ML090540426

Summary of Teleconference Held on January 27, 2009, Between the USNRC Staff and Entergy Representatives to Discuss NRC Analysis of Aquatic Impacts in Supplement 38 NUREG-1437

ML090540426
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	02/26/2009
From:	Stuyvenberg A License Renewal Projects Branch 2
To:	Entergy Nuclear Operations
Stuyvenberg, A L, NRR/DLR/ 415-4006
References
NUREG-1437 S38
Download: ML090540426 (10)

Text

February 26, 2009 LICENSEE: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

FACILITY: Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3

SUMMARY

OF TELECONFERENCE HELD ON JANUARY 27, 2009, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC., REPRESENTATIVES TO DISCUSS THE U.S.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ANALYSIS OF AQUATIC IMPACTS IN SUPPLEMENT 38 TO NUREG-1437 On January 27, 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff (NRC or the staff) held a telephone conference with representatives from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., to answer questions about the staffs analysis of entrainment and impingement impacts in the Draft Supplement 38 to NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. A list of participants is provided in Enclosure 1 and the teleconference summary is provided in .

/RA/

Andrew Stuyvenberg, Project Manager Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286

Enclosures:

1. Participant List

2. Teleconference Summary cc w/encls: See next page

ML090540426 OFFICE LA:DLR PM:RBP2 OGC BC:RPB2 NAME IKing AStuyvenberg STurk DWrona DATE 02/26/09 02/25/09 02/23/09 02/26/09 Memorandum from A. Stuyvenberg date February 26, 2009 DISTRIBUTION:

SUMMARY

OF TELECONFERENCE HELD ON JANUARY 27, 2009, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF AND ENTERGY REPRESENTATIVES TO DISCUSS NRC ANALYSIS OF AQUATIC IMPACTS IN SUPPLEMENT 38 TO NUREG-1437.

HARD COPY:

DLR RF E-MAIL:

PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr RidsNrrDlrRpb1 RidsNrrDlrRpb2 RidsNrrDlrRer1 RidsNrrDlrRer2 RidsNrrDlrRerb RidsNrrDlrRpob RidsNrrDciCvib RidsNrrDciCpnb RidsNrrDraAfpb RidsNrrDraAplb RidsNrrDeEmcb RidsNrrDeEeeb RidsNrrDssSrxb RidsNrrDssSbpb RidsNrrDssScvb RidsOgcMailCenter DWrona EDacus, OCA BPham GMeyer, RI KGreen RConte, RI AStuyvenberg MMcLaughlin, RI JBoska NMcNamara, RI RAuluck DScrenci, RI OPA JDozier NSheehan, RI OPA MKowal PCataldo, RI STurk, OGC CHott, RI LSubin, OGC DJackson, RI BMizuno, OGC BWelling, RI SBurnell, OPA ECobey, RI DMcIntyre, OPA MCox, RI TMensah, OEDO

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 cc:

Senior Vice President Mr. Paul Eddy Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. New York State Department P.O. Box 31995 of Public Service Jackson, MS 39286-1995 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223-1350 Vice President Oversight Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Regional Administrator, Region I P.O. Box 31995 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jackson, MS 39286-1995 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Senior Manager, Nuclear Safety &

Licensing Senior Resident Inspectors Office Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Indian Point 2 and 3 P.O. Box 31995 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jackson, MS 39286-1995 P.O. Box 59 Buchanan, NY 10511 Senior Vice President and COO Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Mr. Charles Donaldson, Esquire 440 Hamilton Avenue Assistant Attorney General White Plains, NY 10601 New York Department of Law 120 Broadway Assistant General Counsel New York, NY 10271 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

440 Hamilton Avenue Mr. Raymond L. Albanese White Plains, NY 10601 Four County Coordinator 200 Bradhurst Avenue Manager, Licensing Unit 4 Westchester County Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Hawthorne, NY 10532 Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB Mayor, Village of Buchanan P.O. Box 249 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Buchanan, NY 10511 Mr. Paul D. Tonko Mr. William DiProfio President and CEO PWR SRC Consultant New York State Energy, Research, and 48 Bear Hill Road Development Authority Newton, NH 03858 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399 Mr. Garry Randolph PWR SRC Consultant Mr. John P. Spath 1750 Ben Franklin Drive, 7E New York State Energy, Research, and Sarasota, FL 34236 Development Authority 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 cc:

Mr. William T. Russell Robert Snook PWR SRC Consultant Assistant Attorney General 400 Plantation Lane Office of the Attorney General Stevensville, MD 21666-3232 State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street Mr. Jim Riccio P.O. Box 120 Greenpeace Hartford, CT 06141-0120 702 H Street, NW Suite 300 Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Washington, DC 20001 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Mr. Phillip Musegaas Washington, DC 20004 Riverkeeper, Inc.

828 South Broadway Mr. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

Tarrytown, NY 10591 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Mr. Mark Jacobs Washington, DC 20004 IPSEC 46 Highland Drive Mr. Martin J. ONeill, Esq.

Garrison, NY 10524 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Mr. R. M. Waters Washington, DC 20004 Technical Specialist Licensing 450 Broadway The Honorable Nita Lowey P.O. Box 0249 222 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 310 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 White Plains, NY 10605 Mr. Sherwood Martinelli Ms. Joan Leary Matthews 351 Dyckman Street Senior Counsel for Special Projects Peekskill, NY 10566 Office of General Counsel NYS Department of Environmental Ms. Susan Shapiro, Esq. Conservation 21 Perlman Drive 625 Broadway Spring Valley, NY 10977 Albany, NY 12233-5500 Ms. Jessica Steinberg, J.D.

Sivc, Paget & Riesel, P.C.

460 Part Avenue New York, NY 10022 Mr. John Sipos Assistant Attorney General New York State Department of Law Environmental Protection Bureau The Capitol Albany, NY 12224

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE BETWEEN U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC., STAFF LICENSE RENEWAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PARTICIPANT LIST JANUARY 27, 2009 PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATION John Young Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy)

Mark Mattson Entergy Lawrence Barnthouse Entergy Douglas Heimbuch Entergy Valerie Cullinan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Dennis Logan NRC Bo Pham NRC Drew Stuyvenberg NRC Jeff Ward NRC ENCLOSURE 1

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE BETWEEN U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC., STAFF LICENSE RENEWAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW JANUARY 27, 2009 After U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff published the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (dSEIS) regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos.

2 and 3 (Supplement 38 to NUREG-1437), Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy), staff requested a teleconference with NRC staff in order to ask questions about the NRC staffs analysis of aquatic impacts. The teleconference commenced at 2:00 p.m. eastern standard time on January 27, 2009. Andrew Stuyvenberg, NRC staff, explained that the discussion would be limited to questions about the NRC staffs analysis in the dSEIS, and established that participants in the conversation should refrain from engaging in philosophical discussions about alternative approaches. Suggestions for alternative approaches should be submitted to the NRC as comments on the dSEIS.

Entergy staff established that they had three areas of interest. The first set of questions regarded data set selection. The second group regarded statistical analyses performed to support staff conclusions. The third set related to the NRC staffs weight of evidence approach employed in the dSEIS.

1. Data set selection

a. Mark Mattson, Entergy, asked whether the NRC staff made an effort to accommodate differences in sampling design over the years. NRC staff responded that the data came from information supplied by Entergy in NL-07-156 as well as other statistical files. NRC staff indicated that they presented their statistical approach in Appendix I, along with the rationale NRC staff employed to select field studies for analysis. Table I-3 in Appendix I, for example, contains a description of gear used and samples performed for each year of the Fall Juvenile (Shoals) Survey. NRC staff indicated that it used data from the Beach Seine Survey (BSS), Fall Shoals Survey (FSS) and Longitudinal River Survey (LRS) field studies to determine population trends. NRC used impingement and entrainment sampling data for the strength-of-connection analysis along with the river segment survey data from the BSS, FSS, and LRS. The weeks used for each analysis are described below.

2. Statistical Analyses

a. Entergy staff asked about data used by NRC staff in Table I-27 of Appendix I, regarding the FSS and BSS density data in River Segment 4. NRC staff indicated that the BSS and FSS data comprised young-of-the-year (YOY) life stage and density. The data used for the river-wide population trend analysis were the YOY density collected from the FSS during weeks 27-43 from 1979-2005, the YOY density collected from the BSS during weeks 22-43 from 1979-2005, and the YOY tomcod density from the LRS from 1979-2005.

ENCLOSURE 2

b. NRC staff indicated that the impingement density and life stages included in Table I-28 of Appendix I are combined estimates of density. The data used for impingement analysis were the estimated combined density (column heading =

EstCOMB) for all weeks for a given season and year (1975-1990) in the data sets provided by Entergy.

c. NRC staff indicated that the entrainment data in Table I-29 included all life stages. The data used for entrainment analysis were the sum of the density (column heading = meandensity) for all life stages for a given species collected for all weeks for a given season and year (1981-1987).

d. Entergy staff requested that NRC staff walk through abundance trend analyses.

The analysis begins with information as described in Table I-3 in Appendix I and page H-35 in Appendix H. NRC staff attempted to fit a join point to available data. Join points were not restricted to integers. If in-between two integer values, the join point was rounded by Microsoft Excels built-in function.

e. Entergy staff asked whether NRC staff made any adjustments if convergence wasnt found and how NRC selected the initial values for the nonlinear trend analyses. NRC staff indicated that they used Microsoft Excel software to estimate initial values to be used in Prism nonlinear fitting software. NRC staff used the Marquardt method of nonlinear estimation. For data sets that did not converge, NRC staff noted the lack of convergence in the dSEIS. NRC staff performed the analyses with and without data that appeared to be outliers, found that the results were similar, and presented all analyses in the dSEIS.

f. Because variability of some data sets for the river segment population analysis showed apparent periodicity, NRC staff used a 3-year moving average to smooth the data before trend analysis. NRC staff did not perform a statistical test to determine if a 3-year moving window average was most appropriate. The approach was used on all species consistently. NRC staff used standardized data before smoothing to determine the number of observations outside the bounds of +/- 1 standard deviation from the mean of the first five years of data.

Regression analysis using smoothed, standardized data was conducted only for the river segment population assessments. All other population assessments were conducted using the standardized data without smoothing.

g. Entergy staff inquired about how NRC staff handled changes in sampling gear, i.e., from epibenthic sled to beam trawl in the FSS (see Table I-3 and page I-10).

NRC staff indicated that they describe the process for determining difference beginning on page H-35 of Appendix H, lines 25-27. If a difference associated with change in gear was evident from visual inspection of plots of standardized observations, NRC staff split data into pre-1985 and post-1985 segments as described in the dSEIS.

3. Weight-of-evidence (WOE) approach:

a. Entergy staff indicated that they had not seen a WOE approach employed in an NRC environmental impact statement before. NRC staff noted that the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement regarding license renewal review

of Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (Supplement 22 to NUREG-1437, published in July 2005) contains a WOE approach for analyzing aquatic impacts.

b. NRC staff indicated that they selected a WOE approach because of the large amount of data available and the very different conclusions that have been drawn by others from those data. NRC staff selected a WOE approach because it integrates many lines of evidence and the assumptions and calculations can be seen by reviewers. NRC staff elected not to use numerical population models because of the large number of assumptions, widely varying levels of success, and lengthy controversies associated with using such models for the Hudson River in the past. NRC staff indicated that the WOE approach is commonly used in ecological risk assessment, assessing environmental impacts in oil and gas exploration and production, and applications for the U.S. Navy.

c. Entergy inquired as to whether the NRC staff looked at previous assessments of potential plant impacts dating as far back as the 1970s. NRC staff indicated that they had reviewed past assessments and had also reviewed the reports developed by Entergy, and presented to NRC staff during the license renewal review process.

d. Entergy inquired as to whether NRC staff had a regulatory reason for performing the WOE analysis. NRC staff indicated that the analysis was intended to fulfill the staffs requirement to address issues identified as Category 2 in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 51, specifically the issues of entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages and impingement of fish and shellfish.

e. Entergy inquired as to why the NRC staff made changes in the WOE approach published by the Massachusetts Weight of Evidence Workgroup. NRC staff indicated that WOE approaches are generally site-specific and specific to the types of information that are available and the questions that researchers are asking. NRC staff noted that others have employed modifications. In this case, NRC adopted the Massachusetts Weight-of-Evidence Workgroups analytical framework. NRC staff indicated that within that framework they had weighted factors based on use and utility and that Table H-9 in Appendix H shows such weights. Entergy indicated that there appeared to be no specific weights applied to the use and utility criteria, unlike the approach taken by the Massachusetts workgroup. NRC staff indicated that the Massachusetts Weight-of-Evidence Workgroup approach was the result of a workshop with various actors who worked together to determine weighting factors. In the absence of such a process, the NRC staff assigned an equal weight to each criterion in the use and utility assessment. NRC staff determined the weighting factors for each line of evidence based on the use and utility criteria before analyzing data and did not change them after seeing the results of the WOE analysis.

f. Entergy staff inquired as to how NRC staff assigned the scores that determine impact levels. NRC staff indicated that page H-34 contains insights into impact levels. While NRC staff indicated that a continuum would be best for expressing impact levels, NRC regulations call on the NRC staff to indicate specific impact levels. NRC staff indicated that the highest possible use and utility score is 3.

The 50% level, then, is 1.5, and represents a possible bright line cutoff. NRC

staff then integrated use and utility information with population trend data. The highest possible score is 4, with a 50% value of 2. NRC staff indicated that these 50% levels served as break points for determining impact levels, and also indicated that further information could cause the approach to be refined.

g. Entergy inquired as to whether NRC staff performed any ground-truthing or refining. NRC staff indicated that they had not made any post-analysis changes, but that additional input could trigger changes.