ML12089A616

Entergy Pre-Filed Evidentiary Hearing Exhibit ENT00335E - GZA Q1 2009 - Pt E

ML12089A616
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	03/29/2012
From:	Entergy Nuclear Operations
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
Shared Package
ML12089A613	List: ML12089A614 ML12089A616
References
RAS 22133, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML12089A616 (27)

Text

ENT00335E Submitted: March 29, 2012 FINAL QUARTERLY LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT Q1 2009 (REPORT NO. 5)

APPENDIX H: RECENT TRACER TESTING DATA

TABLE H1 FIRST QUARTER 2009 UNIT 2: TRACER AND TRITIUM RESULTS INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER BUCHANAN, NY MW-31-49 MW-31-63 Date Tracer Date Tritium Date Tracer Date Tritium (ppb) (pCi/L) (ppb) (pCi/L) 11/20/06 0 11/27/06 2.98E+02 11/20/06 0 11/27/06 6.89E+03 11/27/06 0 1/18/07 1.20E+03 11/27/06 0 1/18/07 1.41E+04 12/4/06 0 6/12/07 1.48E+03 12/4/06 0 6/12/07 5.00E+03 1/18/07 0 8/2/07 1.19E+04 1/18/07 0 8/2/07 4.06E+04 1/25/07 0 9/11/07 6.98E+03 1/25/07 0 9/11/07 3.77E+04 2/1/07 0 10/24/07 8.77E+03 2/1/07 0 10/24/07 3.58E+04 2/8/07 1,600 1/16/08 3.97E+02 2/8/07 0 1/16/08 1.24E+04 2/9/07 746 6/6/08 3.04E+04 2/9/07 0 6/6/08 1.02E+04 2/10/07 1,140 8/7/08 5.94E+02 2/10/07 0 8/7/08 1.76E+04 2/11/07 682 2/6/09 1.11E+04 2/11/07 212 8/30/08 2.21E+04 2/12/07 391 4/14/09 4.84E+04 2/12/07 1,030 10/30/08 2.30E+04 2/13/07 275 5/29/09 9.34E+03 2/13/07 3,820 11/18/08 2.55E+04 2/14/07 177 2/14/07 5,830 2/6/09 1.28E+04 2/15/07 149 2/15/07 7,500 4/14/09 3.24E+04 2/16/07 79.4 2/16/07 8,300 5/29/09 3.16E+04 2/17/07 82.5 2/17/07 9,340 2/18/07 58 2/18/07 9,310 2/19/07 50.5 2/19/07 10,800 2/20/07 69.7 2/20/07 12,400 2/21/07 29.1 2/21/07 9,230 2/22/07 35.3 2/22/07 9,760 2/23/07 24.6 2/23/07 12,700 2/23/07 24.7 2/26/07 11,700 2/26/07 24.5 2/27/07 10,400 2/27/07 29.5 2/28/07 11,800 2/28/07 29.9 3/1/07 10,500 3/1/07 11.7 3/2/07 10,200 3/2/07 14.4 3/5/07 9,460 3/5/07 6.2 3/6/07 9,590 3/6/07 1.9 3/7/07 8,790 3/7/07 0.5 3/8/07 8,370 3/8/07 0.2 3/9/07 7,540 3/9/07 5.9 3/12/07 6,460 3/12/07 2.4 3/15/07 4,390 3/15/07 11.0 3/16/07 3,470 3/16/07 15.1 3/19/07 2,480 3/19/07 2.9 3/21/07 1,470 3/19/07 2.8 3/23/07 1,310 3/21/07 01 0.1 3/26/07 767 3/23/07 0.1 3/28/07 653 3/23/07 0.1 3/29/07 549 3/26/07 0 4/2/07 471 3/28/07 0.1 4/4/07 487 3/29/07 0.2 4/6/07 331 4/2/07 6.2 4/9/07 421 4/4/07 0.6 4/11/07 327 4/6/07 0.6 4/18/07 230 4/9/07 0.4 4/23/07 209 4/11/07 0.2 5/4/07 206 4/18/07 2.2 5/11/07 118 4/18/07 2.2 6/12/07 82.7 4/23/07 1.7 8/7/08 4.5 5/4/07 0.1 2/6/09 0.1 5/4/07 0.1 4/14/09 0.5 5/11/07 0.4 5/29/09 1.0 6/12/07 0.4 7/21/09 0.514 8/7/08 0.1 2/6/09 0 4/14/09 0 5/29/09 0 7/21/09 0 Refer to Page 4 for table notes.

J:\17,000-18,999\17869\17869-91.MG\2009 Quarter 1\Appendices\Appendix H - Tracer Testing Memorandum\Table H1 TracerTritium.xlsx Page 1 of 4

TABLE H1 FIRST QUARTER 2009 UNIT 2: TRACER AND TRITIUM RESULTS INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER BUCHANAN, NY MW-31-85 MW-32-59 Date Tracer Date Tritium Date Tracer Date Tritium (ppb) (pCi/L) (ppb) (pCi/L) 11/20/06 0 11/27/06 4.62E+02 11/21/06 0 1/19/07 7.67E+03 11/27/06 0 1/18/07 2.66E+03 11/28/06 0 6/28/07 2.40E+04 12/4/06 0 6/12/07 3.17E+02 12/4/06 0 8/13/07 1.42E+04 1/18/07 0 8/2/07 2.69E+03 1/18/07 0 10/26/07 1.11E+04 1/25/07 0 9/11/07 4.32E+03 1/25/07 0 1/18/08 1.87E+04 2/1/07 0 10/24/07 5.51E+03 2/7/07 0 5/5/08 4.15E+03 2/8/07 0 1/16/08 1.31E+03 2/8/07 23,800 6/9/08 2.85E+03 2/9/07 0 6/6/08 5.95E+03 2/9/07 49,000 7/31/08 1.54E+03 2/10/07 0 8/7/08 2.30E+03 2/10/07 14,500 9/2/08 2.44E+03 2/11/07 0 8/30/08 8.34E+03 2/11/07 7,770 10/24/08 4.13E+02 2/12/07 958 10/30/08 3.89E+03 2/12/07 3,950 2/4/09 1.78E+04 2/13/07 1810 11/18/08 4.41E+03 2/13/07 2,030 4/27/09 6.43E+04 2/14/07 1680 2/6/09 7.37E+03 2/14/07 1,380 2/15/07 1050 4/14/09 1.88E+04 2/15/07 939 2/16/07 715 5/29/09 8.85E+03 2/16/07 733 2/17/07 486 2/17/07 628 2/18/07 367 2/18/07 498 2/19/07 299 2/19/07 474 2/20/07 222 2/20/07 378 2/21/07 175 2/21/07 240 2/22/07 148 2/22/07 238 2/23/07 125 2/23/07 181 2/26/07 99.7 2/26/07 115 2/27/07 84.4 2/27/07 96.4 2/28/07 77.3 2/28/07 89.3 3/1/07 72 2/28/07 87.9 3/2/07 62.6 3/1/07 79 3/5/07 38.6 3/2/07 123 3/5/07 38.7 3/5/07 16.8 3/6/07 38.4 3/6/07 1.6 3/7/07 21 3/7/07 23 3/8/07 23.3 3/8/07 30.2 3/9/07 25 3/9/07 37.8 3/12/07 24.9 3/12/07 48.7 3/15/07 30.7 3/13/07 56.2 3/16/07 59.1 3/14/07 81.9 3/19/07 68.4 3/15/07 79.9 3/21/07 29.3 3/16/07 85.9 3/23/07 14 4 14.4 3/19/07 45 3/26/07 8.3 3/21/07 34 3/28/07 8.2 3/23/07 19.5 3/29/07 6.9 3/26/07 8.9 4/2/07 8.3 3/28/07 10.4 4/4/07 6.1 3/29/07 11.4 4/6/07 4.9 4/2/07 35.3 4/9/07 5 4/4/07 40.5 4/11/07 4 4/6/07 23.9 4/18/07 2.9 4/9/07 16.5 4/23/07 2.5 4/11/07 26.5 5/4/07 2.2 4/18/07 15.1 5/11/07 2.5 4/23/07 2.2 6/12/07 1.8 4/23/07 2.2 8/7/08 0.4 5/4/07 14.6 2/6/09 0 5/11/07 14.2 4/14/09 0.1 6/14/07 2.2 5/29/09 0.2 7/13/07 1.9 7/21/09 0.05 7/31/08 0.1 2/4/09 0.0 6/2/09 0.0 Refer to Page 4 for table notes.

J:\17,000-18,999\17869\17869-91.MG\2009 Quarter 1\Appendices\Appendix H - Tracer Testing Memorandum\Table H1 TracerTritium.xlsx Page 2 of 4

TABLE H1 FIRST QUARTER 2009 UNIT 2: TRACER AND TRITIUM RESULTS INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER BUCHANAN, NY MW-32-85 MW-32-149 Date Tracer Date Tritium Date Tracer Date Tritium (ppb) (pCi/L) (ppb) (pCi/L) 11/21/06 0 1/19/07 1.12E+04 2/7/07 0 1/19/07 1.05E+04 11/28/06 0 6/28/07 5.42E+03 2/8/07 0 6/28/07 5.81E+02 12/4/06 0 8/13/07 5.70E+03 2/9/07 0 8/13/07 4.93E+02 1/18/07 0 10/26/07 1.26E+04 2/10/07 36.9 10/26/07 2.92E+03 1/25/07 0 1/18/08 1.07E+04 2/11/07 1,650 1/18/08 1.15E+03 2/7/07 0 5/5/08 8.36E+03 2/12/07 3,850 5/5/08 8.83E+02 2/8/07 24,300 6/9/08 1.11E+04 2/12/07 3,840 7/31/08 5.32E+02 2/9/07 4,730 7/31/08 7.48E+03 2/13/07 4,160 10/24/08 5.03E+02 2/10/07 15,100 9/2/08 8.05E+03 2/14/07 3,620 2/4/09 2.65E+02 2/11/07 7,810 10/24/08 8.62E+03 2/14/07 3,620 4/27/09 3.21E+02 2/12/07 4,130 2/4/09 6.54E+03 2/15/07 2,650 6/2/09 2.24E+02 2/13/07 2,100 4/27/09 8.87E+03 2/16/07 1,970 2/14/07 1,380 6/2/09 8.07E+03 2/16/07 1,990 2/15/07 951 2/17/07 1,590 2/16/07 710 2/18/07 1,270 2/17/07 643 2/19/07 1,120 2/18/07 560 2/20/07 926 2/19/07 472 2/21/07 682 2/20/07 398 2/22/07 605 2/21/07 340 2/23/07 489 2/22/07 240 2/26/07 121 2/23/07 182 2/27/07 97.7 2/26/07 113 2/28/07 92.9 2/27/07 95.7 3/1/07 87.8 2/28/07 94.3 3/2/07 72.4 3/1/07 83.8 3/5/07 98.2 3/2/07 76.3 3/6/07 110 3/5/07 70.8 3/7/07 102 3/6/07 49.7 3/8/07 102 3/7/07 19.9 3/9/07 97.3 3/8/07 14.7 3/12/07 105 3/9/07 19.4 3/13/07 102 3/12/07 38.5 3/14/07 98.3 3/13/07 71.1 3/15/07 95.1 3/14/07 76.7 3/16/07 94.8 3/15/07 85.7 3/19/07 84.8 3/16/07 103 3/21/07 79.5 3/19/07 141 3/23/07 88.2 3/21/07 160 3/26/07 75 3 75.3 3/23/07 195 3/28/07 67.8 3/26/07 219 3/29/07 62.4 3/28/07 235 4/2/07 52.5 3/29/07 208 4/4/07 51.8 4/2/07 234 4/6/07 53.7 4/4/07 299 4/9/07 48.3 4/6/07 340 4/11/07 45.2 4/9/07 367 4/18/07 38.2 4/11/07 407 4/23/07 33 4/18/07 446 5/4/07 28.6 4/23/07 461 5/11/07 25.2 5/4/07 503 6/14/07 16.4 5/11/07 442 7/13/07 11.7 6/14/07 446 7/31/08 3.52 7/13/07 275 2/4/09 0.117 7/31/08 106 4/27/09 0.832 2/4/09 0.1 6/2/09 1.23 4/27/09 11.2 6/2/09 26.9 8/3/09 14.4 8/31/09 18.4 Refer to Page 4 for table notes.

J:\17,000-18,999\17869\17869-91.MG\2009 Quarter 1\Appendices\Appendix H - Tracer Testing Memorandum\Table H1 TracerTritium.xlsx Page 3 of 4

TABLE H1 FIRST QUARTER 2009 UNIT 2: TRACER AND TRITIUM RESULTS INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER BUCHANAN, NY MW-32-173 MW-32-190 Date Tracer Date Tritium Date Tracer Date Tritium (ppb) (pCi/L) (ppb) (pCi/L) 7/31/08 9.46 10/26/07 5.89E+03 11/21/06 0 1/19/07 1.13E+04 6/2/09 3.73 1/18/08 3.40E+03 11/28/06 0 6/28/07 2.41E+03 5/5/08 1.69E+03 12/4/06 0 8/13/07 1.72E+03 7/31/08 1.08E+03 1/18/07 0 10/26/07 9.76E+03 9/2/08 9.72E+02 1/25/07 0 1/18/08 8.89E+03 10/24/08 1.03E+03 1/25/07 0 5/5/08 6.73E+03 2/4/09 7.56E+02 2/7/07 0 7/31/08 4.71E+03 4/27/09 7.86E+02 2/8/07 0 9/2/08 3.81E+03 6/2/09 1.72E+03 2/9/07 0 10/24/08 3.35E+03 2/10/07 0 2/4/09 2.69E+03 2/11/07 0 4/27/09 2.54E+03 2/12/07 0 6/2/09 1.95E+03 2/13/07 0 2/14/07 1.4 2/15/07 16 2/16/07 75 2/17/07 143 2/18/07 247 2/19/07 417 2/20/07 385 2/21/07 525 2/22/07 581 2/23/07 569 2/26/07 621 2/27/07 558 2/28/07 543 3/1/07 488 3/2/07 380 3/5/07 326 3/6/07 297 3/7/07 210 3/8/07 168 3/9/07 159 3/12/07 160 3/13/07 142 3/14/07 145 3/15/07 148 3/16/07 140 3/19/07 132 3/21/07 135 3/23/07 150 3/26/07 147 3/28/07 150 3/29/07 131 4/2/07 137 4/4/07 141 4/6/07 148 4/9/07 156 4/11/07 142 4/18/07 129 4/23/07 117 5/4/07 109 5/11/07 88 6/14/07 56 7/13/07 38.6 7/31/08 10.7 6/2/09 3.3 Notes:

1. For Waterloo multi-level systems, the suffix of the sample identification indicates depth (rounded to nearest foot) from reference point on casing to top of sampling port.

