ML20044B714

Partially Withheld Commission Paper Informing of Denial of Request to Suspend or Revoke CP for Facilities & Stay Issuance of OL for Salem Unit 2

ML20044B714
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	04/25/1980
From:	Malsch M NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:
Shared Package
ML19290F683	List: ML19290F682 ML19296F736 ML20038A425 ML20044B699 ML20044B701 ML20044B702 ML20044B704 ML20044B705 ML20044B706 ML20044B707 ML20044B708 ML20044B709 ML20044B710 ML20044B713 ML20044B714 ML20044B715 ML20044B716 ML20044B717 ML20044B719 ML20044B720 ML20044B721 ML20044B722 ML20044B723 ML20044B724 ML20044B725 ML20044B727 ML20044B728
References
FOIA-92-436 SECY-A-80-061, SECY-A-80-61, NUDOCS 9303030187
Download: ML20044B714 (34)

Text

.

e f

UNITED $TATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M

5-P. ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 a

• n ADJUDICAIORY secv...so-a tyrii as, 19a0 f

[.

COMMISSICNER ACTION The Cer. 'ssioners r

M or:

i T.ar:1n G. Valsch Trom:

~

Zeputy General Ccunsel

.-..T_..

f. ~.....::

-.20#.

~

9 m,s3er....

r.. a r c.o m e.epr.J T. A.v. r. r.

c, m

, - c n-..,.

n..a a r.:

.... 1 ~ F. p ~ r u 1 C e.p... C.7 s

u.

1...

t.r- :

r..w : c...v. s

.s l...

}

z.gnj'.4+4c_e.

.t c 1 p. *

• g a {.

. ] p t.. c. *. = c-6 *q{

.T * *. * { C **., '.' r 8...

7.,

m.

...j s

C.v..d

': - n, D.

e..- c. C. E' *. Q C.. L. *.' t. '..' V.. g**

.C*'*'.'..,

e.r.'.

g F.evieu c,..:co.

_=.....-o..c.

r a...<.~.e.

e + v. e.

e.....>ae> c.

e

.n.

+y2,.

> r e

v

.se.

- a. ".. 'r'. a..ha. r.^.c......'..-

e v a. s '. '. c e ".e " as".d s

w.

4 y

,e p s..s.... e..'e.- 6f.o.w.

.'s.. A * '. f. f. p c, p *~. A "c c6 e 4.c..c 4

d s

tg 2

6

.n..

e_.er...>.

s, c.

r >>,

c. r a. r a. <. g

< e. a... e.

.e.7., g o.

"his Director's de 'sion concludes ' FC s:aff I'scussicr:

3 =. ' '.'. e

'..'.c.

a '..'. c ".. c '.

• v *' 3... v '. '. e > *. '. '. ~. 2'.."..c

~ -

1. pact cf these plant s en the sh:rtnose s:u. -

peon, an endance.ei species.

~he petiti:ns are f

dis cussed in SECY A-50-33, which a~.sc re c'e.-: d the rirector's denial cf Fatruary -

l~!:, f:r n., s.

g e.. j =_2,

.ea,.. z. a......

A.2..

.s.e.

6. %.p g L.

6.%..- c. s.,

.....c

. g e. a J e.1-ie

..e.

cp..e.og4 A n. e. g.f P

o.,c.a. g.. L.. c.!

V.'. *. ~. ' ~. 1.' C. : :..v.e.

h

. >. c

.c;. G.. '.c 3

' ^

.....-e.

..E n '. s ~..' c '.'.'... y c. ' 's.'. ~ ~. '.'.#..".".."'.".~.e:

^

a C "3* " c" *..' ". ".... ' ' '. '. '

C :. U S = 'w# ". "., C ^ "...' ~. ". " "' '..' r. : ". 4 w

.. w C.- a. e t. "... '.. s 1

a. ". 4 c.. t '. "..u a. " c..=..u..'.-

c ' >'.~- = - ' e - - ' ~' :-

~

E"'

"* ~ ~~~

~

=='c-

~

.. ~. -.

li formation in th15 feC0rd Was de&d

.',',a,',,,.' ', ~ c=,,,,-

" ~ ~ ~ ' ~~

,. ~......

r c..

u

_ - -. ~.

.a.

M aCCotdance gjgp gyg 7 Tee.,om cl InformatI'on

.....c

.~

" - e ~. *. =- '- ~. ~ *.

=

. '. *: a- ~..' *. *O*,

Alt. exemptions - - g w

a.

~ ~ ~

.\\...

<..a....>.-

e. r. y p e.-.....

.e

. a e..n.

.n...

C..

..i l,

~

. ~C.........,...... -,..

,~..,k w...

L..

.... ~.

t.

.. e ~ a. e.,

.4

._.V. g,

C.". g.

8

+.

.L.,

. e e..c :

...d.

g 8

w.

...s I

s,. ; - ;.e.e

f. g

? * *,,. a. ;.

g *

eJ..e..

..J

. "* #. ;..,,, J...

e.

.b 2

gy

=-

g

.. : - =.....

.=

psi

,9 y$: p,_

.. > a. :. :.

a..a. e. =. > c..-

.. ~

Ad

,Q,,,

~'.e ". ~. _ [ ; M d c

..: ril 15,

.~5.,

?

i :. ;

70 m

u 9303030107 921125 PDR FOIA GILINSK92-436 PDR

2

- i cin g.* c t 1 c;1r.ior endc.-sing the s t aff's conclu-

! c r..

L ;.:: a chmen: 23 Cn t..e baris of the !!EC ticlogical assessnent and the C:~

biolegical J

cpinien the Direc: Or deternine: - it the cen-tir.ued c;eraticn of Ealen Unit 1, -he future cperaticn cf Saler l'ni 2, and ' t.* - construction j

and operati:n of E pe Creek Units ; and 2 are

)

not like:y to jeopardize the con:Inued existence

)

of shortncse sturgeon in the Delat ire River.

Acc rdingly, ne den.'.ed 1he cetiti:ns 'on April 13,

9S0.

[ At t ach:nent 3].

c o \\'

t

-- -- =. h t f o r :

1

. },,.

c.1

-f- / y '

'l y

/)k:.vr.,'.i/g,jL.,:j,

?:ar in G. ':al:ch Deputy Ger.eral C:=.:e1

-..c r.:: :

-.cr Regar to !.T;?:

... r r Leitzell te Eegar.

.- : c r Zer.t:n to Celenan j

)

c:mer' cements should be provided directly to the Offi:e of t.he Secretary

- i. Thurscay, May E,1980.

'f 0" ice cc,nents, if any, should be su'- ;t c: t: the Commissioners

>> '. F'D, i;itn an ir. formation copy to. the Off kr et t;'e 'ect stary.

If the r - M such a nE;ure that it requires additiona

• ice for.'lalytical renew j

F9*. ite Ccn-issioners ar.: the Secretariat 'ct.1d be a;;rised of when

a. te e.ge::ed.

l i

< l T

- '"'I'."ic":

I

. 3 i; r.. r '-

!'i " ftt " (" ices

.c Direcic-for Operatiens

- T.

t 1.

f r

4 s

1 I

i 8

1 4

w

r. TT. A ^ L.-'...s t r, 1

s.

i EN:LOSURE 3 t%R 141550 Docket Nos. 50-311, 50-354 and 355

!ir. Allen E. Petcrson, Jr.

Director,fiE Regio 1 tia tf or.a1 :1crine Fisheries Service

.lational Oceanic :nd Atrospheric Administraticn Federal Building,14 Elm Street e,1cutester, ".A 01930 l

Dear Mr. Peterson:

In resnonse to the letter of Det:c.ter 7,1979, frca i!r. Terry L. Leitzell, the staff of tha ::uclear Regulatcry Ccanission has obtained additicnal infurnation on the shortncse sturgeon in the Delaware Pivar. !!e have exanined the available information on the site and vicinity of the Salso and Hoce Creek flutlear rienerating Stations and evaluated the impacts of construction anJ oreratien of these stations on the shortnose sturgeon.

