv Preparedness (3 samples)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed data for the IPEC Emergency Preparedness Performance
Indicators (EP Pls), 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 Pl data. The
review of these Pls was conducted in accordance with lP 71151, using the acceptance
criteria documented in NEI 99-02, "Regulatory Assessment Performance lndicator
Guidelines," Revision 6.
Enclosure
17
b. Findinqs
No findings were identified.
4OA2 Problem ldentification and Resolution (71152 - 1 sample)
.1 Routine Review of Problem ldentification and Resolution Activities
a. Inspection Scope
As required by lnspection Procedure71152, "Problem ldentification and Resolution," the
inspectors routinely reviewed issues during baseline inspection activities and plant
status reviews to verify that Entergy personnel entered issues into the corrective action
program at an appropriate threshold, gave adequate attention to timely corrective
actions, and identified and addressed adverse trends. In order to assist with the
identification of repetitive equipment failures and specific human performance issues for
follow-up, the inspectors performed a daily screening of items entered into the corrective
action program and periodically attended condition report screening meetings.
b. Findinos
No findings were identified.
.2 Annual Sample: Review of Corrective Actions for Service Water (SW) Pipinq Leaks at
Indian Point Unit 2 and Unit 3
a. Inspection Scope
From August 8 - 12,2011, the inspectors reviewed several CRs for lndian Point Unit 2
and Unit 3 which documented leaks in the SW system piping of each unit.
The inspectors conducted a detailed review of CR-lP2-2010-06251, written
October 12,2010, which documents an adverse trend in the number of through wall SW
piping leaks which occurred during the third quarter o'12010 at both Indian Point Unit 2
and Unit 3. This CR discusses SW system leaks with six occurring at Unit 2 and five at
Unit 3. All 11 leaks had occurred during the third quarter of 2010. The inspectors also
conducted a detailed review of the 11 CRs from the reported leaks. The inspectors
conducted a walkdown of all accessible areas of the SW systems for Unit 2 and tor
Unit 3.
The inspectors also conducted a review of Entergy's apparent cause evaluation (ACE) of
the increasing number of leaks reported in CR-lP2-2010-06251. The inspectors
reviewed the operating experience contained in CR-lP2-2010-06251. Additionally, the
inspectors reviewed the corrective actions implemented in CR-lP2-2010-06251 to
address the increased occurrence of SW system piping leaks.
The inspectors also conducted a detailed review of CR-lP2-2010-05414, dated
August 31,2010, which documents the occurrence of pinhole, through wall, leaks in
three EDG SW couplings. Additional EDG SW coupling leaks are described in
CR-lP2-2010-05414, CR-lP2-2002-07051, and CR-lP2-2009-Q5169. The inspectors
Enclosure
18
interviewed system engineers and design engineers responsible for resolving the causes
of the leaking couplings.
b. Findinqs and Observations
No findings were identified.
cR-tP2-2010-06251
Entergy conducted an ACE of the increasing number of leaks reported in
CR-lP2-2010-06251 and determined that the direct cause was that "erosion and
installation deficiencies have created gaps in the cement lining of SW pipe, leaving bare
metal exposed to corrosive river water." The 11 identified leaks have either been
evaluated as operable in accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) Code Case N-513-2 or N-513-3, or the leaks have been repaired. Longer term
corrective actions, aimed at correcting the cause of the through wall leaks, have not
been completed but are in the planning stages.
cR-tP2-2010-05414
Because this CR was classified as a Category C, Non-Significant CR, Entergy staff did
not conduct a cause determination on these coupling leaks. Rather, Entergy staff made
modifications to the design of original couplings following Entergy engineering
procedures. The primary design change was the addition of an epoxy coating to new
stainless steel coupling bodies to prevent corrosive SW from contacting and degrading
the stainless steel.
The inspectors reviewed the Entergy specification for the modified couplings and the
Commercial Dedication Evaluation performed to support the coupling changes. The
inspectors confirmed that Entergy personnel have replaced the originally affected
couplings, including ones which had not leaked.
40A3 Follow-Up of Events and Notices of Enforcement Discretion (71153 - 4 samples)
.1 Plant Events
a. lnspection Scope
For the plant events listed below, the inspectors reviewed and/or observed plant
parameters, reviewed personnel performance, and evaluated performance of mitigating
systems. The inspectors communicated the plant events to appropriate regional
personnel, and compared the event details with criteria contained in IMC 0309, "Reactive
Inspection Decision Basis for Reactors," for consideration of potential reactive inspection
activities. As applicable, the inspectors verified that Entergy personnel made
appropriate emergency classification assessments and properly reported the event in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73. The inspectors reviewed Entergy staff's
follow-up actions related to the events to assure that corrective actions commensurate
with their safety significance were implemented.
Enclosure
19
A seismic event and tremor were reported at Indian Point at 14:04 on August 23.
Unit 3 operators entered O-AOP-SEISMIC-1, Seismic Event, and ensured the
plant continued to operate safely. Entergy personnel performed a site walkdown
including containment and identified no damage or issues as a result of the
earthquake. No peak shock annunciators alarmed as a result of the earthquake
and lndian Point did not enter any emergency action levels. The inspectors
performed an independent walkdown of safety related equipment and reviewed
completed procedures to independently assess Entergy personnel conclusions
that there was no damage or issues from the seismic event.
Hurricane lrene was reported at Indian Point on August 27-28. Unit 3 operators
entered OAP-008, Severe Weather Preparations, to monitor the changing
weather conditions and take action as necessary. Entergy personnel performed
a site walkdown of internal and externalareas, updated plant risk status with a
severe weather risk and verified the capability of safety systems to respond when
needed. The inspectors performed an independent walkdown of safety related
equipment and reviewed plant procedures to ensure Unit 3 was adequately
prepared for the hurricane. The inspectors remained onsite assessing Hurricane
lrene's impact on Unit 3; however, the hurricane was significantly downgraded on
landing with heavy rains and mild winds. Entergy personnel documented issues
identified for further follow-up.
Unit 3 experienced a loss of normal 138kV offsite power during severe weather
on August 19. Unit 3 control room operators implemented applicable steps of
abnormal operating procedure 3-AOP-138kV-1, Loss of Power to 6.9kV Bus 5
and/or 6, to address the transient and to stabilize the plant. Additionally, control
room operators performed a downpower to approximately 76 percent, due to
degrading vacuum conditions following the loss of three circulating water pumps,
as a direct result of the loss of power event. Entergy operators evaluated and
entered applicable technical specifications, and appropriately reported the event
to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 50.72, and entered the issue for
evaluation within the corrective action program as CR-lP3-2011-04045.
Equipment performance aspects with regard to the loss of the offsite power
source will be subject to further baseline inspection during review of the root
cause evaluation and subsequent Licensee Event Report (LER), as applicable.
b. Findinos
No findings were identified.
.2 (Closed) LER 05000286-2010-002-00: Manual Reactor Trip Due to a Cooling Water
Leak in the Main Generator Exciter Air Cooler
On September 9, 2010, Unit 3 control room operators initiated a manual reactor trip after
operators observed a SW leak in the main generator exciter housing. Subsequently,
Entergy personnel determined the leak was in the 31 exciter air cooler and was caused
by the failure of an eroded and corroded Admiralty Brass tube. The issue was entered
into the corrective action program as CR-lP3-2010-02682 and a root cause evaluation
was performed. Entergy personnel repaired the leak, completed extent-of-condition
inspections on all 31 and 32 exciter air cooler tubes, and installed new sleeves on both
Enclosure
20
ends of all unplugged tubes of both exciter air coolers. Additionally, the 31 and 32
exciter air cooler heat exchanger tube bundles were replaced during the Unit 3 refueling
outage in the spring of 2011. The inspectors reviewed the LER and corrective action
program documents to verify that the Entergy staff's evaluation and corrective actions
were adequate. Additionally, the inspectors reviewed information obtained during the
NRC's baseline inspection during the actual event from the 3rd quarter 2010. The
inspectors did not identify any violations during the review of this LER; therefore, this
LER is closed.