2. Sampling depths within sampling intervals (location of pump intake) have been established at location of most transmissive zone to the extent possible.

3. Current well identifications are shown for each location. Minor name changes have been made based on altered transducer installations.

4. Tracer samples were analyzed by Ozark Underground Laboratory, Inc. (OUL) of Protem, Missouri for the presence of fluorescein, eosine and rhodamine WT (RWT) dyes. Eosine and RWT dyes were not detected. Therefore this table summarizes fluorescein dye concentrations.

5. Dye concentrations are reported in parts per billion (ppb).

J:\17,000-18,999\17869\17869-91.MG\2009 Quarter 1\Appendices\Appendix H - Tracer Testing Memorandum\Table H1 TracerTritium.xlsx Page 4 of 4

GZA Engineers and GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Scientists MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Patrick Donahue - Entergy Mr. Bob Evers - Enercon FROM: Matthew Barvenik and Dave Rusczyk - GZA DATE: June 14, 2010 RE: Memorandum - Additional Tracer Test Analyses New York As part of the hydrogeological investigation program performed at the Indian Point 104 West 29th Street Energy Center (IPEC) site located in Buchanan, New York, GZA GeoEnvironmental, 10th Floor Inc. (GZA), on behalf of Entergy, previously conducted an extensive tracer study in the New York, NY 10001 vicinity of the Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool (IP2-SFP). The purpose of this technical Phone: 212-594-8140 Memorandum, prepared at your request, is to provide the results of additional tracer Fax: 212-279-8180 sampling and analyses subsequently conducted as part of the Quarter 3 2008 Long Connecticut Term Monitoring Program 1 .

120 Mountain Avenue Bloomfield CT 06002 BACKGROUND Phone: 860-286-8900 Fax: 860-872-2416 The groundwater tracer testing was initiated on February 8, 2007 with the injection of Massachusetts fluorescein dye into the vadose zone at the top of the bedrock surface immediately One Edgewater Drive adjacent to the IP2-SFP and monitoring well MW-30. Subsequent to the injection, Norwood, MA 02062 routine groundwater sampling and analyses were conducted through approximately Phone: 781-278-3700 June 2007 2 with the results presented in the January 2008 Final Hydrogeologic Site Fax: 781-278-5701 Investigation Report (Final Report 3 ).

As initially identified in the Final Report and more recently discussed in the Q1 2009 Long Term Monitoring Report, the Unit 2 Tritium plume has decreased in concentration relative to the samples taken just after identification of the 2005 shrinkage crack leak 4 and continues to show a general trend of decreasing concentrations over time.

However, the plume still exhibits concentrations greater than we can explain if there were no further Tritium inputs to the groundwater; i.e., the plume would attenuate more quickly than observed 5 . This reduced rate of Tritium decrease over time can be explained by either: 1) an ongoing small (< 5L/day) leak in the IP2- SFP; 2) a retention mechanism in the saturated and unsaturated zones under the IP2-SFP that can retain 1

These tracer data were also provided in the IPEC Quarterly Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Report, Quarters Two and Three, Report No. 3, February 6, 2009.

2 Additional more limited sampling was conducted through approximately August 2007. However, the current sampling data presented in the Final Report (as Figure 7.3) was through June 2007 to take advantage of the increased number of sampling locations up to that time.

3 Hydrogeologic Site Investigation Report, January 7, 2008, prepared by GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc, on behalf of Enercon Services, Inc., for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, Indian Point Energy Center, 450 Broadway, Buchanan, NY 10511.

4 For example, the earliest samples taken from directly below the SFP in MW-30 (open borehole and packer testing samples) yielded Tritium concentrations over 600,000 pCi/L. More currently, maximum concentrations detected have been below one-half of those initial concentrations.

5 Rapid attenuation of the Tritium plume would be expected based on 1) Tritiums lack of partitioning to solid materials in the subsurface; 2) the crystalline nature and low storativity of the bedrock; and 3) the computed and observed groundwater transport rate.

Indian Point Energy Center June 14, 2010 File No. 17869.91 Page 2 substantial volumes of highly tritiated water (e.g., SFP leakage) for substantial amounts of time 6 ; and/or 3) a combination of the above.

While Tritium concentrations in the groundwater plume could be impacted by both an ongoing leak and the retention mechanisms cited above, tracer concentrations in the groundwater cannot be replenished by SFP leakage. Given the elapsed time of approximately one and a half years from the initial tracer injection, we calculate that in the absence of groundwater storage mechanisms, significant concentrations of the tracer would now have been flushed from the groundwater flow system. As shown in Figure 1 and discussed below, significant tracer still remains.

RESULTS To provide further data with which to continue testing the validity of the Conceptual Site Model (CSM), additional groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for fluorescein concentrations during the Third Quarter of the 2008 (Q3 2008) Long Term Groundwater sampling round. A summary of the results of the fluorescein analyses is presented in Table 1. These data, as discussed below, continue to support the existence of storage/retention mechanisms, which explain the currently observed decreased rate of Tritium reduction in the groundwater over time 7 .

Figure 1 is patterned after Figure 7.3 from the Final Investigation Report. For Figure 1, the current tracer concentration isopleths reflect an August 2008 sampling date rather than the then current June 2007 date cited in Figure 7.3; over one year later. As compared to that shown on Figure 7.3, the current tracer plume shows reduced concentrations proximate to the IP2-SFP, but also shows that the plume length has extended along the Tritium plume alignment all the way to the river. Additionally, we note that:

• To the extent defined by this more limited data set, the general plume shape has remained approximately the same, with additional elongation towards the river;

• Although reduced in magnitude, the current concentrations generally match the relative trends exhibited previously; i.e., pursuant to variation between proximate locations and over depth at individual locations. For example, the middle sampling zone in MW-31 still shows the highest concentration for this location, followed by the lowest zone and then the uppermost zone 8 ; and

• Water was found in the vadose zone above the top packer in RW-1. This trapped water was sampled and yielded a very high tracer concentration (39,000 ppb as compared to the highest concentration detected in the groundwater over the entire test duration; i.e., 49,000 ppb in MW-32 near the very beginning of the testing.

We believe these data demonstrate that dead end fractures have the capacity to store substantial contaminant concentrations over relatively long periods of time.

6 This hypothesized retention mechanism is supported by our understanding of the construction methods used for the IP2-SFP and adjacent structures, evaluations of contaminant concentration variability trends over short timeframes and precipitation events, as well as the original tracer test results, as further described in Sections 7.0 and 8.0 of the Final Report.

7 Decreased rate as compared to the case where there are no continuing additions of Tritium to the groundwater flow regime from the vadose zone.

8 As provided in the figure legend, the tracer concentrations for the June 2007 current plume are provided to the left of the bar graphs for each sampling depth.

Indian Point Energy Center June 14, 2010 File No. 17869.91 Page 3 CONCLUSIONS Overall, these findings from the most recent tracer sample analyses are consistent with the previous tracer data, and the associated conclusions presented in the Final Report.

As such, the current demonstration that the tracer persists in the groundwater flow regime over even much longer time frames now provides even stronger support for the existence of retention mechanisms, as posited by existing the CSM for the IPEC site.

In fact, a direct analog for contaminant storage in dead-end bedrock fractures is provided by the high tracer concentrations found above the upper packer in the vadose zone in RW-1. Therefore, given that tritiated water behaves much as the tracer does, it should be expected that once highly tritiated water has been released from the SFP, it becomes trapped (held in storage) and is slowly released to the groundwater flow regime over substantial periods of time. These retention mechanisms therefore act as a continuing source to the groundwater and thus can explain the observed slow rate of Tritium concentration reduction in the Unit 2 plume. Therefore, the persistence of the Unit 2 Tritium plume does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that the Unit 2 SFP must still be leaking. In fact, the currently observed behavior was predicted in the Final Report based on the then available data.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Matt or Dave at (781) 278-3805 or (860) 858-3110.

Very truly yours, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

Matthew J. Barvenik, LSP David Rusczyk, PE Senior Principal Senior Project Manager Date:June 14, 2010 Date:June 14, 2010 Michael Powers, PE Consultant/Reviewer Date:June 14, 2010 Attachments: Table 1: 2008 3rd Quarter Groundwater Analytical Results for Tracer Dye (Fluorescein)

Figure 1: Current Tracer (Fluorescein) Concentration Isopleths in Groundwater

\\GZANOR\Jobs\17,000-18,999\17869\17869-91.MG\2009 Quarter 1\Appendices\Appendix H - Tracer Testing Memorandum\Final Tracer Testing in support of CSM Memo.doc

TABLE 1 2008 3rd QUARTER GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS for TRACER DYE (FLUORESCEIN)

INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER BUCHANAN, NY Sample Collection Results 1

Well ID Concentration Date Time Peak (nm)2 (ppb)2 MW-30-69 8/5/08 10:24 515.1 3 11.7 MW-30-84 8/5/08 10:30 513.4 3 0.125 MW-31-49 8/7/08 11:34 514.1 3 0.119 3

MW-31-63 8/7/08 9:17 512.7 4.45 MW-31-85 8/7/08 9:13 513.9 3 0.435 MW-32-59 7/31/08 11:57 512.8 3 0.063 MW-32-85 7/31/08 13:30 509.2 106 MW-32-131 7/31/08 11:29 508.6 0.107 MW-32-149 7/31/08 9:54 508.8 3.52 MW-32-173 7/31/08 9:52 508.5 9.46 MW-32-190 7/31/08 9:50 508.7 10.7 MW-33 8/1/08 12:45 508.5 0.388 MW-42-49 8/4/08 13:52 ND 4 ND MW-42-78 8/4/08 12:08 ND ND MW-53-82 8/4/08 10:02 ND ND MW-53-120 8/4/08 9:40 ND ND MW-55-24 8/1/08 10:10 ND ND MW-55-35 8/1/08 9:44 ND ND MW-55-54 8/1/08 9:26 508.6 3 0.017 MW-66-21 7/29/08 10:20 508.2 5 0.040 MW-66-36 7/29/08 10:25 509.0 0.120 MW-67-39 7/28/08 12:42 508.7 0.207 MW-67-105 7/28/08 12:40 ND ND MW-67-173 7/28/08 12:35 ND ND MW-67-219 7/28/08 9:33 ND ND MW-67-276 7/28/08 9:35 ND ND MW-67-323 7/28/08 9:40 ND ND MW-67-340 7/28/08 9:26 ND ND U1-CSS 8/1/08 13:50 ND ND RW-1 (50') 8/5/08 11:25 508.7 39,000 RW-1 (97') 8/5/08 11:45 508.5 122 Notes:

• Dye concentrations are based upon standards used at the Ozark Underground Laboratory. The standard concentrations are based upon the as-sold weight of the dye that the OUL uses. The is a mixture of 75% dye and 25% diluent.

1. For nested multi-level monitoring wells, suffix of well ID indicates depth (rounded to nearest foot) from reference point on casing to bottom of well screen. For Waterloo multi-level systems, suffix indicates depth (rounded to nearest foot) from reference point on casing to top of sampling port.

Well IDs without a suffix are open bedrock wellbores.

2. Peak wavelengths are reported in nanometers (nm); dye concentrations are reported in parts per billion (ppb).

3. A fluorescence peak is present that does not meet all the criteria for this dye. However, it has been calculated as though it were the tracer dye.

4. ND indicates that tracer (fluorescein) was not detected.

5. A fluorescence peak is present that does not meet all the criteria for a positive dye result.

However, it has been calculated as though it were the tracer dye.

J:\17,000-18,999\17869\17869-91.MG\2009 Quarter 1\Appendices\Appendix H - Tracer Testing Memorandum\;

TABLE_1-_Dye Testing memo.xls; Tracer Page 1 of 1

ENT00335E Submitted: March 29, 2012 FINAL QUARTERLY LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT Q1 2009 (REPORT NO. 5)

APPENDIX H: RECENT TRACER TESTING DATA

TABLE H1 FIRST QUARTER 2009 UNIT 2: TRACER AND TRITIUM RESULTS INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER BUCHANAN, NY MW-31-49 MW-31-63 Date Tracer Date Tritium Date Tracer Date Tritium (ppb) (pCi/L) (ppb) (pCi/L) 11/20/06 0 11/27/06 2.98E+02 11/20/06 0 11/27/06 6.89E+03 11/27/06 0 1/18/07 1.20E+03 11/27/06 0 1/18/07 1.41E+04 12/4/06 0 6/12/07 1.48E+03 12/4/06 0 6/12/07 5.00E+03 1/18/07 0 8/2/07 1.19E+04 1/18/07 0 8/2/07 4.06E+04 1/25/07 0 9/11/07 6.98E+03 1/25/07 0 9/11/07 3.77E+04 2/1/07 0 10/24/07 8.77E+03 2/1/07 0 10/24/07 3.58E+04 2/8/07 1,600 1/16/08 3.97E+02 2/8/07 0 1/16/08 1.24E+04 2/9/07 746 6/6/08 3.04E+04 2/9/07 0 6/6/08 1.02E+04 2/10/07 1,140 8/7/08 5.94E+02 2/10/07 0 8/7/08 1.76E+04 2/11/07 682 2/6/09 1.11E+04 2/11/07 212 8/30/08 2.21E+04 2/12/07 391 4/14/09 4.84E+04 2/12/07 1,030 10/30/08 2.30E+04 2/13/07 275 5/29/09 9.34E+03 2/13/07 3,820 11/18/08 2.55E+04 2/14/07 177 2/14/07 5,830 2/6/09 1.28E+04 2/15/07 149 2/15/07 7,500 4/14/09 3.24E+04 2/16/07 79.4 2/16/07 8,300 5/29/09 3.16E+04 2/17/07 82.5 2/17/07 9,340 2/18/07 58 2/18/07 9,310 2/19/07 50.5 2/19/07 10,800 2/20/07 69.7 2/20/07 12,400 2/21/07 29.1 2/21/07 9,230 2/22/07 35.3 2/22/07 9,760 2/23/07 24.6 2/23/07 12,700 2/23/07 24.7 2/26/07 11,700 2/26/07 24.5 2/27/07 10,400 2/27/07 29.5 2/28/07 11,800 2/28/07 29.9 3/1/07 10,500 3/1/07 11.7 3/2/07 10,200 3/2/07 14.4 3/5/07 9,460 3/5/07 6.2 3/6/07 9,590 3/6/07 1.9 3/7/07 8,790 3/7/07 0.5 3/8/07 8,370 3/8/07 0.2 3/9/07 7,540 3/9/07 5.9 3/12/07 6,460 3/12/07 2.4 3/15/07 4,390 3/15/07 11.0 3/16/07 3,470 3/16/07 15.1 3/19/07 2,480 3/19/07 2.9 3/21/07 1,470 3/19/07 2.8 3/23/07 1,310 3/21/07 01 0.1 3/26/07 767 3/23/07 0.1 3/28/07 653 3/23/07 0.1 3/29/07 549 3/26/07 0 4/2/07 471 3/28/07 0.1 4/4/07 487 3/29/07 0.2 4/6/07 331 4/2/07 6.2 4/9/07 421 4/4/07 0.6 4/11/07 327 4/6/07 0.6 4/18/07 230 4/9/07 0.4 4/23/07 209 4/11/07 0.2 5/4/07 206 4/18/07 2.2 5/11/07 118 4/18/07 2.2 6/12/07 82.7 4/23/07 1.7 8/7/08 4.5 5/4/07 0.1 2/6/09 0.1 5/4/07 0.1 4/14/09 0.5 5/11/07 0.4 5/29/09 1.0 6/12/07 0.4 7/21/09 0.514 8/7/08 0.1 2/6/09 0 4/14/09 0 5/29/09 0 7/21/09 0 Refer to Page 4 for table notes.

J:\17,000-18,999\17869\17869-91.MG\2009 Quarter 1\Appendices\Appendix H - Tracer Testing Memorandum\Table H1 TracerTritium.xlsx Page 1 of 4

TABLE H1 FIRST QUARTER 2009 UNIT 2: TRACER AND TRITIUM RESULTS INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER BUCHANAN, NY MW-31-85 MW-32-59 Date Tracer Date Tritium Date Tracer Date Tritium (ppb) (pCi/L) (ppb) (pCi/L) 11/20/06 0 11/27/06 4.62E+02 11/21/06 0 1/19/07 7.67E+03 11/27/06 0 1/18/07 2.66E+03 11/28/06 0 6/28/07 2.40E+04 12/4/06 0 6/12/07 3.17E+02 12/4/06 0 8/13/07 1.42E+04 1/18/07 0 8/2/07 2.69E+03 1/18/07 0 10/26/07 1.11E+04 1/25/07 0 9/11/07 4.32E+03 1/25/07 0 1/18/08 1.87E+04 2/1/07 0 10/24/07 5.51E+03 2/7/07 0 5/5/08 4.15E+03 2/8/07 0 1/16/08 1.31E+03 2/8/07 23,800 6/9/08 2.85E+03 2/9/07 0 6/6/08 5.95E+03 2/9/07 49,000 7/31/08 1.54E+03 2/10/07 0 8/7/08 2.30E+03 2/10/07 14,500 9/2/08 2.44E+03 2/11/07 0 8/30/08 8.34E+03 2/11/07 7,770 10/24/08 4.13E+02 2/12/07 958 10/30/08 3.89E+03 2/12/07 3,950 2/4/09 1.78E+04 2/13/07 1810 11/18/08 4.41E+03 2/13/07 2,030 4/27/09 6.43E+04 2/14/07 1680 2/6/09 7.37E+03 2/14/07 1,380 2/15/07 1050 4/14/09 1.88E+04 2/15/07 939 2/16/07 715 5/29/09 8.85E+03 2/16/07 733 2/17/07 486 2/17/07 628 2/18/07 367 2/18/07 498 2/19/07 299 2/19/07 474 2/20/07 222 2/20/07 378 2/21/07 175 2/21/07 240 2/22/07 148 2/22/07 238 2/23/07 125 2/23/07 181 2/26/07 99.7 2/26/07 115 2/27/07 84.4 2/27/07 96.4 2/28/07 77.3 2/28/07 89.3 3/1/07 72 2/28/07 87.9 3/2/07 62.6 3/1/07 79 3/5/07 38.6 3/2/07 123 3/5/07 38.7 3/5/07 16.8 3/6/07 38.4 3/6/07 1.6 3/7/07 21 3/7/07 23 3/8/07 23.3 3/8/07 30.2 3/9/07 25 3/9/07 37.8 3/12/07 24.9 3/12/07 48.7 3/15/07 30.7 3/13/07 56.2 3/16/07 59.1 3/14/07 81.9 3/19/07 68.4 3/15/07 79.9 3/21/07 29.3 3/16/07 85.9 3/23/07 14 4 14.4 3/19/07 45 3/26/07 8.3 3/21/07 34 3/28/07 8.2 3/23/07 19.5 3/29/07 6.9 3/26/07 8.9 4/2/07 8.3 3/28/07 10.4 4/4/07 6.1 3/29/07 11.4 4/6/07 4.9 4/2/07 35.3 4/9/07 5 4/4/07 40.5 4/11/07 4 4/6/07 23.9 4/18/07 2.9 4/9/07 16.5 4/23/07 2.5 4/11/07 26.5 5/4/07 2.2 4/18/07 15.1 5/11/07 2.5 4/23/07 2.2 6/12/07 1.8 4/23/07 2.2 8/7/08 0.4 5/4/07 14.6 2/6/09 0 5/11/07 14.2 4/14/09 0.1 6/14/07 2.2 5/29/09 0.2 7/13/07 1.9 7/21/09 0.05 7/31/08 0.1 2/4/09 0.0 6/2/09 0.0 Refer to Page 4 for table notes.

J:\17,000-18,999\17869\17869-91.MG\2009 Quarter 1\Appendices\Appendix H - Tracer Testing Memorandum\Table H1 TracerTritium.xlsx Page 2 of 4

TABLE H1 FIRST QUARTER 2009 UNIT 2: TRACER AND TRITIUM RESULTS INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER BUCHANAN, NY MW-32-85 MW-32-149 Date Tracer Date Tritium Date Tracer Date Tritium (ppb) (pCi/L) (ppb) (pCi/L) 11/21/06 0 1/19/07 1.12E+04 2/7/07 0 1/19/07 1.05E+04 11/28/06 0 6/28/07 5.42E+03 2/8/07 0 6/28/07 5.81E+02 12/4/06 0 8/13/07 5.70E+03 2/9/07 0 8/13/07 4.93E+02 1/18/07 0 10/26/07 1.26E+04 2/10/07 36.9 10/26/07 2.92E+03 1/25/07 0 1/18/08 1.07E+04 2/11/07 1,650 1/18/08 1.15E+03 2/7/07 0 5/5/08 8.36E+03 2/12/07 3,850 5/5/08 8.83E+02 2/8/07 24,300 6/9/08 1.11E+04 2/12/07 3,840 7/31/08 5.32E+02 2/9/07 4,730 7/31/08 7.48E+03 2/13/07 4,160 10/24/08 5.03E+02 2/10/07 15,100 9/2/08 8.05E+03 2/14/07 3,620 2/4/09 2.65E+02 2/11/07 7,810 10/24/08 8.62E+03 2/14/07 3,620 4/27/09 3.21E+02 2/12/07 4,130 2/4/09 6.54E+03 2/15/07 2,650 6/2/09 2.24E+02 2/13/07 2,100 4/27/09 8.87E+03 2/16/07 1,970 2/14/07 1,380 6/2/09 8.07E+03 2/16/07 1,990 2/15/07 951 2/17/07 1,590 2/16/07 710 2/18/07 1,270 2/17/07 643 2/19/07 1,120 2/18/07 560 2/20/07 926 2/19/07 472 2/21/07 682 2/20/07 398 2/22/07 605 2/21/07 340 2/23/07 489 2/22/07 240 2/26/07 121 2/23/07 182 2/27/07 97.7 2/26/07 113 2/28/07 92.9 2/27/07 95.7 3/1/07 87.8 2/28/07 94.3 3/2/07 72.4 3/1/07 83.8 3/5/07 98.2 3/2/07 76.3 3/6/07 110 3/5/07 70.8 3/7/07 102 3/6/07 49.7 3/8/07 102 3/7/07 19.9 3/9/07 97.3 3/8/07 14.7 3/12/07 105 3/9/07 19.4 3/13/07 102 3/12/07 38.5 3/14/07 98.3 3/13/07 71.1 3/15/07 95.1 3/14/07 76.7 3/16/07 94.8 3/15/07 85.7 3/19/07 84.8 3/16/07 103 3/21/07 79.5 3/19/07 141 3/23/07 88.2 3/21/07 160 3/26/07 75 3 75.3 3/23/07 195 3/28/07 67.8 3/26/07 219 3/29/07 62.4 3/28/07 235 4/2/07 52.5 3/29/07 208 4/4/07 51.8 4/2/07 234 4/6/07 53.7 4/4/07 299 4/9/07 48.3 4/6/07 340 4/11/07 45.2 4/9/07 367 4/18/07 38.2 4/11/07 407 4/23/07 33 4/18/07 446 5/4/07 28.6 4/23/07 461 5/11/07 25.2 5/4/07 503 6/14/07 16.4 5/11/07 442 7/13/07 11.7 6/14/07 446 7/31/08 3.52 7/13/07 275 2/4/09 0.117 7/31/08 106 4/27/09 0.832 2/4/09 0.1 6/2/09 1.23 4/27/09 11.2 6/2/09 26.9 8/3/09 14.4 8/31/09 18.4 Refer to Page 4 for table notes.

J:\17,000-18,999\17869\17869-91.MG\2009 Quarter 1\Appendices\Appendix H - Tracer Testing Memorandum\Table H1 TracerTritium.xlsx Page 3 of 4

TABLE H1 FIRST QUARTER 2009 UNIT 2: TRACER AND TRITIUM RESULTS INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER BUCHANAN, NY MW-32-173 MW-32-190 Date Tracer Date Tritium Date Tracer Date Tritium (ppb) (pCi/L) (ppb) (pCi/L) 7/31/08 9.46 10/26/07 5.89E+03 11/21/06 0 1/19/07 1.13E+04 6/2/09 3.73 1/18/08 3.40E+03 11/28/06 0 6/28/07 2.41E+03 5/5/08 1.69E+03 12/4/06 0 8/13/07 1.72E+03 7/31/08 1.08E+03 1/18/07 0 10/26/07 9.76E+03 9/2/08 9.72E+02 1/25/07 0 1/18/08 8.89E+03 10/24/08 1.03E+03 1/25/07 0 5/5/08 6.73E+03 2/4/09 7.56E+02 2/7/07 0 7/31/08 4.71E+03 4/27/09 7.86E+02 2/8/07 0 9/2/08 3.81E+03 6/2/09 1.72E+03 2/9/07 0 10/24/08 3.35E+03 2/10/07 0 2/4/09 2.69E+03 2/11/07 0 4/27/09 2.54E+03 2/12/07 0 6/2/09 1.95E+03 2/13/07 0 2/14/07 1.4 2/15/07 16 2/16/07 75 2/17/07 143 2/18/07 247 2/19/07 417 2/20/07 385 2/21/07 525 2/22/07 581 2/23/07 569 2/26/07 621 2/27/07 558 2/28/07 543 3/1/07 488 3/2/07 380 3/5/07 326 3/6/07 297 3/7/07 210 3/8/07 168 3/9/07 159 3/12/07 160 3/13/07 142 3/14/07 145 3/15/07 148 3/16/07 140 3/19/07 132 3/21/07 135 3/23/07 150 3/26/07 147 3/28/07 150 3/29/07 131 4/2/07 137 4/4/07 141 4/6/07 148 4/9/07 156 4/11/07 142 4/18/07 129 4/23/07 117 5/4/07 109 5/11/07 88 6/14/07 56 7/13/07 38.6 7/31/08 10.7 6/2/09 3.3 Notes:

1. For Waterloo multi-level systems, the suffix of the sample identification indicates depth (rounded to nearest foot) from reference point on casing to top of sampling port.

2. Sampling depths within sampling intervals (location of pump intake) have been established at location of most transmissive zone to the extent possible.

3. Current well identifications are shown for each location. Minor name changes have been made based on altered transducer installations.

4. Tracer samples were analyzed by Ozark Underground Laboratory, Inc. (OUL) of Protem, Missouri for the presence of fluorescein, eosine and rhodamine WT (RWT) dyes. Eosine and RWT dyes were not detected. Therefore this table summarizes fluorescein dye concentrations.

5. Dye concentrations are reported in parts per billion (ppb).

J:\17,000-18,999\17869\17869-91.MG\2009 Quarter 1\Appendices\Appendix H - Tracer Testing Memorandum\Table H1 TracerTritium.xlsx Page 4 of 4

GZA Engineers and GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Scientists MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Patrick Donahue - Entergy Mr. Bob Evers - Enercon FROM: Matthew Barvenik and Dave Rusczyk - GZA DATE: June 14, 2010 RE: Memorandum - Additional Tracer Test Analyses New York As part of the hydrogeological investigation program performed at the Indian Point 104 West 29th Street Energy Center (IPEC) site located in Buchanan, New York, GZA GeoEnvironmental, 10th Floor Inc. (GZA), on behalf of Entergy, previously conducted an extensive tracer study in the New York, NY 10001 vicinity of the Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool (IP2-SFP). The purpose of this technical Phone: 212-594-8140 Memorandum, prepared at your request, is to provide the results of additional tracer Fax: 212-279-8180 sampling and analyses subsequently conducted as part of the Quarter 3 2008 Long Connecticut Term Monitoring Program 1 .

120 Mountain Avenue Bloomfield CT 06002 BACKGROUND Phone: 860-286-8900 Fax: 860-872-2416 The groundwater tracer testing was initiated on February 8, 2007 with the injection of Massachusetts fluorescein dye into the vadose zone at the top of the bedrock surface immediately One Edgewater Drive adjacent to the IP2-SFP and monitoring well MW-30. Subsequent to the injection, Norwood, MA 02062 routine groundwater sampling and analyses were conducted through approximately Phone: 781-278-3700 June 2007 2 with the results presented in the January 2008 Final Hydrogeologic Site Fax: 781-278-5701 Investigation Report (Final Report 3 ).

As initially identified in the Final Report and more recently discussed in the Q1 2009 Long Term Monitoring Report, the Unit 2 Tritium plume has decreased in concentration relative to the samples taken just after identification of the 2005 shrinkage crack leak 4 and continues to show a general trend of decreasing concentrations over time.

However, the plume still exhibits concentrations greater than we can explain if there were no further Tritium inputs to the groundwater; i.e., the plume would attenuate more quickly than observed 5 . This reduced rate of Tritium decrease over time can be explained by either: 1) an ongoing small (< 5L/day) leak in the IP2- SFP; 2) a retention mechanism in the saturated and unsaturated zones under the IP2-SFP that can retain 1

These tracer data were also provided in the IPEC Quarterly Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Report, Quarters Two and Three, Report No. 3, February 6, 2009.

2 Additional more limited sampling was conducted through approximately August 2007. However, the current sampling data presented in the Final Report (as Figure 7.3) was through June 2007 to take advantage of the increased number of sampling locations up to that time.

3 Hydrogeologic Site Investigation Report, January 7, 2008, prepared by GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc, on behalf of Enercon Services, Inc., for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, Indian Point Energy Center, 450 Broadway, Buchanan, NY 10511.

4 For example, the earliest samples taken from directly below the SFP in MW-30 (open borehole and packer testing samples) yielded Tritium concentrations over 600,000 pCi/L. More currently, maximum concentrations detected have been below one-half of those initial concentrations.

5 Rapid attenuation of the Tritium plume would be expected based on 1) Tritiums lack of partitioning to solid materials in the subsurface; 2) the crystalline nature and low storativity of the bedrock; and 3) the computed and observed groundwater transport rate.

Indian Point Energy Center June 14, 2010 File No. 17869.91 Page 2 substantial volumes of highly tritiated water (e.g., SFP leakage) for substantial amounts of time 6 ; and/or 3) a combination of the above.

While Tritium concentrations in the groundwater plume could be impacted by both an ongoing leak and the retention mechanisms cited above, tracer concentrations in the groundwater cannot be replenished by SFP leakage. Given the elapsed time of approximately one and a half years from the initial tracer injection, we calculate that in the absence of groundwater storage mechanisms, significant concentrations of the tracer would now have been flushed from the groundwater flow system. As shown in Figure 1 and discussed below, significant tracer still remains.

RESULTS To provide further data with which to continue testing the validity of the Conceptual Site Model (CSM), additional groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for fluorescein concentrations during the Third Quarter of the 2008 (Q3 2008) Long Term Groundwater sampling round. A summary of the results of the fluorescein analyses is presented in Table 1. These data, as discussed below, continue to support the existence of storage/retention mechanisms, which explain the currently observed decreased rate of Tritium reduction in the groundwater over time 7 .

Figure 1 is patterned after Figure 7.3 from the Final Investigation Report. For Figure 1, the current tracer concentration isopleths reflect an August 2008 sampling date rather than the then current June 2007 date cited in Figure 7.3; over one year later. As compared to that shown on Figure 7.3, the current tracer plume shows reduced concentrations proximate to the IP2-SFP, but also shows that the plume length has extended along the Tritium plume alignment all the way to the river. Additionally, we note that:

• To the extent defined by this more limited data set, the general plume shape has remained approximately the same, with additional elongation towards the river;

• Although reduced in magnitude, the current concentrations generally match the relative trends exhibited previously; i.e., pursuant to variation between proximate locations and over depth at individual locations. For example, the middle sampling zone in MW-31 still shows the highest concentration for this location, followed by the lowest zone and then the uppermost zone 8 ; and

• Water was found in the vadose zone above the top packer in RW-1. This trapped water was sampled and yielded a very high tracer concentration (39,000 ppb as compared to the highest concentration detected in the groundwater over the entire test duration; i.e., 49,000 ppb in MW-32 near the very beginning of the testing.

We believe these data demonstrate that dead end fractures have the capacity to store substantial contaminant concentrations over relatively long periods of time.

6 This hypothesized retention mechanism is supported by our understanding of the construction methods used for the IP2-SFP and adjacent structures, evaluations of contaminant concentration variability trends over short timeframes and precipitation events, as well as the original tracer test results, as further described in Sections 7.0 and 8.0 of the Final Report.

7 Decreased rate as compared to the case where there are no continuing additions of Tritium to the groundwater flow regime from the vadose zone.

8 As provided in the figure legend, the tracer concentrations for the June 2007 current plume are provided to the left of the bar graphs for each sampling depth.

Indian Point Energy Center June 14, 2010 File No. 17869.91 Page 3 CONCLUSIONS Overall, these findings from the most recent tracer sample analyses are consistent with the previous tracer data, and the associated conclusions presented in the Final Report.

As such, the current demonstration that the tracer persists in the groundwater flow regime over even much longer time frames now provides even stronger support for the existence of retention mechanisms, as posited by existing the CSM for the IPEC site.

In fact, a direct analog for contaminant storage in dead-end bedrock fractures is provided by the high tracer concentrations found above the upper packer in the vadose zone in RW-1. Therefore, given that tritiated water behaves much as the tracer does, it should be expected that once highly tritiated water has been released from the SFP, it becomes trapped (held in storage) and is slowly released to the groundwater flow regime over substantial periods of time. These retention mechanisms therefore act as a continuing source to the groundwater and thus can explain the observed slow rate of Tritium concentration reduction in the Unit 2 plume. Therefore, the persistence of the Unit 2 Tritium plume does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that the Unit 2 SFP must still be leaking. In fact, the currently observed behavior was predicted in the Final Report based on the then available data.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Matt or Dave at (781) 278-3805 or (860) 858-3110.

Very truly yours, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

Matthew J. Barvenik, LSP David Rusczyk, PE Senior Principal Senior Project Manager Date:June 14, 2010 Date:June 14, 2010 Michael Powers, PE Consultant/Reviewer Date:June 14, 2010 Attachments: Table 1: 2008 3rd Quarter Groundwater Analytical Results for Tracer Dye (Fluorescein)

Figure 1: Current Tracer (Fluorescein) Concentration Isopleths in Groundwater

\\GZANOR\Jobs\17,000-18,999\17869\17869-91.MG\2009 Quarter 1\Appendices\Appendix H - Tracer Testing Memorandum\Final Tracer Testing in support of CSM Memo.doc

TABLE 1 2008 3rd QUARTER GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS for TRACER DYE (FLUORESCEIN)

INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER BUCHANAN, NY Sample Collection Results 1

Well ID Concentration Date Time Peak (nm)2 (ppb)2 MW-30-69 8/5/08 10:24 515.1 3 11.7 MW-30-84 8/5/08 10:30 513.4 3 0.125 MW-31-49 8/7/08 11:34 514.1 3 0.119 3

MW-31-63 8/7/08 9:17 512.7 4.45 MW-31-85 8/7/08 9:13 513.9 3 0.435 MW-32-59 7/31/08 11:57 512.8 3 0.063 MW-32-85 7/31/08 13:30 509.2 106 MW-32-131 7/31/08 11:29 508.6 0.107 MW-32-149 7/31/08 9:54 508.8 3.52 MW-32-173 7/31/08 9:52 508.5 9.46 MW-32-190 7/31/08 9:50 508.7 10.7 MW-33 8/1/08 12:45 508.5 0.388 MW-42-49 8/4/08 13:52 ND 4 ND MW-42-78 8/4/08 12:08 ND ND MW-53-82 8/4/08 10:02 ND ND MW-53-120 8/4/08 9:40 ND ND MW-55-24 8/1/08 10:10 ND ND MW-55-35 8/1/08 9:44 ND ND MW-55-54 8/1/08 9:26 508.6 3 0.017 MW-66-21 7/29/08 10:20 508.2 5 0.040 MW-66-36 7/29/08 10:25 509.0 0.120 MW-67-39 7/28/08 12:42 508.7 0.207 MW-67-105 7/28/08 12:40 ND ND MW-67-173 7/28/08 12:35 ND ND MW-67-219 7/28/08 9:33 ND ND MW-67-276 7/28/08 9:35 ND ND MW-67-323 7/28/08 9:40 ND ND MW-67-340 7/28/08 9:26 ND ND U1-CSS 8/1/08 13:50 ND ND RW-1 (50') 8/5/08 11:25 508.7 39,000 RW-1 (97') 8/5/08 11:45 508.5 122 Notes:

• Dye concentrations are based upon standards used at the Ozark Underground Laboratory. The standard concentrations are based upon the as-sold weight of the dye that the OUL uses. The is a mixture of 75% dye and 25% diluent.

1. For nested multi-level monitoring wells, suffix of well ID indicates depth (rounded to nearest foot) from reference point on casing to bottom of well screen. For Waterloo multi-level systems, suffix indicates depth (rounded to nearest foot) from reference point on casing to top of sampling port.

Well IDs without a suffix are open bedrock wellbores.

2. Peak wavelengths are reported in nanometers (nm); dye concentrations are reported in parts per billion (ppb).

3. A fluorescence peak is present that does not meet all the criteria for this dye. However, it has been calculated as though it were the tracer dye.

4. ND indicates that tracer (fluorescein) was not detected.

5. A fluorescence peak is present that does not meet all the criteria for a positive dye result.

However, it has been calculated as though it were the tracer dye.

J:\17,000-18,999\17869\17869-91.MG\2009 Quarter 1\Appendices\Appendix H - Tracer Testing Memorandum\;

TABLE_1-_Dye Testing memo.xls; Tracer Page 1 of 1

Tank Pit CB3 Water MW-42

? Storage Storage Tank Tank MH22 2.2 0.06 0.045 ND 0.36 0.12 UNIT 1 446 106 0.37 MH10 CB-2C ND 82.7 4.5 5.9 9.5 3.5 0.11 Conc. sidewalk 1.8 0.44 16.4 3 Storage MH21 MW-31 ?

@ MH9 MH-20 CB-2B MH11 56 10.7

@ MW-32

? 22.75' FUEL POOL MW-56 33 '

MW-30 CB-2A 70 @

?

? . RW-1 PAB MW-53

? ND 2

CSS TRENCH 2300 11.7 39000 ND Transformers ND Transformers on raised ND Concrete slab MH18 Concrete Pad 86 0.13 64 ND 122 ND CB-2 13.2 ND 21.75' ROOF DRAIN E MW-34 MH17 CB-1 MH8 Transformer area and switch gear MW-35 UNIT 2 MW-33 Trans 43.8' U1-CSS ?

43.8' 43.8'

@ ?

? @

@ ? Storage Tanks

@ 13' 0.93 0.39 CSS (EL.=0.0)

CSS MW-111 MH-23 MH7 @

? Trans ND ND 2.9 ND MH-19 0.05 Transformer yard CB-16 0.17 13.8 MW-57 MH-5 MH23A Trans MW-55 @

?

MH-6

? 0.11 Transformer Yard 0.056 0.04 ND ND ND MW-36 U2-C1 0.039

?

MH-4 MH-4A @

? 0.11 0.099 ND MW-54 0.25 ND ND

? ND ND 0.13 0.02 0.019 ND MW-37 ?

MW-52 ND

? ND 7.0 Well ID Tracer Results (ppb)

CB-17 ND ND MW-30-69 11.7 ND MW-30-84 0.125 ND MW-31-49 0.119 ND MW-31-63 4.45 LEGEND MW-64 MW-50 ?

@ MW-31-85 MW-32-59 0.435 0.063 @

?

ND Depth-Specific Data MW-32-85 106 Trans.

Water sample concentration of Fluorescein (ug/L) for each MW-32-131 0.107 screened interval through 8/4/08. MW-32-149 3.52 MH3 2 Upper sampling zone of RW-1 is dashed to signify MW-32-173 9.46 5.25 MW-32-190 10.7 MW-49 sample obtained from water trapped in vadose zone.