The details of the infer.stien u2 h:ve censidered and the findings and conclusions of ocr review are set forth in the report fert:arded uith this lettsr, "tssessrnt of the Inpacts of the Salen and 1: ope. Creek Statiens on Shortnose Starcran, tei m ser trevirostru, Lesueur," " arch 5, 1950, (Enclosure 1). Tae overall maclusion we nave reached is tr.at the continued cperation c' Salem Unit 1, ti.e future operation of Salem Unit 2, and the comoletien of construction and subsequent operation of Pope Creek Units 1 anJ 2 will not jeopardi:e the continued existence of the shortnese sturgeon in the Delattare River.

The Environmental Protection Agt cy has joined with !!RC in its consultation with ::MTS and has agreed that ;;RC will act as lead agency (EPA letter dated January 9,10SO, Enclosure 2).

EPA has concurred in the HRC conclusion noted abcve (EPA letter dated " arch 5,1930, Enclosure 3).

He believe that our assess. ent provides an adequate basis for resolving any concern for adverse insact on shortnosa sturgeon from the Salem and licce Creek Stations ar.d for procaeding withcut addressing this natter further in reaching decisions on the licensing at Sale : Unit 2 and liepe Creek, Units 1 and 2.

Ue will, reinstitute ao:ropricte consultaticn if new ir. formation becomes available on innacts of the Salem and !!cce Creek Static s on snortnose sturgeon or their hcbitat or if codifications are nada in the desir:n er activities at either station which are likely to affect this species. 0;r licensir.; decisions (one cf which is imir.ent r

i e

i n

~

I i.

I N

t "r.

Allen E. roterson, Jr. 4 i

for Ssicm Unit 1) uill not foreclose considerations cf acpropriate modificatior.s or alt 2rnatives if need for s;ch should crise in the i

future.

l l'e feel our acscss.ents will allow you to complete your cons.1tation uith us on these facilities..:e !!elcore any cc: nants you r.ay nave on the enclosed assesstent and its conclusiens. !!e appreciate tha assister.ce you have providcJ in 1,ese consultatiens and icci for.ard to ccn inted CCo?eration.

Sincerely, Ct W V*,*"

,.a nG*l'*

!b. H. Eecan, Jr., Acting Assis: ant Directcr fer Saviror ental Projccts Divisicn of Site Safe:y and Envircnncnt31 Analysis 2ncicsar2s:

1. "Assessn?nt cf the Ir,ccts of tne Salen and liope Crcek Statier:s on Shortnose Sturgeen, j

Acipens2rtbrevires :r;, L:sueur,"

arcn 5,1320.

EPA ltr to i 7C dtd 1/?/00 3.

EFA ltr to '2 Jto 3/5/s3 l

l cc (u encl): Terry L. Lei::211, :"75 l

(uenti 1::

J. *brales-52ncher, :PA l

i

(

l l

I 4

l

1 t

?

fI i

.i i

d'

-f l/

/

[, 6[-

t, t

A i

4 ATTAChYENT 2 i

i f

4 4

.arit

..',V Ur 4

-a f

s pf c.- # '

fq UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE h

Nations! Ococnic cnd Atmosph:ric Adminiatentirn

~!

P4ATCNAL MAR 14E ASHEP iS SERvCE Washington, D.C. 20:35 APR 15 EO

. j.~. 5.. Dp 7

eP' e...

Mr. William H. Re an e

g Acting Assistant Director for Environnental Projects a

N Divistor. of Site Safety and Environ = ental

{

Analysis

,~

Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission Washingt en, D.C.

20555

Dear Mr. Regan:

5 g

This is in respense to the biolegical assess ent forwarded te the Natienal Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Eegienal Director en March 14, 1950, in

-l accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as arended.

The biological assess:ent sub=1:ted by your a;ency, in joint censultatien vi:h the Environnental Protectice. Agency, is recognized as part of an ongoing consultation process initiated by you on October 29, 1979.

Enclosed is our biological opirion required under Section 7 in response te your biolegical assess:ent of the i= pacts cf the continued operatica ef the Sale:

Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1; the future operatien of the Sale: Nuclear Cenerating Station, Unit 2; and the cerpletien of construc:f on and subsequent u

cpera: don cf the Eope Creek belear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 on the endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acioenser brevirestrum) in the Delaware River and habitat critical to it.

This biological cpinien is written to supplenent and a end our Decenber 7,1979, initial opinien made on the eperatica of the Sale:

Nuclear Generating Statien, Unit 1.

This biclegical opinion states that the activities identified above are ne: likely te jeopardi:e the centinued existence of sher: nose sturgeon in the Delaware River, nor are they likely to destroy er adversely affect habi ta t that may be critical t: shcrtnese stur;e:n in the Delaware River.

This cpinion is continEe.: upon the cc.pletion of the scnitoring progra:

required by the Environmental Pro:ecti n Agency and the centinued operatien and

=aintenance of the fish screening and fish re: urn syste s either in use or preposed te be used en the intake structures.

Furthe. cre, the Nuclear Re;ulatery Cenniss:en

=ust reinitiate consultati:n if nev infer:a: ion becomes availabic indicating a resl or potential adverse impac: to sher:nese sturgeon fr: the c:nstructicn er epera:irr of these f:,ur units, er if codifications are made to n.e -peration of the units which are likely to affec: this species.

We leek forward to centinued coopera:icn in fu:ure c:nsul:a:i:ns.

Sincerely y urs.

~

' n 1

cer@3yp&[

o Assim A=p:mmm e

ell f

!Or :1sne!195 gh.l

{

Inclesure

=. -...

e

]-

{;.

cc: Mr. Julio."orales-Sanche Director, Inforcement Division II.vironmental Protection Agency

+

i 26 Tederal Plaza

!;ev York, Ncv York 10307 i

.{

n f

i e

s a

i i

I i

l I

I ENDANGERD SPECZES ACT OF 1973 (As Amended)

Section 7 Consultation - 11oloEical Opinion Arency: Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission as lead agency in joint consultation with the Envit on=cntal Protection Ag ency.

Activity: Continued operation of the Sales Nuclear Generating Station, Uni: 1; the future operation of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Uni: 2; and the conp'etion of construction and subsecuent operatica of the Ecpe Creek i

Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 at Ar:ificial Island en the t

eastern shore of the Delaware F.iver in New Jersey.

Consultatien Conducted By: Environnental Assess:ent 3 ranch, Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service (2'TS).

Summa r e of Consulta:1,on:

This is par: cf an on-going Endan;ered Species Act, Sectien 7 censultation process initiated by the Su ! ear Eegulatery Cc rissien (NRC) en Ct ;.ber 29, 1979.

The initial NRC consultation resulted in a December 7,1979, SMIS biological opinien which stated that the existing cnce-through water in:ske sys:c: at the Sale:

Ncclear Genera:ing Statien, Uni: 1 (55CS 1), was net likely to jeopardize the cen:Lr.aed ccistence cf shortnese sturgecn (Acipenser brevires:run) in the Delaware River. Hewever, the biclegical cpinien also stated that :here was insufficien:

1 inf ernatien provided for NMIS to =ake a biological opinion regarding the ccebined 1

-l impact of SNCS 1, Sale: Nuclear Genera:Ln; Station, Uni: 2 (5505 :), and H:pe Creek Nuclear Generating Statien, Units 1 and 2 ECNCS 1 and ECNCS 24 Further cens:1 ::ir-4 was required.

The Envirennentsi Prote::ien Agency (ETA) joi.ed ':EC in the extended cent:12:::n with 7::75 en January 9,1950.

The prestn: ticic;f 1 epini:n is in respense :: :he i

j o ir.: 5?.C/E?A hiClogiC31 asfeSr%Cn: tranEC1::ed :O 'IE3 On MOr!? li, 193.'. 25; 5:T5 1 CO 2e:e : _!

I,

!;pple:ents and atends the er:10 sed ini:ill Opini0n n;Ie CT i

t

' C. '. e.

s

• '(

[(Y'(Ah

+.e OthCT ini r!;:icn f0T.Orded :0 J.* 'ry ? f* 1I ferV;;c 11 ::::: On; $;5 !;rp;*' :: Cur

2 request following a January 7, li80, =eeting with EPA. We have also reviewed infor ation in the scientific literature and discussed the catter with scientists L

active in sht rtnose sturgeon research.

The ::MTS has concluded that the biological nssessment was based on the best scicntific and commercial data available. We believe that, with few exceptions, 4

4

5e report represents a realis:1c assessment cf the impact of construction and c:eration of the the frer nuclear plants on shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River, 11: hough many conclusic:s presented therein are a result cf extrapolations fro:

da:a collec:ed in other river syste=s rather than specific sturgeon data collected fro: the Delaware River. We conclude that the ccebined impact of the continued cperation of S::GS 1, the future operation of S:;GS 2, and the co:pletion of cc,structicn and subseq:ent operation of HCNGS 1 and 2, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of shortnose sturgeon or to destroy or adversely esi.ify habitat which =ay be critical to it.

1.ife His:ory of the She-nese Sturgeon in the Delvare River The state ents =ade in the initial SMTS biological opinion (enciesed) and the Parch 5,1980, :RC/E?A tiological assessment, regarding the general life history of the stor:ncse sturge::, provide an adequate syncpsis for the species. Eovever, there have been no surveys specifically designed to determine the distribution and abundance of shortnese s:urgeon in the Delaware River. The extensive fish surve;.s 1:sted in the :;RC/ EPA bi:!ogical assess:ent may not have been designed to adequately rrple the ben: hic envir : ent of the sturgeon.

This proble: was described in A

_'eciev of Acut:ic Sar.olis; Procrats in the Delaware River f ro 1953-1079 with Special i

1 r'erence to Capcure of 5' crinese Sturgeon, prepared by Ichthyclerical Associa:es, r

and p:cv:ded :: ?'TS bv -he Public Service Electric and'Ccs C:: ann.

Sis rep:r:

n;;:::ed th:: :he : V 1: e (varp) lengths of their 4.C br:t:: trawl vere en: ended

ra :. ie.varp :en;:- to v :er dep:h) i. July 1979 when :ne r stu;7 area v:s lj c

nce- :: :n:::._e :t e c: ire :e:av:re Iay.

V :ine :en;:hs en bo::r :::v; i

=Nb 2 dn ~-

d

(..*

b sbOC Iek e~O[e Iaa I

.(

r.a E n) na [e e 2a e.I l

I

g a

f sa: pled the deep river bottom areas adjacent to the plant sites at Artificial a

T Island, Salem, New Jersey.

In fact, the only shor: nose sturgeon taken by I :tyological i.

Associates off Artificial Island was no: collected until July 27, 1979.

t t

We believe tha t extrapolations of shortnose sturgeon 1;f e hist ar", er :::pera:

l t

and spatial distribution and abundance esti=ates, su:h as those : rov i=f in :ne NRC/ EPA biological assessment, =ust be qualified as lar;ely unsupported 13.ais collected under a qualitative sturgecn sampling program in the Del: ware River. %e realize that :he NRC/E?A biological assessment was based up:n the best availsbic inf ormation, and t hat extrapolation of known shor: nose sturgeon data in other river systers may be the only realisti: approach at present to identifying lif e his::ry information ti the Delaware River. Rowever, we wish to take it clear in this b2:1cgical opinien t hat :

f the relaware River sh ?: nose sturgeen life histery infer:ati:n presen:ed in the NEC/E?A assesszen: vas extrapola:ed either from scant da:a collected on the Oe: aware River or f rce ore de: ailed s:urgeon resear:5 pr: grams carried cu:

in other river systens.

We agree with the Eeneral life history ci shcrtnese sturgeon in the Delavtre River as described in the biolecital assesstent.

Shortnese s:urgecn s avnint r

grounds in the Oelaware River are protably Iccated in the vicinity cf Scudders Falls, although ne eggs have ever been recevered free the river. The spe:ifi:

limits of the spawning grounds are unknown. Lelaware River habita: utilized by shortnese sturgeon larval and pest larval sta;es :s also uncuantified.

The ez.o-larval-pes: larval lif e history scenario develcped in :he YRC/I?A assess:en: is quite reas:nable, bu: it cust renain hyp:thetic:1 un::: pr:ven by specific research. We cen:ur vi h the NRC/I?2 s:stement :ht entra:nable si:e shortnese sturgern are net present in the Ar:ificial Island cres.

The Delaware River shrr: nose sturreon p pu!stien astt:ste 5 :: t in : c "E.'I?A assessment, which was ex:rapola:ed fren ;cru a:ict densi:3 er: inst er fr-.

er rive! syste 5,

C:n:Lini !!O

n'.

v0ri2'Iles O bi 01 uFi !! *I"7f in z'O'*.

!ge:S p rogram :anagement.

The general lack Cf Sh0rtn0!v stur;CC' TC vC T ;+, :.

17

,,<..<-ca.u.--,<--...-----

s-

---

< ~ ;<

<-~

2-

2.-..,

L

lies the existence of any fish population of the size estimated in the NRC/EyA 1

a s se s s ment unlikely.

1

. pact of Pla-:s Construction and 0;rration en Shortnose Sturreon Pnpulations The ootential impact of various censtruction and operational phases of SNCS I and 2 a.d HCNCS 1 and 2 are adequ::el; discussed in the NRC/ SPA biclogical arset: ent.

Uc concur v;;h the NRC/EFA biol. ;; al assessment that const uction of N _NCS 1 and 2 vill have a ne;11;ible irpact on shortnose sturgeen.

We also agree that shortnose s:ergeon e;gs and larvae are unlikely to be present a: Artificial Isl:nd.

Fu:chernere, young-of-:he-year of an entrainable sirt (less then 6 c in lengt h), are not known to pass downstream ef the salt wedge incursion i ne which typically remains above Artificial Island during the sunr er.

Therefore,

te distance of the plant sites fre suspected spawning and nursery grounds, cc bined with t he existcnce of.ertical traveling screens at the SNCS I and 2 intakes, and t he proposed use cf cy:indricci wedge-w:re or vertical traveling screens at the HCNCS 1 cnd : in:akes designed te cxcicde all fish s aller t'cn 6 c=,

.ruld effe::ively preclude entrainten:.

The scenarie develeped in the NF.C/EFA assessment regarding expet:ed shortnese i

sturgeon distributien and use of the riverine hcbitat immediately ad jacent to the SNCS 1 nd 2 and MCNCS I and 2 intake structures appe:rs re2senable.

Toraging adults I

I and occas:en:1 ;uveniles are the enly shcr nose sturgeen life stages expec:ed to be l

s found cff Artificial Island.

The trash bars extending outside all intake structures arc expreted :: exclude individucis lar;er than 60 cr.

The existing Ristro,th Vertical Tr:veling Screen Return Sys:c: at the SNCS I and 2 intake structures are s

I desi;.ed to return all fish to the river downcurrent cf the intake strue:ure.