4OAO Meetinqs. Includinq Exit
On October 24,2011, the inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. Joseph
Pollock, Site Vice President, and other members of the Entergy staff. The inspectors
verified that no proprietary information was retained by the inspectors or documented in
this report.
ATTACHMENT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Enclosure
A-1
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee Personnel
J. Pollock, Site Vice President
B. Allen, Engineering
Y. Andreozzi, Systems Engineering Supervisor
N. Azevedo, Engineering Programs Manager
T. Beasely, System Engineer
R. Burroni, Systems Engineering Manager
P. Cloughessy, Maintenance Rule Coordinator
G. Dahl, Licensing Specialist
M. DeChristopher, System Engineer
J. Dinelli, Site Operations Manager
B. Dolansky, In-Service Inspection Program Manager
R. Drake, Design Engineering Supervisor
M. Dries, System Engineer
J. Lijoi, Instrument and Controls Superintendent
T. Motko, System Engineer
T. Orlando, Engineering Director
C. Rokes, Licensing Specialist
A. Singer, Training Superintendent
M. Tesoriero, Programs and Components Engineering Manager
M. Troy, Programs and Components Engineering Supervisor
J. Ventosa, General Manager, Plant Operations
B. Walpole, Licensing Manager
C. Wilson, System Engineer
W. Wittich, Engineering
V. Meyers, Design Engineering Supervisor
Attachment
A-2
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, DISCUSSED, AND UPDATED
Closed
05000286/201 0-002-00 LER Manual Reactor Trip Due to a Cooling Water Leak
in the Main Generator Exciter Air Cooler
(Section 4OA3)
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Section 1R01: Adverse Weather Protection
Procedures
3-AOP-Flood-1, Flooding, Revision 6
OAP-008, Severe Weather Preparations, Revision 9
Section 1R04: Equipment Alisnment
Procedures
3-COL-FW-2, Auxiliary Feedwater System, Revision 29
3-COL-EL-005, Diesel Generators, Revision 36
3-COL-RW-002, Service Water System, Revision 43
Miscellaneous
lP3V-6-6.27-0003, Flexmaster Pipe Joint, Revision 2
Section 1R05: Fire Protection
Procedures
EN-DC-161, Control of Combustibles, Revision 5
Completed Procedures
3-FlR-005-FlR, lnspection, Cleaning and Preventive Maintenance of lP3 Fire and Smoke
Dampers, dated August 17,2Q11
3-PT-SA17, Fire Protection Ultra-Violet Flame Detectors, dated August 30,2011
Condition Reports (CR-lP3-201 1 -)
041 99
Drawinqs
9321-F-40483, Diesel Generator Building Heating & Ventilation Plan & Sections, Revision 9
9321-F-40563, Control Building Ventilation Fan Room -Et27'-0", Plans, Sections and Details,
Revision 5
9321-D-10685, Diesel Generator Building Fire Protection Upgrade of Wall Openings, Revision 2
Miscellaneous
PFP-354, Diesel Generators 31,32 & 33, Revision 0
PFP-354A, Control Building Exhaust Fan Room and DG Air lntake Enclosure, Revision 0
PFP-367, Atmospheric Steam Dumps - Auxiliary Feedwater Building, Revision 5
Attachment
A-3
PFP-3674, Auxiliary Feedwater Building, Revision 4
lP3-ANAL-FP-02143,lP3 Fire Hazards Analysis Report, Revision 4
Calculation lP3-CALC-FP-00901, New EDG Fire Barrier Design, Revision 0
Section 1R07: Heat Sink Performance
Procedures
SEP-SW-001, IPEC NRC G.L.89-13 Service Water Program, Revision 4
