ML073330590

Supplement to License Renewal Application (LRA) Environmental Report References

ML073330590
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	11/14/2007
From:	Dacimo F R Entergy Nuclear Northeast
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NL-07-133
Download: ML073330590 (24)

Text

-Entergy--Enterqy Nuclear Northeast Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Fred Dacimo Site Vice President Tel 914 734 6670 November 14, 2007 Re: Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 NL-07-133 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc.Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3 Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286 Supplement to License Renewal Application (LRA)Environmental Report References

REFERENCES:

1. Entergy Letter dated April 23, 2007, F. R. Dacimo to Document Control Desk, "License Renewal Application" (NL-07-039)

2. Entergy Letter dated April 23, 2007, F. R. Dacimo to Document Control Desk, "License Renewal Application Boundary Drawings (NL-07-040)3. Entergy Letter dated April 23, 2007, F. R. Dacimo to Document Control Desk, "License Renewal Application Environmental Report References (NL-07-041)

4. Entergy Letter dated October 11, 2007, F. R. Dacimo to Document Control Desk, "License Renewal Application (LRA)" (NL-07-124)

Dear Sir or Madam:

In the referenced letters, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. applied for renewal of the Indian Point Energy Center operating license. The LRA Appendix E references documents used in the preparation of the Environmental Report. The purpose of this letter is to provide additional documents in response to the questions raised by the NRC team during the Environmental audit conducted in September 2007.Enclosed is a copy of the additional documents which are provided to aid the NRC Staff in the review of the application.

p-Ly NL-07-133 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 2 of 3 This letter contains no new commitments.

If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact Mr. Robert Walpole at 91.4-734-6710.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on Sincerely, Fred R. Dacimo Site Vice President Indian Point Energy Center NL-07-133 Docket Nos. 50-247 & 50-286 Page 3 of 3

Enclosures:

1. Indian Point Site Audit Information Needs 2. Electronic Version of Site Maps 3. Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for SPDES Permits for Bowline Point 1& 2, Indian Point 2 & 3, and Roseton 1 & 2 4. Quarterly SPDES Report -April 1, 2007 -June 30, 2007 5. Excerpts from Annual Fleet Reports to Document Thermal Non-Exceedances

6. Entergy Nuclear Review of New and Significant Information for IP2 and IP3 7. Slide Presentations

a. Hudson River Fish Populations and Communities:

A 30-year Perspective" -NRC Site Audit September 11, 2007 b. Sampling Design Overview for Indian Point NRC Briefing c. Indian Point SPDES Permit 8. Documentation that Indian Point will conduct Triaxial Thermal Study 9. Entrainment Survival Studies -1979, 1980, 1988 10. Met Data Summary Report for 2006 a. 1st Quarter b. 2 nd Quarter c. 3 rd Quarter d. 4th Quarter 11. Entergy Nuclear Waste Minimization Plan 12. Explanation of Balmville Limestone versus Innwood Marble cc: with Enclosures Mr. John Boska, NRR Senior Project Manager Mr. Bo M. Pham, NRC Senior Project Manager Ms. Jill Caverly, NRC Environmental Project Manager cc: without Enclosures Mr. Samuel J. Collins, Regional Administrator, NRC Region I Mr. Paul Eddy, New York State Department of Public Service NRC Resident Inspector's Office Mr. Paul D. Tonko, President, New York State Energy, Research, & Development Authority ENCLOSURE 1 TO NL-07-133 Indian Point Site Audit Information Needs ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 & 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-247 and 50-286 Indian Point Site Audit Information Needs Aquatic Review: 1. Available Impingement and entrainment data for the last 10 years (we can work with Excel, SAS, MS Access, and most other electronic media files).2. Response:

Impingement and entrainment monitoring have not been performed for more than 15 years. However, 1999-2005 Year Class Reports have been provided for information.

