ML13275A011

Attachment 11 to NRC Staff'S Answer to Riverkeeper, Inc. Consolidated Motion for Leave to File Amended Contention RK-EC-8A, and Amended Contention RK-EC-8A

ML13275A011
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	10/01/2013
From:	Sherwin Turk NRC/OGC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 25134, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR
Download: ML13275A011 (24)

Text

ATTACHMENT 11 TO NRC STAFFs ANSWER TO RIVERKEEPER, INC. CONSOLIDATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED CONTENTION RK-EC-8A AND AMENDED CONTENTION RK-EC-8A (E-mail from A. Stuyvenberg, NRC, to M. Murray-Brown, et al., NMFS (NRC staffs review of Entergys 9-21 response) (Sept. 28, 2011)

(ADAMS Accession No. ML11271A154))

IPRenewal NPEmails From: Stuyvenberg, Andrew Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 3:10 PM To: Gray, Dara F; Zoli, Elise N Cc: IPRenewal NPEmails; Turk, Sherwin; Imboden, Andy

Subject:

FW: NRC staff's review of Entergy's 9-21 response Attachments: Indian Point Excerpts for NMFS.pdf FYI . . . Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this e-mail or the attached excerpts.

Best, Drew From: Stuyvenberg, Andrew Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:25 AM To: Mark.Murray-Brown@noaa.gov; 'Julie Crocker'; Julie Williams Cc: Turk, Sherwin; Logan, Dennis; Imboden, Andy; Pelton, David; IPRenewal NPEmails

Subject:

NRC staff's review of Entergy's 9-21 response Julie -

Per your request, I have reviewed Elise Zolis E-mail comments (submitted on behalf of Entergy) from September 21, 2011. It appears to me that they are accurate with regard to the NRC staffs conclusions in the Indian Point License Renewal Final SEIS. Ive attached several excerpts from our Final SEIS (from December 2010) for your convenience and to assist you as you complete your review.

Radionuclides Elise Zoli correctly quoted from the NRC staffs Final SEIS with regard to its discussion of environmental radionuclides. In the attached excerpt, you will find pages 2-107 to 2-111 of the Final SEIS, in which the staff reviewed the 2009 environmental radiological sampling results. The NRC staffs review identified no unusual trends or significant radiological impacts to the environment due to operation of the Indian Point facility. See Final SEIS at 2-107, 2-109, 2-110, and 2-111. As Ms. Zoli noted, the NRC staff reported an issue in the Final SEIS regarding the reliability of Strontium-90 sampling in fish tissues in 2009 (Final SEIS at 2-107); this issue was resolved in Entergys 2010 Radiological Environmental Operating Report. (Ive also excerpted and included pages 2-105 and 2-106 from the Final SEIS, wherein staff found that strontium-90 levels reported in 2006 REMP sampling were likely to due to atmospheric weapons testing.)

Also, I note that Riverkeeper had expressed concern about radionuclides in aquatic species in its comments on the NRC staffs Draft SEIS, and the NRC staff responded to those comments in the Final SEIS. Specifically, the NRC staff synopsized and responded to these comments on pages A-79 through A-81 of the Final SEIS. I have excerpted and attached those pages to this e-mail for your convenience.

The NRC staff addressed groundwater contamination in the Final SEIS at pages 2-108, 2-110 to 2-112, 4-41, and 4-56. For your convenience, I have excerpted and attached those pages to this e-mail.

In addition, the staff responded to numerous comments about onsite groundwater contamination and its potential effects on human health and the Hudson River. The staff synopsized and responded to these comments on pages A-60 through A-62 of the Final SEIS. For your convenience, those pages are excerpted and attached, as well.

1

Finally, in reporting New York States views on the potential for radionuclides from groundwater to contaminate fish, the NRC staff relied on a 2007 Community Fact Sheet developed by NYSDEC and presented to the NRC during the SEIS scoping period. It is available in ADAMS at ML081000369 (I can convey a copy by e-mail if you desire). The NRC staff did not rely on the Skinner and Sinnott (NYSDEC, Nov. 2009) report that Ms. Zoli conveyed to you, although I note that the NYSDEC reports findings are consistent with the NRC staffs findings in the Final SEIS. As noted in the NYSDEC report, Skinner and Sinnott studied fish bones and blue crab carapaces, while sampling performed for the REMP addresses edible portions of aquatic organisms. Neither NYSDEC (Skinner and Sinnott) nor Entergy (REMP) identified unusual radionuclide levels due to operation of the Indian Point facility.

Indian Point Unit 1 Intake Ms. Zolis comments on the Indian Point Unit 1 intake system contain a greater depth of information than NRC staff had presented in the Final SEIS, and a greater depth of information than Entergy had presented in its Environmental Report for license renewal (ER; available in ADAMS at ML071210530). Without addressing the specific information provided by Ms. Zoli regarding the Unit 1 intake structure, I note that her assertion that total flow through the IP1 intake is quite small in comparison to the flow rate of other intakes at the Indian Point facility is consistent with the NRC staffs review of the matter.

For your convenience, Ive excerpted and attached pages 3-4 and 3-5 of Entergys license renewal ER, which is the description Entergy provided to the NRC in 2007.

General Matters, Reference Documents, Etc.

Please contact me if you need additional clarification or documentation regarding this matter. I will be happy to convey any documents cited in this response.

Drew Stuyvenberg U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-4006 Andrew.Stuyvenberg@nrc.gov 2

Hearing Identifier: IndianPointUnits2and3NonPublic_EX Email Number: 2936 Mail Envelope Properties (AF843158D8D87443918BD3AA953ABF783D09A315A7)

Subject:

FW: NRC staff's review of Entergy's 9-21 response Sent Date: 9/28/2011 3:09:50 PM Received Date: 9/28/2011 3:09:57 PM From: Stuyvenberg, Andrew Created By: Andrew.Stuyvenberg@nrc.gov Recipients:

"IPRenewal NPEmails" <IPRenewal.NPEmails@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Turk, Sherwin" <Sherwin.Turk@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Imboden, Andy" <Andy.Imboden@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Gray, Dara F" <DGray@entergy.com>

Tracking Status: None "Zoli, Elise N" <EZoli@goodwinprocter.com>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQCLSTR02.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 4877 9/28/2011 3:09:57 PM Indian Point Excerpts for NMFS.pdf 389179 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

Excerpts from the NRC Staffs Final SEIS The NRC staff's review of 2006 radiological monitoring data; relevant portion is near the bottom.

Plant and the Environment 1 natural and other sources in the vicinity, as well as fallout from nuclear weapons tests. The 2 preoperational radiological data include both natural and manmade sources of environmental 3 radioactivity. These background environmental data permit the detection and assessment of 4 current levels of environmental activity attributable to plant operations.

5 The REMP at IP2 and IP3 directs Entergy to sample environmental media in the environs 6 around the site to analyze and measure the radioactivity levels that may be present. The REMP 7 designates sampling locations for the collection of environmental media for analysis. These 8 sampling locations are divided into indicator and control locations. Indicator locations are 9 established near the site, where the presence of radioactivity of plant origin is most likely to be 10 detected. Control locations are established farther away (and upwind/upstream, where 11 applicable) from the site, where the level would not generally be affected by plant discharges or 12 effluents. The use of indicator and control locations enables the identification of potential 13 sources of detected radioactivity as either background or from plant operations. The media 14 samples are representative of the radiation exposure pathways to the public from all plant 15 radioactive effluents. A total of 1342 analyses was performed in 2006. This amount is higher 16 than required because of the inclusion of additional sample locations and media.

17 The REMP is used to measure the direct radiation and the airborne and waterborne pathway 18 activity in the vicinity of the IP2 and IP3 site. Direct radiation pathways include radiation from 19 buildings and plant structures, airborne material that may be released from the plant, or from 20 cosmic radiation, fallout, and the naturally occurring radioactive materials in soil, air, and water.

21 Analysis of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), which measure direct radiation, indicated 22 that there were no increased radiation levels attributable to plant operations.

23 The airborne pathway includes measurements of air, precipitation, drinking water, and broadleaf 24 vegetation samples. The airborne pathway measurements indicated that there was no 25 increased radioactivity attributable to 2006 IP2 and IP3 station operation.

26 The waterborne pathway consists of Hudson River water, fish and invertebrates, aquatic 27 vegetation, bottom sediment, and shoreline sediment Measurements of the media comprising 28 the waterborne pathway indicated that, while some very low levels of plant discharged 29 radioactivity were detected, there was no adverse radiological impact to the surrounding 30 environment attributed to IP2 and IP3 operations (Entergy 2007d).

31 2006 REMP Results 32 The following is a detailed discussion of the radionuclides detected by the 2006 REMP that may 33 be attributable to current plant operations (all information summarized from Entergy 2007d).

34 During 2006, cesium-137, strontium-90, and tritium were the only potentially plant-related 35 radionuclides detected in some environmental samples. Tritium may be present in the local 36 environment because of either natural occurrence, other manmade sources, or plant operations.

37 Small amounts of tritium were detected in one of four quarterly composite samples from the 38 discharge mixing zone (386 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) (14.28 becquerel per liter (Bq/L)). This 39 composite sample was detected at a value much lower than the required lower limit of detection 40 (LLD) of 3000 pCi/L (111 Bq/L).

41 In 2006, the detected radionuclide(s) attributable to past atmospheric weapons testing consisted 42 of cesium-137 and strontium-90 in some media. The levels detected for cesium-137 were 43 consistent with the historical levels of radionuclides resulting from weapons tests as measured December 2010 2-105 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38

The NRC staff's review of 2006 radiological monitoring data, cont'd. vironment 1 in previous years. Before 2006, strontium-90 analysis had not been conducted since 1984, so 2 comparison to recent historical levels is not possible. However, the low levels detected in the 3 environment are consistent with decayed quantities of activity from historic atmospheric 4 weapons testing. Strontium-90 was detected in four fish and invertebrate samples, three in the 5 control samples and one in the indicator samples. Since the levels detected were comparable 6 in the indicator and control location samples, atmospheric weapons testing is the likely cause.

7 Of 18 special water samples, 5 indicated strontium-90 at levels close to the level of detection, at 8 an average of 0.78 pCi/L (0.028 Bq/L). All of these detections are considered to be residual 9 levels from atmospheric weapons tests.

10 Iodine-131 is also produced in fission reactors but can result from nonplant-related manmade 11 sources (e.g., medical administrations). Iodine-131 was not detected in 2006. Cobalt-58 and 12 cobalt-60 are activation/corrosion products also related to plant operations. They are produced 13 by neutron activation in the reactor core. As cobalt-58 has a much shorter half-life, its absence 14 dates the presence of cobalt-60 as residual. When significant concentrations of cobalt-60 are 15 detected but no cobalt-58, there is an increased likelihood that the cobalt-60 results from 16 residual cobalt-60 from past operations. There was no cobalt-58 or cobalt-60 detected in the 17 2006 REMP, though cobalt-58 and cobalt-60 have been observed in previous years.

18 Data resulting from analysis of the special water samples for gamma emitters, tritium analysis, 19 and strontium-90 show that 18 samples were analyzed for strontium-90, and 5 of them showed 20 detectable amounts of strontium-90. All of the results were very low (with a range of 0.49-21 1.26 pCi/L (0.018-0.046 Bq/L)) and within the range considered to be residual levels from 22 atmospheric weapons tests. Other than the above, only naturally occurring radionuclides were 23 detected in the special water samples.

24 The results of the gamma spectroscopy analyses of the monthly drinking water samples and 25 results of tritium analysis of quarterly composites showed that, other than naturally occurring 26 radionuclides, no radionuclides from plant operation were detected in drinking water samples.

27 The data indicate that operation of IP2 and IP3 had no detectable radiological effect on drinking 28 water.

29 The results of the analysis of bottom sediment samples for cesium-137 showed that it was 30 detected at 7 of 10 indicator station samples, and at 1 of 3 control station samples. Cesium-134 31 was not detected in any bottom sediment samples. The lack of cesium-134 suggests that the 32 primary source of the cesium-137 in bottom sediment is from historical plant releases at least 33 several years old and from residual weapons test fallout.

34 While not required by the ODCM, strontium-90 analysis was conducted at three indicator 35 locations and one control location in August 2006. Strontium-90 was not identified in any of the 36 samples. The detection of cesium-137 in bottom sediment has been generally decreasing over 37 the last 10 years, and cesium-134 has not been detected in bottom sediment since 2002. The 38 data for 2006 are consistent with but slightly lower than historical levels.

39 In summary, IP2- and IP3-related radionuclides were detected in 2006; however, residual 40 radioactivity from atmospheric weapons tests and naturally occurring radioactivity were the 41 predominant sources of radioactivity in the samples collected. The 2006 levels of radionuclides 42 in the environment surrounding IP2 and IP3 are well below the NRCs reporting levels as a 43 result of IP2 and IP3 operations. The radioactivity levels in the environment were within the 44 historical ranges (i.e., previous levels resulting from natural and manmade sources for the NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-106 December 2010

Staff's review of 2009 REMP results. Plant and the Environment 1 detected radionuclides). Further, IP2 and IP3 operations did not result in an adverse impact to 2 the public greater than environmental background levels. (Entergy 2007d) 3 2009 REMP Results 4 Because of the time period between the Staffs original review of the REMP data and the 5 issuance of the final SEIS, the Staff extended the scope of its review to include the most current 6 available data from the 2009 REMP report (all data from Entergy 2010b).

7 The following is a summary of the results of 2009 radiological environmental monitoring 8 program contained in the applicants annual REMP report.

9 Direct Radiation 10 The 2009 and previous years' data show that there is no measurable direct radiation in the 11 environment due to the operation of the Indian Point site.

12 Airborne Particulates and Radioiodine 13 No airborne radioactivity attributable to the operation of Indian Point was detected in 2009.

14 Hudson River Water 15 No radionuclides other than those that are naturally occurring were detected in the Hudson 16 River Water samples.

17 Drinking Water 18 The data indicates that operation of the Indian Point units had no detectable radiological impact 19 on drinking water.

20 Hudson River Shoreline Soil 21 Cs-137 has been and continues to be present in this media, both at indicator and control 22 locations, at a consistent level over the past ten years.

23 Broad Leaf Vegetation 24 The detection of low levels of Cs-137 has occurred sporadically at both indicator and control 25 locations at relatively low concentrations for the past ten years and not at all in the last five 26 years; however, Cs-137 was not detected in 2009.

