ML15046A006

Lr Hearing - Revised Draft Aquatic RAIs and Phone Call Summary

ML15046A006
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	02/13/2015
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
Download: ML15046A006 (14)

Text

1 IPRenewal NPEmails From:

Wentzel, Michael Sent:

Friday, February 13, 2015 9:53 AM To:

Gray, Dara

Subject:

Revised Draft Aquatic RAIs and Phone Call Summary Attachments:

021215, Summary of Telephone Conference Call Held Between NRC and Entergy Concerning the RAIs Pertaining to the Indian Point LRA Environmental Review.docx; IP 2014 Aquatic RAIs - Set 2 - final rev.docx

Dara, Attached are the revised draft aquatic RAIs and a draft phone call summary. Please let me know if you have any questions, or comments. Also, as we discussed yesterday, if you could let me know when you think you would be able to respond to the RAIs, I would appreciate it.

Thanks, Mike Michael Wentzel Project Manager NRR/DLR/RPB2 (301) 415-6459 michael.wentzel@nrc.gov

Hearing Identifier:

IndianPointUnits2and3NonPublic_EX Email Number:

4861 Mail Envelope Properties (C0A338EE37A11447B136119705BF9A3F02744911C6AF)

Subject:

Revised Draft Aquatic RAIs and Phone Call Summary Sent Date:

2/13/2015 9:52:45 AM Received Date:

2/13/2015 9:52:46 AM From:

Wentzel, Michael Created By:

Michael.Wentzel@nrc.gov Recipients:

"Gray, Dara" <DGray@entergy.com>

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

HQCLSTR02.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 465 2/13/2015 9:52:46 AM 021215, Summary of Telephone Conference Call Held Between NRC and Entergy Concerning the RAIs Pertaining to the Indian Point LRA Environmental Review.docx 88834 IP 2014 Aquatic RAIs - Set 2 - final rev.docx 115064 Options Priority:

Standard Return Notification:

No Reply Requested:

No Sensitivity:

Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

LICENSE FACILITY SUBJEC The U.S.

Operatio and clarif Nuclear G Enclosur discusse Entergy h Docket N Enclosur As stated cc w/enc EE:

Enterg Y:

Indian CT:

SUMM

2015, ENTE FOR A NUCL APPL

. Nuclear Re ns, Inc., (En fy the NRC s Generating U re 1 provides ed with Enter had an oppo Nos. 50-247 re:

d cl: Listserv NUC gy Nuclear O n Point Nucle MARY OF T BETWEEN ERGY NUCL ADDITIONA LEAR GENE LICATION EN egulatory Co ntergy)held a staffs reque Unit Nos. 2 a s a listing of rgy, including ortunity to co and 50-286 UNIT CLEARREGU WASHING Operations, ear Generat ELEPHONE THE U.S. N LEAR OPER AL INFORMA ERATING UN NVIRONME ommission (N a telephone est for additio and 3 licens the participa g a brief des omment on t TED STATES ULATORY CO GTON, D.C. 20555 Inc.

ing Unit Nos E CONFERE NUCLEAR R RATIONS, IN ATION PERT NIT NOS. 2 NTAL REVI NRC) staff a conference onal informa se renewal a ants and En scription of th this summary Michael We Projects Bra Division of L Office of Nu S

OMMISSION 5-0001

s. 2 and 3 ENCE CALL REGULATOR NC. CONCER TAINING TO AND 3 LICE EW (TAC N nd represen call on Febr ation (RAI) co pplication en closure 2 co he status.

y.

entzel, Proje anch 2 License Ren uclear React N

HELD ON F RY COMMIS RNING THE O THE INDIA ENSE RENE OS. MD541 ntatives of En ruary 12, 201 oncerning th nvironmenta ontains a list ct Manager newal tor Regulatio FEBRUARY SSION AND E REQUEST AN POINT EWAL 1 AND MD5 ntergy Nucle 15,to discuss he Indian Po al review.

ing of the RA on 12, T

5412) ear s

oint AIs

• concurrence via e-mail OFFICE LA:DLR PM:RPB2:DLR BC:RPB2:DLR PM:RPB2:DLR NAME MWentzel BWittick MWentzel DATE

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON FEBRUARY 12, 2015, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. CONCERNING THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO 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 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 1 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FEBRUARY 12, 2015 PARTICIPANTS:

AFFILIATIONS:

Dennis Logan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Michael Wentzel NRC Valerie Cullinan Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Larry Barnthouse Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy)

Dara Gray Entergy Doug Heimbuch Entergy Mark Mattson Entergy John Young Entergy

ENCLOSURE 2 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FEBRUARY 12, 2015 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff and representatives of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Entergy)held a telephone conference call on February 12, 2015,to discuss and clarify the following requests for additional information (RAIs) concerning the 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.

Discussion:Entergy indicated that the question is clear.

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.

Discussion:Entergy indicated that the question is clear.

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.

Discussion:Entergy indicated that the question is clear.

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 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 and delineate which weeks were adjusted for Sunday sampling events in the February and October 2014 submissions.

Discussion:Based on discussion with Entergy, the NRC staff modified the draft request, as follows, to make clear the information that the NRC staff is requesting:

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 apparently 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 Fall Shoals Survey, River Segment 4 sample for week 41, 1994.

Request: Please: (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.

Discussion:Entergy indicated that the question is clear.

Vice Pres Entergy N Indian Po 450 Broa P.O. Box Buchana SUBJEC Dear Sir By letter applicatio Regulatio Point Nu Regulato environm 1437, G (SEIS), w Supplem final SEIS consultat Species A By letter NRC staf termon c NRC staf Entergys the NRC response complete sident, Oper Nuclear Ope oint Energy adway, GSB x 249 an, NY 1051 CT:

REQU INDIA RENE AND M or Madam:

dated April 2 on and asso ons (10 CFR clear Gener ory Commiss mental review eneric Envir which was is ment 38 to NU S, revise con tion with the Act.

dated Febru ffs evaluatio certain aquat ff issued a re sFebruary 19 staffs reque e and has id e its review.

NUCL rations erations, Inc Center 1-0249 UEST FOR A AN POINT N EWAL APPL MD5412) 23, 2007, En ociated envir R) Part 51 an rating Unit N sion (NRC).

w of Entergy ronmental Im ssued in Dec UREG-1437 nclusions re National Ma uary 19, 201 on of impact tic species in equest for a 9, 2014 sub est for addit entified in th UNIT LEARREGU WASHINGT ADDITIONA UCLEAR G LICATION EN ntergy Nucle onmental re nd 10 CFR P os. 2 and 3 The NRC s ys license re mpact Statem cember 2010 to correct im egarding ther arine Fisher 4, Entergy s s from the o n the Hudso dditional info mittal. By le ional informa he enclosure TED STATES ULATORY C TON, D.C. 20555 AL INFORMA ENERATING NVIRONME ear Operatio eport pursuan Part 54, to re (IP2 and IP3 staff docume enewal applic ment for Lice

0. In June 2 mpingement rmal impacts ies Service u submitted ne operation of I n River. By ormation bas etter dated O ation. The N e areas wher S

COMMISSIO 5-0001 ATION FOR G UNIT NOS ENTAL REVI ons, Inc. (Ent nt to Title 10 enew the ope 3), for review ented its find cation in Su ense Renew 013, NRC is t and entrain s, and updat under sectio ewly availab IP2 and IP3 letter dated sed on its re October 27, 2 NRC staff is re additional ON THE REVIE S. 2 AND 3, EW (TAC N tergy), subm 0 of the Code erating licen w by the U.S ings related pplement 38 wal of Nuclea ssued Volum nment data p te the status on 7 of the E le informatio during the li September eview of 2014, Enterg reviewing E l information EW OF THE LICENSE OS. MD541 mitted an e of Federal nses for India S. Nuclear to the 8 to NUREG ar Plants (GE me 4 of presented in s of the NRC Endangered on relevant to icense renew r 26, 2014, th gy responde Entergys n is needed t 1

l an EIS) the C's o the wal he ed to to 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

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

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 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 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: Please:(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.