ML13115A917

Letter from D. Morris, NMFS, to A. Hull, NRC Concluding Informal Section 7 Consultation for Atlantic Sturgeon at Surry

ML13115A917
Person / Time
Site:	Surry
Issue date:	07/13/2012
From:	Morris D US Dept of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service
To:	Amy Hull NRC/NRR/DLR/RERGUB
References
Download: ML13115A917 (18)

Text

"

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE NORTHEAST REGION 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930-2276 JUL 13 2012 Amy Hull, Acting Chief Environmental Review and Guidance Update Branch Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission MS T-ll Fl Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Re: Surry Power Station

Dear Dr. Hull,

Your March 20, 2012, letter requests consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended regarding the continued operation of the Surry Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, pursuant to operating licenses issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Surry Power Station is located along the James River on Gravel Neck Peninsula in Surry, Virginia and is operated by Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo).

You have made the preliminary determination that the continued operation of Surry is not likely to adversely affect any species listed by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and have requested our concurr.ence with your determination. A Biological Assessment was included with your March 2012 letter. In an email dated April 4, 2012, we requested additional infom1ation from you. This infonnation was transmitted to us in an email dated May 8, 2012, that included a letter from Dominion and a copy of the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit for the facility.

A "not likely to adversely affect" determination can only be'made when effects on listed species are expected to be beneficial; or adverse effects are expected to be discountable and/or insignificant. As explained in the joint U.S. Fish and Wildlife and NMFS Section 7 Handbook, '

"beneficial effects are contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects.

Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where take occurs. Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, a person would not: (1) be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects; or (2) expect discountable effects to occur.'.'

We have reviewed the available information and agree that the continued operation of Surry may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect any species listed as threatene'd or endangered by us.

In this letter, we provide our justification for concluding consultation informally.

Description of the Facility and Proposed Action Surry is located on Gravel Neck Peninsula along the James River approximately 25 miles upstream ofthe river's confluence with the Chesapeake Bay. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the location of the site. Surry is a two-unit pressurized-water reactor. Surry Unit 1 began operations on December 22,1972; Unit 2 began operations on May 1,1973. The NRC issued renewed operating licenses for both units on March 20, 2003; these licenses authorize Surry to operate through May 25,2032 and January 29,2033, for Units 1 and 2, respectively.

Surry Unit 1 and Unit 2 use aonce-through heat dissipation system designed to remove waste heat from the plant. Brackish water is removed from the James River, pumped through the plant condenser, and returned to the river about 10km upriver from the withdrawal point. Cooling water travels through a channel dredged in the bottom of the river between the main river channel and the eastern shore of Gravel Neck Peninsula and then into a low-level intake structure with eight reinforced-concrete bays. The low-level intake structure is equipped with continuously rotating Ristroph traveling screens. A low-pressure spray washes impinged fish from the screens into a return sluice, through which fish return to the river.

When both units are operating at full power, eight pumps (one for each bay) pump a total of 106 m3/second (1.68 million gallons per minute (gpm)) into the 3-kilometer intake canal, which transports water by gravity flow from the low-level intake structure to the high-level intake structure. Cooling water then moves into two high-level structures (each of which has four bays) and passes through the turbiny steam condensers. After passing through the condensers, the cooling water flows through a tunnel into the head of an 800-meter discharge canal, and from the canal, returns back into the James River. A rock-filled jetty extends from the discharge canal about 340 meters into the river.

In 1972, Congress assigned authority to administer the Clean Water Act (CWA) to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Commonwealth of Virginia was delegated authority to administer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program in Virginia in 1975. VPDES pennits are issued by the Virginia Department of Ei1Vironmental Quality (VADEQ).

Section 316(b) of the CWA requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts (33 USC 1326). EPA regulates impingement and entrainn1ent under Section 316(b) of the CWA through the NPDES pennit process. VADEQ administers Section 316(b) in Virginia through the VAPDES program.

Surry cannot operate without the intake and discharge of cooling water. NRC is responsible for authorizing the operation of nuclear facilities, as well as approving any extension of an initial operating license through the license renewal process. Intake and discharge of water through the cooling water system would not occurbut for the operation of the facility pursuant to a renewed license; therefore, the effects of the cooling water system on listed species and any designated critical habitat are effects of the proposed action.

2

VIRGINIA nTH CAnOLINA~o",d'"

Gilh!5 10 0

10 aJ KlIome'lqrs Pasqtlolal,k ~~

\\ 19==:~~;~;;;;;?

1)

Figure

• 1. Location or Surry Power Station, 80-km (50-mi) Region LEGEND j~I1l<;',!; City Couilty York County Hog Island Wildlif.

Man~gern'ent,Nea Urt>an Areas.'

J Mjlf30X I

Figure 2*. Location of Surry PowerStation,.10-km (6,mi) Region

Pursuant to NRC's regulations, operating licenses are conditioned upon compliance with all applicablelaw, including, but not limited to, CWA Section 401 Certifications and NPDES permits. Therefore, the effects of the proposed Federal action-- the continued operation of Surry, which necessarily involves the removal and discharge of water from the James River--are shaped not only by the terms of the renewed operating license but also by the NPDES permit issued. In this consultation, we consider the effects of the operation of Surry I and 2 pursuant to the Operating Licenses issued by the NRC in 2003 and the VPDES permit issued bythe VADEQ that is already in effect. The VPDES permit for this facility was last issued in January 2007 and was modified in January 2008. This permit expired on January 21,2012 and has been administratively extended since this date. As such, we have considered the effects of continued operation of Pilgrim under the terms of a new operating license and the existing modified 2007 VPDES permit (VADEQ 2008):

NMFS Listed Species in the Action Area The action area is defined as "all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action" (50 CFR§402.02). The Surry facility is located on land and includes land based transmission lines. The effects analysis presented below will be limited to effects experienced in the aquatic environment. Effects of this action on listed species include impingement and entrainment of potential prey and effects to habitat,.

including the discharge of heated effluent. Therefore, the action area for this consultation includes the intake area and the region within the James River where effects of the thermal plume are experienced.. Based on the available information, the largest area measured with increased water temperatures extended 2,000 feet from the outfall and 6-feet down from the surface. As we explain below, all direct and indirect effects to listed species are limited to the area where increased w'ater temperatures are experienced; thus, the action area is also limited to this area. The Surry facility is located at approximately river kilometer 40 (river mile 25).

