ML16004A194
| ML16004A194 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/2016 |
| From: | James Danna Division of License Renewal |
| To: | Chiarella L State of MA, Div of Marine Fisheries |
| Michelle Moser 4145-6509 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16004A195 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML16004A194 (5) | |
Text
L. Chiarella UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 March 7, 2016 Mr. Lou Chiarella Assistant Regional Administrator National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Office 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930-2276
SUBJECT:
CLARIFICATION OF NRCS RESPONSE TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SEABROOK STATION, UNIT 1, LICENSE RENEWAL REVIEW
Dear Mr. Chiarella:
In August 2011, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff published the draft Supplement 46 to NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (SElS), regarding the license renewal of Seabrook Station, Unit 1 (Seabrook) (ML11213A024). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the draft SEIS, including the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment, and provided comments to the NRC in a letter dated October 26, 2011 (ML11304A057). The letter included comments regarding the NRC staffs evaluation of impacts to aquatic resources, including EFH. In addition, NMFS provided three EFH Conservation Recommendations to avoid and minimize impacts on EFH, pursuant to Section 305(b)(4)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). In a letter dated November 17, 2011, the NRC staff responded to the three EFH Conservation Recommendations, pursuant to Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA (ML11322A094).
In August 2015, the NRC published the final SEIS (ML15209A575 and ML15209A870). After reviewing the final SEIS, Mr. Michael Johnson, NMFS, called Ms. Michelle Moser, NRC, to discuss how the NRC addressed Conservation Recommendations 1 and 2 provided in the letter dated October 26, 2011, particularly in regard to the recommended studies and mitigation measures. To clarify these issues, below is a summary of how the NRC staff responded to these portions of Conservation Recommendations 1 and 2 and incorporated such changes in the final SEIS and EFH Assessment.
NMFS Conservation Recommendation 1 NMFS Conservation Recommendation 1 recommended further studies and analysis to evaluate the reported reductions in abundances in demersal species at the nearfield sampling sites compared to farfield sites. In its November 17, 2011, response to this Conservation Recommendation, the NRC staff stated that it would include Conservation Recommendation 1
L. Chiarella as a potential study for NextEra, the current owner of Seabrook, to conduct. The NRC does not have statutory authority under the Atomic Energy Act to require such studies. However, the NRC staff noted in its November 17, 2011 response, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to implement monitoring studies through its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process and encouraged NMFS to collaborate with EPA to recommend additional studies that would be valuable to include in the NPDES permit. Consistent with NRCs response to Conservation Recommendation 1, the NRC staff revised the SEIS in Section 4.6.4 and the EFH Assessment in Section D-1.5 (Enclosure 1) to describe the type of studies NMFS recommended in Conservation Recommendation 1.
NRCs response further stated that the NRC determined that the studies and related regulatory reviews included in the draft SEIS were sufficient to evaluate the level of impact on aquatic resources. Therefore, the NRC staff did not assess any additional studies when updating the final SEIS.
NMFS Conservation Recommendation 2 NMFS Conservation Recommendation 2 recommended that the NRC analyze a range of alternative plant cooling systems in future National Environmental Policy Act documents. In particular, NMFS recommended that alternatives include an evaluation of the best available practicable technology to mitigate impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts. In its November 17, 2011, response, the NRC stated it would consider an alternative plant cooling system in the final SEIS for the Seabrook license renewal, and that the final SEIS and EFH Assessment would also describe a range of mitigation measures that would mitigate impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts. Consistent with this response, the NRC staff revised the final SEIS in Section 4.6.4 and the EFH Assessment in Section D-1.5 (Enclosure 1) to describe various mitigation measures. In addition, in Section 8.4 of the final SEIS, the NRC staff evaluated a closed-cycle cooling alternative.
As stated in NRCs response to Conservation Recommendation 2, the identification and implementation of best technology available (BTA) is under the authority of the EPA under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the Clean Water Act). EPA can require mitigation measures, such as requiring closed-cycle cooling, BTA, or other modifications of the cooling system to reduce impacts due to entrainment and impingement, under the NPDES permit for Seabrook. However, it is beyond the NRC's regulatory authority to evaluate or recommend BTA. Therefore, the NRC did not implement this portion of Conservation Recommendation 2.
Conclusion Based on the EFH Assessment provided to NMFS in August 2011 (ML11213A024); NMFSs three EFH Conservation Recommendations in a letter dated October 26, 2011 (ML11304A057);
and the NRC staffs response to the three Conservation Recommendation in a letter dated November 17, 2011 (ML11322A094); the NRC staff considers MSA consultation for the Seabrook license renewal to be complete. I look forward to future coordination with your offices
L. Chiarella regarding Seabrook and other NRC-licensed operating nuclear plants in your region. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ms. Michelle Moser, Biologist, at 301-415-6509 or by e-mail at Michelle.Moser@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA/
James Danna, Chief Environmental Review and Project Management Branch Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-443 cc w/encl: Listserv
ML16004A195 (package), ML16004A194 (letter)
Enclosure:
ML16004A190 (Essential Fish Habitat Assessment) *concurred via email OFFICE LA:DLR* AB:RERB:DLR OGC* BC:RERB:DLR NAME IBetts MMoser AGhosh JDanna DATE 1/ 5 /16 1/ 6 /16 1/ 20 /16 3/7 /16
Letter to L. Chiarella from J. Danna dated March 7, 2016.
