ML15051A502

02/12/2015, Summary of Telephone Conference Call Held Between NRC and Entergy Concerning the RAIs Pertaining to the Indian Point LRA Environmental Review

ML15051A502
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	03/10/2015
From:	Wentzel M J License Renewal Projects Branch 2
To:
Wentzel M J, 415-6459
References
TAC MD5411, TAC MD5412
Download: ML15051A502 (6)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555

-0001 March 10, 2015 LICENSEE: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

FACILITY: Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No s. 2 and 3

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON FEBRUARY 1 2 , 201 5 , 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)

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff and representative s of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Entergy) held a telephone conference call on February 12, 2015

, to discuss and clarify the NRC staff's request for additional information (RAI) concerning the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 license renewal application environmental review

. provides a listing of the participants and Enclosure 2 contains a listing of the RAIs discussed with Entergy, including a brief description of the status.

Entergy had an opportunity to comment on this summary.

/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

ML15051A502

• concurrence via e

-mail OFFICE LA:DLR PM:RPB2:DLR BC:RPB2:DLR PM:RPB2:DLR NAME IBetts MWentzel BWittick (LJames for)

MWentzel DATE 3/3/2015 3/9/15 3/10/15 9/10/15

SUMMARY

OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON FEBRUARY 12 , 201 5 , 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 N O S. 2 AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FEBRUARY 1 2, 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 request s for additional information (RAI s) 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 (Entergy's) February 19, 2014, submission by using the data from Entergy's October 27, 2014 response to RAIs. The results indicate that the Entergy's "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 Entergy's October 2014 response to RAIs differ from the data set used in Entergy's 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 75 th percentile of the data. Discussion:

Entergy indicated that the question is clear.

RAI 2 Basis: As part of the NRC staff's independent verification of Entergy's 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: Entergy's 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 Entergy's 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: Entergy's 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 staff's 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 staff's 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 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.