The r

t "Nv51 and 2 unit s will utilir e

-ling towers for the circulatine va:er s.ysten, i

r

~~~.eir ntake flow is es:izz:ed to be only 30 of the flow at the SNCS 1 and 2 intakes.

e Tne EINCI 1 and 1 in:akes vill be ;urried by ::ss'r bars and either a cylindrical JiH wed;e-r.re 2:r: screen sys:c or the Ristrorh 'Jertical Traveling Scrcen fvste:

dc

(...

-..3 L.-..

.- ~

7 5

L

.Le -...-ra. asTess Cn: est; 2;cs !r.2: :ne n_ :er c;- shc;;_pse gt;; g;n expe;;gj J

l

=

t l

to be impinged per year at S::GS I and 2 and HC;GS 1 and 2. vould be O to 10 and 0 to 1, respectively.

Surveys show that the survivability of fish 1 pinged ar.d recovered frem the SNCS 1 screen return s; stem rar.ges from 44E fer sensi:ive fish to 96*; for hardy species. %c concur that shortnose s:crgeon can be considered a hardy species and can be expected to survive the traveling screen system vi:r einitu: injury. We further concur with the NRC/E?A assessment that expecte' t

impingement losses at SNGS 1 and 2 and EC;GS 1 and 2 are nc: likely to je:pc:d;:e the centinued existence of shortnose sturEean in the 'Jelaw re River.

included the peten:ial impacts of both a: :e

~he Nist/E?A biological assess:ent and threnic ther a1 discharge, biocide rele:se, plu e entrain ent, gas bubble d

all four sta:icns' J

dicease, and ccidshock on shcr: nose sturgeca res:.1:ing frc:

adverse i. pact to sher:nese c;erations. We cencur vi:h their statements tha:

f stur:een vill resul: from these dischar es.

i Conclusicn a:!cn provided us in the "KI/EFA biclogical asseu-Ve have reviewed the in a,

as e'.1 as inf er stien provided us by Publir fervice Ele::ric and Gas Cen; :

i cent as re;ue. ed by 275 at a recting with IPA :n January 7, ICEC. We have also liter:: re revic ed infer :a::en available in published and u published scientifi:

i vi:5 scientists curren:1;. at:ive in sher: nose and have discussed this nat:e:

We t elieve :h_t all infer:ati:n revieved represents the bes:

s: urge:r res earch.

4 Eevever. 1: sheuld be resta:ed ths: c available scientific and cennertial data.

research credur ed u deal cf the infer s:1:in presented.as ex: rap: lated fr :

grea:

Therefere. a reassess:en: ci potential inpacts :y be ne:e. -

)

other river srs:ers.

3n !: ~idifies thi ti f

if future resc r:h ernau::ed in the elavare Eirci sienifi:

i for this epitien.

1 I: is :he ep'ni:r cf ""FS ths: the eper::icn f :ne en:e -.rcu;h circu..

F' and tervi:e V::er iniskes. :nd ::L'rir* d di3 h' Z?* I"!!i 7:

4 a

vater ceclin.:

1: use for the ni s: 52:15 1 :nd rreprse: :: h u r ;. d e r ::.:: uni: a:

I~

4 f

he C On stru ::0~. I.nd O?CraIien I 'he seri' :s v:I *' I 17 ~ ! C On5 disc

~

~

J 1

1 1

E?f; 6

.;r;-

i4f-the closed cycle / cooling tower units at HCNGS 1 and HC505 2; are not likely to

$h?

t f.:

jeopardize the centinued existence of the shortnose sturSeon, nor are they likely N'.

to destroy or 'dversely affect ha bi ta t that may be critical to shortnose sturgeon 6

1. ".

y4..~

in the D(laware River. This opinion is contingent upon completion of the monitoring l-program required by E?A, and the cont;nued operation and =aintenance of the trash f'

bar, fish screen, and fish return systems eitt...

in use or proposed to be ve.ed on the i

I +)

intake st ruc tures.

bY

(.

Finally, should scre data beco=e available indicating a potential or real si t

jg adverse i= pact on shortnose sturgeon fro: the construction or other activities d'

5t of these four units, or should the units' operations be modified in a way likely to p

f adversei, impact that species, consultation cust be reinitiated, t

Enclosure Y,

f 1

t l

9 1

5 i

t s

%4 Dist ribution:

F - without en losure Tx31 - without enclosure F/My.

without enclosure y

2 CCF - vithout enclosure Ik F/ NEE 62 - without enclosure

' t.

T/NER624 - witheat en:losure F/NEC - vithout eaclosure i

g/

NRC (James Wilson; - vithout enclosure

'l EPA (Morales - Sanchez)- vithout enclosure A

{f',

F/NER73 (Testaverde) 4 copies - without enclosure r

atM

s 3:f

~

u 9

4Ilt l l P

l 1

k i

I I

I

e

~

j E.Jangered Species Act c,nva.. :iun - Thr eshold E:.:ac :nntion and Biolop,1 cal Opinion

c... s......a.

~1 0

I A.~,... r e.v : :.;::t ar 7.c;ulatcry >;e ncy

~

._c_

s.of r S ra:: Ccoling ttater Intake of Sale: !!ucles-Cenerating j

j_,

! tation, Unit 1, on the Delaware Ruer,

,a

[

• e Jersey.

~

Consul:ation Cenducted ty: Of fice of Marine Ma::als ari Er.1rugered p.

Species, !!ationel Marine Fisheries Service.

^

N Su mary of Consultation:

p The s.taf f of the ?!uclear Regulatory Cc==Ission (12C) requested j

in.f ormal consultation with the 1:stional Marine Fisheries Service (:0*?S)

!.y W..

yg 9

concerning existing and potential prob 1cos regardity impingecent of

..g, end:.ngered shcrtnese sturgeon on the in ?ke trash bars and screens of J,3, f

' -es the Sale: !!aclear Cenerating Station, Unit 1.

~

M 3:

Turther interagency com unications during the week of October 27-y

..f*. >

2 fs, 1979, led to an informal eeetinZ on October 29,1979, at the pg Q-i Bethesda, Maryland, of fices cf the 1 RC.

Present at the n :ia; vere g

f.!

representative

.he 20:FS, !!RC, Enviror ental Protection A;cney (EPA),

, y' yg. -e; the States of Delaware and !!ew Jersey, the Public Service Electric and

.g; x

as Gas Cc:pany that operates the 531em plant and its consultants,

'ipl Ichthyolegical Associates, as well as =enbers of the interrsted public,

'h including !!r. and Mrs. Alfred C. Coletan, Pennsville, !!ev Jerr sy,

.f.U petitieneers te the 3C in the =atter of. the continued cperation of the k.!

. 1..

ge,%

Ecle. plcnt. By letter dated October 31,1979, the 23C requested a i k.%

ferr.41 ccesu'tation with the 20'TS c::cerning the effects cf the

l..

! Mi 3.; j

. -4 )

v.

N,.

.'M

~

a

' %. de : *s

. i *? I. & C.r'.".'sT S't'..'.L.;: N.' '.'"; T l'l'*" ? ? - L M M '". I

• T C.

• C. W.' t;.~ ~. ~ s'.

&**v.

d'~ ' A M wm

~...

.,-..,,w-

o,. s.. u...

l[

• construction ar.d operation of !, ales Nuclear Generating Station, t.n.: 2, j

o K:

and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2, on the L

p shcrtnese sturgeon in the Delaware River, in accordance with re;.;a tions pror.ulgated under Section 7 of the Endan,;ered Species A:: cf 15 7., t s

.g I

E..

d.

,e acended.

t q

4 LTe have not reviewed the cons:ruction ar.d operati:n phase cf Sale h.

,4, 4

..m Unit 2 and of Hope Creek Ur.it 1 and Unit 2.

Theref ore, we cann:: r e r.de r T

t T

an cpinion on the possib.* i= pact of those activities on the sb:rtnose D:

sturgeon in the Delaware River. However, af ter reviewing the

((

w

~

infor=a: ion available in published acccunts, unpublished reports, as

[

2 T

vell as that presented at the Oc:obe r 29, 1979 nee Ang, :he :0.'7 5 has Ti

,w; s

concluded that the cen:inuaticn of the exis:ing water intake a::ivities d,

-.f 4) g at Salem Unit 1 is not likely, by itself, to jeopardize the con:inued existence of shortnese sturgeon nor destroy or adversely odify tchi:a:

o a,

which cav be cri:Ical to it.

g:.

Life His tr.-v --

n

- of Shortnose Sturreen.

_n;

'Ihe shortncse stur;e ct, Acipe.s er brevi s tru: (Le S ce ur, 15'.5 ),

@.,/)

}

. v.

t s

e "1

occurs in rivers, estuaries and the ses along the east ceas cf X:rth

{

o America frc: :he Indian River, Florida, r.cr th :o the Saint Jchn Kiver,

k New Brunswick, Canada.

In recent years repred::ing repulations have h

been studied in the A1:araha River, Cect;ia, the Hudsen River, New Ycrk,

(

l'h the upper Cennec:Icut River, Massachuse::s, the T.ennebe: River, ".aine,

.c i

af and the Saint John River, New Erens ick, Cansd:. The s:2::s Of c:her 7

El 1' %

popula:Icns elsewhere ir its ran;e is pectly uncer;-:::d, includin; th :

.,h in the Del:vsre River f cr whitn r.o cuan:ite ivt ;:r f.1:icn estinster Ig I c.

available.

- %.v a

M

• • :j I..=

[ g;.

M

~'

i e.

c Ue UZ&~u MM.% wa:-. Wa m.mi..M'Y.M.K r b % G, -

.%--'.~,~:.-

r-~~vT . 5 ' -l'aB

, - - ; w gpr c.e er N _

~

m l

J

w w. p..

..-.s w..-~....

..-.-------w.~~~--..s.

. N f oe tLeir bot too-dwelling code of existence. The body cross-sectional l

a out11ne is se=ic treular, with the broad fist surf ace being ventral. The g

vide, sharp-nesed, concave snout of the juvenile shortnose sturgeon is

- h possibly an adaptatien creating a depressor effect, and allows the j

stargeon to utill:e currents for holding itself against the tubstrate,

-)g e

.I'l f

thereby r.aintaining its river bot to position with only a s:all 1

f:

I expenditure of energy.

The couth is ventral and protrusible, and well I.f.i suited f or benthic feeding.

p Habitat preference and cigratory behavior of shortnose sturgeon g

are influenced by latitude and the physical nature of each river system.

In northerr. locations the majority of the populations occur within the

(

4 i

in'luence of es tuaries. The popula tions cove upstreas dur ing spring and i

)

su:=er to spara and feed, cile a seaward ci ration takes place in fall.

h.'

t

.h l

Southern shortnese sturgeon populations appear to enter rivers only in j.;

i spring to spava and then return to coastal va.ers for the re:ainder of p

E the year.

L'

-:d.t a.

Juveniles spend at least their first year in freshwater. In the

?.9i Saint John River, Canada, they do not begin cigratory behavior until

..h.

g reaching about 45 c: fork lecgth (approxi=ately 8 years).

9

~

Crowth varies greatly depending on latitude, with the fastest f-growth occurrin; among southern popula tions. In the Saint Jcht: Rive r, y%

Canada, shortnose sturgeon attain 50 cm, 90 cm and 100 c= in fork length 4

af ter 9, 25, and 35 years of age respectively.

In the Hudson River it

.p v4 a:tains 50 c= ar.d 90 c af ter 5 and 15 years cf age respectively, 7;

?

st.aeas in the !.Ita aha River, Cecr;Ia, it attains 50 cm af ter 2 years M

- Ci and 90 c: by 10 years of age. Maxinun known age is 67 years for

'[?l fesales, but :-les seldc: e.:.::eed 30 years cf age.

?- '

. 7:,

. l.r.:

i n- _ -

Female shortnose sturgeon mature between 50 and 60 cn f ork length f

and spwn for the first time between 55 and 75 c= length. Aceng 2*

northern populations 50 percent =aturity and spe of first spawnin; correspond with 15 and 18 years of age respectively, but for southern g,

populations the relative ages are 5 and 8 years. Males coture between i

c g.

If 45 and 50 cm fork length.

Acon; ncrthern pcpulatiens cales =ature about a

.f.

-s age 10 but a=ong southern popula tions =aturity cay occur as early as age 2.

The minicu= duration between spawnings of individus1 fe ales is N

9

?%

about 3 years but cales may spawn yearly or every other year. Tecundity of females is betwer 40,000 and 200,000 eggs and is directly ccrrelated 3!

-s; with total weight. The sex ratio a ong ycung adults is 1:1 but this

]:T

.y!

changes to a predo:fr.ance of ferales a:sn; fish longer than 90 c: ferk

' 1ength.

g

.2..

Short:0se sturgeon spawn during early spring in the freshwater l7d.

4-t portions cf estuaries or -in rivers. Spawning is initiated at vatar

.-M i

}

c f

t e=pera tures of 10-12 C.

Eggs are probably broadcast, and fertili:ation

.l 3

is external. Upon fertili:ation the eggs beco:e adhesive and attach to

,)

4 bottom na terials. P.atching takes place in 13 days at 10 c.

On hatching the larvae are about 7 :n in length, grey in color, and de=ersal. Early w

.p t life history af ter yolk sac absorption is pocrly known but limited g

' $j s tudies indicate larvae and juveniles are demersal, reesin 1: the deeper

.,g N

parts of river chan els, and seldes enter the drif t component of the I

.')

k15 river.

Recent studies have shown that mid-stre:: betto: current speeds of 40-55 c:/ cec caused fev larvce to enter the drif t.

The =crphoirn le

.~ [

and biology cf shortnese sturgeon indicate that the species is vd1 4:

adepted to enviror.: ental situa tions charact erized 17 1:rge fiev :::.:n..

.ih$

j M D

t t

.,i u w

g W.

Yr Y

l 1

W

?.

Esticates of rdelt snortnese sturgeon populations have been ende in four relatively well stud:cd river systems, but not tn the Delaware

,n River. These esticates have no direct bearir.; on t.e abundance cf the k'd species in the Delaware River since covecent between these rivers and the Delaware is unrecc-ded. Hovcver, they do p ovide an idea of the j

s

.f i

population levels of adults that can be expected in si: ilar areas, and 5

e are as follows :

18,000 in the Saint John River, ::ev Brunswick; 5,400 in the Rennebec River,1:aine; 500 in the land-locked Holyoke Pool, 1

si

{

Connecticut River, !!assachusetts; 7,000-9,000 in the Hudson River, llev 7/

York.

j'h Shortnese Sturgeon in the Delaware River.

v There are no popciation esticates available cf shortnese sturgeon

.f

)

in the Delaware River. H owe ve r, th.': origins 1 scientific description of i

j the shortnose sturgecn in 1818 was based on speci ens collected in the

.f.;

Delaware River, and there have been nacerous other recordin;s of g

61, rhortnose sturgeon in the Delaware over the past 150 years up until and

. c including the present. Evidence indicates that the shertnose sturgeon f.C1 ki t-i is more closely tied to fresh and brackish waters than is the related we

~

.

Atlantic stargeon, and that it re=ains closer inshere in estunrine I

habitats during its seaward migrations than dees the Atlantic sturgece.

' l. $

.W EH This indicates that shortnese sturgeon may have relatively discrete and 4

$.5-separate stocks frc: one river syste: to another, especially in areas J.k i:hi chere the estuarine in.fluences of adjacer.t river sys tees do not overlap.

,T!

a7 !

5i inis suggests that there is less stock inte: ingling and river c

.W !

i interchan;e :hr ough sea =igra* ion with shortncsc sturgeca than is the iij is:

4 gI g lj case with Atlantic stur;een. Theref ere, the p:pelatiens cf sh rtncse

-w

.%.t i,

t I t..

M>

tj ;;

W t

sturgeon in the Delaware any represent a stocs a c.....s.,

'k levels of it:igration, if those of other river syste=s, with only cinor f,pt.,

, 3yi Since there have been periodic reports of L e any, into the Delaware.

• .y l c

l description, it is la shortnose sturgeon In the De3avare since its origina

, f-I 3) app.....L C at vioLI: populction: cf :hi: :p: f:: h:r: 1::n pr:::n 1-ep- -

5 i tine.

. 3:.

that river centinuously over a long pericd of histor c

.be Sta:fon, Unl: ?.

mu, -

Description of Sales Nuclear Generatint f.'

t. s, 4

1.

Site Location.

'c?

220 acres at the scuthern end cf

..r.

Salem Unit 1 is located en about o

3}h!.

Artificial Island in Lower Allesays Creek Township, Sales Ccunty,

-f3 i The island (in actuality, an artificial peninsula) projec:s

,h;l New Jersey.

F -[

L one-third of the way across the Del.vare

.1

-..t fro: the eastern shore about Thf,

2.5 ciles at this location.

, i p ', f River estuary, which has a width of abeu:

Eli'i La

-j d Dover, The plant station is essenticily cideay between Wil:ing:en an

• , er :

9. '.

tively.

3rfjg which are 20 niles nor:h and scuth cf the si:e, respec x..

.g

Delaware, is L ic..

• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is abcut 30 =iles and sales, New Jersey w;

1. ty -

~

7.5 ciles ncrth of the site.'

E,,

2.

Water Usage.

-01 draws its va:er irca the Delav4:e ti.'

The on=e-thrcugh ecoling syste:

IS$

in the he::

3 estuary and serves to condense the spent secondary s:eam

.m

./gy The vaste k.

exchangers (condensers) following :he turbine generaters.

de 44; transfer to the from the power generation is re:oved by hes:

<f5

.n' heat 1avare P.iver es:u2ry.

circulatin; vater syste: and returnin; it to the r4 Approxi:ately 15.3 x 10' E:u/hr are recoved by this syste:-