MW-33 0.388 120 Multiple MW-42-49 ND 22 Screened 12.6 600 Intervals w/ Depth Screened in Soil 0.22

? MW-42-78 MW-53-82 ND ND 0.22 5250 Screened in Bedrock TransformersMW-53-120 ND Yard (Gravel) MW-55-24 ND MH-2 Previous water sample concentration of Fluorescein (ug/L) ND for each screened interval through 6/14/07 from final report, Figure 7.3. MW-67 MW-55-35 MW-55-54 ND 0.017 CB-19 MW-66-21 0.040 MH13 CB-18 MH15

? ND Concrete sidewalk Plume Data1 0.21 MW-66-36 MW-67-39 0.120 0.207 Isopleths; MW-66 MW-62 MW-67-105 ND MW-60 Bar Graphs; Maximum Fluorescein over MW-67-173 ND Current Fluorescein, ug/L sampling depths, ug/L

? ND

?@

@? ND @

? MW-67-219 ND MW-61 0.04 MW-67-276 Wooden walk ND Not Measured 0.1 - 1 CB-23 ND MW-67-323 ND ND MH1 MW-67-340 ND ND Not Detected (ND) 1 - 10 0.05 0.12 MH12 ND U1-CSS ND 0.06 ND - 0.1 10 - 100 ND MH14 4 RW-1 (50') 39,000 ND RW-1 (97') 122 8 0.1 - 10 > 100 ND 4

10 - 100 ND 32 ND ND HR-1 250 100 - 500 ND 4 GZA GeoEnvironmental,

@ Inc.

?

700 500 - 5,000 ND One Edgewater Drive Norwood, MA 02062 Phone: (781) 278-3700 Fax: (781) 278-5701 25,000 5,000 - 50,000 ND 4 ND INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER Data Notes:

1. Current tracer isopleths represent the most recent concentrations BUCHANAN, NEW YORK measured over depth through 08-04-08.

2. Upper sampling zone of RW-1 is dashed to signify sample obtained from water trapped in vadose zone above packer.

CURRENT TRACER (FLUORESCEIN)

CONCENTRATION ISOPLETHS 1 Plant North

3. Additional sampling interval added to MW-32 during tracer test.

N

4. Flute liner currently installed in MW-66 bedrock well bore. Therefore, only the two soil monitoring wells at this location could be sampled. N IN GROUNDWATER 12-16-2008 1

Dwg. Date: Figure No.:

General Notes: Proj. Mgr.: MJB

1. Base map was developed from an untitled electronic file provided by Badey &

50 25 0 50 Designed By: MJB Reviewed By: MJB Watson Surveying and Engineering, P.C., Dated 2/3/06; CAD file name : "GZA.dwg". Feet Operator: GAS/EMD Job No.:

41.0017869.91 J:\17,000-18,999\17869\17869-91.MG\Figures\GIS\MXD Documents\17869-91_F01_Current Tracer Concentration Map.mxd

FINAL QUARTERLY LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT Q1 2009 (REPORT NO. 5)

APPENDIX I: LEAK COLLECTION BOX DATA

Figure I-1 Collection Box Data Indian Point Energy Center Buchanan, New York 2.50E-02 2,500 Tritium (uCi/ml) 2.00E-02 Leak Rate (mls/day) 2,000 1.50E-02 1,500 Tritium (uCi/ml) Leak Rate (mls/day) 1.00E-02 1,000 5.00E-03 500 0.00E+00 0 9/13/05 11/13/05 1/13/06 3/13/06 5/13/06 7/13/06 9/13/06 11/13/06 1/13/07 3/13/07 5/13/07 7/13/07 9/13/07 11/13/07 1/13/08 3/13/08 5/13/08 7/13/08 9/13/08 11/13/08 1/13/09 3/13/09 5/13/09 7/13/09 9/13/09 Date W:\17,000-18,999\17869\17869-91.MG\Unit 2 Collection Box\Updated 09-8-6 SFP LCD (2).xls November 19, 2009

FINAL QUARTERLY LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT Q1 2009 (REPORT NO. 5)

APPENDIX J: LAFARGE WELL LAF-002 REFURBISHMENT

GZA Engineers and GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Scientists MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Patrick Donahue - Entergy Mr. Bob Evers - Enercon FROM: Matthew Barvenik and Dave Rusczyk - GZA DATE: June 14, 2010 RE: Memorandum - LaFarge Well Refurbishment Summary New York At the request of Entergy Nuclear Northeast, Inc. (Entergy) and under subcontract to 104 West 29th Street Enercon Services, Inc., GZA GeoEnvironmental of New York (GZA) refurbished 10th Floor existing bedrock monitoring well LAF-002 (also previously referred to as MW-2) located New York, NY 10001 at the LaFarge Gypsum property to the south of the Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC).

Phone: 212-594-8140 Well LAF-002 is being refurbished for use in IPECs Long Term Groundwater Fax: 212-279-8180 Monitoring Program (LTMP). The following is a summary of the condition of well LAF-Connecticut 002 prior to refurbishment and the refurbishment activities performed in November 120 Mountain Avenue 2008 by GZA.

Bloomfield CT 06002 Phone: 860-286-8900 Fax: 860-872-2416

• According to installation logs included in a letter report dated February 12, 2001 by Earth Data Incorporated, LAF-002 was constructed with 26.5 feet of six-inch interior Massachusetts diameter steel casing set into the bedrock surface (approximately 10 feet below One Edgewater Drive grade [fbg]). The well originally consisted of an open borehole from 26.5 to 50 fbg; Norwood, MA 02062 however the well was later extended to 140 fbg in an attempt to increase well yeild.

Phone: 781-278-3700 Potential fractures were observed at 42 fbg, 48 fbg, 80-90 fbg, 110-115 fbg, and Fax: 781-278-5701 135 fbg. After deepening, the well yield was estimated to have doubled, but still less than 1/4 gallons per minute (gpm).

• LAF-002 is located adjacent to large gypsum piles and the steel casing for the well is cut-off flush with the ground surface (See Photographs #1, #2 and #3 below). It is also noted that the gypsum pile has, in the recent past, extended over the well, which was, at that time, extended above the pile with PVC casing (See Photograph

1. 4 ). The well is equipped with an expandable cap; however given the condition of the well and the proximity of the gypsum pile, groundwater quality within the well may potentially be influenced by surface water infiltration. Since this well has been incorporated into the IPEC LTMP, the well was redeveloped and the top of the well refurbished to mitigate potential surface water infiltration.

Indian Point Energy Center June 14, 2010 File No. 17869.91 Page 2 PHOTOGRAPH #1 PHOTOGRAPH #2 PHOTOGRAPH #3 PHOTOGRAPH #4

• Between November 24th and 25th, 2008, SGS Drilling Services (SGS) of West Creek, NJ, under contract to and supervision by GZA, mobilized to the Site to redevelop and refurbish the well head of monitoring well LAF-002. Prior to re-development, GZA temporarily removed the dedicated bladder pump and tubing from the well and measured a total well depth of 148.5 fbg feet 1 .

• SGS advanced a roller bit to the bottom of the well to break up the settled materials present at the bottom of the well 2 (See Photographs #5 and #6 below). During this process, water was flushed through the drilling rods to the bottom of the well and subsequently up to the ground surface. The flushed material was slightly turbid and included PVC cuttings, other plastic debris, metal shavings, sand, gravel, and black rock.

1 The measured depth to bottom of the well is different from that noted on the boring log (140) in the Earth Data Incorporated letter report, dated February 12, 2001. Given the presence of the adjacent gypsum pile, it is likely the grade in the vicinity of the well has changed.

2 While lowering the drilling rods, it became apparent that the borehole was not vertical, nor linear, given the drill rod binding observed. GZA believes that the well was installed at a slight angle and that the borehole curves slightly to the south with depth.

Indian Point Energy Center June 14, 2010 File No. 17869.91 Page 3 PHOTOGRAPH #5 PHOTOGRAPH #6

• SGS subsequently utilized a customized surge block to surge the length of the well three times (See Photograph #7 below). Additional surging was also performed in the three zones within the borehole containing the most productive fractures (as based on the original drilling logs) and twenty-feet above the static water table.

Water was added to the well casing so that the interval above the static water column could be surged.

PHOTOGRAPH #7

• Following surging, SGS used air lifting techniques to remove both coarse and fine materials from the well. This technique involved injecting air into the bottom of the well at relatively high pressures resulting in a rapid evacuation of the contents of the well and the creation of a differential pressure between the static groundwater surrounding the borehole and the bottom of the well. This differential pressure forced groundwater to flow into the well from the productive fractures and further flush sediment out of the bedrock fractures. During this process, GZA observed additional debris (PVC cuttings, plastic, and metal shavings) and sediment (sand, silt, gravel, and rock) among the evacuated materials.

Indian Point Energy Center June 14, 2010 File No. 17869.91 Page 4

• The following day, SGS purged the well at approximately five gpm using a submersible pump (See Photographs #8 and 9 below). This process was continued until the well purged dry. It should be noted that the purge water ran clear within a few minutes of purge commencement.

PHOTOGRAPH #8 PHOTOGRAPH #9

• SGS repaired the wellhead to protect it from runoff, intrusion of debris and foreign materials, and damage by moving vehicles and equipment. SGS welded a length of 6-inch steel casing onto the top of the existing casing so that it extended approximately three feet above the surrounding ground surface. SGS also installed a concrete pad around the base of the well casing and four 5-foot concrete filled bollards a few feet from each corner of the pad. The well casing and bollards were painted yellow and a lockable cap with lock was installed on the well head. (See Photograph #10 below).

PHOTOGRAPH #10

Indian Point Energy Center June 14, 2010 File No. 17869.91 Page 5 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Matt or Dave at (781) 278-3805 or (860) 858-3110.

Very truly yours, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

Matthew J. Barvenik, LSP David Rusczyk, PE Senior Principal Senior Project Manager Date:June 14, 2010 Date:June 14, 2010 Michael Powers, PE Consultant/Reviewer Date:June 14, 2010 J:\17,000-18,999\17869\17869-91.MG\2009 Quarter 1\Appendices\Appendix J - LaFarge Well Refurbishment\Appendix J - LaFarge Well Refurbishment.doc

FINAL QUARTERLY LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT Q1 2009 (REPORT NO. 5)

APPENDIX K: GROUNDWATER LEVEL TRANSDUCER REDEPLOYMENT

GZA Engineers and GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Scientists MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Patrick Donahue - Entergy Mr. Bob Evers - Enercon FROM: Matthew Barvenik and Dave Rusczyk - GZA REVIEWED BY: Michael Powers - GZA DATE: June 14, 2010 New York RE: Memorandum on Proposed Redeployment of Groundwater Level 104 West 29th Street Transducers for the Long Term Monitoring Program 10th Floor New York, NY 10001 At the request of Entergy Nuclear Northeast, Inc. (Entergy) and under subcontract to Phone: 212-594-8140 Enercon Services, Inc., GZA GeoEnvironmental of New York (GZA) has evaluated the Fax: 212-279-8180 continued use of the existing groundwater level transducers as part of the Long Term Connecticut Monitoring Program. The following memo provides the basis for our recommendation that 120 Mountain Avenue a limited number of these transducers be maintained in long-term operation.

Bloomfield CT 06002 Phone: 860-286-8900 BACKGROUND Fax: 860-872-2416 Massachusetts As a part of the Hydrologic Site investigation for the Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC),

One Edgewater Drive electronic pressure transducers were placed in a large number of monitoring wells 1 at the Norwood, MA 02062 site to routinely record groundwater levels over time. These data were converted into Phone: 781-278-3700 groundwater elevations, both water table elevations and piezometric elevations at multiple Fax: 781-278-5701 depths in the formation up to 350 feet below ground surface. The groundwater elevations were then used to develop groundwater contours and thus horizontal and vertical gradients across the site. These gradients, along with the hydraulic conductivities (measured using other investigation methods), were employed to compute groundwater flow rates through the site. These data, in part, formed the basis for the formulation, and refinement over time, of the Conceptual Site Model (CSM). The large amount of multi-level transducer data collected during the investigations (and initial Long Term Monitoring Program) allowed the conclusion to be reached (and further verified) that the behavior of the fractured bedrock could be characterized as a blocky porous medium, a major finding which significantly simplifies site analysis. Further summaries of this work are provided in the Final Hydrologic Site Investigation Report2 .

One specific objective of the work referenced above was to develop a method for routinely computing the estimated total yearly activity of radionuclides flowing to the Hudson River via the groundwater pathway (both directly to the river and also through the Discharge Canal). This total yearly activity is computed as the product of the groundwater flow rate and its radionuclide activity (concentration), as measured by analyses of groundwater samples collected from the monitoring installations, over time. The yearly total activity is then used to compute the radionuclide dose to the river.

1 As used in this memo, monitoring well includes a number of different types of groundwater monitoring instrumentation including: 2 standard single monitoring well casings/screens, small diameter (1) multi-level nested well casings/screens, multi-level Waterloo installations, and stilling wells.

2 Hydrogeologic Site Investigation Report, January 7, 2008, prepared by GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc, on behalf of Enercon Services, Inc., for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, Indian Point Energy Center, 450 Broadway, Buchanan, NY 10511.

Indian Point Energy Center June 14, 2010 File No. 17869.91 Page 2 To routinely estimate groundwater flow (i.e., groundwater mass flux) through the Site, an analytical groundwater flow computation was formulated based on a Precipitation Mass Balance Model. This model is based on the precept that, on a long term average, the groundwater flowing through and discharging from the aquifer is equal to the watershed infiltration recharge. This mass balance approach recognizes that the only substantial source of recharge to the aquifer is areal recharge derived from precipitation.

The Precipitation Mass Balance Model was calibrated 3 to groundwater fluxes computed using a Darcys Law Model4 based on site-specific groundwater elevation gradients and hydraulic conductivities. As summarized above, the groundwater pressure transducers provided an integral part of the data used to develop the overall CSM, as well as the Darcys Law Model with respect to the groundwater flux distribution, both laterally and with depth throughout the site. The calibration compared the total groundwater flux values for each of six flow zones 5 computed independently6 using the Precipitation Mass Balance Model and the Darcys Law Model. This calibration not only verified the reasonableness of the overall groundwater flow rates predicted by the Precipitation Mass Balance Model, but also allowed further discretization of the groundwater flow into upper and lower flow zones as well as flow volumes upgradient and downgradient of the Discharge Canal, as described more fully in the Hydrogeologic Site Investigation Report.

The initial calibration was performed using gradients derived from contours of groundwater elevation measured on June, 1 2007. As part of the initial portions of the Long Term Monitoring Program, this calibration has been evaluated quarterly to verify that seasonal changes in groundwater elevations do not materially impact the validity of the calibration.

To date, quarterly groundwater elevations measured with the transducers at representative low river tides 7 have been used to verify the Precipitation Mass Balance Model for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarters of 20078 , the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters of 2008 and the 1st and 2nd quarters of 20099 . As further described in these quarterly reports 10 , the Precipitation Mass Balance Model has continued to provide suitably accurate approximations of the groundwater flow values computed using the Darcys Law Model. Therefore, given the small variability of flow over the seasons monitored to date, as well as the overall recognition that the computed doses to the river are a small fraction of the permitted amounts, GZA believes that further calibration of the Precipitation Mass Balance Model is 3

The process of achieving the desired degree of correspondence between the model results and observations of the physical hydrogeologic system.

4 Both analytic modeling techniques as well as a 3-dimensional numerical model (Modflow), all based on Darcys law for porous media, were used for the calibration of the Precipitation Mass Balance Model.

5 See Hydrogeologic Site Investigation Report.

6 The two models use different sets of input parameters which are not dependent or related to each other. The groundwater flow computed using the Precipitation Mass Balance Model is based on yearly precipitation amounts and the proportion of this precipitation that results in infiltration recharge to the groundwater. The Darcys Law Model, on the other hand, is based on the measured groundwater flow gradients (as computed from groundwater elevation contours constructed from the transducer readings) and estimates of the formation hydraulic conductivity.

7 Previous evaluations (provided in the Hydrogeologic Site Investigation Report) have shown that the shape of the groundwater contours is relatively unchanged at different times of the tidal cycle. However, the use of low tide contours provides the greatest transient gradients (larger than the average gradient) and therefore result in a computed groundwater flux from the Site that is biased high. Computation of radionuclide release rates to the river based on these data will therefore also have a high bias (i.e., they will be conservative).

8 There was no formal 1st quarter monitoring event in 2007 given that the Long Term Monitoring Program had not yet been initiated.

9 Transducer level data has also been collected and analyzed for Quarter 2 of 2009. While Quarter 2 technically post-dates the timeframe covered by this report, these data were included given their availability at the time of the writing of the report and also because Q2 is the last quarter for which full rounds of transducer data is to be collected.

10 See Quarterly Reports prepared by GZA including: Final 2007 Quarterly Report dated May 1, 2008; Quarter 1 2008 Quarterly Report dated May 15, 2008; Quarter 2 and 3 2008 Quarterly Report dated February 6, 2009; and Quarter 4 2008 Quarterly Report dated September 1, 2009.

Indian Point Energy Center June 14, 2010 File No. 17869.91 Page 3 no longer warranted beyond Quarter 2, 2009. While transducer operation for further calibrations of the Precipitation Mass Balance Model are no longer recommended, a limited number of transducers should be maintained to continue to verify that the basic assumptions inherent in the model continue to remain valid. The locations and rational for these specific transducers are summarized below.

TRANSDUCER REDEPLOYMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The primary objective of maintaining a limited number of transducers as part of the Long Term Monitoring Program is to provide ongoing confirmatory data that demonstrate substantial changes to the on-site groundwater flow field have not taken place 11 , which thus supports the continuing validity of the Precipitation Mass Balance Model calibration. The most straightforward approach to demonstrate stasis would be to maintain the full complement of existing transducers, thus allowing the continued production of groundwater contours for the site. However, this level of detail is costly and is no longer considered necessary given the relatively small variability of seasonal and annual groundwater flow and the overall recognition that the computed dose to the river is only a small fraction of the permitted levels. More specifically, from a radionuclide groundwater contamination perspective, it is noted that:

• The only receptor for radionuclide releases to the groundwater is currently the Hudson River located immediately West of the power block area.

• The majority of this groundwater release to the river is concentrated within a small portion of the site just downgradient of the Unit 1 and 2 SFPs.

• The total yearly groundwater radionuclide release to the river is less than 1/100th of the allowable level.

• The primary radionuclide associated with the two operating units (Unit 2 and Unit 3) is Tritium, which is responsible for less than 1/1000th of the total current dose computed for the river. Therefore, the current Tritium release rate to the river results in approximately 1/100,000th of the allowable release level. As such, very substantial increases to the existing Tritium plume levels would have to occur to even begin to approach allowable annual release levels for tritium.

• Strontium is responsible for the majority of the current total computed dose to the river.

The primary source of Strontium was leakage from Unit 1. As of the fall of 2008, the residual Unit 1 fuel has been removed and the fuel pools drained and cleaned.

Therefore, the source term has been terminated and the associated total Strontium activity in the formation can only decrease with time. As such, it is hard to envision future conditions which would result in substantial increases to the Strontium levels in the groundwater plume.

11 It is possible that material changes to the groundwater flow field could occur due to variations in the seasonal precipitation, or perhaps on a longer term basis, changes to the level of the Hudson River associated with global warming. For example, a prolonged drought could substantially reduce the groundwater mound existing to the South of the power block which prevents power block groundwater from migrating to the South towards the quarry. In addition to natural variability, changes to on-site and/or off-site operations could also impact groundwater flow fields. These anthropogenic impacts could include those from construction at or near the facility, changes to foundation drain pumping, changes to storm drains and/or site grading, infiltration of clean water from operations, installation of off-site pumping facilities, etc.

Indian Point Energy Center June 14, 2010 File No. 17869.91 Page 4 From a groundwater flow perspective, a doubling of the dose to the river (still <2%

allowable) would require the groundwater flow rate to double12 . Given that the hydraulic conductivity of the bedrock and overburden formations below the site are fixed, a generalized, big picture analysis 13 shows that a doubling of the groundwater flow rate would require the gradient to double. Assuming the river elevation remains relatively constant14 ,

the upgradient groundwater elevations would therefore generally have to also double 15 (to double the gradient and thus flow rate to the river). However, this condition is not plausible because such a doubling of groundwater elevations would require the groundwater to extend above the respective ground surface elevations16 . Therefore, even a relatively insignificant doubling of the radiological dose to the river due to an increase in groundwater flux is not plausible given the required increase in groundwater elevations as well as the increased rainfall.

Given the above summarized analysis, a strong case could be made that no further transducer monitoring is required. However, it is recommended that a limited number of transducers be maintained as part of the Long Term Monitoring Program to demonstrate that substantial changes to the on-site groundwater flow field have not taken place, and thus further substantiate the continued validity of the Precipitation Mass Balance Model calibration, as well as the overall CSM17 . Therefore, the following subsections, organized into general functional groups, provide recommendations for transducer redeployment on a long term basis. The recommended locations for long term transducer redeployment are summarized on Figure 1.

Upgradient Southern, Eastern and Northern Boundaries 12 This assumes that the activity levels remained constant in the groundwater after the flow rate doubled. This is unlikely to occur over any sustained length of time because it would require additional leakage from the SSCs to maintain a doubling of the source term.

13 While the intrinsic permeability of the formation materials is essentially fixed, it is recognized that as the groundwater elevation increases, portions of the unsaturated zone become saturated and thus will then also contribute to groundwater flow. If the hydraulic conductivity of these upper portions of the bedrock/overburden is substantially higher than that of the current saturated zone, then the overall effective formation hydraulic conductivity would in fact increase.

However, the borehole geophysics data does not show a substantial increase in fracturing in the vadose zone as compared to the upper portion of the saturated zone. In addition, while the overburden can be substantially more pervious than the bedrock, in the area of the Tritium and Strontium plumes, current ground surface/foundation elevations are generally consistent with or below the original bedrock elevations. Therefore, overburden thicknesses are anticipated to generally be relatively shallow or non-existent. An exception to this generalization is where backfilling around structures was completed with soil (primarily Unit 2) rather than concrete (primarily Unit 1). However, the recharge to these higher conductivity preferential flow paths is still generally limited by the bedrock groundwater flow rates. In addition, a number of these soil backfilled areas are drained by foundation drains which are independently monitored (e.g., the U1-NCD). Finally, it is further noted that even if the effective formation hydraulic conductivity were to increase substantially with an increase in groundwater elevations, to double the groundwater flow through the site on a yearly average basis would require a doubling of the rate of rainfall infiltration. Even if the annual rainfall were to double, a highly improbable event (the on-site met. station measured a maximum variation in annual rainfall of only approximately 30% over the last thirteen years), the infiltration would likely not double given the increased surface water runoff that would be expected with such a large increase in rainfall (i.e., the infiltration rate would likely not increase linearly with rainfall increases as a higher percentage would become surface runoff).

14 It is noted that any long term changes to river level will likely be gradual and the river elevation is already very nearly equal to Mean Sea Level. Therefore, river elevations cant decrease significantly so as to reduce the required increase in upgradient groundwater elevations. In fact, in the long term, river elevations are predicted to increase based on global warming impacts.

15 In actuality, the difference between the upgradient groundwater elevations and the river elevation would have to double, to double the gradient. However, given that the river elevation is numerically sufficiently close to zero, for all intents and purposes, a doubling of the numerical value of the upgradient elevations is sufficient.

16 The groundwater elevations upgradient of the power block area range from approximately el. 45 to el. 55 (wells I-2, MW-65, MW-51 and MW-40). The ground surface elevations in these areas range from approximately el. 70 to el. 80.

Therefore, a doubling of the groundwater elevations would substantially exceed the ground surface elevations. This is not plausible because once the groundwater reached the ground surface, it would dissipate as surface water runoff to the storm drains, and thus be unable to increase further in elevation.

17 As part of the further validation of the overall CSM, long term transducer data will aid in detecting anthropogenic changes such as potential impacts if off-site groundwater pumping were to be initiated proximate to the site, the quarry were drained or filled, etc.

Indian Point Energy Center June 14, 2010 File No. 17869.91 Page 5 As presented in the Hydrogeologic Site Investigation Report, groundwater flow in both the upper and lower flow zones is toward the power block area from the North, East and South, with subsequent discharge to the Hudson River to the West. A corollary to this conclusion is that there is no groundwater flow, and thus no off-Site radionuclide migration from the power block area to the North, East or South. Groundwater flow associated with infiltration from the watershed may be as deep as 350 feet, but still ultimately discharges to the river.

Groundwater elevations rise to the South from the power block area, as is consistent with the increase in topographic elevations. Farther to the South, ground surface and groundwater elevations decrease, most specifically at the quarry where groundwater elevations of approximately 15 have been recorded in LaFarge MW-2 (also refered to as LAF-002). As such, it is important to continue to demonstrate that the groundwater mound which separates the power block groundwater from the LaFarge area groundwater remains elevated. As such, transducers should remain in both MW-40 and MW-51. In each of these two installations, both the shallowest and deepest transducers are required to:

1) delineate the range of vertical piezometric elevations with depth and 2) provide a level of redundancy at each location in case one transducer fails. In addition, transducers should be maintained in MW-43 and MW-46. These wells are located in the Unit 3 power block just downgriadient of MW-40 and MW-51 and provide a reference to demonstrate that the gradient is toward the power block area (i.e., to the north).

Groundwater elevations also rise from the power block area to the East. MW-65 provides an appropriate location to monitor groundwater flow from the East just prior to migration into the power block area. Again both elevations in this monitoring installation should continue to be monitored, primarily to provide a level of redundancy.

Monitoring well I-2 located to the North of the power block area provides a suitable location to monitor the upgradient groundwater elevations in this direction. Given that a single well screen exists at this location, two transducers should be installed to provide redundancy.

Downgradient Western Boundary From the upgradient boundaries to the South, East and North, groundwater flows into the power block area and then ultimately exits at the river to the West. Given that the river is the ultimate sink for groundwater flow, and thus the radionuclides within the groundwater, it is important to verify its elevation over time. Stilling well HR-1 was previously installed for this purpose. It is therefore proposed that this well be maintained as part of the Long Term Monitoring Program. Once again, a second transducer should be installed in this well to provide redundancy.

While the river is the ultimate sink for groundwater flow, the Discharge Canal forms an intermediate groundwater sink on the site. Stilling well U3-C1 was installed to monitor the Discharge Canal surface water elevation. This well should continue to be monitored and should have an additional transducer installed to provide redundancy.

Indian Point Energy Center June 14, 2010 File No. 17869.91 Page 6 Groundwater Tritium and Strontium Plumes The two primary sources of radionuclide release to the groundwater have been the Unit 1 (Strontium) and Unit 2 (Tritium) SFPs. While Unit 3 covers a large portion of the IPEC site, the groundwater data has not shown any significant releases from this unit. Therefore, it is recommended that transducer monitoring internal to the site (i.e., between the above summarized upgradient and downgradient boundaries) be primarily focused on the area of the Unit1/2 plumes.

The historic source area of each plume would be monitored using MW-30 (Unit 2) and MW-5318 (Unit 1). Both the upper and lower monitoring elevations in these installations should be monitored to: 1) provide vertical gradient information, and 2) provide a level of transducer redundancy.

It is recommended that a location just upgradient of the Discharge Canal also be monitored for each plume. MW-55 satisfies this criterion for both plumes given that the two plumes converge at this location as a likely result of a preferential flow path (increased bedrock fracturing) in this area. Again, it is recommended that both the upper most and lowest monitoring elevations in this installation be monitored.

Finally, the toe of each plume should also be monitored just prior to where they discharge into the river. Again, this recommendation can be satisfied by one location given the convergence of the two plumes. In this case, the upper and lower levels of MW-67 are recommended for bedrock monitoring and the upper level of the proximate MW-66 is recommended to monitor the overburden groundwater levels in this area.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Matt or Dave at (781) 278-3805 or (860) 858-3110.

Very truly yours, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

Matthew J. Barvenik, LSP David Rusczyk, PE Senior Principal Senior Project Manager Date:June 14, 2010 Date:June 14, 2010 Michael Powers, PE Consultant/Reviewer Date:June 14, 2010 Attachments: Figure 1: Long-Term Transducer Monitoring Evaluation Map J:\17,000-18,999\17869\17869-91.MG\2009 Quarter 1\Appendices\Appendix K - Transducer Redeployment\Final Groundwater Level Transducer Redeployment Memo.doc 18 MW-42 was considered as the historic source area monitoring location for Unit 1 given its closer proximity to the SFPs than MW-53. However, MW-42 is also very close to the NCD, which likely controls the groundwater elevations in MW-42 to a large extent. As such, it is judged that MW-53 would likely be more responsive to groundwater elevation variations indicative of changes at the site than would be MW-42.

A sp Asp LONGTERM TRANSDUCER MONITORING EVALUATION MAP h

rb ha Concrete cu Co n al lt c ph t C urb e As pa sid onc et rk cr ew ret rb i ng a lk e Grass al Sign Gravel cu t

s sid dr ive as ph pa lt As Gr ew rk i Gravel parking a Asphalt parking ph g

al k al ng in Asphalt t

As rk l

MW-112 Grave pa ha sidewalk Asp ph lt rb Aspha Concrete cu As al Asphalt curb lt t cu k in Storag e

par rb Grass Minimum Low River Tide Elevation Maximum Low River Tide Elevation Low River Tide Elevation Minimum Low River Tide Elevation Maximum Low River Tide Elevation Low River Tide Elevation a lt Gr Well ID Q2-2007 through Q1-2009 Q2-2007 through Q1-2009 Q1-09 Well ID Q2-2007 through Q1-2009 Q2-2007 through Q1-2009 Q1-09 as g

As s (Feet msl) (Quarter) (Feet msl) (Quarter) (Feet msl) (Feet msl) (Quarter) (Feet msl) (Quarter) (Feet msl) Asphalt curb ph HR1 -3.28 Q1-09 -0.86 Q3-07 -3.28 MW-54-173 2.19 Q1-09 5.17 Q2-07 2.19 I2 48.62 Q3-07 53.73 Q1-08 NA MW-54-190 2.00 Q1-09 5.08 Q2-07 2.00 MW-30-69 11.53 Q3-07 12.33 Q1-09 12.33 MW-55-24 7.82 Q3-07 9.02 Q4-08 8.35 MW-30-84 12.36 Q4-08 13.13 Q1-09 13.13 MW-55-35 7.29 Q3-07 8.30 Q4-08 7.63 MW-31-49 44.09 Q2-07 47.50 Q1-08 46.44 MW-55-54 7.65 Q3-07 8.82 Q4-08 NA Asphalt on curb g rking MW-31-63 41.21 Q4-08 45.52 Q1-08 44.12 MW-56-53 20.16 Q3-07 29.93 Q2-08 C 27.33 wa Gravel parkin 10 Gravel pa lk MW-31-85 39.59 Q2-07 43.19 Q1-08 42.10 MW-56-83 20.10 Q3-07 29.16 Q2-08 e 25.13 cr et 0

MW-32-48 9

42.12 Q3-07 48.81 Q1-08 48.08 MW-57-11 8.83 Q3-07 11.11 Q1-09 11.11 sid e

9 MW-32-59 (MW-32-62) 41.44 Q3-07 47.99 Q1-08 46.83 MW-57-20 9.38 Q2-07 12.07 Q2-08 10.63 side 130 9

MW-32-85 (MW-32-92) 10.27 Q2-07 13.30 Q1-08 12.60 MW-57-45 9.08 Q2-07 10.71 Q1-09 10.71 MW-107 9

Co wa lk cr MW-101 MW-32-131 (MW-32-140) 11.34 Q3-08 25.01 Q1-08 11.86 MW-58-26 6.49 Q3-07 8.32 Q1-08 7.56 et e 1,015' nc 140 9

MW-32-149 (MW-32-165) 8.18 Q2-07 10.20 Q1-08 10.00 MW-58-65 6.03 Q3-07 7.36 re Q2-08 6.68 Earth 640' te Co MW-105 9

ing MW-32-173 9.45 Q4-08 9.92 Q1-08 9.68 MW-59-32 0.31 Q1-09 1.06 Q2-07 0.31 n Parking Asphalt park 120.28 si 140 9

MW-32-190 (MW-32-196) 6.74 Q2-07 8.05 Q3-07 7.24 MW-59-45 0.42 Q4-07 9.23 Q2-08 de 0.44 113.87 121.79 Co w

MW-33 9.80 Q3-07 11.66 Q2-08 11.23 MW-59-68 -5.66 Q1-09 2.91 Q2-07 -5.66 140 n

al MW-34 9.82 Q3-07 12.03 Q2-08 11.25 MW-60-35 0.82 Q3-08 2.19 Q2-07 1.99 sid crete k

MW-35 9.67 Q3-07 12.06 Q2-08 11.36 MW-60-53 -2.70 Q1-09 -0.63 Q2-07 -2.70 ewa lk arking MW-36-24 6.85 Q1-08 9.05 Q4-08 NA MW-60-55 -1.91 Q1-09 -0.28 Q3-07 -1.91 Asphalt p MW-36-41 8.22 Q2-07 8.22 Q2-07 NA MW-60-72 -1.43 Q1-09 0.74 Q2-07 -1.43 Storage Gravel ing Storage units Asphalt park MW-36-52 6.29 Q2-08 8.12 Q1-09 8.12 MW-60-135 -1.72 Q1-09 0.94 Q2-07 -1.72 Grass storage MW-37-22 4.18 Q2-08 5.55 Q4-08 4.45 MW-60-154 -2.99 Q1-09 0.08 Q2-07 -2.99 MW-37-32 4.05 Q2-08 5.64 Q4-08 4.55 MW-60-176 -3.41 Q1-09 -0.48 Q2-07 -3.41 Gravel MW-37-40 5.40 Q2-07 6.83 Q3-07 5.46 MW-62-18 -0.82 Q1-09 0.25 Q2-07 & Q3-07 -0.82 No Access LEGEND MW-37-57 6.07 Q2-08 7.20 Q4-08 6.50 MW-62-37 -1.13 Q1-09 0.61 Q3-07 -1.13 MW-38 1.22 Q4-08 3.01 Q2-07 NA MW-62-52 -1.64 Q1-09 0.48 Q3-07 -1.64 MW-39-67 25.21 Q4-08 32.20 Q1-08 28.74 MW-62-53 -2.03 Q1-09 0.95 Q2-07 -2.03 MW-39-84 25.12 Q4-08 31.94 Q1-08 28.62 MW-62-71 -2.15 Q1-09 0.89 Q2-07 -2.15 Asphalt MW-110 e

MW-39-100 24.79 Q4-08 31.34 Q2-08 28.32 MW-62-92 -1.68 Q1-09 1.07 Q2-07 -1.68 Asphalt driv MW-39-102 26.31 Q4-07 31.56 Q1-08 NA MW-62-138 -1.33 Q1-09 1.40 Q2-07 -1.33 Monitoring Installations MW-39-124 24.43 Q4-08 30.67 Q2-08 27.74 MW-62-181 -0.99 Q1-08 1.33 Q2-07 NA MW-39-183 22.33 Q3-08 29.83 Q2-08 26.78 MW-62-182 -2.66 Q1-09 -0.33 Q3-07 -2.66 MW-39-195 22.70 Q4-08 28.89 Q2-08 25.63 MW-63-18 -0.64 rb Q1-09 0.32 Q3-08 -0.64 MW-40-27 54.22 Q4-08 60.39 Q1-08 59.53 MW-63-50 -2.08 cu Q1-09 0.86 Q2-07 -2.08 Boring / Monitoring Installation Designation rb MW-40-46 47.27 Q3-07 59.35 Q1-08 59.13 MW-63-91 -0.89 Q4-08 1.16 Q2-07 NA Concrete cu MW-30 MW-40-81 41.65 Q3-07 56.06 Q1-08 55.67 MW-63-93 -1.68 Q1-09 0.55 Q3-07 -1.68 Wooden MW-40-100 39.47 Q3-07 54.10 Q1-08 53.59 MW-63-112 -3.14 Q1-09 0.03 Q2-07 -3.14 Gravel parking MW-40-127 MW-40-162 38.89 36.67 Stone Q3-07 curbs Q3-07 53.61 50.49 Q1-08 Q1-08 53.29 49.76 MW-63-121 MW-63-163

-1.49

-2.46 Q1-09 Q1-09 1.41 0.70 Q2-07 Q2-07

-1.49

-2.46 bs C Co on n 120 Longterm Radionuclide Monitoring Installation 120 cr cre ru Standby Radionuclide Monitoring Installation MW-41-40 29.87 Q2-07 36.57 Q1-08 33.62 MW-63-174 -1.97 Q1-09 0.88 Q2-07 -1.97 110 C et te Sh MW-41-63 25.94 Q2-07 33.31 Q1-08 30.38 MW-65-48 38.60 Q2-08 48.19 Q1-09 48.19 on e alk cr cu sid 10 MW-42-49 34.43 Q4-08 34.96 Q1-08 34.78 MW-65-80 32.72 Q4-08 34.97 Q2-08 33.71 ew 0

MW-42-78 35.07 Q4-08 36.63 Q1-08 36.03 MW-66-21 -0.74 Q1-08 0.29 Q4-08 -0.33 et rb ew 100 10 120 sid e al 0 Quarterly groundwater elevation at time of low river tide on 01-09-2009 MW-43-28 31.08 Q3-07 33.95 Q2-08 33.43 MW-66-36 -0.86 Q1-09 0.81 Q2-07 -0.86 Sh si k 90 MW-43-62 30.48 Q3-08 34.13 Q1-09 34.13 MW-67-39 -0.33 Q1-08 1.02 Q3-07 Co ru

-0.07 nc bs de w 11 0 110 MW-44-66 33.36 Q2-07 37.99 Q1-08 34.96 MW-67-105 -0.67 Q1-09 1.39 Q3-07 -0.67 rbs ret al 110 90 e Concrete cu 80 MW-44-102 23.10 Q2-07 30.88 Q2-08 28.09 MW-67-173 -1.62 Q1-09 0.75 Q3-07 -1.62 k Multiple Screened MW-45-42 24.82 Q3-07 37.16 Q2-08 32.02 MW-67-219 -1.87 Q1-09 0.74 Q3-07 -1.87 32.5 33.3 34.7 0 Transducer Monitored Interval 11 MW-45-61 24.33 Q3-07 32.91 Q1-08 29.99 MW-67-276 -1.03 Q1-09 1.61 Q3-07 -1.03 90 MW-46 11.95 Q3-07 15.05 Q1-08 14.29 MW-67-323 p -2.86 Q1-09 0.18 Q3-07 -2.86 a m MW-47-57 20.77 Q3-07 31.53 Q2-08 26.51 MW-67-340 r -2.42 Q1-09 0.63 Q3-07 -2.42 p

MW-47-80 21.08 Q4-08 28.35 Q2-08 26.37 MW-107 d ic a 113.87 Q3-07 A/ 121.79 Q1-08 120.28 33.1 34.6 35.2 o

Intervals w/ Depth Interval no longer monitored with Transducer n n C MW-48-23 -1.14 Q1-08 -0.08 Q2-07 -0.91 MW-108 Ha 8.61 Q3-07 co un 10.07 Q2-08 9.65 bs n it MW-48-38 -0.50 Q1-09 0.64 Q2-07 -0.50 MW-109 6.80 Q3-07 pa c r10.12 et Q2-08 ru NA C d e on MW-49-26 -0.62 Q1-08 1.04 Q2-07 -0.25 lk MW-111 9.56 Q2-07 11.24 Q2-08 10.87 35.6 38.1 Sh cr 36.3 MW-49-42 -0.44 Q1-08 1.02 Q3-08 -0.06 wa OUT1 0.76 Q1-08 1.31 Q3-07 NA et

-0.08 ide e

Sh rub Single level monitoring location with duplicate MW-49-65 -0.08 Q1-09 1.01 Q3-07 RW1 29.05 Q4-08 30.15 s Q4-07 29.10 wa s Conc. lk MW-50-42 5.24 Q2-08 7.24 Q2-07 e 5.66 U1CSS 8.98 Q3-07 20.46 Q1-09 20.46 r et1.95 36.8 32.4 39.2 Transducers for redundancy*

Concrete Parking lot MW-50-66 1.95 Q1-09 3.71 Q2-07 U3-1 4.20 Q2-07 4.20 Q2-07 NA c 49.32 Transformer MW-51-40 48.69 Q3-07 52.35 Q2-08 on U3-2 5.34 Q2-07 5.34 Q2-07 NA C lk 6.52 curb sidewalk MW-51-79 39.92 Q3-07 44.17 Q2-08 42.75 U3-3 a w 2.69 Q3-07 9.25 Q2-08 9.13 MW-51-102 35.98 Q3-07 39.04 Q2-08 38.18 U3-4D sid e A/C UNIT Q4-08 4.25 Q2-07 3.41 Grass Maximum quarterly groundwater elevation at time of low river tide measured between Q2 2007 and Q1 2009, inclusive.

MW-51-104 36.03 Q4-08 39.02 Q2-08 37.99 U3-4S 3.74 Q1-08 4.31 Q3-08 4.01 e

MW-51-135 37.42 Q3-07 40.71 Q2-08 39.75 U3-C1 r et 0.64 Q1-09 3.58 Q4-07 0.64 c

n Minimum quarterly groundwater elevation at time of low river tide measured between MW-51-163 33.79 Q3-07 36.77 Q2-08 35.74 U3-T1 3.67 Q4-07 4.51 Q2-07 3.83 MW-51-189 29.33 Q3-07 31.79 Q2-08 30.81 U3-T2 Co 3.76 Q4-08 4.33 Q2-07 4.05 Asphalt Q2 2007 and Q1 2009, inclusive.

As MW-52-11 5.61 Q3-07 8.85 Q2-08 8.19 Notes: ph al MW-52-18 5.78 Q1-09 8.63 Q4-07 5.78 1. Quarter 2, 2007 groundwater elevations were measured on 6/1/07 at 6:20 am. t Transducer Notes:

Concrete sidewalk E16A Covered Concrete MW-52-48 5.95 Q2-08 7.08 Q1-09 6.05 2. Quarter 3, 2007 groundwater elevations were measured on 9/25/07 at 4:32 am. Wood walk

• - For locations with multilevel depth monitoring, redundancy provided by monitoring more than one depth at same location.

MW-52-64 5.03 Q2-08 5.96 Q2-07 5.20 3. Quarter 4, 2007 groundwater elevations were measured on 12/9/07 at 4:15 am.

MW-52-118 4.23 Q1-09 k 5.34 Q2-07 4.23 4. Quarter 1, 2008 groundwater elevations were measured on 1/3/08 at 1:14 a.m. Shrubs al E16 ew 70 - Redundant transducer data not available for Q1 09 given that the transducer redeployment plan not yet implemented.

MW-52-122 4.11 Q1-09 5.25 Q2-07 4.11 5. Quarter 2, 2008 groundwater elevations were measured on 4/4/08 at 5:14 pm.

CB-7 d

si MW-52-162 -2.07 Q1-09 0.67 Q2-07 -2.07 6. Quarter 3, 2008 groundwater elevations were measured on 7/10/08 at 11:35 am.

Grass 110 MW-52-181 -2.38 Q1-09 e 0.41 Q2-07 -2.38 7. Quarter 4, 2008 groundwater elevations were measured on 11/11/08 at 2:54 am.

t MW-53-82 9.59 cre Q3-07 12.60 Q2-08 11.11 8. Quarter 1, 2009 groundwater elevations were measured on 1/9/09 at 2:42.

80 onQ3-07 Potential Future Source Locations nd MW-53-120 9.18 11.49 Q2-08 10.55 10. MW-32 groundwater elevations from 2 quarter, 2007 were based on an initial Waterloo Multi-Level configuration, which was subsequently MW-54-35 5.75 C Q1-09 6.41 Q4-08 5.75 reconfigured; initial depth intervals approximately corresponding to current configuration are listed in parentheses. The current As ph CB-27 al Asphalt t

MW-54-37 al k 5.90 Q1-09 7.52 Q2-07 5.90 configuration intervals MW-32-48 and MW-32-173 have no representative equivalent within the old configuration.

Grass ew MW-54-58 Sid 5.49 Q1-09 6.86 Q2-07 5.49 NA - data not available.

MW-54-123 2.99 Q1-09 5.69 Q2-07 2.99 - Redundant transducer data not available for Q1 09 given that the redeployment plan not yet implemented.

crete k Unit 2 and Unit 3 Potential H3 Source ConMW-54-144 al 5.89 Q1-09 8.85 Q2-07 5.89 w

de CB-5B si te Asphalt drive CB-5 cre Transformer CB-5A o n Substation "H" (CB-6)

Asphalt E15A Probable Legacy Release SSCs C Asphalt 25.21 28.74 32.20 Grass CB-6 AB CB-24 E15 MW-65 28.62 Unit 2 Fuel Pool (All identified leaks repaired as of December 2007)

Concrete curb 25.12 31.94 CB-28 Asphalt Trans CB-3B 38.60 48.19 48.19 24.79 NA 31.34 E14 Unit 1 West Fuel Pool (All U1-SFPs drained and inactive as of October 2008) k MW-51 ewal Si 33.71 d

33' 42.5' 32.72 34.97 42.5' 33' 24.43 27.74 30.67 Asphalt parking (U1-CB-8)

Terminated Connection To Storm Drain A5 lt E1 48.69 49.32 52.35 p ha EASTERN IP1-CB TUNNEL As 26.78 22.33 29.83 FLOW PATH STO RA G E PO O L Trailer CAS K W AS H &

DIS A SS E MB LY CAS K L O A D LEGACY IP1 STORM DRAIN FLOW PATH 22.70 25.63 28.89 A3A A6 39.92 42.75 44.17 Drain Exfiltration 80 IS O LATIO N P IT Inter-Structure Joint / Mud Mat PO O L A4 WEST 4 36.03 37.99 39.02 Asphalt STO RA G E MH16 FUEL MW-39 DIS A SS E MB LY PO O L Containers PO O L POOL FUEL Containment Spray Sump Pipe Trench TRAN SFE R PO O L CB3A 39.75 FA ILE D FUE L CB4 37.42 40.71 PU MP AUX . PO O L SU CTION WELL A3 e

iv Dr 35.74 Concrete curb 33.79 36.77 Activity Data MW-43 WAT ER STO RA G E 4

MW-41 33' PO O L CB3 MW-42 Asphalt 46.83 30.81 Isopleth E2B E2C 41.44 47.99 29.33 31.79 F5 33.43 U3-CB UTILITY 31.08 33.95 lt (U1-CB-9) ha 12.60 A

1 sp 10.27 13.30 34.78 1 Bounding Activity H3 Bounding Activity SR90 MH22 34.43 34.96 Drive A/C Units F6 33.62 34.13 33' 29.87 36.57 30.48 34.13 F7 44.09 46.44 47.50 A2A 11.86 UNIT 1 11.34 25.01

> 5,000 pCi/L > 2 pCi/L 36.03 33' 35.07 90 36.63 CB-29 MH10 CB-2C 25.94 30.38 33.31 41.21 44.12 SOUTH WESTERN 45.52 Transformers U3-MH-14 8.18 10.00 10.20 on raised IP1-CB FLOW PATH Conc. sidewalk Asphalt Concrete Pad 39.59 42.10 43.19 26.51 Data Notes:

Asphalt 9.45 9.68 9.92 20.77 31.53 MW-45 As p Storage A1

1. Illustration of contaminant plume is a schematic representation only. In reality, the geologic bedrock formation is over 99% solid, ha MW-31 lt crystalline rock, with the contaminated water contained only in the remaining (less than 1%) interstitial space (i.e. fractures).

MH9 MH-20 26.37 p MH21 CB-2B As 21.08 28.35 32.02 A2 MH11 6.74 7.24 8.05 24.82 37.16

2. The H3 bounding isopleth encompasses upper bound values measured over both depth and time (available results for sample ha MW-44 33 E2 lt '

MW-32 MW-47 F3 E2A dates through December 2008). As such, the "plume" is an overstatement of contaminant levels actually existing on-site at any time.

I-2 FUEL 22.75' CB-30 U3-CB 24.33 29.99 32.91 (U1-CB-10)

F2 F4 3. The Sr-90 bounding isopleth encompasses upper bound values measured over both depth and time (available results for sample POOL MW-56 CB 34.96 dates through December 2008). As such, the "plume" is an overstatement of contaminant levels actually existing on-site at any time.

33 33.36 37.99 MW-30 CB-2A 70 4. Two discrete isopleths have been drawn around MW-39 and 41 given measured Sr90 concentrations greater than 2 pCi/L. It is expected RW-1 A7 48.62 53.73 MW-53 80 CB-B PAB NA that similar concentrations exist at other locations along the legacy piping alignment in addition to the locations shown.

90 27.33 28.09 Asphalt 20.16 29.93 80 23.10 30.88 CSS TRENCH Courtyard 11.53 12.33 12.33 29.10 11.11 9.59 Transformers 12.60 IP1-CSS TRENCH FLOW PATHCB-31 CB-E General Notes:

29.05 30.15 70 Transformers PAT 25.13 on raised 20.10 Concrete 29.16 slab F1 Asphalt parking H

MH18 Concrete Pad

1. Base map was developed from an untitled electronic file provided by Badey & Watson Surveying and Engineering, P.C.,

U1-CB-21 12.36 13.13 13.13 10.55 U1-CB-22 9.18 11.49 Dated 2/3/06; CAD file name : "GZA.dwg".

60 CB-2 OW Asphalt CB-32 FL 8.98 20.46 20.46 21.75' 70 MW-46 MW-34 MH17 CB-1 ROOF DRAIN ELEVATION 65' ROOF DRAIN MH8 Transformer area and switch gear MW-35 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 MW-33 Trans 43.8' U1-CSS 43.8' 43.8' U1-CB-20 Stone retaining wall Gravel 13' B1 11.95 14.29 15.05 LAFARGE WELLS LAF-03 TUNNEL 11.36 IP 1 43.8' 9.80 11.23 11.66 9.67 12.06 CSS 50 9.82 11.25 12.03 (EL.=0.0)

MW-40 E3B E3A MW-111 B2 B2A MH-23 Open E3 5.75 6.41 grate MH7 5.90 CB-12 Trans RY 54.22 59.53 60.39 9.56 10.87 11.24 Mach.

A stand 40 IM 5.15 5.49 6.86 Gravel PR MH-19 47.27 59.13 59.35 30 Transformer yard Gravel CB-16 2.99 2.99 5.69 30 D1 MW-57 B4A B3 41.65 55.67 56.06 MW-55 Vent pit MH23A Trans 5.89 5.89 8.85 MH-5 ph MH-6 B3A As 8.83 11.11 11.11 39.47 53.59 54.10 UTILITY Transformer Yard CB-F a lt 2.19 2.19 5.17 7.82 8.35 9.02 9.38 10.63 12.07 MW-108 B5 B4 38.89 53.29 53.61 ive MW-36 U2-C1 CB-13 Concrete Retainin g Wall E4 dr 5.08 5.61 8.19 8.85 2.00 2.00 MH-4 MH-4A 7.29 7.63 8.30 MW-54 49.76 9.08 10.71 10.71 8.61 9.65 10.07 Trans. 36.67 50.49 Turbine Generator Building 1 E4A 6.85 NA 9.05 5.78 5.78 8.63 7.65 8.82 B6A LAF-02 NA MW-37 Asphalt 8.22 NA 8.22 6.49 7.56 8.32 5.95 6.05 7.08 MW-52 4.18 4.45 5.55 Concrete sidewalk 6.29 8.12 8.12 6.03 6.68 7.36 5.03 5.20 5.96 MW-109 Turbine Generator Building 3 CB-17 5.24 5.66 7.24 U3-T2 LAF-01 Turbine Generator Building 2 MW-58 B6 4.05 4.55 5.64 U3-T1 Asphalt 4.11 4.11 5.25 CB-14 6.80 10.12 6.52 9.13 9.25 1.95 1.95 3.71 NA B7 3.76 4.05 4.33 5.40 5.46 6.83 U3-3 MW-64

-2.07 -2.07 0.67 3.67 3.83 4.51 MW-50 5.34 NA 5.34 D2 E5 6.07 6.50 7.20

-2.38 -2.38 0.41 U3-2 Trans. E5A 0 100 200 400 Feet 60 MH3 Overhead C-1 MW-59 U3-C1 Crane HUDSON 3.74 4.01 4.31 MW-49 4.20 NA 4.20 2.69 3.41 4.25 E11 RIVER 50 0.64 3.58 0.64 Asphalt U3-4S 0.31 0.31 1.06 U3-1 U3-4D

-0.62 -0.25 1.04 -0.64 1,557.1' 40

-0.64 0.32 B8 Transformers 0.42 0.44 9.23 Yard 30 MH-2 (Gravel) CB-34

-0.06 DISCHARGE 0.82 1.99 2.19 -0.44 1.02 -0.74 MW-67 -5.66 -5.66 2.91

-0.74 0.51 Concrete Bridge E12

-2.70 -0.08 CB-19 CANAL Asphalt parking Overhead walkway

-2.70 -0.63 MH13 CB-18 MH15 -0.08 1.01 Concrete sidewalk

-2.08 -2.08 0.86 C

-0.33 -0.07 1.02 o C-3 B nc ri r MW-66 MW-62 MW-63 d et ge e E6 E9 E10

-1.43 -1.43 0.74 MW-60 -0.67 -0.67 1.39

-1.68 -1.68 0.55 E8 CB-33

-0.74 -0.33 0.29 Wooden walk

-1.72 -1.72 0.94 MW-48 MW-61

-0.82 -0.82 0.25 -3.14 -3.14 0.03

-1.62 -1.62 0.75 CB-23 CB-15 C2 MH1

-0.86 -0.86 0.81

-2.99 -2.99 0.08 MH12 -1.13 -1.13 0.61 -1.49 -1.49 1.41 E7

-1.87 -1.87 0.74 -1.14 -0.91 -0.08 MH14

-3.41 -3.41 -0.48 -2.03 -2.03 0.95 -2.46 -2.46 0.70 50 25 0 50 100 150

-1.03 -0.50 -0.50 0.64 E13 MW-38

-1.03 1.61 Concrete walk Feet

-2.15 HR-1 -1.97

-2.15 0.89 -1.97 0.88

-2.86 -2.86 0.18 1.22 NA 3.01 GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

Rip-rap

-1.68 -3.28 -3.28 -0.86

-2.42 -2.42 0.63 -1.68 1.07 One Edgewater Drive

-1.33 -1.33 1.40 Norwood, MA 02062 Phone: (781) 278-3700 Fax: (781) 278-5701 OUTFALL Concrete pier

-2.66 -2.66 -0.33 OUT-1 INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER No Access this Area 0.76 NA 1.31 BUCHANAN, NEW YORK HUDSON RIVER LONGTERM TRANSDUCER Plant North N N MONITORING EVALUATION MAP 06-16-2010 1

Proj. Mgr.: MJB Dwg. Date: Figure No.:

Designed By: MJB Reviewed By: MJB Operator: GAS Job No.:

01.0017869.92 J:\17,000-18,999\17869\17869-91.MG\Figures\17869-92\GIS\MXDs\17869-91_F01_Longtern Transducer Monitoring Map.mxd