ML24191A423

RAI2 NRC Response to Fws ESA Crystal River Unit 3 LTP

ML24191A423
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	07/03/2024
From:	Rome M Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:	Martin C, Wright L US Dept of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service
References
Download: ML24191A423 (1)

Text

From: Michelle Rome (She/Her)

To: Wright, Laura J; catrina_martin@fws.gov; FW4FLESRegs@fws.gov Cc: Robert Sun; Amy Minor (She/Her); Briana Arlene; Mitchell Dehmer

Subject:

RE: RAI2 2024-0023697 Crystal River License Termination Plan_Unit 3 Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 3:40:37 PM Attachments: image003.png image005.png

Catrina and Laura,

Thank you so much for taking the time to meet with us yesterday. Below are responses to your questions. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions.

Michelle, Briana, and Mitchell

1. Regarding the inclusion of Florida (FL) whooping crane in the project proposal, please clarify as to what ESA 7(a)

(2) requirements are applicable. Per IPaC listing status for FL whooping crane (https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/status/list ): Experimental population, Non-essential (EXPN)A population that has been established within its historical range under section 10(j) of the ESA to aid recovery of the species. The Service has determined a non-essential population is not necessary for the continued existence of the species. For the purposes of consultation, non-essential experimental populations are treated as threatened species on National Wildlife Refuge and National Park land (require consultation under 7(a)(2) of the ESA) and as a proposed species on private land (no section 7(a)(2) requirements, but Federal agencies must not jeopardize their existence [section 7(a)

(4)]).

NRC RESPONSE: The NRC is not requesting concurrence on the whooping crane. In the Endangered Species Act (ESA) effects determination table accompanying the U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) February 29, 2024, request for concurrence (ML24060A086) and the NRCs June 19, 2024, supplement to its request for concurrence (ML24170A924), the NRC staff identifies the whooping crane as an experimental, non-essential population in accordance with the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) report (Consultation Code 2024-0023697) generated for this proposed action. As discussed in a May 14, 2024, meeting between the FWS and NRC staff, the NRC staffs practice is to provide all its ESA effect determinations to the FWS as a courtesy.

This practice also supports the agencys goals of openness and transparency with the public. Therefore, the NRCs effects determination table includes findings for EXPN populations regardless of whether those populations require consultation. For the CR3 license termination plan (LTP), the NRC staff concluded that the proposed action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) the whooping crane. The NRC understands that the FWS does not concur with NLAA findings for EXPN populations and that consultation is not necessary for this species because the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the whooping crane EXPN population.

2. Monarchs are candidate species and have not been proposed for ESA listing to date. As such, it is at the discretion of the action agency/applicant to request conference. Conference is similar to but distinct from consultation in that conference can be requested to the Service for proposed species and/or critical habitat. The Service recommends conference for proposed species and/or critical habitat to avoid sudden unplanned stoppage of a project when the species and/or critical habitat becomes listed which triggers re-initiation. Since this is a candidate species, the action agency/applicant has the discretion to request conference or simply proceed with the project without coordination with the Service. If monarch butterfly is included in the final request for consultation letter then conference should be added to the request.

NRC RESPONSE: The NRC is not requesting concurrence on the monarch butterfly. As indicated in the previous response, the NRC staffs practice is to provide all its ESA effect determinations to the FWS as a courtesy. This practice also supports the agencys goals of openness and transparency with the public.

3. American alligator: Please remove from the consultation request letter as this species is not subject to ESA section 7 consultation. Similarity of Appearance, Threatened (SAT): Any species listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance with another species that is listed as threatened. Species listed under a similarity of appearance are not biologically endangered and are not subject to section 7 consultation. Listing by similarity of appearance depends on the degree of difficulty law enforcement personnel would have in distinguishing the species from a threatened species and where the additional threat posed to the threatened species by the similarity of appearance. Species listed under a similarity of appearance may be protected by the take prohibitions of section 9 under the ESA, where they overlap with the listed entity they were listed to protect.

NRC RESPONSE: The NRC is not requesting concurrence on the American alligator. As indicated in the previous response, the NRC staffs practice is to provide all its ESA effect determinations to the FWS as a courtesy. This practice also supports the agencys goals of openness and transparency with the public.

4. Direct Impacts Statement, Direct impacts, such as clearing native vegetation or filling wetland, will be restricted to previously disturbed land (ADP 2023). Therefore, no wildlife or natural habitats would be affected by these activities.

Previously disturbed land does not eliminate affects to species, e.g., human-created noise, as a result of this proposed project, may flush ESA-listed birds. What proposed actions may affect ESA-listed species under the direct impacts section of the request email/letter?

NRC RESPONSE:

In ADPs June 2023 Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant License Termination Plan, Revision 1 (ML23163A063 ), ADP states that, ADP CR3 does not anticipate disturbing habitat beyond the operational areas of the plant. All dismantlement, demolition, and waste staging activities are envisioned to be conducted within the industrial area of the site. Although natural habitats will not be disturbed, the NRC staff understands that federally listed species in the action area could experience other impacts, such as those associated with herbicide application, noise, disturbance, and behavioral changes from general human activity on the site. These impacts are addressed in the NRCs February 29, 2024, request for concurrence and the NRCs June 19, 2024, supplement to its request for concurrence. The NRC analyzes these species-specific impacts in the NRCs ESA effects determination table, which was submitted to the FWS as an enclosure to the NRCs request for concurrence and supplement. For species for which the NRC staff made an NLAA determination, the table indicates that each potential impact of the proposed action is either insignificant or discountable and/or that effects of the action are not reasonably certain to occur.

5. Indirect Impacts Statement, The second proposed method includes the use of explosives Please provide current noise levels at the proposed action area and what anticipated noise levels may be while conducting the proposed action (for both the use of excavators equipped with hydraulic hammers, pulverizers, crushers and the use of explosives). What concussive impacts are anticipated to ESA-listed species? Additionally, what may be the revised action area as a result of the use of explosives? For reference, 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.

Noise parameters requested

Unattenuated single strike level (dB) for:

• Peak sound pressure level

• Single strike sound exposure level

• Root-mean-square sound pressure level

NRC RESPONSE: Following the May 14, 2024, discussion between the FWS and NRC staff, the NRC requested additional information from the licensee. According to ADPs June 11, 2024, response this request (ML24166A079 ), [n]oise evaluations have not been completed for aquatic or terrestrial receptors. Hearing protection is required for workers in the immediate area of the demolition, and in accordance with ADPs Safety Requirements, which ensure compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Hearing protection is not required for workers outside the work zone. All terrestrial and aquatic habitats are also outside the work zones. As indicated in the May 14, 2024, the licensee has not selected final methods (i.e., explosive or implosive) for dismantlement activities, and the NRC does not have authority to dictate this choice. The licensee has not reported any observations of listed avian species within the action area. Historically, Florida scrub-jays have been observed (1992-1996) along the Central Florida transmission line corridor and wood stork have historically been observed foraging in the percolation ponds west of the action area (ML11139A153). No listed avian species are known to nest or rook near the action area. The potential for birds to migrate over the action area is possible and, therefore, birds in flight could experience noise disturbances from site activities. These effects would be temporary in nature. Florida scrub-jays, which would be the most likely listed avian species to occur in the action area are relatively tolerant of noise. Therefore, if a scrub-jay were to fly over the site during demolition activities, any behavioral changes resulting from this disturbance are unlikely to be able to be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated, and would not rise to the level of a take. Therefore, such impacts would be insignificant. In addition, CR3 and the surrounding Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC) is an established industrial site where species are exposed to noise on a regular basis, including the previous demolition of CR1 and CR2 in 2023, an existing railroad and its associated operation, and other operating industrial facilities (e.g., CR4 and CR5). Additionally, given that ADP must comply with OSHA requirements concerning worker hearing protection and workers are not required to use hearing protection outside of the immediate work area, noise levels outside of the immediate work zone would not rise above 90 dBA. Therefore, the NRC staff find the potential effects of noise on listed avian species to be insignificant.

6. Dismantlement Activities section states, The demolition of Crystal River Unit 1 and Unit 2, completed in November 2021, serves as an environmental baseline regarding the indirect impacts of demolition activities. Please provide the previous FWS completed consultation document (Biological Opinion, concurrence letter, etc.) for review.

NRC RESPONSE: CR1 and CR2, when operational, were fossil-fueled power plants. The NRC does not license or regulate fossil-fueled plants and, therefore, was not involved in any ESA Section 7 consultations related to CR1 and CR2.

7. Dismantlement Activities Statement, the final impacts from decommissioning may be beneficial to listed species that may be present in the vicinity of the action area due to its planned release for unrestricted use. If NRC chooses to make a beneficial effect determination then FWS suggests changing the term final impacts to final result as there are NLAA determinations leading to the final result.

NRC RESPONSE: The NRC staff acknowledges this recommendation and will consider the FWSs recommended language in future ESA effect analyses.

8. Noise Impacts section does not include discussion and effect(s) analysis for the proposed use of explosives.

Please describe.

NRC RESPONSE: Please see response to Question 5, which states that ADP has not completed noise evaluations for aquatic or terrestrial receptors. Noise levels are such that hearing protection for workers is not required outside of the immediate area of the demolition. According to ADPs January 18, 2024, response to NRCs request for additional information, there has been no observations of listed species within the immediate dismantlement/demolition area, and the work zone does not include any terrestrial and aquatic habitats.

Therefore, the NRC staff find that measurable impacts to federally listed species from the use of explosives are not reasonably certain to occur.

9. Vibration Impacts Statement, Vibration resulting from the demolition of CR1 and CR2 was historically monitored at the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), as well as at the intake and discharge canals. ADP provided information on vibration from Crystal River 1 and 2 dismantlement (ADP 2024b). CR3 vibration dismantlement impacts are likely to be at levels similar to those recorded during CR1 and CR2 dismantlement.

FWS is currently reviewing the vibration report and may have additional clarifying questions once review is complete.

NRC RESPONSE: Based on the July 2, 2024, discussion between the NRC and FWS, the NRC staff understand that the FWS does not need additional information on vibration to support its review of NRCs request for concurrence beyond what the NRC has previously provided. For additional information, please see response to Question 5.

10. Please make an effect determination for each proposed action. For reference:

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.

Beneficial effects are contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species.

NRC RESPONSE: The NRC staffs effects determinations for each federally listed species are provided in the ESA effects determination table that accompanied the NRCs June 19, 2024, supplement to its request for concurrence.

Michelle Rome Branch Chief, Environmental Technical Review Branch 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards