ML092430384
| ML092430384 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/2009 |
| From: | Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Division of License Renewal |
| Robinson, J NRR/DLR/RPB1 415-2878 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ml092430376 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC ME1831, TAC ME1832, FOIA/PA-2011-0113 | |
| Download: ML092430384 (252) | |
Text
Applicants Environmental Report -
Operating License Renewal Stage Hope Creek Generating Station Unit 1 Docket No. 50-354 License No. NPF-57 PSEG Nuclear, LLC
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Environmental Report Table of Contents Table of Contents Section Page Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................. AA-1 Conversion Factors................................................................................................................. AA-5 Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose Of and Need For Action .................................................................1-3 1.2 Environmental Report Scope and Methodology ...........................................1-4 1.3 Hope Creek Generating Station Licensee and Ownership...........................1-7 Chapter 2 Site and Environmental Interfaces .........................................................................2-1 2.1 Location and Features..................................................................................2-3 2.2 Aquatic Resources .......................................................................................2-6 2.2.1 PSEG Biological Monitoring Program................................................2-7 2.2.1.1 Bottom Trawl Sampling ......................................................2-8 2.2.1.2 Pelagic Trawl Sampling....................................................2-10 2.2.1.3 Ichthyoplankton Sampling ................................................2-10 2.2.1.4 Beach Seine Surveys.......................................................2-11 2.2.2 Potential Impact of HCGS Operations on Aquatic Resources.........2-12 2.2.3 Status of Aquatic Resources ...........................................................2-13 2.3 Ground-Water Resources...........................................................................2-16 2.4 Critical and Important Terrestrial Habitats ..................................................2-18 2.5 Threatened or Endangered Species...........................................................2-21 2.6 Demography ...............................................................................................2-28 2.6.1 Regional Demography .....................................................................2-28 2.6.2 Minority and Low-Income Populations.............................................2-30 2.6.2.1 Minority Populations.........................................................2-30 2.6.2.2 Low-Income Populations..................................................2-31 2.7 Taxes..........................................................................................................2-45 2.8 Land Use Planning .....................................................................................2-47 2.8.1 Salem County ..................................................................................2-47 2.8.2 City of Salem ...................................................................................2-47 2.8.3 Lower Alloways Creek Township.....................................................2-47 2.9 Social Services and Public Facilities ..........................................................2-49 2.9.1 Public Water Supply ........................................................................2-49 2.9.1.1 Salem County...................................................................2-49 2.9.1.2 Cumberland County .........................................................2-49 2.9.1.3 Gloucester County ...........................................................2-49 2.9.1.4 New Castle County, Delaware .........................................2-50 2.9.2 Transportation..................................................................................2-50 2.10 Meteorology and Air Quality .......................................................................2-54 2.11 Historic and Archaeological Resources......................................................2-56 2.11.1 Regional History in Brief ..................................................................2-56 2.11.2 Pre-Operational and Operational Historic and Archaeological Analysis ..........................................................................................2-56 2.11.3 Current Historic and Archaeological Analysis..................................2-56 2.12 Known or Reasonably Foreseeable Projects in Site Vicinity ......................2-58 2.12.1 Water Users in the Delaware River Basin in the Vicinity of HCGS .........................................................................................2-58 2.12.2 Electric Capacity in the Immediate Vicinity of HCGS.......................2-58 Hope Creek Generating Station Page iii License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Table of Contents Table of Contents (Continued)
Section Page 2.12.2.1 Salem Nuclear Generating Station...................................2-58 2.12.2.2 Potential New Generating Unit(s).....................................2-59 2.12.2.3 Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway ............................................2-59 Chapter 3 The Proposed Action..............................................................................................3-1 3.1 General Plant Information.............................................................................3-3 3.1.1 Reactor and Containment Systems ...................................................3-3 3.1.2 Fuel Enrichment and Burn-Up ...........................................................3-4 3.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems................................................3-4 3.1.3.1 Surface Water ....................................................................3-5 3.1.3.2 Ground Water.....................................................................3-6 3.1.4 Radioactivewaste Management Systems........................................3-10 3.1.4.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste Systems..................................3-10 3.1.4.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste Systems .............................3-10 3.1.4.3 Solid Radioactive Waste Systems ...................................3-11 3.1.5 Non-Radioactive Waste Management Systems ..............................3-12 3.1.6 Transmission system .......................................................................3-13 3.2 Refurbishment Activities .............................................................................3-23 3.3 Programs and Activities for Managing the Effects of Aging........................3-24 3.4 Employment................................................................................................3-25 3.4.1 Current Work force ..........................................................................3-25 3.4.2 License Renewal Increment ............................................................3-25 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Mitigating Actions ...................................................................................................................4-1 Category 1 and NA License Renewal Issues.........................................................4-5 Category 2 License Renewal Issues......................................................................4-6 4.1 Water Use Conflicts (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water from a Small River with Low Flow).............................4-7 4.2 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages .................................4-8 4.3 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish ...............................................................4-9 4.4 Heat Shock .................................................................................................4-10 4.5 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using >100 gpm of Ground Water)............................................................................................4-11 4.6 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using Cooling Towers Withdrawing Makeup Water From a Small River) ......................................4-12 4.7 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using Ranney Wells) ........................4-13 4.8 Degradation of Ground-Water Quality ........................................................4-14 4.9 Impacts of Refurbishment on Terrestrial Resources ..................................4-15 4.10 Threatened or Endangered Species...........................................................4-16 4.11 Air Quality During Refurbishment (Non-Attainment or Maintenance Areas) ...................................................................................4-18 4.12 Microbiological Organisms .........................................................................4-19 4.13 Electric Shock from Transmission-Line-Induced Currents .........................4-20 4.14 Housing Impacts.........................................................................................4-23 4.15 Public Water Supply ...................................................................................4-25 4.16 Education Impacts from Refurbishment .....................................................4-27 Page iv Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Table of Contents Table of Contents (Continued)
Section Page 4.17 Offsite Land Use.........................................................................................4-28 4.17.1 Offsite Land Use - Refurbishment ...................................................4-28 4.17.2 Offsite Land Use - License Renewal Term ......................................4-29 4.18 Transportation ............................................................................................4-33 4.19 Historic and Archaeological Resources......................................................4-34 4.20 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA)........................................4-36 4.21 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................4-38 4.21.1 Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources..............4-38 4.21.1.1 Aquatic Resources ...........................................................4-38 4.21.1.2 Terrestrial Resources.......................................................4-39 4.21.2 Cumulative Impacts to Ground Water..............................................4-40 4.21.3 Cumulative Impacts to Threatened or Endangered Species ...........4-40 4.21.4 Socioeconomic Cumulative Impacts................................................4-41 4.21.5 Cumulative Impacts to Human Health .............................................4-42 Chapter 5 Assessment of New and Significant Information ....................................................5-1 5.1 Discussion ....................................................................................................5-3 Chapter 6 Summary of License Renewal Impacts and Mitigating Actions..............................6-1 6.1 License Renewal Impacts.............................................................................6-3 6.2 Mitigation ......................................................................................................6-7 6.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts......................................................................6-8 6.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource Commitments .................................6-9 6.5 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity of the Environment.........6-10 Chapter 7 Alternatives to the Proposed Action .......................................................................7-1 7.1 No-Action Alternative....................................................................................7-5 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs ......................................7-7 7.2.1 Alternatives Considered.....................................................................7-7 7.2.1.1 Construct and Operate Fossil-Fuel-Fired Generation .........................................................................7-9 7.2.1.2 Construct and Operate New Nuclear Generating Capacity...........................................................................7-10 7.2.1.3 Purchased Power.............................................................7-11 7.2.1.4 Demand-Side Management .............................................7-11 7.2.1.5 Other Alternatives ............................................................7-14 7.2.2 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives ............................................7-21 7.2.2.1 Gas-Fired Generation ......................................................7-21 7.2.2.2 Coal-Fired Generation......................................................7-24 7.2.2.3 New Nuclear Capacity......................................................7-27 7.2.2.4 Purchased Power.............................................................7-27 7.2.2.5 Conclusion .......................................................................7-28 Chapter 8 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of License Renewal with the Alternatives ............................................................................................................8-1 Chapter 9 Status of Compliance .............................................................................................9-1 9.1 Proposed Action ...........................................................................................9-3 9.1.1 General ..............................................................................................9-3 9.1.2 Threatened or Endangered Species..................................................9-4 Hope Creek Generating Station Page v License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Table of Contents Table of Contents (Continued)
Section Page 9.1.3 Historic Preservation..........................................................................9-4 9.1.4 Water Quality (401) Certification........................................................9-4 9.1.5 Coastal Zone Management Program Compliance.............................9-5 9.2 Alternatives.................................................................................................9-13 Chapter 10 References...........................................................................................................10-1 Appendices A - NRC NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants B - NJPDES Permit C - Special Status Species Correspondence D - State Historic Preservation Officer Correspondence E - SAMA Analysis F - 401 Water Quality Certification Page vi Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Table of Contents Table of Contents (Continued)
List of Tables Table Page 1.2-1 Environmental Report Responses to License Renewal Environmental Regulatory Requirements ..........................................................................................1-5 2.5-1 Threatened or Endangered Species Recorded in Salem County and Counties Crossed by Transmission Lines...............................................................................2-24 2.6-1 Population and Growth Rates for Surrounding Metropolitan Statistical Areas ........2-33 2.6-2 Residential Distribution of HCGS Employees..........................................................2-34 2.6-3 Decennial Populations and Growth Rates ...............................................................2-35 2.6-4 Population and Growth Rates for the City of Salem and Lower Alloways Creek Township .................................................................................................................2-35 2.6-5 Environmental Justice Summary .............................................................................2-36 2.7-1 Tax Information for HCGS and the Energy and Environmental Resource Center, 2003 - 2007..............................................................................................................2-46 2.9-1 Major Water Suppliers (serving 5,000 or more people) in Salem, Cumberland, and Gloucester Counties, New Jersey ....................................................................2-51 2.9-2 Major Water Suppliers (serving 5,000 or more people) in New Castle County, Delaware..................................................................................................................2-52 2.9-3 Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts on Roads in the Vicinity of HCGS .................2-52 2.11-1 Sites Listed on the National Register of Historic Places within a 10-km (6-mi)
Radius of HCGS ......................................................................................................2-57 3.1-1 Salem and HCGS Annual Ground-Water Pumpage (MG), 2002-2008 ...................3-15 3.1-2 Ground-Water Elevations, 1987 ..............................................................................3-16 3.1-3 Ground-Water Elevation Data Range (in feet) for Salem and HCGS Ground-Water Wells, 2000 - 2008. .........................................................................3-16 3.1-4 Transmission Lines Associated with HCGS and Salem Nuclear Generating Station ....................................................................................................................3-17 4.13-1 Maximum Induced Current from HCGS and Salem Transmission Lines.................4-22 6.1-1 Environmental Impacts Related to License Renewal at HCGS Unit 1.......................6-4 7.2-1 Gas-Fired Alternative...............................................................................................7-29 7.2-2 Coal-Fired Alternative ..............................................................................................7-30 8.0-1 Impacts Comparison Summary .................................................................................8-4 8.0-2 Impacts Comparison Detail........................................................................................8-5 9.1-1 Authorizations for Current HCGS Operations............................................................9-6 9.1-2 Authorizations for Hope Creek License Renewal ....................................................9-12 Hope Creek Generating Station Page vii License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Table of Contents Table of Contents (Continued)
List of Figures Figure Page 2.1-1 50-Mile Region...........................................................................................................2-4 2.1-2 6-Mile Region.............................................................................................................2-5 2.2-1 PSEG Aquatic Sampling Zones...............................................................................2-15 2.6-1 Black Minority Populations.......................................................................................2-38 2.6-2 Asian Minority Populations ......................................................................................2-39 2.6-3 Other Minority Populations ......................................................................................2-40 2.6-4 Multi-Racial Minority Populations.............................................................................2-41 2.6-5 Aggregate of Minorities Populations ........................................................................2-42 2.6-6 Hispanic Ethnicity Minority Populations ...................................................................2-43 2.6-7 Low-Income Households .........................................................................................2-44 2.9-1 Transportation Routes to HCGS..............................................................................2-53 3.1-1 Site Boundary ..........................................................................................................3-18 3.1-2 Hope Creek Site Layout...........................................................................................3-19 3.1-3 Transmission System ..............................................................................................3-20 3.1-4 Salem RGPP Wells..................................................................................................3-21 3.1-5 HCGS RGPP Wells .................................................................................................3-22 7.2-1 PJM Regional Generating Capacity (2006) .............................................................7-31 7.2-2 PJM Regional Energy Output by Fuel Type (2006) .................................................7-31 Page viii Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronyms and Abbreviations AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic AEC [U.S.] Atomic Energy Commission AEI Adverse Environmental Impact [analysis]
AIT alternative intake technologies AQCR Air Quality Control Region bgs below ground surface BNE NJDEP Bureau of Nuclear Engineering BOD biochemical oxygen demand BTA best technology available Btu British thermal unit BWR boiling water reactor C degrees Celsius CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule CDS Comprehensive Demonstration Study CEEEP Center for Energy, Economic & Environmental Policy CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFC chlorofluorocarbon CFR Code of Federal Regulations cm centimeter CO carbon monoxide CPUE catch per unit effort CST condensate storage tank CVCS Chemical and Volume Control System CWA Clean Water Act CWS Circulating Water System DAW Dry Active Waste DNREC Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control DRBC Delaware River Basin Commission DSM demand side management EPA [U.S.] Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act
°F degrees Fahrenheit FES Final Environmental Statement FHB Fuel Handling Building fps feet per second ft feet ft2 square feet ft3 cubic feet Hope Creek Generating Station Page AA-1 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronyms and Abbreviations (Continued) ft3/sec cubic feet per second gal gallon GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement [for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants]
gpd gallons per day gpm gallons per minute GWh gigawatt-hours GWS Gaseous Waste System HCGS Hope Creek Generating Station HEPA high efficiency particulate air in inch(es)
IPA integrated plant assessment IPE individual plant examination ISFSI Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation ITS Incidental Take Statement km kilometers km2 square kilometers kV kilovolt kWh kilowatt hour lb pound LLC Limited Liability Company LLRSF Low Level Radioactive [Waste] Storage Facility LOS level of service LWMS Liquid Waste Management System m meter m2 square meter m3 cubic meter MACCS2 MECOR Accident Consequence Code System Version 2 MGD million gallons per day mi mile MOU memorandum of understanding msl mean sea level MUA Municipal Utilities Authority MWe Megawatts - electric MWt megawatts - thermal NA not applicable, not available, or not analyzed NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NESC National Electrical Safety Code Page AA-2 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronyms and Abbreviations (Continued)
NJBPU New Jersey Board of Public Utilities NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection NJPDES New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx oxides of nitrogen NRC [U.S.] Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRLWDS Non-Radioactive Liquid Waste Disposal System OTEC Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion OWS oil-water separator pcb polychlorinated biphenyls pCi/l pico-curies per liter PHI Pepco Holdings, Inc.
PJM PJM Interconnection, LLC PM2.5 particulates with diameters less than 2.5 microns PM10 particulates with diameters less than 10 microns ppt parts per thousand PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment PRM Potomac-Raritan-Magothy PSA Probabilistic Safety Assessment PSEG PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Public Service Electric and Gas (the operating company predecessor for PSEG Nuclear, LLC), Public Service Enterprise Group PSE&G Public Service Electric and Gas (the existing electricity transmission and distribution company) psig pounds per square inch gauge PW production well PWR pressurized water reactor RCS Reactor Coolant System RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative RGPP Regional Groundwater Protection Program RLWS Radioactive Liquid Waste System RM river mile ROI region of interest RPS Renewable Portfolio Standards Salem Salem Nuclear Generating Station SAMA Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives SAR Safety Analysis Report sec second Hope Creek Generating Station Page AA-3 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronyms and Abbreviations (Continued) scfm standard cubic feet per minute SCR selective catalytic reduction SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SIP State Implementation Plan SMITTR surveillance, monitoring, inspections, testing, trending, and recordkeeping SO2 sulfur dioxide SOX oxides of sulfur SWIS Service Water Intake Structure SWS Service Water System TLD Thermoluminescent dosimeter TSP total suspended particulates USCB U.S. Census Bureau USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey Page AA-4 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Conversion Factors Conversion Factors This table is derived from Thompson, A. and B. N. Taylor 2008. Guide for the Use of the International System of Units. NIST Special Publication 811, 2008 Edition. Gaithersburg, MD, US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/sp811.pdf.
To convert from to Multiply by Area acre hectare 4.047 E-01 2 2 square mile (mi ) kilometer (km ) 2.589 E+00 Flow cubic foot per second (ft3/sec) cubic meter per second (m3/sec) 2.831 E-02 Length foot (ft) meter (m) 3.048 E-01 inch (in) meter (m) 2.54 E-02 inch (in) centimeter (cm) 2.54 E+00 mile (mi) kilometer (km) 1.609 E+00 Mass pound kilogram 4.535 E-01 ton (short ton) metric ton 9.072 E-01 Temperature Interval
°F (interval) °C (interval) 5.55 E-01 Volume gallon (gal) liter (l) 3.785 E+00 To convert from to Use this formula degrees Fahrenheit (°F) degrees Celsius (°C) t°C = (t°F - 32°) / 1.8 Hope Creek Generating Station Page AA-5 License Renewal Application
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Chapter 1 Introduction Hope Creek Generating Station Environmental Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Environmental Report Section 1.1 Purpose Of and Need For Action 1.1 Purpose Of and Need For Action The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses the operation of domestic nuclear power plants in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC implementing regulations. PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) operates the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) pursuant to NRC Operating License NPF-57. The license will expire on April 11, 2026.
PSEG Nuclear, LLC, is seeking license renewal of the HCGS operating license and has prepared this Environmental Report in conjunction with its application to NRC to renew the HCGS operating license, as provided by the following NRC regulations:
Title 10, Energy, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 54, Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants, Section 54.23, Contents of Application-Environmental Information (10 CFR 54.23) and Title 10, Energy, CFR, Part 51, Environmental Protection Requirements for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, Section 51.53, Postconstruction Environmental Reports, Subsection 51.53(c), Operating License Renewal Stage [10 CFR 51.53(c)].
NRC has defined the purpose and need for the proposed action, the renewal of the operating license for nuclear power plants such as HCGS, as follows:
...The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decision makers. (NRC 1996a)
The renewed operating license would allow HCGS to operate until April 11, 2046, an additional 20 years of operation beyond the current licensed operating period of 40 years.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 1-3 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 1.2 Environmental Report Scope and Methodology 1.2 Environmental Report Scope and Methodology NRC regulations for domestic licensing of nuclear power plants require environmental review of applications to renew operating licenses. NRC regulation 10 CFR 51.53(c) requires that an applicant for license renewal submit with its application a separate document entitled Applicants Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage. In determining what information to include in the HCGS Environmental Report, PSEG has relied on NRC regulations and the following supporting documents that provide additional insight into the regulatory requirements:
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS),
as supplemented (NRC 1996b and 1999a);
NRC supplemental information published in the Federal Register (NRC 1996a, 1996c, 1996d, and 1999b);
Regulatory Analysis for Amendments to Regulations for the Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses (NRC 1996e);
Public Comments on the Proposed 10 CFR Part 51 Rule for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses and Supporting Documents: Review of Concerns and NRC Staff Response (NRC 1996f); and Supplement 1 to Regulatory Guide 4.2, Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Report for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses (NRC 2000).
PSEG has prepared Table 1.2-1 to verify conformance with regulatory requirements. Table 1.2-1 indicates the sections in the HCGS Environmental Report that respond to each requirement of 10 CFR 51.53(c). In addition, each responsive section is prefaced by a boxed quote of the regulatory language and applicable supporting document language.
Page 1-4 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 1.2 Tables Table 1.2-1 Environmental Report Responses to License Renewal Environmental Regulatory Requirements Regulatory Requirement Responsive Environmental Report Section(s) 10 CFR 51.53(c)(1) Entire Document 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2), Sentences 1 and 2 3.0 Proposed Action 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2), Sentence 3 7.2.2 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and 10 CFR 4.0 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed 51.45(b)(1) Action and Mitigating Actions 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and 10 CFR 6.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 51.45(b)(2) 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and 10 CFR 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 51.45(b)(3) 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and 10 CFR 8.0 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of License 51.45(b)(3) Renewal with the Alternatives 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and 10 CFR 6.5 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity of 51.45(b)(4) the Environment 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and 10 CFR 6.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource 51.45(b)(5) Commitments 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and 10 CFR 51.45(c) 4.0 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Mitigating Actions 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and 10 CFR 51.45(c) 6.2 Mitigation 7.2.2 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 8.0 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of License Renewal with the Alternatives 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and 10 CFR 51.45(d) 9.0 Status of Compliance 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and 10 CFR 51.45(e) 4.0 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Mitigating Actions 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A) 4.1 Water Use Conflicts (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water from a Small River with Low Flow) 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) 4.2 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) 4.3 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) 4.4 Heat Shock 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C) 4.5 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using >100 gpm of Ground Water) 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C) 4.7 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using Ranney Wells) 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D) 4.8 Degradation of Ground-Water Quality 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E) 4.9 Impacts of Refurbishment on Terrestrial Resources 4.10 Threatened or Endangered Species 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F) 4.11 Air Quality During Refurbishment (Non-Attainment or Maintenance Areas)
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 1-5 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 1.2 Tables Table 1.2-1 Environmental Report Responses to License Renewal Environmental Regulatory Requirements (Continued)
Regulatory Requirement Responsive Environmental Report Section(s) 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G) 4.12 Microbiological Organisms 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H) 4.13 Electric Shock from Transmission-Line-Induced Currents 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I) 4.14 Housing Impacts 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I) 4.15 Public Water Supply 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I) 4.16 Education Impacts from Refurbishment 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I) 4.17 Offsite Land Use 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) 4.18 Transportation 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K) 4.19 Historic and Archaeological Resources 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) 4.20 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iii) 4.0 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Mitigating Actions 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iii) 6.2 Mitigation 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) 5.0 Assessment of New and Significant Information 10 CFR 51, Appendix B, Table B-1, 2.6.2 Minority and Low-Income Populations Footnote 6 Page 1-6 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 1.3 Hope Creek Generating Station Licensee and Ownership 1.3 Hope Creek Generating Station Licensee and Ownership HCGS is owned by PSEG Nuclear, LLC, which is a division of PSEG Power, LLC, the independent power production and energy marketing division of Public Service Enterprise Group, a corporation formed under the laws of the State of New Jersey in 1985 and headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.
In 2000, PSEG Nuclear, LLC obtained the nuclear generation assets from Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G), the operating predecessor to PSEG Nuclear, LLC, as required by the Electric Discount and Energy Competition Act and implementing New Jersey Board of Public Utilities orders. PSEG Nuclear, LLC holds the HCGS license and is applying to renew that license.
Reference documents identified in this Environmental Report as being authored by PSE&G (the operating predecessor company for PSEG Nuclear), Public Service Enterprise Group, or PSEG Nuclear, were developed during the different ownership periods of the generating station.
Within this Environmental Report, these company designations may be interchangeably referred to as PSEG.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 1-7 License Renewal Application
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Chapter 2 Site and Environmental Interfaces Hope Creek Generating Station Environmental Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Environmental Report Section 2.1 Location and Features 2.1 Location and Features HCGS is at the southern end of Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. The Delaware River is about 4 kilometers (km; 2.5 miles [mi]) wide at this location. HCGS is located at River Mile 51, 27 km (17 mi) south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Philadelphia is about 64 km (40 mi) northeast and the city of Salem, New Jersey, is 13 km (8 mi) northeast of the site (AEC 1973). The area adjacent to HCGS is in the Delaware River's Estuary Transition Zone, as defined by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) Delaware Estuary Program Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee and the Delaware River Basin Commission Zone 5 (PSEG 2006a, Section 4). Figures 2.1-1 and 2.1-2 are the 80-km (50-mi) and 10-km (6-mi) vicinity maps, respectively.
Artificial Island is a 607 hectare (1,500 acre) island that was created, beginning early in the twentieth century, when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began disposing of hydraulic dredge spoils within a progressively enlarged diked area established around a natural bar that projected into the river. Habitats on the low and flat 607-hectare (1,500-acre) island, which has an average elevation of about 2.7 meters (m; 9 feet [ft]) above mean sea level (msl) and a maximum elevation of about 5.5 m (18 ft) above msl, can best be characterized as tidal marsh and grassland. (AEC 1973)
HCGS occupies about 62 hectares (153 acres) of approximately 300 hectares (740 acres)1 owned by PSEG on Artificial Island. The Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem) is also located within the 300-hectare (740-acre) parcel owned by PSEG.2 The remainder of Artificial Island is undeveloped. The northern portion of Artificial Island and a 1.6-km-wide (1-mi-wide) inland strip of land abutting the island are owned by the U.S. Government (AEC 1973). The State of New Jersey owns the remainder of Artificial Island as well as much nearby inland property. The northernmost tip of Artificial Island, which the U. S., Government owns, is within the State of Delaware boundary, which was established based on historical land grants related to the tide line at that time. Distance to the HCGS site boundary from the HCGS reactor building is 902 meters (2,960 ft). The nearest residence is approximately 5.5 km (3.4 mi) west of the HCGS site in Bay View Beach, Delaware. Other nearby residences are 5.6 km (3.5 mi) east-northeast and 5.6 km (3.5 mi) northwest of the HCGS site. The population center distance (defined in 10 CFR 100 [Reactor Site Criteria] as the distance from the reactor to the nearest boundary of a densely populated center with 25,000 residents or more) is 25 km (15.5 mi). The area within 24 km (15 mi) of the site is primarily utilized for agriculture. Heavy industry exists more than 24 km (15 mi) north of the site (PSEG 2009c).
There are no major highways or railroads within about 11 km (7 mi) of the HCGS site; the only land access is a road that PSEG constructed to connect its property with an existing secondary road about 5 km (3 mi) to the east. Barge traffic has access to the site by way of the Intracoastal Waterway channel maintained in the Delaware River. (AEC 1973)
Section 3.1 describes key features of HCGS, including the reactor and containment systems, cooling water system, waste management systems, and transmission system.
1 Throughout this report, the acreage of the PSEG-owned property on Artificial Island is reported as approximately 740 acres, which is consistent with the documentation for the original property conveyance. However, a recent survey indicates the PSEG-owned property size as 734 acres. The acreage change is likely the result of using improved technology that more accurately measures the boundaries of irregular surfaces in difficult physical environments, such as the riparian environment along the eastern boundary of the PSEG-owned property on Artificial Island. For the original conveyance, the meandering boundary line would have been approximated using straight lines.
2 This Environmental Report is specific to HCGS and includes all the information necessary for the NRC to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for HCGS. PSEG has prepared a second Environmental Report that is specific to Salem.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-3 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.1 Figures
"*
Legend Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations D State Boundary
_ _==:::::JI_ _ _-=====:::::::JIMiles o 5 10 20 30
[-.J County Boundary
- Primary Highway with Limited Access
~ Primary Highway Hope Creek Generating Station Urban Area PSEG Water License Renewal Environmental Report Figure 2.1-1 50-Mile Region Page 2-4 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.1 Figures
"*
Legend Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations
- Populated Place
.-I:l--=:___-======-__
o 0.5 2 3 4 Miles
[-.J County Boundary
- Primary Highway with Limited Access
~ Primary Highway Hope Creek Generating Station
- Secondary Road PSEG
- Local Road License Renewal Environmental Report Water Figure 2.1-2 6-Mile Vicinity Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-5 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.2 Aquatic Resources 2.2 Aquatic Resources The Delaware River rises on the western slope of the Catskill Mountains in south-central New York and flows south approximately 595 km (370 mi) to Liston Point, where it enters Delaware Bay (PSEG 1984). Delaware Bay extends another 80 km (50 mi) to the Atlantic Ocean. The Delaware River watershed encompasses parts of New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey and drains an area of approximately 35,050 square kilometers (km2) (13,533 square miles [mi2]) (PSEG 2006a, Section 4). Major tributaries include the Lehigh River, which joins the Delaware at Easton, Pennsylvania, and the Schuylkill River, which joins the Delaware at Philadelphia. The Delaware River has a total volume of about 450 billion ft3 (PSEG 2006a, Section 4).
Near Trenton, New Jersey, the Delaware River crosses the Fall Line, the narrow zone that separates the rocky Piedmont physiographic region from the sandy Coastal Plain. At the Fall Line, the river descends through rapids (falls) and then flows into the Delaware Estuary, which is defined as the tidally influenced portion of the Delaware River between Trenton, New Jersey, and the mouth of Delaware Bay, a distance of approximately 214 km (133 mi) (PSEG 2006a; Section 4).
The Delaware Estuary ranges in width from 0.3 km to 43 km (0.2 mi to 27 mi), and has a surface area of more than 2,590 km2 (1,000 mi2) (PSEG 2006a, Section 4). The Estuary has a mean depth of 5.8 m (19 ft) with a maximum depth of nearly 45 m (148 ft) in Delaware Bay. The surface area of the main stem of the Estuary is about 1878 km2 (725 mi2), with tidal creeks adding about another 85 km2 (33 mi2). Approximately 798 km2 (308 mi2) of tidal marshes surround the Estuary, playing an important role in water and nutrient exchange and influencing its water chemistry and biological communities (PSEG 1984). HCGS is located adjacent to the Delaware Estuary. However, the documents referenced in this Environmental Report refer inconsistently to the water body adjacent to HCGS as either the river or the estuary.
Because the affected water body is an estuary, this Environmental Report refers to it as the Estuary or the Delaware Estuary. An estuary is the tidally influenced interface between fresh water and salt water. As such, it supports a variety of habitats, and species common to both fresh water and marine environments.
The fresh-water flow into the Delaware Estuary averages 645 m3 per second (cubic meter
[m3]/sec; 22,783 ft3/sec), approximately half of which is contributed by the Delaware River at Trenton (PSEG 1984). The balance of the flow is contributed by the Schuylkill River and all other tributaries below Trenton. By contrast, tidal flow (or flux) near the site (at River Km 80
[River Mile 50]) has been estimated to be 11,324 m3/sec (400,000 ft3/sec), which equates to 3.6 x 1011 m3/year (1.3 x 1013 ft3/year) (PSEG 1984). As a consequence, current speed and direction throughout the Estuary are determined primarily by tides. However, circulation patterns in the Delaware Estuary are influenced by river discharge. In general, as Delaware River discharge increases, there is a tendency for the Estuary to shift from well-mixed or partially mixed to a stratified or two-layered circulation pattern in which less-dense fresh (river) water overlies more-dense sea water, creating a salt wedge.
The Delaware River, Estuary, and Bay system is a continuum of environments: freshwater, tidal fresh water, tidal brackish water, and marine. Salinity in the Delaware River, Estuary, and Bay varies from fresh water at Trenton to typical ocean water concentrations of about 34 parts per thousand on the continental shelf off the mouth of the Bay. Variables such as freshwater discharge, tidal phase, basin morphology, and meteorological conditions affect salinity. In the Page 2-6 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.2 Aquatic Resources vicinity of HCGS, salinity ranges seasonally from about 0.5 to 20 parts per thousand (PSEG 2007a).
Water circulation within the Delaware Estuary affects the occurrence, distribution, and abundance of organisms both directly (as a result of net water transport, turbulent mixing, and exchange of water among the system's components) and indirectly (as a result of its influence on biologically important water quality parameters such as salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity). Tidal circulation, fresh-water discharge from the drainage basin and upstream impoundments, wind-induced flushing, and salinity-induced density gradients are major forces that influence the water circulation patterns in the system and result in its highly dynamic physical and chemical environment (PSEG 2007a).
The distribution and abundance of aquatic organisms in the Delaware River, Estuary, and Bay system is determined primarily by salinity, but is also influenced by other water quality parameters, especially temperature and dissolved oxygen. Salinity gradients move up and down the Estuary in response to changes in fresh-water inflow, which varies twice daily with tides and seasonally and annually with precipitation in the watershed. Water temperatures likewise vary seasonally, but changes are moderated by the large volume of ocean water entering the Bay with each tidal cycle, and river inflow. The buffering effect of the ocean water is most noticeable in the lower Bay and least noticeable in the upper Bay. The waters of the Delaware Estuary are generally well-oxygenated, with dissolved oxygen levels varying inversely with temperature. (PSEG 1984)
The major contributions to the food base of the Delaware Estuary are detritus from marsh plant production, material washed in from the tributaries, and phytoplankton production in the middle and lower bay. The area of the Estuary in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS supports very low levels of phytoplanktonic photosynthesis because high sediment loads and associated turbidity limit light penetration. Also, there are low concentrations of immature planktonic stages of commercially important shellfish, no commercially important species of zooplankton, and no threatened or endangered species of zooplankton. (PSEG 1999a, Appendix E)
The value of the Delaware River ecosystem, and its need to be protected, has been recognized for more than 40 years. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy, representing the United States, and the governors of New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware signed the Delaware River Basin Compact which created the Delaware River Basin Commission. The Commission is responsible for administering a comprehensive multipurpose plan to provide effective flood control; conserve and develop ground and surface water supplies; develop recreational facilities; propagate fish and wildlife; promote related forestry, soil conservation, and watershed projects; protect and aid fisheries dependent upon the water resources; develop hydroelectric potential; improve navigation; control the movement of salt-water; control stream pollution; and regulate stream flow (DRBC 1961).
2.2.1 PSEG BIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM HCGS is located adjacent to Salem. The aquatic resources in the Delaware Estuary at HCGS are the same as those at Salem. PSEG has conducted biological monitoring of the Delaware Estuary since 1968. In fulfillment of requirements of the 1994 and 2001 New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permits for Salem, PSEG developed and implemented an extensive biological monitoring program for the Delaware Estuary, which is described in the Salem license renewal Environmental Report, along with a summary of some recent results Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-7 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.2 Aquatic Resources (PSEG 2009a). The information and analyses of the aquatic community in the Delaware Estuary are also relevant to HCGS.
Trawl surveys have been conducted from the mouth of the Bay to the upper Estuary at Trenton (referred to as bay wide in some reports) using both bottom trawls and pelagic trawls. In addition, ichthyoplankton was collected for several years. Sampling began in 1968 for the then-planned Salem Nuclear Generating Station and has been conducted continuously since that time. PSEG has changed the program scope or gear deployment as the survey purposes changed in response to evolving regulatory requirements.
The PSEG bay-wide monitoring area was initially divided into eight sampling zones, and six additional freshwater zones were added later (Figure 2.2-1): Zones 1, 2, and 3 (lower Bay) are near the mouth of the Bay. Zones 4, 5, and 6 are located in the middle Bay. Zones 7 and 8 (upper Bay) are in the lower Delaware River. Zones 9 through 14 are in the fresh-water portion of the Estuary, extending to the falls at Trenton. These sampling zones, the EPAs Delaware Estuary Program zones, the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) zones, and the New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards zones are independent of each other. As a point of reference when reviewing the various reports on the Delaware River, Estuary, and Bay system, the EPAs Delaware Estuary Program locates HCGS in its Estuary Transition Zone, the New Jersey beach seine sampling program locates HCGS in Region 1, the DRBC water quality zone is 5, and the PSEG monitoring program locates HCGS in its Zone 7.
Primarily two data sources have been used to describe the fishery in the vicinity of HCGS. The NJPDES renewal application for Salem that PSEG submitted in 2006 (PSEG 2006a) includes the Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS; Section 4) and Adverse Environmental Impact (AEI) analysis (Section 5). These studies summarize data from a recent (2002-2004) three-year period of intensive sampling on distribution and abundance of fish in the vicinity of the Station.
The CDS discussion is focused on Zone 7, an approximately ten-mile-long reach of the Estuary (Figure 2.2-1) that includes the Station. Each year PSEG produces an annual report of sampling results. The 2007 report is most frequently referenced here because it provides the most recent snapshot. However, annual reports have been produced since 1995, and taken together, the data indicate a typical fishery with some species common every year, and some species common to uncommon in different years. Fish were sampled using a variety of gear types (otter [bottom] trawl, pelagic frame trawl, plankton net, and beach seine) to ensure that a range of habitats and life stages were adequately characterized. The 1999 Salem NJPDES renewal application also contains extensive analyses and data compilations (PSEG 1999a).
Recent monitoring has focused on the following target species: blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), alewife (A. pseudoharengus), American shad (A.
sapidissima), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), white perch (Morone americana), striped bass (M.
saxatilis), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulates), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia), and bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix).
2.2.1.1 Bottom Trawl Sampling PSEG has conducted a daytime bottom trawl program since 1968. During each year of sampling, samples were collected beginning in the spring and ending in the fall. Sampling protocols have changed over the years. For example, until 1978 the tows were taken with a fixed-length towline. Since 1979, the trawls have been collected with a variable-length towline.
In 1995, the direction of the trawl changed from towing with the current to towing into the Page 2-8 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.2 Aquatic Resources current. Since 1995, daytime bottom trawls have been conducted monthly from April through November at randomly selected stations within the monitoring area, which extends from the mouth of the Delaware Bay (River Mile 0) to just north of the Delaware Memorial Bridge (River Mile 70).
Data collected from bottom trawl studies included the number of specimens per finfish species, individual lengths, and sex. All blue crabs were enumerated. Other data collected included tide, air and water temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, secchi depth (visibility), and water depth.
Three species dominated bottom trawl collections from Zone 7 over the 2002-2004 period:
Atlantic croaker, hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus), a non-target species, and white perch (PSEG 2006a, Section 4). These three species made up 81 to 88 percent, per annum, of all fish in bottom trawl samples and were present in relatively high numbers in all three years. In 2002, 69.7 percent of fish collected in Zone 7 bottom trawl samples were Atlantic croaker; with hogchoker and bay anchovy making up 13.1 and 5.7 percent, respectively, of fish collected. In 2003, hogchoker (35.7 percent), Atlantic croaker (30.7 percent), and white perch (17.0 percent) were first, second, and third in abundance in samples. In 2004, Atlantic croaker again dominated Zone 7 bottom trawl collections (47.2 percent of fish collected), with hogchoker (24.4 percent), white perch (2 percent), and weakfish (14.7 percent) also appearing frequently in samples.
Abundance of other fish species was more variable. Weakfish, for example, were uncommon in bottom trawl samples in 2002 and 2003, but were third in abundance in 2004, when 826 weakfish were collected (nearly 15 percent of the total). Striped bass, on the other hand, were uncommon in 2002 and 2004, but ranked fourth in the number of fish captured (123 total; 6.2 percent) in bottom trawls in 2003. Bay anchovy made up six percent of fish in bottom trawl collections in 2002, but were relatively uncommon in 2003 and 2004 (less than one percent in each year).
In the 2007 bay wide bottom trawl survey, 29,966 finfish from 55 species and 2,354 blue crabs were collected in 320 trawl samples. Approximately 78 percent (23,243 individuals) of the total finfish catch comprised the target species. Atlantic croaker (38 percent) and bay anchovy (24 percent) dominated the total catch. The remaining ten target finfish species collectively represented 15.5 percent of the total finfish catch. No Atlantic silverside was caught (PSEG 2007a).
Since 1995, the Atlantic croaker has generally been the dominant or co-dominant species in bottom trawl catches, representing more than 20 percent, of the catch during each year since 2001 (PSEG 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004a, 2005, 2006b, 2007a). Atlantic croaker comprised 71 percent of the catch in 2002, 47 percent in 2004 (PSEG 2006a), and 38 percent in 2007 (PSEG 2007a). Approximately eight percent of the total Atlantic croaker catch was from Zone 7 during the most recent sampling year (PSEG 2007a). No other finfish species routinely comprises more than ten percent of the annual bay wide bottom trawl samples, although occasional high abundances have been reported. Some examples include white perch in 2003 (20 percent; PSEG 2003), weakfish in 1997 (17 percent; PSEG 1997), and hogchoker in 2000 (28 percent; PSEG 2000). In 2007, the most abundant fish caught in the area of the estuary nearest HCGS was the hogchoker (32 percent of total catch); Atlantic croaker (30 percent) was second most abundant (PSEG 2007a).
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-9 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.2 Aquatic Resources In Zone 7, catch per unit effort (CPUE) was reported by species since 2002. During those years, CPUE for Atlantic croaker showed high variability, ranging from 100.28 (in 2002) to 18.94 (in 2003). Variability was also high for other finfish (PSEG 2002, 2003, 2004a, 2005, 2006b, 2007a).
2.2.1.2 Pelagic Trawl Sampling Pelagic trawl sampling provides data on the relative abundance of juvenile organisms. PSEG conducted a pelagic trawl sampling program from 1979 through 1982, from 1988 through 1998, and then from 2002 through 2004. As was the case with the bottom trawls, sampling protocols changed during the course of the monitoring program.
From 2002 to 2004, pelagic trawls were conducted throughout the monitoring area at randomly selected stations in Zones 1 through 8, in the same manner as for bottom trawls. In addition, Zones 9 through 14 were established up-river in the Delaware Estuary. During the 2004 pelagic trawl effort, 191,672 finfish from 46 species and 277 blue crabs were collected (PSEG 2004a).
In 2004, in Zone 7, the month with the highest mean density (341.8 organisms per 1000 m3) was October.
More than 90 percent of fish collected annually in Zone 7 pelagic trawls in 2002, 2003, and 2004 were bay anchovy and Atlantic croaker (PSEG 2006a, Section 4). Approximately 99 percent of the total finfish catch during 2004 was of target species. Bay anchovy (88 percent) and Atlantic croaker (ten percent) dominated the total catch. Catches in 2002 and 2003 were consistent with the 2004 relative abundance (PSEG 2002, 2003). Weakfish and Atlantic menhaden appeared less consistently in pelagic trawl samples, but were relatively abundant in at least one year of the three. Weakfish, for example, were uncommon in pelagic trawl samples in 2002 and 2004, but were the species third most often collected in 2003 (433 fish; 5.3 percent of total). Atlantic menhaden were third in abundance in 2002 (346 fish; 4.4 percent of total), but were collected in very small numbers in 2003 and 2004, less than one percent of the total in each year.
The total abundance of target finfish species in the lower zones (1 through 6, downstream of HCGS) was similar for 2002, 2003, and 2004, with bay anchovy, Atlantic menhaden, and weakfish dominating the catches in all three years. In the fresh water sampling zones (7 through 14, near to and upstream of HCGS), the total abundance of target finfish species differed in 2003. White perch was dominant in 2002 and 2004. However in 2003, the clupeid group (unidentifiable clupeids, alewives, and American shad) was more dominant in the upper zones (PSEG 2003).
2.2.1.3 Ichthyoplankton Sampling PSEG conducted ichthyoplankton sampling from 1968 through 1982, in 1996 and 1998, and from 2002 through 2004. The PSEG ichthyoplankton field program was designed to provide relative density, standing crop, spatial distribution, and length frequency data on early life stages of target species of finfish within the Delaware River, Estuary, and Bay system. Samples were collected with a 1.0-m diameter, 500-micron mesh conical plankton net.
PSEG conducted an ichthyoplankton sampling program in all trawl zones from 2002 through 2004 with sampling twice per month, at night, from April through July, for a total of eight sampling events per year. Three species dominated Zone 7 ichthyoplankton collections in 2002, 2003, and 2004: striped bass, bay anchovy, and Morone spp (PSEG 2006a, Section 4).
Page 2-10 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.2 Aquatic Resources In each year, striped bass ranked first, bay anchovy second, and Morone spp. third in abundance. (Morone larvae were either striped bass or white perch; the early larval stages of the two species are difficult to tell apart.) Weakfish larvae were present in small numbers in 2002 and 2003 ichthyoplankton samples, but made up 10 percent of all ichthyoplankton collected in 2004. Small numbers of Atlantic croaker larvae were collected in 2002, but none were collected in 2003 and 2004. The scarcity of Atlantic croaker eggs and larvae in the area of the Station was not surprising, given the species spawning habits. Atlantic croaker spawn in late fall and winter over the nearshore Continental Shelf, in depths up to 54 meters (Diaz and Onuf 1985; Creswell et al. 2007). Eggs are pelagic, and upon hatching, early-stage larvae are primarily planktonic. Post-larvae move or are carried by flood tides into estuaries. Actual mechanisms for larval transport into estuarine nursery grounds are unclear and may involve passive transport or directed movement (Diaz and Onuf 1985).
In 2004, the last year of ichthyoplankton sampling, 3,815,437 fish eggs and larvae from the 12 target species were collected from all zones. Bay anchovy (90 percent) dominated the total catch. Weakfish was the second most abundant species (7 percent), and white perch accounted for 1 percent of the total finfish catch (PSEG 2002, 2003, 2004a).
2.2.1.4 Beach Seine Surveys The bay-wide beach seine surveys were initiated in 1995 to complement the NJDEP Bureau of Marine Fisheries Delaware River Seine Survey (initiated in 1980), providing sampling beyond the geographic boundaries of the NJDEPs monitoring area. The intent of the combined studies was to more fully characterize target species abundance and distribution patterns within the shallow water habitats of the Estuary. In 2002, the sampling gear and deployment procedures for the PSEG bay-wide beach seine survey were revised to provide data equivalent to the data collected in the NJDEP program as closely as possible. The PSEG bay wide beach seine survey targets the same 12 important finfish species identified in Section 2.2.1.1. Blue crab catches are also reported.
Beginning in 1995, PSEG collected samples at 32 selected locations between the mouth of the Bay and the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal (5 km [3 mi] north of HCGS) semi-monthly in November through July and monthly from August through October. In 2002, the program added 16 upriver stations. Additionally, the sampling frequency was changed to once per month in June and November and semi-monthly from July through October. As with the NJDEP Delaware River Seine Survey, samples are collected with a bagged 30.5-m by 1.8-m (100-ft by 6-ft) beach seine of 0.95-centimeter (cm) (3/8-in) bar mesh netting. Beach seine samples are collected during daylight at high slack tide.
Beach seine samples from Zone 7 over the 2002-2004 period were dominated by juvenile and adult representatives of small, schooling species and young gamefish (PSEG 2006a, Section 4).
Atlantic silverside was the species collected most often, making up 35.8, 50.8, and 64.2 percent, respectively, of fish collected in 2002, 2003, and 2004. Bay anchovy was second in abundance every year, making up 23.6, 23.7, and 17.9 percent of fish collected. Substantial numbers of young weakfish, Atlantic croaker, and striped bass were also collected. Weakfish represented 4.0, 4.2, and 5.0 percent of seine collections in 2002, 2003, and 2004. Atlantic croaker and striped bass were also regularly collected, but in generally smaller numbers than weakfish.
In the most recent seine samples available from the PSEG bay wide beach seine survey, 13,187 specimens of 44 finfish species and 296 blue crab were collected (PSEG 2007a).
Atlantic silverside was the most abundant species taken in the seine catch, composing Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-11 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.2 Aquatic Resources 41 percent of the annual sample. Historically, Atlantic silverside has been predominant in the shore zone of the lower Delaware River and Bay (PSEG 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999a, 2000a, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004a, 2005, 2006b, and 2007a), composing more than 50 percent of the annual seine catch in eight of the 13 years. Generally, bay anchovy ranked second in total catch, ranging from 47 percent in 1995 to 18 percent in 2004. In both 2006 and 2007, bay anchovy composed about 24 percent of the catch. Atlantic croaker and white perch each represented less than five percent of the annual catch (PSEG 2007a). Only four species were collected during all sampling periods, in all zones, and at all beach types: Atlantic silverside, bay anchovy, striped bass, and American shad. These species may be characterized as the ubiquitous core of the shore zone community (PSEG 2007a).
Relatively small catches of blueback herring and alewife have been consistently reported in the PSEG bay wide beach seine surveys since 1995 (with the exception of one anomalous year, 2001). These results, together with long-term data provided by the NJDEP Delaware River Seine Survey, which is conducted further upriver, indicate that the summer nursery grounds for alosids of interest (blueback herring and alewife) are restricted to freshwater and brackish portions of the river (PSEG 2005).
2.2.2 POTENTIAL IMPACT OF HCGS OPERATIONS ON AQUATIC RESOURCES The following discussion is based on conclusions drawn from aquatic monitoring required by the Salem NJPDES permit. Because HCGS and Salem are adjacent and both use water from the Estuary, the conclusions regarding trends and long-term stability of populations of target fish species are relevant to both plants.
In 2006, in conjunction with the Salem NJPDES permit renewal, PSEG prepared a comprehensive evaluation of the long-term trends in population and community characteristics of the Delaware Estuary that included an assessment of impacts of Salems CWS intake on fisheries and other aquatic life. With regard to potential impacts of cooling system operation, three benchmarks were evaluated: (1) whether adverse changes in the balance of the biotic community had occurred, (2) whether continuing declines in the abundance of aquatic species potentially attributable to Salem operations had occurred, and (3) whether the levels of mortality caused by plant operations were sufficient to jeopardize the long-term sustainability of fish stocks. Based on an examination of the three benchmarks, the report concluded that operation of Salem has had no adverse impacts on populations and communities inhabiting the Delaware Estuary (PSEG 2006a, Section 5). These conclusions are consistent with the results of similar analyses performed in 1999 (PSEG 1999a, Appendix E) and earlier studies.
PSEG examined three indicators of community health to determine if station operations had adversely affected the balance of the aquatic community: species richness/species density, species abundance, and the presence (or absence) of nuisance aquatic species (PSEG 2006a, Section 5). The analysis showed that fish species richness in the vicinity of Salem had not changed since the startup of Salem, and fish species density had increased. (PSEG 2006a, Section 5). The analysis suggested that most species had either increased in abundance since 1998 or that mortality associated with Station operations over the 1999-2004 period was much too low to have reduced abundance. With respect to nuisance species, the only outbreak of consequence in the Delaware Estuary took place in 2000 when a harmful algal bloom caused a fish-kill in two creeks in Delaware more than 50 miles down-estuary and cross-estuary from the Station. Nuisance algal blooms are not anticipated near the station due to the high turbidity and low light penetration affect algal growth. (PSEG 1999a, Appendix E)
Page 2-12 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.2 Aquatic Resources Trends in the relative abundance of the target species were analyzed using data from three long-term monitoring programs: the NJDEP Delaware River Seine Survey, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) Juvenile Trawl Survey, and the PSEG bottom trawl sampling. Trends over time were evaluated to determine whether the relative abundance of each target species had increased, decreased, or remained stable since the 1980s. Alewife, American shad, Atlantic croaker, striped bass, weakfish, white perch, and blue crab showed either a statistically significant increase in abundance or no significant change in abundance (PSEG 2006a, Section 5). Spot was the only species for which a statistically significant decline was detected (PSEG 2006a, Section 5). This decline could not be attributed to anything occurring specifically within the Delaware River or Estuary because abundance of spot had declined throughout the region, including in the Chesapeake Bay. The Delaware Estuary is at the northern limit of the range of this species, and the numbers entering the Delaware Estuary are highly variable from year to year (PSEG 2006a, Section 5). The fact that most populations have increased during the period of Station operation suggests that there has been no continuing decline in abundance of aquatic populations.
The effect of Station operations on the long-term sustainability of fish stocks was assessed using widely accepted stock assessment models. The object of this assessment was to determine whether the future impact of Station operations could jeopardize the sustainability of any of these stocks. The analysis showed that incremental effects of Salem operation on five important fish species (weakfish, striped bass, white perch, spot, and American shad) were small compared to the effects of fishing. The analysis indicated that reducing or eliminating impingement and entrainment at Salem would not measurably increase the reproductive potential (spawning stock biomass per recruit) or spawning stock biomass of any of the five species.
HCGS withdraws approximately one-fourth of the water that Salem withdraws from the Estuary.
It follows that if the operation of Salem is not measurably affecting the fishery, the operation of HCGS also is not affecting the fishery.
2.2.3 STATUS OF AQUATIC RESOURCES HCGS is located on the Delaware Estuary adjacent to Salem, and the aquatic resources analyzed as a requirement of Salems NJPDES permit are the same resources that are present at HCGS. PSEG has periodically assessed population and community characteristics of the Delaware Estuary such as species composition and population abundance (see, e.g. PSEG 1999a, PSEG 2006a). Three benchmarks historically have been examined: (1) whether adverse changes in the balance of the biotic community have occurred; (2) whether continuing declines in the abundance of aquatic species that could potentially be attributable to nuclear power plant operations have occurred; and (3) whether the mortality attributable to plant operations is sufficient to jeopardize the sustainability of fish stocks. Evaluations of all three benchmarks identified no adverse impacts on populations or communities in the Delaware Estuary.
In 2006, data on the composition of the finfish community in the vicinity of the stations from 1970 through 2004 were analyzed using widely accepted techniques for measuring species richness (defined as the average number of species present in a community), and species density (defined as the average number of species per unit area or volume). Results indicate that finfish species richness has not changed since the startup of Salem, and that finfish species density has increased. During trawl surveys conducted from 1999 through 2004, 27 finfish species were collected that had not been collected during PSEGs earlier field surveys. Annual Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-13 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.2 Aquatic Resources fluctuations in the abundance of individual fish species since 1998 were compared to the changes expected to occur as a result of documented changes in habitat quality, fisheries management practices, coast-wide environmental changes, increases in predator abundance, and to the changes expected to occur if Salem (or HCGS) was adversely affecting fish populations. Most species have increased in abundance since 1998. Rates of mortality due to station operations during this period that are too low to have caused measurable reductions in abundance. No estimates of mortality due to station operations are available for blue crab or Atlantic silverside. However, other data indicate that the apparent declines in abundance of these species are attributable to local environmental fluctuations (blue crab) or regional environmental changes (Atlantic silverside). (PSEG 2006a, Section 4)
Trends in the relative abundance of monitored species were analyzed for evidence of population decline. Data from three long-term monitoring programs were examined: the NJDEP Beach Seine Survey; the DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey; and the PSEG Nearfield Bottom Trawl Survey. Statistically significant increases in abundance were found for alewife, American shad, Atlantic croaker, striped bass, weakfish, white perch, and blue crab. Spot had a statistically significant decline over the same time period. The Delaware Estuary is at the northern limit of the range of spot, and the number of individuals entering the Delaware Estuary are highly variable from year to year. A similar decline has been observed in the Chesapeake Bay.
The impact on the long-term sustainability of fish stocks was assessed using models that are commonly used in fisheries science and management. The objective of this assessment was to determine whether, compared to known effects of fishing on fish populations, the future impact of station operations could jeopardize the sustainability of any of these stocks. The stock jeopardy analyses show that, for all of the harvested species for which conditional mortality rates are available, the incremental effect of the stations is negligibly small compared to the effects of fishing. (PSEG 2006a, Section 5)
Analyses of the fish community indicate that a balanced indigenous community has been maintained in the Delaware River, Estuary, and Bay system (PSEG 2006a, Section 5). HCGS has operated for more than 20 years. During this time, the abundance of aquatic species has fluctuated in response to natural environmental factors and human use, but for most monitored species have generally increased or remained stable. Improvements in the aquatic community, principally attributable to advances in wastewater management and fisheries resource management, have been observed in the Delaware River system during this time.
Page 2-14 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.2 Aquatic Resources N
,. ........ - - .......... 9
/
I
, I
,,
- l -
,
'1 I
I
~
~
,
I, I
~
- ~
,
I I
I
~
i 1
,
1.
I to 20mi 1 !
I SCPlLE (niIi)
"*
Legend Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations Hope Creek Generating Station PSEG License Renewal Environmental Report Figure 2.2-1 PSEG Biological Sampling Zones Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-15 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.3 Ground-Water Resources 2.3 Ground-Water Resources HCGS is adjacent to Salem in the New Jersey Coastal Plain, approximately 29 km (18 mi) south of the Fall Line (PSEG 2009c). The HCGS site is on the eastern shore of the Delaware River at approximately River Mile 51. The Delaware Estuary borders the PSEG-owned property on Artificial Island that contains the HCGS and Salem sites to the west and south, and extensive marshlands border it on the east and north (ARCADIS 2006). The Coastal Plain is underlain by an interbedded sequence of sands and silts that compose a series of aquifers, aquitards, and aquicludes of Quaternary, Tertiary, and Cretaceous ages (PSEG 2009c). The beds generally thicken seaward and dip gently to the southeast between two and 11 m per km (ten and 60 ft per mi) (ARCADIS 2006).
There are four primary water-bearing zones underlying the HCGS and Salem sites. Starting with the shallowest, they are the shallow water-bearing zone and three aquifers: 1) the Vincentown aquifer, 2) the Mount Laurel-Wenonah aquifer, and 3) the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer. The shallow water-bearing zone consists of dredge spoils, engineered fill, tidal marsh deposits and the discontinuous Quaternary riverbed sand and gravel deposits that make up Artificial Island. This zone occurs between three and 12 m (ten and 40 ft) below ground surface (bgs). In general, the dredge spoils, engineered fill, and tidal marsh deposits are characterized by high porosity and low permeability. Lenses of sand occur within the dredge spoils and may contain perched water within a few feet of ground surface. Ground water in the zone is generally brackish, and flow is toward the southwest at a gradient of 0.007 meter/meter (0.007 feet/foot) (PSEG 2007b). Recharge to the unit at the site is primarily through direct infiltration at an outcrop area (PSEG 2009b).
The Kirkwood Formation is approximately 12 m (40 ft) bgs in the vicinity of HCGS/Salem. At the site, the Kirkwood Formation consists of Miocene clays and acts as a confining unit, separating the shallow water-bearing zone from the underlying Vincentown aquifer. The Vincentown aquifer at the site occurs from approximately 17 to 41 m (55 to 135 ft) bgs and is a semi-confined-to-confined aquifer. Flow within this unit at the site is from north to south with a gradient of approximately 0.003 meter/meter (0.003 feet/foot). The Vincentown aquifer supplies potable water to domestic wells up-gradient of Artificial Island, in eastern Salem County, where ground water in this unit is moderately hard and has high iron content. Saltwater intrusion into the Vincentown aquifer occurs along the Delaware River in western Salem County making that water brackish and non-potable (PSEG 2007b). Recharge to the Vincentown aquifer occurs primarily from overlying units. Discharge under normal conditions is toward the southwest (PSEG 2009b).
The Hornerstown and Navesink confining units separate the Vincentown aquifer from the underlying Mount Laurel-Wenonah aquifer. The Hornerstown and Navesink confining units occur from approximately 41 to 52 m (135 to 170 ft) bgs (PSEG 2007b). The Mount Laurel-Wenonah aquifer consists of clayey sand with some gravel. In the vicinity of the site, the formation is approximately 30 m (100 ft) thick and occurs from 52 to 82 m (170 to 270 ft) bgs (PSEG 2009b). Recharge to the Mount Laurel-Wenonah aquifer at the site is through leakage of overlying aquifers (PSEG 2009b).
At the site, the Mount Laurel-Wenonah aquifer overlies the Marshalltown Formation. The Marshalltown Formation consists generally of 12 to 13 m (38 to 44 ft) of clayey silt with minor amounts of quartz and glauconite. The formation throughout the region generally consists of fine sand and sandy clay and is three to five m (10 to 15 ft) thick. The Marshalltown Formation Page 2-16 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.3 Ground-Water Resources acts as a leaky confining layer. Water quality is generally fair to poor for human consumption due to high iron content, turbidity, and an objectionable odor. (PSEG 2009b)
Underlying the Marshalltown Formation are the Englishtown Formation, which consists of fine sand; the Woodbury Clay; the Merchantville Formation clay; the Magothy Formation, a coarse to fine silt with little fine sand; and the Raritan and Potomac Formations consisting of interbedded sand, gravelly sand, and clay. The Magothy, Raritan, and Potomac Formations form the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer (ARCADIS 2006). Recharge to the aquifer is through precipitation at an outcrop area up-gradient of the site and leakage from under- and overlying aquicludes. (PSEG 2009b)
In 1986, New Jersey designated two Critical Water-Supply Management Areas in the New Jersey Coastal Plain in response to long-term declines in ground-water levels where ground water is the primary water supply (USGS 2007). Critical Water-Supply Management Area 1 includes portions of Middlesex, Monmouth, and Ocean counties along the Atlantic Ocean shore.
Critical Water-Supply Management Area 2, the nearer Critical Water-Supply Management Area, is northeast of the site in portions of Ocean, Burlington, Camden, Atlantic, Gloucester, and Cumberland counties, and a small portion of eastern Salem County (USGS 2007). In Critical Water-Supply Management Area 2, ground-water withdrawals were reduced and new allocations are limited from the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer (USGS 2007). The HCGS and Salem sites are southwest of the management area along the Delaware River, not in a Critical Water-Supply Management Area, and are not subject to the ground-water withdrawal restrictions.
There are no off-site public water supply wells or private wells within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the HCGS and Salem sites. The nearest off-site potable supply well is located more than 5.6 km (3.5 mi) west of the site, across the Delaware River, in Delaware (ARCADIS 2006). For a discussion of HCGS ground-water usage, refer to Section 3.1.4.
Ground-Water Tritium Tritium has not been detected in ground water beneath the HCGS in any concentrations that exceed the EPA Drinking Water Standard or that suggest an adverse trend (PSEG 2008a). In 2003, PSEG identified tritium in ground water from onsite sampling wells near the Salem Unit 1 Fuel Handling Building (FHB). The source of tritium was the Salem Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool, the tritium release to the environment has been stopped, and tritium concentrations above the New Jersey Ground Water Quality Criterion have not migrated to the property boundary. Neither strontium nor plant-related gamma emitters were detected in any ground-water well. In September 2005, a ground-water recovery system (GRS) began operating to reverse the ground-water flow gradient so that ground water in the recovery systems radius of influence is pulled toward the recovery system and away from the site boundary. The ground-water remediation project is being performed in accordance with the Remedial Action Work Plan approved by NJDEP. (PSEG 2008a) The effectiveness of the ground-water extraction system is discussed more fully in the Salem license renewal Environmental Report, Section 2.3 (PSEG 2009a). HCGS is hydraulically upgradient of Salem, and routine monitoring of ground-water wells has not identified any impacts on ground water at HCGS as a result of tritium released at Salem.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-17 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.4 Critical and Important Terrestrial Habitats 2.4 Critical and Important Terrestrial Habitats HCGS occupies about 62 hectares (153 acres) at the southern portion of Artificial Island on the east bank of the Delaware River in Salem County, New Jersey. The 607-hectare (1,500-acre)
Artificial Island was created and has been maintained since the early 1900s through the 1950s by deposition of hydraulic dredge spoils. It is connected to the New Jersey mainland by a strip of tideland also formed by fill from dredging operations in the River. PSEG owns approximately 300 hectares (740 acres) on Artificial Island. HCGS was constructed on a portion of this property between 1974 and 1986. HCGS is immediately adjacent to the approximately 89-hectare (220-acre) Salem nuclear facility, which is also owned by PSEG (see Figure 3.1-1),
thus ecological surveys for each facility provide information relevant to both. The remainder of the island consists of marshes, impounded areas, and open pools.
Artificial Island, actually an artificial peninsula, projects from the New Jersey shore into the Delaware River. The average elevation of the site is 2.7 m (nine ft) above sea level.
Construction of HCGS resulted in the permanent loss of 62 hectares (153 acres) of land previously occupied by dense stands of giant reed (Phragmites australis). Giant reed, a strongly invasive plant (NJ Category 1; Ling 2003) common to disturbed soils and tolerant of varying levels of soil moisture and salinity, is considered a pest due to its ability to out-compete native marsh plants such as the cordgrasses (Spartina spp.), often producing a thick monoculture stand of little value to wildlife or fish. Notwithstanding, Artificial Island provides critical foraging habitat for bald eagles, which were de-listed from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife in 2007 (USFWS 2007), but remain federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and remain on the New Jersey list of endangered species (NJDEP 2006).
As a dredge spoil island with poor quality soils, Artificial Island has few trees and is dominated primarily by giant reed. Other plants in the marshes surrounding the PSEG property include big cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides), salt marsh cordgrass (S. alterniflora), saltmeadow cordgrass (S. patens), and saltmarsh bulrush (Scirpus robustus).
The wildlife species on Artificial Island and in the surrounding areas are those typically found in similar habitats within the Delaware River Estuary. Avian species observed on the Salem site during construction included marsh hawk (now northern harrier, Circus cyaneus), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscala), yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) (AEC 1973). Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) nested within the local marshes. Forty-four avian species were observed within six km (four mi) of Salem during pre-construction surveys, which included some upland/farmland areas (AEC 1973). Approximately half of these species were water birds (wading birds, waterfowl, seabirds, shorebirds, etc.), likely associated with nearby open water and tidal habitats. A study done for the HCGS construction project has indicated the occurrence of at least 178 avian species within 16 km (ten mi) of HCGS; 25 percent were considered year-round resident species (PSEG 1983). Other observations made at the Alloways Creek Estuary Enhancement Program restoration site, located just north of Artificial Island, included many species of water birds, common marsh birds such as red-winged blackbirds and marsh wrens (Cistrothorus palustris), and migrant songbirds such as palm warblers (Dendroica palmarum) and swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) (PSEG 2004b). Overall avian community composition and relative abundance are largely a function of migration.
Page 2-18 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.4 Critical and Important Terrestrial Habitats Common mammals observed during wildlife surveys associated with Salem construction included white-tail deer (Odocoileus virginiana), eastern cottontail (Silvilagus floridanus), house mouse (Mus musculus), and Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) (AEC 1973). Other mammals thought to be common in the surrounding areas were raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginianus), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethica). An additional 39 mammal species are expected to occur within 16 km (ten mi) of HCGS (NRC 1984). The only herpetological species found at Salem during the construction period was the diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin). An additional eight turtle species, four snakes, and one skink species were observed within ten km (six mi) of Salem during early surveys (AEC 1971).
Other surveys of the area surrounding both facilities suggest that up to 26 species of reptiles, including five species of sea turtles, may occur on or near the site (PSEG 1983). Of the three most common sea turtles in vicinity of the station, the loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia midas) are classified as federally threatened, and the Kemps ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi) is classified as federally endangered. Both the hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) and leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) are classified as federally endangered, but are not typically observed near the plant site.
Section 3.1.6 describes the transmission lines built to deliver electricity generated at the HCGS and Salem sites to the transmission grid. The approximately 171 km (106 mi) of corridors associated with HCGS and Salem exit through three corridors routed to two primary substations (Figure 3.1-3). Two corridors, containing three lines, run roughly parallel to each other (1.6 to 3.2 km [one to two mi] apart) and extend east-northeast toward the New Freedom Substation.
The more northern corridor contains the Salem-New Freedom (North) line and the HCGS-New Freedom line, and the more southern corridor contains the Salem-New Freedom (South) line.
The third corridor exits the site toward the north for a distance and then turns west and crosses the Delaware River into Delaware. It contains the Salem-Keeney line. This line, although now connected to HCGS, was constructed to connect Salem to the transmission grid. Therefore, no line evaluated in this Environmental Report extends into Delaware, and protected species found in Delaware are not evaluated here.
Only the HCGS-New Freedom transmission line, which is located in the more northern of the two transmission corridors extending east-northeast from the HCGS and Salem sites, was originally built to connect HCGS to the electricity transmission grid. Accordingly, it is the only transmission line for which impacts are assessed in this Environmental Report.
All three corridors cross land identified as critical bald eagle foraging habitat (NJDEP 2006). In addition, both of the corridors extending east-northeast from the HCGS and Salem sites traverse approximately two miles of marsh habitat east of the PSEG property and then traverse a combination of forested and agricultural lands, and for approximately one-quarter of their total distance nearest the New Freedom substation, both corridors cross the New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve, which has been designated a biosphere reserve. A biosphere reserve is a representative ecological area with three mutually reinforcing functions: conservation, sustainable development, and logistic support for scientific research and education. Biospheres are recognized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) under its Programme on Man and the Biosphere. (UNESCO 2009)
The New Jersey Pinelands Commission implements the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan, the purpose of which is to preserve, protect, and enhance the natural and cultural resources of the Pinelands National Reserve, and to encourage compatible economic Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-19 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.4 Critical and Important Terrestrial Habitats and other human activities. Electric transmission line corridor maintenance in the New Jersey Pinelands is regulated by the New Jersey Pinelands Commission (New Jersey Pinelands Commission 2009).
In the Pinelands National Reserve, the two corridors extending east-northeast from the HCGS and Salem sites also cross the Great Egg Harbor River, a National Scenic and Recreational River.
Each transmission corridor is 107 m (350 ft) wide and the corridors in New Jersey are currently maintained by PSE&G. PSE&G performs ground inspections annually and aerial inspections once every five years, and maintains vegetation (primarily the removal of fast-growing trees, trimming, and herbicides or mechanical cutting if herbicides are prohibited) as needed to ensure continued and safe distribution of electricity throughout the system (PJM 2005).
Page 2-20 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.5 Threatened or Endangered Species 2.5 Threatened or Endangered Species Table 2.5-1 lists protected animal and plant species recorded in counties in which HCGS and its associated transmission line are located. The species are those that are state- or federally listed as endangered or threatened, and those that are candidates or proposed for federal listing. The HCGS-New Freedom corridor, which as noted in Section 3.1.6 is the only transmission corridor for which impacts are assessed in this Environmental Report, crosses portions of Salem, Gloucester, and Camden counties in New Jersey (Figure 3.1-3). The species shown in Table 2.5-1 as occurring in these counties were taken from county records maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS undated) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP 2008a), except shortnose sturgeon and five species of sea turtles, which are not included on county lists, but are listed by the USFWS in 50 CFR 17.11 and are known to occur in the Delaware River (see below).
As shown in Table 2.5-1, numerous special-status animal and plant species have been recorded in Salem, Gloucester, and Camden counties. Most of these species have not been observed on the HCGS site. Some endangered or threatened bird species could move through the site during seasonal migrations. Federally listed species recorded in Salem, Gloucester, and Camden counties, and state-listed species that have been observed on the HCGS site or along the transmission line, are discussed below.
The bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) and American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) are the only terrestrial animals in Table 2.5-1 that are federally listed as endangered or threatened. The bog turtle, which is federally listed as threatened, inhabits calcareous (limestone) fens, sphagnum bogs, and wet, grassy pastures that are characterized by soft, muddy substrates (bottoms) and perennial ground-water seepage (NJDEP 2008b). These habitats are not found on the HCGS site but could occur along the transmission corridor. The federally and state-listed endangered American burying beetle, although recorded in Camden and Gloucester counties, is now believed to have been extirpated from New Jersey (NJDEP 2008a, USFWS undated).
The Pine Barrens tree frog (Hyla andersoni), which is state-listed as endangered, has not been found within any transmission corridor associated with HCGS, but is known from other transmission corridors in the Pine Barrens (NJDEP 2008a, DNREC 2008).
Four federally listed plant species have been recorded in Salem, Gloucester, and Camden counties: chaffseed, sensitive joint vetch, swamp pink, and Knieskerns beaked-rush.
Chaffseed (Schwalbea americana), which is federally listed as endangered, and sensitive joint vetch (Aeschynomene virginica), which is federally listed as threatened, are known only from historic records and no current populations are known to exist in these counties (USFWS undated). Swamp pink (Helonias bullata), which is federally listed as threatened, is restricted to forested wetlands that are perennially water-saturated (NatureServe 2008). Transmission corridors in Salem County cross habitats known to support swamp pink (NJDEP 2008c), and PSEG is aware of one occurrence of the species along a transmission corridor in Salem County.
Knieskern's beaked-rush (Rhynchospora knieskernii), which is federally listed as threatened, is restricted to early successional habitats in pitch pine lowland forests, typically in areas with fluctuating water regimes. The species is usually found in bare or sparsely vegetated areas within pine barrens where open conditions are maintained through natural disturbances such as fire or flood scouring, or through human-caused disturbances such as roadside, railroad, or Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-21 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.5 Threatened or Endangered Species transmission line right-of-way maintenance, or in inactive sand or clay pits (NatureServe 2008).
Within New Jersey, Knieskern's beaked-rush is known to occur in Camden County but is not known to occur in Salem or Gloucester counties (NJDEP 2008c, USFWS undated).
Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) are occasionally seen in the vicinity of HCGS (NRC 1984) but are not known to nest at the site or within the transmission corridors (NJDEP 2008d, NJDEP 2008e); however, elevated structures and open fields near these areas could support nesting. Bald eagles were removed from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife in 2007 (USFWS 2007), but the species remains federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and is on the New Jersey list of endangered species (NJDEP 2006). New Jersey reported 64 eagle pairs in 2007; 37 of those were in Salem, Cumberland or Gloucester counties (NJDEP 2007a). The nearest bald eagle nest is approximately eight km (five mi) from the HCGS site (NJDEP 2008d).
Peregrine falcons were removed from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife in 1999 (USFWS 1999), but the species remains on the New Jersey list of endangered species (Table 2.5-1). Peregrine falcons continue to do well throughout New Jersey (NJDEP 2008e).
Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus), which are state-listed as threatened, nest on transmission towers near the HCGS site and in areas along the Delaware Estuary (NJDEP 2008f). PSEG has erected nesting platforms for ospreys at off-site locations, and birds are currently using the platforms (TNC 2008).
The Coopers hawk (Accipiter cooperii), bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), and grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) have been observed within ten km (six mi) of HCGS (AEC 1973). None of these birds is federally listed. The Coopers hawk and bobolink are state-listed as threatened. NJDEP classifies the breeding population of grasshopper sparrows as threatened, and the migratory or winter population of grasshopper sparrows as stable in number (NJDEP 2008b).
Five federally listed species of sea turtle may occur in Delaware Bay: the threatened loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), threatened Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydas),
endangered Kemps ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi), endangered hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), and endangered leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). The NJDEP classifies these turtle species as endangered, except the Atlantic green turtle, which is state-listed as threatened. Young sea turtles move from the open waters of the Atlantic Ocean into near-shore coastal areas where they forage and mature into adults. The young turtles make occasional forays into the shallow waters of mid-Atlantic estuaries in late summer to feed and rest. While no nesting occurs along Delaware Bay beaches, all five sea turtle species can move into the Bay and may travel up the Estuary as far as Artificial Island (Delaware Estuary Program 1996). Most of the sea turtles found in Delaware Bay are sub-adults that were hatched on beaches in the Caribbean, Florida, and the Carolinas and have migrated north to nursery grounds in the mid-Atlantic region. The vast majority of the sea turtles observed in Delaware Bay are loggerheads, with smaller numbers of Kemps ridley and Atlantic green turtles occasionally observed.
One federally listed fish, the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), occurs in Delaware Bay. In the Delaware River system, adult shortnose sturgeons spend most of their lives in the upper tidal freshwater portion of the river (the most heavily used portion of the river is that between River Mile 118 and River Mile 137). However, shortnose sturgeon often move further upstream to spawn (OHerron, Able, and Hastings 1993). After spawning, some adults move Page 2-22 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.5 Threatened or Endangered Species downstream into low-salinity reaches of the river (including Delaware Bay), primarily in spring and summer (OHerron, Able, and Hastings 1993; NMFS 1998a). This is in sharp contrast to sturgeon in southeastern rivers, which spend most of the year in the lower Estuary and move upstream in spring into the middle and upper reaches of natal rivers to spawn. Based on surveys conducted in the 1980s, the Delaware River shortnose sturgeon population is one of the largest along the eastern seaboard, with population estimates ranging from 6,408 to 14,080 individuals (NMFS 1998a).
Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) occurs in the Delaware River. In 2006, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) initiated a status review for Atlantic sturgeon to determine if listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is warranted. The Status Review Report was published on February 23, 2007 (NMFS 2007).
NMFS is currently considering the information presented in the Status Review Report to determine if any listing action pursuant to the ESA is warranted at this time. If it is determined that listing is warranted, a final rule listing the species could be published. As a candidate species, Atlantic sturgeon receive no substantive or procedural protection under the ESA; however, NMFS recommends that project proponents consider implementing conservation actions to limit the potential for adverse effects on Atlantic sturgeon from any proposed project.
The Atlantic sturgeon is a member of the Acipenseridae family as is the short-nosed sturgeon and sturgeon are among one of the oldest fish species in the world. Its range extends from New Brunswick, Canada to the eastern coast of Florida. Atlantic sturgeon have not been recorded in the 2002 through 2004 PSEG biological monitoring program in the bottom trawl, pelagic trawl, ichthyoplankton and macrozooplankton sampling, impingement sampling, nor as eggs, larvae, juveniles or adults in the entrainment sampling (described in Section 2.2.1). A single Atlantic sturgeon was reported on the 2003 beach seine sampling. These data indicate that a robust population of Atlantic sturgeon that would be of particular concern is not present in the vicinity of the Station.
Winter flounder (NMFS 1998b), windowpane flounder (NMFS 1998c), and butterfish (NMFS 1999a) essential fish habitat (as defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act [P.L. 94-25]) has been identified in the Delaware Bay in the area of HCGS.
Winter flounder essential fish habitat ranges from Passamaquoddy Bay in Maine to Chincoteague Bay in Maryland (NMFS 1998b). Windowpane flounder essential fish habitat ranges from Passamaquoddy Bay in Maine to Chesapeake Bay in Maryland (NMFS 1998c).
Butterfish essential fish habitat ranges from Newfoundland to Cape Hatteras in North Carolina (NMFS 1999a).
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-23 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.5 Tables Table 2.5-1 Threatened or Endangered Species Recorded in Salem County and Counties Crossed by Transmission Lines Status Scientific Name Common Name Federala Statea,b Countyc Mammals Lynx rufus Bobcat - E Salem Birds Accipiter cooperii Coopers hawk - T/T Gloucester, Salem Ammodramus henslowii Henslows sparrow - E Gloucester A. savannarum Grasshopper sparrow - T/S Salem Bartramia longicauda Upland sandpiper - E Gloucester, Salem Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk - E/T Gloucester Circus cyaneus Northern harrier - E/U Salem Cistothorus platensis Sedge wren - E Salem Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink - T/T Salem Camden, Gloucester, Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon - E Salem Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle - E Gloucester, Salem Camden, Gloucester, Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-headed woodpecker - T/T Salem Pandion haliaetus Osprey - T/T Gloucester, Salem Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah sparrow - T/T Salem Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed grebe - E/S Salem Pooecetes gramineus Vesper sparrow - E Gloucester, Salem Strix varia Barred owl - T/T Gloucester, Salem Reptiles and Amphibians Ambystoma tigrinum Eastern tiger salamander - E Gloucester, Salem tigrinum Clemmys insculpta Wood turtle - E Gloucester Camden, Gloucester, C. muhlenbergii Bog turtle T E Salem Crotalus horridus horridus Timber rattlesnake - E Camden Camden, Gloucester, Hyla andersoni Pine barrens treefrog - E Salem Camden, Gloucester, Pituophis melanoleucus Northern pine snake - T Salem Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle T E Delaware Riverd Lepidochelys kempi Kemps ridley E E Delaware Riverd Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback turtle E E Delaware Riverd Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill turtle E E Delaware Riverd Chelonia mydas Atlantic green turtle T T Delaware Riverd Fish Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon E E Delaware Riverd A. oxyrinchus oxyrinchus Atlantic sturgeon C - Delaware Riverd Insects Nicrophorus americanus American burying beetle E E Camden, Gloucester Page 2-24 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.5 Tables Table 2.5-1 Threatened or Endangered Species Recorded in Salem County and Counties Crossed by Transmission Lines (Continued)
Status Scientific Name Common Name Federala Statea,b Countyc Plants Camden, Gloucester, Aeschynomene virginica Sensitive joint vetch T E Salem Aplectrum hyemale Putty root - E Gloucester Aristida lanosa Wooly three-awn grass - E Camden, Salem Asimina triloba Pawpaw - E Gloucester Camden, Gloucester, Aster radula Low rough aster - E Salem Bouteloua curtipendula Side oats grama grass - E Gloucester Cacalia atriplicifolia Pale Indian plantain - E Camden, Gloucester Calystegia spithamaea Erect bindweed - E Camden, Salem Cardamine longii Longs bittercress - E Gloucester Carex aquatilis Water sedge - E Camden C. bushii Bushs sedge - E Camden C.cumulata Clustered sedge - E Camden C. limosa Mud sedge - E Gloucester C. polymorpha Variable sedge - E Gloucester Castanea pumila Chinquapin - E Gloucester, Salem Cercis canadensis Redbud - E Camden Chenopodium rubrum Red goosefoot - E Camden Commelina erecta Slender dayflower - E Camden Cyperus lancastriensis Lancaster flat sedge - E Camden, Gloucester C. polystachyos Coast flat sedge - E Salem C. pseudovegetus Marsh flat sedge - E Salem C. retrofractus Rough flat sedge - E Camden, Gloucester Dalibarda repens Robin-run-away - E Gloucester Diodia virginiana Larger buttonweed - E Camden Draba reptans Carolina Whitlow-grass - E Camden, Gloucester Eleocharis melanocarpa Black-fruit spike-rush - E Salem E. equisetoides Knotted spike-rush - E Gloucester E. tortilis Twisted spike-rush - E Gloucester Elephantopus carolinianus Carolina elephant-foot - E Gloucester, Salem Eriophorum gracile Slender cotton-grass - E Gloucester E. tenellum Rough cotton-grass - E Camden, Gloucester Eupatorium capillifolium Dog fennel thoroughwort - E Camden E. resinosum Pine barren boneset - E Camden, Gloucester, Darlingtons glade Euphorbia purpurea - E Salem spurge Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-25 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.5 Tables Table 2.5-1 Threatened or Endangered Species Recorded in Salem County and Counties Crossed by Transmission Lines (Continued)
Status Scientific Name Common Name Federala Statea,b Countyc Glyceria grandis American manna grass - E Camden Gnaphalium helleri Small everlasting - E Camden Gymnopogon brevifolius Short-leaf skeleton grass - E Gloucester Camden, Gloucester, Helonias bullata Swamp-pink T E Salem Small-flower halfchaff Hemicarpha micrantha - E Camden sedge Hottonia inflata Featherfoil - E Salem Hydrastis canadensis Golden seal - E Camden Floating marsh-Hydrocotyle ranunculoides - E Salem pennywort Hypericum adpressum Bartons St. Johns-wort - E Salem Juncus caesariensis New Jersey rush - E Camden J. torreyi Torreys rush - E Camden Kuhnia eupatorioides False boneset - E Camden Lemna perpusilla Minute duckweed - E Camden, Salem Limosella subulata Awl-leaf mudwort - E Camden Linum intercursum Sandplain flax - E Camden, Salem Luzula acuminate Hairy wood-rush - E Gloucester, Salem Camden, Gloucester, Melanthium virginicum Virginia bunchflower - E Salem Micranthemum Nuttalls mudwort - E Camden, Gloucester micranthemoides Muhlenbergia capillaris Long-awn smoke grass - E Gloucester Myriophyllum tenellum Slender water-milfoil - E Camden M. pinnatum Cut-leaf water-milfoil _ E Salem Nelumbo lutea American lotus - E Camden, Salem Nuphar microphyllum Small yellow pond-lily - E Camden Camden, Gloucester, Onosmodium virginianum Virginia false-gromwell - E Salem Ophioglossum vulgatum Southern adders tongue - E Salem pycnostichum Panicum aciculare Bristling panic grass - E Gloucester Penstemon laevigatus Smooth beardtongue - E Gloucester Plantago pusilla Dwarf plantain - E Camden Platanthera flava flava Southern rein orchid - E Camden Pluchea foetida Stinking fleabane - E Camden Polemonium reptans Greek-valerian - E Salem Polygala incarnata Pink milkwort - E Camden, Gloucester Page 2-26 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.5 Tables Table 2.5-1 Threatened or Endangered Species Recorded in Salem County and Counties Crossed by Transmission Lines (Continued)
Status Scientific Name Common Name Federala Statea,b Countyc Camden, Gloucester, Prunus angustifolia Chickasaw plum - E Salem Pycnanthemum Basil mountain mint - E Camden clinopodioides P. torrei Torreys mountain mint - E Gloucester Quercus imbricaria Shingle oak - E Gloucester Q .lyrata Overcup oak - E Salem Rhododendron atlanticum Dwarf azalea - E Salem Coarse grass-like Camden, Gloucester, Rhynchospora globularis - E beaked-rush Salem R. knieskernii Knieskerns beaked-rush T E Camden Sagittaria teres Slender arrowhead - E Camden Scheuchzeria palustris Arrow-grass - E Camden, Gloucester Schwalbea americana Chaffseed E E Camden Scirpus longii Longs woolgrass - E Camden S. maritimus Saltmarsh bulrush - E Camden Scutellaria leonardii Small skullcap - E Salem Spiranthes laciniata Lace-lip ladies tresses - E Gloucester Stellaria pubera Star chickweed - E Camden Triadenum walteri Walters St. Johns wort - E Camden Utricularia biflora Two-flower bladderwort - E Gloucester, Salem Valerianella radiata Beaked cornsalad - E Gloucester Verbena simplex Narrow-leaf vervain - E Camden, Gloucester Vernonia glauca Broad-leaf ironweed - E Gloucester, Salem Squirrel-tail six-weeks Camden, Gloucester, Vulpia elliotea - E grass Salem Wolffiella floridana Sword bogmat - E Salem Fringed yellow-eyed Xyris fimbriarta - E Camden grass a
E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate; - = Not listed.
b State status for birds separated by a slash (/) indicates a dual status. First status refers to the state breeding population, and the second status refers to the migratory or winter population. S = Stable species (a species whose population is not undergoing any long-term increase or decrease within its natural cycle); U =
Undetermined (a species about which there is not enough information available to determine the status)
(NJDEP 2008a).
c Source of county occurrence: USFWS (undated); NJDEP (2008a).
d Sea turtles and sturgeon are not included in county lists maintained by USFWS (undated) and NJDEP (2008a),
but are listed by the USFWS at 50 CFR 17.11and are known to occur in the Delaware River (see text).
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-27 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.6 Demography 2.6 Demography 2.6.1 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY The Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) presents a population characterization method that is based on two factors: sparseness and proximity (NRC 1996b). Sparseness measures population density and city size within 32 km (20 mi) of a site and categorizes the demographic information as follows:
Demographic Categories Based on Sparseness Category Most sparse 1. Less than 40 persons per square mile and no community with 25,000 or more persons within 20 miles
- 2. 40 to 60 persons per square mile and no community with 25,000 or more persons within 20 miles
- 3. 60 to 120 persons per square mile or less than 60 persons per square mile with at least one community with 25,000 or more persons within 20 miles Least sparse 4. Greater than or equal to 120 persons per square mile within 20 miles Source: NRC 1996b Proximity measures population density and city size within 80 km (50 mi) and categorizes the demographic information as follows:
Demographic Categories Based on Proximity Category Not in close proximity 1. No city with 100,000 or more persons and less than 50 persons per square mile within 50 miles
- 2. No city with 100,000 or more persons and between 50 and 190 persons per square mile within 50 miles
- 3. One or more cities with 100,000 or more persons and less than 190 persons per square mile within 50 miles In close proximity 4. Greater than or equal to 190 persons per square mile within 50 miles Source: NRC 1996b Page 2-28 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.6 Demography The GEIS then uses the following matrix to rank the population category as low, medium, or high.
GEIS Sparseness and Proximity Matrix Proximity 1 2 3 4 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Sparseness 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Low Medium High Population Population Population Area Area Area Source: NRC 1996b PSEG used 2000 census data from the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) and geographic information system software (ArcGIS) to determine most demographic characteristics in the HCGS vicinity. Approximately 501,820 people live within 32 km (20 mi) of HCGS, at a population density of 450 persons per square mile. The GEIS sparseness matrix identifies this density as in the least sparse category; Category 4 (greater than or equal to 120 persons per square mile within 20 miles).
PSEG determined that 5,201,842 people live within 80 km (50 mi) of HCGS, at a population density of 771 persons per square mile. Based on the GEIS proximity matrix, the population density is classified as Category 4 (greater than or equal to 190 persons per square mile within 50 miles). Therefore, according to the GEIS sparseness and proximity matrix, the HCGS regional population ranks of sparseness Category 4 and proximity Category 4 result in the conclusion that HCGS is in a high population area.
All or parts of 21 counties and a number of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) are located within 80 km (50 mi) of HCGS (Figure 2.1-1). The MSAs nearest HCGS are (1) Wilmington, Delaware, (2) Dover, Delaware, (3) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, (4) Camden, New Jersey, (5) Baltimore-Towson, Maryland, (6) Atlantic City, New Jersey, and (7) Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, New Jersey (USCB 2003). The nearest major city is Wilmington, Delaware (32 km
[20 mi] north), with a 2000 population of 72,664 (USCB 2000a). The municipality nearest HCGS is the city of Salem (13 km [eight mi] northeast) with a 2000 population of 5,857 (USCB 2000a).
From 1990 to 2007, the population of the Wilmington, Delaware MSA increased from approximately 579,000 to approximately 694,000; an increase of 20 percent. In the same time period, the population of the Dover Delaware MSA increased from approximately 111,000 to approximately 152,000; an increase of 37 percent. The population of the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania MSA increased from approximately 3,700,000 to approximately 3,900,000; an increase of five percent. The population of the Camden, New Jersey MSA increased from approximately 1,100,000 to approximately 1,200,000; an increase of nine percent. The population of the Baltimore-Towson, Maryland MSA increased from approximately 2,400,000 to approximately 2,700,000; an increase of 12 percent. The population of the Atlantic City, New Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-29 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.6 Demography Jersey MSA increased from approximately 220,000 to approximately 271,000; an increase of 23 percent. The population of the Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, New Jersey MSA increased from approximately 138,000 to 156,000; an increase of 13 percent. (Table 2.6-1)
Because approximately 81 percent of HCGS employees reside in Cumberland, Gloucester, or Salem counties, New Jersey, or New Castle County, Delaware (Table 2.6-2), and because most property taxes from the plant are paid to municipalities in Salem County, they are the counties with the greatest potential to be socioeconomically affected by license renewal at HCGS, and are collectively referred to as the socioeconomic region of interest in this report. Table 2.6-3 shows population counts and annual growth rates for the four counties in which most HCGS employees reside. The table also provides these statistics for the states of New Jersey and Delaware for comparison.
From 1990 to 2000, the growth rates of Salem and Cumberland counties were less than that of New Jersey, and Gloucester Countys was slightly higher. Salem Countys population decreased between 1990 and 2000, although its population increased from 2000 to 2006.
Between 1990 and 2000, the growth rate of New Castle County, Delaware, was less than that of Delaware overall. Gloucester County has experienced the highest percentage of growth of any county of interest (Table 2.6-3).
Because the city of Salem and Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey, receive property taxes from HCGS, population in these municipalities is also reviewed. The population in the city of Salem has steadily declined from 1970 to 2000. Lower Alloways Creek township population increased from 1970 to 2000; however, it is a smaller municipality than Salem. From 1990 to 2000, the population of the city of Salem decreased from 6,883 to 5,857; a decrease of 14.9 percent, although since 2006 the population has increased slightly. The population of Lower Alloways Creek Township has increased by approximately one percent in the same time period (Table 2.6-4).
2.6.2 MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS The NRC performed environmental justice analyses for previous license renewal applications and concluded that an 80-km (50-mi) radius (Figure 2.1-1) could reasonably be expected to contain potential environmental impact sites and that the state was appropriate as the geographic area for comparative analysis. PSEG has adopted these parameters for quantifying the minority and low-income populations that may be affected by HCGS operations.
PSEG used 2000 census data from the USCB with geographic information system software (ArcGIS) to determine the minority characteristics by block group. If any part of a block group was located within 80 km (50 mi) of HCGS, then PSEG included that entire block group in the analysis. The 80-km (50-mi) radius includes 4,585 block groups (Table 2.6-5).
2.6.2.1 Minority Populations The NRCs Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues defines a minority population as: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; Black Races; and Hispanic Ethnicity (NRC 2001). Additionally, NRCs guidance requires that (1) all other single minorities are to be treated as one population and analyzed, (2) multi-racial populations are to be analyzed, and (3) the aggregate of all minority populations is to be treated as one population and analyzed. The Page 2-30 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.6 Demography guidance indicates that a minority population exists if either of the following two conditions exists:
The minority population in the census block group or environmental impact site exceeds 50 percent.
The minority population percentage of the environmental impact area is significantly greater (typically at least 20 percentage points) than the minority population percentage in the geographic area chosen for comparative analysis.
For each of the 4,585 block groups within the 80-km (50-mi) radius, PSEG calculated the percent of the block groups population represented by each minority. If any block group minority percentage exceeded 50 percent, then the block group was identified as containing a minority population. PSEG selected Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, depending on which state the block groups fell within, as the geographic area for comparative analysis for block groups located within the 80-km (50-mi) radius, and calculated the percentages of each minority category within each state (Table 2.6-5). If any block group percentage exceeded the corresponding state percentage by more than 20 percent, then a minority population was determined to exist.
Table 2.6-5 presents the number of block groups in each county in the 80-km (50-mi) radius that exceed the threshold for minority populations. Figures 2.6-1 through 2.6-6 display the minority block groups within the 80-km (50-mi) radius.
For all categories but the Aggregate of Minorities in Maryland, the more than 20 percent greater than the state average was the limiting criterion. For the Aggregate category in Maryland, 50 percent was the limiting criterion. Within the 80-km (50-mi) radius, one-thousand three-hundred twenty census block groups have significant Black races populations. Sixty-seven census block groups within the 80-km (50-mi) radius have significant Asian populations. One-hundred eighty-five census block groups within the 80-km (50-mi) radius have significant All Other Single Minority populations. One census block group within the 80-km (50-mi) radius is Multi-Racial. One-thousand five-hundred eighty-two census block groups within the 80-km (50-mi) radius have significant Aggregate Minority populations. Two-hundred seventy-three census block groups within the 80-km (50-mi) radius have significant Hispanic Ethnicity populations. None of the census block groups within the 80-km (50-mi) radius has significant American Indian or Alaskan Native, or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander populations.
2.6.2.2 Low-Income Populations NRC guidance defines low-income population based on statistical poverty thresholds (NRC 2001) if either of the following two conditions is met:
The low-income population in the census block group or the environmental impact site exceeds 50 percent.
The percentage of households below the poverty level in an environmental impact area is significantly greater (typically at least 20 percentage points) than the low-income population percentage in the geographic area chosen for comparative analysis.
PSEG divided the number of USCB low-income households in each census block group by the total households for that block group to obtain the percentage of low-income households per Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-31 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.6 Demography block group. Table 2.6-5 and Figure 2.6-7 illustrate the low-income block groups in the 80-km (50-mi) radius, based on NRCs criteria. Six-hundred sixty-seven census block groups within the 80-km (50-mi) radius have significant low-income households.
Page 2-32 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.6 Tables Table 2.6-1 Population and Growth Rates for Surrounding Metropolitan Statistical Areas Annual Percent MSA Year Population Growth Wilmington, DE 1990a 578,587 NA a
2000 650,501 1.2 b
2007 693,929 0.9 a
Dover, DE 1990 110,993 NA a
2000 126,697 1.4 b
2007 152,255 2.0 a
Baltimore-Towson, MD 1990 2,382,172 NA a
2000 2,552,994 0.7 b
2007 2,668,056 0.6 a
Philadelphia, PA 1990 3,728,909 NA a
2000 3,849,647 0.3 b
2007 3,887,694 0.1 a
Camden, NJ 1990 1,127,927 NA a
2000 1,186,999 0.5 b
2007 1,246,339 0.7 a
Atlantic City, NJ 1990 224,327 NA a
2000 252,552 1.2 b
2007 270,644 1.0 a
Vineland-Millville-Bridgton, NJ 1990 138,053 NA a
2000 146,438 0.6 b
2007 155,544 0.9 NA = Not applicable a
USCB 2003 b
USCB 2008a Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-33 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.6 Tables Table 2.6-2 Residential Distribution of HCGS Employees Number of Percent of County and State of Residence Employees Total Adams, OH 1 0.1 Atlantic, NJ 3 0.3 Bergen, NJ 1 0.1 Berks, PA 2 0.2 Burlington, NJ 24 2.8 Camden, NJ 40 4.6 Cape May, NJ 3 0.3 Cecil, MD 12 1.4 Chester, PA 31 3.6 Cumberland, NJ 76 8.7 Dane, WI 1 0.1 Darlington, SC 1 0.1 Delaware, PA 25 2.9 Fairfax, VA 1 0.1 Gloucester, NJ 137 15.8 Harford, MD 1 0.1 Howard, MD 1 0.1 Hunterdon, NJ 1 0.1 Kent, DE 1 0.1 Lake, IN 1 0.1 Lancaster, PA 2 0.2 Lehigh, PA 1 0.1 Luzerne, PA 1 0.1 Montgomery, PA 7 0.8 New Castle, DE 144 16.6 New London, CT 1 0.1 Ocean, NJ 1 0.1 Onondaga, NY 1 0.1 Saint Lucie, FL 1 0.1 Salem, NJ 346 39.8 Wayne, OH 1 0.1 Total 869 100 Shading indicates a county within the socioeconomic region of interest.
Page 2-34 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Table 2.6-3 Decennial Populations and Growth Rates Hope Creek Generating Station Cumberland Gloucester Salem New Jersey New Castle Delaware Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Population Growth Population Growth Population Growth Population Growth Population Growth Population Growth a
1970 121,374 NA 172,681 NA 60,346 NA 7,168,164 NA 385,856 NA 548,104 NA License Renewal Application a
1980 132,866 0.9 199,917 1.5 64,676 0.7 7,364,823 -0.5 398,115 0.3 594,338 0.8 a
1990 138,053 0.4 230,082 1.4 65,294 0.1 7,730,188 0.5 441,946 1.0 666,168 1.1 2000b 146,438 0.6 254,673 1.0 64,258 -0.2 8,414,350 0.9 500,265 1.2 783,600 1.6 c
2006 154,823 0.9 282,031 1.7 66,595 0.6 8,724,560 0.6 525,587 0.8 853,476 1.4 a
USCB 1995 b
USCB 2000b c
USCB 2006 NA = Not Applicable Table 2.6-4 Population and Growth Rates for the City of Salem and Lower Alloways Creek Township City of Salem a,b Lower Alloways Creek Twp a,b Decennial Percent Population Growth Population Decennial Percent Growth 1970 7648 NA 1400 NA 1980 6959 -9.0 1547 10.5 1990 6883 -1.1 1858 20.1 2000 5857 -14.9 1851 -0.4 Environmental Report 2007 5678 -3.1 1883 1.7 a
USCB 1982 b
USCB 2008b NA = Not Applicable Section 2.6 Tables Page 2-35
Table 2.6-5 Environmental Justice Summary a,b Page 2-36 Environmental Report Native American Hawaiian Number Indian or or Other Low-of Block Alaskan Pacific Some Multi- Income State Name County Name Groups Black Native Asian Islander Other Race Racial Aggregate Hispanic Households Section 2.6 Tables Delaware Kent 68 7 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 Delaware New Castle 349 66 0 0 0 6 0 72 15 21 Delaware Sussex 23 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 Maryland Baltimore 68 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 Maryland Caroline 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Maryland Cecil 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Maryland Harford 138 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 Maryland Kent 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Queen Maryland Anne's 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maryland Talbot 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Jersey Atlantic 53 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 New Jersey Burlington 133 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 New Jersey Camden 407 91 0 0 0 30 0 107 38 47 New Jersey Cape May 59 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 New Jersey Cumberland 101 11 0 0 0 9 0 23 14 9 New Jersey Gloucester 196 16 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 4 New Jersey Salem 49 7 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 Hope Creek Generating Station Pennsylvania Berks 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pennsylvania Chester 243 15 0 0 0 1 0 17 11 6 Pennsylvania Delaware 462 82 0 8 0 0 0 95 0 13 Pennsylvania Lancaster 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 License Renewal Application Pennsylvania Montgomery 311 33 0 0 0 0 0 41 2 3 Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1762 975 0 59 0 138 1 1177 190 556 Pennsylvania York 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS: 4585 1320 0 67 0 185 1 1582 273 667
Table 2.6-5 Environmental Justice Summary (Continued)
Hope Creek Generating Station Native American Hawaiian Indian or or Other Some Low-Alaskan Pacific Other Multi- Income Black Native Asian Islander Race Racial Aggregate Hispanic Households Delaware Percentages 19.23 0.35 2.07 0.04 2.02 1.66 25.37 4.76 8.75 License Renewal Application Maryland Percentages 27.89 0.29 3.98 0.04 1.80 1.96 35.97 4.30 8.32 New Jersey Percentages 13.57 0.23 5.71 0.04 5.36 2.54 27.45 13.28 8.29 Pennsylvania Percentages 9.97 0.15 1.79 0.03 1.53 1.16 14.63 3.21 10.99 Highlighted counties are completely contained within the 50-mile radius.
a USCB 2000a b
Table entries denote number of census block groups, except on lines indicated as percentages.
Environmental Report Section 2.6 Tables Page 2-37
Environmental Report Section 2.6 Figures Georgetown Seaford Millsboro
"*
Legend Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations
_ Black Minority Block Group
.--=:_--=:___c::====___ Miles o 3.75 7.5 15 22.5 30 D State Boundary
[-.J County Boundary Urban Area Hope Creek Generating Station Water PSEG License Renewal Environmental Report Figure 2.6-1 Black Minority Populations Page 2-38 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.6 Figures I
//
Lancaster Atglen r\
Chester PenJsYlvania
/
F
! Oxford Salem New ~ rsey
/ ,,~
r~
r Bridgeton Laurel Lake Delaware Kent Dover Harrington Georgetown Seaford Millsboro
"*
Legend Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations
_ Asian Minority Block Group
.--=:_--=:___c::====___ Miles o 3.75 7.5 15 22.5 30 D State Boundary
[-.J County Boundary Urban Area Hope Creek Generating Station Water PSEG License Renewal Environmental Report Figure 2.6-2 Asian Minority Populations Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-39 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.6 Figures I
//
Lancaster Atglen r\
Chester PenJsYlvania
/
F
! Oxford Salem New ~ rsey r/ ~"
r'"' ,Bridgeton Laurel Lake Delaware Kent Dover Harrington Seaford Millsboro
"*
Legend Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations
_ Other Minority Block Group
.--=_--=___c::====___
o 3.75 7.5 15 22.5 30 Miles D State Boundary
[-.J County Boundary Urban Area Hope Creek Generating Station Water PSEG License Renewal Environmental Report Figure 2.6-3 Other Minority Populations Page 2-40 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.6 Figures I
//
Lancaster Atglen r\
Chester PenJsYlvania
/
F
! Oxford Salem New ~ rsey
/ ,,~
r~
r Bridgeton Laurel Lake Delaware Kent Dover Harrington Georgetown Seaford Millsboro
"*
Legend Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations
_ Multi-Racial Minority Block Group
.--=:_--=:___c::====___ Miles o 3.75 7.5 15 22.5 30 D State Boundary
[-.J County Boundary Urban Area Hope Creek Generating Station Water PSEG License Renewal Environmental Report Figure 2.6-4 Multi-Racial Minority Populations Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-41 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.6 Figures Seaford Millsboro
"*
Legend Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations
_ Aggregate of Minorities Block Group
.--=:_--=:___c::====___ Miles o 3.75 7.5 15 22.5 30 D State Boundary
[-.J County Boundary Urban Area Hope Creek Generating Station Water PSEG License Renewal Environmental Report Figure 2.6-5 Aggregate of Minorities Populations Page 2-42 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.6 Figures I Chester
/f Philadelphia Lancaster A/e'en 1t
- peJ SYIVania
/
}!
Salem New ~ rsey r
/ ,,~
~
..J f
...
. , Vmeland r~ ~~/on tt.
Laurel Lake Delaware Kent Dover Harrington Seaford Millsboro
"*
Legend Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations
_ Hispanic Ethnicity Block Group
.--=_--=___c::====___
o 3.75 7.5 15 22.5 30 Miles D State Boundary
[-.J County Boundary Urban Area Hope Creek Generating Station Water PSEG License Renewal Environmental Report Figure 2.6-6 Hispanic Ethnicity Minority Populations Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-43 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.6 Figures Kent Dover Delaware Georgetown Seaford Millsboro
"*
Legend Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations
_ Low-Income Household Block Group
.--=_--=___c::====___
o 3.75 7.5 15 22.5 30 Miles D State Boundary
[-.J County Boundary Urban Area Hope Creek Generating Station Water PSEG License Renewal Environmental Report Figure 2.6-7 Low-Income Households Page 2-44 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.7 Taxes 2.7 Taxes New Jersey is one of a few states that initiate the budget process at a local, rather than county, level. In addition, local governments in New Jersey use the calendar year as opposed to a July-June fiscal year. Property taxes collected in Lower Alloways Creek Township are not retained by the township but are provided to Salem County, which provides most services to residents of Lower Alloways Creek Township.
PSEG pays property taxes to Lower Alloways Creek Township for HCGS. Over the last five years, the taxes paid to Lower Alloways Creek Township for HCGS ranged from a low of
$457,029 in 2006 to a high of $485,624 in 2005 (Table 2.7-1). PSEG also pays taxes to the City of Salem for the Energy and Environmental Resource Center, which is located in the City of Salem and is shared by Salem and HCGS. Table 2.7-1 summarizes PSEGs property tax payments to Lower Alloways Creek and the City of Salem from 2003 to 2007.
From 2003 through 2007, Lower Alloways Creek Township collected between $2,099,185 (in 2003) and $2,325,378 (in 2005) annually in total commercial property tax revenues (Table 2.7-1). From 2003 to 2007, HCGSs property tax payments represented 20.8 to 22.1 percent of Lower Alloways Creek Townships total property tax revenues. PSEGs property tax payment to Lower Alloways Creek Township is large enough to relieve the Lower Alloways Creek residents of the burden of local municipal property taxes on residences, local school taxes, and open space municipal taxes (a local option). The Lower Alloways Creek residents only pay Salem County taxes and county open space taxes. The PSEG property tax payments represent 1.03 to 1.34 percent of Salem Countys total property tax revenues during the same time period (Table 2.7-1).
From 2003 through 2007, the City of Salem collected between $5,092,527 and $7,389,319 annually in total property tax revenues (see Table 2.7-1). The City of Salems property tax revenues are allocated to county services, schools, open space, and municipal services. From 2003 to 2007, PSEGs property tax payments for the Energy and Environmental Resource Center represented 2.6 to 3.2 percent of the City of Salems total property tax revenues. The City of Salems property tax revenues are allocated to county services, schools, open space, and municipal services.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-45 License Renewal Application
Table 2.7-1 Tax Information for HCGS and the Energy and Environmental Resource Center, 2003 - 2007 Page 2-46 Environmental Report PSEGs Property Taxes for HCGS 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Amount PSEG Paid in Property Tax $464,677 $474,512 $485,624 $457,029 $480,476 Section 2.7 Tables Lower Alloways Creek Total Property Tax Revenuea $2,099,185 $2,251,474 $2,325,378 $2,195,746 $2,310,262 Percent of Lower Alloways Creek Total Property Tax Revenues 22.1 21.1 20.9 20.8 20.8 a
Salem County Total Property Tax Revenue $34,697,781 $36,320,365 $40,562,971 $43,382,037 $46,667,551 Percent of Salem County Total Property Tax Revenues 1.34 1.31 1.20 1.05 1.03 b
PSEGs Property Taxes for the Energy and Environmental Resource Center in Salem New Jersey 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Amount PSEG Paid in Property Tax $131,477 $156,974 $163,695 $169,381 $236,408 City of Salem Total Property Tax Revenuesa $5,092,527 $6,049,675 $6,294,613 $6,485,947 $7,389,319 Percent of City of Salem Total Property Tax Revenues 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.2 a
Source: State of New Jersey 2008 b
Property taxes for the Energy and Environmental Resource Center is provided for information only. The Resource Center would not be affected by any license renewal decision.
Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.8 Land Use Planning 2.8 Land Use Planning This section focuses on Salem County because the property taxes paid by PSEG for HCGS and the Energy and Environmental Resource Center are paid to the municipalities in Salem County.
Land use in the City of Salem and in Lower Alloways Creek Township is analyzed because PSEG pays property taxes to these municipalities, which host the Energy and Environmental Resource Center and HCGS, respectively. Regional and local planning officials have shared goals of encouraging expansion and development in areas where public facilities, such as water and sewer systems, have been planned, and discouraging incompatible land use mixes in agricultural or open spaces (Rukenstein and Associates 2004).
2.8.1 SALEM COUNTY Salem County occupies roughly 875 km2 (338 mi2) of land area (USCB 2008b) in the southwestern corner of New Jersey and is bordered by Gloucester County to the north, Cumberland County to the east and south, and the Delaware River to the west. Salem Countys Smart Growth Plan, submitted for final adoption in January 2004 (Rukenstein and Associates 2004), focuses on directing future growth toward the western side of the county, where infrastructure and major roadways already exist, and containing growth in the eastern and central portions to protect the traditional agrarian economy of the area. The Smart Growth Plan sets forth a strategic plan for a western economic growth and development corridor. Only ten percent of Salem County is developed for residential, commercial, or industrial use. Over half the countys land comprises tidal and fresh water wetlands, lakes, ponds, and forests, and the remainder (over one-third of the total area) is farmland. Salem County would like to provide sustainable economic development while protecting its rural character. Salem County has no measures to limit growth (Rukenstein and Associates 2004).
2.8.2 CITY OF SALEM The City of Salem is the county seat of Salem County and had a population of approximately 5,700 in 2007. As noted in Section 2.6, in general, the City of Salems population has been declining for decades. In 1999, Salem Main Street was formed to stimulate business opportunities, historic preservation, and community growth. Salem Main Street created the Main Street Revitalization Master Plan, which acts as a road map for future land use for the City of Salem. The Master Plan focuses on creating a cohesive town core and coordinating with Salem County to reduce competition between the city and the county. (Salem Main Street 2003) 2.8.3 LOWER ALLOWAYS CREEK TOWNSHIP Lower Alloways Creek Township occupies approximately 122 km2 (47 mi2) in the southwest corner of Salem County (Lower Alloways Creek Township 1992) and had a population of approximately 1,900 in 2007. Lower Alloways Creeks land use plan focuses on preserving farmland and open spaces and directing growth toward areas of the community most capable of providing necessary services (Lower Alloways Creek Township 1992).
The 2005 Master Plan Reexamination Report for Lower Alloways Creek Township states that there has been little change in the Townships land use patterns since the last Master Plan review in 1999 (Alaimo Group 2005). The Master Plan describes the following land use (Lower Alloways Creek Township 1992):
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-47 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.8 Land Use Planning Residential - seven percent Commercial - <one percent Industrial - three percent (the industrial district is entirely composed of the nuclear generating facilities on Artificial Island)
Public/Quasi-public - 37.5 percent Agriculture - 52 percent The Master Plan designates the area immediately adjacent to Artificial Island as appropriate for additional industrial development.
Page 2-48 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.9 Social Services and Public Facilities 2.9 Social Services and Public Facilities 2.9.1 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY Because HCGS is in Salem County and most of the HCGS employees reside in Salem, Cumberland, or Gloucester counties (in New Jersey), or New Castle County (in Delaware), the discussion of public water supply systems will be limited to these counties.
2.9.1.1 Salem County Salem County is served by 15 public water systems. In addition to the large public systems, there are some small private systems that serve individual communities such as mobile home parks. Public water systems serve approximately 41,700 persons (EPA 2008a). Water systems serving the largest populations are Penns Grove Water Supply (approximately14,400 persons served in Salem and Gloucester counties) and the Pennsville Water Department (approximately 13,500 persons served) (EPA 2008a). The sources for these systems are primarily ground water. Table 2.9-1 lists the largest municipal water suppliers (serving more than 5,000 people) in Salem, Gloucester, and Cumberland counties, and indicates their daily peak demands, total capacities, and excess capacities.
The Penns Grove Water Supply is at 80 percent of capacity. In order to provide additional storage capacity, Carneys Point Township, which receives water from Penns Grove Water Supply, has secured federal and state grants for the Penns Grove Water Supply to construct an additional 500,000-gallon storage tank. The Penns Grove Water Supply Company has requested additional permitted capacity from NJDEP to meet the projected demand.
(Rukenstein and Associates 2004) 2.9.1.2 Cumberland County Cumberland County is served by 15 public water systems. In addition to the large public systems, there are some small private systems that serve individual communities such as mobile home parks. Public water systems serve approximately 83,300 persons. Water systems serving the largest populations are Vineland Water & Sewer Utility (approximately 33,000 persons served), the Millville Water Department (approximately 27,500 persons), and the Bridgeton Water Department (approximately 23,000 persons). The sources for these systems are primarily ground water. (EPA 2008a) 2.9.1.3 Gloucester County Gloucester County has 32 public water systems. In addition to the large public systems, there are some small private systems that serve individual communities such as mobile home parks and campgrounds. Public water systems serve approximately 220,000 persons. Water systems serving the largest populations are Washington Municipal Utilities Authority (MUA)
(approximately 48,000 persons served), the Monroe MUA (approximately 26,000 persons served), the Deptford MUA (approximately 26,000 persons), and the West Deptford Water Department (approximately 20,000 persons). The sources for these systems are primarily ground water, with the exception of the Deptford MUA, which uses purchased surface water.
(EPA 2008a)
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-49 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.9 Social Services and Public Facilities 2.9.1.4 New Castle County, Delaware Seventy-five percent of drinking water in New Castle County comes from surface water sources and 25 percent is from ground water (New Castle County 2007). New Castle County is served by three privately owned water utilities and four city-owned water utilities. Public and private water systems serve approximately 334,000 persons (EPA 2008a). The sources for these systems are ground and surface water. Table 2.9-2 lists the daily demand, total capacity, and excess capacity for those water systems for which information was available.
2.9.2 TRANSPORTATION Salem County is traversed by two major highways, one interstate highway (I-295) and the New Jersey Turnpike. Road access to HCGS is via Alloways Creek Neck Road, a small two-lane road, to Nuclear Station Access Road. The combined HCGS and Salem workforces use the Nuclear Station Access Road entrance. Approximately 11 km (seven mi) east of HCGS, Alloways Creek Neck Road intersects County Route 658, which has a north-south orientation (Figure 2.9-1). Employees traveling to HCGS from locations to the north, northeast, or northwest, could use a variety of interstate, state, and secondary roads to access State Route 49, which intersects County Route 658 at the western edge of the City of Salem. These employees could then reach HCGS by traveling south on County Route 658 to Alloways Creek Neck Road. Employees traveling to HCGS from Greenwich could use County Route 623, which intersects Alloways Creek Neck Road about one mile east of the intersection of Alloways Creek Neck Road and County Route 658. From County Route 623, these employees could reach HCGS by traveling west on Alloways Creek Neck Road. Employees from farther south than Greenwich or from the southeast could reach HCGS by using a variety of state highways and secondary roads to access State Route 49. From State Route 49, these employees could reach HCGS by traveling northwest to County Route 667, then west to County Route 623, and from there, south to Alloways Creek Neck Road.
Table 2.9-3 provides annual average daily traffic counts (AADTs) for roads in the vicinity of HCGS for which traffic counts were available. Figure 2.9-1 shows the locations at which such AADTs are collected and the major roadways in the area. New Jersey does not collect data for highway Levels of Service.
Page 2-50 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Table 2.9-1 Major Water Suppliers (serving 5,000 or more people) in Salem, Cumberland, and Gloucester Counties, Hope Creek Generating Station New Jersey Peak Daily Demand plus additional Total Excess Population Primary Water Committed Capacity Capacity Serveda License Renewal Application Water System Name County Source Peak (MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
Bridgeton Water Department Cumberland 22,770 Ground water 3.083 5.616 2.533 Millville Water Department Cumberland 27,500 Ground water 7.232 7.82 0.588 Vineland Water & Sewer Utility Cumberland 33,000 Ground water 14.91 16.392 1.482 Clayton Water Department Gloucester 7,155 Ground water 1.42 1.944 0.524 Purchased surface Deptford MUA Gloucester 26,000 water 4.628 8.6 3.972 Glassboro Water Department Gloucester 19,238 Ground water 3.829 6.036 2.207 Greenwich Water Department Gloucester 4,900 Ground water 1.427 1.972 0.545 Mantua MUA Gloucester 11,713 Ground water 2.172 2.376 0.204 Monroe MUA Gloucester 26,145 Ground water 4.789 6.54 1.751 NJ American Water Company Gloucester 5,967 Ground water 1.518 2.146 0.628 Paulsboro Water Department Gloucester 6,200 Ground water 1.248 1.8 0.552 Penns Grove Water Supply Company Gloucester/Salem 14,406 Ground water 2.377 3.055 0.678 Pitman Water Department Gloucester 9,445 Ground water 0.85 1.67 0.82 South Jersey Water Supply Gloucester 9,181 Ground water 2.635 3.398 0.763 Washington MUA Gloucester 48,000 Ground water 7.992 11.7 3.708 West Deptford Water Department Gloucester 20,000 Ground water 3.265 6.884 3.619 Westville Water Department Gloucester 6,000 Ground water 0.696 1.728 1.032 Purchased surface Woodbury Water Department Gloucester 11,000 water 1.857 5.76 3.903 Pennsville Water Department Salem 13,500 Ground water 1.445 3.376 1.931 Environmental Report Salem Water Department Salem 6,199 Surface water 1.655 4.274 2.619 Total Excess Capacity 34.1 Source: EPA 2008a; NJDEP 2007b a
Population served may include more or less persons than previously specified within the geopolitical boundaries MUA = Municipal Utility Authority Page 2-51 Section 2.9 Tables
Environmental Report Section 2.9 Tables Table 2.9-2 Major Water Suppliers (serving 5,000 or more people) in New Castle County, Delaware Average Daily Maximum Population Primary Water Production Capacity Water System Name Serveda Source Type (MGD) (MGD)
Purchased Artesian Water Company, Inc. 6,483 NA NA surface water City of Wilmington Water 140,000 Surface water 29 61 Tidewater Utilities, Inc. 30,000 Ground water NA NA United Water Delaware 105,270 Surface water NA NA New Castle Water Department 6,000 Ground water 0.5 1.3 Middletown Water Department 9,900 Ground water NA NA Newark Water Department 36,130 Surface water 4 6 Total Production/ Capacity 33.5 68.3 Total Excess Capacity 34.8 Source: EPA 2008a; TetraTech 2008 MGD = million gallons per day NA = Not Available a
Population served may include more or less persons than previously specified within the geopolitical boundaries Table 2.9-3 Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts on Roads in the Vicinity of HCGS Annual Average Daily Traffic Roadway and Location (AADT) a 1 NJ 49, between NJ 45 and York Street 12,920 2 NJ 45, between CR 657 and Howell Street 11,246 3 Alloways Creek Neck Road, between Grosscup Road and Pancoast Road 3,175 4 NJ 49, between CR 607 and Lawrence Street 12,340 5 NJ 49, between CR 607 and Commerce Street 8,490 6 NJ 49, between Laurel Street and NJ 77 20,590 Source: NJDOT 2007 a
Numbers refer to locations on Figure 2.9-1.
Page 2-52 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.9 Figures Daniels Tract
~*COllins
"*
Legend Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations
" ' AADT Count Location
_-c.-c._-====-__ Miles o 0.5 1 2 3 4
- Populated Place r.:::::l County Boundary
- Primary Highway with Limited Access Hope Creek Generating Station
~ Primary Highway PSEG
- Secondary Road License Renewal Environmental Report
- Local Road Figure 2.9-1 Transportation Routes to HCGS Water Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-53 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.10 Meteorology and Air Quality 2.10 Meteorology and Air Quality HCGS is located in Salem County, New Jersey. New Jersey, while small in total land area (20,295 km2 [7,836 mi2]), has five distinct climatic zones: Northern, Central, Pine Barrens, Southwest, and Coastal. The diversity of climatic conditions is attributed to the regional geology, close proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, and the prevailing atmospheric flow pattern impacting the state. The Northern Zone is dominated by mountainous climate that is unlike other zones in the state. This area receives the most precipitation and thunderstorms. The Central Zone is comprised of heavily urbanized areas, which affect local temperatures. The boundary of freezing and non-freezing precipitation is located near the northern portion of this zone. The climate of the Pine Barrens Zone is affected by the dense forests and sandy soils, which allow for drier conditions and a wider range of maximum and minimum daily temperatures. The Coastal Zone is heavily influenced by continental and oceanic conditions.
The climatic conditions of this zone are affected by ocean breezes, which buffer extreme seasonal temperature fluctuations compared to the inland portions of the state. Coastal storms also influence this zone, resulting in higher winds and larger cumulative effects from precipitation. The Southwest Zone is close to the Delaware Bay, and its climate is influenced to some degree by maritime weather conditions. High humidity and moderate temperatures produced by prevailing winds from the south or east and early spring conditions provide the longest growing season in New Jersey. (NCDC 2008a)
Salem County is in the Southwest climate zone, and the local climate can be described as humid continental and humid sub-tropical (PSEG 2009c). Based on data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations weather station in Salem County, New Jersey (Woodstown Pittsgrove Station), winter temperatures average 1.78 degrees Celsius
(°C; 35.2 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]) and summer temperatures average 23.78°C (74.8°F).
Average annual precipitation is 112 cm (44 in), with the most precipitation in July and August.
The average seasonal snowfall is 39 cm (15 in), with the largest percentage falling during the month of January (NCDC 2008b).
Under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which specify maximum concentrations for carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter with aerodynamic diameters of 10 microns or less (PM10), particulate matter with aerodynamic diameters of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), ozone, sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead, and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Areas of the United States having air quality as good as or better than the NAAQS are designated by the EPA as attainment areas.
Areas having air quality that is worse than the NAAQS are designated by EPA as non-attainment areas. Those areas that were previously designated non-attainment and subsequently re-designated as attainment due to meeting the NAAQS are termed maintenance areas. States with maintenance areas are required to develop an air quality maintenance plan as an element of the State Implementation Plan.
Salem County, New Jersey, is part of the Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) (40 CFR 81.15). Salem County is in attainment for CO, SO2, and NO2.
However, several neighboring counties are designated non-attainment or maintenance areas (NJDEP 2008g).
Salem County is designated as non-attainment for 8-hour ozone (40 CFR 81.331). On March 12, 2008, the EPA significantly strengthened its national air quality standards for ground-level ozone. As the regulations require, NJDEP has provided recommendations to EPA Page 2-54 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.10 Meteorology and Air Quality regarding areas to be designated as attainment, non-attainment, or unclassifiable. (NJDEP 2009) The EPA will issue final designations by 2010 or 2011 (EPA 2008b). Salem Countys non-attainment designation would not be expected to change following the issuance of new EPA standards.
Salem County is in attainment for PM2.5; however, New Castle County, Delaware, which is across the Delaware River from HCGS, is non-attainment for PM2.5 (40 CFR 81.331). In October 2006, the EPA issued a final rule that revised the 24-hour PM2.5 standard and revoked the annual PM10 standard (EPA 2006a). Non-attainment designations for PM10 are not affected by the new rule, but additional non-attainment areas could be designated under the new PM2.5 standard (EPA 2008c). Salem County is in attainment for PM10. On December 18, 2007, the NJDEP submitted recommendations to the EPA that identified many areas surrounding Salem County as not in attainment with the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Under the final rule, Salem County, including the HCGS site, is in attainment (NJDEP 2008g).
The Clean Air Act, as amended, established 156 Mandatory Class I Federal Areas where visibility is an important issue. The Brigantine Wilderness (a portion of the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge) is approximately 93 km (58 mi) southeast of HCGS, and is the only Class I area located within 161 km (100 mi) of HCGS (40 CFR 81.420).
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-55 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.11 Historic and Archaeological Resources 2.11 Historic and Archaeological Resources 2.11.1 REGIONAL HISTORY IN BRIEF Aboriginal people migrated to New Jersey approximately 15,000 years ago. Three major cultural traditions dominated the prehistory of New Jersey and the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain:
the Paleo-Indian Tradition (15,000 to 10,000 years ago); the Archaic Tradition (10,000 to 3,000 years ago); and the Woodland Tradition (3,000 years ago to European contact). Artifacts from the Paleo-Indians are the earliest documented evidence of early populations inhabiting the area now known as New Jersey. When the first European explorers and settlers came to the area, they found the Late Woodland period people (BBNEP 2001).
When the European immigrants arrived in the mid-1600s and early 1700s, they settled first along the coastal bays and inlets of the Hudson, Hackensack, Passaic, and Raritan river valleys in northern New Jersey, and the Delaware River Valley and inner Coastal Plain south of Trenton. The area between the Delaware River and the Atlantic Ocean in the southern part of the outer Coastal Plain was still "unsettled" in 1765. This vast area, eventually called the "Pine Barrens," was used by the earliest European settlers largely for harvesting lumber and hunting, and later it supplied resources for colonial industries. From the 17th through the 20th centuries, European settlers engaged in a number of vocations and avocations in the New Jersey Pine Barrens, such as hunting, fishing, lumber harvesting, shipbuilding, bog iron manufacture, charcoal manufacture, cranberry and blueberry cultivation, salt hay and eelgrass harvesting, sphagnum moss harvesting, mineral (silica) extraction, salt harvesting, and tourism. A number of these industries no longer exist for various reasons, including resource depletion (BBNEP 2001).
2.11.2 PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS HCGS is on the southern portion of Artificial Island. Beginning in the early 1900s, Artificial Island was created by disposing of hydraulic dredge spoil within a progressively larger diked area on a natural peninsula that projected into the river. The completed island is approximately 607 hectares (1,500 acres) with an average elevation of three m (nine ft) above msl (AEC 1973). The Final Environmental Statement for the operation of HCGS identified 57 properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places within a 16-km (ten-mi) radius of the station (NRC 1984). Due to the disturbed and artificial nature of the PSEG property, no archaeological resources have ever been identified.
2.11.3 CURRENT HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS As of 2008, 21 properties in Salem County, New Jersey, and 387 properties in New Castle County, Delaware, have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Of these 408 properties, six locations in Salem County, New Jersey (NPS 2008a), and 17 locations in New Castle County, Delaware (NPS 2008b), fall within a ten-km (six-mi) radius of the HCGS (Table 2.11-1).
Page 2-56 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Table 2.11-1 Sites Listed on the National Register of Historic Places within a 10-km (6-mi) Radius of HCGS Hope Creek Generating Station Distance (km Resource Name Address City [mi]) from Station Salem County, New Jersey Alloways Creek Friends Meetinghouse Buttonwood Avenue, 150 ft. West of Main Street Hancocks Bridge 8 (5)
License Renewal Application Hancock House 3 Front Street Hancocks Bridge 8 (5)
Holmes, Benjamin, House West of HCGS on Fort Elfsborg-Hancocks Bridge Road Salem 10 (6)
Junction of Hancocks Branch and Fort Elfsborg Road, 8 (5)
Nicholson, Abel and Mary, House Salem Elsinsboro Township Nicholson, Sarah and Samuel, House Two miles South of HCGS on Amwellbury Road Salem 10 (6)
Ware, Joseph, House 134 Poplar Street Hancocks Bridge 6 (4)
New Castle County, Delaware Ashton Historic District North of Port Penn on Thornton Road Port Penn 8 (5)
Augustine Beach Hotel South of Port Penn on DE 9 Port Penn 6 (4)
Cleaver House Off Biddles Corner Road Port Penn 10 (6)
Dilworth House Off DE 9 Port Penn 8 (5)
Gordon, J.M., House Route 44 Odessa 8 (5)
Green Meadow Thomas Landing Road (DE 440), Appoquinimink Hundred Odessa 6 (4)
Grose, Robert, House 1000 Port Penn Road Port Penn 8 (5)
Hart House East of Taylors Bridge on DE 453 Taylors Bridge 5 (3)
Hazel Glen West of Port Penn on DE 420 Port Penn 8 (5)
Higgins, S., Farm Route 423 Odessa 8 (5)
Johnson Home Farm Co. Road 453 East of Junction with DE 9, Blackbird Hundred Taylors Bridge 6 (4)
Environmental Report Liston House East of Taylors Bridge on DE 453 Taylors Bridge 6 (4)
Misty Vale Route 423 Odessa 10 (6)
Port Penn Historic District DE 9 Port Penn 6 (4)
Reedy Island Range Rear Light Junction of DE 9 and Road 453 Taylors Bridge 8 (5)
Section 2.1 Tables Thomas, David W., House 326 Thomas Landing Road, Appoquinimink Hundred Odessa 8 (5)
Page 2-57 Vandegrift, J., House Route 44 Odessa 8 (5)
Environmental Report Section 2.12 Known or Reasonably Foreseeable Projects in Site Vicinity 2.12 Known or Reasonably Foreseeable Projects in Site Vicinity As indicated on Figure 2.1-2, there is no urban area within the 10-km (6-mi) radius of HCGS, nor is there any industrial development. The immediate vicinity consists of extensive tidal marshlands and low-lying meadowlands.
2.12.1 WATER USERS IN THE DELAWARE RIVER BASIN IN THE VICINITY OF HCGS In its Envirofacts Data Warehouse online database access tool, the EPA provides information about environmental activities that may affect air, land, and water. A search of the Envirofacts water database for facilities that hold permits to discharge to waters of the United States in the vicinity of HCGS identified heavy industries, electric generation, and manufacturing, among others. These industries represent the types of existing dischargers to the river in the vicinity of HCGS. They also represent the types of industrial facilities that could be permitted near HCGS in the future. Additional information concerning these facilities may be accessed through the EPAs Envirofacts Warehouse (http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/).
2.12.2 ELECTRIC CAPACITY IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF HCGS 2.12.2.1 Salem Nuclear Generating Station The Salem Nuclear Generating Station and HCGS are co-located on Artificial Island. Salem is a two-unit plant utilizing pressurized water reactors (PWRs) designed by Westinghouse Electric.
Each unit has a current licensed thermal power at 100 percent power of 3,459 MWt (PSEG 2009c). An air-cooled combustion turbine peaking unit rated at approximately 40 MWe (referred to as Salem Unit 3) is also present.
Salem has a once-through circulating water system (CWS) for condenser cooling that withdraws water from and discharges water to the Delaware Estuary. The intake structure for the CWS is on the south shore of Artificial Island and the Salem Service Water System (SWS) has an independent intake structure located upstream of the CWS intake. Discharge for both systems is through a submerged pipe that extends 152 m (500 ft) into the estuary approximately halfway between the SWS and CWS intakes. Each units CWS pumps approximately 3.97 million liters (1.05 million gallons) per minute from the river.
PSEG has a current NJPDES (No. NJ0005622) permit for Salem that limits intake flow from the Delaware Estuary to a 30-day average of 11.5 billion liters (3.0 billion gallons) per day of circulating water (NJDEP 2004).
PSEG is authorized by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) to withdraw surface water from the Delaware Estuary through the Salem CWS and SWS intakes for consumptive and non-consumptive use as cooling water not to exceed 367,000 million liters (97,000 million gallons) in a single 30-day period. (DRBC 2001)
PSEG has a single ground-water allocation permit from NJDEP for the diversion by both Salem and HCGS of up to 164 billion liters (43.2 billion gallons) of ground water per month (NJDEP 2004).
Page 2-58 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 2.12 Known or Reasonably Foreseeable Projects in Site Vicinity As a result of operations, both HCGS and Salem release liquid and gaseous radiological effluents into the environment. The releases are controlled and monitored to ensure that regulatory limits on the radioactivity discharged to the environment are not exceeded. Doses from these releases represent a fraction of the allowable doses specified in the facility operating license and NRC regulations. Results presented in the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report, which evaluates the combined contributions from both HCGS and Salem, indicate that there has been no significant impact on the radiological characteristics of the environs of the area (PSEG 2007b).
2.12.2.2 Potential New Generating Unit(s)
PSEG currently plans to submit an Early Site Permit (ESP) application to the NRC during the second quarter of 2010 to address the possibility that new nuclear generating capacity could be located on Artificial Island (PSEG 2008c). The decision to pursue an ESP does not represent a commitment by PSEG to build a new nuclear power plant. If the decision were made later to build new nuclear generation, then PSEG would develop and submit a Combined License Application (COLA).
2.12.2.3 Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway PJM has identified a 500-kV transmission line to be constructed from Possum Point in Virginia to Salem as necessary to increase grid stability, and to get additional power into the mid-Atlantic states (PJM 2009).
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 2-59 License Renewal Application
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Chapter 3 The Proposed Action Hope Creek Generating Station Environmental Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Environmental Report Section 3.1 General Plant Information 3.1 General Plant Information NRC The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the applicants plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures. This report must describe in detail the modifications directly affecting the environment or affecting plant effluents that affect the environment. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)
PSEG proposes that the NRC extend the term of the operating license for HCGS for 20 years beyond its current term of 40 years. License renewal would give PSEG and the State of New Jersey the option of relying on HCGS to meet future electricity needs. Section 3.1 discusses the station in general. Sections 3.2 through 3.4 address potential changes that could occur as a result of license renewal.
General information regarding HCGS is available in several documents. In 1984, the NRC issued the Final Environmental Statement (FES) related to operation of HCGS (NRC 1984).
The Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NRC 1996b) describes HCGS features. Finally, in accordance with NRC requirements, PSEG routinely revises the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for HCGS to reflect current plant design and operating features (PSEG 2009b). PSEG has referred to each of these and additional documents while preparing the Environmental Report for license renewal.
Figure 3.1-1 illustrates the PSEG property boundary and the spatial relationship of HCGS and Salem on the south end of Artificial Island. The major structures and facilities located on and adjacent to the HCGS site are shown in Figure 3.1-2. Major buildings include the following:
Unit 1 reactor building which houses the nuclear steam supply system including the reactor, reactor coolant pumps, and related equipment; The turbine/administration building; The cooling tower; The adjacent Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem); and Other structures and facilities of interest such as the service water intake structure, discharge structure, switchyard, the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI),
the low-level radioactive waste interim storage building, and the nuclear department administration building.
3.1.1 REACTOR AND CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS HCGS is a one-unit plant utilizing a boiling water reactor (BWR) designed by General Electric.
Bechtel was the original plant builder and architect-engineer. The license for fuel loading and low-power testing was issued on April 11, 1986. Following fuel loading and a period of testing the NRC issued the Facility Operating License, NPF-57, authorizing full commercial operation, Hope Creek Generating Station Page 3-3 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 3.1 General Plant Information which began December 20, 1986. The original licensed core power for HCGS was 3,293 MWt (PSEG 2009b). HCGS underwent a 1.4 percent (46 MWt) measurement uncertainty recapture uprate in 2001 and a 15 percent (501 MWt) extended power uprate in 2008 (NRC 2008a, NRC 2008b). HCGSs current licensed thermal power is 3,840 MWt (PSEG 2009b). At 100 percent reactor power, the electrical output is estimated to be approximately 1,265 MWe (NRC 2008b).
The nuclear steam supply system includes a boiling water reactor (BWR), reactor coolant system (RCS), and associated auxiliary fluid systems. The RCS consists of the two reactor recirculation pump loops external to the reactor vessel. Each external loop contains one recirculation pump and two motor-operated gate valves for pump maintenance. Each loop also contains a flow measuring system. (PSEG 2009b)
Auxiliary systems charge the RCS, add makeup water, purify reactor coolant water, provide chemicals for corrosion inhibition, cool system components, remove residual heat when the reactor is shut down, cool the spent fuel storage pool, sample reactor coolant water, provide for emergency safety injection, and vent and drain the RCS. (PSEG 2009b)
The reactor building houses the reactor, the primary containment, and fuel handling and storage areas. The primary containment is a steel shell, shaped like a light bulb, enclosed in reinforced concrete, and interconnected to a torus-type steel suppression chamber. The reactor building is capable of containing any radioactive materials that might be released due to a loss-of-coolant accident. (PSEG 2009b)
The containment systems and their engineered safeguards are designed to ensure that offsite doses resulting from postulated accidents are well below the guidelines in 10 CFR 100.
3.1.2 FUEL ENRICHMENT AND BURN-UP HCGS is licensed for low-enriched uranium-dioxide fuel with enrichments to a nominal 5.0 percent by weight uranium-235 and an allowable fuel burn-up of 60,000 megawatt-days per metric ton uranium (NRC 2008b). The uranium-dioxide fuel is in the form of high-density ceramic pellets. Fuel rods used in the reactors consist of Zircaloy-based tubing with fuel pellets stacked inside and sealed with a welded end plug (PSEG 2009b).
The HCGS spent fuel pool facility provides storage space for the spent fuel assemblies. The pool is designed to store up to 3,976 fuel assemblies (PSEG 2009b).
The NRC issued a general license to PSEG authorizing an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) at the HCGS site. The general license allows PSEG, as a reactor licensee under 10 CFR 50, to store spent fuel from both HCGS and Salem at the ISFSI, provided that such storage occurs in pre-approved casks in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 72, subpart K (General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites). Currently, only HCGS spent fuel is being stored at the ISFSI. Spent fuel transfers to the ISFSI from each Salem unit are expected to begin approximately one year before complete offload capability is lost (NRC 2004).
3.1.3 COOLING AND AUXILIARY WATER SYSTEMS HCGS has a closed cycle circulating water system for condenser cooling that consists of a natural draft cooling tower and associated withdrawal, circulation, and discharge facilities.
HCGS withdraws brackish water with the Service Water System (SWS) from the Delaware Page 3-4 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 3.1 General Plant Information Estuary through an intake structure. Service Water provides cooling to Reactor Auxiliaries Cooling System, Safety Auxiliaries Cooling System, and other heat exchangers, and is discharged to the cooling tower basin to serve as condenser cooling water makeup to replace the water lost through evaporation and cooling tower blowdown. Cooling tower blowdown and other station effluents are discharged into the Delaware Estuary through an underwater conduit located 458 m (1,500 ft) upriver of the SWS intake (PSEG 1983). Onsite ground-water wells provide fresh water for domestic/potable, industrial, and fire protection needs. The following subsections describe the water systems at HCGS.
3.1.3.1 Surface Water PSEG has a current NJPDES permit from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for HCGS (No. NJ0025411; NJDEP 2003). The NJPDES permit authorizes the use of surface water and the discharge of effluents within the terms and conditions specified in the permit. The SWS withdraws an average of 253 million liters per day (66.8 million gallons per day [MGD]) from the Delaware Estuary. Approximately 25 million liters per day (6.7 MGD) are immediately returned as screen and strainer backwash, 49 million liters per day (13 MGD) are evaporated in the cooling tower process, and the remainder is returned to the Delaware Estuary in accordance with the NJPDES permit.
PSEG is authorized by the DRBC for consumptive use by HCGS of brackish water from the Delaware Estuary (DRBC 1984a, DRBC 1984b). This authorization includes provisions allowing for compensatory releases from storage or reduction in withdrawal from PSEG facilities on the Delaware River in specified low-flow conditions at Trenton. The Merrill Creek reservoir in Washington, New Jersey, stores water that can be used to make up for evaporative water loss from certain electric generating facilities on the Delaware River. PSEG is a member of the Merrill Creek Owners Group.
Service Water System The SWS withdraws brackish water from the Delaware Estuary through an intake structure.
After use in the SWS, the water is used as make-up for the cooling water system (CWS). The intake structure, which has eight intake bays, is parallel to the Delaware Estuary shoreline (Figure 3.1-1). Only four of the bays are equipped with service water pumps and associated equipment. The four empty bays were originally intended to supply service water to a second reactor, which was never constructed. The intake system has trash racks, Ristroph traveling screens, and a fish-return system. (NJDEP 2002)
The trash racks extend 4 m (13 ft) in front of the intake; river currents sweep the face of the intake structure, and the trash racks, which are set on 7.6-cm (3-in) centers, prevent heavy debris from entering the intake and damaging the traveling screens. Mechanical rakes remove collected debris, which is aggregated in trash containers for off-site disposal. The intake velocity at the trash racks is about 0.03 m/sec (0.1 ft/sec). (NJDEP 2002)
Behind the trash racks is a skimmer wall that prevents the entrance of oil slicks or surface ice.
Intake water flows under the skimmer wall at a maximum velocity of approximately 0.11 m/sec (0.35 ft/sec), into four bays, each 3.4 m high by 2.9 m wide (11 ft high by 9.5 ft wide). The water then flows through a traveling screen, at a maximum velocity of approximately 0.12 m/sec (0.39 ft/sec). The traveling screens have a bucket on the lower lip designed to prevent re-impingement of fish on the screen and provide the mechanism to return the fish to the river.
The buckets allow organisms to remain in the water while being lifted to fish return troughs.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 3-5 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 3.1 General Plant Information Organisms are washed into the fish-return trough with a low-pressure screen spray. As the screen moves further along the sprocket, high-pressure spray washes debris into the debris trough. The fish and debris troughs return water, fish, and debris to the Delaware Estuary south of the SWS intake structure. (NJDEP 2002)
After passing through the traveling screens, the estuary water enters the service water pumps.
During normal operation, two or three station service water pumps, depending on the temperature of the Delaware Estuary, are required. The four service water pumps are each rated at 62,459 liters per minute (16,500 gallons per minute [gpm]) (NJDEP 2002). Sodium hypochlorite is continuously added at the suction of the service water pumps as a biocide to prevent fouling (NJDEP 2002).
Circulating Water System Once the water exits the service water system it is sent to the cooling tower basin for use as make-up water for the CWS. The circulating water system (CWS) consists of one natural draft cooling tower with make-up, blowdown, and basin bypass systems; the four circulating water pumps; a two-pass surface condenser; and a closed loop circulating water piping arrangement.
The cooling tower basin contains approximately 34 million liters (9 million gallons) of water. The CWS provides approximately 2.317 million liters per minute (612,000 gpm) from the cooling tower basin by means of four pumps (NJDEP 2002). The CWS pumps supply cooling water to the main condenser to condense steam from the turbine, and return this condenser cooling water back to the cooling tower for removal of heat and recirculation. In normal operation, all four circulating water pumps continuously operate. At least two pumps must operate to sustain electric power production (PSEG 1983).
The main condenser is a double-pass, three-shell, horizontal, de-aerating type surface condenser. Each shell has two tube bundles, two inlet-outlet boxes, and two reversing-end water boxes. From the condenser, the water returns to the cooling tower to complete the cooling cycle (PSEG 1983).
A single counterflow, hyperbolic, natural draft cooling tower dissipates the heat from the circulating water system. Continuous blowdown controls the build-up of solids in the cooling tower basin (NJDEP 2002). Effluent heat and temperature are limited and monitored, but the low effluent temperature and high flow rate of the Delaware Estuary preclude heat shock and cold shock. Monthly average evaporative losses in the cooling tower consume between 36,340 liters per minute (9,600 gpm; January) and 49,210 liters per minute (13,000 gpm; July). Sodium hydroxide is added to the circulating water system to minimize scaling. Sodium hypochlorite is used to prevent biofouling in the cooling tower, and cooling tower blowdown is dechlorinated with ammonium bisulfate prior to discharge (NJDEP 2002).
3.1.3.2 Ground Water PSEG has authorization from the NJDEP (NJDEP 2004) and DRBC (DRBC 2000) for consumptive use of up to 163 million liters (43.2 million gallons) of ground water per month at the HCGS and Salem sites combined. The discussion of ground water in this section includes use at both the HCGS and Salem sites for the following reasons.
NJDEP issued a single permit for both sites combined. Although each site uses separate wells and there are individual pumping limits for each well, the permit limits are for both sites combined. The current permit allows a combined maximum diversion rate Page 3-6 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 3.1 General Plant Information for HCGS and Salem of 11,000 liters per minute (2,900 gpm) and limits actual water diverted to 163 million liters (43.2 million gallons) per month or 1.1 billion liters (300 million gallons) per year (NJDEP 2004). The ground-water pumping limit per well, based on the January 1, 2005, permit (NJDEP 2004), is indicated in Table 3.1-1. This limit is consistent with the docket authorization issued by DRBC for ground-water withdrawal.
(DRBC 2000)
The ground-water withdrawal systems for HCGS and Salem are interconnected in order to transfer water between the stations, if needed.
Ground water is the only source of fresh water at the HCGS and Salem sites. Both sites use fresh water for potable, industrial process make-up, fire protection, and sanitary purposes (PSEG 2009c, PSEG 2009b).
HCGS derives ground water from two production wells (HC-1 and HC-2), installed to a depth of 249 m (816 ft) in the Upper Raritan Formation of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer (DRBC 2000). The wells supply two 1.3 million-liter (350,000-gallon) storage tanks. Of the total volume, approximately 2.5 million liters (656,000 gallons) of water are reserved for fire protection; the remainder is for potable, sanitary, and industrial purposes, including demineralized makeup water (PSEG 2009c). The Demineralized Water Makeup system uses ion-exchange resin to provide the ultrapure water required.
Ground water at Salem is primarily withdrawn from two production wells, PW-5 and PW-6, which are installed to depths of 256 m (840 ft) and 347 m (1,140 ft), respectively, in the Upper and Middle Raritan Formations of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer (DRBC 2000). Salem also has the capability of using two shallower wells, PW-2 and PW-3, currently classified as stand-by wells by NJDEP (NJDEP 2004). These wells are installed to depths of 87 m (286 ft) and 89 m (293 ft), respectively, in the Mt Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer (DRBC 2000). The wells supply two 1.3 million-liter (350,000-gallon) storage tanks (for a total of four storage tanks, two for each station). Of the total volume, 2.27 million liters (600,000 gallons) of water are reserved for fire protection; the remainder is for potable, sanitary, and industrial purposes, including makeup water to those plant systems requiring demineralized water (PSEG 2009c). The demineralized water makeup system uses reverse osmosis to provide the ultrapure water required.
Ground-Water Usage PSEG has authorization from the NJDEP (NJDEP 2004) and DRBC (DRBC 2000) for consumptive use of up to 163 million liters (43.2 million gallons) of ground water per month at the HCGS and Salem sites combined.
Between 2002 and 2008 the Salem wells pumped an average of 821 liters per minute (217 gpm) with a production low for the period of 640 liters per minute (169 gpm) during 2002 and a high of 1,007 liters per minute (266 gpm) during 2008. During the same period, the HCGS wells pumped an average of 609 liters per minute (161 gpm) with a production low for the period of 518 liters per minute (137 gpm) during 2002 and a high of 749 liters per minute (198 gpm) during 2004. (Table 3.1-1; TetraTech 2009)
Ground-water elevations were measured during a ground-water study in 1987 by Dames &
Moore (Dames & Moore 1988) in the River Sand and Gravel Aquifer, the Vincentown Aquifer, the Mt. Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer, and the Upper and Middle Raritan Formations of the Potomac-Hope Creek Generating Station Page 3-7 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 3.1 General Plant Information Raritan-Magothy (PRM) Aquifer. The ground-water elevation ranges measured for these aquifers are indicated in Table 3.1-2. Ground-water elevation ranges were more recently monitored in the HCGS/Salem wells, as indicated in Table 3.1-3. Of the four primary HCGS/Salem wells, three (PW-5, HC-1, and HC-2) are installed in the Upper Raritan Formation.
The fourth (PW-6) is installed in the Middle Raritan Formation.
The ground-water elevation ranges (Table 3.1-3) measured in PW-6 (in the Middle Raritan Formation) in 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 are higher than the elevation recorded in 1987; the ranges of elevations recorded from PW-6 in 2000, 2001 and 2004 bracket the elevation recorded in 1987. For the last three years, elevations in PW-6 have been fairly constant at about-45 to -48 feet.
The data for wells PW-5, HC-1, and HC-2 in the Upper Raritan Formation are more difficult to interpret. In eight of nine years from 2000 to 2008, the ranges of elevations monitored in these three wells in the Upper Raritan Formation bracketed the 1987 data. That is, in eight of nine years, elevations measured in the Upper Raritan Formation were both higher and lower than those measured in 1987. In 2005, the range was lower than was measured in 1987. Elevation ranges in individual wells and between wells are highly variable. Taken as a whole, the ranges exhibit a consistent pattern of high variability. One explanation of the difference in ground-water elevations observed among and within the wells is that the ground-water elevations in the wells were measured before the water level had stabilized during the monitoring events.
Because the PRM is an important aquifer extending from as far north as Mercer and Middlesex Counties, New Jersey southward into and beyond Delaware, it is subject to numerous pumping influences (NJGS 1965). The groundwater demand placed on the PRM has resulted in a decrease in the elevation of the piezometric surface that has been historically observed in the counties of Camden, Middlesex, and Monmouth (USGS 1983). The development of these piezometric surface reductions was observed in wells completed in the middle and lower aquifers during the period between 1973 and 1978. The declines may have been a result of an increase in the amount of extraction from the lower aquifer, which began in approximately 1973.
Coincident cones of depression in the upper and middle/lower PRM suggest that significant communication occurs between these aquifers (USGS 1983). Furthermore PRM aquifer withdrawals in Camden County have been previously shown to influence water levels at significant lateral distances resulting in water level reductions in Salem and Gloucester counties (USGS 1983).
Groundwater withdrawals in central and southern New Jersey increased from 1904 to a peak in the mid/late 1970s they then dropped off precipitously in the mid 1980s (USGS 1983, USGS 2001a). A slower rate of declining withdrawals continued until 1995 (USGS 2001a). Water levels in lower PRM observation wells in New Jersey and Delaware generally increased during the period from the mid-1980s to the late 1990s as documented by the USGS (2001b).
Decreased consumptive use and greater controls on water withdrawals by the state of New Jersey (in favor of surface water withdrawals [NJDEP 1985] as referenced by USGS [2001a])
allowed water levels in the PRM to recover in central New Jersey from the over pumping of the 1970s.
Station pumping wells completed in the PRM have exhibited relatively stable to slightly decreasing water levels during the period 2000-2008. A study by the USGS (2001b) clearly shows that the pumping centers north of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal influence water levels in the lower PRM in the Artificial Island vicinity. The interconnected nature of the lower and middle units of the PRM in conjunction with this study (USGS 2001b) suggest that water Page 3-8 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 3.1 General Plant Information levels in the middle PRM are influenced by/related to water levels in the lower PRM. A more recent USGS study (USGS 2009) indicates that Delaware withdrawals from the middle and lower PRM had increased as of 2003. This appears to have resulted in reduced regional water levels in this area of the lower PRM. These effects continued to influence water levels at Artificial Island in both the lower and middle units of the PRM. Water level monitoring at the station is consistent with the regional water level changes resulting from the increased withdrawals in Delaware (USGS 2009).
The information described above suggests that the observed decrease in water levels in observation wells at Artificial Island are part of a larger regional trend rather than a result of station-related withdrawals. This is supported by data documenting increased water withdrawals (both location and quantity) in Lower New Castle County, Delaware and water level maps prepared by the USGS as part of a long-term groundwater monitoring program.
Artificial Island is not included in either the Southeastern Pennsylvania Ground Water Protected Area, or a New Jersey Critical Area, and the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) monitors these regional ground water sources (DRBC 2008). PSEG withdraws less than half of the allocation authorized by DRBC and NJDEP.
Ground-Water Monitoring for Tritium and Other Radionuclides In March of 2006, PSEG implemented a program to proactively review the environmental status of its nuclear power generating stations, specifically to identify the potential for releases of tritium, strontium, or station-related gamma-emitting radionuclides from all systems, structures, and components at the stations that are not designed for such a release. The PSEG program was designed as part of an industry-wide initiative, consistent with the guidance provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI 2007).
To more thoroughly quantify the potential for unmonitored releases of tritium, strontium, or station-related radionuclides to the environment from various systems, engineers performed an internal review of systems, structures, and components to determine which have the greatest potential for impacting shallow ground-water quality, should a release of radionuclides occur.
Based on the results of those reviews, a ground-water monitoring well network was designed and installed to include wells located: (1) in the vicinity and downgradient of station systems that "screened in" as a result of the analysis; (2) at downgradient locations around the perimeter of the Station; and, (3) at upgradient locations, to verify that any radionuclides that may be found in ground water are not migrating offsite above applicable New Jersey Ground Water Quality Criteria. Thirteen wells were identified at Salem, five existing wells and eight newly installed wells (Figure 3.1-4). Thirteen new wells were installed at HCGS (Figure 3.1-5).
Following installation, each well was developed and sampled by trained technicians using low-flow ground-water sampling techniques, and the samples were analyzed by a laboratory qualified to perform the requested analyses. No plant-related gamma emitter or strontium was detected in those ground-water samples.
Monitoring has been conducted at least semi-annually since installation of the Radiological Groundwater Protection Program (RGPP) wells. No plant-related gamma emitters have been detected in the 26 RGPP wells. No analytical results for tritium have exceeded the EPA Drinking Water Standard or triggered voluntary communication or reporting under the criteria contained in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) guidance (NEI 2007). Some variability in the tritium concentrations has been observed but there is no identifiable trend. Results of the monitoring program, including trending data, program modifications, reporting protocols, and other Hope Creek Generating Station Page 3-9 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 3.1 General Plant Information information are included as an appendix to the annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report. (PSEG 2007b, PSEG 2008a).
3.1.4 RADIOACTIVEWASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 3.1.4.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste Systems The Liquid Waste Management System (LWMS) is designed to collect, store, process, and dispose of or recycle all radioactive or potentially radioactive liquid waste generated by plant operation or maintenance. The LWMS consists of five process subsystems, each for collecting, storing, processing, monitoring, and disposing of specific types of liquid wastes in accordance with their conductivity, chemical composition, and radioactivity (PSEG 2009b). These subsystems are:
Equipment drain (high-purity waste)
Floor drain (low-purity waste)
Regenerant waste (high-conductivity waste)
Chemical waste (decontamination solution waste and chemistry lab drains)
Detergent drain waste (laundry waste and personnel decontamination drains)
Sufficient treatment capability is available to process certain liquid waste to meet demineralized water quality requirements. Liquid wastes that cannot be processed to meet the quality requirement for use as demineralized water are released into the cooling tower blowdown line for discharge to the Delaware Estuary at a permitted outfall. The releases are controlled and monitored to ensure that regulatory limits on the radioactivity discharged to the environment are not exceeded (PSEG 2009b).
Potentially radioactive liquid wastes are collected in tanks in the Auxiliary Building. System components are segregated in shielded enclosures with controlled access to minimize exposure to plant personnel. During liquid waste processing, radioactive contaminants are removed from the wastewater, either by demineralization or filtration. This ensures that the water returned to the condensate storage tank (CST) is restored to demineralized-water quality, and any other water is discharged to the environment via the cooling tower blowdown line through a permitted outfall. If the liquid is recycled to the plant, it meets the purity requirements for CST makeup. If the liquid is discharged to the environment, the activity concentration is consistent with the radiation exposure standards in 10 CFR 20. The radioactivity removed from the liquid wastes is concentrated in the filter media and ion exchange resins, which are managed as solid radioactive wastes.
3.1.4.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste Systems The Gaseous Waste Management Systems (GWMS) include all systems that process potential sources of airborne releases of radioactive materials during normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences. Included are the Off-gas System and various ventilation systems.
These reduce radioactive gaseous releases from the plant by filtration or delay, which allows decay of radioisotopes prior to release (PSEG 2009b).
Page 3-10 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 3.1 General Plant Information The function of the Off-gas System is to collect and delay the release of non-condensable radioactive gases removed from the main condenser. Off-gases consist of activation gases, fission product gases, radiolytic hydrogen and oxygen, and condenser air in-leakage. The Off-gas System uses a catalytic recombiner and a cooler condenser for control of hydrogen concentration and volume reduction, respectively. The remaining non-condensable gas (principally air with traces of krypton and xenon) is delayed in a series of eight, 61-cm-(24-in)-
diameter, 17-m-(55-ft)-long holdup pipes. At a flow rate of 75 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm), these pipes provide a minimum of ten minutes of delay for off-gas prior to entering the ambient charcoal treatment section. Selective adsorption of fission-product noble gases (xenon and krypton) on charcoal is used to provide time for delay before release (PSEG 2009b). The off-gas stream then passes through a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter where radioactive particulate matter and any charcoal particles are retained. The off-gas stream is directed to the north plant vent where it is combined with air from the Solid Radioactive Waste System exhaust and chemical lab exhaust before being released (PSEG 2009b).
Plant ventilation systems process airborne radioactive releases from other plant sources, such as equipment leakage, maintenance activities, the mechanical vacuum pump, and the Steam Seal System. (PSEG 2009b) 3.1.4.3 Solid Radioactive Waste Systems The Solid Radioactive Waste System collects, processes, packages, and provides temporary storage for radioactive solid waste until offsite shipment, volume reduction, and disposal at a licensed disposal facility. New Jersey is a member of the Atlantic Interstate Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact and, thus, is not affected by the closing of the Barnwell Low Level Radioactive Waste facility (Barnwell) to non-compact members, effective July 1, 2008.
Spent resins from the demineralizers and filter cartridges are packaged and stored onsite until shipment offsite for disposal in a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. All radioactive resin waste and cartridge waste are shipped to Barnwell. Packaging is done within the Auxiliary Building to control releases to the environment. Radioactivity levels of the contents are monitored to maintain doses within regulatory limits. (PSEG 2009b)
Dry Active Waste (DAW) consisting of compactable trash is placed in Sea-van containers and shipped to a licensed off-site vendor for volume reduction. Contaminated metals are also processed by an offsite vendor. The volume-reduced DAW is repackaged at the vendor and shipped for disposal at a licensed low-level waste disposal facility (PSEG 2009b). Class A non-resin waste is typically shipped to the EnergySolutions Class A disposal facility in Clive, Utah.
All other radioactive waste normally is shipped to Barnwell.
The PSEG Low Level Radwaste Storage Facility (LLRSF) is on the HCGS site. The LLRSF can support normal radioactive material handling activities for HCGS and Salem (excluding wet waste processing). Examples of these activities are pre-staging waste packages awaiting shipment, using handling equipment and shielding capabilities to prepare and load radioactive materials for shipment, performing radiography, storing and working on contaminated equipment and supplies, as well as other activities that require appropriate radiation protection controls. The NRC has approved a Process Control Program for the LLRSF. The Process Control Program outlines the in-plant measures and controls to assure the suitability of solid radioactive waste for transportation and/or disposal at a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. All packaging meets U.S. Department of Transportation and NRC standards as Hope Creek Generating Station Page 3-11 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 3.1 General Plant Information well as the waste acceptance criteria of any offsite burial facility to which it is destined. (PSEG 2009b)
The LLRSF is intended to serve as an interim storage facility for HCGS and Salem low-level radioactive waste until the waste can be shipped to a radioactive waste disposal facility. It is sized to store the volume of waste that typically would be generated from both HCGS and Salem over a five-year period, and has a maximum capacity of 1,918.5 m3 (67,750 ft3). The LLRSF was designed in accordance with the guidelines provided in Generic Letter 81-38 (Storage of Low Level Radioactive Wastes at Power Reactor Sites [NRC 1981]). (PSEG 2009b)
PSEG expects Barnwell and the LLRSF will provide adequate low-level radioactive waste management capacity through the HCGS license renewal term.
HCGS currently does not have processes that result in the generation of mixed waste (i.e., waste having both a hazardous waste component that is subject to the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and a radioactive component that is subject to the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act). In the past, most mixed waste generated at HCGS resulted from the contamination of oils (hydraulic and lubricating) used in plant systems. All oils currently used in plant systems are non-hazardous and would not result in mixed waste if they became radiologically contaminated. There are currently no mixed wastes stored at HCGS.
3.1.5 NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS A common sewage treatment system located at HCGS and operated by HCGS staff treats domestic wastewater from both HCGS and Salem. Wastewater and activated sludge are introduced into the single-channel oxidation ditch where extended aeration, a modification of the activated sludge process, oxidizes the organic constituents of the wastewater. This process lowers Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), reduces suspended solids, nitrifies, and partially denitrifies the wastewater. Rotor aerators mix air into the contents of the basin and keep the contents moving through the oxidation ditch. Following aeration, mechanical settling in the biological clarifiers separates suspended solids from the liquid flow. The settled solids (i.e., sludge) are either returned to the oxidation ditch or removed to a sludge-holding tank, based upon process requirements. Sludge directed to the sludge-holding tank is aerated and dewatered before being trucked offsite to a licensed disposal facility, or to an NRC-licensed facility if the residuals contain low levels of radioactivity. The sewage treatment system waste stream is a facility internal outfall monitored in accordance with the current Hope Creek NJPDES Permit. The sewage treatment system effluent discharges through the Hope Creek cooling tower blowdown outfall to the Delaware Estuary. Residual cooling tower blowdown de-chlorination chemical, ammonium bisulfite, de-chlorinates the sewage treatment effluent.
(NJDEP 2002, Tab DSN 462B - Sewage Treatment System [Explanation of Summary Notes]).
A common chemical waste treatment system, known as the Non-Radioactive Liquid Waste Disposal System (NRLWDS), is located at Salem and operated by Salem staff. The NRLWDS collects and treats secondary plant wastewater from HCGS and Salem which may contain chemicals, especially acidic and caustic wastewater, prior to discharge. The NRLWDS processes and treats the non-radioactive low-volume wastes from various Station processes, such as demineralizer regenerations, steam generator blowdown, chemical handling operations, and reverse osmosis reject waste. The NRLWDS discharge commingles with the non-contact cooling water prior to discharge to the environment. Treatment processes include thorough mixing in an equalization-mixing basin to provide homogeneity and some self-neutralization of acid and caustic wastes, solids removal by settling, chlorination, and pH adjustment to induce Page 3-12 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 3.1 General Plant Information precipitation of any remaining metals prior to commingling with cooling water for ultimate discharge to the Delaware Estuary. (PSEG 2007b)
At HCGS, the low-volume and oily waste system collects and treats potentially oily wastewater from area, building, and equipment drains throughout the site. Collected waste streams are processed through an API-type oil water separator for removal of solid and floatable materials.
Treated effluent is then discharged through the internal monitoring point which is combined with cooling tower blowdown before discharge to the Delaware Estuary.
PSEG currently is a conditionally exempt small-quantity hazardous waste generator, generating less than 100 kilograms/month (220 pounds/month). Because of episodic generation of hazardous wastes, during outages for example, PSEG maintains the program required of a small-quantity generator and monitors the amount of hazardous waste generated each month to determine the correct status. Hazardous waste is disposed of through a licensed broker.
Universal waste, such as paint waste, lead-acid batteries, used lamps, and mercury-containing switches, is segregated and disposed of through a licensed broker.
Normal station waste (e.g., paper, plastic, glass, river vegetation) is segregated and, as much as possible, processed for recycling. Approximately 55 percent of the normal station waste is transferred to recycling vendors, and the remaining 45 percent is disposed in the local landfill.
3.1.6 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM The transmission lines of interest in this Environmental Report are indicated in Table 3.1-4 and shown in Figure 3.1-3.
The FES (NRC 1984) for HCGS identifies three 500-kV transmission lines needed to deliver electricity generated by HCGS to the transmission system. One 0.8-km (0.5-mi) onsite tie line was built to connect HCGS with Salem. Two lines previously connected to Salem (Salem-New Freedom North and Salem-Keeney) were re-routed to the HCGS switchyard.
After construction of HCGS, a new substation (known as Red Lion) was built along the Salem-Keeney transmission line. Hence, the Salem-Keeney transmission line is now comprised of two segments: one from HCGS to Red Lion and the other from Red Lion to Keeney.
Because the Salem-New Freedom North line was re-routed to HCGS, it was necessary to build a new transmission line to connect Salem to the New Freedom substation. This line is referred to as the HCGS-New Freedom transmission line. Another transmission line that preexisted HCGS, called the Salem-New Freedom South line, also connects Salem to the New Freedom substation. The Salem-New Freedom North, Salem-New Freedom South, and Salem-Keeney lines were not constructed to connect HCGS to the grid. The only new transmission lines constructed as a result of the HCGS are the HCGS-New Freedom line, the tie line, and short reconnections for Salem-New Freedom North and Salem-Keeney. The HCGS-Salem tie line and the short reconnections do not pass beyond the site boundary and, therefore, are not evaluated in this Environmental Report. Nevertheless, for completeness, all lines are described below.
HCGS-New Freedom - This 500-kV line, which is operated by PSE&G, extends northeast from Salem for 69 km (43 mi) in a 107-m-(350-ft)-wide corridor to the New Freedom switching station north of Williamstown, New Jersey. This line shares the Hope Creek Generating Station Page 3-13 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 3.1 General Plant Information corridor with the 500-kV Salem-New Freedom North line. During 2008, a new substation (Orchard) was installed along this line, dividing it into two segments.
Salem-New Freedom North - This 500-kV line, which is operated by PSE&G, runs northeast from HCGS for 63 km (39 mi) in a 107-m-(350-ft)-wide corridor to the New Freedom Switching Station north of Williamstown, New Jersey. This line shares the corridor with the 500-kV HCGS-New Freedom line.
Salem-Red Lion segment of Salem-Keeney - This 500-kV line extends north from HCGS for 21 km (13 mi) and then crosses over the New Jersey-Delaware state line. It then continues west over the Delaware River about six km (four mi) to the Red Lion substation. In New Jersey the line is operated by PSE&G, and in Delaware it is operated by PHI. Two thirds of the 27-km (17-mi) corridor is 61 m (200 ft) wide, and the remainder is 107 m (350 ft) wide.
Red Lion-Keeney segment of Salem-Keeney - This 500-kV line, which is operated by PHI, extends from the Red Lion substation 13 km (eight mi) northwest to the Keeney switch station. Two thirds of the corridor is 70 m (200 ft) wide, and the remainder is 107 m (350 ft) wide.
Salem-New Freedom South - This 500-kV line operated by PSE&G extends northeast from Salem for 68 km (42 mi) in a 107-m-(350-ft)-wide corridor from Salem to the New Freedom substation north of Williamstown, New Jersey.
HCGS-Salem - This 500-kV tie line connects the HCGS and Salem switchyards. It consists of two towers and spans about 610 m (2,000 ft). This line does not pass beyond the site boundary, and is not discussed further or included in Table 3.1-4.
The HCGS-New Freedom line is the only offsite transmission line constructed at the time HCGS was constructed; therefore, it is the only line analyzed in this Environmental Report. In total, the transmission line is 69 km (43 mi) long occupying about 738.5 hectares (1,825 acres) of transmission corridor. This corridor passes through the marshes and wetlands north and east of HCGS then crosses land that is primarily agricultural or forested. Corridors that pass through pastures generally continue to be used as pastures. This line also passes through or near residential and urban areas with low population densities. It crosses several roadways including state highway 55, U.S. highway 40, and the Atlantic City Expressway.
PSE&G owns and operates the HCGS-New Freedom transmission line, which connects to the PJM interconnection. PJM is a regional transmission organization that coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity in all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. This transmission line would remain under PSE&G ownership and would stay in service if the HCGS operating license was not renewed and the unit was decommissioned.
The transmission line of interest was designed and constructed in accordance with the National Electrical Safety Code and other industry guidance that were current when the line was built.
Ongoing surveillance and maintenance of the transmission facilities ensure continued conformance to design standards. These maintenance practices are described in Section 4.13.
Page 3-14 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Table 3.1-1 Salem and HCGS Annual Ground-Water Pumpage (MG), 2002-2008 Hope Creek Generating Station 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Salem Water Supply Well Pump Limit Pumpage Pumpage Pumpage Pumpage Pumpage Pumpage Pumpage PW-2 300 gpm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 License Renewal Application PW-3 600 gpm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PW-5 800 gpm 87.2 98.5 107.9 133.8 108 104 127.3 PW-6 600 gpm 1.7 1.6 4.2 3.7 1 8 13.2 Total Salem Ground-water 89 MG 100 MG 112 MG 138 MG 109 MG 112 MG 140 MG Pumpage per Year (169 gpm) (190 gpm) (213 gpm) (263 gpm) (207 gpm) (213 gpm) (266 gpm)
HCGS Water Supply Well Pump Limit Pumpage Pumpage Pumpage Pumpage Pumpage Pumpage Pumpage HC-1 750 gpm 36.5 38.5 49.7 36.7 39.7 49.6 40.8 HC-2 750 gpm 35.5 34.9 53.9 44.8 41.7 47.56 42.7 Total HCGS Ground-Water 72 MG 73 MG 104 MG 81 MG 81 MG 97 MG 83 MG Pumpage per Year (137 gpm) (139 gpm) (198 gpm) (154 gpm) (154 gpm) (184 gpm) (158 gpm)
Salem and HCGS Combined Pumpage Pumpage Pumpage Pumpage Pumpage Pumpage Pumpage Total Salem and HCGS 161 MG 173 MG 216 MG 219 MG 190 MG 209 MG 223 MG Ground-Water Pumpage (306 gpm) (329 gpm) (411 gpm) (417 gpm) (361 gpm) (398 gpm) (424 gpm) per Year Source: TetraTech 2009 MG = million gallons gpm = gallons per minute Environmental Report Section 3.1 Tables Page 3-15
Page 3-16 Table 3.1-2 Ground-Water Elevations, 1987 Environmental Report Ground-Water Elevation Aquifer (ft bgs)
River Sand and Gravel Aquifer +3 to +7 Vincentown Aquifer 0 to +4 Section 3.1 Tables Mt. Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer -2 to -8 Upper Raritan Formation -57 to -62 Middle Raritan Formation -49 Source: Dames & Moore 1988 Table 3.1-3 Ground-Water Elevation Data Range (in feet) for Salem and HCGS Ground-Water Wells, 2000 - 2008. (The aquifer range includes data from all production wells monitored in that aquifer.)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 3.08 to 3.68 to 4.08 to 3.28 to 3.48 to 13.78 to 3.58 to 3.56 to 3.88 to Mount Laurel/Wenonah -3.12 -1.12 0.16 0.86 -7.82 0.68 1.08 0.96 1.58 Salem Wells 2.36 to 2.26 to 2.96 to 2.66 to 2.96 to 10.06 to 2.66 to 3.56 to 2.76 to PW-2 -1.64 -0.14 0.16 0.86 -0.14 1.36 1.56 0.96 1.66 3.08 to 3.68 to 4.08 to 3.28 to 3.48 to 13.78 to 3.58 to 2.98 to 3.88 to PW-3 -3.12 -1.12 0.28 0.88 -7.82 0.68 1.08 0.98 1.58
-35.85 to -42.45 to -42.45 to -40.45 to -41.55 to -35.75 to -44.75 to -45.35 to -45.35 to Middle Raritan -64.75 -54.15 -45.15 -45.65 -52.65 -45.45 -46.25 -48.35 -51.35
-35.85 to -42.45 to -42.45 to -40.45 to -41.55 to -35.75 to -44.75 to -45.35 to -45.35 to Salem Well (PW-6) -64.75 -54.15 -45.15 -45.65 -52.65 -45.45 -46.25 -48.35 -51.35 Hope Creek Generating Station
-28.93 to -41.53 to -54.33 to -55.73 to -57.94 to - -60.94 to -53.94 to -55.94 to -53.93 to Upper Raritan -68.35 -72.13 -74.94 -74.35 84.35 -86.35 -81.35 -83.35 -88.35 Salem Well
-28.93 to -41.53 to -54.33 to -55.73 to -58.23 to -64.33 to -59.33 to -63.03 to -54.63 to PW-5
-67.73 -72.13 -66.23 -70.73 -78.13 -80.73 -75.33 -79.63 -74.33 Hope Creek Wells
-59.94 to -58.94 to -57.94 to -60.94 to -57.94 to -60.94 to -53.94 to -55.94 to -53.94 to License Renewal Application HC-1
-67.94 -65.94 -74.94 -71.94 -83.94 -74.94 -73.94 -65.94 -71.94
-61.35 to -60.35 to -58.35 to -61.35 to -69.35 to -73.35 to -69.35 to -70.35 to -63.35 to HC-2
-68.35 -70.35 -74.35 -74.35 -84.35 -86.35 -81.35 -83.35 -88.35 Source: TetraTech 2009
Environmental Report Section 3.1 Figures Table 3.1-4 Transmission Lines Associated with HCGS and Salem Nuclear Generating Station.
Built during Presently Analyzed construction Connected in LR Present Name of Segments to report for Salem-New Freedom South Salem None Salem Salem Salem-New Freedom North Salem None HCGS Salem HCGS to Red Lion, Salem-Keeney Salem HCGS Salem Red Lion to Keeney Salem to Orchard; HCGS-New Freedom HCGS Orchard to New Salem HCGS Freedom Hope Creek Generating Station Page 3-17 License Renewal Application
- ? C/)1'T1 a-.
(1) :::l
~ C')
..... oc::
W, o*
- l :::l
.....
CXl ~3
~(1)
-
- l
!it
!I::tJ IQ' (1) c::'tl Cti en g,
- c r-.g
()' CD
~()
en Cil CD CD Legend o__0.125
-======-_____
0.25 0.5 Miles
- u~
CDG)
- l CD ~ PSEG Boundary CD :::l Hope Creek Generating Station
~ ~
-0)
)::.S-D Salem Building PSEG
- g(Q
~C/)
D HCGS Building License Renewal Environmental Report Figure 3.1-1 Site Boundary
~Q) o~~ 0
- l :::l
~~
- l"b en CD CDC)
- u CD Cil CD
- l~
CDG)
~
_:::l CD
):::.CD "b0l "b:::::!-
- - :::s'
~'(Q g:SQ
- l Q)
- !-
o*
- l Low Level Radioactive Waste Interim Storage Facility Legend o__0.05
-=====0.1_____0.2c::::======::::J10.3Miles ~~
Discharge as.
o a
- l :::l Hope Creek Generating Station ~3 D Hope Creek Facility PSEG
~(1)
- l
- ?
(Q CD
=-- PSEG Boundary License Renewal Environmental Report Figure 3.1-2 Hope Creek Site Layout
.,,-
-.
IQ
!it
- 0 (1)
W , C::'t)
..... ~ 0
<0 en ~
Environmental Report Section 3.1 Figures
'*
Legend Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations
.... Substation @
Urban Area Pinelands
.--=::I--==-___==::::::J'Miles o 2.5 5 10 15 Transmission Line analyzed in Hope Creek ER Water
~ Transmission Line analyzed in Salem ER .----------------------,
CJ State Boundary Hope Creek Generating Station
[.J County Boundary PSEG
- Primary Highway with Limited Access License Renewal Environmental Report
~ Primary Highway Figure 3.1-3 Transmission System Page 3-20 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 3.1 Figures "0
"
Qj OJ Qj
...J Hope Creek Generating Station Page 3-21 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 3.1 Figures
..,
"0
"
Qj OJ ~
Qj
...J Page 3-22 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 3.2 Refurbishment Activities 3.2 Refurbishment Activities NRC The report must contain a description of the applicants plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures as described in accordance with § 54.21...This report must describe in detail the modifications directly affecting the environment or affecting plant effluents that affect the environment. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)
The environmental report must contain analyses of refurbishment activities, if any, associated with license renewal 10 CFR 51.53 (c)(3)(ii)
The incremental aging management activities carried out to allow operation of a nuclear power plant beyond the original 40-year license term will be from one of two broad categories:(2) major refurbishment or replacement actions, which usually occur fairly infrequently and possibly only once in the life of the plant for any given item.... (NRC 1996b, Section 2.6.3.1, pg. 2-41)
PSEG has no plans for refurbishment or replacement activities at HCGS. PSEG has addressed refurbishment activities in this Environmental Report in accordance with NRC regulations and complementary information in the NRC GEIS for license renewal (NRC 1996b). NRC requirements for the renewal of operating licenses for nuclear power plants include the preparation of an integrated plant assessment (IPA) (10 CFR 54.21). The IPA must identify and list systems, structures, and components subject to an aging management review. Items that are subject to aging and might require refurbishment include, for example, the reactor vessel piping, supports, and pump casings (see 10 CFR 54.21 for details), as well as items that are not subject to periodic replacement.
The HCGS IPA that PSEG conducted under 10 CFR 54 has not identified the need to undertake any major refurbishment or replacement actions to maintain the functionality of important systems, structures, and components during the HCGS renewed license period. PSEG has included the IPA as Section 2 of this HCGS license renewal application.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 3-23 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 3.3 Programs and Activities for Managing the Effects of Aging 3.3 Programs and Activities for Managing the Effects of Aging NRC The report must contain a description of the applicants plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures. This report must describe in detail the modifications directly affecting the environment or affecting plant effluents that affect the environment.
The incremental aging management activities carried out to allow operation of a nuclear power plant beyond the original 40 year license term will be from one of two broad categories: (1) SMITTR actions, most of which are repeated at regular intervals . (NRC 1996b, Section 2.6.3.1, pg. 2-41) (SMITTR is defined in NRC 1996b as surveillance, on-line monitoring, inspections, testing, trending, and recordkeeping.)
The IPA required by 10 CFR 54.21 identifies the programs and inspections for managing aging effects at HCGS. These programs are described in the Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application, Section 2, Scoping and Screening Methodology for Identifying Structures and Components Subject to Aging Management Review, and Implementation Results. Other than implementation of the programs and inspections identified in the IPA, there are no planned modifications of HCGS administrative control procedures associated with license renewal.
Page 3-24 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 3.4 Employment 3.4 Employment 3.4.1 CURRENT WORK FORCE HCGS currently employs a workforce of approximately 513 regular, full-time employees and shares up to an additional 270 PSEG corporate and 86 matrixed employees with Salem. To ensure conservatism, the analyses in this Environmental Report include the total complement of corporate and matrixed employees as part of the HCGS workforce. Approximately 81 percent of the employees live in Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem counties, New Jersey, and New Castle County, Delaware. Addresses for permanent residences of the remaining employees are distributed across 27 counties in Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin with numbers ranging from one to 40 employees per county. Less than three percent of the workforce has permanent residences located outside of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, or Delaware (see Table 2.6-2).
HCGS is on an 18-month refueling cycle. During refueling outages, site employment increases above the regular, shared, and matrixed work force by as many as 600 workers for approximately 23 days of temporary duty. This number of outage workers falls within the range (200 to 900 workers per reactor unit) reported in the GEIS for additional maintenance workers (NRC 1996b).
3.4.2 LICENSE RENEWAL INCREMENT Performing the programs and activities for managing the effects of aging that are described in Section 3.3 would necessitate increasing the HCGS staff workload by some increment. The size of this increment would be a function of the schedule within which PSEG must accomplish the work and the amount of work involved. The analysis of license renewal employment increment focuses on programs and activities for managing the effects of aging.
The GEIS assumes that NRC would renew a nuclear power plant license for a 20-year period beyond the term of its initial license, and that NRC would issue the renewal approximately ten years before the initial license expires. In other words, the renewed license would be in effect for approximately 30 years. The GEIS further assumes that the utility would initiate surveillance, monitoring, inspections, testing, trending, and recordkeeping (SMITTR) activities at the time of issuance of the new license and would conduct license-renewal SMITTR activities throughout the remaining 30-year life of the plant, sometimes during full-power operation, but mostly during normal refueling and the five- and ten-year in-service inspection and refueling outages. (NRC 1996b)
PSEG has determined that the GEIS scheduling assumptions are reasonably representative of HCGS incremental license-renewal, workload scheduling. Many HCGS license-renewal SMITTR activities would have to be performed during outages. Although some HCGS license-renewal SMITTR activities would be one-time efforts, others would be recurring periodic activities that would continue for the life of the plant.
The GEIS estimates that the most additional personnel needed to perform license-renewal SMITTR activities would typically be 60 persons during the three-month duration of a ten-year in-service inspection and refueling outage. Having established this upper value for what would be a single event in 20 years, the GEIS uses this number as the expected number of additional permanent workers needed per unit attributable to license renewal. GEIS Section C.3.1.2 uses Hope Creek Generating Station Page 3-25 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 3.4 Employment this approach in order to ...provide a realistic upper bound to potential population-driven impacts. (NRC 1996b)
PSEG expects that its existing capability for temporarily supplementing the workforce for routine activities such as outages will enable PSEG to perform the increased SMITTR workload without adding workers to the HCGS staff. However, for purposes of analysis in this Environmental Report, PSEG conservatively assumes that HCGS would require 60 additional permanent workers to perform all license-renewal SMITTR activities and that all 60 employees would migrate into the 80-km (50-mi) radius. Adding 60 full-time employees to the plant work force for the period of extended operation creates additional indirect jobs. Considering the population in the 80-km (50-mi) radius and the fact that most indirect jobs would be service-related, PSEG assumes that all indirect workers would already reside within the 80-km (50-mi) radius.
Page 3-26 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Mitigating Actions Hope Creek Generating Station Environmental Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Environmental Report Section 4.0 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Mitigating Actions NRC The report must contain a consideration of alternatives for reducing adverse impactsfor all Category 2 license renewal issues. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iii)
The environmental report must include an analysis that considersthe environmental effects of the proposed actionand alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 10 CFR 51.45(c) as adopted by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)
The environmental report shall discuss the impact of the proposed action on the environment. Impacts shall be discussed in proportion to their significance. 10 CFR 51.45(b)(1) as adopted by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)
The information submittedshould not be confined to information supporting the proposed action but should also include adverse information. 10 CFR 51.45(e) as adopted by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)
Chapter 4 presents an assessment of the environmental consequences associated with the renewal of the HCGS operating license. The NRC has identified and analyzed 92 environmental issues that it considers to be associated with nuclear power plant license renewal and has designated the issues as Category 1, Category 2, or NA (not applicable). NRC designated an issue as Category 1 if, based on the result of its analysis, the following criteria were met:
the environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristic; a single significance level (i.e., SMALL. MODERATE or LARGE) has been assigned to the impacts that would occur at any plant, regardless of which plant is being evaluated (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent-fuel disposal); and mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely to be not sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.
If the NRC analysis concluded that one or more of the Category 1 criteria could not be met, NRC designated the issue as Category 2.
Finally, NRC designated two issues as NA, signifying that the categorization and impact definitions do not apply to these issues.
NRC rules do not require analyses of Category 1 issues that NRC resolved using generic findings (10 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 51) as described in the Generic Environmental Hope Creek Generating Station Page 4-3 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.0 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Mitigating Actions Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) (NRC 1996b). An applicant may reference the generic findings or GEIS analyses for Category 1 issues.
NRC requires plant specific analyses for Category 2 issues. For the two issues designated as NA, applicants are not required to submit information to the NRC.
Of the 92 total issues, in addition to the two issues designated as NA, NRC designated 69 as Category 1 and 21 as Category 2. Appendix A of this report lists the 92 issues and identifies the Environmental Report section that addresses each issue.
Page 4-4 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.0 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Mitigating Actions Category 1 and NA License Renewal Issues NRC The environmental report for the operating license renewal stage is not required to contain analyses of the environmental impacts of the license renewal issues identified as Category 1 issues in Appendix B to subpart A of this part. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(i)
[A]bsent new and significant information, the analyses for certain impacts codified by this rulemaking need only be incorporated by reference in an applicants environmental report for license renewal.
(NRC 1996a, pg. 28483)
Category 1 License Renewal Issues PSEG has determined that 8 of the 69 Category 1 issues do not apply to HCGS because they are specific to design or operational features that are not found at the facility. Because HCGS is not planning any refurbishment activities, seven additional Category 1 issues related to refurbishment do not apply. Appendix A, Table A-1 lists the 69 Category 1 issues, indicates whether or not each issue is applicable to HCGS, and if inapplicable, provides PSEGs basis for this determination. Appendix A, Table A-1 also includes references to supporting analyses in the GEIS where appropriate.
PSEG has reviewed the NRC findings at Table B-1 in Appendix B to 10 CFR 51 and has not identified any new and significant information that would make the NRC findings, with respect to Category 1 issues, inapplicable to HCGS. Therefore, PSEG adopts by reference the NRC findings for these Category 1 issues.
NA License Renewal Issues NRC determined that its categorization and impact-finding definitions did not apply to Issues 60 and 92; however, PSEG included these issues in Table A-1. NRC noted that applicants currently do not need to submit information on Issue 60, chronic effects from electromagnetic fields (10 CFR 51). For Issue 92, environmental justice, NRC does not require information from applicants, but noted that it will be addressed in individual license renewal reviews (10 CFR 51).
PSEG has included environmental justice demographic information in Section 2.6.2.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 4-5 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.0 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Mitigating Actions Category 2 License Renewal Issues NRC The environmental report must contain analyses of the environmental impacts of the proposed action, including the impacts of refurbishment activities, if any, associated with license renewal and the impacts of operation during the renewal term, for those issues identified as Category 2 issues in Appendix B to subpart A of this part 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)
The report must contain a consideration of alternatives for reducing adverse impacts, as required by § 51.45(c), for all Category 2 license renewal issues. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iii)
NRC designated 21 issues as Category 2. Sections 4.1 through 4.20 (Section 4.17 addresses 2 issues) address the Category 2 issues, beginning with a statement of the issue. Twelve Category 2 issues apply to operational features that HCGS does not have or to an activity, refurbishment, which HCGS is not planning to undertake. If the issue does not apply to HCGS, the section explains the basis for inapplicability.
For the nine Category 2 issues that PSEG has determined to be applicable to HCGS, the appropriate sections contain the required analyses. These analyses include conclusions regarding the significance of the impacts relative to the renewal of the operating license for HCGS and, if applicable, discuss potential mitigative alternatives to the extent required. PSEG has identified the significance of the impacts associated with each issue as either small, moderate, or large, consistent with the criteria that NRC established in 10 CFR 51, Appendix B, Table B-1, Footnote 3 as follows:
SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the Commissions regulations are considered small.
MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, any important attribute of the resource.
LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
In accordance with National Environmental Policy Act practice, PSEG considered ongoing and potential additional mitigation in proportion to the significance of the impact to be addressed (i.e., impacts that are small receive less mitigative consideration than impacts that are large).
Page 4-6 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.1 Water Use Conflicts (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water from a Small River with Low Flow) 4.1 Water Use Conflicts (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water from a Small River with Low Flow)
NRC If the applicants plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling ponds and withdraws makeup water from a river whose annual flow rate is less than 3.15x1012 ft3/year (9x1010 m3/year), an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the flow of the river and related impacts on instream and riparian ecological communities must be provided. 10 CFR 51.53(3)(ii)(A)
The issue has been a concern at nuclear power plants with cooling ponds and at plants with cooling towers. Impacts on instream and riparian communities near these plants could be of moderate significance in some situations. 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 13.
NRC made surface water use conflicts a Category 2 issue because consultations with regulatory agencies indicate that water use conflicts are already a concern at two closed-cycle plants (Limerick and Palo Verde) and may be a problem in the future at other plants. In the GEIS, NRC notes two factors that may cause water use and availability issues to become important for some nuclear power plants that use cooling towers. First, some plants equipped with cooling towers are located on small rivers that are susceptible to droughts or competing water uses. Second, consumptive water loss associated with closed-cycle cooling systems may represent a substantial proportion of the flows in small rivers (NRC 1996b).
NRC has determined that HCGS uses a cooling tower and withdraws from and discharges to an estuary (NRC 1996b; Table 5.13). Therefore, this issue does not apply because HCGS does not use cooling ponds or withdraw cooling tower makeup water from a small river.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 4-7 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.2 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages 4.2 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages NRC If the applicants plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling pond heat dissipation systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current Clean Water Act 316(b) determinationsor equivalent State permits and supporting documentation. If the applicant can not provide these documents, it shall assess the impact of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting fromentrainment. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B)
The impacts of entrainment are small at many plants but may be moderate or even large at a few plants with once-through and cooling-pond cooling systems. Further, ongoing efforts in the vicinity of these plants to restore fish populations may increase the numbers of fish susceptible to intake effects during the license renewal period, such that entrainment studies conducted in support of the original license may no longer be valid. 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 25 NRC made impacts on fish and shellfish resources resulting from entrainment a Category 2 issue, because it could not assign a single significance level to the issue. The impacts of entrainment are small at many plants, but they may be moderate or large at others. Also, ongoing restoration efforts may increase the number of fish susceptible to intake effects during the license renewal period (NRC 1996b). Information needing to be ascertained includes: (1) type of cooling system (whether once-through or closed cycle), and (2) status of Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b) determination or equivalent state documentation.
NJDEP has determined that the location, design, construction, and capacity of HCGSs cooling water system is the best technology available. This technology significantly minimizes the potential mortality of aquatic life typically associated with cooling water intake structures, namely impingement and entrainment, as CWA Section 316(b) requires. This minimization of mortality is primarily due to the lesser amount of intake flow of closed-cycle cooling systems as compared to once-through cooling systems. (NJDEP 2002)
The issue of entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages does not apply to HCGS because the plant does not use once-through cooling or cooling pond heat dissipation systems.
As described in Section 3.1.2, HCGS uses a closed-cycle cooling system with a cooling tower that withdraws make-up water from the Delaware Estuary and discharges blowdown to the Delaware Estuary. Appendix B provides the current NJPDES permit for HCGS.
Page 4-8 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.3 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish 4.3 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish NRC If the applicants plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling pond heat dissipation systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current Clean Water Act 316(b) determinationsor equivalent State permits and supporting documentation. If the applicant can not provide these documents, it shall assess the impact of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting fromimpingement. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B)
The impacts of impingement are small at many plants but may be moderate or even large at a few plants with once-through and cooling-pond cooling systems. 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 26 NRC made impacts on fish and shellfish resources resulting from impingement a Category 2 issue because it could not assign a single significance level to the issue. The impacts of impingement are small at many plants, but they may be moderate or large at others (NRC 1996b). Information needing to be ascertained includes: (1) type of cooling system (whether once-through or closed cycle), and (2) status of CWA Section 316(b) determination or equivalent state documentation.
NJDEP has determined that the location, design, construction, and capacity of HCGSs cooling water system is the best technology available. Ristroph screens and very low velocities at the intake significantly minimize the potential mortality of aquatic life typically associated with cooling water intake structures, namely impingement and entrainment, as CWA Section 316(b) requires. This minimization of mortality is primarily due to the lesser amount of intake flow of closed-cycle cooling systems as compared to once-through cooling systems. (NJDEP 2002)
HCGS does not use once-through cooling or cooling pond heat dissipation systems. Therefore, the issue of impingement does not apply. As described in Section 3.1.2, HCGS uses a closed-cycle cooling system with a cooling tower that withdraws make-up water from the Delaware Estuary and discharges blowdown to the Delaware Estuary. Appendix B provides the current NJPDES permit for HCGS.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 4-9 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.4 Heat Shock 4.4 Heat Shock NRC If the applicants plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling pond heat dissipation systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current Clean Water Act 316(a) variance in accordance with 40 CFR 125, or equivalent State permits and supporting documentation. If the applicant cannot provide these documents, it shall assess the impact of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting from heat shock . 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B)
Because of continuing concerns about heat shock and the possible need to modify thermal discharges in response to changing environmental conditions, the impacts may be of moderate or large significance at some plants. 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 27 NRC made impacts on fish and shellfish resources resulting from heat shock a Category 2 issue, because of continuing concerns about thermal discharge effects and the possible need to modify thermal discharges in the future in response to changing environmental conditions (NRC 1996b). Information to be ascertained includes: (1) type of cooling system (whether once-through or cooling tower), and (2) evidence of a CWA Section 316(a) variance or equivalent state documentation.
HCGS uses a cooling tower. Therefore, this issue does not apply because HCGS does not use once-through cooling or cooling pond heat dissipation systems. Appendix B provides the current NJPDES permit for HCGS.
Page 4-10 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.5 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using >100 gpm of Ground Water) 4.5 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using >100 gpm of Ground Water)
NRC If the applicants plantpumps more than 100 gallons (total onsite) of ground water per minute, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on ground water use must be provided. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C)
Plants that use more than 100 gpm may cause ground water use conflicts with nearby ground water users. 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 33 NRC made ground-water use conflicts a Category 2 issue because, at a withdrawal rate of more than 100 gpm, a cone of depression could extend offsite. This could deplete the ground-water supply available to offsite users, an impact that could warrant mitigation. Information to be ascertained includes: (1) HCGS ground-water withdrawal rate (whether greater than 100 gpm),
(2) drawdown at offsite locations, and (3) impact on neighboring wells.
Based on information presented in Section 3.1.4, HCGS used average rates of 518 to 749 liter per minute (137 to 198 gpm) of ground water from the two facility wells during the period from 2002 through 2008. Therefore, the issue of ground-water use conflicts does apply at HCGS because withdrawal rates exceed 100 gpm.
As discussed in Section 3.1.4, the two primary Salem ground-water production wells (PW-5 and PW-6) are installed in the Upper Raritan and Middle Raritan Formation of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer, respectively. The two HCGS ground-water production wells (HC-1 and HC-2) are installed in the Upper Raritan Formation of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer. Table 3.1-1 presents ground-water withdrawals for production wells at HCGS during 2002 through 2008. Table 3.1-3 presents water level elevation data for production wells at HCGS during 2000 through 2008.
Ground-water use in the Upper Raritan Formation has not been adversely impacted by HCGS withdrawals because, as Section 2.3 indicates, there are no off-site wells within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the HCGS site. Also, the nearest potable supply well is located more than 5.6 km (3.5 mi) from the site, across the Delaware River. PSEG utilizes less than half of the allocation authorized by DRBC and NJDEP for both HCGS and Salem. PSEG further concludes that impacts from the use of ground water at the current rates would be SMALL and would not warrant mitigation.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 4-11 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.6 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using Cooling Towers Withdrawing Makeup Water From a Small River) 4.6 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using Cooling Towers Withdrawing Makeup Water From a Small River)
NRC If the applicants plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling ponds and withdraws make-up water from a river whose annual flow rate is less than 3.15x1012 ft3 / year...[t]he applicant shall also provide an assessment of the impacts of the withdrawal of water from the river on alluvial aquifers during low flow. 10 CFR 51.53(3)(ii)(A)
Water use conflicts may result from surface water withdrawals from small water bodies during low flow conditions which may affect aquifer recharge, especially if other ground water or upstream surface water users come on line before the time of license renewal. 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 34 NRC made this ground-water use conflict a Category 2 issue because consumptive use of water withdrawn from small rivers could adversely impact aquatic life, downstream users, and ground water-aquifer recharge. This is a particular concern during low-flow conditions and could create an adverse cumulative impact if there were additional large consumptive users withdrawing water from the same river. Cooling towers and cooling ponds lose water through evaporation, which is necessary to cool the heated water before it is discharged to the environment.
NRC has determined that HCGS surface water withdrawals and discharges are from and to a brackish estuary (NRC 1996b; Table 5.13). Therefore, this issue does not apply because HCGS does not use cooling tower technology that withdraws makeup water from a small river.
Page 4-12 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.7 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using Ranney Wells) 4.7 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using Ranney Wells)
NRC If the applicants plant uses Ranney wellsan assessment of the impact of the proposed action on ground water use must be provided.
Ranney wells can result in potential ground-water depression beyond the site boundary. Impacts of large ground-water withdrawal for cooling tower makeup at nuclear power plants using Ranney wells must be evaluated at the time of application for license renewal. 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 35 NRC made this ground-water use conflict a Category 2 issue because large quantities of ground water withdrawn from Ranney wells could degrade ground-water quality at river sites by induced infiltration of poor-quality river water into an aquifer.
As Section 3.1 describes, HCGS withdraws its service water, which is also used for cooling tower makeup water, from surface water. Ground water is only withdrawn for potable and other uses. Therefore, this issue does not apply because HCGS does not use Ranney wells.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 4-13 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.8 Degradation of Ground-Water Quality 4.8 Degradation of Ground-Water Quality NRC If the applicants plant is located at an inland site and utilizes cooling ponds, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on ground water quality must be provided. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D)
Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds may degrade ground-water quality. For plants located inland, the quality of the ground water in the vicinity of the ponds must be shown to be adequate to allow continuation of current uses. 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B 1, Issue 39 NRC made degradation of ground-water quality a Category 2 issue because evaporation from closed-cycle cooling ponds concentrates dissolved solids in the water and settles suspended solids. In turn, seepage into the water table aquifer could degrade ground-water quality.
HCGS is not at an inland site and does not use cooling ponds. Therefore, this issue does not apply.
Page 4-14 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.9 Impacts of Refurbishment on Terrestrial Resources 4.9 Impacts of Refurbishment on Terrestrial Resources NRC The environmental report must contain an assessment of the impact of refurbishment and other license-renewal-related construction activities on important plant and animal habitats. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E)
Refurbishment impacts are insignificant if no loss of important plant and animal habitat occurs. However, it cannot be known whether important plant and animal communities may be affected until the specific proposal is presented with the license renewal application.
10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 40 If no important resource would be affected, the impacts would be considered minor and of small significance. If important resources could be affected by refurbishment activities, the impacts would be potentially significant. (NRC 1996b, Section 3.6, pg. 3-6)
NRC made impacts to terrestrial resources from refurbishment a Category 2 issue, because the significance of ecological impacts cannot be determined without considering site- and project-specific details (NRC 1996b). Aspects of the site and project to be ascertained are: (1) the identification of important ecological resources, (2) the nature of refurbishment activities, and (3) the extent of impacts to plant and animal habitats.
As Section 3.2 describes, PSEG has no plans for refurbishment activities at HCGS. Therefore, this issue does not apply.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 4-15 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.10 Threatened or Endangered Species 4.10 Threatened or Endangered Species NRC Additionally, the applicant shall assess the impact of the proposed action on threatened or endangered species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E)
Generally, plant refurbishment and continued operation are not expected to adversely affect threatened or endangered species.
However, consultation with appropriate agencies would be needed at the time of license renewal to determine whether threatened or endangered species are present and whether they would be adversely affected. 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 49 NRC made impacts to threatened or endangered species a Category 2 issue because the status of many species is being reviewed, and site-specific assessment is required to determine whether any identified species could be affected by refurbishment activities or continued plant operations through the renewal period. In addition, compliance with the Endangered Species Act requires consultation with the appropriate federal agency (NRC 1996b, Sections 3.9 and 4.1).
Section 2.2 of this Environmental Report describes the aquatic communities of the Delaware Estuary in the vicinity of HCGS. Section 2.4 describes important terrestrial habitats at HCGS and along the associated transmission corridor (HCGS-New Freedom). Section 2.5 discusses threatened or endangered species that occur or may occur in the vicinity of HCGS and along its associated transmission corridor (HCGS-New Freedom).
As discussed in Section 3.2, no refurbishment activities at HCGS are planned during the license renewal term, and thus, no further analysis of refurbishment-related impacts is applicable.
With the exception of the species identified in Section 2.5, PSEG is not aware of any species that are listed as threatened or endangered, or have been nominated for listing, that could occur at HCGS or along its associated transmission corridor. Except for the potential impacts to aquatic species described below, current operations of HCGS are not believed to affect any listed terrestrial or aquatic species or their habitats. Similarly, PSE&G vegetation management practices along the transmission corridor are developed and implemented in conjunction with appropriate regulatory agencies to minimize potential impacts on threatened or endangered species. Furthermore, plant operations and transmission line maintenance practices are not expected to change significantly during the license renewal term. Therefore, no adverse impacts to threatened or endangered terrestrial or aquatic species from current or future operations beyond those previously identified are anticipated.
In 1993, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a biological opinion and incidental take statement that determined that the continued operation of Salem and HCGS would not jeopardize threatened or endangered species, including sea turtles and shortnose sturgeon (NMFS 1993). That biological opinion, considering both Salem and HCGS, noted that no threatened or endangered sea turtle or turtles takes had been documented at HCGS, and that no additional measures were required at HCGS to protect sea turtles. It was silent on the Page 4-16 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.10 Threatened or Endangered Species impact of HCGS on shortnose sturgeon. The 1993 incidental take statement was reviewed and revised in 1999 (NMFS 1999b). The 1999 revised incidental take statement does not mention or modify prior NMFS findings regarding HCGS. No turtle takes have been documented at HCGS since 1999. Also, HCGS has appropriate controls in place at the service water system intake for managing the impacts of short-nosed sturgeon impingement. These controls have been reviewed by NMFS, as discussed above.
One plant species federally listed as threatened is known from one corridor not associated with HCGS. One reptile federally listed as threatened and state-listed as endangered, and one amphibian state listed as endangered occur in the vicinity of the transmission line associated with HCGS (see Section 2.5). PSE&G and PHI work cooperatively with state regulatory agencies, including the New Jersey Pinelands Commission, to ensure best management maintenance practices for the protection of these species are implemented, including limiting maintenance and vegetation control during specific times of the year.
PSEG has initiated contacts with the NJDEP, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, the USFWS, and NMFS requesting information on any listed species or critical habitats that might occur on the HCGS site or along the associated transmission corridors, with particular emphasis on species that might be adversely affected by continued operation over the license extension term. All species and habitats identified have been considered. Contact letters and responses received are provided in Appendix C.
Renewal of the HCGS license is not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of any critical habitat. Because current operational practices that could affect the environment will not be modified by license renewal, PSEG concludes that impacts to threatened or endangered species from license renewal would be SMALL and do not warrant additional mitigation.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 4-17 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.11 Air Quality During Refurbishment (Non-Attainment or Maintenance Areas) 4.11 Air Quality During Refurbishment (Non-Attainment or Maintenance Areas)
NRC If the applicants plant is located in or near a nonattainment or maintenance area, an assessment of vehicle exhaust emissions anticipated at the time of peak refurbishment workforce must be provided in accordance with the Clean Air Act as amended. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F)
Air quality impacts from plant refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be small. However, vehicle exhaust emissions could be cause for concern at locations in or near nonattainment or maintenance areas. The significance of the potential impact cannot be determined without considering the compliance status of each site and the numbers of workers expected to be employed during the outage.
10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 50 NRC made impacts to air quality during refurbishment a Category 2 issue because vehicle exhaust emissions could be cause for some concern, and a general conclusion about the significance of the potential impact could not be drawn without considering the compliance status at each site and the number of workers expected to be employed during an outage (NRC 1996b). Information needed would include: (1) the attainment status of the area, and (2) the number of additional vehicles as a result of refurbishment activities.
As Section 3.2 describes, PSEG has no plans for refurbishment activities at HCGS. Therefore, this issue does not apply.
Page 4-18 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.12 Microbiological Organisms 4.12 Microbiological Organisms NRC If the applicants plant uses a cooling pond, lake, or canal or discharges into a river having an annual average flowrate of less than 3.15x1012 ft3/year (9x1010 m3/year), an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on public health from thermophilic organisms in the affected water must be provided. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G)
These organisms are not expected to be a problem at most operating plants except possibly at plants using cooling ponds, lakes, or canals that discharge to small rivers. Without site-specific data, it is not possible to predict the effects generically. 10 CFR 51,Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 57 NRC designated impacts to public health from thermophilic organisms a Category 2 issue, requiring plant-specific analysis, because the magnitude of the potential public health impacts associated with thermal enhancement of such organisms, particularly Naegleria fowleri, could not be determined generically. NRC noted in the GEIS that impacts of nuclear power plant cooling towers and thermal discharges are considered to be of small significance if they do not enhance the presence of microorganisms that are detrimental to water quality and public health (NRC 1996b).
NRC requires [10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G)] an assessment of the potential impact of thermophilic organisms in receiving waters on public health if a nuclear power plant uses cooling ponds, cooling lakes, or cooling canals or discharges to a river with an average annual flow rate less than 9 x 1010 cubic meters per year (3.15 x 1012 cubic feet per year).
NRC has determined that HCGS discharges to an estuary (NRC 1996b; Table 5.13). As discussed in Section 3.1.2, HCGS has a cooling tower that uses brackish water from an estuary and discharges to the same estuary. Water flow rate in the estuary is discussed in Section 2.2.
HCGS does not use cooling ponds, cooling lakes, cooling canals, or discharge to a small river.
Therefore, this issue does not apply.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 4-19 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.13 Electric Shock from Transmission-Line-Induced Currents 4.13 Electric Shock from Transmission-Line-Induced Currents NRC The environmental report must contain an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the potential shock hazard from transmission lines ...[i]f the applicant's transmission lines that were constructed for the specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission system do not meet the recommendations of the National Electric Safety Code for preventing electric shock from induced currents 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H)
Electrical shock resulting from direct access to energized conductors or from induced charges in metallic structures have not been found to be a problem at most operating plants and generally are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. However, site-specific review is required to determine the significance of the electric shock potential at the site. 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Table B 1, Issue 59 NRC made impacts of electric shock from transmission lines a Category 2 issue because, without a review of each plants transmission line conformance with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) criteria (IEEE 2006), NRC could not determine the significance of the electric shock potential. This section provides an analysis of the HCGS transmission lines in conformance to the NESC standard.
Production of Induced Currents Objects located near transmission lines can become electrically charged due to their immersion in the lines electric field. This charge results in a current that flows through the object to the ground. The current is called induced because there is no direct connection between the line and the object. The induced current can also flow to the ground through the body of a person who touches the object. An object that is insulated from the ground can actually store an electrical charge, becoming what is called capacitively charged. A person standing on the ground and touching a vehicle or a fence receives an electrical shock due to the sudden discharge of the capacitive charge through the persons body to the ground. After the initial discharge, a steady-state current can develop, the magnitude of which depends on several factors, including the following:
the strength of the electric field which, in turn, depends on the voltage of the transmission line as well as its height and geometry; the size of the object on the ground; and the extent to which the object is grounded.
In 1977, the NESC adopted a provision that describes how to establish minimum vertical clearances to the ground for electric lines having voltages exceeding 98-kilovolt alternating Page 4-20 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.13 Electric Shock from Transmission-Line-Induced Currents current to ground. The clearance must limit the induced current due to electrostatic effects to 5 milliamperes if the largest anticipated truck, vehicle, or equipment were short-circuited to ground. By way of comparison, the setting of ground fault circuit interrupters used in residential wiring (special breakers for outside circuits or those with outlets around water pipes) is 4 to 6 milliamperes.
HCGS Transmission Lines As described in Section 3.1.6, there is one 500-kilovolt line that was constructed to connect HCGS to the transmission system. This line is the following:
HCGS-New Freedom (via Orchard substation)
In addition, two lines originally built for Salem have since been connected to HCGS. Although not part of this reports scope of analysis, results from the analysis in the Salem license renewal Environmental Report (PSEG 2009a) for these lines are provided in Table 4.13-1:
Salem-New Freedom North Salem-Keeney (via Red Lion substation)
For completeness, the results from the analysis described in the Salem license renewal Environmental Report (PSEG 2009a) for the fourth transmission line associated with the Salem, Salem-New Freedom South, are also included in Table 4.13-1.
Induced Current Analysis This analysis of the HCGS transmission lines is based on computer modeling of induced current under the line. The initial step of the analysis was identification of the line/road crossings to be analyzed. Only paved roads and highways were considered in the analysis; minor roads, i.e.,
dirt or service road crossings, were not included. The electric field strength and subsequently the induced current were then calculated for the transmission line at each location.
The electric field strength and induced current were calculated using a computer code called ACDCLINE, produced by the Electric Power Research Institute. The results of this analysis have been field-verified through actual electric field measurements by several utilities. The input parameters included design features of the limiting-case scenario and were taken from plan-and-profile drawings for the line. NESC requires that line sag measurements be determined at a minimum conductor temperature of 49°C (120°F). For analysis purposes, the maximum vehicle size under the lines is considered to be a tractor-trailer of 2.6 m (8.5 ft) wide, 3.7 m (12 ft) average height, and 20 m (65 ft) long.
Analysis Results The induced current calculated at a conductor temperature of 49°C (120°F) resulted in a maximum induced current of 4.0 milliamperes (on HCGS-New Freedom line) (Table 4.13-1).
PSE&G, owner and operator of the transmission line, conducts regular aerial and ground surveillance and maintenance to ensure that design ground clearances do not change. The aerial patrols of all corridors include checks for encroachments, broken conductors, broken or leaning structures, and signs of burnt trees, any of which would be evidence of clearance Hope Creek Generating Station Page 4-21 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.13 Electric Shock from Transmission-Line-Induced Currents problems. Ground inspections include examination for clearance at questionable locations, examination for integrity of structures, and surveillance for dead or diseased trees that might fall on the transmission line. Problems noted during any inspection are brought to the attention of the appropriate organizations for corrective action.
PSEG concludes that electric shock is of SMALL significance for the HCGS transmission line because the NESC standard is not exceeded at any location.
Table 4.13-1 Maximum Induced Current from HCGS and Salem Transmission Lines Line Name Maximum induced current (milliamperes)
Salem-New Freedom South 4.2 Salem-New Freedom North 4.1 Salem to Red Lion segment of 2.2 Salem-Keeney Red Lion to Keeney segment of Salem-Keeney 2.7 HCGS-New Freedom (via Orchard) 4.0 HCGS-New Freedom is the only line constructed to connect HCGS to the electric grid, and therefore the only line analyzed in this Environmental Report. The other lines are analyzed in the Salem Environmental Report (PSEG 2009a).
Page 4-22 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.14 Housing Impacts 4.14 Housing Impacts NRC The environmental report must contain ...[a]n assessment of the impact of the proposed action on housing availability 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I)
Housing impacts are expected to be of small significance at plants located in a medium or high population area and not in an area where growth control measures that limit housing development are in effect.
Moderate or large housing impacts of the workforce associated with refurbishment may be associated with plants located in sparsely populated areas or areas with growth control measures that limit housing development. 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Table B-1, Issue 63
...[S]mall impacts result when no discernible change in housing availability occurs, changes in rental rates and housing values are similar to those occurring statewide, and no housing construction or conversion occurs. (NRC 1996b, Section 4.7.1.1, pg. 4-101)
NRC made housing impacts a Category 2 issue because impact magnitude depends on local conditions that NRC could not predict for all plants at the time of GEIS publication (NRC 1996b).
Local conditions that need to be ascertained are: (1) population categorization as small, medium, or high and (2) applicability of growth control measures.
Refurbishment activities and continued operations could result in housing impacts as a result of increased staffing. As described in Section 3.2, PSEG has no plans for refurbishment; therefore, no refurbishment-related increase in staff will occur and no refurbishment-related impacts to area housing will occur.
The following discussion focuses on impacts of continued operations on local housing availability and the assumption that PSEG would need to add up to 60 additional employees to support HCGS during the period of extended operation.
In 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, NRC concluded that impacts to housing are expected to be of small significance at stations located in high population areas where growth control measures are not in effect.
The maximum impact to area housing was calculated using the following assumptions: (1) all 60 direct jobs would be filled by in-migrating residents and any indirect jobs created by additional employees would be filled by people already residing within the 80-km (50-mi) radius; (2) the residential distribution of new residents would be similar to current operations worker distribution; and (3) each new direct job created would represent one housing unit. PSEGs estimate of 60 license renewal employees (Section 3.4) could generate the demand for 60 housing units.