Condition Reports (CR-lP3-201 1 -)
03925
Maintenance OrdersMork Orders
5231 0926-01
Miscellaneous
Preliminary Report of Eddy Current Inspection, dated August 10,2011, for vendor inspection
conducted on the 32 EDG Jacket Water Heat Exchanger
Section 1Rl1: Licensed Operator Requalification Proqram
Procedures
TQF-210-DD03, LOR Simulator Crew Performance Evaluation Report, Revision 2
Section 1R12: Maintenance Effectiveness
Procedures
EN-DC-203, Maintenance Rule Program, Revision 1
EN-DC-204, Maintenance Rule Scope and Basis, Revision 2
EN-DC-205, Maintenance Rule Monitoring, Revision 3
EN-DC-206, Maintenance Rule (aX1) Process, Revision 1
3-SOP-EL-O13, Appendix R Diesel Generator Operation, Revision 25
3-SOP-EL-014, Energization of the 480V Buses from the Appendix R Diesel Generator,
Revision 10
3-AOP-SSD-1, Control Room Inaccessibility Safe Shutdown Control, Revision 13
3-PT-W012, Appendix R Diesel Support Systems Inspection, Revision 19
OAP-008, Severe Weather Preparations, Revision 7
OAP-008, Severe Weather Preparations, Revision 8
OAP-008, Severe Weather Preparations, Revision 10
Condition Reports (CR-lP3-)
2010-00208 2010,00249 2010-00303 2010-00367 2010-00368 2010-00375
2010-02440 2010-03980 2011-02368 2011-02905 2011-03095 2011-03381
2011-04090 2011-04428
Maintenance OrdersMork Orders
00279763 00279764 00260222
Attachment
A-4
Drawinqs
9321-F-36033, Appendix "R" On-Site Alternate Power Source Diesel Generator Main One-Line
Diagram, Revision 10
Miscellaneous
lndian Point Energy Center - lP2 and lP3 Maintenance Rule Basis Document Nuclear
Instrumentation System, Revision 0
Maintenance Rule Basis Document for Appendix R Emergency Diesel Generator and
Emergency Diesel Generators, Revision 0
Section 1Rl3: Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emerqent Work Control
Procedures
EN-WM-104, On Line Risk Assessment, Revision 4
OAP-008, Severe Weather Preparations, Revision 9
Section 1Rl5: Operabilitv Determinations and Functionalitv Assessments
Procedures
EN-OP-104, Operability Determination Process, Revision 5
Condition Reports (CR-lP3-201 1 -)
03737 04087 03831
Ma intenance OrdersMork Orders
166970
Miscellaneous
Nuclear Safety Advisory Letter NSAL-11-5, Westinghouse LOCA Mass and Energy Release
Calculation lssues, dated July 7,2011
Calculation lP-CALC-11-00056, Evaluation of Pipe Wall Thinning at Line 1093 and 1099,
Revision 0
Section 1Rl8: Plant Modifications
Condition Reports (CR-lP3-)
2o10-03776 2011-03776 201 1-03809
Miscellaneous
DC-96-3-129, Control Room AC Unit Condenser Replacement, Revision 0
EC-26365, Removal of Zinc Anode in the Reversing Heads of 31 and 32 CCR AC Units,
Revision 0
Section 1R19: Post-Maintenance Testinq
Completed Procedures
3-PT-M079A, 31 EDG Functional Test, dated July 14,2011
3-PT-M1341, Reactor Protection Logic Channel Functional Test (Reactor Power Greater Than
35o/o - P8), dated August 15,2011
0-f C-Sl-69, DAM502 Dual Alarm Module Replacement, dated July 15,2011
Attachment
A-5
3-PT-Q97, Steam Generator Level Analog Functional, dated July 15,2011
3-PT-M0798, 32 EDG Functional Test, dated August 10,2011
3-SOP-EL-001, Diesel Generator Operation, dated August 10,2011.