,5y

^

tid -

,27 The cooling varer, which represents less then 1% of the ne:,

-p

, 56 ve the Delaware River estucry threagh an ini- -

. :e

'l$

flov, is vi:hdrawn fre q

The in::ke is det

- :s 72 on the sou:h end of Artific!:1 Island.

M; sys:e

'5

, %r

.w 9

T 1 _3+

h 1

. ~ _ - -

I-passages, stop gates and traveling screens. The approach velocity to y

the screens is less than 1.0 f ps.

Durin;; the suc=er of 1976, the traveling screens and screen wash J"

water system of Salec Unit I were r.odified to return fish to the M'

5).

Delaware River, using a Ristroph fish return system. This syste=

j collects fish from the screens in buckets attached to the screens. The I

y...

d-c%.

screens, which are continuously moving, are vashed by a low pressure t

T-g*

ray syste=.

Fish are continueusly vashed off the screens into an l

upper trough and returned to the river. Debris is recoved by a high

.i pressure spray and also returned to the river. Tish and debris are c

D, returned either to the north or south of the plant depending on the r

Jr tidal flow, to avoid reimpingement. The fish return system operates Sk continuously all day long, seven days a week.

Sampling of impinged J

J_

t, !y fis':.es takes place during periodic short diversions of the return syste=, lasting from one to three minutes each on ten samplings per day, a.:k six days a week.

A; W

1: pact of Plant on Shortnose Sturgeon Pooulation.

g h.).

1.

Entrain =ent.

Eased on what is known about the spawning habits of shortacse ty b I sturgeon in other rive. *,. ;c:s, it is unlikely that there is any

,ti, e ntrain:e nt of shortnose sturgeon eggs and larvae at Sales Unit I, for p

the following reasons: spawning grounds for shortnese sturgeon usually are fcend relatively far upstream in river systens and the location of

}i.

g t

i 3

Sale: Unit 1 appears to be well south of these grocads; sturgeon eggs

^

are der.ersal and adhesive and seldes enter river drif t; the larval and juvenile fish are closely associated with the substrate and selden enter i.

)

(

w

rivar drift; the larvae grow very rapidly and would be available for 4

entrain:ent for only a limited not.ber cf weeks; and the ynang pcst-larval fish are not believed to move great distances frc: the spawnirg

?

4 area. Tinally, no eggs or larvac of either the Atlantic or shortnose r

$ f sturgeon have been found in the entrain:::ent sa:ples at Salem Unit 1 or in ichthyoplankton sa pling in the nearby river. Therefore, for all P

[

these reasons, we conclude that the is no kneen entrain =ent of shortnose sturgeon and little, if any, can reasonably be anticipated.

)

2.

Impinge:ent.

~

only two specicens cf shortnose sturgeon are knon to have been If d,

c involved in any way with i=pinge:ent at Sale: Unit 1.

On January 12, h'

9 S

1978, one speci en, ceasuring about 54 c total length and descrieed as j

M c.

'f (4

py"4 being in a state cf coderate dece:positien, was collected frc: the trash

\\ 'il 3

s bars at the Sale: Unit 1 intake. The prese ption of pric de a th ves t

i based en several f actors:

the eyes were cicuded; the bcdy was sof ; the j

5 l !

intestines in the abdo:inal cavity had begun to lose their integrity;

'S g

L

' f and putref action was advanced to the point that there ces a reticeabic D)

Further: ore, the large cesh size of the trash screen precludes M

ocor.

s the pessibility of anything but a ec:atose or otherwise totally

,q I](

unresponsive fish frc: beco:ing != pinged on it.

This evidence of l l decc= position, which had begun even thou;h water te=perature was at ut G<

x u

a 0.5 c and the trash bars were being cleaned one to three tires daily, 11 9 e 3

s indicated that this particular specinen was already der.d ~ vhen colle:ted d3 r.

4 at the plant.

12

',1 A second specitan, eerscring about 62 c: total length, v2s i

(t recovered f rc: the screen vash water on Ane 26, 1975.

Ee:ause IF.,

gp i

.m r

t~ r:

4

\\

speci en was in such pocr condition that it vrald nr: surlive id

.i s.

I ii

c

f

-nw

!k i

-. ~

i

kg returned to the river, en atte=pt was cade to resuscitate it in a ci flowing ambient water bath.

In the water ba th, it was ua.able to e

5 1

crintain equilibriu: and its respiratory covecents were irreEular. It un.

l' died af ter 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br />.

A presumption of poor physiological condition was r

based en observa tions that the abdcren was retracted and the fish was

,L very thin and did not exhibit b

the more robust shape typical of the species.

t These two specI= ens are the only known individuals to have been

.:g collected at the Sale: Unit 1 intake since operation commenced in mid h?'-

1976.

? o specimens of the usually relatively core centon Atlantic r

to h

sturgeon have been recorded frcm the Salen Unit 1 intake.

v Studies of shortnose sturgeon indicate that the sustained svie

'}

speed for juveniles is in excess of 2 body leng:hs per second.

d h

f e<:,

Esticates of cruising speed froc radio tagging s:t lies indicate that the adults cruise at speeds greater than 33 c:/sec (the burst speed can be expected to he euch higher), which is core than the intake velocity at E

i T

7 t

7 the traveling screens.

Thus, for these reasons alene, impingetent T

L of f

[

~

n;k healthy adult fish is considered to be an unlikely and relatively rare 1

e['

4 event.

..a :

Additionally, the bottc= dwelling habi:s of all stages and the a

j.

t

=Igratory bthavior of adults indicate that individuals caly rarely would encoenter the intake flow of the plant. Even in the unlikely event that

&x a healthy shcr:nese sturgeon was impi:ged, there is a goed chance tha:

. =.

I it sculd he returned to the river alive by the fish return systen, scac usbn el EIolcgical Opinica.

x.-

5ec:icn 7 (a) of the Endangered Species At: requires that all

? mrcl :.pncies '.. Instre the: any actica authoriced, funded cr s2

( 'rici c.: by such agency...t':es ne j e e.ra >*< z e t3 e C.-.. e..e;. exi s t e n t e IS w.

u 5,'

12 ww. ~.. _

m* I

5,7 of any endangered species or.threatencd species or result in the

.c Q~'

destruction or adverse modificaticn of habitat of such species st.ich is i

E determined by the Secrt:ary... te he critical..."

.u 3

.P 3

.T.

Regulations i=plcmenting thi! secticn (43 p.R. 870) define fr 1

/.

_I O

f

.I

'jeepardize the continued existtace of" to =can... to en;cge in an b-J 4.

activity or pr ogram shich reasonably would te expected to reduce the

' 8 Ff.

I reproduction, numbers or distribution of a listed species to such an if

)

t@i extent as to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and

[

?

'3

{9 recovery of that species in the wild..."

,v.

.t

'. e We have reviewed the infor=atien avr ilable in the scien.ific

-)

d m

literature and in other published and unpublished reports, as well as

(.)

.a 4{.

oes.

that presented during the informal censultation period and at the J-ag

4..

H ceeting of October 29, 1979.

It is the opinion of the !55 ths: the 1

Y yl present water intake progrs= of the ence-through syste= at Sale: Unit

.x 1

4

.j A*:

Nif is net likely to jeepardize the centinued existence of the shortnese l4 k

sturgeon, nor is it likely to destrcy or adversely affect habita: that J

A (v

}

=ay be critical to the shor:nese sturgeon. The reasons for this

-e-

.r conclusion are stated in the above section er. titled lepact of Plan:

on Shortnese Sturge on Population.

, (,

Re c o::e nda t iens.

l l

We strongly recer:end that the ::F.C td.e ste;s to sponsor and

$.v bW enceurege research on the basic life history cf :he shcr: nose sturgecn

h in the Delaware River, especially as i

rels:es te he seascnal

- :n w

distribution of all stages of :he species. f:udit. to de:er=ine the-2:

.,.s preierred habita:s of all of these stages, as well as terreductive 2

e Y

cycles, migrations and populaticn dy. :ics cf the spe:ies shovid N M

ini:iated. The air of the research should te :o estab1:sh popule.:f r -

1. 5

>~

w

,k I.t

~

W.

d 1

i

g

~

estiates ar.d.if e history data icr shortncse sturgeon stocks in tne s

~'c : :. a r e P.iver tha:. 11 perni: rere precise estica tes of the i:pse:s of Q

, e 8

.:' der:al

li:ies in th :

. ve r syster. The lack cf in.f or a t'On Ta*

M 31 ; : :he sta! : cf the t h:.r ;:

2 ;rgeon in :he Dela.are River ca/

j f

A M

g g

. s -I t in fo:cre :: ivitier in

• 2: rive r teir; delayed because cf an

' e

]

~5 3

. ::ili:v to tee: ::.e req ui en r.:s of the Ind:n;cred Species *::.

The d

f "E

':2 5 :s prepared :: essir: yce er anyone else in planning research

. g e

I ertivities.

Rese:rch activi:les vill require a persi: and applicatiens ly

7, j

rust be sent te : t.. e.. _ c.

a-e

.a-c 5

Tinally, iht.;1d c. re data tcccre availab:e indicating a potential y

,-.-y I

cr rc el adverre 1: pact on :Se shcrtncte sturge:n frc: the act ivities of Qk P

1.. l e : ' ni: 1, er sh:uld those e e r :isns le L:. fied ir r * -

likelf ta 0,~;c c 2. e rs t l;. irpar: that spec'u,

.e recc:::nd th:: censulto icn te r c i n i t i:. : e d.

2 Af

, a

k..

Cfr'

. ED

.c_,

.'f:.

a w

x;.,

,.7.,.-d.

t Jeug. ear..3,

. :.r u,

J C' n 5 pi n't;s ),

"r,-

3 y

. _ - T, LC2, f..'O 6.

.r..u.

4_

.r... e

(.,.-

.._..,..., ), r.m.4 (....

,s _.e..... - )

~

(

e..st v

l*h4 h?

t N E N, 10-9, o u..

'.2 ~

.Y.

, }*.

f*

b s

i. s.%.'

4k l'.M Y W..*

N t.__

- w'.1 g.

6 A

Me O' % m h

9's.

l

.e"

• • C h 'T 4

.>""I e

w g

DN5

,f

• k D

• C.

g

1 4

d d

7, _,.

w.

ATTACFJEt:T 3 4

1 I

d i

1 x

l 4

4 I

A m

~.

QMST '

p ** ** *ke s

s

• . * $ ia

f..

.c.

UNITED STATES fS.e.(yj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

• J.

~b WA$MINGTON. D. C. 20355 Y.

sff c

-l Q '.

f

^

s'.....'e APR 18 1930 i.-

,,.r Docket Nos. 50-354, 355

.M and 50-272, 311 15i y

5 A"

Fr. Alfred C. Coleman, Jr.

Mrs. Eleanor G. Coleman g.

35 "K" Drive t/ '

$_[, 6 Pennsville, New Jersey 08070 7

g..

((/

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Coleman:

w' This letter is written in response to your petitions, dated October 18,

. (C 1979, requesting the Comission to issue a show cause order to Public

-f %

Service Electric and Gas Company, el al. to suspead or revoke the operating I

.j i

'f license for Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 and the construction permits for Salem. Unit 2 and Hope Creek Generating Station, Uni s 1 and 2, p.,7.,

7c and stay issuance of the operating license for Salem Unit 2.

For the irin?

reasons set forth in the enclosed " Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206"

[

your request is hereby denied.

• gt M

A copy of this determination will be placed in the Comission's Public 7

Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555 and at the C

local public document room for the Salem ~ Nuclear Generating Station, Id,$

Units 1 and 2, and the Hope Creek Station, Units 1 and 2, at the Salem sh, Free Public Library,112 West Broadway, Salem, New Jersey 08079. A copy will also be filed with the Secretary of the Comission for its c

'fr review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205(c) of the Commission's regulations.

. j nclosed for your infomation is a ccpy of the notice that is being filed r

f

(

with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.

Sincerely, t

/

A$

Harold R. Denton, Director I

f.

Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation Enclosure

.s i

1.

Director's Decision Under 2.205' i

2.

Federal Eecister t'otice j

I I

j a

.l

?\\ e h

l m

+

f

Js3J.T:,4 '

h$d UNITED STATES Of AMERICA f.'

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP.15510'i

~ ~; _

-.g l

ve Wf' In the Matter of

)

A.

)

Docket Nos. 50-272 -

k' 'M

.);

PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GA5

)

50-311 COMPANY, et al.

)

50-351 l

l (SalemNucTear'GeneratingStation,

)

I M 55 c

.L Station, Units 1 and 2)

)

Units 1 and 2, Hope Creek Generating )

(2.206) l

+y l

7 l

b*.

1 k

DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 7

[F.

By petitions dated October 18, 1979, Mr. and Mrs. Alfred Coleran, I,f requested, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Co, mission's reculatinnt, t*>t b

F. '

a show cause order be issued to Public Service Electric and Gas Cc pany, et al.

hk?g'-

(hereinafter the " licensee") to suspend or revoke the operating license hb -

for Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 and the construction pe -its t

t,,

.,{ '

for Salem Unit 2 and Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, and E

y" stay issuance of the ocerating license for Salem Unit 2.

Notice of receipt

. F. :

)

of the Colemans' petition was published in the Federal Recister, 4 FT.

'I' 67253(November 23,1979).

The basis for the Colemans' request is tre assertion that previous I

findings made by the NRC in the Final Envircr. mental Ir: pact Statements f:r Salem, Units 1 and 2 and Hope Creek, Units 1 and 2 1

do not f ul fi ll.

4.

$c, the Comission's responsibilities under the Endangeres Species A:t c' F -

1973, as amended. 2/

j e Vn i

1/ Final Environmental Impact Statement for Sale 'n::' ear Gerere&;

Station, Unit No.1 and No. 2. Decke: No. 50-I72 a.c 50-311, 2:ril. 'I'3.

Final Environmental Impact State ent, Ec.,e C ee. 'Uciear Geeerni ;

50-255, e tma. lE.

Station, Unit No. I and No.-2, Docket No. 50-35 3-:

s s

j??

2/ 16 U.S.C. !1531 el sec. (1979), arended ;. '. Ef '!!, F2 S tr. '2:5

'I (Decem:er 25. 1979).

n k

7F,

El u-Specifically, they allege tnat tne fact that two specimens of Acipenser.

I crevirostrum Lesueur, the shortnose sturgeon, an endangered species designated

.Ey, under 16 U.S.C.A. 51533, were found by the Licensee on the intake trash bars v.

y, '

and screens of Salem enit 1, constitutes a "taking" in violation of the yf Endangered Species Act. The Colemans contend that the "shortnose O

ih-sturgeon is being impinged or is highly susceptible to impingement on M

).

the Circulating Water System (CW5: traveling screens and the Service h-Water System (SUS) traveling screens at the Artificial Island site."

de Petitions at 5.

Because the NRC has not taken any specific action,

• t such as requiring protective measures to be implemented, the NRC has not taken adequate measures "to protect, guarantee and insure that

_?-

no adverse action shall jeopardize the cor.tinued existence of any s$c endangered, threatened or of special concern species." Petitions at 5.

<h For the reasons set forth below, the requests of the Colemans are

- t-denied.

p k[g:

MV 5ection 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act provides that 11 other Federal agencies shall, in consultation with and h

with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their authorities d

in furtherance of the purposes of this cnapter by carrying out orograns for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 1533 of this title. Each r deral agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance e

cf the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by such agency... is not likely to jeosardize the tcntinued existence of any endangered species or threatened soecies cr result in the destruction or adverse r.odification of habitat i

cf such species wnich is dete-mined by tne Secretary, af ter censultation as appre:riate with affected States to be critical, eless such agency his been granted an exemotion for such action by the Ccni!!ee ours; ant to rutsecti n (n) of this section.

f U.S.. #1526.

i s

I a.

~___

avi-3 J

i v-Ry-Following receipt of the Colemans' petitions, the Comission staff began f.s infomal discussions with the National Marine Fisheries Service, National

{

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (hereina'ter NMFS) on the effects i

.. ~

of operation of Salem Unit 1 and the ccnstruction and operation of Salen i

2 and Hope Creek Units 1 and 2 on the endangered species, the shortnose j

sturgeon.Al Two specimens of shortnose sturceon had been found at the s

kB Salem Unit 1 facility. On January 12, 1978, one specimen, already derd,

.h.

l C

was collected from the trash bars at the Salem Unit 1 intake structure.

{

f..

s 1

-6 On June 26, 1978, a second speciren was reccvered from the screer wash i

hc j

g water at the plant.

It was in poor physiological _ condition and sub-ye if.43 sequently died despite attempts to resuscitate it in a flowing ambient i

~

W..

I r;

water bath.

On October 31, 1979, the NRC requested fomal consultaticM, with

'}

2 i

,g NMFS to determine "whether construction and operation of Salem 2 and i

?

Hope Creek 1 and 2 and long-term continued operation of Salem 1 and their k

associated intake structures would jeccardize the continued existence cf t

s this endangered species or result in the destruction or modificatien of l

l l

l-any critical habitat of this species." See Enclosure 1.

1 NMFS, on December 7,1979, rendered a Threshold Exanination anc s

$1 -

i t

Biological Opinion for Salem 1, cencluding that continuation of the exist';

j

'5 water intake activities at Salem Unit 1 was not likely te jeopardi:e j

i the continued existence of the shortnose sturgeon, nor to cestrcy or j

p 3/ Secause the shortnose sturgeon is considerec to te an anadro ous fi:

protection of the species is uncer the jurisdicticn of t'e *iatic*il Marine Fisheries Service.

i Y

{

y is U.S.C. !!1535(a) i (bi.

]

2 8

g I

'@t l'.

T-l l,,

adversely affect hatita: that may be critical to the shortnose sturpeen.

,, T Based on this findinc by the National Ma-ine Fisheries Service, the

.t

$.Y Director of Nuclear Peactor Regulatio-concluded that there w:uld te no I

fg k*

adverse effect on thc continued existence of the shortnose sturgeon in ine Delaware River due to long-term oxration of Salem Unit 1.

Consequently, 7

i C

that part of the Colemans' petitions e.ich regaested the suspension or I?

revocation of the Salem Unit 1 operating license was denied in a Director's fj Decision issued February 7,1980. 45 FR 9842 ! February 13,1980).

Oh In its Threshold Examination and Eiological Opinion, however, NMF5 yQ.

M(*'

indicated that insufficient inforr.aticr existed to make a determinatior.

4 for Salem 2 and Hope Creek 1 and 2.

Trerefore, the NRC staff prepared g

1 t

13 a biological assessme-t of the irryact due to co struction and operation N

of Hope Creek 1 and 2, the continued o;eration :( Salem Unit 1 and the kf future operation of Salem Unit 2 on the shortn le sturgeon.E A copy is w

w attached and hereby ir.corporated by reference. (See Enclosure 2).

g g g

The biological assesstnant includes a dercription of the Artificial f

k Island site and the intake and discharge systers for each of the four

l. [h units existing or under constructicn at the site. The life history of the shortnose sturgeon is examined, inciuding its spawning and early r#

life "istory, its migratory roveme-ts, its food habits, its hardiness and s us:eptibility to capture. The history of t e shortnose sturgeon i

in the Delaware River Estuarv is s'so P esented. Fir. ally, potential impacts 4

0 f

free construction and c:eration, eg., entrainnect, ir.pincement, acute a

1 4

i

(

1/ Assessment of the I cacts of tFe Sale ::d '::+ Creek Stations on

]

Shortnase Sturceon. Acunser : evitstrur Ldueur. Masnik, M. T. and l

1

aiison,

v. ti. (Of fi:e of Nuclear C.ea: tor Reg.!ation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co missi:n, 'a'nhingt:n, -

C. ) Pa.n 5,1980.

j i

J

]

i e

.:w thermal effects, chronic themal effects, biocides, plune entrainment effects, gas bubble disease and coldshock are examined. Based on this extensive evaluation, the NRC staff has concluded that the continued Fry; operatiot of Salem Unit 1, the future operation of Salem Unit 2 and the c

l fj; curtstruc: ion and operation of Hope Creek Units 1 and 2 will not jeopardize

' Jy.'

the continued existence of the shortnose sturgeon.

l h

i P

l Th II l

A l

f By ktter dated March 14, 1980, the NRC staff submitted its biological-I n

)

(j assessmeet to NMFS, setting torth its conclusions and stating that it FI believed that the infomation contained therein now provided an adequate j.7 basis forIMFS to resolve any concerns for adverse impact on shortnose stn~geon '~)m the Salem and Hope Creek Stations.E (See Enclosure 3).

z..g On /c-il 15,1980, the NMFS issued a biological opinion on the NRC tv biological assessment. The NMFS opinion concludes that the operation of Sales Nuthar Station, Unit 1 and the construction and operation of Salen i

Ur.it 2 and Mc 'e Creek Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 as described in the NRC assessment are not likely to jecpardize the continued existence of the j

l shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River, ncr are they likely to destroy I

or acrerse'y affect habitat that may be critical to the shcrtnose sturgeon in the Dela.are River. NMFS Opinion at 5 - 6.

A copy is attached ae.d receby i

t E

in:orporated by reference. (See Enclosure 4).

.I On the basis of the information set forth in the '4RC 3:aff's Biclogical ssessment of the shortnese sturgeon and the corclusi: 5. : ne:

by the Xati nal Marine Fisheries Service I have determine: tnat : e 1

con-iced c eration of Salem Unit 1, the future c:e-ation :' saie

• ri:

I 2 e-d the c nstruction and operation cf Mcpe Creei '.' nits 1 a.d 2 are net 0

6f Ey lette-dated March l",19E0, ccoies of tre 5:a"'s firiegica:

sssess e. were also provided to Mr. ar.d Mrs. Cc'eman.

r f

likely to jeopardize the cortinued existe ice c' Acipenser brevirostrum j

Lesueur, the shortnose starycon, a federally rrognized endangered species. 7/

~

Ccnsequenti;., the Colemars ' requests a-e 6er'e.

I A copy of this decistor. will be placed ir. m Comission's Public j

lit trag$

Document Rox at 1717 H 5 treat N.W., Eastingt=, D.C. 20555 and the local

'dI '

sublic documnt room for :he Salem Nuclear Ge.eting Station, Units 1 and l

4

'I+i 2 end Hope Creek Nuclear Cenerating Station. Ur. s 1 and 2, located at t

i a

the Salem Free Public Library,112 West Broaoc. Salem, New Jersey 08079.

A copy of this decision will also be filed Vt* 2e Secretary of the 3

L97 M.

Comission for its review in accordance with IC JR 2.205(c)'of the Th Comission's regulations.

j As provided in 10 CFR 2.205(c) of -J.e Ccrmsion's regulations, this decision will constitute tre final action of tv Comission 20 days after p

the date of issuance, unle.s the Corr:issior. o- *s own rnotion institutes the review of this decisict within that tirne.

TOR T-E FILEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W

/

l har5T: :. 2:enton, Director 4

J Cffice c" Auclear Reactor Regulation D

3

ne: a: Eett.esda, Maryland y

I' s, #:.;y 0 April, 1920.

3 11 E ;!csurer:

E 1

• i:C Letter of 10/31/3 jI

'JC Sil'f Biological Assessrent i

/6 en :M Shcrtnose Starceon b

2.

'A: Le::er of 3/i4/B:

WE : sultaticn Opmien i

J; l' Wnetner c-not the inci: ental ircince'ent :f 2 e two shortnose sturgeon et the Sad Unit 1 facility constite.ea a vidation of the Endangered j

Scecier 1:: is a cuestic-e1cn lies :stske re purview of this acency.

4

]

See ;6 1.!.:.1540(a)

'e,' (1979).

he ti;;': obligation under the Act i

s to insa, in consul.!ti:n with ar: witr ta assistance of the Secretary i

j ine: actic authorized by MC is not !ikely tt.iecDardize the continued

,