As described in Section 2.6.1, HCGS is located in a high population area and 81 percent of the operations workforce lives in Salem, Cumberland, or Gloucester counties (in New Jersey) or Hope Creek Generating Station Page 4-23 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.14 Housing Impacts New Castle County (in Delaware). Salem County, which receives tax revenues from HCGS, is not subject to growth control measures that limit housing development (Rukenstein and Associates 2004). Gloucester, Cumberland, and New Castle counties also are not subject to growth control measures (Gloucester County 2007, Orth-Rogers 2002, New Castle County 2007). The area within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of HCGS has a population of approximately 5,201,842 people. Delaware averages 2.54 persons per household. Maryland averages 2.61, New Jersey averages 2.68, and Pennsylvania averages 2.48 persons per household (USCB 2000), suggesting the existence of approximately 2 million housing units in the 80-km (50-mi) radius. It is reasonable to conclude that 60 additional employees at HCGS would not create a discernible change in housing availability, rental rates, or housing values, or spur housing construction or conversion. PSEG concludes that impacts to housing availability resulting from station-related population growth would be SMALL and would not warrant mitigation.
Page 4-24 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.15 Public Water Supply 4.15 Public Water Supply NRC The environmental report must contain an assessment of the impact of population increases attributable to the proposed project on the public water supply. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I)
An increased problem with water shortages at some sites may lead to impacts of moderate significance on public water supply availability.
10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 65 Impacts on public utility services are considered small if little or no change occurs in the ability to respond to the level of demand and thus there is no need to add capital facilities. Impacts are considered moderate if overtaxing of facilities during peak demand periods occurs.
Impacts are considered large if existing service levels (such as quality of water and sewage treatment) are substantially degraded and additional capacity is needed to meet ongoing demands for services.
(NRC 1996b, Section 3.7.4.5, pg. 3-19 as referenced by Section 4.7.3)
NRC made public utility impacts a Category 2 issue because an increased problem with water availability, resulting from pre-existing water shortages, could occur in conjunction with plant demand and station-related population growth (NRC 1996b). Local information needed would include: (1) a description of water shortages experienced in the area, and (2) an assessment of the public water supply systems available capacity.
NRCs analysis of impacts to public water supply systems considered both station demand and station-related population growth demands on local water resources. As stated in Section 2.3, the station does not use water from an off-site public water system, there are no off-site wells within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the site, and the nearest potable supply well is more than 5.6 km (3.5 mi) from the site. Therefore, there would be no station demand-related impacts to the public water supply resources or private potable water wells. As discussed in Section 3.2, PSEG plans no refurbishment activities fort HCGS. Therefore, there also would be no refurbishment-related impacts on local public water supply supplies.
The following discussion focuses on impacts of the increased demand on local public water supplies from 60 additional employees needed to support operations at HCGS during the period of extended operation. As Section 3.4 indicates, PSEG analyzed a hypothetical 60-person increase in HCGS employment attributable to license renewal. Section 2.6 describes the HCGS regional demography. Section 2.9 describes the public water supply systems in the area, their permitted capacities, and current demands.
The maximum impact to local public water supply systems was assessed using the following assumptions: (1) all 60 direct jobs would be filled by in-migrating residents; (2) no indirect jobs would be filled by in-migrating residents; and (3) the residential distribution of the workers would resemble that of the current operations workforce. Impacts were determined by estimating the amount of water that would be required by the 60 new Salem employees and their families, which is 54,850 liters per day (14,490 gpd). This estimate was calculated by:
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 4-25 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.15 Public Water Supply Multiplying the estimated number of new jobs during the period of continued operation (60) by the average number of persons per household in New Jersey (2.68) (USCB 2000b) to determine the increase in population caused by license renewal (161 persons); and Multiplying the increase in population (161 persons) by the average Americans daily water consumption for personal use (341 liters per day [90 gpd]) (EPA 2003).
It was then assumed that the resulting estimated license-renewal related water demand of 54,805 liters per day (14,490 gpd) (161 persons x 341 liters per day [90 gpd] per person) would be geographically distributed, in the same manner as the existing HCGS work force. That is, the increased demand would be imposed primarily on public water supply systems located in Salem, Gloucester, and Cumberland counties (in New Jersey) and New Castle County (in Delaware). These counties currently have excess public water supply capacity of approximately 129 million liters per day (34 million gallons) per day for Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem counties (Table 2.9-1) and more than 132 million liters (35 million gallons) per day for New Castle County (Table 2.9-2). Any increase in demand resulting from renewal of the HCGS operating license would not create shortages in capacity for existing public water supply systems. PSEG concludes that impacts resulting from station-related population growth to public water supply systems would be SMALL, requiring no additional capacity and warranting no mitigation.
Page 4-26 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.16 Education Impacts from Refurbishment 4.16 Education Impacts from Refurbishment NRC The environmental report must contain [a]n assessment of the impact of the proposed action onpublic schools (impacts from refurbishment activities only) within the vicinity of the plant. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I)
Most sites would experience impacts of small significance but larger impacts are possible depending on site- and project-specific factors.
10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Table B-1, Issue 66
[S]mall impacts are associated with project-related enrollment increases of 3 percent or less. Impacts are considered small if there is no change in the school systems abilities to provide educational services and if no additional teaching staff or classroom space is needed. Moderate impacts are generally associated with 4 to 8 percent increases in enrollment. Impacts are considered moderate if a school system must increase its teaching staff or classroom space even slightly to preserve its pre-project level of service.Large impacts are associated with project-related enrollment increases above 8 percent. (NRC 1996b, Section 3.7.4.1, pg. 3-15)
NRC made refurbishment-related impacts to education a Category 2 issue because site- and project-specific factors determine the significance of impacts (NRC 1996b). Local factors to be ascertained include (1) project-related enrollment increases and (2) status of the student/teacher ratio.
As Section 3.2 describes, PSEG has no plans for refurbishment activities at HCGS. Therefore, this issue does not apply.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 4-27 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.17 Offsite Land Use 4.17 Offsite Land Use 4.17.1 OFFSITE LAND USE - REFURBISHMENT NRC The environmental report must contain [a]n assessment of the impact of the proposed action on... land-use... within the vicinity of the plant. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I)
Impacts may be of moderate significance at plants in low population areas. 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 68
[I]f plant-related population growth is less than 5 percent of the study areas total population, off-site land-use changes would be small, especially if the study area has established patterns of residential and commercial development, a population density of at least 60 persons per square mile (2.6 km2), and at least one urban area with a population of 100,000 or more within 80 km (50 miles). (NRC 1996b, Section 3.7.5, pg. 3-21)
NRC made impacts to offsite land use as a result of refurbishment activities a Category 2 issue because land-use changes could be considered beneficial by some community members and adverse by others. Local conditions to be ascertained include (1) plant-related population growth, (2) patterns of residential and commercial development, and (3) proximity to an urban area with a population of at least 100,000.
As Section 3.2 describes, PSEG has no plans for refurbishment activities at HCGS. Therefore, this issue does not apply.
Page 4-28 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.17 Offsite Land Use 4.17.2 OFFSITE LAND USE - LICENSE RENEWAL TERM NRC The environmental report must contain [a]n assessment of the impact of the proposed action onland-use. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I)
Significant changes in land use may be associated with population and tax revenue changes resulting from license renewal 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 69
[I]f plant-related population growth is less than five percent of the study areas total population, off-site land-use changes would be small. (NRC 1996b, Section 3.7.5, pg 3-21)
[I]f the plants tax payments are projected to be small relative to the communitys total revenue, new tax-driven land-use changes during the plants license renewal term would be small, especially where the community has preestablished patterns of development and has provided adequate public services to support and guide development.
(NRC 1996b, Section 4.7.4.1, pg. 4-108)
NRC made impacts to offsite land use during the license-renewal term a Category 2 issue, because land-use changes may be perceived as beneficial by some community members and detrimental by others. Therefore, NRC could not assess the potential significance of site-specific offsite land-use impacts (NRC 1996b). Site-specific factors to consider in an assessment of land-use impacts include: (1) the size of plant-related population growth compared to the areas total population, (2) the size of the plants tax payments relative to the communitys total revenue, (3) the nature of the communitys existing land-use pattern, and (4) the extent to which the community already has public services in place to support and guide development.
The GEIS presents an analysis of offsite land use for the renewal term that is characterized by two components: population-driven and tax-driven impacts (NRC 1996b).
Population-Related Impacts Based on the GEIS case-study analysis, NRC concluded that all new population-driven land-use changes during the license-renewal term at all nuclear plants would be SMALL. Population growth caused by license renewal would represent a much smaller percentage of the local areas total population than the percent change resulting from the initial population growth that occurred at the start of operations (NRC 1996b).
Tax-Revenue-Related Impacts Determining tax-revenue-related land-use impacts is a two-step process. First, the significance of the plants tax payments on taxing jurisdictions tax revenues is evaluated. Then, the impact of the tax contribution on land use within the taxing jurisdictions boundaries is assessed.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 4-29 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.17 Offsite Land Use NRC has determined that the significance of tax payments as a source of local government revenue would be large if the payments are greater than 20 percent of revenue, moderate if the payments are between 10 and 20 percent of revenue, and small if the payments are less than 10 percent of revenue (NRC 1996b).
NRC defined the magnitude of land-use changes as follows (NRC 1996b):
SMALL - very little new development and minimal changes to an areas land-use pattern.
MODERATE - considerable new development and some changes to land-use pattern.
LARGE - large-scale new development and major changes in land-use pattern.
NRC further determined that, [I]f the plants tax payments are projected to be medium to large relative to the communitys total revenue, new tax-driven land-use changes would be moderate. This is most likely to be true where the community has no pre-established patterns of development (i.e., land-use plans or controls) or has not provided adequate public services to support and guide development in the past, especially infrastructure that would allow industrial development (NRC 1996b).
Tax Impacts Table 2.7-1 provides a comparison of the 2003 to 2007 tax payments made by PSEG to Lower Alloways Creek Township for HCGS and to the City of Salem for the Energy and Environmental Resource Center. Because PSEGs property tax payments to Lower Alloways Creek Township is so substantial (approximately 20 percent or more of the total property taxes collected), the residents of Lower Alloways Creek Township are relieved of local municipal, school, and optional open-space municipal taxes. Therefore, the significance of PSEGs property tax payments to Lower Alloways Creek Township is MODERATE to LARGE. However, while PSEGs property taxes are a large portion of Lower Alloways Creek Township taxes, the town forwards all of its tax revenues to Salem County in return for services Salem County provides to the township. PSEGs property tax payments are of SMALL significance for Salem County (less than 10 percent) and the City of Salem (less than 10 percent).
Land Use Impacts As described in Section 2.6, Salem County has experienced an annual population growth rate of less than 1 percent for the last 30 years. Salem County has recently updated their comprehensive plan, which recognizes the value of open space, and continues to identify the goals of directing infrastructure development and planning to support smart growth, providing housing for all residents, and developing economic engines to ensure continued growth (Runkenstein and Associates 2004). Because no new construction activities would occur as a result of license renewal, there would be no change in HCGSs tax basis and, consequently, no changes to land use based on renewal of the license.
From 1990 to 2000, the population in Lower Alloways Creek Township remained almost constant. As described in Section 2.8, there has been little change in the Townships land-use patterns since the last Master Plan review in 1999. With no new construction activities planned as a result of license renewal, there would be no change in Lower Alloways Creek Townships tax basis, and consequently, no changes to land use based on renewal of the license.
Page 4-30 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.17 Offsite Land Use The City of Salem has experienced a significant decline in population over the past several decades (Salem Main Street 2003). There is room for growth; however, PSEGs property tax is only a small portion of the City of Salems total property tax revenues. With no new construction activities as a result of license renewal, there would be no change in Salems tax basis, and consequently, no changes to land use based on renewal of the license.
Conclusion As described in Section 3.2, PSEG has no plans for refurbishment activities at HCGS.
Therefore, PSEG anticipates neither an increase in the assessed value of HCGS due to refurbishment-related improvements, nor any related tax-increase-driven changes to offsite land-use and development patterns. HCGS property tax payments are of LARGE significance to Lower Alloways Creek Township residents because they eliminate the need for most other taxes, but the magnitude of the tax revenues from HCGS has not affected land-use patterns.
The HCGS property tax payments are of SMALL significance to Salem County, which provides services to Lower Alloways Creek Township, and land-use changes in the county have been minimal. PSEGs property tax payments to the City of Salem for the Energy and Environmental Resource Center are of SMALL significance, and land-use changes in the city have been minimal. Hence, PSEG concludes that the impacts of license renewal for HCGS on both tax revenues and land-use in Salem County would be SMALL.
Property Values The City of Salem has experienced significant decline in population over the past several decades (Salem Main Street 2003). There is room for growth; however, PSEGs property tax is only a small portion of the City of Salem and Salem Countys total property tax revenues. With no new construction activities as a result of license renewal, there would be no change in the tax basis, and consequently, no changes to land use based on renewal of the license.
PSEG considered whether the presence of HCGS has a depressing effect on property values that would be continued during the license-renewal term. NRC considered this question for seven nuclear plants in its GEIS and found no depressed property values resulting from construction and operation or license renewal of these plants (NRC 1996b). Published literature on the subject comes to varying conclusions. Of the studies claiming to show a depressing effect, the geographic extent of the claimed effect ranges from less than 3.2 km (2 mi) to as many as 96.5 km (60 mi; Blomquist 1974, Clark and Nieves 1994, Folland and Hough 2000, Sheppard 2007). Some studies demonstrate no effects (Gamble and Downing 1982, Nelson 1981, Rephann undated). The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) has studied economic benefits of several nuclear plants, including Salem (NEI 2006a), and found that property (housing) values are enhanced by the presence of nuclear plants, a conclusion that aligns with NRC 1996b and other studies (Bezdek and Wendling 2006; Clark et al. 1997; Farrell and Hall 2004; Metz et al.
1997; NEI 2003, NEI 2004a, NEI 2004b, NEI 2004c, NEI 2004d, NEI 2005a, NEI 2005b, and NEI 2006b).
Sheppard (2007), which concludes that property values are depressed within 3.2 km (2 mi) of a nuclear plant, is based on the Blomquist (1974) study of a single fossil-fueled plant located in a residential area. Blomquist (1974) noted that [T]he findings of this study are based on a rather special instancewhere the community is composed of primarily single-family residences.
The Blomquist proposition does not apply to HCGS because there are no residential properties within 3.2 km (2 mi) of HCGS. The area within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the HCGS site is water (Delaware River), dredged spoil disposal sites (owned by the U. S. government), and open Hope Creek Generating Station Page 4-31 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.17 Offsite Land Use space (marsh; owned by the U.S. government and State of New Jersey). Hence, given the ownership and New Jersey wetlands protection requirements, further development of these offsite areas for residential use is unlikely.
PSEG also notes that the plant that Blomquist (1974) studied was small, about 27 megawatts, burned oil and coal, and began commercial operation in 1949 (EIA 1996). The workforce at such a facility would likely be much smaller than one at a large nuclear plant such as HCGS.
Accordingly, the multiplier effect of the HCGS workforce would be larger for tax contributions than the comparable multiplier effect for a 27-MW fossil-fueled facility. This could demonstrably increase, rather than decrease, property values. For this reason, PSEG believes the Blomquist (1974) methodology should not be applied to evaluate impacts of nuclear plants such as HCGS, on property values. PSEG suspects that such an affect, if any, is outweighed by positive benefits beyond as was done in Sheppard (2007).
Conclusion Because the Sheppard (2007) assumptions do not apply to Salem, PSEG concludes, consistent with the GEIS (NRC 1996b), NEI (2006a), and the other studies cited above, that impacts on property values from HCGS, if any, are positive, and that license renewal would not alter this status.
Page 4-32 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.18 Transportation 4.18 Transportation NRC The environmental report must ...assess the impact of highway traffic generated by the proposed project on the level of service of local highways during periods of license renewal refurbishment activities and during the term of the renewed license. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J)
Transportation impactsare generally expected to be of small significance. However, the increase in traffic associated with additional workers and the local road and traffic control conditions may lead to impacts of moderate or large significance at some sites. 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 70 Small impacts would be associated with U.S. Transportation Research Board Level of Service A, having the following condition: Free flow of the traffic stream; users are unaffected by the presence of others.
and Level of Service B, having the following condition: Stable flow in which the freedom to select speed is unaffected but the freedom to maneuver is slightly diminished. (NRC 1996b, Section 3.7.4.2, pg. 3-18)
NRC made impacts to transportation a Category 2 issue, because impact significance is determined primarily by road conditions existing at the time of license renewal, which NRC could not forecast for all facilities (NRC 1996b). Local road conditions to be ascertained are:
(1) level of service conditions and (2) incremental increases in traffic associated with refurbishment activities and license renewal staff.
As described in Section 3.2, no refurbishment is planned and no refurbishment impacts to local transportation are anticipated. Accordingly, the following discussion focuses on impacts of continued operations on transportation and the assumption that HCGS would add 60 additional employees during the period of extended operations. PSEGs HCGS workforce includes 513 employees and shares up to an additional 270 PSEG corporate and 86 matrixed employees with Salem. On an 18-month cycle, as many as 600 additional workers join the permanent workforce during a refueling outage, which typically lasts about 23 days. PSEGs projection of 60 additional employees associated with license renewal for HCGS represents a 12 percent increase above the 513 regular, full-time employees assigned to HCGS; a smaller percentage of the total employees of HCGS and Salem, including corporate and matrixed employees; and an even smaller percent of the total number of commuters accessing the site during a refueling outage.
Given these employment projections and the average number of vehicles per day currently using the roads in the vicinity of HCGS (Table 2.9-3), PSEG concludes that impacts to transportation would be SMALL and would not warrant mitigation.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 4-33 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.19 Historic and Archaeological Resources 4.19 Historic and Archaeological Resources NRC The environmental report must assess whether any historic or archaeological properties will be affected by the proposed project. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K)
Generally, plant refurbishment and continued operation are expected to have no more than small adverse impacts on historic and archaeological resources. However, the National Historic Preservation Act requires the Federal agency to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine whether there are properties present that require protection. 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 71 Sites are considered to have small impacts to historic and archaeological resources if (1) the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) identifies no significant resources on or near the site; or (2) the SHPO identifies (or has previously identified) significant historic resources but determines they would not be affected by plant refurbishment, transmission lines, and license-renewal-term operations and there are no complaints from the affected public about altered historic character; and (3) if the conditions associated with moderate impacts do not occur. (NRC 1996b, Section 3.7.7, pg. 3-23)
NRC made impacts to historic and archaeological resources a Category 2 issue, because determinations of impacts to historic and archaeological resources are site-specific in nature and the National Historic Preservation Act mandates that impacts must be determined through consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) (NRC 1996b).
In the context of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC has determined that the area of potential effect for a license renewal action is the area at the power plant site and its immediate environs that may be impacted by post-license renewal land-disturbing activities specifically related to license renewal, regardless of ownership or control of the land of interest. HCGS is located on Artificial Island, an artificially created land mass that resulted, in the early part of the 20th century, when the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dredged the Delaware River and placed the fill within a progressively enlarged diked area established around a natural bar that projected into the river. No historic or archaeological sites are known or expected to be located within the site boundary. No archaeological or historical sites are known to be located within the transmission line corridor.
Currently, PSEG is not aware of any historic or archaeological resources that have been affected by HCGS operations. Properties within 10 km (6 mi) of HCGS that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places are identified in Section 2.11. Operation and maintenance of the station and associated transmission line have not resulted in negative impacts to any listed property. PSEG has no plans to construct additional facilities related to license renewal.
As discussed in Section 3.2, PSEG has no refurbishment plans and no refurbishment-related impacts are anticipated.
Page 4-34 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.19 Historic and Archaeological Resources Through correspondence with the New Jersey SHPO, PSEG has requested concurrence that operation of HCGS during the term of license renewal would have no effect on historic and archaeological resources. Copies of the correspondence are presented in Appendix D. PSEG concludes that continued operation of HCGS over the license renewal term would not impact historic or archaeological resources over the period of extended operation. Therefore impacts would be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 4-35 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.20 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) 4.20 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA)
NRC The environmental report must contain a consideration of alternatives to mitigate severe accidents if the staff has not previously considered severe accident mitigation alternatives for the applicants plant in an environmental impact statement or related supplement or in an environment assessment... 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L)
The probability weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to ground water, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives.
10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Issue 76 Section 4.20 summarizes an analysis of alternative ways to mitigate the impacts of severe accidents at HCGS. Appendix E provides a detailed description of the severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis.
The term accident refers to any unintentional event (i.e., outside the normal or expected plant operation envelope) that results in the release or a potential for the release of radioactive material to the environment. NRC categorizes accidents as design basis or severe. Design-basis accidents are those for which the risk is great enough that NRC requires plant design and construction to prevent unacceptable accident consequences. Severe accidents are those that NRC considers too unlikely to warrant design controls.
NRC concluded in its license-renewal rulemaking that the unmitigated environmental impacts from severe accidents met its Category 1 criteria. However, NRC made consideration of mitigation alternatives a Category 2 issue because not all plants had completed ongoing regulatory programs related to mitigation (e.g., individual plant examinations [IPE] and accident management). Site-specific information to be presented in the license renewal environmental report includes: (1) potential SAMAs; (2) benefits, costs, and net value of implementing potential SAMAs; and (3) sensitivity of analysis to changes in key underlying assumptions.
PSEG maintains a probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) model to evaluate the most significant risks of radiological release from HCGS fuel into the reactor and from the reactor into the containment structure.
For the SAMA analysis, PSEG used the PSA model output as input to an NRC-approved consequence assessment code that calculates economic costs and dose to the public from hypothesized releases from the containment to the environment. The Level 3 Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) uses the MELCOR Accident Consequences Code System Version 2 (MACCS2). MACCS2 requires certain agricultural-based economic data. These data were developed using data in the 2002 National Census of Agriculture (USDA 2004) and from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA 2008) for each of the 23 counties surrounding the plant, to a distance of 50 miles. Then, using NRC regulatory analysis techniques, PSEG calculated the monetary value of the unmitigated HCGS severe accident risk. The result represents the Page 4-36 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.20 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) monetary value of the base risk of dose to the public and workers, offsite and onsite economic costs, and replacement power. This value became a cost/benefit-screening tool for potential SAMAs; a SAMA whose cost of implementation exceeded the base cost-risk value could be rejected as being not cost-beneficial.
PSEG used industry, NRC, and HCGS-specific information to create a list of 23 SAMAs for consideration. PSEG analyzed this list to screen out any SAMAs that (1) would not apply to the HCGS design, (2) had already been implemented at HCGS, or (3) would achieve results that PSEG had already achieved at HCGS by other means. Two of the SAMAs were screened out based on these criteria. Therefore, PSEG prepared cost estimates for 21 SAMAs and used the base risk value to screen out SAMAs that would not be cost-beneficial.
PSEG calculated the cost-risk reduction that would be attributable to each of the remaining SAMAs (assuming SAMA implementation) and re-quantified the cost-risk value. The difference between the base cost-risk value and the SAMA-reduced cost-risk value became the averted cost-risk, or the value of implementing the SAMA. PSEG then performed a cost/benefit comparison for these SAMAs using this averted cost-risk value and the corresponding cost estimates for implementing the specific SAMA.
PSEG performed additional sensitivity analyses to evaluate how the SAMA analysis would change if certain key parameters were changed. The results of the sensitivity analyses are discussed in Appendix E.
Based on the results of this SAMA analysis, PSEG identified 13 SAMAs that have the potential to reduce plant risk and be cost-beneficial at the 95th percentile. None are related to managing the effects of plant aging during the period of extended operation. The potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs will be considered for implementation through the established HCGS Plant Health Committee processes.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 4-37 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.21 Cumulative Impacts 4.21 Cumulative Impacts PSEG considered the potential cumulative impacts of HCGSs operations during the license-renewal term. For the purposes of this analysis, past actions are those related to the resources at the time of plant licensing and construction, present actions are those related to the resources during current operations, and future actions are those actions that are reasonably foreseeable through the end of the plant operations, which would include the 20-year license-renewal term. The geographic area affected by cumulative impacts depends on the resource being impacted.
The impacts of the proposed action are combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions and could include individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. It is possible that a SMALL impact, when considered in combination with the impacts of other actions on the affected resources could result in MODERATE or LARGE impacts to the affected resource.
The principal facility with impacts that have the potential to be collectively significant when combined with impacts of HCGS is Salem. Salem is adjacent to HCGS on Artificial Island and uses Delaware Estuary water and ground water, as does HCGS. Both facilities release small amounts of radioactivity.
As indicated in Section 2.12.2.2, PSEG has notified the NRC of its intent to submit an ESP application during the second quarter of 2010 for potential new nuclear generating capacity on Artificial Island. This notification does not commit PSEG to submit an ESP application or to build new nuclear units, and does not project a timeframe for construction and operation of the new units, should the decision to proceed ultimately be made. Nor does PSEGs notification constitute approval of the ESP by the NRC. If the siting of new PSEG nuclear units proceeds, the cumulative impacts in the immediate vicinity of Salem and HCGS of that NRC licensing action in combination with issuance of licenses for the new units and renewal of the existing licenses for Salem and HCGS would be addressed in the ESP application and during the subsequent NRC approval process.
4.21.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS TO AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES 4.21.1.1 Aquatic Resources Section 2.2 describes the aquatic environment affected by Salem and Hope Creek. Section 3.1 describes HCGS water use. The water use at Salem is described in the Salem license renewal Environmental Report, Section 3.1 (PSEG 2009a). Appendix F in that report describes restoration projects in the Delaware Estuary that are a requirement of the Salem NJPDES permit, and their results.
PSEG is authorized by the DRBC for HCGS consumptive and non-consumptive use of Delaware Estuary water. PSEG is authorized by the DRBC for Salem consumptive and non-consumptive use of no more than 367,000 million liters (97,000 million gallons) of Delaware Estuary water in a single 30-day period. The freshwater flow into the Delaware Estuary averages 645 m3 per second (22,778 ft3/sec; PSEG 1984), and the tidal flow (or flux) near the site (at River Km 80 [River Mile 50]) has been estimated to be 11,324 m3/sec (400,000 ft3/sec),
which equates to 3.6 x 1011 m3/year (1.3 x 1013 ft3 /year) (PSEG 2006a). There are no large industrial facilities downstream of Artificial Island on either side of the Estuary. Beginning with Page 4-38 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.21 Cumulative Impacts an oil refinery in Delaware about 13 km (8 mi) upstream of Artificial Island, there are many industrial facilities on the Delaware River farther upstream of Salem and Hope Creek that could affect water quality or quantity, including some power generation facilities permitted to withdraw water from the Delaware River. These facilities are permitted as required, and have spill prevention and control plans in place, also as required. Any impacts to water quality and quantity from these facilities would be small.
PSEG has restored or preserved more than 20,000 acres of wetlands and upland buffers in the Delaware Estuary and constructed 13 fish ladders on Delaware River tributaries in an effort to restore spawning runs of river herring. Estuarine wetlands are important for many reasons:
they provide nursery areas for larval aquatic organisms, water filtration and storm surge buffers, to name a few. Fish ladders by-pass waterway obstructions, thus providing fish access to historic spawning locations. These projects were undertaken to address the potential for impacts to the fishery from Salem operations.
Over the years that the nuclear plants have been operating, the aquatic community in the Delaware Estuary has improved. Early results of the restoration projects indicate that they are successful. As a result of efforts to improve the Delaware Estuary water quality, and increase spawning and nursery habitats, between 1968, when monitoring began, and today, species richness in the vicinity of the plants has remained constant and density has increased (i.e., there are as many different kinds of fish now as in 1970, and the number of fish has increased).
(PSEG 2006a).
PSEG has performed substantive analyses of the environmental effects of station operation on the Delaware Estuary aquatic community, generally in support of renewal of the best technology available determination in the Salem NJPDES permit (PSEG 2006a, Section 5). Analysis of the condition of the aquatic community does not distinguish between Salem and HCGS, and therefore would bound cumulative impacts. As discussed in Section 2.2, operation of both HCGS and Salem has had no adverse environmental impact on the Delaware Estuary aquatic community.
HCGS and Salem cumulative impacts to the Delaware Estuary aquatic communities are SMALL and are expected to remain SMALL during the license renewal term.
4.21.1.2 Terrestrial Resources Section 2.4 describes the critical and important terrestrial habitats in the vicinity of Artificial Island. Artificial Island was created from dredge spoils in the early 20th century, so has no pristine terrestrial habitats, although it does have suitable raptor, including eagle, foraging habitat. Typical coastal plant and animal species have been observed on the island.
The most important habitat that could be affected by the cumulative impacts of HCGS and Salem operations is the Pinelands National Reserve, which preserves New Jersey pine barrens.
The pine barrens comprise 4,500 km2 (1.1 million acres) of southern New Jersey Coastal Plain.
The pine barrens nutrient poor soils support fire-maintained pine communities and many rare and unusual species such as carnivorous plants, bog turtles, and the pine barrens tree frog.
Despite the fact that the Garden State Parkway and the Atlantic City Expressway run through it, the Pine Barrens is rural and undeveloped. Utility corridors, including two transmission corridors originating at Salem, cross parts of the pine barrens. The New Jersey Pinelands Commission is charged with preserving, protecting, and enhancing the Pinelands National Reserve. As part of Hope Creek Generating Station Page 4-39 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.21 Cumulative Impacts this charge, the Commission developed a comprehensive management plan that includes requirements for siting, constructing, and maintaining transportation and utility corridor rights-of-way. PSE&G works with the Commission to ensure best vegetation management practices are used within the transmission corridors that cross a portion of the pine barrens. The third transmission corridor, which originates at HCGS, does not cross the pine barrens, but PSE&G and PHI (which share ownership of this corridor) employ best vegetation management practices in this corridor to ensure that sensitive resources are protected. PSE&G has no plans to construct additional corridors from HCGS or Salem. Any development in the Pinelands National Preserve must be approved by the Commission. Cumulative impacts of HCGS and Salem operations to terrestrial resources, which previously have been SMALL, will remain SMALL through the license renewal term.
4.21.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS TO GROUND WATER Section 2.3 describes the ground-water resources available to the plants. PSEG has authorization from the NJDEP (NJDEP 2004) and DRBC (DRBC 2000) for consumptive use of up to 163 million liters (43.2 million gallons) of ground water per month at the Salem and HCGS sites combined. As noted in Section 4.21.1.1, there are no large industrial facilities within approximately 8 miles of the Artificial Island. Artificial Island is bounded on three sides by the Delaware Estuary, and on the fourth by a 3.2-km (2-mi) or more buffer of marsh. The nearest potable offsite well is more than 5.6 km (3.5 mi) from the stations, across the Estuary, in Delaware. Impacts of both plants on ground-water resources have been SMALL and will remain SMALL during the license renewal term. There are no sources of additional impacts to ground water in the vicinity of Artificial Island. Cumulative impacts of HCGS and Salem operations, which previously have been SMALL, will remain SMALL throughout the license-renewal term.
4.21.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS TO THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES Section 2.5 describes the protected species that could be affected by facility operations. Five species of threatened or endangered sea turtles and the endangered shortnose sturgeon are known to occur in the Delaware Estuary. Salem and HCGS have been issued an incidental take statement by the NMFS that requires monitoring of the Salem intake screens for impinged sea turtles and shortnose sturgeon. Other provisions specify rescue and inspection procedures for any turtles impinged, limits on the number of turtles and shortnose sturgeon that can be impinged annually on the Salem intake screens, reporting requirements and a requirement for reinitiation of consultation with the NMFS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of the number of incidental takes reaches the permitted limits or new information is identified. (NMFS 1999b)
In the biological opinion that accompanies the incidental take statement, the determined that the number of incidental takes of endangered species established in the incidental take statement for Salem and HCGS would not likely result in jeopardy to the continued existence of any threatened or endangered sea turtle species or the shortnose sturgeon.
Based on the information provided above, PSEG concludes that the cumulative impact of Salem and HCGS operations on protected aquatic species, which previously have been SMALL, will remain SMALL during the license renewal term.
No protected terrestrial species are known from the PSEG property on Artificial Island, though one plant species does occur on one transmission line, and several protected animals are known to occur in the vicinity of the transmission lines. Resource agencies are responsible for Page 4-40 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.21 Cumulative Impacts ensuring that activities that could adversely affect protected species are controlled to minimize such impacts. As noted PSE&G and PHI use best vegetation management practices on transmission corridors. Hence, the cumulative impacts of HCGS and Salem operations, which previously have been SMALL, will remain SMALL throughout the license renewal term.
4.21.4 SOCIOECONOMIC CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Sections 2.6 through 2.9 describe the aspects of the regions socioeconomics that could be affected by renewal of the HCGS and Salem operating licenses. The stations are in Lower Alloways Creek Township in Salem County. PSEG pays property taxes to Lower Alloways Creek Township which transfers most of its property tax revenues to Salem County in exchange for services. PSEGs tax payments to Lower Alloways Creek Township are a MODERATE to LARGE share of the total tax revenues collected by Lower Alloways Creek Township. Total tax payments by PSEG for both facilities are a SMALL percentage of the taxes collected by Salem County.
More than half of Salem County is tidal and freshwater wetlands, lakes, ponds, and forests, and more than one-third of the total area is farmland. Only 10 percent of Salem Countys land area is developed. Approximately 80 percent of the PSEG employees reside in Salem, Cumberland, or Gloucester counties in New Jersey or in New Castle County, Delaware. The annual growth rate in each of these counties since 1970 has been less than 2 percent, and usually less than 1 percent. PSEG is not aware of any major industrial or commercial facility planned for Salem County that would affect land use, or draw significant numbers of new residents.
PSEG does not anticipate adding additional staff to either facility during the license renewal term, but the environmental reports analyses assumed an additional 60 staff at each plant, for a total of 120 additional households in the four-county region where most of the current staff reside.
During refueling outages, the workforce traveling to Artificial Island increases by approximately 600 people. The roads in the area accommodate this increase in traffic. Therefore, PSEG concludes that an additional 120 staff would not adversely impact traffic on local roads.
PSEG analyzed the impact of 120 additional staff and their families on housing and public water supply using the following assumptions: (1) all 120 direct jobs would be filled by in-migrating residents, (2) no indirect jobs would be filled by in-migrating residents, and (3) the residential distribution of the workers would resemble that of the current operations workforce.
PSEG assumed that 120 new staff would require 120 housing units. The area within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of Artificial Island has a population of approximately 5,000,000 people. Delaware averages 2.54 persons per household. Maryland averages 2.61, New Jersey averages 2.68, and Pennsylvania averages 2.48 persons per household (USCB 2000b), suggesting the existence of approximately 2 million housing units in the 80-km (50-mi) radius. It is reasonable to conclude that 120 additional employees would not create a discernible change in housing availability, rental rates, or housing values, or spur housing construction or conversion.
Impacts to the public water supply were determined by estimating the amount of water that would be required by the 120 new PSEG employees and their families, which is 109,701 liters per day (28,980 gpd; see Section 4.15). The increased demand would be imposed primarily on public water supply systems located in Salem, Gloucester, and Cumberland counties (in New Jersey) and New Castle County (in Delaware). These counties currently have excess public Hope Creek Generating Station Page 4-41 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 4.21 Cumulative Impacts water supply capacity of approximately 129 million liters (34 million gallons) per day for Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem counties (see Table 2.9-1) and more than 132 million liters (35 million) gallons per day for New Castle County (see Table 2.9-2). Any increase in water demand resulting from renewal of the HCGS and Salem operating licenses would not create shortages in capacity for the existing public water supply systems.
Based on the information provided above, PSEG concludes that the cumulative impacts of the continued operation of Salem and HCGS on regional socioeconomics, which previously have been SMALL, will remain SMALL throughout the license renewal term.
4.21.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS TO HUMAN HEALTH Both Salem and HCGS discharge to a large brackish, tidally influenced water body that allows their thermal plumes to disperse quickly. There are no other facilities that release thermal discharges to the estuary in the vicinity of HCGS and Salem. Hence, the potential for enhancement of thermophilic organisms due to the cumulative impacts of HCGS and Salem, which previously has been SMALL, will remain SMALL throughout the license renewal term.
The electric-field induced currents from transmission lines constructed to connect HCGS and Salem to the electric transmission grid are less than the NESC recommendations for preventing electric shock from induced currents. Therefore, these transmission lines do not significantly affect the overall potential for electric shock from induced currents within the analysis area.
Hence, the Salem and HCGS cumulative impacts due to continued use of transmission lines constructed to connect the stations to the electric transmission grid, which previously have been SMALL, will remain SMALL during the license renewal term.
Radiological dose limits for protection of the public and workers have been developed by EPA and NRC to address the cumulative impacts of acute and long-term exposure to radiation and radioactive material. These dose limits are codified in 10 CFR 20 and 40 CFR 190. For the purpose of this analysis, the area within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the three units was included.
The radiological environmental monitoring program conducted by PSEG in the vicinity of the site measures radiation and radioactive materials from all sources; therefore, the monitoring program measures cumulative radiological impacts. Levels of radioactivity measured are typical for an estuarine environment, and are mostly the result of natural-occurring nuclides or residual nuclides from atmospheric testing of atomic weapons. Thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) measurements in 2006 at offsite locations averaged 50 millirem for the year. TLD measurements at 2006 control locations averaged 52 millirem for the year. Preoperational measurements (1973 to 1976) averaged 55 millirem per year. (PSEG 2007b)
HCGS and Salem cumulative radiological impacts are limited by the provisions in 10 CFR 20 and 40 CFR 190. These impacts, which previously have been SMALL, will remain SMALL through the license-renewal term.
Page 4-42 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Chapter 5 Assessment of New and Significant Information Hope Creek Generating Station Environmental Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Environmental Report Section 5.1 Discussion 5.1 Discussion NRC The environmental report must contain any new and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which the applicant is aware. 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv)
The NRC licenses the operation of domestic nuclear power plants and provides for license renewal, requiring a license renewal application that includes an environmental report (10 CFR 54.23). NRC regulations, 10 CFR 51, prescribe the environmental report content and identify the specific analyses the applicant must perform. In an effort to streamline the environmental review, NRC has resolved most of the environmental issues generically and requires only an applicants analysis of the remaining issues.
While NRC regulations do not require an applicants environmental report to contain analyses of the impacts of those Category 1 environmental issues that have been generically resolved
[10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(i)], the regulations do require that an applicant identify any new and significant information of which the applicant is aware [10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv)]. The purpose of this requirement is to alert NRC staff to such information, so the staff can determine whether to seek the Commissions approval to waive or suspend application of the rule with respect to the affected generic analysis. NRC has explicitly indicated, however, that an applicant is not required to perform a site-specific validation of Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) conclusions (NRC 1996b).
PSEG expects that new and significant information would include:
Information that identifies a significant environmental issue not covered in the GEIS and codified in the regulation; or Information that was not covered in the GEIS analyses and that leads to an impact finding different from that codified in the regulation.
NRC does not specifically define the term significant. For the purpose of its review, PSEG used guidance available in Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. The National Environmental Policy Act authorizes CEQ to establish implementing regulations for federal agency use. NRC requires license renewal applicants to provide NRC with input, in the form of an environmental report, that NRC will use to meet National Environmental Policy Act requirements as they apply to license renewal (10 CFR 51.10).
CEQ guidance provides that federal agencies should prepare environmental impact statements for actions that would significantly affect the environment (40 CFR 1502.3), focus on significant environmental issues (40 CFR 1502.1), and eliminate from detailed study issues that are not significant [40 CFR 1501.7(a)(3)]. The CEQ guidance includes a lengthy definition of significantly that requires consideration of the context of the action and the intensity or severity of the impact(s) (40 CFR 1508.27). PSEG considered that MODERATE or LARGE impacts, as defined by NRC, would be significant. Chapter 4 presents the NRC definitions of SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE impacts.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 5-3 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 5.1 Discussion The new and significant assessment that PSEG conducted during preparation of this license renewal application included: (1) interviews with PSEG subject matter experts on the validity of the conclusions in the GEIS as they relate to HCGS, (2) an extensive review of documents related to environmental issues at HCGS, (3) correspondence with state and federal agencies to determine if the agencies had concerns relevant to their resource areas that had not been addressed in the GEIS, (4) credit for PSEG environmental monitoring and reporting required by regulations and oversight of station facilities and operations by state and federal regulatory agencies (permanent activities that would bring significant issues to PSEGs attention), and (5) review of previous license renewal applications for issues relevant to the HCGS application.
As a result of this review, PSEG is not aware of any new and significant information regarding the stations environment or operations that would make any generic conclusion codified by the NRC for Category 1 issues not applicable to HCGS, that would alter regulatory or GEIS statements regarding Category 2 issues, or that would suggest any other measure of license renewal environmental impact.
As part of its investigation for new and significant information at Salem, PSEG evaluated information about tritium in the ground water beneath the Salem site (Section 3.1.3). The information indicates that tritium remediation is in progress at Salem, HCGS is hydraulically upgradient of Salem, and the Radiological Groundwater Protection Program at HCGS has not identified any impacts on ground water at HCGS as a result of tritium released at Salem.
Furthermore, tritium has not been detected in ground water beneath HCGS in any concentrations that exceed the EPA Drinking Water Standard or that suggest an adverse trend (PSEG 2008a), and there is no human exposure pathway for tritium in the vicinity of HCGS.
Hence, PSEG has concluded that changes in tritium-related ground-water quality are not significant at HCGS and would not preclude current or future uses of the ground water.
In its entirety, PSEGs assessment did not identify any new and significant information regarding the HCGS environment or operations that would (1) make any generic conclusion codified by the NRC for Category 1 issues not applicable to HCGS, (2) alter regulatory or GEIS statements regarding Category 2 issues, or (3) suggest any other measure of license renewal environmental impact.
Page 5-4 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Chapter 6 Summary of License Renewal Impacts and Mitigating Actions Hope Creek Generating Station Environmental Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Environmental Report Section 6.1 License Renewal Impacts 6.1 License Renewal Impacts PSEG has reviewed the environmental impacts of renewing the HCGS operating license and has concluded that impacts would be SMALL and would not require mitigation. This Environmental Report documents the basis for PSEGs conclusion. Chapter 4 incorporates by reference NRC findings for the 54 Category 1 issues that apply to HCGS, all of which have impacts that are SMALL (Appendix A, Table A-1). The rest of Chapter 4 analyzes Category 2 issues, all of which are either not applicable or have impacts that are SMALL. PSEG identified minority and low-income populations, evaluated potential impacts to these populations alone, and determined that there are no issues that could have disproportionately high adverse impacts on environmental justice populations.
Table 6.1-1 identifies the impacts that the HCGS license renewal would have on resources associated with Category 2 issues. Because HCGS and Salem are on adjacent sites that share several attributes, including a common ground-water withdrawal permit, a common access road and matrixed employees, it is unreasonable to evaluate the impacts of one without considering the impacts of the other. In those instances when the cumulative impacts of both facilities provides a more appropriate assessment of impacts, the discussion in Table 6.1-1 includes those cumulative impacts.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 6-3 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 6.1 Tables Table 6.1-1 Environmental Impacts Related to License Renewal at HCGS Unit 1 No. Category 2 Issue Environmental Impact Surface Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use (for all plants) 13 Water use conflicts (plants with NONE. This issue does not apply because HCGS does not cooling ponds or cooling towers withdraw make-up water from a small river.
using makeup water from a small river with low flow)
Aquatic Ecology (for plants with once-through or cooling pond heat dissipation systems) 25 Entrainment of fish and NONE. This issue does not apply because HCGS does not use shellfish in early life stages a once-through cooling system or cooling ponds for heat dissipation.
26 Impingement of fish and NONE. This issue does not apply because HCGS does not use shellfish a once-through cooling system or cooling ponds for heat dissipation.
27 Heat shock NONE. This issue does not apply because HCGS does not use a once-through cooling system or cooling ponds for heat dissipation.
Ground-Water Use and Quality 33 Ground-water use conflicts SMALL. The combined permit for Salem and HCGS limits (potable and service water, ground-water withdrawal to 1.135 million liters (300 million and dewatering; plants that gallons) a year. Ground-water elevation data and the distance to use > 100 gpm) off-site wells indicate that the Salem and HCGS use of ground water results in minimal impacts to off-site users.
34 Ground-water use conflicts NONE. This issue does not apply because HCGS does not (plants using cooling towers withdraw make-up water from a small river.
or cooling ponds and withdrawing makeup water from a small river) 35 Ground-water use conflicts NONE. This issue does not apply because HCGS does not use (Ranney wells) Ranney wells.
39 Ground-water quality NONE. This issue does not apply because HCGS does not use degradation (cooling ponds at cooling ponds.
inland sites)
Terrestrial Resources 40 Refurbishment impacts NONE. This issue does not apply because refurbishment is not planned for HCGS.
Threatened or Endangered Species 49 Threatened or endangered SMALL. HCGS operations have no impact on threatened or species endangered species or their habitats. NMFS has issued a biological opinion that operation of HCGS is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead, Kemps ridley, and green sea turtles, or shortnose sturgeon. One federally threatened plant grows on a section of one transmission corridor in Salem County and two protected terrestrial animal species are known from the vicinity of the two transmission corridors in Salem County. Vegetation management practices along the transmission corridors are developed and implemented in conjunction with appropriate regulatory agencies to minimize potential impacts on threatened or endangered species.
Page 6-4 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 6.1 Tables Table 6.1-1 Environmental Impacts Related to License Renewal at HCGS Unit 1 (Continued)
No. Category 2 Issue Environmental Impact Air Quality 50 Air quality during refurbishment NONE. This issue does not apply because refurbishment is not (non-attainment and planned for HCGS.
maintenance areas)
Human Health 57 Microbiological organisms NONE. This issue does not apply because HCGS does not use (public health) (plants using a lake or canals, and does not use cooling towers or cooling lakes or canals, or cooling ponds that discharge to a small river.
towers or cooling ponds that discharge to a small river) 59 Electromagnetic fields, acute SMALL. For the one transmission line constructed to connect effects (electric shock) HCGS to the electric grid, modeling predicts induced currents of 4.0 millamperes or less, which is less than the maximum induced current recommended by the National Electrical Safety Code (i.e., 5 milliamperes) for preventing electric shock from induced current.
Socioeconomics 63 Housing impacts SMALL. The addition of 60 jobs would not noticeably affect a potential housing market of more than two million housing units.
65 Public water supply: public SMALL. Water suppliers in Salem, Gloucester, and utilities Cumberland counties, New Jersey, and New Castle County, Delaware, have excess capacity. The addition of 60 jobs would not adversely affect the available public water supply.
66 Public services: education NONE. This issue does not apply because refurbishment is not (refurbishment) planned for HCGS.
68 Off-site land use NONE. This issue does not apply because refurbishment is not (refurbishment) planned for HCGS.
69 Off-site land use (license SMALL. No station-induced changes to off-site land use are renewal term) expected from license renewal because although HCGS taxes represent approximately 20 percent of the taxes paid to Lower Alloways Creek Township, the Townships property tax payments are forwarded to Salem County in return for services.
HCGS taxes comprise less than two percent of Salem County tax revenues. Taxes on the Energy and Environmental Resources Center are less than three percent of Salem city property tax revenues.
70 Public services: transportation SMALL. The addition of 60 employees would not noticeably increase traffic or adversely affect level of service in the vicinity of Salem.
71 Historic and archaeological SMALL. HCGS is located on Artificial Island, which is a resources manmade land area created during the early 1900s. As such, the site never contained historical or archaeological resources.
In addition, no archaeological or historical resources are known to exist on the transmission line corridor associated with HCGS, and construction is not planned on-site or in the transmission corridor during the license renewal terms. Hence, no impacts to historic or archaeological resources are expected.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 6-5 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 6.1 Tables Table 6.1-1 Environmental Impacts Related to License Renewal at HCGS Unit 1 (Continued)
No. Category 2 Issue Environmental Impact Postulated Accidents 76 Severe accidents SMALL. PSEG identified 13 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs that could be examined further, but none is related to managing the effects of plant aging during the period of extended operation. The potentially cost beneficial SAMAs will be considered for implementation through the established HCGS Plant Health Committee process.
Page 6-6 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 6.2 Mitigation 6.2 Mitigation NRC The report must contain a consideration of alternatives for reducing adverse impactsfor all Category 2 license renewal issues 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iii)
The environmental report must include an analysis that considers and balancesalternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects 10 CFR 51.45(c) as incorporated by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) and 10 CFR 51.45(c)
Impacts of license renewal activities have been determined to be SMALL and would not require mitigation.
Current operations include monitoring activities that would continue during the license renewal term. PSEG performs routine monitoring to ensure the safety of workers, the public, and the environment. These activities include the gaseous and liquid radiological environmental monitoring program, non-radiological air quality emissions monitoring, radiological ground-water protection program, and the NJPDES permit effluent monitoring. These monitoring programs ensure that the plants permitted emissions and discharges are within regulatory limits and any unusual or off-normal emissions/discharges would be quickly detected, allowing for the mitigation of potential impacts.
This Environmental Report identified no additional mitigation measures that are sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 6-7 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 6.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 6.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts NRC The environmental report shall discuss any ...adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented... 10 CFR 51.45(b)(2) as adopted by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)
This Environmental Report adopts by reference NRC findings for applicable Category 1 issues, including discussions of any unavoidable adverse impacts (Appendix A, Table A-1). PSEG examined 21 Category 2 issues and identified the following unavoidable adverse impacts of license renewal and refurbishment activities:
Solid radioactive wastes are a product of plant operations and permanent disposal of these materials must be arranged. Procedures for the disposal of nonradioactive and radioactive wastes are intended to reduce adverse impacts from these sources to acceptably low levels. A small impact will occur as long as the plant is in operation.
Operation of HCGS results in a very small increase in radioactivity in the air and water.
Based on data collected since initial operation, the increase is less than the fluctuation in natural background levels and is expected to remain so over the renewal period.
Operation of HCGS also creates a very low probability of accidental radiation exposure to inhabitants of the area.
Operations of HCGS results in consumptive use of Delaware Estuary water and in discharges to the Estuary. It also results in the consumptive use of ground water.
PSEG is required to maintain ground-water use at 1.135 billion liters (300 million gallons) per year or less (for HCGS and Salem combined) and is required to maintain discharges at or below NJPDES permit requirements.
Page 6-8 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 6.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource Commitments 6.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource Commitments NRC The environmental report shall discuss any ...irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. 10 CFR 51.45(b)(5) as adopted by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)
Continued operation of HCGS for the license renewal term will result in irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments, including the following:
Nuclear fuel, which is used in the reactor and is converted to radioactive waste; Land required to permanently store or dispose offsite the following: spent nuclear fuel, low-level radioactive wastes generated as a result of plant operations, and nonradioactive industrial wastes generated from normal industrial activities; Elemental materials that will become radioactive; and Materials used for the normal industrial operations of the station that cannot be recovered or recycled or that are consumed or reduced to unrecoverable forms.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 6-9 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 6.5 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity of the Environment 6.5 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity of the Environment NRC The environmental report shall discuss the ...relationship between local short-term uses of mans environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity... 10 CFR 51.45(b)(4) as adopted by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)
The current balance between short-term use and long-term productivity at the HCGS site was established with the decision to convert approximately 62 hectares (153 acres) of Artificial Island, a marginally productive natural area created by the disposal of dredge spoils during the first half of the 1900s, to industrial use. Natural resources that would be subjected to short-term use include land and water. Artificial Island and its immediate vicinity are largely undeveloped and rural. Currently, approximately 738.5 hectares (1,825 acres) in 60 km (43 mi) of transmission corridor are associated with the HCGS project.
HCGS consumes relatively small amounts of brackish water from the Delaware Estuary, and ground water, thus the impacts are minor and would cease once the reactor ceases operation.
After decommissioning the nuclear facilities at the site, most environmental disturbances would cease and restoration of the natural habitat at the HCGS site could occur. Thus, the trade-off between the production of electricity and changes in the local environment is reversible to some extent.
Experience with other experimental, developmental, and commercial nuclear plants has demonstrated the feasibility of decommissioning and dismantling such plants sufficiently to restore a site to its former use. The degree of dismantlement will take into account the intended new use of the site and a balance among health and safety considerations, salvage values, and environmental impact. However, decisions on the ultimate disposition of these lands have not yet been made. Continued operation for an additional 20 years would not increase the short-term productivity impacts described here.
Page 6-10 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Chapter 7 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Hope Creek Generating Station Environmental Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Environmental Report Section 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action NRC The environmental report shall discuss Alternatives to the proposed action 10 CFR 51.45(b)(3), as adopted by reference at 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2).
...The report is not required to include discussion of need for power or economic costs and benefits of ... alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such costs and benefits are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation... 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2).
