ML14345A399
| ML14345A399 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/2014 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML14345A399 (9) | |
Text
1 IPRenewal NPEmails From:
Wentzel, Michael Sent:
Thursday, December 11, 2014 6:27 AM To:
Gray, Dara F
Subject:
RE: Call re RAIs Attachments:
IP 2014 Aquatic RAIs - Set 2 - rev 1 for phone call.docx
- Dara, We made two changes to the draft aquatic impacts RAI letter to hopefully clarify what we are looking for. In particular, for RAI 5, we clarified which data we were referring to when we had stated data received prior to the preparation of the June 2013 supplement to the FSEIS. The attached version is in track changes to highlight the changes made from the previous version. Also, Ive included the link below to the March 7, 2008 submittal we are referring to in RAI 5.
- Thanks, Mike http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0807/ML080770477.html From: Gray, Dara F [1]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 10:33 AM To: Wentzel, Michael
Subject:
RE: Call re RAIs Thanks Mike And I hope to have any comments on Draft GEIS RAIs to you by the end of today.
Dara Gray REM Chemistry/Environmental Indian Point Energy Center Dgray@entergy.com 914-254-8414 From: Wentzel, Michael [2]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 7:47 AM To: Gray, Dara F
Subject:
RE: Call re RAIs
- Dara, The call-in info is for the meeting is:
Phone number: 888-603-7097 Passcode: 30978
- Thanks, Mike From: Gray, Dara F [3]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 5:57 PM
2 To: Wentzel, Michael
Subject:
RE: Call re RAIs Mike 1 pm should be fine for all of us.
Thanks From: Wentzel, Michael [Michael.Wentzel@nrc.gov]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 1:06 PM To: Gray, Dara F
Subject:
RE: Call re RAIs
- Dara, We are available on Thursday. Would 1pm, or later, work for you?
- Thanks, Mike From: Gray, Dara F [4]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 10:15 AM To: Wentzel, Michael
Subject:
RE: Call re RAIs Thanks Mike From: Wentzel, Michael [Michael.Wentzel@nrc.gov]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 9:13 AM To: Gray, Dara F
Subject:
RE: Call re RAIs
- Dara, Were still waiting to hear back from our contractor as far as availability, but we are tentatively planning to meet on Thursday. Ill let you know as soon as I hear, which should hopefully be sometime around lunchtime.
Did you have any additional feedback from our phone call last week as far as response timeline?
- Thanks, Mike From: Gray, Dara F [5]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 10:11 AM To: Wentzel, Michael
Subject:
Call re RAIs Hi Mike I am out today so I don't k now if you called but wanted to check with you about the timing for a call to discuss the aquatics RAIs.
Just let me know.
Thanks
Hearing Identifier:
IndianPointUnits2and3NonPublic_EX Email Number:
4765 Mail Envelope Properties (C0A338EE37A11447B136119705BF9A3F022493E4001C)
Subject:
RE: Call re RAIs Sent Date:
12/11/2014 6:27:11 AM Received Date:
12/11/2014 6:27:25 AM From:
Wentzel, Michael Created By:
Michael.Wentzel@nrc.gov Recipients:
"Gray, Dara F" <DGray@entergy.com>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
HQCLSTR02.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2778 12/11/2014 6:27:25 AM IP 2014 Aquatic RAIs - Set 2 - rev 1 for phone call.docx 115089 Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 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)
(SEIS), 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 SEIS, 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 30 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, 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
- concurred via email OFFICE LA:DLR*
PM:RPB2:DLR BC:RPB2:DLR PM:RPB2:DLR NAME IKing MWentzel BWittick MWentzel DATE 12/2/2014
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
ENCLOSURE 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 submission. 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 prior to preparation of the June 2013 supplement to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. The letter states that sampling occurred 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 FSEIS, NRC staff found that the week number assigned to the samples was not always consistent between the two data sets.
Request: Provide the original week number assigned to all data and delineate which weeks were adjusted in the February and October 2014 submissions.
RAI 5
Basis: As part of NRC staffs review of the data received in October 2014, the NRC staff found that data for striped bass sample size and volume in the Fall Shoals Survey, River Segment 4 sample for week 41, 1994, were inconsistent with those data received prior to preparation of the June 2013 supplement to the FSEISfrom Entergy by letter March 7, 2008.
Request: Please: 1) identify differences between the October 2014 and those data received prior to preparation of the June 2013 supplement to the FSEISin the March 7, 2008 submittal; 2) provide reasons for the differences; and 3) provide a rationale for which data set is correct.