ML11263A064

E-mail with Attachment from M. Wentzel, NRR, to L. Perkins, NRR, on Salem/Hope Creek Status

ML11263A064
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	01/19/2011
From:	Michael Wentzel Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Leslie Perkins Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FOIA/PA-2011-0113
Download: ML11263A064 (15)

Text

Perkins, Leslie From:

Wentzel, Michael Sent:

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:26 AM To:

Perkins, Leslie

Subject:

Salem/Hope Creek Status Attachments:

Mike's Salem Hope Creek DSEIS Comments and responses.docx

Leslie, Here is the status for what I've done with Salem and Hope Creek. I've attached responses to the comments that I had a chance to work on. I highlighted the terrestrial and transmission line comments, because I started working on them before I spoke with Rich. Since he is working on responses, I imagine you should use whatever he comes up with, rather than what I have. I was working on the waste storage comments but was not able to make it through all of them. I highlighted in red an issue with the cooling/aux water systems comments. The SEIS says in a couple of places that Salem does not have modified ristroph-type filters installed, but the ER says that they do. I haven't had a chance to talk to Dennis about it. I didn't get a change to get through the socioeconomics comments.

A couple of other things. I started making edits to chapter 2 and put that file on the G drive in the same place that you had the new chapter 4 file. Please note that the changes I made to the transmission line section were based on what I was doing and would need to be reconciled with what Rich's responses are. When I spoke with him, he didn't seem to have a problem with any of them except for some of the measurement changes.

I noticed that in Section 1.7, the Delaware Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs is listed twice; once in Dover, NJ and once in Dover, DE. I think that might be a mistake. Also, I noticed that a couple of the permits listed in Table 1-2 will expire in the next couple of weeks.

Michael Wentzel Project Manager NRR/DLR/RPB1 (301) 415-6459 michael.wentzelanrc.gov I

Commenter ID Commenter Name Affiliation (If Stated)

Comment Source SHC-A Jane Nogaki New Jersey Environmental Federation Afternoon Meeting SHC-B Julie Acton Salem County Freeholder Afternoon Meeting SHC-C Dr. Peter Contini Salem Community College Afternoon Meeting SHC-D Otis Sistrunk Citizen Afternoon Meeting SHC-E Carlos Parada PSEG Nuclear, LLC Afternoon Meeting SHC-F Elizabeth Brown Delaware Riverkeeper Network Afternoon Meeting, Written SHC-G Benjamin Wharton Delaware Riverkeeper Network Afternoon Meeting SHC-H Christina Matteliano Delaware Riverkeeper Network Afternoon Meeting SHC-I Jane Charles-Voltaire Delaware Riverkeeper Network Afternoon Meeting SHC-J Janson Hernandez Delaware Riverkeeper Network Afternoon Meeting SHC-K Charles Hassler IBEW Local 94 Afternoon Meeting SHC-L Chris Davenport Stand Up For Salem Afternoon Meeting SHC-M Bob Molzahn Water Resource Association Afternoon Meeting SHC-N Paul Davison PSEG Nuclear LLC Afternoon and Evening Meetings SHC-O Dr. Richard Horwizt Academy of Natural Sciences Afternoon Meeting SHC-P Louis Joyce County of Salem Evening Meeting SHC-Q Michael Burk Salem County Improvement Authority Evening Meeting SHC-R Mike De Luca Rutgers University Evening Meeting SHC-S Andrew Hak PSEG Nuclear LLC Evening Meeting SHC-T Tom Knoche Not stated Evening Meeting SHC-U Richard Schneider Coalition to Protect Fisheries Protection Evening Meeting, Written SHC-V Marv Lewis Not stated Email SHC-W Scott Brubaker New Jersey Department of Environmental Written

3. Coments Concerning Terrestrial Resources My name is Jane Nogaki, from New Jersey Environmental Federation.

An I' loknattecmlivimpacts slid that talks about prelim~inary findings being small tolrg orcmlaie macsad oioeonmc smallI to moderat~e cumulative imnpacts on aquaic esorces an moerate cumuilative im~pacts on terrestrial resourices, small impacts on W

m thterination that ra impacts would happen on terrestrial resources, and whtere you talking about, animals, humans, do you want to answer that?

Repne $ection 'I2.26 of the$ !$ 4.describes the terrestrial resourcesfor the purpose this revie Te resourcs i plants ad animals in the immediae vicinity of the Salem adf

.C.S facilit es on Artificial Island and within the transmission line ROWs.

As iscsse i Chpter4, the NRC did not identify any Category 2Zissues for terrestrial re sorce, or id~estaff dentifyV any new or significan~t information d-uring the environmental ie*

As' esult, he conclusionsjn ti GEIS stand; the level of impact due to direct and ini impats of Saemn

,id HQQ$ on terrestrial coumunities is SMAL.L However, the So based on of historical, ongoing, and future dvelopment n the region combined would be MODERATE This commentprovides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to Commet SH-A-2: Also there was a section, in section 4 on - althouigh the executive here s tt t

no e*vironmental impacts, av.erse impacts from emissions from the plant, thatthee ae n gren ou~se gases emittedi, there is low levels of radioactive effluents emitted to th ar nd watr Low levels.

Ths ffunsare considered small. Again, radioactivity isn~'t something that disappears by itefAd I'Lcncr ned that over a cumulative period of time, that these air emissions, and e

oin into te river, could build up, and begin to build up a residual in the plant life, the fishppuaios I

tJ0he sediments of the river.

Repns:A par fJYRQ requIiremets for operating a nuclear power plant, licensees must:,

(

prelae of ctive material to unrestricted areas during normal operation as low as reasonaby achievable (as described in the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 50.36a),

I

and ()

comly w th rditio dose limits for the public (10QF P~art 20), in addition, NRC tos to iu effluenit d environmental miltoring programs to i..

.*nf te ao of l a

rborne radioactive effluents dischargd from plan!ts and the associated d s Lt report environmental radioacivty levels around their pn availableto the publi, cover sampling from TLDs (thermolminescen doietr); airbrne radIioiodine and4 particulate samplers; samples of seinking water and dn wnstre*m shoreline seient from existing or rctfilti; and sa efligestin s such as milk, fish, int bo le fv tation. The NRC monitoring requiremnts are biased toward twass a

the plant, including sources of direct radiation

4. Comm

eous, i

R soliradioactive efflunts Typicagle environtntal monitoring occurs in narb watr'bdiesandin ech f 16 compass$directions (1) in close~ proximity to the power plant,(2)at theC-oin f

S stpubleic anccss, and (3) at othe edistances outto 50 miles. If proeradioactivi d

tet t these locations, then i dis highly unlikely thart any other location woucldear Iwaste has Ioutgro In aditi ont pls, aes its anncul dots estimates during plant castiong sheds. wowt-cse mc moeasrewments. If the worst-case measurements show no concernthen food and water from other locations will not yield higher dose Relts of ftue iradiological pevironmental monitoring program are summarized each year in the AInowal EnroeenItal pRe diologicl Opertating aReport. Effluent releases are summarized annually inoan wannul fafwacie alnt releaserreport. The NRC conducts periodic onsite inspections oeahlcnee's effluent and environmental monitoring programs to ensure comliace ithNR rquirements. The NfRC documents licensee effluent releases and the resltsof hei evironmi#ental monitoring and assessment effort in inspection reports that are aviabl to thepubic.

This comentprovides no new and significant information;- therefore, no changes were made to

4. Comments Concerning Radioactive Waste Management Comment SHC-A-3: Specific to Salem and Hope Creek the existing three nuclear plants produce radioactive waste that remains a danger for thousands of years into the future.

This nuclear waste has outgrown its spent fuel pools, and is now contained in above-ground dry cask storage sheds. How much more waste will be produced by relicensing the three nuclear plants for another 20 years?

With no future in sight for a permanent safe storage site, other than on-site, in the Lower Alloways Creek. It pretty much dooms that area, forever, to be a nuclear waste dump that will never go away, it will always be a residual radioactive hazard in Salem County.

Comment SHC-T-1: we have serious issues regarding the disposal of nuclear waste and we do not have an adequate solution at the federal level. And so the continued use of nuclear facilities without that is of great concern.

Response: The safety and environmental effects of long-term storage of spent fuel onsite have been assessed by the NRC, and, as set forth in its Waste Confidence Decision (codified at 10 CFR 51.23), the Commission generically determined that such storage could be accomplished without significant environmental impact. In the Waste Confidence Decision, the Commission determined that spent fuel can be stored onsite for at least 30 years beyond the license operating life, which may include the term of a renewed license. At or before the end of that period, the fuel would be removed to a permanent repository. In its Statement of Consideration for the 1990 update of the Waste Confidence Decision (55 FR 38472), the Commission addressed the impacts of both license renewal and potential new reactors. In its December 6, 1999, review of the Waste Confidence Decision (64 FR 68005), the Commission reaffirmed the findings in the rule. In addition to the conclusion regarding safe onsite storage of spent fuel, the Commission states in the rule that there is reasonable assurance that at least one geologic repository will be available within the first quarter of the 21st century, and sufficient repository capacity for the spent fuel will be available within 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation of any reactor. On October 9, 2008, the Commission issued a proposed revision of the Waste Confidence Decision in the Federal Register (73 FR 59551) for comment. This revision provided the basis for extending the time for sufficient repository capacity for spent fuel to be available from within 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation of any reactor to within 50 to 60 years. The proposed revision also provides reasonable assurance that spent fuel can be stored without significant environmental impacts for at least 60 years beyond the licensed life for reactor operation assuming storage of spent fuel in either a spent fuel storage basin or onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installation. On December 23, 2010, the Commission issued a final revision to the agency's "Waste Confidence" findings and regulation (75 FR 81037), expressing the Commission's confidence that the nation's spent nuclear fuel can be safely stored for at least 60 years beyond the licensed life of any reactor and that sufficient repository capacity will be available when necessary. In addition, the Commission directed the NRC staff to conduct additional analysis for longer-term storage to ensure that the NRC remains fully informed by current circumstances and scientific knowledge relating to spent fuel storage and disposal (NRC, 2010b).

References:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990. "Waste Confidence Decision," Federal Register, Vol. 55, p. 38472, September 18, 1990.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999a. "Waste Confidence Decision Review:

Status," Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 233, pp. 68005-68007, December 6, 1999.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. "Waste Confidence Decision Update,"

Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 197, pp. 59551-59570, October 9, 2008.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010d. "Waste Confidence Decision Update,"

Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 246, pp. 81037-81076, December 23, 2010.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010b. Memorandum, "Staff Requirements -

Affirmation Session, 8:45 a.m., Wednesday, September 15, 2010, Commissioners' Conference

Room, One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland (Open to Public Attendance)," ADAMS Accession No. ML102580229.

Comment SHC-A-5: Recent EPA internal documents have raised a concern that in the case of a major nuclear accident, or release, it is unclear whether the Federal Government, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, would have the authority and the finances to clean up a radioactive release to the environment.

Would the EPA be in charge of overseeing a cleanup, and would the regulations, under the Superfund Act apply? Would the NRC, or PSEG, care to answer that question, as a part of their relicensing process?

I think the public has a right to know who would be paying for such a clean up, and who would be supervising it, and if the money is set aside to do so.

Comment SHC-A-6: It doesn't bode well that the NRC recently, in a case nearby, in Newfield, New Jersey, a shieldalloy radioactive dump site, the NRC recently gave jurisdiction for the New Jersey DEP to oversee a cleanup of that radioactive waste in Newfield.

Then challenged the court decision, successfully, to gain back control of the site, when it was clear that the New Jersey DEP's cleanup would direct the waste to be shipped to a radioactive waste disposal site in another state, instead of being left on-site.

The NRC, against all local public opinion, and the opinion of DEP scientists, wanted to contain the nuclear waste in Newfield, that being the cheaper option.

The NRC is not an agency that the public has confidence in, to protect the environment, because often or in most every case, go for the cheapest solution, and that is not always the safest.

Comment SHC-W-2: Radioactive Waste Management / Page 2-11 Line(s) 16-18, Is the current Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) capable of providing storage for all three nuclear generating stations (Salem 1 & 2 and Hope Creek) plus the proposed new plant?

Will there be an addition to the existing pad or will a separate new pad be built? How will the cumulative effects of all this storage of spent fuel be assessed? In the Early Site Permit SEIS?

Comment SHC-W-4:

Mixed Waste / Page 2-13 Lines 19-21, The draft SEIS states that there are no processes in which mixed waste can be generated. Mixed waste includes hazardous substances/liquids (non-radiological) and radioactive materials.

While there may be no routine processes where mixed wastes are generated at Salem or Hope Creek, the possibility of human error and inadvertent mixing of wastes may occur, especially during refuel and maintenance outages. In fact, discussions of mixed waste are part of the routine General Employee Training given to all of your employees and contractors, including instructions on how to minimize the amount of mixed wastes that could be created due to the high costs associated with processing the waste and the potential spread of contamination both inside and beyond the Radiological Control Areas.

Comment SHC-A-4:... the safety hazard associated with the malfunction and potential release of toxic radiation, into the vicinity of the three nuclear plants, would only be exacerbated by the aging of the facilities.

Aging of the facilities is a significant environmental concern, it is a maintenance problem, but it can have very severe environmental impacts.

Tritium leaks at the Salem reactors have occurred, despite redundant safeguards, and are an indication that the safety culture at the plant, and that the preventive maintenance, were a significant improvement.

6. Comments Concerning Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems Comment SHC-W-3:

Radioactive Liquid Waste / Page 2-11, Line(s) 22-24, "However, because the Salem units are cooled by a once-through RCS and the HCGS unit is cooled by a closed-cycle RCS, the management of potentially radioactive liquids is different".

It appears you mean Circulating Water System (CWS) not RCS?

Response: The SEIS was corrected to reflect that the circulating water system was being discussed, rather than the reactor coolant system.

Comment SHC-W-5: Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems / Salem Generating Station Page 2-23 Lines 6-12, The Salem Generating Station Service Water System (SWS) intake does not contain a modified Ristroph travelling screen or fish discharge system. There is no explanation provided as to why they were not used.

Comment SHC-W-7: Page 2-23 and 2-26 appear to conflict; Page 2-23 Lines 10-12: "The SWS intake structure is equipped with trash racks, travelling screens, and filters to remove debris and biota from the intake water stream, but do not have a modified Ristroph-type travelling screen or fish return system".

Page 2-26 Line 42: "The Salem SWS intake is also fitted with trash racks, travelling screens, and fish return troughs".

Response

Comment SHC-W-6: Page 2-23 Lines 13-15 and Lines 28-29, contradict each other regarding the use of sodium hypochlorite.

Comment SHC-W-8:

Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems / Hope Creek Generating Station /

Page 2-24 Lines 4-9.

Are the travelling screens utilized at this single intake structure (SWS water at HC) modified Ristroph screens? In addition, with the possibility of utilizing the empty bays for the proposed second unit on the Hope Creek site, would an upgrade to the travelling screens and Ristroph system be needed during the relicensing period if a new plant was built during that time period/

10. Comments concerning Socioeconomics Comment SHC-X-6 :Page xxiv, Table 1, row labeled "License Renewal", column labeled "Socioeconomics." Table 1 incorrectly states that there would be SMALL to LARGE socioeconomic impacts for license renewal. This impact range is inconsistent with DSEIS Section 4.9, which only identifies SMALL or no impacts for the socioeconomic issues. While the DSEIS identifies SMALL to LARGE cumulative socioeconomic impacts, Table 1 does not address cumulative impacts, but only direct license renewal impacts. Additionally, in PSEG Nuclear recommends that the Executive Summary be modified to clearly summarize only NRC's conclusions regarding direct and indirect impact levels for all environmental resource areas, including socioeconomics. For consistency, and to correct the mistaken impact level, PSEG Nuclear also recommends that the entry in Table 1, row labeled "License Renewal," column labeled "Socioeconomics," on page xxiv be changed to "SMALL" Comment SHC-X-7: Page 8-46, Table 8-5, row labeled "License Renewal", column labeled "Socioeconomics." Table 8-5 incorrectly states that there would be SMALL to LARGE socioeconomic impacts for license renewal. This impact range is inconsistent with DSEIS Section 4.9, which only identifies SMALL or no impacts for the socioeconomic issues. While the DSEIS identifies SMALL to LARGE cumulative socioeconomic impacts, Table 8-5 does not address cumulative impacts, but only direct license renewal impacts. To correct the mistaken impact level, PSEG Nuclear recommends that the entry in Table 8-5, row labeled "License Renewal," column labeled "Socioeconomics," on page 8-46 be changed to "SMALL" Comment SHC-X-8: Page 4-82, lines 39 to 42 and Page 4-83, lines 4 to 5.On page 4-82, lines 39 to 42 (Section 4.11.6), the DSEIS-45 states the following:

"If PSEG decides to proceed and construct a new nuclear power plant unit at the Salem and HCGS site, the cumulative short-term construction-related socioeconomic impacts of this action could be MODERATE to LARGE in counties located in the immediate vicinity of Salem and HCGS."

On page 4-83, lines 4 to 5 (Section 4.11.6), the DSEIS-45 states the following: "The cumulative long-term operations-related socioeconomic impacts of this action during the operation of the new power plant unit would likely be SMALL to MODERATE."

