ML14329B245

Request for Additional Information for the Review of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3, License Renewal Application Environmental Review (TAC Nos. MD5411 and MD5412)

ML14329B245
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	02/18/2015
From:	Michael Wentzel License Renewal Projects Branch 2
To:	Entergy Nuclear Operations
Wentzel M, 415-6459
References
TAC MD5411, TAC MD5412
Download: ML14329B245 (6)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 February 18, 2015 Vice President, Operations Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Indian Point Energy Center 450 Broadway, GSB P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (TAC NOS. MD5411 AND MD5412)

Dear Sir or Madam:

By letter dated April 23, 2007, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy), submitted an application and associated environmental report pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51 and 10 CFR Part 54, to renew the operating licenses for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3), for review by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC staff documented its findings related to the environmental review of Entergys license renewal application in Supplement 38 to NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), which was issued in December 2010. In June 2013, NRC issued Volume 4 of Supplement 38 to NUREG-1437 to correct impingement and entrainment data presented in the final supplemental environmental impact statement, revise conclusions regarding thermal impacts, and update the status of the NRC's consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

By letter dated February 19, 2014 Entergy submitted newly available information relevant to the NRC staffs evaluation of impacts from the operation of IP2 and IP3 during the license renewal term on certain aquatic species in the Hudson River. By letter dated September 26, 2014, the NRC staff issued a request for additional information based on its review of Entergys February 19, 2014, submittal. By letter dated October 27, 2014, Entergy responded to the NRC staffs request for additional information. The NRC staff is reviewing Entergys response and has identified in the enclosure areas where additional information is needed to complete its review.

Items in the enclosure were discussed with Ms. Dara Gray and a mutually agreeable date for the response is within 45 days from the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-6459, or by e-mail at michael.wentzel@nrc.gov.

Sincerely,

/RA/

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

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: Listserv

ML14329B245 *concurred via email OFFICE LA:DLR* PM:RPB2:DLR BC:RPB2:DLR PM:RPB2:DLR NAME IKing MWentzel BWittick MWentzel DATE 12/2/2014 2/18/15 2/18/15 2/18/15

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (TAC NOS. MD5411 AND MD5412)

DISTRIBUTION:

HARD COPY:

DLR RF E-MAIL:

PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RidsNrrDlrRarb Resource RidsNrrDlrRasb Resource RidsNrrDlrRapb Resource RidsNrrDlrRerb Resource RidsNrrDlrRsrg Resource RidsNrrDraAfpb Resource RidsOgcMailCenter Resource

---

MWentzel MGray, RI DLogan ABurritt, RI BWittick DonaldJackson, RI DWrona GMeyer, RI DPickett MModes, RI STurk, OGC NSheehan, RI OPA BMizuno, OGC DScrenci, RI OPA DRoth, OGC DTifft, RI BHarris, OGC NMcNamara, RI SBurnell, OPA GNewman, RI DMcIntyre, OPA JSStewart, RI JWeil, OCA AmiPatel, RI

REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Request for Additional Information (RAI) 1 Basis: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is in the process of performing an independent verification of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.s (Entergys) February 19, 2014, submission by using the data from Entergys October 27, 2014 response to RAIs. The results indicate that the Entergys Format 1 data set submitted in October 2014 differs from the data set used in the February 2014 submission. In order to conduct its independent verification, the NRC staff must understand how and why the data sets appear to differ.

Request: Provide a clear written explanation of how and why the Format 1 data in Entergys October 2014 response to RAIs differ from the data set used in Entergys February 2014 submission, and if the data differ, provide the Format 1 data used for the February 2014 analysis. Support the explanation of the difference with selected SAS code used to create both data sets. Pay particular attention to the calculation of catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) and density in the two submissions. Also, SAS and other statistical software provide several methods to calculate percentiles, and these can return different results when applied to the same data.

Provide the method and cite the software used to determine the 75th percentile of the data.

RAI 2

Basis: As part of the NRC staffs independent verification of Entergys February 2014 submission, the NRC staff needs to refer to information from the Hudson River Sampling Program.

Request: Provide electronic copies of the Hudson River Year Class Reports for years 2006 through 2011. Entergy has already provided electronic copies for previous years.

RAI 3

Basis: Entergys October 2014 submission includes a letter to Ms. Dara Gray informing her of the quality assurance methodology employed on the October 2014 data submission. The letter states that the intermediate results of analyses were not identical to the results presented in tables supplied with Entergys February 2014 submission Request: Provide the intermediate tables comparing models, assessment of potential impacts, strength of connection analysis parameters and results, and the weight of evidence conclusion tables from the October 2014 submission.

RAI 4

Basis: Entergys October 2014 submission includes a letter to Ms. Dara Gray informing her of an adjustment to the assignment of data associated with a given week, i.e., selected Sunday samples were assigned to the following work week instead of the prior week. The letter also states that this adjustment was made to the data submission provided to the NRC staff from Entergy by letter dated March 7, 2008. The October 2014 letter states that sampling occurred ENCLOSURE

on a Sunday because a holiday occurred within the work week; however, the standard algorithm used to assign a week based upon date resulted in the Sunday samples being assigned to the prior week. As part of NRC staffs review of the data received in October 2014 with that received prior to preparation of the June 2013 supplement to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Indian Point Nuclear Generating unit Nos. 2 and 3, NRC staff found that the week number assigned to the samples was not always consistent between the two data sets.

Request: Provide a comparative key to the 2008 and 2014 week number assignments.

RAI 5

Basis: As part of NRC staffs review of the data received in October 2014, the NRC staff found that those data were inconsistent with data received from Entergy by letter dated March 7, 2008.

For example, those data for striped bass sample size and volume in the Falls Shoals Survey, River Segment 4 sample for week 41, 1994.

Request: (1) identify differences (for example in week number, number of samples, volume of samples, number of young-of-year caught, and total number of fish caught) between the October 2014 and those data received in the March 7, 2008, and the December 2007 data disks (labeled IPEC License Renewal - Environmental, Letter NL-07-156, 12/20/07, Enclosures, Disc 1 of 2 data submittal); (2) provide reasons for the differences and rational for the differences, if any; and (3) provide the corrected version, as appropriate.