Condition Reports (CR-lP3-201 1 -)
03776 03957 04181 03809 03908
Maintenance OrdersMork Orders
00287215 52338291 00285659 52309613 52324898 52309890
00278452 52309560 52309613
Drawinos
113E301 Sheet 3, Reactor Protection System Schematic Diagram, Revision 10
Miscellaneous
Receipt Inspection No. 9988, Mueller Model 761-WE, 3" Y-Type Strainer, 150#
CGD Lab - Material Test Report, dated August 4,2011
lP3 1 1N-0227, Commercial Grade Dedication Report, dated August 10,2011
Procurement Engineering Evaluation 95408
Section 1R22: Surveillance Testinq
Completed Procedures
3-PT-Q1 168, 32 Safety Injection Pump, dated July 1 1, 2011
3-PT-Q1 168,32 Safety Injection Pump, dated July 12,2011
3-lC-PC-l-P-923, Safety Injection Pump Discharge Pressure 4" Header, dated July 13,2011
3-lC-PC-l-P-923, Safety lnjection Pump Discharge Pressure 6" Header, dated July 13,2011
lC-PC-l-F-950, Safety Injection Miniflow Indicator, dated November 30, 2009
3PT-Q94A, Pressurizer Level Functional Test - Channel l, dated August 16,2011
3PT-Q948, Pressurizer Level Functional Test - Channel ll, dated August 16,2011
3PT-Q94C, Pressurizer Level Functional Test - Channel lll, dated August 16,2011
3-PT-Q83, RWST Level lnstrument Check and Calibration (LlC-921), dated August 11,2011
0-SOP-LEAKRATE-001, dated September 11, 2100
Condition Reports (CR-lP3-201 1 -)
03559 03575 03944 03945
Maintenance OrdersMork Orders
52214696 52310135
Section 1EP2: Alert and Notification Svstem (ANS) Evaluation
Procedures
Entergy Indian Point Energy Center Alert and Notification System Design Report, Revision 4
lP-EP-AD20, Indian Point Energy Center Alert Notification System Test, Revision 4
lP-EP-AD3O, IPEC ATI Siren System Administration, Revision 3
lP-EP-AD31, IPEC ATI Siren System Maintenance Administration, Revision 1
f P-EP-AD3?,IPEC ATI Siren System Routine Polling and Testing, Revision 4
lP-EP-AD33, IPEC ATI Siren System Quarterly Preventive Maintenance, Revision 6
lP-EP-AD34, IPEC ATI Control Station Semi-Annual Preventive Maintenance, Revision 4
Attachment
A-6
IP-EP-AD3S, IPEC ATI Siren Site Annual Preventive Maintenance, Revision 4
lP-EP-AD38, IPEC ATI Repeater Site Annual Preventive Maintenance, Revision 6
lP-EP-AD39, IPEC ATI Control Station Annual Preventive Maintenance, Revision 4
Condition Reports (CR-lP2-)
2010-0078 2010-2449 2010-4455 2010-6106 2011-0065
2011-1589
9ection 1EP3: Emerqencv Response Oroanization (EROI Staffinq and Auqmentation
Svstem
Procedures
Indian Point Energy Center Emergency Plan Table B -1, Revision 1 1-00
EN-EP-801, Emergency Response Organization, Revision 2
ENN-PL-140, Emergency Response Organization Respiratory Protection Guidelines, Revision 1
EN-TQ-110, Emergency Response Organization Training, Revision 4
lP-EP-AD9, Notification Systems Testing and Maintenance, Revision 8
Miscellaneous
f PEC Emergency Response Organization Roster, dated August i,2011
Dialogics Drill Reportsfor: October27,2009, February 11,2010, June 10, 2010, September
21,2010, December 9,2010, March 3,2011, and June 30,2011
Section 1EP4: Emerqencv Action Level (EAL) and Emerqencv Ptan Ghanses
Procedures
lndian Point Energy Center Emergency Plan, Revision 10
EN-Ll-100, Process Applicability Determination, Revision 10
EN-EP-305, Emergency Planning 10 CFR 50.5a(q) Review program, Revision 2
Miscellaneous
50.sa(q) Decrease ln Effectiveness reviews for:
lP-EP-120, Emergency Classification, Revisions 5 and 6
lP-EP-320, Radiological Field Monitoring, Revision 5
lP-EP-360, Core Damage Assessment, Revision 2
lP-EP-410, Protective Action Recommendations, Revision 6