Several species of listed sea turtles occur seasonally in Chesapeake Bay and may be present near the confluence of the James River; however, none of these species occurs in the action area.

Similarly, shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) occur in Maryland waters ofthe Chesapeake Bay; however this species is not known to occur in Virginia waters of the Bay and is not known to occur in the James River. Because these species do not occur in the action area, this consultation will not consider sea turtles or shortnose sturgeon.

On February 6, 2012, we published two rules listing five Distinct Population Segments (DPS)of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) under the ESA. The effective date of these listing rules was April 6, 2012. The marine range of all five DPSs extends along the Atlantic coast from Canada to Cape Canaveral, Florida. Atlantic sturgeon originating from any of five DPSs could occur in the James River and maybe present in the action area. Atlantic sturgeon' originating from the New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, South Atlantic and Carolina DPSs are listed as endangered. Atlantic sturgeon originating from the Gulf of Maine DPS are listed as threatened.

Atlantic sturgeon spawn in their natal riyer and remain in the river until approximately age two and at lengths of approximately 76-92 ern (30-36 inches; ASSRT 2007). After emigration from 4

the natal estuary, subadult and adult Atlantic sturgeon forage within the marine environment, typically in waters less than 50 m in depth, using coastal bays, sounds, and ocean waters (see ASSRT 2007). Atlantic sturgeon spawn in the James River (ASSRT 2007). The majority of adults in the river are likelytooriginate from the James River and thereby, the Chesapeake Bay DPS. Because early life stages (eggs,larvae), yearlings and juveniles do not leave their natal river or estuary, any Atlantic sturgeon from these life stages in the James River would be Chesapeake Bay DPS origin. Subadult Atlantic sturgeon (greater than 50 cm but not yet sexually mature), move outside their natal rivers; subadult Atlantic sturgeon from any of the five DPSs could 'be present in the James River generally and in the action area.

A recent telemetry study provides information on the use of the James River by adult and subadult Atlantic sturgeon (see Hager et al. 2011). Thirty-two adults have been outfitted with

• telemetry tags and telemetry receivers are placed throughout the river; these receivers record the presence oftagged fish when they are within approximately one kilometer of the receivers.

Movements of tagged fish are assumed to be representative of the general population (Hager et al. 2011). This information is used to establish movement patterns of adult fish in the river.

Adult Atlantic sturgeon enter the James River in spring when water temperatures are around 17° C, and occur from rkIn 29 to rkIn 108before departing from the river in June when water temperatures are around 24° C (Hager et al. 2011). Tracking data collected in 2010

• demonstrated a congregation of sturgeon in freshwater areas at rkIn77, suggesting the possibility of spawning in this area (Hager et al. 2011).

Adult sturgeon appear to be absent from the James River for most of the summer until late August when tagged fish are once again detected in the river (Hager et al. 2011). During the late summer-early fall residency (August-October), fish ascend the river rapidly and congregate in upriver sites between rkm 77 and the fall line near Richmond, VA; possibly in response to physiologically stressful conditions (e.g., low dissolved oxygen and elevated water temperature) in the lower James River and Chesapeake Bay (Hager et al. 2011). As temperature declines in late September or early October, adults disperse through downriver sites and begin to move out of the river (Hager et al. 2011).: By November, adults occupy only lower river sites (Hager et al.

• 2011). By December, adults are undetected on the tracking array and, thus, are presumed to be.

out of the river (Hager et at. 2011).

Thirty-three subadults have been tagged and tracked in the river. The highest number of.

subadults are present in the river in the spring and fall with the lowest numbers present in August when ambient water temperatures in the river are the highest. At this time of year, most subadults leave the river and any Atlantic sturgeon remaining in the river are holding in cool water refugia (Hager et al. 2011). The number of su~adults in the river peaks in October. Many.

subadults leave the river for overwintering; with some known to overwinter off the coast of North Carolina. Subadults overwintering within the river are located downstream of Hog Island.

No young of year have been collected by Hager so none have been tagged with telemetry tags.

Yearlings are known to occupy freshwater portions of theirnatal river (Secor et al. 2000) and their distribution in the James River is expected to follow this pattern. Juveniles in the river are 5

also restricted to low salinity areas, with overwintering known to occur in deep water areas near river mile 25.

As noted above, the action area is located near river mile 25. Adults and subadults move through this region of the river as they move to concentration areas located up and down stream of the action area. Spawning is thought to occur upstream of river mile 77, with eggs and larvae limited to areas near the spawning grounds. No eggs or larvae occur in the action area.

Yearlings are known to occur in the action area and overwinter in deep water areas near river mile 25. Based on what is known about Atlantic'sturgeon distribution in the James River, we expect that yearlings, subadult and adult Atlantic stlirgeon would be present in the action area.

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION Below, we consider the effects of the continued operation of Surry on Atlantic sturgeon. We consider the effects of water withdrawal (impingement or entrainment of listedspecies and their prey) and effects of the discharge of effluent (exposure to pollutants, including heat, and effects on prey). In addition to considering information presented in the BA and the supplemental information provided by Dominion, we have considered information presented in NRC's Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for relicensing of Surry (NRC 2002), and other sources of information as cited below.

Entrainment of Atlantic sturgeon Entrainment occurs when small aquatic life forms are carried into and through the cooling system during water withdrawals. Entrainment primarily affects organisms with limited swimming ability that can pass through the screen mesh, used on the intake systems.

Fish egg and larval entrainment studies were conducted by the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences (VIMS) for VEPCo from April 1975 through December 1978. More recently, entrainment studies occurred from June 2005 through June 2006. No Atlantic sturgeon have been documented during entrainment studies at Surry in the past.

A rack system is in place in front ofthe intakes to screen out large debris; this consists of vertical bars with J.5-inch spacing between the bars. There is also a lI8-inch by liz-inch mesh traveling screen system. To be entrained in the facility, an organism must be able to pass through this mesh.

Atlantic sturgeon spawn in the James River; however, the spawning grounds are located at least 50 miles upstream of the Surry intake with a second area with seemingly suitable habitat located approximately 25 miles upstream of the intake. Eggs are adhesive and demersal and occur only on the spawning grounds. Even at hatching, Atlantic sturgeon larvae are too large to be entrained in the screens (7.8 mm TL (Smith 1980, 1981 )), making entrainment impossible.

Because of this, no entrainment of Atlantic sturgeon is expected at Surry,'

Impingement of Atlantic sturgeon Impingement occurs when organisms are trapped against cooling water intake screens or racks by the force of moving water. Impingement happens when aquatic species cannot escape from

~

6

. the screen or rack and become stuck. Impingement monitoring occurs at Surry. Daily sampling occurred from May 1974 through December 1978. This sampling characterized the number, biomass, and diversity of the finfishes, principally young-of-the-year, impinged by the Surry cooling-water intake structu~e. The ilTlpingement studies indicated that approximately 94 percent of all finfishes impinged on the Ristroph traveling screens were returned alive to the James River (VEPCo 1980). In addition to monitoring at the intakes, monthly beach seining was done to characterize the littoral zone fish community and otter trawls were used to characterize the deep water fish community. Additional sampling with these gears occurred from 1979-1983. The trash racks are inspected and cleaned weekly. No impinged Atlantic sturgeon have been documented at Surry.

Fish that are narrower than 3.5-inches may pass through the trash bars and become impinged on the traveling screens. Fish with body widths larger than 3.5-inches could become impinged on the trash racks.. Information on length-width relationships for sturgeon indicates that sturgeon longer than 85cm would be excluded from a 4-inch opening (UMaine, unpublished data). While we do not have information on the body lengths that would have widths sufficiently large to prevent passagethrough a 3.5-inch opening, because fish get wider as they get longer, we expect that the length offish that could possibly pass through a 3.5-inch opening would be smaller than 85 cm.

.Regardless of fish size, impingement only occurs when a fish cannot swim fast enough to escape.

the intake (e.g., the fish's swimming ability is overtaken by the velocity of water being sucked into the intake). The approach velocity at Surry's trash racks is 0.98 feet per second, with a through-rack velocity of 1)2 feet per second. In order for impingement to happen, a fish must be overcome by the intake or through-screen velocity.

As establishedabove, young of the year (yearling), juvenile and adult Atlan.tic sturgeon occur in the action area. Juvenile and adult shortnose sturgeon (body lengths greater than 58.1 cm) can avoid impinge~ent and entrainment at intakes with velocities as high as' 3.0 feet per second (Kynard et at. 2005).. Shortnose sturgeon with body lengths greater than 28 cm have been demonstrated to avoid impingement at intakes with velocities of 1.0 fps (Kynard et al. 2005).

Kynard has also determined that yearling and older shortnose sturgeon are easily able.to avoid approach velocities of approximately 1.0 fps. Assuming that Atlantic sturgeon have swimming capabilities at least equal to shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon in the action area should also be able to avoid becoming impinged on the trash bars and intake screens. This is a reasonable assumption given that the Atlantic sturgeon that would be present in the action area are at least of a similar size to the juvenile and adult shorthosesturgeon tested byKynard and because these species have similar body forms.

Based on this analysis, the impingement or entrainment of any Atlantic sturgeon is extremely unlikely to occur. This conclusion is supported by past monitoring data as reported in the BA, FEISand confirmed by Dominion in their May 2012 letter to NRC; no Atlantic sturgeon have been observed as impinged or entrained at the intakes.

7

Impingement and Entrainment -Effects on Prey Atlantic sturgeon feed on benthic invertebrates. In addition to sampling completed in the 1970s, entrainment sampling was conducted in 2005-2006. Unknown shrimp, likely mysid shrimp (also known as opossum shrimp), compromised 66.5% of the total entrainment estimate (Dominion 2012). However, because these shrimp are prolific (up to three generations per year) and extremely abundant in the region (Hopkins 1965), mysid shrimp are expected to be a major component of entrainment at Surry (Dominion 2012) and any loss due to entrainment is only a small percentage of the available biomass. Other prey species avoid entrainment dueJo their sessile or burrowing nature which keeps them out of the water column and away from the intakes. Surveys were conducted with a wide variety of sampling gear to document the aquatic and benthic community prior to the operation of Surry; these studies have been carried out throughout the operational period. No changes in the aquatic or benthic community have been documented (NRC 2002, Dominion 2012). This suggests that any impact of impingement and entrainment on the aquatic or benthic community in the action area have been minor and undetectable over time.

Any benthic invertebrates lost at Surry results in fewer individuals that are available for Atlantic sturgeon to eat. However, given that there have been no documented changes in the aquatic community in over 20 years of operations of Surry and the small loss of biomass in a limited number of prey species, any effects to foraging Atlantic sturgeon would be insignificant.

Discharge of Heated Effluent Description ofthe Thermal Plume Ambient water temperatures in the action area are relatively warm, with normal lows of approximately 12°C in the winter with normal highs upwards of 28°C during the summer. The river's water column stratifies near the top six feet, with water deeper than six feet from the surface approximately 0.6°C cooler than the surface during the summer months.

Heated effluent is discharged from the SUlTY outfalls. A study was calTied out in the 1970s to document the extent of the thermal plume. The area occupied by the plume varies depending on the tide and other conditions. Dominion reports that the plume stays close to shore and extends approximately 2,000 feet during flood and ebb tides. During slack tides the plume pools in the vicinity of the outfall. Increased water temperatures do not extend beyond half of the width of the river at its narrowest point. Mixing occurs rapidly in the near field around the outfall. The thermal plume is largely contained at the surface, with the effluent affecting only the top six feet of the water column. Water depths in this area range from 2 feet near the shoreline to 20 feet in the navigation channel.

Parker and Fang (1975) monitored river temperatures for three years after Surry began operating. (

The river experienced the greatest temperature differences in June and September or October when surface water temperatures across eight river transect were 1.1 to 3.9°C higher under post operational conditions. Isotherm plots indicate that waters surrounding the discharge exceeded 30°C in July and August of both years. Within the discharge canal, temperatures reached up to 37.7°C; however, temperatures this high were not reached in the river itself. The spatial extent 8

of the plume varied with the tides, but Parker and Fang noted that increased water temperatures attributed to Surry operations extended up to 6 feet in depth and no more thanhalfthe width of the river at its narrowest point: In cases where water temperatures exceeded 30°C in the discharge canal, temperatures rapidly decreased once canal water mixed with rivet water.

Effects ~f the Thermal Plume to Atlantic sturgeon

. Limited information on the thermal tolerances of Atlantic sturgeon is available. Atlantic sturgeon have been observed in water temperatures above 30°C in the south (see Damon-Randall et al. 2010). Juvenile Atlantic sturgeon actively select for temperatures of 12-20°C and avoid temperatures near 28°C in the lab and in the field (Secor and Niklitschek 2010). In the laboratory, juvenile Atiantic sturgeon showed negative behavioral and bioenergetics responses (related to food consumption and metabolism) 'after prolonged exposure to temperatures greater than 28°C (82.4°F) (Niklitschek 2001). Tolei-anceto temperatures is thought to increase with age and body size (Ziegweid et al.. 2008 and Jenkins et at. 1993), however,no information on the lethal thermal maximum or stressful temperatures for subadult or adult Atlantic sturgeon is available. Shortnose sturgeon, which are likely to be a reasonable surrogate for Atlantic sturgeon given similar geographic distribution and known biological similarities, have been documented in the lab to experience mortality at temperatures of33.7°C (92.66°F) or greater.

We first consider the potential for Atlantic sturgeon to be exposed to temperatures which are expected to result in behavioral avoidance (28°C). Atlantic sturgeon could be in the action area year round. The maximum ambient temperature is expected to be at or above 28°C during peak summer heat. In these conditions, Atlantic sturgeon are likely to seek refuge in deep cool water areas outside of the action area; this behavior is documented by tracking oftagged Atlantic sturgeon in the James River. However, even during the summer months the thermal plume only' extends six feet from the water surface and does not extend more than halfway across the river.

Atlantic sturgeon exposure to the surface area where water temperature may be elevated above 28°C is limited by their normal behavior as benthic~oriented fish, which results in limited occurrence near the water surface. Any surfacing Atlantic sturgeon are likely to avoid near surface waters with temperatures greater than 28°C. Reactions to this elevated temperature are expected to consist of swimming away from the plume by traveling deeper in the water column or swimming around the plume. As the area that would be avoided is at or near the surface, away from bottom waters where/Atlantic sturgeon spend the majority of time and complete all essential life functions that are carried out inthe action area (foraging, migrating, resting), and given the small area that may have temperatures elevated above 28°C it is extremely unlikely

.that these minor changes in behavior will preclude Atlantic sturgeon from completing any essential behaviors such as resting, foraging or migrating or that the fitness of any individuals will be affected: Additionally, there is not expected to be any increase in energy expenditure that has any detectable effect on the physiology of any individuals or any future effect on growth, reproduction, or general health.

Given that Atlantic sturgeon are known to actively seek out cooler waters when temperatures rise to 28°C (82.4°F), any Atlantic sturgeon encountering bottom waters with temperatures above 28°C (82.4OF) area are likely to avoid it. Reactions to this elevated temperature are expected to be limited to swimming away from the plume by swimming around it. Given that benthic areas affected by the thermal plume are limited to the area within and immediately outside the 9

discharge canal, where sturgeon are excluded from due to high velocity of the discharge, it is extremely unlikely that these minor changes in behavior will preclude Atlantic sturgeon from completing any essential behaviors such as resting, foraging or migrating or that the fitness of any individuals will be affected. Additionally, there is not expected to be any increase in energy expenditure that has any detectable effect on the physiology of any individuals o'r any future effect on growth, reproduction, or general health.

We have considered the potential for Atlantic sturgeon to be exposed to temperatures that could.

result in mortality (33.rC or greater). Because we expect Atlantic sturgeon to avoid waters with temperatures greater than 28°C, it, is extremely unlikely that they would swim through those waters to reach areas where the water is warm enough to result in mortality. Given that fish are known to avoid areas with unsuitable conditions and that Atlantic sturgeon are likely to actively avoid heated areas, as evidenced by Atlantic sturgeon moving to deep cool water areas during the summer months (see ASSRT 2007 and Damon-Randall et at.. 2010), it is likely that Atlantic sturgeon will avoid the area where temperatures are greater than tolerable. As such, it is extremely unlikely that any Atlantic sturgeon would remain within the area where surface; temperatures are elevated to 33.7°C (92.7°F) and be exposed to potentially lethal temperatures.

This risk is further reduced by the exclusion of sturgeon from the discharge canal where the warmest waters are located, the limited amount of time Atlantic sturgeon spend near the surface, the small area where such high temperatures will be experienced and the gradient of warm temperatures extending from the outfall; any Atlantic sturgeon present in the area are likely to begin avoiding areas with temperatures greater than 28°C (82.4°F) and are unlikely to ~emain within the heated surface waters or swim towards the outfall and be exposed to temperatures which could result -in mortality.

We have considered whether the avoidance behavior expected for Atlantic sturgeon discussed above, constitutes "take" as defined by the ESA. NMFS has not defined "harassment," a type of take under the ESA. However, legislative history helps elucidate Congress' intent: "[take]

includes harassment, whether intentional or not. This would allow, for example, the Secretary to regulate or prohibit the activities ofbirdwatchers where the effect of those activities might disturb the birds and make it difficult for them to hatch or raise their young" (HR Rep.93-412, 1973). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has defined harassment to mean, "an intentional or

. negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly impair normal behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding or sheltering" (50 CFR 17.3). For purposes of this consultation, we'interpret harassment to be a Significant disruption or delay in carrying out essential behaviors. As explained above, we do not anticipate any significant impairment of any normal behaviors as a result of avoidance of heated waters. Therefore, we do not anticipate any avoidance-related effects to listed species from the thermal plume to rise to the level of take.

\\

Effects to Prey We have considered the potential for heated effluent to affect the abundance or distribution of prey in the action area. Atlantic sturgeon feed on benthic invertebrates such as bivalves, worms and shrimp.

10

The fisheries research conducted by VIMS concluded that the fish community around Surry' Power Station is diverse and dYl1amic, changing monthly and seasonally between species and sizes of individuals within species (VEPCo 1977). A nonparametric comparison between preoperational and postoperational diversity indices showed either no significant difference in the means or that preoperational means were significantly (p < 0.05) less than postoperational means. Over an extended period of time, natural and man-made disturbances resulted in relatively short-term changes to fish populations in the transition zone around Surry Power Station, and the young fish population has remained relatively diverse and stable. Thus, it was concluded that the operation of Surry Power Station, in particular the discharge ofheated effluent, caused no appreciable harm to the fish community in the area (NRC 2002).

The primary benthic invertebrate in the action area is the clam Rangia cuneata. Studies by VIMS (Jordan et al. 1976, 1977) concluded that R. cuneata showed flO preference or avoidance of the cooling water discharge region, b~t instead revealed a preference for silty-clay substrates (VEPCo 1977). While no di/et studies have been undertaken on Atlantic sturgeon in the James

. River, it is likely that they feed on this clam species given that they are known to feed on clams in other river systems.

OutsIde of the discharge canal, the thermal plume is largely at the surface and does not extend to

\\.

the bottom. Given this, it is unlikely that the thermal plume affects benthic invertebrates outside of the discharge canal. Given the small area that benthic prey species would be displaced and the likelihood that these species would avoid intolerant temperatures andnot beinjured or killed due to exposure to intolerable temperatures, any effects to foraging Atlantic sturgeon will be insignificant and limited only to the distribution of their prey away from the thermal plume.

Other Pollutants Discharged from the Facility Pollutants discharged from Surry are regulated under the facility's VPDES permit (VA0004090; VADEQ 2008). Limits on the concentration of pollutants in effluent are included when required for a specific type of facility or when a reasonable potential analysis indicates that there is a reasonable potential for an excursion from a water quality standard (then, a water quality based limit is required). The VPDES perynit also regulates thermal discharges (see above), total residual chlorine (chlorine is used to control biofouling), pH, total phosphorous, fecal coliform '

(for Outfa11101 which receives sanitary sewage), total organic carbon, and total petroleum hydrocarbons. All pollutant limits authorized by the NPDES permit to be discharged by Surry are at levels at or below EPA's aquatic life criteria.

Water quality criteria are developed by EPA for protection of aquatic life (see http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/currentJindex.cfm for current criteria table;

. last accessed May 1,2012). Both acute (short term exposure) and chronic (long term exposure):

water quality criteria are developed by EPA based on toxicity data for plants and animals. Often, both saltwater and freshwater criteria are developed, based on tlle suite of species likely to occur in the freshwater or saltwater environment. For aquatic life, the 'national recommended toxics criteria are derived using a ~ethodology published in GUldelinesfor Deriving Numeric National Water Quality Criteriafor the Protection ofAquatic Organisms and Their Uses (EPA 1985).