27 Fish and Invertebrates 28 The fish and invertebrate sample analysis results showed there were no plant related gamma 29 emitting radionuclides detected in 2009. However, the results for Sr-90 in fish and invertebrate 30 samples were reported as not reliable and under review. When the results are available and 31 certified, Entergy will submit them as an addendum to the REMP report. The NRC staff 32 reviewed the 2008 results for Sr-90 in fish and invertebrates, in place of the 2009 results. As in 33 2009, no plant related gamma emitting radionuclides were detected in the samples. Sr-90 was 34 found in two or six indicator samples (8.8 pCi/kg average) in the vicinity of the plant. Sr-90 was 35 also found in two of six control samples (16.3 pCi/kg average) located approximately 20 miles 36 upriver from the plant. The lower limit of detection (i.e., sensitivity of the analysis) was 37 approximately 5 pCi/kg. The NRCs reporting level (i.e., the concentration value in an 38 environmental sample, if exceeded, which must be reported to the NRC) for Sr-90 in fish 39 samples is 40 pCi/kg.

December 2010 2-107 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38

Staff's review of 2009 REMP results, cont'd.

Plant and the Environment 1 Aquatic Vegetation 2 Positive results for Cs-137 (17.3 +/- 4.1 pCi/kg) were reported for the sampling location at Lents 3 Cove. However, the amount was at a level below the lower limit of detection of the measuring 4 instrument. At his level even activity-free samples would, about 5% of the time, show a positive 5 result due to normal background statistical fluctuations. In the historical record, a 17 pCi/kg 6 result was reported for a 2005 aquatic vegetation sample. There are about five samples per 7 year, varying from 3 to 10, going back to 2005. No I-131 was detected.

8 Hudson River Bottom Sediment 9 Cs-137 was detected at six of six indicator station samples and at one of two control station 10 samples. This frequency of detection is not unusual. Cs-134 was not detected in any bottom 11 sediment samples. The lack of Cs-134 suggests that the primary source of the Cs-137 in bottom 12 sediment is from historical plant releases over the years and from residual weapons test fallout.

13 Notably, the discharge canal bottom sediments were 232 pCi/kg and 1810 pCi.kg on samples 14 taken three months apart. There is nothing in effluent release data and in monitoring well data 15 that corresponds to this difference, yet the larger result is significantly different from other 16 indicator and control locations from 2009 and the historical record. The average in 2009 is 493 17 pCi/kg. This is consistent with historical annual average concentration for indicator locations.

18 Samples taken in 2010 will be examined for their corroborative value. The detection of Cs-137 19 in bottom sediment generally decreased from an average of 1200 pCi/kg in the early 1990s to 20 500 pCi/kg in the mid-1990s to a recent value of 250 pCi/kg over the last three years. Cs-134 21 has not been detected in bottom sediment since 2002.

22 Precipitation 23 Other than naturally occurring radionuclides, no radionuclides were detected in precipitation 24 samples. A review of historical data over the last 10 years indicates tritium had been detected in 25 both indicator and control precipitation samples in 1999; however, there have been no instances 26 of positive values since that time.

27 Soil 28 Other than naturally occurring radionuclides, no plant-related activity was detected in any of the 29 soil samples.

30 Groundwater 31 Tritium was detected at very low concentrations in seven of the 40 groundwater samples 32 analyzed. The amount detected ranged from 193 to 329 pCi/L and averaged 244 pCi/L - which 33 are well below the required LLD of 3000 pCi/L. Other than tritium, there were no potentially 34 plant-related radionuclides detected in the groundwater samples.

35 Land Use Census 36 A census was performed in the vicinity of Indian Point in 2009. This census consisted of a milch 37 animal and a residence census. The results of the 2009 census were generally same as the 38 2007 census results. The New York Agricultural Statistic Service showed there were no animals 39 producing milk for human consumption found 4-8 within 5 miles (8 km) of the plant. Field 40 observations also yielded no milching animal locations within five miles. The 2009 land use 41 census indicated there were no new residences that were closer in proximity to IPEC.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-108 December 2010

Staff's conclusions from review of 2009 REMP. Plant and the Environment 1 Conclusion 2 The applicant concludes that the 2009 REMP results demonstrate the relative contributions of 3 different radionuclide sources, both natural and anthropogenic, to the environmental 4 concentrations. The results indicate that the fallout from previous atmospheric weapons testing 5 continues to contribute to detection of Cs-137 in some environmental samples. There are 6 infrequent detections of plant related radionuclides in the environs; however, the radiological 7 effects are very low and are significantly less than those from natural background and other 8 anthropogenic sources (Entergy 2010b).

9 The NRC staff reviewed the IP2 and IP3 annual radiological environmental operating reports for 10 2002 through 2006 and 2009 and looked for any significant impacts to the environment or any 11 unusual trends in the data. A multi-year period provides a representative data set that covers a 12 broad range of activities that occur at IP2 and IP3 such as, refueling outages, non-refueling 13 outage years, routine operation, and years where there may be significant maintenance 14 activities 15 Based on the NRC Staffs review of the applicants historical and 2009 REMP data, no unusual 16 trends were observed, and the data showed that there was no significant radiological impact to 17 the environment from operations at the IP2 and IP3 site. Small amounts of radioactive material 18 (i.e., tritium, cesium-137, iodine-131, and strontium-90) were detected that are below NRCs 19 reporting values for radionuclides in environmental samples. Overall, the results were 20 comparable to historical REMP results.

21 New York State Department of Health Monitoring 22 The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) also performs sampling and analysis of 23 selected independent environmental media around IP2 and IP3. The NYSDOH environmental 24 radiation monitoring program collects various types of samples to measure the concentrations of 25 selected radionuclides in the environment. Samples of air, water, milk, sediment, vegetation, 26 animals, and fish are typically obtained. In addition, TLDs are used to measure environmental 27 gamma radiation levels in the immediate proximity of IP2 and IP3. The NRC staff reviewed the 28 published data for the years 1993 and 1994, the most current publicly available reports. The 29 data indicated that the radiation levels observed in the environment around IP2 and IP3 were 30 low, or consistent with background radiation, and some samples were below the detection 31 sensitivity for the analysis. No samples exceeded any of the New York State guidelines.

32 The following information was reported in the 1993 report (NYSDOH 1994):

33

• Radioactivity in air samples showed low levels of gross beta activity and levels of 34 iodine-131 were usually below detection levels.

35

• No milk sample was collected, as the remaining nearby dairy farm had closed.

36

• Radioactivity in water samples showed low levels of gross beta activity.

37

• Tritium levels were at typical background levels.

38

• The levels for other radioisotopes were low with most samples below minimum 39 detectable levels.

December 2010 2-109 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38

Plant and the Environment 1

• Direct environmental radiation shows that the TLD data are typical of the normal 2 background level in this area.

3 The following information was reported in the 1994 report (NYSDOH 1995):

4

• Radioactivity in air samples showed low levels of gross beta activity, and levels of 5 iodine-131 were below detection levels.

6

• No milk samples were collected in 1994, as the last dairy farm closed in 1992.

7

• Radioactivity in water samples showed low levels of gross beta activity.

8

• Tritium levels were at typical background levels.

9

• The levels for other radioisotopes were low with most samples below minimum 10 detectable levels.

11

• Radioactivity in fish samples showed that naturally occurring potassium-40 is 12 responsible for most of the activity. All other isotopes are below detectable levels.

Staff's review of groundwater Direct environmental radiation values for the TLD data are typical of the normal contamination. background level in this area.

