|
|
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:I Perkins. Leslie From: Folk, Kevin Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 4:16 PM To: Perkins, Leslie Cc: Imboden, Andy Attachments: Chapter 8 v.7 FINAL[2]_KTF-090210.docx; Chapter 2 V 5_KTF-090210.docx; Chapter 4 V 3 FINAL (2)_KTF-090310.docx Leslie: | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| The attached contain my redline/strikeout changes to Chapters 2, 4, and 8 to accompany the hardcopies I gave to Andy. Please contact me with any questions. Have a nice holiday.
| |
| Kevin Kevin T. Folk Environmental Scientist NRR/DLR 301-415-6944 1
| |
| 5
| |
| | |
| 1 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES 2 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandates that each environmental impact 3 statement (EIS) consider alternatives to any proposed major Federal action significantly 4 affecting the quality of the human environment. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 5 regulations implementing NEPA for license renewal require that a supplemental environmental 6 impact statement (SEIS) consider and weigh'ýte environmental effects of the proposed action J . ( SDeleted:
| |
| 7 (license renewal); the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and 8 alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental impacts (Title 10 of the ....... Deleted:, J 9 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.71 (d)).
| |
| 10 This SEIS considers the proposed Federal action of issuing a renewed license for the Salem 11 Nuclear Generating Stations, Units 1 and 2 (Salem) and Hope Creek Generating Station 12 (HCGS), which would allow the plants to operate for 20 years beyond the current license 13 expiration dates. In this chapter, the NRC staff (Staff) examines the potential environmental 14 impacts of alternatives to issuing a renewed operating license for Salem and HCGS, as well as 15 alternatives that may reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts from license renewal, 16 when and where these alternatives are applicable.
| |
| 17 While the Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement (GELS) for License Renewal of Nuclear 18 Plants, NUREG-1437 (NRC, 1996; NRC, 1999), reached generic conclusions regarding many 19 environmental issues associated with license renewal, it did not determine which alternatives 20 are reasonable or reach conclusions about site-specific environmental impact levels. As such, 21 the Staff must evaluate environmental impacts of alternatives on a site-specific basis.
| |
| 22 Alternatives to the proposed action of issuing renewed Salem and HCGS operating licenses 23 must meet the purpose and need for issuing a renewed license. They must:
| |
| 24 provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of 25 a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating 26 needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where 27 authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decision makers. (NRC, 1996) 28 The Staff ultimately makes no decision as to which alternative (or the proposed action) to 29 implement, since that decision falls to nergy-plannjing-decis-ion-makers.- If NRC decides not to J-] Comment [L1]: Need to discuss wording with OGC 30 renew the licenses (or takes no action at all), then energy-planning decision-makers may no 31 longer elect to continue operating Salem and HCGS and will have to resort to another Deleted: utility, State, or other Federal officials to decide. Comparing the environmental effects 32 alternative-which may or may not be one of the alternatives considered in this section-to of these alternatives will assist the Staff in 33 meet their energy needs. deciding whether the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that 34 In evaluating alternatives to license renewal, the Staff first selects .energy technologies or preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision-makers would be 35 options currently in commercial operation, as well as some technologies not currently in unreasonable (10 CFR 51.95[c][4]). If the NRC 36 commercial operation but likely to be commercially available by the time the current Salem and acts to issue renewed licenses, all of the 37 HCGS operating licenses expire. The current Salem operating licenses will expire on August alternatives, including the proposed action, will be available to 38 13, 2016 for Unit 1 and April 18, 2020 for Unit 2. The current HCGS operating license will 39 expire on April 11, 2026. An alternative must be available (constructed, permitted, and 40 connected to the grid) by the time the current Salem and HCGS licenses expire.
| |
| 41 Second, the Staff screens the alternatives to remove those that cannot meet future system 42 needs, and then screens the remaining options to remove those with costs or benefits that do 43 not justify their inclusion in the range of reasonable alternatives. Any alternatives remaining, September 2010 8-1 Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 then, constitute alternatives to the proposed action that the Staff evaluates in detail throughout 2 this section. In Section 8.2, the SEIS briefly addresses each alternative that the Staff removed 3 during screening and explains why each alternative 4 was removed.
| |
| 5 The Staff initially considered 17 discrete alternatives In-Depth 6 to the proposed action, and then narrowed the list to Alternatives:
| |
| 7 two discrete alternatives and a combination of 8 alternatives considered in Section 8.1.
| |
| * Supercritical coal-fired 9 Once the Staff identifies alternatives for in-depth
| |
| * Natural gas-fired 10 review, the Staff refers to generic environmental combined-cycle 11 impact evaluations in the GElS. The GElS provides
| |
| * Combination 12 overviews of some energy technologies available at 13 the time of its publishing in 1996, though it does not Other Alternatives 14 reach any conclusions regarding which alternatives Considered:
| |
| 15 are most appropriate, nor does it categorize impacts 0 Offsite Coal-Fired and 16 for each site. In addition, since 1996, many energy Natural Gas-Fired 17 technologies have evolved significantly in capability
| |
| * New nuclear 18 and cost, while regulatory structures have changed to 0 Conservation/
| |
| 19 either promote or impede development of particular 20 alternatives. Efficiency a Purchased power 21 As a result, the Staffs analysis starts with the GElS
| |
| * Solar power 22 and then includes updated information from sources . Wood-fired 23 like the Energy Information Administration (EIA), other
| |
| * Wind 24 organizations within the Department of Energy (DOE), (onshoreloffshore) 25 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), industry 0 Hydroelectric power 26 sources and publications, and information submitted 0 Wave and ocean 27 in the PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG, the applicant) energy 28 environmental report (ER).
| |
| * Geothermal power 29 For each in-depth analysis, the Staff analyzes 0 Municipal solid waste 30 environmental impacts across seven impact 0 Biofuels 31 categories: (1) air quality, (2) groundwater use and 0 Oil-fired power 32 quality, (3) surface water use and quality, (4) aquatic 0 Fuel cells 33 and terrestrial ecology, (5) human health, (6)
| |
| * Delayed retirement 34 socioeconomics, and (7) waste management. As in 35 earlier chapters of this draft SEIS, the Staff uses the 36 NRC's three-level standard of significance-SMALL, 37 MODERATE, or LARGE-to indicate the degree of the environmental effect on each of the 38 seven aforementioned categories that have been evaluated.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-2 September 2010 ;
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 The in-depth alternatives that the Staff 2 considered include a supercritical coal- Energy Outlook: Each year the Energy 3 fired plant in Section 8.1.1, a natural gas- Information Administration (EIA), part of the 4 fired combined-cycle power plant in -U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), issues 5 Section 8.1.2, and a combination of its updated Annual Energy Outlook (AEO).
| |
| 6 alternatives in Section 8.1.3 that includes AEO 2009 indicates that natural gas, coal, 7 natural gas-fired combined-cycle and renewable are likely to fuel most new 8 generation, energy conservation, and a electrical capacity throuigh 2030, with some 9 wind power component. In Section 8.2, growth in nuclear capacity (EIA, 2009a),
| |
| 10 the Staff explains why it dismissed many though all projections are subject to future 11 other alternatives from in-depth developments in fuel price or electricity 12 consideration. In Section 8.3, the Staff demand:
| |
| 13 considers the environmental effects that 14 may occur if NRC takes no action and "Natural-gas-fired plants account for 53 15 does not issue renewed licenses for percent of capacity additions in the 16 Salem and HCGS. Finally, in Section reference case, as compared with 22 17 8.4, the impacts of all alternatives are percent for renewable, 18 percent for 18 summarized, coal-fired plants, and 5 percent for nuclear.
| |
| Capacity expansion decisions consider 19 8.1 Alternative Energy Sources capital, operating, and transmission costs.
| |
| Typically, coal-fired, nuclear, and renewable 20 8.1.1 Supercritical Coal-Fired plants are capital-intensive, whereas 21 Generation operating (fuel) expenditures account for most of the costs associated with natural-22 The GElS indicates that a 3,656 gas-fired capacity."
| |
| 23 megawatt-electric (MW[e]) supercritical 24 coal-fired power plant (a plant equivalent in capacity to each individual Salem Unit 1, Salem Unit 25 2, and HCGS plants) could require 6,200 ac (2,600 ha) of available land area, and thus would 26 not fit on the existing 1,480 ac (599 ha) owned by PSEG at the Salem and HCGS sites; 27 however, the Staff notes that many coal-fired power plants with larger capacities have been 28 located on smaller sites. In the ERs, PSEG assumed that a coal-fired alternative would be 29 developed on the existing Salem and HCGS sites. The Staff believes this to be reasonable and, 30 as such, will consider a coal-fired alternative located on the current Salem and HCGS sites.
| |
| 31 Coal-fired generation accounts for 48.2 percent of U.S. electrical power generation, a greater 32 share than any other fuel (EIA, 2010a). Furthermore, the EIA projects that coal-fired power 33 plants will account for the greatest share of added capacity through 2030-more than natural 34 gas, nuclear or renewable generation options (EIA, 2009a). While coal-fired power plants are 35 widely used and likely to remain widely used, the Staff notes that future coal capacity additions 36 may be affected by perceived or actual efforts to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For 37 now, the Staff considers a coal-fired alternative to be a feasible, commercially available option 38 that could provide electrical generating capacity after the Salem and HCGS current licenses 39 expire.
| |
| 40 Supercritical technologies are increasingly common in new coal-fired plants. Supercritical 41 plants operate at higher temperatures and pressures than most existing coal-fired plants 42 (beyond water's "critical point', where boiling no longer occurs and no clear phase change September 2010 8-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 occurs between steam and liquid water). Operating at higher temperatures and pressures 2 allows this coal-fired alternative to function at a higher thermal efficiency than many existing 3 coal-fired power plants do. While supercritical facilities are more expensive to construct, they 4 consume less fuel for a given output, reducing environmental impacts. Based on technology 5 forecasts from EIA, the Staff expects that a new, supercritical coal-fired plant beginning 6 operation in 2014 would operate at a heat rate of 9069 British thermal units/kilowatt hour 7 (Btu/kWh), or approximately 38 percent thermal efficiency (EIA, 2009a).
| |
| 8 In a supercritical coal-fired power plant, burning coal heats pressurized water. As the 9 supercritical steam/water mixture moves through plant pipes to a turbine generator, the 10 pressure drops and the mixture flashes to steam. The heated steam expands across the 11 turbine stages, which then spin and turn the generator to produce electricity. After passing 12 through the turbine, any remaining steam is condensed back to water in the plant's condenser.
| |
| 13 In most modern U.S. facilities, condenser cooling water circulates through cooling towers or a 14 cooling pond system (either of which are closed-cycle cooling systems). Older plants often 15 withdraw cooling water directly from existing rivers or lakes and discharge heated water directly 16 to the same body of water (called open-cycle cooling). Salem operates open-cycle cooling 17 water using once-through cooling at both of their units, while HCGS operates a closed-cycle 18 cooling system with a natural draft cooling tower. Although nuclear plants require more cooling 19 capacity than an equivalently sized coal-fired plant, the existing cooling tower at HCGS, by 20 itself, is not expected to be adequate to support a coal-fired alternative that would have the 21 capacity to replace both Salem and HCGS. Therefore, implementation of a coal-fired alternative 22 would require the construction of additional cooling towers to provide the necessary cooling 23 capacity to support the replacement of both Salem and HCGS. Under the coal-fired alternative, 24 the facility would withdraw makeup water from and discharge blowdown (water containing 25 concentrated dissolved solids and biocides) from cooling towers back to the Delaware River, 26 similar to the manner in which the current HCGS cooling tower operates. However, additional 27 cooling towers would be required, so the volume of water managed in cooling towers would 28 increase. At the same time, the once-through cooling system associated with the Salem Units 1 29 and 2 would cease operation.
| |
| 30 In order to replace the 3,656 net MW(e) that Salem and HCGS currently supply, the coal-fired 31 alternative would need to produce roughly 3889 gross MW(e), using about 6 percent of power 32 output for onsite power usage (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Onsite electricity demands ,
| |
| 33 include scrubbers, cooling towers, coal-handling equipment, lights, communication, and other 34 onsite needs. A supercritical coal-fired plant equivalent in capacity to Salem and HCGS would 35 require less cooling water than Salem and HCGS because the alternative operates at a higher 36 thermal efficiency. The 3,889 gross MW(e) would be achieved using standard-sized units, 37 which are assumed to be approximately equivalent to six units of 630 MW(e) each.
| |
| 38 The 3,656 net MW(e) power plants would consume approximately 12.2 million tons (11.1 million 39 metric tons [MT]) of coal annually (EPA, 2006). EIA reports that most coal consumed in New 40 Jersey originates in West Virginia or Pennsylvania (EIA, 201 Ob). Given current coal mining 41 operations in this area, the coal used in this alternative would likely be mined by a combination 42 of strip (mountaintop-removal) mining and underground mining. The coal would be 43 mechanically processed and washed, and transported by barge to the Salem and HCGS facility.
| |
| 44 Limestone for scrubbers would also likely be delivered by barge. This coal-fired alternative 45 would produce roughly 753,960 tons (684,440 MT) of ash annually (EIA, 2010b), and roughly Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-4 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 245,300 tons (222,700 MT) of scrubber sludge annually (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Much 2 of the coal ash and scrubbed sludge could be reused depending on local recycling and reuse 3 markets.
| |
| 4 The coal-fired alternative would also include construction impacts such as clearing the plant site 5 of vegetation, excavation, and preparing the site surface before other crews begin actual 6 construction of the plant and any associated infrastructure. Because this alternative would be 7 constructed at the Salem and HCGS site, it is unlikely that new transmission lines would be 8 necessary. Because coal would be supplied by barge, no construction of a new rail line would 9 be necessary.
| |
| 10 8.1.1.1 Air Quality 11 Air quality impacts from coal-fired generation can increase, substantially as compared to license - Deleted: be substantially 12 renewal because these power plants emit significant quantities of sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen " Deleted: d 13 oxides (NOx), particulates, carbon monoxide (CO), and hazardous air pollutants such as 14 mercury. However, many of these pollutants can bed-educed using variousjoollution control J - Deleted: substantially 15 technologies.
| |
| 16 As further discussed in Section 4.11.5, Salem and HCGS are located in Salem County, New 17 Jersey. Salem County is designated as an attainment/unclassified area with respect to the 18 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) for particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in 19 diameter (PM2 .T),sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOx, CO, and lead. The county, along with all of 20 southern New Jersey, is a nonattainment area with respect to the 1-hour primary ozone 21 standard and the 8-hour ozone standard. For the 1-hour ozone standard, Salem County is 22 located within the multi-state Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton non-attainment area, and for the 23 8-hour ozone standard, it is located in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City (PA-NJ-DE-MD) 24 non attainment area.
| |
| 25 A new coal-fired generating plant would qualify as a new major-emitting industrial facility and 26 would be subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality Review under 27 requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA), adopted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental 28 Protection (NJDEP) Bureau of Air Quality Permitting. A new coal-fired generating plant would 29 need to comply with the new source performance standards for coal-fired plants set forth in 40 30 CFR 60 Subpart Da. The standards establish limits for particulate matter and opacity (40 CFR 31 60.42(a)), SO 2 (40 CFR 60.43(a)), and NOx (40 CFR 60.44(a)). Regulations issued by NJDEP 32 adopt the EPA's CAA rules (with modifications) to limit power plant emissions of SOx, NOx, 33 particulate matter, and hazardous air pollutants. The new coal-fired generating plant would 34 qualify as a major facility as defined in Section 7:27-22.1 of the New Jersey Administrative 35 Code, and would be required to obtain a major source permit from NJDEP.
| |
| 36 Section 169A of the CAA (42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 7401) establishes a national goal of 37 preventing future and remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal 38 areas when impairment results from man-made air pollution. The EPA issued a new regional 39 haze rule in 1999 (64 FederalRegister (FR) 35714). The rule specifies that for each mandatory 40 Class I Federal area located within a state, the State must establish goals that provide for 41 reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions through developing and 42 implementing air quality protection plans to reduce the pollution that causes visibility September 2010 8-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 impairment. The reasonable progress goals must provide an improvement in visibility for the 2 most-impaired days over the period of implementation plan and ensure no degradation in 3 visibility for the least-impaired days over the same period (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)). Five regional 4 planning organizations (RPO) collaborate on the visibility impairment issue, developing the 5 technical basis for these plans. The State of New Jersey is among eleven member states 6 (Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, 7 Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine) of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility 8 Union (MANE-VU), along with tribes, Federal agencies, and other interested parties that 9 identifies regional haze and visibility issues and develops strategies to address them (NJDEP, 10 2009a). The visibility protection regulatory requirements, contained in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart 11 P, include the review of the new sources that would be constructed in the attainment or 12 unclassified areas and may affect visibility in any Federal Class I area (40 CFR Part 51, Subpart 13 P, §51.307). If a coal-fired plant were located close to a mandatory Class I area, additional air 14 pollution control requirements would be imposed. There is one mandatory Class I Federal area 15 in the State of New Jersey, which is the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge (40 CFR 81.420),
| |
| 16 located approximately 58 miles (mi; 93 kilometers [km]) southeast of the Salem and HCGS 17 facilities. There are no Class I Federal areas in Delaware, and no other areas located within 18 100 mi (161 km) of the facilities (40 CFR 81.400). New Jersey is also subject to the Clean Air 19 Interstate Rule (CAIR), which has outlined emissions reduction goals for both SO 2 and NOx for 20 the year 2015. CAIR will aid New Jersey sources in reducing SO 2 emissions by 25,000 tons 21 (23,000 MT, or 49 percent), and NOx emissions by 11,000 tons (10,000 MT, or 48 percent; 22 EPA, 2010).
| |
| 23 The Staff projects that the coal-fired alternative at the Salem and HCGS site would have the 24 following emissions for criteria and other significant emissions based on published EIA data, 25 EPA emission factors and on performance characteristics for this alternative and likely emission 26 controls:
| |
| 27
| |
| * Sulfur oxides (SOx) - 12,566 tons (11,407 MT) per year 28
| |
| * Nitrogen oxides (NOx) - 3,050 tons,(7_69 MT) peryear ------------------------ -
| |
| * Deleted: 2 29
| |
| * Particulate matter (PM) PM 10 - 85.4 tons (77.5 MT) per year 30
| |
| * Particulate matter (PM) PM2.5 - 22.6 tons (20.5 MT) per year 31
| |
| * Carbon monoxide (CO) - 3,050 tons (2,769 MT) per year 32 Sulfur Oxides 33 The coal-fired alternative at the Salem and HCGS site would likely use wet, limestone-based 34 scrubbers to remove SOx. The EPA indicates that this technology can remove more than 95 35 percent of SOx from flue gases. The Staff projects total SOx emissions after scrubbing would 36 be 12,566 tons (11,407 MT) per year. SOx emissions from a new coal-fired power plant would 37 be subject to the requirements of Title IV of the CAA. Title IV was enacted to reduce emissions 38 of SO 2 and NOx, the two principal precursors of acid rain, by restricting emissions of these 39 pollutants from power plants. Title IV caps aggregate annual power plant SO 2 emissions and 40 imposes controls on SO 2 emissions through a system of marketable allowances. The EPA 41 issues one allowance for each ton of SO 2 that a unit is allowed to emit. New units do not 42 receive allowances, but are required to have allowances to cover their SO 2 emissions. Owners 43 of new units must therefore purchase allowances from owners of other power plants or reduce Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-6 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 S02 emissions at other power plants they own. Allowances can be banked for use in future 2 years. Thus, provided a new coal-fired power plant is able to purchase sufficient allowances to 3 operate, it would not add to net regional S02 emissions, although it might do so locally.
| |
| 4 Nitrogen Oxides 5 A coal-fired alternative at the Salem and HCGS site would most likely employ various available 6 NOx-control technologies, which can be grouped into two main categories: combustion 7 modifications and post-combustion processes. Combustion modifications include low-NOx 8 burners, over fire air, and operational modifications. Post-combustion processes include 9 selective catalytic reduction and selective non-catalytic reduction. An effective combination of 10 the combustion modifications and post-combustion processes allow the reduction of NOx 11 emissions by up to 95 percent (EPA, 1998). PSEG indicated in its ER that the technology would 12 use low NOx burners, overfire air, and selective catalytic reduction to reduce NOx emissions by 13 approximately 95 percent from uncontrolled emissions. As a result, the NOx emissions 14 associated with a coal-fired alternative at the Salem and HCGS site would be approximately 15 3,050 tons (2,769 MT) per year.
| |
| 16 Section 407 of the CAA establishes technology-based emission limitations for NOx emissions.
| |
| 17 A new coal-fired power plant would be subject to the new source performance standards for 18 such plants as indicated in 40 CFR 60.44a(d)(1). This regulation, issued on September 16, 19 1998 (63 FR 49442-, limits the discharge of anygases that contain nitrogen oxides_(NO 2)_to1.6 _ ..... Deleted: 53 20 pounds per megawatt hour (lb/MWh) of NOx per joule (J) of gross energy output (equivalent to 21 200 nanograms [ng]), based on a 30-day rolling average. Based on the projected emissions, 22 the proposed alternative would easily meet this regulation.
| |
| 23 Particulates 24 The new coal-fired power plant would use baghouse-based fabric filters to remove particulates 25 from flue gases. PSEG indicated that this technology would remove 99.9 percent of particulate 26 matter. The EPA notes that filters are capable of removing in excess of 99 percent of 27 particulate matter, and that SO 2 scrubbers further reduce particulate matter emissions (EPA, 28 2008a). Based on EPA emission factors, the new supercritical coal-fired plant would emit 85.4 29 tons (77.5 MT) per year of particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 30 to 10 microns (PM10) annually (EPA, 1998; EIA, 2010b). In addition, coal burning would also 31 result in approximately 22.6 tons (20.5 MT) per year of PM2 .5. Coal-handling equipment would 32 introduce fugitive dust emissions when fuel is being transferred to onsite storage and then 33 reclaimed from storage for use in the plant. During the construction of a coal-fired plant, onsite 34 activities would also generate fugitive dust. Vehicles and motorized equipment would create 35 exhaust emissions during the construction process. These impacts would be intermittent and 36 short-lived, however, and to minimize dust generation construction crews would use applicable 37 dust-control measures.
| |
| 38 Carbon Monoxide 39 Based on EPA emission factors and assumed plant characteristics, the Staff computed that the 40 total CO emissions would be approximately 3,050 tons (2,769 MT) per year (EPA, 1998).
| |
| September 2010 8-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 HazardousAir Pollutants 2 Consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court's February 8, 2008 ruling that vacated its Clean Air 3 Mercury Rule (CAMR), the EPA is in the process of developing mercury emissions standards for 4 power plants under the CAA (Section 112) (EPA, 2009a). Before CAMR, the EPA determined 5 that coal-and oil-fired electric utility steam-generating units are significant emitters of hazardous 6 air pollutants (HAPs;_5 FR 79825). The EPA determined that coal p!ants emit arsenic, [Deleted: EPA, 2000a 7 beryllium, cadmium, chromium, dioxins, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, lead, manganese, 8 and mercury (65 FR 79825,). The EPA concluded that mercury is the HAP of greatest concern; Deleted: EPA, 2000a 9 it further concluded that:
| |
| 10 (1) a link exists between coal combustion and mercury emissions, 11 (2) electric utility steam-generating units are the largest domestic source of mercury 12 emissions, and 13 (3) certain segments of the U.S. population (e.g., the developing fetus and subsistence fish-14 eating populations) are believed to be at potential risk of adverse health effects resulting 15 from mercury exposures caused by the consumption of contaminated fish (65 FR 16 79825,). SDeleted: EPA, 2000a 17 On February 6, 2009, the Supreme Court dismissed the EPA's request to review the 2008 18 Circuit Court's decision, and also denied a similar request by the Utility Air Regulatory Group 19 later that month (EPA, 2009a).
| |
| 20 Carbon Dioxide 21 A coal-fired plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide (C0 2) emissions during 22 operations as well as during mining, processing, and transportation, which the GElS indicates 23 could contribute to global warming. The coal-fired plant would emit approximately 33,611,000 24 tons (30,512,000 MT) per year of CO 2.
| |
| 25 ConstructionImpacts 26 Activities associated with the construction of a new coal-fired plant at the Salem and HCGS site 27 would cause some additional air effects as a result of equipment emissions and fugitive dust 28 from operation of the earth-moving and material handling equipment. Workers' vehicles and 29 motorized construction equipment would generate temporary exhaust emissions. The 30 construction crews would employ dust-control practices in order to control and reduce fugitive 31 dust, which would be temporary in nature. The Staff concludes that the impact of vehicle 32 exhaust emissions and fugitive dust from operation of earth-moving and material handling 33 equipment would be SMALL.
| |
| 34 ,unmmary of Air Quality Deleted:¶ 35 While the GElS analysis mentions global warming from unregulated CO 2 emissions and acid 36 rain from SOx and NOx emissions as potential impacts, it does not quantify emissions from 37 coal-fired power plants. However, the GElS analysis does imply that air impacts would be 38 substantial (NRC, 1996). The above analysis shows that emissions of air pollutants, including 39 SOx, NOx, CO, and particulates, exceed those produced by the existing nuclear power plant, as 40 well as those of the other alternatives considered in this section. Operational emissions of CO 2 41 are also much greater under the coal-fired alternative, as reviewed by the Staff in Section 6.2 42 and in the previoussections. Adverse human health effects such as cancer and emphysema
| |
| ----------------------------------------- - - Deleted: paragraph Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 8-8 September2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 have also been associated with air emissions from coal combustion, and are discussed further 2 in Section 8.1.1.5.
| |
| 3 The NRC analysis for a coal-fired alternative at the Salem and HCGS site indicates that impacts 4 from the coal-fired alternative would have clearly noticeable effects, but given existing regulatory 5 regimes, permitrequirements, and emissions controls, the coal-fired alternative would not 6 destabilize air quality. Therefore, the appropriate characterization of air quality impacts from 7 operation of a coal-fired plant located at the Salem and HCGS site would be MODERATE.
| |
| 8 Existing air quality would result in varying needs for pollution control equipment to meet 9 applicable local requirements, or varying degrees of participation in emissions trading. schemes.
| |
| 10 8.1.1.2 Groundwater Use and Quality 11 If the onsite coal-fired alternative continued to use groundwater for drinking water and service 12 water, the need for groundwater at the plant would be minor. Total usage would likely be less 13 than Salem and HCGS because many fewer workers would be onsite, and because the coal-14 fired unit would have fewer auxiliary systems requiring service water. No effect on groundwater 15 quality would be apparent.
| |
| 16 Construction of a coal-fired plant could have a localized effect on groundwater due to temporary 17 dewatering and run-off control measures. Because of the temporary nature of construction and 18 the likelihood of reduced groundwater usage during operation, the impact of the coal-fired 19 alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| 20 8.1.1.3 Surface Water Use and Quality 21 The alternative would require a consumptive use of water from the Delaware River for cooling 22 purposes. Because this consumptive loss would be from an estuary, the NRC concludes the 23 impact of surface water use would be SMALL. A new coal-fired plant would be required to 24 obtain a National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the NJDEP 25 for regulation of industrial wastewater, storm water, and other discharges. Assuming the plant 26 operates within the limits of this permit, the impact from any cooling tower blowdown, site runoff, 27 and other effluent discharges on surface water quality would be SMALL.
| |
| 28 8.1.1.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology 29 Aquatic Ecology 30 Impacts to aquatic ecology resources from a coal-fired alternative at the Salem and HCGS site 31 could result from effects on water bodies both adjacent to and distant from the site. Temporary 32 effects on some aquatic organisms likely would result from construction that could occur in the 33 water near the shoreline at the facility. Longer-term, more extensive effects on aquatic 34 organisms likely would occur during the period of operation of the facility due to the intake of 35 cooling water and discharge of effluents to the estuary. The numbers of fish and other aquatic 36 organisms affected by impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts would be substantially 37 smaller than those associated with license renewal. Water consumption from and discharge of 38 blowdown to the Delaware Estuary would be lower due to the higher thermal efficiency of the 39 coal-fired facility and its use of only closed-cycle cooling. In addition, the intake and discharge September 2010 8-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 would be monitored and regulated by the NJDEP under the facility's NPDES permit, including 2 requirements under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(a) and 316(b) for thermal discharges 3 and cooling water intakes, respectively. Assuming the use of closed-cycle cooling and 4 adherence to regulatory requirements, the impact on ecological resources of the Delaware 5 Estuary from operation of the intake and discharge facilities would be minimal for this 6 alternative.
| |
| 7 Thus, impacts to aquatic ecology as a result of the effects of facility operations may occur on the 8 adjacent Delaware Estuary. The coal-fired alternative potentially would have noticeable effects 9 on aquatic resources in multiple areas. Given existing regulatory regimes, permit requirements, 10 and emissions controls, these effects would be limited and unlikely to destabilize aquatic 11 communities. Therefore, the impacts to aquatic resources from a coal-fired plant located at the 12 Salem and HCGS site would be SMALL to MODERATE for the Delaware Estuary.
| |
| 13 TerrestrialEcology 14 Constructing the coal-fired alternative onsite would require approximately 505 ac (204 ha) of 15 land for construction of the power block with an additional 193-386 ac (56-78 ha) for waste 16 disposal, which PSEG indicated could be accommodated on the existing site (see Section 17 8.1.1.6) (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Onsite impacts to terrestrial ecology may occur if 18 additional land requirements result in the encroachment into or filling of the adjacent tidal marsh.
| |
| 19 In addition, if additional roads would need to be constructed through less disturbed areas, 20 impacts could occur as these construction activities may fragment or destroy local ecological 21 communities. Land disturbances could affect habitats of native wildlife; however, these impacts 22 are not expected to be extensive. Cooling tower operation would produce drift that could result 23 in some deposition of dissolved solids on surrounding vegetation and soils onsite and offsite.
| |
| 24 Onsite or offsite waste disposal by landfilling also would affect terrestrial ecology at least until 25 the time when the disposal area is reclaimed. Deposition of acid rain resulting from NOx and 26 SOx emissions, as well as the deposition of other pollutants, also could affect terrestrial 27 ecology. Air deposition impacts may be noticeable but, given the emission controls discussed in 28 Section 8.1.1.1, are unlikely to be destabilizing. Thus, the impacts to terrestrial resources from 29 a coal-fired plant located at the Salem and HCGS site would be SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| 30 8.1.1.5 Human Health 31 Coal-fired power plants introduce worker risks from new plant construction, coal and limestone 32 mining, from coal and limestone transportation, and from disposal of coal combustion and 33 scrubber wastes. In addition, there are public risks from inhalation of stack emissions (as 34 addressed in Section 8.1.1.1) and the secondary effects of eating foods grown in areas subject 35 to deposition from plant stacks.
| |
| 36 Human health risks of coal-fired power plants are described, in general, in Table 8-2 of the 37 GElS (NRC, 1996). Cancer and emphysema as a result of the inhalation of toxins and 38 particulates are identified as potential health risks to occupational workers and members of the 39 public (NRC, 1996). The human health risks of coal-fired power plants, both to occupational 40 workers and to members of the public, are greater than those of the current Salem and HCGS 41 facilities due to exposures to chemicals such as mercury; SOx; NOx; radioactive elements such Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-10 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 as uranium and thorium contained in coal and coal ash; and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 2 (PAH) compounds, including benzo(a)pyrene.
| |
| 3 During construction activities there would be also risk to workers from typical industrial incidents 4 and accidents. Accidental injuries are not uncommon in the construction industry and accidents 5 resulting in fatalities do occur. However, the occurrence of such events is mitigated by the use 6 of proper industrial hygiene practices, worker safety requirements, and training. Occupational 7 and public health impacts during construction are expected to be controlled by continued 8 application of accepted industrial hygiene and occupational health and safety practices.
| |
| September 2010 8-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 Regulations restricting emissions-enforced by EPA or State agencies-have acted to 2 significantly reduce potential health effects but have not entirely eliminated them. These 3 agencies also impose site-specific emission limits as needed to protect human health. Even if 4 the coal-fired alternative were located in a nonattainment area, emission controls and trading or 5 offset mechanisms could prevent further regional degradation; however, local effects could be 6 visible. Many of the byproducts of coal combustion responsible for health effects are largely 7 controlled, captured, or converted in modern power plants (as described in Section 8.1.1.1),
| |
| 8 although some level of health effects may remain.
| |
| 9 Aside from emission impacts, the coal-fired alternative introduces the risk of coal pile fires and, 10 for those plants that use coal combustion liquid and sludge waste impoundments, the release of 11 the waste due to a failure of the impoundment. Although there have been several instances of 12 this occurring in recent years, these types of events are still relatively rare.
| |
| 13 Based on the cumulative potential impacts of construction activities, emissions, and materials 14 management on human health, the NRC staff considers the overall impact of constructing and 15 operating a new coal-fired facility to be moderate.
| |
| 16 8.1.1.6 Socioeconomics 17 Land Use 18 The GElS generically evaluates the impacts of nuclear power plant operations on land use both 19 on and off each power plant site. The analysis of land use impacts focuses on the amount of 20 land area that would be affected by the construction and operation of a new supercritical coal-21 fired power plant on the Salem and HCGS site.
| |
| 22 The GElS indicates that an estimated 1,700 ac (700 ha) would be required for constructing a 23 1,000-MW(e) coal plant. Scaling from the GElS estimate, approximately 6,200 ac (2,500 ha) 24 would be required to replace the 3,656 MW(e) provided by Salem and HCGS. PSEG indicated 25 that approximately 505 ac (204 ha) of land would be needed to support a coal-fired alternative 26 capable of replacing the Salem and HCGS facilities (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). This 27 amount of land use includes power plant structures and associated coal delivery and waste 28 disposal infrastructure. However, many coal-fired power plants with larger capacities have been 29 located on smaller sites, and the PSEG estimate is considered reasonable. PSEG indicated 30 that an additional 193 ac (78 ha) of land area may be needed for waste disposal over the 20-31 year license renewal term, or 386 ac (156 ha) over the 40-year operational life of a coal-fired 32 alternative, which PSEG indicated could be accommodated onsite (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 33 2009b).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 8-12 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 Offsite land use impacts would occur from coal mining, in addition to land use impacts from the 2 construction and operation of the new power plant. According to the GELS, supplying coal to a 3 1,000-MW(e) plant would disturb approximately 22,000 ac (8,900 ha) of land for the mining of 4 coal and disposing of wastes during the 40-year operational life. Scaling from GElS estimates, 5 approximately 80,500 ac (32,580 ha) of land would be required for a coal-fired alternative to 6 replace Salem and HCGS. However, most of the land in existing coal-mining areas has already 7 experienced some level of disturbance. The elimination of the need for uranium mining to 8 supply fuel for the Salem and HCGS facilities would partially offset this offsite land use impact.
| |
| 9 Scaling from GElS estimates, approximately 3,660 ac (1,480 ha) of land used for uranium 10 mining and processing would no longer be needed.
| |
| 11 Based on this information and the need for additional land at Salem and HCGS, land use 12 impacts would range from SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| September 2010 8-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 Socioeconomics 2 Socioeconomic impacts are defined interms of changes to the demographic and economic 3 characteristics and social conditions of a region. For example, the number of jobs created by 4 the construction and operation of a new coal-fired power plant could affect regional 5 employment, income, and expenditures. Two types of job creation result from this alternative:
| |
| 6 (1) construction-related jobs, and (2) operation-related jobs in support of power plant operations, 7 which have the greater potential for permanent, long-term socioeconomic impacts. The Staff 8 estimated workforce requirements during power plant construction and operation for the coal-9 fired alternative in order to measure their possible effect on current socioeconomic conditions.
| |
| 10 According to the GELS, a peak construction workforce of 1,200 to 2,500 would be required for a 11 1,000 MW(e) plant. Scaling from GElS estimates, this would require a lower-end workforce of 12 approximately 4,400 for a 3,660-MW(e) plant). PSEG projected a peak workforce of about 13 5,660 would be required to construct the coal-fired alternative at the Salem and HCGS site 14 (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). During the construction period, the communities surrounding 15 the plant site would experience increased demand for rental housing and public services. The 16 relative economic contributions of these workers to local business and tax revenues would vary.
| |
| 17 After construction, local communities could be temporarily affected by the loss of construction 18 jobs and associated loss indemand for business services. In addition, the rental housing 19 market could experience increased vacancies and decreased prices. As noted in the GELS, the 20 socioeconomic impacts at a rural construction site could be larger than at an urban site, 21 because the workforce would need to relocate closer to the construction site. Although the ER 22 indicates that Salem and HCGS is a rural site (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b), it is located near 23 the Philadelphia and Wilmington metropolitan areas. Therefore, these effects may be 24 somewhat lessened because workers are likely to commute to the site from these areas instead 25 of relocating closer to the construction site. Based on the site's proximity to these metropolitan 26 areas, construction impacts would be SMALL.
| |
| 27 PSEG estimated an operational workforce of approximately 500 workers for the 3,660 MW(e) 28 supercritical coal-fired power plant alternative (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG 2009b). This would result 29 in a loss of approximately 1,100 relatively high-paying jobs (based on a current Salem and 30 HCGS workforce of 1,614), with a corresponding reduction in purchasing activity and tax 31 contributions to the regional economy. The impact of the job loss, however, may not be 32 noticeable given the amount of time that would be required for the construction of a new power 33 plant and the decommissioning of the existing facilities and the relatively large region from 34 which Salem and HCGS personnel are currently drawn. The size of property tax payments 35 under the coal-fired alternative may increase ifadditional land is required at Salem and HCGS 36 to support this alternative. Operational impacts would therefore range from SMALL to 37 MODERATE.
| |
| 38 Transportation 39 During periods of peak construction activity, up to 5,660 workers could be commuting daily to 40 the site, as well as the current 1,614 workers already at Salem and HCGS. In addition to 41 commuting workers, trucks would be transporting construction materials and equipment to the 42 worksite, thereby increasing the amount of traffic on local roads. The increase invehicular 43 traffic on roads would peak during shift changes resulting in temporary level of service impacts Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-14 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 and delays at intersections. Barges would likely be used to deliver large components to the 2 Salem and HCGS site. Transportation impacts would likely be MODERATE during construction.
| |
| 3 Transportation traffic-related impacts would be greatly reduced after construction, but would not 4 disappear during plant operations. The maximum number of plant operating personnel 5 commuting to the Salem and HCGS site Would be approximately 500 workers. This is much 6 smaller than the number of operations workers commuting to Salem and HCGS today.
| |
| 7 Deliveries of coal and limestone would be by barge. The coal-fired alternative transportation 8 impacts would likely be SMALL during plant operations.
| |
| 9 Aesthetics 10 The aesthetics impact analysis focuses on the degree of contrast between the coal-fired 11 alternative and the surrounding landscape and the visibility of the coal plant.
| |
| 12 The coal-fired power plant would be up to 200 feet (61 meters [m]) tall with exhaust stacks up to 13 500 feet (152 m). The facility would be visible offsite during daylight hours. The supercritical 14 coal-fired power plant would be similar in height to the current Salem and HCGS reactor 15 containment buildings (190 to 200 feet, or 58 to 61 m, tall) and the HCGS cooling tower, which 16 stands at 514 feet (157 m). The coal-fired alternative would require more than one cooling 17 tower, thus increasing the size of the plume. Lighting on plant structures would be visible offsite 18 at night. Overall, aesthetic impacts associated with the supercritical coal-fired alternative would 19 range from SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| 20 Coal-fired generation would introduce new sources of noise that would be audible offsite.
| |
| 21 Sources contributing to noise produced by coal-fired power plant operations would be classified 22 as continuous or intermittent. Continuous noise sources includethe mechanical equipment 23 associated with normal plant operations. Intermittent noise sources include the equipment 24 related to coal handling, solid-waste disposal, use of outside loudspeakers, and the commuting 25 of plant employees. The impact of plant noise emissions are expected to be SMALL due to the 26 distance from the Salem and HCGS site to the nearest receptors.
| |
| 27 Historicand Archaeological Resources 28 Cultural resources are the indications of human occupation and use of the landscape as defined 29 and protected by a series of Federal laws, regulations, and guidelines. Prehistoric resources 30 are physical remains, of human activities that predate written records; they generally consist of 31 artifacts that may alone or collectively yield information about the past. Historic resources 32 consist of physical remains that postdate the emergence of written records; in the United States, 33 they are architectural structures or districts, archaeological objects, and archaeological features 34 dating from 1492 and later. Ordinarily, sites less than 50 years old are not considered historic, 35 but exceptions can be made for such properties if they are of particular importance, such as 36 structures associated with the development of nuclear power (e.g., Shippingport Atomic Power 37 Station) or Cold War themes. American Indian resources are sites, areas, and materials 38 important to American Indians for religious or heritage reasons. Such resources may include 39 geographic features, plants, animals, cemeteries, battlefields, trails, and environmental features.
| |
| 40 The cultural resource analysis encompassed the power plant site and adjacent areas that could 41 potentially be disturbed by the construction and operation of alternative power plants.
| |
| September 2010 8-15 Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 The potential for historic and archaeological resources can vary greatly depending on the 2 location of the proposed site. To consider a project's effects on historic and archaeological 3 resources, any affected areas would need to be surveyed to identify and record historic and 4 archaeological resources, identify cultural resources (e.g., traditional cultural properties), and 5 develop possible mitigation measures to address any adverse effects from ground disturbing 6 activities.
| |
| 7 Before construction at the Salem and HCGS site studies would likely be needed to identify, 8 evaluate, and address mitigation of potential impacts of new plant construction on cultural 9 resources. Studies would be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the proposed plant 10 site and along associated corridors where construction would occur (e.g., roads, transmission 11 corridors, rail lines, or other Right-of-Ways [ROWs]). Areas with the greatest sensitivity should 12 be avoided.
| |
| 13 As noted in Section 4.9.6, there is little potential for historic and archaeological resources to be 14 present on most of the Salem and HCGS site; therefore, the impact for a coal-fired alternative at 15 the Salem and HCGS site would likely be SMALL.
| |
| 16 EnvironmentalJustice 17 The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and 18 adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 19 could result from the construction and operation of a new supercritical coal-fired power plant.
| |
| 20 Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or nonfatal adverse 21 impacts on human health. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur 22 when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income 23 population is significant and exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for 24 another appropriate comparison group. Disproportionately high environmental effects refer to 25 impacts or risk of impact on the natural or physical environment in a minority or low-income 26 community that are significant and appreciably exceed the environmental impact on the larger 27 community. Such effects may include biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts. Some of 28 these potential effects have been identified in resource areas discussed in this SEIS. For 29 example, increased demand for rental housing during power plant construction could 30 disproportionately affect low-income populations. Minority and low-income populations are 31 subsets of the general public residing around Salem and HCGS, and all are exposed to the 32 same hazards generated from constructing and operating a new coal-fired power plant. For 33 socioeconomic data regarding the analysis of environmental justice issues, the reader is 34 referred to Section 4.9.7, Environmental Justice.
| |
| 35 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the construction and operation of 36 a new supercritical coal-fired power plant at Salem and HCGS would mostly consist of 37 environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing 38 impacts). Noise and dust impacts from construction would be short-term and primarily limited to 39 onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would 40 also be affected by increased commuter vehicle traffic during shift changes and truck traffic.
| |
| 41 However, these effects would be temporary during certain hours of the day and not likely to be 42 high and adverse. Increased demand for rental housing in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-16 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 during construction could affect low-income populations. Given the close proximity to the 2 Philadelphia and Wilmington metropolitan areas, most construction workers would likely 3 commute to the site, thereby reducing the potential demand for rental housing.
| |
| 4 Based on this information and the analysis of human health and environmental impacts 5 presented in this SEIS, the construction and operation of a new supercritical coal-fired power 6 plant would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 7 effects on minority and low-income populations residing in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS.
| |
| 8 8.1.1.7 Waste Management 9 Coal combustion generates several waste streams including ash (a dry solid) and sludge (a 10 semi-solid byproduct of emission control system operation). The Staff estimates that an 11 approximately 3,656 MW(e) power plant comprised of six units of approximately 630 MW(e) 12 eadh would generate annually a total of approximately 684,440 MT (753,960 tons) of ash (EIA, 13 201 Ob), and 245,300 tons (222,700 MT) of scrubber sludge (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b) 14 About 340,000 tons (309,000 MT) or 45 percent of the ash waste and 193,800 tons (176,000 15 MT) or 79 percent of scrubber sludge would be recycled, based on industry-average recycling 16 rates (ACAA, 2007). Therefore, approximately 414,000 tons (375,000 MT) of ash and 51,500 17 tons (46,700 MT) of scrubber sludge would remain annually for disposal. Disposal of the 18 remaining waste could noticeably affect land use and groundwater quality, but would require 19 proper citing in accordance with the describe local ordinance and the implementation of the 20 required monitoring and management practices in order to minimize these impacts (state 21 reference). After closure of the waste site and revegetation, the land could be available for 22 other uses.
| |
| 23 In May 2000, the EPA issued a "Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the 24 Combustion of Fossil Fuels" Q65 FR 32214) stating that it would issue regulations for disposal of .. - Deleted: EPA, 2000b 25 coal combustion waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The 26 EPA has not yet issued these regulations.
| |
| 27 The impacts from waste generated during operation of this coal-fired alternative would be 28 clearly visible, but would not destabilize any important resource.
| |
| 29 The amount of the construction waste would be small compared to the amount of waste 30 generated during operational stage and much of it could be recycled. Overall, the impacts from 31 waste generated during construction stage would be minor.
| |
| 32 Therefore, the Staff concludes that the overall impacts from construction and operation of this 33 alternative would be MODERATE.
| |
| September 2010 8-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 Table 8-1. Summary of the Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts of the Supercritical 2 Coal-Fired Alternative Compared to Continued Operation of Salem and HCGS Supercritical Coal-Fired Continued Salem and HCGS Generation Operation Air Quality MODERATE SMALL Groundwater SMALL SMALL Surface Water SMALL SMALL Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Human Health MODERATE SMALL Socioeconomics SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Waste Management MODERATE MALL --- ... -- Deleted: Not Applicable 3 8.1.2 Natural Gas-fired Combined-Cycle Generation 4 In this section, the Staff evaluates the environmental impacts of a natural gas-fired combined-5 cycle generation plant at the Salem and HCGS site.
| |
| 6 Natural gas fueled 21.4 percent of electric generation in the US in 2008 (the most recent year 7 for which data are available); this accounted for the second greatest share of electrical power 8 after coal (EIA, 2010a). Like coal-fired power plants, natural gas-fired plants may be affected by 9 perceived or actual actions to limit GHG emissions; they produce markedly lower GHG 10 emissions per unit of electrical output than coal-fired plants. Natural gas-fired power plants are 11 feasible and provide commercially available options for providing electrical generating capacity 12 beyond Salem and HCGS's current license expiration dates.
| |
| 13 Combined-cycle power plants differ significantly from coal-fired and existing nuclear power 14 plants. They derive the majority of their electrical output from a gas-turbine cycle, and then 15 generate additional power-without burning any additional fuel-through a second, steam-16 turbine cycle. The first, gas turbine stage (similar to a large jet engine) burns natural gas that 17 turns a driveshaft that powers an electric generator. The exhaust gas from the gas turbine is 18 still hot enough, however, to boil water into steam. Ducts carry the hot exhaust to a heat 19 recovery steam generator, which produces steam to drive a steam turbine and produce 20 additional electrical power. The combined-cycle approach is significantly more efficient than 21 any one cycle on its own; thermal efficiency can exceed 60 percent. Since the natural gas-fired 22 alternative derives much of its power from a gas turbine cycle, and because it wastes less heat 23 than either the coal-fired alternative or the existing Salem and HCGS, it requires significantly 24 less cooling.
| |
| 25 In order to replace the 3,656 MW(e) that Salem and HCGS currently supply, the Staff selected a 26 gas-fired alternative that uses nine GE STAG 107H combined-cycle generating units. While any 27 number of commercially available combined-cycle units could be installed in a variety of 28 combinations to replace the power currently produced by Salem and HCGS, the STAG 107H is 29 a highly efficient model that would help minimize environmental impacts (GE, 2001). Other 30 manufacturers, like Siemens, offer similarly high efficiency models. This gas-fired alternative Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-18 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 produces a net 400 MW(e) per unit. Nine units would produce a total of 3,600 MW(e), or nearly 2 the same output as the existing Salem and HCGS plants.
| |
| 3 The combined-cycle alternative operates at a heat rate of 5,687 btu/kWh, or about 60 percent 4 thermal efficiency (GE, 2001). Allowing for onsite power usage, including cooling towers and 5 site lighting, the gross output of these units would be roughly 3,744 MW(e). As noted above, 6 this gas-fired alternative would require much less cooling water than Salem and HCGS because 7 it operates at a higher thermal efficiency and because it requires much less water for steam 8 cycle condenser cooling. This alternative would likely make use of the site's existing natural 9 draft cooling tower, but may require the construction of an additional tower.
| |
| 10 In addition to the already existing natural draft cooling tower, other visible structures onsite 11 would include the turbine buildings, two exhaust stacks, an electrical switchyard, and, possibly, 12 equipment associated with a natural gas pipeline, like a compressor station. The GElS 13 estimates indicate that this 3,600 MW(e) plant would require 400 ac (165 ha), which would be 14 feasible on the 1,480 ac (599 ha) PSEG site.
| |
| 15 This 3600 MW(e) power plant would consume 161.65 billion cubic feet (ft3 ; 4,578 million cubic 16 meters [M3]) of natural gas annually assuming an average heat content of 1,029 btu/ft 3 (EIA, 17 2009b). Natural gas would be extracted from the ground through wells, then treated to remove 18 impurities (like hydrogen sulfide), and blended to meet pipeline gas standards, before being 19 piped through the interstate pipeline system to the power plant site. This gas-fired alternative 20 would produce relatively little waste, primarily in the form of spent catalysts used for emissions 21 controls.
| |
| 22 Environmental impacts from the gas-fired alternative would be greatest during construction.
| |
| 23 The closest natural gas pipeline that could serve as a source of natural gas for the plant is 24 located in Logan Township, approximately 25 mi (40 km) from the Salem and HCGS facilities 25 (PSEG, 2010). Site crews would clear vegetation from the site, prepare the site surface, and 26 begin excavation before other crews begin actual construction on the plant and any associated 27 infrastructure, including the 25-mi (40 km) pipeline spur to serve the plant and electricity 28 transmission infrastructure connecting the plant to existing transmission lines. Constructing the 29 gas-fired alternative on the Salem and HCGS site would allow the gas-fired alternative to make 30 use of the existing electric transmission system.
| |
| 31 8.1.2.1 Air Quality 32 Salem and HCGS are located in Salem County, New Jersey. The general air quality regulatory I 33 status of the Salem County region is as described in Section 8.1.1.1 for the coal-fired generation I 34 alternative. ,Anew gas-fi[ed generating plant would gualify as a new major-emitting industrial Deleted: Salem County is designated as an attainment/unclassified area with respect to the 35 facility and would be subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality Review NAAQSs for PM 2.s, SO 2 , NOx, CO, and lead.
| |
| 36 under requirements of CAA, adopted by the NJDEP Bureau of Air Quality Permitting. The The county, along with all southern New Jersey, 37 natural gas-fired plant would need to comply with the standards of performance for stationary is a nonattainment area with respect to the 1-hour primary ozone standard and the 8-hour 38 gas turbines set forth in 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart GG. Regulations issued by NJDEP adopt the ozone standard. For the 1-hour ozone 39 EPA's CAA rules (with modifications) to limit power plant emissions of SOx, NOx, particulate standard, Salem County is located within the multi-state Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton 40 matter, and hazardous air pollutants. The new gas-fired generating plant would qualify as a non-attainment area, and for the 8-hour ozone 41 major facility as defined in Section 7:27-22.1 of the New Jersey Administrative Code, and would standard, it is located in the Philadelphia-42 be required to obtain a major source permit from NJDEP. Wilmington-Atlantic City (PA-NJ-DE-MD) non attainment area.¶ September 2010 8-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 As further discussed in Section 8.1.1.1, Section 169A of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401) establishes 2 a national goal of preventing future and remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory 3 Class I Federal areas when impairment results from man-made air pollution. ,Ifa gas-fired plant ...... Deleted: Th a EPA issued a new regional haze 4 were located close to a mandatory Class I area, additional air pollution control requirements rule in1999 64 FR 35714). The rule specifies that for each mandatory Class I Federal area 5 would be imposed. There is one mandatory Class I Federal area in the State of New Jersey, located withir a state, the State must establish 6 which is the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge (40 CFR 81.420), located approximately 58 mi goals that provide for reasonable progress towards achiReving natural visibility conditions.
| |
| 7 (93 km) southeast of the Salem and HCGS facilities. There are no Class I Federal areas in The reasonat ble progress goals must provide an 8 Delaware, and no other area located within 100 mi (161 km) of the facilities (40 CFR 81.400). improvement in visibility for the most-impaired New Jersey is also subject to the CAIR, which has outlined emissions reduction goals for both days overno the period of implementation plan and 9 .1.1).ensure de gradation in visibility for the least-10 S02 and NOx for the year 2015 (see Section 8.111. ........................... . impaired dae s over the same period (40 CFR The Staff projects the following emissions for a gas-fired alternative based on data published by 51.308(d)(1)) . Five RPOs collaborate on the 11 11 Thevisibility imps irment issue, developing the 12 the EIA, the EPA, and on performance characteristics for this alternative and its emissions technical bas is for these plans. The State of 13 controls: New Jersey s among eleven member states (Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, 14
| |
| * Sulfur oxides (SOx) - 53 tons (48 MT) per year Pennsylvania , New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Mass,achusetts, Vermont, New 15 0 Nitrogen oxides (NOx) - 932 tons (846 MT) per year Hampshire, nd Maine) of the MANE-VU, along with tribes, Fqederal agencies, and other 16
| |
| * Carbon monoxide (CO) - 193 tons (175 MT) per year interested pa that identifies regional haze rties and visibility issues and develops strategies to 7Total suspended particles (TSP) - 162 tons (147 MT) per year address then 1 (NJDEP, 2009a). The visibility 17 Teprotection rei gulatory requirements, contained in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P, include the review 18 0 Particulate matter (PM) PM1o - 162 tons (147 MT) per year of the new soources that would be constructed in 19 0 Carbon dioxide (C0 2 ) -9,400,000 tons (8,500,000 MT) per year the attainme nt or unclassified areas and may affect visibilit!y in any Federal Class I area (40 20 Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxides CFR Part 51, Subpart P, §51.307).
| |
| Deleted: CAIR will aid New Jersey sources in 21 As stated above, the new natural.gas-fired alternative would produce 53 tons (48 MT) per year reducing SO:2 emissions by 25,000 tons (23,000 22 of SOx (assumed to be all SO 2) (EPA, 2000 INGAA, 2000)_ and 932 tons (846 MT)_per year of MT or 49 per rcent), and NOx emissions by 3 b11,000 tons :10,000 MT or 48 percent; EPA, 23 NOx based on the use of the dry ow-Nx combustion technology and use of the selective - 2010).
| |
| 24 catalytic reduction'(SCR) in order to significantly reduce NOx emissions (INGAA, 2000). The > .<(Deleted:c 25 new plant would be subjected tocontinuous monitoring_ requ irementsfor SO2 ,_N_, and CO 2 as Deleted:
| |
| 26 specified in 40 CFR Part 75. A new natural gas-fired plant would have to comply with Title IV of 27 the CAA reduction requirements for SO 2 and NOx, which are the main precursors of acid rain , Deleted: the 28 and the major cause of reduced visibility. Title IV establishes maximum SO 2 and NOx emission ' Deleted: of 29 rates from the existing plants and a system of the SO 2 emission allowances that can be used, 30 sold or saved for future use by new plants.
| |
| 31 Particulates 32 Based on EPA emission factors (EPA, 2000,), the new natural gas-fired alternative would . - Deleted: c 33 produce 162 tons (147 MT) per year of TSP, all of which would be emitted as PMo1 . i 34 Carbon Monoxide 35 Based on EPA emission factors (EPA, 2000,)* the Staff estimates -that -thetotal CO emissions ... Deleted: c 36 would be approximately 193 tons (175 MT) per year.
| |
| 37 HazardousAir Pollutants 38 The EPA issued in December 2000 regulatory findings (65 FR 79825,9 on emissions of J Deleted: EPA, 2000a 39 hazardous air pollutants from electric utility steam-generating units, which identified that natural Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-20 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 gas-fired plants emit hazardous air pollutants such as arsenic, formaldehyde and nickel and 2 stated that:
| |
| 3 ... the impacts due to HAP emissions from natural gas-fired electric utility steam 4 generating units were negligible based on the results of the study. The 5 Administrator finds that regulation of HAP emissions from natural gas-fired 6 electric utility steam generating units is not appropriate or necessary.
| |
| 7 Carbon Dioxide 8 The new plant would be subjected to,.continuous monitoring reguirementsfor SO 2 , NO, and ] - Deleted: the 9 CO 2 specified in 40 CFR Part 75. The Staff computed that the natural gas-fired plant would emit "Deleted: of 10 approximately 9.4 million tons (8.5 million MT) per year of unregulated C02 emissions. In 11 response to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, the EPA has proposed a rule that 12 requires mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from large sources that would allow collection 13 of accurate and comprehensive emissions data to inform future policy decisions (EPA, 2009b).
| |
| 14 The EPA proposes that suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles 15 and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 MT or more per year of GHG emissions submit 16 annual reports to the EPA. The gases covered by the proposed rule are C0 2, methane (CH4),
| |
| 17 nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), sulfur hexafluoride 18 (SF6), and other fluorinated gases including nitrogen trifluoride (NF3 ) and hydrofluorinated 19 ethers (HFE).
| |
| 20 Construction Impacts 21 Activities associated with the construction of the new natural gas-fired plant at the Salem and 22 HCGS site would cause some additional air effects as a result of equipment emissions and 23 fugitive dust from operation of the earth-moving and material handling equipment. Workers' 24 vehicles and motorized construction equipment would generate temporary exhaust emissions.
| |
| 25 The construction crews would employ dust-control practices in order to control and reduce 26 fugitive dust, which would be temporary in nature. The Staff concludes that the impact of 27 vehicle exhaust emissions and fugitive dust from operation of earth-moving and material 28 handling equipment would be SMALL.
| |
| 29 30 31 The overall airquality impacts froma newnatural gas-fired plant locatedat the Salem and .
| |
| HCGS site would be SMALL to MODERATE, primarily due to air pollutant emissions from plant operation.
| |
| -i Deleted: the construction and operations of Deleted:
| |
| 32 8.1.2.2 Groundwater Use and Quality 33 The use of groundwater for a natural gas-fired combined-cycle plant would likely be limited to 34 supply wells for drinking water and possibly filtered service water for system cleaning purposes.
| |
| 35 Total usage would likely be much less than Salem and HCGS because many fewer workers 36 would be onsite, and because the gas-fired alternative would have fewer auxiliary systems 37 requiring service water.
| |
| 38 No effects on groundwater quality would be apparent except during the construction phase due 39 to temporary dewatering and run-off control measures. Because of the temporary nature of 40 construction and the likelihood of reduced groundwater usage during operation, the impact of 41 the natural gas-fired alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| September 2010 8-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 8.1.2.3 Surface Water Use and Quality 2 The alternative would require a consumptive use of water from the Delaware River for cooling 3 purposes. Because this consumptive loss would be from an estuary, the NRC concludes the 4 impact of surface water use would be SMALL. A new natural gas-fired plant would be required 5 to obtain an NPDES permit from the NJDEP for regulation of industrial wastewater, storm water, 6 and other discharges. Assuming the plant operates within the limits of this permit, the impact 7 from any cooling tower blowdown, site runoff, and other effluent discharges on surface water 8 quality would be SMALL.
| |
| 9 8.1.2.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology 10 Aquatic Ecology 11 Compared to the existing Salem and HCGS facilities, impacts on aquatic ecology from the 12 onsite, gas-fired alternative would be substantially smaller because the combined-cycle plant 13 would inject significantly less heat to the environment and require less water. Also, any new 14 plants (including coal) would fall under EPA's Phase I rules for new plants and would have 15 closed cycle cooling. Adverse effects (impingement and entrainment and thermal effects) would 16 be substantially less than those of the existing Salem and HCGS facilities. The numbers of fish 17 and other aquatic organisms affected by impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts would 18 be smaller than those associated with license renewal because water consumption and 19 blowdown discharged to the Delaware Estuary would be substantially lower. Some temporary 20 impacts on aquatic organisms may occur due to construction. Longer-term effects could result 21 from effluents discharged to the river. However, NRC assumes that the appropriate agencies 22 would monitor and regulate such activities. The number of organisms affected by impingement, 23 entrainment, and thermal effects of this alternative would be substantially less than for license 24 renewal, so NRC expects that the levels of impact for the natural gas alternative would be 25 SMALL.
| |
| 26 TerrestrialEcology 27 Constructing the natural gas alternative would require approximately 128 ac (52 ha) of land 28 according to PSEG estimates (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Scaling from the GElS estimate, 29 approximately 400 ac (165 ha) would be required to replace the 3,600 MW(e) provided by 30 Salem and HCGS. These land disturbances are the principal means by which this alternative 31 would affect terrestrial ecology.
| |
| 32 Onsite impacts to terrestrial ecology may occur if additional land requirements result in the 33 encroachment into or filling of the adjacent tidal marsh. However, based on the anticipated land 34 requirements, the encroachment should be minimal. In addition, if additional roads would need 35 to be constructed through less disturbed areas, impacts could occur as these construction 36 activities may fragment or destroy local ecological communities. Land disturbances could affect 37 habitats of native wildlife; however, these impacts are not expected to be extensive. Gas 38 extraction and collection would also affect terrestrial ecology in offsite gas fields, although much 39 of this land is likely already disturbed by gas extraction, and the incremental effects of this 40 alternative on gas field terrestrial ecology are difficult to gauge.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-22 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 Construction of the nine natural-gas-fired units could entail some loss of native wildlife habitats; 2 however, these impacts are not expected to be extensive. If new roads and a new cooling 3 tower were required to be constructed through less disturbed areas,these activities could Deleted: this 4 fragment or destroy local ecological communities, thereby increasing impacts. Operation Of the Deleted: y 5 cooling tower would cause some deposition of particulates on surrounding vegetation (including 6 wetlands) and soils from cooling tower drift. Overall, impacts to terrestrial resources at the site 7 would be minimal and limited mostly to the construction period. Construction of a 150-ft (46-m),
| |
| 8 wide 25-mi (40-km) long gas pipeline (to the nearest assumed tie-in) could lead to further 9 disturbance to undeveloped areas. However, PSEG indicated that the pipeline would be routed 10 along existing, previously disturbed rights-of-way and wouldexpecqto only temporarily impact . -C eleted not be 11 terrestrial species. Because of the relatively small potential for undisturbed land to be affected, Delete& ed 12 impacts from construction of the pipeline are expected to be minimal.
| |
| 13 Based on this information, impacts to terrestrial resources from the onsite, gas-fired alternative 14 would be SMALL.
| |
| 15 8.1.2.5 Human Health 16 Like the coal-fired alternative discussed above, a gas-fired plant would emit criteria air 17 pollutants, but in smaller quantities (except NOx, which requires additional controls to reduce 18 emissions). Human health effects of gas-fired generation are generally low, although in Table 19 8-2 of the GElS (NRC, 1996), the Staff identified cancer and emphysema as potential health 20 risks from gas-fired plants. NOx emissions contribute to ozone formation, which in turn 21 contributes to human health risks. Emission controls on this gas-fired alternative maintain NOx 22 emissions well below air quality standards established for the purposes of protecting human 23 health, and emissions trading or offset requirements mean that overall NOx in the region would 24 not increase. Health risks to workers may also result from handling spent catalysts from NOx 25 emission control equipment that may contain heavy metals.
| |
| 26 During construction activities there would be a risk to workers from typical industrial incidents 27 and accidents. Accidental injuries are not uncommon in the construction industry, and 28 accidents resulting in fatalities do occur. However, the occurrence of such events is mitigated 29 by the use of proper industrial hygiene practices, worker safety requirements, and training.
| |
| 30 Occupational and public health impacts during construction are expected to be controlled by 31 continued application of accepted industrial hygiene and occupational health and safety 32 practices. Fewer workers would be on site for a shorter period of time to construct a gas-fired 33 plant that other new power generation alternatives, and so exposure to occupational risks tends 34 to be lower than other alternatives.
| |
| 35 Overall, human health risks to occupational workers and to members of the public from gas-fired 36 power plant emissions sited at the Salem and HCGS site would be less than the risks described 37 for coal-fired alternative and therefore, would likely be SMALL.
| |
| 38 8.1.2.6 Socioeconomics 39 Land Use September 2010 8-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 The analysis of land use impacts focuses on the amount of land area that would be affected by 2 the construction and operation of a nine-unit natural gas-fired combined-cycle power plant at the 3 Salem and HCGS site.
| |
| 4 PSEG indicated that approximately 128 ac (52 ha) of land would be needed to support a natural 5 gas-fired alternative to replace Salem and HCGS (PSEG 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Scaling from 6 the GElS estimate, approximately 400 ac (165 ha) would be required to replace the 3,600 7 MW(e) provided by Salem and HCGS. This amount of onsite land use would include other plant 8 structures and associated infrastructure. Onsite land use impacts from construction would be 9 SMALL.
| |
| 10 In addition to onsite land requirements, land would be required offsite for natural gas wells and 11 collection stations. Scaling from GElS estimates, approximately 12,960 ac (5,200 ha) would be 12 required for wells, collection stations, and a 25-mi (40 km) pipeline spur to bring the gas to the 13 plant. Most of this land requirement would occur on land where gas extraction already occurs.
| |
| 14 In addition, some natural gas could come from outside of the United States and be delivered as 15 liquefied gas.
| |
| 16 The elimination of uranium fuel for the Salem and HCGS facilities could partially offset offsite 17 land requirements. Scaling from GElS estimates, approximately 3,660 ac (1,480 ha) would not 18 be needed for mining and processing uranium during the 40-year operating life of the plant.
| |
| 19 Based on this information and the need for additional land at Salem and HCGS, overall land use 20 impacts from a gas-fired power plant would be SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| 21 Socioeconomics 22 Socioeconomic impacts are defined in terms of changes to the demographic and economic 23 characteristics and social conditions of a region. For example, the number of jobs created by 24 the construction and operation of a new natural gas-fired power plant could affect regional 25 employment, income, and expenditures. Two types of job creation would result: (1) 26 construction-related jobs, which are transient, short in duration, and less likely to have a long-27 term socioeconomic impact; and (2) operation-related jobs in support of power plant operations, 28 which have the greater potential for permanent, long-term socioeconomic impacts. Workforce 29 requirements for the construction and operation of the natural gas-fired power plant alternative 30 were evaluated in order to measure their possible effect on current socioeconomic conditions.
| |
| 31 While the GElS estimates a peak construction workforce of 4,320, PSEG projected a maximum 32 construction workforce of 2,920 (PSEG 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). During construction, the 33 communities surrounding the power plant site would experience increased demand for rental 34 housing and public services. The relative economic effect of construction workers on local 35 economy and tax revenue would vary.
| |
| 36 After construction, local communities could be temporarily affected by the loss of construction 37 jobs and associated loss in demand for business services, and the rental housing market could 38 experience increased vacancies and decreased prices. As noted in the GELS, the 39 socioeconomic impacts at a rural construction site could be larger than at an urban site, 40 because the workforce would have to move to be closer to the construction site. Although the 41 ER identifies the Salem and HCGS site as a primarily rural site (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b), it 42 is located near the Philadelphia and Wilmington metropolitan areas. Therefore, these effects 43 would likely be lessened because workers are likely to commute to the site from these areas Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 8-24 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 instead of relocating closer to the construction site. Because of the site's proximity to these 2 larger population centers, the impact of construction on socioeconomic conditions would be 3 SMALL.
| |
| 4 PSEG estimated a power plant operations workforce of approximately 132 (PSEG, 2009a),
| |
| 5 (PSEG, 2009b). Scaling from GElS estimates of an operational workforce of 150 employees for 6 a 1,000-MW(e) gas-fired plant, 540 workers would be required to replace the 3600 MW(e) 7 provided by Salem and HCGS. The PSEG estimate appears reasonable and is consistent with 8 trends toward lowering labor costs by reducing the size of power plant operations workforces.
| |
| 9 This would result in a loss of approximately 1,070 to 1,480 relatively high-paying jobs (based on 10 a current Salem and HCGS workforce of 1,614), with a corresponding reduction in purchasing 11 activity and tax contributions to the regional economy. The impact of the job loss, however, may 12 not be noticeable given the amount of time required for the construction of a new power plant 13 and the decommissioning of the existing facilities and the relatively large region from which 14 Salem and HCGS personnel are currently drawn. The size of property tax payments under the 15 gas-fired alternative may increase if additional land is required at Salem and HCGS to support 16 this alternative. Operational impacts would therefore range from SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| 17 Transportation 18 Transportation impacts associated with construction and operation of a nine-unit gas-fired 19 power plant would consist of commuting workers and truck deliveries of construction materials 20 to the Salem and HCGS site. During periods of peak construction activity, between 2,900 and 21 4,300 workers could be commuting daily to the site, as well as the current 1,614 workers 22 already at Salem and HCGS. In addition to commuting workers, trucks would be transporting 23 construction materials and equipment to the worksite thereby increasing the amount of traffic on 24 local roads. The increase in vehicular traffic would peak during shift changes resulting in 25 temporary level of service impacts and delays at intersections. Some large plant components 26 would likely be delivered by barge. Pipeline construction and modification to existing natural 27 gas pipeline systems could also have an impact on local traffic. Traffic-related transportation 28 impacts during construction would likely be MODERATE.
| |
| 29 During plant operations, traffic-related transportation impacts would be greatly reduced.
| |
| 30 According to PSEG, approximately 132 workers would be needed to operate the gas-fired 31 power plant. Fuel for the plant would be transported by pipeline. The transportation 32 infrastructure would experience little to no increased traffic from plant operations. Overall, the 33 gas-fired alternative transportation impacts would be SMALL during plant operations.
| |
| 34 Aesthetics 35 The aesthetics impact analysis focuses on the degree of contrast between the natural gas-fired 36 alternative and the surrounding landscape and the visibility of the.gas-fired plant.
| |
| 37 The nine gas-fired units would be approximately 100 foot (30 m) tall, with an exhaust stack up to 38 200 feet (61 m). The facility would be visible offsite during daylight hours. However, the gas-39 fired power plant would be shorter than the existing HCGS cooling tower, which stands at 514 40 feet (157 m). This alternative would likely make use of the site's existing natural draft cooling 41 tower. The condensate plume that would be generated would be no more noticeable than the 42 existing plume from HCGS. Noise from plant operations, as well as lighting on plant structures, September 2010 8-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 would be detectable offsite. Pipelines delivering natural gas fuel could be audible offsite near 2 gas compressors.
| |
| 3 In general, aesthetic changes would be limited to the immediate vicinity of Salem and HCGS 4 and would be SMALL.
| |
| 5 Historic and ArchaeologicalResources 6 Cultural resources are the indications of human occupation and use of the landscape as defined 7 and protected by a series of Federal laws, regulations, and guidelines. Prehistoric resources 8 are physical remains of human activities that predate written records; they generally consist of 9 artifacts that may alone or collectively yield information about the past. Historic resources 10 consist of physical remains that postdate the emergence of written records; in the United States, 11 they are architectural structures or districts, archaeological objects, and archaeological features 12 dating from 1492 and later. Ordinarily, sites less than 50 years old are not considered historic, 13 but exceptions can be made for such properties if they are of particular importance, such as 14 structures associated with the development of nuclear power (e.g., Shippingport Atomic Power 15 Station) or Cold War themes. American Indian resources are sites, areas, and materials 16 important to American Indians for religious or heritage reasons. Such resources may include 17 geographic features, plants, animals, cemeteries, battlefields, trails, and environmental features.
| |
| 18 The cultural resource analysis encompassed the power plant site and adjacent areas that could 19 potentially be disturbed by the construction and operation of alternative power plants.
| |
| 20 The potential for historic and archaeological resources can vary greatly depending on the 21 location of the proposed site. To consider a project's effects on historic and archaeological 22 resources, any affected areas would need to be surveyed to identify and record historic and 23 archaeological resources, identify cultural resources (e.g., traditional cultural properties), and 24 develop possible mitigation measures to address any adverse effects from ground disturbing 25 activities.
| |
| 26 Before construction at the Salem and HCGS site, studies would likely be needed to identify, 27 evaluate, and address mitigation of potential impacts of new plant construction on cultural 28 resources. Studies would be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the proposed plant 29 site and along associated corridors where construction would occur (e.g., roads, transmission 30 corridors, rail lines, or other ROWs). Areas with the greatest sensitivity should be avoided.
| |
| 31 As noted in Section 4.9.6, there is little potential for historic and archaeological resources to be 32 present on most of the Salem and HCGS site; therefore, the impact for a natural gas-fired 33 alternative at the Salem and HCGS site would likely be SMALL.
| |
| 34 EnvironmentalJustice 35 The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and 36 adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 37 could result from the construction and operation of a new natural gas-fired combined-cycle 38 power plant., Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or 39 nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Disproportionately high and adverse human health 40 effects occur when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-41 income population is significant and exceed the risk or exposure rate for the general population 42 or for another appropriate comparison group. Disproportionately high environmental effects 43 refer to impacts or risk of impact on the natural or physical environment in a minority or low-Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 8-26 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 income community that are significant and appreciably exceeds the environmental impact on 2 the larger community. Such effects may include biological, cultural, economic, or social 3 impacts. Some of these potential effects have been identified in resource areas discussed in 4 this SEIS. For example, increased demand for rental housing during power plant construction 5 could disproportionately affect low-income populations. Minority and low-income populations 6 are subsets of the general public residing around Salem and HCGS, and all are exposed to the 7 same hazards generated from constructing and operating a new natural gas-fired combined-8 cycle power plant. For socioeconomic data regarding the analysis of environmental justice 9 issues, the reader is referred to Section 4.9.7, Environmental Justice.
| |
| 10 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the construction and operation of 11 a new natural gas-fired combined-cycle power plant at Salem and HCGS would mostly consist 12 of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing 13 impacts). Noise and dust impacts from construction would be short-term and primarily limited to 14 onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would 15 also be affected by increased commuter vehicle traffic during shift changes and truck traffic.
| |
| 16 However, these effects would be temporary during certain hours of the day and not likely to be 17 high and adverse. Increased demand for rental housing in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS 18 during construction could affect low-income populations. Given the close proximity to the 19 Philadelphia and Wilmington metropolitan areas, most construction workers would likely 20 commute to the site, thereby reducing the potential demand for rental housing.
| |
| 21 Based on this information and the analysis of human health and environmental impacts 22 presented in this SEIS, the construction and operation of a new natural gas-fired combined-23 cycle power plant would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health and 24 environmental effects on minority and low-income populations residing in the vicinity of Salem 25 and HCGS.
| |
| September 2010 8-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 8.1.2.7 Waste Management 2 During the construction phase of this alternative, land clearing and other construction activities 3 would generate waste that can be recycled, disposed onsite or shipped to an offsite waste 4 disposal facility. Because the alternative would be constructed on the previously disturbed 5 Salem and HCGS site, the amounts of wastes produced during land clearing would be reduced.
| |
| 6 During the operational stage, spent SCR catalysts used to control NOx emissions from the 7 natural gas-fired plants would make up the majority of the waste generated by this alternative.
| |
| 8 This waste would be disposed of according to applicable Federal and state regulations.
| |
| 9 The Staff concluded in the GElS (NRC, 1996), that a natural gas-fired plant would generate 10 minimal waste and the waste impacts would be SMALL for a natural gas-fired alternative 11 located at the Salem and HCGS site.
| |
| 12 Table 8-2. Summary of the Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts of the Natural Gas 13 Combined-Cycle Generation Alternative Compared to Continued Operation of 14 Salem and HCGS Natural, Gas Combined;Cycle Continued Salem and HCGS Generation Operation Air Quality SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Groundwater SMALL SMALL Surface Water SMALL SMALL Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources SMALL SMALL Human Health SMALL SMALL Socioeconomics SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Waste Management SMALL ,SMALLL.. . - - -- Deleted: Not Applicable I 15 8.1.3 Combination Alternative 16 Even though individual alternatives to license renewal might not be sufficient on their own to 17 replace the 3,656 MW(e) total capacity of Salem and HCGS because of the lack of resource 18 availability, technical maturity, or regulatory barriers, it is conceivable that a combination of 19 alternatives might be sufficient.
| |
| 20 There are many possible combinations of alternatives that could be considered to replace the 21 power generated by Salem and HCGS. In the GELS, NRC staff indicated that consideration of 22 alternatives would be limited to single, discrete generating options, given the virtually unlimited 23 number of combinations available. In this section, the NRC staff examines a possible 24 combination of alternatives. Under this alternative, both Salem and HCGS would be retired and 25 a combination of other alternatives would be considered, as follows:
| |
| 26 9 Denying the re-license application for Salem and HCGS 27
| |
| * Constructing five 400 MW(e) natural gas-fired combined-cycle plants at Salem 28
| |
| * Obtaining 878 MW(e) from renewable energy sources (primarily offshore wind)
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-28 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1
| |
| * Implementing 731 MW(e) of efficiency and conservation programs, from among the 2 3,300 MW of energy efficiency and conservation goals identified by the New Jersey 3 Energy Master Plan (State of New Jersey, 2008) and the Northeast Energy Efficiency 4 Partnerships, Inc. (NEEP, 2009).
| |
| 5 The potential contributions of efficiency and conservation programs and renewable energy are 6 based on achievement of the goals of the New Jersey Energy Master Plan (State of New 7 Jersey, 2008). Goal #1 of this Plan is to reduce energy consumption by 20 percent through 8 efficiency and conservation programs. Based on the current generating capacity of 3656 MW(e) 9 of Salem and HCGS, achievement of the 20 percent objective would contribute 731 MW(e) 10 equivalent to this combination alternative. Goal #3 of the New Jersey Energy Master Plan is to 11 increase the current Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 30 percent. Based on the original 12 generating capacity of 3656 MW(e), with demand reduced by 20 percent to 2925 MW(e) 13 through achievement of Goal #1, a 30 percent renewable energy contribution to this portfolio 14 would comprise 878 MW(e). The remainder of the capacity, or approximately 2000 MW(e),
| |
| 15 would be generated by the implementation of natural gas generating units.
| |
| 16 The following sections analyze the impacts of the alternative outlined above. In some cases, 17 detailed impact analyses for similar actions are described in previous sections of this Chapter.
| |
| 18 When this occurs, the impacts of the combined alternatives are discussed in a general manner 19 with reference to other sections of this draft SEIS.
| |
| 20 8.1.3.1 Impacts of Combination Alternative 21 Each component of the combination alternative produces different environmental impacts, 22 though several of the options would have impacts similar to-but smaller than-alternatives 23 already addressed in this SEIS. Constructing a total of 2,000 MW(e) of gas-fired capacity on 24 the Salem and HCGS sites would create roughly the same impacts as the on-site combined-25 cycle natural gas alternative described in Section 8.1.2. This alternative would make use of the 26 existing transmission lines at the sites, but would require construction of a 25-mi (40 km) long 27 natural gas pipeline, the same as would be required under the combined-cycle natural gas 28 alternative evaluated in Section 8.1.2. The amount of air emissions, land use, and water 29 consumption would be reduced due to the smaller number of natural-gas fired units.
| |
| 30 The Staff has not yet addressed the impacts of wind power or conservation in this SEIS. A 31 wind installation capable of yielding 878 MW(e) of capacity would likely entail placing wind 32 turbines off of the New Jersey coast. A wind installation capable of delivering 878 MW(e) on 33 average would require approximately 245 turbines with a capacity of 3.6 MW each (MMS_ ---- - - Deleted: Mineral Management Service [
| |
| 34 2010). Because wind power installations do not provide full power all the time, the total installed - Deleted:
| |
| 35 capacity exceeds the capacity stated here.
| |
| 36 Impacts from conservation measures are likely to be negligible, as indicated in the GElS (NRC, 37 1996). The primary concerns identified in the GElS related to indoor air quality and waste 38 disposal. In the GELS, air quality appeared to become an issue when weatherization initiatives 39 exacerbated existing problems, and were expected not to present significant effects. Waste 40 disposal concerns related to energy-saving measures like fluorescent lighting could be 41 addressed by recycling programs. The overall impact from conservation is considered to be September 2010 8-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 SMALL in all resource areas, though measures that provide weatherization assistance to low-2 income populations may have positive effects on environmental justice conditions.
| |
| 3 .1 . ir qlity Comment [L2]: Designate headings for table contents. This applies throughout thi'ssection 4 The combination alternative will have some impact on air quality as a result of emissions from 5 the onsite gas turbines. Because of the size of the units, an individual unit's impacts would be 6 SMALL. Section 8.1.2.1 of this draft SEIS describes the impacts on air quality from the 7 construction and operation of natural gas units as SMALL to MODERATE. The construction 8 and operation of the wind farm would have only minor impacts on air quality.
| |
| 9 Overall, the Staff considers that the air quality impacts from the combination alternative would 10 be SMALL.
| |
| 11 _roundw aterUseja nd Q uality_ ------------------------- ------------------ -f Comment [L3]: Fix formatting I 12 The use of groundwater for a natural gas-fired combined-cycle plant would likely be limited to 13 supply wells for drinking water and possibly filtered service water for system cleaning purposes.
| |
| 14 Total usage would likely be much less than Salem and HCGS because many fewer workers 15 would be onsite, and because the gas-fired alternative would have fewer auxiliary systems 16 requiring service water.
| |
| 17 No effects on groundwater quality would be apparent except during the construction phase due 18 to temporary dewatering and run-off control measures. Because of the temporary nature of 19 construction and the likelihood of reduced groundwater usage during operation, the impact of 20 the natural gas-fired alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| . . ?,[Comment [L4]-" Add separate groundwater 1 21 .. Water UUse and Qualit.. discussion in parallel with other alternatives -
| |
| 22 The primary water use and quality issues from this alternative would be from the gas-fired units 23 at Salem and HCGS. While construction of a wind farm, particularly if located offshore, would 24 result in some impacts to surface water, these impacts are likely to be short lived. An offshore 25 wind farm is unlikely to be located immediately adjacent to any water users. Construction 26 activities may increase turbidity; however, construction of an onshore wind farm could create 27 additional erosion, as would construction of a gas-fired unit on the Salem and HCGS sites. In 28 general, site management practices keep these effects to a small level.
| |
| 29 During operations, only the gas-fired plants would require water for cooling. The natural gas 30 would likely use closed-cycle cooling, which would limit the effects on water resources. As the 31 Staff indicated for the coal-fired and gas-fired alternatives, the gas-fired portion of this 32 alternative is likely to rely on surface water for cooling (or, as is the case in some locations, 33 treated sewage effluent).
| |
| 34 The Staff considers impacts on water use and quality to be SMALL for the combination 35 alternative. The onsite impacts at the Salem and HCGS facility would be expected to be similar 36 to the impacts described in Sections 8.1.2.2 and 8.1.2.3 of this draft SEIS.
| |
| 37 Aquatic and TerrestrialResources Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-30 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 Impacts on aquatic and terrestrial ecology from the gas-fired power plant component of the 2 combination alternative, which includes seven gas-fired units, would be similar to those 3 described for the gas-fired alternative in Section 8.1.2.4. Therefore, ecological impacts would 4 similarly be SMALL.
| |
| 5 Aquatic Ecology 6 The wind farm component of this alternative, if located offshore, could have temporary impacts 7 on aquatic organisms due to construction activities, which would likely increase turbidity in the 8 area of construction. The Staff assumes that the appropriate agencies would monitor and 9 regulate such activities. Overall, the impacts to aquatic resources would be SMALL to 10 MODERATE.
| |
| 11 Based on data in the GElS, an onshore wind farm component of the combination alternative 12 producing 878 MW(e) of electricity would require approximately 132,000 ac (53,400 ha) spread 13 over several offsite locations, with less than 10 percent of that land area in actual use for 14 turbines and associated infrastructure. The remainder of the land, if located onshore, could 15 remain in use for activities such as agriculture. Additional land would likely be needed for 16 construction of support infrastructure to connect to existing transmission lines. During 17 construction, there would be an increased potential for erosion and adverse effects on adjacent 18 water bodies, though stormwater management practices are expected to minimize such 19 impacts.
| |
| 20 TerrestrialEcology 21 Impacts to terrestrial ecology from construction of the wind farm portion of the combination 22 alternative and any needed transmission lines could include loss of terrestrial habitat, an 23 increase in habitat fragmentation and corresponding increase in edge habitat, The GElS notes .... Deleted:, and may impact threatened and endangered species 24 that habitat fragmentation may lead to declines of migrant bird populations. Once operational, 25 birds would be likely to collide with the turbines, and migration routes would need to be 26 considered during site selection. Based on this information, impacts to terrestrial resources 27 would be MODERATE.
| |
| 28 i.5Hum an Healt - - --------- ----------------------------- .. "f Comment [15]: Add section number -
| |
| 29 The primary health concerns under this option would be occupational health and safety risks 30 during the construction of the new gas turbine and the wind farm. As described previously, if 31 the risks are appropriately managed, the human health impacts from construction and operation 32 of a gas-fired power plant are SMALL. Human health impacts from a wind farm would also be 33 associated primarily with the construction of the facility and would also be minimal. Continued 34 operation of HCGS with the existing closed-cycle cooling system would not change the human 35 health impacts designation of SMALL as discussed in Chapter 4.
| |
| 36 Therefore, the Staff concludes that the overall human health impact from the combination 37 alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| 38 ". Comment [L6]: Fix formatting and section number 39 Land Use 40 Impacts from this alternative would include the types of impacts discussed for land use in 41 Section 8.1.2.6 of this draft SEIS. Section 8.1.2.6 states that the land use impacts from the September 2010 8-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 construction of nine gas-fired units at the Salem site would be SMALL to MODERATE. The 2 combined alternative includes seven gas-fired units, which would fit on the existing site without 3 purchasing additional land. In addition to onsite land requirements, land would be required 4 offsite for natural gas wells and collection stations. The land use impacts of the gas-fired 5 component of the combination alternative would be similar to the impacts described in Sections 6 8.1.2.6, SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| 7 Impacts from the wind power component of this alternative would depend largely on whether the 8 wind facility is located onshore or offshore. Onshore wind facilities would require more land 9 than offshore facilities, simply because all towers and supporting infrastructure would be located 10 on land. According to the GELS, onshore installations could require approximately 60,000 ac 11 (24,400 ha), though turbines and infrastructure would actually occupy only a small percentage 12 ,(!essthan 10 percent)_of that land area. The wind farm would most likely be located on - J Deleted*..........- Page Break ....................
| |
| 13 agricultural cropland, which would be largely unaffected by the wind turbines.-
| |
| 14 Although the wind farm would require a large amount of land, only a small component of that 15 land would be in actual use. Also, the elimination of uranium fuel for Salem and HCGS could 16 partially offset offsite land requirements.
| |
| 17 Land use impacts of an energy efficiency and conservation program would be SMALL. Rapid 18 replacement and disposal of old energy inefficient appliances and other equipment would 19 generate waste material and could potentially increase the size of landfills. However, given time 20 for program development and implementation, the cost of replacements, and the average life of 21 appliances and other equipment, the replacement process would probably be gradual. Older 22 energy inefficient appliances and equipment would likely be replaced by more efficient 23 appliances and equipment as they fail (especially frequently replaced items, like light bulbs). In 24 addition, many items (like home appliances or industrial equipment) have substantial recycling 25 value and would likely not be disposed of in landfills. Based on this information and the need for 26 additional land, overall, land use impacts from the combination alternative could range from 27 SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| 28 Socioeconomics 29 As previously discussed, socioeconomic impacts are defined in terms of changes to the 30 demographic and economic characteristics and social conditions of a region. For example, the 31 number of jobs created by the construction and operation of a natural gas-fired power plant at 32 Salem and HCGS and wind farm could affect regional employment, income, and expenditures.
| |
| 33 Two types of jobs would be created: (1) construction-related jobs, which are transient, short in 34 duration, and less likely to have a long-term socioeconomic impact; and (2) operation-related 35 jobs in support of power generating operations, which have the greater potential for permanent, 36 long-term socioeconomic impacts. The Staff conducted evaluations of construction and 37 operations workforce requirements in order to measure their possible effect on current 38 socioeconomic conditions.
| |
| 39 Impacts from this alternative Would include the types of impacts discussed for socioeconomics 40 in Section 8.1.2.6 of this draft SEIS. Section-8.1.2.6 states that the socioeconomics impacts 41 from the construction and operation of nine gas-fired units at the Salem site would be SMALL to 42 MODERATE. The combined alternative includes seven gas-fired units. The size of the 43 construction workforce and number of operational workers would be similar. Accordingly, the 44 socioeconomic impacts from the gas-fired component of the combination alternative would be Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-32 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| : 2. An estimated additional 300 construction workers would be required for the wind farm. These 3 workers could cause a short-term increase in demand for services and temporary (rental) 4 housing in the region around the construction site(s).
| |
| 5 After construction, some local communities may be temporarily affected by the loss of the 6 construction jobs and associated loss in demand for business services. The rental housing 7 market could also experience increased vacancies and decreased prices. However, these 8 effects would likely be spread over a larger area, as the wind farms may be constructed in more 9 than one location. The combined effects of these two construction activities would range from 10 SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| 11 Additional estimated operations workforce requirements for this combination alternative would 12 include 50 operations workers for the wind farm. Given the small number of operations workers 13 at these facilities, socioeconomic impacts associated with operation of the natural gas-fired 14 power plant at Salem and HCGS and the wind farm would be SMALL. Socioeconomic effects of 15 an energy efficiency and conservation program would also be SMALL. As noted in the GELS, 16 the program would likely employ some additional workers.
| |
| 17 Transportation 18 Construction and operation of a natural gas-fired power plant and a wind farm would increase 19 the number of vehicles on roads in the vicinity of these facilities. During construction, cars and 20 trucks would deliver workers, materials, and equipment to the work sites. The increase in 21 vehicular traffic would peak during shift changes resulting in temporary level of service impacts 22 and delays at intersections. Transporting components of wind turbines could have a noticeable 23 impact, but is likely to be spread over a large area. Pipeline construction and modification to 24 existing natural gas pipeline systems could also have an impact on local traffic. Traffic-related 25 transportation impacts during construction could range from SMALL to MODERATE depending 26 on the location of the wind farm site, current road capacities and average daily traffic volumes.
| |
| 27 During plant operations, transportation impacts would lessen. Given the small numbers of 28 operations workers at these facilities, levels of service traffic impacts on local roads from 29 operation of the gas-fired power plant at the Salem and HCGS site as well as the wind farm 30 would be SMALL. Transportation impacts at the wind farm site or sites would also depend on 31 current road capacities and average daily traffic volumes, but are likely to be SMALL given the 32 low number of workers employed by that component of the alternative.
| |
| 33 Aesthetics 34 Aesthetic impact analysis focuses on the degree of contrast between the power plant and the 35 surrounding landscape and the visibility of the power plant. In general, aesthetic changes would 36 be limited to the immediate vicinity of Salem and HCGS and the wind farm facilities.
| |
| 37 Aesthetic impacts from the gas-fired power plant component of the combination alternative 38 would be essentially the same as those described for the gas-fired alternative in Section 8.1.2.6.
| |
| 39 Noise during power plant operations would be limited to industrial processes and 40 communications. In addition to the power plant structures, construction of natural gas pipelines 41 would have a short-term impact. Noise from the pipelines could be audible offsite near 42 compressors. In general, aesthetic changes would be limited to the immediate vicinity of Salem September 2010 8-33 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 and HCGS and would be SMALL.
| |
| 2 The wind farm would have the greatest visual impact. Several hundred wind turbines over 300 3 feet (100 m) in height and spread over 60,000 acres (24,400 ha) would dominate the view and 4 would likely become the major focus of attention. Depending on its location, the aesthetic 5 impacts from the construction and operation of the wind farm would be MODERATE to LARGE.
| |
| 6 Historicand Archaeological Resources 7 Cultural resources are the indications of human occupation and use of the landscape as defined 8 and protected by a series of Federal laws, regulations, and guidelines. Prehistoric resources 9 are physical remains of human activities that predate written records; they generally consist of 10 artifacts that may alone or collectively yield information about the past. Historic resources 11 consist of physical remains that postdate the emergence of written records; in the United States, 12 they are architectural structures or districts, archaeological objects, and archaeological features 13 dating from 1492 and later. Ordinarily, sites less than 50 years old are not considered historic, 14 but exceptions can be made for such properties if they are of particular importance, such as 15 structures associated with the development of nuclear power (e.g., Shippingport Atomic Power 16 Station) or Cold War themes. American Indian resources are sites, areas, and materials 17 important to American Indians for religious or heritage reasons. Such resources may include 18 geographic features, plants, animals, cemeteries, battlefields, trails, and environmental features.
| |
| 19 The cultural resource analysis encompassed the power plant site and adjacent areas that could 20 potentially be disturbed by the construction and operation of alternative power plants.
| |
| 21 The potential for historic and archaeological resources can vary greatly depending on the 22 location of the proposed site. To consider a project's effects on historic and archaeological 23 resources, any affected areas would need to be surveyed to identify and record historic and 24 archaeological resources, identify cultural resources (e.g., traditional cultural properties), and 25 develop possible mitigation measures to address any adverse effects from ground disturbing 26 activities.
| |
| 27 Onsite impacts to historical and cultural resources from the construction of a gas turbine plant 28 are expected to be SMALL. Depending on the resource richness of the alternative site 29 ultimately chosen for the wind power alternative, the impacts could range between SMALL to 30 MODERATE. Therefore, the overall impacts on historic and archaeological resources from the 31 combination alternative could range from SMALL to MODERATE.
| |
| 32 Impacts to historic and archaeological resources from implementing the energy efficiency and 33 conservation program would be SMALL and would not likely affect land use or historical or 34 cultural resources elsewhere in the State.
| |
| 35 Environmental Justice 36 The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and 37 adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 38 could result from the construction and operation of a new natural gas-fired power plant at Salem 39 and HCGS, wind farm, and energy efficiency and conservation programs. Adverse health 40 effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human 41 health. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur when the risk or rate of 42 exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income population is significant and 43 exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for another appropriate Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-34 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 comparison group. Disproportionately high environmental effects refer to impacts or risk of 2 impact on the natural or physical environment in a minority or low-income community that are 3 significant and appreciably exceed the environmental impact on the larger community. Such 4 effects may include biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts. Some of these potential 5 effects have been identified in resource areas discussed in this SEIS. For example, increased 6 demand for rental housing during power plant construction could disproportionately affect low-7 income populations. Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the general public 8 residing around a power plant, and all are exposed to the same hazards generated from 9 constructing and operating a natural gas-fired combined-cycle power plant and wind farm.
| |
| 10 Low-income families could benefit from weatherization and insulation programs. This effect 11 would be greater than the effect for the general population because (according to the Office of 12 Management and Budget [OMB]) low-income households experience home energy burdens 13 more than four times larger than the average household (OMB, 2007). Weatherization 14 programs could target low-income residents as a cost-effective energy efficiency option since 15 low-income populations tend to spend a larger proportion of their incomes paying utility bills 16 (OMB, 2007). Overall impacts to minority and low-income populations from energy efficiency 17 programs would be nominal, depending on program design and enrollment.
| |
| 18 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the construction and operation of 19 a new natural gas-fired combined-cycle power plant at Salem and HCGS and wind farm would 20 mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, 21 employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts from construction would be short-22 term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing 23 along site access roads would also be affected by increased commuter vehicle traffic during 24 shift changes and truck traffic. However, these effects would be temporary during certain hours 25 of the day and not likely to be high and adverse. Increased demand for rental housing during 26 construction in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS and the wind farm could affect low-income 27 populations. Given the close proximity to the Philadelphia and Wilmington metropolitan areas, 28 most construction workers would likely commute to the site, thereby reducing the potential 29 demand for rental housing.
| |
| 30 Based on this information and the analysis of human health and environmental impacts 31 presented in this SEIS, the construction and operation of a natural gas-fired power plant and the 32 wind farm (depending on its location) would not have disproportionately high and adverse 33 human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.
| |
| 34 Waste Management 35 The primary source of waste would be associated with the construction of the new gas-fired 36 combined-cycle plant and the wind farm. During the construction phase of this alternative, land 37 clearing and other construction activities would generate waste that can be recycled, disposed 38 onsite, or shipped to an offsite waste disposal facility. Because the gas-fired combined-cycle 39 plant would be constructed on the previously disturbed Salem site, the amounts of waste 40 produced during land clearing would be reduced. Waste impacts could be substantial but likely 41 not noticeably alter or destabilize the resource during construction of the wind farms, depending 42 on how the various sites handle wastes.
| |
| 43 The waste contribution from the remaining HCGS unit would be roughly one-third of the waste September 2010 8-35 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 generated by the current facility (Salem and HCGS) described in Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3. If 2 the remaining HCGS unit were to continue operation with the existing closed-cycle cooling 3 system, waste impacts would be minor.
| |
| 4 Therefore, the Staff concludes that the overall impact from waste from the combination 5 alternative would be SMALL.
| |
| 6 Table 8-3. Summary of the Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts of the Combination 7 Alternative Compared to Continued Operation of Salem and HCGS Combination Continued Salem and HCGS Operation Air Quality SMALL SMALL Groundwater SMALL SMALL Surface Water SMALL SMALL Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Human Health SMALL SMALL Socioeconomics SMALL to LARGE SMALL Waste Management SMALL .MALL ..- Deleted: Not Applicable 8 8.2 Alternatives Considered But Dismissed 9 In this section, the Staff presents the alternatives it initially considered for analysis as 10 alternatives to license renewal of Salem and HCGS, but later dismissed due to technical, 11 resource availability, or commercial limitations that currently exist and that the Staff believes are 12 likely to continue to exist when the existing Salem and HCGS licenses expire. Under each of 13 the following technology headings, the Staff indicates why it dismissed each alternative from 14 further consideration.
| |
| 15 8.2.1 Offsite Coal-and Natural Gas-Fired 16 While it is possible that coal- and natural gas-fired alternatives like those considered in 8.1.1 17 and 8.1.2, respectively, could be constructed at sites other than Salem and HCGS, the Staff 18 determined that they would likely result in greater impacts than alternatives constructed at the 19 Salem and HCGS site. Greater impacts would occur from construction of support infrastructure, 20 like transmission lines, and roads that are already present on the Salem and HCGS site.
| |
| 21 Further, the community around Salem and HCGS is already familiar with the appearance of a.
| |
| 22 power facility and it is an established part of the region's aesthetic character. Workers skilled in 23 power plant operations would also be available in this area. The availability of these factors are 24 only likely to be available on other recently-industrial sites. In cases where recently-industrial 25 sites exist, other remediation may also be necessary in order to ready the site for 26 redevelopment. In short, an existing power plant site would present the best location for a new 27 power facility.
| |
| 28 8.2.2 New Nuclear Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-36 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 In its ER, PSEG indicated that it is unlikely that a nuclear alternative could be sited, constructed 2 and operational by the time the HCGS operating license expires in 2026 (PSEG, 2009b), nor 3 could this be accomplished in a timeframe necessary to replace the generating output of Salem 4 Unit 1, which has a license expiration date of 2016 (PSEG, 2009a). On May 25, 2010, PSEG 5 submitted an application for an early site permit for 1 or 2 units. Given the relatively short time 6 remaining on the current Salem and HCGS licenses, the Staff has not evaluated new nuclear 7 generation as an alternative to license renewal.
| |
| September 2010 8-37 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 8.2.3 Energy Conservation/Energy Efficiency 2 Though often used interchangeably, energy conservation and energy efficiency are different 3 concepts. Energy efficiency typically means deriving a similar level of services by using less 4 energy, while energy conservation simply indicates a reduction in energy consumption. Both fall 5 into a larger category known as demand-side management (DSM). DSM measures-unlike the 6 energy supply alternatives discussed in previous sections-address energy end uses. DSM 7 can include measures that shift energy consumption to different times of the day to reduce peak 8 loads,'measures that can interrupt certain large customers during periods of high demand, 9 measures that interrupt certain appliances during high demand periods, and measures like 10 replacing older, less efficient appliances, lighting, or control systems. DSM also includes 11 measures that utilities use to boost sales, such as encouraging customers to switch from gas to 12 electricity for water heating.
| |
| 13 Unlike other alternatives to license renewal, the GElS notes that conservation is not a discrete 14 power generating source; it represents an option that states and utilities may use to reduce their 15 need for power generation capability (NRC, 1996).
| |
| 16 In October 2008, the State of New Jersey published their Energy Master Plan (New Jersey, 17 2008), which established goals and evaluated potential options for meeting the projected 18 increase in electricity demand in the state through 2020. As part of this Master Plan, actions 19 were identified to maximize energy conservation and energy efficiency, including: transitioning 20 the state's current energy efficiency programs to be implemented by the electric and gas 21 utilities, modifying the statewide building code for new buildings to make new buildings as least 22 30 percent more energy efficient, increasing energy efficiency standards for new appliances and 23 other equipment, and developing education and outreach programs for the public. An additional 24 goal is to reduce peak electricity demand, primarily by expanding incentives developing 25 technologies to increase participation in regional demand response programs. A separate goal 26 established in the report (not related to energy conservation) included successful 27 accomplishment of the state's Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard by 2020.
| |
| 28 The report concluded that the combination of all of these efforts (energy conservation, 29 efficiency, and renewable energy sources) would still not result in meeting the increased 30 demand for electricity in the state, and that additional development of traditional electricity 31 sources would still be required. Therefore, these measures v'ould not be able to replace the 32 output of the Salem and HCGS facilities. Because of this, the Staff has not evaluated energy 33 conservation/efficiency as a discrete alternative to license renewal. It has, however, been 34 considered as a component of the combination alternative.
| |
| 35 8.2.4 Purchased Power 36 In the Salem and HCGS ERs, PSEG indicated that purchased electrical power is a potentially 37 viable option for replacing the generating capacity of the Salem and HCGS facilities. PSEG 38 anticipated that this power could be purchased from other generation sources within the PJM 39 region, but that the source would likely be from new capacity generated using technologies that 40 are evaluated in the GELS. The technologies that would most likely be used to generate the 41 purchased power would be coal and natural gas, and therefore the impacts associated with the Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-38 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 power purchase would be similar to those evaluated in Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.2. In addition, 2 purchased power would likely require the addition of transmission capacity, which would result 3 in additional land use impacts. Because purchased electrical power would likely be provided by 4 new generation sources evaluated elsewhere in this section, and would also require new 5 transmission capacity, the Staff has not evaluated purchased power as a separate alternative to 6 license renewal.
| |
| 7 8.2.5 Solar Power 8 Solar technologies use the sun's energy to produce electricity. Currently, the Salem and HCGS 9 area receives approximately 4.5 to 5.5 kWh per square meter per day, for solar collectors
| |
| - Deleted: National Renewable Energy 10 oriented at an angle equal to the installation's latitude (RJREL,2010) Since flat-plate 11 photovoltaics tend to be roughly 25 percent efficient, a solar-powered alternative would require Laboratory 12 more than 140,000 ac (57,000 ha) of collectors to provide an amount of electricity equivalent to SDeleted:]I 13 that generated by Salem and HCGS. Space between parcels and associated infrastructure 14 increase this land requirement. This amount of land, while large, is consistent with the land 15 required for coal and natural gas fuel cycles. In the GELS, the Staff noted that, by its nature, 16 solar power is intermittent (i.e., it does not work at night and cannot serve baseload when the 17 sun is not shining), and the efficiency of collectors varies greatly with weather conditions. A 18 solar-powered alternative would require energy storage or backup power supply to provide 19 electric power at night. Given the challenges in meeting baseload requirements, the Staff did 20 not evaluate solar power as an alternative to license renewal of Salem and HCGS.
| |
| 21 8.2.6 Wood-Fired 22 The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates the amount of biomass fuel resources, 23 including forest, mill, agricultural, and urban residues, available within New Jersey, Delaware, 24 and Pennsylvania to be approximately 5.6 million dry tons per year (5.1 MT; Milbrandt, 2005). ( Deleted: NREL 25 Based on an estimate of 9.961 million Btu per dry ton and a thermal conversion efficiency of 26 25%, conversion of this entire resource would generate the equivalent of less than 500 MW(e).
| |
| 27 Of the available biomass in the three states, the vast majority (80 percent) is in Pennsylvania, 28 and assumed to be located primarily in the western portion of the state. Therefore, the volume 29 that would be available for fueling a plant in the local area would be much less, and is not likely 30 to be sufficient to substitute for the capacity provided by Salem and HCGS. As a result, the 31 Staff has not considered a wood-fired alternative to Salem and HCGS license renewal.
| |
| 32 8.2.7 Wind (Onshore/Offshore) 33 The American Wind Energy Association indicates that New Jersey currently ranks 33rd among 34 the states in installed wind power capacity (7.5 MW), and 291" among the state in potential 35 capacity. No projects are currently under construction AWEA. 2010). No wind capacity is . : Deleted: American Wind Energy Association [
| |
| 36 installed in Delaware. Although Pennsylvania ranks 15 among the states in installed capac, Deleted:]
| |
| 37 with a total of 748 MW, most of this installed capacity is located in the western portion of the 38 state (AWEA, 2010). The Report of the New Jersey Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel on 39 Development of Wind Turbine Facilities in Coastal Waters September 2010 8-39 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 (State of New Jersey, 2006) concluded that onshore wind speeds in New Jersey are not viable 2 for commercial wind power development, and that the vast majority of the state's wind 3 generation capacity was offshore. The report also concluded that development of the offshore 4 resources is not commercially viable without significant state and/or federal subsidies. Also, 5 preliminary information evaluated in the report indicated that the timing of peak offshore wind 6 speeds did not coincide with the times of peak energy demand, and that offshore wind alone 7 could not significantly reduce reliance on fossil fuel and domestic nuclear capacity (State of New 8 Jersey, 2006). Finally, the results of a study of potential impacts of large-scale wind turbine 9 siting by NJDEP identified large areas along the New Jersey Coast that would likely be 10 considered to be off limits to large scale wind development due to documented bird 11 concentrations, nesting for resident threatened and endangered bird species, and stopover 12 locations for migratory birds (NJDEP, 2009b).
| |
| 13 Given wind power's intermittency, the lack of easily implementable onshore resources in New 14 Jersey, and restrictions on placement of turbines in areas that would otherwise have high 15 resource potential, the Staff will not consider wind power as a stand-alone alternative to license 16 renewal. However, given the potential for development of offshore resources, the Staff will 17 consider wind power as a portion of a combination alternative.
| |
| 18 8.2.8 Hydroelectric Power 19 According to researchers at Idaho National Energy and Environmental Laboratory [INEEL], New 20 Jersey has an estimated 11 MW of technically available, undeveloped hydroelectric resources 21 at 12 sites throughout the State (INEEL, 1996). Given that the available hydroelectric potential 22 in the State of New Jersey constitutes only a small fraction of generating capacity of Salem and 23 HCGS, the Staff did not evaluate hydropower as an alternative to license renewal.
| |
| 24 8.2.9 Wave and Ocean Energy 25 Wave and ocean energy has generated considerable interest in recent years. Ocean waves, 26 currents, and tides are often predictable and reliable. Ocean currents flow consistently, while 27 tides can be predicted months and years in advance with well-known behavior in most coastal 28 areas. Most of these technologies are in relatively early stages of development, and while some 29 results have been promisingi they are not likely to be able to replace the capacity of Salem and 30 HCGS by the time their licenses expire. Therefore, the NRC did not consider wave and ocean 31 energy as an alternative to Salem and HCGS license renewal.
| |
| 32 8.2.10 Geothermal Power 33 Geothermal energy has an average capacity factor of 90 percent and can be used for baseload 34 power where available. However, geothermal electric generation is limited by the geographical 35 availability of geothermal resources (NRC, 1996). Although New Jersey has some geothermal 36 potential in a heating capacity, it does not have geothermal electricity potential for electricity 37 generation (,GHC 2008). The Staff concluded that gceothermal energy is not a reasonable Deleted: Geo-Heat Center 38 alternative to license renewal at Salem and HCGS. Deleted: I Draft NUIREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-40 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives ;
| |
| 1 8.2.11 Municipal Solid Waste 2 Municipal solid waste combustors use three types of technologies-mass burn, modular, and 3 refuse-derived fuel. Mass burning is currently the method-used most frequently in the United 4 States and involves no (or little) sorting, shredding, or separation. Consequently, toxic or 5 hazardous components present in the waste stream are combusted, and toxic constituents are 6 exhausted to the air or become part of the resulting solid wastes. Currently, approximately 87 7 waste-to-energy plants operate in the United States. These plants generate approximately 8 2,531 MW(e), or an average of 29 MW(e) per plant (Energy Recovery Council, 2010). This 9 includes five plants in New Jersey generating a total of 173 MW(e). More than 124 average-10 sized plants would be necessary to provide the same level of output as the other alternatives to 11 Salem and HCGS license renewal.
| |
| 12 Estimates in the GElS suggest that the overall level of construction impact from a waste-fired 13 plant would be approximately the same as that for a coal-fired power plant. Additionally, waste-14 fired plants have the same or greater operational impacts than coal-fired technologies (including 15 impacts on the aquatic environment, air, and waste disposal). The initial capital costs for 16 municipal solid-waste plants are greater than for comparable steam-turbine technology at coal-17 fired facilities or at wood-waste facilities because of the need for specialized waste separation 18 and handling equipment (NRC, 1996).
| |
| 19 The decision to burn municipal waste to generate energy is usually driven by the need for an 20 alternative to landfills rather than energy considerations. The use of landfills as a waste 21 disposal option is likely to increase in the near term as energy prices increase; however, it is 22 possible that municipal waste combustion facilities may become attractive again.
| |
| 23 Given the small average installed size of municipal solid waste plants and the unfavorable 24 regulatory environment, the Staff does not consider municipal solid waste combustion to be a 25 feasible alternative to Salem and HCGS license renewal.
| |
| 26 8.2.12 Biofuels 27 In addition to wood and municipal solid waste fuels, there are other concepts for biomass-fired 28 electric generators, including direct burning of energy crops, conversion to liquid biofuels, and 29 biomass gasification. In the GELS, the Staff indicated that none of these technologies had 30 progressed to the point of being competitive on a large scale or of being reliable enough to 31 replace a baseload plant such as Salem and HCGS. After reevaluating current technologies, 32 the Staff finds other biomass-fired alternatives are still unable to reliably replace the Salem and 33 HCGS capacity. For this reason, the Staff does not consider other biomass-derived fuels to be 34 feasible alternatives to Salem and HCGS license renewal.
| |
| 35 8.2.13 Oil-Fired Power 36 EIA projects that oil-fired plants would account for very little of the new generation capacity 37 constructed in the United States during the 2008 to 2030 time period. Further, EIA does not 38 project that oil-fired power would account for any significant additions to capacity (EIA, 2009a).
| |
| 39 The variable costs of oil-fired generation tend to be greater than those of the nuclear or coal-40 fired operations, and oil-fired generation tends to have greater environmental impacts than September 2010 8-41 Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 natural gas-fired generation. In addition, future increases in oil prices are expected to make oil-2 fired generation increasingly more expensive (EIA, 2009a). The high cost of oil has prompted a 3 steady decline in its use for electricity generation. Thus, the Staff did not consider oil-fired 4 generation as an alternative to Salem and HCGS license renewal.
| |
| 5 8.2.14 Fuel Cells 6 Fuel cells oxidize fuels without combustion and its environmental side effects. Power is 7 produced electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an anode and air (or oxygen) 8 over a cathode and separating the two by an electrolyte. The only byproducts (depending on 9 fuel characteristics) are heat, water, and C02. Hydrogen fuel can come from a variety of 10 hydrocarbon resources by subjecting them to steam under pressure. Natural gas is typically 11 used as the source of hydrogen.
| |
| 12 At the present time, fuel cells are not economically or technologically competitive with other 13 alternatives for electricity generation. In addition, fuel cell units are likely to be small in size.
| |
| 14 While it may be possible to use a distributed array of fuel cells to provide an alternative to Salem 15 and HCGS, it would be extremely costly to do so and would require many units. Accordingly, 16 the Staff does not consider fuel cells to be an alternative to Salem and HCGS license renewal.
| |
| 17 8.2.15 Delayed Retirement 18 The power generating merchants within the PJM region have retired a large number of 19 generation sources since 2003, totaling 5,945 MW retired and 2,629 MW pending retirement.
| |
| 20 Most of these retirements involve older fossil fuel-powered plants which are retired due to 21 challenges in meeting increasingly stringent air quality standards (PJM, 2009). Although these 22 retirements have caused reliability criteria violations, PJM does not have any authority to 23 compel owners to delay retirement (PJM, 2009), and therefore retirements are likely to continue.
| |
| 24 Therefore, delayed retirement of non-nuclear plants is not considered as a feasible alternative to 25 Salem and HCGS license renewal.
| |
| 26 8.3 No-Action Alternative 27 This section examines environmental effects that would occur if NRC takes no action. No 28 Action in this case means that NRC does not issue a renewed operating license for Salem and 29 HCGS and the licenses expire at the end of their current license terms. If NRC takes no action, 30 the plants would shutdown at or before the end of the current license. After shutdown, plant 31 operators would initiate decommissioning according to 10 CFR 50.82. Table 8-4 provides a 32 summary of environmental impacts of No Action compared to continued operation of the Salem 33 and HCGS.
| |
| 34 The Staff notes that the option of No Action is the only alternative considered in-depth that does 35 not satisfy the purpose and need for this SEIS, as it does not provide power generation capacity 36 nor would it meet the needs currently met by Salem and HCGS or that the alternatives 37 evaluated in Section 8.1 would satisfy. Assuming that a need currently exists for the power 38 generated by Salem and HCGS, the no-action alternative would require that the appropriate 39 energy planning decision-makers rely on an alternative to replace the capacity of Salem and 40 HCGS or reduce the need for power.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-42 September 2010,
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 This section addresses only those impacts that arise directly as a result of plant shutdown. The 2 environmental impacts from decommissioning and related activities have already been 3 addressed in several other documents, including the FinalGeneric Environmental Impact 4 Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC, 5 2002); the license renewal GElS (chapter 7; NRC, 1996); and Chapter 7 of this SEIS. These 6 analyses either directly address or bound the environmental impacts of decommissioning 7 whenever PSEG ceases operating Salem and HCGS.
| |
| 8 The Staff notes that, even with renewed operating licenses, Salem and HCGS would eventually 9 shut down, and the environmental effects addressed in this section would occur at that time.
| |
| 10 Since these effects have not otherwise been addressed in this SEIS, the impacts will be 11 addressed in this section. As with decommissioning effects, shutdown effects are expected to 12 be similar whether they occur at the end of the current license or at the end of a renewed 13 license.
| |
| 14 8.3.1 Air Quality 15 When the plant stops operating, there would be a reduction in emissions from activities related 16 to plant operation such as use of diesel generators and employees vehicles. In Chapter 4, the 17 Staff determined that these emissions would have a SMALL impact on air quality during the 18 renewal term. Therefore, if the emissions decrease, the impact to air quality would also 19 decrease and would be SMALL.
| |
| 20 8.3.2 Groundwater Use and Quality 21 The use of groundwater would diminish as plant personnel are removed from the site and 22 operations cease. Some consumption of groundwater may continue as a small staff remains 23 onsite to maintain facilities prior to decommissioning. Overall impacts would be smaller than 24 during operations, but would remain SMALL.
| |
| 25 8.3.3 Surface Water Use and Quality 26 The rate of consumptive use of surface water would decrease as the plant is shut down and the 27 reactor cooling system continues to remove the heat of decay. Wastewater discharges would 28 also be reduced considerably. Shutdown would reduce the already SMALL impact on surface 29 water resources and quality.
| |
| 30 8.3.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources 31 Aquatic Ecology 32 If the plant were to cease operating, operational impacts to aquatic ecology would decrease, as 33 the plant would withdraw and discharge less water than it does during operations. Shutdown 34 would reduce the already SMALL impacts to aquatic ecology.
| |
| September 2010 8-43 Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 TerrestrialEcology 2 Shutdown would result in no additional land disturbances onsite or offsite, and terrestrial 3 ecology impacts would be SMALL.
| |
| 4 8.3.5 Human Health 5 Human health risks would be smaller following plant shutdown. The plant, which is currently 6 operating within regulatory limits, would emit less gaseous and liquid radioactive material to the 7 environment. In addition, following shutdown, the variety of potential accidents at the plant 8 (radiological or industrial) would be reduced to a limited set associated with shutdown events 9 and fuel handling and storage. In Chapter 4 of this draft SEIS, the Staff concluded that the 10 impacts of continued plant operation on human health would be SMALL. In Chapter 5, the Staff 11 concluded that the impacts of accidents during operation were SMALL. Therefore, as 12 radioactive emissions to the environment decrease, and as the likelihood and variety of 13 accidents decrease following shutdown, the Staff concludes that the risks to human health 14 following plant shutdown would be SMALL.
| |
| 15 8.3.6 Socioeconomics 16 Land Use 17 Plant shutdown would not affect onsite land use. Plant structures and other facilities would 18 likely remain in place until decommissioning. Most transmission lines connected to Salem and 19 HCGS would remain in service after the facilities stop operating. Maintenance of most existing 20 transmission lines would continue as before. The transmission lines could be used to deliver 21 the output of any new capacity additions made on the Salem and HCGS site. Impacts on land 22 use from plant shutdown would be SMALL.
| |
| 23 Socioeconomics 24 Plant shutdown would have an impact on socioeconomic conditions in the region around Salem 25 and HCGS. Should the plants shut down, there would be immediate socioeconomic impacts 26 from loss of jobs (some, though not all, of the approximately 1,614 employees would begin to 27 leave) and property tax payments may be reduced. These impacts, however, would not be 28 considered significant on a regional basis given the close proximity to the Philadelphia and 29 Wilmington metropolitan areas and because plant workers' residences are not concentrated in a 30 single community or county.
| |
| 31 Revenue losses from Salem and HCGS operations would affect Salem County and the 32 communities closest to and most reliant on the plant's tax revenue (like Lower Alloways Creek 33 Township, which receives approximately 57 percent of its property tax revenue from Salem and 34 HCGS).. The socioeconomic impacts of plant shutdown would (depending on the jurisdiction) 35 range from SMALL to LARGE. See Appendix J to NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC, 2002),
| |
| 36 for additional discussion of the potential socioeconomic impacts of plant decommissioning.
| |
| 37 Transportation 38 Traffic volumes on the roads in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS would be greatly reduced after 39 plant shutdown due to the loss of jobs. Deliveries of materials and equipment to Salem and Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-44 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 HCGS would also be reduced until decommissioning. Transportation impacts from the 2 termination of plant operations would be SMALL.
| |
| 3 Aesthetics 4 Plant structures and other facilities would likely remain in place until decommissioning. The 5 plume from the cooling tower would cease or greatly decrease after shutdown. Noise caused 6 by power plant operations would cease. Aesthetic impacts of plant closure would be SMALL.
| |
| 7 Historic and ArchaeologicalResources 8 Impacts from the no-action alternative would be SMALL, since Salem and HCGS would be 9 decommissioned. A separate environmental review would be conducted for decommissioning.
| |
| 10 That assessment would address the protection of historic and archaeological resources.
| |
| 11 Environmental Justice 12 Impacts to minority and low-income populations when Salem and HCGS cease operation would 13 depend on the number of jobs and the amount of tax revenues lost by the communities 14 surrounding the facilities. Closure of Salem and HCGS would reduce the overall number of jobs 15 (there are currently 1,614 permanent positions at the facilities) and the tax revenue attributed to 16 plant operations (approximately 57 percent of Lower Alloways Creek Township's tax revenues 17 and 2.9 percent of Salem County's tax revenues are from Salem and HCGS). Since the Salem 18 and HCGS tax payments represent such a significant percentage of Lower Alloways Creek 19 Township's total annual property tax revenue, it is likely that economic impacts within the 20 township would range from MODERATE to LARGE should Salem and HCGS be shut down and 21 closed. Minority and low-income populations in the vicinity if Salem and HCGS could 22 experience disproportionately high and adverse socioeconomic effects from plant shutdown.
| |
| 23 8.3.7 Waste Management 24 If the no-action alternative were implemented the generation of high-level waste would stop and 25 generation of low-level and mixed waste would decrease. Impacts from implementation of no-26 action alternative are expected to be SMALL.
| |
| 27 Wastes associated with plant decommissioning are unavoidable and will be significant whether 28 the plant is decommissioned at the end of the initial license period or at the end of the 29 relicensing period. Therefore, the selection of the no-action alternative has no impact on issues 30 relating to decommissioning waste.
| |
| September 2010 8-45 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 Table 8-4. Summary of the Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts of No Action 2 Compared to Continued Operation of Salem and HCGS Continued Salem andHCGS
| |
| .No Action Operation Air Quality SMALL SMALL Groundwater SMALL SMALL Surface Water SMALL SMALL Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources SMALL SMALL Human Health SMALL SMALL Socioeconomics SMALL to LARGE SMALL Waste Management SMALL -[ Deleted: Not Applicable SMALL .........
| |
| 3 8.4 Alternatives Summary 4 In this chapter, the Staff considered the following alternatives to Salem and HCGS license 5 renewal: supercritical coal-fired generation; natural gas combined-cycle generation; and a 6 combination of alternatives. No Action by the NRC and the effects it would have were also 7 considered. The impacts for all alternatives are summarized in Table 8-5.
| |
| 8 Socioeconomic and groundwater impacts would range from SMALL to MODERATE. The Staff 9 did not determine a single significance level for these impacts, but the Commission determined 10 them to be Category 1 issues nonetheless. The environmental impacts of the proposed action 11 (issuing renewed Salem and HCGS operating licenses) would be SMALL for all other impact 12 categories, except for the Category 1 issue of collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel 13 cycle, high level waste (HLW), and spent fuel disposal.
| |
| 14 The environmental impacts of the proposed action (issuing renewed Salem and HCGS 15 operating licenses) would be SMALL for all impact categories except for the Category 1 issue of 16 collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle, high level waste (HLW), and spent fuel 17 disposal.
| |
| 18 In the Staffs professional opinion, the coal-fired alternative would have the greatest overall 19 adverse environmental impact. This alternative would result in MODERATE air quality, human 20 health, and waste management impacts. Its impacts upon socioeconomic and biological 21 resources would range from SMALL to MODERATE. This alternative is not an environmentally 22 preferable alternative due to air quality impacts from NOx, SO,, PM, PAHs, CO, C02, and 23 mercury (and the corresponding human health impacts), as well as construction impacts to 24 transportation, aquatic, and terrestrial resources.
| |
| 25 With the exception of socioeconomic and air quality impacts, the gas-fired alternative would 26 result in SMALL impacts. Socioeconomic and air quality impacts would range from SMALL to 27 MODERATE. This alternative would result in substantially lower air emissions and waste 28 management than the coal-fired alternative.
| |
| 29 The combination alternative would have lower air emissions and waste management impacts 30 than both the gas-fired and coal-fired alternatives; however, it would have relatively higher Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-46 September 2010 i
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 construction impacts in terms of aquatic and terrestrial resources and potential disruption to 2 historic and archaeological resources, mainly as a result of the wind turbine component.
| |
| 3 Under the no-action alternative, plant shutdown would begin to eliminate most of the 4 approximately 1,614 jobs at Salem and HCGS and would reduce general tax revenue in the 5 region. Depending on the jurisdiction, the economic loss would have a SMALL to LARGE 6 impact. The no-action alternative, however, would not meet the purpose and need stated in this 7 draft SEIS.
| |
| 8 Therefore, in the Staffs best professional opinion, the environmentally preferred alternative in 9 this case is the license renewal of Salem and HCGS. All other alternatives capable of meeting 10 the needs currently served by Salem and HCGS entail potentially greater impacts than the 11 proposed action of license renewal of Salem and HCGS.
| |
| September 2010 8-47 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| cn CE)
| |
| CD 39ý1 Table 8-5. Summary of the Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives Pi 0
| |
| C) Impact Area 0 - E Alternative .- cc CD Deleted: -
| |
| 0E 0OO"0 U) 0 0*)
| |
| License Renewal SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL.)... Formatted: Superscript 001 Supercritical Coal-fired MODERATE SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE Alternative MQDERATEI . . MODERATE -Comment [L7]: Need follow-up SMALL to SMALL to Gas-fired Alternative MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL m
| |
| z Combination Alternative SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to SMALL SMALL to SMALL 0 MODERATE LARGE CD G)
| |
| L'
| |
| 'ao No Action Alternative SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to SMALL
| |
| .m I LARGE C 2 For the Salem and HCGS license renewal alternative, waste management was evaluated in Chapter 6. Consistent with the findings in the GELS, these a 3 impacts were determined to be SMALL with the exception of collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel 0 (D 4 disposal.
| |
| CD 3) o'1 CD Ci,
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 8.5 References 2 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations,Title 10, Energy, Part50, "Domestic_ Licensincg of . - Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic 3 Production and Utilization Facilities."
| |
| 4 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations,Title 10, Energy, Part 5.1, 'Environmental .. Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Italic 5 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."
| |
| 6 40 CFR Part 60. Code _of FederalRegulations, Title 40, Protection of Envi[rontmernt, Part 60, . J1(Formatted: Font: Italic 7 "Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources."
| |
| 40 CFR Part 51. Code ofFederal Regulations, Title 40, Protectionof Environment, Part 51 8 _I- ( Formatted: Font: Italic 9 "Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans."
| |
| 10 40 CFR Part 75. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 75. .- Formatted: Font: Italic 11 "Continuous Emission Monitoring."
| |
| 12 40 CFR Part 81. Codeof FederalRegulations,Title 40, Protectionof the Environment, Part 81, .Formatted: Font: Italic 13 "Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes."
| |
| 14 63 FR 49442. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Revisionof Standards of Performance SDeleted:5 15 for Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generating Units; Revisions to "IDeleted:,
| |
| 16 Reporting Requirements for Standards of Performance for New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam 17 Generating Units." FederalRegister, Volume 63, No. 179, pp.49442-49455. September 16, 18 1998.
| |
| 19 64 FR 35714. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, '"pgional Haze Regulations." Federal. Deleted:,
| |
| 20 Register, Volume 64, No. 126, pp.35714-35774. July 1, 1999.
| |
| 21 65 FR 79825. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), "Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of 22 Hazardous Air Pollutants from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units." FederalRegister,Vol.
| |
| 23 65, No. 245, pp. 79825-79831. December 20, 2000.
| |
| 24 65 FR 32214. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), "Notice of Regulatory Determination on 25 Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels." FederalRegister,Vol. 65, No. 99, pp.32214-26 32237. May 22, 2000.
| |
| 27 AWEA (American Wind Energy Associatiorn._ 2010. "U.S. Wind Energy Pro(jects" for New- - Deleted: (AWEA 28 Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania. Available URL,; ........... Deleted:,
| |
| 29 http://www.awea.orq/proiects/Proiects.aspx?s=New+Jersey (accessed April 16, 2010)........ Deleted: at Deleted: on 30 Clean Air Act. 42 USC 7401.
| |
| 31 EIA (Energy Information Administratior,. 2009a. Annual EnergynOutlook 2009 WithProjections Deleted: (EIA 32 to 2030. DOE/EIA-40383(2009). Washington, D.C. March 2009. Available URI - [ Deleted:
| |
| 33 http://www.eia.doe.,ov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2009).pDdf (accessed ,Apri-15, 2010).
| |
| : Deleted: at Deetd:on 34 EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2009b. "Table A4. Approximate Heat Content of__
| |
| 35 Natural Gas, 1949-2008 (Btu per Cubic Foot)." Available at: Deleted:
| |
| 36 http://www.eia.doe.cov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1304. html on April 15, 2010.
| |
| 37 EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2010a. Electric PowerAnnual with data for 2008.
| |
| 38 Available URLK_ httr:l/www.eia.doe.qov/cneaf/electricity/epalepates.html (accessedApril 12, ..-.-.Deleted: at 39 2010). - J Deleted: on Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 8-49 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2010b. Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants Deleted: at 2007 and 2008. DOE/EIA-0191(2008). Washington, D.C. January 2010. Available URI;_ . Deleted: on J
| |
| Deleted: at http://www.eia.doe.qov/cneaf/electricity/cq/cqa2008. pdf (accessed April 12, 2010).
| |
| Energy Recovery Council. 2010. "The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants." .Deleted: on Available URL* http://www.enerqyrecoverycouncil.org/userfiles/file/IWSA 2007 Directory.pdf_ / Deleted: (EPA kaccesseq,/priI uu).-------------- ---------------- ' Moved (insertion) [1]
| |
| EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998 "rSection 1.1: Bituminous and Deleted::
| |
| Subbituminous Coal Combustion - Final Section,_Sujpplement E." in Compilation of Air Pollutant Moved up [1]: "Section 1.1: Bituminous and Emission Factors,Volume 1: StationaryPoint and Area Sources: AP 42, Fifth Edition.
| |
| * Subbituminous Coal Combustion: Final Section Washington, D.C. Available URL: http://www.epa._qov/ttn/chief/ap42/chOl/final/cOlsOlpdf Supplement E."
| |
| (accessed September 2, 2010). 4 Deleted: EPA. 2000a. "Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from
| |
| ,EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). _200._ _Seobon.3.1 :..S.tationary Gas..mTubi._n e ..-. Electric Utility Steam Generating Units."
| |
| FederalRegister, Vol. 65, No. 245, pp. 79825-Final Section, Supplement F" in Compilation of Air PollutantEmission Factors,Volume 1: 79831. Washington, D.C. December 20, StationaryPoint and Area Sources: AP 42, Fifth Edition. Washington, D.C. Available URI;_
| |
| FDeleted:c http://www.epa..qov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s0l .pdf (accessed April 15, 2.01. ""Deleted: Emissions Factors & AP 42.
| |
| EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Final Report.-EnvironmentalFootprints
| |
| * *4Deleted: at and Costs of Coal-BasedIntegrated Gasification Combined Cycle and Pulverized Coal
| |
| . '"Deleted: on Technologies. EPA-430/R-06/006. July,2006. Available URLI http:llwww.epa.,ovlairlcaaac/coaltech/2007 01 epaiqcc.pdf (accessed April 15, 2010). Deleted: r J Deleted:a EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009a. "Clean Air Mercury Rule." Available URL: http://www.epa..ov/mercurvrule/(apcessed April_172010) .. ....... 'ý"t Deleted: at EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009b. "Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. Deleted: on Available URK http:l/www.epa.,ov/climatechanqe/emissions/_hqrulemaking.html_(accessed .. .,Deleted: A 15, 2010).--pril----.-------.------------- -- -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.--- --------- . Deleted: Proposed Mandatory Greenho*-..-f 2 1 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. "Clean Air Interstate Rule: New Jersey." -. (Deleted: at Available URK http://www.epa..ov/CAIR/ni.html (accessed April 5, 2010) .---------------- Deleted: on GE (GE Power Systems,) 2001. "Advanced Technology Combined Cycles." .May 2001. 1 Deleted: at
| |
| (.
| |
| Available URL:.http://www..epower.com/prod serv/products/tech docs/en/downloads/ .,,,Deleted: on
| |
| .er3936a.pdf (accessed September 2, 2010). .: '(Deleted: (GE GHC (Geo-Heat Center). 2008. "U.S. Geothermal Projects and Resource Areas." Available ' Field Code Changed ..
| |
| URL: http://qeoheat.oit.edu/dusys.htm (accessed April 16, 2010). . ........-...................
| |
| .. ......... - Deleted: (GHC INEEL (Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory). 1996. PJ.S. Hfydropower Deleted A Resource Assessment for New Jersey., DOE/ID-10430(NJ). Available-URL, .. - Deleted: (INEEL http://hydro2.inel..ov/resourceassessmentld/fs/states/ni.-clf (accessedcApril- 15, 2001 ). .. .- . . ... Deleted:
| |
| INGAA Foundation. 20004 Implications of Reduced Gas Use on Emissions from Power , .(Formatted [3)
| |
| Generation. Available URL http://www.incqaa.orpq/File.aspxid=282 (a-c-ces-se-dApril- 15, 2010_).. ", '. Deleted:"
| |
| Milbrandt, A. 2005. A GeographicPerspective on the Current Biomass Resources Availability " Deleted: at in the United States. Technical Report NRELITP-560-39181. Prepared for National Renewable v. (Deleted: on Energy Laboratory. December 2005. Available at: http://www.nrel.qov/docs/fv06osti/39181.pdf Deleted 8 (accessed April 16, 2010). 1 Deleted: at Deleted: on Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-50 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 MMS (Minerals Management Service,). 2010. "e newable Energy Program, Cape Wind Deleted: (MMS 2 Proiect.",.Available URL http://www.rmms.-ov/offshore/RenewableEnercvy/CapeWind.htm Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt, Not 3 (accessedAprl1 16, 2010). Italic, No underline, Font color: Auto Deleted: p 4 NEEP (Northeast,;Energy.Efficiency Partnerships, Inc,) .2Q09...... n EnergyEfficiency Strategy 5 for New Jersey: Achieving the 2020 MasterPlan Goals. March 2009. Available URL; Deleted: t, Project Overview. 3 6 http://www.stateni. us/emp/docs/pdf/O41609NEEP.podf(accessedSeptermber_2, 2010)._
| |
| - SDeleted: on3 7 .NREL _(National Renewable Enegy Laboratory).
| |
| Available UR- 2010. _"United States Atlas of Renewable_ Deleted: ational 8 Resources." Interactive Map.
| |
| 9 http://mapserve2.nrel.aov/website/Resource Atlas/viewer.htm (accessed,cApril 15, 201-0). -.... Deleted: (NEEP 10 NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,). 2009a. State Implementation n~~]Deleted: at 11 Plan (SIP) for Regional Haze. Final. July 2009. Available URL ,http://www.state.ni.us/dep/ . Deleted: http://neep.org/uploads/About%20NE 12 baqp/2008%2OReqional%2OHaze/Complete%20Relional%2OHaze%20SIP.pdf (accessed,. n, EP/News%20Media/an-energy-efficieny-plan-for-nj.pdf 13 April 15, 2010).
| |
| ff Deleted: on 14 NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2009b. Large Scale Wind jf Deleted: April 16 15 Turbine Siting Map Report. September 8, 2009. Available URL....... nIni Deleted: National Renewable Energy 16 http://www.state.ni.us/dep/landuse/forms/wind report090908f.pdf (accessed p~pril 1-6, 201-0).) W" Laboratory (NREL). 2005. A Geographic n Perspective on the CurrentBiomass Resources 17 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement. Availability in the United States. Technical 18 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2. Washington, D.C. May Report NRELiTP-560-39181. December 2005.
| |
| fin Available at: on April 16, 201 0.¶ 19 1996. ADAMS Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738.
| |
| Deleted: at 20 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement n Deleted: on 21 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, "Section 6.3 - Transportation, Table 9.1, 22 Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final '!l Deleted: (NJDEP I 23 Report." NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Add. 1. Washington, D.C. August 1999. ADAMS No.
| |
| 24 ML04069720. Field Code Changed 25 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement Deleted: on 26 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Supplement 1, Regardingthe Decommissioning of Deleted: at 27 Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 2. Washington, D.C.
| |
| 28 November 2002. ADAMS Nos. ML023500395, ML023500322, ML023500310, and Delete:on 29 ML023500295.
| |
| 30 OMB (U.S. Office of Management and Budget). 2007. "Detailed Information on the Low 31 Income Home Energy Assistance Program Assessment." Available URL:
| |
| 32 http://www.whitehouse.qov/omb/expectmore/detail/10001059.2003. html (accessed July 10, 33 2007).
| |
| 34 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLCQ. 2009a. Salem Nuclear Generating Station,_License Renewal Deleted: (PSEG 35 Application, Appendix E - Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal 36 Stage, Salem Nuclear Generating Station. July 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML092400532.
| |
| 37 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009b. Hope Creek Generating Station, License Renewal 38 Application, Appendix E - Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal 39 Stage, Hope Creek Generating Station. July 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML092430389.
| |
| 40 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2010. Response to NRC Request for Additional Information 41 dated April 16,.2010. Related to the Environmental Review. Response to ENV-106. ADAMS 42 No. ML101440272.
| |
| September 2010 8-51 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 1 PJM (PJM Interconnection Association)._ 2009. "2009,Regional Transmission ExpansionPlan." Deleted: (PJM 2 Available URLý http:llwww.pim.comldocumentslreportslrtep-report.aspx (accessecdApril 16, Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt, Not 3 2010). Italic, No underline, Font color: Auto 4 State of New Jersey. 2006. Blue Ribbon Panelon Development of Wind Turbine Facilitiesin '.1 Deleted: at 5 CoastalWater,_,final Relport to Governor Jon S. Corzine. April 2006. Available URL; Deleted: on 6 http://www.state.ni.us/niwindpanel/docs/finalwindpanelreport.pdf (accessed *pri.[ 16, 2010)._
| |
| . =. S. Deleted:,
| |
| 7 State of New Jersey. 2008. New Jersey Energy Master Plan. October 2008. Available URL,;- '"Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt, Not http:l/www.ni.govlemp/docs/pdf/081022 emp.pdf (accessedApril 16 2010), Italic, No underline, Font color: Auto 8 S,""Deleted: at Deleted: on Formatted: SEIS References, Space After: 0
| |
| "' pt Deleted: at Deleted: on Deleted: ]
| |
| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
| |
| 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement.for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2.
| |
| Washington, D.C.¶ NRC. 1999. Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report,"Section 6.3 -
| |
| Transportation, Table 9.1, Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final Report." NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Add. 1. Washington, D.C.¶ NRC. 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioningof Nuclear PowerReactors.
| |
| NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. I and 2.
| |
| Washington, D.C.¶ U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
| |
| 2007. "Detailed Information on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Assessment." Accessed at:
| |
| http:I/www.whitehouse.govlomb/expectmore/det ail/10001059.2003.html on July 10, 2007.
| |
| ADAMS No. ML082880730.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 8-52 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Itpage 50: [fl] Deleted Briana A Balsam 09/02/2010 2:52:00 PM, EPA. 2000a. "Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units." FederalRegister, Vol. 65, No. 245, pp. 79825-79831.
| |
| Washington, D.C. December 20, 2000.
| |
| EPA. 2000b. "Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels." FederalRegister,Vol. 65, pp.32214-32237. Washington, D.C.
| |
| [ýPage 50:,,[2] Deleted Briana A Balsam ý09/02/2010 3:05:00P Proposed Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule P7iage 50: [3] Formatted BriniaA Balsam 09/02/201b 3:08:00 PM Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt, Italic, No underline, Font color: Auto
| |
| | |
| 1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF OPERATION 2 This chapter addresses potential environmental impacts related to the period of extended 3 operation of Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (Salem) and Hope Creek 4 Generating Station (HCGS). These impacts are grouped and presented according to resource.
| |
| 5 Generic issues (Category 1) rely on the analysis provided in the Generic EnvironmentalImpact 6 Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear PowerPlants (GELS) prepared by the U.S. Nuclear 7 Regulatory Commission (NRC) (NRC, 1996; NRC, 1999a) and are discussed briefly. NRC staff 8 (the Staff) analyzed site-specific issues (Category 2) for Salem and HCGS and assigned them a 9 significance level of-SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Some remaining issues are not 10 applicable to Salem and HCGS because of site characteristics or plant features. Section 1.4 of 11 this report explains the criteria for Category 1 and Category 2 issues and defines the impact 12 designations of SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE.
| |
| Changed 13 4.1 LandUse. . . . .Field.Code 14 Land use issues are listed in Table 4-1. The Staff did not identify any Category 2 issues for land 15 use. The Staff also did not identify any new and significant information during the review of the 16 applicant's environmental reports (ERs) (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b), the site audit, or the 17 scoping process. Therefore, there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those 18 discussed in the GELS. For these issues, the GElS concludes that the impacts are SMALL, and 19 additional site-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be warranted.
| |
| 20 Table 4-1. Land Use Issues. Section 2.2.1 of this report describes the land use 21 around Salem and HCGS.
| |
| Issues GElS Section Category Onsite land use 4.5.3 1 Power line right-of-way 4.5.3 1 22 4.2 Air Quality 23 The air quality issue applicable to the Salem and HCGS facilities is listed in Table 4-2. The 24 Staff did not identify any Category 2 issues for air quality. The Staff also did not identify any 25 new and significant information during the review of the applicant's ER (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 26 2009b), the site audit, or the scoping process. Therefore, there are no impacts related to this 27 issue beyond those discussed in the GELS. For these issues, the GElS concludes that the 28 impacts are SMALL, and additional site-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be 29 warranted.
| |
| September 2010 4-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Table 4-2. Air Quality Issue. Section 2.2.2 of this report describes airquality in the vicinity of 2 Salem and HCGS.
| |
| Issue GElS Section Category Air quality effects of transmission lines 4.5.2 1 3 4.3 Ground Water 4 The following sections discuss the Category 2 ground water issue applicable to Salem and 5 HCGS, which is listed in Table 4-3.
| |
| 6 Table 4-3. Ground Water Use and Quality Issues. Section 2.2.3 of this report 7 discussed ground water use and quality at Salem and HCGS.
| |
| Issues GElS Section Category Ground Water use conflicts (potable and service water, plants 4.8.1.1 2 using >100 gallons per minute [gpm])
| |
| 8 4.3.1 Ground Water Use Conflicts (plants using >100 gpm) 9 NRC specifies as issue 33 in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, 10 Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that "Plants that use more than 100 gpm may cause 11 groundwater use conflicts with nearby groundwater users." The NRC further states in_ 10 CFR . Moved down [1]: "If the applicant's plant,..,pumps more than 100 gallons (total 12 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C), that,'/f the apoplicant's plant.. purnpsmorre than 100 gallons (total onsite) of onsite) of groundwater per minute, an 13 groundwater per minute, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on groundwater assessment of the impact of the proposed 14 use must be provided.".This applies to Salem and HCGS because, as discussed in section action on groundwater use must be provided."
| |
| 15 2.1.7.1, the Salem and HCGS groundwater wells combined to produce an average of 210 { Moved (insertIon) [1]
| |
| 16 million gallons per year (790,000 cubic meters [M3] per year) from 2002 to 2008, which is a ' Deleted: "Plants that use more than 100 gpm 17 combined average of 0.58 million gallons per day (MGD; 2,200 m3 per day), or 400 gallons per may cause groundwater use conflicts with 18 minute (gpm; 1.5 m3/minute). nearby groundwater users."
| |
| 19 A groundwater withdrawal rate of over 100 gpm (0.38 m3/minute) has the potential to create a 20 cone of depression large enough to affect offsite wells and groundwater supplies, limiting the 21 amount of groundwater available for the plant's surrounding areas. As discussed in 2.1.7.1, the 22 facilities operate four primary production wells, including PW-5 and PW-6 at Salem, and HC-1 23 and HC-2 at HCGS. Three of these wells (PW-5, HC-1, and HC-2) produce groundwater from 24 the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy (PRM) Aquifer, and the fourth (PW-6) produces 25 groundwater from the Middle PRM Aquifer. Therefore, potential impacts in both aquifers need 26 to be considered. There are also two stand-by wells located at Salem (PW-2 and PW-3).
| |
| 27 These wells are screened in the Mount Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer. Because these wells could 28 potentially be used during the relicense period, potential impacts in this aquiferwere evaluated. . - - Deleted: also need to 29 To evaluate whether the production from the Salem and HCGS wells could affect offsite Deleted: be 30 groundwater users, the Staff evaluated several lines of evidence, including measurements of 31 onsite groundwater levels, identification of potentially-affected offsite users, comparison of water Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 4-2 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 withdrawal rates to the authorized rate and rates for other authorized users, and identification of 2 regulatory groundwater use restrictions.
| |
| 3 4
| |
| In the ER,-,the applicant presented results of the measurement.of groundwater levels inrthe onsite production wells (TetraTech, 2009). Water levels in many of the production wells, and
| |
| .1 Deleted: PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEGt Deleted:)
| |
| 5 some observation wells, were measured in July and/or September, 1987 (Dames & Moore, 6 1988), and then again measured monthly from 2000 to the present day. This data set allows an 7 evaluation of the long-term trend in water levels in order to determine if groundwater usage is 8 exceeding aquifer recharge in the local area. For the Mount Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer, water 9 depths in PW-2, PW-3, and an observation well (OW-G) are all shallower in 2008 than they 10 were in 1987 and the early 2000s. This indicates no drawdown of the aquifer, as would 11 expected because there has been little or no production from this aquifer.
| |
| 12 For the Middle PRM Aquifer, water levels were measured in production well PW-6 and 13 observation well OW-6 (TetraTech, 2009). In both wells, original measurements in 1987 14 showed water depths of more than about 100 feet (ft; 30 meters (m)), and by the time the next 15 measurement was made in 2000, water depths ranged from 50 to 60 f%.(15 to 18 m). Water -~Deleted: eet 16 depths remained in the range of 50 to 60 ft (15 to 18 m)tthroughout the 2000s, with no apparent Deleted: feet 17 trend. While the reason for the 40 to 50 4 (12 to 15 m) rise in water levels between 1987 andI IDeleted: 00 18 2000 is not discernible, this rise is documented only by a single measurement in each well.
| |
| 19 Because there has been no noticeable declinein water levels since 2000, the production from I Deleted: are not trends 20 the Middle PRM Aquifer does not appear to have had any long-term effect on water availability 21 within the aquifer.
| |
| 22 For the Upper PRM Aquifer, water levels were measured in production wells PW-5, HC-1, HC-2, 23 and observation wells OW-J and OW-I (TetraTech, 2009). In each case, the water level 24 measurements appear to show a slight, but steady, long-term decline in water level elevation.
| |
| 25 Original measurements in wells PW-5 and HC-1 in 1987 indicated water depths at 26 approximately 72 to 76 ft (21 to 23 m), By 200_0 water depths in these two wells rangedrom -Deleted: eet 27 82 to 85 .(25to 26 m). By 2005 and through 2008, monthly water level measurements in these Deleted: to 28 two wells occasionally reached depths of 88 to 95 Q(27 to 29 m). Water levels in well OW-I 29 30 31 32 similarly declined, from 58 t (.18 .m)..i .9187, t.o.62-to 74 (19 to 23 m) in 2000, and 70 to.88.
| |
| (21 to 27 m) in 2008. The same trend was observed in wells NC-2 and OW-J, although water levels in these wells were not measured in 1987. In both of these wells, water level depths started in the range of 69 to 84 t.(21.to.26 m) in 2000, and ranged from 92 to 102 ! (28 to 31 m))
| |
| 'I Deleted: ee
| |
| ( Deleted: ee Deleted: ee S{Deleted: ee 33 in 2008. 4 . Deleted: ee 34 The reason for the declining water levels in the Upper PRM Aquiferpver the last decade cannot Deleted: ee 35 be determined from the limited data set, but they could indicate that long-term production is ** (Deleted: ee 36 resulting in dewatering of the aquifer, which could potentially cause groundwater use conflicts.
| |
| I Deleted: in the 2000s 37 The results could also be due to continuing development of the cone of depression for the 38 withdrawal system before it stabilizes, to long-term precipitation trends that are not associated 39 with production, or to the limited durationof the monitoring period.
| |
| 40 Because the trend in water levels in the Upper PRM Aquifer may indicate potential groundwater 41 use limitations, the Staff identified other local users of the aquifer, and evaluated regional trends 42 and regulatory actions to determine if groundwater use conflicts could exist. Due to the rural 43 location of the facilities, there are no other local municipalities or industrial facilities which use 44 groundwater from any aquifer, including the Upper PRM Aquifer. As discussed in Section 2.2.7, September 2010 4-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 the closest municipal use of groundwater for potable water supply is the Artesian Water 2 Company's Bayview system in New Castle County, Delaware (DNREC, 2003). The Bayview 3 system is located approximately 3.5 miles (mi; 5.6 kilometers [km]) west of the site, and supplies 4 132 residents from two wells in the Mount Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer. In Salem County, the City 5 of Salem uses groundwater as a component of their water supply. The City of Salem system is 6 located 9 mi (14 km) from the Salem and HCGS facilities, and serves approximately 9,000 7 persons. The two largest water supply systems in Salem County (the Pennsgrove and 8 Pennsville systems) both produce water from the Upper PRM Aquifer (EPA, 2010; NJAW, 2010; 9 NJDEP, 2007), but both systems are located more than 15 mi (24 km) to the north of the Salem 10 and HCGS facilities.
| |
| 11 In addition to being distant from potentially affected users, the water volume produced from the 12 Upper PRM Aquifer by the Salem and HCGS wells is also small compared to municipal users in 13 the region. The authorized water withdrawal rate for all six production wells at the Salem and 14 HCGS facilities is 43.2 million gallons ( 164,000 M3) per 30 day period (1.44 MGD [5,470 15 Im3/day]) _RBC 2000). The actual production rate is approximately 0.58 MGD_ (2,200 _/day),3
| |
| __ - "_Deleted: Delaware River Basin Commission 16 or about 40% of the authorized volume. The Pennsville system is authorized by DRBC to -(Deleted:;
| |
| 3 17 produce 1.75 MGD (6,600m /day) (PA Bulletin, 2005) to service approximately 13,500 18 residents; therefore, the volume produced by the Salem and HCGS facilities is approximately 19 equivalent to a municipal supply system servicing less than 4,500 persons.
| |
| 20 Additional information on groundwater use conflicts in the region is found in studies associated 21 with the Water-Supply Critical Areas in the New Jersey Coastal Plain. Two areas (Critical Area 22 1 and Critical Area 2) were established in 1986 to manage withdrawals from aquifers which had 23 water level declines that were a cause of concern (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 2000). The 24 management measures included reducing authorized withdrawals and new allocations from 25 specific aquifers, including the Upper and Middle PRM Aquifers, and shifting water supply 26 sources from confined aquifers to shallow unconfined aquifer and surface water sources. These 27 measures resulted in a region-wide rise in groundwater levels. Currently, both the USGS and 28 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) are performing additional 29 monitoring and modeling studies in order to determine if water management strategies in the 30 Critical Areas can be modified in response to their success in recovering groundwater levels 31 (USGS, 2005).
| |
| 32 Although groundwater use conflicts were enough of a regional concern to cause designation of 33 the Critical Areas, the Salem and HCGS facility location was not included within either of the two 34 Critical Areas. Critical Area 2 includes a small portion of eastern Salem County, but does not 35 include the northern portion of the county (location of the Pennsville and Pennsgove water_ _._.. - - (Deleted: G 36 systems) or the western portion of the county (location of Salem and HCGS). Also, the success 37 of the program in allowing groundwater levels to recover suggests that groundwater use 38 conflicts in western Salem County are likely to become less of a concern, rather than greater.
| |
| 39 Based on these lines of evidence, it appears that although groundwater production at Salem 40 and HCGS may be contributing to a gradual reduction in groundwater availability locally, this 41 reduction is not likely to impact other.groundwater users. Therefore, the Staff concludes that . -- - Deleted: any potential I
| |
| 42 impacts on nearby groundwater users would be SMALL.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-4 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 4.4 Surface Water 2 The following sections discuss the surface water quality issues applicable to Salem and HCGS, 3 which are listed in Table 4-4. The Staff did not identify any new and significant information 4 during the review of the applicant's ER (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b), the site audit, or the 5 scoping process. Therefore, no impacts are related to these issues beyond those discussed in 6 the GELS. For these issues, the GElS concludes that the impacts are SMALL, and additional 7 site-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be warranted.
| |
| 8 Table 4-4. Surface Water Quality Issues. Section 2.2.4 of this report describes 9 surface water quality conditions at Salem and HCGS.
| |
| Issues GElS Section Category Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures 4.2.1.2.1 1 Altered salinity gradients 4.2.1.2.2 1 Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity 4.2.1.2.3 1 Scouring caused by discharged cooling water 4.2.1.2.3 1 Eutrophication 4.2.1.2.3 1 Discharge of chlorine or other biocides 4.2.1.2.4 1 Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills 4.2.1.2.4 1 Discharge of other metals in wastewater 4.2.1.2.4 1 10 4.5 Aquatic Resources 11 4.5.1 Categorization of Aquatic Resources Issues 12 The Category 1 and Category 2 issues related to aquatic resources and applicable to HCGS 13 and Salem are listed in Table 4-5 and discussed below. Section 2.1.6 of this report describes 14 the HCGS and Salem cooling water systems, and Section 2.2.5 describes the potentially 15 affected aquatic resources.
| |
| September 2010 4-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Table 4-5. Aquatic Resources Issues.
| |
| Issues GElS Section Category ForAll Plants Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota 4.2.1.2.4 Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton 4.2.2.1.1 Cold shock . 4.2.2.1.5 Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish 4.2.2.1.6 Distribution of aquatic organisms 4.2.2.1.6 Premature emergence of aquatic insects 4.2.2.1.7 Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease) 4.2.2.1.8 Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge 4.2.2.1.9 Losses from parasitism, predation, and disease among 4.2.2.1.10 organisms exposed to sublethal stresses Stimulation of nuisance organisms 4.2.2.1.11 ForPlants with Cooling-Tower-BasedHeat Dissipation Systems(a)
| |
| Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 4.3.3 1 Impingement of fish and shellfish 4.3.3 1 Heat shock 4.3.3 1 ForPlants with Once-Through Heat Dissipation Systems(b)
| |
| Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 4.2.2.1.2 2 Impingement of fish and shellfish 4.2.2.1.3 2 Heat shock 4.2.2.1.4 2 8
| |
| 2 ýaApplicable to HCGS.
| |
| 3 (b)Applicable to Salem.
| |
| 4 The Staff did not identify any new and significant information related to Category 1 aquatic 5 resources issues during the review of the applicant's ERs for Salem (PSEG, 2009a) and HCGS 6 (PSEG, 2009b), the site audit, or the scoping process. Consequently, there are no impacts 7 related to the generic, Category 1 issues beyond those discussed in the GELS. For these Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-6 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Category 1 issues, the GElS concluded that the impacts are SMALL, and additional site-specific 2 mitigation measures are not likely to be warranted.
| |
| 3 Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages, impingement of fish and shellfish, and heat 4 shock are Category 1 issues at power plants with closed-cycle cooling systems are Category 2 5 issues at plants with once-through cooling systems. Hope Creek uses a closed-cycle cooling 6 system with a cooling tower. This type of cooling system substantially reduces the volume of 7 water withdrawn by the plant and, consequently, also substantially reduces entrainment, 8 impingement, and thermal discharge effects (heat shock potential). Entrainment, impingement, 9 and heat shock are Category 1 issues for Hope Creek and do not require further analysis to 10 determine that their impacts during the relicensing period would be SMALL. In contrast, the 11 cooling water system at Salem is a once-through system, and for such systems entrainment, 12 impingement, and heat shock are Category 2 issues that require site-specific analysis. The 13 remainder of Section 4.5 discusses these Category 2 issues for Salem.
| |
| 14 4.5.2 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages 15 Entrainment occurs when early life stages of fish and shellfish are drawn into cooling water 16 intake systems along with the cooling water. Cooling water intake systems are designed to 17 screen out larger organisms, but small life stages, such as eggs and larvae, can pass through 18 the screens and be drawn into the plant condensers. Once inside, organisms may be killed or 19 injured by heat, physical stress, or chemicals.
| |
| 20 Regulatory Background 21 Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA) requires that the location, design, 22 construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology 23 available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts (33 USC 1326). In July 2004, the 24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Phase II Rule implementing Section 25 316(b) of the CWA for Existing Facilities (69 FR 41576), which applied to large power producers 26 that withdraw large amounts of surface water for cooling (50 MGD or more) (189,000 m3/day or 27 more). The rule became effective on September 7, 2004 and included numeric performance 28 standards for reductions in impingement mortality and entrainment that would demonstrate that 29 the cooling water intake system constitutes BTA for minimizing impingement and entrainment 30 impacts. Existing facilities subject to the rule were required to demonstrate compliance with the 31 rule's performance standards during the renewal process for their National Pollutant Discharge 32 Elimination System (NPDES) permit through development of a Comprehensive Demonstration 33 Study (CDS). As a result of a Federal court decision, EPA officially suspended the Phase II rule 34 on July 9, 2007 (72 FR 37107) pending further rulemaking. EPA instructed permitting 35 authorities to utilize best professional judgment in establishing permit requirements on a case-36 by-case basis for cooling water intake structures at Phase II facilities until it has resolved the 37 issues raised by the court's ruling.
| |
| 38 EPA delegated authority for NPDES permitting to NJDEP in 1984. In 1990, NJDEP issued a 39 draft permit that proposed closed-cycle cooling as BTA for Salem under NJPDES. In 1993, 40 NJDEP concluded that the cost of retrofitting Salem to closed-cycle cooling would be wholly 41 disproportionate to the environmental benefits realized, and a new draft permit was issued in 42 1994 (PSEG, 1999a). The 1994 final NJPDES permit stated that the existing cooling water 43 intake system was BTA for Salem, with certain conditions (NJDEP, 1994).
| |
| September 2010 4-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Conditions of the 1994 permit included improvements to the screens and Ristroph buckets, a 2 monthly average limitation on cooling water flow of 3,024 MGD (11.4 million m3/day), and a pilot 3 study for the use of a sound deterrent system. In addition to technology and operational 4 measures, the 1994 permit required restoration measures that included a wetlands restoration 5 and enhancement program designed to increase primary production in the Delaware Estuary 6 and fish ladders at dams along the Delaware River to restore access to traditional spawning 7 runs for anadromous species such as blueback herring and alewife. A Biological Monitoring 8 Work Plan (BMWP) was also required to monitor the efficacy of the technology and operational 9 measures employed at the site and the restoration programs funded by PSEG (NJDEP, 1994).
| |
| 10 The BMWP included monitoring plans for fish utilization of restored wetlands, elimination of 11 impediments to fish migration, bay-wide trawl survey, and beach seine survey, in addition to the 12 entrainment and impingement abundance monitoring (PSEG, 1994). The main purpose of 13 these studies was to monitor the success of the wetland restoration activities and screen 14 modifications undertaken by PSEG.
| |
| 15 The 2001 NJPDES permit required continuation of the restoration programs implemented in 16 response to the 1994 permit, an Improved Biological Monitoring Work Plan (IBMWP), and a 17 more detailed analysis of impingement mortality and entrainment losses at the facility (NJDEP, 18 2001). The 2006 NJPDES permit renewal application responded to the requirement for a 19 detailed analysis by including a CDS as required by the Phase II rule and an assessment of 20 alternative intake technologies (AIT). The AIT assessment includes a detailed analysis of the 21 costs and benefits associated with the existing intake configuration and alternatives along with 22 an analysis of the costs and benefits of the wetlands restoration program that PSEG 23 implemented in response to the requirements of the 1994 NJPDES permit (PSEG, 2006a).
| |
| 24 The IBMWP was submitted to NJDEP in April 2002 and approved in July 2003. A reduction in 25 the frequency of monitoring at fish ladder sites that successfully pass river herring was 26 submitted in December 2003 and approved was in May 2004. In 2006 PSEG submitted a 27 revised IBMWP that proposed a reduction in sampling at the restored wetland sites. Sampling 28 would be conducted at representative locations instead of at every restoration site (PSEG, 29 2006a).
| |
| 30 Salem's 2006 NJPDES permit renewal application included a CDS because the Phase II rule 31 was still in effect at that time. The CDS for Salem was completed in 2006 and included an 32 analysis of impingement mortality and entrainment at the facility's cooling water intake system.
| |
| 33 According to PSEG (2006a), this analysis shows that the changes in technology and operation 34 of the Salem Cooling water intake system satisfied the performance standards of the Phase II 35 rule and that the current configuration constitutes BTA. In 2006, NJDEP administratively 36 continued Salem's 2001 NJPDES permit (NJ0005622), and no timeframe has been determined 37 for issuance of the new NJPDES permit.
| |
| 38 Entrainment Studies 39 Prior to construction of the Salem facility, baseline biological studies were begun in 1968 to 40 characterize the biological community in the Delaware Estuary. The study area consisted of the 41 estuary 10 mi (16 km) to the north and south of Salem. In 1969 with the passing of the National 42 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the study program was expanded to include ichthyoplankton 43 and benthos studies and to gather information on the feeding habits and life histories of the 44 common species. In 1973 the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) published its Final Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-8 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Environmental Statement (FES) for Salem, which concluded that the effects of impingement and 2 entrainment on the biological community of the Delaware Estuary would not be significant 3 (PSEG, 1999a).
| |
| 4 The Salem facility began operation in 1977, and monitoring has been performed on an annual 5 basis since then to evaluate the impacts on the aquatic environment of the Delaware Estuary 6 from entrainment of organisms through the cooling water system. Methods and results of these 7 studies are summarized in several reports, including the 1984 316(b) Demonstration (PSEG, 8 1984), the 1999 316(b) Demonstration (PSEG, 1999a), and the 2006 316(b) Demonstration 9 (PSEG, 2006a). In addition, biological monitoring reports were submitted to NJDEP on an 10 annual basis from 1995 through the present (PSEG, 1996; PSEG, 1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG, 11 1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; 12 PSEG, 2006b; PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c).
| |
| 13 The 1977 316(b) rule included a provision to select Representative Important Species (RIS) to 14 focus the investigations, and previous demonstrations evaluated RIS as well as additional target 15 species (PSEG, 1984; PSEG, 1999a). The 2006 CDS used the term Representative Species 16 (RS) to comprise both RIS and target species and to be consistent with the published Phase II 17 Rule. RS were selected based on several criteria including: susceptibility to impingement and 18 entrainment at the facility, importance to the ecological community, recreational or commercial 19 value, and threatened or endangered status (PSEG, 2006a).
| |
| 20 The 1984 316(b) Demonstration was a five-year study from 1978 to 1983 that focused on 11 21 RS, including nine fish species and two macroinvertebrates. These species were: weakfish 22 (Cynoscion regalis), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilh), white perch (Morone americana), striped 23 bass (Morone saxatilis), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus),
| |
| 24 American shad (Alosa sapidissima),spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), Atlantic croaker 25 (Micropogoniasundulatus), opossum shrimp (Neomysis americana),and scud (Gammarussp.)
| |
| 26 (PSEG, 1984).
| |
| 27 In 1999 PSEG submitted a 316(b) demonstration that included the same RS fish species as the 28 previous studies and added the blue crab (Callinectessapidus). Scud and opossum shrimp 29 were removed from the list of RS because they have high productivity, high natural mortality, 30 and assessments completed prior to PSEG's 1999 NJPDES application concluded that Salem 31 does not and will not have an adverse environmental impact on these macroinvertebrates 32 (PSEG, 1999a).
| |
| 33 The 316(b) demonstration submitted during the 2006 NJPDES renewal process included an 34 estimation of entrainment losses for the RS developed from data collected during annual 35 entrainment monitoring conducted in accordance with the IBMWP. A revised RS list was 36 developed that included the nine finfish and the blue crab from previous studies and added the 37 Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortiatyrannus), and bluefish 38 (Pomotomus saltrix) (PSEG, 2006a).
| |
| 39 Entrainment samples typically were collected from the circulating water system intake bays 11A, 40 12B, or 22A or at discharge standpipes 12 or 22. From August 1977 through May 1980, intake 41 samples were collected from the circulating water after it passed through the travelling screens 42 and the circulating water pumps. In June 1980 the sample location was changed to the 43 discharge pipes (PSEG, 1984). Beginning in 1994, samples were collected from either intake 44 bay 12B or 22A (PSEG, 1996; PSEG, 1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG, 1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, September 2010 4-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006b; PSEG, 2007a; 2 PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c).
| |
| 3 Samples were collected by pumping water through a Nielsen fish pump through a 1.0 meter (m; 4 3.2 feet [ft]) diameter, 0.5 milimeter (mm; 0.02 inches) mesh, conical plankton net in an 5 abundance chamber. A total sample volume of 50 to 100 m3 (13,000 to 26,000 gallons) was 6 filtered at a rate not to exceed 2.0 m3/minute (500 gpm). Sample contents were rinsed into a jar 7 and preserved for laboratory analysis. Ichthyoplankton collected was identified to the lowest 8 practical taxon and life stage, counted, and a subset was measured (PSEG, 1984).
| |
| 9 From August 1977 to April 1978, entrainment samples were collected monthly from September 10 through May and twice monthly from June through August. In 1979, samples were collected 11 once monthly in March, April, October, and November; twice monthly in May, August, and 12 September, and four times monthly in June and July. In 1980 through 1982 additional samples 13 were collected every fourth day from May through October. Samples were collected every 4 14 hours (hrs) during a 24-hr period (PSEG, 1984). In 1994 and 1995 samples were collected 15 three times a day, once a week from January through December (PSEG, 1994; PSEG, 1996).
| |
| 16 Beginning in April 1996 samples were typically collected three times a week in the summer 17 months (April through September) and once a week throughout the remainder of the year 1.8 (PSEG, 1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG, 1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 19 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006b; PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c).
| |
| 20 Six samples were collected during each 24-hr sampling period.
| |
| 21 Ichthyoplankton samples also were collected from June through August in 1981 and 1982 22 adjacent to the intake structure in five horizontal offshore strata to develop model inputs for bay 23 anchovy and weakfish. These samples were collected with a conical plankton net 0.5 m (1.6 ft) 24 wide with a mesh size of 0.5 mm (0.02 inches; PSEG, 1984).
| |
| 25 Entrainment survival studies were conducted from 1977 through 1982. Survival studies were 26 conducted twice in 1977 and three times in 1978. In 1979 no samples were collected for 27 survival studies. In 1980 sampling was conducted from April through October with 10 events.
| |
| 28 In 1981 and 1982 the sampling schedule was expanded to include four times monthly in June 29 and July, twice monthly in May and August, and once each in September and October with 14 30 events occurring in May through October of 1981 and 11 events in June through September of 31 1982. Sampling locations for the survival studies were the same as for the abundance studies.
| |
| 32 Intake and discharge locations were sampled with a lag to account for plant transit time with 33 duplicate sampling gear to account for sampling induced mortality (PSEG, 1984).
| |
| 34 Samples were collected using a centrifugal fish transfer pump and a one-screen larval table until 35 1980. After 1980 a low velocity flume was used to allow for a larger sample volume.
| |
| 36 Specimens were taken to an onsite laboratory where their condition was recorded. Individuals 37 were classified as live, stunned, or dead according to pre-established criteria. Live and stunned 38 specimens were held for 12 hrs to determine latent mortality (PSEG, 1984).
| |
| 39 In addition, tests were conducted from 1979 through 1981 to quantify mortality caused by the 40 collection equipment. Tests were conducted with alewife, blueback herring, white perch, 41 weakfish, spot, N. americana,and Gammarus spp. Mortality rates due to the larval table, the 42 low velocity flume, and the fish pump combined with the larval table were estimated separately.
| |
| 43 Entrainment simulation tests also were conducted from 1974 through 1982 to quantify the 44 effects of pressure and temperature changes on entrained organisms (PSEG, 1984).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-10 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 For the 1984 316(b) Demonstration, weekly entrainment densities (numbers of organisms per 2 volume of water) were estimated based on densities in both the intake and the estuary. These 3 projected densities then were used along with estimated weekly mortality rates to project annual
| |
| -4 entrainment losses due to the facility. Weekly mortality rates were estimated from the results of 5 the onsite studies, simulation studies conducted in the laboratory, and literature values.
| |
| 6 Mortality rates were calculated for the effects of mechanical and chemical stresses separately 7 from thermal stresses. Total entrainment mortality was estimated based on the following 8 equation (PSEG, 1984).
| |
| MT = 1 - (1 - M.) X (1 -- At) 9 where 10 MT= total entrainment mortality rate 11 Mn= nonthermal mortality rate 12 M,= thermal mortality rate 13 Projected entrainment losses for each species were calculated on a daily basis using the 14 following equation. Daily entrainment losses were then summed on a weekly basis and 15 projected based on plant operating schedules (PSEG, 1984).
| |
| 16 Daily entrainment loss = CWS1j + SWS1I + CWS2i + SWS2i 17 CWSli = K1 x Density x (F i- R x Fi) / (1 - R + R x Fi) 18 SWSli= K2 x Density x (1 - R) 19 where 20 CWS1l = entrainment loss at Unit No. 1 circulating waters system (CWS) on the i th day 21 SWS11 = entrainment loss at Unit No. 1 service water system (SWS) on the ith day 22 CWS2i = entrainment loss at Unit No. 2 CWS on the i th day 23 SWS2i = entrainment loss at Unit No. 2 SWS on the i th day 24 K1 = plant withdrawal at Unit No. 1 CWS on the ith day 25 = 11.672 m3/sec x 86,400 seconds x the number of CWS pumps operating in 26 Unit No. 1 27 K2 = plant withdrawal at Unit No. 1 SWS on the i th day 28 = 0.686 m3/sec x 86,400 seconds x the number of CWS pumps operating in 29 Unit No. 1 30 Density* = estimated entrainment density on the i th day 31 Fi = estimated total entrainment density on the i th day 32 R = recirculation factor September 2010 4-11 Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 The 1999 316(b) Demonstration (PSEG, 1999a) used data from entrainment monitoring that 2 was conducted annually from 1995 through 1998 in accordance with the BMWP. PSEG 3 calculated total entrainment loss by species and life stage by summing the individual 4 occurrences in samples taken at the intakes for both the circulating water system (CWS) and 5 the service water system (SWS) for Units 1 and 2; using correction factors for collection 6 efficiency, recirculation (re-entrainment), and mortality; and then scaling for plant flow. The 7 equation used for this calculation of entrainment loss follows (PSEG, 1999a).
| |
| 8 K365
| |
| .,= D, C - +'i QY i=1 1=1fi 9 where 10 E= entrainment (number of organisms) 11 i= i th water system, i.e., Unit 1 CWS, Unit I SWS, Unit 2 12 CWS, and Unit 2 SWS 13 j j 1h day of the year 14 Dy = average concentration (number per m3 of intake water) 15 C = collection efficiency 16 F* = daily through-plant mortality 17 R= recirculation factor 3
| |
| 18 Qy = average daily plant flow for i th water system (M )
| |
| 19 PSEG (1 999a) used the results of these calculations to compute densities for each week of the 20 year, which then were scaled up based on weekly flow through the facility to estimate total 21 entrainment losses for each year by species (Table 4-6). The years 1978 through 1981 were a 22 transitional period between the beginning of commercial operation of Salem Unit 1 in 1978 and 23 Unit 2 in 1982 (PSEG, 1999a).
| |
| 24 In the 2006 316(b) Demonstration, PSEG estimated annual entrainment losses for the years 25 2002 through 2004 by using entrainment density data from sampling conducted at the intakes 26 and scaling for total water withdrawal volume using the same methodology as described above 27 for the 1999 316(b) study (Table 4-7). Entrainment losses were calculated by assuming an 28 entrainment mortality, rate of 100 percent (PSEG, 2006a). From 1978 through 1998 (Table 4-6) 29 and 2002 through 2004 (Table 4-7), bay anchovy was the species with the greatest entrainment 30 losses for all life stages (PSEG, 1999a; PSEG, 2006a).
| |
| 31 Results of the annual entrainment monitoring for the RS at Salem from 1995 through 2008 were 32 reported in annual biological monitoring reports for 1995 through 2008 (PSEG, 1996; PSEG, 33 1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG, 1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; 34 PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006b; PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c). Total 35 annual entrainment was reported by species and life stage based on mean density expressed 36 as number of organisms per 100 cubic meters (n/1 00 Mi) of water withdrawn through the intake 37 screens (Table 4-8).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 4-12 September 2010 ;:
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Table 4-9 provides a list of species collected during the annual entrainment monitoring 2 conducted at Salem from 1995 through 2008 and their average densities in cooling water during 3 that period. On average, the RS constituted approximately 75 percent of total entrainment 4 abundance based on average densities for these species from 1995 through 2008, and bay 5 anchovy alone made up approximately 50 percent of total entrainment during this period.
| |
| 6 Entrainment Reductions 7 Due to the potential for entrainment to have adverse effects on the aquatic environment in the 8 vicinity of Salem, and in response to the requirements of the 1994 NJPDES permit, PSEG has 9 employed technological and operational changes to reduce entrainment and impingement and 10 mitigate their effects on the Delaware Estuary. While improvements to the cooling water intake 11 system were targeted mainly toward reducing impingement mortality, improvement in 12 entrainment rates also has resulted. In response to the requirements of the 1994 NJPDES 13 permit, PSEG made modifications to the trash racks, intake screens, and fish return system 14 (PSEG, 1999a).
| |
| 15 Improved intake screen panels were installed that use a thinner wire in the mesh (14 gage 16 instead of 12 gage), which in combination with smaller screen openings allowed for a 20 percent 17 decrease in through-screen velocity. Lower velocities through the screens allow more small fish 18 to be able to swim away from the screens and escape entrainment. Screen openings also were 19 reduced in size from 10 mm (3/8 inch) square mesh to 6 mm (1/4 inch) wide by 13 mm (1/2 20 inch) high rectangular mesh. The smaller screen openings reduce the size of organisms that 21 can be drawn through the screens, thus reducing entrainment. The smaller screen mesh 22 excludes more organisms, which then may be impinged and could be returned to the estuary 23 alive (PSEG, 1999a). While impingement mortality rates for these smaller organisms generally 24 are higher than for larger organisms, they are lower than estimated entrainment mortality rates 25 (PSEG, 1999a).
| |
| September 2010 4-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| m z
| |
| C m Table 4-6. Estimated Annual Entrainment Losses for Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 1978 to 1998 CD Year Estimated Annual Entrainment Losses (in Millions)
| |
| American Atlantic Bay Blueback Striped White Atlantic (0 1 C) cn Alewife shad croaker anchovy herring bass Spot Weakfish perch menhaden Silversides( )
| |
| C 0C) 1978 0.008 0.004 0.784 7,962.1 0.775 0.026 5.096 399.818 0.000 0.000 79.935 0
| |
| ( 1979 0.050 0 14.515 3,535.1 0.019 0.020 1.095 23.193 0.625 0.072 18.083 C'D 1980 0.860 0.015 0.756 15,155.9 2.813 0 10.296 256.708 27.514 4.277 145.109 O) 1981 2.002 0 8.157 11,714.1 11.853 0 5.418 45.765 0.969 9.207 113.240 1982 0 0 0 3,712.9 0.017 0 29.963 74.457 18.857 4.157 22.201 1985 0.163 0.126 0.933 29,463.7 1.151 0 0.184 63.616 0.447 0 0 1986 0.348 0.059 0.492 45,248.6 1.594 0 0.858 110.397 0.654 0 0 1987 0 0.062 0.000 40,172.4 0.082 0 0.055 61.267 0.628 0 0 1988 0.749 0 1.710 22,331.5 2.988 0 73.502 57.063 8.968 0 0 1989 0.541 0 56.341 10,163.5 2.395 47.946 1.027 3.026 192.131 0 0 1990 0.101 0 123.375 7,678.4 0.260 1.313 4.395 6.685 2.626 0 0 1991 0 0 131.798 19,506.6 0 0.778 1.096 72.478 1.108 0 0 1992 0.319 0 71.352 1,570.5 0.864 1.728 0.000 10.375 3.393 0 0 1993 0.676 0 75.030 11,774.2 2.340 108.065 0.585 122.672 37.635 0 0 1994 0.697 0 24.783 1,120.3 2.623 7.490 46.859 88.781 66.927 0 0 1995 0.477 0.014 31.454 1,404.5 0.082 0.579 0.071 335.083 2.039 177.221 31.019 1996 0.083 0.028 4.385 70.6 0.425 7.289 0.025 14.258 16.800 3.039 1.227 1997 0.053 0.747 71.819 1,811.8 0.318 6.505 0.007 12.601 7.865 16.668 6.919 1998 14.480 0 132.130 2,003.7 59.282 448.563 0.020 76.343 412.839 480.557 51.528 (1) Silversides were not identified to species.
| |
| Source: NJPDES Application (PSEG, 1999a).
| |
| U)
| |
| CD CD CD C)
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Table 4-7. Estimated Annual Entrainment and Annual Entrainment Losses for 2 Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 2002-2004 Total Entrained Entrainment Losses (in millions) (in millions)
| |
| Taxon 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 Alewife 9.8 5.2 2.5 9.4 4.5 2.4 American shad 0 0 0 0 0 0 Atlantic croaker 448.0 211.5 213.2 182.5 86.4 87.9 Bay anchovy 946.4 366.4 2,343.2 946.4 366.4 2,343.2 Blueback herring 1.1 1.7 1.1 1.0 1.6 0.934 Spot 2.3 0.047 0 0.454 0.009 0 Striped bass 403.6 120.3 35.7 159.5 37.6 14.3 Weakfish 29.2 11.9 46.8 19.2 8.5 32.8 White perch 18.7 19.5 25.8 18.0 13.9 23.9 Atlantic silverside 44.8 3.6 10.1 44.8 3.6 10.1 Atlantic menhaden 190.3 4.9 6.8 190.3 4.9 6.8 Source: Comprehensive Demonstration Study (PSEG, 2006a).
| |
| September 2010 4-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| z 0 C
| |
| Table 4-8. Entrainment Densities for Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 1995-2008 23 m
| |
| Density (n/100 M3 )
| |
| G)
| |
| C0 Taxon 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 3 C7 Alewife 0.01 - - - - - 0.05 <0.01 0.11 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.05 <0.01 -
| |
| American shad - 0.01 0.01 - - 0.00 - - - - - - - 0
| |
| (~n 3 Atlantic croaker 3.03 1.60 8.19 9.48 15.45 6.70 4.17 12.52 2.62 5.05 5.56 10.51 5.88 7.74 O CD Atlantic menhaden 2.91 0.38 0.46 1.68 2.23 1.34 1.04 4.92 0.20 0.47 1.06 5.01 1.47 16.21 Atlantic silverside 0.13 0.29 0.69 0.22 2.20 0.36 0.09 0.95 0.15 0.47 0.55 0.29 0.12 0.10 0 Bay anchovy 66.55 17.43 42.95 61.88 292.14 12.72 8.86 24.18 13.15 100.52 54.57 101.45 174.66 41.87 Blueback herring - 0.02 - 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 Blueback herali 0.01 0.12 - 2.06 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.05 - 0.03 0.72 herring/alewife Bluefish 0.01 .- - - 0.00 . - - - - - - <0.01 Spot 0.01 - - 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.10 <0.01 - 0.25 <0.01 0.03 0.14 Striped bass 0.03 1.55 0.02 11.50 0.03 13.97 9.07 7.20 5.07 1.84 4.03 0.55 42.34 1372 Weakfish 11.86 3.69 0.76 1.99 6.61 2.48 2.25 0.64 0.43 1.10 2.09 0.70 1.44 0.52 DC)2 CD White perch 0.02 0.88 - 4.49 0.11 6.15 0.06 0.10 0.44 0.64 0.24 0.55 1.19 0.01 White perch/striped 0.06 1.10 - 3.63 0.00 - - <0.01 0.87 0.44 0.40 0.11 10.69 0.02 bass Eggs 47.54 0.51 21.41 41.84 278.18 0.35 2.97 8.42 2.06 74.22 28.56 78.20 149.59 23.82 Larvae 48.46 26.52 31.66 78.64 97.93 47.13 29.13 67.53 46.10 51.12 62.67 82.92 103.57 39.65 Juveniles 11.84 7.87 19.15 13.11 21.17 11.10 7.27 16.74 5.67 7.84 9.46 15.99 10.79 21.86; Adults 0.14 0.07 0.20 0.23 0.29 0.18 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.19 Note: Blank spaces (-) indicate the species was not collected in entrainment samples that year.
| |
| Source: Biological Monitoring Program Annual Reports (PSEG, 1996; PSEG, 1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG, 1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006b; PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c).
| |
| C)
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Table 4-9. Species Entrained at Salem During Annual Entrainment Monitoring, 2 1995-2008 Common Name Scientific Name Average Density (n/100 M3 )
| |
| Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli 72.35 Naked goby Gobiosoma bosc 27.58 Striped bass Morone saxatilis 7.07 Atlantic croaker Micropogoniasundulatus 7.04 Atlantic menhaden Brevoortiatyrannus 6.91 Weakfish Cynoscion regalis 2.81 Goby Gobiidae 2.61 White perch/striped bass Morone spp. 1.57 White perch Morone americana 1.15 Atlantic silverside Menidia menidia 0.66 Unidentifiable silverside Antherinidae 0.47 Blueback herring/alewife Alosa spp. 0.37 Silversides Menidio spp. 0.22 Northern pipefish Syngnathus fuscus 0.18 American eel Anguilla rostrata 0.13 Unidentifiable fish 0.13 Summer flounder Paralichthysdentatus 0.12 Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus 0.10 Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 0.09 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina 0.08 Herrings Clupeidae 0.08 Black drum Pogoniascromis 0.07 Carps and minnows Cyprinidae 0.06 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 0.06 Unidentifiable larvae 0.06 Atlantic herring Clupea harengus 0.06 Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 0.05 Smallmouth flounder Etropus microstomus 0.04 Rough silverside Membros martinica 0.03 Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis 0.03 Yellow perch Percaf/a vescens 0.03 Spotted hake Urophycis regia 0.02 Killifishes Fundulus spp. 0.02 Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus 0.01 Northern searobin Prionotuscarolinus 0.01 Quillback Carpiodescyprinus 0.01 Unidentifiable eggs 0.01 Silver perch Bairdiellachrysoura 0.01 Winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus 0.01 September 2010 4-17 Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation Common Name Scientific Name Average Density (n/100 M3)
| |
| Threespine stickleback Gasterosteusaculeatus 0.01 Atlantic needlefish Strongyluramarina 0.01 Unidentifiable 0.01 Blackcheek tonguefish Symphurus plagiusa 0.01 Oyster toadfish Opsanus tau 0.01 Common carp Cyprinus carpio 0.01 American shad Alosa sapidissima 0.01 Striped cusk-eel Ophidion marginatum 0.01 Windowpane Scophthalmus aquosus 0.004 Green goby Microgobius tholassinus 0.004 Northern puffer Sphoeroidesmaculatus 0.004 Feather blenny Hypsoblennius hentz 0.004 American sand lance Ammodytes americonus 0.004 Bluefish Pomatomus salatrix 0.003 Unidentifiable juvenile 0.003 Striped searobin Prionotusevolans 0.003 Conger eel Conger oceanicus 0.003 Inshore lizardfish Synodusfoetens 0.003 Unidentifiable drum Sciaenidae 0.003 Eastern silvery minnow Hybognathus regius 0.003 Perches Percidae 0.003 Northern kingfish Menticirrhussaxatilis 0.003 Bluegill Lepomis mocrochirus 0.002 Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus 0.002 Unidentifiable sucker Catostomidae 0.002 Striped anchovy Anchoa hepsetus 0.002 Northern stargazer Astroscopus guttatus 0.002 White crappie Pomoxis annularis 0.002 Tautog Toutoga onitis 0.002 Unidentifiable porgy Sparidae 0.001 Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus 0.001 Black sea bass Cen tropristisstriata 0.001 Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegauts 0.001 Striped killifish Fundulus majalis 0.001 Unidentifiable sunfish Centrarchidae 0.001 White sucker Catostomus commersoni 0.001 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus 0.001
| |
| " Species in bold are RS at Salem.
| |
| (2) Average density expressed as number of organisms entrained (n) per 100 cubic meters (m3) of water withdrawn through the intake screens.
| |
| Source: Biological Monitoring Program Annual Reports (PSEG, 1996; PSEG, 1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG, 1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006b; PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-18 September 2010
| |
| | |
| CO (D
| |
| (D Table 4-10. Entrainment Densities for Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 1978-2008 B
| |
| Density (n/1100 Mi)
| |
| Taxon 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 C?
| |
| 0 .
| |
| Alewife - - 0.03 - - - 0.01 - 0.01 Alosa sp. -- - - - - - - 0.14 0.01 - 0.02 0.15 0.11 American shad Atlantic croaker 0.10 0.02 0.02 1.24 - 0.02 0.07 - 0.07 2.76 0.72 3.47 2.51 2.71 1.19 Atlantic menhaden - 0.02 0.25 1.13 0.27 - - - - - - - - -
| |
| Atlantic silverside - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| Bay anchovy 349.64 1848.55 845.68 706.22 148.12 1799.26 2527.17 2094.53 618.68 314.27 243.26 416.78 111.59 416.25 27.22 0.06 - 0.07 0.12 - 0.03 - - 0.04 - - - - -
| |
| Blueback herrng Blueback hemnglalewife - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| Morone sp. -- - - 0.21 0.01 - 0.03 0.90 0.01 Bluefish - - --
| |
| Silversides 6.32 15.33 4.77 4.04 0.86 . .. . . . . ..
| |
| Spot 0.07 0.10 1.53 0.86 3.69 0.04 0.01 - 1.64 0.02 0.16 0.09 - 0.01 1.17 Striped bass 0.05 - - - - - - - 1.87 0.01 0.03 0.06 3.63 0.29 Weakfish 16.31 3.35 5.15 1.20 2.63 1.77 4.50 3.09 1.11 0.08 0.28 1.43 0.25 1.91 2.46 White perch - - 0.09 - 0.26 - 0.01 0.01 0.10 4.16 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.46 0.81 White perch/striped bass - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
| |
| Taxon 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Alewife 0.01 - - - - - 0.05 <0.01 0.11 0.02 < 0.01 0.02 0.05 <0.01 Alosa sp. 0.01 0.13 - 1.58 - - -... . .
| |
| (0 American shad 0.01 - - - 0.00 Atlantic croaker 3.07 1.64 12.48 8.52 15.45 6.70 4.17 12.52 2.62 5.05 5.56 10.51 5.88 7.74 Atlantic menhaden 2.90 0.37 0.86 3.19 2.23 1.34 1.04 4.92 0.20 0.47 1.06 5.01 1.47 16.21 Atlantic silverside - - 2.20 0.36 0.09 0.95 0.15 0.47 0.55 0.29 0.12 0.10 Bay anchovy 64.18 17.63 52.89 53.31 292.14 12.72 8.86 24.18 13.15 100.52 54.57 101.45 174.66 41.87
| |
| - 0.02 - 0.10 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.01 <0.01 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 m Blueback herring Blueback herring/alewife - - 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.05 - 0.03 0.72 z Morone sp. 0.06 1.11 - 2.92 - - - - - - - - - 0.02 B 3
| |
| Bluefish - - - 0.00 . . . . ..- < 0.01 m (D Silversides 0.99 0.30 0.96 0.87 - -
| |
| Spot 0.01 0.03 - 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.10 <0.01 - 0.25 < 0.01 0.03 0.14 Striped bass 0.03 1.58 0.03 9.92 0.03 13.97 9.07 7.20 5.07 1.84 4.03 0.55 42.34 1.72 3
| |
| Weakfish 11.78 3.75 0.77 1.80 6.61 2.48 2.25 0.64 0.43 1.10 2.09 0.70 1.44 0.52 0 White perch 0.02 0.90 - 3.73 0.11 6.15 0.06 0.10 0.44 0.64 0.24 0.55 1.19 0.01 (n
| |
| - - 0.00 - - < 0.01 0.87 0.44 0.40 0.11 10.69 - 0 (D, White oerch/strioed bass CD Note: Blank spaces (-) indicate the species was not collected in entrainment samples that year. 0 Source: Biological Monitoring Program Annual Reports ( PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006b; CD PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c)
| |
| CY1 0"
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 4.5.3 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish 2 Impingement occurs when fish and shellfish are held against the intake screens by the force of 3 the water being drawn into the cooling system. Impingement mortality can occur directly as a 4 result of the force of the water, or indirectly due to stresses from the time spent on the screens 5 or as a result of being washed off the screens.
| |
| 6 Regulatory Background 7 Impingement and entrainment are both regulated by Section 316(b) of the CWA through the 8 NPDES permit renewal process. A history of NPDES permitting at Salem can be found in 9 Section 4.5.2 under the heading Regulatory Background.
| |
| 10 Impingement Studies 11 PSEG has performed annual impingement monitoring at the Salem plant since 1977 in order to 12 determine the impacts that impingement at Salem might have on the aquatic environment of the 13 Delaware Estuary. The monitoring program described in the early 316(b) demonstration 14 focused on seven target fish species. The two macroinvertebrates included in the entrainment 15 study program are too small to be impinged and, therefore, were not included in the 16 impingement study program. The fish species are weakfish, bay anchovy, white perch, striped 17 bass, blueback herring, alewife, American shad, spot, and Atlantic croaker (PSEG, 1984).
| |
| 18 Impingement abundance samples were collected at the CWS and SWS intakes from May 1977 19 through December 1982. CWS samples were collected at least four times per day at six-hr 20 intervals three days a week from May 1977 through September 1978. In September 1978 21 sampling frequency was increased to a minimum of 10 samples per day six days a week. In the 22 spring of 1980, sampling frequency was reduced to four times a day, but remained at six days a 23 week (PSEG, 1984).
| |
| 24 Impinged organisms are washed off the CWS intake screens and returned to the Delaware 25 Estuary through a fish return system. Impingement samples were collected in fish counting 26 pools constructed for this purpose that are located adjacent to the fish return system discharge 27 troughs at both the northern and southern ends of the CWS intake structure. Screen-wash 28 water was diverted into the counting pools for an average sample duration of 3 minutes (min; 29 depending on debris load, sampling time varied from 1 to 15 min). Water then was drained from 30 the pools, and organisms were sorted by species, counted, measured, and weighed (PSEG, 31 1984).
| |
| 32 Impingement abundance samples were collected from the SWS intake screens by a high-33 pressure spray wash into collection baskets through a trough. Screen washes were conducted 34 at either 12 hr or 24 hr intervals depending on debris loads. Samples were collected from the 35 SWS three times a week from April 1977 through September 1979. Organisms were sorted, 36 counted, and weighed (PSEG, 1984).
| |
| 37 Special impingement-related studies in addition to impingement monitoring studies also were 38 performed. Studies were conducted from 1979 through February 1982 to quantify impingement 39 collection efficiency. Studies of blueback herring, bay anchovy, white perch, weakfish, spot, and 40 Atlantic croaker were conducted to determine the percentage of different size classes of fish 41 that would not be collected by the screen washing and fish collection procedures (PSEG, 1984).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-20 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Because individual organisms that are impinged on the intake screens are washed off and 2 returned to the estuary, studies of impingement mortality rates also were conducted from May 3 1977 through December 1982. Studies were conducted to estimate the percentage of impinged 4 individuals that do not survive being impinged and washed from the intake screens (initial 5 mortality) and the percentage that exhibit delayed mortality and do not survive for a longer 6 period of at least two days (extended or latent mortality). Studies of initial mortality were 7 conducted at a rate of three times per week until October 1978, after which samples were 8 collected six times per week if impingement levels for target species exceeded predetermined 9 levels. Initial mortality studies were conducted using the same counting pools as the 10 abundance samples. Screen-wash water was diverted into the counting pool, samples were 11 held for five min, the water was drained from thepool, and organisms were sorted as live, 12 damaged, or dead. Each subset was identified to species and the total number and weight, 13 maximum and minimum lengths, and length frequency distribution were recorded. Studies of 14 latent mortality were conducted using the organisms classified as live or damaged in the studies 15 of initial mortality. At the beginning of the latent mortality studies, only organisms classified as 16 live were used, but damaged fish also were evaluated after November 1978. Latent mortality 17 studies were conducted at least weekly and entailed holding impinged organisms in aerated 18 tanks for 48 hrs. Organisms were monitored continuously for the first 30 min, at hour intervals 19 for the next four hrs, and then at approximately 24-hr intervals. Control specimens also were 20 collected with a seine and subjected to the same survival study (PSEG, 1984).
| |
| 21 Impingement mortality was found to be seasonally variable and dependent on several 22 environmental factors, including temperature and salinity. Initial and latent mortality rates were 23 estimated on a monthly basis and summed to provide a total mortality rate (PSEG, 1984).
| |
| 24 Estimated impingement mortality rates by species evaluated are summarized in Table 4-11.
| |
| 25 26 September 2010 4-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation Table 4-11. Estimated Impingement Mortality Rates by Species at Salem, 1977-1982 Estimated Impingement Mortality Taxon (percent)
| |
| Spot 30.2 -67.7 Blueback herring 71.9- 100 Alewife 72.6- 100 American Shad 20.8- 100 Atlantic croaker 38.8 - 87.9 Striped bass 10.0-84.8 White perch 29.4 - 52.9 Bay anchovy 77.0 -95.1 Weakfish 71.2-78.3 Source: PSEG, 1984.
| |
| 2 3 PSEG submitted a 316(b) demonstration in 1999 as part of the application for NJPDES permit 4 renewal (PSEG, 1999a). This demonstration assessed the effects of Salem's cooling water 5 intake structure on the biological community of the Delaware Estuary (PSEG, 1999a). It 6 focused on the same RS fish species as the earlier studies and added the blue crab (Callinectes 7 sapidus). Impingement losses at Salem were estimated using impingement density (the 8 number of impinged individuals collected divided by the total volume sampled, expressed as 9 number/m 3) and adjusting for impingement survival, collection efficiency, and recirculation 10 factor. This result was then scaled by month using the water withdrawal rates and summed for 11 the year to provide annual impingement losses for the facility. Estimated annual impingement 12 losses for the RS at Salem from 1978 through 1998 are summarized in Table 4-12. Bay 13 anchovy was the species most frequently lost to impingement from 1978 to 1998, constituting 14 46 percent of the RS impingement loss. Weakfish was the next most frequently lost species, 15 making up 20 percent of the RS impingement losses (PSEG, 1999a).
| |
| 16 Impingement monitoring was conducted annually in accordance with the BMWP from 1995 17 through 2002. In 2002, the IBMWP was developed to include improvements to the BMWP.
| |
| 18 These monitoring plans include provisions to quantify impingement and entrainment losses at 19 Salem, as well as fish populations in the Delaware Estuary and the positive effects of the 20 restoration program (PSEG, 2006a).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 4-22 September 2010
| |
| | |
| CO CD 3
| |
| (D 0
| |
| 1 Table 4-12. Estimated Annual Impingement Losses for Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 1978 to 1998 o Estimated Annual Impingement Losses American Atlantic Bay Blueback Striped White Year Alewife Shad croaker anchovy herring Blue crab Spot bass Weakfish perch 1978 17,057 4,549 125,822 2,623,694 438,248 111,627 84,519 3,213 6,391,256 254,688 1979 11,513 2,144 8,494 1,321,105 651,005 97,434 292,471 9,625 580,628 541,715 1980 11,301 6,382 93,232 11,046,658 460,638 501,000 146,794 4,350 1,821,462 403,453 1981 647,832 8,820 14,996 11,264,933 364,803 347,436 857,167 1,895 1,818,578 344,726 1982 46,951 9,406 2,975 3,846,612 418,130 122,032 979,961 542 967,867 261,912 1983 19,584 5,359 2,326 3,784,994 224,303 100,953 681,704 924 1,038,356 143,904 1984 128,002 3,266 853 2,444,847 1,335,665 87,890 316,579 430 357,125 300,333 1985 4,676 11,033 275,670 3,771,190 162,478 1,011,790 183,679 193 1,263,119 582,528 1986 20,788 11,007 233,915 2,011,567 467,361 1,228,076 52,445 2,875 756,956 1,033,048 1987 74,461 24,120 1,245,098 3,346,956 157,496 834,857 2,204 6,673 1,095,105 715,912 1988 31,082 35,182 4,046 4,657,784 357,896 1,247,649 1,917,236 10,450 427,218 646,825 1989 137,998 65,138 24,168 781,653 891,085 344,310 119,381 26,006 184,538 760,842 1990 50,074 15,393 5,787 1,373,446 168,555 178,511 120,833 28,003 170,778 768,431 1991 21,275 22,874 45,535 1,719,784 137,107 307,591 134,807 10,089 575,349 688,724 1992 23,847 64,807 55,267 1,286,667 120,649 370,591 2,999 20,966 841,319 1,158,199
| |
| - 1993 23,267 22,087 176,279 596,243 100,999 387,190 16,869 74,100 723,366 1,043,913 M z 1994 22,946 6,315 31,538 178,764 31,835 491,199 247,677 23,612 2,130,349 1,266,489 C 1995 14,745 7,940 610,261 363,601 143,846 1,012,348 27,435 10,812 890,341 321,359
| |
| '23 m 1996 1,321 829 21,010 18,802 5,548 83,457 7,281 9,191 130,459 75,006 CD 1997 5,899 819 266,558 309,018 50,879 475,443 30,245 12,779 1,582,441 228,996 1998 8,037 2,214 2,370,135 1,104,126 57,267 280,741 2,654 10,660 1,572,811 124,351 C Source: PSEG, 1999a.
| |
| *0 0 3 0 (DD ci, 0
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 The 316(b) demonstration submitted during the 2006 NJPDES renewal process (PSEG, 2006a) 2 included the CDS as required by the Phase II rule and a demonstration that the plant satisfies 3 the impingement mortality and entrainment reductions required by the rule. The CDS included 4 an estimation of impingement losses for the RS developed from data collected during annual 5 impingement monitoring conducted in accordance with the IBMWP. A revised RS list was 6 developed for the IBMWP and subsequently used in the 2006 CDS that included the nine finfish 7 and the blue crab from previous studies and added the Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia),
| |
| 8 Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), and bluefish (Pomotomus saltrix) (PSEG, 2006a).
| |
| 9 Estimated annual impingement and impingement losses for the study period 2002 to 2004 are 10 summarized in Table 4-13. Atlantic croaker was the species most impinged in 2002 and the RS 11 most often lost to impingement that year. White perch was the RS most impinged in 2003 and 12 2004, while weakfish was the species most often lost to impingement in those years.
| |
| Table 4-13. Estimated Annual Impingement and Annual Impingement Losses for Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 2002-2004 Total Impingement Impingement Losses Taxon 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 Alewife 87,001 31,275 134,149 10,996 16,360 63,492 American shad 5,879 31,584 227,103 1,672 15,354 72,486 Atlantic croaker 21,313,809 620,754 3,260,494 6,332,522 143,298 332,644 Bay anchovy 424,168 475,799 544,177 197,496 326,839 341,135 Blueback herring 184,095 133,328 1,110,952 28,113 50,790 265,866 Spot 1,131 2,714 366 253 721 133 Striped bass 101,208 776,934 505,340 5,351 167,332 66,007 Weakfish 722,090 3,129,152 3,531,713 428,300 1,953,299 2,118,736 White perch 2,044,207 9,424,768 11,181,299 163,505 773,818 970,462 Atlantic silverside 509,142 220,114 156,495 138,270 44,951 48,609 Atlantic menhaden 534,646 31,211 20,420 360,931 21,769 15,724 Blue crab 2,739,118 356,983 831,320 172,725 27,483 57,931 Bluefish 45,292 31,311 44,533 3,884 7,592 17,433 Source: PSEG, 2006a.
| |
| Table 4-14 provides a summary of annual impingement densities based on monitoring results for RS at Salem from the annual monitoring reports for the period 1995 through 2007.
| |
| Impingement densities were calculated by relating impingement abundance to the circulating water flow and extrapolating to the number of organisms impinged per million m3 for every week of each year (PSEG, 1999a). The four most commonly impinged species were Atlantic croaker (23 percent), blue crab (21 percent), white perch (19 percent), and weakfish (14 percent). Table 4-15 provides a list of species collected and average densities impinged during this period.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-24 September 2010
| |
| | |
| CD, 3
| |
| CT 1 Table 4-14. Impingement Densities for Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 1995-2008 O Density (n/10 6 Mi)
| |
| Taxon 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Blue crab 1901.05 620.48 2033.08 824.27 636.84 393.89 606.88 502.13 76.41 171.28 1895.82 694.73 797.66 640.45 Alewife 3.09 5.47 10.8 12.09 15.78 27.41 20.55 13.91 4.84 25.99 8.19 2.41 7.66 0.66 American shad 3.1 2.63 1.00 3.39 14.5 3.82 0.57 0.79 6.43 43.24 10.11 4.01 16.98 1.7 Atlantic croaker 887.71 112.71 623.81 1489.08 625.94 403.53 412.56 3820.65 101.22 626.74 845.57 1405.31 951.09 545.25 Atlantic menhaden 14.72 9.9 38.36 78.79 15.78 20.5 25.55 88.9 6.26 4.82 22.22 44 27.49 57.85 Atlantic silverside 44.15 12.61 40.7 43.54 111.15 49.67 42.28 78.46 35.67 25.71 24.08 46.89 44.52 56:28 Bay anchovy 136.82 66.52 229.13 367 127.83 122.62 84.1 74.09 89.5 93.89 49.33 202.44 132.62 72'27
| |
| ,- Blueback herring 30.78 8.64 126.62 107.8 110.7 73.14 81.06 31.05 23.27 156.55 19.75 25.37 17.76 7.34 (n Bluefish 2.69 8.88 6.41 4.79 2.55 6.00 1.14 7.89 8.14 11.67 2.06 7.44 2.95 5.7 Spot 10.28 3.38 88.74 3.94 0.53 7.28 0.05 0.34 0.8 0.14 55.11 10.38 3.73 23.65 Striped bass 64.89 82.05 62.91 28.61 52.83 102.49 54.62 20.04 159.93 110.86 29.72 10.22 47.88 32.56 White perch 641.12 543.08 1625.16 425.98 384.33 273.32 263.56 427.71 1771.18 2113.19 1042.62 360.51 429.81 662.14 Weakfish 1071.27 441.89 1370.74 528.95 228.01 369.57 524.64 172.98 530.71 725.72 930.88 343.81 379.65 304.8 Source: Biological Monitoring Program Annual Reports (PSEG, 1996; PSEG, 1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG, 1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006b; PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c).
| |
| 2 z 5" 0
| |
| m 3 G) (D 2L
| |
| :-4
| |
| --4 3
| |
| CD Ca 3 0 CDD
| |
| * ..D
| |
| -N a Ci, 0
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Table 4-15. Species Impinged at Salem and Average Impingement Densities, 2 Based on Annual Impingement Monitoring for 1995-2008 1 Average Density (n/10' mi)
| |
| Common Name(r) Scientific Name( ) (2)
| |
| Atlantic croaker Micropogoniasundulatus 917.94 Blue crab Callinectes sapidus 842.50 White perch Morone americana 783.12 Weakfish Cynoscion regalis 565.97 Hogchoker Trnnectes maculatus 231.95 Spotted hake Urophycis regia 135.03 Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli 132.01 Striped bass Morone saxatilis 61.40 Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis 58.56 Atlantic silverside Menidia menidia 46.84 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 42.11 Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 32.51 Threespine stickleback Gasterosteusaculeatus 27.64 Striped cusk-eel Ophidion marginatum 20.78 Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 14.88 Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 11.35 Northern searobin Pnionotus carolinus 10.53 American shad Alosa sapidissima 8.02 Yellow perch Perca flavescens 7.71 Black drum Pogonias cromis 6.29 Atlantic herring Clupea harengus 6.05 Eastern silvery minnow Hybognathus regius 5.60 Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix 5.59 American eel Angui/la rostrata 5.32 Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 4.90 Silver perch Bairdiella chrysoura 4.62 Summer flounder Paralichthysdentatus 4.48 Northern kingfish Menticirrhus saxatilis 4.29 Oyster toadfish Opsanus tau 3.68 Northern pipefish Syngnathus fuscus 3:59 Red hake Urophycis chuss 3.26 Naked goby Gobiosoma bosc 3.25 Winter flounder Pseudopleuronectesamericanus 2.59 Windowpane Scophthalmus aquosus 2.41 Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus 2.13 Smallmouth flounder Etropus microstomus 2.00 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 1.89 Striped searobin Pnonotus evolans 1.81 Scup Stenotomus chrysops 1.38 Harvestfish Peprilusalepidotus 1.01 Striped killifish Fundulus majalis 1.00 Butterfish Peprilustriacanthus 0.87 Black sea bass Centropristisstriata 0.83 Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 0.76 River herring Alosa spp. 0.75 Unknown spp. Unknown spp. 0.52 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-26 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Average Density (n/10' m')
| |
| Common Name( ) Scientific Name(i) (2)
| |
| Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus 0.52 Skilletfish Gobiesox strumosus 0.51 Rainbow smelt Osmerus punctatus 0.48 Northern stargazer Astroscopus guttatus 0.45 Fourspine stickleback Apeltes quadracus 0.44 Conger eel Congeroceanicus 0.43 Striped mullet Mugi/ cephalus 0.43 Temperate bass Morone sp. 0.38 Rough silverside Membras martinica 0.36 Striped anchovy Anchoa hepsetus 0.36 Inland silverside Menidia beryll/ina 0.33 White mullet Mugi/ curema 0.32 Spotfin butterflyfish Chaetodon ocellatus 0.28 Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina 0.27 Yellow bullhead Ameiurus nata/is 0.26 Crevalle jack Caranx hippos 0.25 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 0.24 Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus 0.24 Silver hake Merluccius bi/inearis 0.23 Lookdown Selene vomer 0.20 Blackcheek tonguefish Symphurus plagiusa 0.20 Permit Trachinotus falcatus .0.16 Common carp Cyprinus carpio 0.14 Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus 0.14 Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 0.14 Northern puffer Sphoeroides maculatus 0.14 Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus 0.13 Florida pompano Trachinotuscarolinus 0.13 Fourspot flounder Para/ichthysoblongus 0.12 Smooth dogfish Mustelus canis 0.12 Tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi 0.12 Lined seahorse Hippocampus erectus 0.11 Inshore lizardfish Synodus foetens 0.11 Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 0.11 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 0.11 Atlantic spadefish Chaetodipterusfaber 0.10 White crappie Pomoxis annularis 0.10 Unidentifiable Fish Unidentifiable fish 0.10 White catfish Ameiurus catus 0.10 White sucker Catostomus commersoni 0.09 Spotfin killifish Fundulus /uciae 0.09 Pigfish Orthopristischrysoptera 0.09 Feather blenny Hypsoblennius hentz 0.09 Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus 0.09 Bluespotted cornetfish Fistulariatabacaria 0.09 Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius 0.08 Goosefish Lophius amerncanus 0.08 Atlantic thread herring Opisthonema oglinum 0.07 Green sunfish LeDomis cvanellus 0.07 September 2010 4-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1
| |
| Average Density (n/10" m')
| |
| 1 ...
| |
| Common Name( ) Scientific Name( ) (2)
| |
| Redfin pickerel Esox americanus 0.07 Spotfin mojarra Eucinostomus argenteus 0.07 Redeared sunfish Lepomis microlophus 0.07 Tautog Tautoga onitis 0.06 Fat sleeper Dormitatormaculatus 0.06 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 0.06 Cownose Rhinoptera bonasus 0.06 Satinfin shiner Cyprinella analostana 0.06 Rainbow trout Oncorhynchusmykiss 0.06 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus 0.06 Green goby Microgobius thalassinus 0.06 Eastern mudminnow Umbrapygmaea 0.06 Mud sunfish Acantharchus pomotis 0.05 Atlantc sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus 0.05 Atlantic cutlassfish Trichiurus lepturus 0.05 Southern kingfish Menticirrhusamericanus 0.05 (1) Species in bold are RS at Salem.
| |
| 3 (2) Average density expressed as number of fish impinged (n) per million (106) cubic meters (M ) of water withdrawn through the intake screens.
| |
| Source: Biological Monitoring Program Annual Reports (PSEG, 1996; PSEG, 1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG, 1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006b; PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c).
| |
| 1 2 Due to the differences in methods used during the more than 30 years since Salem Unit 1 3 began commercial operation in 1978, it is difficult to compare impingement estimates across 4 studies. The NRC staff used impingement density as a metric to evaluate trends in 5 impingement and abundance of RS in water withdrawn at the Salem intake over the operational 6 period 1978 through 2008 (Table 4-16). Impingement dernsity was plotted by year, and the 7 resulting graphs provided an indication of trends in the abundance of RS species at the Salem 8 intake. The annual average densities of most of the 13 RS were highly variable from year to 9 year, but trends were discernable for all but three species (Atlantic silverside, bay anchovy, and 10 bluefish). Spot was the only species with an apparent overall trend of declining densities. In 11 contrast, the densities of Atlantic menhaden appear to show a slight increasing trend, and the 12 densities of eight species (alewife, American shad, Atlantic croaker, blue crab, blueback herring, 13 striped bass, weakfish, and white perch) show apparent increasing trends, with most beginning 14 notable increases in densities around 1993 to 1998. Overall, impingement densities of 12 of the 15 13 RS generally have been stable or increasing over the decades during which Salem has 16 operated. The trend of declining densities of spot appears to reflect a widespread reduction in 17 abundance in the species range well beyond Delaware Bay (ASFMC, 2008) and, thus, does not 18 appear to be associated with Salem. Overall, these trends do not indicate impacts on most fish 19 populations in the estuary in the vicinity of the intake over the period of Salem operation. Salem 20 is not implicated as a substantial contributor to possible declines in abundance of spot.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-28 September 2010
| |
| | |
| zC 3(D m 0 G) Table 4-16. Impingement Densities for Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 1978-2008 t0o Density (n/106 Mi)
| |
| -,4 02 Taxon 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 to
| |
| -a- Alewife 0.26 0.95 0.89 26.35 2.02 0.75 3.81 0.13 0.75 2.04 0.94 3.70 1.33 0.75 0.89 0.91 O
| |
| -o American shad 0.12 0.39 0.41 0.38 0.69 0.38 0.20 0.48 0.64 1.04 1.57 2.78 0.70 1.14 4.04 0.95 01 0O CD Atlantic croaker 7.04 0.42 5.89 0.70 0.15 0.30 0.09 9.36 7.23 43.97 0.42 1.66 0.25 3.21 7.55 11.22 VO 3 01 (D Atlantic menhaden - - - - - - - --
| |
| 0O Atlantic silverside - - - - - - - -..
| |
| -N Bay anchovy 228.56 204.95 459.35 406.60 97.15 142.69 106.59 81.99 55.35 70.23 94.96 19.52 36.63 40.04 17.09 16.44 Blue crab 16.97 44.45 151.83 66.59 16.33 16.24 19.73 141.62 181.63 109.58 160.39 47.22 38.04 45.42 75.99 65.48 Blueback herring 28.28 27.13 17.98 14.93 17.79 10.80 54.15 4.54 10.04 4.40 7.90 27.43 4.70 6.19 5.27 2.77 Bluefish Spot 15.42 52.60 17.18 45.34 60.92 47.50 32.48 4.37 3.85 0.09 96.29 7.08 S.43 5.38 0.12 0.98 Striped bass 0.83 2.58 0.64 0.18 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.39 1.95 1.62 3.84 3.84 2.08 3.59 15.85 Weakfish 910.81 149.03 105.78 78.91 43.69 49.78 30.34 55.38 36.60 52.25 18.39 7.27 10.70 25.20 48.07 40.86 White erch 32.27 69.78 33.33 33.24 2S.47 20.91 23.30 25.69 75.29 49.20 38.93 52.33 57.08 52.80 55.23 123.43 Density (n/106 mu)
| |
| Taxon 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Alewife 0.65 3.09 5.47 10.8 12.09 15.78 27.41 20.55 13.91 4.84 21.99 8.19 2.41 7.66 0.66 American shad 0.32 3.1 2.63 1 3.39 14.5 3.82 0.57 0.79 6.43 43.24 10.11 4.01 16.98 1.7 Atlantic croaker 3.59 887.71 112.71 623.81 1489.08 625.94 403.53 412.56 3820.65 101.22 626.74 845.57 1405.31 951.09 141.25 Atlantic menhaden - 14.72 9.9 38.36 78.79 15.78 20.5 25.55 88.9 6.26 4.82 22.22 44 27.49 57.85 Atlantic silverside - 44.15 12.61 40.7 43.54 111.15 49.67 42.28 78.46 35.67 21.71 24.08 46.89 44.52 56.28 Bay anchovy 5.11 136.82 66.52 229.13 367 127.83 122.62 84.1 74.09 89.5 93.89 49.33 202.44 132.62 72.27 Blue crab 88.60 1901.05 620.48 2033.08 824.27 636.64 393.89 606.89 502.13 76.41 171.28 1895.82 694.73 797.66 640.45 Blueback herring 1.30 30.78 8.64 126.62 107.8 110.7 73.14 81.06 31.05 23.27 156.55 19.75 25.37 17.76 7.34 Bluefish - 2.69 8.84 6.41 4.79 2.55 6 1.14 7.89 8.14 11.67 2.06 7.44 2.95 5.7 Spot 26.78 10.28 3.38 88.74 3.94 0.53 7.28 0.05 0.34 0.8 0.14 $5.11 10.38 3.73 23.65 Striped bass 0.73 64.89 82.05 62.91 28.61 52.83 102.49 54.62 20.04 159.93 110.86 29.72 10.22 47.88 32.56 Weakfish 132.11 1071.27 441.89 1370.74 528.95 228.01 369.57 124.64 172.98 530.71 725.72 930.88 343.81 379.65 304.8 White perch 96.26 641.12 543.08 1625.16 425.98 384.33 273.32 263.16 427.71 1771.18 2113.19 1042.62 360.51 429.81 662.14 Note: Blank spaces (-) indicate the species was not collected in impingement samples that year.
| |
| Source: Biological Monitoring Program Annual Reports (PSEG, 1996; PSEG, 1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG, 1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; (D PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006b; PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c).
| |
| -5 a-3 (0
| |
| CO 0
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation I Impingement Reductions 2 Due to the potential for impingement to have adverse effects on the aquatic environment in the 3 vicinity of Salem, and in response to the requirements of the 1994 NJPDES permit, PSEG has 4 taken steps to reduce impingement mortality and its effects in the Delaware Estuary. PSEG has 5 made many improvements to the cooling water intake system at Salem over the years, including 6 modifications to the intake screens and fish return system (PSEG, 1999a).
| |
| 7 Improved intake screen panels that have a smooth mesh surface were installed to allow 8 impinged fish to more easily slide across the panels. The Ristroph buckets and screen-wash 9 system were modified to increase survival of impinged organisms. The new buckets are 10 constructed from smooth, non-metallic materials and have several design elements that 11 minimize turbulence inside the bucket, including a reshaped lower lip, mounting hardware 12 located behind the screen mesh, a flow spoiler inside the bucket, and flap seals to prevent fish 13 and debris from bypassing their respective troughs (PSEG, 1999a). The screen wash system 14 was redesigned to provide an optimal spray pattern using low-pressure nozzles to more gently 15 remove organisms from the screens prior to use of high pressure nozzles that remove debris.
| |
| 16 In addition, the maximum screen rotation speed was increased from 17.5 feet per minute (fpm) 17 (5.3 m/min) to 35 fpm (11 m/min) to reduce the differential pressure across the screens during 18 times of high debris loading. The screens are continuously rotated, and the rotation speed 19 automatically adjusts as the pressure differential increases. The fish return trough was 20 redesigned from the original rectangular trough to incorporate a custom formed fiberglass 21 trough with radius rounded corners. The fish return system has a bi-directional flow that is 22 coordinated with the tidal cycle to minimize re-impingement. The flow from the trough 23 discharges to the downstream side of the cooling water intake system on the ebb tide and to the 24 upstream side on the flood tide (PSEG, 1999a).
| |
| 25 Estimates of impingement mortality with the modified screens were compared to estimated 26 mortality with the original screens to assess the reduction in impingement mortality due to the 27 screen modifications. Data from impingement studies conducted in 1995, 1997, and 1998 were 28 used for this assessment of the modified screens. These data were compared to data collected 29 in 1978 through 1982 when impingement survival studies were conducted for the original screen 30 configuration. A side-by-side comparison also was conducted in 1995 when only one of the 31 units had the modified intake system. Table 4-17 provides a comparison of estimated 32 impingement mortality rates for the original screens versus the modified screens (PSEG, 33 1999a).
| |
| 34 Results from the comparison of 1997 and 1998 data for the modified screens to data from 1978 35 to 1982 for the original screens indicate that the modified intake system generally provides 36 reductions in impingement mortality. White perch, bay anchovy, Atlantic croaker, spot, and 37 Alosa species (blueback herring, alewife, and American shad combined) had lower mortality 38 rates for all months studied during the 1997 and 1998 studies compared to those estimated for 39 the 1978 to 1982 study of the original screens. In contrast, weakfish had higher mortality rates 40 for the modified screens in June and July, but lower in August and September. This difference 41 may result from the much smaller size of the weakfish impinged in June and July - impingement 42 mortality rates for smaller fish generally are higher than for larger fish (however, they are lower 43 than estimated entrainment mortality rates, and the modifications to improve impingement 44 survival increase this difference). The 1995 side-by-side study showed higher survival rate 45 estimates for weakfish with the modified screens (PSEG, 1999a).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-30 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Table 4-17. Comparison of Impingement Mortality Rates (percent) for Original Screens 2 (1978-1982 and 1995 Studies) and Modified Screens (1995 and 1997-1998 Studies)
| |
| Original Screens Modified Screens Taxon Month 1978-1982 1995 1995 1997-1998 Weakfish June 39 33 17 79 July 51 31 18 82 August 52 51 25 38 September 40 - - 12 October 53 -
| |
| White perch January 13 -
| |
| February 16 -
| |
| March 12 -
| |
| April 15 - 7 October 21 -
| |
| November 16 - 7 December 8 Bay anchovy April 54 May 81 55 June 89 78 July 90 80 August 85 September 72 October 65 35 November 32 28 Atlantic croaker April 42 May 34 June 28 July 35 October 5 November 2 Dec-Jan 49 15 Spot June 31 July 48 August 47 September 2010 4-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation Original Screens Modified Screens October 38 November 19 7 December 29 -
| |
| Alosa species Mar-Apr 89 - 18 Oct - Dec 31 - 22 Note: Mortality rate estimates for Alosa species for original screens are based on blueback herring only while estimates for modified screens are based on Alosa species (blueback herring, alewife, and American shad combined). Estimates include initial and 48-hr latent mortalities.
| |
| Blank spaces (-) indicate months in which the species was not collected in sufficient numbers in the impingement survival studies to allow reliable estimates of impingement mortality rates.
| |
| Source: PSEG, 1999a.
| |
| 1 4.5.4 Heat Shock 2 Heat shock is defined as "acute thermal stress caused by exposure to a sudden elevation of 3 water temperature that adversely affects the metabolism and behavior of fish and can lead to 4 death" (NRC, 2009a). Heat shock can occur at power plants when the cooling water discharge 5 elevates the temperature of the surrounding water.
| |
| 6 The NRC considers heat shock to be a Category 1 issue at power plants with closed-cycle 7 cooling systems. HCGS uses closed-cycle cooling; therefore, if NRC finds no new and 8 significant information, site-specific evaluation is not required to determine that impacts to fish 9 and shellfish from heat shock associated with the continued operation of HCGS during the 10 renewal term would be SMALL. In contrast, heat shock is a Category 2 issue at power plants 11 with once-through cooling systems. Salem has a once-through cooling system; therefore, heat 12 shock is considered a Category 2 issue for Salem, and a site-specific analysis is required to 13 determine the level of impact that heat shock may have on the aquatic environment. The 14 potential for heat shock at Salem is discussed below.
| |
| 15 Regulatory Background 16 The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) is a federal interstate compact agency charged 17 with managing the water resources of the Delaware River Basin without regard to political 18 boundaries. It regulates water quality in the Delaware River and Delaware Estuary through 19 DRBC Water Quality Regulations, including temperature standards. The temperature standards 20 for Water Quality Zone 5 of the Delaware Estuary, where the Salem discharge is located, state 21 that the temperature in the river outside of designated heat dissipation areas (HDAs) may not be 22 raised above ambient by more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit (*F; 2.2 degrees Celsius [0C]) during 23 non-summer months (September through May) or 1.5°F (0.80C) during the summer (June 24 through August), and a maximum temperature of 86°F (30.0°C) in the river cannot be exceeded 25 year-round (DRBC, 2001; DRBC, 2008). HDAs are zones outside of which the DRBC 26 temperature-increase standards shall not be exceeded. HDAs are established on a case-by-27 case basis. The thermal mixing zone requirements and HDAs that had been in effect for Salem 28 since it initiated operations in 1977 were modified by the DRBC in 1995 and again in 2001 29 (DRBC, 2001), and the 2001 requirements were included in the 2001 NJPDES permit. The 30 HDAs at Salem are seasonal. In the summer period (June through August), the Salem HDA 31 extends 25,300 ft (7,710 m) upstream and 21,100 ft (6,430 m) downstream of the discharge and Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-32 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 does not extend closer than 1,320 ft (402 m) from the eastern edge of the shipping channel. In 2 the non-summer period (September through May), the HDA extends 3,300 ft (1,000 m) 3 upstream and 6,000 ft (1,800 m) downstream of the discharge and does not extend closer than 4 3,200 ft (970 m) from the eastern edge of the shipping channel (DRBC, 2001).
| |
| 5 Section 316(a) of the CWA regulates thermal discharges from power plants. This regulation 6 includes a process by which a discharger can obtain a variance from thermal discharge limits 7 when it can be demonstrated that the limits are more stringent than necessary to protect aquatic 8 life (33 USC 1326). PSEG submitted a comprehensive Section 316(a) study for Salem in 1974, 9 filed three supplements through 1979, and provided further review and analysis in 1991 and 10 1993. In 1994, NJDEP granted PSEG's request for a thermal variance and concluded that the 11 continued operation of Salem in accordance with the terms of the NJPDES permit "would 12 ensure the continued protection and propagation of the balanced indigenous population of 13 aquatic life" in the Delaware Estuary (NJDEP, 1994). The 1994 permit continued the same 14 thermal limitations that had been imposed by the prior NJPDES permits for Salem. This 15 variance has been continued through the current NJPDES permit. PSEG subsequently 16 provided comprehensive Section 316(a) Demonstrations in the 1999 and 2006 NJPDES permit 17 renewal applications for Salem. NJDEP reissued the Section 316(a) variance in the 2001 18 NJPDES Permit (NJDEP, 2001).
| |
| 19 The Section 316(a) variance for Salem limits the temperature of the discharge, the difference in 20 temperature (AT) between the thermal plume and the ambient water, and the rate of water 21 withdrawal from the Delaware Estuary (NJDEP, 2001). During the summer period the maximum 22 permissible discharge temperature is 115'F (46.1°C). In non-summer months, the maximum 23 permissible discharge temperature is 1 10°F (43.3°C). The maximum permissible temperature 24 differential year round is 27.5°F (15.3°C). The permit also limits the amount of water that Salem 25 withdraws to a monthly average of 3,024 MGD (11 million m3/day) (NJDEP, 2001).
| |
| 26 In 2006, PSEG submitted an NJPDES permit renewal application (PSEG, 2006a) with a request 27 for renewal of the Section 316(a) variance. The variance renewal request summarizes studies 28 that have been conducted at the Salem plant, including the 1999 Section 316(a) Demonstration, 29 and evaluates the changes in the thermal discharge characteristics, facility operations, and 30 aquatic environment since the time of the 1999 Section 316(a) Demonstration. PSEG 31 concluded that Salem's thermal discharge had not changed significantly since the 1999 32 application and that the thermal variance should be continued. In 2006, NJDEP administratively 33 continued Salem's NJPDES permit (NJ0005622), including the Section 316(a) variance. No 34 timeframe for issuance of the new NJPDES permit has been determined.
| |
| 35 Characteristics of the Thermal Plume 36 Cooling water from Salem is discharged through six adjacent 10 ft (3 m) diameter pipes spaced 37 15 ft (4.6 m) apart on center that extend approximately 500 ft (150 m) from the shore (PSEG, 38 1999c). The discharge pipes are buried for most of their length until they discharge horizontally 39 into the water of the estuary at a depth at mean tidal level of about 31 ft (9.5 m). The discharge 40 is approximately perpendicular to the prevailing currents. Figure 4-1 provides a plan view of the 41 Salem discharge, and Figure 4-2 is a section view. At full power, Salem is designed to 42 discharge approximately 3,200 MGD (12 million m3/day) at a velocity of about 10 fps (3 m/s).
| |
| 43 The location of the discharge and its general design characteristics have remained essentially 44 the same over the period of operation of the Salem facility (PSEG, 1999c).
| |
| September 2010 4-33 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 The thermal plume at Salem can be defined by the regulatory thresholds contained in the DRBC 2 water quality regulations, consisting of the 1.5°F (0.830C) isopleth of AT during the summer 3 period and the 4°F (2.2°C) isopleth of AT during non-summer months. Thermal modeling, to 4 characterize the thermal plume, has been conducted numerous times over the period of 5 operation of Salem. Since Unit 2 began operation in 1981, operations at Salem have been 6 essentially the same and studies have indicated that the characteristics of the thermal plume 7 have remained relatively constant (PSEG, 1999c).
| |
| 8 The most recent thermal modeling was conducted during the 1999 Section 316(a) 9 Demonstration. Three linked models were used to characterize the size and shape of the 10 thermal plume: an ambient temperature model, a far-field model (RMA-10), and a near-field 11 model (CORMIX). The plume is narrow and approximately follows the contour of the shoreline 12 at the discharge. The width of the plume varies from about 4,000 ft (1,200 m) on the flood tide 13 to about 10,000 ft (3,000 m) on the ebb tide. The maximum plume length extends to 14 approximately 43,000 ft (13,000 m) upstream and 36,000 ft (11,000 m) downstream (PSEG, 15 1999c). Figures 4-3 through 4-6 depict the expansion and contraction of the surface and bottom 16 plumes through the tidal cycle. Table 4-18 includes the surface area occupied by the plume 17 within each AT isopleth through the tidal cycle.
| |
| 18 The thermal plume consists of a near-field region, a transition region, and a far-field region. The 19 near-field region, also referred to as the zone of initial mixing, is the region closest to the outlet 20 of the discharge pipes where the mixing of the discharge with the waters of the Delaware 21 Estuary is induced by the velocity of the discharge itself. The length of the near-field region is 22 approximately 300 ft (90 m) during ebb and flood tides and 1,000 ft (300 m) during slack tide.
| |
| 23 The transition region is the area where the plume spreads horizontally and stratifies vertically 24 due to the buoyancy of the warmer waters. The length of the transition region is approximately 25 700 ft (200 m). In the far-field region, mixing is controlled by the ambient currents induced 26 mainly by the tidal nature of the receiving water. The ebb tide draws the discharge downstream, 27 and the flood tide draws it upstream. The boundary of the far-field region is delineated by a line 28 of constant AT (PSEG, 1999c).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-34 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation Table 4-18. Surface Area within Each AT Contour through the Tidal Cycle Ebb: 6/211998 at End of Ebb: Flood: 6/4/1998 at End of Flood:
| |
| 0830 hrs 6/211998 at 0000 hrs 1630 hrs 5/31/1998 at 1600 hrs Surface Percent of Surface Percent of Surface Percent of Surface Percent of AT Area Estuary Area Estuary Area Estuary Area Estuary
| |
| (°F) (Acres) Area (Acres) Area (Acres) Area (Acres) Area
| |
| >13 0.08 0.00002 0.00 0.00000 0.00 0.00000 0.00 0.00000
| |
| >12 0.46 0.00010 0.47 0.00010 0.21 0.00004 0.00 0.00000
| |
| >11 0.98 0.00020 2.15 0.00045 0.61 0.00013 0.00 0.00000
| |
| >10 1.66 0.00034 2.15 0.00045 1.15 0.00024 0.85 0.00018
| |
| >9 2.22 0.00046 2.15 0.00045 1.82 0.00038 1.93 0.00040
| |
| >8 3.19 0.00066 2.15 0.00045 2.64 0.00055 1.93 0.00040
| |
| >7 4.32 0.00090 5.10 0.00106 3.59 0.00075 1.93 0.00040
| |
| >6 5.61 0.00116 11.32 0.00235 4.68 0.00097 1.93 0.00040
| |
| >5 36.60 0.00760 21.43 0.00445 56.58 0.01174 2.14 0.00044
| |
| >4 150.08 0.03115 45.11 0.00936 245.94 0.05105 205.37 0.04263
| |
| >3 631.42 0.13106 739.88 0.15357 585.78 0.12158 920.75 0.19111
| |
| >2 1947.91 0.40430 2519.94 0.52303 2212.75 0.45927 2093.04 0.43442
| |
| >1.5 3156.56 0.65517 3725.19 0.77319 3703.61 0.76871 3596.95 0.74657 Notes:
| |
| Plant Conditions: Low flow (140,000 gpm/pump), high AT (18.6°F).
| |
| Total surface area of the estuary is 481,796 acres.
| |
| To convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.4047.
| |
| Reasonable worst-case tide phases were selected based on analysis of time-temperature curves.
| |
| Running tides (e.g., ebb and flood) include area approximation of the intermediate field.
| |
| Source: PSEG, 1999c.
| |
| September 2010 4-35 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1
| |
| 9o07o RO Ra
| |
| .16.4
| |
| -,20.4 .31A.
| |
| r, w,
| |
| Dwptias pnomr ULW 2
| |
| 3 4 Figure 4-1. Plan View of Salem discharge pipes (Source: PSEG, 1999c).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-36 September 2010
| |
| | |
| N)J -~
| |
| c, -n CD CD -
| |
| 3 (D C) c 0
| |
| FD
| |
| %oS40 0
| |
| (D I ý CD 0
| |
| CAP CD 3
| |
| z cm 8.ooiwi inNAVDea m _0 G) -
| |
| CD Cw.
| |
| 0 (D
| |
| 3)
| |
| C ~0 0
| |
| (I, (D
| |
| :3
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 -
| |
| 2 Figure 4-3. Surface AT isotherms for Salem's longest plume at the end of flood on May 3 31, 1998 (Source: PSEG, 1999c).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-38 September 2010 ý
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 1 2 Figure 4-4. Surface AT isotherms for Salem at the end of ebb on June 2, 1998 (Source:
| |
| 3 PSEG, 1999c).
| |
| September 2010 4-39 Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1
| |
| 2 Figure 4-5. Bottom AT isotherms for Salem's longest plume at the end of the flood on 3 May 31, 1998 (Source: PSEG, 1999c).
| |
| 4 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-40 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation IL.. .......... .............................................. ......
| |
| 2 Figure 4-6. Bottom AT isotherms for Salem at the end of the ebb on June 2, 1998 3 (Source: PSEG, 1999c).
| |
| 4 September 2010 4-41 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Thermal Discharge Studies 2 Extensive studies were conducted at Salem between 1968 and 1999 to determine the effects of 3 the thermal plume on the biological community of the Delaware Estuary. Initial studies were 4 conducted in 1968 to determine the location and design for the outfall that would best minimize 5 the potential for adverse environmental effects. Several hydrothermal and biothermal studies 6 subsequently have been conducted in support of requests for variance from thermal discharge 7 limitations pursuant to Section 316(a). The Section 316(a) Demonstrations from 1974 through 8 1979 evaluated information on the life history, geographical distribution, and thermal tolerances 9 of the RIS compared to the characteristics of the projected thermal plume. Supplements 10 included information on the potential for Salem's thermal plume to promote the presence of 11 undesirable organisms; use of the area in the vicinity of the Salem facility as spawning and 12 nursery habitat; attraction of fish to the thermal plume and the potential for cold shock; effects of 13 thermal plume entrainment on ichthyoplankton and zooplankton; effects of the plume on 14 migration of anadromous fishes; and effects of the thermal plume on macroinvertebrates, such 15 as blue crabs, oysters (Crassostreavirginica), and shipworms (Teredinidae), and other benthos 16 (PSEG, 1975).
| |
| 17 In 1995, PSEG applied to the DRBC for revision of the Salem Docket to provide seasonal HDAs 18 to assure compliance with DRBC's water quality regulations. PSEG used mathematical 19 modeling and statistical analyses to characterize the maximum size of the summer thermal 20 plume (June through August) and non-summer thermal plume (September through May) in 21 terms of the 24-hr average AT between the thermal plume and ambient water temperatures.
| |
| 22 PSEG also updated the information collected on the thermal tolerances, preferences, and 23 avoidances of the RIS and conducted an evaluation of the potential for the thermal plume to 24 have adverse effects on these species. The assessment indicated that Salem's thermal plume 25 and the proposed HDAs would not have the potential to adversely affect aquatic life or 26 recreational uses in the Delaware Estuary, and the DRBC granted the requested HDAs (PSEG, 27 1999c).
| |
| 28 In 1999 PSEG submitted an application to renew the NJPDES permit for Salem, and the 29 Section 316(a) Demonstration included provided another thermal plume characterization, 30 biothermal assessment, and detailed analysis of the potential effects of Salem's thermal plume 31 on the aquatic community. NJDEP reviewed this Section 316(a) Demonstration, determined 32 that a "thermal discharge at the Station, which does not exceed a maximum of 115 IF, is 33 expected to assure the protection and propagation of the balanced indigenous population," and 34 included a Section 316(a) variance in Salem's 2001 NJPDES permit (NJDEP, 2001).
| |
| 35 The 1999 Section 316(a) Demonstration includes the most detailed and most recent evaluation 36 of the potential effects of the thermal discharge on the aquatic environment near Salem. This 37 evaluation includes a four-part assessment of the potential for the discharge to negatively affect 38 the balanced indigenous community of the Delaware Estuary, including consideration of the 39 following factors: (1) the vulnerability of the aquatic community to thermal effects; (2) the 40 potential for the survival, growth, and reproduction of the RIS to be affected; (3) the potential for 41 effects of other pollutants to be increased by heat; and (4) evidence of prior appreciable harm 42 from the thermal discharge (PSEG, 1999c).
| |
| 43 Conclusions of the vulnerablity analysis indicate that the location and design of Salem's 44 discharge minimize the potential for adverse environmental effects. The high exit velocity Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-42 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 produces rapid dilution, which limits high temperatures to relatively small areas in the zone of 2 initial mixing in the immediate vicinity of the discharge. Fish and other nektonic organisms are 3 essentially excluded from these areas due to high velocities and turbulence. The offshore 4 location and rapid dilution of the thermal discharge also places the highest temperature plumes 5 in an area of the Estuary where productivity is lowest (PSEG, 1999c).
| |
| 6 The RIS evaluation in the 1999 Section 316(a) Demonstration included an assessment of the 7 potential for the thermal plume to adversely affect survival, growth, and reproduction of the 8 selected RIS. The RIS included alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus),American shad (Alosa 9 sapidissima),Atlantic croaker (Micropogoniasundulatus), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilh),
| |
| 10 blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), striped bass (Morone 11 saxatilis), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), white perch (Morone americana), blue crab (Callinectes 12 sapidus), opossum shrimp (Neomysis americana), and scud (Gammarus daiberi, G. fasciatus, 13 G. tigrinus). For each of the RIS, temperature requirements and preferences as well as thermal 14 limits were identified and compared to temperatures in the thermal plume to which these 15 species may be exposed (PSEG, 1999c).
| |
| 16 This biothermal assessment concluded that Salem's thermal plume would not have substantial 17 effects on the survival, growth, or reproduction of the selected species from heat-induced 18 mortality. Scud, blue crab, and juvenile and adult American shad, alewife, blueback herring, 19 white perch, striped bass, Atlantic croaker, and spot have higher thermal tolerances than the 20 temperature of the plume in areas where their swimming ability would allow them to be 21 exposed. Juvenile and adult weakfish and bay anchovy could come into contact with plume, 22 waters that exceed their tolerances during the warmer months, but the mobility of these 23 organisms is expected to allow them to avoid contact with these temperatures (PSEG, 1999c).
| |
| 24 The biothermal assessment also concluded that less-mobile organisms, such as scud, juvenile 25 blue crab, and fish eggs, would not be likely to experience mortality from being transported 26 through the plume. American shad, alewife, blueback herring, white perch, striped bass, 27 Atlantic croaker, spot, and weakfish are not likely to spawn in the vicinity of the discharge.
| |
| 28 Scud, juvenile blue crab, and eggs and larvae that do occur in the vicinity of the discharge have 29 higher temperature tolerances than the maximum temperature of the centerline of the plume in 30 average years. Opossum shrimp, weakfish, and bay anchovy may experience some mortality 31 during peak summer water temperatures in warm years (approximately 1 to 3 percent of the 32 time) (PSEG, 1999c).
| |
| 33 Interactions of heat with other pollutants were also evaluated in the 1999 Section 316(a) 34 Demonstration. The assessment concluded that the thermal plume has no observable effects 35 on the dissolved oxygen level near the Salem discharge. In addition, the assessment indicates 36 that there is no potential for plume interaction with other contaminants in the Estuary from other 37 industrial, municipal, or agricultural sources such as polycarbonated biphenyols (PCBs),
| |
| 38 dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), dieldrin, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
| |
| 39 tetrachloroethene (PCE), dichloroethene (DCE), and copper due to the low concentrations of 40 such contaminants in the vicinity of Salem (PSEG, 1999c).
| |
| 41 As part of the 1999 Section 316(a) Demonstration, an analysis of the biological community in 42 the Delaware Estuary was conducted to determine whether there has been evidence of 43 changes within the community that could be attributable to the thermal discharge at Salem.
| |
| 44 PSEG concluded that observed changes in the species composition or overall abundance in September 2010 4-43 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 organisms in the estuary since Salem began operation are within the range expected to occur 2 as a result of natural variation or changes in water quality. PSEG found no indications of 3 increases in populations of nuisance species or stress-tolerant species, and it found statistically 4 significant increases in the abundance of juveniles for almost all species of RIS evaluated.
| |
| 5 PSEG concluded that a declining trend for blueback herring was a coast-wide trend and not 6 related to Salem's operation (PSEG, 1999c).
| |
| 7 4.5.5 Total Impact on Aquatic Resources 8 The principal means by which the Salem facility may affect aquatic resources of the Delaware 9 Estuary are the processes of entrainment and impingement of organisms at the cooling water 10 intake and the discharge of thermal effluent. These processes simultaneously and cumulatively 11 affect the aquatic community of the estuary, so assessment of their collective impacts is 12 warranted. Because the Salem facility has been operating for more than 30 years, the total 13 impacts of its operation are integrated and reflected in the condition of the ecosystem of the 14 estuary. In addition, HCGS has been operating for over 23 years and, although its use of water 15 from the estuary is substantially less than Salem, it contributes incrementally to the impacts 16 discussed herein. By evaluating total impacts from the historical, long-term operation of these 17 facilities and the beneficial effects of ongoing restoration activities, total impacts on the estuary 18 from future operation during the relicensing period can be assessed.
| |
| 19 Impact Assessment 20 PSEG prepared an assessment of Adverse Environmental Impact for the Salem facility as part 21 of its 2006 NJPDES application (PSEG, 2006a). The assessment analyzed the composition of 22 the fish community in the vicinity, trends in the relative abundance of the RS, and the long-term 23 sustainability of fish stocks in the Delaware Estuary. The assessment demonstrated that the 24 Salem cooling water intake has not caused and is unlikely to cause in the future substantial 25 harm to the sustainability of populations of important aquatic species, including threatened or 26 endangered species, or to the structure and function of the ecosystem in the Delaware Estuary 27 (PSEG, 2006a).
| |
| 28 PSEG (2006a) calculated estimates of production lost due to impingement and entrainment at 29 Salem for the 13 RS, or target species, of PSEG's monitoring program (i.e., American shad, 30 alewife, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic silverside, bay anchovy, blueback herring, 31 bluefish, spot, striped bass, weakfish, white perch, and blue crab). These species make up 32 more than 98 percent of the age-0 biomass lost to impingement and entrainment. Production 33 lost was calculated using data on biomass lost to impingement and entrainment from 2002 34 through 2004 and adding projections of production foregone for those organisms through the 35 first year of life. Production foregone was projected using literature estimates of growth rates.
| |
| 36 Biomass lost to impingement and entrainment was estimated to be 138,057 pounds (Ibs) wet 37 weight/year (yr; 62,623 kilograms [kg] wet weight/yr). Production forgone was estimated to be 38 4,664,837 lbs wet weight/yr (2,115,970 kg wet weight/yr). Production lost was therefore 39 estimated to be 4,802,894 lbs wet weight/yr (2,178,593 kg wet weight/yr). Production lost was 40 also calculated separately for river herring to facilitate direct comparisons of loss to production 41 gained from restoration activities (fish ladders). The production of river herring foregone due to 42 impingement and entrainment losses was estimated to be 6,093 lbs wet weight/yr (2,764 kg wet 43 weight/yr) (PSEG, 2006a).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-44 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 PSEG (2006a) analyzed data on the composition of the fish community in the Delaware Estuary 2 over the period from 1970 through 2004 to estimate species richness and species density.
| |
| 3 Species richness is the number of species present in a community regardless of the area 4 analyzed; species density is the number of species per unit of area or volume. Nearfield 5 sampling using a 16-ft (4.9 m) bottom trawl was conducted in most years since 1970. Bottom 6 trawl data from 1970 to 1977, the pre-operational period, were compared to data from 1986 to 7 2004, the operational period. Species richness and density in the vicinity of Salem generally 8 were higher for the operational period than the pre-operational period, though no long-term 9 trends in species richness or density were evident (PSEG, 2006a).
| |
| 10 PSE&G (2006a) also evaluated abundance data for the RS at Salem to assess long-term 11 population trends. Government agencies and PSEG have conducted several monitoring 12 programs in the Delaware Estuary for many years. Data from four monitoring programs were 13 used by PSEG (2006a) for the trends analysis: the DNREC Juvenile Trawl Survey, the NJDEP 14 Beach Seine Survey, the PSEG Bay-wide Bottom Trawl Survey, and the PSEG Beach Seine 15 Survey. Results of the PSEG trends analysis indicate that seven species (alewife, American 16 shad, Atlantic croaker, blue crab, striped bass, weakfish, and white perch) have shown a trend 17 of generally increasing abundance, one species (spot) has shown a trend of declining 18 abundance, and the remaining five species (Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic silverside, bay 19 anchovy, and blueback herring) show no clear trends in abundance over the long term in the 20 Delaware Estuary (PSEG, 2006a).
| |
| 21 Stock assessment data are lacking for spot, the only species to show a long-term decline in the 22 trends analysis. Significant population fluctuations are expected because spot are short-lived 23 and their numbers are directly affected by changing environmental conditions in spawning and 24 nursery areas in a given year. Spot use brackish and saltwater habitats mainly from 25 Chesapeake Bay to South Carolina, and those that spend the summer in the northern portion of 26 their range move south in autumn. A coastwide assessment of the species has not been 27 performed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASFMC), but National Marine 28 Fisheries Service (NMFS) landings data and survey data from several States provide indications 29 of spot abundance. Annual coastal landings data for spot beginning in 1950 fluctuate 30 significantly but indicate a gradual declining trend in commercial landings through 2005.
| |
| 31 Juvenile abundance indices for spot have been highly variable, were below average in 2006 in 32 the Delaware Estuary, and have generally declined in Chesapeake Bay since 1992.
| |
| 33 Commercial catch-per-unit effort for spot generally has increased in Maryland since 1994 34 (ASFMC, 2008). Given these indications of a general decline in spot abundance in the northern 35 portion of its range, the decline in abundance in the Delaware Estuary does not appear to be 36 related to the operation of the Salem facility.
| |
| 37 PSE&G (2006a) performed a stock jeopardy analysis to determine whether Salem has an 38 impact on the long-term sustainability of fish stocks. The models used in the analysis assess 39 the effect of impingement and entrainment losses on spawning stock biomass (SSB) and 40 spawning stock biomass per recruit (SSBPR). These metrics are commonly used by fisheries 41 managers to establish maximum fishing rates for managed fish populations. The stock jeopardy 42 analysis, utilizing methodology described in Barnthouse et al. (2002), compared the estimated 43 impacts of Salem on these metrics with the impacts of fishing on the same metrics. PSEG 44 (2006a) concluded that for those species analyzed the effects of impingement and entrainment 45 are negligible compared to the effects of fishing and that reducing or eliminating impingement September 2010 4-45 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 and entrainment at Salem would not measurably increase the reproductive potential or 2 spawning stock biomass of any of these species.
| |
| 3 Restoration 4 In addition to the changes in technology and operations of the Salem facility, PSEG has 5 implemented restoration activities that enhance the fish and shellfish populations in the 6 Delaware Estuary. In compliance with Salem's 1994 and 2001 NJPDES permits, PSEG 7 implemented the Estuary Enhancement Program (EEP), which has preserved and/or restored 8 more than 20,000 acres (ac; 8,000 hectares [ha]) of wetland and adjoining upland buffers 9 (PSEG, 2009a).
| |
| 10 In particular, the program restored 4,400 ac (1,800 ha) of formerly diked salt hay farms to 11 reestablish conditions suitable for the growth of low marsh vegetation such as saltmarsh cord 12 grass (Spartinaaltemiflora) and provide for tidal exchange with the estuary. These restored 13 wetlands increase the production of fish and shellfish by increasing primary production in the 14 detritus-based food web of the Delaware Estuary. Both primary and secondary consumers 15 benefit from this increase in production, including many of the RS at Salem and federally 16 managed species with essential fish habitat (EFH) in the estuary. PSEG (2006a) estimated the 17 increase in production of secondary consumers due to this restoration to be at least 18.6 million 18 lbs/yr (8.44 million kg/yr). These secondary consumers include species of fish and shellfish 19 affected by impingement and entrainment at Salem, as well as other species.
| |
| 20 The EEP also included the installation of 13 fish ladders at impoundments in New Jersey and 21 Delaware (PSEG, 2009a). The fish ladders eliminate blockages to spawning areas for 22 anadromous fish species such as alewife and blueback herring (both RS at Salem). Fish 23 ladders were constructed in New Jersey at Sunset Lake, Stewart Lake (two ladders), Newton 24 Lake and Cooper River Lake, and in Delaware at Noxontown Pond, Silver Lake (Dover), Silver 25 Lake (Milford), McGinnis Pond, Coursey Pond, McColley Pond, Garrisons Lake, and Moore's 26 Lake (PSEG, 2009a). Most anadromous fish exhibit spawning site fidelity, returning to the same 27 areas where they hatched to spawn. Therefore, PSEG undertook a stocking program that 28 transplanted gravid adults into the newly accessible impoundments to induce future spawning 29 runs (PSEG, 2009a).
| |
| 30 Along with the active restoration programs described above, PSEG has provided funding 31 through the EEP for many other programs in the area, including some managed by NJDEP and 32 the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC).
| |
| 33 Examples of these funded programs are restoration of three areas in Delaware dominated by 34 common reed (Phragmitesaustralis), State-managed artificial reef programs, revitalization of 35 150 ac (61 ha) of State-managed oyster habitat, and restoration of 964 ac (390 ha) of degraded 36 wetlands at the Augustine Creek impoundment (PSEG, 2009a).
| |
| 37 A requirement of the 2001 NJPDES permit for Salem was for PSEG to evaluate and quantify the 38 increased production associated with its restoration activities and compare it to the production 39 lost due to entrainment and impingement at the facility. These restoration production estimates 40 were provided in Section 7 of the 2006 NJPDES permit renewal application (PSEG, 2006a).
| |
| 41 The assessment included estimates of increased production associated with the restoration of 42 the three salt hay farms and 12 fish ladder sites. It did not include production associated with 43 the restoration of marshes dominated by common reed, upland buffer areas, and artificial reefs 44 (PSEG, 2006a).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-46 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 PSEG (2006a) used an Aggregated Food Chain Model (AFCM) to estimate the annual 2 production (Ibs wet weight/yr) of secondary consumers attributable to the restoration of the salt 3 hay farm sites. This method used data for the biomass of above-ground vegetation collected 4 during the annual monitoring from 2002 through 2004 to estimate primary production 5 (production of above-ground marsh vegetation). This primary production was then converted to 6 production of secondary consumers through three trophic transfers: vegetation to detrital 7 complex (dissolved and particulate organic matter, bacteria, fungi, protozoa, nematodes, 8 rotifers, copepods, and other microscopic organisms) to primary consumers (zooplankton and 9 macroinvertebrates) to secondary consumers (age-0 fish). PSEG also used two independent 10 methods, an ecosystem model and a fish abundance model, to corroborate the AFCM 11 estimates.
| |
| 12 PSEG (2006a) calculated the production of secondary consumers attributable to the restoration 13 of the salt hay marsh sites to be 11,228,415 lbs wet weight/yr (5,093,209 kg wet weight/yr).
| |
| 14 PSEG (2006a) concluded that the methods used were likely to have underestimated total 15 production attributable to the salt hay marsh restoration because they did not include production 16 associated with below-ground plant parts (roots and rhizomes), benthic algae, or other primary 17 producers such as photosynthetic bacteria. PSEG (2006a) estimated the increase in production 18 attributable to restoration of the salt hay farms to be 2.3 times the annual production lost from 19 impingement and entrainment at Salem.
| |
| 20 PSEG (2006a) estimated the annual production of river herring (blueback herring and alewife) 21 attributable to the installation of fish ladders at 12 impoundments in New Jersey and Delaware 22 using results from surveys of juvenile fish in the impoundments, which were then converted to 23 weight using an age-1 average weight. PSEG (2006a) calculated the production of river herring 24 due to the fish ladders to be 944 lbs wet weight/yr (428 kg wet weight/yr), which it estimated 25 was equivalent to about 1/6 of the production of river herring lost to impingement and 26 entrainment at the facility.
| |
| 27 Conclusions 28 Entrainment, impingement, and heat shock cumulatively affect the aquatic resources of the 29 Delaware Estuary. PSEG has conducted extensive studies of the effects of entrainment 30 (Section 4.5.2) and impingement (Section 4.5.3) at Salem over the more than 30-yr period 31 during which it has been operating. PSEG also has conducted extensive studies of the thermal 32 plume at Salem (Section 4.5.4) that have shown that the thermal discharge from operation of 33 the Salem facility has not had a noticeable adverse effect on the balanced indigenous 34 community of the Delaware Estuary in the vicinity of the outfall. Thus, PSEG was granted a 35 thermal variance in accordance with Section 316(a) of the CWA in 1994, and this variance 36 remains a part of the current NJPDES permit issued to PSEG in 2001 and was administratively 37 continued in 2006. Multiple long-term, large-scale studies of the estuary by PSEG and State 38 and Federal agencies have documented the ecological condition of the estuary through time 39 and allowed the analysis of long-term trends in populations of RS. The results of the studies 40 indicate that the processes of entrainment, impingement, and thermal discharge collectively 41 have not had a noticeable adverse effect on the balanced indigenous community of the 42 Delaware Estuary in the vicinity of Salem.
| |
| 43 The Staff considered these results and reviewed the available information, including that 44 provided by the applicant, the Staffs site visit, the States of New Jersey and Delaware, the September 2010 4-47 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 NJPDES permits and applications, and other public sources. The NJDEP, not the NRC, is 2 responsible for issuing and enforcing NPDES permits. NRC assumes that NJDEP will continue 3 to apply the best information available to the evaluation and approval of future NJPDES permits.
| |
| 4 The Staff concludes that impacts to fish and shellfish from the collective effects of entrainment, 5 impingement, and heat shock at Salem during the renewal term would be SMALL.
| |
| 6 The Staff identified a variety of measures that could mitigate potential impacts resulting from 7 continued operation of the Salem cooling water system, although it should be noted that the 8 NRC cannot impose mitigation requirements on the applicant. The Atomic Safety and Licensing 9 Appeal Board in the "Yellow Creek" case determined that EPA has sole jurisdiction over the 10 regulation of water quality with respect to the withdrawal and discharge of waters for nuclear 11 power stations and that the NRC is prohibited from placing any restrictions or requirements 12 upon the licensees of those facilities with regards to water quality (Tennessee Valley Authority 13 [Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2], ALAB-515, 8 NRC 702, 712-13 [1978]).
| |
| 14 A few mitigation measures for the effects of the cooling water system on aquatic organisms 15 include conversion to a closed cycle cooling water system, scheduling plant outages during 16 historic peak impingement and entrainment periods, installing variable speed drive controllers 17 on the pump motors to allow flow reductions during months of high biological activity, the use of 18 dual-flow fine-mesh screens, and the use of a sound deterrent system for fish. These mitigation 19 measures could reduce impacts by reducing the flow rate of water drawn into the facility, 20 resulting in a commensurate decrease in impingement and entrainment, or by excluding 21 organisms from the intake or deterring them from entering the area.
| |
| 22 PSEG performed a cost-benefit analysis of these mitigation measures as part of its CDS for the 23 2006 NPDES permit renewal application (PSEG, 2006a). EPA's evaluation of the Salem 24 NPDES permit renewal application would likely address any applicable site-specific mitigation 25 measures that may reduce entrainment and impingement impacts. EPA's Phase II Rule has 26 been suspended, and compliance with CWA Section 316(b) is based on EPA's best 27 professional judgment.
| |
| 28 4.6 Terrestrial Resources 29 The Category 1 issues related to terrestrial resources and applicable to Salem and HCGS are 30 listed in Table 4-19. There are no Category 2 issues related to terrestrial resources. Section 31 2.2.6 provides a description of the terrestrial resources at the site of the Salem and HCGS 32 facilities and in the surrounding area.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-48 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Table 4-19. Terrestrial Resources Issues Applicable to Salem and/or HCGS.
| |
| Issues Section Category Cooling tower impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation(a) 4.3.4 1 Cooling tower impacts on native plants(a) 4.3.5.1 1 Bird collisions with cooling towers(a) 4.3.5.2 1 Power line right-of-way application) (b) management (cutting and herbicide 4.5.6.1 1 Bird collisions with power lines(b) 4.5.6.1 1 Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, honeybees, wildlife, livestock) (b) 4.5.6.3 1 Floodplains and wetland on power line right-of-way(b) 4.5.7 1 2 (alApplicable only to HCGS.
| |
| 3 (b)Applicable to Salem and HCGS.
| |
| 4 5 The Staff did not identify any new and significant information during the review of the Salem and 6 HCGS ER documents (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b), the Staffs site audit, the scoping process, 7 or the evaluation of other available information (including bird mortality surveys conducted for 8 the HCGS cooling tower from 1984 to 1986). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 9 would be no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GElS (NRC, 1996).
| |
| 10 Regarding these issues, the GElS concluded that the impacts are SMALL, and additional site-11 specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.
| |
| 12 4.7 Threatened or Endangered Species 13 Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species are listed as a Category 2 issue in 10 14 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. The GElS section and category for this issue 15 are listed in Table 4-20.
| |
| 16 Table 4-20. Category 2 Issues Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species During 17 the Renewal Term Issue GElS Section Category Threatened or endangered species 4.1 2 18 19 This site-specific issue requires consultation with appropriate agencies to determine whether 20 threatened or endangered species are present and whether they would be adversely affected by 21 continued operation of the nuclear facility during the license renewal term. The characteristics _- - Deleted: presence I 22 and habitats of threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the site of the Salem and /
| |
| September 2010 4-49 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 HCGS facilities are discussed in Sections 2.2.7.1 and 2.2.7.2. The NRC contacted the National - - Deleted: is 2 Marine Fisheries Service&(NMFS) and u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)_ on December 23, Deleted: In 2009. the Staff contacted 3 2010 to request information on the occurrence of threatened, ,endanqgered, or other protected
| |
| --Deleted:
| |
| 4 species in the vicinity of the site and the potential for impacts on those species from license renewal (NRC 2010a; 2010b). In response to this request, on February 11, 2010, NMFS (2010) SDeleted: or 5
| |
| 6 ¶identified the endangered shortnose sturBgeon (Acipenser brevirostrumr) and a candidate ----- - I [ Deleted: identified in its response a species 7 species, the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), as having the potential to be federally listed as endangered, 8 affected by the proposed action (NMFS, 2010). Additionally, NMFS identified four Federally 9 listed sea turtle species, theJogg!erhIead (Caretta caretta)1 JernK sridley(Lefiidochelys keermpi),_ - - Deleted:,
| |
| 10 green turtle (Cheloniamydas), and leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), as having the Deleted: threatened
| |
| \
| |
| 11 potential to be adversely affected by the proposed action. These six species, their habitats, and
| |
| '[Deleted: and the endangered 12 their life histories, are described in Section 2.2.7.1.
| |
| 13 The FWS (2010) responded on June 29, 2010, and indicated that there 14 are no Federallylisted species known to occurin the vicinity of the 15 Salem and HCGS sites. Potentialhabitatfor the bog turtle (Clemmys 16 muhlenbergil)and swamp pink (Heloniasbullata) exist along the New 17 Freedom North and New Freedom South transmissionline ROWs; Deleted: In response to the NRC's request for 18 However, the FWS concluded that the continued operation of Salem information on Federally listed species potentially affected by the proposed action, 19 and HCGS is unlikely to adversely affect these species (FWS 2010). FWS (2010) indicated that there were no Federally listed species under its jurisdiction 20 4_.7.1_ _Aquatic Threatened or Endangered Species of the Delaware Estuary ---- present on the Salem and HCGS site. In letters to PSEG on September 9, 2009 (FWS, 2009a) and the NRC on June 29, 2010 (FWS. 2010),
| |
| 21 Pursuant to consultation requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, FWS stated that along Salem and HCGS 22 the Staff sent a letter to NMFS dated December 23, 2009 (NRC, 2009b) requesting information transmission line Right-of-Ways (ROWs) in New 23 on federally listed endangered or threatened species, as well as proposed or candidate species. Jersey are areas of potential habitat for the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) and known 24 In its response on February 11, 2010, NMFS stated that the shortnose sturgeon, the Atlantic occurrences and other areas of potential habitat 25 sturgeon, and four sea turtle species are known to occur in the Delaware River and estuary in for the swamp pink (Helonias bullata). Both of these species are Federally listed as 26 the vicinity of Salem and HCGS, and that no critical habitat is currently designated by NMFS threatened. T 27 near these facilities (NMFS, 2010). The Staff has prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) for NMFS that documents its review of the 28 At Salem, NMFS considers takes to include mortalities as well as turtles that are impinged but potential for the proposed action to affect the 29 removed alive and released. In 1991, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion that found that Federally listed species under the jurisdiction of NMFS. The BA is provided in Appendix D of 30 continued operation of Salem and HCGS would affect threatened or endangered sea turtles but this draft SEtS. During informal consultation 31 was not likely to jeopardize any populations, and it issued an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) with FWS regarding the potential for effects on 32 for Kemp's ridley, green, and loggerhead turtles and shortnose sturgeon. The number of turtles terrestrial threatened or endangered species, the staff determined that a BA for FWS was not 33 impinged in 1991 was unexpectedly high, exceeding the incidental take allowed and resulting in needed because there was no likelihood of 34 additional consultation. An opinion issued in 1992 revised the ITS. The impingement of sea adverse effects on Federally listed species under the jurisdiction of FWS at known 35 turtles exceeded the allowable take in 1992 as well, prompting additional consultation between occurrences along the transmission line 36 NRC and NMFS (NMFS, 1999). A 1993 Biological Opinion (NMFS 1993) required that PSEG corridors or potentially occurring within the 37 track all loggerhead sea turtles taken alive at the cooling water intake structure (CWIS) and vicinity of the power plant or within the transmission line ROWs. PSEG (2009a) 38 released. Also in 1993, PSEG implemented a policy of removing the ice barriers from the trash committed to FWS that it will protect both 39 racks on the intake structure during the period between May 1 and October 24, which resulted Federally and State-listed threatened or 40 in substantially lower turtle impingement rates at Salem. endangered species along PSEG transmission line ROWs and adopted the conservation 41 In 1999, NRC requested that the studies of released turtles be eliminated due to the reduction in measures recommended by FWS for the swamp pink and bog turtle, which are described 42 the number of turtles impinged after the 1993 change in procedure regarding the removal of ice in Section 4.7.2. ¶ Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-50 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 barriers. NMFS responded in 1999 with a letter and an incidental take statement stating that 2 these studies could be discontinued because it appeared that the reason for the relatively high 3 impingement numbers previously was the ice barriers that had been left on the intake structure 4 during the warmer months (NMFS, 1999). This letter allowed an annual incidental take of 5 5 shortnose sturgeon, 30 loggerhead sea turtles, 5 green sea turtles, and 5 Kemp's ridley sea 6 turtles. In addition, the statement required ice barrier removal by May 1 and replacement after 7 October 24, and it required that in the warmer months the trash racks must be cleaned weekly 8 and inspected every other hour, and in the winter they should be cleaned every other week.
| |
| 9 The statement requires that if a turtle is killed, the racks must be inspected every hour for the 10 rest of the warm season. Dead shortnose sturgeon are required to be inspected for tags, and 11 live sturgeon are to be tagged and released (NMFS, 1999). No sea turtles have been captured 12 at Salem since 2001 (NMFS, 2009).
| |
| 13 No shortnose sturgeon or sea turtles have been impinged at the HCGS intake structure (NMFS, 14 2009), and NMFS has not required monitoring at HCGS beyond normal cleaning of the intake 15 structure (NMFS, 1993).
| |
| 16 The Staff discusses the potential effects of entrainment, impingement, and thermal discharges 17 on these and other important species in Sections 4.5.2, 4.5.3, and 4.5.4. Based on evaluation 18 by the Staff of entrainment data provided by PSEG, there is no evidence that the eggs or larvae 19 of either sturgeon species are commonly entrained at Salem and HCGS. Neither of the 20 sturgeon species is on the list of species that has been collected in annual entrainment 21 monitoring during the 1978 - 2008 period (Table 4.21). The life histories of these sturgeon, 22 described in Section 2.2.7.1, suggest that entrainment of their eggs or larvae is unlikely.
| |
| 23 Shortnose sturgeon spawn upstream in freshwater reaches of the Delaware River and are most 24 abundant between Philadelphia and Trenton. Their eggs are demersal and adhere to the 25 substrate, and juvenile stages tend to remain in freshwater or fresher areas of the estuary for 3 26 to 5 years before moving to more saline areas such as the nearshore ocean. Thus, shortnose 27 sturgeon eggs or larvae are unlikely to be present in the water column at the Salem or HCGS 28 intakes well downstream of the spawning areas. Similarly, the life history of the Atlantic 29 sturgeon makes entrainment of its eggs or larvae very unlikely.
| |
| September 2010 4-51 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Table 4-21. Impingement data for shortnose sturgeon and three sea turtle species with 2 recorded impingements at Salem intakes, 1978-2008.
| |
| Year Number Impingedt" Shortnose Kemp's ridley sea Green sea Loggerhead sea sturgeon turtle turtle turtle 1978 2(2) 0 0 0 1979 0 0 0 0 1980 0 1 1 2(2) 1981 1 (1) 1 (1) 0 3(2) 1982 0 0 0 1 (1) 1983 0 1 (1) 0 2(2) 1984 0 1 0 2(2) 1985 0 2(1) 0 6(5) 1986 0 1 (1) 0 0 1987 0 3(1) 0 3 1988 0 2(1) 0 8(6) 1989 0 6(2) 0 2 1990 0 0 0 0 1991 3(3) 1 1 23(1) 1992 2(2) 4(2) 1(1) 10 1993 0 1 0 0 1994 2(2) 0 0 1 1995 0 0 0 1 (1) 1996 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 1998 3(1) 0 0 1 (1) 1999 1 0 0 0 2000 1 (1) 0 0 2(1) 2001 0 0 0 1 (1) 2002 0 0 0 0 2003 1 (1) 0 0 0 2004 2(1) 0 0 1 2005 0 0 0 0 2006 0 0 0 0 2007 1 (1) 0 0 0 2008 1 (1) 0 0 0 2009 0 0 0 0 Total 20(16) 24 (10) 3 (1) 69 (25)
| |
| (1) Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of individuals out of the yearly total shown that were 3
| |
| 4 either dead when found at the intakes or died afterward. Impingements of Atlantic sturgeon or 5 leatherback sea turtles were not reported in the data on which this table was based.
| |
| 6 Source: PSEG, 201 Oa.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 4-52 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Both sturgeon species and three of the four turtle species have been impinged at Salem. Deleted: Two Federally listed terrestrial or 2 Atlantic sturgeon were collected in impingement studies in a single year, 2006 (PSEG biological freshwater aquatic species that might occur near the Salem and HCGS facilities and their 3 monitoring reports 1995-2006). From 1978 through 2009, 20 shortnose sturgeon were associated transmission line ROWs are the bog 4 impinged at the Salem intakes, of which 16 died. Between 1978 and 2008, 24 Kemp's ridley turtle and swamp pink. Section 2.2.7.2 discusses characteristics, habitat requirements, 5 sea turtles were impinged, of which ten died. Three green turtles (one died) and 69 loggerhead and likelihood of occurrence of these species.
| |
| 6 turtles (25 died) also were impinged. Impingement of the turtles was greatest in 1991 and 1992 Coordination correspondence between FWS 7 (Table 4.21). After PSEG modified its use of the ice barriers in 1993, turtle impingement and NRC (FWS, 2010) indicates that no Federally listed species occur on the site of the 8 numbers returned to levels much lower than in 1991. From 1994 through 2009, Salem Salem and HCGS facilities, but that there are 9 impinged seven sea turtles (all loggerheads), and four of these died. Also during this 16-yr areas of potential habitat for the bog turtle and 10 period, 12 shortnose sturgeon were impinged, of which eight died. Sea turtles have not been known occurrences and other areas of potential habitat for the swamp pink along the New 11 impinged at Salem since 2004 (NMFS, 2009). Freedom North and New Freedom South transmission line ROWs.¶ 12 Section 4.5.4 discusses potential impacts of thermal discharges on the aquatic biota of the FWS coordinated with PSEG to review all of its 13 Delaware Estuary, and the Staff expect impacts on fish and invertebrates, including those transmission line spans in New Jersey, including the lines from Salem and HCGS, and 14 preyed upon by sturgeon and sea turtles, to be minimal. The high exit velocity of the discharge transmitted to PSEG the known locations of the 15 produces rapid dilution, which limits high temperatures to relatively small areas in the zone of presence or potential presence of Federally 16 initial mixing in the immediate vicinity of the discharge. Fish and many other organisms are listed species along each span. FWS (2009a) also recommended to PSEG conservation 17 largely excluded from these areas due to high velocities and turbulence. Shortnose and Atlantic measures for each Federally listed species that 18 sturgeon and the four sea turtle species have little potential to experience adverse effects from potentially could occur along its transmission 19 exposure to the temperatures at the discharge because of their life history characteristics and line spans. In October 2009, PSEG (2009d) confirmed to FWS its commitment to protecting 20 their mobility. Sturgeon spawning and nursery areas do not occur in the area of the discharge both Federally and State-listed threatened or 21 in the estuary, and adult sturgeon forage on the bottom while the buoyant thermal plume rises endangered species along PSEG transmission line ROWs and adopted the conservation 22 toward the surface. Sea turtles prefer warmer water temperatures, occur in the region only measures recommended by FWS for each 23 during warm months, and are unlikely to be sensitive to the localized area of elevated species, including the swamp pink and bog 24 temperatures at the discharge. NMFS (1993) considered the possibility that the warm water turtle. Based on PSEG's adoption of these conservation measures, in November 2009 25 near the discharge could cause sea turtles to remain in the area until surrounding waters are too FWS concurred that "continued vegetation 26 cold for their safe departure in the fall, but it concluded that this scenario was not supported by maintenance activities within the transmission 27 any existing data. system are not likely to adversely affect Federally listed or candidate species" (FWS, 2009b). Thus, the Federally listed species 28 The Staff reviewed information from the site audit, the applicant's ERs for Salem and HCGS, potentially occurring in the transmission line 29 biological monitoring reports, other reports, and coordination with NMFS, FWS, and State ROWs for Salem and HCGS in New Jersey 30 regulatory agencies in New Jersey and Delaware regarding listed species. The Staff concludes would not be adversely affected by future vegetation maintenance activities. The FWS 31 that the impacts on Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic species of the Delaware New Jersey Field Office also coordinated with 32 Estuary during an additional 20 years of operation of the Salem and HCGS facilities would be the FWS Chesapeake Bay Field Office 33 SMALL. NRC provides a Biological Assessment of the potential effects from the proposed regarding the transmission line ROW from HCGS that crosses the river and traverses New 34 license renewal for the Salem and HCGS facilities on Federally listed endangered or threatened Castle County in Delaware. FWS (2009b) 35 species under NMFS jurisdiction in Appendix D. concluded that "no proposed or federally listed endangered or threatened species are known to exist" within that ROW area. ¶ 36 4.7.2 Terrestrial and Freshwater Aquatic Threatened or Endangered Species The ROW maintenance procedures agreed upon for protection of the bog turtle include:
| |
| use of a certified bog turtle surveyor to examine 37 The FWS (2010) indicated that no Federally listed terrestrial species are known to occur on or spans containing known or potential habitat, to 38 in the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS sites. The FWS (2010) noted that areas of potential flag areas of potential habitat plus a 150-ft (46 39 habitat and/or known occurrences of the bog turtle and swamp pink exist along the New m) buffer, and to be on site during maintenance activities in flagged areas; performance of 40 Freedom North and New Freedom South transmission line ROWs, but that the continued maintenance activities by hand in flagged areas, 41 operation of Salem and HCGS are unlikely to adversely affect either species because PSEG including selective use of specific herbicides; no 42 had previously committed to adopting FWS-recommended conservation measures along the use of herbicides in known nesting areas, which include all flagged areas around extant 43 transmission line ROWS.,The Staff reviewed information from the site addit, ERs for S alem and occurrences; timing restrictions to avoid 44 HCGS, other reports, and coordinated with FWS and State regu-latory- a gencies in New Jersey
| |
| - - J Deleted: coordination September 2010 4-53 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation I and Delaware regarding listed species. The NRC staff concludes that the impacts on Federally 2 listed terrestrial and freshwater aquatic species from an additional 20 years of operation and 3 maintenance of the Salem and HCGS facilities and associated transmission line ROWs would 4 be SMALL.
| |
| 5 4.8 Human Health 6 The human health issues applicable to Salem and HCGS are discussed below and listed in 7 Table 4-22 for Category 1,'Category 2, and uncategorized issues.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 4-54 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Table 4-22. Human Health Issues. Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR 2 Part 51 contains more information on these issues.
| |
| Issues GElS Section Category Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment NAa 1 8
| |
| Occupational radiation exposures during refurbishment NA 1 Microbiological organisms (occupational health) 4.3.6 1 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 3 a - Issues apply to refurbishment, an activity that neither Salem nor HCGS plan to undertake.
| |
| 4 b Issue applies to plant features such as cooling lakes or cooling towers that discharge to small 5 rivers. Neither Salem nor HCGS have applicable features.
| |
| 6 4.8.1 Generic Human Health Issues 7 The Staff did not identify any new and significant information related to human health issues or 8 radiation exposures during its review of the PSEG environmental reports, the site audit, or the 9 scoping process. Therefore, there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those 10 discussed in the GElS. For these issues, the GElS concluded that the impacts are SMALL, and 11 additional site-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be 12 warranted (Category 1 issues). These impacts will remain SMALL through the license renewal 13 term.
| |
| 14 4.8.2 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 15 Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-I, applicable to Salem 16 and HCGS in regard to radiological impacts are listed in Table 4-22. PSEG stated in its ER that 17 it was not aware of any new radiological issues associated With the renewal of the Salem and 18 HCGS operating licenses. The Staff has not identified any new and significant information, 19 during its independent review of PSEG's ER, the site audit, the scoping process, or its 20 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no 21 impact from radiation exposures to the public or to workers during the renewal term beyond 22 those discussed in the GELS.
| |
| 23 According to the GELS, the impacts to human health are SMALL, and additional plant-specific 24 mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted September 2010 4-55 Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 0 Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term). Based on information in the GELS, 2 the Commission found the following:
| |
| 3 Radiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with 4 normal operations.
| |
| 5
| |
| * Occupational exposures (license renewal term). Based on information in the GELS, the 6 Commission found the following:
| |
| 7 Projected maximum occupational doses during the license renewal term are 8 within the range of doses experienced during normal operations and normal 9 maintenance outages, and would be well below regulatory limits.
| |
| 10 Therefore, the Staff expects that there would be no impacts during the renewal term beyond 11 those discussed in the GELS.
| |
| 12 There are no Category 2 issues related to radiological impacts of routine operations.
| |
| 13 The information presented below is a discussion of selected radiological programs conducted at 14 Salem and HCGS.
| |
| 15 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Pro-gram 16 PSEG conducts a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) to assess the 17 radiological impact, if any, to its employees, the public, and the environment around the plant 18 site. The REMP provides measurements of radiation and of radioactive materials for the 19 exposure pathways and the radionuclides which lead to the highest potential radiation 20 exposures to the public. The REMP supplements the radioactive effluent monitoring program 21 by verifying that any measurable concentrations of radioactive materials and levels of radiation 22 in the environment are not higher than those calculated using the radioactive effluent release 23 measurements and transport models.
| |
| 24 The objectives of the REMP are as follows:
| |
| 25
| |
| * To fulfill the requirements of the radiological surveillance sections of the Plants' Technical 26 Specifications and the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual.
| |
| 27 e To determine whether any significant increase occurred in the concentration of radionuclides 28 in critical pathways for the transfer of radionuclides through the environment to man.
| |
| 29 e To determine if operation of the plants caused an increase in the radioactive inventory of 30 long-lived radionuclides in the environment.
| |
| 31 e To detect any change in ambient gamma radiation levels.
| |
| 32
| |
| * To verify that operation of the plants have no detrimental effects on the health and safety of 33 the public or on the environment.
| |
| 34 An annual radiological environmental operating report is issued, which contains a discussion of 35 the results of the monitoring program. The report contains data on the monitoring performed for 36 the most recent year as well as graphs containing historical information. The REMP collects 37 samples of environmental media in order to measure the radioactivity levels that may be 38 present. The media samples are representative of the radiation exposure pathways that may 39 impact the public. The REMP measures the aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric environment Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-56 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 for radioactivity, as well as the ambient radiation. Ambient radiation pathways include radiation 2 from radioactive material inside buildings and plant structures and airborne material that may be 3 released from the plant. In addition, the REMP measures background radiation (i.e., cosmic 4 sources, global fallout, and naturally occurring radioactive material, including radon).
| |
| 5 Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are used to measure ambient radiation. The 6 atmospheric environmental monitoring consists of sampling and analyzing the air for 7 particulates and radioiodine. Terrestrial environmental monitoring consists of analyzing 8 samples of locally grown vegetables and fodder crops, drinking water, groundwater, meat, and 9 milk. The aquatic environmental monitoring consists of analyzing samples of surface water, 10 fish, crabs, and sediment. An annual land use census is conducted to determine if the REMP 11 needs to be revised to reflect changes in the environment or population that might alter the 12 radiation exposure pathways. Salem and HCGS has an onsite groundwater protection program 13 designed to monitor the onsite plant environment for early detection of leaks from plant systems 14 and pipes containing radioactive liquid (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b; PSEG, 2010b). Additional 15 information on the groundwater protection program is contained later in this section and in the 16 Ground Water Quality section in Chapter 2 of this document.
| |
| 17 The Staff reviewed the Salem and HCGS annual radiological environmental operating reports 18 for 2005 through 2009 to look for any significant impacts to the environment or any unusual 19 trends in the data (PSEG, 2006c; PSEG, 2007b; PSEG, 2008b; PSEG, 2009e; PSEG, 2010b).
| |
| 20 A five year period provides a representative data set that covers a broad range of activities that 21 occur at a nuclear power plant such as refueling outages, non-refueling outage years, routine 22 operation, and years where there may be significant maintenance activities. Based on the 23 Staffs review, no unusual trends were observed and the data showed that there was no 24 significant radiological impact to the environment from operations at Salem and HCGS. Small 25 amounts of radioactive material (i.e., tritium, cesium-1 37, and manganese-54) were detected 26 below NRC's reporting values for radionuclides in environmental samples. Overall, the results, 27 with the exception of the on-site groundwater contaminated with tritium, were comparable to the 28 results obtained during the preoperational phase of the REMP and with historical results 29 obtained since commercial operation.
| |
| 30 The NJDEP's Bureau of Nuclear Engineering performs an independent Environmental 31 Surveillance and Monitoring Program (ESMP) in the environment around the Salem and Hope 32 Creek Nuclear Generating Stations. The ESMP provides a comprehensive monitoring strategy 33 that ensures that New Jersey citizens are aware of and, if necessary, protected from harmful 34 exposure to radioactive effluent discharges from New Jersey's nuclear power plants during 35 normal or accident operations.
| |
| 36 The specific objectives of the ESMP are to monitor pathways for entry of radioactivity into the 37 environment in order to identify potential exposures to the population from routine and 38 accidental releases of radioactive effluent, and to provide a summary and interpretation of this 39 information to members of the public and government agencies.
| |
| 40 The Staff reviewed the NJDEP's 2008 report (the most recent report available to the Staff at the 41 time this draft SEIS was prepared) which contains information on the environmental sampling 42 conducted during the time period of January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008. The State 43 reported the following: "Overall, the data collected by the NJDEP's ESMP throughout 2008 44 indicate that residents living in the area around Oyster Creek and Salem/Hope Creek nuclear September 2010 4-57 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 power plants have not received measurable exposures of radiation above normal background" 2 (NJDEP, 2009a).
| |
| 3 Radiological Groundwater Protection Program 4 In response to an identified radioactive liquid release from the Salem Unit 1 spent fuel pool in 5 2002, PSEG implemented a Remedial Action Work Plan (RAWP) and developed a voluntary 6 Radiological Groundwater Protection Program (RGPP) in 2006 that added additional 7 groundwater sampling locations, outside the scope of the REMP. The RAWP, which was 8 reviewed by the NRC and approved by the NJDEP, is a program designed to remediate the 9 site's groundwater to remove the tritiated groundwater and control the tritium plume from 10 reaching the site boundary and impacting the off-site environment. The results of the RGPP 11 groundwater monitoring program have been reported in the annual radiological environmental 12 operating report since 2006.
| |
| 13 The radiological monitoring data for 2009 showed a wide range of tritium concentrations in the 14 on-site groundwater. For HCGS, the results show that tritium was detected at concentrations 15 that ranged from the lower limit of detection value of 200 pico Curies per liter (pCi/L) to a 16 maximum of 7,778 pCi/L. As a result of the positive indications of tritium, the applicant 17 increased the sampling frequency for the monitoring wells. Subsequent sampling did not 18 reproduce the highest levels observed; however, variations in the levels were observed 19 throughout 2009. As a result, the applicant continues to track the concentrations of tritium in the 20 groundwater to determine if a trend can be observed. For the Salem units, the results show that 21 tritium was detected in on-site groundwater in concentrations that ranged from the lower limit of 22 detection value of 200 pCi/L to a maximum of 2,259 pCi/L. The applicant is tracking the tritium 23 concentration levels to determine if a trend can be observed (PSEG, 201 Ob). The Staff notes 24 that no groundwater samples reached the NRC's reporting level of 20,000 pCi/L for tritium in 25 environmental samples.
| |
| 26 As part of the applicant's investigation for new and significant information that is relevant to its 27 license renewal application, the issue of tritium in the groundwater was evaluated. The 28 applicant's evaluation concludes that changes in tritium-related groundwater quality are not 29 significant at Salem and would not preclude current or future uses of the groundwater for the 30 following reasons:
| |
| 31 ° Although tritium concentrations are elevated in the shallow aquifer beneath Salem, PSEG 32 has been performing remedial actions since 2004, and concentrations continue to decrease.
| |
| 33
| |
| * Tritium concentrations in groundwater are due to an historic incident; the source (spend fuel 34 pool water leak) has been eliminated.
| |
| 35
| |
| * No tritium concentrations above either the EPA Drinking Water Standard or the NJDEP 36 Ground Water Quality Criterion have migrated to the property boundary or into geologic 37 formations deeper than the shallow aquifer. Offsite tritium concentrations are below 38 regulatory limits.
| |
| 39 °- There is no human exposure pathway and, therefore, no threat to public or employee health 40 or safety.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-58 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Radioactive Effluent Release Program 2 All nuclear plants were licensed with the expectation that they would release radioactive 3 material to both the air and water during normal operation. However, NRC regulations require 4 that radioactive gaseous and liquid releases from nuclear power plants must meet radiation 5 dose-based limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20, and as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) 6 criteria in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. The regulatory limits protect plant workers and 7 members of the public from radioactive material released by a nuclear power plant. In addition, 8 nuclear power plants are required to file an annual report to the NRC which lists the types and 9 quantities of radioactive effluents released intothe environment. The radioactive effluent 10 release and radiological environmental monitoring reports are available for review by the public 11 through the NRC's ADAMS electronic reading room on the NRC website.
| |
| 12 The Staff reviewed the annual radioactive effluent release reports for 2005 through 2009 13 (PSEG, 2006d; PSEG, 2007c; PSEG, 2008c; PSEG, 2009f; PSEG, 2010c). The review focused 14 on the calculated doses to a member of the public from radioactive effluents released from 15 Salem and HCGS. The doses were compared to the radiation protection standards in 10 CFR 16 20.1301 and the ALARA dose design objectives in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| 17 Dose estimates for members of the public are calculated based on radioactive gaseous and 18 liquid effluent release data and atmospheric and aquatic transport models. The 2009 annual 19 radioactive material release report (PSEG 2010c) contains a detailed presentation of the 20 radioactive discharges and the resultant calculated doses. The following summarizes the 21 calculated dose to a member of the public located outside the Salem and HCGS site boundary 22 from radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents released during 2009:
| |
| 23 Salem Units 1 and 2 24 The total-body dose to an offsite member of the public from radioactive liquid effluents 25 from Salem Unit 1 was 3.22 E-05 millirem (mrem; 3.22 E-07 millisieverts [mSv]) and 2.72 26 E-05 mrem (2.72 E-07 mSv) for Unit 2, which is well below the 3 mrem (0.03 mSv) dose 27 criterion for an individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| 28 The maximum dose to any organ (i.e., skin, thyroid, liver, G.I. tract, etc.) of an offsite 29 member of the public from radioactive liquid effluents from Salem Unit 1 was 8.60 E-05 30 mrem (8.60 E-07 mSv) and 8.89 E-05 (8.89 E-07 mSv) for Unit 2, which is well below the 31 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) dose criterion for an individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR 32 Part 50.
| |
| 33 The air dose at the site boundary from gamma radiation in gaseous effluents from Salem 34 Unit 1 was 1.28 E-04 millirad (mrad; 1.28 E-06 megagray [mGy]), and 2.74 E-05 mrad 35 (2.74 E-07 mGy) for Unit 2, which is well below the 10 mrad (0.1 mGy) dose criterion for 36 an individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| 37
| |
| * The air dose at the site boundary from beta radiation in gaseous effluents from Salem 38 Unit 1 was 3.14 E-04 mrad (3.14 E-06 mGy) and 1.46 E-05 mrad (1.46 E-07 mGy) for 39 Unit 2, which is well below the 20 mrad (0.2 mGy) dose criterion for an individual reactor 40 unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| 41
| |
| * The maximum dose to any organ (i.e., skin, thyroid, liver, G.I. tract, etc.) of a member of 42 the public at the site boundary from radioactive iodine, tritium, and radioactive particulate September 2010 4-59 Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 matter from Unit 1 was 2.70 E-03 mrem (2.70 E-05 mSv) and 1.65 E-03 mrem (1.65 E-2 05 mSv) for Unit 2, which is well below the 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) dose criterion for an 3 individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| 4 Hope Creek Generating Station 5 9 The total-body dose to an offsite member of the public from radioactive liquid effluents 6 from HCGS was 8.32 E-05 mrem (8.32 E-07 mSv), which is well below the 3 mrem (0.03 7 mSv) dose criterion for an individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| 8 0 The maximum dose to any organ (i.e., skin, thyroid, liver, GI. tract, etc.) of an offsite 9 member of the public from radioactive liquid effluents from HCGS was 3.05 E-04 mrem 10 (3.05 E-06 mSv), which is well below the 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) dose criterion for an 11 individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| 12 0 The air dose at the site boundary from gamma radiation in gaseous effluents from HCGS 13 was 7.29 E-04 mrad (7.29 E-06 mGy), which is well below the 10 mrad (0.1 mGy) dose 14 criterion for an individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| 15 0 The air dose at the site boundary from beta radiation in gaseous effluents from HCGS 16 was 7.34 E-04 mrad (7.34 E-06 mGy), which is well below the 20 mrad (0.2 mGy) dose 17 criterion for an individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| 18
| |
| * The maximum dose to any organ (i.e., skin, thyroid, liver, G.I. tract, etc.) of a member of 19 the public at the site boundary from radioactive iodine, tritium, and radioactive particulate 20 matter from HCGS was 1.97 E-02 mrem (1.97 E-04 mSv), which is well below the 15 21 mrem (0.15 mSv) dose criterion for an individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR 22 Part 50.
| |
| 23 Salem - Hope Creek Site Total 24 0 The total-body dose to an offsite member of the public from the combined radioactive 25 effluents from all three reactor units was 7.26 E-03 mrem (7.26 E-05 mSv), which is well 26 below the 25 mrem (0.25 mSv) dose criterion in 40 CFR Part 190.
| |
| 27 0 The dose to any organ (i.e., skin, thyroid, liver, G.I. tract, etc.) of an offsite member of 28 the public from the combined radioactive effluents from all three reactor units was 2.54 29 E-02 mrem (2.54 E-04 mSv), which is well below the 25 mrem (0.25 mSv) dose criterion 30 in 40 CFR Part 190.
| |
| 31
| |
| * The thyroid dose to an offsite member of the public from the combined radioactive 32 effluents from all three reactor units was 2.41 E-02 mrem (2.41 E-04 mSv), which is well 33 below the 75 mrem (0.75 mSv) dose criterion in 40 CFR Part 190.
| |
| 34 Based on the Staffs review of the Salem and HCGS radioactive waste system's performance in 35 controlling radioactive effluents and the resultant doses to members of the public in 36 conformance with the ALARA criteria in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, the Staff found that the 37 2009 radiological effluent data for Salem and HCGS are consistent, within reasonable variation 38 attributable to operating conditions and outages, with the historical data. The results 39 demonstrate that Salem and HCGS are operating in compliance with Federal radiation 40 protection standards contained in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR Part 20, and 40 CFR 41 Part 190.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-60 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Routine plant operational and maintenance activities currently performed will continue during 2 the license renewal term. Based on the past performance of the radioactive waste system to 3 maintain the dose from radioactive effluents to be ALARA, similar performance is expected 4 during the license renewal term.
| |
| 5 The radiological impacts from the current operation of Salem and HCGS are not expected to 6 change significantly. Continued compliance with regulatory requirements is expected during the 7 license renewal term; therefore, the impacts from radioactive effluents would be SMALL.
| |
| Field Code Changed 8 4.8.3 ,Microbiologica/ Organisms - Public Health 9 Both Salem and HCGS have thermal discharges to the Delaware Estuary, a large brackish, 10 tidally-influenced water body that allows their thermal plumes to disperse quickly. There are no 11 other facilities that release thermal discharges to the Estuary in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS.
| |
| 12 Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 and Table 4-22 list the effects of 13 thermophilic microbiological organisms on human health as a Category 2 issue and requires the 14 conduct of a plant-specific evaluation before license renewal. This issue applies to plant 15 features such as cooling lakes or cooling towers that discharge to small rivers. NRC has 16 determined that Salem and HCGS discharge to an estuary (NRC, 1996). Neither Salem nor 17 HCGS use cooling ponds, cooling lakes, cooling canals, or discharge to a small river.
| |
| 18 Therefore, this issue does not apply and the effects of plant discharges on microbiological 19 organisms do not need to be addressed for license renewal.
| |
| 20 4.8.4 Electromagnetic Fields - Acute Effects 21 Based on the GELS, the Commission found that electric shock resulting from direct access to 22 energized conductors or from induced charges in metallic structures has not been found to be a 23 problem at most operating plants and generally is not expected to be a problem during the 24 license renewal term. However, site-specific review is required to determine the significance of 25 the electric shock potential along the portions of the transmission lines that are within the scope 26 of this SEIS.
| |
| 27 In the GElS (NRC, 1996), the Staff found that without a review of the conformance of each 28 nuclear plant transmission line with National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) criteria, it was not 29 possible to determine the significance of the electric shock potential (IEEE, 2007). Evaluation of S-5Deleted: 2 I 30 individual plant transmission lines is necessary because the issue of electric shock safety was 31 not addressed in the licensing process for some plants. For other plants, land use in the vicinity 32 of transmission lines may have changed, or power distribution companies may have chosen to 33 upgrade line voltage. To comply with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H), the applicant must provide an 34 assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the potential shock hazard from the 35 transmission lines if the transmission lines that were constructed for the specific purpose of 36 connecting the plant to the transmission system do not meet the recommendations of the NESC 37 for preventing electric shock from induced currents.
| |
| 38 As described in Section 2.1.1.6, four 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines were specifically 39 constructed to distribute power to the electrical grid from the Salem and HCGS. One 500-kV 40 line, the HCGS-New Freedom line, was originally constructed to connect HCGS to the 41 transmission system. Two additional lines, Salem-New Freedom North and Salem-Keeney (via September 2010 4-61 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Red Lion substation), were originally built for Salem but have since been connected to HCGS.
| |
| 2 The fourth line, Salem-New Freedom South, originates at Salem (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 3 PSEG conducted an analysis of the Salem HCGS transmission lines using a computer model of 4 induced current under the line and the results were field verified. PSEG calculated electric field 5 strength and induced current using a computer code called ACDCLINE, produced by the 6 Electric Power Research Institute. The analysis determined that there are no locations under 7 the transmission lines that have the capacity to induce more than 5 milliamperes (mA) in a 8 vehicle parked beneath the line. Therefore, the lines meet the NESC 5 mA criterion. The 9 maximum induced current calculated for the power lines was 4.2 mA for the Salem-New 10 Freedom South line (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 11 PSEG also conducts regular aerial and ground surveillance and maintenance to ensure that 12 design ground clearances do not change. The aerial patrols of all corridors include checks for 13 encroachments, broken conductors, broken or leaning structures, and signs of burnt trees, any 14 of which would be evidence of clearance problems. Ground inspections include examination for 15 clearance at questionable locations, examination for integrity of structures, and surveillance for 16 dead or diseased trees that might fall on the transmission line. Problems noted during any 17 inspection are brought to the attention of the appropriate organizations for corrective action 18 (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 19 The Staff has reviewed the available information, including the applicant's evaluation and 20 computational results for the potential impacts of electric shock resulting from operation of 21 Salem and HCGS and their associated transmission lines. The staff concludes that the 22 potential impacts of electric shock during the renewal term would be SMALL.
| |
| 23 4.8.5 Electromagnetic Fields - Chronic Effects 24 In the GELS, the chronic effects of 60-hertz (Hz) electromagnetic fields from power lines were 25 not designated as Category 1 or 2, and will not be until a scientific consensus is reached on the 26 health implications of these fields.
| |
| 27 The potential for chronic effects from these fields continues to be studied and is not known at 28 this time. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related 29 research through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
| |
| 30 jhe report by NIEHS (NIEHS, 1999) contai.ns t.he.fo.l.ov.wing conclusion . - j Field Code Changed 31 The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF (extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field) 32 exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that 33 exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to 34 warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the 35 United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive 36 regulatory action is warranted such as continued emphasis on educating both the public 37 and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The NIEHS does 38 not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence 39 of a risk to currently warrant concern.
| |
| 40 This statement is not sufficient to cause the Staff to change its position with respect to the 41 chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. The NRC staff considers the GElS finding of "not 42 applicable" still appropriate and will continue to follow developments on this issue.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-62 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 4.9 Socioeconomics 2 The socioeconomic issues applicable to Salem and HCGS during the license renewal term are 3 listed in Table 4-23, including applicable GElS section and category (Category 1, Category 2, or 4 uncategorized).
| |
| 5 Table 4-23. Socioeconomic Issues. Section 2.2.8 of this report describes the 6 socioeconomic conditions near Salem and HCGS.
| |
| Issue GElS Section Category Housing impacts 4.7.1 2 Public services: public safety, social 4.7.3; 4.7.3.3; 4.7.3.4; 4.7.3.6 1 services, and tourism and recreation Public services: public utilities 4.7.3.5 2 Public services: education (license renewal4.7.3.1 1 term)
| |
| Offsite land use (license renewal term) 4.7.4 2 Public services: transportation 4.7.3.2 2 Historic and archaeological resources 4.7.7 2 Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term) 4.7.6 1 Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines 4.5.8 1 (license renewal term)
| |
| Environmental justice Not addressed (a) Uncategorized (a)
| |
| (a) Guidance related to environmental justice was not in place at the time the GElS and the associated revisions to 10 CFR Part 51 were prepared. Therefore, environmental justice must be addressed in plant-specific reviews.
| |
| 7 4.9.1 Generic Socioeconomic Issues 8 The NRC reviewed and evaluated the Salem and HCGS ERs (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b),
| |
| 9 scoping comments, and other available information, and visited the Salem and HCGS sites and 10 did not identify any new and significant information that would change the conclusions 11 presented in the GELS. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the Category 1 issues 12 during the period of extended operation beyond those discussed in the GElS. For Salem and 13 HCGS, the GElS conclusions for category 1 issues are incorporated by reference. Impacts for 14 Category 2 and uncategorized issues are discussed in the following.
| |
| 15 4.9.2 Housing Impacts 16 According to the 2000 Census, approximately 501,820 people lived within 20 mi (32 km) of 17 Salem and HCGS, which equates to a population density of 450 persons per square mile 18 (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). This density translates to GElS Category 4 - least sparse September 2010 4-63 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 (greater than or equal to 120 persons per square mile within 20 mi [32km]). Approximately 2 5,201,842 people live within 50 mi (80 km) of Salem and HCGS (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 3 This equates to a population density of 771 persons per square mile. Applying the GElS 4 proximity measures, this value translates to a Category 4 - in close proximity (greater than or 5 equal to 190 persons per square mile within 50 mi [80 km]). Therefore, according to the 6 sparseness and proximity matrix presented in the GELS, the sparseness Category 4 and 7 proximity Category 4 indicate that Salem and HCGS are located in a high population area.
| |
| 8 Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 states that impacts on housing 9 availability are expected to be of small significance in high-density population areas where 10 growth control measures are not in effect. Since Salem and HCGS are located in a high 11 population area, and Cumberland, Gloucester, Salem, and New Castle Counties are not subject 12 to growth control measures that would limit housing development, any changes in employment 13 at Salem and HCGS would have little noticeable effect on housing availability in these counties.
| |
| 14 Since PSEG has no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal period, 15 employment levels at Salem and HCGS would remain relatively constant with no additional 16 demand for permanent housing during the license renewal term. In addition, the number of 17 available housing units has kept pace with or exceeded the growth in the area population.
| |
| 18 Based on this information, there would be no additional impact on housing during the license 19 renewal term beyond what has already been experienced.
| |
| 20 4.9.3 Public Services: Public Utilities 21 As discussed in Section 4.7.4 of the GELS, impacts on public utility services (e.g., water, sewer) 22 are considered SMALL if the public utility has the ability to respond to changes in demand and 23 would have no need to add or modify facilities. Impacts are considered MODERATE if service 24 capabilities are overtaxed during periods of peak demand. Impacts are considered LARGE if 25 additional system capacity is needed to meet ongoing demand.
| |
| 26 Analysis of impacts on the public water and sewer systems considered both facility demand and 27 facility-related population growth. As previously discussed in Section 2.1.7, Salem and HCGS 28 obtain their potable water supply directly from groundwater sources. The facility does not 29 purchase water from a public water system. Water usage by Salem and HCGS has not 30 stressed the supply source capacity (usage is approximately 41 percent of the permitted 31 withdrawal [DRBC 2000; NJDEP 2004]) and is not currently an issue. PSEG has no plans to 32 increase Salem and HCGS staffing due to refurbishment or new construction activities, and has 33 identified no operational changes during the license renewal term that would increase potable 34 water use by the facilities.
| |
| 35 Since PSEG has no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal period, 36 employment levels at Salem and HCGS would remain relatively unchanged with no additional 37 demand for public water services. Public water systems in the region are adequate to meet the 38 demand of residential and industrial customers in the area. Therefore, there would be no 39 additional impact to public water services during the license renewal term beyond what is 40 currently being experienced.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-64 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 4.9.4 Offsite Land Use - License Renewal Period 2 Off-site land use during the license renewal term is a Category 2 issue. Table B-1 of Appendix 3 B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 notes that "significant changes in land use may be associated 4 with population and tax revenue changes resulting from license renewal." In Section 4.7.4 of 5 the GELS, the magnitude of land-use changes as a result of plant operation during the period of 6 extended operation is defined as follows:
| |
| 7 SMALL - Little new development and minimal changes to an area's land-use 8 pattern.
| |
| 9 MODERATE - Considerable new development and some changes to the land-10 use pattern.
| |
| 11 LARGE - Large-scale new development and major changes in the land-use 12 pattern.
| |
| 13 Tax revenue can affect land use because it enables local jurisdictions to provide the public 14 services (e.g., transportation and utilities) necessary to support development. Section 4.7.4.1 of 15 the GElS states that the assessment of tax-driven land-use impacts during the license renewal 16 term should consider (1) the size of the plant's payments relative to the community's total 17 revenues, (2) the nature of the community's existing land-use pattern, and (3) the extent to 18 which the community already has public services in place to support and guide development. If 19 the plant's tax payments are projected to be small relative to the community's total revenue, tax-20 driven land-use changes during the plant's license renewal term would be SMALL, especially 21 where the community has pre-established patterns of development and has provided adequate 22 public services to support and guide development. Section 4.7.2.1 of the GElS states that if tax 23 payments by the plant owner are less than 10 percent of the taxing jurisdiction's revenue, the 24 significance level would be SMALL. Ifthe plant's tax payments are projected to be medium to 25 large relative to the community's total revenue, new tax-driven land-use changes would be 26 MODERATE. Ifthe plant's tax payments are projected to be a dominant source of the 27 community's total revenue, new tax-driven land-use changes would be LARGE. This would be 28 especially true where the community has no pre-established pattern of development or has not 29 provided adequate public services to support and guide development.
| |
| 30 Population-Related Impacts 31 Since PSEG has no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal period, 32 there would be no noticeable change in land use conditions in the vicinity of the Salem and 33 HCGS. Therefore, there would be no population-related land use impacts during the license 34 renewal term beyond those already being experienced.
| |
| 35 Tax Revenue-Related Impacts 36 As previously discussed in Section 2.2.8.6, PSEG and the Salem site's minority owner Exelon 37 pay annual real estate taxes to Lower Alloways Creek Township. From 2003 through 2009, the 38 owners paid between $1.2 and $1.5 million annually in property taxes to Lower Alloways Creek 39 Township. This represented between 54 and 59 percent of the township's total annual property 40 tax revenue. Each year, Lower Alloways Creek Township forwards this tax money to Salem 41 County, which provides most services to township residents. The property. taxes paid annually 42 for Salem and HCGS during 2003 through 2009 represent approximately 2.5 to 3.5 percent of September 2010 4-65 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Salem County's total annual property tax revenues during that time period. PSEG pays annual 2 property taxes to the City of Salem for the Energy and Environmental Resource Center, located 3 in Salem. However, the tax payments for the Center would continue even if the licenses for 4 Salem and HCGS were not renewed; therefore, these tax payments are not considered in the 5 evaluation of tax revenue-related impacts during the license renewal term.
| |
| 6 Since PSEG started making payments to the local jurisdiction, population levels and land use 7 conditions in Lower Alloways Creek Township and Salem County have not changed 8 significantly, which might indicate that these tax revenues have had little or no effect on land 9 use activities within the township or county.
| |
| 10 Since PSEG has no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal period, 11 employment levels at Salem and HCGS would remain relatively unchanged. There would be no 12 increase in the assessed value of Salem and HCGS, and annual property tax payments to 13 Lower Alloways Creek Township would be expected to remain relatively constant throughout the 14 license renewal period. Based on this information, there would be no tax revenue-related land-15 use impacts during the license renewal term beyond those already being experienced.
| |
| 16 4.9.5 Public Services: Transportation Impacts 17 Table B-i, 10 CFR Part 51 states: "Transportation impacts (level of service) of highway traffic 18 generated... during the term of the renewed license are generally expected to be of small 19 significance. However, the increase in traffic associated with additional workers and the local 20 road and traffic control conditions may lead to impacts of moderate or large significance at some 21 sites." All applicants are required to assess the impacts of highway traffic generated by the 22 proposed project on the level of service of local highways during the term of the renewed 23 license (see 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J)).
| |
| 24 Since PSEG has no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal period, 25 traffic volume and levels of service on roadways in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS would not 26 change. Therefore, there would be no transportation impacts during the license renewal term 27 beyond those already being experienced.
| |
| 28 4.9.6 Historic and Archaeological Resources 29 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that Federal agencies take in to account 30 the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The historic preservation review process 31 mandated by Section 106 of the NHPA is outlined in regulations issued by the Advisory Council 32 on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR Part 800. Renewal of an operating license is an undertaking 33 that could potentially affect historic properties. Therefore, according to the NHPA, the NRC is to 34 make a reasonable effort to identify historic properties in areas of potential effects. If no historic 35 properties are present or affected, the NRC is required to notify the State Historic Preservation 36 Officer before proceeding. If it is determined that historic properties are present the NRC is 37 required to assess and resolve possible adverse effects of the undertaking.
| |
| 38 A review of the New Jersey State Museum (NJSM) files shows that there are no previously 39 recorded archaeological or above ground historic architectural resources identified on the 40 Salem/Hope Creek property. As noted in Section 2.2.9.1', literature review and background 41 research of the plant property was conducted as part of the applicant's ER; however, no Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-66 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 systematic pedestrian or subsurface archaeological surveys have been conducted at the 2 Salem/Hope Creek site to date. Background research identified 23 National Register of Historic 3 Places listed resources within a 10 mi (16 km) radius of the facility; however, none are located 4 within the boundaries of the Salem/Hope Creek property.
| |
| 5 There is little potential for historic and archaeological resources to be present on most of the 6 Salem/Hope Creek property. As noted in Section 2.2.9.2, due to the fact that the Salem and 7 Hope Creek generating stations are located on a manmade island, there is little potential for 8 prehistoric archaeological resources to be present. However, because the creation of the island 9 dates to the historic period, there is potential for historic-period archaeological resources to be 10 present in areas not previously disturbed by construction activities.
| |
| 11 No new facilities, service roads, or transmission lines are proposed for the Salem/Hope Creek 12 site as a part of this operating license renewal, nor are refurbishment activities proposed.
| |
| 13 Therefore, the potential for National Register eligible historic or archaeological resources to be 14 impacted by renewal of this operating license is SMALL. Based on this conclusion there would 15 be no need to review mitigation measures.
| |
| 16 4.9.7 Environmental Justice 17 Under Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629), Federal agencies are responsible for 18 identifying and addressing, as appropriate, potential disproportionately high and adverse human 19 health and environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations. In 2004, the 20 Commission issued a Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in 21 NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040), which states, "The Commission is 22 committed to the general goals set forth in EO 12898, and strives to meet those goals as part of 23 its NEPA review process."
| |
| 24 The Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) provides the following information in Environmental 25 Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ, 1997):
| |
| 26 Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects.
| |
| 27 Adverse health effects are measured in risks and rates that could result in latent cancer 28 fatalities, as well as other fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Adverse 29 health effects may include bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death.
| |
| 30 Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur when the risk or rate of 31 exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income population is 32 significant (as employed by NEPA) and appreciably exceeds the risk or exposure rate for 33 the general population or for another appropriate comparison group (CEQ, 1997).
| |
| 34 Disproportionately High and Adverse Environmental Effects.
| |
| 35 A disproportionately high environmental impact that is significant (as defined by NEPA) 36 refers to an impact or risk of an impact on the natural or physical environment in a low-37 income or minority community that appreciably exceeds the environmental impact on the 38 larger community. Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, 39 economic, or social impacts. An adverse environmental impact is an impact that is 40 determined to be both harmful and significant (as employed by NEPA). In assessing 41 cultural and aesthetic environmental impacts, impacts that uniquely affect geographically September 2010 4-67 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 dislocated or dispersed minority or low-income populations or American Indian tribes are 2 considered (CEQ, 1997).
| |
| 3 The environmental justice analysis assesses the potential for disproportionately high and 4 adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 5 could result from the operation of Salem and HCGS during the renewal term. In assessing the 6 impacts, the following definitions of minority individuals and populations and low-income 7 population were used (CEQ, 1997):
| |
| 8 Minority individuals 9 Individuals who identify themselves as members of the following population groups:
| |
| 10 Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian: Black or African American, 11 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or two or more races, meaning individuals 12 who identified themselves on a Census form as being a member of two or more races, 13 for example, Hispanic and Asian.
| |
| 14 Minority populations 15 Minority populations are identified when (1) the minority population of an affected area 16 exceeds 50 percent or (2) the minority population percentage of the affected area is 17 meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population 18 or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.
| |
| 19 Low-income population 20 Low-income populations in an affected area are identified with the annual statistical 21 poverty thresholds from the Census Bureau's Current Population Reports, Series P60, 22 on Income and Poverty.
| |
| 23 Minority Population in 2000 24 There are a total of 23 counties in the 50-mi (80-km) radius surrounding Salem and HCGS. Of 25 these, seven are in New Jersey (Salem, Cumberland, Cape May, Atlantic, Gloucester, Camden 26 and Burlington), three are in Delaware (New Castle, Kent and Sussex), six are in Pennsylvania 27 (Philadelphia, Montgomery, Delaware, Chester, Lancaster, and York) and seven are in 28 Maryland (Harford, Cecil, Baltimore, Kent, Queen Anne's, Caroline and Talbot).
| |
| 29 According to 2000 Census data, 35.1 percent of the population (1,872,783 persons) residing 30 within a 80-km (50-mi) radius of Salem and HCGS identified themselves as minority individuals.
| |
| 31 The largest minority group was Black or African American (1,213,122 persons or 19.5 percent),
| |
| 32 followed by Asian (190,983 persons or 3.1 percent). A total of 341,886 persons (5.5 percent) 33 identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (USCB, 2003).
| |
| 34 Of the 4,579 census block groups located wholly or partly within the 50-mi radius of Salem and 35 HCGS, 1,860 block groups were determined to have minority population percentages that 36 exceeded the 50-mi (80-km) radius percentage (USCB, 2000a). The largest minority group was 37 Black or African American, with 1,284 block groups that exceed the 50-mi (80-km) radius 38 percentage. These block groups are primarily located in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.
| |
| 39 There were 24 block groups with Asian, 94 block groups with Some Other Race, and 1 block 40 group with Two or More Races minority classifications that exceeded the 50-mi (80-km) radius 41 percentage. A total of 202 block groups exceeded the 80-km (50-mi) radius percentage for Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 4-68 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. The minority population nearest to Salem and HCGS is located in 2 the City of Salem, New Jersey.
| |
| 3 Based on 2000 Census data, Figure 4-7 shows minority block groups within an 50-mi (80-km) 4 radius of Salem and HCGS.
| |
| 5 Low-Income Population in 2000 6 According to 2000 Census data, 119,283 families(2.2 percent) and 620,903 individuals (11.6 7 percent) residing within a 50-mi (80 km) radius of Salem and HCGS were identified as living 8 below the Federal poverty threshold in 1999 (USCB, 2003). (The 1999 Federal poverty 9 threshold was $17,029 for a family of four). The USCB reported 6.3 percent of families and 8.5 10 percent of individuals in New Jersey, 6.5 percent of families and 9.2 percent of individuals in 11 Delaware, 7.8 percent of families and 11.0 percent of individuals in Pennsylvania, and 6.1 12 percent of families and 8.5 percent of individuals in Maryland living below the Federal poverty 13 threshold in 1999 (USCB, 2000a; USCB, 2000b).
| |
| 14 Census block groups were considered low-income block groups if the percentage of families 15 and individuals living below the Federal poverty threshold exceeded the 50-mi (80 km) radius 16 percentage. Based on 2000 Census data, there were 1,778 block groups within a 50-mi (80 17 km) radius of Salem and HCGS that could be considered low-income block groups. The 18 majority of low-income population census block groups were located in Philadelphia County, 19 Pennsylvania. The low-income population nearest to Salem and HCGS is located in Lower 20 Alloways Creek Township in Salem County, New Jersey. Figure 4-8 shows low-income census 21 block groups within a 50-mi (80 km) radius of Salem and HCGS.
| |
| September 2010 4-69 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation Miles 0 5 10. 20 30 40 Legend
| |
| " Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations E-"80-km (50-mi) radius Census 2000 block groupswith minority populations 1
| |
| 2 Source: USCB, 2003 3
| |
| 4 Figure 4-7. Census 2000 minority block groups within a 50-mi radius of Salem and HCGS Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-70 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation Miles 0 5 10 20 30 40 Legend Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations r km (50-mi) radius Census 2000 block groups with Iow-income'populations 1
| |
| 2 Source: USCB, 2003 3
| |
| 4 Figure 4-8. Census 2000 low-income block groups within a 50-mi radius of Salem and 5 HCGS September 2010 4-71 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Radiological Exposure 2 As part of addressing environmental justice associated with license renewal, the Staff also 3 analyzed the risk of radiological exposure through the consumption patterns of special pathway 4 receptors, including subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife, native vegetation, surface 5 waters, sediments, and local produce; absorption of contaminants in sediments through the 6 skin; and inhalation of plant materials. The special pathway receptors analysis, discussed 7 below, is important to the environmental justice analysis because consumption patterns may 8 reflect the traditional or cultural practices of minority and low-income populations in the area.
| |
| 9 Section 4-4 of EO 12898 (59 FR 7629) directs Federal agencies, whenever practical and 10 appropriate, to collect and analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations that 11 rely principally on fish and/or wildlife for subsistence and to communicate the risks of these 12 consumption patterns to the public. In this draft SEIS, the Staff considered whether there were 13 any means for minority or low-income populations to be disproportionately affected by 14 examining impacts to American Indian, Hispanic, and other traditional lifestyle special pathway 15 receptors. Special pathways that took into account the levels of contaminants in native 16 vegetation, crops, soils and sediments, surface water, fish, and game animals on or near Salem 17 and HCGS were considered.
| |
| 18 PSEG has an ongoing comprehensive REMP at Salem and HCGS to assess the impact of site 19 operations on the environment. To assess the impact of the facilities on the environment, the 20 radiological monitoring program at Salem and HCGS uses indicator-control sampling. Samples 21 are collected at nearby indicator locations downwind and downstream from the facilities and at 22 distant control locations upwind and upstream from the facilities. Control locations are usually 9 23 to 18 miles (14 to 29 km) away from the facilities. A facility effect would be indicated if the 24 radiation level at an indicator location was significantly larger than at the control location. The 25 difference would also have to be greater than could be accounted for by typical fluctuations in 26 radiation levels arising from other naturally-occurring sources (PSEG, 2010c).
| |
| 27 Samples are collected from the aquatic and terrestrial pathways in the vicinity of Salem and 28 HCGS. The aquatic pathways include fish, Delaware Bay and River (Delaware estuary) surface 29 water, groundwater, and sediment. The terrestrial pathways include airborne particulates, milk, 30 food product garden (leaf) vegetation, and direct radiation. During 2009, analyses performed on 31 collected samples of environmental media showed no significant or measurable radiological 32 impact from Salem and HCGS site operations (PSEG, 201 Oc).
| |
| 33 Aquatic sampling in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS consists of semi-annual upstream and 34 downstream collections of fish, blue crabs, and bottom sediments. Delaware estuary surface 35 water is collected monthly from upstream and downstream locations. All samples are analyzed 36 for gamma-emitting isotopes. Surface water is additionally analyzed for gross beta and tritium.
| |
| 37 Drinking water is collected daily from the City of Salem Water and Sewer Department water 38 sources (surface water and groundwater) and composited in a monthly sample. Monthly 39 composites are analyzed for gross alpha, gross beta, tritium, iodine-1 31, and gamma- emitting 40 isotopes. Well water is collected monthly from one nearby farm's well, located upgradient from 141 Salem and HCGS, and is analyzed for gross alpha, gross beta, tritium, and gamma emitters 42 (PSEG, 2010c).
| |
| 43 Fish were sampled twice at three locations in 2009 and blue crabs were collected twice at two 44 locations. In the fish and blue crab samples, only naturally-occurring radionuclides were Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-72 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 detected, at concentrations less than the pre-operational levels. There was no indication of an 2 effect from Salem and HCGS operations (PSEG, 2010c).
| |
| 3 Sediment samples were collected twice from six indicator stations and one control station.
| |
| 4 Naturally occurring potassium-40, thorium-232, and radium-226 and radium-228 (RA-NAT) were 5 found at all indicator and control stations, and naturally occurring beryllium-7 was detected at 6 one indicator station; all of these detections were less than pre-operational concentrations.
| |
| 7 Cesium 137 was detected in two indicator samples, and no control samples. The positive 8 samples contained lower levels than pre-operational samples. Manganese-54 was detected at 9 one indicator station. There are no pre-operational data for this radionuclide; however, the 10 average concentration of all positive sample results from 1988 to 2008 is slightly higher than the 11 2009 detected concentration. There was no indication of an effect from operation of the Salem 12 and HCGS facilities (PSEG, 2010c).
| |
| 13 Surface water samples collected monthly at four indicator stations and one control station 14 contained trace amounts of tritium (slightly above the minimum detectable concentration range) 15 at the indicator stations; no tritium was detected at the control locations. Gross beta activity was 16 found at both indicator and control locations at levels similar to the pre-operational samples.
| |
| 17 Naturally occurring potassium-40, thorium-232 and RA-NAT were found in both indicator and 18 control samples. Two potable water samples contained gross alpha activity below per-19 operational levels; all samples contained gross beta activity below pre-operational levels; no 20 tritium or iodine-131 was detected; and naturally occurring potassium-40, thorium-232 and RA-21 NAT were detected at levels comparable to previous years sampled. Well water (groundwater) 22 samples had no measureable amounts of tritium, and contained only trace amounts of gross 23 alpha activity. Beta activity levels were lower than the pre-operational data. Potassium-40 and 24 RA-NAT were detected in well water at levels similar to pre-operational levels. There was no 25 indication of an effect from operation of the Salem and HCGS facilities (PSEG, 201 Oc).
| |
| 26 Vegetables and fodder crops are collected annually at harvest and are analyzed for gamma-27 emitting isotopes. Vegetable crops contained only naturally-occurring radionuclides. Potassium 28 40 was detected at similar levels at both indicator and control locations; detected Potassium 40 29 concentrations were below pre-operational levels. RA-NAT was not detected in any of the 30 indicator samples, but was detected at two of the control locations. Beryllium 7 was detected in 31 four of the indicator samples at concentrations comparable to those detected during previous 32 years sampled. Fodder crops contained beryllium-7 and potassium-40 at similar concentrations 33 at both indicator and control locations. Milk samples were collected semi-monthly from three 34 indicator farms and one control farm when cows were at pasture, and monthly when cows were 35 not at pasture; these samples were analyzed for iodine-131 and gamma-emitting isotopes.
| |
| 36 Iodine-131 was not detected in any of the samples, while potassium-40 and RA-NAT were 37 detected at naturally occurring levels less than those found in pre-operational samples. There 38 was no indication of an effect from operation of the Salem and HCGS facilities (PSEG, 201 Oc).
| |
| 39 Air quality samples were collected weekly from six locations. These samples were analyzed for 40 gross beta and iodine-1 31 as a weekly composite and for gamma-emitting isotopes on a 41 quarterly composite basis. Air particulate samples had similar results for both indicator and 42 control locations, and were also comparable to pre-operational levels. Air iodine was not 43 detected. There was no indication of an effect from operation of the Salem and HCGS facilities 44 (PSEG, 2010c).
| |
| September 2010 4-73 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Previously, PSEG had also tested muskrat populations in the area. Muskrats are trapped and 2 consumed by the local population (PSEG, 2006c). As of 2006, no muskrat samples have been 3 available for testing as the trappers who were supplying PSEG with samples were no longer 4 operating (PSEG, 2007c). The last muskrat data was collected in 2005; only one sample 5 detectable levels of potassium-40; no other radionuclides were detected (PSEG, 2006c).
| |
| 6 The results of the 2009 REMP sampling and previous REMP reports (including the 7 consideration of 2005 REMP muskrat data) demonstrate that the routine operation at Salem and 8 HCGS has had no significant or measurable radiological impact on the environment. No 9 elevated radiation levels have been detected in the offsite environment as a result of plant 10 operations and the storage of radioactive waste.
| |
| 11 The NJDEP Bureau of Nuclear Engineering (BNE) also samples the area around Salem and 12 HCGS for radionuclides that could be elevated due to the presence of the two facilities. Ten 13 stations within the vicinity are monitored with thermoluminescent dosimetry. During 2008, all 14 station results were comparable to previous years. Air samples were taken at three locations, 15 with results not significantly different from ambient background levels. Surface water was 16 collected from the Delaware River at the onsite surface water inlet building discharge and at a 17 location on the west bank of the river upstream from Salem's effluent discharge; potable well 18 water samples were taken on site. No gamma emitting isotopes or tritium were found in these 19 samples. Additionally, NJDEP BNE monitors the groundwater on site at Artificial Island in 20 conjunction with the remedial action being undertaken by PSEG to address tritium 21 contamination detected in shallow groundwater near Salem Unit 1. There is no evidence that 22 the tritium has reached any areas outside of the PSEG property. Analyses of fish, shellfish, 23 vegetation, and sediment samples contained only potassium-40, a naturally-occurring 24 radionuclide. Trace amounts of strontium-90 were detected in all milk samples, at levels 25 consistent with what is expected as a result of nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s and 1960s 26 (NJDEP, 2009b).
| |
| 27 Based on these monitoring results, concentrations of contaminants in native leafy vegetation, 28 sediments, surface water, and fish and game animals in areas surrounding Salem and HCGS 29 have been quite low. Consequently, no disproportionately high and adverse human health 30 impacts would be expected in special pathway receptor populations in the region as a result of 31 subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife.
| |
| 32 Analysis of Impacts 33 The NRC addresses environmental justice matters for license renewal through (1) identification 34 of minority and low-income populations that may be affected by the proposed license renewal, 35 and (2) examining any potential human health or environmental effects on these populations to 36 determine if these effects may be disproportionately high and adverse.
| |
| 37 The discussion and figures above indentifies the location of minority and low-income 38 populations residing within a 50-mi (80 km) radius of Salem and HCGS. This area of impact is 39 consistent with the impact analysis for public and occupational health and safety, which also 40 considers the radiological effects on populations located within a 50-mi (80 km) radius of the 41 plant. As previously discussed for the other resource areas in Chapter 4, the analyses of 42 impacts for all resource areas indicated that the impact from license renewal would be SMALL.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-74 September 2010,
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation I Chapter 5 discusses the environmental impacts from postulated accidents that might occur 2 during the license renewal term, which include both design basis and severe accidents. In both 3 cases, the Commission has generically determined that impacts associated with such accidents 4 are SMALL because nuclear plants are designed to successfully withstand design basis 5 accidents, and that any risk associated with severe accidents were also SMALL.
| |
| 6 Therefore the Staff concludes that there would be no disproportionately high and adverse 7 impacts to minority and low-income populations from the continued operation of Salem and 8 HCGS during the license renewal term.
| |
| 9 4.10 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information 10 New and significant information is: (1) information that identifies a significant environmental 11 issue not covered in the GElS and codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 12 Appendix B, or (2) information that was not considered in the analyses summarized in the GElS 13 and that leads to an impact finding that is different from the finding presented in the GElS and 14 codified in 10 CFR Part 51.
| |
| 15 The Staff has a process for identifying new and significant information. That process is 16 described in detail in NUREG-.1555, Supplement 1, Standard Review Plans for Environmental 17 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants,Supplement 1: OperatingLicense Renewal (NRC, 1999b).
| |
| 18 The search for new information includes: (1) review of an applicant's ER and the process for 19 discovering and evaluating the significance of new information; (2) review of records of public 20 comments; (3) review of environmental quality standards and regulations; (4) coordination with 21 Federal, State, and local environmental protection and resource agencies, and (5) review of the 22 technical literature. New information discovered by the Staff is evaluated for significance using 23 the criteria set forth in the GELS. For Category 1 issues where new and significant information 24 is identified, reconsideration of the conclusions for those issues is limited in scope to the 25 assessment of the relevant new and significant information; the scope of the assessment does 26 not include other facets of an issue that are not affected by the new information.
| |
| 27 The Staff has not identified any new and significant information on environmental issues listed in 28 Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, related to the operation of Salem and 29 HCGS during the period of license renewal. The Staff also determined that information provided 30 during the public comment period did not identify any new issues that require site-specific 31 assessment.
| |
| 32 The Staff reviewed the discussion of environmental impacts in the GElS (NRC, 1996) and 33 conducted its own independent review (including two public scoping meetings held in November 34 2009) to identify new and significant information.
| |
| 35 4.11 Cumulative Impacts 36 The Staff considered potential cumulative impacts in the environmental analysis of continued 37 operation of Salem and HCGS. For the purposes of this analysis, past actions are those related 38 to the resources at the time of the power plants licensing and construction; present actions are 39 those related to the resources at the time of current operation of the power plants; and future 40 actions are considered to be those that are reasonably foreseeable through the end of plant 41 operations including the period of extended operation. Therefore, the analysis considers September 20i0 4-75 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 potential impacts through the end of the current license terms as well as the 20-year renewal 2 license renewal terms. The geographic area over which past, present, and future actions would 3 occur depend on the type of action considered and is described below for each impact area.
| |
| 4 4.11.1 Cumulative Impact on Water Resources 5 For the purposes of this cumulative impact assessment, the spatial boundary of the groundwater system is thePRM Auifeir which is aferof regaonga importance for 6 - Deleted: Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 7 municipal and domestic water supply. Although other aquifers (the shallow water-bearing zone, Deleted: a 8 Vincentown Aquifer, and Mt. Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer) underlie the Salem and HCGS facilities, 9 almost all groundwater use by the facilities is from theRM A uifer. The spatial boundary for _ - Deleted: Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 10 potential cumulative surface water impacts is the Delaware River Basin. I Deleted: aquifer }
| |
| 11 Actions that can impact groundwater and surface water resources in the region include overuse 12 of groundwater resources, unregulated use of water resources, drought impacts, and the need 13 for flow compensation in the Delaware River for consumptive water use.
| |
| 14 Within the Salem and HCGS local area, groundwater is not accessed for public or domestic 15 water supply within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the Salem and HCGS facilities (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 16 2009b). However, groundwater is the primary source of municipal water supply within Salem 17 18 and the surrounding counties, and groundwater within thePRMKAquifer is an important resource for water supply in a region extending from Mercer and Middlesex counties in New Jersey to the-
| |
| -Deleted: Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 4Deleted: aquifer J 19 north, and towards Maryland to the southwest. Groundwater withdrawal from the early part of 20 the twentieth century through the 1970s resulted in the development of large-scale cones of 21 depression in the elevation of the piezometric surface, and therefore had a cumulative adverse 22 impact on the availability of groundwater within the aquifer (USGS, 1983). In reaction to this 23 impact, NJDEP implemented water management measures, including limitations on pumping.
| |
| 24 As of 1998, NJDEP-mandated decreases in water withdrawals had resulted in general recovery 25 of water level elevations in both the Upper and MiddlePRM Aquifers in the Salem County area -Deleted: Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 26 (USGS, 2009). Therefore, the use of groundwater by the facilities is not contributing to a - 4 Deleted: aquifers 27 cumulative effect on local groundwater users or larger regional users. Based on these 28 observations, the Staff concludes that, when added to the groundwater usage from other past, 29 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the cumulative impact on groundwater use 30 is SMALL.
| |
| 31 Although the Salem and HCGS facilities use surface water from the Delaware River for cooling 32 purposes, the Delaware River is a tidal estuary at the facility location. Therefore, there is no 33 potential for cumulative surface water use conflicts, and the cumulative impact on surface water 34 use is SMALL.
| |
| 35 4.11.2 Cumulative Impacts on Estuarine Aquatic Resources 36 This section addresses past, present, and future actions that have created or could result in 37 cumulative adverse impacts on the aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary, the geographic 38 area of interest for this analysis. Cumulative impacts on freshwater aquatic resources other 39 than the Delaware River are discussed with terrestrial resources in Section 4.11.3.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-76 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 A wide variety of historical events have cumulatively affected the Delaware Estuary and its 2 resources. Europeans began settling the estuary region early in the 17 th century. By 1660 the 3 English had established multiple small settlements, and major changes in the environment 4 began. Philadelphia had 5,000 inhabitants by 1700 and became the predominant city and port 5 in America. Agriculture grew throughout the region, and the clearing of forest led to erosion.
| |
| 6 Dredging, diking, and filling gradually altered extensive areas of shoreline and tidal marsh. By 7 the late 1800s, industrialization had altered much of the watershed of the upper estuary, and 8 fisheries were declining due to overfishing as well as pollution from ships, sewers, and industry.
| |
| 9 By the 1940s, anadromous fish were blocked from migrating upstream to spawn due to a barrier 10 of low oxygen levels in the Philadelphia area. This barrier combined with small dams on 11 tributaries nearly destroyed the herring and shad fisheries. A large increase in industrial 12 pollution during and after World War II resulted in the Delaware River near Philadelphia 13 becoming one of the most polluted river reaches in the world. Major improvements in water 14 quality began in the 1960s through the 1980s as a result of State, multi-State, and Federal 15 action, including the Clean Water Act and the activities of the Delaware River Basin 16 Commission (Delaware Estuary Program, 1995).
| |
| 17 In addition to past events, a variety of current and likely future activities and processes also 18 have cumulative impacts on the aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary to which the 19 proposed action may contribute. Stressors associated with the proposed action and other 20 activities or processes that may contribute to cumulative impacts on the aquatic resources of the 21 estuary include the following:
| |
| 22 0 continued operation of the once-through cooling system for Salem Units 1 and 2 23
| |
| * continued operation of the closed-cycle cooling system for HCGS 24 0 construction and operation of proposed additional unit at Salem/HCGS site 25 0 continued withdrawal and discharge of water to support power generation, industry, and 26 municipal water suppliers 27 0 fishing pressure 28
| |
| * habitat loss and restoration 29
| |
| * changes in water quality 30 0 climate change.
| |
| 31 Each of these stressors may influence the structure and function of estuarine food webs and 32 result in observable changes to the aquatic resources in the Delaware Estuary. In most cases, 33 it is not possible to determine quantitatively the impact of individual stressors or groups of 34 stressors on aquatic resources. The stressors affect the estuary simultaneously, and their 35 effects are cumulative. A discussion follows of how the stressors listed above may contribute to 36 cumulative impacts on aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary.
| |
| 37 Continued Operation of the Salem Once-Through Coolinq System 38 Based on the assessment presented in Section 4.5 of this draft SEIS, the Staff concluded that 39 entrainment, impingement, and thermal discharge impacts on aquatic resources from the 40 operation of Salem Units 1 and 2 collectively have not had a noticeable adverse effect on the September 2010 4-77 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 balanced indigenous community of the Delaware Estuary in the vicinity of Salem. The 2 continued operation of Salem during the renewal term would continue to contribute to 3 cumulative impacts on the estuarine community of fish and shellfish. As discussed in Sections 4 4.5.2 through 4.5.5, there has been extensive, long-term monitoring of fish and invertebrate 5 populations of the Delaware Estuary. The data collected by these studies reflect the cumulative 6 effects of multiple stressors acting on the estuarine community. For example, data from 1970 7 through 2004 were analyzed using commonly accepted techniques for assessing species 8 richness (the average number of species in the community) and species density (the average 9 number of species per unit volume or area). This analysis found that in the vicinity of Salem 10 and HCGS since 1978, when Salem began operation, finfish species richness has not changed, 11 and species density has increased (PSEG, 2006a). Operation of Salem during the relicensing 12 period likely would continue to contribute substantially to cumulative impacts on aquatic 13 resources in conjunction with HCGS and other facilities that withdraw water from or discharge to 14 the Delaware Estuary. However, given the long-term improvements in the estuarine community 15 during recent decades while these facilities were operating, their cumulative impacts are 16 expected to be limited, with effects on individual species populations potentially ranging from 17 negligible to noticeable.
| |
| 18 Continued Operation of the HCGS Closed-Cycle Coolinq System 19 As discussed in Section 4.5.1, the closed-cycle cooling system used by HCGS substantially 20 reduces the volume of water withdrawn by the facility and substantially reduces entrainment, 21 impingement, and thermal discharge effects compared to the Salem once-through cooling 22 system. Accordingly, the impacts of these effects from operation of the HCGS cooling system 23 during the relicensing period would be limited, and the incremental contribution of HCGS to 24 cumulative impacts on the estuarine community would be minimal. HCGS has operated in 25 conjunction with Salem since 1986 and the community has been simultaneously affected by 26 both facilities. Therefore, the analysis of Salem's effects on the aquatic community discussed 27 above incorporates the cumulative effects of both HCGS and Salem. Operation of HCGS 28 during the relicensing period would continue to contribute to cumulative impacts in conjunction 29 with Salem and other facilities that withdraw water from or discharge to the Delaware Estuary.
| |
| 30 As described above for Salem, these cumulative impacts are expected to be limited, with effects 31 on individual species populations potentially ranging from negligible to noticeable.
| |
| 32 Construction and Operation of Proposed Additional Unit at Salem/HCGS Site 33 On May 25, 2010, PSEG submitted to NRC an application for an Early Site Permit for the 34 possible construction and operation of a new nuclear facility with one or two reactor units on 35 Artificial Island adjacent to Salem and HCGS (PSEG, 2010e). The projected start of 36 construction would be in 2016 (NRC, 2010). If PSEG decides to proceed and construct a new 37 nuclear power facililty at the Salem/HCGS site, it would contribute to cumulative impacts on 38 aquatic resources during construction and operation. The impacts of this action on aquatic 39 resources during the construction period may be substantial in the immediate vicinity of the 40 construction activities, but would be limited in extent and unlikely to significantly contribute to 41 cumulative impacts on the estuarine community in conjunction with the ongoing operation of 42 Salem and HCGS. Given the planned use of a closed-cycle cooling system for the new facility, 43 the impacts on aquatic resources from its operation likely would be similar to those of HCGS 44 and substantially smaller than those of Salem. Nevertheless, the long-term operation of the Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-78 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 new facility would add to the cumulative impacts on the estuarine community from Salem and 2 HCGS during the period in which their operations overlap.
| |
| 3 NRC concluded in the GElS that impacts on aquatic ecology are Category 1 issues at power 4 plants with closed-cycle cooling systems, such as the system at HCGS and the system planned 5 for the new facility. The Staff concludes in this SEIS (see Section 4.5.5) that.impacts on aquatic 6 ecology from the collective effects of entrainment, impingement, and heat shock at Salem 7 during the renewal term would be SMALL. Thus, the incremental contributions of each of the 8 three facilities to impacts on aquatic resources would be minor. However, it is possible that, 9 depending on the characteristics of the new facility, their cumulative impacts could alter an 10 important attribute of the Delaware Estuary, such as certain fish populations, to a noticeable 11 degree.
| |
| 12 The specific impacts of this action ultimately would depend on the actual design, operating 13 characteristics, and construction practices proposed by the applicant. Such details are not 14 available at this time. However, if a combined license application is submitted to NRC, the 15 detailed impacts of this additional unit adjacent to the site of the existing Salem and HCGS units 16 then would be analyzed and addressed in a separate NEPA document prepared by NRC.
| |
| 17 Continued Water Withdrawals and Discharoes 18 No large industrial facilities lie downstream of Artificial Island on either side of the estuary south 19 to the mouth of Delaware Bay. An oil refinery lies upstream of Artificial Island in Delaware 20 approximately 8 mi (13 km) to the north, and many industrial facilities are upstream from there 21 (PSEG, 2009a). Many of these facilities are permitted to withdraw water from the river and to 22 discharge effluents to the river. In addition, water is withdrawn from the nontidal, freshwater 23 reaches of the river to supply municipal water throughout New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New 24 York (DRBC, 2010). In the tidal portion of the river, water is used for power plant cooling 25 systems as well as industrial operations. DRBC-approved water users in this reach include 22 26 industrial facilities and 14 power plants in Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (DRBC, 27 2005). Of these facilities, Salem uses by far the largest volume of water, with a reported water 28 withdrawal volume in 2005 of 1,067,892 million gallons (4,042 million M3) (DRBC, 2005). This 29 volume exceeds the combined total withdrawal for all other industrial,, power, and public water 30 supply purposes in the tidal portion of the river. The volume of water withdrawn by HCGS in 31 2005 was much lower, at 19,561 million gallons (74 million M3) (DRBC, 2005).
| |
| 32 These activities are expected to continue in the future, and water supply withdrawals likely will 33 increase in the future in conjunction with population growth. Because water withdrawals from 34 the Delaware River will continue, and are likely to increase, during the relicensing term, this 35 activity will continue to contribute to cumulative effects in the estuary. Similarly, ongoing 36 discharges of effluents to the river and estuary will continue to have cumulative effects.
| |
| 37 Withdrawals and discharges are regulated by Federal and State agencies as well as by the 38 DRBC, limiting the magnitude of their effects. Permit requirements are expected to limit 39 adverse effects from withdrawals and discharges, and cumulative impacts from these activities 40 on the aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary are expected to be minimal.
| |
| 41 Fishinq Pressure 42 The majority of the RS and EFH species at Salem are commercially or recreationally important 43 and, thus, are subject to effects from the harvesting of fish stocks. Losses from fish populations September 2010 4-79 Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 due to fishing pressure are cumulative in conjunction with losses due to entrainment.and 2 impingement at Salem and HCGS as well as other water intakes. In most cases, the 3 commercial or recreational catches of RS are regulated by Federal or State agencies, but 4 losses of some RS continue to occur as bycatch caught unintentionally when fishing for other 5 species. The extent and magnitude of fishing pressure and its relationship to cumulative 6 impacts on fish populations and the overall aquatic community of the Delaware Estuary are 7 difficult to determine because of the large geographic scale of the fisheries and the natural 8 variability that occurs in fish populations and the ecosystem. Fishing pressure (and protection 9 of fisheries through catch restrictions) has the potential to influence the food web of the 10 Delaware Estuary by affecting fish and invertebrate populations in areas extending from the 11 Atlantic Ocean and Delaware Bay through the estuary and upriver.
| |
| 12 Habitat Loss and Restoration 13 As described above, alterations to terrestrial, wetland, shoreline, and aquatic habitats have 14 occurred in the Delaware Estuary since colonial times. Development, agriculture, and other 15 upland habitat alterations in the watershed have affected water quality. The creation of dams 16 and the filling or isolation of wetlands to support industrial and agricultural activities has 17 dramatically changed patterns of nutrient and sediment loading to the estuary. Such activities 18 also have reduced productive marsh habitats and limited access of anadromous fish to 19 upstream spawning habitats. In addition, historic dredging and deposition activities have altered 20 estuarine environments and affected flow patterns, and future activities, such as dredging to 21 deepen the shipping channel through the estuary, may continue to influence estuarine habitats.
| |
| 22 Development along the shores of the estuary in some places also has resulted in the loss of 23 shoreline habitat.
| |
| 24 Although habitat loss in the vicinity of the Delaware Estuary continues to occur currently and is 25 likely in the future, habitat restoration activities have had a beneficial effect on the estuary and 26 are expected to continue as a requirement of the Salem NJPDES permit during the license 27 renewal term (see Section 4.5.5). In addition, NRC expects wetland permitting regulations to 28 limit future losses of wetland habitat from development in the watershed. Thus, the net 29 cumulative impacts on aquatic habitats associated with the estuary are likely to be minimal in 30 the future, and restoration activities are expected to provide ongoing habitat improvements.
| |
| 31 Water Quality 32 In general, there is evidence that water quality in the Delaware River Basin, including the 33 estuary, is improving. Upgrades to wastewater treatment facilities and improved agricultural 34 practices during the past 25 years have reduced the amount of untreated sewage, manure, and 35 fertilizer entering the river and contributed to reductions in nutrients and an apparent increase in 36 dissolved oxygen. Chemical contaminants persist in sediments and the tissues of fish and 37 invertebrates, and nonpoint discharges of chemicals still occur (Kauffmann, Belden, and 38 Homsey, 2008). Water quality in the Delaware Estuary likely will continue to be adversely 39 affected by human activities; however, improvement may continue in many water quality 40 parameters, and the incremental contribution of Salem and HCGS to adverse effects on water 41 quality is expected to be minimal.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-80 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Climate Change 2 The potential cumulative effects of climate change on the Delaware Estuary, whether from 3 natural cycles or related to anthropogenic activities, could result in a variety of environmental 4 alterations that would affect aquatic resources. The environmental changes that could affect 5 estuarine systems include sea level rise, temperature increases, salinity changes, and wind and 6 water circulation changes. Changes in sea level could result in dramatic effects on tidal 7 wetlands and other shoreline communities. Water temperature increases could affect spawning 8 patterns or success, or influence species distributions when cold-water species move northward 9 while warm-water species become established in new habitats. Changes in estuarine salinity 10 patterns could influence the spawning and distribution of RS and the ranges of exotic or 11 nuisance species. Changes in precipitation patterns could have major effects on water 12 circulation and alter the nature of sediment and nutrient inputs to the system. This could result 13 in changes to primary production and influence the estuarine food web on many levels. Thus, 14 the extent and magnitude of climate change impacts may make this process an important 15 contributor to cumulative impacts on the aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary, and these 16 impacts could be substantial over the long term. However, the operation of Salem and HCGS 17 during the renewal term would not emit greenhouse gases that may promote climate change 18 and would not contribute to the cumulative effects of climate change on the Delaware Estuary or 19 the region.
| |
| 20 Final Assessment of Cumulative Impacts on Aquatic Resources 21 Aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary are cumulatively affected to varying degrees by 22 multiple activities and processes that have occurred in the past, are occurring currently, and are 23 likely to occur in the future. The food web and the abundance of RS and other species have 24 been substantially affected by these stressors historically. The impacts of some of these 25 stressors associated with human activities have been and can be addressed by management 26 actions (e.g., cooling system operation, fishing pressure, water quality, and habitat restoration).
| |
| 27 Other stressors, such as climate change and increased human population and associated 28 development in the Delaware River Basin, cannot be directly managed and their effects are 29 more difficult to quantify and predict. It is likely, however, that future anthropogenic and natural 30 environmental stressors would cumulatively affect the aquatic community of the Delaware 31 Estuary sufficiently that they would noticeably alter important attributes, such as species ranges, 32 populations, diversity, habitats, and ecosystem processes. Based on this assessment, the Staff 33 concludes that cumulative impacts during the relicensing period from past, present, and future 34 stressors affecting aquatic resources in the Delaware Estuary would range from SMALL to 35 MODERATE. The incremental contributions specifically from the continued operation of Salem 36 and HCGS to impacts on aquatic resources of the estuary would be SMALL for most impacts.
| |
| 37 4.11.3 Cumulative Impacts on Terrestrial and Freshwater Resources 38 This section addresses past, present, and future actions that could result in adverse cumulative 39 impacts on terrestrial resources, including resources associated with uplands, wetlands, and 40 bodies of freshwater other than the Delaware River (discussed in Section 4.11.2). For the 41 purpose of this analysis, the geographic area of interest includes the Salem and HCGS site on 42 Artificial Island and the associated transmission line ROWs identified in Section 2.1.5.
| |
| September 2010 4-81 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Impacts on terrestrial and freshwater resources in the area began with historical settlement and 2 development by Europeans, which involved clearing of forests and filling and draining of 3 wetlands for agriculture. Colonial settlement of the Delaware River area of southern New 4 Jersey began in 1638. During the 1640s, a fortification, Fort Elfsborg, was built in an area that 5 previously was mostly swampland between Salem and Alloway Creek. As settlement 6 progressed, forested regions in this part of southern New Jersey were further cleared for towns, 7 farming, and lumber (Morris Land Conservancy, 2006). Tidal marshes along the margins of the 8 Delaware Estuary were managed for salt hay farms and other agricultural uses, the hydrology of 9 marshes was altered for mosquito control, and marshes were filled for disposal of dredged 10 material and for development (Philipp, 2005). Industrial development in the area began with 11 the glassmaking industry in the early 1700s and continued through the 1800s (Morris Land 12 Conservancy, 2006). The Industrial Revolution and other historical trends continued the 13 changes in land use and the loss of terrestrial communities of native vegetation and wildlife.
| |
| 14 The Salem and HCGS facilities are located within 740 ac (300 ha) of PSEG property on 1,500-15 ac (600 ha) Artificial Island. Construction of Salem and HCGS converted 373 ac (151 ha) in the 16 southwest corner of Artificial Island to facilities and industrial uses. Artificial Island was 17 originally created by deposition of hydraulic dredge material in the early 20th century, and all 18 terrestrial resources on the island have become established since then. Before development of 19 the land on the Salem and HCGS sites, the vegetative communities of the island consisted 20 mainly of typical coastal tidal marsh species, including salt-tolerant grasses such as cordgrass 21 (Spartina spp.) and common reed (Phragmitesaustralis),which could survive in the brackish 22 habitats. There was no known previous development or use of Artificial Island prior to the 23 construction of Salem and HCGS. Currently, the Salem and HCGS sites are developed and 24 maintained for operation of the facilites. The remainder of Artificial Island consists mainly of 25 undeveloped areas of tidal marsh with poor quality soils and very few trees. Non-wetland areas 26 are vegetated mainly with grasses, small shrubs, and planted trees in developed areas (PSEG, 27 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 28 Construction of the transmission line ROWs maintained by PSEG for Salem and HCGS resulted 29 in subsequent changes to the wildlife and plant species present within the vicinity of Artificial 30 Island and along the length of the transmission line ROWs. The transmission lines ROWs have 31 a total length of approximately 149 mi (240 km) and occupy approximately 4,376 ac (1,771 ha).
| |
| 32 The three ROWs for the Salem and HCGS power transmission system pass through a variety of 33 habitat types, including marshes and other wetlands, agricultural or forested land, and some 34 urban and residential areas (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Fragmentation of the previously 35 contiguous forested, agricultural, and swamp areas that the transmission ROWs traverse likely 36 resulted in edge effects such as changes in light, wind, and temperature; changes in abundance 37 and distribution of interior species; reduced habitat ranges for certain species; and an increased 38 susceptibility to invasive species, such as multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) in uplands, purple 39 loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)in wetlands, and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) in 40 both habitat types (Snyder and Kaufman, 2004). ROW maintenance is likely to continue to have 41 future impacts on terrestrial habitat, such as prevention of natural succession stages within the 42 ROWs, increases in edge species, and decreases in interior species.
| |
| 43 Land use data provide an indication of the impacts on terrestrial resources that have resulted 44 from historical and ongoing development. Current land uses in the region are discussed by 45 county in Section 2.2.8.3 of this draft SEIS. In Salem County, based on 2008 data, farmland Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-82 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 under active cultivation is the predominant type of land cover (42 percent), followed by tidal and 2 freshwater wetlands (30 percent), forests (12 percent), residential/commercial/industrial uses 3 (13 percent), and other undeveloped natural areas (3 percent) (Morris Land Conservancy, 4 2006). In the two adjacent counties in New Jersey (Cumberland and Gloucester), agriculture 5 accounts for 19 and 26 percent of the land cover, and urban land use in the two counties was 6 12 percent and 26 percent, respectively (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 7 [DVRPC], 2009; Gloucester County, 2009). Thus, commercial and industrial facilities, including 8 the Salem and HCGS site and ROWs, have had a smaller impact on the loss of native terrestrial 9 forest and wetland habitats in the region compared to agricultural development.
| |
| 10 Although development of PSEG property on Artificial Island has contributed minimally to 11 impacts on terrestrial resources from historical and ongoing development in the region, portions 12 of both PSEG land and the island have been protected from development. Approximately 25 13 percent (100 ac [40 ha]) of PSEG property and approximately 80 percent (1,200 ac [485 ha]) of 14 Artificial Island remain undeveloped. These areas consist predominantly of estuarine marsh 15 and freshwater emergent marsh, wetlands, and ponds. The U.S. government owns the portions 16 of the island adjacent to Salem and HCGS (to the north and east), while the State of New 17 Jersey owns the rest of the island as well as much nearby inland property (Lower Alloways 18 Creek Township [LACT],1988a; LACT, 1988b; PSEG 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). In conjunction 19 with the Artificial Island wetlands, public lands in the region also preserve forest and wetland 20 habitat and have a beneficial cumulative impact on terrestrial resources. In compliance with 21 Salem's 1994 and 2001 NJPDES permits, PSEG implemented the EEP, which has preserved 22 and/or restored more than 20,000 ac (8,000 ha) of wetland and adjoining upland buffers around 23 the Delaware Estuary. In particular, the program restored 4,400 ac (1,780 ha) of formerly diked 24 salt hay farms to reestablish conditions suitable for the growth of low marsh vegetation such as 25 saltmarsh cord grass (Spartinaalterniflora)and provide for tidal exchange with the estuary 26 (PSEG, 2009a).
| |
| 27 PSEG has indicated the possibility of constructing one or two actor unitslat the Salem .1.
| |
| . - Comment [Li]: Do word Search on New 28 and HCGS site on Artificial Island (PSEG, 2010c) It would be primarily located on previously reactor 29 disturbed land adjacent to the existing Salem and HCGS units. It is not know at this time 30 whether new transmission lines would be constructed. If additional ROW needs to be cleared, 31 terrestrial habitats and the wildlife they support could potentially be affected in the areas it would 32 traverse.
| |
| 33 The Staff concludes that the minimal terrestrial impacts expected from the continued operation 34 of Salem and HCGS, including the operation and maintenance of the transmission line ROWs, 35 would not contribute to the overall decline in the condition of terrestrial resources. However, 36 while the level of impact due to direct and indirect impacts of Salem and HCGS on terrestrial 37 communities is SMALL, the cumulative impact when combined with all other sources, even if 38 Salem and HCGS were excluded, would be MODERATE.
| |
| 39 4.11.4 Cumulative Human Health Impacts 40 The radiological dose limits for protection of the public and workers have been developed by the 41 NRC and EPA to address the cumulative impact of acute and long-term exposure to radiation 42 and radioactive material. These dose limits are codified in 10 CFR Part 20 and 40 CFR Part 43 190. For the purpose of this analysis, the area within a 50-mi (80.4-km) radius of the Salem and September 2010 4-83 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 HCGS site was included. The radiological environmental monitoring program conducted by 2 PSEG in the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS site measures radiation and radioactive materials 3 from all sources (i.e., hospitals and other licensed users of radioactive material); therefore, the 4 monitoring program measures cumulative radiological impacts. Within the 50-mi (80-km) radius 5 of the Salem and HCGS site, there are no other nuclear power reactors or uranium fuel cycle 6 facilities.
| |
| 7 On May 25, 2010 PSEG submitted an application for an Early Site Permit (ESP) for the possible 8 construction of a fourth reactor at the Salem and HCGS site (PSEG 2010e). A specific reactor 9 design has not been selected; therefore, the application uses a plant parameter envelope 10 approach to evaluate the suitability of the site based on the potential environmental impacts 11 from a blend of reactor types. This approach uses surrogate values as upper and lower bounds 12 for issues such as power level, radioactive effluents, public dose estimates, thermal discharges, 13 air quality, and accident consequences, for each of the potential reactor designs being 14 considered. This is a conservative approach allowed by the NRC for the analysis of the 15 environmental impacts from an unspecified reactor design at a specific location. A final decision 16 by the applicant on the reactor design will be deferred until the submission of an application for 17 either a construction permit or a combined construction permit and operating license.
| |
| 18 The NRC will evaluate the ESP application in accordance with its regulations to ensure the 19 application meets the NRC requirements for adequate protection and safety of the public and 20 the environment. As discussed above, any new potential source of radioactive emissions from 21 a uranium fuel cycle facility will be evaluated during the licensing process to address the 22 cumulative impact of acute and long-term exposure to radiation and radioactive material.
| |
| 23 The applicant constructed an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) on the Salem 24 and HCGS site in 2007 for the storage of its spent fuel. Currently, only spent fuel from HCGS is 25 being stored in the ISFS. The installation and monitoring of this facility is governed by NRC 26 requirements in 10 CFR Part 72, "Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent 27 Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C 28 Waste." Radiation from this facility as well as from the operation of Salem and HCGS are 29 required to be within the radiation dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20, 40 CFR Part 190, and 10 CFR 30 Part 72. The NRC performs periodic inspections of the ISFSI and Salem and HCGS to verify 31 their compliance with licensing and regulatory requirements.
| |
| 32 Radioactive effluent and environmental monitoring data for the five-year period from 2005 to 33 2009 were reviewed as part of the cumulative impacts assessment. These reports show that 34 past and current annual radiological doses to a maximally exposed member of the public at the 35 site boundary are well below regulatory dose limits. In Section 4.8 the Staff concluded that 36 impacts of radiation exposure to the public and workers from operation of Salem and HCGS 37 during the renewal term are SMALL. The possible addition of a fourth reactor to the three-38 reactor site is not expected to result in any substantial increases in doses that would cause the 39 cumulative dose impact to approach regulatory limits. This is because the reactor would be 40 required to maintain its radiological release within NRC's dose limits for individual reactor units 41 and the cumulative dose from all reactor units and the ISFSI on the site. Also, the NRC and the 42 State of New Jersey would regulate any future actions in the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS 43 site that could contribute to cumulative radiological impacts. Therefore, the staff concludes that 44 the cumulative radiological impact to the public and workers from continued operation of Salem 45 and HCGS, its associated ISFSI, and a possible fourth power reactor would be SMALL.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-84 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 The Staff has determined that the electric-field-induced currents from the Salem and HCGS 2 transmission lines are below the NESC criteria for preventing electric shock from induced 3 currents. Therefore, the Salem and HCGS transmission lines do not significantly affect the 4 overall potential for electric shock from induced currents within the analysis area; the impact is 5 SMALL. The potential effect from the chronic exposure to these electric fields continues to be 6 studied and is not known at this time. The Staff considers the GElS finding of "Uncertain" still 7 appropriate and will continue to follow developments on this issue.
| |
| 8 4.11.5 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts 9 The Salem and HCGS facilities are located in Salem County, which is included with the 10 Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR), which encompasses 11 the area geographically located in five counties of New Jersey, including Salem and Gloucester 12 Counties, New Castle County Delaware, and five counties of Pennsylvania (40 CFR 81.15).
| |
| 13 Salem County is designated as in attainment/unclassified area with respect to the National 14 Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) for Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns in 15 diameter (PM 25 ), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead.
| |
| 16 The county, along with all of southern New Jersey, is a non-attainment area with respect to the 17 1-hour primary ozone standard and the 8-hour ozone standard. For the 1-hour ozone standard, 18 Salem County is located within the multi-state Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton non-attainment 19 area, and for the 8-hour ozone standard, it is located in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic 20 City (PA-NJ-DE-MD) non-,attainment area. Of the adjacent counties, Gloucester County in New .-.[Deleted:
| |
| 21 Jersey is in non-attainment for the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards, as well as the annual 22 and daily PM 2.5 standard (NJDEP 2010b). New Castle County, Delaware is considered to be in 23 moderate non-attainment for the ozone standards, and non-attainment for PM 2 .5 (40 CFR 24 81.315).
| |
| 25 The State of New Jersey has implemented several measures to address greenhouse gas 26 (GHG) emissions within the state. In February 2007, the governor signed EO 54 calling for a 27 reduction in GI-G_ _emissions to 1990 levels by 2020,_and to 80 percent below 2006 levels b . .Deleted: G 28 2050. These objectives became mandatory in July 2007, with passage of the Global Warming 29 Response Act. New Jersey also joined with nine other northeastern and mid-Atlantic states in 30 the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) through Assembly Bill 4559 in January 2008.
| |
| 31 The RGGI caps carbon dioxide (C0 2) emissions from power plants, and requires utilities to 32 purchase emissions credits, with the funds used to finance energy efficiency and renewable 33 energy programs.
| |
| 34 Potential cumulative effects of climate change on the State of New Jersey, whether or not from 35 natural cycles of anthropogenic (man-induced) activities, could result in a variety of changes to 36 the air quality of the area. As projected in the "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 37 States" report by the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP, 2009), the 38 temperatures in the mid-Atlantic have already risen up to 1OF (0.6 0C) since the 1961-1979 39 baseline, and are projected to increase by 3 to 6 0F (1.7 to 3.3 0C) more by 2090. Increases in 40 average annual temperatures, higher probability of extreme heat events, higher occurrences of 41 extreme rainfall (intense rainfall or drought) and changes in the wind patterns could affect 42 concentrations of the air pollutants and their long-range transport, because their formation 43 partially depends on the temperature and humidity and is a result of the interactions between September 2010 4-85 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 hourly changes in the physical and dynamic properties of the atmosphere, atmospheric 2 circulation features, wind, topography, and energy use (,JPCC* 20109.....---- -
| |
| 3 Consistent with the findings in the GELS, the Staff concludes that the impacts from continued Deleted:
| |
| 4 operation of the Salem and HCGS facilities on air quality are SMALL. As no refurbishment is J Deleted:]
| |
| 5 planned at the facilities during the license renewal period, no additional air emissions would 6 result from refurbishment activities (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). In comparison with 7 construction and operation of a comparable fossil-fueled power plant, license renewal would 8 result in a new cumulative deferral of GHG emissions, which would otherwise be produced if a 9 new gas or coal-fired plant were instead constructed. When compared with the alternative of a 10 new fossil-fuel power plant, the option of license renewal also results in a substantial new 11 cumulative deferral in toxic air emissions.
| |
| 12 For the purpose of this cumulative air impact assessment, the spatial bounds include the 13 Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate AQCR, which encompasses the area geographically 14 located in five counties of New Jersey, including Salem and Gloucester Counties, New Castle 15 County Delaware, and five counties of Pennsylvania. The Staff concludes that, combined with 16 the emissions from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, cumulative 17 hazardous and criteria air pollutant emission impacts on air quality from Salem and HCGS-18 I related actions would be SMALL. .. .. . Deleted: When considered with respect to an I alternative of building a fossil-fuel powered plant, continuing the operation of the Salem and 19 4.11.6 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts HCGS facilities would constitute a net cumulative beneficial environmental impact in 20 As discussed in Section 4.9 of this draft SEIS, continued operation of Salem and HCGS during terms of emissions offsets (i.e., reducing hazardous, criteria, and GHG air emissions) 21 the license renewal term would have no impact on socioeconomic conditions in the region that would otherwise be generated by a fossil-22 beyond those already being experienced. Since PSEG has indicated that there would be no fuel plant.
| |
| 23 major plant refurbishment, overall expenditures and employment levels at Salem and HCGS 24 would remain relatively constant with no additional demand for housing, public utilities, and 25 public services. In addition, since employment levels and the value of Salem and HCGS would 26 not change, there would be no population and tax revenue-related land use impacts. There 27 would also be no disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental impacts on 28 minority and low-income populations in the region. Based on this and other information 29 presented in this draft SEIS, there would be no cumulative socioeconomic impacts from Salem 30 and HCGS operations during the license renewal term.
| |
| 31 If PSEG decides to proceed and construct a new nuclear power plant unit at the Salem and 32 HCGS site, the cumulative short-term construction-related socioeconomic impacts of this action 33 could be MODERATE to LARGE in counties located in the immediate vicinity of Salem and 34 HCGS. These impacts would be caused by the short-term increased demand for rental housing 35 and other commercial and public services used by construction workers during the years of 36 power plant construction. During peak construction periods there would be a noticeable 37 increase in the number and volume of construction vehicles on roads in the immediate vicinity of 38 the Salem and HCGS site.
| |
| 39 The cumulative long-term operations-related socioeconomic impacts of this action during the 40 operation of the new power plant unit would be SMALL to MODERATE. These impacts would 41 be caused by the increased demand for permanent housing and other commercial and public 42 services, such as schools, police and fire, and public water and electric services, from the 43 addition of operations workers at the Salem and HCGS site during the years of new plant Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-86 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 operations. During shift changes there would be a noticeable increase in the number of 2 commuter vehicles on roads in the immediate vicinity of the Salem and HCGS site.
| |
| 3 Since Salem County has less housing and public services available to handle the influx of 4 construction workers in comparison to New Castle, Gloucester, and Cumberland Counties, the 5 cumulative short-term construction-related socioeconomic impacts on Salem County would 6 likely be MODERATE to LARGE. Over the long-term, cumulative operations impacts on Salem 7 County would likely be SMALL to MODERATE since new operations workers would likely reside 8 in the same counties and in the same pattern as the current Salem and HCGS workforce. Many 9 of the operations workers would be expected to settle in Salem County where nearly 40 percent 10 of the current workforce reside.
| |
| 11 Because New Castle, Gloucester, and Cumberland Counties each has a larger available 12 housing supply than Salem County, and the current number of Salem and HCGS workers 13 residing in these three counties combined (43 percent) is the same as those residing in Salem 14 County (40 percent), the cumulative construction- and operations-related socioeconomic 15 impacts are likely to be SMALL in these three counties. If PSEG decides to construct a new 16 nuclear power plant unit at the Salem and HCGS site, the cumulative impacts of this action 17 would likely be SMALL on the four-county socioeconomic region of influence.
| |
| 18 The specific impact of this action would ultimately depend on the actual design, characteristics, 19 and construction practices proposed by the applicant. Such details are not available at this 20 time, but if the combined license application is submitted to NRC, the detailed socioeconomic 21 impacts of this action at the Salem and HCGS site would be analyzed and addressed in a 22 separate NEPA document that would be prepared by NRC.
| |
| 23 4.11.7 Summary of Cumulative Impacts 24 The Staff considered the potential impacts resulting from operation of Salem and HCGS during 25 the period of extended operation and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 26 actions in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS. The preliminary determination is that the potential 27 cumulative impacts resulting from Salem and HCGS operation during the period of extended 28 operation would range from SMALL to LARGE. Table 4-24 summarizes the cumulative impact 29 by resource area.
| |
| September 2010 4-87 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation Table 4-24. Summary of Cumulative Impacts on Resource Areas Resource Area Impact Summary Land Use SMALL With respect to the Salem and HCGS facilities, no measureable changes in land use would occur over the proposed license renewal term. When combined with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future activities, impacts from continued operation of Salem and HCGS would constitute a SMALL cumulative impact on land use.