Under these guidelines, criteria are developed froindata quantifying the sensitivity of species to toxic compounds in controlled chronic and acute toxicity studies. The final recommended 11

criteria are based on multiple species and toxicity tests. The groups of organisms are selected so that the diversity and sensitivities of a broad range of aquatic life are represented in the criteria values. To develop a valid criterion, toxicity data must be available for at least one species in each of eight families of aquatic organisms. The eight taxa required are as follows: (l) salmonid (e.g., trout, salmon); (2) a fish other than a salmonid (e.g., bass, fathead minnow); (3) chordata (e.g., salamander, frog); (4) planktonic crustacean (e.g., daphnia); (5) benthic crustacean (e.g.,

crayfish); (6) insect (e.g., stonefly, mayfly); (7) rotifer, annelid (wonn), or mollusk (e.g., mussel, snail); and, (8) a second insect or mollusk not already represented. Where toxicity data are available for multiple life stages of the same species (e.g., eggs, juveniles, and adults), the procedure requires that the data from the 'most sensitive life stage be used for that species.

The result is the calculation of acute (criteria maximum concentration (CMC)) and chronic (criterion continuous concentration (CCC)) criteria. CMC is an estimate of the highest concentration of a material in surfac~ water to which an aquatic community can be exposed briefly (i.e., for no more than one hour) without resulting in an unacceptable effect. The CCC is an estimate of the highest concentration of a material in surface water to which an aquatic community can be exposed indefinitely without resulting in an unacceptable effect. EPA defines "unacceptable acute effects" as effectsthat are lethal or immobilize an organism during short term exposure to a pollutant and defines "unacceptable chronic effects" as effects that will impair growth, survival, and reproduction of an organism following long term exposure to a pollutant.

The CCC and CMC levels are designed to ensure that aquatic spec.ies exposed to pollutants in compliance with these levels will not experience any impairment of growth, survival or reproduction.

Data on toxicity as it relates to Atlantic sturgeon is extremely limited, In the absence of species specific chronic and acute toxicity data, the EPA aquatic life criteria represent the best available scientific information. Absent species specific data, NMFS Northeast Region believes it is reasonable to consider that the CMC and CCC criteria are applicable to NMFS listed species in the Northeast Regionas these criteria are derived from data using the most sensitive species and

.life stages for which information is available. As explained above, a suite of species is utilized to develop criteria and these species are intended to be representative of the entire ecosystem, including marine mammals and sea turtles and their prey. These criteria are designed to not only prevent mortality but to prevent all "unacceptable effects," which, as noted above, is.defined by EPA to include not only lethal effects but also effects that impair growth, survival and reproduction.

For the Surry facility, the relevant water quality criteria are the Virginia water quality criteria,.

which must be certified by EPA every three years. This certification process is designed to

.ensure that the VA water quality standards are consistent with, or more protective than, the EPA national recommended aquatic life criteria. Based on this reasoning outlined above, for the purposes ofthis consultation, NMFS considers that pollutants that are discharged with no reasonable potential to cause excursions in water quality standards, will not cause effects that impair growth, survival and reproduction of listed species. Therefore, the effect ofthe discharge of these pollutants at levels that are less that the relevant water quality standards, which by 12

• design are consistent with, or more stringent than, EPA's aquatic life criteria, will be insignificant on Atlantic sturgeon.

Radiological Impacts We have reviewed the information presented in the FEIS and the most recent reports of the Radiological Evaluation Monitoring Report ((REMP) Entergy 2009,2010 and 2011) to assess any radiological impacts to Atlantic sturgeon or their prey.

As described in the REMP, radioactivityreleased from the liqui'd effluent system to the environment is limited, controlled, and monitored by a variety of systems and procedures.

Effluent is tested for radioactivity before being released and is only released if the radioactivity levels are below the federal release limits, Thus, releases would' only occur to the James River after it is determined that the amouAt of radioactivity in the wastewater is diminished to acceptable levels that meet NRC criteria. The NPDES permit issued by VADEQ requires that all discharges of radioactive materials be in compliance with NRC criteria.

The REMP incl~desmonitoring of the airborne exposure pathway, direct exposure pathway (i.e.,

ambient radiation), water exposure pathway (i.e., well water and river water), aquatic exposure pathway (i.e., silt and shoreline sediments), and ingestion exposure pathway (i.e., milk, crabs, fish, clams, oysters, and crops) in a 32-km (20-mi) radius of the station (NRC 2002). In addition, the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) conducts an environmental radiation program that includes continuous monitoring ofthe air and ambient radiation, 'and periodic sampling of fish, milk, shellfish, silt, soil, vegetation, and river water (NRC 2002).

As reported in the most recent REMPs, during 2008, 2009 and 2010, samples continued to contain detectable amounts of naturally-occurring and man-made radioactive materials. No samples indicated any detectable radioactivity attributable to Surry operations. The only radionuclides detected in any river water, silt, shoreline sediment, fish, clam, oyster or crab samples were naturally-occurring radionuclides. No radioactivity attributable to Surry was detected in any of the, and results of any detectable naturally occurring radioactivity were similar to those observed in the preoperational monitoring program.

It is important to note that no Atlantic sturgeon have been tested to determine levels of radionuclides; however, because in the most recent years that sampling occurred, no samples of any species have detected radionuclides that would be attributed to Surry, it is reasonable to anticipate that similar results would be seen if these listed species were sampled. Based on this information, we do not expect that any Atlantic sturgeon contain any detectable levels of radionuclides attributable to Surry. As such, radiological impacts to this species are extremely unlikely. Thus, we consider the effects to listed species and their prey from radionuclides to be insignificant and discountable.