The conclusions quoted above regarding socioeconomic impacts from construction and operation of a new nuclear plant are based on high-level, qualitative assumptions. However, in May 2010, PSEG Nuclear filed an application with the NRC for an early site permit (ESP) for a new nuclear plant site located adjacent to the existing Salem and HCGS plants. Sections 4.4 and 5.8 in the ESP application provide, respectively, assessments of direct and indirect impacts from construction and operation of a new plant on the proposed site. Sections 10.5.1.4 and 10.5.2.4 provide, respectively, assessments of cumulative impacts from new plant construction and operation. As reported in the ESP, all socioeconomic impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) associated with a new nuclear plant located adjacent to the Salem and HCGS plants would be SMALL, or can be mitigated. PSEG Nuclear recommends that Section 4.11.6 in DSEIS-45 be modified to account for the site-specific information now available in its ESP application. PSEG Nuclear further recommends that the revised Section 4.11.6 in DSEIS-45 identify and consider positive socioeconomic effects as well as negative effects. Examples

of such positive effects are increased property tax revenues for local taxing jurisdiction, increased purchases of local and regional goods and services, and increased local and regional direct and indirect employment. Additional information and suggestions for specific text revisions in section 4.11.6 are provided below.

Comment SHC-X-9: Pages 4-82, lines 39 to 42.

Based on site-specific information from PSEG Nuclear's ESP Environmental Report, pertinent excerpts from which are provided in Attachment A to this comment package, PSEG Nuclear recommends that the text on page 4-82, lines 39 to 42 (Section 4.11.6) in DSEIS-45 be revised as follows:

"If PSEG decides to proceed and construct a new nuclear power plant unit at the Salem and HCGS site, the cumulative short-term construction-related socioeconomic impacts of this action could be SMALL to MODERATE in counties located in the immediate vicinity of Salem and HCGS."

DSEIS-45 attributes the MODERATE to LARGE short-term construction-related socioeconomic impacts primarily to short-term increased demand for rental housing and other commercial and public services and a "noticeable increase" in the number and volume of construction vehicles on roads in the immediate vicinity of the site. In contrast, the impact assessment in Section 10.5.1.4 in PSEG Nuclear's ESP Environmental Report concludes that within a Region of Influence consisting of Salem, Cumberland, or Gloucester counties in New Jersey, and New Castle County in Delaware, the construction-related population increase associated with new plant construction at a site adjacent to Salem and HCGS would result in short-term SMALL cumulative impacts to housing markets and community support services such as public water supply, wastewater treatment, and fire and police protection. Regarding traffic impacts, the ESP Environmental Report concludes that cumulative impacts from new plant construction would be MODERATE, but can be mitigated.

Comment SHC-X-10: Page 4-83, lines 4 to 5. Based on site-specific information from PSEG Nuclear's ESP Environmental Report, PSEG Nuclear recommends that the text on page 4-83, lines 4 to 5 (Section 4.11.6) in DSEIS-45 be revised as follows, "The cumulative long-term operations-related socioeconomic impacts of this action during the operation of the new power plant unit would likely be SMALL."

Comment SHC-X-1 1: Pages 4-83, lines 11 to 14. Based on site-specific information from PSEG Nuclear's ESP Environmental Report, PSEG Nuclear recommends that the text on page 4-83, lines 11 to 14 (Section 4.11.6) in DSEIS-45 be revised as follows:

"Since Although Salem County has less housing and public services available to handle the influx of construction workers in comparison to New Castle, Gloucester, and Cumberland Counties, the cumulative short-term construction-related socioeconomic impacts on Salem County would likely be SMALL to MODERATEto LARGE. because (1) cumulative temporary population increases during new plant construction represents no more than 5 percent of the Salem County population, (2) Salem County has a well established pattern of development and established public services to support and guide land use changes, (3) there is currently enough housing in the four-county region of influence to accommodate the cumulative new construction-related families and other temporary workers expected in Salem County if the type of housing sought by these

families is not available in Salem County, (4) construction-related population increases would cause negligible changes in demands on public water supply, wastewater treatment, police and fire protection services, (5) traffic impacts, while potentially moderate, can be mitigated, and (6) tax revenues resulting from the presence of the construction workforce would provide noticeable but small positive impacts in Salem County."

The analysis of socioeconomic impacts performed in the ESP Environmental Report for construction-related population growth (Section 4.4) and construction-related cumulative impacts (Section 10.5.1.4) supports the above-suggested justifications for characterizing cumulative short-term construction-related socioeconomic impacts on Salem County as SMALL to MODERATE rather than SMALL to LARGE.

Comment SHC-X-12: Page 4-83, lines 14 to 18. Based on site-specific information from PSEG Nuclear's ESP Environmental Report, PSEG Nuclear recommends that the text on page 4-83, lines 14 to 18 (Section 4.11.6) in DSEIS-45 be revised as follows:

"Over the long term, cumulative operations impacts on Salem County would likely be SMALL."

The analysis performed in the ESP Environmental Report for operation-related population growth (Section 5.8.2) and operation-related cumulative impacts (Section 10.5.2.4) supports the above-suggested conclusion that cumulative long-term operation-related socioeconomic impacts on Salem County would be SMALL rather than SMALL to MODERATE. As the ESP Environmental Report indicates, cumulative operation-related population increases during new plant operation would represent no more than 5 percent of the Salem County population, Salem County has a well established pattern of development and established public services to support and guide land use changes, there is currently enough housing in the four-county region of influence to accommodate the cumulative new operation-related families expected in Salem County if the type of housing sought by these families is not available in Salem County, operation-related population increases would cause negligible changes in demands on public water supply, wastewater treatment, police and fire protection services, mitigation measures used to offset construction-related impacts would be sufficient to offset operational impacts on traffic, and tax revenues resulting from the presence of the operational workforce would provide noticeable but small positive impacts in Salem County.

Comment SHC-X-13: Page 4-83, between lines 25 and 26. PSEG Nuclear recommends that between lines 25 and 26 on page 4-83, in Section 4.11.6 in DSEIS-45, the NRC insert the following paragraph identifying and considering positive socioeconomic effects such as increased property tax revenues for local taxing jurisdictions, increased purchases of local and regional goods and services, and increased local and regional direct and indirect employment "Tax revenues associated with a new plant adjacent to Salem and HCGS would include payroll taxes on wages and salaries of the construction work force, corporate income tax on taxable income from operation of the new plant, sales and use taxes on purchases made by PSEG and the operations workforce, property taxes related to the building of new nuclear plants, and property taxes on owned real property. Additional tax revenues would be generated by economic activity resulting from the multiplier effect. Increased taxes collected are viewed as a benefit to the state and local jurisdictions in the region."

In support of the DSEIS revision suggested above, the NRC is referenced to Sections 5.8.2.2.1 through 5.8.2.2.3 in the ESP Environmental Report.

Comment SHC-X-14: Page 4-83, lines 34 to 36, Page 4-85, Table 4-24, row labeled "Socioeconomics," column labeled "Summary." Based on site-specific information from PSEG Nuclear's ESP Environmental Report, PSEG Nuclear recommends that the text on page 4-83, lines 34 to 36 (Section 4.11.7) in DSEIS-45 be revised as follows:

uThe preliminary determination is that the potential cumulative impacts resulting from Salem and HCGS operation during the period of extended operation would be range from SMALL. Table 4-24 summarizes the cumulative impact by resource area."

For consistency with the text on page 4-83, lines 34 to 36, Table 4-24, row labeled "Socioeconomics," column labeled uSummary" on page 4-85 in DSEIS-45 should be

_R

- nos t

-The l6anigti'

_,aR 24,17 lirle$14 to 20, in Os,`

4 t - d" Wkjý Jý o e ver "I.01-t-

'A ' I r' KNOW6,14

_-g onallrdftrhist 6'6611U., dubrdftly, PSEG ii4id as* follows:

,,tAining fog

_ns, ppp

_,)týja "Mission lines r $QO-Kj1qV4jt(KV SIR

-ifoO e ýýMl`slo ii, 4.gr_ The

_s. n. nes are m,0M4'flrqP44

ý4n' f0j, 0 w s: ý H C G S -

K-$41 iii _-K em e,

al. 7Rid ii, 4,14-Aawk-M, WQr PU, blic MAN s$1qri nes in all a into Im "T

d b' d a neWown8dandJM-41'r' lhe yan e'Ahreoýjý,O,

ý:350ft(107 d

t eney ss, rM0,601:6, 1"ffie', iscussion ofthe

W

_"JJ&

CER 06W(ilfiýa ud'it.

ythat ve 1 Ml to, IWAIll

_NOW MR e'W -f W65 iýd.-,qnd mm-Olm" MI-4 MM p

f

't'follows:

ed

ýqqey

-..Ft edom JfW$ý6-';Nse the n. e site MORM76-M Ollffiffl RfýAf or.

sIfQ lb Q, WS rarirH ýsion lROW-VýYa6" ýAe 701 ree Ir T, h.00N. A V*

he, New iis 6(6v..th6 North e

Qxte n"Os f jh tj:ý46 M-k P S E G TV.410616M

a--

'MW' _6tha' 6ý M

So "t ýNOA*frýdd-""

_,jZ _ pi If th fi Z-1 8, fin ei 34 be ar sUgges sý afthO extý,'pp p WRIVERILAW WO-NO-i ows IRV- ý-

lifirof n, H C-Q$ f,6 r 13 s est 0,W*4o,_ rsey, the u ar Ift", POEG'N cle

.QW$.

W, F

6W Jýj Ahe he remainder is MR&

ýNuclear 116ý61 tl re-f

,-%i*'1mod Odis -ollows; 211 t

thoýe eHdS'Iht6lI 0

60hýI in olaWare.

p ý6-V, 0

os'i, 216-io"rea a's follows jigi ýIMM in

_j6 "of ok"are'not

_'PSEG n'

Pdrityl nos-I W-22,-ý'ý'rfi 0

as s

IN

'"Ir'e"a'd" '- fo 6W MEM O r gional frr*;

-Fd_ NO, A 4k "Or.pporty

$a ýj p y1ros,

ýOjbý k7 In no p6ss

MOM re IN I-i"66

13. Comments concerning Energy Alternatives Comment SHC-A-2: The Environmental Federation believes that conservation, efficiency, and sustainable energy sources, such as wind power, solar power, and wave power, should be invested in, rather than federally subsidizing nuclear energy and fossil fuels.

America will never wean itself from unsustainable coal, nuclear, and natural gas energy, until alternatives are aggressively supported. If the playing field were leveled, whether by eliminating all subsidies, or providing equal subsidy, wind, solar, and efficiency would out-compete nuclear and coal plants every time.

Governor Christie has committed to much more aggressive implementation of the strong goals contained in the 2007 Global Warming Response Act, and the 2008 Energy Master Plan.

For example, 25 percent renewable by 2025, a renewable portfolio standard, and 20 percent by 2020 energy efficiency portfolio standard. These efforts provide the path to a safe, clean, reliable green energy future, and a fourth plant at Salem is not part of that path.

Comment SHC-T-2: We have available, we are moving in the direction of developing alternative renewable energy that is risk-free, safer, cleaner, and has less impact, certainly solar and wind.

There are countries in the world now where 20 percent of their energy comes from those sources. We should be moving in that direction, and the need for nuclear power should gradually be reduced over time.

Comment SHC-T-3: there are the recently reported, and I'm no expert on the operation and maintenance of nuclear facilities, but the news reports were troubling, concerning the maintenance of the concrete containment, spalling and deterioration of that.

The piping that is part of the steam generator tube, corrosion in the steel liner, underground walls with evidence of groundwater penetration. These have all been covered, recently, in the news.

And I assume that these are issues that can all be addressed. But, certainly, probably relate to the age and presence of high, fairly high concentration of salt water and its corrosive effect on the facility.

So, you know, I see a future, a sustainable future that is less dependent on nuclear power, and moves us more into cleaner and safer renewables.

Response

These comments are related to the environmental impact of alternatives to renewing the licenses for Salem and HCGS. Decisions regarding energy policy and energy planning, including whether to implement energy options like solar power, conservation, or even nuclear power, are also made by the utility and State and Federal (non-NRC) decision makers. These decisions are based on economics, energy reliability goals, and other objectives over which the other entities may have jurisdiction. The NRC does not have the authority to make these decisions. During license renewal, the NRC does, however, conduct an environmental review that compares the potential environmental impacts of a nuclear plant during the period of extended operation with the environmental impacts of energy alternatives as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Alternatives considered included replacement power from a new supercritical coal-fired generation and natural gas combined-cycle generation plant; a combination of alternatives that includes natural gas combined-cycle generation, energy conservation/energy efficiency, and wind power; and not renewing the operating licenses (the no-action alternative). Environmental impacts associated with various reasonable alternatives to renewal of the operating licenses for Salem and HCGS are evaluated in Chapter 8 of this SEIS.

These comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS.