ML13253A319

Email from R. Krieg, Pnl to D. Logan, NRR Et Al., Columbia - Need Response to NMFS Comment

ML13253A319
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	01/13/2012
From:	Krieg R Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
To:	Balsam B, Logan D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FOIA/PA-2013-0265
Download: ML13253A319 (2)

Text

From: Krieo. Rebekah ',

To: Logan, Dennis; Balsam. Briana

Subject:

RE: Columbia - need response to NMFS comment (ML11307A393)

Date: Friday, January 13, 2012 11:33:44 AM How is this? If you'd like we can drop the second sentence and just go with the first.

The staff provided a response to NMFS in a letter dated December 20, 2011 (ML11335A127) provided in Appendix D. Additional information related to this issue is also found in Sections 2.2.7 and 4.7 of this report and in the Biological Assessment/Essential Fish Habitat assessment given in Appendix D.

Let me know if you need me to forward it on to Dan. Otherwise I will assume that you will send it.

Thanks, Becky Original-----

Message -----

From: Logan, Dennis [1]

Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 5:40 AM To: Balsam, Briana; Krieg, Rebekah

Subject:

RE: Columbia - need response to NMFS comment (ML11307A393)

Briana, Exactly what I was going to talk to Becky about. I don't see the need to say much more than what we have already said--the letter went through a lot of review and reorganization and was written to respond to the comment. Briana, I can tie you in to a three-way conversation with my phone later when Becky is in.

Dennis Original-----

Message -----

From: Balsam, Briana Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 8:15 AM To: Logan, Dennis; 'Krieg, Rebekah'

Subject:

RE: Columbia - need response to NMFS comment (ML11307A393)

Yes--I am working at home today, too.

I think this response looks okay to me. I wonder, though, if we could just reference the letter we sent to NMFS and not really put much in the response at all.

From: Logan, Dennis Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 8:07 AM To: 'Krieg, Rebekah'; Balsam, Briana

Subject:

RE: Columbia - need response to NMFS comment (ML11307A393)

Becky, Am working at home today, Friday (I think Briana is also). I will call you this morning.

Dennis From: Krieg, Rebekah [2]

Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 6:29 PM To: Logan, Dennis; Balsam, Briana Cc: Mcdowell, Bruce K

Subject:

FW: Columbia - need response to NMFS comment (ML11307A393)

4f1 Dennis/Briana -

What about the following? Too long? Should we just stick with the last paragraph?

Prior to the 1972 CWA, the staff of NRC's predecessor agency, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) exercised authority for water permitting. However, after the 1972 CWA amendments. the AEC (now the NRC) entered into a memoranda of understanding with EPA regarding EPA's exclusive authority for water permitting. The NRC does not regulate intakes and discharges at nuclear power plants (including CGS), but defers to EPA and its state delegates for water permitting in its review processes. NRC deference to EPA's statutory authority, either directly exercised by EPA or as delegated to the states, extends to both operational water quality impacts and aquatic biota protection. NRC proceedings have held that a discharge permit and related 316(a) variances and 316(b) determinations, respectively, are valid for the purposes of 10 CFR Part 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B).

The State of Washington authorizes discharge of treated wastewater via three outfalls at CGS, in accordance with special and general conditions of NPDES Permit No. WA-002515-1. Under this permit, the State of Washington can require mitigation measures, such as requiring that a cooling system meet NMFS's screen criteria, BTA, or other modifications of the cooling system to reduce entrainment and impingement impacts to aquatic life.

The NRC believes that informal section 7 consultation is the appropriate means of fulfilling NRC's obligations under the ESA for the proposed CGS license renewal. However, for reasons discussed in Section 2.2.7 and 4.7 of the draft SEIS, the BA/EFH given in Appendix D, and the NRC's letter to the NMFS, dated December 20, 2011 (ML11335A127), and in the absence of any new and significant information from NMFS indicating that CGS is entraining either Upper Columbia River spring Chinook juveniles or Upper Columbia River steel head juveniles, the NRC staff has determined that formal Section 7 consultation is not warranted at this time.

From: Doyle, Daniel [mailto: Daniel.Doyle(&nrc.gov]

Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 11:20 AM To: Krieg, Rebekah; Logan, Dennis Cc: Balsam, Briana

Subject:

Columbia - need response to NMFS comment (ML11307A393)

Becky and Dennis, I need a draft response to the NMFS comment letter (ML11307A393) for Appendix A. I don't think it needs to be a long answer. We can just point to the sections of the SEIS that address this consultation and also point to our response letter to them (ML11335A127). Please let me know what you think we should say.

Thanks, Dan