ML110620558
| ML110620558 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/04/2011 |
| From: | - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Division of License Renewal |
| References | |
| Download: ML110620558 (3) | |
Text
1 IPRenewal NPEmails From:
Gray, Dara F [DGray@entergy.com]
Sent:
Friday, February 04, 2011 10:58 AM To:
Stuyvenberg, Andrew Cc:
Dacimo, Fred R.
Subject:
Questions re FSEIS Attachments:
Questions Regarding FSEIS 2-4-11.doc Follow Up Flag:
Follow up Flag Status:
Completed Hi Drew As promised, here is a summary of the questions we had regarding some of the evaluations performed in the FSEIS. As we discussed, we apologize for the delay but had to wait for Freds return to the site to complete this, as we discussed.
Fred will be talking to Brian Holian today or Monday to let him know if we want to request a public meeting (we feel that it may not be necessary depending upon the new/amended contentions on the FSEIS which we just received and want to ensure there is no overlap.)
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks Dara Gray, REM Chemistry/Environmental Indian Point Energy Center (914) 736-8414 DGray@Entergy.com This e-mail and any attachments thereto are intended only for the use by the addressee(s) named herein and contain proprietary and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified
Hearing Identifier:
IndianPointUnits2and3NonPublic_EX Email Number:
2307 Mail Envelope Properties (DCB622189B67AD49AE39CD3ED1B4D99D0CFFE0A8)
Subject:
Questions re FSEIS Sent Date:
2/4/2011 10:58:25 AM Received Date:
2/4/2011 10:58:34 AM From:
Gray, Dara F Created By:
DGray@entergy.com Recipients:
"Dacimo, Fred R." <FDacimo@entergy.com>
Tracking Status: None "Stuyvenberg, Andrew" <Andrew.Stuyvenberg@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
IPCEXETSP001.etrsouth.corp.entergy.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 925 2/4/2011 10:58:34 AM Questions Regarding FSEIS 2-4-11.doc 48192 Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
Yes Reply Requested:
Yes Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
Follow up
1 ENTERGYS QUESTIONS REGARDING NRCs FSEIS ON INDIAN POINTs LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION Summarized below are certain observations and questions regarding the analysis in the FSEIS, Appendices H and I, of potential impacts to due impingement and entrainment.
- 1. The numbers of organisms entrained, as listed in Table I-42, are too large by a factor of 1,000.
- 2. Given NRCs criteria for the three levels of potential impact (small, moderate, and large), we would like to better understand how the assessment method employed in the FSEIS was used to establish large potential impacts - that would be characterized by the destabilization of an important attribute of a fish population.
We are seeking clarification of the FSEIS assessment of destabilization.
- 3. We would like to better understand why the FSEIS employs a Strength of Connection (SOC) method in the assessment of impingement and entrainment impacts that employs assumptions about exponential differences over time -- the SOC method seems to project differences, based on perceived impacts of losses, that are difficult to reconcile with population dynamics and longstanding wildlife management decision-making As a result, with a sufficient number of years included in the model projection, the method would conclude a high strength of connection for a species, even if entrainment and impingement mortality rates approached zero, for any nuclear facility. [NOTE: This may be too much to send, in which case, eliminate the second sentence.]
- 4. We are seeking clarification on why estimates of entrainment mortality rates used in the Strength of Connection analysis were based solely on the small fraction of fish present in a limited area of the Hudson River, rather than on population abundance, despite longstanding information regarding movement and location of relevant fish.