ML11263A053: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:Pham, BoI From: Sent: To: | {{#Wiki_filter:Pham, BoI From: Pham, Bo Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 12:26 PM To: Perkins, Leslie | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
RE: wording for SEIS Attachments: Bo's edit Chapter 4 - T&E.docx | |||
: Leslie, Attached are my changes. Please run this by Brian Harris in OGC for any additional comments before proposing it to Wendy (I've already given Brian a heads-up about it just now). In the mean time, please also contact Wendy my email to say something like the following, just for documentation of our conversation: | |||
==Dear Wendy:== | ==Dear Wendy:== | ||
To follow up on our conversation yesterday regarding the staff's consideration of commitments made by PSE&G (as opposed to PSEG Nuclear) for maintenance practices along the transmission ROW corridor within the scope of license renewal for Salem & HCGS, we are explaining the situation to our general counsel to get further clarification regarding jurisdictional nexus for this scenario.In the mean time, we are also working to propose changes to the SEIS to capture the FWS's concern regarding impacts to the x-mission ROW and how the October 23, 2009, letter from PSE&G plays into mitigating that. We will consult with you further once we iron out the language.Thanks for the call yesterday! | |||
Bo Pham Chief, Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-8450 From: Perkins, Leslie Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 8:35 AM To: Pham, Bo | To follow up on our conversation yesterday regarding the staff's consideration of commitments made by PSE&G (as opposed to PSEG Nuclear) for maintenance practices along the transmission ROW corridor within the scope of license renewal for Salem & HCGS, we are explaining the situation to our general counsel to get further clarification regarding jurisdictional nexus for this scenario. | ||
In the mean time, we are also working to propose changes to the SEIS to capture the FWS's concern regarding impacts to the x-mission ROW and how the October 23, 2009, letter from PSE&G plays into mitigating that. We will consult with you further once we iron out the language. | |||
Thanks for the call yesterday! | |||
Bo Pham Chief, Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-8450 From: Perkins, Leslie Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 8:35 AM To: Pham, Bo | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
wording for SEIS Importance: | wording for SEIS Importance: High Bo, I tried some language in the SEIS to address FWS concerns. Please take look to let me know if this what you had in mine. It's on page 4-51, Section 4.7.2. I highlighted it in yellow so it should be easy for you to find. | ||
High Bo, I tried some language in the SEIS to address FWS concerns. | Leslie Perkins Project Manager Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OX/\ | ||
Please take look to let me know if this what you had in mine. It's on page 4-51, Section 4.7.2. I highlighted it in yellow so it should be easy for you to find.Leslie Perkins Project Manager Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OX/\5 Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Both sturgeon species and three of the four turtle species have been impinged at Salem.2 .Atlantic sturgeon were collected in impingement studies in a single year, 2006 (PSEG, 2006a).3 From 1978 through 2009, 20 shortnose sturgeon were impinged at the Salem intakes, of which 4 16 died. Between 1978 and 2008, 24 Kemp's ridley sea turtles were impinged, of which ten 5 died. Three green turtles (one died) and 69 loggerhead turtles (25 died) also were impinged.6 Impingement of the turtles was greatest in 1991 and 1992 (Table 4.21). After PSEG modified its 7 use of the ice barriers in 1993, turtle impingement numbers returned to levels much lower than 8 in 1991. From 1994 through 2009, Salem impinged seven sea turtles (all loggerheads), and 9 four of these died. Also during this 16-yr period, 12 shortnose sturgeon were impinged, of which 10 eight died. Sea turtles have not been impinged at Salem since 2004 (NMFS, 2009).11 Section 4.5.4 discusses potential impacts of thermal discharges on the aquatic biota of the 12 Delaware Estuary, and the Staff expects that impacts on fish and invertebrates, including those 13 preyed upon by sturgeon and sea turtles, to be minimal. The high exit velocity of the discharge 14 produces rapid dilution, which limits high temperatures to relatively small areas in the zone of 15 initial mixing in the immediate vicinity of the discharge. | 5 | ||
Fish and many other organisms are 16 largely excluded from these areas due to high velocities and turbulence. | |||
Shortnose and Atlantic 17 sturgeon and the four sea turtle species have little potential to experience adverse effects from 18 exposure to the temperatures at the discharge because of their life history characteristics and 19 their mobility. | Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Both sturgeon species and three of the four turtle species have been impinged at Salem. | ||
Sturgeon spawning and nursery areas do not occur in the area of the discharge 20 in the estuary, and adult sturgeon forage on the bottom while the buoyant thermal plume rises 21 toward the surface. Sea turtles prefer warmer water temperatures, occur in the region only 22 during warm months, and are unlikely to be sensitive to the localized area of elevated 23 temperatures at the discharge. | 2 .Atlantic sturgeon were collected in impingement studies in a single year, 2006 (PSEG, 2006a). | ||
NMFS (1993) considered the possibility that the warm water 24 near the discharge could cause sea turtles to remain in the area until surrounding waters are too 25 cold for their safe departure in the fall,, but it concluded that this scenario was not supported by 26 any existing data.27 The Staff reviewed information from the site audit, the applicant's ERs for Salem and HCGS, 28 biological monitoring reports, other reports, and coordination with NMFS, FWS, and State 29 regulatory agencies in New Jersey and Delaware regarding listed species. The Staff concludes 30 that the impacts on Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic species of the Delaware 31 Estuary during an additional 20 years of operation of the Salem and HCGS facilities would be 32 SMALL. NRC provides a Biological Assessment of the potential effects from the proposed 33 license renewal for the Salem and HCGS facilities on Federally listed endangered or threatened 34 species under NMFS jurisdiction in Appendix D..Formatted: | 3 From 1978 through 2009, 20 shortnose sturgeon were impinged at the Salem intakes, of which 4 16 died. Between 1978 and 2008, 24 Kemp's ridley sea turtles were impinged, of which ten 5 died. Three green turtles (one died) and 69 loggerhead turtles (25 died) also were impinged. | ||
Highlight 35 4.7.2 Terrestrial and Freshwater Aquatic Threatened or Endangered Species 36 The FWS (2010) indicated that no Federally listed terrestrial species are known to occur on or in 37 the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS sites. The FWS (2010) noted that areas of potential habitat 38 and/or known occurrences of the bog turtle and swamp pink exist along the New Freedom North 39 and New Freedom South transmission line ROWs, but that the continued operation of Salem 40 and HCGS are unlikely to adversely affect either species because PSEG had previously 41 committed by letter dated October 23, 2009.to adopting FWS-recommended conservation | 6 Impingement of the turtles was greatest in 1991 and 1992 (Table 4.21). After PSEG modified its 7 use of the ice barriers in 1993, turtle impingement numbers returned to levels much lower than 8 in 1991. From 1994 through 2009, Salem impinged seven sea turtles (all loggerheads), and 9 four of these died. Also during this 16-yr period, 12 shortnose sturgeon were impinged, of which 10 eight died. Sea turtles have not been impinged at Salem since 2004 (NMFS, 2009). | ||
.... Formatted: | 11 Section 4.5.4 discusses potential impacts of thermal discharges on the aquatic biota of the 12 Delaware Estuary, and the Staff expects that impacts on fish and invertebrates, including those 13 preyed upon by sturgeon and sea turtles, to be minimal. The high exit velocity of the discharge 14 produces rapid dilution, which limits high temperatures to relatively small areas in the zone of 15 initial mixing in the immediate vicinity of the discharge. Fish and many other organisms are 16 largely excluded from these areas due to high velocities and turbulence. Shortnose and Atlantic 17 sturgeon and the four sea turtle species have little potential to experience adverse effects from 18 exposure to the temperatures at the discharge because of their life history characteristics and 19 their mobility. Sturgeon spawning and nursery areas do not occur in the area of the discharge 20 in the estuary, and adult sturgeon forage on the bottom while the buoyant thermal plume rises 21 toward the surface. Sea turtles prefer warmer water temperatures, occur in the region only 22 during warm months, and are unlikely to be sensitive to the localized area of elevated 23 temperatures at the discharge. NMFS (1993) considered the possibility that the warm water 24 near the discharge could cause sea turtles to remain in the area until surrounding waters are too 25 cold for their safe departure in the fall,, but it concluded that this scenario was not supported by 26 any existing data. | ||
Highlight 42 measures along the transmission line ROWS. Such measures also included compliance with 43 the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines.,The Staff reviewed information from the site Deleted: " | 27 The Staff reviewed information from the site audit, the applicant's ERs for Salem and HCGS, 28 biological monitoring reports, other reports, and coordination with NMFS, FWS, and State 29 regulatory agencies in New Jersey and Delaware regarding listed species. The Staff concludes 30 that the impacts on Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic species of the Delaware 31 Estuary during an additional 20 years of operation of the Salem and HCGS facilities would be 32 SMALL. NRC provides a Biological Assessment of the potential effects from the proposed 33 license renewal for the Salem and HCGS facilities on Federally listed endangered or threatened 34 species under NMFS jurisdiction in Appendix D. | ||
Highlight October 2010 4-51 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 Environmental Impacts of Operation audit, ERs for Salem and HCGS, other reports, and coordinated with FWS and State regulatory agencies in New Jersey and Delaware regarding listed species. | . Formatted: Highlight 35 4.7.2 Terrestrial and Freshwater Aquatic Threatened or Endangered Species 36 The FWS (2010) indicated that no Federally listed terrestrial species are known to occur on or in 37 the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS sites. The FWS (2010) noted that areas of potential habitat 38 and/or known occurrences of the bog turtle and swamp pink exist along the New Freedom North 39 and New Freedom South transmission line ROWs, but that the continued operation of Salem 40 and HCGS are unlikely to adversely affect either species because PSEG had previously 41 committed by letter dated October 23, 2009.to adopting FWS-recommended conservation .... Formatted: Highlight 42 measures along the transmission line ROWS. Such measures also included compliance with 43 the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines.,The Staff reviewed information from the site Deleted: | ||
Nevertheless, the NRC Staff acknowledges that the existence of such 10 maintenance practices, as outlined by PSE&G in its October 23, 2009, letter, provides a basis 11 for thejNRC Staff's finding below regarding potential impacts to terrestrial and freshwater 12 aquatic threatened or endangered scpecies associated with the license renewal of Salem and 13 HCGS (particularly along the transmission ROW segment within the scope of license renewal), 14 Should future changes to PSE&G's maintenance practices present a potential adverse impact 15 associated with continued operation of Salem and HGCS~the NRCStaffwould re-initiate 16 consultation with the FWS to address such impacts. | " LFormatted: Highlight October 2010 4-51 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 | ||
Human Health Issues. Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 | |||
Highlight | Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 audit, ERs for Salem and HCGS, other reports, and coordinated with FWS and State regulatory 2 agencies in New Jersey and Delaware regarding listed species. | ||
3 Further consultation between the NRCStaff, FWS and the applicant revealedthat the Deleted: After f 4 transmission line ROW conservation measures, as described in the letter to the FWS dated Deleted: s j 5 October 23, 2009, were madeby Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G), which is | |||
'- j" Deleted; , it was clarified 6 a different entity than the applicant-PSEG Nuclear. PSE&G is a subsidiary of Public Service 7 | |||
8 Enterprise Group, which also owns PSEG Nuclear. However, PSE&G'sownershiRand maintenance practices forthe transmission lines are not within the purview of the NRC's Deleted: October 23, 2009 letter was submitted to the the FWS Deleted: | |||
3 9 licensing authority. Nevertheless, the NRC Staff acknowledges that the existence of such Deleted: a 10 maintenance practices, as outlined by PSE&G in its October 23, 2009, letter, provides a basis 11 for thejNRC Staff's finding below regarding potential impacts to terrestrial and freshwater D Deleted: sins 12 aquatic threatened or endangered scpecies associated with the license renewal of Salem and Dele~ted3 13 HCGS (particularly along the transmission ROW segment within the scope of license renewal), Formatted: Highlight 14 Should future changes to PSE&G's maintenance practices present a potential adverse impact [Deleted: The 15 associated with continued operation of Salem and HGCS~the NRCStaffwould re-initiate Deleted: acknowledges PSE&G commitment 16 consultation with the FWS to address such impacts. to adopting the conservation measures along the transmission lines as described in the letter 17 dated October 23, 2009 to FWS 18 Based on the the discussion above,1he NRC staff concludes that the impacts on Federally " Deleted: | |||
19 listed terrestrial and freshwater aquatic species from an additional 20 years of operation and f Deleted: change along the transmissions line 20 maintenance of the Salem and HCGS facilities and associated transmission line ROWs would ROWS 21 be SMALL. | |||
Deleted:3 Deleted: s 22 4.8 Human Health Deleted: will ee,'",Deleted: | |||
27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-52 October 2010}} | re-e 23 The human health issues applicable to Salem and HCGS are discussed below and listed in 24 Table 4-22 for Category 1, Category 2, and uncategorized issues. eeDeleted:PSE&G also indicted in their letter to I FVVS that PSE&G will comply with the National 25 Table.4-22. Human Health Issues. Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. | ||
26 contains more information on these issues. ,Deleted: conservation measure described in PSE&G's letter dated October 23. 2009 Issues GElS Section Category Deleted: | |||
Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment 3.8. 1" 1 Deleted: T Occupational radiation exposures during refurbishment 3.8.2a 1 Formatted: Highlight Microbiological organisms (occupational health) 4.3.6 1 ( Formatted: Highlight Microbiological organisms (public health, for plants 4 .3.6b 2 using lakes or canals or discharging small rivers) | |||
Noise 4.3.7 1 Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term) 4.6.2 1 Occupation radiation exposures (license renewal term) 4.6.3 1 Electromagnetic fields - acute effects (electric shock) 4.5.4.1 2 Electromagnetic fields - chronic effects 4.5.4.2 Uncategorized a _ Issues apply to refurbishment, an activity that neither Salem nor HCGS plan to undertake. | |||
27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-52 October 2010}} | |||
Latest revision as of 14:23, 12 November 2019
| ML11263A053 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 01/06/2011 |
| From: | Bo Pham Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Leslie Perkins Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2011-0113 | |
| Download: ML11263A053 (3) | |
Text
Pham, BoI From: Pham, Bo Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 12:26 PM To: Perkins, Leslie
Subject:
RE: wording for SEIS Attachments: Bo's edit Chapter 4 - T&E.docx
- Leslie, Attached are my changes. Please run this by Brian Harris in OGC for any additional comments before proposing it to Wendy (I've already given Brian a heads-up about it just now). In the mean time, please also contact Wendy my email to say something like the following, just for documentation of our conversation:
Dear Wendy:
To follow up on our conversation yesterday regarding the staff's consideration of commitments made by PSE&G (as opposed to PSEG Nuclear) for maintenance practices along the transmission ROW corridor within the scope of license renewal for Salem & HCGS, we are explaining the situation to our general counsel to get further clarification regarding jurisdictional nexus for this scenario.
In the mean time, we are also working to propose changes to the SEIS to capture the FWS's concern regarding impacts to the x-mission ROW and how the October 23, 2009, letter from PSE&G plays into mitigating that. We will consult with you further once we iron out the language.
Thanks for the call yesterday!
Bo Pham Chief, Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-8450 From: Perkins, Leslie Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 8:35 AM To: Pham, Bo
Subject:
wording for SEIS Importance: High Bo, I tried some language in the SEIS to address FWS concerns. Please take look to let me know if this what you had in mine. It's on page 4-51, Section 4.7.2. I highlighted it in yellow so it should be easy for you to find.
Leslie Perkins Project Manager Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OX/\
5
Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Both sturgeon species and three of the four turtle species have been impinged at Salem.
2 .Atlantic sturgeon were collected in impingement studies in a single year, 2006 (PSEG, 2006a).
3 From 1978 through 2009, 20 shortnose sturgeon were impinged at the Salem intakes, of which 4 16 died. Between 1978 and 2008, 24 Kemp's ridley sea turtles were impinged, of which ten 5 died. Three green turtles (one died) and 69 loggerhead turtles (25 died) also were impinged.
6 Impingement of the turtles was greatest in 1991 and 1992 (Table 4.21). After PSEG modified its 7 use of the ice barriers in 1993, turtle impingement numbers returned to levels much lower than 8 in 1991. From 1994 through 2009, Salem impinged seven sea turtles (all loggerheads), and 9 four of these died. Also during this 16-yr period, 12 shortnose sturgeon were impinged, of which 10 eight died. Sea turtles have not been impinged at Salem since 2004 (NMFS, 2009).
11 Section 4.5.4 discusses potential impacts of thermal discharges on the aquatic biota of the 12 Delaware Estuary, and the Staff expects that impacts on fish and invertebrates, including those 13 preyed upon by sturgeon and sea turtles, to be minimal. The high exit velocity of the discharge 14 produces rapid dilution, which limits high temperatures to relatively small areas in the zone of 15 initial mixing in the immediate vicinity of the discharge. Fish and many other organisms are 16 largely excluded from these areas due to high velocities and turbulence. Shortnose and Atlantic 17 sturgeon and the four sea turtle species have little potential to experience adverse effects from 18 exposure to the temperatures at the discharge because of their life history characteristics and 19 their mobility. Sturgeon spawning and nursery areas do not occur in the area of the discharge 20 in the estuary, and adult sturgeon forage on the bottom while the buoyant thermal plume rises 21 toward the surface. Sea turtles prefer warmer water temperatures, occur in the region only 22 during warm months, and are unlikely to be sensitive to the localized area of elevated 23 temperatures at the discharge. NMFS (1993) considered the possibility that the warm water 24 near the discharge could cause sea turtles to remain in the area until surrounding waters are too 25 cold for their safe departure in the fall,, but it concluded that this scenario was not supported by 26 any existing data.
27 The Staff reviewed information from the site audit, the applicant's ERs for Salem and HCGS, 28 biological monitoring reports, other reports, and coordination with NMFS, FWS, and State 29 regulatory agencies in New Jersey and Delaware regarding listed species. The Staff concludes 30 that the impacts on Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic species of the Delaware 31 Estuary during an additional 20 years of operation of the Salem and HCGS facilities would be 32 SMALL. NRC provides a Biological Assessment of the potential effects from the proposed 33 license renewal for the Salem and HCGS facilities on Federally listed endangered or threatened 34 species under NMFS jurisdiction in Appendix D.
. Formatted: Highlight 35 4.7.2 Terrestrial and Freshwater Aquatic Threatened or Endangered Species 36 The FWS (2010) indicated that no Federally listed terrestrial species are known to occur on or in 37 the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS sites. The FWS (2010) noted that areas of potential habitat 38 and/or known occurrences of the bog turtle and swamp pink exist along the New Freedom North 39 and New Freedom South transmission line ROWs, but that the continued operation of Salem 40 and HCGS are unlikely to adversely affect either species because PSEG had previously 41 committed by letter dated October 23, 2009.to adopting FWS-recommended conservation .... Formatted: Highlight 42 measures along the transmission line ROWS. Such measures also included compliance with 43 the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines.,The Staff reviewed information from the site Deleted:
" LFormatted: Highlight October 2010 4-51 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 audit, ERs for Salem and HCGS, other reports, and coordinated with FWS and State regulatory 2 agencies in New Jersey and Delaware regarding listed species.
3 Further consultation between the NRCStaff, FWS and the applicant revealedthat the Deleted: After f 4 transmission line ROW conservation measures, as described in the letter to the FWS dated Deleted: s j 5 October 23, 2009, were madeby Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G), which is
'- j" Deleted; , it was clarified 6 a different entity than the applicant-PSEG Nuclear. PSE&G is a subsidiary of Public Service 7
8 Enterprise Group, which also owns PSEG Nuclear. However, PSE&G'sownershiRand maintenance practices forthe transmission lines are not within the purview of the NRC's Deleted: October 23, 2009 letter was submitted to the the FWS Deleted:
3 9 licensing authority. Nevertheless, the NRC Staff acknowledges that the existence of such Deleted: a 10 maintenance practices, as outlined by PSE&G in its October 23, 2009, letter, provides a basis 11 for thejNRC Staff's finding below regarding potential impacts to terrestrial and freshwater D Deleted: sins 12 aquatic threatened or endangered scpecies associated with the license renewal of Salem and Dele~ted3 13 HCGS (particularly along the transmission ROW segment within the scope of license renewal), Formatted: Highlight 14 Should future changes to PSE&G's maintenance practices present a potential adverse impact [Deleted: The 15 associated with continued operation of Salem and HGCS~the NRCStaffwould re-initiate Deleted: acknowledges PSE&G commitment 16 consultation with the FWS to address such impacts. to adopting the conservation measures along the transmission lines as described in the letter 17 dated October 23, 2009 to FWS 18 Based on the the discussion above,1he NRC staff concludes that the impacts on Federally " Deleted:
19 listed terrestrial and freshwater aquatic species from an additional 20 years of operation and f Deleted: change along the transmissions line 20 maintenance of the Salem and HCGS facilities and associated transmission line ROWs would ROWS 21 be SMALL.
Deleted:3 Deleted: s 22 4.8 Human Health Deleted: will ee,'",Deleted:
re-e 23 The human health issues applicable to Salem and HCGS are discussed below and listed in 24 Table 4-22 for Category 1, Category 2, and uncategorized issues. eeDeleted:PSE&G also indicted in their letter to I FVVS that PSE&G will comply with the National 25 Table.4-22. Human Health Issues. Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 Bald Eagle Management Guidelines.
26 contains more information on these issues. ,Deleted: conservation measure described in PSE&G's letter dated October 23. 2009 Issues GElS Section Category Deleted:
Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment 3.8. 1" 1 Deleted: T Occupational radiation exposures during refurbishment 3.8.2a 1 Formatted: Highlight Microbiological organisms (occupational health) 4.3.6 1 ( Formatted: Highlight Microbiological organisms (public health, for plants 4 .3.6b 2 using lakes or canals or discharging small rivers)
Noise 4.3.7 1 Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term) 4.6.2 1 Occupation radiation exposures (license renewal term) 4.6.3 1 Electromagnetic fields - acute effects (electric shock) 4.5.4.1 2 Electromagnetic fields - chronic effects 4.5.4.2 Uncategorized a _ Issues apply to refurbishment, an activity that neither Salem nor HCGS plan to undertake.
27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-52 October 2010