ML12314A415

Lr Hearing - NRC and Entergy Comments on Nmfs'S Draft Indian Point Biological Opinion

ML12314A415
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	11/09/2012
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Division of License Renewal
References
Download: ML12314A415 (18)

Text

IPRenewal NPEmails From: Logan, Dennis Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 3:50 PM To: 'Julie Crocker' Cc: IPRenewal NPEmails; Wong, Melanie; Keegan, Elaine; Balsam, Briana; Turk, Sherwin

Subject:

NRC and Entergy comments on NMFS's draft Indian Point biological opinion.

Attachments: NRC comments on Indian Point draft biological opinion.docx; 2012DraftBIOPComments.pdf

Julie, Attached are Entergy and NRCs comments on the NMFSs draft biological opinion for Indian Point. Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft.

I will be out of the office until Monday, November 26th. If you have any questions in that time, please call Melanie Wong, who is now Branch Chief of RERB, at 301-415-2432 or Briana Balsam at 301-415-1042.

Dennis Logan 1

Hearing Identifier: IndianPointUnits2and3NonPublic_EX Email Number: 3917 Mail Envelope Properties (A56E37EC1CBC8045910287CEF5E7AE6C011FBC4E5496)

Subject:

NRC and Entergy comments on NMFS's draft Indian Point biological opinion.

Sent Date: 11/9/2012 3:49:39 PM Received Date: 11/9/2012 3:49:42 PM From: Logan, Dennis Created By: Dennis.Logan@nrc.gov Recipients:

"IPRenewal NPEmails" <IPRenewal.NPEmails@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Wong, Melanie" <Melanie.Wong@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Keegan, Elaine" <Elaine.Keegan@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Balsam, Briana" <Briana.Balsam@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Turk, Sherwin" <Sherwin.Turk@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None

"'Julie Crocker'" <julie.crocker@noaa.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQCLSTR01.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 406 11/9/2012 3:49:42 PM NRC comments on Indian Point draft biological opinion.docx 32167 2012DraftBIOPComments.pdf 762512 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

NRC Comments on Indian Point 10-26-12 Draft Biological Opinion Page 3, paragraph 4: The correct expiration date of IP2 is Sept. 28, 2013 (not Sept. 29). Also, the IP3 expiration date is only specified by monththe expiration date is December 12, 2015.

Page 5, Line 1: NMFS states that the previous consultation started in 2010. However, NRC considers the consultation to have started when the NRC sent a letter dated 8/16/07 requesting information on listed species that could be affected by the proposed license renewal. This request is in accordance with 50 CFR 402.12(c). Such requests are included in the definition of informal consultation at 50 CFR 402.13.

Page 5, end of paragraph 2: NMFS states that consultation was initiated on December 10, 2010. See above comment. Additionally, if this statement is referring specifically to formal consultation, the NRC considers consultation to have started on 12/22/08 when NRC sent its first biological assessment and requested consultation in accordance with 50 CFR 402.14(c).

Page 6, first line of paragraph 4: The letter referred to is actually dated May 16, 2012 (not May 17). This needs to be changed later in the paragraph as well in the sentence that says, Consultation was initiated on May 17, 2012.

Page 6, paragraph 4: The beginning of this paragraph insinuates that the NRC only requested consultation for Atlantic sturgeon during the proposed renewed operating period and that the NRC later requested to add on the current operating period. However, NRC requested both time periods to be included from its initial consultation request. See the fourth paragraph on page 2 of the May 16, 2012, letter and Section 2.0 of the biological assessment transmitted with that letter.

Page 7, full paragraph 3, line 6: NRC staff state should be NRC staff states.

Page 7, full paragraph 3, line 14: Add (WQC) after Water Quality Certification to define acronym that you use later.

Page 9, end of paragraph 1: The NRC license does not require compliance with the SPDES permit. This needs to be changed here and in other sections of the document that incorrectly state this (page 89, paragraph 2; and possibly others).

Page 11, end of paragraph 1: NMFS states that NRC would need to reinitiate consultation if a new SPDES permit is issued. However, it is NRCs understanding that the EPA would be the responsible federal agency for such a consultation. This is in keeping with the January 2010 MOA between the EPA, FWS, and NMFS regarding enhanced coordination under the CWA and ESA: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/op/pds/documents/02/301/02-301-22.pdf. In such a case, NRC would expect that we might be involved in the consultation, but we would not be the agency responsible for initiating consultation. If this is the case, the language in the biological opinion should reflect this here and in other sections of the document (page 12, end of paragraph 1; page 126, paragraph 2; and possibly others).

Page 15, paragraph 2, line 4: Do you mean Male and female shortnose sturgeon have similar lengths at maturity ?

Page 87, paragraph 3, sentence 2: Apparently something is missing in the middle of this sentence.

Page 118. In paragraph 1, starting on line 9, NMFS states: All impinged sturgeon are expected to die, immediately or later, as a result of interactions with the facility. In the last paragraph, NMFS states that it expects that some shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon will be impinged and returned back to the river without significant injury or mortality. These two positions are contradictory, and the NRC staff urges NMFS to be consistent in its conclusions.

Page 118, paragraph 3: The NRC-issued operating licenses for IP2 and IP3 contain environmental technical specifications that require the plants to maintain consistency with local, state and federal regulations. The NRC interprets this to include the Endangered Species Act and the biological opinion. The language requiring NRC to add additional license conditions should be removed or changed here and in other sections (page 120, paragraph 2; page 121, 1st paragraph under terms and conditions; and possibly others).

Page 123, Reasonable and Prudent Measures: An address should be specified when NMFS asks for something in writing. Also, specify if it is acceptable to transmit letters and reports electronically, and, if so, to what email address. If electronic mail is acceptable to NMFS, please add NRCs email (endangeredspecies@nrc.gov) as well.

Page 123, Reasonable and Prudent Measure #8: Specify how NMFS expects to receive the annual report (in writing or electronically).