lP-EP-430, Site Assembly, Accountability and Relocation of Personnel Offsite, Revision 6
lP-EP-510, MRPDAS, Revision 5
50.54Q-2011-Q2l6,lmplementation of the Security Owner Controlled Area Boundary
50.54(q) Screenings conducted between November 2010 and July 2011
Section 1EPS: Correction of Emerqencv Preparedness Weaknesses
Condition Reports
rP3LO-2010-00016 LO-HQNLO-2010-00018
Miscellaneous
Quality Assurance Audit Report QA-07-2011-lP-1(10 CFR 50.54(t) Report)
Quality Assurance Surveillance Report QS-2010-lP-09 (Off-year 50.54(t) surveillance)
Attachment
A-7
Emergency Preparedness Audit Record, to Extend the Emergency Preparedness Audit to a 24
Month Frequency as Allowed by EN-QV-109, Audit Process, and 10 CFR 50.54(txlXii),
dated May 27,2010
IPEC Unit 2 Alert Report for November 7,2Q10, Transformer Explosion Event, dated
November 7,2010
IPEC Emergency Preparedness Drill Performance Reports for drills conducted on: June 2,
2010, August 12, 2010, September 1, 2010, September 14, 2010, December 7 , 2010,
February 3,2011, June 9,2011
Section 1EP6: Drill Evaluation
Procedures
IP-EP-210, Central Control Room, Revision 9
lP-EP-115, Emergency Plan Forms, Revision 31
lP-EP-120, Emergency Classification, Revision 6
Emergency Plan Form EP-4, CCR Initial Notification Checklist AIeTUSAE/GE, Revision 15
Miscellaneous
TQF-210-DD03, LOR Simulator Crew Performance Evaluation Report, Revision 2
Section 2RS6: Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluent Treatment
Procedures
IPEC l.E. Bulletin 80-10 Program
lP-SMM-CY-001, Radioactive Effluent Control Program, Revision 9
0-CY-2730, Airborne Radioactive Effluents, Revision 3,
0-CY-1320, Effluents Management System, Revision 1
2-SOP-5.1.5, Calculation and Recording of Radioactive Liquid Releases, Revision 37
2-SOP-5.2.4, Calculation and Recording of Radioactive Gaseous Releases, Revision 37
3-SOP-WDS-O14, Liquid Waste Releases, Revision 25
3-SOP-WDS-O13, Gaseous Waste Releases, Revision 28
Condition Reports (CR-lP3-)
2009-4430 2010-1703 2010-3795 2011-0738 2011-1312 2011-3479
Condition Reports (CR-lP2-)
2010-0872 2010-2186 2010-3300 2010-4643 2010-7153 2011-0186
2011-0463 2011-0960 2011-1613 2011-3173
Miscellaneous
Quality Assurance Audit Report No. QA-02-06-2009-lP-1
IPEC Snapshot Self-Assessment Report, IP3LO-2010-154, Groundwater Protection Initiative
I PEC Snapshot Self-Assessment Report, I P3LO-2007 -1 49, l E Bulletin 80-1 0
2009 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report
2010 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report
Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 11, Waste Disposal and Radiation Protection
Attachment
A-8
Section 4OAl : Performance Indicator Verification
Procedures
EN-Ll-114, Performance Indicator Process, Revision 4
Completed Procedures
EN-Ll-114, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator High
Pressure Injection, dated October 13,2010
EN-LI-114, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator High
Pressure lnjection, dated January 10,2011
EN-Ll-1 14, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator High
Pressure Injection, dated April 13,2011
EN-Ll-114, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator High
Pressure Injection, dated July 1 1, 2011
EN-LI-1 14, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance lndicator
Residual Heat Removal, dated October 13,2Q10
EN-LI-114, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator
Residual Heat Removal, dated January 10,2011
EN-LI-114, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator
Residual Heat Removal, dated April 13,2011
EN-LI-1 14, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance lndicator
Residual Heat Removal, dated July 1 1, 2011
EN-Ll-114, Performance lndicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance lndicator Heat
Removal, dated October 13,2010
EN-Ll-114, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator Heat
Removal, dated January 10,2011
EN-LI-1 14, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator Heat
Removal, dated April 13,2011
EN-Ll-114, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator Heat
Removal, dated July 1 1,2011
EN-Ll-114, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator
Emergency AC Power, dated October 13,2010
EN-LI-1 14, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator
Emergency AC Power, dated January 10,2011
EN-Ll-114, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator
Emergency AC Power, dated April 13, 2011
EN-LI-1 14, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator
Emergency AC Power, dated July 1 1,2011
EN-Ll-114, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance lndicator Cooling
Water Support (Component Cooling Water), dated October 13,2010
EN-LI-114, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator Cooling
Water Support (Component Cooling Water), dated January lQ,2011
EN-Ll-114, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator Cooling
Water Support (Component Cooling Water), dated April 13,2011
EN-LI-1 14, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator Cooling
Water Support (Component Cooling Water), dated July 1 1, 2011
EN-Ll-114, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator Cooling
Water Support (Service Water), dated October 13,2010
Attachment
A-9
EN-LI-1 14, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator Cooling
Water Support (Service Water), dated January 11,2011
EN-LI-114, Performance lndicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator Cooling
Water Support (Service Water), dated April 13,2011
EN-LI-1 14, Performance Indicator Process - Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator Cooling
Water Support (Service Water), dated July 1 1,2011
Section 4OA2: Problem ldentification and Resolution
Procedures
EN-DC-315, Flow Accelerated Corrosion Program, Revision 5
EN-DC-184, NRC Generic Letter 89-13 Service Water Program, Revision 1
SEP-SW-001, NRC Generic Letter 89-13 Service Water Program, Revision 4
Completed Procedures
3PT-VO32S, Inservice Test of Service Water System Outside VC, dated March 25,2009
3PT-VO32S, lnservice Test of Service Water System Outside VC, dated March 4,2003
Condition Reports (CR-l P2-)
2002-07051 2008-04265 2009-03084 2009-05169 2010-03655 2010-04633
2010-04931 2010-05065 2010-05288 2010-05394 2010-05414 2010-05517
2010-05888 2010-06251 2011-01414 201 1-01901 2011-02714 2011-03723
2011-04015
Condition Reports (CR-lP3-)
2009-04713 2010-02039 2010-02185 2010-02438 2010-02674 2011-03831
2009-04025 2010-02039 2010-02185 2010-02398 2010-02438 2010-02674
2010-02724 2011-00784
Maintenance OrdersMork Orders
00220134 01 00243476 01 00251249 01 00250166 01
Miscellaneous Documents
EC 24332, Engineering Evaluation of the Use of Enecon Ceramalloy CL+, CP+ Adhesive
Coating for Stainless Steel Material in Service Water System
lP-CALC-11-00056, Evaluation of Pipe Wall Thinning at Line No. 1093 and 1099, dated August
8,2011
lP3-UT-11-070, UT Erosion/Corrosion Examination of 10" SWN-1099
lndian Point Unit 2, Service Water System Health Report, Q1- 2011
Indian Point Unit 2, Service Water System Health Report, Q4- 2010
Indian Point Unit 3, Service Water System Health Report, Q1- 2011
Indian Point Unit 3, Service Water System Health Report, Q4- 2010
lP3 FSAR Update, Chapter 9, Page 111 of 182,2009, Revision 3
American Society for Testing and Materials A513-94: Standard Specification for Electric-
Resistance-Welded Carbon Steel and Alloy Steel Mechanical Tubing
United Engineers and Constructors Inc., Specification for Flexible Piping Connectors for
Emergency Back-Up Diesel Generators, Westinghouse Electric Corporation
lndian Point Generating Station Unit No. 3, Consolidated Edison Company of New York;
Specification No. 9321-05-248-62, November 30, 1970
Attachment
A-10
American Society for Testing and Materials A 249lA 249M-94a: Standard Specification for
Welded Austenetic Steel Boiler, Superheater, Heat-Exchanger, and Condenser Tubes
Entergy Receipt Document 00006147; Joint, Pipe Restrained, SS, 4" X 8" Long, January 10,
2010
Material Procurement Dedication Plan, April24,1gg8, Po# 10262978, UTK#470889
Enecon North East letter dated August 16,2011; Subject: Application of the Enecon CeramAlloy
CL+ Coating System to the lP2 EDG Service Water Piping Flex Couplings
Section 4OA3: Follow-up of Events and Notices of Enforcement Discretion
Procedures
3-PT-M032, Seismic lnstrumentation Channel Check, Revision 21
EN-Ll-119, Apparent Cause Evaluation (ACE) Process, Revision 12
EN-Ll-102, Corrective Action Process, Revision 16
0-BKR-406-ELC, Westinghouse 6900 Volt Breaker Inspection and Cleaning, Revision 11
0-BKR-406-ELC, Westinghouse 6900 Volt Breaker Inspection and Cleaning, Revision 14
Completed Procedures
3-SOP-S-001, Seismic Monitoring Equipment Operation, dated August 23,2011
0-AOP-Seismic-1, Seismic Event, dated August 23, 2011
Gondition Reports (CR-lP3-)
2005-00992 2009-03380 2010-02682 2010-02683 2010-02703 2011-03730
2011-04371
Maintenance OrdersMork Orders
lP3-05-17643 52024157 00250188 00250184
Miscellaneous
PM Basis Template, Switchgear - Medium Voltage - 1KV to 7KV, Revision 3
lP3-RPT-ED-01917,13.8 kV, 138 kV, and 6.9 KV Distribution Systems Maintenance Rule Basis
Document, Revision 1
Attachment
A-11
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ABFP auxiliary boiler feed pump
ACE apparent cause evaluation
ADAMS Agencywide Document Management System
ALARA as low as is reasonably achievable
ANS alert and notification system
AREOR an n ua I radiolog ical environ mental operating report
ARERR annual radiological effluent release report
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
CAP corrective action program
CB control building
CCRAC control room air conditioner
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CR condition report
DRP Division of Reactor Projects
DRS Division of Reactor Safety
EAL emergency action level
EDG emergency diesel generator
ENTERGY Entergy Nuclear Northeast
ERO emergency response organization
FZ fire zone
GPI ground water protection initiative
HEPA high efficiency particulate air
lMc Inspection Manual Chapter
IPEC Indian Point Energy Center
IR inspection report
LER licensee event report
NEI Nuclear Energy Institute
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ODCM off-site dose calculation manual
OEDO Office of the Executive Director for Operations (NRC)
pci/L picocurie per liter
PI performance indicator
PM preventive maintenance
REMP radiological environmental monitoring program
RETS radiological effluents technical specifications
SSC structure, system, and component
UFSAR updated final safety analysis report
Attachment