ML13255A453
| ML13255A453 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 07/05/2012 |
| From: | Logan D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Balsam B, Kevin Folk Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2013-0265 | |
| Download: ML13255A453 (2) | |
Text
Craver, Patti From:
Logan, Dennis Sent:
Thursday, July 05, 2012 11:01 AM To:
Balsam, Briana; Folk, Kevin Cc:
Susco, Jeremy; Subin, Lloyd
Subject:
RE: NMFS NW Region call summary Kevin and Briana, I can think of just a few other things:
NMFS said that they thought they had everything that they needed and did not anticipate asking NRC for any other information. They also said that they may wait to consider pursuing the question of intake structure modification until EPA promulgates its new rules for intake structures, now planned for release not before the end of this year. I couldn't take notes in the car, but I believe NMFS said that they may not get back to us on this question until EPA releases that rule for review. I also think we agreed that NRC has no further action in the consultation at this point.
Dennis From: Balsam, Briana Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 10:18 AM To: Folk, Kevin Cc: Logan, Dennis; Susco, Jeremy; Subin, Lloyd
Subject:
NMFS NW Region call summary
- Kevin, Here's a summary of the call with NMFS NW Region from Tuesday-(If anyone has edits, please feel free to send them out)
We held a call with Rich Domingue, Ritchie Graves, and Mark Eames at the NMFS NW office to discuss the NMFS's June 11 letter regarding Columbia. The June 11 letter requested that NRC advise NMFS of any determinations under section 7(d) of the ESA. Jeremy explained that the license renewal does not violate section 7(d) because it does not foreclose future mitigation options. Jeremy and Lloyd also addressed specific questions from NMFS regarding license conditions and the threshold for changing license conditions. NMFS said that they anticipate that the Columbia cooling system would be modified through the NPDES permitting process. NRC explained that the only part that NRC would play in such an action would be to ensure that Columbia can safely withdraw cooling water for plant operation.
We discussed NMFS's request for NRC to initiate formal section 7 consultation. NRC asked what NMFS's basis is for this request. Rich Domingue explained that the basis of his non-concurrence is on a lack of data at Columbia, from comparing Columbia's intake system to NMFS's design criteria, and from experience with other cooling systems. Dennis explained the past studies that had been done at Columbia and reminded NMFS that the NRC, applicant, and NMFS had worked together during the construction of the intake system to ensure protection of aquatic organisms. Columbia's original intake design was modified based on NMFS suggestions and the operational studies conducted in the late 70s indicated that no fish, eggs, or larvae, were being impinged or entrained. NRC asked Rich if he had reviewed these studies. Rich indicated that he had not reviewed the studies. NRC and NMFS agreed to "table" the discussion until NMFS had reviewed the studies.
1 1
Briana 2