ML11263A054

E-mail with Attachments from S. Klementowicz, NRR to L. Perkins, NRR Et Al, Salem - Hope Creek - Response to EPA + Nj Comments

ML11263A054
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	01/06/2011
From:	Klementowicz S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Leslie Perkins Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FOIA/PA-2011-0113
Download: ML11263A054 (4)

Text

.i Perkins, Leslie From: Klementowicz, Stephen Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 4:33 PM To: Perkins, Leslie Cc: Rivera, Alison

Subject:

Salem - Hope Creek - response to EPA + NJ comments Attachments: License Renewal - Salem - Hope Creek - EPA + NJ comment response.docx Leslie, here are my proposed responses to the EPA and New Jersey comments.

Steve K 1

EPA December 16, 2010 letter with comment on Salem-Hope Creek dSEIS EPA comment: "... internal and external processes and the waste streams that would be candidates for pollution prevention (P2) technologies.

NRC Response: In chapter 2 of the Salem and HCGS SEISs, the staff provided a discussion of the nonradiological waste processing programs at Salem and HCGS. The discussion included several sections addressing nonradiological waste including: compliance with EPA and State of New Jersey waste requirements, types and amounts of waste generated, waste processing, and pollution prevention and waste minimization programs. A discussion of the internal and external processes and waste streams that would be candidates for pollution prevention technologies and recommendations to further reduce the environmental impacts is beyond the scope of the staff's license renewal process. This is because nonradiological waste is a Category 1 issue that has been thoroughly evaluated and generically resolved in the GElS for license renewal.

The GElS concluded that, for all plants, the impacts associated with nonradiological waste are small. During its evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with Salem and HCGS, the staff did not identify any new and significant information during the scoping process, the review of the Salem and HCGS environmental reports, and the Staff's site visit that contradict the GEIS's findings. Therefore, there are no impacts beyond those identified and evaluated in the GELS.

No changes will be made to the SEIS based on the comment.

State of New Jersey comments Comment SHC-W-13: Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation / Radioactive Effluent Release Program / Page 4-56 ...

Response: As discussed in the SEIS, both facilities discharge radioactive liquid effluents into the Delaware Estuary in accordance with NRC requirements. Once the effluent is released into the estuary, it will be dispersed and move with the tide. Therefore, it is possible that debris in the water could be exposed to the radioactive material and be pulled into the cooling water intake. However, at discussed in section 2.1.6.1 of the SEIS, both facilities are equipped with several features to prevent intake of debris and biota into the lines. Any debris and biota that pass through the coarse-grid trash racks on the intake line will be picked up on the vertical traveling screens. The traveling screens are washed and the contents of both fish and debris are released back into the estuary. The NRC requires that Salem and HCGS conduct a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) that obtains samples of environmental media outside of the plant boundary to determine if radioactivity released from the facility is impacting the public and the environment. Section 4.8, "Human Health" of the SEIS contains a discussion of the radiological impacts of radioactive effluents released by Salem and HCGS.

The REMP is not required to sample the fish and debris collected by the traveling screens and returned to the estuary. The staff's review of the REMP and dose data from radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents from Salem and HCGS found no adverse impact to the public or the environment from. The radioactivity in the environmental samples was low, below NRC reporting criteria and the doses were below NRC dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. Based on that information, it is unlikely that debris that may have been briefly exposed to radioactive material in the estuary would contain a measurable amount of radioactivity.

No changes will be made to the SEIS based on the comment.

Comment SHC-W-20: on exposure to electric and magnetic fields...

Response: The NRC staff evaluated the significance of the electric shock potential from the transmission lines from Salem and HCGS in section 4.8.4 of the SEIS. The staff concluded that the electric shock potential from the transmission lines from Salem and HCGS was small because the lines were below the applicable National Electric Safety Code criteria of 5 millamperes.

The comments provided by the State regarding electric shock and magnetic fields guidelines are noted.

No changes will be made to the SEIS based on the comment.

Comment SHC-W-4: Mixed waste comment...

Response: The staff acknowledges the comment that although there are currently no processes at Salem and HCGS that product mixed wastes; it is possible that due to human error and inadvertent mixing of wastes may result in the generation of mixed waste at Salem and HCGS. If mixed waste is produced, it will be safely handled and processed in accordance with plant procedures to comply with regulatory requirements.

No changes will be made to the SEIS based on the comment.