ML11262A042
| ML11262A042 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/2010 |
| From: | Logan D NRC/NRR/DLR/RERGUB |
| To: | Andy Imboden NRC/NRR/DLR/RERGUB |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2011-0113 | |
| Download: ML11262A042 (3) | |
Text
,'
9
- //
Logan, Dennis From:
Logan, Dennis Sent:
Friday, August 20, 2010 3:11 PM To:
Imboden, Andy
Subject:
RE: Executive decisions: Chapter 8 Thanks. I was, of course, the "Dennis."
From: Imboden, Andy Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 2:46 PM To: Pham, Bo; 'Bobbie.Hurley@aecom.com'; Eccleston, Charles Cc: 'Nicole.Spangler@aecom.com'; Beissel, Dennis; Logan, Dennis
Subject:
Executive decisions: Chapter 8 Executive decisions, by page #:
(also, I'm copying Dennis Logan on this b/c he's probably the Dennis that generated the comments) 8-2: DAEC's chapter 8 was never 100% peer-reviewed, so can't trust that they were perfect. Incorporate the edits.
8-10(first question): Delete discussion of away-from-site aquatic impacts due to coal unless it came up in scoping. I did not see any comment in the scoping summary report that was provided to me. Other SEIS's have had this discussion about coal-mining aquatic impacts, however that was in response to public comments received in the scoping process. Deletion recommended because there are no equivalent discussions on aquatic impacts for gas-fired plants (see 8.1.2.4), or uranium fuel cycle for that matter.
8-10(second question): follow up as appropriate to tables and elsewhere given the above.
8-21(the comment): Let's distinguish what Dennis means, just in case we're over-interpreting a little comment box where he was probably conserving his words. Phase I would impact any new coolinQ water intake structure. A new facility could hypothetically continue to use the existing S/HC intake structures with a once-through cooling system. The question could then become: Does the alternative assume a new intake structure, or will the alternative use the existing ones? It depends on the amount of cooling needed for each particular alternative. However, I think we've lost our way on this. If closed cycle is better for the environment, and we don't discuss that in our alternatives, it could look like NRC is favoring the nuclear alternative. Aquatic impact is already SMALL. Add sentence per Dennis.
8-21(integrate comment in "a number of places"): For now, the Phase I issue is discussed sufficiently for the other in-depth analyzed alternatives (pp 8-10 and 8-28).
8-42: revise summary section per above discussion.
8-44: table 8-5 stays in, and should be edited per above.
.Andy Imboden Chief, Environmental Review Branch NRR/DLR 301-415-2327 From: Phamr, Bo Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 12:30 PM 1
I
To: 'Bobbie.Hurley@aecom.com'; Ecdeston, Charles Cc: 'Nicole.Spangler@aecom.com'; Beissel, Dennis; Imboden, Andy
Subject:
Re: Beissel edits on Chapter 8 Bobbie/Nicole, Can I get a copy of the marked up chapter? It'd be easier to reference these comments.
Thanks.
Sent from NRC blackberry Bo Pham From: Hurley, Bobbie <Bobble.Hurley@aecom.com>
To: Pham, Bo; Eccleston, Charles Cc: Spangler, Nicole <Nicole.Spangler@aecom.com>; Beissel, Dennis Sent: Fri Aug 20 11:43:05 2010
Subject:
Beissel edits on Chapter 8 Executive decision time@
Based on the time limitations and Bo's instructions, we need to address or have agreement on the following comments:
Page 8 editorial comments. Current text is directly from the Duane Arnold (DA) template that we were instructed to follow. We are leaving as is.
Page 8 hh e p1 fieed agano re, w ath i
anterb"hous ie m5 resolveds areklem.
Io in'eus rbed'reauet
~ We can delete this paragraph but it will have trickle down impacts throughout the chapter Page 8 Depending on your response to the above..... Dennis's comment can be incorporated by eliminating the back end of the sentence... "but could range from SMALL to MODERATE......" This would result in a SMALL impact for aquatic and will result in additional changes in the chapter
,M Page 8-21 St fio 101*o.e sigtue,, gas-swae he numbers of fish and other aquatic organisms affected by impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts would be smaller than those associated with license renewal*
because water consumption and blowdown discharged to the Delaware Estuary would be substantially lower.
Some temporary impacts on aquatic organisms may occur due to construction. Longer-term effects could result from effluents discharged to the river. However, NRC assumes that the appropriate agencies would monitor and regulate such activities. The number of organisms affected by impingement, entrainment, and thermal effects of this alternative would be substantially less than for license renewal, so NRC expects that the levels of impact for the natural gas alternative would be SMALL.
2
This is a valid comment but would apply to all new facilities with cooling systems... this is more of a global template change, we cannot just insert one comment here on the EPA rule, it would need to be integrated in a number of places...
Page 8-42... conclusions comment response will depend on responses to above.
Page 8 requ3est to eliminate Table 8-5... this is a standard table... we will leave in for now, NRC can determine if they want it deleted in future documents.
All other comments have been incorporated Bobbie Hurley Director/Section Manager Environment D 864.234.8913*
)ofehu-e aecom.com AECOM 10 Patewood Drive, Suite 500, Greenville, SC 29615 T 864.234.3000 F 864.234.3069
.www.aecom.com j Please consider the envIronment before printing this e-mail 3