| |
| Air Quality SMALL Impacts of air emissions over the proposed license renewal term would be SMALL. When combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, impacts to air resources from the Salem and HCGS facilities would constitute a SMALL cumulative impact on air quality. In comparison with the alternative of constructing and operating a comparable gas or coal-fired power plant, license renewal would result in a new cumulative deferral in both GHG and other toxic air emissions, which would otherwise be produced by a fossil-fueled plant.
| |
| Ground Water SMALL Groundwater consumption constitutes a SMALL cumulative impact on the resource. When this consumption is added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future withdrawals, cumulative impact on groundwater resources is SMALL.
| |
| Surface Water SMALL Impacts on surface water over the proposed license term would be SMALL. When combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, impacts to surface water from the Salem and HCGS facilities would constitute a SMALL cumulative impact.
| |
| Aquatic Resources SMALL to Past and present operations have impacted aquatic MODERATE resources in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS and would likely continue to in the future. Such impacts would continue to be SMALL. When combined with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future activities, impacts from continued operation of Salem and HCGS would constitute a SMALL to MODERATE cumulative impact on aquatic resources.
| |
| Terrestrial Resources MODERATE Past and present operations have impacted terrestrial habitat and species in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS.
| |
| Continued impacts associated with the proposed license renewal term would be SMALL. When combined with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future activities, impacts from continued operation of Salem and HCGS would constitute a MODERATE cumulative impact on terrestrial resources.
| |
| 2 Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 4-88 September 20.10
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation Resource Area Impact Summary Threatened or SMALL Past and present operations have impacted threatened Endangered Species or endangered species in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS and would likely continue to inthe future. Such impacts would continue to be SMALL. When combined with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future activities, impacts from continued operation of Salem and HCGS would constitute a SMALL cumulative impact on threatened or endangered species.
| |
| Human Health SMALL When combined with the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, the cumulative human health impacts of continued operation of Salem and HCGS from radiation exposure to the public, microbiological organisms from thermal discharges to the Delaware Estuary, and electric-field-induced currents from the Salem and HCGS transmission lines would all be negligible to SMALL.
| |
| Socioeconomics SMALL to LARGE Impacts on socioeconomics over the proposed license term would be SMALL depending on the alternative selected. When combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, impacts to socioeconomics from the Salem and HCGS facilities would constitute a SMALL to LARGE cumulative impact.
| |
| 1 September 2010 4-89 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 4.12 References 2 10 CFR 20. Code of Federal Regulations,Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for Protection - Formatted: SEIS Text, Space After: 0 pt, Tab 3 Against Radiation." stops: Not at 0.25" + 0.5" + 0.63" 4 10 CFR 50. Code of Federal Regulations,Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of 5 Production and Utilization Facilities."
| |
| 6 10 CFR 51. Code of Federal Regulations,Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental Protection 7 Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Function."
| |
| 8 10 CFR 72. Code of Federal Regulations,Title 10, Energy, Part 72, "Licensing Requirements 9 for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and 10 Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste."
| |
| 11 33 USC 1326. United States Code. Thermal Discharges 12 36 CFR 800. Code of FederalRegulations. Title 36, Parks, Forests,and PublicProperty, Part 13 800, "Protection of Historic Properties" Federal Register. August 5, 2004.
| |
| 14 40 CFR 81. Code of FederalRegulations,Title 40, Protectionof Environment, Part 81, 15 "Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes" Federal Register.
| |
| 16 I 40 CFR 190. Code of FederalRegulations, Title 40, Protectionof Environment, Part 190, 17 "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power to Establish Requirements 18 for Coolin Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities." Federal Register. July 9, 19 2004.
| |
| 20 21 69 FR 52040. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions."fed eral Register, _
| |
| IJ Formatted: SEIS Text, Space After: 0 pt
| |
| - ..... Formatted: Font: Italic 22 Vol. 69, NBo. 163, pp. 52040-52048. August 24, 2004.
| |
| 72 FR 37107. U.S, Environmental Protection Agency._ "National Pollutant Discharge 23 -Formatted: SEIS Text 24 Elimination System - Suspension of Regulations Establishing Requirements for Cooling Water rjDeleted:.
| |
| 25 Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities." FederalRegister, Vol. 72, No. 130, pp. 37107-26 3 7 10 9 ._Ju ly 9 , 2 0 0 8. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deleted:,
| |
| 27 ASFMC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commissior._ 2008. "Species Profile: _Spot, Short- - . Formatted: SEIS Text, Space After: 0 pt, 28 Lived Fish Supports South Atlantic Fisheries & Serves as Important Prey Species." Excerpted Don't keep with next, Adjust space between 29 from ASMFC Fisheries Focus, Vol. 17, Issue 6, August 2008. Available URI. . > Latin and Asian text, Adjust space between http://www.asmfc. orq/speciesDocuments/southAtlanticSpecies/spot/speciesProfile5O5.pdf
| |
| -, I Asian text and numbers 30 fDeleted: (ASFMC 31 (accesse4August 12, 2010) ............................................
| |
| -(Deleted: ccessed at 32 Barnthouse, L.W., D.G. Heimbuch, V.C. Anthony, R.W. Hilborn, and R.A. Myers. 2002. " .'( Deleted: on 33 Indicators of AEI applied to the Delaware Estuary. In Defining and Assessing Adverse 34 Environmental Impact Symposium 2001. TheScientificWorldJournal,2(S1), 168-189. Formatted: SEIS Text, Space After: 0 pt, Adi, ,cf cn~ro holh&,c'n I ,,tin *nr1 Ac,,n topyS 35 CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the
| |
| * Adjust space between Asian text and numbers 36 National Environmental Policy Act. ,AvailableURL: ,http://www.epa.qov/comD liance/e/ ...................
| |
| .-. Formatted: SEIS Text, Space After: 0 pt 37 resources/policy/e ML0825201150. .quidance nepa ceq1297.pdf (accessed September 2, 2010). ADAMS No. " Deleted:
| |
| Detd:(E (CEO 38 MDeleted: Executive Order of the President,
| |
| %,, Washington. DC.
| |
| Field Code Changed Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 4-90 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Dames & Moore. 1988. final Report, Study of GroundwaterConditions and Future Water- - Formatted: Font: Italic, No underline, Font 2 Supply Alternatives, Salem/Hope Creek GeneratingStation, Artificial Island, Salem County, color: Auto 3 New Jersey. Prepared for PSE&G.,Ju~y 15, 1988. ADAMS ------ ............ Comment [BAB2]: Reference needs to be put 4 DNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 2003. §Lin ADAMS. Reeecnedtobpu 5 Public Water Supply Source Water Assessment for Artesian Water Company (Bayview), PWS ." Deleted: Publication date:
| |
| 6 ID DE0000553. New Castle County, Delaware. October 2, 2003. Available URLý .......... Deleted: (DNREC 7 http://www.wr.udel.edu/swaphome old/phase2/final assess/artesianother/awc bayview.pdf Deleted: , Division of WaterResources.
| |
| 8 (accessed, February2420-10)-.- ....... Formatted: Font: Italic, No underline, Font
| |
| [ color: Auto 9 Delaware Estuary Progiram. 1995. Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the
| |
| , Deleted: Accessed at 10 Delaware Estuary. January 1995. Available URL:
| |
| 11 http://www.delawareestuary.orq/pdf/CCMP.pdf (accessed September 2, 2010). Deleted: on 12 ORBC (Delaware River BasinConmmissior. 0-.-run-dwaterWithdrawal.Docke-tN--
| |
| ---- --- D- - - ý Deleted: (DRBC I
| |
| 13 90-71 Renewal. West Trenton, New Jersey, Delaware River Basin Commission. Publicationr -] Formatted: No underline, Font color: Auto, 14 'date: November 1 2000. ADAMS No.MLxxxxxxxxx.I Highlight Formatted: SEIS Text, Space After: 0 pt, 15 D`RBC (D-e-lw-are Ri-ver-Ba-sin -Co-mm-i-ssi-o-n-). 2'0"01.-D-o-ck-e-t-N-o. D--68--2-0 C-P (-R'evi-sion 2),.__ Arli,,II" cnara* hpl-wr'n I atin and AScian fry,v 16 Delaware River Basin Commission, PSEG, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Lower AIloways Adjust space between Asian text and numbers, 17 Creek Township,_Salem County, NJ. September 18, 2001.[ ADAMS No.,MLxxxxxxxx. Tab stops: Not at 0.5" 18 DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 2005. "Year 2005 Water Withdrawal and 4 Comment [BAB3]: These are both site-specific references that were probably obtained 19 Consumptive Use by Large Users on the Tidal Delaware River." Avyailable URL: from the applicant. I can't find the actual source.
| |
| 20 http://www. state. ni. us/drbc/wateruse/larqeusers 05. htm (accessed February 15 2010)._ These need to be located and placed it ADAMS.
| |
| 21 ,IpRBC (DelawareRiver Basin Commission). 2008. Administrative Manual - PartIf/:--ate Formatted: No underline, Font color: Auto,
| |
| \ * /Highlight 22 ,QualityRegulations, with Amendments through Julyl6,_ 2008, 18 CFR Part 410. West Trerton,-
| |
| 23 NJ: Printed September12. Formatted: SEIS Text, Space After: 0 pt 0 Deleted: Accessed at 24 DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 2010. "The Delaware River Basin." Aailable
| |
| * [Deleted: on 25 URL: http:/lwww. state. ni. us/drbc/thedrb. htm (accessedFebruary 24,_201 0)...........
| |
| Formatted: No underline, Font color: Auto, 26 DVRPC (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission,). 2009. 2009 FarmlandPreservation *i LHighlight 27 Planfor the County of Cumberland,New Jersey. Prepared for Cumberland-County Agriculture (Formatted: SEIS Text, Space After: 0 pt, 28 Development Board. Available URL: Adjust space between Latin and Asian text, 29 http://www. ni.qov/aqriculture/sadc/home/q-enpub/Cumberiand%/-2OCo/J20FPPý/o201-2-21-09.pdf \, Adjust space between Asian text and numbers, 30 (accessed S ep te mbe r 2 , 2 0 10 V --- Tab stops: Not at 0.5" CFormatted: SEtS Text, Space After: O pt 31 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Safe Drinking Water Information System Deleted: Accessed at 32 (SDWIS) for Salem County, New Jersey. Available URL:
| |
| 33 http://water.epa.qov/scitech/datait/databases/drink/sdwisfed/index.cfm (accessed September 2, "k Deleted: on 34 2010). Formatted: SES Txt, Space After: 0 ptiD Pattern: Clear 35 JFWS (U.S. Fsh a~nd Wildl iffe -Servic~e_). 20_0_9a. L-etter from N~ew"Je'rs ey Fi-elld -Offic-e7- Deleted: (DVRPC 36 Pleasantville, NJ to E. J. Keating, PSEG Nuclear LLC.
| |
| | |
| ==Subject:==
| |
| ' Response to PSEG Request for 37 Information on the Presence of Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species in the Formatted:, Font: Italic, No underline 38 lVicinity of the Existing Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations Located on Artificial Island in Del~eted: Accessed at 39 Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, NJ. September 9, 2009.LADAMS No. Deleted: http://www.co.cumberland.nj~u ... [2 40 (elated: on May 17,2010 41 FINS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009b. Letter from New Jersey Field Office,! . Comment [BAB4]: Letter not in ADAM~TT I
| |
| 42 Pleasantville, NJ to R. A.Tripodi, Manager, Corporate Licenses and Permits PSEG Services I Formatted [4]1 September 2010 4-91 Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 CVorporation.
| |
| | |
| ==Subject:==
| |
| Response to PSEG letter of October 23, 2009 Confirming Comm-itme-nt Comment [BABS]: Letter not in ADAMS or ER 2 by PSEG to ROW Vegetation Maintenance Procedures Protective of Listed Species and ," Reference CD.
| |
| 3 'Recommended byFWS. November 4, 2009.[--ADAMS-No--MLxxxxxxxxx
| |
| - - Formatted: No underline, Font color: Auto, Highlight 4 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Letter from R. Popowski, Fish and Wildlife Service'-
| |
| New Jersey Office, to B. Pham, Branch Chief, NRC.
| |
| | |
| ==Subject:==
| |
| Response to NRC Request for Formatted: SEIS Text, Space After: 0 pt, 5
| |
| Pattern: Clear 6 Information on the Presence of Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species in the Formatted: Font color: Auto 7 Vicinity of the Existing Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations Located on Artificial Island in 8 Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, NJ. June 29, 2010. ADAMS No. Deleted: Accessed at 9 ML101970077., , 4 Deleted: http:/lwww.co.gloucester.nj.us/plan/w Gloucester County. "-2009. -"Gloucester County Online Web Book." Available URL:
| |
| II/ / ebbook/lud est02.htm December 17, 2009 10 bq(Deleted:
| |
| -'i, Deleted __(IEEE http://www.co.gloucester.ni.us/plan/webbook/web data.html (accessed September 2, 2010)_ -- -- '' Deleted: (IEEE 11 SEIS Text, Left, Space After: Opt IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.)._ 2007 National Electrical SafetyD Formatted:
| |
| e 12
| |
| -! Formatted: SEIS Text, Space Afte 13 Code. 2007 Edition.
| |
| "Formatted: SEIS Text, Space After: 0 pt 14 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,). 2010.,/ovrking -- q roup Repo!,"_lrpac~ts_,_L- Deleted: (IPCC 15 Adaptation, and Vulnerability." Avyailble URL: http:llwww.ipcc.ch/iPccreports/ar4-wa2.htm ----- Deleted: "lPCC FourthAssessment Report:
| |
| 16 ,(accessed Augu~st 5 ,20_10) -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -
| |
| -\ Formatted: Font: ttalic, No underline, Font 17 Kauffmann, G., A. Belden, and A. Homsey. 2008. Technical Summary: State of the Delaware color: Auto 18 River Basin Report. July 4, 2008. Available URL: .http://www.ipa.udel.edu/publications/ - - Deleted:\
| |
| 19 StateoftheDelRiverBasin08.rdf (accessed September 2, 2010), ------------------------" Deleted: Accessed at 20 LACT (Lower Alloways Creek Townhi 1988a. Tax Map Zone 8 Lower AIloways Cr-eek . Deleted: o 21 ITow s Mai - -------------------------------------------- Deleted: n
| |
| _LACT (Lower Allowapys Creek Township}) 1988b. Tax Map, Zone 14, Lower Alloways Creek Deleted: Accessed at 22 23 wnship,
| |
| .. Mayj ,9,8 -Field Code Changed iorns Land Conservancy. 2006. County of Salem Open Space and FarmlandPreservationr Deleted: www.wra.udel.edu/files/DRBCStateoft 24 25 #Plan,Volume 1: Open Space and RecreationPlan. Compiled by Morris Land Conservancy with ,lk heBasinReport,07042008 on July 9, 2010.
| |
| 26 'Salem County Open Space Advisory Committee. December2006. Accessedat \ Formatted: No underline, Font color: Auto, 27 h ltp.Ilwww.salemcounty'j.gyv/ýcmsiteldefault.aks*...oentlD=1208 on December 9, 2009.Highli.ght 28 NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences). 1orm99ed Repor onHeltxt ,IH 29 Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. Publication No. i~3 Deee:
| |
| 30 99-4493. Available URZL:_htti)://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/docs/niehs-report.pdf acessed - ~
| |
| .Fomttd ighlight3 31 September 3, 2010). Q Formatted .. 5 32 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service4. 1993. Biological Opinion, Endangered Species Act- .,, Formatted ...
| |
| 33 Section 7 consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding the Salem and- Ho-pe Formatted ... 7 34 Creek Nuclear Generating Stations in Salem, NJ. NMFS Northeast Regional Office, Silver Spring, MD. ADAMS No ., .. xxxxx,'
| |
| '0 Formatted: SEIS Text, Space After: 0 pt 3 35 .--. .. -.---
| |
| . .- ------J
| |
| . . . . . . . . . . ------------D
| |
| . . . . . . D lt N 'E'S 36 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. LetterttoThomas H. Essig, Acting Chief, \ \Re.search Dele angleParkNo l 37 NRC. Subject_Consultation and Biological Opinion for the Operation of Salem and HCGS." %JDeleted: (NMFS 38 ADAMS No. bKL ?m--- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - - - - - Formatted([1 39 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. Letter from M. A. Colligan, Assistant ' )Formatte 40 Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS Northeast Region, to E. J. Keating, ", ( Formatted 41 PSEG Nuclear LLC.
| |
| | |
| ==Subject:==
| |
| Response to Request from PSEG for Information on Listed JFrm I
| |
| [ Formatted ... ["121-Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-92 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Species or Critical Habitat at the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. April 15, 2009.
| |
| 2 Letter provided in Appendix C of Applicant's Environmental Report (PSEG, 2009a).
| |
| 3 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2010. Letter to Bo Pham, Branch Chief, NRC.
| |
| 4
| |
| | |
| ==Subject:==
| |
| Reply to Request for Information on the Presence of Species Listed as Threatened or 5 Endangered by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service in the Vicinity of Salem and Hope 6 Creek Generating Stations. February 11, 2010. ADAMS No. ML101970073.
| |
| 7 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 8 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, DC.
| |
| Formatted: No underline, Font color: Auto, 9 May 1996. ADAMS Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738. Highlight 10 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement Formatted. SEIS Text, Space After: 0 pt, 11 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,Main Report, "Section 6.3 - Transportation, Table 9.1, Border: Top: (No border), Bottom: (No border),
| |
| 12 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report." Left: (No border), Right: (No border), Tab stops: Not at 0" + 0.5" + 1" + 1.5" + 2" +
| |
| 13 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C. August 1999. ADAMS No. 2.5" + 3" + 3.5" + 4" + 4.5" + 5" + 5.5" +
| |
| 14 ML04069720. 6" 15 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999b. Standard Review Plans for Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Bold 16 Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal. Formatted: SEIS Text, Space After: 0 pt, Adjust space between Latin and Asian text, 17 NUREG-1555. Washington, D.C. October 1999. ADAMS No. ML093340205.
| |
| Adjust space between Asian text and numbers 18 II Deleted: >
| |
| 19 Deleted: NMFS. 1999. Letter to Thomas H.
| |
| 20 Essig, Acting Chief, Generic Issues and II Environmental Projects Branch, Division of 21 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009b. Letter to NMFS regarding: Request for 4J Nuclear Reactor Program Management, Office 22 List of Protected Species within the Area Under Evaluation for the Salem and Hope Creek of Nuclear Reactor Commission, regarding consultation and biological opinion on the 23 Nuclear Generating Stations License Renewal Application Review. December 23., operation of Salem and HCGS and endangered and threatened species. ¶ 24 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010a. Letter from B. Pham, Branch Chief, to P NMFS. 2009. Letter from M. A. Colligan, 25 Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Nation Fisheries Service.
| |
| | |
| ==Subject:==
| |
| Request for List of Protected Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected 26 Species Within the Area Under Evaluation for Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Resources, NMFS Northeast Region, to E. J.
| |
| Keating, PSEG Nuclear LLC, Hancocks Bridge, 27 Station License Renewal Application Review. December 23, 2009. ADAMS No. ML093500057. NJ. Letter responded to request from PSEG for information on listed species or critical habitat at 28 NRC (U.S,_Nuclear ReqWlatoryCommission)., 2010b. Letter from B..Pharn, .Branch Chief, to A. the Salem and Hope Creek Generating 29 Scherer, Senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
| |
| | |
| ==Subject:==
| |
| Request for Stations. April 15. Letter provided in Appendix C of Applicant's Environmental Report (PSEG, 30 Listed of Protected Species Within the Area Under Evaluation for Salem and Hope Creek 2009a). ¶ 31 Nuclear Generating Station License Renewal Application Review. December 23, 2009. ADAMS NMFS. 2010. Letter to Bo Pham, Chief, Project 32 No. ML093350019 Branch 1. Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, regarding 33 $JAW (New Jersey American Water, 2010. 2008 Annual Water Quality Report. Cherry Hill, information on the presence of species listed as threatened or endangered by NOAA's National 34 New Jersey. Accessed at: http://www.amwater.com/njaw/ensuring-water-quality/water-quality- Marine Fisheries Service in the vicinity of Salem 35 reports.html, on February 24, 2010. 1.
| |
| I and Hope Creek generating stations. February 11.T 36 NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protectiorn. 1994. Final NJPDES Permit
| |
| / "{Deleted: (NJAW 37 Including Section 316(a) Variance Determination and Section 316(b) Decision, Salem Generating Station, NJ0005622. Trenton, NJ. Formatted: SEIS Text, Space After: 0 pt, 38 Border: Top: (No border), Bottom: (No border),
| |
| 39 NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2001. FinalNJPDES Permit Left: (No border), Right: (No border), Tab stops: Not at 0" + 0.5" + 1" + 1.5" + 2" +
| |
| 40 Including Section 316(a) Variance Determinationand Section 316(b) Decision, Salem 2.5" + 3" + 3.5"+ 4" + 4.5" + 5" + 5.5" +
| |
| 41 Generating Station, NJ0005622. Trenton, NJ. Issued June 29. le6" fDeleted* (NJDEP September 2010 4-93 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2004. Water Allocation Permit 2 WAP040001. Trenton, New Jersey. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
| |
| 3 Issue Date: December 30, 2004.
| |
| 4 NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2007. Determination of 5 Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) in Aqueous Samples, Final Report. Accessed at:
| |
| 6 http://www.state.nj.usldep/watersupply/finalpfoa-report.pdf, on April 23, 2010.
| |
| 7 NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2009a. Environmental 8 Surveillance and MonitoringReport For the Environs of New Jersey's Nuclear Power 9 Generating Stations, January 1, 2008 - December 31, 2008. Bureau of Nuclear Engineering.
| |
| 10 Accessed at: http://www.state.nj.usldep/rpp/bne/bnedown/2008EnvironSurv-MonitReport.pdf on 11 May 17, 2010.
| |
| 12 NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2009b. Environmental 13 Surveillance and Monitoring Report For the Environs of New Jersey's Nuclear Power 14 Generating Stations. January 1, 2008 - December 31, 2008. Bureau of Nuclear Engineering.
| |
| 15 Accessed May 17, 2010 at www.state.nj.us/dep/rpp.
| |
| 16 PA Bulletin (Pennsylvania Bulletinr. 2005. Notices Delaware River Basin Commission . - Deleted: (PA Bulletin 17 Meeting and Public Hearing 35 Pa.B. 6440), Doc. No. 05-2171, November 23, 2005. Accessed 18 at: http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vo135/35-48/2171.html, on April 23, 2010.
| |
| 19 Philipp, K. R. 2005. History of Delaware and New Jersey Salt Marsh Restoration Sites.
| |
| 20 Ecological Engineering 25 (2005) 214-230.
| |
| 21 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC.,. 1975. AReport on the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, - - - Deleted: (PSEG 22 Artificial Island, Salem County, New Jersey. Supplement to Section 316(a), Demonstration 23 Type 3 (dated 18 September 1974). Newark, NJ. December 5.
| |
| 24 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1984. Salem Generating Station 316(b) Demonstration Project.
| |
| 25 Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group. Publication date: February 1984.
| |
| 26 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1994. Work Plan for the Biological Monitoring of the Delaware 27 Estuary Under Salem's New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. Prepared 28 for Public Service Electric and Gas Company Estuary Enhancement Program. Prepared by EA 29 Engineering, Science, and Technology. October 1994.
| |
| 30 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1996. 1995 Annual Report, Biological Monitoring Program, 31 Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Estuary Enhancement Program. June 1996.
| |
| 32 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1997. 1996 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 33 Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Estuary Enhancement Program.
| |
| 34 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1998. 1997 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 35 Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Estuary Enhancement Program.
| |
| 36 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1999a. Application for Renewal of the Salem Generating Station 37 NJPDES Permit. Public Service Enterprise Group Publication date: March 4, 1999.
| |
| 38 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1999b. 1998 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 39 Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Estuary Enhancement Program.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-94 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1999c. Application for Renewal of the Salem Generating Station 2 NJPDES Permit. Publication date March 4.
| |
| 3 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2000. 1999 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 4 Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Estuary Enhancement Program.
| |
| 5 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2001. 2000 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 6 Public Service Enterprise Group, Estuary Enhancement Program.
| |
| 7 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2002. 2001 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 8 Public Service Enterprise Group, Estuary Enhancement Program.
| |
| 9 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2003. 2002 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 10 Public Service Enterprise Group, Estuary Enhancement Program.
| |
| 11 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2004. 2003 Annual Report. Newark, Biological Monitoring 12 Program, Public Service Enterprise Group, Estuary Enhancement Program.
| |
| 13 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2005. 2004 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 14 Public Service Enterprise Group, Estuary Enhancement Program.
| |
| 15 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2006a. Salem NJPDES Permit Renewal Application. NJPDES 16 Permit No. NJ0005622. Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group. Issue date:
| |
| 17 February 1, 2006.
| |
| 18 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2006b. 2005 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 19 Public Service Enterprise Group, Estuary Enhancement Program.
| |
| 20 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2006c. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. 2005 21 Annual RadiologicalEnvironmental OperatingReport. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New 22 Jersey. May 2006. ADAMS No. ML061300067.
| |
| 23 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2006d. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. 2005 24 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey.
| |
| 25 April 2006 ADAMS No. ML061290341.
| |
| 26 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2007a. 2006 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 27 Public Service Enterprise Group, Estuary Enhancement Program.
| |
| 28 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2007b. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. 2006 29 Annual RadiologicalEnvironmental OperatingReport. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New 30 Jersey. April 2007. ADAMS No. ML071230112.
| |
| 31 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2007c. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. 2006 32 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey.
| |
| 33 April 2007 ADAMS No. ML071230602.
| |
| 34 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2008a. 2007 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 35 Public Service Enterprise Group, Estuary Enhancement Program.
| |
| 36 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2008b. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. 2007 37 Annual RadiologicalEnvironmental OperatingReport. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New 38 Jersey. April 2008. ADAMS No. ML081280737.
| |
| September 2010 4-95 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2008c. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. 2007 2 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey.
| |
| 3 April 2008 ADAMS No. ML081280103.
| |
| 4 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009a. Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, 5 License Renewal Application, Appendix E - Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating 6 License Renewal Stage. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. August, 2009.
| |
| 7 ADAMS Nos. ML092400532, ML092400531, ML092430231 8 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009b. Hope Creek Generating Station, License Renewal 9 Application, Appendix E - Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal 10 Stage. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. August, 2009. ADAMs No.
| |
| 11 ML092430389 12 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009c. 2008 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 13 Public Service Enterprise Group, Estuary Enhancement Program.
| |
| 14 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009d. Letter from PSEG, Newark, NJ to W. Walsh, U. S. Fish 15 and Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantville, NJ regarding PSEG freshwater 16 wetlands permit no. 000-02-0031.2 and endangered species compliance during electric 17 transmission right-of-way vegetation maintenance activities. October 23.
| |
| 18 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009e. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. 2008 19 Annual RadiologicalEnvironmental OperatingReport. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New 20 Jersey. April 2009. ADAMS No. ML091200612.
| |
| 21 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009f. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. 2008 22 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey.
| |
| 23 April 2009 ADAMS No. ML091280377.
| |
| 24 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2010a. Tables summarizing impingement data for shortnose 25 sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon, and loggerhead, green, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles. Provided by 26 PSEG on May 3 in response PSEG-4 to NRC request for additional information (RAI) dated 27 April 16, 2010.
| |
| 28 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2010b. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. 2009 29 Annual RadiologidalEnvironmental OperatingReport. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New 30 Jersey. April 2010. ADAMS No. 101241151.
| |
| 31 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2010c. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. 2009 32 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey.
| |
| 33 April 2010 ADAMS No. ML101300368.
| |
| 34 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2010d. Letter from W. Lewis (PSEG) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 35 Commission, Document Control Desk, "
| |
| | |
| ==Subject:==
| |
| PSEG Power, LLC and PSEG Nuclear, LLC 36 Early Site Permit Application Expected Submission Date', February 11, 2010 37 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 201 Oe. Early Site Permit application letter. Lower Alloways 38 Creek Township, New Jersey. May, 2010. ADAMS No. ML101480484.
| |
| 39 Snyder, D. and S. R. Kaufman. 2004. An Overview of Nonindigenous Plant Species in New 40 Jersey. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Parks and Forestry, Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-96 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Office of Natural Lands Management, Natural Heritage Program, Trenton, NJ. 107 pages. Deleted: (USCB i,
| |
| 2 Accessed at: http://www.nj.gov/dep/njisc/InvasiveReport.pdf on August 22, 2010. Deleted: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Environmental Protection 3 TetraTech. 2009. "Salem/Hope Creek Generating Station Calculation Package for Ground Agency, Safe Drinking Water Information 4 Water Pumpage, Salem & Hope Creek Generating Station," TetraTech NUS, Aiken, SC, System (SDWIS), Salem County, New Jersey.
| |
| 5 February 23, 2009. Accessed at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/sdw-queryv2, on 6 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau)._ 2000a. "P87. Poverty Status in 1999 by Age 117] -Unerse: . February 24, 2010.T U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009a.
| |
| 7 Population for whom poverty status is determined. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF Letter from New Jersey Field Office, 8 3) Sample Data." Accessed at: http://factfinder.census.gov/ on June 28, 2010. Pleasantville, NJ to E. J. Keating, PSEG Nuclear LLC, Hancocks Bridge, NJ in response 9 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2000b. "P90. Poverty Status in 1999 of Families by Family Type to PSEG request for information on the presence of federally listed endangered and 10 by Presence of Related Children under 18 Years of Age by Age of Related Children [41] - threatened species in the vicinity of the existing 11 Universe: Families. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) Sample Data." Accessed Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 12 at: http://facffinder.census.gov/ on June 28, 2010. located on Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, NJ.
| |
| 13 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2003. LandView 6- Census 2000 Tables "P-4. Hispanic or September 9. $1 FWS. 2009b. Letter from New Jersey Field 14 Latino, and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race [73] - Total population. Data Set: Census 2000 Office, Pleasantville, NJ to R. A. Tripodi, 15 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data"; "P87. Poverty Status in 1999 by Age [17] - Manager, Corporate Licenses and Permits, PSEG Services Corporation, Newark, NJ in 16 Universe: Population for whom poverty status is determined. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary response to PSEG letter of October 23, 2009 17 File 3 (SF 3) Sample Data"; and "P90. Poverty Status in 1999 of Families by Family Type by confirming commitment by PSEG to ROW 18 Presence of Related Children under 18 Years of Age by Age of Related Children [41] - vegetation maintenance procedures protective of listed species and recommended by FWS.
| |
| 19 Universe: Families. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) Sample Data" for Census November 4.$1 20 Block Groups within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of Salem and HCGS. December. FWS. 2010. Letter from R. Popowski, Fish and Wildlife Service New Jersey Office, 21 SUSGS (U.S. Geological Survey.). 1983. R.L. Walker, "Evaluation of Water Levels in Major Pleasantville, NJ to B. Pham, Office of Nuclear 22 Aquifers of the New Jersey Coastal Plain, 1978," Water-Resources Investigations Report Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. Response to 23 82-4077, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. \ NRC request for information on the presence of
| |
| \\ Federally listed endangered and threatened 24 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2000. A Hydrological Primer for New Jersey Watershed \ species in the vicinity of the existing Salem and 25 Management. Watt, M. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigation Report 00- Hope Creek Generating Stations located on 26 4140. Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, NJ. June 29.¶ 27 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2005. Documentation of Revisions to the Regional Aquifer Deleted: (USGS 28 System Analysis Model of the New Jersey Coastal Plain. Voronin, L.M. U.S. Geological Survey Deleted: (USGCRP 29 Water-Resources Investigation Report 03-4268.
| |
| Deleted: 1 30 USGCRP (U.S. Global Research Program). "G'Iobal Climate ChangelImpacts in the United . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
| |
| 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 31 States," Cambridge University Press, 2009 . for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.
| |
| NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738.¶ NRC. 1999a. Genetic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,Main Report, "Section 6.3 -
| |
| Transportation, Table 9.1, Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report." NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.91 NRC. 1999b. Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal. NUREG-1555. Washington, D.C.¶ NRC. 2009a. Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437), Volume( -
| |
| September 2010 4-97 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| LPage 53: [1] Deleted LTP1 09/02/2010 10:28:00 AM Two Federally listed terrestrial or freshwater aquatic species that might occur near the Salem and HCGS facilities and their associated transmission line ROWs are the bog turtle and swamp pink. Section 2.2.7.2 discusses characteristics, habitat requirements, and likelihood of occurrence of these species. Coordination correspondence between FWS and NRC (FWS, 2010) indicates that no Federally listed species occur on the site of the Salem and HCGS facilities, but that there are areas of potential habitat for the bog turtle and known occurrences and other areas of potential habitat for the swamp pink along the New Freedom North and New Freedom South transmission line ROWs.
| |
| FWS coordinated with PSEG to review all of its transmission line spans in New Jersey, including the lines from Salem and HCGS, and transmitted to PSEG the known locations of the presence or potential presence of Federally listed species along each span. FWS (2009a) also recommended to PSEG conservation measures for each Federally listed species that potentially could occur along its transmission line spans. In October 2009, PSEG (2009d) confirmed to FWS its commitment to protecting both Federally and State-listed threatened or endangered species along PSEG transmission line ROWs and adopted the conservation measures recommended by FWS for each species, including the swamp pink and bog turtle. Based on PSEG's adoption of these conservation measures, in November 2009 FWS concurred that "continued vegetation maintenance activities within the transmission system are not likely to adversely affect Federally listed or candidate species" (FWS, 2009b). Thus, the Federally listed species potentially occurring in the transmission line ROWs for Salem and HCGS in New Jersey would not be adversely affected by future vegetation maintenance activities. The FWS New Jersey Field Office also coordinated with the FWS Chesapeake Bay Field Office regarding the transmission line ROW from HCGS that crosses the river and traverses New Castle County in Delaware. FWS (2009b) concluded that "no proposed or federally listed endangered or threatened species are known to exist" within that ROW area.
| |
| The ROW maintenance procedures agreed upon for protection of the bog turtle include: use of a certified bog turtle surveyor to examine spans containing known or potential habitat, to flag areas of potential habitat plus a 150-ft (46 m) buffer, and to be on site during maintenance activities in flagged areas; performance of maintenance activities by hand in flagged areas, including selective use of specific herbicides; no use of herbicides in known nesting areas, which include all flagged areas around extant occurrences; timing restrictions to avoid disturbance'during nesting season; and provision of the surveyor's reports to FWS (PSEG, 2009d). The ROW maintenance procedures agreed upon for protection of the swamp pink include: use of a qualified botanist to survey suitable forested wetland habitat on and adjacent to the ROW for the plant; flagging of a 200-ft (61 m) radius area around any identified populations of swamp pink; avoidance of any maintenance activities within the flagged areas without FWS approval; limitation of herbicide use within 500 ft (152 m) of a population to manual applications to woody stumps only; and provision of the surveyor's reports to FWS (PSEG, 2009d).
| |
| Page 91: [2] Deleted' Briana A Balsam 09/02/2010 4:36:00 PM http://www. co. cumberland. nj. us/content/1 73/251/761/2947/3098/2969/6996. aspx Page 91: [3] Comment [BAB4] Briana A Balsam 09/02/2010'4:59:00 PM Letter not in ADAMS or ER Reference CD.
| |
| | |
| No underline, Font color: Auto, Highlight Page 92: [6] Formatted Briana A Balsam 09/02/2010 4:52:00 PM No underline, Font color: Auto, Highlight Page 92: [7] Formatted Briana A Balsam 09/02/2010 4:22:00 PM SEIS Text, Space After: 0 pt, Pattern: Clear, Tab stops: Not at 0" Page 92: [8] Deleted Briana A Balsam 09/02/2010 4:52:00 PM
| |
| , Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Page 92: [9] Formatted Briana A Balsam 09/02/2010 4:22:00 PM SEIS Text, Space After: 0 pt, Adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Adjust space between Asian text and numbers Page 92: [10] Formatted Briana A Balsam 09/02/2010 4:53:00 PM No underline, Font color: Auto, Highlight Page 92: [11] Formatted Briana A Balsam 09/02/2010 4:54:00 PM No underline, Font color: Auto, Highlight Page 92: [12] Formatted Briana A Balsam 09/02/2010 4:22:00 PM SEIS Text, Space After: 0 pt, Border: Top: (No border), Bottom: (No border), Left: (No border),
| |
| Right: (No border), Tab stops: Not at 0" + 0.51 + 1" + 1.5' + 2" + 2.5" + 3" + 3.5" + 4" +
| |
| 4.5" + 5" + 5.5" + 6"
| |
| [Page 97: [13] Deleted Briana A Balsam 09/02/2010 4:26:00 PM U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.
| |
| ADAMS Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738.
| |
| NRC. 1999a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, "Section 6.3 - Transportation, Table 9.1, Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report." NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.
| |
| NRC. 1999b. Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal. NUREG-1555. Washington, D.C.
| |
| NRC. 2009a. Draft Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437), Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
| |
| July 2009.
| |
| NRC. 2009b. Letter to NMFS regarding: Request for List of Protected Species within the Area Under Evaluation for the Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations License Renewal Application Review. December 23.
| |
| | |
| 1 2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 2 Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem) and Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) are 3 located at the southern end of Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem 4 County, New Jersey. The facilities are located at River Mile 50 (RM 50; River Kilometer 80 [RK 5 80]) and RM 51 (RK 82) on the Delaware River, respectively, approximately 17 miles (mi; 27 6 kilometers [km]) south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Philadelphia is about 35 mi (56 km) 7 northeast and the city of Salem, New Jersey is 8 mi (13 km) northeast of the site (AEC, 1973).
| |
| 8 Figure 2-1 shows the location of Salem and HCGS within a 6-mi (10 km) radius, and Figure 2-2 9 is an aerial photograph of the site.
| |
| 10 Because existing conditions are partially the result of past construction and operation at the 11 plants, the impacts of these past and ongoing actions and how they have shaped the 12 environment are presented in this chapter. Section 2.1 of this report describes Salem and 13 HCGS as a combined site (site), the individual facilities, and their operations; Section 2.2 14 discusses the affected environment; and Section 2.3 describes related Federal and State 15 activities near the site.
| |
| 16 2.1 Facility and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation During the 17 Renewal Term 18 Artificial Island is a 1,500-acre (ac; 600 hectare [ha]) island that was created by the U.S. Army 19 Corps of Engineers (USACE) beginning in the early 20th century. The island began as buildup 20 of hydraulic dredge spoils within a progressively enlarged diked area established around a 21 natural sandbar that projected into the river. The island is characterized by low and flat tidal 22 marsh and grassland with an average elevation of about 9 feet (ft; 3 meters [m]) above mean 23 sea level (MSL) and a maximum elevation of about 18 ft (5.5 m) above MSL (AEC, 1973).
| |
| 24 Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) owns approximately 740 25 ac (300 ha) on the southern end of Artificial Island. The Salem and HCGS facilities occupy 373 26 ac (150 ha; 220 ac [89 ha] for Salem and 153 ac [62 ha] for HCGS) in the southwestern corner 27 of the island. The remainder of Artificial Island is undeveloped.
| |
| 28 The remainder of the island is owned by the U.S. Government and the State of New Jersey.
| |
| 29 The northern portion of Artificial Island, a very small portion of which is within the State of 30 Delaware boundary, and a 1-mi (1.6-kin) wide inland strip of land abutting the island are owned 31 by the U.S. Government (AEC, 1973). The State of New Jersey owns the remainder of Artificial 32 Island, as well as much of the nearby inland property. The distance to the PSEG property 33 boundary from the two Salem reactor buildings is approximately 4,200 ft (1,300 m). Distance to 34 the PSEG property boundary from the HCGS reactor building is 2,960 ft (902 m).
| |
| 35 There are no major highways or railroads within about 7 mi (11 km) of the site. Land access is 36 provided via Alloway Creek Neck Road to Bottomwood Avenue. The site is located at the end 37 of Bottomwood Avenue and there is no traffic that bypasses the site. Barge traffic has access to 38 the site by way of the Intracoastal Waterway channel maintained in the Delaware River 39 (AEC, 1973).
| |
| 40 Figures 2-3 and 2-4 show the property boundaries and facility layouts for the Salem and HCGS 41 facilities, respectively.
| |
| September 2010 2-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1
| |
| 24 Figure 2-1. Location of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek 25 Generating Station Site, within a 6-Mile Radius (Source: PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b)
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-2 September 2010
| |
| | |
| c(, -n CD 3
| |
| o >
| |
| o ~.-t
| |
| (~D 0
| |
| CO Hope Creek Generating Station 0
| |
| "0 CO)
| |
| -u -,JSalem Generating Station T
| |
| CO) ni G) 0 z,. L nd.,ege 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 x: Miles m PSEG Boundary "o m Salem Building _<.0 r-4 HCGS Building C) 3 Eli Sae uidn Z) 3
| |
| -CD
| |
| | |
| o jD RD CL Cn
| |
| '0 ( a (D
| |
| CD aCO N) 0 01 (0
| |
| CI)
| |
| CD
| |
| _0 Cr CO CD 0" 0.05 0.1 0.2 1 Legend mMiles C?
| |
| Discharge C) fl--Salem Facility
| |
| - PSEG Boundary
| |
| | |
| cn -n CD -
| |
| t3 or N C)
| |
| V0 (0
| |
| (D G)
| |
| (D 03 (D
| |
| 0 (103 0
| |
| 03 Z 0 C:~
| |
| e Cn mm Legend 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 Miles Discharge (D
| |
| -~CT m* Hope Creek Facility CI m
| |
| 3 0 PSEG Boundary CD 3
| |
| CD
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Three metropolitan areas lie within 50 mi (80 km) of the PSEG site: Wilmington, DE, the closest 2 city, approximately 15 mi (24 km) to the northwest; Philadelphia, PA, approximately 35 mi (56 3 km) to the northeast; and Baltimore, MD, approximately 45 mi (72 mi) to the southwest (Figure 4 2-5 shows a map of the site within a 50-mi [80 km] radius).
| |
| 5 6 Figure 2-5. Location of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek 7 Generating Station Site, within a 50-Mile Radius (Source: PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b)
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-6 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Industrial activities within 10 mi (16 km) of the site are confined principally to the west bank of 2 the Delaware River, north of Artificial Island, in the cities of Delaware City, New Castle, and 3 Wilmington. There is no significant industrial activity near the site. With little industry in the 4 region, construction and retail trade account for nearly 40 percent of the revenues generated in 5 the Salem County economy (U.S. Census Bureau [USCB], 2006). Smaller communities in the 6 vicinity of the site (Haddock's Bridge, NJ; Salem, NJ; Quinton, NJ; and Shenandoah, DE) 7 consist primarily of small retail businesses. Much of the surrounding marshland is owned by the 8 U.S. Government and the State of New Jersey and is further described in section 2.2.1.
| |
| 9 Located about 2 mi (3 km) west of the site on the western shore of the Delaware River is the 10 Augustine State Wildlife Management Area, a 2,667-ac (1,079 ha) wildlife management area 11 managed by the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife (Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, 12 2010a). Southwest of the site, also on the Delaware side of the Delaware River, is the 13 Appoquinimink Wildlife Area. Located less than a mile (less than one km) northeast of the site 14 is the upper section of the Mad Horse Creek Fish and Wildlife Management Area. This is a 15 noncontiguous, 9,500-ac (3,800 ha) wildlife area managed by the New Jersey Division of Fish 16 and Wildlife (NJDFW) with sections northeast, east, and southeast of the site (NJDFW, 2009a).
| |
| 17 Recreational activities at these wildlife areas within 10 mi (16 km)of the site consist of boating, 18 fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, picnicking, and swimming.
| |
| 19 2.1.1 Reactor and Containment Systems 20 2.1.1.1 Salem Nuclear Generating Station 21 Salem is a two-unit plant, which uses pressurized water reactors (PWR) designed by 22 Westinghouse Electric. Each unit has a current licensed thermal power at 100 percent power of 23 3,459 megawatt-thermal (MW[t]) (PSEG, 2009a). Salem Units 1 and 2 entered commercial 24 service June 1977 and October 1981, respectively (Nuclear News, 2009). At 100 percent 25 reactor power, the currently anticipated net electrical output is approximately 1,169 26 megawatt-electric (MW[e]) for Unit 1 and 1,181 MW(e) for Unit 2 (Nuclear News, 2009). The 27 Salem units have once-through circulating water systems for condenser cooling that withdraws 28 brackish water from the Delaware Estuary through one intake structure located at the shoreline 29 on the south end of the site. An air-cooled combustion turbine peaking unit rated at 30 approximately 40 MW(e) (referred to as "Salem Unit 3") is also present (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 31 2009b).
| |
| 32 In the PWR power generation system (Figure 2-6); reactor heat is transferred from the primary 33 coolant to a lower pressure secondary coolant loop, allowing steam to be generated in the 34 steam supply system. The primary coolant loops each contain one steam generator, two 35 centrifugal coolant pumps, and the interconnected piping. Within the reactor coolant system 36 (RCS), the reactor coolant is pumped from the reactor through the steam generators and back 37 to the reactor inlet by two centrifugal coolant pumps located at the outlet of each steam 38 generator. Each steam generator is a vertical, U- tube-and-shell heat exchanger that produces 39 superheated steam at a constant pressure over the reactor operating power range. The steam 40 is directed to a turbine, causing it to spin. The spinning turbine is connected to a generator, 41 which generates electricity. The steam is directed to a condenser, where it cools and converts September 2010 2-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 back to liquid water. This cool water is then cycled back to the steam generator, completing the 2 loop (NRC, 2010a).
| |
| 3 4 Figure 2-6. Simplified Design of a Pressurized Water Reactor (NRC, 2010a) 5 The containment for radioactive material that might be released from the core following a 6 loss-of-coolant accident are the units' independent containment and fuel handling buildings and 7 their associated isolation systems. The structures serve as both a biological shield and a 8 pressure container for the entire RCS. The reactor containment structures are vertical cylinders 9 with 16-ft (4.9-m) thick flat foundation mats and 2- to 5-ft (0.6- to 1.5-m) thick reinforced 10 concrete slab floors topped with hemispherical dome roofs. The side walls of each building are 11 142 ft (43.3 m) high and the inside diameter is 140 ft (43 m). The concrete walls are 4.5 ft (1.4 12 m) thick and the containment building dome roofs are 3.5 ft (1.1 m) thick. The inside surface of 13 the reactor building is lined with a carbon steel liner with a varying thickness of 0.25 inch (0.64 14 centimeter [cm]) to 0.5 inch (1.3 cm) (PSEG, 2007a).
| |
| 15 The cores of the Salem reactors are moderated and cooled by light water (1 H2 0 as compared to 16 heavy water, 2H20) at a pressure of 2,250 pounds per square inch absolute (psia). Boron is 17 present in the light water coolant as a neutron absorber. A moderator, or neutron absorber, is a 18 substance that slows the speed of neutrons, increasing the likelihood of fission of a uranium-235 19 atom in the fuel. The cooling water is circulated by the reactor coolant pumps. These pumps 20 are vertical, single-stage centrifugal pumps equipped with controlled-leakage shaft seals 21 (PSEG, 2007b).
| |
| 22 Both Salem units use slightly enriched uranium dioxide (U0 2) ceramic fuel pellets in zircaloy 23 cladding (PSEG, 2007b). Fuel pellets form fuel rods, and fuel rods are joined together in fuel 24 assemblies. The fuel assemblies consist of 264 fuel rods arranged in a square array. Salem Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-8 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 uses fuel that is nominal enriched to 5.0 percent (percent uranium-235 by weight). The 2 combined fuel characteristics and power loading result in a fuel burn-up of about 60,000 3 megawatt-days (MW [d]) per metric ton uranium (PSEG, 2009a).
| |
| 4 The original Salem steam generators have been replaced. In 1997, the Unit 1 steam generators 5 were replaced and in 2008 the Unit 2 steam generators were replaced (PSEG, 2009a).
| |
| 6 2.1.1.2 Hope Creek Generating Station 7 HCGS is a one-unit station, which uses a boiling water reactor (BWR) designed by General 8 Electric. The power plant has a current licensed thermal power at 100 percent power of 9 3,840 MW(t) with an electrical output estimated to be approximately 1,083 MW(e) (73 FR 10 13032), (Nuclear News, 2009). HCGS has a closed-cycle circulating water system for 11 condenser cooling that consists of a natural draft cooling tower and associated withdrawal, 12 circulation, and discharge facilities. HCGS withdraws brackish water with the service water 13 system (SWS) from the Delaware Estuary (PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 14 In the BWR power generation system (Figure 2-7), heat from the reactor causes the cooling 15 water which passes vertically through the reactor core to boil, producing steam. The steam is 16 directed to a turbine, causing it to spin. The spinning turbine is connected to a generator, which 17 generates electricity. The steam is directed to a condenser, where it cools and converts back to 18 liquid water. This cool water is then cycled back to the reactor core, completing the loop 19 (NRC, 201 Ob).
| |
| 20 The containment for radioactive material that might be released from the core following a 21 loss-of-coolant accident is the reactor building. The structure serves as both a biological shield 22 and a pressure container for the entire RCS. The reactor building structure is a vertical cylinder 23 with 14-ft (4.3-m) thick flat foundation mats and 2- to 5-ft (0.6- to 1.5-m) thick reinforced 24 concrete slab floors. The side walls of the cylinder are approximately 250 ft (76 m) high, topped 25 with a torispherical dome roof, and surrounded by a rectangular structure that is up to 132 ft (40 26 m) tall (PSEG, 2006a).
| |
| 27 The HCGS reactor uses slightly enriched U0 2 ceramic fuel pellets in zircaloy cladding 28 (PSEG, 2007b). Fuel pellets form fuel rods and fuel rods are joined together in fuel assemblies.
| |
| 29 HCGS uses fuel that is nominal enriched to 5.0 percent (percent uranium-235 by weight) and 30 the combined fuel characteristics and power loading result in a fuel burn-up of about 60,000 31 MW(d) per metric ton uranium (73 FR 13032).
| |
| September 2010 2-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment Emrnaotcy Water.
| |
| 2 Figure 2-7. Simplified Design of a Boiling Water Reactor (Source: NRC, 2010b) 3 2.1.2 Radioactive Waste Management 4 Radioactive wastes resulting from plant operations are classified as liquid, gaseous, or solid.
| |
| 5 Liquid radioactive wastes are generated from liquids received directly from portions of the RCS 6 or were contaminated by contact with liquids from the RCS. Gaseous radioactive wastes are 7 generated from gases or airborne particulates vented from reactor and turbine equipment 8 containing radioactive material. Solid radioactive wastes are solids from the RCS, solids that 9 came into contact with RCS liquids or gases, or solids used in the RCS or steam and power 10 conversion system operation or maintenance.
| |
| 11 The Salem and HCGS facilities include radioactive waste systems which collect, treat, and 12 provide for the disposal of radioactive and potentially radioactive wastes that are byproducts of 13 plant operations. Radioactive wastes include activation products resulting from the irradiation of 14 reactor water and impurities therein (principally metallic corrosion products) and fission products 15 resulting from defective fuel cladding or uranium contamination within the RCS. Radioactive 16 waste system operating procedures ensure that radioactive wastes are safely processed and 17 discharged from the plant within the limits set forth in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-10 September 2010 ,
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Regulations (CFR) Part 20, "Standards for.Protection against Radiation," and 10 CFR Part 50, 2 "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities."
| |
| 3 When reactor fuel has been exhausted, a certain percentage of its fissile uranium content is 4 referred to as spent fuel. Spent fuel assemblies are removed from the reactor core and 5 replaced with fresh fuel assemblies during routine refueling outages, typically every 18 months.
| |
| 6 Spent fuel assemblies are stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP). Salem's SFP storage capacity 7 for each unit is 1,632 fuel assemblies, which will allow sufficient storage up to the year 2011 for 8 Unit 1 and 2015 for Unit 2 (PSEG, 2009a). The HCGS SFP facility is designed to store up to 9 3,976 fuel assemblies (PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 10 In 2005, the NRC issued a general license to PSEG authorizing that spent nuclear fuel could be 11 stored at an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at the PSEG site. The general 12 license allows PSEG, as a reactor licensee under 10 CFR 50, to store spent fuel from both 13 HCGS and Salem at the ISFSI, provided that such storage occurs in pre-approved casks in 14 accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 72, subpart K (General License for Storage of 15 Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites) (NRC, 2005). At this time, only HCGS spent fuel is stored 16 at the ISFSI. However, transfers of spent fuel from the Salem SFP to the ISFSI are expected to 17 begin approximately one year before the remaining capacity of the pool is less than the capacity 18 needed for a complete offload to spent fuel (PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 19 2.1.2.1 Radioactive Liquid Waste 20 Both the Salem and HCGS facilities operate systems to provide controlled handling and 21 disposal of small quantities of low-activity, liquid radioactive wastes generated during station 22 operation. However, because the Salem units are cooled by a once-through RCS and the 23 HCGS unit is cooled by a closed-cycle RCS, the management of potentially radioactive liquids is 24 different. Potentially radioactive liquid waste streams at the Salem facility are managed by the 25 radioactive liquid waste system (RLWS) and the chemical and volume controlled system 26 (CVCS). At HCGS, potentially radioactive liquid waste streams are managed under the liquid 27 waste management system (LWMS).
| |
| 28 The bulk of the radioactive liquids discharged from the Salem RCS are processed and retained 29 inside the plant by the CVCS recycle train. This minimizes liquid input to the RLWS. Liquid 30 radioactive waste entering the RLWS is released in accordance with Federal and State 31 regulation. Prior to release, liquids are collected in tanks, sampled, and analyzed. Based on 32 the results of the analysis, the waste is processed to remove radioactivity before releasing it to 33 the Delaware Estuary via the circulating water system and a permitted outfall. Discharge 34 streams are appropriately monitored, and safety features are incorporated to preclude releases 35 in excess of the limits prescribed in 10 CFR 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation" 36 (PSEG, 2009a).
| |
| 37 In 2003, PSEG identified tritium in groundwater from onsite sampling wells near the Salem Unit 38 1 fuel handling building (FHB). The source of tritium was identified as the Salem Unit 1 SFP. In 39 November 2004, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Bureau of 40 Nuclear Engineering (BNE) approved a groundwater remediation strategy and by September 41 2005, a full-scale groundwater recovery system (GRS) had been installed (PSEG, 2009a). The 42 GRS pulls groundwater toward the recovery system and away from the site boundary.
| |
| September 2010 2-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Since 2005, tritium-contaminated groundwater from the GRS is transferred to the LWMS where 2 it mixes with other liquid plant effluent before being discharged into the Salem once-through, 3 condenser cooling water system discharge line. The recovered groundwater is sampled prior to 4 entering the discharge line to demonstrate compliance with offsite dose requirements. The 5 water is subsequently released to the Delaware Estuary via a permitted outfall in accordance 6 with plant procedures and NRC requirements for the effluent release of radioactive liquids.
| |
| 7 Surface water sampling as part of the radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) 8 does not show an increase in measurable tritium levels since the GRS was initiated.
| |
| 9 Potentially radioactive liquid wastes entering the HCGS LWMS are collected in tanks in the 10 auxiliary building. Radioactive contaminants are removed from the wastewater either by 11 demineralization or filtration. This ensures that the water quality is restored before being 12 returned to the condensate storage tank (CST) or discharged via the cooling tower blowdown 13 line to the Delaware Estuary via a permitted outfall. If the liquid is recycled to the plant, it meets 14 the purity requirements for CST makeup. Liquid discharges to the Delaware Estuary are 15 maintained in compliance with 10 CFR 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation" 16 (PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 17 Radioactivity removed from the liquid wastes is concentrated in the filter media and ion 18 exchange resins, which are managed as solid radioactive wastes.
| |
| 19 2.1.2.2 Radioactive Gaseous Waste 20 The Salem and HCGS radioactive gaseous waste disposal systems process and dispose of 21 routine radioactive gases removed from the gaseous effluent and released to the atmosphere.
| |
| 22 Gaseous wastes are processed to reduce radioactive materials in gaseous effluents before 23 discharge to meet the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 and the dose design objectives in Appendix 24 1 to 10 CFR Part 50.
| |
| 25 At both facilities, radioactive gases are collected so that the short-lived gaseous isotopes 26 (principally air with traces of krypton and xenon) are allowed to decay. At Salem, these gases 27 are collected in tanks in the auxiliary building and released intermittently in a controlled manner.
| |
| 28 At HCGS, gases are held up in holdup pipes prior to entering a treatment section where 29 adsorption of gases on charcoal provides additional time for decay. At HCGS, gases are then 30 filtered using high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters before being released to the 31 atmosphere from the north plant vent.
| |
| 32 Radioactive effluent release reports from 2004 through 2009 for gaseous effluents were 33 reviewed by the Staff (PSEG, 2005a; PSEG, 2006b; PSEG, 2007b; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 34 2009c; PSEG, 2010a). While variations in total effluents and effluent concentrations can vary 35 from year to year due to outages and plant performance, based on the gaseous waste 36 processing system's performance from 2004 through 2008, the gaseous discharges for 2009 37 are consistent with prior year effluents. The Staff identified no unusual trends.
| |
| 38 2.1.2.3 Radioactive Solid Waste 39 Solid radioactive waste generated at the Salem and HCGS facilities are managed by a single 40 solid radioactive waste system. This system manages radioactive solid waste, including 41 packaging and storage, until the waste is shipped offsite. Offsite wastes are processed by Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-12 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 volume reduction and/or shipped for disposal at a licensed disposal facility. PSEG provides a 2 quarterly waste storage report to the Township of Haddock's Bridge.
| |
| 3 The State of South Carolina's licensed low level waste (LLW) disposal facility, located in 4 Barnwell, has limited the access from radioactive waste generators located in States that are 5 not part of the Atlantic Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact. New Jersey is a 6 member of the Atlantic Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact and has access to 7 Barnwell. Shipments to Barnwell include spent resins from the demineralizers and filter 8 cartridges (wet processing waste). To control releases to the environment, these wastes are 9 packaged in the Salem and HCGS auxiliary buildings.
| |
| 10 The PSEG low-level radwaste storage facility (LLRSF) supports normal dry active waste (DAW) 11 handling activities for HCGS and Salem. DAW consists of compactable trash, such as 12 contaminated or potentially contaminated rags, clothing, and paper. This waste is generally 13 bagged, placed in Sea-van containers, and stored prior to being shipped for volume reduction 14 by a licensed offsite vendor. The volume-reduced DAW is repackaged at the vendor and 15 shipped for disposal at a licensed LLW disposal facility (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). DAW 16 and other non-compactable contaminated wastes are typically shipped to the Energy Solutions' 17 Class A disposal facility in Clive, UT.
| |
| 18 The LLRSF also maintains an NRC-approved process control program. The process control 19 program helps to ensure that waste is properly characterized, profiled, labeled, and shipped in 20 accordance with the waste disposal facility's waste acceptance criteria and U.S. Department of 21 Transportation (DOT) and NRC requirements. The LLRSF is a large facility that was designed 22 to store and manage large volumes of waste. However, the facility is operated well below its 23 designed capacity. The facility is also designed to ensure that worker radiation exposures are 24 controlled in accordance with facility and regulatory criteria.
| |
| 25 No plant refurbishment activities were identified by the applicant as necessary for the continued 26 operation of either Salem or HCGS through the license renewal terms. Routine plant 27 operational and maintenance activities currently performed will continue during the license 28 renewal term. Based on past performance of the radioactive waste system, and the lack of any 29 planned refurbishment activities, similar amounts of radioactive solid waste are expected to be 30 generated during the license renewal term.
| |
| 31 2.1.2.4 Mixed Waste 32 The term "mixed waste" refers to waste that contains both radioactive and hazardous 33 constituents. Neither Salem nor HCGS have processes that generate mixed wastes and there 34 are no mixed wastes stored at either facility.
| |
| 35 2.1.3 Nonradioactive Waste Management 36 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) governs the disposal of solid and 37 hazardous waste. RCRA regulations are contained in Title 40, "Protection of the Environment,"
| |
| 38 Parts 239 through 299 (40 CFR 239, et seq.). Parts 239 through 259 of these regulations cover 39 solid (nonhazardous) waste, and Parts 260 through 279 regulate hazardous waste. RCRA 40 Subtitle C establishes a system for controlling hazardous waste from "cradle to grave," and September 2010 2-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 RCRA Subtitle D encourages States to develop comprehensive plans to manage nonhazardous 2 solid waste and mandates minimum technological standards for municipal solid waste landfills.
| |
| 3 RCRA regulations are administered by the NJDEP and address the identification, generation, 4 minimization, transportation, and final treatment, storage, or disposal .of hazardous and 5 nonhazardous wastes. Salem and HCGS generate nonradiological waste, including oils, 6 hazardous and nonhazardous solvents and degreasers, laboratory wastes, expired shelf-life 7 chemicals and reagents, asbestos wastes, paints and paint thinners, antifreeze, project-specific 8 wastes, point-source discharges regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 9 System (NPDES), sanitary waste (including sewage), and routine and daily refuse (PSEG, 10 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 11 2.1.3.1 Hazardous Waste 12 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies certain nonradioactive wastes as 13 "hazardous" based on characteristics, including ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity 14 (identification and listing of hazardous wastes is available in 40 CFR 261). State-level 15 regulators may add wastes to the EPA's list of hazardous wastes. RCRA provides standards for 16 the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste for hazardous waste generators 17 (40 CFR 262). The Salem and HCGS facilities generate small amounts of hazardous wastes, 18 including spent and expired chemicals, laboratory chemical wastes, and occasional 19 project-specific wastes.
| |
| 20 PSEG is currently a small-quantity hazardous waste generator (PSEG, 2010b), generating less 21 than 220 pounds (lb)/month (100 kilograms (kg)/month). Hazardous waste storage (180-day) 22 areas include the hazardous waste storage facility (Location Nos. SH3 and SH30), the combo 23 shop (Location No. SH5), and two laydown areas east of the combo shop (Location Nos. SH6 24 and SH7).
| |
| 25 Hazardous waste generated at the facility include: F003, F005 (spent non-halogenated 26 solvents), F001, F002 (spent halogenated solvents), D001 (ignitable waste), D002 (corrosive 27 wastes), D003 (reactive wastes), and D004-DO1 1 (toxic [heavy metal] waste) (PSEG, 2008b).
| |
| 28 The EPA authorized the State of New Jersey to regulate and oversee most of the solid waste 29 disposal programs, as recognized by Subtitle D of the RCRA. Compliance is assured through 30 State-issued permits. The EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) 31 database showed no violations for PSEG (EPA, 2010a).
| |
| 32 Proper facility identification numbers for hazardous waste operations include:
| |
| 33 0 DOT Hazardous Materials Registration No. 061908002018QS 34 0 EPA Hazardous Waste Identification, No. NJD 077070811 35 0 NJDEP Hazardous Waste Program ID No. NJD 077070811 36 Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), applicable 37 facilities are required to provide information on hazardous and toxic chemicals to local 38 emergency planning authorities and the EPA (Title 42, Section 11001, of the United States 39 Code [U.S.C.] [42 U.S.C. 11001]). On October 17, 2008, the EPA finalized several changes to 40 the Emergency Planning (Section 302), Emergency Release Notification (Section 304), and 41 Hazardous Chemical Reporting (Sections 311 and 312) regulations that were proposed on Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-14 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 June 8, 1998 (63 Federal Register [FR] 31268). PSEG is subject to Federal EPCRA reporting 2 requirements, and thus submits an annual Section 312 (TIER II) report on hazardous 3 substances to local emergency agencies.
| |
| 4 2.1.3.2 Solid Waste 5 A solid waste is defined by New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C.) 7:26-1.6 as, "any 6 garbage, refuse, sludge, or any other waste material except it shall not include the following: 1.
| |
| 7 Source separated food waste collected by livestock producers, approved by the State 8 Department of Agriculture, who collect, prepare and feed such wastes to livestock on their own 9 farms; 2. Recyclable materials that are exempted from regulation pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26A; 10 [and] 3. Materials approved for beneficial use or categorically approved for beneficial use 11 pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26-1.7(g)." The definition of solid waste in N.J.A.C. 7:26-1.6 applies only 12 to wastes that are not also defined as hazardous in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:26G.
| |
| 13 During the site audit, the Staff observed an active solid waste recycling program. Solid waste 14 ("trash") is segregated and about 55 percent is transferred to recycling vendors (PSEG, 2009a).
| |
| 15 The remaining volume of solid waste is disposed at a local landfill.
| |
| 16 A common sewage treatment system treats domestic wastewater from both facilities. Following 17 treatment, solids (i.e., sludge) are either returned to the system's oxidation ditch or removed to a 18 sludge-holding tank, based upon process requirements. Sludge directed to the sludge-holding 19 tank is aerated and dewatered before being trucked offsite for disposal. During the site audit, 20 the Staff viewed the PSEG sewage sludge waste volumes from 2005 through 2009. The 21 average annual volume for these years was about 50,000 lbs (22,700 kg). Site officials stated 22 that the disposal volume is generally driven by the facilities' budgets.
| |
| 23 2.1.3.3 Universal Waste 24 In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:26G-4.2, "Universal waste" means any of the following hazardous 25 wastes that are managed under the universal waste requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:26A-7, whether 26 incorporated prospectively by reference from 40 CFR Part 273, "Standards for Universal Waste 27 Management," or listed additionally by the NJDEP: paint waste, batteries, pesticides, 28 thermostats, fluorescent lamps, mercury-containing devices, oil-based finishes, and consumer 29 electronics.
| |
| 30 PSEG is a small quantity handler of universal waste (meaning the facility cannot accumulate 31 more than 11,000 lbs (5,000 kg) of universal waste at any one time), generating common 32 operational wastes, such as lighting ballasts containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
| |
| 33 lamps, and batteries. Universal waste is segregated and disposed of through a licensed broker.
| |
| 34 Routine building space renovations and computer equipment upgrades can lead to substantial 35 short-term increases in universal waste volumes.
| |
| 36 2.1.3.4 Permitted Discharges 37 The Salem facility maintains a New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) 38 permit, NJ0005622, which authorizes the discharge of wastewater to the Delaware Estuary and 39 stipulates the conditions of the permit. HCGS maintains a separate NJPDES permit, September 2010 2-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 NJ0025411 for discharges to the Delaware Estuary. All monitoring shall be conducted in 2 accordance with the NJDEP's "Field Sampling Procedures Manual" applicable at the time of 3 sampling (N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.5 (b)4), and/or the method approved by the NJDEP in Part IV of the 4 site permits (NJDEP, 2002a).
| |
| 5 As discussed previously, a common sewage treatment system treats domestic wastewater from 6 both HCGS and Salem. The sewage treatment system liquid effluent discharges through the 7 HCGS cooling tower blowdown outfall to the Delaware Estuary. The residual cooling tower 8 blowdown dechlorination chemical, ammonium bisulfite, dechlorinates the sewage treatment 9 effluent (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 10 Salem and HCGS share the nonradioactive liquid waste disposal system (NRLWDS) chemical 11 waste treatment system. The NRLWDS is located at the Salem facility and operated by Salem 12 staff. The NRLWDS collects and processes nonradioactive secondary plant wastewater prior to 13 discharge into the Delaware Estuary. The waste water originates during plant processes, such 14 as demineralizer regenerations, steam generator blowdown, chemical handling operations, and 15 reverse osmosis reject waste. The outfall is monitored in accordance with the current HCGS 16 NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025411 (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 17 Oily waste waters are treated at HCGS using an oil water separator. Treated effluent is then 18 discharged through the internal monitoring point, which is combined with cooling tower 19 blowdown before discharge to the Delaware Estuary. The outfall is monitored in accordance 20 with the current HCGS NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025411.
| |
| 21 Section 2.1.7 of this report provides more information on the site's NPDES permits and effluent 22 limitations.
| |
| 23 2.1.3.5 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization 24 As described in Section 2.1.3.2, PSEG operates an active solid waste recycling program that 25 results in about 55 percent of its "trash" being recycled. PSEG also maintains a discharge 26 prevention and response program. This program incorporates the requirements of the NJDEP, 27 EPA Facility Response Plan, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 28 Natural Resource Damage Assessment Protocol. Specific documents making up the program 29 include:
| |
| 30 0 Spill/Discharge Prevention Plan 31 0 Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan 32 0 Spill/Discharge Response Plan 33 0 Environmentally Sensitive Areas Protection Plan 34 PSEG also maintains the following plans to support pollution prevention and waste 35 minimization:
| |
| 36 0 Discharge Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure Plan 37 0 Discharge Cleanup and Removal Plan 38 0 Facility Response Plan 39 0 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 2-16 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 0 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 2 0 Pollution Minimization Plan for PCBs 3 2.1.4 Facility Operation and Maintenance 4 Various types of maintenance activities are performed at the Salem and HCGS facilities, 5 including inspection, testing, and surveillance to maintain the current licensing basis of the 6 facility and to ensure compliance with environmental and safety requirements. Various 7 programs and activities currently exist at Salem and HCGS to maintain, inspect, test, and 8 monitor the performance of facility equipment. These maintenance activities include inspection 9 requirements for reactor vessel materials, boiler and pressure vessel inservice inspection and 10 testing, a maintenance structures monitoring program, and maintenance of water chemistry.
| |
| 11 Additional programs include those implemented in response to NRC generic communications; 12 those implemented to meet technical specification surveillance requirements; and various 13 periodic maintenance, testing, and inspection procedures. Certain program activities are 14 performed during the operation of the unit, while others are performed during scheduled 15 refueling outages. Nuclear power plants must periodically discontinue the pr6duction of 16 electricity for refueling, periodic inservice inspection, and scheduled maintenance. Salem and 17 HCGS are on an 18-month refueling cycle (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 18 Aging effects at Salem and HCGS are managed by integrated plant assessments required by 19 10 CFR 54.21. These programs are described in Section 2 of the facilities' Nuclear Generating 20 Station License Renewal Applications - Scoping and Screening Methodology for Identifying 21 Structures and Components Subject to Aging Management Review, and Implementation 22 Results (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 23 2.1.5 Power Transmission System 24 Three right-of-way (ROW) corridors and five 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines connect Salem 25 and HCGS to the regional electric grid, all of which are owned and maintained by Public Service 26 Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) and Pepco Holdings Inc. (PHI). Each corridor is 350 ft 27 (107 m) wide, with the exception of two-thirds of both the Salem-Red Lion and Red Lion-Keeney 28 lines, which narrow to 200 ft (61 m). Unless otherwise noted, the discussion of the power 29 transmission system is adapted from the applicant's environmental reports (ERs) (PSEG, 30 2009a; PSEG, 2009b) or information gathered at the NRC's environmental site audit.
| |
| 31 For the operation of Salem, three transmission lines were initially built for the delivery of 32 electricity: two lines connecting to the New Freedom substation near Williamston, NJ 33 (Salem-New Freedom North and Salem-New Freedom South), and one line extending north 34 across the Delaware River terminating at the Keeney substation in Delaware (Salem-Keeney).
| |
| 35 The Salem New Freedom North and South corridors pass through Salem and Gloucester 36 Counties before terminating at the New Freedom substation in Camden County, New Jersey.
| |
| 37 The Salem-Keeney corridor originates in Salem County, New Jersey, cross west across the 38 Delaware River, and terminates at the Keeney substation in New Castle County, Delaware.
| |
| 39 After construction of HCGS, several changes were made to the existing Salem transmission 40 system, including the disconnection of the Salem-Keeney line from Salem and its reconnection 41 to HCGS, as well as the construction of a new substation (known as Red Lion) along the September 2010 2-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Salem-Keeney transmission line. The addition of this new substation divided the Salem-Keeney 2 transmission line into two segments: one connecting HCGS to Red Lion and the other 3 connecting Red Lion to Keeney. Consequently, these two segments are now referred to 4 separately as Salem-Red Lion and Red Lion-Keeney. The portion of the Salem-Keeney line 5 located entirely within Delaware, Red Lion-Keeney, is owned and maintained by Pepco (a 6 regulated electric utility that is a subsidiary of PHI).
| |
| 7 The construction of HCGS also resulted in the re-routing of the Salem-New Freedom North line 8 and the construction of a new transmission line, HCGS-New Freedom. The Salem-New 9 Freedom North line was disconnected from Salem and re-routed to HCGS, leaving Salem 10 without a northern connection to the New Freedom transmission system. Therefore, a new 11 transmission line was required to connect Salem and the New Freedom substation; this line is 12 known as the HCGS-New Freedom line and it shares a corridor with the Salem-New Freedom 13 North line. Prior to and following the construction of HCGS, the Salem-New Freedom South line 14 provides a southern-route connection between Salem and the New Freedom substation.
| |
| 15 The only new transmission lines constructed as a result of HCGS were the HCGS-New 16 Freedom line, the line connecting HCGS and Salem (tie line), and short reconnections for 17 Salem-New Freedom North and Salem-Keeney. The HCGS-Salem tie line and the short 18 reconnections do not pass beyond the site boundary.
| |
| 19 Transmission lines considered in-scope for license renewal are those constructed specifically to 20 connect the facility to the transmission system (10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H)); therefore, the 21 Salem-New Freedom North, Salem-Red Lion, Red Lion-Keeney, Salem-New Freedom South, 22 HCGS-New Freedom, and HCGS-Salem lines are considered in-scope for this supplemental 23 environmental impact statement (SEIS) and are discussed in detail below.
| |
| 24 Figure 2-8 illustrates the Salem and HCGS transmission system. The five transmission lines 25 are described below within the designated ROW corridor (see Table 2-1):
| |
| 26 2.1.5.1 New Freedom North Right-of-Way 27 Salem-New Freedom North - This 500-kV line, which is operated by PSE&G, 28 runs northeast from HCGS for 39 mi (63 km) within a 350-ft (107-m) wide corridor 29 to the New Freedom switching station north of Williamstown, NJ. This line 30 shares the corridor with the 500-kV HCGS-New Freedom line.
| |
| 31 HCGS-New Freedom - This 500-kV line, which is operated by PSE&G, extends 32 northeast from Salem for 43mi (69 km) within the shared Salem-New Freedom 33 North corridor to the New Freedom switching station, 4 mi (6 km) north-northeast 34 of Williamstown, New Jersey. In 2008, a new substation (Orchard) was 35 constructed along this line. The Orchard substation is located approximately 4 36 mi (6 km) west of Elmer, a borough in Salem County, New Jersey, and serves to 37 divide the line into two segments, one which runs southwest from Orchard to the 38 site and is approximately 19 mi (31 km) in length, and one that runs northeast 39 from Orchard to the New Freedom substation and is approximately 24 mi (39 km) 40 in length.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-18 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 2.1.5.2 New Freedom South Right-of-Way 2 Salem-New Freedom South - This 500-kV line, which is operated by PSE&G, 3 extends northeast from Salem for 42 mi (68 km) within a 350-ft (107-m) wide 4 corridor from Salem to the New Freedom substation north of Williamstown, NJ.
| |
| 5 This line runs approximately 2 to 3 mi (3 to 5 km) south of and somewhat parallel 6 to the New Freedom North corridor.
| |
| 7 2.1.5.3 Keeney Right-of-Way 8 Salem-Red Lion - This 500-kV line extends north from HCGS for 13 mi (21 km) 9 and then crosses over the New Jersey-Delaware State line. It continues west 10 over the Delaware River about 4 mi (6 km) to the Red Lion substation. In New 11 Jersey, the line is operated by PSE&G, and in Delaware it is operated by PHI.
| |
| 12 Two thirds of the 17-mi (27-km) corridor is 200 ft (61 m) wide, and the remainder 13 is 350-ft (107-m) wide.
| |
| 14 Red Lion-Keeney - This 500-kV line, which is operated by PHI, extends from the 15 Red Lion substation 8 mi (13 km) northwest to the Keeney switch station. Two 16 thirds of the corridor is 200 ft (61 m) wide, and the remainder is 350-ft (107-m) 17 wide.
| |
| 18 The ROW corridors comprise approximately 149 mi (240 km) and 4,376 ac (1,771 ha). Four of 19 the five lines cross within Camden, Gloucester, and Salem counties in New Jersey, with the 20 Keeney line crossing only in Camden county in New Jersey and New Castle County in 21 Delaware. All of the ROW corridors traverse the marshes and wetlands adjacent to the Salem 22 and HCGS sites, including agricultural and forested lands.
| |
| 23 All transmission lines were designed and built in accordance with industry standards in place at 24 the time of construction. All transmission lines will remain a permanent part of the transmission 25 system and will be maintained by PSEG and PHI regardless of the Salem and HCGS facilities' 26 continued operation (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). The HCGS-Salem line, which connects the 27 two substations, would be de-activated if the Salem and HCGS switchyards were no longer in 28 use and would need to be reconnected to the grid if they were to remain in service beyond the 29 operation of Salem and HCGS.
| |
| 30 Five 500-kV transmission lines connect electricity from Salem and HCGS to the regional electric 31 transmission system via three ROWs outside of the property boundary. The HCGS-Salem 32 tie-line is approximately 2,000 ft (610 m). This line does not pass beyond the site boundary and 33 is not discussed as an offsite ROW.
| |
| September 2010 2-19 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Aff*.*.d Fnvirnnmp.nt 1 Figure 2-8. Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station 2 Transmission Line System (Source: PSEG, 2009b)
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-20 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Table 2-1. Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station 2 Transmission System Components
| |
| * * .. . . '.', '* A pproximate Approximate Length ROW width Approat
| |
| ____________________ _________ ROW area' Line Owner,, kV" "ml(kin) ft (in) ac (ha)!
| |
| New Freedom North ROW Salem-New Freedom North PSE&G 500 39 (63) 350 (107) 1,824 (738)
| |
| HCGS-New Freedom PSE&G 500 43 (69)
| |
| New Freedom South ROW Salem-New Freedom South PSE&G 500 42 (68) 350 (107) 1,782 (721)
| |
| Red Lion ROW Salem-Red Lion PSE&G 500 17(27) (a)200/350 (107) 521 (211)
| |
| Red-Lion Keeney PHI 500 8 (13) (a)200/350 (107) 249 (101)
| |
| Total acreage within ROW 4,376 (1,771)
| |
| (a) two-thirds of the corridor is 200 ft (61 m) wide Source: PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b 3 2.1.6 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems 4 The Delaware Estuary provides condenser cooling water and service water for both Salem and 5 HCGS (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Salem and HCGS use different systems for condenser 6 cooling, but both withdraw from and discharge water to the estuary. Salem Units 1 and 2 use 7 once-through circulating water system (CWS). HCGS uses a closed-cycle system that employs 8 a single natural draft cooling tower. Unless otherwise noted, the discussions below were 9 adapted from the Salem and HCGS ERs (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b) or information gathered 10 at the site audit.
| |
| 11 Both sites use groundwater as the source for fresh potable water, fire protection water, industrial 12 process makeup water, and for other sanitary water supplies. Under authorization from the 13 NJDEP (NJDEP, 2004a) and Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) (DRBC, 2000), PSEG 14 can service both facilities with up to 43.2 million gallons (164,000 cubic meters [M 3 ]) of 15 groundwater per month.
| |
| 16 Discussions on surface water and groundwater use and quality are provided in Section 2.1.7.
| |
| 17 2.1.6.1 Salem Nuclear Generating Station 18 The Salem facility includes two intake structures, one for the coolant water system, and the 19 other for the service water system. Both are equipped with several features to prevent intake of 20 debris and biota into the pumps (PSEG, 2006c):
| |
| 21 Ice Barriers. During the winter, removable ice barriers are installed in front of the intakes to 22 prevent damage to the intake pumps from ice formed on the Delaware Estuary. These 23 barriers consist of pressure-treated wood bars and underlying structural steel braces. The 24 barriers are removed early in the spring and replaced in the late fall.
| |
| September 2010 2-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Trash Racks. After intake water passes through the ice barriers (if installed), it flows through 2 fixed trash racks. These racks prevent large organisms and debris from entering the pumps.
| |
| 3 The racks are made from 0.5 inch (1.3 cm) steel bars placed on 3.5-inch (8.9 cm) centers, 4 creating a 3-inch (7.6 cm) clearance between each bar. The racks are inspected by PSEG 5 employees, who remove any debris caught on them with mechanical, mobile, clamshell-type 6 rakes. These trash rakes include a hopper that stores and transports removed debris to a 7 pit at the end of each intake, where it is dewatered by gravity and disposed of off-site.
| |
| 8 9 Traveling Screens. After the course-grid trash racks, the intake water passes through finer 10 vertical travelling screens. These are modified Ristroph screens designed to remove debris 11 and biota small enough to have passed through the trash racks while minimizing death or 12 injury. The travelling screens have a fine mesh with openings 0.25 inch x 0.5 inch (0.64 cm 13 x 1.3 cm). The velocity through the Salem intake screens is approximately 1 foot per 14 second (fps) (0.3 meters per second [m/s]) at mean low tide. Figure 2-9 provides the 15 Ristroph Screen detail.
| |
| 16 17 Fish Return System. Each panel of the travelling screen has a 10-ft (3 m) long fish bucket 18 attached across the bottom support member. As the travelling screen reaches the top of 19 each rotation, fish and other organisms caught in the fish bucket slide along a horizontal 20 catch screen. As the travelling screen continues to rotate, the bucket is inverted. A low-21 pressure water spray washes fish off the screen, and they slide through a flap into a two-22 way fish trough. Debris is then washed off the screen by a high-pressure water spray into a 23 separate debris trough, and the contents of both fish and debris troughs return to the 24 estuary. The troughs are designed so that when the fish and debris are released, the tidal 25 flow tends to carry them away from the intake, reducing the likelihood of re-impingement.
| |
| 26 Thus, the troughs empty on either the north or south side of the intake structure depending 27 on the direction of tidal flow.
| |
| 28 The CWS withdraws brackish water from the Delaware Estuary using 12 circulating water 29 pumps through a 12-bay intake structure located on the shoreline at the south end of the site.
| |
| 30 Water is discharged north of the CWS intake structure via a pipe that extends 500 ft (152 m) 31 from the shoreline. No biocides are required in the CWS.
| |
| 32 PSEG has an NDPDES permit for Salem from the New Jersey Department of Environmental 33 Protection. The permit sets the maximum water usage from the Delaware Estuary to a 30-day 34 average of 3,024 million gallons per day (MGD; 11.4 million m3/day) of circulating water. The 35 CWS provides approximately 1,050,000 gallons per minute (gpm; 4,000 m3/min) to each of 36 Salem's two reactor units.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 2-22 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1
| |
| 2 Figure 2-9. Ristroph Screen De 3
| |
| September 2010 2-23 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 The total design flow is 1,110,000 gpm (4,200 m3/min) through each unit. The intake velocity is 2 approximately 1 foot per second (fps; 0.3 meters per second [m/s]) (at mean low tide, a rate that 3 is compatible with the protection of aquatic wildlife (EPA 2001). The CWS provides water to the 4 main condenser to condense steam from the turbine and the heated water is returned back to 5 estuary.
| |
| 6 The service water system (SWS) intake is located approximately 400 ft (122 m) north of the 7 CWS intake. The SWS intake has four bays, each containing three pumps. The 12 service-8 water pumps have a total design rating of 130,500 gpm (494 m3/min). The average velocity 9 throughout the SWS intake is less than 1 fps (0.3 m/s) at the design flow rate. The SWS intake 10 structure is equipped with trash racks, traveling screens, and filters to remove debris and biota 11 from the intake water stream, but do not have a modified Ristroph type travelling screen or fish 12 return system. Backwash water is returned to the estuary.
| |
| 13 To prevent organic buildup and biofouling in the heat exchangers and piping of the SWS, 14 sodium hypochlorite was originally injected into the system. However, operational experience 15 indicated that use of sodium hypochlorite was not needed, so it is no longer injected. SWS 16 water is discharged via the discharge pipe shared with the CWS. Residual chlorine levels are 17 maintained in accordance with the site's NJPDES Permit.
| |
| 18 Both the Salem CWS and SWS discharge water back to the Delaware Estuary through a single 19 return that serves both systems and is located between the Salem CWS and SWS intakes. The 20 plan view of the Salem discharge structures is included as Figure 2-10. Cooling water from 21 Salem is discharged through six adjacent pipes 7 ft (2 m) in diameter and spaced 15 ft (4.6 m) 22 apart on center that merge into three pipes 10 ft (3 m) in diameter (PSEG, 2006c). The 23 discharge piping extends approximately 500 ft (150 m) from the shore (PSEG, 1999). The 24 discharge pipes are buried for most of their length until they discharge horizontally into the water 25 of the estuary at a depth at mean tidal level of about 31 ft (9.5 m). The discharge is 26 approximately perpendicular to the prevailing currents. At full power, Salem is designed to 27 discharge approximately 3,200 MGD (12 million m3/day) at a velocity of about 10 fps (3 m/s) 28 (PSEG, 1999). To prevent biofouling in the heat exchangers and piping of the SWS, sodium 29 hypochlorite is injected into the system. SWS water is discharged via the discharge pipe shared 30 with the CWS.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 2-24 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment RORAP
| |
| .21,4 X4.31A4
| |
| /
| |
| - ,4~' ~
| |
| Doo.m am Pv.rod MLW 1
| |
| 2 Figure 2-10. Plan View of Salem discharge pipes (Source: PSEG, 1999).
| |
| 3 2.1.6.2 Hope Creek Generating Station 4 HCGS uses a single intake structure to supply water from the Delaware Estuary to the SWS.
| |
| 5 The intake structure consists of four active bays that are equipped with pumps and associated 6 equipment (trash racks, traveling screens, and a fish-return system) and four empty bays that 7 were originally intended to service a second reactor which was never built. Water is drawn into 8 the SWS through trash racks and passes through the traveling screens at a maximum velocity September 2010 2-25 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 of 0.35 fps (0.11 m/s). The openings in the wire mesh of the screens are 0.375 inches (0.95 2 cm) square. After passing through the traveling screens, the estuary water enters the service 3 water pumps. Depending on the temperature of the Delaware Estuary water, two or three 4 pumps are normally needed to supply service water. Each pump is rated at 16,500 gpm (62 5 m3/min). To prevent organic buildup and biofouling in the heat exchangers and piping of the 6 SWS, sodium hypochlorite is continuously injected into the system.
| |
| 7 Water is them pumped into the stilling basin in the pump house. The stilling basin supplies 8 water to the general SWS and the fire protection system. The stilling basin also supplies water 9 for back-up residual heat removal service water and for emergency service water.
| |
| 10 The SWS also provides makeup water for the CWS by supplying water to the cooling tower 11 basin. The cooling tower basin contains approximately 9 million gallons (34,000 M3) of water 12 and provides approximately 612,000 gpm (2,300 m3/min) of water to the CWS via four pumps.
| |
| 13 The CWS provides water to the main condenser to condense steam from the turbine and the 14 heated water is returned back to Estuary (Figure 2-4).
| |
| 15 The cooling tower blowdown and other facility effluents are discharged to the estuary through an 16 underwater conduit located 1,500 ft (460 m) upstream of the HCGS SWS intake. The HCGS 17 discharge pipe extends 10 ft (3.0 m) offshore and is situated at mean tide level. The discharge 18 from HCGS is regulated under the terms of NJPDES permit number NJ0025411 (NJDEP, 19 2001a).
| |
| 20 The HCGS cooling tower is a 512-foot (156-meter) high single counterflow, hyperbolic, natural 21 draft cooling tower (PSEG, 2008a). While the CWS is a closed-cycle system, water is lost due 22 to evaporation. Monthly losses average from 9,600 gpm (36 m3/min) in January to 13,000 gpm 23 (49 m3/min) in July. Makeup water is provided by the SWS.
| |
| 24 2.1.7 Facility Water Use and Quality 25 The Salem and HCGS facilities rely on the Delaware River as their source of makeup water for 26 its cooling system, and they discharge various waste flows to the river. An onsite well system 27 provides groundwater for other site needs. A description of groundwater resources at the facility 28 location is provided in Section 2.2.8, and a description of the surface water resources is 29 presented in Section 2.2.9. The following sections describe the water use from these 30 resources.
| |
| 31 2.1.7.1 Groundwater Use 32 The Salem and HCGS facilities access groundwater through production wells to supply fresh 33 water for potable, industrial process makeup, fire protection, and sanitary purposes 34 (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Facility groundwater withdrawal is authorized by the NJDEP 35 and the DRBC. The total authorized withdrawal volume is 43.2 million gallons (164,000 M3) per 36 month for both the Salem and HCGS sites combined (NJDEP, 2004a; DRBC, 2000). Although 37 each facility has its own wells and individual pumping limits, the systems are interconnected so 38 that water can be transferred between the facilities, if necessary (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 39 The NJDEP permit is a single permit which establishes a combined permitted limit for both 40 facilities of 43.2 million gallons (164,000 M3 ) per month (NJDEP, 2004a).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-26 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 The groundwater for Salem is produced primarily from two wells, PW-5 and PW-6. PW-5 is 2 installed at a depth of 840 ft (256 m) below ground surface (bgs) in the Upper Raritan 3 Formation, and PW-6 is installed at a depth of 1,140 ft (347 m) in the Middle Raritan Formation.
| |
| 4 PW-5 has a capacity of 800 gpm (3 m3/min), and PW-6 has a capacity of 600 gpm (2.3 m3/min) 5 (DRBC, 2000). The average water withdrawal from these two wells between 2002 and 2008 6 was 11.4 million gallons (432,000 M3) per year (TetraTech, 2009). These wells are used to 7 maintain water volume within two 350,000 gallon (1,300 M3) storage tanks, of which 600,000 8 gallons (2,300 M3) is reserved for fire protection (PSEG, 2009a). In addition to these two 9 primary wells, two additional wells, PW-2 and PW-3, exist at Salem. These wells are installed 10 within the Mount Laurel-Wenonah Auifer.at depths of about 290 ft (88 _m)bgs _(DRBC, 2000)._ . Deleted: a 11 These wells are classified as standby wells by NJDEP (NJDEP, 2004a), and had only minor 12 usage in the period from 2002 to 2008 (TetraTech, 2009).
| |
| 13 The groundwater for HCGS is produced from two production wells, HC-1 and HC-2, which are 14 installed at depths of 816 ft (249 m) bgs in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 15 (DRBC, 2000). Each well has a pumping capacity of 750 gpm (2.8 m3/min), and the average 16 water withdrawal from the two wells between 2002 and 2008 was 96 million gallons (363,000 17 M3) per year (TetraTech, 2009). The wells are used to maintain water supply within two 18 350,000 gallon (1,300 M3) storage tanks. The bulk of the water in the storage tanks (656,000 19 gallons [2,500 M 3 ]) is reserved for fire protection, and the remainder is used for potable, 20 sanitary, and industrial uses (PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 21 Overall, the combined water usage for the two facilities has averaged 210 million gallons 22 (795,000 M3) per year, or 17.5 million gallons (66,000 M3) per month (TetraTech, 2009). This 23 usage is approximately 41 percent of the withdrawal permitted under the DRBC authorization 24 and NJDEP permit (DRBC, 2000; NJDEP, 2004a).
| |
| 25 2.1.7.2 Surface Water Use 26 Salem and HCGS are located on the eastern shore of the Delaware River, approximately 18 mi 27 (29 km) south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge. The Delaware River at the facility location is 28 an estuary approximately 2.5 mi (4 km) wide. The Delaware River is the source of condenser 29 cooling water and service water for both the Salem and HCGS facilities (PSEG, 2009a; 30 PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 31 The Salem units are both once-through circulating water systems that withdraw brackish water 32 from the Delaware River through a single CWS intake located at the shoreline on the southern 33 end of Artificial Island. The CWS intake structure consists of 12 bays, each outfitted with 34 removable ice barriers, trash racks, traveling screens, circulating water pumps, and a fish return 35 system. The pump capacity of the Salem CWS is 1,110,000 gpm (4,200 m3/min) for each unit, 36 or a total of 2,220,000 gpm (8,400 m3/min) for both units combined. Although the initial design 37 included use of sodium hypochlorite biocides, these were eliminated once enough operational 38 experience was gained to indicate that they were not needed. Therefore, the CWS water is 39 used without treatment (PSEG, 2009a).
| |
| 40 In addition to the CWS intake, the Salem units withdraw water from the Delaware River for the 41 SWS, to provide cooling for auxiliary and reactor safeguard systems. The Salem SWS is 42 supplied through a single intake structure located approximately 400 ft (122 m) north of the September 2010 2-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 CWS intake. The Salem SWS intake is also fitted with trash racks, traveling screens, and 2 fish-return troughs. The pump capacity of the Salem SWS is 65,250 gpm (247 m3/min) for each 3 unit, or a total of 130,500 gpm (494 m3/min) for both units combined (PSEG, 2009a).
| |
| 4 The withdrawal of Delaware River water for the Salem CWS and SWS systems is regulated 5 under the terms of Salem NJPDES Permit No. NJ005622 and is also authorized by the DRBC.
| |
| 6 The NJPDES permit limits the total withdrawal of Delaware River water to 3,024 MGD (11.4 7 million m3/day), for a monthly maximum of 90,720 million gallons (342 million Mi3 ) (NJDEP, 8 2001a). The DRBC authorization allows withdrawals not to exceed 97,000 million gallons (367 9 million m3/day) in a single 30-day period (DRBC, 1977; DRBC, 2001). The withdrawal volumes 10 are reported to NJDEP through monthly discharge monitoring reports (DMRs), and copies of the 11 DMRs are submitted to DRBC.
| |
| 12 Both the CWS and SWS at Salem discharge water back to the Delaware River through a single 13 return that serves both systems. The discharge location is situated between the CWS and 14 Salem SWS intakes, and consists of six separate discharge pipes; each extending 500 ft 15 (152 m) into the river and discharging water at a depth of 35 ft (11 m) below mean tide. The 16 pipes rest on the river bottom with a concrete apron at the end to control erosion and discharge 17 water at a velocity of 10.5 fps (3.2 m/s) (PSEG, 2006c). The discharge from Salem is regulated 18 under the terms of NJPDES Permit No. NJ005622 (NJDEP, 2001a). The locations of the 19 intakes and discharge for the Salem facility are shown in Figure 2-3.
| |
| 20 The HCGS facility uses a closed-cycle circulating water system, with a natural draft cooling 21 tower, for condenser cooling. Like Salem, HCGS withdraws water from the Delaware River to 22 supply a SWS, which cools auxiliary and other heat exchange systems. The outflow from the 23 HCGS SWS is directed to the cooling tower basin, and serves as makeup water to replace 24 water lost through evaporation and blowdown from the cooling tower. The HCGS SWS intake is 25 located on the shore of the river and consists of four separate bays with service water pumps, 26 trash racks, traveling screens, and fish-return systems. The structure includes an additional 27 four bays that were originally intended to serve a second HCGS unit, which was never 28 constructed. The pump capacity of the HCGS SWS is 16,500 gpm (62 m3/min) for each pump, 29 or a total of 66,000 gpm (250 my/min) when all four pumps are operating. Under normal 30 conditions, only two or three of the pumps are typically operated. The HCGS SWS water is 31 treated with sodium hypochlorite to prevent biofouling (PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 32 The discharge from the HCGS SWS is directed to the cooling tower basin, where it acts as 33 makeup water for the HCGS CWS. The natural draft cooling tower has a total capacity of 9 34 million gallons (34,000 M3) of water, and circulates water through the CWS at a rate of 612,000 35 gpm (2,300 m3/min). Water is removed from the HCGS CWS through both evaporative loss 36 from the cooling tower and from blowdown to control deposition of solids within the system.
| |
| 37 Evaporative losses result in consumptive loss of water from the Delaware River. The volume of 38 evaporative losses vary throughout the year depending on the climate, but range from 39 approximately 9,600 gpm (36 m3/min) in January to 13,000 gpm (49 m3/min) in July. Blowdown 40 water is returned to the Delaware River (NJDEP, 2002b).
| |
| 41 The withdrawal of Delaware6River water for the HOGS OWVS and S*W, systems is regulatedl Formatted: Highlight 42 ud T j§s*f HOGS NJPDES Permit No. NJ002541 1 and is also authorized by the DRBC.
| |
| 43 Although it requires measurement and reporting, the NJPDES permit does not specify limits on 44 the total withdrawal volume of Delaware River water for HCGS operations (NJDEP, 2003).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 2-28 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Actual withdrawals average 66.8 MGD (253,000 m3/day'), of which 6.7 MGD (25,000 m3/day) are 2 returned as screen backwash, and 13 MGD (49,000 m /day) is evaporated. The remainder 3 (approximately 46 MGD [174,000 m3/day]) is discharged back to the river (PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 4 The HCGS DRBC contract allows withdrawals up to 16.998 billion gallons (64 million M3) per 5 year, including up to 4.086 billion gallons (15 million M3) of consumptive use (DRBC, 1984a; 6 DRBC, 1984b). To compensate for evaporative losses in the system, the DRBC authorization 7 requires releases from storage reservoirs, or reductions in withdrawal, during periods of low-flow 8 conditions at Trenton, NJ (DRBC, 2001). To accomplish this, PSEG is one of several utilities 9 which owns and operates the Merrill Creek reservoir in Washington, NJ. Merrill Creek reservoir 10 is used to release water during low-flow conditions, as required by the DRBC authorization 11 (PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 12 The SWS and cooling tower blowdown water from HCGS is discharged back to the Delaware 13 River through an underwater conduit located 1,500 ft (460 m) upstream of the HCGS SWS 14 intake. The HCGS discharge pipe extends 10 ft (3 m) offshore, and is situated at mean tide 15 level. The discharge from HCGS is regulated under the terms of NJPDES Permit No.
| |
| 16 NJ0025411 (NJDEP, 2001a). The locations of the intake and discharge for the HCGS facility 17 are shown in Figure 2-4.
| |
| 18 2.2 Affected Environment 19 This section provides general descriptions of the environment near Salem and HCGS as 20 background information and to support the analysis of potential environmental impacts in 21 Chapter 4.
| |
| 22 2.2.1 Land Use 23 Salem and HCGS are located at the southern end of Artificial Island located on the east bank of 24 the Delaware River in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. The river 25 is approximately 2.5 mi (4 km) wide at this location. Artificial Island is a man-made island 26 approximately 1500-ac (600 ha) in size consisting of tidal marsh and grassland. The island was 27 created by the USACE, beginning early in the twentieth century, by the deposition of hydraulic 28 dredge spoil material atop a natural sand bar that projected into the river. The average 29 elevation of the island is about 9 ft (3 m) above MSL with a maximum elevation of approximately 30 18 ft (5.5 m) MSL (AEC, 1973). The site is located approximately 17 mi (27 km) south of the 31 Delaware Memorial Bridge, 35 mi (56 km) southwest of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and 8 mi 32 (13 km) southwest of the City of Salem, NJ.
| |
| 33 PSEG owns approximately 740 ac (300 ha) at the southern end of the island, with Salem 34 located on approximately 220 ac (89 ha) and HCGS occupying about 153 ac (62 ha). The 35 remainder of Artificial Island, north of the PSEG property, is owned by the the U.S. Government 36 and the State of New Jersey; this portion of the island remains undeveloped. The land adjacent 37 to the eastern boundary of Artificial Island consists of tidal marshlands of the former natural 38 shoreline. The U.S. Government owns the land adjacent to the PSEG property and the State of 39 New Jersey owns the land adjacent to the U.S. Government-owned portion of the island. The 40 northernmost tip of Artificial Island (owned by the U. S. Government) is within the State of September 2010 2-29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Delaware boundary, which was established based on historical land grants (LACT, 1988a; 2 LACT, 1988b; PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 3 The area within 15 mi (24 km) of the site is primarily utilized for agriculture. The area also 4 includes numerous parks and wildlife refuges and preserves such as Mad Horse Creek Fish and 5 Wildlife Management Area to the east; Cedar Swamp State Wildlife Management Area to the 6 south in Delaware; Appoquinimink, Silver Run, and Augustine State Wildlife Management areas 7 to the west in Delaware; and Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge to the north. The 8 Delaware Bay and estuary is recognized as wetlands of international importance and an 9 international shorebird reserve (New Jersey State Atlas [NJSA], 2008). The nearest permanent 10 residences are located 3.4 mi (5.5 km) south-southwest and west-northwest of Salem and 11 HCGS across the river in Delaware. The nearest permanent residence in New Jersey is located 12 3.6 mi (5.8 km) east-northeast of the facilities (PSEG, 2009c). The closest densely populated 13 center (with 25,000 residents or more) is Wilmington, Delaware, located 15 mi (24 km) north of 14 Salem and HCGS. There is no heavy industry in the area surrounding Salem and HCGS; the 15 nearest such industrial area is located approximately 10 mi (16 km) northwest of the site near 16 Delaware City, Delaware (PSEG, 2009d).
| |
| 17 Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC 1456 (c)(3)(A)) requires 18 that applicants for Federal licenses to conduct an activity in a coastal zone provide to the 19 licensing agency a certification that the proposed activity is consistent with the enforceable 20 policies of the State's coastal zone program. A copy of the certification is also to be provided to 21 the State. Within six months of receipt of the certification, the State is to notify the Federal 22 agency whether the State concurs with or objects to the applicant's certification. Salem and 23 HCGS are within New Jersey's coastal zone for purposes of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
| |
| 24 PSEG's certifications that renewal of the Salem and HCGS licenses would be consistent with 25 the New Jersey Coastal Management Program were submitted to the NJDEP Land Use 26 Regulation Program concurrent with submittal of the license renewal applications for the two 27 facilities. Salem and HCGS are not within Delaware's coastal zone for purposes of the Coastal 28 Zone Management Act (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Correspondence related to the 29 certification is in Appendix D of this SEIS. By letters dated October 8, 2009, the NJDEP 30 Division of Land Use Regulation, Bureau of Coastal Regulation concurred with the applicant's 31 consistency of certification for Salem and HCGS.
| |
| 32 2.2.2 Air Quality and Meteorology 33 2.2.2.1 Meteorology 34 The climate in New Jersey is generally a function of topography and distance from the Atlantic 35 Ocean, resulting in five distinct climatic regions within the State. Salem County is located in the 36 Southwest Zone, which is characterized by low elevation near sea level and close proximity to 37 the Delaware Bay. These features result in the Southwest Zone generally having higher 38 temperatures and receiving less precipitation than the northern and coastal areas of the State.
| |
| 39 Wind direction is predominantly from the southwest, except in winter when winds are primarily 40 from the west and northwest (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2008).
| |
| 41 The only NOAA weather station in Salem County with recent data is the Woodstown Pittsgrove 42 Station, located approximately 10 mi (16 km) northeast of the Salem and NCGS facilities Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-30 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 (NOAA, 2010a). A summary of the data collected from this station from 1971 to 2001 indicates 2 that winter temperatures average 35.2 degrees Fahrenheit (oF) (1.8 degrees Celsius [0C]) and 3 summer temperatures average 74.8 *F (23.8 0C). Average annual precipitation in the form of 4 rain and snow is 45.76 inches (116 cm), with the most rain falling in July and August and the 5 most snow falling in January (NOAA, 2004).
| |
| 6 Queries of the National Climate Data Center database for Salem County for the period January 7 1, 1950 to November 30, 2009 identified the following information related to severe weather 8 events:
| |
| 9 0 33 flood events with the majority (24) being coastal or tidal floods 10 0 numerous heavy precipitation and prolonged rain events which also resulted in 11 several incidences of localized flooding, but which are not included in the flood 12 event number 13 0 five funnel cloud sightings and two tornados ranging in intensity from F1 to F2 14 0 148 thunderstorm and high wind events 15 0 14 incidences of hail greater than 0.75 inches (1.9 cm) (NOAA, 2010b) 16 In 2001, unusually dry conditions were related to two wildfires that burned a total of 54 ac 17 (22 ha). In 2009, a series of brush fires destroyed approximately 15 ac (6.1 ha) of farmland and 18 wooded area in Salem County (NOAA, 2010c).
| |
| 19 Climate data are available for the Woodstown Pittsgrove Station from 1901 through 2004, at 20 which time monitoring at this location was ended (NOAA, 201 Oa). The closest facility which 21 currently monitors climate data, and has an extensive historic record, is the station located at 22 the Wilmington New Castle County Airport, located on the opposite side of the Delaware River, 23 approximately 9 mi (14 km) northwest of the facilities (NOAA, 2010d).
| |
| 24 2.2.2.2 Air Quality 25 Salem County is included in the Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate Air Quality Control Region 26 (AQCR), which encompasses the area geographically located in five counties of New Jersey, 27 including Salem and Gloucester counties; New Castle County, DE; and five counties of 28 Pennsylvania (40 CFR 81.15). Air quality is regulated by the NJDEP through their Bureau of Air 29 Quality Planning, Bureau of Air Quality Monitoring, and Bureau of Air Quality Permitting 30 (NJDEP, 2009a). The Bureau of Air Quality Monitoring operates a network of monitoring 31 stations for the collection and analysis of air samples for several parameters, including carbon 32 monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone, sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), particulate matter (PM),
| |
| 33 and meteorological characteristics. The closest air quality monitoring station to the Salem and 34 HCGS facilities is in Millville, located approximately 23 mi (37 km) to the southeast 35 (NJDEP, 2009a).
| |
| 36 In order to enforce air quality standards, the EPA has developed National Ambient Air Quality 37 Standards (NAAQS) under the Federal Clean Air Act. The requirements examine the six criteria 38 pollutants, including particle pollution (PM), ground-level ozone, CO, sulfur oxides (SOx),
| |
| 39 nitrogen oxides (NOx), and lead; permissible limits are established based on human health 40 and/or environmental protection. When an area has air quality equal to or better than the September 2010 2-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 NAAQS, they are designated as an "attainment area" as defined by the EPA; however, areas 2 that do not meet the NAAQS standards are considered "nonattainment areas" and are required 3 to develop an air quality maintenance plan (NJDEP, 2010a).
| |
| 4 Salem County is designated as in attainment/unclassified with respect to the NAAQSs for 5 particulate matter, 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM 2 .5), SOx, NOx, CO, and lead. The 6 county, along with all of southern New Jersey, is a non-attainment area with respect to the 7 1-hour primary ozone standard and the 8-hour ozone standard. For the 1-hour ozone standard, 8 Salem County is located within the multi-state Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton non-attainment 9 area, and for the 8-hour ozone standard, it is located in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic 10 City (Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware-Maryland) non-attainment area. Of the adjacent 11 counties, Gloucester County, NJ is in non-attainment for the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone 12 standards, as well as the annual and daily PM2 .5 standard (NJDEP, 2010a). New Castle 13 County, DE is considered to be in moderate non-attainment for the ozone standards and 14 non-attainment for PM 2. (40 CFR 81.315).
| |
| 15 Sections 101(b)(1), 110, 169(a)(2), and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended 16 (42 U.S.C. 7410, 7491(a)(2), 7601(a)), established 156 mandatory Class I Federal areas where 17 visibility is an important value that cannot be compromised. There is one mandatory Class I 18 Federal area in the State of New Jersey, which is the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge 19 (40 CFR 81.420), located approximately 58 mi (93 km) southeast of the Salem and HCGS 20 facilities. There are no Class I Federal aregs in Delaware, and no other areas located within 21 100 mi (160 km) of the facilities (40 CFR 81.400).
| |
| 22 PSEG has a single Air Pollution Control Operating Permit (Title V Operating Permit),
| |
| 23 No. BOP080001, from the NJDEP to regulate air emissions from all sources at Salem and 24 HCGS (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). This permit was last issued on February 2, 2005, and 25 expired on February 1, 2010. An application for a new Title V permit was submitted and the 26 EPA review was scheduled to begin on May 20, 2010 (EPA, 2010b). The facilities qualify as a 27 major source1 under the Title V permit program and, therefore, are operated under a Title V 28 permit (NJDEP, 2009b). The air emissions sources located at Salem, which are regulated 29 under the permit, include:
| |
| 30 a a boiler for heating purposes 31 0 Salem Unit 3, a 40 MW fuel-oil fired peaking unit used intermittently 32
| |
| * six emergency generators, tested monthly 33
| |
| * a boiler at the circulating water house, used for heating only in winter 34
| |
| * miscellaneous volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from fuel tanks Under the Title V Operating Permit program, the EPA defines a major source as a stationary source with the potential to emit (PTE) any criteria pollutant at a rate greater than 100 tons/year (91 metric tons [MT]/year), or any single hazardous air pollutant (HAP) at a rate of greater than 10 tons/year (9.1 MT/year)or a combination of HAPs at a rate greater than 25 tons/year (23 MT/year).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-32 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 The air emissions sources located at HCGS, which are regulated under the permit, include:
| |
| 2 the cooling tower 3 . a boiler for house heating and use for startup steam for the BWR 4
| |
| * four emergency generators, tested monthly 5 0 miscellaneous VOC emissions from fuel tanks 6 . a small boiler used to heat the service water house 7 Meteorological conditions at the facilities are monitored at a primary and a backup 8 meteorological tower located at the entrance of the facilities, on the southeast side of the 9 property. The primary tower is a 300-ft (91--m) high tower supported by guy wires, and the 10 backup tower is a 33-ft (10-m) high telephone pole located approximately 500 ft (152 m) south 11 of the primary tower. Measurements collected at the primary tower include temperature, wind 12 speed, and wind direction at elevations of 300, 150, and 33 ft (91, 46, and 10 m) above ground 13 level; dew point measured at the 33-ft (10-m) level; and rainfall, barometric pressure, and solar 14 radiation measured at less than 10 ft (3 m) above the ground surface. Measurements collected 15 at the backup tower include wind speed and wind direction (PSEG, 2006b).
| |
| 16 2.2.3 Groundwater Resources 17 2.2.3.1 Description 18 Groundwater at the Salem and HCGS facilities is present in Coastal Plain sediments, an 19 assemblage of sand, silt, and clay formations that comprise a series of aquifers beneath the 20 facilities. Four primary aquifers underlie the facility location. The shallowest of these is the 21 shallow water-bearing zone, which is contained within the dredge spoil and engineered fill 22 sediments of Artificial Island. Groundwater is found within this zone at a depth of 10 to 40 ft (3 23 to 12 m) bgs (PSEG, 2007a). The groundwater in the shallow zone is recharged through direct 24 infiltration of precipitation on Artificial Island and is brackish. Groundwater in the shallow zone 25 flows toward the southwest, toward the Delaware River (PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 26 Beneath the shallow water-bearing zone, the Vincentown A/uifer is found at a depth of 55 to Deleted: a 27 135 ft (17 to 41 m) bgs. The, aquifer is confined and semi-confined beneath Miocene clays of Deleted: Vincentown 28 the Kirkwood Formation. Groundwater within the Vincentown AA.ui-ferfl.ows towar d. the south:.
| |
| Deleted: a 29 Water within the Vincentown Aguifer ispotable and accessed through domestic wells in eastern Salem County, upgradient of the facility. In western Salem County, including near the facility, 4Dleed: a 30 31 saltwater intrusion from the Delaware River has occurred, resulting in brackish, non-potable 32 groundwater within this aquifer (PSEG, 2007a).
| |
| 33 34 35 36 The Vincentown ,Auifer is underlain by the Hornerstown and Navesink confining units, which in turn overlie the Mount Laurel-Wenonah ,A~uifer. The Mount Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer exists at a depth of 170 to 270 ft (52 to 82 m) bgs and is recharged through leakage from the overlying aquifers (Rosenau et al., 1969).
| |
| *:i.
| |
| *Deleted: a Deleted: a Deleted: a 37 Beneath the Mount Laurel-Wenonah ,luifer is a series of clay and fine s andd_ confiNing_ units and *Deleted: a 38 poor quality aquifers, including the Marshalltown Formation, Englishtown Formation, Woodbury 39 Clay, and Merchantville Formation. These units overlie the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy (PRM)
| |
| September 2010 2-33 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 A~luifer, which is found at a depth of 450 ft (137 .m), with freshwater encountered to a depth of -{ Deleted: a 2 900 ft (274 m) bgs at the facility location (PSEG, 2007a). ThepRM Auifer is a large aquifer of Deleted: Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 3 regional importance for municipal and domestic water supply. In order to protect groundwater JDeleted: a 4 resources within this aquifer, the State of New Jersey has established Critical Water-Supply 5 Management Area 2, in which groundwater withdrawals are limited and managed through 6 allocations (USGS, 2007). Critical Water-Supply Management Area 2 includes Ocean, 7 Burlington, Camden, Atlantic, Gloucester, and Cumberland counties, as well as the eastern 8 portion of Salem County. The area does not include the western portion of Salem County 9 where the facility is located, so groundwater withdrawals at the facility location are not subject to 10 withdrawal restrictions associated with this management area.
| |
| 11 2.2.3.2 Affected Users 12 The use of groundwater by the facility is discussed in Section 2.1.7.1. Groundwater is the 13 source of more than 75 percent of the freshwater supply within the Coastal Plain region, and 14 wells used for public supply commonly yield 500 to more than 1,000 gpm (1.9 to 3.8 m3/min) 15 (EPA, 1988). The water may have localized concentrations of iron in excess of 460 miligrams 16 per liter (mg/L) and may be contaminated locally by saltwater intrusion and waste disposal; 17 however, water quality is considered satisfactory overall (New Jersey Water Science Center 18 [NJWSC], 2009).
| |
| 19 Groundwater is not accessed for public or domestic water supply within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the 20 Salem and HCGS facilities (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). However, groundwater is the 21 primary source of municipal water supply within Salem and the surrounding counties. There are 22 18 public water supply systems in Salem County. New Jersey American Water (NJAW) is the 23 largest of these, providing groundwater from thePRMAqquifer to more than 14,000 customers -in - Deleted: Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 24 Pennsgrove, located approximately 18 mi (29 km) north of the Salem and HCGS facilities (EPA, 25 2010c; NJAW, 2010). The other two major suppliers are Pennsville Township and the City of 26 Salem (EPA, 201 Oc). The City of Salem is the closest public water supply system in Salem 27 County to the facilities, but provides water from surface water sources (EPA, 201 Oc). The 28 Pennsville Township water system is located approximately 15 mi (24 km) north of the Salem 29 and HCGS facilities and supplies water to approximately 13,500 residents from thePRM Aquifer- - Deleted: Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 30 (EPA, 2010c; NJDEP, 2007a).
| |
| 31 There are 27 water systems in New Castle County, DE. Municipal and investor-owned utilities 32 provide drinking water to the county. The majority of the potable water supply is provided from 33 surface water sources (EPA, 2010d). The nearest offsite use of groundwater for potable water 34 supply is located approximately 3.5 mi (5.6 km) west of the site, in New Castle County, 35 Delawar4_(Arcadis,_2006). This water supply consists of two wells installed within the Mt. Laurel ..... - Deleted: E 36 aquifer, serving 132 residents (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 37 Control [DNREC], 2003).
| |
| 38 2.2.3.3 Available Volume 39 Groundwater within the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer is an important resource for water 40 supply in a region extending from Mercer and Middlesex counties in New Jersey to the north, 41 and toward Maryland to the southwest. Groundwater withdrawal from the early part of the 42 20th century through the 1970s resulted in the development of large-scale cones of depression Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-34 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 in the elevation of the piezometric surface and, therefore, the available water quantity within the 2 aquifer (USGS, 1983). Large scale withdrawals of water from the aquifer are known to influence 3 water availability at significant lateral distances from pumping centers (USGS, 1983). In 4 reaction to these observations, water management measures, including limitations on pumping, 5 were instituted by the NJDEP (although not including the Salem and HCGS facility area). As of 6 2003, NJDEP-mandated decreases in water withdrawals had resulted in general recovery of 7 water level elevations in both the Upper and MiddleP_ _quifers in the Salem County area ..... - Deleted: Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 8 (USGS, 2009).
| |
| 9 2.2.3.4 Existing Quality 10 Annual REMP reports document regular sampling of groundwater as required by the NRC. In 11 support of this SEIS, the annual REMP reports for 2006, 2007, and 2008 were reviewed 12 (PSEG, 2007b; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c). The program includes the collection and analysis 13 of groundwater at one or two locations that may be affected by station operations. Although the 14 facility has determined that there are no groundwater wells in locations that could be affected by 15 station operations, they routinely collect a sample from one location, well 3E1 at a nearby farm, 16 as a management audit sample. These samples, collected on a monthly basis, are analyzed for 17 gamma emitters, gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium. In 2006 through 2008, no results were 18 identified which would suggest potential impacts from facility operations.
| |
| 19 In 2003, a release of tritium to groundwater from the Salem Unit 1 SFP was identified. The 20 initial indication of the release was the detection of low-level radiation on a worker's shoes in the 21 Unit 1 auxiliary building in 2002. This led to the discovery of a chalk-like radioactive substance 22 on the walls of the mechanical penetration room, which had resulted from the seepage of water 23 from the SFP. The seepage was caused from the blockage of drains by mineral deposits.
| |
| 24 Response measures, including removal of the mineral deposits and installation of additional 25 drains, were taken and the release was stopped (Arcadis, 2006).
| |
| 26 A site investigation was initiated in 2003, and included the installation and sampling of 29 27 monitoring wells in the shallow and Vincentown aquifers (PSEG, 2004a). The tritium was 28 released into groundwater inside of the cofferdam area that surrounds the Salem containment 29 unit. Groundwater within the cofferdam area is able to flow outside of the cofferdam through a 30 low spot in the top surface, which allowed the tritium plume to enter the flow system outside of 31 the cofferdam. From that location, the plume followed a preferential flow path along the high 32 permeability sand and gravel bed beneath the circulating water discharge pipe and, thus, toward 33 the Delaware River. Tritium was detected in shallow groundwater at concentrations up to 34 15,000,000 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L). The extent of the impact was limited to within the PSEG 35 property boundaries and no tritium was detected in the Vincentown aquifer, indicating that the 36 release was limited to the shallow water-bearing aquifer (PSEG, 2009d). The release did not 37 include any radionuclides other than tritium.
| |
| 38 In 2004, PSEG developed a remedial action workplan, and a GRS was approved by NJDEP 39 and became operational by September 2005. The GRS operates by withdrawing 40 tritium-impacted groundwater from six pumping wells within the plume, and a mobile pumping 41 unit that can be moved between other wells as needed to maximize withdrawal efficiency. The 42 pumping system reverses the groundwater flow gradient and stops the migration of the plume 43 toward the property boundaries. The tritium-impacted water removed from the groundwater is September 2010 2-35 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 processed in the facility's NRLWDS. As part of this system, the groundwater is collected in 2 tanks, sampled, and analyzed to identify the quantity of radioactivity and the isotopic 3 breakdown. Upon verification that the groundwater meets NRC discharge requirements, it is 4 released under controlled conditions to the Delaware River through the circulatory water system 5 (PSEG, 2009a). Operation of the groundwater extraction system is monitored by a network of 6 36 monitoring wells (PSEG, 2009e). This monitoring indicates that maximum tritium 7 concentrations have dropped substantially, from a maximum of 15,000,000 pCi/L to below 8 100,000 pCi/L. Some concentrations still exceed the New Jersey Ground Water Quality 9 Criterion for tritium of 20,000 pCi/L (PSEG, 2009e). However, groundwater that exceeds this 10 criterion does not extend past the property boundaries (PSEG, 2009a).
| |
| 11 To verify the status of the groundwater remediation program, Staff interviewed NJDEP staff 12 during the site audit in March 2010. The NJDEP staff confirmed that both NJDEP and the New 13 Jersey Geological Survey (NJGS) had been substantially involved in assisting PSEG in 14 developing a response to the tritium release, and that NJDEP conducts ongoing confirmation 15 sampling. Both NJDEP and NJGS review PSEG's Quarterly Remedial Action Progress 16 Reports, including confirmation of the analytical results and verification of plume configurations 17 based on those results. NJDEP staff confirmed that the GRS is operating in a satisfactory 18 manner.
| |
| 19 In response to an industry-wide initiative sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI),
| |
| 20 PSEG implemented a facility-wide groundwater radiological groundwater protection program 21 (RGPP) at the Salem and HCGS facilities in 2006. The program, which is separate from the 22 monitoring associated with the GRS, included the identification of station systems that could be 23 sources of radionuclide releases, installation of monitoring wells near and downgradient of those 24 systems and installation of wells upgradient and downgradient of the facility perimeter. The 25 monitoring program consists of 13 monitoring wells at Salem (5 pre-existing and 8 new) and 13 26 wells at HCGS (all new). The results of the program are reported in the facility's annual 27 Radiological Environmental Operating Reports. The wells are sampled on a semiannual basis 28 and have detected no plant-related gamma-emitters. In the 2008 annual program,.tritium was 29 detected in 5 of the 13 wells at Salem, and 6 of the 13 wells at HCGS. All sample results were 30 lower than 1,000 pCi/L, which is less than the 20,000 pCi/L EPA drinking water standard and 31 New Jersey Ground Water Quality Criterion (PSEG, 2009c). These levels of detection are not 32 high enough to trigger voluntary reporting that would be made under the guidelines of the NEI 33 guidance (PSEG, 2009a).
| |
| 34 During the site audit, PSEG provided information indicating that elevated tritium concentrations 35 had been detected in six RGPP wells at the HCGS facility in November 2009. This included 36 detection of tritium at concentrations up to 1,200 pCi/L in four wells, and at approximately 37 3,500 pCi/L in two wells (wells BH and BJ). The wells were all re-sampled in December 2009, 38 and the tritium concentrations had dropped to levels of approximately 500 to 800 pCi/L, which 39 still exceeded their levels prior to November 2009. The wells involved are located at the HCGS 40 facility and are not related to the tritium plume being managed at Salem. PSEG has instituted a 41 well inspection and assessment program to identify the source of the tritium, which is thought to 42 be from either analytical error of rain-out of gaseous emissions in precipitation. Based on the 43 locations of the wells and identification of cracked caps on some wells, it is possible that 44 collection of rainwater run-on entered the wells, causing the increased concentrations. In Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-36 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 response, PSEG has replaced all well caps with screw caps and is working with NJDEP and the 2 Staff to implement a well inspection program.
| |
| 3 During the site audit, PSEG also provided information on a small-scale diesel pump and treat 4 remediation system being operated near Salem Unit 1 to address a leak of diesel fuel at that 5 location. NJDEP is also involved in the operation of that system, and NJDEP staff confirmed 6 that the remediation system is operating in a satisfactory manner.
| |
| 7 2.2.4 Surface Water Resources 8 2.2.4.1 Description 9 The Salem and HCGS facilities are located on Artificial Island, a man-made island constructed 10 on the New Jersey (eastern) shore of the Delaware River (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). All 11 surface water in Salem County drains to the Delaware River and Bay. Some streams flow 12 directly to the river, while others join subwatersheds before reaching their destination. The tides 13 of the Atlantic Ocean influence the entire length of the Delaware River in Salem County. Tidal 14 marshes are located along the lower stretches of the Delaware River and are heavily influenced 15 by the tides, flooding twice daily. Wetland areas, such as Mannington and Supawna Meadows, 16 make up roughly 30 percent of the county. The southwestern portion of Salem County is 17 predominately marshland, and to the north, tidal marshes are found in the western sections of 18 the county at the mouths of river systems, including the Salem River and Oldmans Creek 19 (Salem County, 2008).
| |
| 20 The Division of Land Use Regulation (LUR) is managed by the NJDEP and seeks to preserve 21 quality of life issues that affect water quality, wildlife habitat, flood protection, open space, and 22 the tourism industry. Coastal waters and adjacent land are protected by several laws, including 23 the Waterfront Development Law (N.J.S.A. 12:5-3), the Wetlands Act of 1970 (N.J.S.A. 13:9A),
| |
| 24 New Jersey Coastal Permit Program Rules (N.J.A.C. 7:7), Coastal Zone Management Rules 25 (N.J.A.C. 7:7E), and the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (N.J.S.A. 13:19), which regulates 26 almost all coastal development and includes the Kilcohook National Wildlife Refuge that is 27 located in Salem County (NJDEP, 2010b).
| |
| 28 The facilities are located at River Mile (RM) 51 on the Delaware River. At this location, the river 29 is approximately 2.5 mi (4 km) wide. The facilities are located on the Lower Region portion of 30 the river, which is designated by the DRBC as the area of the river subject to tidal influence, and 31 between the Delaware Bay and Trenton, NJ (DRBC, 2008a). The Lower Region and the 32 Delaware Bay together form the Estuary Region of the river, which is included as the 33 Partnership for the Delaware Estuary within the EPA's National Estuary Program (EPA, 201 Oe).
| |
| 34 Water use from the river at the facility location is regulated by both the DRBC and the State of 35 New Jersey. The DRBC was established in 1961, through the Delaware River Basin Compact, 36 as a joint Federal and State body to regulate and manage water resources within the basin.
| |
| 37 The DRBC acts to manage and regulate water resources in the basin by: (1) allocating and 38 regulating water withdrawals and discharges; (2) resolving interstate, water-related disputes; 39 (3) establishing water quality standards; (4) managing flow; and (5) watershed planning 40 (DRBC, 1961).
| |
| September 2010 2-37 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 As facilities that use water resources in the basin, Salem and HCGS water withdrawals are 2 conducted under contract to the DRBC. The Salem facility uses surface water under a DRBC 3 contract originally signed in 1977 (DRBC, 1977), and most recently revised and approved for a 4 25-year term in 2001 (DRBC, 2001). Surface water withdrawals by the HCGS facility were 5 originally approved for two units in 1975, and then revised for a single unit in 1985 following 6 PSEG's decision to build only one unit (DRBC, 1984a). The withdrawal rates are also regulated 7 by NJDEP, under NJPDES Permit Nos. NJ0025411 (for HCGS) and NJ005622 (for Salem).
| |
| 8 2.2.4.2 Affected Users 9 The Delaware River Basin is densely populated, and surface water resources within the river 10 are used for a variety of purposes. Freshwater from the non-tidal portion of the river is used to 11 supply municipal water throughout New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, including the 12 large metropolitan areas of Philadelphia and New York City. Approximately 75 oercent of the 13 length of the non-tidal Delaware River is designated as part of the National Wild and Scenic 14 Rivers System. The river is economically important for commercial shipping, as it includes port 15 facilities for petrochemical operations, military supplies, and raw materials and consumer 16 products (DRBC, 2010).
| |
| 17 In the tidal portion of the river, water is accessed for use in industrial operations, including 18 power plant cooling systems. A summary of DRBC-approved water users on the tidal portion of 19 the river from 2005 lists 22 industrial facilities and 14 power plants in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, 20 and Delaware (DRBC, 2005). Of these facilities, Salem is by far the highest volume water user 21 in the basin, with a reported water withdrawal volume of 1,067,8.92 million gallons (4.042 billion 22 Mi) in 2005 (DRBC, 2005). This volume exceeds the combined total withdrawal for all other 23 industrial, power, and public water supply purposes in the tidal portion of the river. The 24 withdrawal volume for HCGS in 2005 was much lower, at 19,561 million gallons (74 million i 3 ).
| |
| 25 2.2.4.3 Water Quality Regulation 26 To regulate water quality in the basin, the DRBC has established water quality standards, 27 referred to as Stream Quality Objectives, to protect human health and aquatic life objectives.
| |
| 28 To account for differing environmental setting and water uses along the length of the river basin, 29 the DRBC has established Water Quality Management (WQM) Zones, and has established 30 separate Stream Quality Objectives for each zone. The Salem and HCGS facilities are located 31 within Zone 5, which extends from RM 48.2 to RM 78.8.
| |
| 32 The DRBC Stream Quality Objectives are used by the NJDEP to establish effluent discharge 33 limits for discharges within the basin. The EPA granted the State of New Jersey the authority to 34 issue NPDES permits, and such a permit implies water quality certification under the Federal 35 Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401. The water quality and temperature of the discharges for 36 both the Salem and HCGS discharges are regulated by NJDEP under NJPDES Permit Nos.
| |
| 37 NJ0025411 (for HCGS) and NJ005622 (for Salem). In addition, industrial facilities in New 38 Jersey are required, under the New Jersey Administrative Code (NJAC) Title 7:1 E - 5.3, to 39 provide notification to NJDEP whenever any hazardous substance, as defined in NJAC 7:1 E 40 Appendix A is released.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-38 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 2.2.4.4 Salem Nuclear Generating Station NJPDES Requirements 2 The current NJPDES Permit No. NJ005622 for the Salem facility was issued with an effective 3 date of August 1, 2001, and an expiration date of July 31, 2006 (NJDEP, 2001 a). The permit 4 requires that a renewal application be prepared at least 180 days in advance of the expiration 5 date. Correspondence provided with the applicant's ER indicates that a renewal application 6 was filed on January 31, 2006. During the site audit, NJDEP staff confirmed that the application 7 was still undergoing review, so the 2001 permit is still considered to be in force. No substantial 8 changes in permit conditions are anticipated.
| |
| 9 The Salem NJPDES permit regulates water withdrawals and discharges associated with non-10 radiological industrial wastewater, including intake and discharge of once-through cooling water.
| |
| 11 The once-through cooling water, service water, non-radiological liquid waste, radiological liquid 12 waste, and other effluents are discharged through the cooling water system intake. The specific 13 discharge locations, and their associated reporting requirements and discharge limits, are 14 presented in Table 2-2.
| |
| 15 Stormwater discharge is not monitored through the Salem NJPDES permit. Stormwater is 16 collected and discharged through outfall discharge serial numbers (DSNs) 489A (south), 488 17 (west), and 487/487B (north). The NJPDES permit requires that stormwater discharges be 18 managed under an approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and, therefore, 19 does not specify discharge limits. The same SWPPP is also applicable to stormwater 20 discharges from the HCGS facility. The plan includes a listing of potential sources of pollutants 21 and associated best management practices (NJDEP, 2003).
| |
| 22 Industrial wastewater from Salem is regulated at nine specific locations, designated outfall 23 DSNs 048C, 481A, 482A, 483A, 484A, 485A, 486A, 487B, and 489A. Outfall DSN 048C is the 24 discharge system for the NRLWDS, and also receives stormwater from DSN 487B. For 25 DSN 048C, the permit establishes reporting requirements for discharge volume (in millions of 26 gallons per day), and compliance limits for total suspended solids, ammonia, petroleum 27 hydrocarbons, and total organic carbon (NJDEP, 2001a).
| |
| 28 Outfall DSNs 481A, 482A, 483A, 484A, 485A, and 486A are the discharge systems for cooling 29 water, service water, and the radiological liquid waste disposal system. Outfall DSNs 481A, 30 482A, and 483A are associated with Salem Unit 1, while outfall DSNs 484A, 485A, and 486A 31 are associated with Salem Unit 2. The permit establishes similar, but separate, requirements 32 for each of these six outfalls. For each, the permit requires reporting of the discharge volume 33 (in MGD), the pH of the intake, and the temperature of the discharge. The permit also 34 establishes compliance limits for the discharge from each outfall for pH and chlorine-produced 35 oxidants (NJDEP, 2001a).
| |
| 36 Outfall DSN 487B is the discharge system for the #3 skim tank. The permit establishes 37 reporting requirements for discharge volume (in MGD) and compliance limits for pH, total 38 suspended solids, temperature of effluent, petroleum hydrocarbons, and total organic carbon 39 (NJDEP, 2001 a).
| |
| 40 September 2010 2-39 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Table 2-2. NJPDES Permit Requirements for Salem Nuclear Generating Station Discharge Description Required Reporting Permit Limits DSN 048C Input is NRLWDS and Outfall Effluent flow volume None DSN 487B Total suspended solids 50 mg/L monthly average Discharges to outfall DSNs 100 mg/L daily maximum 481A, 482A. 484A, and 485A Ammonia (Total as N) 35 mg/L monthly average 70 mg/L daily maximum Petroleum hydrocarbons 10 mg/L monthly average 15 mg/L daily maximum Total organic carbon Report monthly average 50 mg/L daily maximum DSNs 481A, Input is cooling water, service Effluent flow volume None 482A, 483A, water, and DSN 048C Effluent pH 6.0 daily minimum 484A, 485A, Outfall is six separate 9.0 daily maximum and 486A (the discharge pipes Intake pH None same requirements Chlorine-produced oxidants 0.3 mg/L monthly average for each) 0.2 and 0.5 mg/L daily maximum Temperature None DSN 487B #3 skim tank, and stormwater Effluent flow None from north portion pH 6.0 daily minimum 9.0 daily maximum Total suspended solids 100 mg/L daily maximum Temperature 43.3 °C daily maximum Petroleum hydrocarbons 15 mg/L daily maximum Total organic carbon 50 mg/L daily maximum Discharge Description Required Reporting Permit Limits DSN 489A Oil/water separator, turbine Effluent flow None sumps, and stormwater from pH 6.0 daily minimum south portion 9.0 daily maximum Total suspended solids 30 mg/L monthly average 100 mg/L daily maximum Petroleum hydrocarbons 10 mg/L monthly average 15 mg/L daily maximum Total organic carbon 50 mg/L daily maximum DSN Outfall Combined for discharges Net temperature (year round) 15.3 0C daily maximum FACA 481A, 482A, and 483A Gross temperature 46.1 0C daily maximum (June to September)
| |
| Gross temperature 43.3 'C daily maximum (October to May)
| |
| DSN Outfall Combined for discharges Net temperature (year round) 15.3 'C daily maximum FACB 484A, 485A, and 486A Gross temperature 46.1 0C daily maximum (June to September)
| |
| Gross temperature 43.3 0C daily maximum (October to May) 2 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-40 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment Discharge Description Required Reporting Permit Limits DSN Outfall Combined for discharges Influent flow 3,024 MGD monthly average FACC 481A, 482A, 483A, 484A, Effluent thermal discharge 30,600 MBTU/hr daily maximum 485A, and 486A MBTU/hr = million British thermal units per hour Source: NJDEP, 2001a 2 Outfall DSN 489A is the discharge system for the oil/water separator. The permit establishes 3 reporting requirements for discharge volume (in MGD) and compliance limits for pH, total 4 suspended solids, petroleum hydrocarbons, and total organic carbon (NJDEP, 2001a).
| |
| 5 In addition to the reporting requirements and contaminant limits for these individual outfalls, the 6 permit establishes temperature limits for Salem Unit 1 as a whole, Salem Unit 2 as a whole, and 7 the Salem facility as a whole. Outfall FACA is the combined discharge from outfalls 481A, 8 482A, and 483A to represent the overall thermal discharge from Salem Unit 1. For outfall 9 FACA, the permit establishes an effluent net temperature difference of 15.3 °C (27.5°F), a gross 10 temperature of 43.3 'C (1 10°F) from October to May, and a gross temperature of 46.1 °C 11 (1 15°F)from June to September (NJDEP, 2001 a).
| |
| 12 Similarly, outfall FACB is the combined discharge from outfall DSNs 484A, 485A, and 486A to 13 represent the overall thermal discharge from Salem Unit 2. The temperature limits for outfall 14 FACB are the same as those established for outfall FACA (NJDEP, 2001 a).
| |
| 15 Outfall FACC is the combined results from outfall DSNs 481A through 486A, representing the 16 overall thermal discharge and flow volume for the Salem facility as a whole. The permit -
| |
| 17 establishes an overall intake volume of 3,024 MGD (11.4 million m3/day) on a monthly average 18 basis, and an effluent thermal discharge limit of 30,600 million British thermal units (BTUs) per 19 hour as a daily maximum (NJDEP, 2001a).
| |
| 20 In addition to the outfall-specific reporting requirements and discharge limits, the Salem 21 NJPDES permit includes a variety of general requirements (NJDEP, 2001a). These include 22 requirements for the following:
| |
| 23 0 additives that may be used, where they may be used, and procedures for 24 proposing changes to additives 25 0 toxicity testing of discharges and, depending on results, toxicity reduction 26 measures 27
| |
| * implementation and operations of intake screens and fish return systems 28
| |
| * wetland restoration and enhancement through the estuary enhancement program 29
| |
| * implementation of a biological monitoring program 30 0 installation of fish ladders at offsite locations 31 0 performance of studies of intake protection technologies 32
| |
| * implementation of entrainment and impingement monitoring 33
| |
| * conduct of special studies, including intake hydrodynamics and enhancements to 34 entrainment and impingement sampling September 2010 2-41 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1
| |
| * funding of construction of offshore reefs 2
| |
| * compliance with DRBC regulations, NRC regulations, and the NOAA Fisheries 3 Biological opinion 4 In the permit, the NJDEP reserves the right to re-open the requirements for intake protection 5 technologies (NJDEP, 2001a).
| |
| 6 2.2.4.5 Hope Creek Generating Station NJPDES Requirements 7 The current NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025411 for the HCGS facility was issued in early 2003, 8 with an effective date of March 1, 2003, and an expiration date of February 29, 2008 9 (NJDEP, 2003). The permit requires that a renewal application be prepared at least 180 days in 10 advance of the expiration date. Correspondence provided with the applicant's ER indicates that 11 a renewal application was filed on August 30, 2007. However, the current status of that renewal 12 is not provided within the ER and attached NJPDES permit (PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 13 The HCGS NJPDES permit regulates water withdrawals and discharges associated with both 14 stormwater and industrial wastewater, including discharges of cooling tower blowdown 15 (NJDEP, 2003). The cooling tower blowdown and other effluents are discharged through an 16 underwater pipe located on the bank of the river, 1,500 ft (457 m) upstream of the SWS intake.
| |
| 17 The specific discharge locations, and their associated reporting requirements and discharge 18 limits, are presented in Table 2-3.
| |
| 19 Stormwater discharge is not monitored through the HCGS NJPDES permit. Stormwater is 20 collected and discharged through outfall DSNs 463A, 464A, and 465A. These outfalls were 21 specifically regulated, and had associated reporting requirements, in the HCGS NJPDES permit 22 through 2005. However, the revision of the permit in January 2005 modified the requirements 23 for stormwater, and the permit now requires that stormwater discharges be managed under an 24 approved SWPPP and, therefore, does not specify discharge limits. The same SWPPP is also 25 applicable to stormwater discharges from the Salem facility. The plan includes a listing of 26 potential sources of pollutants and associated best management practices (NJDEP, 2003).
| |
| 27 Industrial wastewater is regulated at five locations, designated DSNs 461A, 461C, (missing part 28 D), 516A (oil/water separator), and SL1A (sewage treatment plant [STP]). Discharge DSN 461A 29 is the discharge for the cooling water blowdown, and the permit established reporting and 30 compliance limits for intake and discharge volume (in MGD), pH, chlorine-produced oxidants, 31 intake and discharge temperature, total organic carbon, and heat content in millions of BTUs per 32 hour, in both summer and winter (NJDEP, 2003).
| |
| 33 Discharge DSN 461C is a discharge for the oil/water separator system and has established 34 reporting and compliance limits for discharge volume, total suspended solids, total recoverable 35 petroleum hydrocarbons, and total organic carbon (NJDEP, 2003).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-42 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment Table 2-3. NJPDES Permit Requirements for Hope Creek Generating Station Discharge Description Required Reporting Permit Limits DSN 461A Input is cooling Effluent flow None water blowdown and Intake flow None DSN 461C Effluent pH 6.0 daily minimum Outfall is discharge 9.0 daily maximum pipe Chlorine-produced oxidants 0.2 mg/L monthly average 0.5 mg/L daily maximum Effluent gross temperature 36.2oC daily maximum Intake temperature None Total organic carbon (effluent None gross, effluent net, and intake)
| |
| Heat content (June to August) 534 MBTU/hr daily maximum Heat content (September to May) 662 MBTU/hr daily maximum DSN 461 C Input is low volume Effluent flow None oily waste from Total suspended solids 30 mg/L monthly average oit/water separator 100 mg/L daily maximum Outfall is to DSN Total recoverable petroleum 10 mg/L monthly average 461A Hydrocarbons 15 mg/L daily maximum Total organic carbon 50 mg/L daily maximum DSN 462B Sewage treatment Effluent flow None plant effluent, Total suspended solids 30 mg/L monthly average discharges to 461A 45 mg/L weekly average 83% removal daily minimum Biological oxygen demand (BOD) 8 kg/day monthly average 30 mg/L monthly average 45 mg/L weekly average 87.5 percent removal daily minimum Oil and grease 10 mg/L monthly average 15 mg/L daily maximum Fecal coliform 200/100 ml monthly geometric 400 /100 ml weekly geometric average 6 separate metal and inorganic None contaminants (cyanide, nickel, zinc, cadmium, chromium, and copper)
| |
| S16A Oil/water separator 24 separate metal and inorganic None residuals from 461C contaminants 24 separate organic contaminants None Volumes and types of sludge None produced and disposed 2
| |
| September 2010 2-43 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment Discharge Description Required Reporting Permit Limits SL1A STP s~stem 17 separate metal and inorganic None residuals from 462B contaminants Volumes and types of sludge None produced and disposed Source: NJDEP, 2005a 2 Discharge DSN 462B is the discharge for the onsite sewage treatment plant. The permit 3 includes limits for effluent flow volume, total suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, 4 and six inorganic contaminants (NJDEP, 2005a).
| |
| 5 Discharge 516A is the discharge from the oil/water separator system. This discharge has 6 reporting requirements established for 48 inorganic and organic contaminants, for the volume of 7 sludge produced, and for the manner in which the sludge is disposed (NJDEP, 2003).
| |
| 8 Discharge SL1A is the discharge from the STP system. This discharge has reporting 9 requirements established for 17 inorganic contaminants, as well as sludge volume and disposal 10 information (NJDEP, 2003).
| |
| 11 In addition to the outfall-specific reporting requirements and discharge limits, the HCGS 12 NJPDES permit includes a variety of general requirements. These include requirements for 13 additives that may be used, where they may be used, and procedures for proposing changes to 14 additives; and compliance with DRBC regulations and NRC regulations (NJDEP, 2003).
| |
| 15 In the permit, the NJDEP reserves the right to revoke the alternate temperature provision for 16 outfall DSN 461A if the NJDEP determines that the cooling tower is not being properly operated 17 and maintained (NJDEP, 2003).
| |
| 18 Spill Reporting under NJAC 7:1E 19 As discussed above, industrial facilities in New Jersey are required to provide notification to 20 NJDEP whenever any hazardous substance, as defined in NJAC 7:1E Appendix A, is released.
| |
| 21 The list of hazardous substance in NJAC 7:1E Appendix A includes almost 2,000 substances 22 that are commonly used at industrial facilities, including many chemicals that Salem and HCGS 23 are specifically permitted to use in accordance with their NJPDES permits. This includes 24 chemicals which are added to the steam systems for corrosion protection, including ammonium 25 hydroxide and hydrazine. In compliance with NJAC 7:1E - 5.3, the facilities occasionally report 26 releases of these chemicals, including hydrazine, ammonium hydroxide, and sodium 27 hypochlorite, to NJDEP, and those reports are publicly available. In two recent instances, the 28 facilities have been subject to enforcement action associated with these releases. In 29 September 2005, the facilities paid a penalty of $7,500 associated with a release of 5,000 30 gallons (19 M 3 ) of boiler feed water containing 7 parts per million (ppm) hydrazine and 20 ppm 31 ammonia. In April 2008, they paid a penalty of $15,000 associated with the May 10, 2006 32 release of 5,000 gallons (19 M 3) of water containing hydrazine and ammonium hydroxide, and 33 with a separate release of sodium hypochlorite. A separate penalty of $8,250 was paid in 34 February 2007, associated with the same May 10, 2006 release (NJDEP, 2010c).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 2-44 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 2.2.5 Aquatic Resources - Delaware Estuary 2 2.2.5.1 Estuary Characteristics 3 Salem and HCGS are located at the south end of Artificial Island on the New Jersey shore of 4 the Delaware Estuary, about 52 RM (84 river km) north of the mouth of the Delaware Bay 5 (Figure 2-5). The estuary is the source of the cooling water for both facilities and receives their 6 effluents. The Delaware Estuary supports an abundance of aquatic resources in a variety of 7 habitats. Open water habitats include salt water, tidally-influenced water of variable salinities, 8 and tidal freshwater areas. Moving south from the Delaware River to the mouth of the bay, there 9 is a continual transition from fresh to salt water. Additional habitat types occur along the edges 10 of the estuary in brackish and freshwater marshes. The bottom of the estuary provides many 11 different benthic habitats, with their characteristics dictated by salinity, tides, water velocity, and 12 substrate type. Sediments in the estuary near Artificial Island are primarily mud, muddy sand, 13 and sandy mud (PSEG, 2006c).
