ML11293A325
| ML11293A325 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/2011 |
| From: | - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Division of License Renewal |
| References | |
| Download: ML11293A325 (3) | |
Text
1 IPRenewal NPEmails From:
Gray, Dara F [DGray@entergy.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, September 28, 2011 3:20 PM To:
Stuyvenberg, Andrew
Subject:
RE: NRC staff's review of Entergy's 9-21 response Thanks From: Stuyvenberg, Andrew [1]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 3:10 PM To: Gray, Dara F; Zoli, Elise N Cc: IPRenewal NPEmails; Turk, Sherwin; Imboden, Andy
Subject:
FW: NRC staff's review of Entergy's 9-21 response FYI... Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this e-mail or the attached excerpts.
- Best, Drew From: Stuyvenberg, Andrew Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:25 AM To: Mark.Murray-Brown@noaa.gov; 'Julie Crocker'; Julie Williams Cc: Turk, Sherwin; Logan, Dennis; Imboden, Andy; Pelton, David; IPRenewal NPEmails
Subject:
NRC staff's review of Entergy's 9-21 response Julie -
Per your request, I have reviewed Elise Zolis E-mail comments (submitted on behalf of Entergy) from September 21, 2011. It appears to me that they are accurate with regard to the NRC staffs conclusions in the Indian Point License Renewal Final SEIS. Ive attached several excerpts from our Final SEIS (from December 2010) for your convenience and to assist you as you complete your review.
Radionuclides Elise Zoli correctly quoted from the NRC staffs Final SEIS with regard to its discussion of environmental radionuclides. In the attached excerpt, you will find pages 2-107 to 2-111 of the Final SEIS, in which the staff reviewed the 2009 environmental radiological sampling results. The NRC staffs review identified no unusual trends or significant radiological impacts to the environment due to operation of the Indian Point facility. See Final SEIS at 2-107, 2-109, 2-110, and 2-111. As Ms. Zoli noted, the NRC staff reported an issue in the Final SEIS regarding the reliability of Strontium-90 sampling in fish tissues in 2009 (Final SEIS at 2-107); this issue was resolved in Entergys 2010 Radiological Environmental Operating Report. (Ive also excerpted and included pages 2-105 and 2-106 from the Final SEIS, wherein staff found that strontium-90 levels reported in 2006 REMP sampling were likely to due to atmospheric weapons testing.)
Also, I note that Riverkeeper had expressed concern about radionuclides in aquatic species in its comments on the NRC staffs Draft SEIS, and the NRC staff responded to those comments in the Final SEIS. Specifically, the NRC staff synopsized and responded to these comments on pages A-79 through A-81 of the Final SEIS. I have excerpted and attached those pages to this e-mail for your convenience.
2 The NRC staff addressed groundwater contamination in the Final SEIS at pages 2-108, 2-110 to 2-112, 4-41, and 4-56. For your convenience, I have excerpted and attached those pages to this e-mail.
In addition, the staff responded to numerous comments about onsite groundwater contamination and its potential effects on human health and the Hudson River. The staff synopsized and responded to these comments on pages A-60 through A-62 of the Final SEIS. For your convenience, those pages are excerpted and attached, as well.
Finally, in reporting New York States views on the potential for radionuclides from groundwater to contaminate fish, the NRC staff relied on a 2007 Community Fact Sheet developed by NYSDEC and presented to the NRC during the SEIS scoping period. It is available in ADAMS at ML081000369 (I can convey a copy by e-mail if you desire). The NRC staff did not rely on the Skinner and Sinnott (NYSDEC, Nov. 2009) report that Ms. Zoli conveyed to you, although I note that the NYSDEC reports findings are consistent with the NRC staffs findings in the Final SEIS. As noted in the NYSDEC report, Skinner and Sinnott studied fish bones and blue crab carapaces, while sampling performed for the REMP addresses edible portions of aquatic organisms. Neither NYSDEC (Skinner and Sinnott) nor Entergy (REMP) identified unusual radionuclide levels due to operation of the Indian Point facility.
Indian Point Unit 1 Intake Ms. Zolis comments on the Indian Point Unit 1 intake system contain a greater depth of information than NRC staff had presented in the Final SEIS, and a greater depth of information than Entergy had presented in its Environmental Report for license renewal (ER; available in ADAMS at ML071210530). Without addressing the specific information provided by Ms. Zoli regarding the Unit 1 intake structure, I note that her assertion that total flow through the IP1 intake is quite small in comparison to the flow rate of other intakes at the Indian Point facility is consistent with the NRC staffs review of the matter.
For your convenience, Ive excerpted and attached pages 3-4 and 3-5 of Entergys license renewal ER, which is the description Entergy provided to the NRC in 2007.
General Matters, Reference Documents, Etc.
Please contact me if you need additional clarification or documentation regarding this matter. I will be happy to convey any documents cited in this response.
Drew Stuyvenberg U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-4006 Andrew.Stuyvenberg@nrc.gov
Hearing Identifier:
IndianPointUnits2and3NonPublic_EX Email Number:
2976 Mail Envelope Properties (DA94DFACF1201C4A91A21BD336C2520A028336)
Subject:
RE: NRC staff's review of Entergy's 9-21 response Sent Date:
9/28/2011 3:20:29 PM Received Date:
9/28/2011 3:21:08 PM From:
Gray, Dara F Created By:
DGray@entergy.com Recipients:
"Stuyvenberg, Andrew" <Andrew.Stuyvenberg@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
LITXMETSP003.etrsouth.corp.entergy.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 5168 9/28/2011 3:21:08 PM Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
Yes Reply Requested:
Yes Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: