ML11259A121
| ML11259A121 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/2010 |
| From: | Eccleston C Division of License Renewal |
| To: | Bacuta G, Beissel D, Bulavinetz R Division of Policy and Rulemaking |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2011-0113 | |
| Download: ML11259A121 (60) | |
Text
Rikhoff, Jeffrey From:
Sent:
To:
Attachments:
Eccleston-Charles Wednesday, March 03, 2010 1:59 PM
-*Bacuta,-Geore; Bei~sel, Dehnis; Bulavinetz, Richard; Imboden,-Andy; Klementowicz,
ý,tephen; Logan, Dennis', Rikhoff, Jeffrey; Travers, Allison Pham, Bo; Eccleston, Charlie*
-'Draft Outline for Salem Alternatives Sectiog (2).doc; 4 8 guman Health - KT (2).docx; 4 11 3
,,Cumulative Human Health Irpacts.docx;'Chapt'r 1 _ nspangler.docx; Chapter 2 - Section 2 1 A 6 - Power Tr,6smission System Rev2.docx; Z'hapter 2 - Sections 2 1 1 1-2 1 1 6 -
KTaylor.doc, hapter 3 -NSpangler.doc; Chapters 6 and 7.docx
- IDT, Note: I hit some escape code which fired off the last email message before it was finished.
I have received these early drafts from AECOM. They have other Chapter 2 resource sections that are nearing completion, but haven't been approved by their document supervisors. I will send these sections on as soon as I receive them. Some of them are currently being reviewed at this time.
Let me know if you have any questions.
ed4eý 1w, ged"45o Charles H. Eccleston Nuclear Reactor Regulation Licensing Renewal, Project Manager 301.415.8537 charles.eccleston hnrc.gov 1
Draft Outline.i L_-S-a-le-I/Hope Creek SEIS Alternatives - Section 8 8.0 Intro materials (based on Duane Arnold) 8.1 Alternative Cooling System Technology (based on Indian Point Section 8.1.1)
Description Air Quality Groundwater Use and Quality Surface Water Use and Quality Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology Human Health Socioeconomics Aesthetics Historic and Archaeological Resources 8.2 Alternative Energy Sources 8.2.1 Super-Critical Coal-Fired Generation (based on DA Section 8.1)
(need to decide onsite, offsite, or both) resource breakdowns 8.2.2 Natural Gas Combined Cycle (based on DA Section 8.2) (need to decide onsite, offsite, or both) resource breakdowns 8.2.3 Combination Alternative I (retire Salem, re-license Hope Creek, conservation component, renewable component, natural gas component) (based on Indian Point Section 8.3.5.1) resource breakdowns 8.2.4 Combination Alternative 2 (retire Salem and Hope Creek, conservation component, renewable component, natural gas component) (based on Indian Point Section 8.3.5.2) resource breakdowns 8.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed (based on DA Section 8.4) 8.3.1 Offsite Coal and Gas (if only onsite is considered above) 8.3.2 New Nuclear 8.3.3 Conservation/Efficiency 8.3.4 Purchase 8.3.5 Solar 8.3.6 Wood 8.3.7 Hydroelectric 8.3.8 Wave/Ocean
8.3.9 Geothermal 8.3.10 MSW 8.3.11 Biofuels 8.3.12 Oil 8.3.13 Fuel Cell 8.3.14 Delayed Retirement 8.4 No Action (based on DA Section 8.5) resource breakdown
-1.8 Human Health The human health issues applicable to Salem and HCGS are discussed below and listed in Table 4-8 for Category 1, Category 2, and uncategorized issues.
Table 4-8. Human Health Issues. Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 contains more information on these issues.
Issues GElS Section Category Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment NAa 1
Occupational radiation exposures during refurbishment NAa 1
Microbiological organisms (occupational health) 4.3.6 1
Microbiological organisms (public health, for plants 4.3.6 2
using lakes or canals or discharging small rivers)
Noise 4.3.7 1
Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term) 4.6.2 1
Occupation radiation exposures (license renewal term) 4.6.3 1
Electromagnetic fields - acute effects (electric shock) 4.5.4.1 2
Electromagnetic fields - chronic effects 4.5.4.2 Uncategorized a - Issues apply to refurbishment, an activity that neither Salem nor HCGS plan to undertake.
b _ Issue applies to plant features such as cooling lakes or cooling towers that discharge to small rivers. Neither Salem nor HCGS have applicable features.
In response to comments on the draft GElS and the proposed rule, the standard defining a small radiological impact has changed from a comparison with background radiation to sustained compliance with the dose and release limits applicable to the activities being reviewed... For the purposes of assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that impacts are of small significance if doses and releases do not exceed permissible levels in the Commission's regulations. This definition of "small" applies to occupational doses as well as to doses to individual members of the public. Accidental releases or noncompliance with the standards could conceivably result in releases that would cause moderate or large radiological impacts. Such conditions are beyond the scope of regulations controlling normal operations and providing an adequate level of protection. Given current regulatory activities and past regulatory experience, the Commission has no reason to expect that such noncompliance will occur at a significant frequency. To the contrary, the Commission expects that future radiological impacts from the fuel cycle will represent releases and impacts within applicable regulatory limits... Radiation doses to members of the public from current operation of nuclear power plants have been examined from a variety of perspectives and the impacts were found to be well within design objectives and regulations in each instance. No effect of aging that would significantly affect the radioactive effluents has been identified. Both maximum individual and average doses are expected to remain well within design objectives and regulations. In about 5 percent of the plants, maximum individual doses are approximately 20 percent of the Appendix I design objective. All other plants are operating far below this level...
Because no reason was identified to expect effluents to increase in the period after license renewal, continued operation well within regulatory limits is anticipated. The staff concludes that the significance of radiation exposures to the public attributable to operation after license renewal will be small at all sites. It should also be noted that the estimated cancer risk to the average individual due to plant operations is much less than 1 x 10. No mitigation measures beyond those implemented during the current term license would be warranted because current mitigation practices have resulted in declining public radiation doses and are expected to continue to do so. This is a Category 1 issue.
Occupational doses attributable to normal operation during the license renewal term have been examined from several different perspectives. First, projected occupational doses during the period of maximum added dose, the 10-
year in-service inspection refueling, are within the range of doses experienced during the past 2 reporting years.
Second, the average dose increase of 5 to 8 percent to the typical plant worker would still maintain doses well below regulatory limits. Therefore, occupational radiation exposure during the term of the renewed license meets the standard of small significance. No mitigation measures beyond those implemented during the current term license would be warranted because the ALARA process continues to be effective in reducing radiation doses. This is a Category 1 issue.
1.8.1 Geeric Human Health Issues The staff did not identify any new and significant information related to human health issues or radiation exposures during its review of the PSEG environmental reports, the site audit, or the scoping process. Therefore, there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GELS. For these issues, the GElS concluded that the impacts are SMALL, and additional site-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted (Category 1 issues). These impacts will remain SMALL through the license renewal term.
1.8.2 Radiation Exposure PSEG conducts an operational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) in which radiological impacts from all three Salem and HCGS units to the employees, the public, and the environment around Artificial Island are monitored, documented, and compared to the appropriate standards set by the EPA and the NRC in 40 CFR 190 and 10 CFR 20 respectively.
The REMP measures radiation impacts by measuring external gamma radiation exposures and sampling air particulates, air iodine, milk, surface water, groundwater, drinking water, vegetables, game, fodder crops, fish, crabs, and sediments. Therefore, the program measures the cumulative impacts of exposures. The REMP is conducted in accordance with Sections 6.91.17 and 6.9.1.6 of the Salem and HCGS Technical Specification/Offsite Dose Calculation Manuals (ODCM) respectively.
The year-by-year radiological information about the Salem and HCGS site is published in the annual REMP report. The data is compared to pre-operational conditions measured from 1968 to December 1976 when Salem 1 reached criticality. The NRC staff reviewed the Salem and HCGS radioactive environmental operating reports for _
through 2009 to look for any significant impacts to the environment or any unusual trends in the data (PSEG
). No unusual trends were noted and all reported data on the radionuclides detected in environmental samples were below applicable NRC reporting levels and showed no significant or measurable impact to site workers or the public (PSEG _
).
The only radionuclide attributable to plant operation detected in recent REMP reports was tritium, which was measured in samples from groundwater monitoring wells screened in the shallow water-bearing zone of riverbed sediments (PSEG _(2009?)_, PSEG 2007, Appendix F).
In. response to an identified release from the Salem Unit 1 spent fuel pool in 2002, PSEG implemented a Remedial Action Work Plan (RAWP) and developed a voluntary Radiological Groundwater Protection Program in 2006 (PSEG 2007, Appendix F). The RAWP, which was reviewed by the NRC and approved by the NJDEP Bureau of Nuclear Engineering, directed PSEG to install a groundwater recovery system to remove the tritiated water and control the contaminated plume from reaching the site boundary (PSEG 2007, Appendix F). There are currently no known active releases to the groundwater that the site (PSEG _(2009?)_).
The Quarterly Remedial Action Progress Report for Salem for the _
Quarter of indicates that tritium concentrations in the shallow groundwater have continued to decrease since the initiation of the groundwater recovery system. Tritium concentrations in samples collected during the _
quarter of _
were all below picoCuries per liter (pCi/L) from an initial maximum of approximately 15,000,000 pCi/L. Most of the sample concentrations were below pCi/L (PSEG
).
4
.."0 Historical data on releases from Salem and HCGS and the resultant dose calculations demonstrate that the amount of radiation received to a hypothetical maximally exposed individual in the vicinity of the site is a small fraction of the limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20, the as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) dose design objectives in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, and EPA's radiation standards in 40 CFR Part 190, "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations." For
, dose estimates were calculated based on actual liquid and gaseous effluent release data and conservative models to simulate the transport mechanisms (PSEG J. The following summarizes the calculated hypothetical maximum dose to an individual located at the site boundary from liquid and gaseous effluents released during _
(PSEG j)
The maximum whole-body dose to an offsite member of the general public from liquid effluents was mrem (.
mSv), which is well below the 3-mrem dose criteria in Appendix I to 10 CFR 50.
The maximum whole-body dose to the likely most-exposed member of the general public from gaseous effluents was mrem (_
mSv), which is below the 5-mrem dose criteria in Appendix I to 10 CFR 50.
The maximum whole-body dose to the likely most-exposed member of the general public from all radioactive emissions (radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents and direct radiation shine) was mrem (.
_mSv), which is below the 25-mrem limit in 40 CFR Part 190.
Based on the review and assessment of the Salem and HCGS performance in controlling radioactive effluents and the resultant doses to members of the public in conformance with the ALARA criteria, the NRC staff found that the 2009 radiological data for Salem and HCGS are consistent, with reasonable variation attributable to operating conditions and outages, with the 5-year historical radiological effluent releases and resultant doses. These results demonstrate that Salem and HCGS are operating in compliance with Federal radiation protection standards contained in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR Part 20, and 40 CFR Part 190. Continued compliance with regulatory requirements is expected during the license renewal term; therefore, the impacts from radioactive effluents are not expected to change.
Based on the applicant's assertion that no refurbishment activities are planned at Salem or HCGS, no additional doses to members of the public, and the resultant environmental impacts, are expected due to refurbishment during the renewal period.
1.8.3 Microbiological Organisms - Public Health Both Salem and HCGS have thermal discharges to the Delaware Estuary, 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 Salem and HCGS.
Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 and Table 4-8 above list the effects of thermophilic microbiological organisms on human health as a Category 2 issue and requires the conduct of a plant-specific evaluation before license renewal for those plants Issue applies to plant features such as cooling lakes or cooling towers that discharge to small rivers. NRC has determined that Salem and HCGS discharge to an estuary (NRC 1996 (GELS - NUREG 1437); Table 5.13). Neither Salem nor HCGS use cooling ponds, cooling lakes, cooling canals, or discharge to a small river. Therefore, this issue does not apply and the effects of plant discharges on microbiological organisms do not need to be addressed for license renewal.
1.8.4 Electromagnetic Fields - Acute Shock Based on the GELS, the NRC found that electric shock resulting from direct access to energized conductors or from induced charges in metallic structures has not been a problem at most
W-I A.
operating plants and generally is not expected to be a problem during the period of extended operation. However, a site-specific review is required to determine the significance of the electric shock potential along the portions of the transmission lines within the scope of the supplemental EIS.
According to the GELS, secondary shock currents are produced when humans make contact with (1) capacitively charged bodies such as a vehicle parked near a transmission line or (2) magnetically linked metallic structures such as fences near transmission lines. Design criteria that limit the potential for secondary shock are based on the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) (IEEE 2006) which requires that transmission lines be designed so that the short-circuit current to ground, produced from the largest anticipated vehicle or object in a position under the transmission line, is limited to less than 5 milliamperes (mA).
The GElS states that, without a review of the conformance of each nuclear plant transmission line with NESC rules (NESC 2007), it is not possible to determine the significance of the electric shock potential. Evaluation of individual plant transmission lines is necessary because the issue of electric shock safety was not addressed in the licensing process for some plants. For other plants, land use in the vicinity of transmission lines may have changed, or power distribution companies may have chosen to upgrade line voltage. To comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H), the applicant must provide an assessment of the potential shock hazard if the transmission lines that were constructed for the specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission system do not meet the recommendations of the NESC for preventing electric shock from induced currents.
As described in Section 2.1.1.6, four 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines were specifically constructed to distribute power to the electrical grid from the Salem and HCGS power plants.
One 500-kV line, the HCGS-New Freedom line, was originally constructed to connect HCGS to the transmission system. Two additional lines, Salem-New Freedom North and Salem-Keeney (via Red Lion substation), were originally built for Salem but have since been connected to HCGS. The fourth line, Salem-New Freedom South, originates at Salem (HC ER).
PSEG conducted an analysis of the Salem HCGS transmission lines using a computer model of induced current under the line and the results were field verified. PSEG calculated electric field strength and induced current using a computer code called ACDCLINE, produced by the Electric Power Research Institute (HC ER). As provided in Table 4-X, the maximum induced current was modeled at 4.2 milliamperes on Salem-New Freedom South line (HC ER).
PSEG also 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 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.
Table 4-X. Results of Induced Current Analysis.
Maximum Induced Transmission Line (kilovolts)
Current (kieFed Sth5 4(milliamperes)
Salem-New Freedom South 500 4.2 Salem-New Freedom North 500 4.1
Salem to Red Lion 500 2.2 Red Lion to Keeney 500 2.7 HCGS-New Freedom (via Orchard) 500 4.0 The staff has reviewed the available information, including the applicant's evaluation and computational results, the site visit, the scoping process, and other public sources of information. Based on this information, the staff evaluated the potential impacts of electric shock resulting from operation of Salem and HCGS and their associated transmission lines. The staff concludes that the potential impacts of electric shock during the renewal term would be SMALL.
The staff identified a variety of measures that could mitigate potential acute electromagnetic field impacts resulting from continued operation of the TMI-I transmission lines. These mitigation measures include limiting public access to transmission line structures, installing signs at road crossings, and increasing transmission line clearances.
These mitigation measures could reduce human health impacts by minimizing public exposures to electric shock hazards. NESC rules, as specified in Part 2, Rules 232CIc and 232D3c, contain provisions that are considered necessary for the protection of employees and the public from acute electromagnetic field hazards associated with transmission lines, which currently apply to TMI-1 and would apply during the license renewal period. AmerGen currently meets these rules. The staff did not identify any cost benefit studies applicable to the mitigation measures mentioned above.
1.8.5 Electromagnetic Fields - Chronic Effects The GElS did not designate the chronic effects of 60-hertz electromagnetic fields from power lines as either Category 1 or 2; such a designation will not occur until a scientific consensus is reached on the health implications of these fields.
The potential for chronic effects from these fields continues to be studied and is not known at this time. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related research through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). An NIEHS (1999) report contains the following conclusion which is supported by the recently published Environmental Health Criteria Monograph No. 238 (2007):
The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF [extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field] exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory action is warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the public and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The NIEHS does not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence of a risk to currently warrant concern.
This statement is not sufficient to cause the NRC staff to change its position with respect to the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. This position is expressed in Footnote 5 to Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 as follows:
If in the future, the Commission finds that, contrary to current indications, a consensus has been reached by appropriate Federal health agencies that there
are adverse health effects from electromagnetic fields, the Commission will require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews of these health effects as part of their license renewal applications. Until such time, applicants for license renewal are not required to submit information on this issue.
The NRC staff considers the GElS finding of "Uncertain" still appropriate and will continue to follow developments on this issue.
1.1.1 Cumulative Human Health Impacts The radiological dose limits for protection of the public and workers have been developed by the EPA and NRC to address the cumulative impact of acute and long-term. exposure to radiation and radioactive material. These dose limits are codified in 40 CFR Part 190 and 10 CFR Part
- 20. For the purpose of this analysis, the area within a 50-mi radius of the Salem and HCGS site was included. The REMP conducted by PSEG in the vicinity of the site measures radiation and radioactive materials from all sources, including all three Salem and HCGS units; therefore, the monitoring program measures cumulative radiological impacts. However, there are no other nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel cycle facilities, or U.S. Department of Energy nuclear weapons facilities within a 50-mi radius of Salem or HCGS that would potential contribute to the cumulative dose impact.
On February 11, 2010 PSEG submitted an Early Site Permit (ESP) application letter of intent to the NRC for ei
,?.1]
(PSEG February 11, 2010). A specific reactor design has not yet been selected; therefore, the application will utilize the Plant Parameter Envelope (PPE) approach. This approach uses surrogate values as upper and lower bounds of the potential reactor design characteristics. Analysis of environmental impacts based on this approach allows final design decisions to be deferred until the construction permit (CP) or combined construction permit and operating license (combined license or COL) stage.
Monitoring results for the
-year period from 2002 to 20 were reviewed as part of the cumulative impacts assessment (PSEG xxxx). Additionally, in Sections 2.2.7 and 4.3, the Staff concluded that impacts of radiation exposure to the public and workers (occupational) from operation of Salem and HCGS during the renewal term are SMALL. The NRC and the State of New Jersey would regulate any future actions in the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS site that could contribute to cumulative radiological impacts, including new power reactors licensed and operated at the site. Should future reactors operate with similar monitoring results, the public and workers (occupational) would continue to be SMALL.
The NRC staff has determined that the electric-field-induced currents from the Salem and HCGS transmission lines are well below the NESC recommendations for preventing electric shock from induced currents. Therefore, the Salem and HCGS transmission lines do not significantly affect the overall potential for electric shock from induced currents within the analysis area. The NRC staff did identify a variety of mitigation measures that could reduce human health impacts by minimizing public exposures to electric shock hazards. However, no cost benefit studies applicable to these mitigation measures were identified. The potential for chronic effects from these fields continues to be studied and is not known at this time. The NRC staff considers the GElS finding of "Uncertain" still appropriate and will continue to follow developments on this issue.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that cumulative radiological impacts of continued operations of Salem and HCGS are SMALL and that no further mitigation measures are warranted.
Purpose and Need for Action 1
-T.O PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 2
Pursuant to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) environmental protection 3
regulations in Title 10, Part 51, of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 51), which 4
implement the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), an environmental impact 5
statement (EIS) is required to be prepared for issuance of a new nuclear power plant operating 6
license.
7 The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA) originally specified that licenses for commercial power 8
reactors be granted for up to 40 years with an option to renew for up to another 20 years. The 9
40-year licensing period is based on economic and antitrust considerations rather than on 10 technical limitations of the nuclear facility.
11 The decision to seek a license renewal rests entirely with nuclear power facility owners and 12 typically is based on the facility's economic viability and the investment necessary to continue to 13 meet NRC safety and environmental requirements. The NRC staff (Staff) makes the decision to 14 grant or deny a license renewal, based on whether or not the applicant has demonstrated that 15 the environmental and safety requirements in the NRC's regulations can be met during the 16 period of extended operation.
17 1.1 Proposed Federal Action 18 PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) initialized the proposed Federal action by submitting an application 19 for license renewal of Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (Salem) for which the 20 existing licenses DPR-70 (Unit 1) and DPR-75 (Unit 2) expire August 13, 2016, and April 18, 21 2020, respectively and Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS), for which the existing license 22 NPF-57 expires April 11, 2026. NRC's Federal action is the decision whether or not to renew 23 the licenses for an additional 20 years.
24 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Federal Action 25 The purpose and need for the proposed action (issuance of a renewed license) is to provide an 26 option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current nuclear power 27 plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, which may be determined by 28 State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decision makers. This definition 29 of purpose and need reflects the Commission's recognition that, unless there are findings in the 30 safety review required by the AEA or findings in the NEPA environmental analysis that would 31 lead the NRC to not grant a license renewal, the NRC does not have a role in the energy-32 planning decisions of State regulators and utility officials as to whether or not a particular 33 nuclear power plant should continue to operate.
34 If the renewed license is issued, State regulatory agencies and PSEG will ultimately decide 35 whether the plant will continue to operate or not based on factors such as the need for power, or 36 other matters within the State's jurisdiction, or the purview of the owners. If the operating license 37 is not renewed, the facility must be shut down on or before the expiration date of the current 38 operating licenses, August 13, 2016 for Unit 1 at Salem, April 18, 2020 for Unit 2 at Salem, and 39 April 11, 2026 at HCGS.
March 2010 1-1 Draft NUREG-1437,.Supplement XX
Purpose and Need for Action 1
1.3 Major Environmental Review Milestones 2
As part of the license renewal Figure 1-1. Environmental Review Process.
3 application, PSEG submitted an The environmental review provides opportunities 4
environmental report (ER) for each for public involvement.
5 Salem (PSEG 2009a) and HCGS 6
(PSEG 2009b) dated August 18, Application 7
2009. After reviewing the Submitted to 8
application and the ERs for NRC 9
sufficiency, the Staff published a 10 notice of acceptance for docketing 11 of the application on October 23, 12 2009, in the Federal Register Review 13 (FR)(Volume 74, p. 54854, (74 FR Application 14 54854) for Salem; and Volume 74, 15
- p. 54856, (74 FR 54856) for 16 HCGS). Also, on October 23, 17 2009, the NRC published another 18 notice in the FR (74 FR 54859) on Scoping Environmental 19 its intent to conduct scoping, Process Site Audit 20 thereby beginning the 60-day 21 scoping period for the 22 supplemental environmental 23 impact statement (SEIS).
Draft 24 NRC conducted two public scoping SEIS 25 meetings on November 5, 2009 in 26 Woodstown, New Jersey. The 27 Staff prepared an SEIS scoping 28 process summary report dated
- Draft 29 XXXXXXX, which presents the SEIS 30 comments received during the 31 scoping process (NRC xxxx).
32 Appendix A to this SEIS presents 33 comments considered to be within 34 the scope of the environmental 35 license renewal review and the Is 36 associated NRC responses.
37 To independently verify 38 information provided in the ER, the 39 Staff conducted a site audit at the NRC 40 Salem and HCGS, site in March of Decision 41 2010. During the site audit, the 42 Staff met with plant personnel, 43 reviewed specific documentation, 44 toured the facility, and met with interested Federal, State, and local agencies. A summary of that 45 site audit and the attendees is contained in the site audit summary report (NRC 2010x).
46 Upon completion of the scoping period and site audit, the Staff compiled its findings in this draft 47 SEIS (Figure 1-1). This SEIS is being made publically available for period of 75 days during 48 which the Staff will host public meetings and collect public comments. Based on the information March 2010 1-2 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX
Purpose and Need for Action 1
gathered, the Staff will amend the draft SEIS findings as necessary, and then publish the final 2
SEIS.
3 The Staff has established a license renewal Significance indicates the 4
process that can be completed in a reasonable impacts and is determined by 5
period of time with clear requirements to assure ctsadeis terined by 6
safe plant operation for up to an additional 20 and intensity.
7 years. The safety review, which documents its 8
finding in a Safety Evaluation Report (SER), is Context is the geographic, 9
conducted simultaneously as the environmental biophysical, and social context in 10 review process. Both the findings in the SEIS and which the effects will occur.
11 the SER are factors considered in the 12 Commission's decision to either grant or deny the Intensity refers to the severity of the 13 issuance of a new license, impact, in whatever context it occurs.
14 1.4 Generic Environmental Impact Statement 15 To improve the efficiency of the license renewal process, the Staff prepared a generic 16 assessment of the environmental impacts associated with license renewal. Specifically, the 17 agency prepared NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) for License 18 Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, which evaluates the environmental consequences of 19 renewing the licenses of individual nuclear power plants and operating them for an additional 20 20 years (NRC 1996, 1999).1 The Staff analyzed those environmental issues that could be resolved 21 generically in the GELS.
22 The GElS establishes 92 separate issues for the Staff to consider. Of these, the staff 23 determined that 69 are generic to all plants (Category 1), while 21 issues do not lend 24 themselves to generic consideration (Category 2). Two other issues remained uncategorized; 25 environmental justice and the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, which must be evaluated 26 on a site-specific basis. Appendix B to this report lists all 92 issues.
27 For each environmental issue, the GELS: (1) describes the activity that affects the environment; 28 (2) identifies the population or resource that is affected; (3) assesses the nature and magnitude 29 of the impact on the affected population or resource; (4) characterizes the significance of the 30 effect for both beneficial and adverse effects; (5) determines whether the results of the analysis 31 apply to all plants or not; and (6) considers whether additional mitigation measures are 32 warranted or not for impacts that would have the same significance level for all plants.
33 The GElS assesses the significance of these issues, using the Council on Environmental 34 Quality (CEQ) terminology for "significant." The Staff established three levels of significance for 35 potential impacts-SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE. The three levels of significance are 36 defined below:
37 SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 38 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
39 MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, 40 important attributes of the resource.
1 The NRC originally issued the GElS in 1996 and issued Addendum 1 to the GElS in 1'999. Hereafter, all references to the "GElS" include the GElS and Addendum 1.
March 2010 1-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX
Purpose and Need for Action 1
LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important 2
attributes of the resource.
3 The GElS includes a determination of whether or not the analysis of the environmental issue 4
could be applied to all plants and whether or not additional mitigation measures are warranted 5
(Figure 1-2). Issues are assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the 6
GELS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:
7
- 1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined 8
to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific 9
type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristics.
10
- 2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been 11 assigned to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from 12 the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).
13
- 3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered 14 in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific 15 mitigation measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant 16 implementation.
17 For generic issues (Category 1), no additional site-specific analysis is required in this SEIS 18 unless new and significant information is identified. Chapter 4 of this report presents the process 19 for identifying new and significant information. Site-specific issues (Category 2) are those that 20 do not meet one or more of the criterion for Category 1 issues, and therefore, additional site-21 specific review for these issues is required. The SEIS documents the results of that site-specific 22 review.
23 March 2010 1-4 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX
Purpose and Need for Action 1
Figure 1-1. Environmental Issues Evaluated During License Renewal. 92 issues were 2
initially evaluated in the GEIS. A site-specific analysis is required for 23 of those 92 issues.
Environmental Issue related to nuclear power plant operation Process used Environmental Environmental to analyze impacts same impacts differ and at all sites across sites categorize issues in the GElS Category 1 Issue Category 2 Issue No new and New and New issue significant significant not analyzed information information in the GElS related to related to issue issue Process used to analyze Site-specific analysis issues for each SEIS Adopt conclusi onseahEI of the GElS Site-specific conclusion 3
4 1.5 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 5
The SEIS presents an analysis that considers the environmental effects of the continued 6
operation of Salem and HCGS, potential alternatives to license renewal, and potential mitigation 7
measures for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Chapter 8 contains analysis and 8
comparisons of the environmental impacts from alternatives. Chapter 9 presents the 9
preliminary recommendation to the Commission as to whether or not the environmental impacts 10 of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal would be 11 unreasonable. The recommendation will be made after consideration of comments received 12 during the public scoping period for the draft SEIS.
13 In the preparation of this SEIS, the Staff:
14 reviewed the information provided in the PSEG ERs, 15 0
consulted with other Federal, State, and local agencies, 16 0
conducted an independent review of the issues during site audit, and March 2010 1-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX
Purpose and Need for Action 1
considered the public comments received during the scoping process and on 2
the draft SEIS.
3 New and significant information can be identified New and significant information 4
from a number of sources, including the Staff, the either-5 applicant, other agencies, and public comments.
(1) identifies a significant environmental 6
If a new issue is revealed, it is first analyzed to 7
determine whether or not it is within the scope of issue not covered in the GElS, or 8
the license renewal evaluation. If it is not (2) was not considered in the analysis in 9
addressed in the GELS, then the NRC determines the GEIS and leads to an impactfinding 10 its significance and documents its analysis in the that is different from the finding,,,
11 SEIS.
presented in the GELS.
12 1.6 Cooperating Agencies 13 During the scoping process, no Federal, State or local agencies were identified as cooperating 14 agencies in the preparation of this SEIS.
15 1.7 Consultations 16 The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries 17 Conservation and Management Act of 1996, as amended; and the National Historic 18 Preservation Act of 1966, require that Federal agencies consult with applicable State and 19 Federal agencies and groups before taking action that may affect endangered species, 20 fisheries, or historic and archaeological resources, respectively.
21 Listed below are the agencies and groups with whom the NRC consulted; Appendix D of thos 22 report includes copies of consultation documents.
23 0
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, 24 Delaware 25 0
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, New Jersey 26 0
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pleasantville, New Jersey 27 1.8 Correspondence 28 Table 1-1 lists persons and organizations to which a copy of this draft SEIS is sent. Appendix E 29 to this report contains a chronological list of all documents sent and received during the 30 environmental review. During the course of the environmental review, the Staff corresponded or 31 consulted with the following Federal, State, regional, local or tribal agencies:
32 Accohannock Indian Tribe, Salsbury, Maryland 33 Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, 34 Delaware 35 Delaware Nation, Andarko, Oklahoma 36 Delaware River Basin Comission, West Trenton, New Jersey 37 Delaware Tribe of Indians, Bartlesville, Oklahoma 38 Eastern Lenape Nation of PA, Mountville, Pennslyvania 39 Echota Chickamauga Cherokee Tribe of New Jersey, Irvington, New Jersey March 2010 1-6 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX
Purpose and Need for Action 1
Lenape Tribe of Delaware, Cheshold, Delaware 2
Nanticoke Indians Association, Inc., Millsboro, Delaware 3
Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey, Brigeton, New Jersey 4
National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, Massachusetts 5
Nause-Waiwash Tribe, Cambridge, Maryland 6
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, New Jersey 7
Osprey Band of Free Cherokees, Mays Landing, New Jersey 8
Piscataway-Conoy Confederacy and Sub-Tribes, Inc., LaPlata, Maryland 9
Piscataway Indian Nation, Accokeek, Maryland 10 Pocomoke Indian Nation, Mount Airy, Maryland 11 Powhatan Renape Nation, Rancocas, New Jersey 12 Ramapough Mountain Lenape, Mahway, New Jersey 13 State Historic Preservation Office, Crownsville, Maryland 14 State Historic Preservation Office, Dover, Delaware 15 State Historic Preservation Office, Harrisburg, Pennslyvania 16 State Historic Preservation Office, Trenton, New Jersey 17 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia, PA 18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, New York, New York 19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, Pennslyvania 20 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pleasantville, New Jersey 21 Unalachtigo Band of the Nanticoke-Lenni Lenape Nation, Bridgeton, New Jersey 22 March 2010 1-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX
Purpose and Need for Action 1
2 Table 1-1. List of persons who are sent a copy of this draft SEIS Peter M. Glass, Xcel Manager, Regulatory Manager, Minnesota Energy Services, Inc.
Affairs, Northern States Attorney General's Office Power Co.
Resident Inspector's Office, Philip R. Mahowald, Prairie Gene Eckholt, Northern NRC Island Indian Community States Power Co.
Heather Westra, Prairie Administrator, Goodhue Jim Holthaus, Northern Island Indian Community County Courthouse States Power Co.
Katie Himanga, City of Lake Commissioner, Minnesota Tribal Council, Prairie City Department of Commerce Island Indian Community Nuclear Asset Manager, Dennis L. Koehl, Northern Joel P. Sorenson, Northern Xcel Energy, Inc.
States Power Co.
States Power Co.
Kay Kuhlmann, Red Wing Joan Marshman Deanna Sheely, Red Wing City Council City Council John Wurst Joe Ellingson Michael McKay, Wacouta Township Elaine and Arlen Diercks, Doub Lansing, Maiden Matrix Energy Solutions Hay Creek Township Rock Village Mr. Ronald Johnson, Prairie Mr. Kevin Jensvold, Upper Jean Stacy, Lower Sioux Island Indian Community Sioux Community of Indian Community of Minnesota Minnesota Joseph Brings Plenty, Lester Thompson, Crow Joshua Weston, Flandreau Cheyenne River Sioux Creek Sioux Tribal Council Santee Sioux Executive Tribe Committee Michael Jandreau, Lower John Yellow Bird Steele, Rodney Bordeaux, Brule Sioux Tribal Council Oglala Sioux Tribal Council Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council Roger Trudell, Santee Michael Selvage, Sr.,
Myra Pearson, Spirit Lake Sioux Nation Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Tribal Council of the Lake 3
1.9 Status of Compliance 4
PSEG is responsible for complying with all NRC regulations and other applicable Federal, State, 5
and local requirements; Appendix C describes some of the principal Federal statutes for which 6
PSEG must comply. Table 1-2 lists the numerous permits and licenses issued by Federal, 7
State, and local authorities for activities at Salem and HCGS, respectively.
March 2010 1-8 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX
Purpose and Need for Action 1
Table 1-2. Licenses and Permits. Existing environmental authorizations for Salem and HCGS 2
SALEM:
Permit Number Dates Responsible Agency Issued: 8/13/1976 DPR-70 and and 4/18/1980 U.S. Nuclear Operating Licenses Regulatory DPR-75 Expires: 8/13/2016 Commission and 4/18/2020 Certification of the Minnesota Environmental Lab 027-049-218 Expires: 12/23/2009 Department of Health Construction of intake canal Docket 050-282 Minnesota system and 050-306 N/A Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Construction of discharge Docket 050-282 N/A Department of canal system and 050-306 Natural Resources National Pollutant Discharge Issued: 06/30/2006 Minnesota NainlPluatDshre MN0004006 Pollution Control Elimination System Permit Expires: 08/31/2010 Agency Fish, mussels, and MN State rules Expires: 12/31/2008 Minnesota icthyoplankton collection 14658,14567, and 12/31/2009 for Department of Permit and 159 permit 159 Natural Resources Minnesota Surface Water Appropriation 690172 N/A Department of Natural Resources Permit Nos.
Minnesota Groundwater Appropriation 690171, 785153, N/A Department of Permit 865114, and Natural Resources 965042 Hazardous materials Minnesota shipments UPR-211635-MN Expires: 10/27/2008 Department of Transportation Industrial wastewater Minnesota Pollution Control discharge to Mississippi River MN0004006 Expires: 08/31/2010 Agency, Industrial Permit AecIdsra Division Operation of air emissions Expires: 12/17/2004 Minnesota system for an electric utility 00000001-003 (renewal application Pollution Control power generation system submitted)
Agency Permit Operation of oil-fired boiler and diesel-fired engines for Minnesota emergency power, pump 04900030-003 Expires: 01/03/2012 Pollution Control cooling water, and fire fighting Agency system Permit March 2010 1-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX
Purpose and Need for Action Permit Number Dates Responsible Agency Above ground storage tank Minnesota registration MPCA 51557 No Expiration Pollution Control Agency Hazardous Waste Generator Minnesota License, Small Quantity MND049537780 Expires: 06/30/2008 Pollution Control Agency South Carolina Department of Transportation of radioactive Health and waste into the State of South 0051-22-08-X Expires: 12/31/2008 Environmental Carolina Permit Control - Division of Waste Management State of Tennessee Department of Transportation of radioactive Environmental and waste into the State of T-MN003-L08 Expires: 12/31/2008 Conserv an Tennessee Permit Division of Radiological Health State of Utah Transportation of radioactive Expires: 02/23/2008 Department of waste into the State of Utah 0402 002 748 (renewal application Environmental Permit submitted)
Quality Division of Radiation Control Collect fish and Wisconsin ichthyoplankton for radiological 08 Expires: 12/31/2008 Department of and biological monitoring Natural Resources Maintenance dredging and U.S. Army Corps erosion control discharge GP/LOP-98-MN Expires: 02/18/2008 of Engineers canal General Permit Air quality monitoring station at DACW37-3 Issued: 4/17/2007 U.S. Army Corps Lock and Dam Number 3 0071 Expires: 09/30/2011 of Engineers License Maintenance dredging in front U.S. Army Corps of the River Intake Structure GP-01-MN Expires: 05/15/2006 of Engineers Dredging Permit Hazardous materials 062706 552 0090 Expires: 06/30/2008 U.S. Department shipments Registration of Transportation Retreive, transport, and temporarily possess carcasses U.S. Fish and of migratory birds as well as MB074020-0 Expires: 03/31/2009 Wildlife Service collect, stabilize, and transport sick/injured migratory birds March 2010 1-10 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX
Purpose and Need for Action Permit Number Dates Responsible Agency Wildlife Permit HCGS:
Permit Number Dates Responsible Agency Issued: 4/11/1986 Operating Licenses NPF-57 U.S. NRC Expires: 4/11/2026 Certification of the Minnesota Environmental Lab 027-049-218 Expires: 12/23/2009 Department of Health Construction of intake canal Docket 050-282 Minnesota system and 050-306 N/A Department of Natural Resources Construction of discharge Docket 050-282 Minnesota canal system and 050-306 N/A Department of Natural Resources National Pollutant Discharge Issued: 06/30/2006 Minnesota MN0004006 Pollution Control Elimination System Permit Expires: 08/31/2010 Agency Fish, mussels, and MN State rules Expires: 12/31/2008 Minnesota icthyoplankton collection 14658, 14567, and 12/31/2009 for Department of Permit and 159 permit 159 Natural Resources Minnesota Surface Water Appropriation 690172 N/A Department of Permit Natural Resources Permit Nos.
Minnesota Groundwater Appropriation 690171, 785153, N/A Department of Permit 865114, and Natural Resources 965042 Hazardous materials Minnesota shipments UPR-211635-MN Expires: 10/27/2008 Department of Transportation Industrial wastewater Minnesota Pollution Control discharge to Mississippi River MN0004006 Expires: 08/31/2010 Agen Intril Permit Agency, Industrial Division Operation of air emissions Expires: 12/17/2004 Minnesota system for an electric utility 00000001-003 (renewal application Pollution Control power generation system Permit submitted)
Agency Operation of oil-fired boiler and diesel-fired engines for emergency power, pump cooling water, and fire fighting 04900030-003 Expires: 01/03/2012 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency March 2010 1-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX
Purpose and Need for Action Permit Number Dates Responsible Agency system Permit Minnesota Above ground storage tank MPCA 51557 No Expiration Pollution Control registration Agency Hazardous Waste Generator Minnesota License, Small Quantity MND049537780 Expires: 06/30/2008 Pollution Control Agency South Carolina Department of Transportation of radioactive Health and waste into the State of South 0051-22-08-X Expires: 12/31/2008 Environmental Carolina Permit Control - Division of Waste Management State of Tennessee Department of Transportation of radioactive Environmental and waste into the State of T-MN003-L08 Expires: 12/31/2008 Conserv an Tennessee Permit Division of Radiological Health State of Utah Transportation of radioactive Expires: 02/23/2008 Department of waste into the State of Utah 0402 002 748 (renewal application Environmental Permit submitted)
Quality Division of Radiation Control Collect fish and Wisconsin ichthyoplankton for radiological 08 Expires: 12/31/2008 Department of and biological monitoring Natural Resources Maintenance dredging and U.S. Army Corps erosion control discharge GP/LOP-98-MN Expires: 02/18/2008 of Engineers canal General Permit Air quality monitoring station at DACW37-3 Issued: 4/17/2007 U.S. Army Corps Lock and Dam Number 3 0071 Expires: 09/30/2011 of Engineers License Maintenance dredging in front U.S. Army Corps of the River Intake Structure GP-01-MN Expires: 05/15/2006 of Engineers Dredging Permit Hazardous materials 062706 552 0090 Expires: 06/30/2008 U.S. Department shipments Registration of Transportation Retreive, transport, and temporarily possess carcasses of migratory birds as well as collect, stabilize, and transport sick/injured migratory birds MB074020-0 Expires: 03/31/2009 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service March 2010 1-12 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX
Purpose and Need for Action Permit Number Dates Responsible Agency Wildlife Permit 1
1.10 References 2
10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental 3
Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."
4 73 FR 34335. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington D.C. "Nuclear Management 5
Company, LLC, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Acceptance for 6
Docketing of the Application and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding Renewal of 7
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and. DPR-60 for an Additional 20- Year Period."
8 Federal Register. Vol. 73, No. 117, pp34335-34337. June 17, 2008.
9 73 FR 42628. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington D.C. "Nuclear Management 10 Company, LLC.; Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent To 11 Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process." Federal Register:
12 Vol. 73, No. 141, pp42628-42630. July 22, 2008.
13 Atomic Energy Act of 1954.42 U.S.C. 2011, et seq.
14 Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.
15 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the 16 Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. 16 U.S.C. 1855, et seq.
17 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.
18 National Historic Preservation Act. 16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.
19 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 20 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.
21 ADAMS Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738.
22 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 23 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, "Section 6.3 -Transportation, Table 9.1, 24 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report."
25 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.
26 PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG). 2009a. Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, 27 License Renewal Application, Appendix E - Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating 28 License Renewal Stage. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. August, 2009. ADAMS 29 Nos. ML092400532, ML092400531, ML092430231' 30 PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG). 2009b. Hope Creek Generating Station, License Renewal 31 Application, Appendix E - Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal 32 Stage. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. August, 2009. ADAMs No.
33 ML092430389 34 March 2010 1-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX
2.1 1.I -Power Tra-nsmission System Three Right of Way (ROW) corridors and five 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines connect Salem and HCGS to the regional electric grid, all of which are owned and maintained by PSE&G and Pepco Holdings Inc. (PHI). Each corridor is 350 feet wide, with the exception of two-thirds of both the HCGS-Red Lion and Red Lion-Kenney lines, which narrows to 200 feet. Unless otherwise noted, the discussion of the power transmission system is adapted from the environmental report (ER) (PSEG 2009a, PSEG 2009b) or information gathered at NRC's environmental site audit.
For the operation of Salem a transmission line was constructed to extend north, across the Delaware River, and to terminate at Keeney substation in Delaware. This line was previously identified as the "Salem-Keeney". After construction of HCGS, several changes were made to the Salem transmission line connections. A new substation (known as Red Lion) was built along the Salem-Keeney transmission line. 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.
Consequently this line is now referred by two different names per segment of the transmission lines "HCGS-Red Lion" and "Red Lion-Keeney". The transmission line located within Delaware, "Red Lion-Keeney", is owned and maintained by Pepco (a regulated electric utility that is a subsidiary of PHI). Because the "Salem-New Freedom North" line was re-routed for operation of HCGS; it was necessary to construct a transmission line connecting Salem and New Freedom substation. This line is known as the "HCGS-New Freedom" line. Pre-existing the construction of HCGS, the "Salem-New Freedom South" line also connects Salem to the New Freedom substation.
The only new transmission lines constructed as a result of 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.
Transmission lines considered in-scope for license renewal are those constructed specifically to connect the facility to the transmission system (10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H)); therefore, the Salem-New Freedom North, Salem-Red Lion, Red Lion-Keeney, Salem-New Freedom South, HCGS-New Freedom, and HCGS-Salem lines are considered in-scope for this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) and are discussed in detail below.
Mcontains a map of the Salem and HCGS transmission system. The five transmission lines are described below within the designated ROW corridor (
New Freedom North ROW 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.
" 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 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.
" '.1" New Freedom South ROW 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.
Red Lion ROW HCGS - Red Lion - 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-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 and Hope Creek Generating Station Source: (NRC 2009 Salem and HCGS ER)
The ROW corridors comprised approximately 149 miles and 6,019.2 acres; the lines cross within Camden, Gloucester and Salem counties in New Jersey and New Castle County in Delaware. All of the ROW corridors traverse the marshes and wetlands adjacent to the Salem and HCGS sites, including agricultural and forested lands.
All transmission lines were designed and built in accordance with industry standards in place at the time of construction. All transmission lines will remain a permanent part of the transmission system and will be maintained by PSE&G and PHI regardless of Salem and HCGS continued operation (PSEG 2009a, PSEG 2009b). The HCGS-Salem line, which connects the two substations, would be deactivated if the Salem and HCGS switchyards were no longer in use and would need to be reconnected to the grid if they were to remain in service beyond the operation of Salem and HCGS.
SSalem and HCGS Transmission Lines. Five 500 kV transmission lines connect electricity from Salem and HCGS to the regional electric transmission system via three ROW outside of the property boundary. "HCGS - Salem" tie-line is approximately 61 Om (2000 ft); this line does not pass beyond the site boundary and is not discussed as an off-site ROW.
Approximate Distance ROW width Approx. ROW area Line Owner kV ml (kin) ft (M) ac (ha)
New Freedom North ROW Salem - New Freedom North PSE&G 500 39 (63) 1654.5 350 (107)
HCGS - New Freedom PSE&G 500 43 (69) 1824.2 New Freedom South ROW Salem - New Freedom South PSE&G 500 42 (68) 350 (107) 1781.8 Red Lion ROW HCGS Red-Lion PSE&G 500 17 (27)
- 200/350 (107) 515.7 Red-Lion Keeney PHI 500 8 (13)
- 200/350 (107) 243 Total acreage within ROW 6,019.2
1
-2.0- AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 2
Salem and HCGS are located at the southern end of Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek 3
Township, Salem County, New Jersey. The facilities are located at River Mile 50 [28 km (18 mi)]
4 and River Mile 51[27 km (17 mi)], respectively, south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
5 Philadelphia is about 64 km (40 mi) northeast and the city of Salem, New Jersey, is 13 km (8 6
mi) northeast of the site (AEC 1973;-L:\\ork\\1 14570\\wP\\Pre-Audit Dli\\Ciapte.r2-r 7
Figure 2-1 shows the location of Salem and HCGS within a six-mile radius.
8 Because existing conditions are partially the result of past construction and operation at the 9
plants, the impacts of these past and ongoing actions and how they have shaped the 10 environment are presented in this chapter. Section 2.1 of this report describes Salem and 11 HCGS as a combined site (site), the individual facilities, and their operations; Section 2.2 12 discusses the affected environment; and Section 2.3 describes related Federal and State 13 activities near the site.
January 2010 2-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 42
Affected Environment 1
2 Figure 2-1. Location of Salem and HCGS Site, within a 6-Mile Radius (Source: _
)
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX 2-2 January 2010
Affected Environment 1
2.1 FACILITY AND SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED PLANT OPERATION 2
DURING THE RENEWAL TERM 3
Note: Text in italic is copied form a source and needs to be rewritten with reference to 4
specific documents.
5 Artificial Island is a 607 hectare (1,500 acre) island that was created by the U.S. Army Corps of 6
Engineers (US COE) beginning the in the early twentieth century. The island began as buildup 7
of hydraulic dredge spoils within a progressively enlarged diked area established around a 8
natural bar that projected into the river. The low and flat tidal marsh and grassland has an 9
average elevation of about 2.7 meters (m; 9 feet [ft]) above mean sea level (msl) and a 10 maximum elevation of about 5.5 m (18 ft) above msl. (AEC 1973) 11 PSEG owns approximately 300 hectares (740 acres) on the southern end of Artificial Island.
12 The Salem and HCGS facilities occupy 151 hectares (373 acres) [89 hectares (220 acres) for 13 Salem and 62 hectares (153 acres) for HCGS] in the southwestern corner of the island. The 14 remainder of Artificial Island is undeveloped.
15 16 Adjacent land owners include the U.S. Government and the State of New Jersey. The northern 17 portion of Artificial Island, a very small portion of which is within the State of Delaware boundary, 18 and a 1.6-km-wide (1-mi-wide) inland strip of land abutting the island are owned by the U.S.
19 Government (AEC 1973). The State of New Jersey owns the remainder of Artificial Island as 20 well as much nearby inland property. Distance to the PSEG property boundary from the two 21 Salem reactor buildings is approximately 1.3 km (4,200 ft). Distance to the PSEG property 22 boundary from the HCGS reactor building is 902 meters (2,960 ft).
23 24 There are no major highways or railroads within about 11 km (7 mi) of the site. Land access is 25 provided via Alloway Creek Neck Road to Bottomwood Avenue. Barge traffic has access to the 26 site by way of the Intracoastal Waterway channel maintained in the Delaware River. (AEC 1973) 27 Figures 2-3 and 2-4 show the property boundaries and facility layouts for the Salem and HCGS 28 facilities.
29 January 2010 2-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 42
Affected Environment o
r r
o 0
0 0
M 0 0
ro 5
0 o-J 0
0 2
Figure 2-2. Areal Photo (Source:
3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX 2-4 January 2010
Affected Environment I
0 0
Cn C1 P.
Cr M
Y C;
a 0
ELL w
i 2
Figure 2-3. Salem Facility Layout (Source: Salem ER)
January 2010 2-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 42
Affected Environment t: S
?o q
0 0;
IL 00
- 0) II 1
NJ 2
Figure 2-4. HCGS Facility Layout (Source: __
3 Three metropolitan areas lie within 50 miles of the PSEG site: Wilmington, Delaware, the 4
closest city, approximately 15 miles to the northwest; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, approximately 5
35 miles to the northeast; and Baltimore, Maryland, approximately 45 miles to the east-6 southeast (Figure 2-5 shows a map of the site within a 50-mile radius).
7 8
Industrial activities within 10 miles of the site are confined principally to the west bank of the Delaware River north of Artificial Island (Delaware City, New Castle, and Wilmington). There is Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX 2-6 January 2010
Affected Environment 1
no significant industrial activity near the site. With little industry in the region, construction and 2
retail trade account for nearly 400%o of the revenues generated in the Salem County economy 3
(US CB2006 http:ilwww.census.govlepcd/inonemloyer/20061nilNJO33.HTM.).
Smaller 4
communities in the vicinity of the site (Salem, NJ, Quinton, NJ, and Shenandoah, DE) consist of 5
small retail businesses.
6 Located about two miles west of the site on the western shore of the Delaware River is the 7
Augustine State Wildlife Management Area, a 2,667-acre wildlife management area managed 8
by the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife (D 0War6h Wiidi§fe6 2Rs010 9
i 2i-ferenel).r Southwest of the site, also on the 10 Delaware side of the Delaware River, is the Appoquinimink Wildlife Area. Located less than a 11 mile northeast of the site is the upper section of the Mad Horse Creek Fish and Wildlife 12 Management Area. This is a non-contiguous 9,500-acre wildlife area managed by the New 13 Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife with sections northeast, east, and southeast of the site (New 14 Jersey b:vIsi*in*f Fish and:
ildlife. 2009;. h t://w.
-stateni.ujs/dep/f qw/wm'aland.htm; 15 L.W:\\work\\114570\\WP\\Pre-Audit Draft\\Chaiter 2: Reference). Recreational activities at these 16 wildlife areas within 10 miles of the site consist of boating, fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, 17 picnicking, and swimming.
18 Salem currently employs a workforce of approximately 665 regular, full-time employees and 19 HCGS currently employs a workforce of approximately 513 regular, full-time employees. The 20 facilities share up to an additional 270 PSEG corporate and 86 matrixed employees (PSEOx--,-
21
~SdeLER:
PSEGýxx*'x
aleER)."**
- =)"
January 2010 2-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 42
Affected Environment 1
1 2
Figure 2-5. Location of of Salem and HCGS Site, within a 50-Mile Radius (Source: _
)
3 2.1.1 Reactor and Containment Systems 4
2.1.1.1 Salem 5
Salem is a two-unit plant utilizing pressurized water reactors (PWR) designed by Westinghouse 6
Electric. Each unit has a current licensed thermal power at 100 percent power of 3,459 MWt 7
(Salem ER). Salem Units 1 and 2 entered commercial service June 1977 and October 1981, 8
respectively (N.
I"'!f News.. 20.09, L:\\wo, rki 14570\\WRPA.Audit**tDraft\\Cha ter.2 Reference).
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX 2-8 January 2010
Affected Environment 1
Each unit is licensed for 3,459 MWt. At 100 percent reactor power, the currently anticipated net 2
electrical output is approximately 1,169 MWe for Unit 1 and'.1,181 for Unit 2 (Nuclear News 3
2009). An air-cooled combustion turbine peaking unit rated at approximately 40 MWe (referred 4
to as "Salem Unit 3") is also present. The Salem units have once-through circulating water 5
systems for condenser cooling that withdraws brackish water from the Delaware Estuary 6
through one intake structure located at the shoreline on the south end of the site (PSEG xxxx -
7 Salem ER) 8 In the PWR power generation system (Figure 2._), reactor heat is transferred from the primary 9
coolant to a lower pressure secondary coolant loop, allowing steam to be generated in the 10 steam supply system. The primary coolant loops each contain one steam generator, two 11 centrifugal coolant pumps, and the interconnected piping. Within the reactor coolant system 12 (RCS), the reactor coolant is pumped from the reactor through the steam generators and back 13 to the reactor inlet by two centrifugal coolant pumps located at the outlet of each steam 14 generator. Each steam generator is a vertical straight tube-and-shell heat exchanger that 15 produces superheated steam at a constant pressure over the reactor operating power range.
16 The steam is directed to a turbine, causing it to spin. The spinning turbine is connected to a 17 generator, which generates electricity. The steam is directed to a condenser where it cools and 18 converts back to liquid water. This cool water is then cycled back to the steam generator, 19 completing the loop. (NRC_2O0a.http:lwww.nrc..qovlreactorslpwrshtml) 20 Containment Structure "Awad"Imit 21 22 Figure _.
Simplified Design of a Pressurized Water Reactor (NRC 2010b,'
23 http l//www.nrc.aov/readin g-rm/basic-ref students/aninmated-pwr.html) 24 The secondary containment for radioactive material that might be released from the core 25 following a loss-of-coolant accident are the units' independent Containment and Fuel Handling 26 Buildings and their associated isolation systems. The structures serve as both a biological 27 shield and a pressure container for the entire reactor cooling system. The reactor containment 28 structures are vertical cylinders with 4.88 m (16 ft) thick flat foundation mats and 0.61 to 1.52 m January 2010 2-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 42
Affected Environment 1
(2 to 5 ft) thick reinforced concrete slab floors topped with hemispherical dome roofs. The side 2
walls of each building are 43.28 m (142 ft) high and the inside diameter is 42.67 m (140 ft). The 3
concrete walls are 1.37 m (4.5 ft) thick and the containment building dome roofs are 1.07 m (3.5 4
ft) thick. The inside surface of the reactor building is lined with a carbon steel liner with a varying 5
thickness of 0.25 inch (0.635 centimeter [cm]) to 0.5 inch (1.27 cm). (PSEG 2007a(
6 L'\\Woi4A1 Da f \\Oapt e 2 ha-tf2eRen ce) 7 The cores of the Salem reactors are moderated and cooled by light water (1H20 as compared to 8
heavy water, 2H20) at a pressure of 2250 psia. Boron is present on the light water coolant as a 9
neutron absorber. A moderator, or neutron absorber, is a substance that slows the speed of 10 neutrons increasing the likelihood of a fission of a uranium-235 atom in the fuel. The cooling 11 water is circulated by the reactor coolant pumps. These pumps are vertical single stage 12 centrifugal pumps equipped with controlled-leakage shaft seals. (PSEG 2007a) 13 Both Salem units utilize slightly enriched uranium-dioxide (U0 2) ceramic fuel pellets in zircaloy 14 cladding (PSEG 2007a). Fuel. pellets form fuel rods and fuel rods are joined together in fuel 15 assemblies. The fuel assemblies consist of 264 fuel rods arranged in a square array. Salem 16 uses fuel that is nominal enriched to 5.0 percent (percent uranium-235 by weight). The 17 combined fuel characteristics and power loading result in a fuel burn-up of about 60,000 18 megawatt-days per metric ton uranium (Salem ER).
19 The original Salem steam generators have been replaced. In 1997, the Unit 1 steam generators 20 were replaced and in 2008 the Unit 2 steam generators were replaced (Salem ER).
21 2.1.1.2 Hope Creek 22 HCGS is a one-unit station utilizing a boiling water reactor (BWR) designed by General Electric, 23 and has a current licensed thermal power at 100 percent power of 3,840 MWt with an electrical 24 output estimated to be approximately 1,083 MWe q(N.2'O$L:\\work\\1 14570\\WP\\Pre-Aid
'O r'ýL.?.
25 Bra pt R&
Nuclear News 2009). HCGS has a closed cycle circulating water 26 system for condenser cooling that consists of a natural draft cooling tower and associated 27 withdrawal, circulation, and discharge facilities. HCGS withdraws brackish water with the 28 Service Water System (SWS) from the Delaware Estuary (HC ER).
29 In the BWR power generation system (Figure 2._), heat from the reactor causes the cooling 30 water which passes vertically through the reactor core to boil, producing steam. The steam is 31 directed to a turbine, causing it to spin. The spinning turbine is connected to a generator, which 32 generates electricity. The steam is directed to a condenser where it cools and converts back to 33 liquid water. This cool water is then cycled back to the reactor core, completing the loop. (NA 34 20 c htt_~vi nM)c' ao/eators/b~wrs. html)
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX 2-10 January 2010
Affected Environment Containment Structure 1
2 Figure _-
Simplified Design of a Boiling Water Reactor (NRC 2010d, 3
ht-//iv.n rc.gov/readin2-rm-/basic-re ef/students/animated-bwlwr html) 4 The secondary containment for radioactive material that might be released from the core 5
following a loss-of-coolant accident is the Reactor Building. The structure serves as both a 6
biological shield and a pressure container for the entire reactor cooling system. The reactor 7
building structure is a vertical cylinder with 4.28 m (14 ft) thick flat foundation mats and 0.61 to 8
1.52 m (2 to 5 ft) thick reinforced concrete slab floor. The side walls of the cylinder are 9
approximately 72.2 m (250 ft) high, topped with torispherical dome roof, and surrounded by a 10 rectangular structure that is up to 40.2 m (132 ft) tall. (PSEG 2006; L-:\\work\\1:14570\\WP\\Pre.
11 Audit Draft\\Chapter 2 Reference).
12 The HCGS reactor utilizes slightly enriched uranium-dioxide (U0 2) ceramic fuel pellets in 13 zircaloy cladding (PSEG 2007a). Fuel pellets form fuel rods and fuel rods are joined together in 14 fuel assemblies. HCGS uses fuel that is nominal enriched to 5.0 percent (percent uranium-235 15 by weight) and the combined fuel characteristics and power loading result in a fuel burn-up of F...::*.**.,.
- :1 16 about 60,000 megawatt-days per metric ton uranium (NRC2008).
17 2.1.2 Radioactive Waste Management 18 Radioactive wastes resulting from plant operations are classified as liquid, gaseous, or solid.
19 Liquid radioactive wastes are generated from liquids received directly from portions of the 20 reactor coolant system or were contaminated by contact with liquids from the reactor coolant 21 system. Gaseous radioactive wastes are generated from gases or airborne particulates vented 22 from reactor and turbine equipment containing radioactive material. Solid radioactive wastes are 23 solids from the reactor coolant system, solids that came into contact with reactor coolant system 24 liquids or gases, or solids used in the reactor coolant system or steam and power conversion 25 system operation or maintenance.
26 The Salem and HCGS facilities include radioactive waste systems, which collect, treat, and 27 provide for disposal of radioactive and potentially radioactive wastes that are byproducts of plant 28 operations. Byproducts are activation products resulting from the irradiation of reactor water and January 2010 2-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 42
Affected Environment 1
impurities therein (principally metallic corrosion products) and fission products resulting from 2
defective fuel cladding or uranium contamination within the reactor coolant system. Radioactive 3
waste system operating procedures ensure that radioactive wastes are safely processed and 4
discharged from the plant within the limits set forth in 10 CFR Part 20, "Standards for Protection 5
against Radiation," and 10 CFR Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization 6
Facilities."
7 When reactor fuel has been exhausted, a certain percentage of its fissile uranium content is 8
referred to as spent fuel. Spent fuel assemblies are removed from the reactor core and replaced 9
with fresh fuel assemblies during routine refueling outages, typically every 18 months. Spent 10 fuel assemblies are stored in the spent fuel pool. Salem's spent fuel pool storage capacity for 11 each unit is 1,632 fuel assemblies that will allow sufficient storage up to the year 2011 for Unit 1 12 and 2015 for Unit 2 (Salem ER). The HCGS spent fuel pool facility is designed to store up to 13 3,976 fuel assemblies (HC ER).
14 In 2005, the NRC issued a general license to PSEG authorizing that spend nuclear fuel could be 15 stored at an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) at the PSEG site. The general 16 license allows PSEG, as a reactor licensee under 10 CFR 50, to store spent fuel from both 17 HCGS and Salem at the ISFSI, provided that such storage occurs in pre-approved casks in 18 accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 72, subpart K (General License for Storage of 19 Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites) (.RC ftý,h 20 R.e,&qb). At this time, only the only spent fuel stored at the ISFSI in from Hope. However, 21 transfers of spent fuel from the Salem spent fuel pool to the ISFSI are expected to begin 22 approximately one year before the remaining capability of the pool is less than complete offload 23 to spent fuel (HC ER).
24 2.1.2.1 Radioactive Liquid Waste 25 Both the Salem and HCGS facilities operate systems to provide controlled handling and 26 disposal of small quantities of low-activity liquid radioactive wastes generated during station 27 operation. However, because the Salem units are cooled by a once-through RCS and the 28 HCGS unit is cooled by a closed cycle RCS, the management of potentially radioactive liquids is 29 different. Potentially radioactive liquid waste streams at the Salem facility are managed by the 30 Radioactive Liquid Waste System (RLWS) and the Chemical and Volume Control System 31 (CVCS). At HCGS, potentially radioactive liquid waste streams are managed under the Liquid 32 Waste Management System (LWMS) respectively.
33 The bulk of the radioactive liquids discharged from the Salem RCS is processed and retained 34 inside the plant by the CVCS recycle train. This minimizes liquid input to the RLWS. Radioactive 35 fluids entering the RLWS are collected in tanks, sampled, and analyzed to determine the 36 quantity of radioactivity with an isotopic breakdown, if necessary. Based on the results of the Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX 2-12 January 2010
Affected Environment 1
analysis, the waste is processed prior to releasing them to the Delaware Estuary via the 2
circulating water system. Releases are controlled as required by regulation. Discharge streams 3
are appropriately monitored, and safety features are incorporated to preclude releases in 4
excess of the limits of 10 CFR 20. (Salem ER) 5 Potentially radioactive liquid wastes entering the HCGS LWMS are collected in tanks in the 6
Auxiliary Building. Radioactive contaminants are removed from the wastewater either by 7
demineralization or filtration. This ensures that the water quality is restored prior to being 8
returned to the condensate storage tank (CST) or discharged via the cooling tower blowdown 9
line to the Delaware Estuary via a permitted outfall. If the liquid is recycled to the plant, it meets 10 the purity requirements for CST makeup. Liquid discharges to the Delaware Estuary are 11 maintained in compliance with 10 CFR 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation. (HC ER) 12 Both Salem and HCGS release liquid effluents into the environment. Rereleases are controlled 13 and monitored. Doses from these releases represent a fraction of the regulatory allowable 100 14 millirem per year (mrem/yr) doses specified in the facility operating license and NRC 15 regulations. Radiological monitoring began in 1968. Monitoring results are presented in the 16 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program reports. The NRC staff reviewed the Salem/
17 HCGS radioactive effluent release reports for 2004 through 2009 for liquid effluents were 18 reviewed by the NRC Staff (Staff) (References'..e.have P.EG 2007b.at 1
Aw k14~OW\\re-Aud itratC es 6
ehaePSG:07ba 19
',\\okl**0W*r-Adt:BaGhpe,2*Refe rence\\Env Monito*rnrq Reports,.a nd -t he NRC 20 has:
204-00 reports
ý ye wi'll giet 1ifi- '20P9" 6-eport ýa'tth&au~dit)."
21 Radioactivity removed from the liquid wastes is concentrated in the filter media and ion 22 exchange resins, which are managed as solid radioactive wastes.
23 2.1.2.2 Radioactive Gaseous Waste 24 The Salem and HCGS radioactive gaseous waste disposal systems process and dispose of 25 routine radioactive gaseous effluent to the atmosphere. Gaseous wastes are processed through 26 to reduce radioactive materials in gaseous effluents before discharge to meet the dose limits in 27 10 CFR Part 20 and the dose design objectives in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
28 At both facilities radioactive gases are collected gaseous waste so that the short-lived gaseous 29 isotopes (principally air with traces of krypton and xenon) are allowed to decay. At Salem, these 30 gasses are collected in tanks in the Auxiliary Building and released intermittently in a controlled 31 manner. At HCGS, gasses are held up in holdup pipes prior to entering a treatment section 32 where adsorption of gases on charcoal provides additional time for delay. At HCGS, gases are 33 then filtered using high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters prior to being released to the 34 atmosphere from the north plant vent.
35 Radioactive effluent release reports for 2004 through 2009 for gaseous effluents were reviewed 36 by the Staff "(References we have PSEG 2007b at L:\\work\\1 14570\\WP\\Pre-Audit: Daft\\Chater, 37
- 2. Reference\\EnvMonitoring Reports and the NRC has other 2004-2008 "_re*",rtsan'd*weWiI g*t 38 the 20'09 '96ipt'*-t'-t-he. audit).: While variations in total effluents and effluent concentrations can January 2010 2-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 42
Affected Environment 1
vary from year to year due to outages and plant performance, based on the gaseous waste 2
processing system's performance from 2004 through 2008, the gaseous discharges for 2009 3
are consistent with prior year effluents. The NRC identified no unusual trends.
4 2.1.2.3 Radioactive Solid Waste 5
Solid radioactive waste generated at the Salem and HCGS facilities' are managed by a single 6
Solid Radioactive Waste System. This System manages radioactive solid waste, including 7
packaging and storage, until the waste is shipped offsite. Offsite, wastes are processed by 8
volume reduction and/or shipped for disposal at a licensed disposal facility.
9 The State of South Carolina's licensed low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility, 10 located in Barnwell, has limited the access from radioactive waste generators located in states 11 that are not part of the Atlantic Low-Level Waste Compact. New Jersey is a member of the 12 Atlantic Interstate Compact and has access to the Barnwell Low Level Radioactive Waste 13 facility (Barnwell). Shipments to Barnwell include spent resins from the demineralizers and filter 14 cartridges (wet processing waste). To control releases to the environment, these wastes are 15 packaged in the Salem and HCGS Auxiliary Buildings.
16 The PSEG Low Level Radwaste Storage Facility (LLRSF) supports normal Dry Active Waste 17 (DAW) handling activities for HCGS and Salem. DAW consists of compactable trash such as 18 contaminated or potentially contaminated rags, clothing, and paper. This waste is generally 19 bagged, placed in Sea-van.containers, and stored prior to being shipped for volume reduction 20 by a licensed off-site vendor. The volume-reduced DAW is repackaged at the vendor and 21 shipped for disposal at a licensed low-level waste disposal facility (Salem and HC ERs). DAW 22 and other non-compactable contaminated wastes are typically shipped to the EnergySolutions' 23 Class A disposal facility in Clive, Utah.
24 The LLRSF also maintains a NRC-approved Process Control Program. The Process Control 25 Program helps to ensure that waste is properly characterized, profiled, labeled, and shipped in 26 accordance with the waste disposal facility's waste acceptance criteria and U.S. Department of 27 Transportation (DOT) and NRC requirements. The NRC staff has reviewed the LLRSF 28 procedures and has found that the LLRSF performs and was used for temporary 29 staging of DAW before preparation for shipment and disposal. The LLRSFwas designed to 30 provide a controlled but ready access for material handling operations, to ensure that worker 31 radiation exposures are controlled in accordance with the ALARA criteria, and to ensure that the 32 offsite dose does not exceed any of the Federal limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20, as well as 33 the EPA radiation standards in 40 CFR Part. 190, "Environmental Radiation Protection 34 Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.
35 LLRSFLLW reports for through 2009 were reviewed by the Staff(
- 9. The solid 36 waste volumes and radioactivity amounts generated in 2009 are typical of previous annual Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX 2-14 January 2010
Affected Environment 1
waste shipments. Variations in the amount of solid radioactive waste generated and shipped 2
from year to year are expected based on the overall performance of the plant and the number 3
and scope of outages and maintenance activities. The volume and activity of solid radioactive 4
wastes reported are reasonable and no unusual trends were noted. There could be some 5
differences in the last 2 years based adjustments in shipping/receiving operations at 6
Barnwell.
7 No plant refurbishment activities were identified by the applicant as necessary for the continued 8
operation of either Salem or HPGS through the license renewal terms. Routine plant operational 9
and maintenance activities currently performed will continue during the license renewal term.
10 Based on past performance of the radioactive waste system, and the lack of any planned 11 refurbishment activities, similar amounts of radioactive solid waste are expected to be 12 generated during the license renewal term.
13 2.1.2.4 Mixed Waste 14 The term "mixed waste" refers to waste that contain both radioactive and hazardous 15 constituents. Neither Salem nor HCGS have processes that generate mixed wastes and there 16 are no mixed wastes stored at either facility.
17 2.1.3 Nonradioactive Waste Management 18 The Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) governs the disposal of solid and 19 hazardous waste. RCRA regulations are contained in Title 40, "Protection of the Environment,"
20 Parts 239 through 299 (40 CFR 239, et seq.). Parts 239 through 259 of these regulations cover 21 solid (nonhazardous) waste, and Parts 260 through 279 regulate hazardous waste. RCRA 22 Subtitle C establishes a system for controlling hazardous waste from "cradle to grave," and 23 RCRA Subtitle D encourages States to develop comprehensive plans to manage nonhazardous 24 solid waste and mandates minimum technological standards for municipal solid waste landfills.
25 RCRA regulations are administered by New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ 26 DEP) and address the identification, generation, minimization, transportation, and final 27 treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. Salem and HCGS 28 generate nonradiological waste including oils, hazardous and nonhazardous solvents and 29 degreasers, laboratory wastes, expired shelf-life chemicals and reagents, asbestos wastes, 30 paints and paint thinners, antifreeze, non-routine (i.e., project-specific) wastes, point-source 31 discharges regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),
32 sanitary waste (including sewage), and routine, daily refuse (
).
33 2.1.3.1 Hazardous Waste 34 The EPA classifies certain nonradioactive wastes as "hazardous" based on characteristics 35 including ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (identification and listing of hazardous 36 waste is available in 40 CFR Part 261). State-level regulators may add wastes to the EPA's list 37 of hazardous wastes. RCRA provides standards for the treatment, storage, and disposal of 38 hazardous waste for hazardous waste generators (40 CFR Part 262). The Salem and HCGS 39 facilities generate small amounts of hazardous wastes including spent and expired chemicals, 40 laboratory chemical wastes, and occasional project-specific wastes.
41 42 According to the EPA Envirofacts Warehouse: PSEG currently is a conditionally exempt small-43 quantity hazardous waste generator, generating less than 100 kilograms/month (220 January 2010 2-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 42
Affected Environment 1
pounds/month) (EPA Registry ID No. 110015068987 - PSEG Nuclear Corp Hope Creek Salem 2
Generating Station). Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) generate 220 3
pounds (100 kg) or less per month of hazardous waste, or 2.2 pounds (1 kg) or less per month 4
of acutely hazardous waste, or less than 220 pounds (100 kg) per month of acute spill residue 5
or soil. Because of episodic generation of hazardous wastes, during outages for example, 6
PSEG maintains the program required of a small-quantity generator and monitors the amount of 7
hazardous waste generated each month to determine the correct status. Hazardous waste is 8
disposed of through a licensed broker. (Salem ER) 9 The EPA authorized the State of New Jersey to regulate and oversee most of the solid waste 10 disposal programs, as recognized by Subtitle D of the RCRA. Compliance is assured through 11 State-issued permits.
showed no violations for PSEG (__).
During the site audit, 12 the NRC viewed the PSEG hazardous waste storage _
, which is a central facility designed 13 for the safe and proper collection, sorting, packaging, and shipment of hazardous wastes. Also 14 during the site audit, NRC staff reviewed PSEG's hazardous waste procedures and determined 15 they complied with applicable RCRA regulations.
16 Used oil, produced during facility operations, is sent __
to the EPA-approved hazardous 17 waste disposal facility (
).
18 Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), applicable 19 facilities are required to provide information on hazardous and toxic chemicals to local 20 emergency planning authorities and the EPA (Title 42, Section 11001, of the United States 21 Code (U. S. C.) (42 U. S.C. 11001)). On October 17, 2008, the EPA finalized several changes to 22 the Emergency Planning (Section 302), Emergency Release Notification (Section 304), and 23 Hazardous Chemical Reporting (Sections 311 and 312) regulations that were proposed on 24 June 8, 1998 (63 Federal Register (FR) 31268). PSEG is subject to Federal EPCRA reporting 25 requirements, and thus submits an annual Section 312 (TIER II) report on hazardous 26 substances to local emergency agencies.
27 2.1.3.2 Solid Waste 28 A solid waste is defined by N.J.A.C. 7:26-1.6. as "any garbage, refuse, sludge, or any other 29 waste material except it shall not include the following: 1. Source separated food waste 30 collected by livestock producers, approved by the State Department of Agriculture, who collect, 31 prepare and feed such wastes to livestock on their own farms; 2. Recyclable materials that are 32 exempted from regulation pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26A; [and] 3. Materials approved for beneficial 33 use or categorically approved for beneficial use pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26-1.7(g)." The definition 34 of solid waste in N.J.A.C. 7:26-1.6. applies only to wastes that are not also defined as 35 hazardous in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:26G.
36 37 Solid waste is segregated and about 55 percent is transferred to recycling vendors (Salem ER).
38 The remaining volume of solid waste is disposed at a local landfill. In PSECG generated 39 approximately _ tons (t) (_ MT) of solid waste.
40 2.1.3.3 Universal Waste 41 In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:26G-4.2, "Universal waste" means any of the following hazardous 42 wastes that are managed under the universal waste requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:26A-7, whether Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX 2-16 January 2010
Affected Environment 1
incorporated prospectively by reference from 40 C.F.R. Part 273, "Standards for Universal 2
Waste Management," or listed additionally by the NJ DEP: paint waste, batteries, pesticides, 3
thermostats, fluorescent lamps, mercury-containing devices, oil-based finishes, and consumer 4
electronics.
5 PSEG is a small quantity handler of universal waste (meaning the facility cannot accumulate 6
more than 5000 kilograms (approximately 11,000 pounds) of universal waste at any one time),
7 generating common operational wastes such as lighting ballasts containing polychlorinated 8
biphenyls (PCBs), lamps, and batteries. In PSEG generated approximately _
pounds 9
(_
kilograms) of universal wastes. Universal waste is segregated and disposed of through a 10 licensed broker.
11 2.1.3.4 Permitted Discharges 12 Salem facility maintains a New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) 13 permit, NJ 0005622, which authorizes the discharge of wastewater to the Delaware Estuary and 14 stipulates the conditions of the permit. HCGS maintains a separate NJPDES permit, NJ 15 0025411 for discharges to the Delaware Estuary. All monitoring shall be conducted in 16 accordance with the NJ DEP's "Field Sarhipling Procedures Manual" applicable at the time of 17 sampling (N.J.A.C. 7: 14A-6.5(b)4), and/or 2) the method approved by the NJ DEP in Part IV of 18 the site permits (N*Jý
ýEP
,,3;,
S t,*, ect iia'
- g, 5. 0(2*8 -i UStation Outfalls:and 19 Dharge ofP ne nts;_we hayere_qu-ested.th brtihet s
- adot, 20 A common sewage treatment system located at HCGS and operated by HCGS staff treats 21 domestic wastewater from both HCGS and Salem. Wastewater and activated sludge are 22 introduced into the single-channel oxidation ditch where extended aeration, a modification of the 23 activated sludge process, oxidizes the organic constituents of the wastewater. This process 24 lowers Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), reduces suspended solids, nitrifies, and partially 25 denitrifies the wastewater. Rotor aerators mix air into the contents of the basin and keep the 26 contents moving through the oxidation ditch. Following aeration, mechanical settling in the 27 biological clarifiers separates suspended solids from the liquid flow. The settled solids (i.e.,
28 sludge) are either returned to the oxidation ditch or removed to a sludge-holding tank, based 29 upon process requirements. Sludge directed to the sludge-holding tank is aerated and 30 dewatered before being trucked offsite to a licensed disposal facility, or to an NRC-licensed 31 facility if the residuals contain low levels of radioactivity. The sewage treatment system waste 32 stream is a facility internal outfall monitored in accordance with the current Hope Creek 33 NJPDES Permit (No.
The sewage treatment system effluent discharges through the 34 Hope Creek cooling tower blowdown outfall to the Delaware Estuary. Residual cooling tower 35 blowdown dechlorination chemical, ammonium bisulfite, de-chlorinates the sewage treatment 36 effluent. (NJDEP 2002, Tab DSN 462B - Sewage Treatment System [Explanation of Summary 37 Notes]). The sewage treatment plant averages approximately gallons (
liters 38
[L]) of effluent per day.
39 A common chemical waste treatment system, known as the Non-Radioactive Liquid Waste 40 Disposal System (NRLWDS), is located at Salem and operated by Salem staff The NRLWDS 41 collects and treats secondary plant wastewater from HCGS and Salem which may contain 42 chemicals, especially acidic and caustic wastewater, prior to discharge. The NRLWDS 43 processes and treats the non-radioactive low-volume wastes from various Station processes, 44 such as demineralizer regenerations, steam generator blowdown, chemical handling operations, 45 and reverse osmosis reject waste. The NRLWDS discharge commingles with the non-contact 46 cooling water prior to discharge to the environment. Treatment processes include thorough January 2010 2-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 42
Affected Environment 1
mixing in an equalization-mixing basin to provide homogeneity and some self-neutralization of 2
acid and caustic wastes, solids removal by settling, chlorination, and pH adjustment to induce 3
precipitation of any remaining metals prior to commingling with coollng water for ultimate 4
discharge to the Delaware Estuary. The outfall is monitored in accordance with the current Hope 5
Creek NJPDES Permit (No.
J.
F, 6
21ý Ret 4
- iMS, 4, M)
At HCGS, the low-volume and oily waste system collects and treats potentially oily wastewater 8
from area, building, and equipment drains throughout the site. Collected waste streams are 9
processed through an API-type oil water separator for removal of solld and floatable materials.
10 Treated effluent is then discharged through the internal monitoring point which is combined with 11 cooling tower blowdown before discharge to the Delaware Estuary. The outfall is monitored in 12 accordance with the current Hope Creek NJPDES Permit (No.
J.
13 Section 2.1.7of this report provides more information on site's NPDES permits and effluent 14 limitations.
15 2.1.3.5 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization 16 There is no information in the Salem or HC ERs on pollution prevention.
17 2.1.4 Facility Operation and Maintenance 18 Various types of maintenance activities are performed at the Salem and HCGS facilities, 19 including inspection, testing, and surveillance to maintain the current licensing basis of the 20 facility and to ensure compliance with environmental and safety requirements. Various 21 programs and activities currently exist at Salem and HCGS to maintain, inspect, test, and 22 monitor the performance of facility equipment. These maintenance activities include inspection 23 requirements for reactor vessel materials, boiler and pressure vessel in-service inspection and 24 testing, a maintenance structures monitoring program, and maintenance of water chemistry.
25 Additional programs include those implemented in response to NRC generic communications, 26 those implemented to meet technical specification surveillance requirements, and various 27 periodic maintenance, testing, and inspection procedures. Certain program activities are 28 performed during the operation of the unit, while others are performed during scheduled 29 refueling outages. Nuclear power plants must periodically discontinue the production of 30 electricity for refueling, periodic in-service inspection, and scheduled maintenance. Salem and 31 HCGS are on an 18-month refueling cycle (Salem ER, HC ER).
32 Aging effects at Salem and HCGS are managed by integrated plant assessments required by 33 10 CFR 54.21. These programs are described in Section 2 of the facilities' Nuclear Generating 34 Station License Renewal Applications - Scoping and Screening Methodology for Identifying 35 Structures and Components Subject to Aging Management Review, and Implementation 36 Results (Salem ER, HC ER).
Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX 2-18 January 2010
Affected Environment 1
2.1.5 Power Transmission System (see also Power Transmission System.docx by Meredith 2
Herndon) 3 Salem and HCGS are connected to the regional grid via four, 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission 4
lines. Transmission lines in New Jersey are owned by PSEG and Pepco Holdings, Inc. (PHI) 5 owns transmission lines in Delaware. Transmission lines considered in scope for license 6
renewal are those constructed to connect the facility to the transmission system (10 CFR 7
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H)); therefore, details are provided for the four lines that are considered in scope.
8 The transmission lines of interest are provided in Tale 2-1 and they shown in Figure, ýX.o,. In 9
total, 171 km (106 mi) of transmission lines occupy about 1,720 hectares (4,250 acres) of 10 transmission line corridor or right-of-way. While on Artificial Island, these corridors cross the 11 marshes and wetlands north and east. Once leaving these areas, the transmission lines 12 primarily traverse low population forested, agricultural, and some residential land and terminate 13 in more urban areas. The transmission lines cross several major roadways including State 14 Highway 55, U.S. Highway 40, and the Atlantic City Expressway to the east and U.S. Highway 15 13 to the northwest (Salem ER, HC ER).
16 has vegetative maintenance procedures in place to prevent vegetation from interfering 17 with the lines (_
ROW vegetative maintenance practices use an integrated vegetation 18 management approach that includes both mechanical and chemical control methods.
19 Mechanical methods consist primarily of mowing, with supplementary pruning, felling, and hand 20 trimming as needed. Chemical control methods consist of application of EPA-approved 21 herbicides and tree-growth-regulating chemicals (.__._J.
Procedures are in place to manage 22 environmental incidents that might occur within the ROW, such as a chemical buildup in a 23 wetland area.
, in conjunction with staff, limits erosion around stream 24 crossings and wetlands by using appropriate procedures and methods. ROWs that cross 25 farmland or pastures are not maintained by
, as the land is cultivated by the local 26 farmers.
will maintain the existing ROWs regardless of whether operating licenses 27 are renewed (_J.
(Copied from TMI SEIS) 28 All transmission lines were designed and built in accordance with industry standards in place at 29 the time of construction. All transmission lines will remain a permanent part of the transmission 30 system and will be maintained by regardless of continued operation (
);
31 however, the lines, would be deactivated if the _
switchyard were no longer in use 32 and would need to be reconnected to the grid if they were to remain in service beyond the 33 operation of
January 2010 2-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 42
Table 2-1. Transmission Lines Associated with the Salem and HCGS Facilities (Salem and HCGS ERs)
Name Voltage (kV)
Length and Originates Terminates Operated By N mVotg (k )Corridor Width igintratermiate Direction From At New Salem-New 63 km (39 mi)
Freedom FedmNrh500 107 m (350 ft)
HCGS PSEG Northeast Switching Stationa New Salem-New 68 km (42 mi)
Freedom 500 107 m (350 ft)
Salem PSEG Freedom South Northeast Switching Stationa 27 km (17 mi) 61 m (200 ft) and Red Lion PSEG (in NJ) &
Salem-Keeney 500 HOGS North 107 m (350 ft)b Substation PHI (in DE)
Red Lion-Keeney 500 13 km (8 mi) 61 m (200 ft) and Red Lion Keeney Northwest 107 m (350 ft)b Substation Substation New HCGS-New 69 km (43 mi)c Freedom 500 107 m (350 ft)
HOGS PSEG Freedom Northeast Switching Stationa HCGS-Salem 500 610 m (2,000 ft)d NA NA NA PSEG 2
a 3
b 4
North of Williamstown, New Jersey.
Two thirds is 61 m (200 ft) wide and the remainder is 107 m (350 ft) wide.
During 2008, a new substation (Orchard) was installed along this line, dividing it into two segments.
January 2010 2-20 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 42
Affected Environment 1
d Does not pass beyond the site boundary.
January 2010 2-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 42
2 Figure 2-XX. Salem and HCGS Transmission Line System (Source:
3 January 2010 2-22 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 42
Affected Environment 1
2.1.6 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems 2
Salem and HCGS use different types of cooling water systems (CWS) for condenser cooling but 3
both withdraw from and discharge water to the Delaware Estuary. Salem Units 1 and 2 use 4
once-through circulating water systems. HCGS uses a closed-cycle system that employs a 5
single natural draft cooling tower. Unless otherwise noted, the discussions below were adapted 6
from the Salem and HCGS ERs (Salem and HC ERs), or information gathered at the site audit.
7 Both sites use groundwater as the source for fresh potable water, fire protection water, industrial 8
process make-up water, and for other sanitary water supplies. Under authorization from the 9
NJDEP (NJDEP 2004:- L\\workI1i14570WPVPre-Audit DraftiChapter2 Reference) and DRBC 10 (DRBC.200.0: L.*workork~1145
/
1W570\\WP re-Audit Draft\\Chap6e 2:Reference), PSEG can services 11 both facilities with up to 163 million liters (43.2 million gallons) of groundwater per month.
12 Discussions on surface water and groundwater use and quality are provided in Section 2.1.7.
13 2.1,6.1 Salem 14 The Salem facility includes two intake structures, each equipped with equipment used to 15 remove debris and biota from the intake water stream (i.e., removable ice barriers, trash racks, 16 traveling screens, and a fish return system). Equipment designed for the protection of wildlife is 17 described in detail in Section
. The CWS withdraws brackish water from the Delaware 18 Estuary using 12 circulating water pumps through a 12-bay intake structure located on the 19 shoreline at the south end of the site and discharges water north on the CWS intake structure 20 via a discharge pipe that extends 152 m (500 ft) from the shore line. Heavy duty trash racks 21 protect the circulating water pumps and traveling screens from damage by large debris. The 22 trash racks are constructed of 1.27-cm (0.5-in.) wide steel bars with slot opening that are 7.6 cm 23 (3 in) wide. No biocides are required in the CWS.
24 The CWS provides approximately 3,974,670 liters per minute (Ipm) (1,050,000 gallons per 25 minute [gpm]) to each of Salem's two reactor units. The total design flow is 4,201,794 Ipm 26 (1,110,000 gpm) through each unit. The intake velocity is approximately 0.3 meters per second 27 (1 ft per second [fps]) at mean low tide, a rate that is compatible with the protection of aquatic 28 wildlife (EPA 2001; L:\\work 14570\\WP\\Pre-Audit Draft\\Chapter 2 Reference). The CWS 29 provides water to the main condenser to condense steam from the turbine and the heated water 30 is returned back to Estuary (flow path shown in the lower right of Figure 2-j.
31 Approximately 122 m (400 ft) north of the CWS intake structure, a separate intake structure 32 withdraws water for the SWS which supplies cooling water to the reactor safeguard and 33 auxiliary systems. The structure contains four bays, each containing three pumps. The 12 January 2010 2-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 42
Affected Environment 1
service-water pumps have a total design rating of 493,922 liters per minutes (130,500 gpm).
2 The average velocity throughout the SWS intake is less than 0.3 m per second (1 fps) at the 3
design flow rate. Like the CWS intake structure, the SWS intake structure is equipped with trash 4
racks, traveling screens, and filters to remove debris and biota from the intake water stream.
5 Debris collected from the system is removed and transported to a landfill for disposal. Backwash 6
water is returned to the Estuary.
7 To prevent organic buildup and biofouling in the heat exchangers and piping of the SWS, 8
sodium hypochlorite is injected into the system. SWS water is discharged via the discharge pipe 9
shared with the CWS. Residual chlorine levels are maintained in accordance with the site's are 10 NJPDES Permit.
11 2.1.6.2 Hope Creek 12 HCGS uses a single intake structure to supply water from the Delaware Estuary to the SWS.
13 The intake structure consists of four active bays that are equipped with pumps and associated 14 equipment (trash racks, traveling screens, and a fish-return system) and four empty bays that 15 were originally intended to service a second reactor which was never built. Water is drawn into 16 the SWS at a rate of 0.09 meters per second (0.3 fps) passing through trash racks and traveling 17 screens. Equipment designed for the protection of wildlife is described in detail in Section 18
. After passing through the traveling screens, the estuary water enters the service water 19 pumps. Depending on the temperature of the Delaware Estuary water, two or three pumps are 20 normally needed to supply service water. Each pump is rated at 62,459 Ipm(16,500 gpm). To 21 prevent organic buildup and biofouling in the heat exchangers and piping of the SWS, sodium 22 hypochlorite is continuously injected into the system.
23 Water is them pumped into the stilling basin in the pump house. The stilling basin supplies water 24 to the general SWS and the fire protection system. The stilling basin also supplies water for 25 back-up residual heat removal service water and for emergency service water.
26 The SWS also provides makeup water for the CWS by supplying water to the cooling tower 27 basin. The cooling tower basin contains approximately 34 million liters (9 million gallons) of 28 water and provides approximately 2.317 million Ipm (612,000 gpm) of water to the CWS via four 29 pumps. The CWS provides water to the main condenser to condense steam from the turbine 30 and the heated water is returned back to Estuary (flow path shown in the lower right of Figure 2-31 J.
32 The HCGS cooling tower is a 512-foot high single counterflow, hyperbolic, natural draft cooling 33 tower (PS.EG 2,008; L:\\work\\1 14570\\WP\\Pre-Audit Draft\\Chapoter,2Reference). While the CWS Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement XX 2-24 January 2010
Affected Environment 1
is a closed-cycle system, water is lost due to evaporation. Monthly losses average from 36,340 2
Ipm (9,600 gpm) in January to 49,210 Ipm (13,000 gpm) in July. Makeup water is provided by 3
the SWS.
January 2010 2-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 42
1 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF REFURBISHMENT 2
License renewal actions include refurbishment actions for the extended plant life. These actions 3
may have an impact on the environment that requires evaluation, depending on the type of 4
action and the plant-specific design. If such actions were planned, the potential environmental 5
effects of refurbishment actions would be identified and the analysis would be summarized 6
within this section.
7 Environmental issues associated with refurbishment activities are discussed in the "Generic 8
Environmental Impact Statement (GELS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants", NUREG-1437, 9
Vol. 1 and 2 (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 1996, 1999).1 The GElS includes a 10 determination of whether or not the analysis of the environmental issues can be applied to all 11 plants and whether or not additional mitigation measures are warranted. Issues are then 12 assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GELS, Categoryl issues 13 are those that meet all of the following criteria:
14 (1)
The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply 15 either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system, 16 or other specified plant or site characteristics.
17 (2)
A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to 18 the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from 19 high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).
20 (3)
Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the 21 analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures 22 are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.
23 For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is 24 required in this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) unless new and significant 25 information is identified. Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria 26 for Category 1 and, therefore, an additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.
27 Environmental issues associated with refurbishment, which were determined to be Category 1 28 and Category 2 issues, are listed in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, respectively.
29 Requirements for the renewal of operating licenses for nuclear power plants include the 30 preparation of an integrated plant assessment (IPA) pursuant to Section 54.21 of Title 10 of the 31 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The IPA must identify and list systems, structures, and 32 components subject to an aging management review. The GElS (NRC, 1996) provides helpful 33 information on the scope and preparation of refurbishment activities to be evaluated.
34 Environmental resource categories to be evaluated for impacts of refurbishment include 35 terrestrial resources, threatened and endangered species, air quality, housing, public utilities 36 and water supply, education, land use, transportation, and historic and archaeological 37 resources. Items that are subject to aging and might require refurbishment include, for example, 1
The GElS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GElS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all references to the GElS include the GElS and its Addendum 1.
januafy-March 2010 3-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 424XX
I Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment 1
the reactor vessel piping, supports, and pump casings (see 10 CFR 54.21 for details), as well as 2
items that are not subject to periodic replacement.
3 PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) performed IPAs on Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 4
and 2 (Salem) and Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21. This 5
assessment did not identify the need to undertake any major refurbishment or replacement 6
actions to maintain the functionality of important systems, structures, and components during 7
the Salem or HCGS license renewal periods or other facility modifications associated with 8
license renewals that would affect the environment or plant effluents (PSEG 2009a, PSEG 9
2009b); therefore, an assessment of refurbishment activities is not considered in this SEIS.
10 Table 3-1. Category I Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation ISSUE-I 0 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GElS Sections Surface Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use (for all plants)
Impacts of refurbishment on surface water quality 3.4.1 Impacts of refurbishment on surface water use 3.4.1 Aquatic Ecology (for all plants)
Refurbishment 3.5 Ground Water Use and Quality Impacts of refurbishment on ground water use and quality 3.4.2 Land Use Onsite land use 3.2 Human Health Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment 3.8.1 Occupational radiation exposures during refurbishment 3.8.2 Socioeconomics Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation 3.7.4; 3.7.4.3; 3.7.4.4; 3.7.4.6 Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment) 3.7.8 11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement xx 3-2 March 2010
Environmental Impacts 1
Table 3-2. Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation of Refurbishment 10 CFR 51.53 (c)(3)(ii)
ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GElS Sections Subparagraph Terrestrial Resources Refurbishment impacts 3.6 E
Threatened or Endangered Species (for all plants)
Threatened or endangered species 3.9 E
Air Quality Air quality during refurbishment (nonattainment and maintenance areas) 3.3 F
Socioeconomics Housing impacts 3.7.2 1
Public services: public utilities 3.7.4.5 1
Public services: education (refurbishment) 3.7.4.1 1
Offsite land use (refurbishment) 3.7.5 1
Public services, transportation 3.7.4.2 J
Historic and archaeological resources 3.7.7 K
Environmental Justice Environmental justice Not addresseda Not addresseda a
Guidance related to environmental justice was not in place at the time the NRC prepared the GElS and the associated revision to 10 CFR Part 51. If an applicant plans to undertake refurbishment activities for license renewal, the applicant's ER and NRC staff's environmental impact statement must address environmental justice.
2
3.1 REFERENCES
3 CFR (U.S. Code of Federal Regulations). "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic 4
Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions," Part 51, Title 10, "Energy." NUREG-1437, 5
Supplement 33 3-4 August 2008.
6 CFR. "Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants," Part 54, 7
Title 10, "Energy."
8 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 9
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Vol., 1 and 2. Office of Nuclear Regulatory 10 Research, Washington, -DC, 1996.
11 NRC. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plant. NUREG-12 1437, Vol. 1, Add. 1, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC, 1999.
13 PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG). 2009a. Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, 14 License Renewal Application, Appendix E - Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating March 2010 3-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement xx
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment 1
License Renewal Stage. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. August, 2009. ADAMS 2
Nos. ML092400532, ML092400531, ML092430231 3
PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG). 2009b. Hope Creek Generating Station, License Renewal 4
Application, Appendix E - Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal 5
Stage. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. August, 2009. ADAMs No.
6 ML092430389 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement xx 3-4 March 2010
1 THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT This chapter addresses issues related to the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management during the period of extended operation. The uranium cycle includes uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive materials, and management of low-level wastes and high-level wastes related to uranium fuel cycle activities. The generic environmental impact statement (GElS) (NRC 1996, 1999) details the potential generic impacts of the radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle and transportation of nuclear fuel and wastes, as listed in Table 6-1 below. The GElS is based, in part, on the generic impacts provided in Table S-3, "Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data," in Title 10, Section 51.51(b), of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 51.51(b)), and in Table S-4, "Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor," in 10 CFR 51.52(c). The GElS also addresses the impacts from radon-222 and technetium-99.
The staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) did not identify any new and significant information related to the uranium fuel cycle during the review of the PSEG environmental reports for Salem and Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) (Salem and HC ERs), the site audit, and the scoping process. Therefore, there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GElS. For these Category 1 issues, the GElS concludes that the impacts are SMALL, except for the collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal.
Table 6-1. Issues Related to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management. Nine generic issues are related to the fuel cycle and solid waste managqement. There are no site-specific issues.
Issues GElS Section Category Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste)
Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects)
Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high-level waste disposal)
Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle Low-level waste storage and disposal 6.1, 6.2.1, 6.2.2.1, 6.2.2.3, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.6 6.1, 6.2.2.1, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.6 6.1, 6.2.2.1, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.6 6.1, 6.2.2.6, 6.2.2.7, 6.2.2.8, 6.2.2.9, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.6 6.1, 6.2.2.2, 6.4.2, 6.4.3, 6.4.3.1, 6.4.3.2, 6.4.3.3, 6.4.4, 6.4.4.1, 6.4.4.2, 6.4.4.3, 6.4.4.4, 6.4.4.5, 6.4.4.5.1, 6.4.4.5.2, 6.4.4.5.3, 6.4.4.5.4, 6.4.4.6, 6.6 6.4.5.1, 6.4.5.2, 6.4.5.3, 6.4.5.4, 6.4.5.5, 6.4.5.6, 1
1 Mixed waste storage and disposal 1
Issues GEIS Section Category 6.4.5.6.1, 6.4.5.6.2, 6.4.5.6.3, 6.4.5.6.4, 6.6 6.1, 6.4.6, 6.4.6.1, 6.4.6.2, Onsite spent fuel 6.4.6.3, 6.4.6.4, 6.4.6.5, 1
6.4.6.6, 6.4.6.7, 6.6 Nonradiological waste 6.1, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.5.3, 1
6.6 Transportation 6.1, 6.3.1, 6.3.2.3, 6.3.3, 1
6.3.4, 6.6, Addendum 1 1
2 3
6.1 References 4
10 CFR Part 51. Code of FederalRegulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental 5
Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."
6 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for 7
Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."
8 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 9
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, D.C.
10 ADAMS No. ML061770605.
11 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 12 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Section 6.3, "Transportation," Table 9.1, 13 "Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final 14 Report." NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1. Washington, D.C.
1 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DECOMMISSIONING 2
Decommissioning is defined as the safe removal of a nuclear facility from service and the 3
reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted 4
use and termination of the license. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a 5
generic environmental impact statement (GELS) for decommissioning (NRC 2002) that 6
evaluated the environmental impacts from the activities associated with the decommissioning of 7
any reactor before or at the end of an initial or renewed license.
8 The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during the review of the 9
PSEG environmental reports for Salem and Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) (Salem 10 and HC ERs), the site audit, or the scoping process. Therefore, there are no impacts related to 11 these issues beyond those discussed in the GElS (NRC 1996, 1999). For the issues listed in 12 table 7-1 below, the GElS concluded that the impacts are SMALL.
13 Table 7-1. Issues Related Decommissioning. Decommissioning would occur 14 regardless of whether the Salem and HCGS units were shut down at the 15 end of their currect operating licenses or at the end of the extended 16 operation periods. There are no site-specific issues related to 17 decommissioning.
Issues GElS Section Category Radiation doses 7.3.1; 7.4 1
Waste management 7.3.2; 7.4 1
Air quality 7.3.3; 7.4 1
Water quality 7.3.4; 7.4 1
Ecological resources 7.3.5; 7.4 1
Socioeconomic impacts 7.3.7; 7.4 1
18 19 7.1 References 20 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 21 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2. Washington, D.C.
22 ADAMS No. ML061770605.
23 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 24 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,. Main Report, "Section 6.3, Transportation, Table 9.1, 25 Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final 26 Report." NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1. Washington, D.C.
27 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 28 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of 29 Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, D.C.