SUBJECT:
CLARIFICATION OF NRCS RESPONSE TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SEABROOK STATION, UNIT 1, LICENSE RENEWAL REVIEW DISTRIBUTION:
E-MAIL:
PUBLIC EndangeredSpecies Resource RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRerb Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RidsNrrPMSeabrook Resource
DLogan BGrange MMoser LJames JDanna mike.r.johnson@noaa.gov
L. Chiarella UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 March 7, 2016 Mr. Lou Chiarella Assistant Regional Administrator National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Office 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930-2276
SUBJECT:
CLARIFICATION OF NRCS RESPONSE TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SEABROOK STATION, UNIT 1, LICENSE RENEWAL REVIEW
Dear Mr. Chiarella:
In August 2011, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff published the draft Supplement 46 to NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (SElS), regarding the license renewal of Seabrook Station, Unit 1 (Seabrook) (ML11213A024). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the draft SEIS, including the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment, and provided comments to the NRC in a letter dated October 26, 2011 (ML11304A057). The letter included comments regarding the NRC staffs evaluation of impacts to aquatic resources, including EFH. In addition, NMFS provided three EFH Conservation Recommendations to avoid and minimize impacts on EFH, pursuant to Section 305(b)(4)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). In a letter dated November 17, 2011, the NRC staff responded to the three EFH Conservation Recommendations, pursuant to Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA (ML11322A094).
In August 2015, the NRC published the final SEIS (ML15209A575 and ML15209A870). After reviewing the final SEIS, Mr. Michael Johnson, NMFS, called Ms. Michelle Moser, NRC, to discuss how the NRC addressed Conservation Recommendations 1 and 2 provided in the letter dated October 26, 2011, particularly in regard to the recommended studies and mitigation measures. To clarify these issues, below is a summary of how the NRC staff responded to these portions of Conservation Recommendations 1 and 2 and incorporated such changes in the final SEIS and EFH Assessment.
NMFS Conservation Recommendation 1 NMFS Conservation Recommendation 1 recommended further studies and analysis to evaluate the reported reductions in abundances in demersal species at the nearfield sampling sites compared to farfield sites. In its November 17, 2011, response to this Conservation Recommendation, the NRC staff stated that it would include Conservation Recommendation 1
L. Chiarella as a potential study for NextEra, the current owner of Seabrook, to conduct. The NRC does not have statutory authority under the Atomic Energy Act to require such studies. However, the NRC staff noted in its November 17, 2011 response, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to implement monitoring studies through its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process and encouraged NMFS to collaborate with EPA to recommend additional studies that would be valuable to include in the NPDES permit. Consistent with NRCs response to Conservation Recommendation 1, the NRC staff revised the SEIS in Section 4.6.4 and the EFH Assessment in Section D-1.5 (Enclosure 1) to describe the type of studies NMFS recommended in Conservation Recommendation 1.
NRCs response further stated that the NRC determined that the studies and related regulatory reviews included in the draft SEIS were sufficient to evaluate the level of impact on aquatic resources. Therefore, the NRC staff did not assess any additional studies when updating the final SEIS.
NMFS Conservation Recommendation 2 NMFS Conservation Recommendation 2 recommended that the NRC analyze a range of alternative plant cooling systems in future National Environmental Policy Act documents. In particular, NMFS recommended that alternatives include an evaluation of the best available practicable technology to mitigate impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts. In its November 17, 2011, response, the NRC stated it would consider an alternative plant cooling system in the final SEIS for the Seabrook license renewal, and that the final SEIS and EFH Assessment would also describe a range of mitigation measures that would mitigate impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts. Consistent with this response, the NRC staff revised the final SEIS in Section 4.6.4 and the EFH Assessment in Section D-1.5 (Enclosure 1) to describe various mitigation measures. In addition, in Section 8.4 of the final SEIS, the NRC staff evaluated a closed-cycle cooling alternative.
As stated in NRCs response to Conservation Recommendation 2, the identification and implementation of best technology available (BTA) is under the authority of the EPA under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the Clean Water Act). EPA can require mitigation measures, such as requiring closed-cycle cooling, BTA, or other modifications of the cooling system to reduce impacts due to entrainment and impingement, under the NPDES permit for Seabrook. However, it is beyond the NRC's regulatory authority to evaluate or recommend BTA. Therefore, the NRC did not implement this portion of Conservation Recommendation 2.
Conclusion Based on the EFH Assessment provided to NMFS in August 2011 (ML11213A024); NMFSs three EFH Conservation Recommendations in a letter dated October 26, 2011 (ML11304A057);
and the NRC staffs response to the three Conservation Recommendation in a letter dated November 17, 2011 (ML11322A094); the NRC staff considers MSA consultation for the Seabrook license renewal to be complete. I look forward to future coordination with your offices
L. Chiarella regarding Seabrook and other NRC-licensed operating nuclear plants in your region. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ms. Michelle Moser, Biologist, at 301-415-6509 or by e-mail at Michelle.Moser@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA/
James Danna, Chief Environmental Review and Project Management Branch Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-443 cc w/encl: Listserv
ML16004A195 (package), ML16004A194 (letter)
Enclosure:
ML16004A190 (Essential Fish Habitat Assessment) *concurred via email OFFICE LA:DLR* AB:RERB:DLR OGC* BC:RERB:DLR NAME IBetts MMoser AGhosh JDanna DATE 1/ 5 /16 1/ 6 /16 1/ 20 /16 3/7 /16
Letter to L. Chiarella from J. Danna dated March 7, 2016.
SUBJECT:
CLARIFICATION OF NRCS RESPONSE TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SEABROOK STATION, UNIT 1, LICENSE RENEWAL REVIEW DISTRIBUTION:
E-MAIL:
PUBLIC EndangeredSpecies Resource RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRerb Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RidsNrrPMSeabrook Resource
DLogan BGrange MMoser LJames JDanna mike.r.johnson@noaa.gov