15 Groundwater Contamination and Monitoring 16 In August of 2005, Entergy discovered tritium contamination in groundwater outside the IP2 17 spent fuel pool (SFP). As a result, Entergy began an on-site and off-site groundwater 18 monitoring program (in September of 2005) in addition to the routine REMP. Entergy used this 19 monitoring program to characterize the on-site contamination, to quantify and determine its on-20 site and off-site radiological impact to the workers, public and surrounding environment, and to 21 aid in identification and repair of any leaking systems, structures or components (Entergy 22 2006d).

23 In Section 5.1 of its ER, Entergy identified the release of radionuclides to groundwater as a 24 potentially new issue based on NRC staff analysis in a previous license renewal proceeding. In 25 its discussion of the issue, Entergy concluded that the radionuclide release does not affect the 26 onsite workforce, and that Entergy anticipated the leakage would not affect other environmental 27 resources, such as water use, land use, terrestrial or aquatic ecology, air quality, or 28 socioeconomics. In addition, Entergy asserted that no NRC dose limits have been exceeded, 29 and EPA drinking water limits are not applicable since no drinking water exposure pathway 30 exists (Entergy 2007a).

31 Entergy has taken measures to control releases from the IP1 and IP2 SFPs using waste 32 management equipment and processes. Additional monitoring actions have also been 33 developed as part of the site's groundwater monitoring program, which supplements the existing 34 REMP to monitor potential impacts of site operations throughout the license renewal term and to 35 monitor potential impacts of site operations and waste and effluent management programs 36 (Entergy 2007a).

37 In addition to Entergys assertions in the IP2 and IP3 ER, Entergy provided the NRC additional 38 information, by report dated January 11, 2008, that included the conclusions of a 2-year 39 investigation of onsite leaks to groundwater that it had initiated following the 2005 discovery of NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-110 December 2010

Staff's review of groundwater contamination, cont'd. Plant and the Environment 1 SFP leakage. Entergy stated that it had characterized and modeled the affected groundwater 2 regime, and that it had identified sources of leakage and determined the radiological impacts 3 resulting from this leakage. In the same letter, Entergy reported that it had begun a long-term 4 groundwater monitoring program and initiated a remediation program to address the site 5 groundwater conditions. Entergy also stated that it had performed radiological dose impact 6 assessments and that it will continue to perform them, and report results to the NRC in each 7 annual Radiological Effluent Release Report. Radiological Effluent Release Reports are 8 publically available through the NRC. Entergys investigation indicates that the only noteworthy 9 dose pathway resulting from contaminated groundwater migration to the Hudson River is 10 through the consumption of fish and invertebrates from the river. According to Entergy, the 11 resultant calculated dose to a member if the public is below 1/100 of the federal limits (Entergy 12 2008c).

13 As part of the NRCs ongoing regulatory oversight program, the NRC staff performed an 14 extensive inspection of Entergys actions to respond to the abnormal leakage as well Entergys 15 groundwater monitoring program. This inspection focused on assessing Entergys groundwater 16 investigation to evaluate the extent of contamination, as well as the effectiveness of actions 17 taken or planned to effect mitigation and remediation of the condition. The NRC staff adopts the 18 findings and content of the inspection report, released by letter dated May 13, 2008, in this SEIS 19 (NRC 2008). The inspection findings include the following key points (NRC 2008):

20 (12) Currently, there is no drinking water exposure pathway to humans that is affected by the 21 contaminated groundwater conditions at the IP2 and IP3 site. Potable water sources in 22 the area of concern are not presently derived from groundwater sources or the Hudson 23 River, a fact confirmed by the New York State Department of Health. The principal 24 exposure pathway to humans is from the assumed consumption of aquatic foods (i.e.,

25 fish or invertebrates) taken from the Hudson River in the vicinity of Indian Point that has 26 the potential to be affected by radiological effluent releases. However, no radioactivity 27 distinguishable from background was detected during the most recent sampling and 28 analysis of fish and crabs taken from the affected portion of the Hudson River and 29 designated control locations.

30 (13) The annual calculated exposure to the maximum exposed hypothetical individual, based 31 on application of Regulatory Guide 1.109, Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from 32 Routine Release of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluation Compliance with 10 33 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, relative to the liquid effluent aquatic food exposure pathway is 34 currently, and expected to remain, less than 0.1 % of the NRCs As Low As is 35 Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) guidelines of Appendix I of Part 50 (3 mrem/yr (0.03 36 mSv/yr) total body and 10 mrem/yr (0.1 mSv/yr) maximum organ), which is considered to 37 be negligible with respect to public health and safety, and the environment.

38 Finally, by letter dated May 15, 2008, Entergy reaffirmed its January 11th letter and provided the 39 NRC a list of commitments for further actions to address groundwater contamination (Entergy 40 2008d). Entergy indicated that it would remove spent fuel from the IP1 SFP, process remaining 41 water and bottoms from the IP1 SFP, and incorporate aspects of the long-term groundwater 42 monitoring program in the sites ODCM and associated procedures. To date, NRC staff has 43 observed that Entergy has removed all spent fuel from the IP1 SFP and drained the pool, as 44 well as incorporated aspects of the monitoring program into the ODCM and associated 45 procedures. As of October, 2009, Entergy had drained and cleaned the IP1 SFP (NRC 2009).

December 2010 2-111 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38

Staff's review of groundwater contamination, cont'd. e Environment 1 Also, NRC findings since the 2008 inspection reports have been consistent with the 2008 2 inspection report.

3 New York State Groundwater Investigations 4 New York State performed its own groundwater investigation of the tritium leakage at Indian 5 Point and reported its findings in a Community Fact Sheet (NYSDEC 2007d) as follows:

NY State The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the review of New York State Department of Health (DOH) have been participating in the groundwater ongoing groundwater investigation of radionuclide contamination in groundwater contamination. under the plant, and the release of that water to the Hudson River. The purpose 10 of our involvement is to protect the interests of the citizens and the environment 11 of the State of New York by helping to ensure that Entergy performs a timely, 12 comprehensive characterization of site groundwater contamination, takes 13 appropriate actions to identify and stop the sources of the leak, and undertakes 14 any necessary remedial actions.

15 The key findings reported by New York State are listed below:

16

• There are no residential or municipal drinking water wells or surface reservoirs near the 17 plant.

18

• There are no known impacts to any drinking water source.

19

• No contaminated groundwater is moving toward surrounding properties.

20

• Contaminated groundwater is moving into the Hudson River.

21

• Public exposure can occur from the groundwater entering the Hudson River through 22 consumption of fish.

23

• NYSDOH has confirmed Entergys calculated dose to humans from fish.

24

• Strontium-90 levels in fish near the site (18.8 pCi/kg (0.69 Bq/kg)) are no higher than in 25 those fish collected from background locations across the State.

26

• Recent strontium-90 data in fish are limited. (The State plans to conduct additional 27 sampling.)

28 Dose Impacts to the Public 29 The results of the IP2 and IP3 radiological releases into the environment are summarized in the 30 IP2 and IP3 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports. Limits for all radiological releases 31 are specified in the IP2 and IP3 ODCMs and used to meet Federal radiation protection 32 standards. In the draft SEIS, the NRC staff performed a review of historical radiological release 33 data during the period 2002 through 2006 and the resultant dose calculations revealed that the 34 calculated doses to maximally exposed individuals in the vicinity of IP2 and IP3 were a small 35 fraction of the limits specified in the IP2 and IP3 ODCM to meet the dose design objectives in 36 Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, as well as the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 and EPAs 37 40 CFR Part 190, as indicated in the following summary list. The NRC staff has reviewed data 38 from 2009 and confirmed that calculated doses to maximally exposed individuals in the vicinity NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 2-112 December 2010

The NRC staff's review of groundwater contamination as it relates to human health. Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, applicable to IP2 and 2 IP3 in regard to radiological impacts of normal operations are listed in Table 4-7. Entergy stated 3 in its ER that it was aware of one new issue associated with the renewal of the IP2 and IP3 4 operating licensespotential ground water contamination and a new radioactive liquid effluent 5 release pathway as a result of leakage from the plant. The NRC staff has discussed this issue 6 and the various studies relating to it in Section 2.2.7 of this SEIS, and addresses the 7 significance of this issue in Section 4.5. The NRC staff has not identified any new and 8 significant information, beyond the new issue identified by the applicant in its ER, during its 9 independent review of Entergys ER, the site audit, the scoping process, NRC inspection 10 reports, or its evaluation of other available information.

11 As discussed in Sections 2.2.7 and 4.5 of this SEIS, the NRC staff concludes that the new issue 12 is not significant, and thus does not challenge the finding in the GEIS. According to the GEIS, 13 the impacts to human health during license renewal term are SMALL, and additional plant-14 specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

15 Table 4-7. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 16 during the Renewal Term ISSUE10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections HUMAN HEALTH Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term) 4.6.2 Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term) 4.6.3 17 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information, beyond the new issue 18 identified by the applicant in its ER concerning potential ground water contamination and a new 19 radioactive effluent release pathway for leakage from the plant, during its independent review of 20 Entergys ER, the site audit, the scoping process, NRC inspection reports, or its evaluation of 21 other available information. The NRC evaluated the detailed information provided by the 22 applicant, State agencies, and NRC inspections on the new issue and concluded that the new 23 issue is not significant and that the impacts to human health during the license renewal term are 24 SMALL. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no impact from radiation 25 exposures to the public or to workers during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the 26 GEIS.

27 The NRC staff concludes that the abnormal liquid releases discussed by Entergy in its ER, while 28 new information, are within the NRCs radiation safety standards contained in 10 CFR Part 20, 29 Standards for Protection against Radiation, and are not considered to have a significant 30 impact on plant workers, the public, or the environment. Furthermore, the NRC staff 31 acknowledges that the commitments made by Entergyand identified in Section 2.2.7 of this 32 SEISfor long-term monitoring and remediation will help to minimize the potential impacts from 33 contaminated ground water and help maintain radiological impacts within NRC radiation safety 34 standards.

35

• Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS, 36 the Commission found the following:

37 Radiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with December 2010 4-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38

The NRC staff's review of groundwater contamination as it applies to groundwater use and quality.

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 The NRC staff presents a summary of results from the IP2 and IP3 REMP program in 2 Section 2.2.7 of this SEIS. The results of the 2006 REMP (the most recent available) 3 demonstrate that the routine operation at the IP2 and IP3 site has had no significant or 4 measurable radiological impact on the environment. No elevated radiation levels were detected 5 in the offsite environment as a result of plant operations and the storage of radioactive waste.

6 The results of the REMP continue to demonstrate that the operation of IP2 and IP3 did not 7 result in a significant measurable dose to a member of the general population or adversely 8 impact the environment as a result of radiological effluents. The REMP continues to 9 demonstrate that the dose to a member of the public from the operation of IP2 and IP3 remains 10 significantly below the Federally required dose limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20 and 40 CFR 11 Part 190, Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.

12 The NRC staffs review of recent REMP monitoring results shows that concentrations of 13 contaminants in native leafy vegetation, soils and sediments, surface water, and fish in areas 14 surrounding IP2 and IP3 have been quite low (at or near the threshold of detection) and seldom 15 above background levels. Consequently, the NRC staff concludes that no disproportionately 16 high and adverse human health impacts would be expected in special pathway receptor 17 populations in the region as a result of subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife.

18 4.5 Ground Water Use and Quality 19 No Category 1 or Category 2 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, are 20 potentially applicable to IP2 and IP3 ground water use and quality during the renewal term. The 21 applicant stated in its ER that IP2 and IP3 do not use any ground water, though onsite 22 monitoring wells exist for the purpose of monitoring ground water conditions.

23 In the IP2 and IP3 ER, Entergy identified leakage from onsite spent fuel pools as potentially new 24 and significant information (Entergy 2007a). The NRC staff has reviewed Entergys analysis of 25 the leakage and has conducted an extensive onsite inspection of leakage to ground water, as 26 identified in Section 2.2.7 of this SEIS. Based on the NRC staffs review of Entergys analysis, 27 the NRC staffs adoption of the NRC inspection report findings in this SEIS, and Entergys 28 subsequent statements (all discussed in Section 2.2.7), the NRC staff concludes that the 29 abnormal liquid releases discussed by Entergy in its ER, while new information, are within the 30 NRCs radiation safety standards contained in 10 CFR Part 20 and are not considered to have a 31 significant impact on plant workers, the public, or the environment (i.e., while the information 32 related to spent fuel pool leakage is new, it is not significant).

33 4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species 34 Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species are listed as a Category 2 issue in 35 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. This issue is listed in Table 4-10.

36 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 4-56 December 2010

Public comments regarding groundwater contamination and the NRC staff's responses (at red line).

1 A.2.3 Comments in Opposition to License Renewal for Indian Point 2 Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 3 The following comments express opposition to license renewal:

4 6-a-EP/OR/OS; 9-b-OE/OR/SA; 11-a-OR; 11-f-AL/OR; 12-a-OR; 13-a-OR; 13-h-OR; 15-a-OR; 5 18-a-LE/OR; 18-d-OR; 21-a-AE/LI/OR/SF; 21-b-GI/OR; 22-a-HH/OR/OS/PA; 24-a-HH/OR/RI; 6 24-b-HH/OR; 25-a-OR; 27-a-OR; 27-f-OR; 35-d-OR; 35-e-OR/RE; 37-a-AE/OR; 41-a-OR; 44-7 a-OR; 44-d-OR; 50-f-NE/OR; 54-a-LE/OR/RW; 54-d-OR; 61-a-AE/AL/OR; 63-a-OR; 63-g-OR; 8 66-a-GI/OR; 69-a-HH/LE/OR/PA; 70-c-OR; 70-d-OR; 72-a-EP/LE/OR/RW; 75-a-OR; 76-a-9 AE/LE/OR; 76-b-OR/PA; 77-a-AE/OR; 80-a-EP/OR/RW/ST; 80-c-OR/OS; 81-d-OR; 82-a-OR; 10 86-a-OR; 86-e-OR; 91-a-OR; 91-e-OR/RW/ST; 96-p-OR; 98-a-EP/OR/PA; 98-d-OR/RE; 100-11 a-OR; 110-a-OP/OR; 121-a-DE/OR; 121-c-OR/PA; 135-a-LE/OR; 143-a-GI/OR/RW; 141-a-12 OR; 141-d-AL/OR; 142-a-LE/OR; 145-f-DE/OR;147-d-OE/OR; 151-a-OR; 151-e-OR; 155-d-13 OR; 161-d-GI/OR; 161-i-AL/OR; 162-c-OE/OR; 162-f-OE/OR; 165-a-OR/PA; 167-b-14 OR/RW/SF; 170-a-OE/OR; 170-h-HH/OE/OR; 173-b-AL/OR; 174-j-OR; 175-a-OP/OR/PA; 15 182-a-LE/OR; 182-d-AL/EJ/OR; 176-a-OR; 176-f-OR; 179-h-OR/SA 16 Response: Portions of these comments that express general opposition to renewing the 17 licenses for IP2 and IP3 provide no new and significant information and have not resulted in any 18 changes to this SEIS. Portions of these comments that address particular technical issues are 19 addressed in the respective technical sections of this appendix.