Climate Change In the future, global climate change is expected to continue and may impact listed species and their habitat in the action area. The period considered for continued operations of Surry 1 is through May 25,2032; for Surry 2 it is through January 29,2033. We considered climate 13

change impacts in the action area over this period to provide context within which the effects of the action will occur from present to the expiration ofthe operating licenses. Much about the rate of potential climate change and associated changes in weather patterns and ambient water temperatures is unknown; however, as explained below, given the likely rate of change associated with climate impacts in the James River generally and the action area specifically, it is unlikely that climate-related impacts will have a significant effect on the status of listed species over the temporal scale of the proposed action or that in this time period, the abundance, distribution, or behavior ofthese species in the action area will change as a result of climate change related impacts. The greatest potential for climate change to impact our assessment would be if: (l) ambient water temperatures increased enough such that a larger portion ofthe thermal plume had temperatures that were stressful for Atlantic sturgeon or their prey or if (2) the status, distribution and abundance of Atlantic sturgeon or their prey changed significantly in the action area.

In 2008, the Chesapeake Bay Program's Scientific and Technical AdvisoryCommittee (STAC) reviewed the current understanding of climate change impacts on the tidal Chesapeake Bay and identified critical knowledge gaps and research priorities (Pyke et al. 2008). The report notes that the Bay is sensitive to climate-related forcings of atmospheric C02 concentration, sea level, temperatlire, precipitation, and stonn frequency and intensity and that scientists have detected significant wanning and sea-level-rise trends during the 20th century in the Chesapeake Bay.

Climate change scenarios for C02 emissions examined by STAC suggest that the region is likely to experience significant changes in climatic conditions throughout the21 st century including increases in C02 concentrations, sea level rise of 0.7 to 1.6 meters, and water temperature increasing by up to 2° to 6°C. The STAC also indicated that other changes are likely, but less certain, including increases in precipitation quantity (pmiicularly in winter and spring),

precipitation intensity, intensity of tropical and extratropical cyclones (though their frequency may decrease), and sea-level variability. Changes in annual streamflow are highly unceliain, though winter and spring flows will likely increase. The report notes that changes in human activities over the next century have the potential to either exacerbate or ame'liorate the predicted climatically induced changes. Given the unceliainty in precipitation and streamflow forecasts, the direction ofsome changes remains unknown; however, the report states that certain consequences appear likely, including: increasing sea level in the Bay; increasing variability in salinity due to. increases in precipitation intensity, drought, and stonniness; more frequent blooms ofharmful algae due to warming and higher C02 concentrations; potential decreases in the prevalence of eelgrass; possible increases in hypoxia due to wanning and greater winter-.

spring streamflow; and, altered interactions among trophic levels, potentially favoring warm water fish and shellfish species in the Bay.

In 2010, EPA conducted a preliminary assessment of climate change impacts on the Chesapeake Bay using a version of the Phase 5 Bay Watershed Model and tools developed for EPA's BASINS 4 system including the Climate Assessment Tool. Flows and associated nutrient and sediment loads were assessed in all river basins of the Chesapeake Bay with three key climate change scenarios reflecting the range of potential changes in temperature and precipitation in the year 2030. The three key scenarios came from a larger set of 42 climate change scenarios that were evaluated from seven Global Climate Models, two scenarios from the I~tergovemmental 14

Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Emissions Scenarios storylines, and three.

assumptions about precipitation intensity in the largest events. The. 42 climate change scenarios were run on the Phase 5 Watershed Model of the Monocacy River watershed, a subbasin of the Potomac River basin in the Piedmont region near the James River, using a 2030 estimated land use based on a sophisticated land use model containing socioeconomic estimates of development throughout the watershed.

The results provide an indication of likely precipitation and flow patterns under future potential climate conditions (Linker et al. 2007, 2008). Projected temperature increases tend to increase evapotranspiration in the Bay watershed, effectively offsetting increases in precipitation. The preliminary analysis indicated overall decreases in annual stream flow as well as decreases in nitrogen and phosphorus loads. The higher intensity precipitation events yielded estimated increases in annual sediment loads.

Assuming that there is a linear trend in increasing water temperatures, and that a predicted 2-6°C increase in water temperature by 2100 for th~ Chesapeake Bay would also be experienced' in the James River, one could anticipate a 0.02-.06°C increase each year, with an increase in temperature of OA-1.2°C between now and 2032/2033. Given this small increase, it is not likely that over the*20 to 21 year period that Surry 1 and 2 will continue to operate any water temperature changes would be significant enough to affect the conclusions reached by us in this consultation. Ifnew ihfotmation on the effects of climate change becomes available then reinitiation of this consultation may be necessary.

/

Non-routine and Accidental Events By their nature, non-routine and accidental events that may affect the marine environment are unpredictable and typically unexpected. In the FSEIS, NRC considers design~basis accidents (DBAs); these are those accidents that both the licensee and the NRC staff evaluate to ensure that the plant can withstand normal and abnormal transients, and a broad spectrum of postulated accidents, without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public. NRC states that "a number of these postulated accidents are not expected to occur during the life of the plant, but are evaluated to establish the design basis for the preventive and mitigative safety systems of the facility" (NRC 2002). NRC states that the environmental impacts of these DBAs will be "small" (i.e., insignificant), because the plant is designed to withstand these types of accidents including during the extended operating period.