While many methods are available for generating electricity, and a huge number of combinations or mixes can be assimilated to meet a defined generating requirement, such expansive consideration would be too unwieldy to perform given the purposes of this analysis.
Therefore, NRC has determined that a reasonable set of alternatives should be limited to analysis of single, discrete electric generation sources and only electric generation sources that are technically feasible and commercially viable (NRC 1996b, Section 8.1, pg. 8-1).
The consideration of alternative energy sources in individual license renewal reviews will consider those alternatives that are reasonable for the region, including power purchases from outside the applicants service area... (NRC 1996d)
Chapter 7 evaluates alternatives to renewal of the HCGS operating license. The chapter identifies actions that PSEG might take and associated environmental impacts, if the NRC does not renew the plants operating license. The chapter also addresses actions that PSEG has considered, but would not take, and discusses the bases for determining that such actions would be unreasonable.
The alternatives discussed in this chapter are no-action and alternatives that meet system generating needs. In considering the level of detail and analysis that it should provide for each category, PSEG relied on the NRC decision-making standard for license renewal:
the NRC staff, adjudicatory officers, and Commission shall determine whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision makers would be unreasonable. [10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.95(c)(4)].
PSEG has determined that the Environmental Report would support NRC decision-making as long as the document provides sufficient information to clearly indicate whether an alternative would have a smaller, comparable, or greater environmental impact than the proposed action.
Providing additional detail or analysis serves no function if it only brings to light additional adverse impacts of alternatives to license renewal. This approach is consistent with regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, which provide that the consideration of alternatives (including the proposed action) should enable reviewers to evaluate their comparative merits Hope Creek Generating Station Page 7-3 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Chapter 7 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 6.5 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity of the Environment (40 CFR 1500-1508). PSEG believes that Chapter 7 provides sufficient detail about alternatives to establish the basis for necessary comparisons to the Chapter 4 discussion of impacts from the proposed action.
In characterizing environmental impacts from alternatives, the same definitions of SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE presented in the introduction to Chapter 4 are used in this chapter.
Page 7-4 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.1 No-Action Alternative 7.1 No-Action Alternative The no-action alternative refers to a scenario in which NRC does not renew the HCGS operating license.
HCGS is a generator of electricity in New Jersey owned by PSEG (PSEG 2008b). In 2008, upgrades to HCGS increased the power level of the reactor to approximately 1,265 MWe (NRC 2007). This power would be unavailable to customers in the event the HCGS operating license was not renewed. PSEG thinks that any alternative to renewal of the HCGS license would be unreasonable if it did not include replacing the capacity of the HCGS unit. Replacement could be accomplished by (1) building new base-load generating capacity, (2) purchasing power from the wholesale market, or (3) reducing power requirements through demand reduction. Section 7.2.1 describes each of these possibilities in detail, and Section 7.2.2 describes environmental impacts from feasible alternatives.
The Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS)
(NRC 1996b) defines decommissioning as the safe removal of a nuclear facility from service and the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license. NRC-evaluated decommissioning options include immediate decontamination and dismantlement and safe storage of the stabilized and defueled facility for a period of time, followed by additional decontamination and dismantlement.
Regardless of the option chosen, decommissioning must be completed within a 60-year period.
Under the no-action alternative, PSEG would continue operating HCGS until the existing license expires, then initiate decommissioning activities in accordance with NRC requirements. The GEIS describes decommissioning activities based on an evaluation of the equivalently sized 1,155-megawatt-electric [MWe] Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Project 2 (the reference boiling-water reactor). As the HCGS unit is nominally rated at 1,265 MWe, this description is applicable to decommissioning activities that PSEG would conduct at HCGS.
As the GEIS notes, the NRC has evaluated environmental impacts from decommissioning.
NRC-evaluated impacts include impacts of occupational and public radiation dose; impacts of waste management; impacts to air and water quality; and ecological, economic, and socioeconomic impacts. The NRC indicated in the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities; Supplement 1 (NRC 2002) that the environmental effects of greatest concern (i.e., radiation dose and releases to the environment) are substantially less than the same effects resulting from reactor operations. PSEG adopts by reference the NRC conclusions regarding environmental impacts of decommissioning analyzed in the Decommissioning EIS.
PSEG considered whether the no-action alternative would have any beneficial impact on housing values in the socioeconomic region of influence. As discussed in Section 4.17.2, published studies of the impacts of nuclear plant operations on property (housing) values have conflicting results, but after considering these results in the context of site-specific circumstances, PSEG has concluded that HCGSs operational impacts on property values, if any, are positive. PSEG also notes that the full impact of the no-action alternative on property values would not be realized until completion of decommissioning. Because the HCGS license would not expire until 2026 without renewal, decommissioning under the no-action alternative may not be complete until 2086, assuming that decommissioning takes no more than the allowed 60 years from permanent cessation of operations (10 CFR 50.82 (a)(3)). Hence, decommissioning under the no action alternative may not be complete until more than 75 years Hope Creek Generating Station Page 7-5 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.1 No-Action Alternative beyond the date of this Environmental Report. PSEG believes that predicting property value impacts so far into the future would be too speculative to allow a useful comparison among alternatives.
Nevertheless, PSEG notes that decommissioning activities and their impacts are not discriminators between the proposed action and the no-action alternative. HCGS will have to be decommissioned regardless of the NRC decision on license renewal; license renewal would only postpone decommissioning for another 20 years. NRC has established in the GEIS that the timing of decommissioning operations does not substantially influence the environmental impacts of decommissioning. PSEG adopts by reference the NRC findings (10 CFR 51, Appendix B, Table B 1, Decommissioning) to the effect that delaying decommissioning until after the renewal term would have small environmental impacts. PSEG concludes that the decommissioning impacts under the no-action alternative would not substantially differ from those occurring following license renewal, as identified in the GEIS (NRC 1996b) and in the NRCs Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (NRC 2002). These impacts would be temporary and would occur at the same time as the impacts from meeting system generating needs. Hence, the discriminators between the proposed action and the no-action alternative lay within the choice of generation replacement options to be part of the no-action alternative. Section 7.2.2 analyzes the impacts from these options.
Page 7-6 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs The power consumed in New Jersey is not limited to electricity generated within the state. New Jersey is a net importer of electric power, using more electricity than is generated within the state. In 2005, 83 terawatt-hours of electricity, approximately 60 percent of the power consumed in New Jersey, were supplied by generators located outside the state (EIA 2008a).
New Jersey relies on electricity drawn from the PJM Interconnection to provide this imported power. The PJM Interconnection is a regional network that coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity in all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
The current mix of power generation options within the PJM region is one indicator of what PSEG considers to be feasible alternatives. In 2006, electric generators connected to the PJM network had a total generating capacity of 164,905 MWe (PJM 2007a). This capacity includes units fueled by coal (41 percent), nuclear (19 percent), oil (eight percent), natural gas (26 percent), hydroelectric (five percent), and renewable sources (1 percent) (PJM 2007b). In 2006, the electric industry in the PJM region provided 729 terawatt-hours of electricity (PJM 2007a). Power generation in the PJM region was dominated by coal (57 percent),
followed by nuclear (35 percent), natural gas (six percent), hydroelectric (two percent),
renewable sources (<one percent), and oil (0.3 percent) (PJM 2007b). Figures 7.2-1 and 7.2-2 illustrate the electric industry generating capacity and energy output by fuel type for the PJM region. The entire PJM region is a net exporter of electric power, using less electricity than is generated within the region. In 2006, 45 terawatt-hours (gross) were exported out of the PJM region and 27 terawatt-hours (gross) were imported. Therefore, the net result is 18 terawatt-hours exported (PJM 2007c).
Comparison of generating capacity with actual utilization of this capacity indicates that coal and nuclear are used by PJM substantially more relative to their PJM capacity than either oil-fired or gas-fired generation. This condition reflects the relatively low fuel cost and base-load suitability for nuclear power and coal-fired plants, and relatively higher use of gas- and oil-fired units to meet peak loads. Comparison of capability and energy production for oil and gas-fired facilities indicates a strong preference for gas firing over oil firing, indicative of the higher cost and greater air emissions associated with oil firing. Energy production from hydroelectric sources is similarly preferred from a cost standpoint, but capacity is limited and utilization can vary substantially depending on water availability.
7.2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Technology Choices For the purposes of this Environmental Report, alternative generating technologies were evaluated to identify candidate technologies that would be capable of replacing HCGSs nominal base-load capacity of 1,265 MWe. PSEG accounted for the fact that HCGS is a base-load generator and that any feasible alternative to HCGS would also need to be able to generate base-load power. PSEG assumed that the region of interest (ROI) for purposes of this alternatives analysis includes the states of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, which are the states within the PJM Interconnections network that are geographically closest to HCGS.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 7-7 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs Based on these evaluations, it was determined that new plant systems capable of replacing the capacity of HCGS are limited to new nuclear, pulverized-coal, or gas-fired combined-cycle units for base-load operation. This conclusion is supported by the generation utilization information presented above that identifies coal as the most heavily used non-nuclear generating fuel type in the region. PSEG would use natural gas as the primary fuel in its combined-cycle turbines because of the economic and environmental advantages of gas over oil. Manufacturers now have large standard sizes of combined-cycle gas turbines that are economically attractive and suitable for high-capacity base-load operation.
Recently, members of both industry and government have expressed interest in the development of nuclear power plants to provide new baseload generating capacity. Beginning in 2007, several utilities submitted applications for combined construction and operating licenses for new nuclear generating units. PSEG plans to submit an Early Site Permit application to the NRC during the second quarter of 2010 for new nuclear generating capacity in the immediate vicinity of Salem and HCGS on Artificial Island. An Early Site Permit would give PSEG the option at any time within 20 years of the permits approval date to submit an application to the NRC to construct and operate the new nuclear facility. Considering that the existing HCGS operating license expires in 2026, PSEG believes construction of new nuclear capacity may be a feasible alternative to license renewal for HCGS.
For the purposes of the HCGS license renewal environmental report, PSEGs analysis of new generating capacity alternatives includes the technologies it considers feasible: pulverized coal-fired units, gas-fired units, and new nuclear units. PSEG chose to evaluate combined-cycle turbines in lieu of simple-cycle turbines because the combined-cycle option is more economical.
The benefits of lower operating costs for the combined-cycle option outweigh its higher capital costs.
Effects of Restructuring Nationally, the electric power industry has been undergoing a transition from a regulated industry to a competitive market environment. Efforts to deregulate the electric utility industry began with passage of the National Energy Policy Act of 1992. Provisions of this act required electric utilities to allow open access to their transmission lines and encouraged development of a competitive wholesale market for electricity. The Act did not mandate competition in the retail market, leaving that decision to the states. Over the past few years, some states within the PJM region (Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia) have transitioned to competitive wholesale and retail markets. Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia are not restructuring their electric power industry.
Virginia signed restructuring legislation (House Bill 1172) into law in April 1998, but in February 2007 passed legislation that would replace the state's deregulated electric power market with a regulated one. (EIA 2007a)
In 1999, New Jersey enacted the Electric Discount and Energy Competition Act. Provisions of the Act opened New Jerseys retail electric power market to competition and provided retail customers with a ten percent rate reduction phased in over four years. The Act also required the State's electric utilities to divest their electric generation assets. Consequently, PSEG sold its generation assets, including HCGS, to a separate unregulated wholesale power affiliate. The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) provides strategic direction and policy guidance for energy production and use in the State, including the restructuring initiative (New Jersey Statutes § 48:3-49 et seq). Similarly, in March 1999, Delaware passed the Electric Utility Restructuring Act of 1999, House Bill (HB 10) which included provisions to phase-in retail Page 7-8 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs competition beginning October 1999 and ending April 2001. Pennsylvania enacted the Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act in December 1996 that allowed consumers to choose among competitive generation suppliers beginning with one third of the State's consumers by January 1999, two thirds by January 2000, and finally all consumers by January 2001. In December 1997, Maryland issued Order 8738 that established a framework for the restructuring of the electric power industry in that state. The plan's schedule was for a third of the State's consumers to have retail access by July 2000, another third by July 2001, and the entire state by July 2002. (EIA 2007a)
In 2001, New Jersey adopted Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), which require all suppliers selling retail electricity in New Jersey (retail electric suppliers) to include renewable energy sources in the mix of energy that they sell (New Jersey Administrative Code § 14:8-2.1 et seq).
Eligible resources may be located anywhere within the PJM region. The RPS divides renewables into two classes: Class I consists of energy produced from solar technologies, photovoltaic technologies, wind energy, fuel cells, geothermal technologies, wave or tidal action, and methane gas from landfills or sustainable biomass facilities. Class II consists of solid waste incinerators and hydropower facilities that are located in retail competition areas and meet certain environmental criteria. In 2006, the RPS were revised, significantly increasing the required percentages of Class I and Class II renewable energy, as well as specifying the required percentage of solar energy. In 2009, the energy sold in New Jersey is required to be 0.16 percent solar power, 3.8 percent Class I, and 2.5 percent Class II. These percentages increase incrementally until the year 2021 when 22.5 percent of the retail electric energy sold in New Jersey must be from renewable sources. Suppliers have the option of satisfying these requirements either by participating in a trading program or by auctioning their production in the wholesale market to other suppliers (New Jersey Statutes § 48:3-49 et seq). Maryland and Pennsylvania established similar RPS programs in 2004 and Delaware in 2005 (DSIRE 2007).
The Electric Discount and Energy Competition Act requires suppliers to provide customers with emission data and the fuel mix used by the provider. Suppliers are also required to offer net metering for wind or solar photovoltaic systems of residential and small commercial customers at non-discriminatory rates. Net metering occurs when electric utilities permit customers to reduce their electric bills by generating their own power using small-scale renewable energy systems. The excess power that customers generate can be fed back to their utilities, actually running their electric meters backwards.
Alternatives The following sections present fossil-fuel-fired generation (Section 7.2.1.1), new nuclear generating capacity (Section 7.2.1.2), and purchased power (Section 7.2.1.3) as reasonable alternatives to HCGS license renewal. Section 7.2.1.4 discusses reduced demand (referred to as demand side management) and presents the basis for concluding that it is not a reasonable alternative to license renewal. Section 7.2.1.5 discusses other alternatives that PSEG has determined are not reasonable and the bases for these determinations.
7.2.1.1 Construct and Operate Fossil-Fuel-Fired Generation PSEG considered locating hypothetical new coal- and gas-fired units at an existing PSEG power plant site and at an undetermined greenfield site. PSEG concluded that an existing power plant site is preferred over any greenfield site for new construction because this approach would minimize environmental impacts by building on previously disturbed land and by making the most use possible of existing facilities, such as transmission lines, roads and parking areas, Hope Creek Generating Station Page 7-9 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs office buildings, and components of the cooling system. For the purpose of this analysis, HCGS is used as an example of a representative brownfield site containing an existing PSEG power plant. The impacts of locating hypothetical coal- and gas-fired units at the HCGS site serve as a surrogate analysis for any PSEG site with an existing power plant.
It must be emphasized, however, that the scenarios discussed in this section for new gas- and coal-fired units are hypothetical scenarios. PSEG does not have plans for such construction.
Gas-Fired Generation One unit with a nominal net capacity of approximately 1,265 MWe could be assumed to replace the total 1,265 MWe HCGS nominal net capacity. However, PSEGs experience indicates that, although custom-sized gas-fired units can be built, using standardized sizes is more economical. For purposes of this analysis, PSEG assumed development of a modern natural gas-fired combined-cycle plant with design characteristics similar to those being developed elsewhere in the PJM region, and with a generating capacity similar to HCGS. The hypothetical plant would be composed of three pre-engineered natural gas-fired combined-cycle systems producing 420 MWe of net plant power for a total of 1,260 MWe (GE Power 2001). Although this provides less capacity than the existing unit, it ensures against overestimating environmental impacts from the alternatives. The shortfall in capacity could be replaced by other methods.
The characteristics of this plant and other relevant resources were used to define the gas-fired alternative. Table 7.2-1 presents the basic characteristics for the gas-fired alternative.
Coal-Fired Generation NRC has routinely evaluated coal-fired generation alternatives for nuclear plant license renewal.
For comparability to the gas-fired generation scenario, PSEG set the net power of the coal-fired unit equal to the gas-fired plants (1,260 MWe). The hypothetical plant would be composed of two pre-engineered super-critical pulverized coal-fired units producing 630 MWe of net plant power for a total of 1,260 MWe. In defining the coal-fired alternative to HCGS, New Jersey-specific input has been applied for direct comparison with this combined-cycle gas-fired plant.
Table 7.2-2 presents the basic coal-fired alternative emission control characteristics. The emissions control assumptions are based on the technologies recognized by the EPA for minimizing emissions and estimated emissions based on the EPA published removal efficiencies (EPA 1998a). For the purpose of analysis, PSEG has assumed that coal and limestone (calcium carbonate) would be delivered to the site via barge.
7.2.1.2 Construct and Operate New Nuclear Generating Capacity Since 1997, the NRC has certified four new standard designs for nuclear power plants under 10 CFR 52, Subpart B. Four additional designs are undergoing certification reviews, and four others are undergoing pre-application reviews. All of the plants currently certified or undergoing certification reviews are light-water reactors; several of the designs in precertification review are not, including the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor and the Advanced Candu Reactor, ACR-700.
(NRC 2009)
The NRC staff considered new nuclear generating capacity as an alternative to license renewal for the Beaver Valley Power Station (NRC 2009). In its analysis, the NRC staff assumed that Page 7-10 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs 1,900 MWe of new nuclear generation would be installed in the form of either one or two units having a certified design. Impact analyses did not reference a particular design, and impacts generally applicable to all certified designs were assumed. PSEG has reviewed the NRC analysis of new nuclear capacity for Beaver Valley, believes it to be sound, and notes that it addresses more capacity than the approximately 1,260 MWe discussed in this analysis. PSEG has assumed construction at the HCGS site of one new nuclear unit having a certified design, and has scaled from the NRC analysis for Beaver Valley where appropriate. See Table 8.0-2 more details.
7.2.1.3 Purchased Power As noted in Section 7.2.1, electric industry restructuring initiatives in New Jersey and other states in the PJM region are designed to promote competition in energy supply markets by facilitating participation by generation companies. PJM has implemented market rules to appropriately anticipate and meet electricity demands in the resulting wholesale electricity market. As an additional facet of this restructuring effort, retail customers in the region now may choose any company with electric generation to supply their power. In view of these conditions, PSEG assumes for purposes of this analysis that adequate supplies of electricity would be available, and that purchased power would be a reasonable alternative to meet the HCGSs load requirements in the event the existing operating license for HCGS is not renewed.
The source of this purchased power may reasonably include new generating facilities developed elsewhere in the PJM region. The technologies that would be used to generate this purchased power are similarly speculative. PSEG assumes that the generating technology used to produce purchased power would be one of those that NRC analyzed in the GEIS. For this reason, PSEG is adopting by reference the GEIS description of the alternative generating technologies as representative of the purchased power alternative. Of these technologies, facilities fueled by coal and combined-cycle facilities fueled by natural gas are the most cost effective for providing base-load capacity.
PSEG anticipates that additional transmission infrastructure would be needed in the event purchased power must replace HCGS capacity. From a local perspective, loss of HCGS could require construction of new transmission lines to ensure local system stability. From a regional perspective, PJMs inter-connected transmission system is highly reliable, and the market-driven process for adding capacity in the region is expected to have a positive impact on overall system reliability.
7.2.1.4 Demand-Side Management Demand side management (DSM) programs include energy conservation and load management measures. As discussed in the GEIS (NRC 1996b), the DSM alternative does not fulfill the stated purpose and need of the proposed action because it does not provide power generation capability.
Historically, state regulatory bodies required regulated utilities to institute programs designed to reduce demand for electricity. In a deregulated market, however, electric power generators may not be able to offer competitively priced power if they must retain an extensive conservation and load-modification-incentive program. In addition, a private company engaged in generating energy for the wholesale market, such as PSEG Nuclear, has no business connection to the end users of its electricity and, therefore, no ability to implement DSM. Because a company whose sole business is that of generating electricity and selling energy at wholesale has no Hope Creek Generating Station Page 7-11 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs ability to implement DSM, the NRC determined that NEPA does not require that an alternative involving electricity demand reduction through DSM be considered when the project purpose is to authorize a power plant to supply existing and future electricity demand (NRC 2005). The NRC determination was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (2006).
Nevertheless, DSM is considered here because energy conservation and peak load management are important tools for meeting projected demand.
In New Jersey, the State of New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) promotes and advances DSM in the deregulated retail electric market. The NJBPU works in partnership with other state agencies, electric transmission/distribution utilities, business organizations, and environmental organizations to develop and implement tools to save energy. New Jerseys DSM program offerings are diverse, ranging from load curtailment incentives during periods of peak demand to rebates and financial incentives for commercial, industrial, and residential customers that install energy-efficient appliances and equipment and to the adoption by the New Jersey Department of Consumer Affairs of updated energy codes for new building construction.
A 2004 study commissioned by the NJBPU estimated the technical, economic, and achievable potential electricity savings in New Jersey from DSM measures through 2020. The study indicated that by the year 2020 the technical potential electricity savings, if all technically feasible conservation measures were implemented regardless of economics, would be approximately 16,999 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity per year. If only the cost-effective measures were implemented, the economic potential electricity savings would be approximately 12,832 GWh per year. Capturing the entire economic potential through program activity was estimated to cost more than $5 billion over the 2004 to 2020 period. The achievable electricity savings at the 2004 program funding level of $85 million per year (Business as Usual) was estimated at 2,831 GWh per year or roughly one third the amount of electricity produced by HCGS in a given year. Under a very aggressive scenario (Advanced Efficiency), with a program funding level of $180 million per year, the achievable electricity savings was estimated to be 5,183 GWh per year or about 60 percent of the electricity produced by HCGS in a given year.
Net program peak-demand savings potential estimates ranged from approximately 540 MWe by the year 2020 under the Business as Usual scenario to approximately 970 MWe under the Advanced Efficiency scenario (KEMA 2004).
In 2008, the Center for Energy, Economic & Environmental Policy (CEEEP) compared actual New Jersey electricity savings data for the years 2004 to 2007 to the estimates under both the Business as Usual case and the Advanced Efficiency case presented in the 2004 study.
Between 2004 and 2007, conservation programs achieved approximately 939 GWh per year of avoided electricity use. This represents over 78 percent of the 2004 to 2007 Business as Usual savings potential of 1,205 GWh and almost 44 percent of the Advanced Efficiency scenario of 2,116 GWh (CEEEP 2008). Overall, the New Jersey Clean Energy Program reduced peak electric demand by a total of 87 MWe in 2007 (NJBPU 2008). It is evident that the New Jersey energy efficiency programs captured significantly less electricity savings than estimated by the 2004 study. However, CEEEP estimates that continuing the programs as-is would likely result in New Jersey meeting the Business as Usual case; however, the savings estimated under the Advanced Efficiency case are not likely to be attained (CEEEP 2008).
Because PSEG Nuclear sells power into the wholesale electricity market through the PJM Interconnection (PJM), DSM measures are not within the Companys control. However, PJM has instituted measures to capture energy conservation potential and load management in its resource planning. Consequently, additional DSM measures in other nearby states that could, Page 7-12 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs in addition to the programs promoted by the NJBPU, also offset some of the demand for electricity from HCGS are already incorporated in the load forecast. As a practical matter, it would be highly unlikely that energy savings from demand reductions could be increased by an additional 1,265 MWe by 2026 to replace the HCGS nominal base-load capacity of approximately 1,265 MWe.
The DSM alternative would produce different impacts than the other alternatives addressed.
Unlike the discrete generation options, there would be no major generating facility construction and few ongoing operational impacts. However, the loss of HCGS capacity could require construction of new transmission lines to ensure local system stability. The most significant effects would likely occur during installation or implementation of conservation measures, when old appliances may be replaced, buildings climate control systems may be retrofitted, or new control devices may be installed. In some cases, increases in efficiency may come from better management of existing control systems. While replaced or removed items may be recycled, volumes of land-filled trash could still increase.
The GEIS generally indicates that impacts from a DSM alternative are small and that some postulated effects (like increases in mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], or chlorofluorocarbon [CFC] releases as fluorescent bulbs, old transformers, or old refrigerators are replaced) may not prove to be significant because effective disposal methods can prevent health effects, and because more environmentally benign alternatives are available (NRC 1996b).
Implementation of the DSM alternative reduces direct fuel use and environmental emissions from plant fuel cycles, workers commuting, and plant operation and maintenance.
Improvements in efficiency may also reduce consumption of fuels used for space or water heating at the same time they reduce electrical consumption. The DSM alternative would likely cause only minor and short-duration air quality impactsuse of best management practices during any construction activities and during retrofits or upgrades would minimize air quality impacts. New more energy-efficient appliances would further reduce already low air emissions.
The overall impacts on air quality of the DSM alternative would be SMALL.
Implementation of the recycling programs in conjunction with disposing of old appliances, retrofitting buildings, or installing new control devices would decrease the volumes of waste requiring disposal, though volumes of the trash sent to the landfills as a result of these DSM measures may still increase over a baseline. Overall, the impacts on waste generation would be SMALL.
The loss of HCGS capacity could require construction of new transmission lines to ensure local system stability. The construction of these new lines could require clearing new rights-of-way and would likely cause only minor and short-duration land use and terrestrial ecology impacts use of best management practices would minimize the impacts. Replacing and disposing of old inefficient appliances could potentially increase the size of landfills. Overall, impacts to land use and ecological resources would be SMALL.
Impacts to aquatic resources and water quality would be SMALL, but positive, as withdrawals from and discharges to the Delaware Estuary would cease. If more energy is conserved than is produced by HCGS, then positive impacts to aquatic resources could extend beyond the Delaware Estuary to other water bodies. This net conservation of energy could result in less demand for power production at other plants and could lead to lower rates of water withdrawal and discharge at these power plants. The implementation of conservation measures, such as Hope Creek Generating Station Page 7-13 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs the increased use of mercury-containing compact fluorescent light bulbs and their impact to the environment after landfill disposal, would result in SMALL impacts to the aquatic environment.
While mercury in landfills could leach into adjacent waterways, State and local landfill regulations could reduce or eliminate such pollution.
As noted in the GEIS, implementation of the DSM alternative would likely employ additional workers. The new jobs would be widely distributed across the state and possibly the entire U.S., and socioeconomic impacts would not be noticeable. However, shutdown of HCGS would result in a sizable reduction in operating personnel compared to the current workforce of 869 personnel, and the impact on the local community employment, taxes, housing, off-site land use, and public services could be significant. Thus, reduction in workforce would result in adverse socioeconomic impacts on the local community that are characterized as MODERATE.
Lower-income families could benefit from weatherization and insulation programs. This positive effect would be greater than the adverse effect on the general population from loss of jobs because low-income households experience home energy burdens more than four times larger than the average household (OMB 2008).
In conclusion, although DSM is an important tool for meeting projected electricity demand and the impacts from the DSM alternative are generally small, DSM does not fulfill the stated purpose and need for license renewal of nuclear power plants, which is to provide power generation capability (NRC 1996b). DSM measures are already captured in state and regional load projections and additional DSM measures would offset only a fraction of the energy supply lost by the shutdown of HCGS. In addition, the purpose for HCGS license renewal is to allow PSEG Nuclear to sell wholesale power generated by HCGS to meet future demand. Because PSEG Nuclear engages solely in the sale of wholesale electric power, the Company has no business connection to end users of its electricity and therefore no ability to implement DSM.
For these reasons, PSEG Nuclear does not consider DSM to represent a reasonable alternative to renewal of the HCGS operating license.
7.2.1.5 Other Alternatives This section identifies alternatives that PSEG has determined are not reasonable for replacing HCGS and the bases for these determinations. PSEG accounted for the fact that HCGS is a base-load generator and that any feasible alternative to HCGS would also need to be able to generate base-load power. PSEG assumed that only the states of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania comprise the ROI for purposes of this analysis. In performing this evaluation, PSEG relied heavily upon NRCs GEIS (NRC 1996b).
Wind Wind power, due to its intermittent nature, is not suitable for base-load generation. As discussed in Section 8.3.1 of the GEIS, wind power systems produce power only when the wind is blowing at a sufficient velocity and duration. While recent advances in technology have improved wind turbine capacity, average annual capacity factors for wind power systems are relatively low (30 percent) compared to 90 to 95 percent industry average for a base-load plant such as a nuclear plant (EPRI 2006; NRRI 2007). In conjunction with energy storage mechanisms, wind power might serve as a means of providing base-load power. However, current energy storage technologies are too expensive to permit wind power to serve as a large base-load generator (Schainker 2006).
Page 7-14 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs The energy potential in the wind is expressed by wind generation classes ranging from 1 (least energetic) to 7 (most energetic). Current wind technology can operate economically on Class 4 sites with the support of the federal production tax credit (AWEA 2008a), while Class 3 wind regimes will require further technical development for utility-scale application. In the ROI, the primary areas of good wind energy resources are the Atlantic coast and exposed hilltops, ridge crests, and mountain summits (EERE 2003). Offshore wind resources are abundant but the technology is not sufficiently demonstrated at this time. A panel review of New Jersey offshore wind issues completed in 2006 concluded that there are insufficient data to fully assess the impact of offshore wind in New Jersey and recommended the construction of a test wind farm, with a capacity of no more than 350 MWe, which could be used to study the impacts of offshore wind power development. Including this test wind farm, there are six offshore wind farms proposed along the coast of the ROI (Offshore Wind 2008). PSEG Renewable Generation is in a joint venture with Deepwater Wind as the preferred developer of a 350-megawatt wind farm located 16 to 20 miles off the coast of New Jersey. The New Jersey Energy Master Plan (New Jersey Governors Office 2008) has a goal of providing at least 1,000 MW of offshore wind capacity by 2012, and by 2020, providing at least 3,000 MW of offshore wind capacity and 200 MW of onshore wind capacity.
Based on American Wind Energy Association estimates (AWEA 2008b), the ROI has the technical potential (the upper limit of renewable electricity production and capacity that could be brought online, without regard to cost, market acceptability, or market constraints) for roughly 6,855 MWe of installed wind power capacity. The full exploitation of wind energy is constrained by a variety of factors including land availability and land-use patterns, surface topography, infrastructure constraints, environmental constraints, wind turbine capacity factor, wind turbine availability, and grid availability. By 2008, a total of 301 MWe of wind energy had been developed in the ROI. Projected new capacity in various stages of planning or permit review within the ROI includes an additional 70 MWe of wind energy. (AWEA 2008b)
Wind farms generally consist of 10 to 50 turbines in the range of one to three MWe. Estimates based on existing installations indicate that a utility-scale wind farm would be spread over 12 to 20 hectares (30 to 50 acres) per MWe of installed capacity (McGowan and Connors 2000).
However, the actual area occupied by turbines, substations, and access roads may only be from three percent to five percent of the wind farms total acreage. Thus, the remaining area is available for other uses. When the wind farm is located on land already used for intensive agriculture, the additional impact to wildlife and habitat will likely be minor, while disturbance caused by wind farms in more remote areas may be more significant. Therefore, replacement of the HCGS nominal base-load generating capacity of 1,265 MWe with wind power, assuming a capacity factor of 30 percent, would require a large greenfield site about 61,400 hectares (151,800 acres) in size, of which approximately 2,460 hectares (6,070 acres) would be disturbed and unavailable for other uses. Although the State of New Jersey promotes wind power as a component of its Renewable Portfolio Standards, it concludes that wind, due to its intermittent nature, is unsuitable to provide base-load generating capacity (NJDEP 2005, New Jersey Governors Office 2008). Similarly, PSEG has concluded that wind power is not a reasonable alternative to HCGS license renewal.
Solar By its nature, solar power (photovoltaic and thermal) is intermittent and not suitable for base-load generation. As discussed in Section 8.3.2 of the GEIS, solar power systems produce power only when sunlight is available. The average annual capacity factors for solar power systems are relatively low (16 to 40 percent) compared to 90 to 95 percent industry average for Hope Creek Generating Station Page 7-15 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs a base-load plant such as a nuclear plant (NRRI 2007). In conjunction with energy storage mechanisms, solar power might serve as a means of providing base-load power. However, current energy storage technologies are too expensive to permit solar power to serve as a large base-load generator (Schainker 2006). Even without consideration of storage capacity, solar power technologies (photovoltaic and thermal) cannot currently compete with conventional fossil-fueled technologies in grid-connected applications, due to high costs per kilowatt of capacity (NRC 1996b, EERE 2006a).
Solar power is not a technically feasible alternative for base-load generating capacity in the ROI.
The ROI receives three to five kilowatt hours of solar radiation per square meter per day compared with 5.5 to 7.5 kilowatt hours per square meter per day in areas of the West, such as California, which are most promising for solar technologies (EERE 2008).
Finally, land requirements for solar plants are high. Estimates based on existing installations indicate that utility-scale plants would occupy 1 hectare (2.5 acres) per MWe for photovoltaic and two hectares (4.9 acres) per MWe for solar thermal systems (EERE 2004). Utility-scale solar plants have mainly been used in regions that receive high concentrations of solar radiation such as the western U.S. A utility-scale solar plant located in the ROI would occupy about 1.3 hectares (3.3 acres) per MWe for photovoltaic and 4.0 hectares (9.9 acres) per MWe for solar thermal systems. Therefore, replacement of HCGS generating capacity with solar photovoltaic power, assuming a capacity factor of 16 percent, would require dedication of about 9,500 hectares (23,400 acres). Replacement of HCGS generating capacity with solar thermal power, assuming a capacity factor of 40 percent would require dedication of about 11,400 hectares (28,100 acres). Both would have large environmental impacts at a greenfield site.
PSEG has concluded that, due to the high cost of both generation and storage technologies, limited availability of sufficient incident solar radiation, and the amount of land needed, solar power is not a reasonable alternative to HCGS license renewal.
Hydropower About 209 MWe of utility generating capacity in the ROI comes from hydropower. The total amount of undeveloped hydropower that could feasibly be utilized in the ROI equals 1,113 MWe, which is less than HCGS nominal baseload capacity. This capacity is distributed over 5,376 different sites and would require a large amount of resources to develop. In addition, this capacity is less than needed to replace the HCGS nominal base-load capacity of approximately 1,265 MWe. There are no undeveloped sites in the ROI that would be environmentally suitable for a single hydroelectric facility similar in generation size to HCGS.
(EERE 2006b, INEEL 1998)
As the GEIS points out in Section 8.3.4, hydropower's percentage of United States generating capacity is expected to decline because hydroelectric facilities have become difficult to site as a result of public concern over flooding, destruction of natural habitat, and alteration of natural river courses. A small number of hydropower projects, totaling 260 MWe, are being considered in the ROI (FERC 2006). The largest of these projects is 100 MWe. Even if they were built, these small hydropower projects could not replace the HCGS nominal base-load capacity of 1,265 MWe.
The GEIS estimates that hydroelectric power plants have a land use requirement of 400,000 hectares (1,000,000 acres) per 1,000 MWe (NRC 1996b). Based on this estimate, Page 7-16 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs replacement of HCGS generating capacity would require flooding approximately 508,900 hectares (1,257,600 acres), resulting in a large impact on land use. Further, operation of a hydroelectric facility would alter aquatic habitats above and below the dam, which would impact existing aquatic communities.
PSEG has concluded that, due to the lack of suitable sites in the ROI for a large hydroelectric facility and the large amount of land needed, hydropower is not a reasonable alternative to HCGS license renewal.
Tidal, Ocean Thermal, and Wave The most developed technologies to harness electrical power from the ocean are tidal power, ocean thermal energy, and wave power conversion. These technologies are still in the early stages of development and are not commercially available to replace a large baseload generator such as HCGS.
Tidal power technologies extract energy from the diurnal flow of tidal currents caused by the gravitational pull of the moon. Unlike wind and wave power, tidal streams offer entirely predictable output. All coastal areas consistently experience two high and two low tides over a period of approximately 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br />. However, because the lunar cycle is longer than a 24-hour day, the peak outputs differ by about an hour each day, and so tidal energy cannot be guaranteed at times of peak demand (Feller 2003).
Tidal power technologies consist of tidal turbines and barrages. Tidal turbines are similar in appearance to wind turbines that are mounted on the seabed. They are designed to exploit the higher energy density, but lower velocity, of tidal flows compared to wind. Tidal barrages are similar to hydropower dams in that they are dams with gates and turbines installed along the dam. When the tides produce an adequate difference in the level of the water on opposite sides of the dam, the gates are opened and water is forced through turbines, which turns a generator.
For those tidal differences to be harnessed into electricity, the difference in water height between the high and low tides must be at least 4.9 m (16 ft). There are only about 40 sites on Earth with tidal ranges of this magnitude (EERE 2005a). The only sites with adequate tidal differences within the United States are in Maine and Alaska (CEC 2009). Therefore, tidal resources off the coast of the ROI do not provide a viable tidal energy resource.
Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) technology capitalizes on the fact that the water temperatures decrease with depth. As long as the temperature between the warm surface water and the cold deep water differs by about 20°C (36°F), an OTEC system can produce a significant amount of power. The temperature gradient off of the coast of the ROI is less than 18°C (32°F) and not a good resource for OTEC technology. (NREL 2008)
Wave energy conversion takes advantage of the kinetic energy in the ocean waves (which are mainly caused by interaction of wind with the surface of the ocean). Wave energy offers an irregular, oscillatory, low-frequency energy source that must be converted to a 60-Hertz frequency before it can be added to the power grid (CEC 2009). Wave energy resources are best between 30 and 60 degrees latitude in both hemispheres, and the potential tends to be greatest on western coasts (RNP 2007). Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. deployed a 40-kilowatt PowerBuoy wave energy converter off the coast of New Jersey in November 2005 (EERE 2005b).
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 7-17 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs PSEG believes that this technology has not matured sufficiently to support production for a facility the size of HCGS, and PSEG has concluded that, due to cost and production limitations, tidal, ocean thermal, and wave technologies are not reasonable alternatives to HCGS license renewal.
Geothermal Geothermal energy is a proven resource for power generation. Geothermal power plants use naturally heated fluids as an energy source for electricity production. To produce electric power, underground high-temperature reservoirs of steam or hot water are tapped by wells and the steam rotates turbines that generate electricity. Typically, water is then returned to the ground to recharge the reservoir.
Geothermal energy can achieve capacity factors of 93 percent and can be used for base-load power where this type of energy source is available (NRRI 2007). Widespread application of geothermal energy is constrained by the geographic availability of the resource. In the U.S.,
high-temperature hydrothermal reservoirs are located in the western continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii. The ROI has low- to moderate-temperature resources that can be tapped for direct heat or for geothermal heat pumps, but electricity generation is not feasible with these resources (GHC 2008; EERE 2008).
Wood Energy As discussed in the GEIS (NRC 1996b), the use of wood waste to generate electricity is largely limited to those states with significant wood resources. The pulp, paper, and paperboard industries in states with adequate wood resources generate electric power by consuming wood and wood waste for energy, benefiting from the use of waste materials that could otherwise represent a disposal problem. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the ROI produces approximately 5.9 million dry metric tons (6.5 million dry tons) of wood waste annually (consisting of forest mill, and urban wood residues) (NREL 2005). Assuming the fuel has a nominal heat content of 9.961 million Btu per dry ton and a thermal conversion efficiency of 25 percent, the annual power potential of the ROI would be 4.7 million MW-hours (EIA 2008b; NRC 1996b). This is the equivalent to a 488-MWe base-load (90 percent capacity factor) power plant which is substantially less than the 1,265-MWe nominal base-load capacity of HCGS. The largest existing wood waste power plants in operation are 40 to 50 MWe in size.
Furthermore, Section 8.3.6 of the GEIS (NRC 1996b), states that construction of a wood-fired plant would have an environmental impact that would be similar to that for a coal-fired plant, although facilities using wood waste for fuel would be built on smaller scales. Like coal-fired plants, wood-waste plants require large areas for fuel storage, processing, and waste (i.e., ash) disposal. Additionally, operation of wood-fired plants has environmental impacts, including impacts on the aquatic environment and air. Wood has a low heat content that makes it unattractive for base-load applications. It is also difficult to handle and has high transportation costs.
While some wood resources are available in the ROI there is not enough to replace the capacity of HCGS. PSEG has concluded that, due to the lack of an environmental advantage, low heat content, handling difficulties, and high transportation costs, wood energy is not a reasonable alternative to HCGS license renewal.
Page 7-18 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs Municipal Solid Waste As discussed in Section 8.3.7 of the GEIS (NRC 1996b), the initial capital costs for municipal solid waste plants are greater than for comparable steam turbine technology at wood-waste facilities. This is due to the need for specialized waste separation and handling equipment and stricter environmental emission controls.
The decision to burn municipal solid waste to generate energy is usually driven by the need for an alternative to landfills, rather than by energy considerations. The use of landfills as a waste disposal option is likely to increase in the near term; however, it is unlikely that many landfills will begin converting waste to energy because of unfavorable economics.
Estimates in the GEIS suggest that the overall level of construction impacts from a waste-fired plant should be approximately the same as that for a coal-fired plant. Additionally, waste-fired plants have the same or greater operational impacts (including impacts on the aquatic environment, air, and waste disposal). Some of these impacts would be moderate, but still larger than the environmental effects of HCGS license renewal.
PSEG has concluded that, due to the high costs and lack of environmental advantages, burning municipal solid waste to generate electricity is not a reasonable alternative to HCGS license renewal.
Other Biomass-Derived Fuels In addition to wood and municipal solid waste fuels, there are several other concepts for fueling electric generators, including burning energy crops, converting crops to a liquid fuel such as ethanol (ethanol is primarily used as a gasoline additive), and gasifying energy crops (including wood waste). As discussed in the GEIS, none of these technologies has progressed to the point of being competitive on a large scale or of being reliable enough to replace a base-load plant such as HCGS.
Further, estimates in the GEIS suggest that the overall level of construction impacts from a crop-fired plant should be approximately the same as that for a wood-fired plant. Additionally, crop-fired plants would have similar operational impacts (including impacts on the aquatic environment and air). These systems also have large impacts on land use, due to the acreage needed to grow the energy crops.
PSEG has concluded that, due to the high costs and lack of environmental advantage, burning other biomass-derived fuels is not a reasonable alternative to HCGS license renewal.
Petroleum The ROI has several existing petroleum (oil)-fired power plants (PJM 2007d). The percentage of power generated by oil-fired electricity plants has decreased from 4.7 to 0.8 percent from 1990 to 2006 in the ROI (EIA 2007b). Petroleum prices are volatile but the expected long-term trend is for prices to increase. As a result, at some point in the future oil-fired operations will likely be more expensive than nuclear or coal-fired.
Also, construction and operation of an oil-fired plant would have environmental impacts. For example, Section 8.3.11 of the GEIS (NRC 1996b) estimates that construction of a 1,000-MWe oil-fired plant would require about 49 hectares (120 acres). Building an oil-fired plant with a net Hope Creek Generating Station Page 7-19 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs capacity equal to HCGS would require about 62 hectares (152 acres). Additionally, operation of oil-fired plants would have impacts on the aquatic environment and air that would be similar to those from a coal-fired plant.
PSEG has concluded that, due to the high costs and lack of obvious environmental advantage, oil-fired generation is not a reasonable alternative to HCGS license renewal.
Fuel Cells Fuel cell power plants are in the initial stages of commercialization. Although nearly 900 large stationary fuel cell systems have been built and operated worldwide, the global stationary fuel cell electricity generation capacity in 2007 was about 150 MWe (FCT 2007). The largest stationary fuel cell power plant ever built is the 11-MWe Goi Power Station in Ichihara, Japan (FC2000 2008). Even so, fuel cell power plants typically generate much less (2 MWe or lower) power (NRRI 2007). Accordingly, PSEG believes that fuel cell technology has not matured sufficiently to support production for a facility the size of HCGS and that it is not a reasonable alternative to HCGS license renewal.
Delayed Retirement As the NRC noted in Section 8.3.13 of the GEIS (NRC 1996b), extending the lives of existing non-nuclear generating plants beyond the time they were originally scheduled to be retired represents another potential alternative to license renewal. Fossil plants slated for retirement are old enough to have difficulty meeting todays restrictions on air contaminant emissions. In the face of increasingly stringent air quality restrictions, delaying retirement to compensate for a station the size of HCGS would appear to be unreasonable without major construction to upgrade or replace plant components.
Power-generating merchants within the PJM region have retired a large number of electricity generators, totaling over 5,700 MWe, with another 1,800 MWe pending. This has resulted in multiple reliability criteria violations. The problem has been magnified by steady load growth and sluggish generation additions (PJM 2007b). Some potential reliability issues have been forestalled through a combination of short lead-time transmission upgrades, voluntary deactivation deferrals, and implementation of a process that compensates generators that remain online beyond announced retirement dates. However, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently determined that PJM cannot compel the owners of units scheduled for retirement to remain in service (PJM 2007b). For these reasons, the delayed retirement of non-nuclear generating units is not considered a reasonable alternative to HCGS license renewal.
Combination of Alternatives NRC indicated in Section 8.1 of the GEIS that, while many methods are available for generating electricity and a huge number of combinations or mixes can be assimilated to meet system needs, it would be impractical to analyze all the combinations. Therefore, NRC determined that alternatives evaluation should be limited to analysis of single discrete electrical generation sources and only those electric generation technologies that are technically reasonable and commercially viable (NRC 1996b).
Nevertheless, for the purpose of comparison, PSEG has assumed that a 400-MWe wind farm, along with two 400-MWe natural gas combined-cycle units and 65 MWe of power purchased from the wholesale electricity market could replace the HCGS nominal generating capacity Page 7-20 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs (1,265 MWe net). When operating, the combined cycle plant can follow the wind load by ramping up and down quickly. When the wind is blowing hard, the combined-cycle plant can be ramped down; when the wind is not blowing or is blowing too softly to turn the wind turbines, the combined-cycle plant can be ramped up. Power purchased from other generators in the PJM market would provide the balance of electricity needed.
Operation of the new natural gas-fired power plant would result in increased air emissions and other impacts. The impacts associated with the wind portion of the alternative - land-use impacts, noise impacts, visual impacts, impacts on wildlife, etc. - would be more than the stand-alone natural gas alternative. The environmental impacts associated with power purchased from other generators would be similar to the impacts associated with the coal- and gas-fired alternatives, but would be located elsewhere within the PJM region.
PSEG concludes that it is very unlikely that the environmental impacts of any combination of generating and conservation options would be reduced to the level of impacts associated with renewal of the HCGS operating license. Therefore, a combination of alternatives is not considered a reasonable alternative to HCGS license renewal.
7.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES This section evaluates the environmental impacts of alternatives that PSEG has determined to be reasonable alternatives to HCGS license renewal: gas-fired generation, coal-fired generation, new nuclear generation, and purchased power. For the impacts of coal- and gas-fired generation that are not specifically discussed in this Environmental Report, the findings of the GEIS (NRC 1996b) regarding the impacts of such generation are adopted.
7.2.2.1 Gas-Fired Generation NRC evaluated environmental impacts from gas-fired generation alternatives in the GEIS, focusing on combined-cycle plants. Section 7.2.1.1 presents PSEGs reasons for defining the gas-fired generation alternative as a three-unit combined-cycle plant at HCGS. Construction of a gas-fired unit would impact land use and could impact ecological, aesthetic, and cultural resources, but construction on an existing power plant site would minimize any impacts to these resources. Human health effects associated with air emissions would be of concern. Gas-fired generation facilities use much less water than nuclear power plants; therefore, aquatic biota losses due to cooling water withdrawals would be easily offset by the concurrent shutdown of the nuclear generator. The following subsections describe the effects of combined-cycle gas-fired generation in greater detail.
Air Quality Natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fossil fuel that primarily emits nitrogen oxides (NOX), a regulated pollutant, during combustion. A natural-gas-fired plant would also emit small quantities of sulfur oxides (SOX), particulate matter, and carbon monoxide (CO), all of which are regulated pollutants. In addition, a natural-gas-fired plant would produce carbon dioxide (CO2) a greenhouse gas. Control technology for gas-fired turbines focuses on NOX emissions. From data published by EPA (EPA 2000a), the emissions from the natural-gas-fired plant are estimated to be:
SOX = 17 metric tons (19 tons) per year Hope Creek Generating Station Page 7-21 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs NOX = 291 metric tons (321 tons) per year CO = 60 metric tons (66 tons) per year CO2 = 2,940,000 metric tons (3,240,000 tons) per year Particulates:
Filterable Particulate Matter = 51 metric tons (56 tons) per year (all particulate matter from natural gas combustion are particulates with diameters less than 2.5 microns
[PM2.5])
In 2006, New Jersey was ranked 37th nationally in sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and 43rd nationally in NOX emissions from electric power plants (EIA 2007b). The acid rain requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 capped the nations SO2 emissions from power plants. Each company with fossil-fuel-fired units was allocated SO2 allowances. To be in compliance with the Act, the companies must hold enough allowances to cover their annual SO2 emissions. PSEG would need to obtain SO2 credits to operate a fossil-fuel-fired plant.
In 1998, the EPA promulgated the NOX SIP (State Implementation Plan) Call regulation that required 22 states, including New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, to reduce their NOX emissions to address regional transport of ground-level ozone across state lines (EPA 1998b). In 2005 EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which was overturned in courts during July 2008. The CAIR would have permanently capped emissions of SO2 and NOX in 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia using a cap and trade program. In December 2008 the court reversed its vacatur of CAIR. The EPA is now charged with making changes consistent with the Courts July opinion, including changing methodologies for allowance allocations. The Court did not set a deadline for the EPA to establish a new rule. The new EPA rule might be substantially different from the CAIR but would likely require PSEG to obtain enough NOX credits to cover annual emissions either from the set-aside pool or by buying NOX credits from other sources. Additionally, because all of New Jersey is treated as a non-attainment area for ozone, a new fossil-fuel-fired plant at an existing PSEG power plant site annually would need to purchase enough NOX emission reduction credits to cover its emissions.
New Jersey has implemented the CO2 Budget Trading Program cap-and-trade program for the electric power sector consistent with companion rules in nine other states. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is an ongoing effort, commenced in September 2003, among Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States to develop and implement a regional CO2 cap-and-trade program aimed at stabilizing and then reducing CO2 emissions from large fossil fuel-fired electricity generating units in the region, New Jersey is a signatory state to the RGGI Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The participating states agreed to stabilize power sector CO2 emissions over the first six years of program implementation (2009 through 2014) at a level roughly equal to current emissions, and then initiating an emissions decline of 2.5 percent per year for the four years 2015 through 2018. This approach will result in a 2018 annual emissions budget that is 10 percent smaller than the initial 2009 annual emissions budget. The initial regional cap is 170.5 metric tons (188 million short tons) of CO2 per year, which is approximately four percent above annual average regional emissions during the period 2000 through 2004 for electric generating units that will be subject to the program. New Jersey is auctioning the CO2 allowances and the availability of adequate allowances for a new fossil generation unit cannot be determined at this time. Although, the cost of each CO2 allowance in Page 7-22 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs the initial September 2008 auction was $3.07, future prices cannot be predicted. Additional information on the RGGI is available at http://www.rggi.org/home.
Locating the gas-fired units in the ROI would increase the CO2 emissions by over 2.72 million metric tons (3 million short tons) per year. In comparison, the CO2 emission budget for the entire RGGI, which includes the ROI plus six other states, is 170.5 metric tons (188 million short tons) of CO2 per year in 2018, as was explained above. Accordingly, the addition of 1,260 MWe of gas-fired generation would likely challenge compliance with this budget. HCGS does not emit CO2 in the generation of electric power for sale.
NOX effects on ozone levels, SO2 allowances, CO2 credits and NOX credits could all be issues of concern for gas-fired combustion. While gas-fired turbine emissions are less than coal-fired boiler emissions, the emissions are still substantial. PSEG concludes that emissions from the gas-fired alternative would noticeably alter local air quality, but would not cause or contribute to violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards in the region. Air quality impacts would therefore be SMALL to MODERATE.
Waste Management The GEIS concludes that the solid waste generated from a natural-gas-fired combined cycle power plant would be minimal (NRC 1996b). The only noteworthy waste would be from spent selective catalytic reduction (SCR) used for NOX control. PSEG concludes that gas-fired generation waste management impacts would be SMALL.
Other Impacts Construction of the gas-fired alternative on an existing plant site would impact the construction site and the supporting utility corridors. If the gas-fired units were located at HCGS, PSEG estimates that 18 hectares (44 acres) on the previously disturbed HCGS site would be needed for a plant site, and impacts to land use and terrestrial resources would be SMALL. Aesthetic impacts, erosion and sedimentation, fugitive dust, and construction debris impacts would be noticeable but SMALL with appropriate controls.
A new gas pipeline would likely be required to supply the fuel for the gas turbine generators in this alternative. To the extent practicable, PSEG would route the pipeline along existing, previously disturbed, rights-of-way to minimize impacts. A new pipeline of approximately 40.6 cm (16-inch) diameter would require a 30.5 m (100-ft) wide corridor. This new construction may also necessitate an upgrade of the statewide pipeline network. Impacts to land use would be SMALL.
PSEG estimates an average construction workforce of 560 employees with a peak of 1,010 workers. Socioeconomic impacts from the construction workforce would be minimal, if worker relocation is not required, which would be the case if, like HCGS, the site is near metropolitan areas such as the cities of Salem, Wilmington, Bridgeton, and Vineland. However, PSEG estimates a reduced workforce of 48 for gas operations, resulting in adverse socioeconomic impacts due to the loss of 869 personnel responsible for HCGS operational activities and the 600 additional personnel employed during outages. Loss of the operational and temporary personnel would impact various aspects of the local community including employment, taxes, housing, offsite land use, economic structure, and public services (NRC 1996b). PSEG believes these impacts would be MODERATE in the GEIS-defined high population area surrounding HCGS (see Section 2.6).
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 7-23 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs If the gas-fired units were located at HCGS, impacts to aquatic resources and water quality would be smaller than the impacts of the existing HCGS due to changes in the plants cooling water withdrawals from and discharges to the Delaware River. These impacts would be offset by the concurrent shutdown of HCGS. PSEG considers that impacts to water resources would be SMALL. The stacks and boilers would have visual impacts but be consistent with the industrial nature of the site. Impacts to cultural resources would be unlikely because the site is an artificial island as described in Section 2.11.
7.2.2.2 Coal-Fired Generation NRC evaluated environmental impacts from coal-fired generation alternatives in the GEIS (NRC 1996b). NRC concluded that construction impacts could be substantial, due in part to the large land area required (which can result in natural habitat loss) and the large workforce needed.
NRC identified major adverse impacts from operations as human health concerns associated with air emissions, waste generation, and losses of aquatic biota due to cooling water withdrawals and discharges.
The coal-fired alternative that PSEG has defined in Section 7.2.1.1 would be located at an existing PSEG power plant site and, for the purpose of evaluating impacts, that site is assumed to be HCGS. A coal plant comparable to the 1,260-MWe gas plant chosen for this alternatives analysis could comprise two 630-MWe (net) units.
Air Quality A coal-fired plant would emit SO2, NOX, particulate matter, CO, and carbon dioxide (CO2), which is a greenhouse gas. A coal-fired plant also would emit mercury, which is a regulated pollutant in New Jersey. As Section 7.2.1.1 indicates, PSEG has assumed a plant design that would minimize air emissions through a combination of boiler technology and post-combustion pollutant removal. Using data published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA 2007c) and the EPA (EPA 1998a; EPA 2006a), the coal-fired alternative emissions are estimated to be as follows:
SO2 = 2,946 metric tons (3,247 tons) per year NOX = 881 metric tons (971 tons) per year CO = 881 metric tons (971 tons) per year CO2 = 9,700,000 metric tons (10,700,000 tons) per year Mercury = 146 kilograms (322 pounds) per year Particulates:
PM10 (particulates having a diameter of less than 10 microns) = 24 metric tons (27 tons) per year PM2.5 (particulates having a diameter of less than 2.5 microns) = 6 metric tons (7 tons) per year Page 7-24 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs The discussion in Section 7.2.2.1 of regional air quality is applicable to the coal-fired generation alternative. In addition, NRC noted in the GEIS that adverse human health effects from coal combustion have led to important federal legislation in recent years and that public health risks, such as cancer and emphysema, have been associated with coal combustion. NRC also mentioned global climate change and acid rain as potential impacts. In 2005 EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule, which has now been overturned by the courts. While the future is unclear, EPA likely will have to promulgate a new rule to address limits on mercury emissions.
Notwithstanding, New Jersey has adopted mercury emissions control standards applicable to coal-fired boilers (see N.J.A.C. 7:27-27).
New Jersey has implemented the CO2 Budget Trading Program cap-and-trade program for the electric power sector consistent with companion rules in nine other states. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is an ongoing effort, begun in September 2003, among Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States to develop and implement a regional CO2 cap-and-trade program aimed at stabilizing and then reducing CO2 emissions from large fossil fuel-fired electricity generating units in the region. New Jersey is a signatory state to the RGGI Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The participating states agreed to stabilize power sector CO2 emissions over the first six years of program implementation (2009 through 2014) at a level roughly equal to current emissions, and then initiating an emissions decline of 2.5 percent per year for the four years 2015 through 2018. This approach will result in a 2018 annual emissions budget that is 10 percent smaller than the initial 2009 annual emissions budget. The initial regional cap is 170.5 metric tons (188 million short tons) of CO2 per year, which is approximately 4 percent above annual average regional emissions during the period 2000 through 2004 for electric generating units that will be subject to the program. New Jersey is auctioning the CO2 allowances and the availability of adequate allowances for a new fossil generation unit can not be determined at this time. Although the cost of each CO2 allowance in the initial September 2008 auction was $3.07, future prices cannot be predicted. More information on the RGGI is available at http://www.rggi.org/home.
Locating the coal-fired units in the ROI would increase the CO2 emissions by over 10 million tons per year. In comparison the CO2 emission budget for the entire RGGI, which includes the ROI plus six other states, is 170.5 metric tons (188 million short tons) of CO2 per year in 2018, as was explained above. Accordingly, the addition of 1260 MWe of coal-fired generation would likely challenge compliance with this budget. HCGS does not emit CO2 in the generation of electric power for sale.
PSEG concludes that federal legislation and large-scale issues, such as global climate change and acid rain, are indications of concerns about destabilizing important attributes of air resources. However, SO2 emission allowances, mercury emission allowances, CO2 credits, NOX credits, low NOX burners, overfire air, fabric filters or electrostatic precipitators, and scrubbers are now, or likely will be in the future, regulatory-imposed mitigation measures. As such, PSEG concludes that the coal-fired alternative would have MODERATE impacts on air quality; the impacts would be noticeable and greater than those of the gas-fired alternative, but would not destabilize air quality in the area.
Waste Management PSEG concurs with the GEIS assessment that the coal-fired alternative would generate substantial solid waste. The coal-fired plant would annually consume about 3.52 million metric tons (3.88 million tons) of coal having an ash content of 6.13 percent. After combustion, 45 percent of this ash, approximately 96,750 metric tons (107,000 tons) per year, would be Hope Creek Generating Station Page 7-25 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs marketed for beneficial reuse. The remaining ash, approximately 119,000 metric tons (131,000 tons) per year, would be collected and disposed of in an authorized disposal facility.
In addition, approximately 74,600 metric tons (82,300 tons) of scrubber sludge would be disposed of each year (based on annual limestone usage of about 96,900 metric tons
[107,000 tons]). PSEG estimates that ash and scrubber waste disposal over a 20-year plant life (the time considered for license renewal) would require approximately 26 hectares (65 acres).
PSEG believes that proper siting, current waste management practices, and current waste monitoring practices would prevent waste disposal from destabilizing any resources. After closure of the waste site and revegetation, the land would be available for other uses. For these reasons, PSEG believes that waste disposal for the coal-fired alternative would have MODERATE impacts; the impacts of increased waste disposal would be noticeable, but would not destabilize any important resource, and further mitigation would not be warranted.
Other Impacts PSEG estimates that construction of the power block for a coal-fired power plant would require 70 hectares (174 acres) and ash disposal would require an additional 52 hectares (130 acres) of land and associated terrestrial habitat over 40 years, or 26 hectares (65 acres over the 20-year license renewal term. Because much of this construction would be on previously disturbed land, impacts to land use and ecological resources would be SMALL to MODERATE.
Delivery of coal and limestone by barge would require construction of a barge offloading facility and a conveyor system to the coal yard which would affect the terrestrial habitat along the waterfront as well as aqueous habitat associated with the construction, maintenance, and operation of the offloading facility. Only 5 percent of the coal delivered to New Jersey is transported by barge but Logan Generating Company and Mercer Generating Station located further up the Delaware River than HCGS, receive coal via barge (EIA 2008c, EIA 2008d).
PSEG estimates an average construction workforce of 1,010 employees with a peak of 1,955 workers. Socioeconomic impacts from the construction workforce would be minimal, if worker relocation is not required, for a site located near a large metropolitan area. PSEG estimates an operational workforce of 172 workers for the coal-fired alternative. This is a sizable reduction in operating personnel compared to HCGSs 869 personnel, and the impact on the local community employment, taxes, housing, off-site land use, and public services could be significant. Thus, reduction in workforce would result in adverse socioeconomic impacts characterized as MODERATE.
Impacts to aquatic resources and water quality would be similar to impacts of HCGS, due to the new plants use of the cooling water from and discharge to the Delaware Estuary, and would be offset by the concurrent shutdown of HCGS. Therefore PSEG concludes that impacts to aquatic resources would be SMALL. As with any large construction project, some erosion and sedimentation and fugitive dust emissions could be anticipated, but would be minimized by using best management practices. Debris from clearing and grubbing could be disposed of onsite. The stacks, boilers, and barge deliveries would increase the visual impact but be consistent with the industrial nature of the site. Impacts to cultural resources would be unlikely because the site is an artificial island. Impacts to visual resources and cultural resources would be SMALL.
Page 7-26 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs 7.2.2.3 New Nuclear Capacity As discussed in Section 7.2.1.2, under the new nuclear capacity alternative, PSEG would construct one or two new nuclear generating units using an NRC certified standard design.
Air Quality Air quality impacts would be minimal. Air emissions are primarily from non-facility equipment and diesel generators and would be comparable to those associated with the continued operation of HCGS. Overall, emissions and associated impacts would be considered SMALL.
Waste Management High-level radioactive wastes would be similar to those associated with the continued operation of HCGS. Low-level radioactive waste impacts from a new nuclear plant would be slightly greater but similar to the continued operation of HCGS. The overall impacts are characterized as SMALL.
Other Impacts PSEG estimates that construction of the reactor(s) and auxiliary facilities would affect 255 to 510 hectares (630 to 1260 acres) of land and associated terrestrial habitat. Because most of this construction would be on previously disturbed land, impacts at the HCGS site would be SMALL to MODERATE. For the purposes of analysis, PSEG has assumed that the existing barge facilities would be used for reactor vessel and other deliveries under this alternative.
Visual impacts would be consistent with the industrial nature of the site. As with any large construction project, some erosion and sedimentation and fugitive dust emissions could be anticipated, but would be minimized by using best management practices. Debris from clearing and grubbing could be disposed of onsite.
PSEG estimates a peak construction work force of approximately 3650 workers. The surrounding communities would experience moderate to large demands on housing and public services. Long-term job opportunities would be comparable to continued operation of HCGS.
Therefore, PSEG concludes that socioeconomic impacts during construction and operation would be SMALL TO LARGE.
Impacts to aquatic resources and water quality would be similar to impacts of HCGS, due to use by the new unit(s) of the existing cooling water intake and discharge structures. If two units were to be constructed, a second cooling tower may be required increasing impacts to aquatic resources and water quality.
PSEG estimates that other construction and operation impacts would be SMALL. In most cases, the impacts would be detectable, but they would not destabilize any important attribute of the resource involved. Due to the minor nature of these other impacts, mitigation would not be warranted beyond that previously mentioned.
7.2.2.4 Purchased Power As discussed in Section 7.2.1.2, PSEG assumes that the generating technology used under the purchased power alternative would be one of those that NRC analyzed in the GEIS. PSEG is also adopting by reference the NRC analysis of the environmental impacts from those Hope Creek Generating Station Page 7-27 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Alternatives That Meet System Generating Needs technologies. Under the purchased power alternative, therefore, environmental impacts would still occur, but they would likely originate from a power plant located elsewhere in the ROI.
PSEG believes that imports from outside the PJM region would not be required. However, the replacement capacity, wherever located in the ROI, would have similar environmental impacts as those described above on a regional basis.
As also indicated in Section 7.2.1.2 new transmission lines are essential for New Jersey to meet the growing demand for electricity. PJM has already identified a number of areas in which additional transmission facilities are needed to ensure the continued reliability of the regions electric grid (PJM 2007d). Long-term power purchases, therefore, would require the construction of additional transmission capacity. Additions and changes to the present transmission network would occur on previously undisturbed land either along existing transmission line rights-of-way or along new transmission corridors. PSEG concludes that the land use impact of such transmission line additions would be SMALL to MODERATE. In general, land use changes would be so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important land use resources. Given the potential length of new transmission corridors into southern New Jersey, it is reasonable to assume that in some cases land use changes would be clearly noticeable, which is a characteristic of an impact that is MODERATE.
PSEG believes that impacts associated with the purchase of power would be SMALL to MODERATE; the impacts could be noticeable, but would not destabilize any important resource, and further mitigation would not be warranted.
7.2.2.5 Conclusion Based on the analyses done for reasonable alternatives that could generate the same amount of electricity as generated by HCGS, PSEG concludes that no alternative is environmentally preferable. Furthermore, the gas-fired and coal-fired generation alternatives would have significant carbon emissions in comparison to HCGS license renewal.
Page 7-28 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Tables Table 7.2-1 Gas-Fired Alternative Characteristic Basis Plant size = 1,260 MWe ISO rating net Manufacturers standard size gas-fired combined-combined cycle consisting of three 420 MWe cycle plant ( HCGS net capacity of 1,265 MWe) systems with heat recovery steam generators (GE Energy 2007)
Plant size = 1,314 MWe ISO rating gross Based on 4 percent onsite power usage Number of units = 3 Assumed Fuel type = natural gas Assumed 3
Fuel heating value = 1,034 Btu/ft 2007 value for gas used in New Jersey (EIA 2008e, Table 14.A)
Fuel SOX content = 0.00066 lb/MMBtu (EPA 2000a, Table 3.1-2a; INGAA 2000)
NOX control = selective catalytic reduction (SCR) Best available technology for minimizing NOX with steam/water injection emissions (EPA 2000a, Table 3.1-1)
Fuel NOX content = 0.0109 lb/MMBtu Typical for large selective catalytic reduction controlled gas fired units with water injection (EPA 2000b, Table 3.1 Database)
Fuel CO content = 0.00226 lb/MMBtu Typical for large SCR-controlled gas fired units (EPA 2000b, Table 3.1 Database)
Fuel PM10 content = 0.0019 lb/MMBtu (EPA 2000a, Table 3.1-2a)
Fuel CO2 content = 110 lb/MMBtu (EPA 2000a, Table 3.1-2a)
Heat rate = 5,687 Btu/kWh (GE Power 2001)
Capacity factor = 0.90 Assumed based on performance of modern baseload plants Note: The difference between net and gross is electricity consumed onsite.
Note: The heat recovery steam generators do not contribute to air emissions.
Btu = British thermal unit CO = carbon monoxide CO2 = carbon dioxide ft3 = cubic foot ISO rating = International Organization for Standardization rating at standard atmospheric conditions of 59°F, 60 percent relative humidity, and 14.696 pounds of atmospheric pressure per square inch kWh = kilowatt-hour MM = million MWe = megawatt electrical NOX = nitrogen oxides PM10 = particulates having diameter of 10 microns or less SOx = oxides of sulfur
= less than or equal to Hope Creek Generating Station Page 7-29 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Tables Table 7.2-2 Coal-Fired Alternative Characteristic Basis Plant size = 1,260 MWe ISO rating net consisting Size set = to gas-fired alternative of two 630 MWe (net) units ( HCGS nominal base-load capacity of 1,265 MWe)
Plant size = 1,340 MWe ISO rating gross Based on 6 percent onsite power usage Number of units = 2 Assumed Boiler type = supercritical tangentially fired, dry- Minimizes nitrogen oxides emissions (EPA 1998a) bottom Fuel type = bituminous, pulverized coal Typical for coal used in New Jersey Fuel heating value = 11,890 Btu/lb 2007 value for coal used in New Jersey (EIA 2008e, Table 15.A)
Fuel ash content by weight = 6.13 percent 2007 value for coal used in New Jersey (EIA 2008e, Table 15.A)
Fuel sulfur content by weight = 0.88 percent 2007 value for coal used in New Jersey (EIA 2008e, Table 15.A)
Uncontrolled NOX emission = 10.0 lb/ton Typical for pulverized coal, tangentially fired, dry-bottom, NSPS (EPA 1998a)
Uncontrolled CO emission = 0.5 lb/ton Typical for pulverized coal, tangentially fired, dry-bottom, NSPS (EPA 1998a)
Uncontrolled CO2 emission = 5510 lb/ton Typical for pulverized bituminous coal, tangentially fired, dry-bottom, NSPS (EPA 1998a)
Heat rate = 8,740 Btu/kWh EIA forecast for a new supercritical coal-fired plant beginning operation in 2026 (EIA 2008f, Table 47)
Capacity factor = 0.90 Typical for large coal-fired units NOX control = low NOX burners, over-fire air and Best available technology and widely selective catalytic reduction (95 percent reduction) demonstrated for minimizing NOX emissions (EPA 1998a)
Particulate control = fabric filters (baghouse- Best available technology for minimizing 99.9 percent removal efficiency) particulate emissions (EPA 1998a)
SOX control = Wet scrubber - limestone Best available technology for minimizing SOX (95 percent removal efficiency) emissions (EPA 1998a)
Hg control = wet limestone scrubber with fabric Best available technology and widely filter (baghouse - 96 percent removal efficiency) demonstrated for minimizing Hg (EPA 1998a)
Note: The difference between net and gross is electricity consumed onsite.
Btu = British thermal unit CO = carbon monoxide CO2 = carbon dioxide ISO rating = International Organization for Standardization rating at standard atmospheric conditions of 59°F, 60 percent relative humidity, and 14.696 pounds of atmospheric pressure per square inch kWh = kilowatt-hour NSPS = New Source Performance Standard lb = pound MWe = megawatt electrical NOX = nitrogen oxides SOX = oxides of sulfur Hg = mercury
= less than or equal to Page 7-30 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 7.2 Figures Oil, 8.6%
Natural Gas, 26.0%
Coal, 40.6%
Nuclear, 18.6%
Renewable, Hydro, 1.6%
4.6%
Figure 7.2-1 PJM Regional Generating Capacity (2006)
Oil, 0.3% Natural Gas, 5.5%
Nuclear, 34.6%
Coal, 56.8%
Renewable, 0.8%
Hydro, 2.0%
Figure 7.2-2 PJM Regional Energy Output by Fuel Type (2006)
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 7-31 License Renewal Application
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Chapter 8 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of License Renewal with the Alternatives Hope Creek Generating Station Environmental Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Environmental Report Section 8.0 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of License Renewal with the Alternatives NRC To the extent practicable, the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives should be presented in comparative form... 10 CFR 51.45(b)(3) as adopted by 51.53(c)(2)
Chapter 4 analyzes environmental impacts of HCGS license renewal and Chapter 7 analyzes impacts of reasonable alternatives. Table 8.0-1 summarizes environmental impacts of the proposed action (license renewal) and the reasonable alternatives, for comparison purposes.
The environmental impacts compared in Table 8.0-1 are those that are either Category 2 issues for the proposed action or are issues that the GEIS (NRC 1996b) identified as major considerations in an alternatives analysis. For example, although the NRC concluded that air quality impacts from the proposed action would be small (Category 1), the GEIS identified major human health concerns associated with air emissions from alternatives (Section 7.2.2).
Therefore, Table 8.0-1 includes a comparison of the air impacts from the proposed action to those of the alternatives. Table 8.0-2 is a more detailed comparison of the alternatives.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 8-3 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 8.0 Tables Table 8.0-1 Impacts Comparison Summary No-Action Alternatives Proposed Action (License Base With New Nuclear With Coal-Fired With Gas-Fired With Purchased Impact Renewal) (Decommissioning) Power Generation Generation Power Land Use SMALL SMALL SMALL to SMALL to SMALL SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE Water Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE Air Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL to SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE Ecological Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL to SMALL to SMALL SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE Threatened or SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Endangered Species Human Health SMALL SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL to MODERATE Socioeconomics SMALL SMALL SMALL TO MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE LARGE Waste Management SMALL SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL to MODERATE Aesthetics SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE Cultural Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, any important attribute of the resource.
LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Footnote 3.
Page 8-4 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Hope Creek Generating Station Table 8.0-2 Impacts Comparison Detail No-Action Alternatives Proposed Action Base With New Nuclear With Coal-Fired With Gas-Fired With Purchased (License Renewal) (Decommissioning) Power Generation Generation Power Alternative Descriptions License Renewal Application HCGS license renewal for Decommissioning New construction at New construction at New construction at Would involve 20 years, followed by following expiration an existing site, an existing site, an existing site, construction of new decommissioning of current HCGS assumed to be assumed to be assumed to be generation capacity in license. Adopting HCGS HCGS HCGS the PJM region.
by reference, as Adopting by reference bounding for HCGS GEIS description of decommissioning, alternate technologies GEIS description (Section 7.2.1.2)
(NRC 1996b, Section 7.1)
Upgrade of barge Upgrade of barge slip Construct 40.6-cm slip or installation of or installation of a (16-inch) diameter a new rail spur new rail spur gas pipeline in a 30.5-m (100-ft) wide corridor. May require upgrades to existing pipelines Construct new transmission lines to interconnect to the PJM region One or two units Two 630-MWe (net) Three pre-using a certified tangentially fired, dry engineered 420-NRC standard bottom units MWe gas-fired Environmental Report design producing producing 1,260 combined-cycle 1,260 MWe net, MWe net; capacity systems with heat capacity factor 0.90 factor 0.90 recovery steam generators, Section 8.0 Tables producing combined total of 1,260 MWe.
Page 8-5 capacity factor: 0.90
Table 8.0-2. Impacts Comparison Detail (Continued)
Page 8-6 Environmental Report No-Action Alternatives Proposed Action Base With New Nuclear With Coal-Fired With Gas-Fired With Purchased (License Renewal) (Decommissioning) Power Generation Generation Power Construct cooling Construct /modify tower(s) and intake/discharge Section 8.0 Tables construct/modify system intake/discharge system Pulverized bituminous Natural gas, 1,034 coal, 11,890 Btu/lb; Btu/ft3; 5,687 8,740 Btu/kWh; Btu/kWh; 0.00066 lb 6.13% ash; 0.88% sulfur/MMBtu; sulfur; 10 lb/ton 0.0109 lb nitrogen oxides; 3.52 NOx/MMBtu; 5.3 x x 106 metric tons 108 m3 (3.88 x 106 tons) (1.9 x 1010 ft3) gas/yr coal/yr Low NOx burners, Selective catalytic over-fire air and reduction with selective catalytic steam/water injection reduction (95% NOx reduction efficiency)
Wet scrubber -
lime/limestone desulfurization system (95% SOx removal efficiency); 96,900 metric tons (107,000 Hope Creek Generating Station tons) lime/yr Fabric filters or electrostatic precipitators (99.9%
particulate removal efficiency)
License Renewal Application 513 permanent, 270 Comparable to 172 workers 48 workers corporate, and 86 matrixed present HCGS (Section 7.2.2.2) (Section 7.2.2.1) employees workforce (Section 7.2.2.3)
Hope Creek Generating Station Table 8.0-2. Impacts Comparison Detail (Continued)
No-Action Alternatives Proposed Action Base With New Nuclear With Coal-Fired With Gas-Fired With Purchased (License Renewal) (Decommissioning) Power Generation Generation Power Land Use Impacts License Renewal Application SMALL - Adopting by SMALL - Not an SMALL to SMALL to SMALL- 18 hectares SMALL to MODERATE reference Category 1 issue impact evaluated MODERATE - 255 MODERATE - 70 (44 acres) for facility - most transmission findings (Appendix A, by GEIS to 510 hectares hectares (174 acres) at HCGS location facilities could be Table A-1, Issues 52, 53) (NRC 1996b) (630 to 1260 acres) required for the (Section 7.2.2.1). constructed along required for the power block and New gas pipeline existing transmission power block and associated facilities would be built to corridors associated facilities at HCGS location; 26 connect with existing (Section 7.2.2.3).
at HCGS location hectares (65 acres) gas pipeline corridor Adopting by reference (Section 7.2.2.3) for ash/sludge GEIS description of land disposal during 20- use impacts from year license renewal alternate technologies term (NRC 1996b)
(Section 7.2.2.2)
Water Quality Impacts SMALL - Adopting by SMALL - Adopting SMALL - SMALL - SMALL - Reduced SMALL to MODERATE reference Category 1 issue by reference Construction Construction impacts cooling water - Adopting by reference findings (Table A-1, Category 1 issue impacts minimized minimized by use of demands, inherent in GEIS description of Issues 3, 4, and 6-11). finding by use of best best management combined-cycle water quality impacts One Category 2 ground- (Table A-1, Issue management practices. design from alternate water issue applies 89). practices. Operational impacts (Section 7.2.2.1) technologies (Section 4.5, Issue 33). Operational similar to HCGS by (NRC 1996b)
Four Category 2 ground- impacts similar to using cooling tower water issues dont apply HCGS by using and discharging to (Section 4.1, Issue 13; cooling tower and the Delaware Section 4.6, Issue 34; discharging to the Estuary.
Environmental Report Section 4.7, Issue 35; and Delaware Estuary. (Section 7.2.2.2)
Section 4.8, Issue 39). (Section 7.2.2.3)
Section 8.0 Tables Page 8-7
Table 8.0-2. Impacts Comparison Detail (Continued)
Page 8-8 Environmental Report No-Action Alternatives Proposed Action Base With New Nuclear With Coal-Fired With Gas-Fired With Purchased (License Renewal) (Decommissioning) Power Generation Generation Power Air Quality Impacts Section 8.0 Tables SMALL - Adopting by SMALL - Adopting SMALL - Air MODERATE - SMALL to SMALL to MODERATE reference Category 1 issue by reference emissions are 2,946 metric tons MODERATE - 17 - Adopting by reference finding (Table A-1, Issue Category 1 issue primarily from non- (3,247 tons) SOX/yr metric tons (19 tons) GEIS description of air 51). One Category 2 issue findings facility equipment 881 metric tons SOX/yr quality impacts from does not apply (Table A-1, Issue and diesel (971 tons) NOX/yr 291 metric tons alternate technologies (Section 4.11, Issue 50). 88) generators and are 881 metric tons (321 tons) NOX/yr (NRC 1996b) comparable to (971 tons) CO/yr 60 metric tons those associated (66 tons) CO/yr 6 metric tons (7 tons) with the continued PM2.5/yr 51 metric tons operation of HCGS 24 metric tons (56 tons) PM2.5/yr (Section 7.2.2.3)
(27 tons) PM10/yr 2,940,000 metric tons 146 kilograms (322 (3,240,000 tons) pounds) mercury/yr CO2 /yr 9,700,000 metric tons (Section 7.2.2.1)
(10,700,000 tons)
CO2 /yr (Section 7.2.2.2)
Ecological Resource Impacts SMALL - Adopting by SMALL - Adopting SMALL - Impacts SMALL to SMALL - SMALL to MODERATE reference Category 1 issue by reference would be MODERATE - 26 Construction of - Adopting by reference findings (Table A-1, Issues Category 1 issue comparable to hectares (65 acres) pipeline could alter GEIS description of 15-24, 28-30, and 45-48). finding (Table A-1, those associated of the existing site the terrestrial habitat. ecological resource Hope Creek Generating Station Four Category 2 issues do Issue 90) with continued could be required for (Section 7.2.2.1) impacts from alternate not apply (Section 4.2, operation of HCGS ash/sludge disposal technologies Issue 25; Section 4.3, (Section 7.2.2.3) over a 20-year (NRC 1996b)
Issue 26; and Section 4.4, period.
Issue 27; Section 4.9, (Section 7.2.2.2)
Issue 40).
Hope Creek Generating Station Table 8.0-2. Impacts Comparison Detail (Continued)
No-Action Alternatives Proposed Action Base With New Nuclear With Coal-Fired With Gas-Fired With Purchased (License Renewal) (Decommissioning) Power Generation Generation Power Threatened or Endangered Species Impacts License Renewal Application SMALL -No Federally SMALL - Not an SMALL - Federal SMALL - Federal SMALL - Federal SMALL - Federal and threatened or endangered impact evaluated and state laws and state laws and state laws state laws prohibit species are known by GEIS prohibit destroying prohibit destroying or prohibit destroying or destroying or adversely residents at the site. One (NRC 1996b) or adversely adversely affecting adversely affecting affecting protected federally threatened affecting protected protected species protected species species and their species occurs in a species and their and their habitats and their habitats habitats transmission corridor, and habitats two other protected species are known to occur in the vicinity of transmission corridors (Section 4.10, Issue 49)
Human Health Impacts SMALL - Adopting by SMALL - Adopting SMALL - Impacts MODERATE - SMALL - Adopting SMALL to MODERATE reference Category 1 by reference would be Adopting by by reference GEIS - Adopting by reference issues (Table A-1, Issues Category 1 issue comparable to reference GEIS conclusion that some GEIS description of 56, 58, 61, 62). One finding continued operation conclusion that risks risk of cancer and human health impacts Category 2 issue does not (Table A-1, Issue of HCGS such as cancer and emphysema exists from alternate apply (Section 4.12, 86) (Section 7.2.2.3) emphysema from from emissions technologies Issue 57). Risk due to emissions are likely (NRC 1996b) (NRC 1996b) transmission-line induced (NRC 1996b) currents minimal due to conformance with consensus code (Section 4.13, Issue 59)
Environmental Report Section 8.0 Tables Page 8-9
Table 8.0-2. Impacts Comparison Detail (Continued)
Page 8-10 Environmental Report No-Action Alternatives Proposed Action Base With New Nuclear With Coal-Fired With Gas-Fired With Purchased (License Renewal) (Decommissioning) Power Generation Generation Power Socioeconomic Impacts Section 8.0 Tables SMALL - Adopting by SMALL - Adopting Construction: MODERATE - MODERATE - MODERATE -
reference Category 1 issue by reference MODERATE to Reduction in Reduction in Adopting by reference findings (Table A-1, Issues Category 1 issue LARGE - Peak permanent workforce permanent workforce GEIS description of 64, 67). Two Category 2 finding construction at HCGS could at HCGS could socioeconomic impacts issues findings are not (Table A-1, Issue workforce of 3650 adversely affect adversely affect from alternate applicable (Section 4.16, 91) could affect surrounding counties. surrounding counties. technologies Issue 66 and Section housing and public (Section 7.2.2.2) (Section 7.2.2.1) (NRC 1996b) 4.17.1, Issue 68). Location services in in high population area with surrounding no growth controls counties.
minimizes potential for housing impacts. Section Operation: SMALL 4.14, Issue 63). - Impacts would be Station property tax comparable to payments represents those associated approximately 20 percent with the continued of the tax revenues paid to operation of HCGS Lower Alloways Creek (Section 7.2.2.3)
Township, and less than 10 percent each of the city of Salem and Salem Countys total tax revenues (Section 4.17.2, Hope Creek Generating Station Issue 69). Because the tax revenues collected from HCGS are provided to Salem County by Lower Alloways Creek Township in exchange for License Renewal Application government services, and impacts to the county are small, the impacts of license renewal are considered SMALL.
Hope Creek Generating Station Table 8.0-2. Impacts Comparison Detail (Continued)
No-Action Alternatives Proposed Action Base With New Nuclear With Coal-Fired With Gas-Fired With Purchased (License Renewal) (Decommissioning) Power Generation Generation Power Capacity of public water supply and transportation License Renewal Application infrastructure minimizes potential for related impacts (Section 4.15, Issue 65 and Section 4.18, Issue 70)
Two Category 2 issues do not apply (Section 4.16, Issue 66 and Section 4.17.1, Issue 68)
Waste Management Impacts SMALL - Adopting by SMALL - Adopting SMALL - MODERATE - SMALL - The only SMALL to MODERATE reference Category 1 issue by reference radioactive wastes 191,000 metric tons noteworthy waste - Adopting by reference findings (Table A-1, Category 1 issue would be similar to (131,000 tons) of coal would be from spent GEIS description of Issues 77-85) finding those associated ash and 74,600 selective catalytic waste management (Table A-1, Issue with the continued metric tons (82,300 reduction (SCR) used impacts from alternate
- 87) operation of HCGS tons) of scrubber for NOX control. technologies (Section 7.2.2.3) sludge annually (Section 7.2.2.1) (NRC 1996b) would require 26 hectares (65 acres) over a 20-year period.
(Section 7.2.2.2)
Aesthetic Impacts Environmental Report SMALL - Adopting by SMALL - Not an SMALL - Visual SMALL - Visual SMALL- Steam SMALL to MODERATE reference Category 1 issue impact evaluated impacts would be impacts would be turbines and stacks - Adopting by reference findings (Table A-1, by GEIS comparable to consistent with the would create visual GEIS description of Issues 73, 74) (NRC 1996b) those from existing industrial nature of impacts comparable aesthetic impacts from HCGS facilities the site. to those from existing alternate technologies Page 8-11 Section 8.0 Tables (Section 7.2.2.3) (Section 7.2.2.2) HCGS facilities (NRC 1996b)
(Section 7.2.2.1)
Table 8.0-2. Impacts Comparison Detail (Continued)
Page 8-12 Environmental Report No-Action Alternatives Proposed Action Base With New Nuclear With Coal-Fired With Gas-Fired With Purchased (License Renewal) (Decommissioning) Power Generation Generation Power Cultural Resource Impacts Section 8.0 Tables SMALL - SHPO SMALL - Not an SMALL - Impacts SMALL - Impacts to SMALL - Impacts to SMALL - Adopting by consultation minimizes impact evaluated to cultural cultural resources cultural resources reference GEIS potential for impact by GEIS resources would be would be unlikely due would be unlikely due description of cultural (Section 4.19, Issue 71). (NRC 1996b) unlikely due to to developed nature to developed nature resource impacts from Because the site is an developed nature of the site. of the site. alternate technologies artificial island made of of the site. (Section 7.2.2.2) (Section 7.2.2.1) (NRC 1996b) dredge spoils, impacts to (Section 7.2.2.3) cultural resources are unlikely.
SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, any important attribute of the resource.
LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource (10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B 1, Footnote 3).
a
. All TSP for gas-fired alternative is PM-2.5.
Btu = British thermal unit NOX = nitrogen oxide 3
ft = cubic foot PJM = regional electric distribution network gal = gallon PM2.5 = particulates having diameter less than 2.5 microns GEIS = Generic Environmental Impact Statement (NRC 1996) PM10 = particulates having diameter less than 10 microns kWh = kilowatt-hour SHPO = State Historic Preservation Officer lb = pound SOX = sulfur dioxide m3 = cubic meter TSP = total suspended particulates MM = million yr = year Hope Creek Generating Station MW = megawatt License Renewal Application
Chapter 9 Status of Compliance Hope Creek Generating Station Environmental Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Environmental Report Section 9.1 Proposed Action 9.1 Proposed Action NRC The environmental report shall list all federal permits, licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the proposed action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The environmental report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning and land-use regulations, and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for environmental protection. 10 CFR 51.45(d), as adopted by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) 9.1.1 GENERAL Table 9.1-1 lists environmental authorizations PSEG has obtained for current HCGS operations.
In this context, PSEG uses authorizations to include any permits, licenses, approvals, or other entitlements. PSEG expects to continue renewing these authorizations, where appropriate, during the current license period and throughout the period of extended operation associated with renewal of the HCGS operating license. Because the NRC regulatory focus is prospective, Table 9.1-1 does not include authorizations that PSEG obtained for past activities that did not include continuing obligations.
Preparatory to applying for renewal of the HCGS license to operate, PSEG conducted an assessment to identify any new and significant environmental information (Chapter 5). The assessment included interviews with subject experts, review of HCGS environmental documentation, and communication with state and federal environmental protection agencies.
Based on this assessment, PSEG concludes that HCGS is in substantive compliance with applicable environmental standards and requirements. Minor deviations from applicable standards or requirements are corrected, and notification is provided to regulatory agencies, as required. For example, HCGS identified an error in an emission factor in the Air Operating Permit, which would cause emissions to be calculated in excess of the limitation. PSEG immediately terminated operation of the equipment and worked with NJDEP to obtain an Administrative Consent Order allowing continued operation of the equipment pending a modification to the Air Operating Permit. The Air Operating Permit modification was received in May 2009, and actions are in progress to terminate the Administrative Consent Order.
Table 9.1-2 lists additional environmental authorizations and consultations related to NRC renewal of the HCGS license to operate. As indicated, PSEG anticipates needing relatively few such authorizations and consultations. Sections 9.1.2 through 9.1.4 discuss some of these items in more detail.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 9-3 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 9.1 Proposed Action 9.1.2 THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires federal agencies to ensure that agency action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species that is listed, or proposed for listing, as endangered or threatened. Depending on the action involved, the Act requires consultation with the USFWS regarding effects on non-marine species, and with NMFS for marine species, or both. USFWS and NMFS have issued joint procedural regulations at Title 50 in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 402, Subpart B, that address consultation, and USFWS maintains the joint list of threatened or endangered species at 50 CFR 17.
Although not required of an applicant by federal law or NRC regulation, PSEG has chosen to invite comment from federal and state agencies regarding potential effects that HCGS license renewal might have. Appendix C includes copies of PSEG correspondence with USFWS, NMFS, and NJDEP and replies that have been received. In 1993, NMFS issued a biological opinion that the continued operation of HCGS would not jeopardize threatened or endangered aquatic species (NMFS 1993). NMFS reviewed that opinion in 1999 and found that HCGS does not jeopardize any threatened or endangered aquatic species (NMFS 1999b).
9.1.3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470 et seq.) requires federal agencies having the authority to license any undertaking to, prior to issuing the license, take into account the effect of the undertaking on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on the undertaking. Advisory Council regulations provide for the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to have a consulting role (35 CFR 800.2). Although not required of an applicant by federal law or NRC regulation, PSEG has chosen to invite comment on the proposed license renewal for HCGS by the New Jersey and Delaware SHPOs. Appendix D contains a copy of PSEG's letter to the New Jersey and Delaware SHPOs and the SHPO responses that have been received.
9.1.4 WATER QUALITY (401) CERTIFICATION Federal Clean Water Act Section 401 requires an applicant seeking a federal license for an activity that may result in a discharge to navigable waters to provide the licensing agency with a certification by the state where the discharge would originate indicating that applicable state water quality standards will not be violated as a result of the discharge (33 USC 1341). HCGSs 401 Certification is provided in Appendix F. The NRC indicated in its Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal that issuance of an NPDES permit by a state implies continued Section 401 certification by the state (NRC 1996b, Section 4.2.1.1). Section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act provides that the Governor of any State can apply to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to administer the NPDES Program in the State. On April 13, 1982, the New Jersey State NJPDES Permit Program, Pretreatment Program, and State regulation of Federal facilities were approved by the EPA. The incorporated rules at N.J.A.C. 7:14A were adopted March 6, 1981, giving the State of New Jersey authorization to implement the NPDES permitting program. Accordingly, as evidence of continued Section 401 certification by New Jersey, PSEG is providing the existing HCGS NJPDES permit (NJ0025411)
(included in Appendix B). In addition, the cover letter to the NJDEP dated October 18, 2007, transmitting the application for renewal of the permit, and NJDEPs acknowledgment of receipt for the application is also provided in Appendix B. Issuance of the renewed permit remains Page 9-4 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 9.1 Proposed Action pending. Because the NJPDES permit was filed in a timely manner, HCGS continues to operate under an authorized administratively continued permit.
9.1.5 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COMPLIANCE The federal Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC 1451 et seq.) imposes requirements on applicants for a federal license to conduct an activity that could affect a states coastal zone.
HCGS, located in Salem County, is within the New Jersey Coastal Management Area (NJDEP 2007c). Therefore, a determination is necessary from the NJDEP Land Use Regulation Program that the proposed NRC license renewal is consistent with New Jerseys Coastal Management Program. The certification package prepared by PSEG, which provides the basis for the required determination, has been prepared and submitted to the NJDEP Land Use Regulation Program at the time of submittal of this application in accordance with applicable regulations.
HCGS is not within the Delaware Coastal Management Area.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 9-5 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Table 9.1-1 Authorizations for Current HCGS Operations Page 9-6 Issue or Expiration Agency Authority Requirement Number Date Activity Covered U. S. Nuclear Atomic Energy Act License to operate NPF-57 Issued: 4/11/1986 Operation of HCGS Section 9.1 Tables Regulatory (42 USC 2011, et seq.), Expires: 4/11/2026 Commission 10 CFR 50.10 U. S. Army Corps of 33 CFR 330 Nationwide Permit CENAP-OP-R-2006- Issued: 7/14/2008 Maintenance Engineers 6232-45 Expires: 7/14/2010 Dredging U. S. Department of 49 CFR Part 107, Certificate of US DOT ID 997370 Issued: 7/1/2008 Hazardous Material Transportation Subpart G, 49 U.S.C. Registration 061908 002 018QS Expires: 6/30/2011 Registration 5108 Statement Delaware River Basin Delaware River Basin Groundwater D-90-71 Issued: 11/15/2000 Ground-water Commission Compact, Section 3.8 Allocation Permit Expires: 11/15/2010 withdrawal of up to 43.2 million gallons/month (30-days) and 300 million gallons/year Delaware River Basin Delaware River Basin Surface Water Permit DRBC Docket No. D- Issued: 4/27/1984 Construction and Commission Compact, Section 3.8 73-193 CP (Revised) Expires: None operation of HCGS Delaware River Basin Delaware River Basin Water Use Contract 84-9-E-741 Issued: 12/12/1984 Water Use contract Commission Compact (DRBC) Expires: None for Delaware River Resolutions Nos. 71-4 water withdrawal in and 71-4 compliance with D-73-193 CP Delaware River Basin Delaware River Basin Oxygen Demand D-85-60 Issued: 3/3/1986 Allocation for First Commission Compact, Section 3.8 Wasteload Allocation Stage Oxygen Hope Creek Generating Station Expires: None Demand discharge to Delaware Estuary Delaware River Basin Delaware River Basin Sewage Treatment D-87-70 Issued: 11/2/1987 Installation of new Commission Compact, Section 3.8 Plant Expires: None Sewage Treatment License Renewal Application Plant
Hope Creek Generating Station Table 9.1-1 Authorizations for Current HCGS Operations (Continued)
Issue or Expiration Agency Authority Requirement Number Date Activity Covered U.S. Department of Section 7 of the Incidental Take NA Issued: 5/14/1993 Possession and Commerce, National Endangered Species Statement - sea disposition of License Renewal Application Amended:
Oceanic and Act of 1973 (16 USC turtles and shortnose 1/21/1999 impinged or Atmospheric 1531-1544) sturgeon Expires: None stranded sea turtles Administration, and and shortnose National Marine sturgeon Fisheries Service New Jersey Clean Water Act Hope Creek New NJ0025411 Issued: 12/31/2003 Wastewater Department of (33 USC 1251 et seq.), Jersey Pollutant Effective: 3/1/2003 (industrial surface Environmental NJ Statutes Annotated Discharge Elimination Expires: 2/29/08 water, thermal Protection (N.J.S.A.) Water System Permit - surface water and Administratively Pollution Control Act Surface Water stormwater runoff) continued while 58:10A et seq. and N. J. discharges to current application is Administrative Code Delaware River.
being reviewed.
(N.J.A.C.)7:14A et seq.
New Jersey New Jersey Water Water Allocation Activity No: Issued: 12/30/2004 Ground-water Department of Supply Management Permit for Salem and WAP040001 Effective: 1/1/2005 withdrawal of up to Environmental Act, N.J.S.A. 58:1A-1 et HCGS Program Interest ID: Expires: 1/31/2010 43.2 million Protection seq. 2216P gallons/month (30 days) and 300 million gallons/year New Jersey Clean Air Act (42 USC Air Pollution Control BOP080001 Issued: 2/2/2005 Air emissions from Department of 7401) Operating Permit Modified: 3/26/09 all sources Environmental (Title V Operating Expires: 2/1/2010 Protection Permit)
New Jersey N.J.S.A. 23:8A-1 and Grant of Permanent None Issued: 11/4/1971 Transmission Environmental Report Department of N.J.S.A. 13:8A-1 et seq Right-of-Way Expires: None Corridor Environmental Protection Page 9-7 Section 9.1 Tables
Environmental Report Page 9-8 Table 9.1-1 Authorizations for Current Hope Creek Operations (Continued)
Issue or Expiration Agency Authority Requirement Number Date Activity Covered New Jersey N.J.A.C., Title 7, Discharge 107040041000 Issued: 3/4/2009 DPCC/DCR Section 9.1 Tables Department of Chapter 1E (NJAC Prevention, Expires: 7/27/2011 Program:
Environmental 7:1E-1 et seq.) Containment, and Discharge Protection Countermeasure Prevention, (DPCC) Plan and Containment and Discharge Cleanup Countermeasure and Removal (DCR) Plan; Discharge Plan Cleanup and Removal Plan; Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan; Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan; Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan; Core Plan New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act Public Water Supply 1704300 Issued: 9/14/1980 Water quality data Department of Identification Number Expires: None input into Environmental compliance Protection database New Jersey N.J.A.C. 7:26-38.8 Medical Waste 34571 Issued: 8/14/1992 Generation of Department of Generator Certificate Expires: Renewed regulated medical Hope Creek Generating Station Environmental annually waste Protection New Jersey N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 Coastal Areas Facility 1704-02-0001.3 Issued: 9/23/2004 Land use Department of Review Act (CAFRA) CAF 040001 Expires: 9/23/2009 associated with the Environmental Permit construction of DM License Renewal Application Protection Plant
Hope Creek Generating Station Table 9.1-1 Authorizations for Current Hope Creek Operations (Continued)
Issue or Expiration Agency Authority Requirement Number Date Activity Covered New Jersey N.J.S.A. 13:19-1, CAFRA Permit 1704-02-0001.4 Issued: 12/1/2005 Land use Department of 13:9B-1 and 13:1D-1 CAF 050003 Expires: 12/1/2010 associated with the Environmental construction of License Renewal Application Protection NAB Parking Lot New Jersey N.J.S.A. 13:19-1, Freshwater Wetlands 1704-02-0001.4 Issued: 12/1/2005 Land use Department of 13:9B-1 and 13:1D-1 (FWW) Permit FWW 050002 Expires: 12/1/2010 associated with the Environmental construction of Protection NAB Parking Lot New Jersey N.J.S.A. 12:5-1, 13:19- CAFRA Permit 1704-02-0001.4 Issued: 8/16/2005 Land use Department of 1, 13:9B-1 and 13:1D-1 CAF 050002 Expires: 8/16/2010 associated with the Environmental construction of Protection Security Vehicle Barrier System New Jersey N.J.S.A. 12:5-1, 13:19- FWW Permit 1704-02-0001.4 Issued: 8/16/2005 Land use Department of 1, 13:9B-1 and 13:1D-1 FWW 050001 Expires: 8/16/2010 associated with the Environmental construction of Protection Security Vehicle Barrier System New Jersey N.J.S.A. 12:5-1, 13:19- FWW Permit 1704-02-0001.4 Issued: 8/16/2005 Land use Department of 1, 13:9B-1 and 13:1D-1 FWW 050002 Expires: 8/16/2010 associated with the Environmental construction of Protection Security Vehicle Barrier System New Jersey N.J.S.A. 12:5-1, 13:19- Waterfront 1704-02-0001.4 Issued: 8/16/2005 Land use Department of 1, 13:9B-1 and 13:1D-1 Development Permit WFD 050001 Expires: 8/16/2010 associated with the Environmental construction of Protection Security Vehicle Environmental Report Barrier System New Jersey N.J.A.C. 13:19-1 et seq. CAFRA Permit 74-014 Issued: 9/3/1975 Land use Department of Expires: None associated with Environmental HCGS Page 9-9 Section 9.1 Tables Protection
Table 9.1-1 Authorizations for Current Hope Creek Operations (Continued)
Page 9-10 Environmental Report Issue or Expiration Agency Authority Requirement Number Date Activity Covered New Jersey N.J.A.C. 7: 1C-1.5 (C) CAFRA Permit 1704-90-0014-5-CAM Issued: 4/25/1995 Land use Department of and 7:7-4.10, Expires: None associated with Section 9.1 Tables Environmental Sandblast Facility Protection Modifications New Jersey N.J.A.C. 13: 9A-4 Type B Wetlands W74-02 Issued: 2/28/1975 Construction of Department of Permit Extended: HCGS Environmental 8/19/1995 Protection Expires: None U.S. Environmental RCRA, Section 3010 Acknowledgement of NJD077070811 Acknowledged: Hazardous Waste Protection Agency Notification of 9/13/1989 Generation Hazardous Waste Expires: None Activity U.S. Environmental USEPA FRP (40 CFR 9 Facility Response 0200087 Submitted: Spill/Discharge Protection Agency and 112), and the Plan Approval 2/15/2008 Response Program USEPA Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan (40 CFR 265 Subparts C and D)
U.S. Environmental Spill Prevention, SPCC Plan Submitted: Spill/Discharge Protection Agency Control, and 2/15/2008 Prevention Plan Countermeasure (SPCC) rule (40 CFR 112), Appendix F, Sections 1.2.1 and Hope Creek Generating Station 1.2.2 Lower Alloways Lower Alloways Creek Conditional Use SP-1-04 Issued: 5/26/2004 Construction of Creek Township Township Code, Land Approval/Preliminary Expires: 5/26/2009 ISFSI Facility and Development Chapter, Site Plan Approval Temporary Storage Section 5.07B2 of Spent Nuclear Fuels License Renewal Application Lower Alloways Lower Alloways Creek Preliminary and Final SP-1-05 Issued: 5/25/2005 Operating a Creek Township Township Code Site Plan Approval Expires: None Shooting Range
Hope Creek Generating Station Table 9.1-1 Authorizations for Current Hope Creek Operations (Continued)
Issue or Expiration Agency Authority Requirement Number Date Activity Covered Lower Alloways Lower Alloways Creek Preliminary and Final SP-2-05 Issued: 8/24/2005 Improvements to Creek Township Township Code Site Plan Approval Expires: None Employee Parking Lots B & C License Renewal Application South Carolina South Carolina South Carolina 0018-29-09-X Issued: 10/23/2008 Transportation of Department of Health Radioactive Waste Radioactive Waste Expires: 12/31/2009 radioactive waste and Environmental Transportation and Transport Permit into the State of Control - Division of Disposal Act South Carolina Waste Management (Act No. 429)
State of Tennessee Tennessee Department Tennessee T-NJ002-L09 Issued: 10/28/2008 Transportation of Department of of Environment and Radioactive Waste Expires: 12/31/2009 radioactive waste Environment and Conservation License-for-Delivery into the State of Conservation Division Rule 1200-2-10.32 Tennessee into the of Radiological State of Virginia Health
.
Environmental Report Page 9-11 Section 9.1 Tables
Environmental Report Section 9.2 Tables Table 9.1-2 Authorizations for Hope Creek License Renewala Agency Authority Requirement Remarks U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Energy Act License renewal Environmental Report Commission (42 USC 2011 submitted in support of license et seq.) renewal application U.S. Fish and Wildlife Endangered Consultation Requires federal agency Service Species Act issuing a license to consult with Section 7 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (16 USC 1536) Service if there is reason to believe that an endangered or threatened species may be present in the area and that implementation of such action will likely affect such species (Appendix C)
New Jersey Department Clean Water Act Certification State issuance of NPDES of Environmental Section 401 permit (Section 9.1.5)
Protection (33 USC 1341) constitutes 401 certification (Appendix B)
New Jersey Department Federal Coastal Certification Requires the federal agency of Environmental Zone Management issuing the license (NRC) to Protection, Land Use Act (16 USC 1452 verify that the State of New Regulations et seq.) Jersey has determined that renewal of HCGS operating license would be consistent with the federally approved State Coastal Zone Management program. The applicant (PSEG) has requested the consistency determination from the NJDEP by submitting a certification of consistency for review.
New Jersey Department National Historic Consultation Requires the federal agency of Environmental Preservation Act issuing a license to consider Protection, Division of Section 106 cultural impacts and consult Parks and Forestry (16 USC 470f) with State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). SHPO must concur that license renewal will not affect any sites listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (Appendix D)
- a. No renewal-related requirements identified for local or other agencies.
Page 9-12 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 9.2 Alternatives 9.2 Alternatives NRC The discussion of alternatives in the report shall include a discussion of whether the alternatives will comply with such applicable environmental quality standards and requirements. 10 CFR 51.45(d),
as required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)
The coal, gas, and purchased power alternatives discussed in Section 7.2 probably could be constructed and operated to comply with applicable environmental quality standards and requirements. PSEG notes that increasingly stringent air quality protection requirements could make the construction of a large fossil-fueled power plant infeasible in many locations. PSEG also notes that the EPA has revised its requirements for design and operation of cooling water intake structures at new and existing facilities (40 CFR 125 Subparts I and J). These requirements could necessitate construction of cooling towers for the coal- and gas-fired alternatives.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 9-13 License Renewal Application
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Chapter 10 References Hope Creek Generating Station Environmental Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Environmental Report Section 10 References Note to reader: Some web pages cited in this document may no longer be available, or may no longer be available through the original URL addresses. Hard copies of cited web pages are available in PSEG files. Some sites, for example the census data, cannot be accessed through their given URLs. The only way to access these pages is to follow queries on previous web pages. The complete URLs used by PSEG have been given for these pages, even though the URLs may not provide direct access to the pages.
AEC 1971. Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2-Supplemental Environmental Report Operating License Stage. Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311. Washington, DC, U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission.
AEC 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the Salem Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2, Public Service Electric and Gas Company. Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311.
Washington, DC, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing. Publication date: April 1973.
Alaimo Group 2005. 2005 Master Plan Reexamination Report. Approved by the Lower Alloways Creek Township Planning Board. Publication date: June 22, 2005.
ARCADIS 2006. Site Investigation Report, Salem Generating Station. Newtown, Pennsylvania.
Publication date: July 15, 2006.
AWEA 2008a. Legislative Affairs: Production Tax Credit Extension. Washington, DC, American Wind Energy Association. Retrieved April 22, 2008, from http://www.awea.org/legislative/.
AWEA 2008b. Wind Energy Projects Throughout the United States of America. Washington, DC, American Wind Energy Association. Retrieved May 9, 2008, from http://www.awea.org/projects/.
BBNEP 2001. The Barnegat Bay Estuary Program Characterization Report, Chapter 4: Historic Uses. Toms River, NJ, Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program, Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. Retrieved May 29, 2008, from http://www.bbep.org. Publication date:
January 2001.
BEA 2008. Regional Economic Accounts. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Analysis, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/.
Bezdek, R. H., and R. M. Wendling 2006. The Impacts of Nuclear Facilities on Property Values and Other Factors in the Surrounding Communities. Int. J. Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology 1(1): 122-144.
Blomquist, G. 1974. The Effect of Electric Utility Power Plant Location on Area Property Value.
Land Economics 50(1): 97-100. Publication date: February 1974.
CEC 2009. Ocean Energy. Sacramento, CA, California Energy Commission. Retrieved June 19, 2009, from http://www.energy.ca.gov/oceanenergy.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 10-3 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 10 References CEEEP 2008. Draft Review and Update of Energy Efficiency Market Assessment for the State of New Jersey, Center for Energy, Economic and Environmental Policy. Retrieved February 13, 2009, from http://policy.rutgers.edu/ceeep/EEAssessmentfinaldraft%20July%
203%202008.pdf. Publication date: June 2008.
Clark, D. and L. Nieves 1994. An Interregional Hedonic Analysis of Noxious Facility Impacts on Local Wages and Property Values. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27: 235-253.
Clark, D., L. Michelbrink, T. Allison, and W. Metz 1997. Nuclear Power Plants and Residential Housing Prices. Growth and Change 28 (Fall): 496-519.
Creswell, R.L., C.L. Ohs, and C.L. Miller 2007. Candidate Species for Florida Aquaculture:
Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus. Fact Sheet FA-148, Gainesville, Florida, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
Dames & Moore 1988. Final Report, Study of Groundwater Conditions and Future Water-Supply Alternatives, Salem/Hope Creek Generating Station, Artificial Island, Salem County, New Jersey. Prepared for PSE&G. Publication date: July 15, 1988.
Delaware Estuary Program 1996. The Scientific Characterization of the Delaware Estuary.
Prepared by Herpetological Associates, Inc., Forked River, NJ, for the Delaware Estuary Program. Publication date: April 1996.
Diaz, R.J. and C. P. Onuf 1985. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Juvenile Atlantic Croaker (Revised). Biological Report 82(10.98). Prepared for National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Division of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC.
DNREC 2008. Letter from Edna Stetzar (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control) to TetraTech NUS regarding rare species information for license renewal of the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. Dated August 19, 2008.
DRBC 1961. Delaware River Basin Compact. U.S. Public Law 87-328, Approved September 27, 1961, 75 Statutes at Large 688. Reprinted 2007. West Trenton, NJ, Delaware River Basin Commission. Retrieved September 22, 2008, from http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/regs/compa.pdf.
DRBC 1984a. Docket No. D-73-193 CP (Revised). Revision of the Hope Creek Generating Station Project Previously Included in the Comprehensive Plan. West Trenton, New Jersey, Delaware River Basin Commission. Publication date: May 1, 1984.
DRBC 1984b. Water Supply Contract Between DRBC and PSEG Concerning the Water Supply at Hope Creek Generating Station. Delaware River Basin Commission. Issue date:
December 12, 1984.
DRBC 2000. Groundwater Withdrawal. Docket No. D-90-71 Renewal. West Trenton, New Jersey, Delaware River Basin Commission. Publication date: November 1, 2000.
Page 10-4 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 10 References DRBC 2001. Docket No. D-68-20 (Revision 2). Approval to Revise Delaware River Basin Docket D-68-20 (CP). West Trenton, New Jersey, Delaware River Basin Commission. Publication date: September 26, 2001.
DRBC 2008. Delaware River State of the Basin Report. West Trenton, New Jersey, Delaware River Basin Commission. Retrieved March 20, 2009 from http://www.statte.nj.us/drbc/SOTB/index.htm.
DSIRE 2007. State Incentives for Renewable Energy. Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency. Raleigh, North Carolina, NC Solar Center, NC State University.
Retrieved September 11, 2008, from http://www.dsireusa.org/index.cfm?EE=1&RE=1.
EERE 2003. Wind Resource Maps. Golden, Colorado, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Retrieved April 23, 2008, from http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/wind_maps.asp.
EERE 2004. PV FAQsHow Much Land Will PV Need to Supply our Electricity? DOE/GO-102004-1835. Golden, CO, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35097.pdf.
EERE 2005a. Ocean Tidal Power. Golden, Colorado, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/renewable_energy/ocean/index.cfm/mytopic=50008.
EERE 2005b. New Wave Energy Prototypes Deployed in Hawaii and New Jersey. Golden, Colorado, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Retrieved May 9, 2008, from http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/state_news_detail.cfm/news_id=9551/state=NJ.
Publication date: November 23, 2005.
EERE 2006a. Solar America Initiative, Technology Improvement Opportunities. Solar Energy Technologies Program, Technology Pathway Partnership Technical Exchange Meeting, Chicago, IL, April 18-19. Golden, Colorado, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Retrieved May 5, 2008, from http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/solar_america/pdfs/breakout_atios_041706.pdf.
EERE 2006b. Feasibility Assessment of the Water Energy Resources of the United States for New Low Power and Small Hydro Classes of Hydroelectric Plants. DOE-ID-11263. Golden, Colorado, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Retrieved May 6, 2008, from http://hydro2.inel.gov/resourceassessment/.
EERE 2008. Alternative Energy Sources by State. Golden, Colorado, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/resources_by_state.cfm.
EIA 1996. Inventory of Power Plants in the United States. Table 20. Existing Generating Units at U.S. Electric Utilities by State, Company, and Plant, as of January 1, 1996. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Publication date:
December 1996.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 10-5 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 10 References EIA 2007a. Status of Electricity Restructuring by State. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Retrieved September 9, 2008, from www.eia.doe.gov/cheaf/electricity/page/restructing/restructure-elect.html.
EIA 2007b. State Electricity Profiles 2006. DOE/EIA-0348(01)/2. Washington, DC, U.S.
Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/e_profiles_sum.html. Publication date:
November 21, 2007.
EIA 2007c. Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants 2005 and 2006, Tables 14.A, 14.B, 15.A, 15.B. Document No. DOE/EIA-0191(2006). Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Retrieved May 9, 2008, from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/cq/cq_sum.htm. Publication date: October 2007.
EIA 2008a. State Energy Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates (SEDS): Table 7.
Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Retrieved May 9, 2008, from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_seds.html. Publication date:
February 29, 2008.
EIA 2008b. Renewable Energy Annual, 2006 Edition. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Retrieved May 7, 2008, from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/rea_data/rea_sum.html. Publication date: April 2008.
EIA 2008c. Domestic Distribution of U.S. Coal by Destination State, Consumer, Origin and Method of Transportation, 2006. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Retrieved May 19, 2008, from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/coaldistrib/coal_distributions.html. Publication date:
April 2008.
EIA 2008d. State Energy Profiles 2006. New Jersey. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Retrieved May 19, 2008, from http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/.
EIA 2008e. Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants 2006 and 2007, Tables 14.A and 15.A.
Document No. DOE/EIA-0191(2007). Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/cq/cqa2007.pdf. Publication date: December 2008.
EIA 2008f. Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2008 with Projections to 2030, NEMS Electricity Market Module. Document No. DOE/EIA 0554(2008). Washington, DC, U.S.
Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Retrieved February 19, 2009 from http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/electricity.pdf#page=3. Publication date: June 2008.
EPA 1998a. AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 5th Edition. Vol. 1, Stationary Point Sources and Area Sources. Section 1.1, Bitumous and Subbittumous Coal Combustion. Washington, DC, Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved May 9, 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/. Publication date: September 1998.
Page 10-6 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 10 References EPA 1998b. Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone. Washington, DC, Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register 63 (207):
57356-57404. Publication date: October 27, 1998.
EPA 2000a. AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 5th Edition. Vol. 1, Stationary Point Sources and Area Sources. Section 3.1, Stationary Gas Turbines. Washington, DC, Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/.
EPA 2000b. AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 5th Edition. Vol. 1, Stationary Point Sources and Area Sources. Section 3.1, Emission Factor Query Database.
Washington, DC, Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/related/c03s01.html.
EPA 2003. Water on Tap: What You Need To Know. Report No. EPA 816- K-03-007.
Washington, DC, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Publication date:
October 2003.
EPA 2006a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Final Rule.
Washington DC, Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register 71 (200): 61144-61233. Publication date: October 17, 2006.
EPA 2006b. Environmental Footprints and Costs of Coal-Based Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle and Pulverized Coal Technologies. Final Report EPA-430/R-06/006.
Washington, DC, Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/air/caaac/coaltech/2007_01_epaigcc.pdf. Publication date: July 2006.
EPA 2008a. Safe Drinking Water Information System. Washington, DC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/sdwis/sdwis_ov.html.
EPA 2008b. Strengthened National Standards for Ground-Level Ozone. Washington, DC, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved March 21, 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/actions.html.
EPA 2008c. Particulate Matter. Air and Radiation. PM Standards Revision-2006. Washington, DC, Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved March 15, 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/oar/ particlepollution/naaqsrev2006.html.
EPRI 2006. Generation Technologies in a Carbon-constrained World. Presentation by S.
Specker to the Resources for the Future Policy Leadership Forum, March 30, 2006, in Washington, DC. Palo Alto, CA, Electrical Power Research Institute. Retrieved April 8, 2008, from http://www.eande.tv/showAssets/related/040406/document_eetv_01.pdf.
Farrell, C. and W. W. Hall, Jr. 2004. Economic Impact Study of the Progress Energy, Inc.,
Brunswick Nuclear Power Facility on North Carolina State Planning Region O. Washington, DC, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Publication date: October 2004.
FC2000 2008. Worldwide Stationary Fuel Cell Installation Database. Washington, DC, Fuel Cells 2000. Retrieved May 8, 2008, from http://www.fuelcells.org/info/databasefront.html.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 10-7 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 10 References FCT 2007. Fuel Cells Market Survey: Large Stationary Applications 2006. Royston, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom, Fuel Cell Today. Retrieved May 8, 2008, from http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/media/pdf/surveys/2007-Large-Stationary.pdf.
Feller, G. 2003. Wind, Waves & TidesEconomically Viable Energy from the Worlds Oceans.
EcoWorld Magazine. Retrieved May 9, 2008, from http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=334. Publication date: August 9, 2003.
FERC 2006. Issued Preliminary Permits as of October 5, 2006. Washington, DC, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing/pre-permits.asp#skipnavsub.
Folland, S. and R. Hough 2000. Externalities of Nuclear Plants: Further Evidence. Journal of Regional Science 40(4): 735-753. Publication date: April 2000.
Gamble, H. B. and R. H. Downing 1982. Effects of Nuclear Power Plants on Residential Property Values. Journal of Regional Science 22(4): 457-478.
GE Energy 2007. Gas Turbine and Combined Cycle Products. Atlanta, Georgia, GE Energy.
Document No. GEA 12985E. Publication date: June 2005.
GE Power 2001. Advanced Technology Combined Cycles. Document No. GER-3936A.
Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/gas_turbines_cc/en/stag/index.htm.
Publication date: May 2001.
GHC 2008. U.S. Geothermal Projects and Resource Areas. Klamath Falls, OR, Oregon Institute of Technology, Geo-Heat Center. Retrieved May 7, 2008, from http://geoheat.oit.edu/dusys.htm. Publication date: January 1, 2008.
Gloucester County 2007. 2007 Gloucester County, New Jersey, Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. (CEDS).
IEEE 2006. National Electrical Safety Code. New York, New York, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Report C2-2007. Publication date: August 1, 2006.
INEEL 1998. U.S. Hydropower Resource Assessment Final Report. Document No. DOE/ID-10430.2. Idaho Falls, ID, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.
Retrieved May 16, 2008, from http://hydropower.inel.gov/resourceassessment/pdfs/doeid-10430.pdf.
INGAA 2000. Implications of Reduced Gas Use on Emissions From Power Generation.
Washington, DC, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from http://www.ingaa.org/File.aspx?id=282.
KEMA, Inc. 2004. New Jersey Energy Efficiency and Distributed Generation Market Assessment.
Retrieved February 12, 2009, from http://www.njcleanenergy.com/files/file/Kema_Report.pdf. Publication date: August 2004.
Ling, H. 2003. Invasive Plant Species. New Brunswick, New Jersey, Native Plant Society of New Jersey. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http://www.npsnj.org/invasive _species_0103.htm.
Page 10-8 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 10 References Lower Alloways Creek Township 1992. Master Plan. Adopted by Salem County, New Jersey, Lower Alloways Creek Township Planning Board on September 17, 1992.
McGowan, J. G., and S. R. Connors 2000. Windpower: A Turn of the Century Review. Annual Review of Energy and Environment 25: 147-197.
Metz, W. C., T. Allison, and D. E. Clark 1997. Does Utility Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Affect Local Property Values? Radwaste Magazine 4: 27-33. Publication date: May 1997.
NatureServe 2008. Nature Serve Explorer, an Online Encyclopedia of Life. Retrieved March 27, 2008, from http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm.
NCDC 2008a. Climatography of the United States, No. 60, Climate of the States. Climate of New Jersey. Asheville, NC, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/climatenormals/clim60/states/Clim_NJ_01.pdf.
NCDC 2008b. Climatography of the United States, No. 20, 1971-2000. Weather Station Data Summaries, Woodstown Pittsgrove Station, Salem, New Jersey. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/climatenormals/clim20/nj/289910.pdf.
NEI 2003. Economic Benefits of Millstone Power Station. Washington, DC, Nuclear Energy Institute. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/economi cbenefitsstudies/millstone. Publication date: July 2003.
NEI 2004a. Economic Benefits of Diablo Canyon Power Station. Washington, DC, Nuclear Energy Institute. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/economi cbenefitsstudies/diablo canyon. Publication date: February 2004.
NEI 2004b. Economic Benefits of Indian Point Energy Center. Washington, DC, Nuclear Energy Institute. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/economi cbenefitsstudies/indianpoint. Publication date: April 2004.
NEI 2004c. Economic Benefits of Palo Verde Nuclear Generation Station. Washington, DC, Nuclear Energy Institute. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/economi cbenefitsstudies/palo verde. Publication date: November 2004.
NEI 2004d. Economic Benefits of the Duke Power-Operated Nuclear Power Plants. Washington, DC, Nuclear Energy Institute. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/economi cbenefitsstudies/dukepower. Publication date: December 2004.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 10-9 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 10 References NEI 2005a. Economic Benefits of Wolf Creek Generating Station. Washington, DC, Nuclear Energy Institute. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/economi cbenefitsstudies/wolfcreek. Publication date: July 2005.
NEI 2005b. Economic Benefits of Three Mile Island Unit 1. Washington, DC, Nuclear Energy Institute. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/economi cbenefitsstudies/threemileisland1. Publication date: November 2005.
NEI 2006a. Economic Benefits of Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations. Nuclear Energy Institute. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/economi cbenefitsstudies/salemhopecreek/. Publication date: September 2006.
NEI 2006b. Economic Benefits of The Exelon Pennsylvania Nuclear Fleet. Washington, DC, Nuclear Energy Institute. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/economi cbenefitsstudies/exelonpennsylvania. Publication date: August 2006.
NEI 2007. NEI Groundwater Protection Initiative 07-07Final Guidance. Washington, DC, Nuclear Energy Institute. Publication date: August 2007.
Nelson, J. P. 1981. Three Mile Island and Residential Property Values: Empirical Analysis and Policy Implications. Land Economics 57(3): 364-372. Publication date: August 1981.
New Castle County 2007. New Castle County Code, Sub. No. 2 to Ordinance No.06-140, To Revise Chapter 28 of the New Castle County Code (Planning) and Chapter 40 of the New Castle County Code (also Known as the Unified Development CodeUDC) Regarding Article 33 (Definitions) Regarding Comprehensive Planning). Introduced December 12, 2006.
New Jersey Governors Office 2008. New Jersey Master Plan. Trenton, NJ. Publication date:
October 2008.
New Jersey Pinelands Commission 2009. New Jersey Pinelands Electric-Transmission Right-of-Way Vegetation Management Plan, Final Draft. R.G. Lathrop and J.F. Bunnell, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Publication date: February 2009.
NJBPU 2008. New Jerseys Clean Energy Program: 2007 Annual Report. Trenton, New Jersey, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities. Retrieved February 12, 2009, from http://www.njcleanenergy.com/files/file/Library/2007%20FINAL%20annual%20report.pdf.
NJDEP 2001. New Jersey Rare Species and Natural Community Lists by County. Trenton, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Parks and Forestry, Natural Heritage Program. Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://www.nj.gov/dep/parksandforests/ natural/heritage/countylist.html.
NJDEP 2002. Hope Creek Generating Station Permit NJ0025411, Surface Renewal Water Permit Action, Draft Permit and Fact Sheet and Statement of Bases. Trenton, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Issue date: November 7, 2002.
Page 10-10 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 10 References NJDEP 2003. Final Consolidated Permit Renewal Action, Hope Creek Generating Station NJPDES Permit NJ0025411. Trenton, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Issue date: January 15, 2003.
NJDEP 2004. Water Allocation Permit WAP040001. Trenton, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Issue date: December 30, 2004.
NJDEP 2005. What Wind Turbine Development Can, and Cannot Do, for the State of New Jersey. Trenton, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
Retrieved April 23, 2008, from http://www.state.nj.us/njwindpanel/docs/windturbine_faq.pdf.
NJDEP 2006. New Jersey Landscape Project Map Book. Department of Endangered and Non-game Species. Trenton, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
Retrieved May 14, 2008, from http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/mapbook.htm.
NJDEP 2007a. New Jersey Bald Eagle Project, 2007. Division of Fish and Wildlife, Trenton, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Publication date: December 2007.
NJDEP 2007b. Public Water System Deficit/Surplus for Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem Counties. Trenton, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http://www.nj.gov.
NJDEP 2007c. Map of New Jersey Coastal Zone. Trenton, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Management Program. Retrieved November 23, 2008, from http://www.nj.gov/dep/cmp/czm_map.html.
NJDEP 2008a. Letter from Herbert A. Lord (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection) to TetraTech NUS regarding Rare Species Information for License Renewal of the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. Dated: June 25, 2008.
NJDEP 2008b. New Jersey's Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife. Trenton, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Retrieved March 27, 2008, from http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/tandespp.htm.
NJDEP 2008c. New Jersey Rare Plant Species and Ecological Community Lists by County.
Trenton, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Parks and Forestry, Natural Heritage Program. Retrieved February 9, 2009 from http://www.nj.gov/dep/parksandforests/natural/heritage/countylist.html.
NJDEP 2008d. New Jersey Bald Eagle Project, 2008. Trenton, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife. Publication date:
December 2008.
NJDEP 2008e. Peregrine Falcon Research and Management Program in New Jersey, 2008.
Trenton, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 10-11 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 10 References NJDEP 2008f. The 2008 Osprey Project in New Jersey. Trenton, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife. Retrieved February 12, 2009, from http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/osprey08.pdf.
NJDEP 2008g. Bureau of Air Quality Planning. Attainment Areas Status. Trenton, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Retrieved March 27, 2008, from http://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/aas.html.
NJDEP 2009. Letter from Mark Mauriello (Acting Commissioner-NJDEP) to Honorable George Pavlou (Acting Regional Administrator - USEPA Region 2) regarding recommendations for ozone non-attainment boundaries. Dated: April 1, 2009.
NJDOT 2007. NJ Traffic Count. Trenton, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Transportation. Retrieved March 13, 2008, from http://www.nj.gov/transportation/refdata/roadway/traffic.shtm.
NJGS 1965. Widmer, K. Geology of the Groundwater Resources of Mercer County. Trenton, New Jersey, New Jersey Geological Survey. Geological Report Series No. 7.
NJGS 1995. Navoy, A.S., and G. B. Carleton, Ground-Water Flow Conditions in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, Camden Area, New Jersey. Trenton, New Jersey, New Jersey Geological Survey, Geologic Survey Report GSR 38.
NMFS 1993. Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement Regarding Continued Operation of Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations. Silver Spring, Maryland, U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Publication date: January 21, 1993.
NMFS 1998a. Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum. Silver Spring, Maryland, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team.
Publication date: December 1998.
NMFS 1998b. Essential Fish Habitat Description. Winter Flounder, Pleuronecetes americanus.
Gloucester, Massachusetts, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office, New England Fisheries Management Council. Retrieved November 18, 2008, from www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/winter.pdf. Publication date: October 7, 1998.
NMFS 1998c. Essential Fish Habitat Description. Windowpane Flounder, Scopthalmus aquosus.
Gloucester, Massachusetts, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office, New England Fisheries Management Council. Retrieved November 18, 2008, from www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/windowpane.pdf. Publication date: October 7, 1998.
NMFS 1999a. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Butterfish, Peprilus triacanthus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-145. Woods Hole, Massachusetts, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region. Retrieved November 18, 2008 from http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tm145/. Publication date:
September 1999.
Page 10-12 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 10 References NMFS 1999b. Incidental Take Statement for Salem Nuclear Generating Station. Silver Spring, Maryland, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources.
Publication date: January 21, 1999.
NMFS 2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of Availability of the Status Review Report for Atlantic Sturgeon in the United States, Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 63, pages 15865-15866. Washington, D.C. April 3.
NPS 2008a. National Register of Historic Places Information System, Salem County, New Jersey. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places. Retrieved April 18, 2008, from http://www.nr.nps.gov.
NPS 2008b. National Register of Historic Places Information System, New Castle County, Delaware. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places. Retrieved April 26, 2008, from http://www.nr.nps.gov.
NRC 1981. Storage of Low-level Radioactive Wastes at Power Reactor Sites. Generic Letter 81-38, Washington DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Publication date: November 10, 1981.
NRC 1984. Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Docket No. 50-354, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Atlantic City Electric Company. NUREG-1074. Washington DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Publication date: December 1984.
NRC 1996a. Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses.
Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register 61 (109): 28467-28497. Publication date: June 5, 1996.
NRC 1996b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.
Volumes 1 and 2. NUREG-1437. Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Publication date: May 1996.
NRC 1996c. Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses; Correction. Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register 61 (147): 39555-39556. Publication date: July 30, 1996.
NRC 1996d. Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses.
Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register 61 (244): 66537-66554. Publication date: December 18, 1996.
NRC 1996e. Regulatory Analysis for Amendments to Regulations for the Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses. NUREG-1440. Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NRC 1996f. Public Comments on the Proposed 10 CFR Part 51 Rule for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses and Supporting Documents: Review of Concerns and NRC Staff Response. Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Volumes 1 and 2.
NUREG-1529. Publication date: May 1996.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 10-13 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 10 References NRC 1999a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS). Volume 1, Addendum 1. NUREG-1437. Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Publication date: May 1996.
NRC 1999b. Changes to Requirements for Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses; Final Rule. Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Federal Register 64 (171): 48496-48507. Publication date: September 3, 1999.
NRC 2000. Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Reports for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses; Supplement 1 to Regulatory Guide 4.2.
Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NRC 2001. Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues. Office Instruction No. LIC-203. Effective June 21, 2001.
NRC 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities.
Supplement 1; Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1. Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Publication date:
November 2002.
NRC 2004. Briefing Package for March 15, 2004, Drop-in Visit by Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG) Nuclear, LLC. Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Attachment to e-mail from G. Meyer to R Blough.
ML060610205. Retrieved August 14, 2008, from http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html. Dated March 11, 2004.
NRC 2005. Memorandum and Order in the Matter of Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Early Site Permit for Clinton ESP Site). Docket No. 52-007-ESP, ASLB No. 04-821-01-ESP.
Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Ruling Date: July 28, 2005.
NRC 2007. Hope Creek Generating Station Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Proposed License Amendment to Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level. Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Federal Register 72(203): 59563-59573. Publication date: October 22, 2007.
NRC 2008a. Approved Applications for Power Uprates. Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved March 21, 2008, from http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/power-uprates/approved-applications.html.
NRC 2008b. PSEG Nuclear, LLC; Hope Creek Generating Station Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, Related to the Proposed License Amendment to Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level. Docket No. 50-354.
Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Federal Register 73(48): 13032-13044. Publication date: March 11, 2008.
NRC 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 36 Regarding Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Final Report.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 36. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Washington, D.C.
Publication date: May 2009.
Page 10-14 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 10 References NREL 2005. A Geographic Perspective on the Current Biomass Resource Availability in the United States. Report No. NREL/TP-560-39181. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Retrieved May 7, 2008, from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39181.pdf. Publication date:
December 2005.
NREL 2008. What is Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion? Golden, Colorado, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Retrieved May 9, 2008, from http://www.nrel.gov/otec/what.html.
NRRI 2007. What Generation Mix Suits Your State? Tools for Comparing Fourteen Technologies across Nine Criteria. Silver Spring, Maryland, National Regulatory Research Institute. Retrieved May 5, 2008, from http://nrri.org/pubs/electricity/07-03.pdf. Publication date: February 14, 2007.
Offshore Wind 2008. North American Offshore Wind Project Information. Retrieved April 23, 2008, from http://www.offshorewind.net/index.html.
OHerron, J. C., K. W. Able, and R. W. Hastings 1993. Movements of Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in the Delaware River. Estuaries 16(2): 235-240. Publication date:
June 1993.
OMB 2008. Detailed Information on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Assessment. U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Pages 474-492 in Annual Energy Outlook 2008, Document No. DOE/EIA-0383 (2008), ADAMS Accession No. ML082880730.
Publication date: June 2008.
Orth-Rodgers 2002. Planning for the Future: A Summary of Cumberland County Planning Initiatives. Prepared for the Cumberland County Department of Planning and Development.
Somerset, New Jersey. Publication date: October 2002.
PJM 2005. Vegetation Management Plan for Facilities Within MAAC. Report No. 44085.
Norristown, Pennsylvania, PJM Interconnection, LLC. Publication date: March 2005.
PJM 2007a. PJM 2006 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan, Section 2: Developing an Expansion Plan. Norristown, PA. PJM Interconnection, LLC. Retrieved March 24, 2008 from http://www.pjm.com/planning/2006-reg-trans-ex-plan.html.
PJM 2007b. PJM 2006 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan, Section 2: Developing an Expansion Plan. Norristown, Pennsylvania, PJM Interconnection, LLC. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://www.pjm.com/planning/2006-reg-trans-exp-plan.html.
PJM 2007c. 2006 State of the Market Report. Volume II: Detailed Analysis. Market Monitoring Unit. Norristown, Pennsylvania, PJM Interconnections, LLC. Retrieved September 11, 2008 from http://www.pjm.com/market-monitor/som-reports.html. Publication date: March 8, 2007.
PJM 2007d. 2007 PJM Load, Capacity, and Transmission Report. Norristown, Pennsylvania, PJM Interconnection, LLC. Retrieved May 7, 2008, from http://www.pjm.com/documents/downloads/reports/2007-pjm-411.pdf. Publication date: July
- 25. 2007.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 10-15 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 10 References PJM 2009. 2008 PJM Annual Report. Norristown, Pennsylvania, PJM Interconnection, LLC.
Retrieved June 24, 2009 from http://www.pjm.com/about-pjm/who-we-are/annual-report.aspx.
PSEG 1983. Hope Creek Generating Station, Applicants Environmental Report, Operating License Stage. Public Service Enterprise Group. Publication date: March 1983.
PSEG 1984. Salem Generating Station 316(b) Demonstration Project. Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group. Publication date: February 1984.
PSEG 1995. 1995 Annual Report. Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group, Biological Monitoring Program. Publication date: June 1995.
PSEG 1996. 1996 Annual Report. Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group, Biological Monitoring Program.
PSEG 1997. 1997 Annual Report. Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group, Biological Monitoring Program.
PSEG 1998. 1998 Annual Report. Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group, Biological Monitoring Program.
PSEG 1999a. Application for Renewal of the Salem Generating Station NJPDES Permit.
Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group Publication date: March 4, 1999.
PSEG 1999b. 1999 Annual Report. Newark New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group, Biological Monitoring Program.
PSEG 2000. 2000 Annual Report. Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group, Biological Monitoring Program.
PSEG 2001. 2001 Annual Report. Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group, Biological Monitoring Program.
PSEG 2002. 2002 Annual Report. Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group, Biological Monitoring Program.
PSEG 2003. 2003 Annual Report. Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group, Biological Monitoring Program.
PSEG 2004a. 2004 Annual Report. Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group, Biological Monitoring Program.
PSEG 2004b. Alloway Creek Watershed Phragmites-Dominated Wetland Restoration Management Plan. Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group. Publication date: February 17, 2004.
PSEG 2005. 2005 Annual Report. Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group, Biological Monitoring Program.
Page 10-16 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 10 References PSEG 2006a. Salem NJPDES Permit Renewal Application. NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622.
Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group. Issue date: February 1, 2006.
PSEG 2006b. 2006 Annual Report. Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group, Biological Monitoring Program.
PSEG 2007a. 2007 Annual Report. Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group, Biological Monitoring Program.
PSEG 2007b. Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program for Salem Generating Station, Unit1: Docket No. 50-272; Salem Generating Station, Unit 2, Docket No. 50-311; Hope Creek Generating Station: Docket No. 50-354. 2006 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report, January 1 to December 31, 2006. Report Number LR-N07-0089.
Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group. Publication date: April 2007.
PSEG 2008a. Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program for Salem Generating Station, Unit1: Docket No. 50-272; Salem Generating Station, Unit 2, Docket No. 50-311; Hope Creek Generating Station: Docket No. 50-354. 2007 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report, January 1 to December 31, 2007. LR-N08-0097. Newark, New Jersey, PSEG Nuclear, LLC. Publication date: May 2008.
PSEG 2008b. The Hope Creek Generating Station. Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from http://www.pseg.com/companies/nuclear/hopecreek.jsp.
PSEG 2008c. PSEG Power LLC, Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (D. Matthews) regarding Update to Letter of Intent Dated January 31, 2008. ADAMS Accession Number ML083430036. Dated December 2, 2008.
PSEG 2009a. Applicants Environmental ReportOperating License Renewal Stage, Salem Generating Station. Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group. Publication date: August 2009.
PSEG 2009b. Hope Creek Generating Station Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 17.
Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group. Publication date: June 2009.
PSEG 2009c. Salem Generating StationUpdated Final Safety Analysis Report. Document No.
PSEG-0008, Revision 24. Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group.
Publication date: May 11, 2009.
Rephann, T. J. undated (circa 1997). The Economic Impacts of LULUs. Revised version published in Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2000 18(4): 393 - 407.
Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.equotient.net/papers/lulu.pdf.
RNP 2007. Wave and Tidal Energy. Portland, Oregon, Renewable Northwest Project. Retrieved May 9, 2008, from http://www.rnp.org/renewtech/Wave%20Tidal%20FactSheet%
2007April4.pdf. Publication date: March 2007.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 10-17 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 10 References Rukenstein and Associates 2004. Smart Growth Plan. Delaware River and I-295/NJ Turnpike.
Planned Growth Corridor. Salem County, New Jersey. Retrieved September 30, 2008, from www.salemcountynj.gov/cmssite/downloads/departments/Planning_Board/
regionalplan2004.pdf. Submittal date: January 21, 2004.
Salem Main Street 2003. Main Street Revitalization Master Plan. City of Salem, New Jersey.
Publication date: September 2003.
Schainker, R. B. 2006. Shaping & Firming Wind Energy with Electric Energy Storage. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from http://cwec.ucdavis.edu/forum2006/
proceedings/Schainker_CWEC2006.pdf. Publication date: December 13, 2006.
Sheppard, S. C. 2007. Declaration of Stephen C. Sheppard. New York State Notice of Intention to Participate and Petition to Intervene and Supporting Declarations and Exhibits, Volume II of II, filed on November 30, 2007, pp 23-38 of 274. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission; In re: License Renewal Application Submitted by Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR, ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01.
Retrieved February 9,2009, from at http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/doccontent.
dll?library=EHD2_ADAMS^HQ2KAD108&id=080950018:1.
State of New Jersey 2008. Property Tax Information. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www.state.nj.us/dca/lgs/taxes/taxmenu.shtml.
TetraTech 2008. Salem/Hope Creek Calculation Package for Socioeconomics. Aiken, SC, TetraTech NUS. Publication date: November 2008.
TetraTech 2009. Salem/Hope Creek Generating Station Calculation Package for Ground Water Pumpage, Salem & Hope Creek Generating Station. Aiken, SC, Tetra Tech NUS.
Publication date: February 23, 2009.
TNC 2008. The Nature Conservancy Ecological Assessment. Report, 2008.
UNESCO 2009. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, FAQ Biosphere Reserves? Retrieved March 9, 2009, from http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.php-URL_ID=6797&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
USCB 1982. Characteristics of the Population. General Social and Economic Characteristics.
New Jersey. Report Number PC80-1-C32. Washington, DC, U.S. Census Bureau.
Publication date: February 1982.
USCB 1995. Population of Counties by Decennial Census 1900 to 1990. Washington, DC, U.S.
Census Bureau. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://www.census.gov. Publication date:
March 27, 1995.
USCB 2000a. P1. Total Population [1] - Universe: Total Population. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1) 100-Percent Data. Washington, DC, U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://factfinder.census.gov.
USCB 2000b. Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights. Washington DC, U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from http://factfinder.census.gov.
Page 10-18 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 10 References USCB 2003. Table 3b. Population in Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas Ranked Separately by 2000 Population for the United States and Puerto Rico: 1990 and 2000.
Washington, DC, U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from http://www.census.gov/.
USCB 2006. 2006 American Community Survey Data Profile Highlights. Washington, DC, U.S.
Census Bureau. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://factfinder.census.gov/.
USCB 2008a. Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area Estimates. Table 1. Annual Estimates of the Population of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007. Washington, DC, U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved May 15, 2008, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/CBSA-est2007-annual.html.
USCB 2008b. State and County Quick Facts, People Quick Facts, Salem and Cumberland Counties. Washington, DC, U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from www.census.gov.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006. Environmental Law and Policy Center et. al.
- v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Exelon Generation Company, LLC. No. 06-1442 (7th Cir. 2006). Decision date: December 5, 2006.
USDA 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture - Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 8 (Delaware),
Part 20 (Maryland), Part 30 (New Jersey), and Part 38 (Pennsylvania). U.S. Department of Agriculture. Publication date: June 2004.
USFWS undated. Northeast Region Ecological Services, Endangered Species, Listings, State and County Listings: New Jersey. Washington, DC, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Retrieved February 28, 2008, from http://www.fws.gov/northeast/endangered.
USFWS 1999. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Remove the American Peregrine Falcon From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and To Remove the Similarity of Appearance Provision for Free-Flying Peregrines in the Conterminous United States. Washington, DC, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register 64(164): 46542-46558. Publication date: August 25, 1999.
USFWS 2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Washington, DC, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register 72(130): 37346-37372. Publication date:
July 9, 2007.
USGS 1980. Luyzier, L. J., Digital-Simulation and projection of Head Changes in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System, Coastal Plain, New Jersey 78p. West Trenton New Jersey, U. S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations 80-11.
USGS 1983. Walker, R. L., Evaluation of Water Levels in Major Aquifers of the New Jersey Coastal Plain, 1978. U. S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 82-4077.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page 10-19 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Section 10 References USGS 1999. Cauller, S.J., G. B. Carleton, and M. J. Storck, Hydrogeology of, Water Withdrawal from, and Water Levels and Chloride Concentrations in the Major Coastal Plain Aquifers of Gloucester and Salem Counties, New Jersey. West Trenton New Jersey, U. S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4136.
USGS 2001a. Lacombe, P.J., and R. Rosman, Water levels in, Extent of Freshwater in, And Water Withdrawals from Ten confined Aquifers, New Jersey and Delaware Coastal Plain, 1998. Reston, Virginia, U. S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations 00-4143, USGS 2001b. Simulation of Ground-Water Flow in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System Near the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, and the point Breeze Refinery, Southern Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. 48 p. New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, U. S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations 01-4218.
USGS 2003. Sloto, R. A., Historical Ground-Water-Flow Patterns and Trends in Iron Concentrations in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System in Parts of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Camden and Gloucester Counties, New Jersey, 43 p, 9 pl. New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, U. S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 03-4255.
USGS 2007. Summary of the Ground-Water-Level Hydrologic Conditions in New Jersey 2006, Fact Sheet 2007-3049. West Trenton, NJ, U. S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, New Jersey Water Science Center. Publication date: June 2007.
USGS 2009. V. T. DePaul, R. Rosman, and P. J. Lacombe, Water-Level Conditions in Selected Confined Aquifers of the New Jersey and Delaware Coastal Plain, 2003. 135p. Reston, Virginia, U. S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5145.
Page 10-20 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Appendix A NRC NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants Hope Creek Generating Station Environmental Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Environmental Report Appendix A NRC NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants PSEG has prepared this environmental report in accordance with the requirements of U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulation 10 CFR 51.53. NRC included in the regulation a list of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants.
Table A-1 lists these 92 issues and identifies the section in which PSEG addressed each applicable issue in this environmental report. For organization and clarity, PSEG has assigned a number to each issue and uses the issue numbers throughout the environmental report.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page A-3 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Appendix A Tables Table A-1. HCGS Environmental Report Discussion of License Renewal NEPA Issuesa Section of this Environmental GEIS Cross Referenceb Issue Category Report (Section/Page)
Surface Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use (for all plants)
- 1. Impacts of refurbishment on surface 1 NA Issue applies to an activity, water quality refurbishment, that HCGS has no plans to undertake.
- 2. Impacts of refurbishment on surface 1 NA Issue applies to an activity, water use refurbishment, that HCGS has no plans to undertake.
- 3. Altered current patterns at intake 1 4 Introduction 4.2.1.2.1/4-5 and discharge structures
- 4. Altered salinity gradients 1 4 Introduction 4.2.1.2.2/4-4
- 5. Altered thermal stratification of 1 NA Issue applies to a plant lakes feature, discharge to a lake, that HCGS does not have.
- 6. Temperature effects on sediment 1 4 Introduction 4.2.1.2.3/4-8 transport capacity
- 7. Scouring caused by discharged 1 4 Introduction 4.2.1.2.3/4-6 cooling water
- 8. Eutrophication 1 4 Introduction 4.2.1.2.3/4-9
- 9. Discharge of chlorine or other 1 4 Introduction 4.2.1.2.4/4-10 biocides
- 10. Discharge of sanitary wastes and 1 4 Introduction 4.2.1.2.4/4-10 minor chemical spills
- 11. Discharge of other metals in waste 1 4 Introduction 4.2.1.2.4/4-10 water
- 12. Water use conflicts (plants with 1 NA Issue applies to a plant once-through cooling systems) feature, once-through cooling that HCGS does not have.
- 13. Water use conflicts (plants with 2 NA, and Issue applies to a plant cooling ponds or cooling towers discussed in feature, cooling towers using using make-up water from a small Section 4.1 make-up water from a small river with low flow) river, that HCGS does not have.
Aquatic Ecology (for all plants)
- 14. Refurbishment impacts to aquatic 1 NA Issue applies to an activity, resources refurbishment, that HCGS has no plans to undertake.
- 15. Accumulation of contaminants in 1 4 Introduction 4.2.1.2.4/4-10 sediments or biota
- 16. Entrainment of phytoplankton and 1 4 Introduction 4.2.2.1.1/4-15 zooplankton
- 17. Cold shock 1 4 Introduction 4.2.2.1.5/4-18
- 18. Thermal plume barrier to migrating 1 4 Introduction 4.2.2.1.6/4-19 fish Page A-4 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Appendix A Tables Table A-1. HCGS Environmental Report Discussion of License Renewal NEPA Issuesa (Continued)
Section of this Environmental GEIS Cross Referenceb Issue Category Report (Section/Page)
- 19. Distribution of aquatic organisms 1 4 Introduction 4.2.2.1.6/4-19
- 20. Premature emergence of aquatic 1 4 Introduction 4.2.2.1.7/4-20 insects
- 21. Gas supersaturation (gas bubble 1 4 Introduction 4.2.2.1.8/4-21 disease)
- 22. Low dissolved oxygen in the 1 4 Introduction 4.2.2.1.9/4-23 discharge
- 23. Losses from predation, parasitism, 1 4 Introduction 4.2.2.1.10/4-24 and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses
- 24. Stimulation of nuisance organisms 1 4 Introduction 4.2.2.1.11/4-25 (e.g., shipworms)
Aquatic Ecology (for plants with once-through and cooling pond heat dissipation systems)
- 25. Entrainment of fish and shellfish in 2 NA, and Issue applies to a plant early life stages for plants with discussed in feature, once-through cooling once-through and cooling pond heat Section 4.2 or a cooling pond, that HCGS dissipation systems does not have.
- 26. Impingement of fish and shellfish for 2 NA, and Issue applies to a plant plants with once-through and discussed in feature, once-through cooling cooling pond heat dissipation Section 4.3 or a cooling pond, that HCGS systems does not have.
- 27. Heat shock for plants with once- 2 NA, and Issue applies to a plant through and cooling pond heat discussed in feature, once-through cooling dissipation systems Section 4.4 or a cooling pond, that HCGS does not have.
Aquatic Ecology (for plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems)
- 28. Entrainment of fish and shellfish in 1 4 Introduction 4.3.3/4-33 early life stages for plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems
- 29. Impingement of fish and shellfish for 1 4 Introduction 4.3.3/4-33 plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems
- 30. Heat shock for plants with cooling- 1 4 Introduction 4.3.3/4-33 tower-based heat dissipation systems Groundwater Use and Quality
- 31. Impacts of refurbishment on 1 NA Issue applies to an activity, groundwater use and quality refurbishment, that HCGS has no plans to undertake.
Hope Creek Generating Station Page A-5 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Appendix A Tables Table A-1. HCGS Environmental Report Discussion of License Renewal NEPA Issuesa (Continued)
Section of this Environmental GEIS Cross Referenceb Issue Category Report (Section/Page)
- 32. Groundwater use conflicts (potable 1 NA Issue applies to an activity, and service water; plants that use using less than 100 gpm of
< 100 gpm) groundwater, that HCGS does not do.
- 33. Groundwater use conflicts (potable, 2 4.5 4.8.1.1/4-116 and service water, and dewatering; 4.8.2.1/4-118 plants that use > 100 gpm)
- 34. Groundwater use conflicts (plants 2 NA, and Issue applies to a plant using cooling towers withdrawing discussed in feature, cooling towers make-up water from a small river) Section 4.6 withdrawing make-up water from a small river, that HCGS does not have.
- 35. Groundwater use conflicts (Ranney 2 NA, and Issue applies to a plant wells) discussed in feature, Ranney wells, that Section 4.7 HCGS does not have.
- 36. Groundwater quality degradation 1 NA Issue applies to a feature, (Ranney wells) Ranney wells, that HCGS does not have.
- 37. Groundwater quality degradation 1 4 Introduction 4.8.2/4-118 (saltwater intrusion)
- 38. Groundwater quality degradation 1 NA Issue applies to a feature, (cooling ponds in salt marshes) cooling ponds, that HCGS does not have.
- 39. Groundwater quality degradation 2 NA, and Issue applies to a feature, (cooling ponds at inland sites) discussed in cooling ponds, that HCGS Section 4.8 does not have.
Terrestrial Resources
- 40. Refurbishment impacts to terrestrial 2 NA, and Issue applies to an activity, resources discussed in refurbishment, that HCGS Section 4.9 has no plans to undertake.
- 41. Cooling tower impacts on crops and 1 NA Issue applies to a feature, ornamental vegetation mechanical draft cooling towers, which HCGS does not have.
- 42. Cooling tower impacts on native 1 NA Issue applies to a feature, plants mechanical draft cooling towers, which HCGS does not have.
- 43. Bird collisions with cooling towers 1 4 Introduction 4.3.5.2/4-45
- 44. Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial 1 NA Issue applies to a feature, resources cooling ponds, that HCGS does not have.
Page A-6 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Appendix A Tables Table A-1. HCGS Environmental Report Discussion of License Renewal NEPA Issuesa (Continued)
Section of this Environmental GEIS Cross Referenceb Issue Category Report (Section/Page)
- 45. Power line right-of-way 1 4 Introduction 4.5.6.1/4-71 management (cutting and herbicide application)
- 46. Bird collisions with power lines 1 4 Introduction 4.5.6.2/4-74
- 47. Impacts of electromagnetic fields on 1 4 Introduction 4.5.6.34-77 flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, honeybees, wildlife, livestock)
- 48. Floodplains and wetlands on power 1 4 Introduction 4.5.7.7/4-81 line right-of-way Threatened or Endangered Species (for all plants)
- 49. Threatened or endangered species 2 4.10 4.1/4-1 Air Quality
- 50. Air quality during refurbishment 2 NA, and Issue applies to an activity, (non-attainment and maintenance discussed in refurbishment, that HCGS areas) Section 4.11 does not plan to undertake.
- 51. Air quality effects of transmission 1 4 Introduction 4.5.2/4-62 lines Land Use
- 52. Onsite land use 1 4 Introduction 3.2/3-1
- 53. Power line right-of-way land use 1 4 Introduction 4.5.3/4-62 impacts Human Health
- 54. Radiation exposures to the public 1 NA Issue applies to an activity, during refurbishment refurbishment, that HCGS has no plans to undertake.
- 55. Occupational radiation exposures 1 NA Issue applies to an activity, during refurbishment refurbishment, that HCGS has no plans to undertake.
- 56. Microbiological organisms 1 4 Introduction 4.3.6/4-48 (occupational health)
- 57. Microbiological organisms (public 2 NA, and Issue applies to plant health) (plants using lakes or discussed in features, cooling ponds or ,
canals, or cooling towers or cooling Section 4.12 canals that discharge to a ponds that discharge to a small small river, that HCGS does river) not have.
- 58. Noise 1 4 Introduction 4.3.7/4-49
- 59. Electromagnetic fields, acute effects 2 4.13 4.5.4.1/4-66
- 60. Electromagnetic fields, chronic NA 4 Introduction effects
- 61. Radiation exposures to public 1 4 Introduction 4.6.2/4-87 (license renewal term)
Hope Creek Generating Station Page A-7 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Appendix A Tables Table A-1. HCGS Environmental Report Discussion of License Renewal NEPA Issuesa (Continued)
Section of this Environmental GEIS Cross Referenceb Issue Category Report (Section/Page)
- 62. Occupational radiation exposures 1 4 Introduction 4.6.3/4-95 (license renewal term)
Socioeconomics
- 63. Housing impacts 2 4.14 3.7.2/3-10 (refurbishment -
not applicable to HCGS) 4.7.1/4-101 (renewal term)
- 64. Public services: public safety, 1 4 Introduction Refurbishment (not applicable social services, and tourism and to HCGS) recreation Renewal Term 4.7.3/4-104 (public safety) 4.7.3.3/4-106 (safety) 4.7.3.44-107 (social) 4.7.3.6/4-107 (tourism, recreation)
- 65. Public services: public utilities 2 4.15 3.7.4.5/3-19 (refurbishment -
not applicable to HCGS )
4.7.3.5/4-107 (renewal term)
- 66. Public services: education 2 NA, and Issue applies to an activity, (refurbishment) discussed in refurbishment, that HCGS Section 4.16 does not plan to undertake.
- 67. Public services: education (license 1 4 Introduction 4.7.3.1/4-106 renewal term)
- 68. Offsite land use (refurbishment) 2 NA, and Issue applies to an activity, discussed in refurbishment, that HCGS Section 4.17.1 does not plan to undertake.
- 69. Offsite land use (license renewal 2 4.17.2 4.7.4/4-107 term)
- 70. Public services: transportation 2 4.18 3.7.4.2/3-17 (refurbishment -
not applicable to HCGS) 4.7.3.2/4-106 (renewal term)
- 71. Historic and archaeological 2 4.19 3.7.7/3-23 (refurbishment -
resources not applicable to HCGS) 4.7.7/4-114 (renewal term)
- 72. Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment) 1 NA Issue applies to an activity, refurbishment, that HCGS has no plans to undertake.
- 73. Aesthetic impacts (license renewal 1 4 Introduction 4.7.6/4-111 term)
- 74. Aesthetic impacts of transmission 1 4 Introduction 4.5.8/4-83 lines (license renewal term)
Page A-8 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Appendix A Tables Table A-1. HCGS Environmental Report Discussion of License Renewal NEPA Issuesa (Continued)
Section of this Environmental GEIS Cross Referenceb Issue Category Report (Section/Page)
Postulated Accidents
- 75. Design basis accidents 1 4 Introduction 5.3.2/5-11 (design basis) 5.5.1/5-114 (summary)
- 76. Severe accidents 2 4.20 5.3.3/5-12 (probabilistic analysis) 5.3.3.2/5-19 (air dose) 5.3.3.3/5-49 (water) 5.3.3.4/5-65 (groundwater) 5.3.3.5/5-95 (economic) 5.4/5-106 (mitigation) 5.5.2/5-114 (summary)
Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management
- 77. Offsite radiological impacts 1 4 Introduction 6.2/6-8 (individual effects from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste)
- 78. Offsite radiological impacts 1 4 Introduction Not in GEIS.
(collective effects)
- 79. Offsite radiological impacts (spent 1 4 Introduction Not in GEIS.
fuel and high-level waste disposal)
- 80. Nonradiological impacts of the 1 4 Introduction 6.2.2.6/6-20 (land use) uranium fuel cycle 6.2.2.7/6-20 (water use) 6.2.2.8/6-21 (fossil fuel) 6.2.2.9/6-21 (chemical)
- 81. Low-level waste storage and 1 4 Introduction 6.4.2/6-36 (low-level def) disposal 6.4.3/6-37 (low-level volume) 6.4.4/6-48 (renewal effects)
- 82. Mixed waste storage and disposal 1 4 Introduction 6.4.5/6-63
- 83. Onsite spent fuel 1 4 Introduction 6.4.6/6-70
- 84. Nonradiological waste 1 4 Introduction 6.5/6-86
- 85. Transportation 1 4 Introduction 6.3/6-31, as revised by Addendum 1, August 1999.
Decommissioning
- 86. Radiation doses (decommissioning) 1 4 Introduction 7.3.1/7-15
- 87. Waste management 1 4 Introduction 7.3.2/7-19 (impacts)
(decommissioning) 7.4/7-25 (conclusions)
- 88. Air quality (decommissioning) 1 4 Introduction 7.3.3/7-21 (air) 7.4/7-25 (conclusions)
- 89. Water quality (decommissioning) 1 4 Introduction 7.3.4/7-21 (water) 7.4/7-25 (conclusions)
Hope Creek Generating Station Page A-9 License Renewal Application
Environmental Report Appendix A Tables Table A-1. HCGS Environmental Report Discussion of License Renewal NEPA Issuesa (Continued)
Section of this Environmental GEIS Cross Referenceb Issue Category Report (Section/Page)
- 90. Ecological resources 1 4 Introduction 7.3.5/7-21 (ecological)
(decommissioning) 7.4/7-25 (conclusions)
- 91. Socioeconomic impacts 1 4 Introduction 7.3.7/7-19 (socioeconomic)
(decommissioning) 7.4/7-24 (conclusions)
- 92. Environmental justice NA 2.6.2
- a. Source: 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix A, Table B-1. (Issue numbers added to facilitate discussion.)
- b. Source: Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437).
Page A-10 Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application