20 21 The following comments are opposed to nuclear energy:

22 38-a-ON; 70-a-ON; 84-c-ON 23 Response: The comments oppose license renewal of Indian Point and are general in nature.

24 The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to 25 the SEIS in response to these comments.

26 A.2.4 Comments Concerning Surface-Water Quality, Hydrology, 27 Groundwater, and Use Issues 28 The following comments indicate opposition to license renewal because of the 29 continuing leaks of radioactive water into the groundwater and the Hudson River and the 30 residual contamination of Cs-137 and Sr-90 into the Hudson River.

31 3-a-AE/LE/LR; 11-d-LE; 12-d-LE; 35-a-LE/OM; 37-b-LE/SF/ST; 41-c-AE/LE; 44-c-AE/LE; 47-32 b-LE/EP/SF; 61-b-LE/RW/ST; 63-d-LE; 69-a-HH/LE/OR/PA; 72-a-EP/LE/OR/RW; 74-a-LE; 33 75-b-EP/LE/OP/ST; 76-a-AE/LE/OR; 80-b-LE/RW/SF/ST; 91-d-LE; 106-a-AE/LE/RW/SF; 34 110-b-LE/WA; 121-b-AM/LE; 122-b-LE; 126-c-LE; 126-d-LE/RI 35 Response: The dSEIS, in chapters 2 and 4, addressed the impacts of the radioactive material 36 leaks. The NRC staff concluded that the calculated maximum dose to a member of the public 37 exposed to all sources of radioactive material from IPEC was below NRC and EPA radiation 38 dose limits. Additional information on the impacts from the leaks is contained in the Human 39 Health response section.

40 The following comment indicates that radioactive tritium released from IPEC is also 41 found in nature and does not have a significant impact.

42 33-a-AE/GL/LE NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-60 December 2010

Public comments regarding groundwater contamination and the Appendix A NRC staff's responses, cont'd.

1 Response: It is true that tritium is a naturally occurring radioactive form of hydrogen. It is 2 produced in the atmosphere when cosmic rays collide with air molecules. As a result, tritium is 3 found in very small or trace amounts in groundwater throughout the world. It is also a byproduct 4 of the production of electricity by nuclear power plants.

5 The comment does not present any significant new information that would warrant a change to 6 the final SEIS.

7 The following comment indicates that leaking radioactive material from IPEC, including 8 Sr-90; are causing cancer and contaminating mothers milk.

9 39-b-LE; 73-b-EJ/LE; 96-d-HH/LE/RI 10 Response: The comments are addressed in the Human Health section.

11 The following comments indicate that the EIS does not adequately discuss the long term 12 health impacts from the radionuclides leaking from the spent fuel pool into the 13 groundwater and the Hudson River, including eating fish from the Hudson River.

14 73-c-EJ/HH/LE; 96-e-HH/LE/WA; 96-f-DC/LE/WA; 97-k-EJ/HH/LE; 98-c-HH/LE/RI 15 Response: The NRC staff performed a site specific evaluation of the leaks of radioactive 16 material at IPEC. The evaluation is contained in Chapters 2 and 4 of the dSEIS. The 17 comments are addressed in the Human Health section.

18 The following comments indicate that plant aging will cause an increase in the number of 19 leaks.

20 71-c-LE/RW; 96-c-AM/LE/OM; 96-n-AM/LE 21 Response: The NRC staff reviewed the issue of radioactive effluent releases from normal 22 routine pathways and of the abnormal leaks from the spent fuel pools. There is a thorough 23 discussion of these issues in Chapters 2 and 4 of the dSEIS that address the impacts to human 24 health from routine and abnormal radioactive releases.

25 As part of its review, the NRC staff reviewed five years of historical radioactive and radiological 26 environmental monitoring data. Based on the data, the Staff concluded that the calculated 27 doses to a member of the public from the normal and abnormal radioactive releases were within 28 NRCs radiation dose standards. The environmental data showed some radionuclides 29 associated with the operation of IPEC; however, residual radioactivity from atmospheric 30 weapons tests and naturally occurring radioactivity were the predominant sources of 31 radioactivity in the samples collected. The Staff concluded that IPEC operations did not result in 32 an adverse impact to the public greater than environmental background levels.

33 The NRC staff also evaluated the impacts from the leaking radioactive material into the 34 groundwater and into the Hudson River in Chapter 2. For the evaluation contained in the 35 dSEIS, the NRC staff used information from an Inspection conducted by personnel from NRCs 36 Region I office and NRCs Headquarters office. The NRC thoroughly inspected this issue at 37 IPEC, starting with initial notification of the leaks in September 2005 and followed the issue until 38 the inspection closed in May, 2008. The NRC Inspection Report (ADAMS Accession number 39 ML081340425) made the following summary statement; Our inspection determined that public 40 health and safety has not been, nor is likely to be, adversely affected, and the dose 41 consequences to the public that can be attributed to current on-site conditions associated with December 2010 A-61 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38

Public comments regarding groundwater contamination and the NRC staff's responses, cont'd.

1 groundwater contamination is negligible. In the body of the Inspection Report there are two key 2 conclusions relevant to the potential human health impacts from the leaks. They are presented 3 in Chapter 2 of the SEIS:

4 The NRC has already fully considered and addressed the issue in the SEIS and the comments 5 do not present any significant new information or arguments that would warrant a change to the 6 final SEIS.

7 The comment indicates that Indian Point took corrective action to identify and mitigate 8 the leaks of Sr-90 and tritium, including installation of monitoring wells and continued 9 inspection of the spent fuel pool for indications of leakage.

10 120-o-LE 11 Response: The comment is noted. The comment does not present any significant new and 12 significant information that would warrant a change to the final SEIS.

13 A.2.5 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology, Terrestrial Ecology, 14 General Ecology, and Threatened and Endangered Species 15 The following comments indicate that data on impingement and entrainment were 16 collected at IP2 and IP3 between 1981 and 1990 and thus may be too old to be reliable, 17 especially because differences in the fish populations been the 1990s and the present 18 are great. The comments also indicate that no impingement or entrainment monitoring 19 has been conducted since the installation of Ristroph screens.

20 17-q-AE/NE/OE; 21-a-AE/UF/OR/SF; 79-l-AE; 96-k-AE/OE/TS; 96-l-AE/AL/RG; 140-c-AE; 21 140-f-AE; 140-tt-AE; 140-uu-TS 22 Response: The responsibility for requiring monitoring of entrainment, impingement, and 23 thermal effects at IP2 and IP3 lies with New York State and not the NRC. In describing the 24 available data and in its analysis, NRC staff described the age of the data from each of these in-25 plant monitoring programs and acknowledged the shortcomings of relying on such old data. The 26 weight of evidence approach employed by the NRC included two primary lines of evidence:

27 assessment of aquatic population trends in the Hudson River and an evaluation of strength of 28 connection (i.e., relationship of the aquatic resources to power plant operations). NRC staff 29 used population trend data available from 1974 or 1975, depending on the sampling program, 30 through 2005 in its assessment. The staff also used impingement and entrainment data 31 available from 1975 through 1990 to determine the strength of connection. Although 32 entrainment and impingement monitoring was not conducted at IP2 and IP3 after 1990, NRC 33 staff believes that sufficient information is available to determine the strength of connection 34 between plant operations and aquatic resources in the Hudson River. These comments do not 35 present the kind of new and significant information that would warrant a change in the final 36 SEIS.

37 The following comment suggests a change in the description of the fish return system 38 discharge in SEIS Chapter 2.

39 40-k-AE 40 Response: The text has been modified.

41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-62 December 2010

Synopsis of comments related to aquatic impacts of groundwater Appendix A contamination (last comment on page).

1 The following comment indicates that the NRC staffs assessment of a large impact on 2 Hudson river bluefish is contrary to observations that very few adult bluefish are 3 impinged, few if any bluefish eggs and larvae have ever been entrained, and survival of 4 adult bluefish of the intake screens in likely very high.

5 40-c-AE; 40-hh-AE; 128-h-AE/AL 6 Response: Based on comments on the draft SEIS and new and revised information provided 7 by Entergy, the NRC Staff developed an alternative approach to assessing strength-of-8 connection. Information of this alternative analysis is found in Appendix H, Section H.1.3, 9 Combined Effects of Impingement and Entrainment, and in Chapter 4. The NRC staff revised 10 the levels of impact for bluefish and other Hudson River species in the final SEIS based on the 11 revised methodology.

12 The following comment indicates that NYSDEC believes that the impact level from 13 continued operation of Indian Points cooling water system should be large for striped 14 bass, white perch, and Atlantic tomcod based on population trends, likelihood of 15 impinging young-of-the-year, likelihood of reducing a food resource, and historical 16 impingement and entrainment data collected at IP2 and IP3.

17 128-h-AE/AL 18 Response: NRC staff assesses environmental impact levels in relation to NRCs regulations, 19 which may have different requirements than New York States regulations. The aquatic 20 resources impact assessment in the final SEIS uses the best available data and a weight of 21 evidence approach that encompasses two lines of evidence, each made up of several 22 measures. The NRC staffs assessment and conclusions do not supersede the State of New 23 Yorks authority to implement and enforce standards under the Clean Water Act.

24 The following comment indicates that impacts to fish populations should cause the NRC 25 staff to propose closed cycle cooling at Indian Point.

26 128-h-AE/AL 27 Response: New York State DEC is responsible for insuring that intake and discharge 28 structures comply with requirements of the Clean Water Act. New York State has indicated that 29 closed-cycle cooling would be preferable, but has not required that Indian Point convert to 30 closed-cycle cooling.

31 The following comment indicates that New York State has been collecting and analyzing 32 data for decades, and the NRC staffs recent analysis of aquatic impacts cannot supplant 33 NYSDECs analysis.

34 128-g-AE 35 Response: The NRC staff assesses environmental impacts in relation to NEPA and NRCs 36 regulations, which may have different purposes and requirements than New York States 37 regulations. The NRC staffs analysis does not supplant NYSDECs analysis.

38 The following comments assert that the SEIS does not assess the effects of 39 radionuclides released from IP2 and IP3 in groundwater and food web accumulation on 40 aquatic biota, including the shortnose sturgeon:

41 December 2010 A-79 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38

NRC staff response to comments related to aquatic impacts of groundwater contamination.

1 140-s-TS; 140-z-AE/CI 2 Response: As part of NRCs operating reactor oversight program, the NRC staff performed 3 independent sampling and analysis of environmental media related to the leaks of radioactive 4 water from the spent fuel pools 2008. The NRC conducted an independent analysis of 5 groundwater, Hudson River water, and fish during its inspection of IPECs actions in response to 6 the leaks. The following two key findings related to human health are also presented in the 7 Chapter 2 of the SEIS. The first specifically addresses radiation levels identified in fish 8 sampling, and the second addresses human exposures through fish consumption.

9 1) Currently, there is no drinking water exposure pathway to humans that is affected by the 10 contaminated groundwater conditions at Indian Point Energy Center. Potable water sources in 11 the area of concern are not presently derived from groundwater sources or the Hudson River, a 12 fact confirmed by the New York State Department of Health. The principal exposure pathway to 13 humans is from the assumed consumption of aquatic foods (i.e., fish or invertebrates) taken 14 from the Hudson River in the vicinity of Indian Point, that has the potential to be affected by 15 radiological effluent releases. Notwithstanding, no radioactivity distinguishable from background 16 was detected during the most recent sampling and analysis of fish and crabs taken from the 17 affected portion of the Hudson River and designated control locations.

18 2) The annual calculated exposure to the maximum exposed hypothetical individual, based on 19 application of Regulatory Guide 1.109, Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine 20 Release of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluation Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, 21 Appendix I, relative to the liquid effluent aquatic food exposure pathway is currently, and 22 expected to remain, less than 0.1% of the NRCs As Low As is Reasonably Achievable 23 (ALARA) guidelines of Appendix I of Part 50 (3 mrem/yr total body and 10 mrem/yr maximum 24 organ), which is considered to be negligible with respect to public health and safety, and the 25 environment.

26 The complete discussion of NRC actions and its inspection are contained in the NRC inspection 27 report dated May 13, 2008. The full report is available to the public through the ADAMS 28 electronic reading room on the NRCs website (www.NRC.gov). The ADAMS accession 29 number for the inspection report is ML081340425.

30 In addition to the 2008 inspection report, IP2 and IP3 conduct a radiological environmental 31 monitoring program (REMP) in which radiological impacts to the environment and the public are 32 monitored, documented, and compared to NRC standards. Entergy summarizes the results of 33 its REMP in an Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report, and NRC reviews these 34 reports. The reports are publicly available on the NRCs public website. The IP2 and IP3 35 REMP enables the identification and quantification of changes in the radioactivity of the area 36 and to measure radionuclide concentrations in the environment attributable to operations at the 37 IP2 and IP3 site.

38 The REMP samples environmental media in the environs around the site to analyze and 39 measure the radioactivity levels that may be present. Within the REMP, the waterborne 40 pathway consists of measurements of Hudson River surface water, fish and invertebrates, 41 aquatic vegetation, bottom sediment, and shoreline soil.

42 While neither the 2008 inspection report process nor the REMP specifically sampled the 43 shortnose sturgeon - an endangered and thus protected species - the inspection report NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 A-80 December 2010

NRC staff response to comments related to aquatic impacts of Appendix A groundwater contamination, cont'd.

1 examined - and the REMP continues to examine - radionuclide levels in other fish and aquatic 2 species.

3 The comment does not present any significant new information and no change has been made 4 to the final SEIS.

5 The following comment indicates that the NRC staff did not include data or assess 6 impacts associated with operation of Indian Point Unit 1.

7 140-q-TS 8 Response: Indian Point Unit 1 (IP1) no longer operates and is in a condition known as 9 SAFSTOR. The subject of this SEIS is Entergys application to renew the operating licenses of 10 IP2 and IP3 for an additional 20 years of operation beyond the term of the original licenses. IP1 11 operated from September 1962 through October 1974, and so affected the Hudson River 12 aquatic resources before the start of the long-term ecological sampling programs used to 13 assess environmental impacts in this SEIS.

14 The following comment indicates that some aspects of the methodology used by the 15 NRC staff for assessing impact to aquatic resources were unclear in the draft SEIS and 16 were clarified only during a conference call with NRC staff and consultants.

17 40-ppppp-AE 18 Response: In the draft SEIS, the NRC staff presented methods, sources of data, assumptions, 19 and conclusions in Appendices H and I, and summarized them in Chapter 4. Based on new 20 information provided by Entergy in its comments and the comments of others on the DSEIS, the 21 NRC Staff modified its approach for assessing the aquatic population trends and strength-of-22 connection lines of evidence. The revised methods are shown in Chapter 4 and Appendices H 23 and I of this final SEIS.

24 The following comments indicate that two types of errors could occur in the 25 methodology used by NRC to classify aquatic impacts into small, moderate, and large:

26 identifying a potential impact when none actually exists and failure to identify a potential 27 impact when in fact it does exist. The DSEIS provides no discussion of these types of 28 errors or the relative degree of protection the classification process provides against 29 each type.

30 40-qqqqq-AE; 40-ccccc-AE 31 Response: Based on new information provided by Entergy in its comments and on the 32 comments of others on the draft SEIS, the NRC revised the Weight of Evidence approach in the 33 final SEIS and taken the decision rule process used in the draft out of the probabilistic-testing 34 scenario, which makes this question less relevant.

35 The following comment indicates that the US Fish and Wildlife Service is unable to 36 concur with the determination that continued operation of IP2 and IP3 are not likely to 37 adversely affect Indiana bats as NRC staff has not provided information on how the 38 project may indirectly affect Indiana bats and their forage area.

39 139-a-TS December 2010 A-81 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38

Excerpt from the Indian Point Environmental Report Entergy's description of the IP1 intake (bottom of this page) Indian Point Energy Center Applicants Environmental Report Operating License Renewal Stage length. The bottoms of the intakes are 27 feet below MSL (see Figure 3-6). The equipment deck and ice curtain wall are as described for IP2. At IP3, modified Ristroph screens are installed at the pump bay entrances from the common plenum. [CHGEC,Section IV.B.2.c.ii]

IP3 has six variable-speed circulating water pumps. Flow rates generated by these pumps range from 140,000 gpm when operated at full speed to 64,000 gpm when operated at the lowest speed (46% of full speed). When the pumps are operating at full flow, the intake water approach velocity is approximately one (1) fps; at reduced flow it is about 0.6 fps. [CHGEC,Section IV.B.2.c.ii]

The circulating water intake bays at IP3 are outfitted with modified vertical (Ristroph-type) traveling water screens. Design features incorporated into the machines were developed and tested in concert with the Hudson River Fishermen's Association [CHGEC,Section IV.B.2.c.i].

Key components of these screens are identical to those installed at IP2. A fish return system discharges at the northwest comer of the station's cooling water discharge canal (See Figure 3-9 for IP2 fish return system which is similar). [CHGEC,Section IV.B.2.c.ii]

3.2.2.2.3 IP2 and IP3 Circulating System Operations In accordance with the terms of an October 1997 Consent Order, Entergy uses its best reasonable efforts to operate IP2 and IP3's dual/variable speed pumps so as to keep the volume of river water drawn into the plants at the minimum required for efficient operation, with due regard to ambient river water temperature, plant operating status, and the need to meet water quality standards or other permit conditions.

3.2.2.2.4 Service Water The primary function of the service water system is to provide river water as a cooling medium to those systems or components requiring heat removal for proper functioning during normal plant operation and abnormal plant conditions, such as the maximum credible accident condition. The secondary functions of the service water system are (1) to protect certain equipment from potential contamination from river water by providing cooling to intermediate freshwater systems as required, (2) to provide water for washing the traveling screens, and (3) to provide seal water for the main circulating water pumps [CHGEC,Section IV.B.2.d].

IP2 is fitted with six identical vertical, centrifugal sump type pumps, each having a capacity of at least 5,000 gpm at 220-ft total design head (TDH) [IP2 UFSAR, Section 9.6.1.2]. IP3 has six similar pumps located at its intake structure, each rated at 6,000 gpm and 195-ft TDH. In addition, there are three back-up service water pumps located on a platform over the discharge canal at IP3. [IP3 UFSAR, Section 9.6.1]

Additional service water to the non-essential service water header for IP2 and spray wash water for the Ristroph screens at IP2 is provided through the IP1 river water intake structure. The IP1 intake (Figure 3-2) is outfitted with coarse bar screens at each of the four intake bays, which are arranged in two sets of two bays each. These were designed to provide two channels for screening water drawn in by each of the two circulating water pumps. A single 0.125-in. mesh-3-4

Entergy's description of the IP1 Indian Point Energy Center intake, cont'd. Applicants Environmental Report Operating License Renewal Stage outfitted dual-flow screen is located within the service water portion of each of the two intake bay sets. These dual-flow screens filter water drawn in by the single 16,000-gpm river water pump and the two 1500-gpm spray wash pumps in each of the two intake bay sets. The screens are washed automatically when head differentials exceed predetermined settings. Materials removed from the mesh are sluiced to the Hudson River. During normal operation only one of the two river water pumps and two of the spray wash pumps are in operation at any given time.

[CHGEC,Section IV.B.2.d]

In IP2 and IP3, the service water intake bays (one service water bay per unit) are centrally located within each of the intake structures. Six service water pumps (5000 gpm/pump at IP2, and 6,000 gpm/pump at IP3) draw water from each of these bays for the operation of heat exchange equipment, such as turbine lubricating oil coolers and systems required for the safe shutdown of each unit. Two 6-ft-wide modified Ristroph screens have been installed within the service water bays at IP2 and IP3, as shown in Figures 3-3 and 3-5. The calculated average approach velocity at the entrance to the service water bays is about 0.2 fps when all six service water pumps are operating. [CHGEC,Section IV.B.2.d]

3.2.2.3 Discharge Structures The cooling water from the condensers at IP2 and IP3 flows downward from the discharge water boxes via six 96-inch down pipes and exits beneath the surface of the water in the discharge canal (Figure 3-7). The discharge velocity in the 40-ft-wide discharge canal is approximately 4.5 fps at full flow. The average transit time for cooling water traveling from the IP2 intake to the outfall structure (Outfall 001) is 9.7 minutes; from IP3 it is 5.6 minutes. [CHGEC,Section IV.B.2.e]

The outfall or discharge structure for the IP2 and IP3 facility is designed to enhance mixing of cooling water and river water in such a way as to minimize thermal impact in the river. It can accommodate the combined cooling water flow from both IP2 and IP3 (about 1.75 million gpm, including service water). The cooling water from the discharge channel is released to the Hudson River via an outfall structure located south of IP3. The outfall structure, depicted schematically in Figure 3-8, consists of 12 submerged rectangular ports equipped with adjustable gates that are in line and parallel to the river axis. The ports, 4 feet high by 15 feet wide and spaced 21 feet apart (center to center), are submerged to a depth of 12 feet (center to surface) at mlw. The first upstream port is approximately 600 ft from the IP3 intake; the length of the total port section is approximately 252 feet. The discharge port gates can be adjusted mechanically to maintain a minimum hydraulic head differential of 1.75 feet across the outfall structure, which assures a discharge velocity of approximately 10 fps. [CHGEC,Section IV.B.2.e]

3.2.3 Radioactive Waste Treatment Processes (Gaseous, Liquid, and Solid)

The site uses liquid, gaseous, and solid waste processing systems to collect and treat, as needed, radioactive materials that are produced as a by-product of plant operations. Radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents are reduced to levels as low as reasonably achievable.

Radionuclides removed from the liquid and gaseous effluents are converted to a solid waste form for eventual disposal with other solid radioactive wastes in a licensed disposal facility.

3-5