.NRC also states that the risk of severe accidents initiated by internal events, natural disasters or terrorist events is small. As noted by Thompson (2006) in a report regarding the risks of spent fuel pool storage at nuclear power plants in the U.S., the available information does not allow a statistically valid estimate of the probability of an attack-induced spent-fuel-pool fire. However, Thompson states that "prudent judgment" indicates that a probability of at least one per century within the U.S. is a reasonable assumption. There have been very few instances of accidents or natural disasters that have affected nuclear facilities and none at Surry that have led to any impacts to the James River. While the experience at Fukishima in Japan provides evidence that

.natural disaster induced problems at nuclear facilities can be severe and may have significant consequences to the environment, the risk of non-routine and accidental events at Surry that would affect the riverine environment, and subsequently. affect Atlantic sturgeon, is extremely 15

low. Because of this, effects to listed species are discountable. We expect that in the unlikely event of any accident or disaster that affects the marine environment, reinitiation of consultation, or an emergency consultation, would be necessary.

CONCLUSION As explained above, based on information from NRC, Dominion, and other sources, all effects to listed species will be insignificant or discountable. Therefore, the continued operation of Surry 1 and 2 is not likely to adversely affect any listed species under NMFS jurisdiction.

Reinitiation of consultation is required and shall be requested by the Federal agency or by the Service, where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law and: (a) If new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered in the consultation; (b) If the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the consultation; or (c) If a new specie,S is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action.

No take is anticipated or exempted; take is defined in the ESA as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct." If there is any incidental take of a listed species, reinitiation would be required: If any Atlantic sturgeon are observed at or near Surry, including in the discharge canal, at the trash racks or on the intake screens, this should be immediately reported to us.

It is our understanding that revised CWA 316(b)regulations may be issued by E~A in 2012. If there are any modifications to the Surry facility resulting from theirriplementation of these regulations, reinitiation of this consultation is likely to be necessary.

Technical Assistance for Candidate Species In 2011, we designated blueback hen'ing and alewife as "Candielate Species;" a status review for these species is currently ongoing. NMFS candidate species are those petitioned species that are actively being considered for listing as endangered or threatened uneler the ESA, as well as those species for \\vhich NMFS has initiated an ESA status review that it has announced in the Federal Register. For detailed definitions anel explanations, please refer to the April 15,2004 and October 17, 2006, Federal Register notices (69 FR 19975), (71 FR 61022), \\vhich revised the Candidate Species definition.

. We reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Staterhent prepared for relicensing to obtain.

infOlmation on effects of project operations on blueback herring and alewife. There does not appear to be any discussion of alewife in the FElS; however, this species occurs in the James River. Impingement of blueback hening is discussed in the FEIS. As alewife and blueback*

herring are candidate species that could be listed under the ESA in the future, we encourage you to work with Dominion to minimize effects to these species to the maximum extent possible.

We request that any monitoring reports produced that contain information on these species be provided to us. Should either species be listed under the ESA in the future, reinitiation of consultation would be necessary. Questions specific to candidate species and the status review 16

process should be directed to Kim Damon-Randall (978) 281-9328 or bye-mail (Kimberly. Damon-Randall@noaa.gpv).

Should you have any questions about this correspondence generally please contact Julie Crocker at (978) 282-8480 or bye-mail (Julie.Crocker@noaa.gov).

Sincerely, leI S. Morris Acting Regional Administrator Cc:

O'Brien, Boelke - FfJ\\JER4 Balsam, Logan - NRC File code: Sec. 7 NRC Surry Power Station PCTS: liN ERl20 12/07083 Literature Cited

- '\\

Atlantic Sturgeon Stat~s Review Team (ASSRT). 2007. Status Review of Atlantic sturgeon

. (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office. February 23,2007. 174 pp.

Damon-Randall, K. et al. 2010. Atlantic Sturgeon Research Techniques. Woods Hole (MA)

NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-215.

Dominion. 2011. Surry Power Station Radiological Environmental Operating Report, January 1 through December 31,2010. Filed with NRC May 2011. 104 pp.

EPA. 1985. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. PB85-227049. 54 pp.

Jenkins, W.E., T.I.J. Smith, L.D. Heyward, and D.M. Knott. 1993. Tolerance of shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, juveniles to different salinity and dissolved oxygen 17

concentrations. Proceedings of the Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Atlanta, Georgia.

Kynard, B., D. Pugh and T. Parker. 2005. Experimental studies to develop a bypass for shortnose sturgeon at Holyoke Dam. Final report to Holyoke Gas and Electric, Holyoke, MA.

NMFS and USFWS. 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook. Available Online at:

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/pdf/Sec%207%20Handbook.pdf Nik1itschek, J. E. ~001. Bioenergetics modeling and assessment of suitable habitat for juvenile Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons (Acipenser oxyrinchus and A. brevirostrum) in the Chesapeake Bay. Dissertation. University of Maryland at College Park, College Park.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Surry Nuclear Power Station - Final Report (NUREG-1437, 6).

Stein, A. B., K. D. Friedland, and M. Sutherland. 2004a. Atlantic sturgeon marine distribution and habitat use along the northeastern coast of the United States. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133: 527-537.

Stein, A. B., K. D. Friedland, and M. Sutherland. 2004b. Atlantic sturgeon marine bycatch and mortality on the continental shelf of the Northeast United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24: 171-183.

Thompson, GR. 2006. Risks and Risk-Reducing Options Associated with Pool Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel at the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Po\\ver Plants. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Institute for Resource and Security Studies, 25 May 2006.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) 2008. Modification to Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System VA. Issued to VEPCo January 2008.

Ziegeweid, J.R., C.A. Jennings, and D.L. Peterson. 2008a. Thermal maxima for juvenile shortnose sturgeon acclimated to different temperatures. Environmental Biology of Fish 3: 299 307.

Ziegeweid, lR.,C.A. Jennings, D.L. Peterson and M.C. Black. 2008b. Effects of salinity, temperature, and weight on the survival of young-of-year shortnose sturgeon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:1490-1499.

18