Mark Mattson and Larry Barnthouse explained how these studies relate to entrainment and impingement monitoring results. Additional monitoring data and program results will be provided.3. SPDES and HRSA rrionitoring reports for last 10 years.Response:

Two years of SPDES DMRs were reviewed, along with quarterly flow reports. DMR's will be obtained by the NRC from the DEC.4. 316(a) demonstration study(ies) and any recent information on thermal impacts.Response:

No 316(a) demonstration exists for IP2 or IP3. New York State has developed mixing zone criteria and thermal discharge limits for steam electric power plants. These limits are designed to protect the existence of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in the receiving water body. If the facility cannot meet the stated water quality standard criteria, the facility must submit data demonstrating, referred to as a 316(a) demonstration, that its actual discharge will ensure the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife.

Since the IP2 and IP3 thermal discharge meet the state water quality standard criteria, no 316(a) demonstration was needed. Conditions established by the NYSDEC to ensure that the thermal discharge from IP2 and IP3 continue to meet state water quality standards are included in the site's SPDES Permit NY-0004472.

During the 9/10-14 site audit, Mark Mattson explained how current Hudson River studies relate to thermal impacts to the NRC during the site audit.5. Short-nose sturgeon takes over the last 10 years.Response:

None are taken since the IP2 and IP3 intake structures are equipped with Ristroph screens, low pressure and high pressure washers, and fish return lines.Therefore, there are no records associated with this activity nor is there any current regulatory requirement to monitor for this activity.6. Annual environmental monitoring reports for the last 10 years.Response:

Steve Klementowitz accessed the annual Radiological Environmental Monitoring and Effluent Release Reports from ADAMS.Indian Point Site Audit Information Needs -1

7. The ER referred to extensive NYSDEC studies on the Hudson in support of the Hudson River Utilities Monitoring Program on Page 2-9 (last sentence).

Request that you make these reports available at the audit..Response:

The following is discussed in Section V.D.2 pages V-68 and V-69 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for SPDES Permits for Bowline Point, Indian Point 2 & 3, and Roseton Steam Electric Generating Stations: The NYSDEC-Division of Marine Resources (DMR) conducts a Juvenile Striped Bass (JSB) survey (using a 200-ft beach seine) in the lower Hudson River estuary (Tappan Zee-Haverstraw Bay are). The objective of this study is to provide an annual index of relative abundance for young-of-the-year (YOY) striped bass. Twenty-five of 36 sites located between RM 25 and RM 40 are sampled bi-weekly.

During the period from 1976 through 1984, the survey began in late August and continued through early November (six bi-weekly runs were conducted).

During the period from 1985 through 1997, the survey began in mid-July and continued through early November (nine bi-weekly runs).The NYSDEC-DMR also conducts a survey for juvenile and subadult striped bass in the bays around western Long Island (WLIS). The survey began in 1985 and has continued through the present. A 200-ft beach seine is used at standard stations in the following bays: Little Neck Bay, Manhasset Bay, Hempstead Harbor, Staten Island, Jamaica Bay, and South Oyster Bay. The bays are sampled twice a month from April through June, and then once a month from July through October or November.The NYSDEC-Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) conducts a Juvenile Alosid Survey (JAS) in the middle and upper regions of the estuary to estimate the relative abundance of YOY American shad and other juvenile fishes. This bi-weekly survey began in 1980 and has continued through the present. A 100 ft beach seine is used in this survey and sampling begins in mid-June and continues through late October or early November in two primary areas: RM 55-77 and RM 121-140. Sampling is conducted during the daytime at approximately 30 standard sites.NYSDEC-DFW also conducts a haul seine survey in the Hudson River in order to provide information on length, age and sex distribution, and mortality rates for adult American shad and striped bass. The program, which began in 1982 and continues to present, uses large haul seines, either 500 or 1000 ft in length to sample between Kingston (RM 91) and Athens (RM 116).NYSDEC-DFW staff also monitors the commercial gill net fishery for adult American shad in the Hudson River from April through May. This survey began in 1980 and has continued through the present. The data collected during this survey are used to determine relative abundance, through catch-per-unit-effort, and age structure for the total commercial catch of American shad and for the by-catch of striped bass from this fishery.Indian Point Site Audit Information Needs -2 Indian Point does not have copies of these studies. Therefore, the NRC will need to contact the NYSDEC to obtain copies.8. Any detailed base maps prior to our visit that we could use to orient ourselves during the site and boat tour.Response:

Copies of these maps and aerial site photos were made available at the site audit.9. The ESSA reports cited in the FEIS: ESSA Technologies, Ltd. 2000. Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for SPDES Permits for the Bowline Point 1 &2, Indian Point 2 & 3, and Roseton 1 & 2 Steam Electric Generating Stations.

Report to the Parties to the Application.

Prepared by ESSA Technologies, Ltd., Richmond Hill, ON, for NYS DEC, Albany, NY. 31 pp plus Appendices; the full set of ESSA reports is included as Appendix F-V to this FEIS.Response:

A copy of this report will be. sent to NRC.Indian Point Site Audit Information Needs -3 Cultural Resources Review: Since the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was not in existence when IP1 was built, item #1 may be a moot question.

However, it is important to establish whether or not surveys were conducted prior to construction of IP1, IP2 (1966 -OL) and IP3 (1969).The environmental report (ER) states that "Construction activity at the site revealed no evidence of items having archaeological value.. the site was an amusement area operated by the Hudson River Day line and, presumably, overrun by relic collectors." Another section of the ER states that 70% of the surrounding area is considered archaeologically sensitive.

Response:

Although there are no listed or eligible for listing sites within a 6-mile radius of the site based on consultation with the NYSHPO, approximately 70 percent of the land has been officially designated as an archaeologically sensitive area. The NYSHPO has used existing survey information on prehistoric and historic archaeological sites to identify archaeologically sensitive areas and the information on these sensitive areas is stored in the NYSHPO Geographic Information System -Public Access. These sensitive areas are broadly conceived spatial locations where archaeological sites are known to be present or are likely to be present.1. When did Consolidated Edison purchase Indian Point? The ER states that the park closed in 1956.Response:

Consolidated Edison purchased Indian Point Park in 1957 and site preparation activities began in 1958.2. Were any surveys conducted prior to construction of IP2 and IP3?Response:

No surveys were identified as being conducted prior to construction of IP2 and IP3. In addition, according to NYSHPO records, no studies have been previously conducted on the Indian Point site property.

In 1972, a copy of a new site plan was filed with the NYSHPO and included a files search of previously recorded sites and NRHP properties in the area. No sites or properties were located in the area and no further archeological investigations appear to have been conducted.

3. Would like a copy of any correspondence to and from the NYSHPO or NY State Museum since publication of the ER.Response:

The only correspondence to and from the NYSHPO or New York State Museum was the Phase IA Literature Review and Archeological Sensitivity Assessment of the Indian Point Site (Westchester County, New York) Report transmitted by Entergy to the NYSHPO in August 21, 2007. A copy of this correspondence and report were available at the site audit for review.. As a note, Jennifer Davis (NRC) was on copy for this transmittal.

4. Would like a copy of the Phase 1A Literature Review and Archeological Sensitivity Assessment (November 2006).Response:

Copy of the Phase IA Literature Review and Archeological Sensitivity Assessment of the Indian Point Site (Westchester County, New York) Report were Indian Point Site Audit Information Needs -4 available at the site audit for review.. As a note, Jennifer Davis (NRC) was on copy for this transmittal.

5. 5. ER states no prehistoric or historic sites onsite. Are there any sites associated with the mining activities?

Park?Response:

Based on the Phase IA Literature Review and Archeological Sensitivity Assessment of the Indian Point Site (Westchester County, New York) Report and NYSHPO record reviews, there were no identified prehistoric or historic sites associated with the mining activities or the Indian Point Amusement Park.The ballpark and older landing area (Lent's Cove) on the north edge of the site property has been given to the Village of Buchanan by Entergy. Although prehistoric or historic sites potentially exists in these areas based on the Phase IA Literature Review and Archeological Sensitivity Assessment of the Indian Point Site (Westchester County, New York) Report, there were no sites listed or eligible for listing by the NYSHPO in this area.Potentially sensitive areas in which prehistoric artifacts may be encountered in areas that underwent mining are identified in the Phase IA Literature Review and Archeological Sensitivity Assessment of the Indian Point Site (Westchester County, New York) Report. A copy of this report is attached.6. What portion of the site was mined?Response:

The north end of the Indian Point property was heavily surface mined.For a pictorial view of this area, refer to Figure 10 in the Phase IA Literature Review and Archeological Sensitivity Assessment of the Indian Point Site (Westchester County, New York) Report. A copy of this report is attached.7. Would like to confirm that all disturbed areas onsite were down to bedrock.Response:

Construction photos were made available for the NRC to view during the site audit. As a note, much of the site has been disturbed from many activities that have taken place onsite at Indian Point, including but not limited to the mining for limestone and iron ore, the amusement park, and during the construction of Indian Point Units 1, 2, and 3.8. Entergy has fleet-wide procedures, has the NYSHPO reviewed them? (Note: need to verify procedure has stop work order in case of an inadvertent discovery).

Response:

The Phase IA Literature Review and Archeological Sensitivity Assessment of the Indian Point Site (Westchester County, New York) Report was transmitted by Entergy to the New York SHPO in August 21, 2007. Entergy Nuclear's fleet procedure EN-EV-121 (Cultural Resources Protection Plan) was included in this transmittal.

Section 5.1[1] of Entergy Nuclear's fleet procedure EN-EV-121 (Cultural Resources Protection Plan) states "Land disturbing activities must be stopped immediately in the event that there is evidence of a historical or archaeological artifact and the SHPO notified for guidance prior to re-commencing land disturbing activities.

In addition, the Indian Point Site Audit Information Needs -5 required management practices in Attachment 9.1, Page 2 of 2, of EN-EV-121 (Cultural Resources Protection Plan) requires individuals to "Stop the activity if a potential historical or archaeological site is discovered or if an existing site .is damaged".9. Are there any archaeological sites or historic structures located on or adjacent to IP's transmission lines?Response:

There are no archaeological sites or historic structures located on or adjacent to Indian Point's transmission lines that are within the scope of license renewal based on the Phase IA Literature Review and Archeological Sensitivity Assessment of the Indian Point Site (Westchester County, New York) Report. As discussed in the IP2 and IP3 Environmental Report, Con Edison has concluded that other than lines W95 and W96 that connect IP2 and IP3 to the Buchanan substation, no other transmission systems were specifically constructed to connect these units to the transmission grid.10. Does Entergy staff/transmission line maintenance staff have training in relation to Section 106?Response:

Entergy does not have any transmission line staff at Indian Point and no site personnel have received the Section 106 (NHPA) training.

However, site personnel are trained on Entergy fleet procedure EN-EV-121 (Cultural Resources Protection Plan) which is in place to ensure that plant activities as they relate to Section 106 issues are reviewed and evaluated.

11. Register Eligibility:

Has IP1 been evaluated for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places/Engineering Record, State Register, or landmark status? We understand that the unit is in SAFSTOR.Response:

Although IP1 may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, it has not been evaluated for such listing. As a note, the main control panel for the reactor has been removed and is now in the Smithsonian Collection.

Indian Point Site Audit Information Needs -6 Environmental Justice, Socioeconomics, and Land Use: Environmental Justice 1. Information about current or past wildlife sampling and testing of game animals such as deer, squirrel, turkey, pheasant, and other game birds and animals that may have been conducted in the vicinity of IP by either Entergy, Con Ed, or the State of New York Departments of Health (DOH) and/or Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).Wildlife sampling and testing may have been conducted at IP before, during, and after plant construction in the early days of plant operation by Con Ed, but may have been discontinued after determining that tissue samples were consistently showing no significant or measurable radiological impact on the environment from plant operations.

We need the data to make this assessment.

The purpose for this information is to demonstrate that people who may consume meat from wildlife in the vicinity of the plant are not at risk from nuclear power plant operations.

Response:

Other than fish sampling and testing that occurs as part of the sites Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program and which is reported to the NRC in Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports, no historical records were available regarding wildlife sampling and testing of game animals such as deer, squirrel, turkey, pheasant, and other game birds and animals.Socioeconomics

1. NRC needs clarification and source information for data presented in Table 2-9, Tax Distribution, 2003 -2006 (ER pages 2-46 and 2-47). NRC would like to meet with plant personnel knowledgeable about PILOT and property tax payments to local communities and school distric Response:

This information was explained to the NRC during the site audit.2. To adequately characterize the tax payment situation at IP in the SEIS, the NRC also needs the total tax and property tax revenues for each of the years 2003 through 2006 for the Town of Cortlandt, Village of Buchanan, and the Hendrick Hudson Central School District (see ER Section 2.7, Taxes, page 2-45).Response:

The information in Table 2-9 of the Environmental Report was clarified to to the NRC during the site audit. See tax table below Indian Point Site Audit Information Needs -7 TAX REVENUES 2003 -2005 (Tax Payments from ER Table 2-9)Tax Total Tax Total Tax Total Tax Type of Payment Revenue $ Payment $ Revenue $ Revenue$Recipients Tax 2003 2004 2004 Pamn 2005 2003 ( (% IPEC) (% IPEC) 2005 (% IPEC) 2006 Town of PILOT and 31,576,218 31,878,349 34,481,265 Cortlandt Property 5,023,579 (16%) 4,659,642 (15 %) 3,773,590 (11 %) 3,748,804 Tax Hendrick PILOT 10,077,000 Hudson PILOT 9,524,000 9,358,500 7,585,000 Central 51,122,958 52,754,784 56,878,069 School (8% 3 )(0%Strict PILOT 9,524,000 (38%) 9,358,500 (36%) 7,585,000 (30%) 7,688,500 District I (CSD)J Village of PILOT and 5,672,354 5,022,930 5,081,140 Buchanano Property 2,271,753 (40 %) 2,184,044 (43 %) 1,984,680 (39 %') 2,023,151 Buchanan Tax NNYSOSC (New York State Office of the State Comptroller).

2007. Local Government Services and Economic Development.

Accessed at http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/datanstat/findata/indexchoice.htm on March 6, 2007.Indian Point Site Audit Information Needs -8 Land Use 1. NRC needs more descriptive information and characterization of land use within Entergy's IP site boundary and/or property with acreages and percentages by land use categories.

Onsite land use can be divided into 3 categories including (1) the amount of unused, undeveloped, and open portions of the site including fields and forest uplands; (2) non-developable wetlands, streams, and open water bodies (i.e., pond and river); and (3) developed portions of the plant site including facilities, structures, parking areas, and visitor or recreation areas. Reference is made to onsite land cover in terrestrial habitats (Section 2.4 of the ER and Table 2-3), but no actual accounting of land use can be done for the above categories.

This may become part of our request for additional information.

Response:

Table 2-3 of the Environmental Report, which is based on aerial photography and the Geographical Information System, provides land use information for the Indian Point site. Using the data rom Table 2-3 of the Environmental Report, information being requested can be classified as follows: Classification Acres Percentage Unused, undeveloped and open 112.35 47 portions of the site including fields forest uplands Non-developed wetlands, streams, and 2.4 1 open water bodies (pond within the 80 acres of wooded property at the northern portion of the site)Developed portions of plant site 124.25 52 including facilities, structures, parking areas, and visitor or recreation areas Note: Much of the 239 acres or approximately 67 percent (159 acres) of the site have been disturbed at on time or another during the construction and operation of IP1, IP2, and IP3. The above estimates reflect the current utilization.

Indian Point Site Audit Information Needs -9 Related Federal Proiect Activities and Consultations

1. NRC needs a list of all Federal facilities and lands and distances within a 50-mile proximity to the IP site. ER Section 2.1 identifies a number of federal facilities within 50 miles of IP and Figures 2-4 and 2-5 shows some of these facilities.

Are these all of the federal facilities and lands within 50 miles of IP? The lack of this information impedes an assessment of the need for another Federal agency to become a cooperating agency with NRC in the preparation of this SEIS.Response:

See tables below that identify facilities and lands within a 6-mile and 50-mile radius of the Indian Point site.Lands Within 50-Mile Radius Distance Ownership Name (miles)Department of Defense Camp Smith NY State Military 1.7 West Point US Military Academy 4.9 Picatinny Arsenal 34.1 National Park Service Eleanor Roosevelt NHS 33.7 Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt NHS 35.2 Vanderbilt Mansion NHS 36.8 Delaware Water Gap National Rec Area 41.5 Gateway National Rec Area 44.7 Morristown National Historical Park 44.9 US Fish and Wildlife Service Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge 29.2 Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge 32.4 Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge 41,9 Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge 44.2 Department of Justice Danbury Federal Correctional Institute 27.7 Indian Point Site Audit Information Needs -10 Hydroloqy:

1. We will need to see intake and discharge flow records to confirm the values reported are based on measurements and not estimates..

Response:

Flow of condenser cooling water is monitored and recorded based on operating mode of the circulating water pumps (see Footnote "o" to Part I of SPDES Permit NY-0004472).

Therefore, flow values are based more on estimates than metered flow measurements.

As a condition of SPDES Permit NY-0004472, the site is required to submit quarterly reports to the NYSDEC that address the following information:

• Daily minimum, average, and maximum station electrical output (hourly) shall be determined and logged.* Daily minimum, average, and maximum water use (hourly) shall be directly or indirectly measured or calculated and logged.* Daily minimum, average, and maximum intake and discharge temperatures (hourly) shall be logged.A copy of a quarterly report that contains this information is attached.2. We will need a map of well locations, well logs, and sampling records particularly for the radionuclide sampling (tritium) and the apparent spent fuel pool leakage.Response:

Don Mayer and GZA made this information available to the NRC during the site audit. An additional map containing requested information, will also be submitted.

Radiological

& Non-radiological Waste: Documents, reports, and tour info needed for the Indian Point site audit; radiological and non-radiological

1. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual.Response:

This was provided during the site audit.2. Occupational Exposure Report for 2006.Response:

These were provided during the audit.3. Reports of any abnormal, unusual spills or leaks and reports contained in the 10 CFR 50.75(g) file for decommissioning.

Response:

An index of the 'files was provided during the audit and the files discussed.

Indian Point Site Audit Information Needs -11

4. Program information regarding radiological groundwater monitoring (on-site and off-site).Response:

This information was provided during the audit, including a tour of some of the REMP sample stations.Indian Point Site Audit Information Needs -12 Radiological Tour to cover the following:

1. Gaseous, liquid, and solid radioactive waste processing.

2. Storage of low and high level radioactive waste.3. Radioactive effluent release points 4. Radioactive effluent monitoring systems 5. Typical radiological environmental monitoring stations (including any co-located State monitoring stations)We would also like to speak to knowledgeable personnel regarding the plant's radiological effluent monitoring program, radiological environmental monitoring program, and radioactive waste treatment systems (gaseous, liquid, and solid).Response:

A radiological site tour was provided to NRC staff on September 25, 2007, which included the requested areas.Non-Radiological Waste System Tour to cover the following:

1. Areas where non-radiological wastes are accumulated and stored.2. Areas where mixed wastes are accumulated and stored.Response:

At the conclusion of the radiological tour conducted on September 25, 2007, a tour of non-radiological waste storage areas was also provided.Indian Point Site Audit Information Needs -13 Terrestrial:

1. Please provide an electronic copy of Figures 2-27, 2-28 and 2-29 that were referenced in the ER.Response:

Electronic copies are being provided to the NRC.2. Please provide a source for the information provided in Figure 2-28.Response:

United States Geologic Survey (USGS). 1994. Geographic Information Retrieval and Analysis System (GIRAS) Land Use and Land Cover, New York State;1:250,000 scale. Reston, Virginia, United States.3. In the ER, the freshwater pond on the site was stated to have been historically used.Is there any current usage of this area-for recreational or other purposes?Response:

There is no current usage of this area for recreational or other purposes nor are there any plans for this area in the future.4. Please provide any available information on the maintenance programs for the transmission lines contained within the Indian Point property.Response:

This information was provided by Con Edison personnel on September 11,2007.5. Please provide, if available,'

NRC (1975). It is cited on pg 2-20 but was not included on the sources CD.Response:

This was provided to the NRC on CD at the time the license renewal application was submitted.

This document can be obtained by looking under the Chapter 2.0 references for the file name "NRC 1975".6. Please provide, if available, the USAEC source cited on pg 2-20. The date was omitted from the citation; it may be USACE 1975, which was listed in the references.

Response:

This was provided to the NRC on CD at the time the license renewal application was submitted.

This document can be obtained by looking under the Chapter 2.0 references for the file name "USACE 1972". As a note, this file contains both Volumes 1 and 2 of the IP2 FES.7. Please provide a source for the "fleet procedural controls" discussed on pg 2-22 regarding ensuring protection of environmentally sensitive areas.Response:

Copy of Entergy Nuclear fleet procedure EN-EV-1 15 (Environmental Reviews and Evaluation) is attached.Indian Point Site Audit Information Needs -14

8. Please provide information related to the disposal of material from dredging at IP2 and IP3 at "upland disposal facilities" as discussed on pg 2-9: frequency of dredging and disposal, volumes disposed, location of facility.Response:

Dredging activities occur on an infrequent basis at the site. Based on information available from previous years as shown below, there have only been two dredging events which occurred in front of the IP3 intake structure.

[Records of any dredging in front of the IP2 intake structure, were not available.]

Both of these projects were performed under Section 404 permits, 401 Water Quality Certifications (WQC) and Coastal Zone Management consistency approvals.

In addition, chemical and radiological analyses were performed on the materials prior to obtaining NYSDEC permission to proceed under the 401 WQC certifications.

Year Volume Disposed Disposal Facility 1985 F.I.C.A. Landfill 275 Van Wagner Road Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 1993 2,300 Yards F.I.C.A. Landfill 275 Van Wagner Road Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 Indian Point Site Audit Information Needs -15 ENCLOSURE 2 TO NL-07-133 Electronic Version of Site Maps (CD)ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 & 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-247 and 50-286 Indian Point Legend Residential

[ Mixed Urban or Built Up Land Industral

] Other Urban or Built Up land Commercial and Services Cropland and pasture Transportatio, Communication, and Utilities Decidious Forest Land L Lakes and Ponds Evergreen Forest Land Rese ado anl Streams and Canals Mixed Forest Land Strip Mines Nonforested Wetland Forested Wetland 1 0.5 0 1 2 Miles Land Use & Vegetative Cover r-M ýý Exclusion Ara -LEGEND Hard Surface (Asphalt, Concrete, etc.)DisturbedArea (Not under Hard Surface)Undisturbed Area Pond Heavy Surface Wining 0 200 500 1000 I~Feet County Parks W State Pao'ks** State Parkway lands not shown R.wd 4 County & State Parks ENCLOSURE 3 TO NL-07-133 Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for SPDES Permits for Bowline Point 1& 2, Indian Point 2 & 3, and Roseton 1 & 2 ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 & 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-247 and 50-286