| |
| 14 At Artificial Island, the estuary is tidal with a net flow to the south and a width of approximately 15 16,000 ft (5,000 m) (Figure 2-1). The USACE maintains a dredged navigation channel near the 16 center of the estuary and about 6,600 ft (2,000 m) west of the shoreline at Salem and HCGS.
| |
| 17 The navigation channel is about 40 ft (12 m) deep and 1,300 ft (400 m) wide. On the New 18 Jersey side of the channel, water depths in the open estuary at mean low water are fairly 19 uniform at about 20 ft (6 m). Predominant tides in the area are semi-diurnal, with a period of 20 12.4 hours and a mean tidal range of 5.5 ft (1.7 m). The maximum tidal currents occur in the 21 channel, and currents flow more slowly over the shallower areas (NRC, 1984; 22 Najarian Associates, 2004).
| |
| 23 Salinity is an important determinant of biotic distribution in estuaries, and salinity near the Salem 24 and HCGS facilities depends on river flow. The NRC (1984) reported that average salinity in 25 this area during periods of low flow ranged from 5 to 18 parts per thousand (ppt) and during 26 periods of higher flow, ranged from 0 to 5 ppt. Najarian Associates (2004) and PSEG Services 27 Corporation (2005b) characterized salinity at the plant as ranging between 0 and 20 ppt and, in 28 the summer during periods of low flow, as typically exceeding 6 ppt. Based on temperature and 29 conductivity data collected by the USGS at Reedy Island, just north of Artificial Island, Najarian 30 Associates (2004) calculated salinity from 1991 through 2002. According to thier Figure B6 the 31 median salinity was approximately 5 ppt and salinity exceeded 12 ppt in only two years, 32 exceeded 13 ppt in only one year, and never exceeded 15 ppt during the 11 year period. Based 33 on these observations, the Staff assumes that salinity in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS 34 typically ranges from 0 to 5 ppt during periods of low flow (usually, but not always, in the 35 summer) and from 5 to 12 ppt during periods of high flow (Table 2-4). Within these larger 36 patterns, salinity at any specific location also varies with the tides (NRC, 2007).
| |
| 37 September 2010 2-45 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Table 2-4. Salinities in the Delaware Estuary in the Vicinity of Salem Nuclear Generating 2 Station and Hope Creek Generating Station Condition Salinity Range (ppt)
| |
| Low Flow 0-5 High Flow 5-12 Source: NRC, 2007 3
| |
| 4 Monthly average surface water temperatures in the Delaware Estuary vary with season.
| |
| 5 Between 1977 and 1982, water temperatures ranged from -0.9°C (30°F) in February 1982 to 6 30.5°C (86.9°F) in August 1980. Although the estuary in this reach is generally well mixed, it 7 can occasionally stratify, with surface temperatures 10 to 2°C (2o to 4°F) higher than bottom 8 temperatures and salinity increasing as much as 2 ppt per meter of water depth (NRC, 1984).
| |
| 9 Cowardin et al. (1979) classified estuaries into five categories based on salinity, varying from 10 fresh (zero ppt) to hyperhaline (greater than 40 ppt). They further subdivide the brackish 11 category (0.5 to 30 ppt) into three subsections: oligohaline (0.5 to 5 ppt), mesohaline (5 to 18 12' ppt), and polyhaline (18 to 30 ppt). These categories describe zones within the estuary. The 13 estuary reach adjacent to Artificial Island is at the interface of the oligohaline and mesohaline 14 zones; thus, it is oligohaline during high flow and mesohaline during low flow conditions. Based 15 on water clarity categories of good, fair, or poor, the EPA (1998) classified the water clarity in 16 this area of the estuary as generally fair (meaning that a wader in waist-deep water would not 17 be able to see his feet). The EPA classified the water clarity directly upstream and downstream 18 of this reach as poor (meaning that a diver would not be able to see his hand at arm's length).
| |
| 19 EPA (1998) classified most estuarine waters in the Mid-Atlantic as having good water clarity and 20 stated that lower water clarity typically is due to phytoplankton blooms and suspended 21 sediments and detritus (organic particles and debris from the beakdown of vegetation).
| |
| 22 Delaware Bay is a complex estuary, with many individual species playing different roles in the 23 system. Additionally, most estuarine species have complex lifecycles, and are present in the 24 bay at different stages, so many species play several ecological roles throughout their lifecycles.
| |
| 25 Changes in the abundance of these species can have far reaching effects, both within and 26 without the bay, including major trends in commercial fisheries. Major assemblages of 27 organisms within the estuarine community include plankton, benthic invertebrates, and fish.
| |
| 28 2.2.5.2 Plankton 29 Plankton are organisms that are moved throughout the water column by tides and currents.
| |
| 30 They are relatively unable to control their own movements (Moisan et al., 2007). Plankton can 31 be primary producers (phytoplankton) or consumers (zooplankton and microbes).
| |
| 32 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-46 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 PhvtoDlankton 2 Phytoplankton are microscopic, single-celled algae that are responsible for the majority of 3 primary production in the water column. Primary production is typically limited to the upper 2 m 4 (7 ft) of the water column due to light limitation from high turbidity (NRC, 1984). Water quality 5 parameters such as salinity, temperature, and nutrient availability regulate species composition, 6 abundance, and distribution. Seasonal changes in these parameters cause fluctuations in the 7 density of plankton populations (Versar, 1991). Species composition also varies with water 8 quality parameters. In the highly variable, tidally influenced zone, species with a high tolerance 9 for widely fluctuating environments are found. Species composition also fluctuates seasonally 10 (DRBC, 2008b).
| |
| 11 Phytoplankton were sampled in the late 1960s and early 1970s as part of the pre-operational 12 ecological investigations for Salem performed by Ichthyological Associates (PSEG, 1983). In 13 1978, NJDEP agreed that Salem operation had no effect on phytoplankton populations, and 14 phytoplankton studies related to the operation of Salem Units 1 and 2 were discontinued 15 (PSEG, 1984). Versar (1991) conducted a major literature survey for the Delaware Estuary 16 Program to assess the various biological resources of the estuary and possible trends in their 17 abundance or health. This study found that phytoplankton formed the basis of the primary 18 production in the estuary. More recently, Monaco and Ulanowicz (1997) established that 19 pelagic phytoplankton in the Delaware Bay are responsible for most of the primary production.
| |
| 20 Sutton et al (1996) determined that phytoplankton in the lower bay (polyhaline zone) where the 21 water is less turbid account for most of the primary production in the system. The Delaware 22 Estuary contains several hundred phytoplankton species, a few of which are highly abundant 23 (Sutton et al., 1996). Skeletonema potamos and various cyanobacteria and green algae are 24 numerically dominant in the oligohaline zone.
| |
| 25 NJDEP currently surveys phytoplankton in the Delaware estuary. These surveys monitor 26 harmful algal blooms by collecting samples for chlorophyll analysis. The occurrence of blooms 27 is highly variable between years, but blooms most often occur in the spring (NJDEP, 2005b).
| |
| 28 Algal blooms can have large consequences for the entire estuary because they can contain 29 flagellates that may make fish and shellfish inedible, and they can deplete the oxygen in the 30 water column so severely that large fish kills can result. The EPA also monitors algal blooms 31 using helicopter surveys (NJDEP, 2005c).
| |
| 32 Zooplankton 33 Zooplankton are heterotrophic plankton that consume phytoplankton, other types of 34 zooplankton, and detritus (Moisan et al., 2007). They serve as a vital link between the micro 35 algae, detritus, and larger organisms in the Delaware Estuary. Zooplankton are very small, 36 have limited mobility, and provide a source of food for many other organisms, including filter 37 feeders, larvae of fish and invertebrates, and larger zooplankton. They are dependent on 38 phytoplankton, detritus, or smaller zooplankton for food. In turn, they are either eaten by larger 39 organisms or contribute to the energy web by being decomposed by the detritivores after they 40 settle to the substrate. Zooplankton show seasonal and spatial variability in abundance and 41 species composition (PSEG, 1983). Their distribution can be affected by factors such as 42 currents, salinity, temperature, and light intensity (NRC, 1984).
| |
| September 2010 2-47 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Some zooplankton spend their entire life cycle in the water column and others spend only part 2 of their life cycle in the water column. Among the former are invertebrates such as shrimp, 3 mysids, amphipods, copepods, ctenophores (comb jellies), jellyfish, and rotifers. Among the 4 animals that spend a only portion of their life cycle as plankton are larval fish and invertebrates 5 that have a planktonic stage before their development into adult forms. The planktonic stage 6 provides for these organisms an important dispersal mechanism, ensuring that larvae arrive in 7 as many appropriate habitats as possible (Sutton et al., 1996). Studies in the Salem 8 pre-operational phase found many such zooplankton in large numbers, including the larval 9 stages of the estuarine mud crab (Rhithropanopeusharrisit), fiddler crab (Uca minax), grass 10 shrimp (Palaemonetespugio), and copepods (PSEG, 1983).
| |
| 11 Zooplankton were sampled by Ichthyological Associates as part of the pre-operational 12 ecological studies for Salem Units 1 and 2. Studies related to plant operations in the early to 13 mid 1970s found that two types of crustaceans, opossum shrimp and amphipods of the genus 14 Gammarus, constituted the numerical majority of the taxa collected. Due to the abundance of 15 these two taxa, they were selected by NJDEP and NRC for future ecological studies related to 16 Salem operations. They also are important as prey items for many of the fishes in the estuary.
| |
| 17 As a result, general studies of the zooplankton in the estuary were discontinued by PSEG in 18 favor of an approach more focused on individual species (PSEG, 1984). Studies reviewed in 19 Sutton et al (1996) did not show a major change in the zooplankton assemblage since the early 20 1960s. Copepods generally are the most abundant organisms and are a major prey resource 21 for larval and adult fish in the Delaware Estuary (Sutton et al., 1996).
| |
| 22 Since many of the fish species found in the Delaware Estuary are managed either Federally or 23 by individual States, there have been extensive studies of ichthyoplankton (larval fish and eggs).
| |
| 24 Additionally, fish have been monitored by PSEG and the States of New Jersey and Delaware 25 since before the operation of Salem Units 1 and 2. Initial ichthyoplankton studies were general 26 surveys. Later studies focused on the 11 target species established during the NPDES 27 permitting process. These studies included impingement and entrainment studies and general 28 sampling consisting of plankton tows and beach seines (PSEG, 1984). Versar (1991) reviewed 29 several studies with respect to ichthyoplankton. This review included both the power plant 30 studies and more general surveys focused on managed fish species. The review revealed that 31 ichthyoplankton of the tidal freshwater region (corresponding to the oligohaline region) had a 32 high abundance of the alosid fishes, including the American shad (Alosa sapidissima), hickory 33 shad (A. mediocris), alewife (A. pseudoharengus), and blueback herring (A. aestivalis), as well 34 as other anadromous species. Due to alosid lifecycles, both eggs and larvae have seasonal 35 peaks in abundance and distribution that vary with the species. The bay anchovy (Anchoa 36 mitchilh) is abundant in the transitional region (corresponding to the mesohaline region) in which 37 Artificial Island is located. Other common ichthyoplankton species in the Delaware Estuary 38 include the naked goby (Gobiosoma bosc), blueback herring, alewife, Atlantic menhaden 39 (Brevoortia tyrannus), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), and Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia).
| |
| 40 The number of species was highest in the spring and summer months, and bay anchovy always 41 constituted a large portion of the ichthyoplankton samples (Versar, 1991). The lifecycles, 42 habitats, and other characteristics of fish species identified among the ichthyoplankton are 43 described in Section 2.2.5.4.
| |
| 44 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-48 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 2.2.5.3 Benthic Invertebrates 2 Benthic invertebrates (or benthos) are organisms that live within (infauna) or on (epifauna) the 3 substrates at the bottom of the water column, including groups such as worms, mollusks, 4 crustaceans, and microorganisms (Census of Antarctic Marine Life, 2008). Parabenthos are 5 organisms that spend some time in or on the substrate but can also be found in the water 6 column, including crabs, copepods, and mysids (Versar, 1991). The species composition, 7 distribution, and abundance of the benthic invertebrate community are affected by physical 8 conditions, such as salinity, temperature, water velocity, and substrate type, and by interactions 9 between individuals and species. Substrates within the Delaware Estuary include mud, sand, 10 clay, cobble, shell, rock, and various combinations of these; those near Salem and HCGS are 11 mostly fine-grained silts and clays with small areas of sand (USACE, 1992).
| |
| 12 The benthic invertebrate community of the estuary performs many ecological functions. Some 13 benthic species or groups of species form habitats by building reefs (such as oysters and some 14 polychaete worms) or by stabilizing or destabilizing soft substrates (such as some bivalves, 15 amphipods, and polychaetes). Some benthic organisms are filter feeders that clean the 16 overlying water (such as oysters, other bivalves, and some polychaetes), and others consume 17 detritus. While the benthic community itself contains many trophic levels, it also provides a 18 trophic base for fish and shellfish (such as crabs) valued by humans.
| |
| 19 A review of benthic data for the Delaware Estuary was included in a report for the Delaware 20 Estuary Program (Versar, 1991). Benthic data have been collected in the estuary since the 21 early 1800s. Most of the earlier reports were surveys describing species; however, large 22 amounts of quantitative data were collected in the 1970s. Generally, benthic invertebrate 23 species distributions were found to be limited by salinity and substrate type (Versar, 1991).
| |
| 24 Additionally, localized poor water quality can have a major effect on species comlosition.
| |
| 25 Species found in the lower bay are limited by salinity gradients; estuarine species, such as the 26 razor clam (Ensis directus) and the polychaete Heteromastus filiformis, are found throughout the 27 entire bay; and freshwater and oligohaline species, such as the clam Gemma gemma, occur in 28 lower salinity waters in the upper bay. Pre-operational studies by Ichthyological Associates also 29 concluded that species composition varied seasonally, reflecting higher diversity and 30 abundance during periods of higher salinity. The authors postulated that this was a result of 31 both recruitment dynamics and immigration from the lower bay (PSEG, 1983).
| |
| 32 The benthos of the tidal fresh portion (oligohaline) of the estuary includes tubificid worms, 33 chironomid larvae, sphaerid clams, and unionid mussels. These assemblages are greatly 34 influenced by anthropogenic impacts to the water quality in the area due to proximity of pollutant 35 sources on the river. Highly tolerant species are found here, often with only one extremely 36 dominant species. In the transition zone (mesohaline) oligochaetes and amphipods generally 37 are numerically dominant. The bay region (polyhaline) has abundant bivalves and polychaetes 38 (Versar, 1991). As reported in the applicant's initial environmental report (PSEG, 1983),
| |
| 39 pre-operational studies for Salem Units 1 and 2 found mostly euryhaline species in the vicinity of 40 the facility, including polychaetes, oligochates, and isopods (NRC, 1984).
| |
| September 2010 2-49 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Species composition and abundance of benthic organisms are often used as indicators of 2 ecosystem health. Generally, the greater the diversity of species and the more abundant those 3 species are, the healthier the system is considered. EPA collected benthic samples in the 4 Delaware Estuary between 1990 and 1993 in an effort to assess the health of the system. As a 5 result of this sampling effort, EPA determined that 93 percent of the tidal river between the 6 Chesapeake and Delaware Canal and Trenton, NJ was either degraded or severely degraded.
| |
| 7 South of this area, EPA classified only 2 percent of the benthic invertebrate community as 8 impaired, and none of the area was considered severely impaired (Delaware Estuary Program, 9 1995). More recently, EPA released a report describing the Delaware-Maryland-Virginia coastal 10 bays as impacted over one-fourth of their total area. In the Delaware Bay itself, EPA considered 11 the upper portion as severely impacted, the transition area as impacted, and the lower bay as 12 mostly in good condition. The report described a large central area of the bay as impacted, 13 possibly due to scouring from high currents or eutrophication resulting in high organic carbon 14 levels in the sediments (EPA, 1998).
| |
| 15 PSEG and its consultants conducted studies during the 1984 NPDES 316(b) permitting process 16 (PSEG, 1984). They collected over 1,000 grab samples in the Delaware Estuary and identified 17 a total of 57 taxa in 8 phyla. The most abundant species were the same as those found in 18 previous studies. General densities of benthic organisms ranged between 17,000 per square 19 meter (m2 ; 183,000 per if2) and 25,000 per m2 (269,000 per if 2). As a result of the PSEG 20 studies, NJDEP determined that benthic invertebrates would not be substantially affected by 21 plant operations, and these organisms were no longer sampled as part of the monitoring effort 22 (PSEG, 1984).
| |
| 23 Mysids are a key biological resource in Delaware Bay because they are highly abundant and 24 are prey for many other species, especially fish. They also are important predators of other 25 invertebrates. Opossum shrimp are found in water with a salinity of 4 ppt or higher (mesohaline 26 and polyhaline regions), most often in deeper areas. They migrate vertically into the water 27 column at night and settle on the sediments during the day. Sand shrimp are more common in 28 shallower waters and play the same ecological role as opossum shrimp. Amphipods are 29 numerous in the transition region and are primarily represented by the genus Gammarus.
| |
| 30 These crustaceans also form a link between the smaller plankton and the larger fish species in 31 this part of the estuary (Versar, 1991).
| |
| 32 The benthos of the Delaware estuary also include mollusks and large crustaceans such as the 33 blue crab (Callinectessapidus)and horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus). These species can 34 be difficult to sample with the equipment typically used for benthos sampling, sediment grab 35 samplers (PSEG, 1984). PSEG monitoring survey efforts often caught blue crabs in the bottom 36 trawl samples. Opossum shrimp and Gammarus spp. also are difficult to sample because they 37 often inhabit vegetation in shallow marsh areas. These species were selected as target species 38 during PSEG's early ecological studies with respect to the operation of Salem Units 1 and 2, but 39 NJDEP and PSEG later determined that they were unaffected by the facility and they were no 40 longer specifically monitored (PSEG, 1999).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-50 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Several benthic invertebrate species that have been given special attention by Federal, 2 regional, or State organizations. For example, the blue crab has been extensively monitored at 3 Salem as an important species, the horseshoe crab has been the focus of several restoration 4 efforts within Delaware Bay due to its general decline and the fact that the bay is considered a 5 major nursery and spawning area for the species, and both the horseshoe crab and the oyster 6 were noted as important species by NMFS (NMFS, 2010a). These three species are discussed 7 below.
| |
| 8 Blue Crab 9 The blue crab is an important ecological, cultural, commercial, and recreational resource in the 10 Delaware Bay (Hill et al., 1989). Blue crabs mate in low-salinity portions of estuaries during the 11 summer, usually from May through October (ASMFC, 2004). Males can mate several times, but 12 females mate only once (ASMFC, 2004). Once the female has been fertilized, she migrates to 13 higher salinity regions to complete the spawning process. The fertilized eggs are extruded over 14 several months and remain attached to the abdomen of the female. The eggs hatch and are 15 released after I to 2 weeks, initiating a series of larval transitions. In the first larval stage, the 16 zoea, the larvae are planktonic filter feeders and develop in the higher-salinity waters outside of 17 the estuary. These larvae molt seven to eight times in 31 to 49 days before progressing to the 18 next stage, the megalops, which are more like crabs, with pincers and jointed legs (Hill et al.,
| |
| 19 1989). After 6 to 20 days, the megalops stage molts into the first crab stage, resembling an 20 adult crab. Over a period of 1 year, these juveniles migrate up the estuary into lower-salinity 21 regions until they have reached the adult stage (Hill et al., 1989). Initially, sea grass beds are 22 an important habitat, but crabs then make extensive use of marsh areas as nurseries (ASMFC, 23 2004). Natural mortality rates for the blue crab are hard to define as they vary non-linearly with 24 life stage and environmental parameters. The maximum age reached by blue crabs has been 25 estimated to be 8 years (ASMFC, 2004).
| |
| 26 The blue crab is an omnivore, feeding on many other commercially important species, such as 27 oysters and clams. Young blue crabs also are prey for other harvested species, especially 28 those that use the estuary as a nursery area (Hill et al., 1989). Blue crabs are important in 29 energy transfer within estuarine systems (ASMFC, 2004). They play different roles in the 30 ecosystem depending on their life stage. Zoea larvae consume other zooplankton as well as 31 phytoplankton. Megalops larvae consume fish larvae, small shellfish, aquatic plants, and each 32 other. Post-larval stages consume detritus, carcasses, fish, crabs, and mollusks. Crab eggs 33 are eaten by fish. Larval stages are eaten by other planktivores, including fish, jellyfish, and 34 shellfish. Juvenile crabs are consumed by shore birds, wading birds, and fish. Adult crabs are 35 consumed by mammals, birds, and large fish, including the striped bass (Morone saxatitlis),
| |
| 36 American eel (Anguilla rostrata),and sandbar shark (Carcharhinusplumbeus) (Hill et al., 1989).
| |
| 37 Blue crab population estimates are difficult, as recruitment is highly variable and dependent on 38 temperature, dissolved oxygen, rainfall, oceanographic conditions, parasitism, and contaminant 39 and predation levels (Hill et al., 1989; ASMFC, 2004). Landings of blue crabs on the east coast 40 were in decline in the early 2000s, prompting a symposium led by the ASMFC in an attempt to 41 assess the status of the fishery and to assist in developing sustainable landing limits.
| |
| 42 Participants in the symposium theorized that declines in blue crab populations could be a result 43 of attempts to increase populations of other fisheries species that prey upon crabs (ASMFC, 44 2004).
| |
| September 2010 2-51 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Horseshoe Crab 2 The horseshoe crab is an evolutionarily primitive species that has remained relatively 3 unchanged for 350 million years. It is not a true crab but is more closely related to spiders and 4 other arthropods (FWS, 2006). The largest spawning population in the world inhabits the 5 Delaware Bay. They migrate offshore during the winter months and return to shore in spring to 6 spawn on beaches (ASMFC, 2008a). Spawning peaks in May and June, and crabs spawn 7 repeatedly during the season (ASMFC, 2010a). Spawning occurs during high spring tides on 8 sandy beaches with low wave action (ASMFC, 2008a). The female will partially burrow into the 9 sand and deposit several thousand eggs. Eggs hatch in 3 to 4 weeks, and the larvae (which 10 resemble the adult crabs without tails) will enter the water about 1 month later (FWS, 2006).
| |
| 11 They spend their first 6 days swimming in shallow water, and then settle to the bottom (FWS, 12 2006; ASMFC, 1998a). Juveniles will spend their first 2 year on intertidal sand flats. Older 13 juveniles and adults inhabit subtidal habitats (ASMFC, 201 Oa). Molting continues after the 14 juvenile stage, with each molt increasing the crab's size by up to 25 percent. After about 17 15 molts, or 9 to 12 years, the crabs are sexually mature (ASMFC, 2008a). Crabs can live up to 10 16 additional years after the last molt (ASMFC, 2010a). Horseshoe crabs exhibit limited beach 17 fidelity, usually returning to their native beaches to spawn (FWS, 2003). However, crabs tagged 18 in the Delaware Bay have been recaptured in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia 19 (ASMFC, 2008b).
| |
| 20 Horseshoe crabs play a major ecological role in the migration patterns of shore birds from the 21 Arctic to the southern Atlantic. Many bird species eat horseshoe crab eggs during their 22 seasonal migrations on the Atlantic flyway (ASMFC, 2008a; FWS, 2006). Juvenile and adult 23 horseshoe crabs eat mostly mollusks, such as clams and mussels, but also arthropods, 24 annelids, and nemerteans. Larvae consume small polychaetes and nematodes (ASMFC, 25 1998a). In addition to providing a rich food source for birds, eggs and larvae are consumed by 26 fish, crabs, gastropods, and loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) (ASMFC, 1998a). Seagulls 27 often eat overturned adults on the beach (FWS, 2003).
| |
| 28 Commercial uses for horseshoe crabs include applications in the fishing, biomedical, and 29 livestock and fertilizer industries. Fisherman use horseshoe crabs as bait in the American eel 30 and conch (Busycon carica and B. canaliculatum) fisheries. The biomedical industry uses their 31 blood to detect contaminated medicine. This fishery captures, bleeds and releases the crabs 32 (FWS 2003). At the turn of the 20th century, between 1.5 and 4 million horseshoe crabs were 33 harvested annually for use by the livestock and fertilizer industries. Variations and reductions in 34 harvests since that time are partially due to management and partially due to a decrease in 35 demand. Stock status is currently unknown due to lack of commercial fishing data. Evidence 36 from trawl surveys suggests that the population is growing in Delaware Bay. Harvests have 37 been reduced in Delaware, but are increasing in Massachusetts and New York (ASMFC, 38 2008a). The management plan for the horseshoe crab provides limits on harvet seasons for 39 male and female crabs, and for total hauls (ASMFC, 2008b).
| |
| 40 Threats to horseshoe crab habitat include coastal erosion, development (particularly shoreline 41 stabilization structures such as bulkheads, groins, seawalls, and revetments), sea level rise/land 42 subsidence, channel dredging, contaminants, and oil spills in spawning areas. Habitats of 43 concern include nearshore shallow water and intertidal sand flats, and beach spawning areas 44 (ASMFC, 2010a).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-52 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 American Oyster 2 The American oyster is also known as the eastern oyster and the Atlantic oyster. Oysters 3 inhabit the Delaware Bay from the mouth of the bay to Bombay Hook on the Delaware side and 4 to just south of Artificial Island on the New Jersey side (USACE, 2007). There are three 5 physiological races recognized coast wide, each spawning at different temperatures. The 6 oysters in the Delaware Bay are part of the population that spawns at 20 °C (68 *F). Spawning 7 occurs in the summer months, with several events per season. During spawning events, males 8 release their sperm and a pheromone into the water column and the females respond by 9 releasing their eggs. Larvae remain in the water column for 2 to 3 weeks, dispersing with the 10 water currents. Larvae pass through several morphological changes before settling, preferably 11 on other oyster shells. Adult oysters are sessile and found in beds or reefs in dense masses.
| |
| 12 They often are the only large organism in the bed and can change water currents enough to 13 affect the sediment deposition rate of the local environment. They are dioecious, but are 14 capable of changing sex, with more oysters becoming female as they age. Growth is affected 15 by environmental variables, such as temperature, salinity, intertidal exposure, turbidity, and food 16 availability (Sellers and Stanley, 1984).
| |
| 17 Oysters are tolerant of a wide array of environmental variables, as they have evolved to live in 18 estuaries, which experience high and low temperatures, high and low salinities, submersion and 19 exposure, and clear to muddy water. Optimal temperatures for adults are between 20°C and 20 30°C (68°F and 86°F). Salinities higher than 7.5 ppt are required for spawning, but adults will 21 tolerate salinities between 5 and 30 ppt. Because oysters are filter feeders, water velocity is 22 highly important. The water above a bed must be recharged 72 times every 24 hours for 23 maximum feeding. Tidal flows of greater than 5 to 8.5 fps (152 to 259 centimeters per second 24 [cm/sec]) provide for optimal growth (Sellers and Stanley, 1984).
| |
| 25 Oyster larvae feed on plankton. Adults are stationary filter feeders, feeding on plankton as well 26 as detritus and other particulate matter. They can filter up to 1.5 liters of water an hour, making 27 them an important ecological resource. Due to their reef building abilities, they are also 28 important because they create three-dimensional habitats, which can be home to over 300 other 29 species. A wide variety of other filter feeders eat oyster larvae. Predators of adult oysters 30 include gastropod oysterdrills (Urosalpinx cinerea and Eupleura caudata), the whelk Busycon 31 canaliculatum,the starfish Asterias forbesi, the boring sponge (Cliona sp.), the flatworm 32 Stylochus ellipticus, and crabs. Competitors for resources include slipper limpets (Crepidula 33 sp.), jingle shells (Anomia sp.), barnacles, and the mussel Brachiodontesexustus (Sellers and 34 Stanley, 1984).
| |
| 35 The oyster is a commercially important species that has been harvested in Delaware Bay since 36 the early 1800s (Delaware Estuary Program, 2010). By the mid 1850s, oyster fisherman had 37 begun transplanting oysters from the naturally occurring seed beds of New Jersey to other 38 areas in the bay for growth, due to concern over the smaller size of oysters being harvested.
| |
| 39 The natural seed beds are now protected outside of the leasing system, as these are the 40 sources of the oysters transplanted to other beds. In the early 1900s, one to two million bushels 41 were harvested from the bay annually, concurrent with the use of the new oyster dredge.
| |
| 42 Production remained relatively stable until the mid 1950s when disease decimated the 43 population. Currently, the oyster harvest remains limited due mainly to diseases such as MSX 44 ("multinucleated sphere unknown," later classified as Haplosporidiumnelson) and Dermo September 2010 2-53 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 (caused by the southern oyster parasite, Perkinsus marinus). Oysters now are directly 2 harvested from the seed beds (Delaware Estuary Program, 2010).
| |
| 3 Delaware, New Jersey, and the USACE currently are undertaking a joint effort to reestablish 4 oyster beds and an oyster fishery in Delaware Bay. The majority of these efforts are focused on 5 increasing recruitment and sustaining a population by shell and bed planting and seeding.
| |
| 6 Since 2001, despite management, oyster abundance has continued to decline due to below 7 average recruitment. Recruitment enhancement is deemed important to stabilize stock 8 abundance, to permit continuation and expansion of the oyster industry, to guarantee increased 9 abundance that produces the shell necessary to maintain the bed, and to minimize the control of 10 oyster population dynamics by disease. These goals will allow the oyster to play its ecological 11 role as a filterer that enhances general water quality (USACE, 2007).
| |
| 12 2.2.5.4 Fish 13 The Delaware Bay, Estuary, and River make up an ecologically and hydrologically complex 14 system that supports many fish species. Most estuarine fish species have complex life cycles 15 and are present in the estuary at various life stages; thus, they may play several ecological roles 16 during their lives. Changes in the abundance of these species can have far-reaching effects, 17 both within the bay and beyond, including effects on commercial fisheries. Given the complexity 18 of the fish community of this system, the description below is based on species considered to be 19 of particular importance for a variety of reasons.
| |
| 20 Representative Species 21 To determine the impacts of operation from Salem and HCGS on the aquatic environment of the 22 Delaware Estuary, monitoring has been performed in the estuary annually since 1977. The 1977 23 permitting rule for Section 316(b) of the CWA included a provision to select representative 24 species (RS) to focus such investigations (the terms target species or representative important 25 species have also been used) (PSEG, 1984; PSEG, 1999). RS were selected based on several 26 criteria: susceptibility to impingement and entrainment at the facility, importance to the 27 ecological community, recreational or commercial value, and threatened or endangered status.
| |
| 28 PSEG currently monitors 12 species as RS: blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), alewife (Alosa 29 pseudoharengus),American shad (Alosa sapidissima),bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchill,), Atlantic 30 menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus),
| |
| 31 Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia), Atlantic croaker (Micropogoniasundulatus), white perch 32 (Morone americana), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix).
| |
| 33 These species are described below.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-54 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Blueback Herring and Alewife 2 The blueback herring and alewife can be difficult to differentiate and are collectively known and 3 managed as "river herring." The NMFS currently classifies both species as species of concern 4 (NMFS, 2009).
| |
| 5 The entire length of the Delaware River and portions of Delaware Bay are confirmed spawning 6 runs for river herring (NJDEP, 2005d). River herring are anadromous, migrating inshore to 7 spawn in freshwater rivers and streams in a variety of habitats. They are reported to return to 8 their natal rivers, suggesting a need for management more focused on specific populations as 9 opposed to establishing fishery-wide limits. Spawning migration begins in spring, with the 10 alewife arriving inshore approximately one month before the blueback herring (NMFS, 2009).
| |
| 11 The adults of both species return to the ocean after spawning (ASMFC, 2009a).
| |
| 12 Blueback herring can reach 16 inches (41 cm) long and have an average life span of 8 years.
| |
| 13 Males usually mature at 3 to 4 years of age, females at 5 years. Young of the year and 14 juveniles of less than 2 inches (5 cm) are found in fresh and brackish estuarine nursery areas.
| |
| 15 They then migrate offshore to complete their growth. The juveniles use many habitats in the 16 estuaries, including submerged aquatic vegetation, rice fields, swamps, and small tributaries 17 outside the tidal zone (NMFS, 2009). Blueback herring prefer swiftly flowing water for spawning 18 in their northern range.
| |
| 19 Alewife reach maturity at approximately 4 years and can live 10 years, reaching up to 15 inches 20 (38 cm) long (NMFS, 2009). They spawn over gravel, sand, detritus, and submerged aquatic 21 vegetation in slow-moving water. Spawning is more likely to occur at night, and a single female 22 may spawn with 25 males simultaneously. The eggs initially stick to the bottom, but they soon 23 become pelagic and hatch within 2 to 25 days. The yolk sac is absorbed within 5 days and the 24 larvae may remain in the spawning areas or migrate downstream to more brackish waters.
| |
| 25 Juveniles inhabit the brackish areas in estuaries, near their spawning location. As they develop 26 and the temperature drops, they migrate toward the ocean, completing this process in the 27 beginning of the winter months (NMFS, 2009).
| |
| 28 While at sea, many predators eat river herring, including marine mammals, sharks, tuna, and 29 mackerel. While in the estuaries, American eel, striped bass, largemouth bass, mammals, and 30 birds consume them. The blueback herring and alewife minimize interspecific competition using 31 several mechanisms, including the timing of spawning, juvenile feeding strategies and diets, and 32 ocean emigration timing (ASMFC, 2009a). Blueback juveniles feed on benthic organisms and 33 copepods, cladocerans, and larval dipterans at or just below the water surface (ASMFC, 34 2009a). While offshore, blueback herring feed on plankton, including ctenophores, copepods, 35 amphipods, mysids, shrimp, and small fish (NMFS, 2009). During the spawning migration 36 (unlike the alewife, which does not feed), the blueback herring feeds on invertebrates and fish 37 eggs (ASMFC, 2009a). Juveniles are opportunistic feeders on a variety of invertebrates 38 (ASMFC, 2009a). Alewife are schooling, pelagic omnivores while offshore, feeding mainly on 39 zooplankton but also small fishes and their eggs and larvae (NMFS, 2009). Alewife not only 40 migrate seasonally to spawn in response to temperatures but also migrate daily in response to 41 zooplankton availability (NMFS, 2009). Adult alewife are eaten by many other fish. Alewife are 42 also important as hosts to parasitic larvae of freshwater mussels, some species of which are 43 threatened or endangered (ASMFC, 2009a). Both species are ecologically important due to September 2010 2-55 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 their trophic position in both estuarine and marine habitats. As planktivores, they link 2 zooplankton to piscivores, providing a vital energy transfer (Bozeman and VanDen Avyle, 1989).
| |
| 3 River herring are directly consumed by humans and also are ingredients in fish meal, fish oil, 4 pet and farm animal food, and bait. The eggs (roe) are canned for human consumption. The 5 ASMFC manages the river herring fishery (ASMFC, 2009a). River herring also are often taken 6 as bycatch in other fisheries (NMFS, 2009). The river herring fishery has been active in the 7 United States for 350 years. Alewife landings peaked in the 1950s and the 1970s, then abruptly 8 declined (NMFS, 2009). Blueback herring landing data are limited, but a severe decline was 9 observed in the early 2000s. In addition to the commercial industry, there is an extensive 10 recreational fishery. Blueback herring are exhibiting signs of overfishing in several of the 11 estuary systems on the east coast, including the Delaware River (ASMFC, 2009a). River 12 herring population declines have been attributed to overfishing and the loss of historic spawning 13 habitat all along the east coast of the United States (NMFS, 2009). Reasons for habitat loss 14 include dam construction, stream bank erosion, pollution, and siltation (ASMFC, 2009a). New 15 Jersey currently has a small commercial bait fishery for river herring. Delaware also has a small 16 river herring fishery associated with the white perch fishery. Neither State has specific 17 regulations for river herring, but pending legislation in Delaware could eliminate the fishery in 18 that State (ASMFC, 2009a).
| |
| 19 American Shad 20 The American shad has been a commercially and culturally important species on the east coast 21 of the United States since colonial times. The entire length of the Delaware River is a confirmed 22 spawning run for the American shad. There is no confirmed information available on Delaware 23 Bay itself, although shad would have to migrate through the bay to get to the river 24 (NJDEP, 2005d). American shad adults are highly abundant in Delaware Bay, potentially 25 confirming the use of the estuary as part of the spawning run (ASMFC, 1998b).
| |
| 26 The American shad is a schooling, anadromous fish that migrates to freshwater to spawn in 27 winter, spring, or summer, with the timing depending on water temperature. Mature shad can 28 spawn up to six times over their lifetimes of 5 to 7 year. Preferred spawning substrates include 29 sand, silt, muck, gravel, and boulders. Water velocity must be rapid enough to keep the eggs 30 off the bottom. Eggs are spawned in areas that will allow them to hatch before drifting 31 downstream into saline waters. At 4 weeks, the larvae become juveniles and spend their first 32 summer in the freshwater systems (Mackenzie et al., 1985). The juveniles migrate toward the 33 ocean in the fall months, cued by water temperature changes. In the Delaware River, this 34 happens when the water reaches 20°C (68°F), usually in October and November. The juveniles 35 will remain in the estuary until they are 1 year old (ASMFC, 1998b), then they migrate into the 36 ocean. Juveniles remain in the ocean until they are mature, approximately 3 to 5 years for 37 males and 4 to 6 years for females. Adults are likely to return to their natal rivers to spawn 38 (MacKenzie et al., 1985).
| |
| 39 Ecologically, the American shad plays an important role in the coastal estuary systems, 40 providing food for some species and preying on others. It also transfers nutrients and energy 41 from the marine system to freshwater areas because many shad die after they spawn (ASMFC, 42 1998b). Young American shad in the river systems feed in the water column on a variety of 43 invertebrates. While at sea, they feed on invertebrates, fish eggs, and small fish (MacKenzie et 44 al. 1985; ASMFC, 1998b). During the spawning run, shad consume mayflies and small fish.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-56 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Many species prey on shad while they are small, including striped bass, American eels, and 2 birds. Seals, porpoises, sharks, bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), and kingfish (Scomberomorus 3 regahni) consume larger shad (Weiss-Glanz et al., 1986). Much of the American shad's life 4 cycle is .dictated by changes in ambient temperature. The peak of the spawning run and the 5 ocean emigration happen when the water temperature is approximately 20°C (68°F).
| |
| 6 Deformities develop if eggs encounter temperatures above 22°C (72°F) and they do not hatch 7 above 29°C (84°F). Juveniles actively avoid rises in temperature of 4°C (39°F) (MacKenzie et 8 al., 1985).
| |
| 9 Historically, huge numbers of American shad were harvested during their annual spring 10 spawning runs. The Atlantic catch in 1896 was 50 million lbs (22,700 metric tons [MT])
| |
| 11 (MacKenzie et al., 1985). By the end of the 19th century, only 17.6 million lbs (8,000 MT were 12 caught, representing a severe decline in the American shad stock, and the fishery began fishing 13 in the waters of the lower bays. Several States, including Maryland, closed the American shad 14 fishery by 1985 (MacKenzie et al., 1985). The ASMFC currently manages the American shad 15 fishery. The ASMFC stock assessment (2007) showed American shad stocks are continuing to 16 depete severley and are not recovering, with Atlantic harvests of approximately 550 tons (500 17 MT). The shad coastal intercept fishery in the Atlantic has been closed since 2005; additionally 18 there is a 10 fish limit for the recreational inshore fishery. The reasons for their decline include 19 dams, habitat loss, pollution, and overfishing (ASMFC, 2007a). A report published by the 20 ASMFC (1998a) theorized that increased predation by the striped bass is also a factor in the 21 decline of shad abundance (ASMFC, 1998b).
| |
| 22 Bay Anchovy 23 The bay anchovy is an abundant forage fish in Delaware Bay. It is a small, schooling, 24 euryhaline fish that grows to approximately 4 inches (10 cm) and can live for several years 25 (Morton, 1989; Smithsonian Marine Station, 2008). It lives in waters ranging from fresh to 26 hypersaline over almost any bottom type, including sand, mud, and submerged aquatic 27 vegetation (Morton, 1989; Newberger and Houde, 1995). The bay anchovy spawns almost all 28 year, typically in waters of less than 65 ft (20 m) deep. In the Middle Atlantic region, spawning 29 occurs in estuaries in water of at least 12 0C (54 °F) and over 10 ppt salinity. The eggs are 30 pelagic and hatch after about 24 hr. Newly hatched fish move upstream into lower-salinity 31 areas to feed, eventually migrating to the lower estuary in the fall (Morton, 1989).
| |
| 32 The bay anchovy is highly important both ecologically and commercially due to its abundance 33 and widespread distribution (Morton, 1989). It plays a large role in the food webs that support 34 many commercial and sport fisheries by converting zooplankton biomass into food for piscivores 35 (Morton, 1989; Newberger and Houde, 1995). Young bay anchovies feed mainly on copepods,
| |
| .36 and adults consume mysids, small crustaceans, mollusks, and larval fish. Copepods are the 37 primary food source of bay anchovies in Delaware Bay. Adult bay anchovies are tolerant of a 38 range of temperatures and salinities and move to deeper water for the winter (Morton, 1989).
| |
| 39 There is no bay anchovy fishery, so they are not directly economically important. However, they 40 support many other commercial fisheries as they are often the most abundant fish in coastal 41 waters (Morton, 1989). Several authors count them as the most important link in the food web, 42 as they are a primary forage item for many other fish, birds, and mammals (Morton, 1989; 43 Smithsonian Marine Station, 2008; Newberger and Houde, 1995). Juvenile fish and gelatinous 44 predators such as sea nettles and ctenophores consume bay anchovy eggs. Bay anchovy often September 2010 2-57 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 account for over half the fish, eggs, or larvae caught in research trawls (Smithsonian Marine 2 Station, 2008). Striped bass are heavily dependent on bay anchovies as larvae, juveniles, and 3 adults, especially since the menhaden and river herring populations have declined in recent 4 years (Chesapeake Bay Ecological Foundation, Inc., 2010).
| |
| 5 Atlantic Menhaden 6 The Atlantic menhaden is a small schooling fish inhabiting the Atlantic coast from Nova Scotia 7 to northern Florida in estuarine and nearshore coastal waters. It migrates seasonally, spending 8 early spring through early winter in estuaries and nearshore waters, with the larger and older 9 fish moving farther north during summer (ASMFC, 2005a). Spawning occurs offshore in fall and 10 early winter between New Jersey and North Carolina (ASMFC, 2005a). The eggs are pelagic 11 and hatch in 1 to 2 days. Once the yolk sac is absorbed at 4 days old, larvae begin to feed on 12 plankton. Larvae enter estuary nursery areas after 1 to 3 months, between October and June in 13 the Mid-Atlantic. Prejuvenile fish use the shallow, low salinity areas in estuaries as nurseries, 14 preferring vegetated areas in fresh tidal marshes and swamps, where they become juveniles 15 (Rogers and Van Den Ayvle, 1989). Juveniles spend approximately 1 year in the estuarine 16 nurseries before joining the adult migratory population in late fall (ASMFC, 2005a). Larvae that 17 entered the nursery areas late in the year may remain until the next fall. Once juveniles 18 metamorphose to adults, they switch from individual capture to a filter feeding strategy. Fish are 19 mature at age 2 or 3 and will then begin the spawning cycle (Rogers and Van Den Ayvle, 1989).
| |
| 20 Atlantic menhaden can live up to 8 years, but fish older than 6 years are rare (ASMFC, 2001).
| |
| 21 Due to its high abundance and trophic positioning in the nearshore and estuarine ecosystems, 22 the Atlantic menhaden is ecologically vital along the Atlantic coast (Rogers and Van Den Ayvle, 23 1989). It is a filter feeder that strains plankton from the water column and provides a trophic link 24 between primary producers and the larger predatory species in nearshore waters (ASMFC, 25 2005a). It also transfers energy in and out of estuary systems and on and off the coastal shelf 26 (Rogers and Van Den Avyle, 1989). It is especially important in this regard, as most marine fish 27 species cannot use plankton as a food source (ASMFC, 2001). Rogers and Van Den Avyle 28 (1989) hypothesized that due to its abundance and migratory movements, the Atlantic 29 menhaden may change the assemblage structure of plankton in the water column. Larvae in 30 the estuaries feed preferentially upon copepods and copepodites and may eat detritus as well.
| |
| 31 Young fish and adults filter feed on anything larger than 7 to 9 micrometers, including 32 zooplankton, large phytoplankton, and chain diatoms (Rogers and Van Den Avyle, 1989). The 33 Atlantic menhaden provides a food source for many larger fish (ASMFC, 2001; Rogers and Van 34 Den Avyle, 1989). Its filter-feeding habits also have lead to a variety of physiological 35 characteristics, such as high lipid content, which enables their survival during periods of low 36 prey availability (Rogers and Van Den Avyle, 1989).
| |
| 37 The Atlantic menhaden has been an important commercial fish along the Atlantic coast since 38 colonial times. It has been fished since the early 1800s, and landings increased over time as 39 new technologies developed (ASMFC, 2005a). The ASMFC manages the fishery. Currently, 40 the reduction industry uses Atlantic menhaden for fish meal and oil, and both commercial and 41 recreational fisheries use them as bait. Atlantic menhaden populations suffered in the 1960s 42 when they were severely overfished, but they recovered in the 1970s. A stock assessment 43 completed in 2003 declared that the Atlantic menhaden were not overfished, and a review in 44 2004 resulted in a decision not to require an assessment in 2006 (ASMFC, 2005a).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-58 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Weakfish 2 The weakfish inhabits the Atlantic coast from Nova Scotia to southern Florida, but is more 3 common between New York and North Carolina (ASMFC, 2009b). Its growth varies 4 geographically, with northern populations becoming much larger and living longer than the more 5 southern populations. Within the Delaware Bay, the oldest females (age 9 years) were an 6 average of 28 inches (710 mm) long, and the oldest males (6 years) were an average of 27 7 inches [686 mm] long (Mercer, 1989). Spring warming induces inshore migration from offshore 8 wintering areas and spawning (ASMFC, 2009b). Spawning occurs in estuaries and nearshore 9 areas between May and July in the New York Bight (Delaware Bay to New York) (Mercer, 10 1989). The weakfish is a batch spawner that continuously produces eggs during the spawning 11 season, allowing more than one spawning event per female (ASMFC, 2002). Larval weakfish 12 migrate into estuaries, bays, sounds, and rivers to nursery habitats, where they remain until they 13 are 1 year old (ASMFC, 2009b; Mercer, 1989). Eggs are pelagic and hatch between 36 and 40 14 hr after fertilization. Larvae become demersal soon after this. Juvenile weakfish use the deeper 15 waters of estuaries, tidal rivers, and bays extensively but do not often inhabit the shallower 16 areas closer to shore. Within Delaware Bay, juvenile weakfish migrate toward lower salinities in 17 the summer, higher salinities in the fall, and offshore for the winter months. Adults migrate 18 inshore seasonally to spawn in large bays or the nearshore ocean. As temperatures cool for the 19 winter, weakfish migrate to ocean wintering areas, the most important of which is the continental 20 shelf between the Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina (Mercer, 1989).
| |
| 21 The weakfish plays an important ecological role as both predator and prey in the estuarine and 22 nearshore food webs (Mercer, 1989). Adults feed on peneid and mysid shrimps and a variety of 23 other fishes. Younger weakfish consume mostly mysids and other zooplankton and 24 invertebrates (Mercer, 1989; ASMFC, 2002). Weakfish are tolerant of a relatively wide variety 25 of temperatures and salinities. In Delaware Bay, weakfish have been collected in temperatures 26 between approximately 62.6 'F and 82.4 'F (17 'C and 28 °C) and salinities of 0 to 32 ppt 27 (Mercer, 1989).
| |
| 28 The weakfish is part of a mixed stock fishery that has been economically vital since the early 29 1800s (ASMFC, 2009b). It was historically highly abundant in Delaware Bay. It topped 30 commercial landings in the State of Delaware until the 1990s and was consistently within the top 31 five species in recreational landings (DNREC, 2006a). Weakfish biomass has declined 32 significantly in recent years, with non-fishing pressures such as increased natural mortality, 33 predation, competition, and environmental variables hypothesized as the cause for the decline 34 (ASMFC, 2009b). Commercial landings have fluctuated since the beginning of the fishery, 35 without apparent trend or sufficient explanation (ASMFC, 2009b; Mercer, 1989). Landings 36 along the Atlantic coast peaked in the 1970s then declined throughout the 1980s and early 37 1990s. Management measures increased stock and commercial harvest until 1998, when the 38 fishery declined again, this time continuously until 2008 (ASMFC, 2009b). Between 1995 and 39 2004, commercial landings in Delaware dropped by 82 percent and the recreational harvest 40 dropped by 98 percent, reflecting a coast-wide drop of 78 percent (DNREC, 2006a). The results 41 of the 2009 stock assessment defined the fishery as depleted, but not overfished, with natural 42 sources of mortality listed as the cause of the low biomass levels. The ASMFC is currently 43 developing an amendment to the management plan to address the decline (ASMFC, 2009b).
| |
| September 2010 . 2-59 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment I Soot 2 The range of spot along the Atlantic coast stretches from Maine to Florida. They are most 3 abundant from the Chesapeake Bay to North Carolina (ASMFC, 2008c). During fall and 4 summer, they are highly abundant in estuarine and near-shore areas from Delaware Bay to 5 Georgia (Phillips et al., 1989). Spot migrate seasonally, spawning offshore in fall and winter at 6 2 to 3 years of age and spending the spring months inestuaries (ASMFC, 2008c). Spawning 7 occurs offshore over the continental shelf from October to March. The eggs are pelagic and 8 hatch after approximately 48 hr, producing buoyant larvae that become more demersal and 9 migrating from the mid-depths during the day to the surface at night. The larvae move slowly 10 toward shore, entering the post-larval stages when they reach nearshore areas and developing 11 into juveniles when they reach the inlets (Phillips et al., 1989). Juveniles move into the low-12 salinity coastal estuaries, where they grow before moving into higher-salinity areas as they 13 mature (ASMFC, 2008c). Seagrass beds and tidal creeks are important nursery habitats for 14 spot, which often make up 80 to 90 percent of the total number of fish found in these habitats.
| |
| 15 Juveniles remain inthe nursery areas for approximately a year, migrating back to the ocean in 16 September or October (Phillips et al., 1989). Spot are tolerant of a wide range of environmental 17 conditions; they inhabit water temperatures between 46.4 and 87.8 'F (8 and 31 'C) and 18 salinities between 0 and 61 ppt (Phillips et al., 1989).
| |
| 19 Due to their large numbers and use of a variety of habitats throughout their lifetimes, spot are an 20 ecologically important species as both prey and predators. Spot may significantly reduce 21 zooplankton biomass during their migration to the ocean. Juvenile and young spot eat benthic 22 invertebrates. Adult spot are also benthic feeders, scooping up sediments and consuming large 23 numbers of polychaetes, copepods, decapods, nematodes, and diatoms. Spot are important 24 prey for fish such as spotted seatrout and striped bass and for birds such as cormorants. Spot 25 make up a major portion of the fish biomass and numbers inestuarine waters of the Mid-Atlantic 26 Region (Phillips et al., 1989).
| |
| 27 Commercial landings of spot fluctuate widely because spot are a short-lived species (4 to 6 28 years) and most landings are composed of a single age class (ASMFC, 2008c). Commercial 29 landings varied between 3.8 and 14.5 million lbs (1.7 and 6.6 million kg) between 1950 and 30 2005 (ASMFC, 2006a). In addition, spot are a large component of the bycatch in other 31 fisheries, including the south Atlantic shrimp trawl fishery (ASMFC, 2008c). Spot also are a very 32 popular recreational species, with recreational landings sometimes surpassing commercial 33 landings (ASMFC, 2006a).
| |
| 34 Atlantic Silverside 35 The Atlantic silverside inhabits salt marshes, estuaries, and tidal creeks along the Atlantic coast 36 from Nova Scotia to Florida. It can be the most abundant fish in these habitats. Juveniles and 37 adults inhabit intertidal creeks, marshes, and shore areas in bays and estuaries during spring, 38 summer, and fall. During winter inthe Mid-Atlantic Region, Atlantic silversides often migrate to 39 deeper water within the bays or offshore (Fay et al., 1983a). Spawning occurs inthe intertidal 40 zones of estuaries between March and July inthe Mid-Atlantic Region. Most Atlantic silversides 41 die after their first spawning season, though they may spawn between 5 and 20 times in one 42 season (NYNHP, 2009). Atlantic silverside spawning is a complex behavior inwhich fish swim 43 parallel to the shore until the appropriate tidal level is reached, then the school rapidly turns 44 shoreward to spawn inthe shallows in areas where eggs may attach to vegetative substrates.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 2-60 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Eggs are demersal and adhesive, sticking to eel grass, cordgrass, and filamentous algae. Eggs 2 hatch after 3 to 27 days, depending on temperature. The sex of an individual fish is determined 3 by water temperature during the larval stage - colder temperatures produce more females and 4 warmer temperatures produce more males. Larvae usually inhabit shallow, low salinity (8 to 9 5 ppt) water in estuaries and are most often found at the surface (Fay et al., 1989a). Eggs and 6 larvae tolerate a wide degree of environmental conditions. Juveniles and adults appear to 7 prefer temperatures between 64.4 'F and 77 °F (18 0C and 25 0C). The optimum salinity for 8 hatching and early development is 30 ppt, but juveniles and adults tolerate a wide range of 9 salinities (0 ppt to 38 ppt) (Fay et al., 1983a).
| |
| 10 Ecologically, the Atlantic silverside is an important forage fish and plays a large role in the 11 aquatic food web and in linking terrestrial production to aquatic systems. Due to their short life 12 span and high winter mortality (up to 99 percent), they play a vital part in the export of nutrients 13 to the near and offshore ecosystem. Little is known about the larval diet. Juvenile and adult fish 14 are opportunistic omnivores and eat invertebrates, fish eggs, algae, and detritus. They feed in 15 large schools over gravel and sand bars, open beaches, tidal creeks, river mouths, and 16 tidally-flooded zones of marsh vegetation. They are prey for many species of commercially and 17 recreationally important fish, crabs, and shorebirds (Fay et al., 1983a). There is no direct 18 commercial or recreational fishery for this species, although many recreational fishers net these 19 minnows for use as bait (Fay et al., 1983a).
| |
| 20 Atlantic Croaker 21 The Atlantic croaker is a migratory species that appears to move inshore in the warmer months 22 and southward in winter, although its movements have not been well defined (ASMFC, 2007b).
| |
| 23 It ranges from Cape Cod to Argentina and is uncommon north of New Jersey. Atlantic croaker 24 are estuarine dependant at all life stages, especially as postlarvae and juveniles (Lassuy, 1983).
| |
| 25 Spawning occurs at 1 to 2 years of age in nearshore and offshore habitats between July and 26 December (ASMFC, 2007b). Atlantic croaker can live for up to 12 years, and will spawn more 27 than once in a season. Eggs are pelagic and are found in waters of varying salinities. Larvae 28 have been found from the continental shelf to inner estuaries. Recruitment to the nursery 29 habitats in the estuaries depends largely on currents and tides and appears to have seasonal 30 peaks depending on latitude. Peak recruitment in the Delaware Estuary occurs in August 31 through October. Ages at recruitment may vary from 2 months to 10 months. Larvae complete 32 their development into juveniles in brackish, shallow habitats. Juveniles slowly migrate 33 downstream, preferring stable salinity regimes in deeper water, and eventually enter the ocean 34 in late fall as adults. They prefer mud bottoms with detritus and grass beds that provide a stable 35 food source, but they are considered generalists (ASMFC, 2005b). Adult croaker are usually 36 found in estuaries in spring and summer and offshore for the winter; their distribution is related 37 to temperature and depth. They prefer muddy and sandy substrates that can support plant 38 growth, but have also been found over oyster reefs. They are euryhaline, depending on the 39 season, and are also sensitive to low oxygen levels. Atlantic croaker are bottom feeders that 40 eat benthic invertebrates and fish. Larvae tend to consume large amounts of zooplankton, and 41 juveniles feed on detritus (ASMFC, 2005b).
| |
| September 2010 2-61 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 The Atlantic croaker is an important commercial and recreational fish on the Atlantic coast and 2 the most abundant bottom-dwelling fish in this region. It has been harvested as part of a mixed 3 stock fishery since the 1880s. Commercial landings appear to be cyclical, with catches ranging 4 between 2 million lbs and 30 million lbs (0.9 million kg and 13.6 million kg). This may be due to 5 variable annual recruitment, which appears to be dependent on natural environmental variables.
| |
| 6 Recreational landings have been increasing. The 2003 stock assessment determined that the 7 Atlantic croaker was not overfished in the Mid-Atlantic Region (ASMFC, 2007b). A 2005 8 amendment to the management plan established fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass 9 targets and thresholds for this species. There are no recreational or commercial management 10 measures in this amendment, but some states have adopted internal management measures 11 for the Atlantic croaker fishery (ASMFC, 2005b).
| |
| 12 White Perch 13 The white perch is a member of the bass family that fills a vital trophic niche as both predator 14 and prey to many species. It is a commercially and recreationally important species inhabiting 15 coastal waters from Nova Scotia to South Carolina, with its highest abundance in New Jersey, 16 Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia (Stanley and Danie, 1983). The white perch is a schooling 17 fish that can grow up to 10 inches (25 cm) long in freshwater, 15 inches (38 cm) long in brackish 18 water, and can live up to 10 years (Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, 2010; MDNR, 19 2008). It spawns in a wide variety of habitats, such as rivers, streams, estuaries, lakes, and 20 marshes, usually in freshwater. Water speed and turbidity are not important in choosing a 21 spawning location. Rising water temperature induces spawning in April through May in 22 freshwater and in May through July in estuaries (Stanley and Danie, 1983). Marine and 23 estuarine populations migrate to freshwater areas to spawn and, thus, are anadromous 24 (Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, 2010). A single female spawns with several males.
| |
| 25 The eggs attach to the bottom immediately. Hatchlings remain in the spawning area for up to 26 13 days, then they drift downstream or with estuarine currents and become more demersal as 27 they grow. Larvae can tolerate up to 5 ppt salinity, and adults can tolerate full seawater.
| |
| 28 Juveniles often inhabit upper estuarine nurseries, where they may stay for a year, preferring 29 habitats with silt, mud, or plant substrates. Older juveniles move to offshore beach and shoal 30 areas during the day, but return to the more protected nursery areas at night (Stanley and 31 Danie, 1983).
| |
| 32 Ecologically, the white perch plays several important roles in its lifecycle. It is omnivorous and 33 will feed on both plankton and benthic species, but it concentrates on fish after it is fully grown.
| |
| 34 Freshwater populations feed on aquatic insects, crustaceans, fishes, and detritus (Stanley and 35 Danie, 1983). Estuarine populations consume fish (such as alewife, gizzard shad, and smelt),
| |
| 36 fish eggs, and invertebrates (Stanley and Danie, 1983; Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 37 Commission, 2010). White perch provide food for Atlantic salmon, brook trout, chain pickerel, 38 smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, and other piscivorous fish and terrestrial vertebrates 39 (Stanley and Danie, 1983).
| |
| 40 The largest commercial landings of white perch occurred at the turn of the 2 0 th century. Catch 41 levels then decreased, rising sporadically to reflect large year classes. White perch are a 42 popular recreational fish in freshwater and estuaries. They are often the most abundant species 43 caught recreationally in the northern Atlantic states (Stanley and Danie, 1983).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 2-62 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Striped Bass 2 Striped bass inhabit the Atlantic coast from the St. Lawrence River in Canada to northern 3 Florida. They are highly abundant in both the Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay. Females 4 can grow up to 65 lbs (29.4 kg) and live for 29 years, whereas males over 12 years old are 5 uncommon (Fay et al., 1983b). Striped bass migrate along the coast seasonally and are 6 anadromous, spawning in rivers and estuaries after reaching an age of 2 years (males) to 4 7 years (females) (ASMFC, 2008d). There are known riverine and estuarine spawning areas in 8 the upper Delaware and Chesapeake bays. Spawning occurs in April through June in the 9 Mid-Atlantic Region, with some of the most important spawning areas found in the upper 10 Chesapeake Bay and the Chesapeake-Delaware Canal (Fay et al., 1983b). In the Delaware 11 River, the main spawning grounds are located between Wilmington, DE, and Marcus Hook, PA 12 (Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2010b). The eggs are pelagic and both eggs and larvae 13 tend to remain in the spawning area throughout the early developmental stages. Most juveniles 14 also remain in the estuaries where they were spawned until they reach adult size, tending to 15 move downstream after the first year. On the Atlantic coast, some adults leave the estuaries 16 and join seasonal migrations to the north in the warmer months, while others remain in the 17 estuaries. Some of these adults will also migrate into coastal estuaries to overwinter.
| |
| 18 Reproduction is highly variable, with several poorly successful seasons between each strong 19 year class. Variability in adult and juvenile behavior and the unpredictable importance of strong 20 year classes makes management of the fishery challenging. There are four different stocks 21 identified along the Atlantic coast, including the Roanoke River-Albemarle Sound, Chesapeake 22 Bay, Delaware River, and Hudson River stocks (Fay et al., 1983b).
| |
| 23 Striped bass are tolerant of a wide variety of environmental variables but require specific 24 conditions for successful reproduction. Higher water flows and colder winters may produce 25 successful year classes. Eggs tolerate temperatures of between 57.2 oF and 73.4 °F (14 °C 26 and 23 °C), salinities of 0 to 10 ppt, dissolved oxygen of 1.5 to 5.0 mg/L, turbidity of 0 to 500 27 mg/L, pH of 6.6 to 9.0, and a current velocity of 1.4 to 197 inches/sec (30.5 to 500 cm/sec).
| |
| 28 Larvae are slightly more tolerant of variables outside these ranges, and juveniles are even more 29 tolerant (Fay et al., 1983b). Young and juveniles tend to inhabit sandy bottoms in shallow 30 water, but can also inhabit areas over gravel, mud, and rock. Adults use a wide variety of 31 bottom types, such as rock, gravel, sand, and submerged aquatic vegetation (ASMFC, 2010b).
| |
| 32 Larvae and juveniles consume invertebratesfish eggs, and small fish. Young striped bass eat 33 invertebrates and small fish. Adults are mainly piscivorous, consuming schooling bait fish as 34 well as invertebrates (Fay et al., 1983b; DNREC, 2006b). Young striped bass provide food for 35 weakfish, bluefish, white perch, and other large fishes; a variety of predators eat larvae and 36 eggs. Adult striped bass probably compete with weakfish and bluefish, and juveniles are likely 37 to compete with white perch in the nursery areas (Fay et al., 1983b). Striped bass do not feed 38 while on spawning runs (DNREC, 2006b).
| |
| 39 The striped bass is historically one of the most important fishery species along the Atlantic coast 40 from Maine to North Carolina, with recreational landings exceeding commercial landings 41 (ASMFC, 2003; ASMFC, 2008d). Its population has recovered since a sharp decline from its 42 peak in the 1970s (ASMFC, 2008d). The 2007 stock assessment declared the fishery 43 recovered, fully exploited, and not overfished. This recovery is considered one of the greatest 44 successes in fisheries management (ASMFC, 2008d). The recovery of the striped bass fishery 45 may be the cause of a decline in weakfish abundance (DNREC, 2006b).
| |
| September 2010 2-63 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment I Bluefish 2 The bluefish is a migratory schooling fish that inhabits estuaries and the oceans over the 3 continental shelf in tropical and temperate waters globally. It occurs in the Atlantic from Nova 4 Scotia to northern Mexico. Adults migrate north during summer between Cape Hatteras and 5 New England and spend winter in the south near Florida in the Gulf Stream. Bluefish spawn in 6 the open ocean (Pottern et al., 1989). There is a single spawning event that begins in the south 7 in the late winter and continues northward into the summer as the fish migrate (ASMFC, 1998c).
| |
| 8 Eggs are pelagic and larvae drift with the offshore currents until coastal waters become warmer 9 (Pottern et al., 1989; ASMFC, 1998c). Larvae transform to a pelagic juvenile stage in 18 to 25 10 days (NOAA, 2006). Spring-spawned juveniles then migrate into bays and estuaries at 1 to 2 11 months old, where they complete their development before joining the adult population in the fall 12 (Pottern et al., 1989). Summer-spawned juveniles enter the estuaries for only a short time 13 before migrating south for the winter (ASMFC, 1998c). Some juveniles will .spend a second 14 summer in the estuaries (Pottern et al., 1989). Bluefish can live for up to 12 years and reach-15 lengths of 39 inches (91.4 cm) and weights of 31 lbs (14 kg) (ASMFC, 2006b).
| |
| 16 Due to its large size and numbers, the bluefish probably plays a large role in the community 17 structure of forage species along the Atlantic coast. Larval bluefish consume large quantities of 18 zooplankton, mostly copepods, in the open ocean (Pottern et al., 1989; NOAA, 2006). Juveniles 19 in the estuaries eat small shrimp and fish. Adult bluefish are mostly piscivorous but also eat 20 invertebrates. (Pottern et al., 1989). Bluefish are highly sensitive to temperature, preferring an 21 optimum range of 64 *F to 68 *F (18 0C to 20 0C). Temperatures above or below this range can 22 induce rapid swimming, loss of interest in food, loss of equilibrium, and changes in schooling 23 and diurnal behaviors. They are found in estuaries at 10 ppt and waters of up to 38 ppt in the 24 ocean (Pottern et al., 1989).
| |
| 25 The bluefish has been a highly important recreational fish species since the 1800s. It is 26 harvested for human consumption but there is no commercial bluefish industry. Slightly less 27 than half the recreational catch is in inland bays and estuaries (Pottern et al., 1989). A bluefish 28 management plan was developed in 1990 due to the continuous decline in landings since the 29 early 1980s (ASMFC, 2006b; ASMFC, 1998c). Recent numbers have been rising in response 30 to the management plan amendment developed in 1998 (ASMFC, 2006b).
| |
| 31 Species with Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 32 In addition to the 12 species monitored by PSEG and discussed above, there are 14 species 33 that have designated EFH in the upper portion of the Delaware Estuary in the vicinity of Salem 34 and HCGS. EFH is defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, 35 breeding, feeding or growth to maturity" (16 United States Code [USC] 1802(10); 50 Code of 36 Federal Regulations [CFR] 600.10). This definition includes all developmental stages of the 37 particular fishes in question. Thus, EFH for a given species can vary by life stage.
| |
| 38 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) was reauthorized in 39 1996 and amended to focus on the importance of habitat protection for healthy fisheries (16 40 USC 1801 et seq.). The MSA amendments, known as the Sustainable Fisheries Act, required 41 the eight regional fishery management councils to describe and identify EFH in their regions, to 42 identify actions to conserve and enhance their EFH, and to minimize the adverse effects of 43 fishing on EFH. The act strengthened the authorities of the governing agencies to protect and 44 conserve the habitats of marine, estuarine, and anadromous fish, crustaceans, and mollusks Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-64 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 (New England Fisheries Management Council [NEFMC], 1999). EFH was defined by Congress 2 as those waters and substrates necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to 3 maturity (MSA, 16 USC 1801 et seq.). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 4 designates EFH. The consultation requirements of Section 305(b) of the MSA provide that 5 Federal agencies consult with NMFS on all actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or 6 undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH.
| |
| 7 EFH is an essential component in the development of Fishery Management Plans to assess the 8 effects of habitat loss or degradation on fishery stocks and to take actions to mitigate such 9 damage. Many managed species are mobile and migrate seasonally, so some species are 10 managed coast-wide, others are managed by more than one fishery management council, and 11 still others are managed for the entire coast by a single council. In Delaware Bay, various 12 fisheries species are managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC),
| |
| 13 the New England Fisheries Management Council (NWMFC), the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 14 Management Council (MAFMC), and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC).
| |
| 15 Several species are regulated by the states of New Jersey and Delaware as well, in some cases 16 with more rigid restrictions than those of the regional councils.
| |
| 17 Salem and HCGS are located near the interface of the salinity zones classified by NMFS as 18 tidal freshwater and mixing salinity zones. The area of the Delaware Estuary adjacent to 19 Artificial Island is designated by NMFS as EFH for various life stages of several species of fish.
| |
| 20 The Staff considered all the designated EFH that could occur in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS 21 based on geographic coordinates and eliminated EFH for some species and life stages with 22 EFH requirements that are outside of the conditions that normally occur in the local area.
| |
| 23 NMFS identifies EFH on their website for the overall Delaware Bay (NOAA, 201 Oe) and for 24 smaller squares within the estuary defined by 10 minutes (') of latitude by 10 ' of longitude.
| |
| 25 NMFS provides tables of species and life stages that have designated EFH within the 10' by 26 10' squares. The 10' by 10' square that includes Salem and HCGS is defined by the following 27 coordinates:
| |
| 28 North: 39
| |
| * 30.0 'N South: 39 0 20.0 'N 29 East: 75 0 30.0 'W West: 75 40.0 WV 30 The description of the general location and New Jersey shoreline within this square confirms 31 that it includes Artificial Island and the Salem and HCGS facilities (NOAA, 2010e):
| |
| 32 Atlantic Ocean waters within the square within the Delaware River, within the mixing water 33 salinity zone of the Delaware Bay affecting both the New Jersey and Delaware coasts. On the 34 New Jersey side, these waters affect: from Hope Creek on the south, north past Stoney Point, 35 and Salem Nuclear Power Plant on Artificial Island, to the tip of Artificial Island as well as 36 affecting Baker Shoal.
| |
| 37 NMFS identified 14 fish species with EFH in the Delaware Estuary in the vicinity of Salem and 38 HCGS (NMFS, 2010a). These species and their life stages with EFH in this area are identified 39 in Table 2-5. The salinity requirements of these species and life stages are provided in Table 40 2-6. Salinities in the vicinity of Artificial Island are described above in Section 2.2.5.1 and 41 summarized in Table 2-4. For each of these EFH species, the Staff compared the range of 42 salinities in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS with the salinity requirements of the potentially September 2010 2-65 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 affected life stages (Table 2-6). The salinity requirements of many of these EFH species and 2 life stages were found to be higher than salinity ranges in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS or to 3 overlap these salinity ranges only during periods of low flow (Table 2-6). This comparison 4 allowed the list of species with EFH that potentially could be affected by Salem or HCGS to be 5 further refined. Ifthe salinity requirements of an EFH species life stage were not met in the 6 vicinity of the Salem and HCGS facilities, the EFH for that species and life stage was eliminated 7 from further consideration because its potential to be affected by the proposed action would be 8 negligible. As a result, four species were identified that have potentially affected EFH for one or 9 more life stages in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS (Table 2-7): winter flounder (Pleuronectes 10 americanus), windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus), summer flounder (Paralichthys 11 dentatus), and Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus). Descriptions of these four species are 12 included below.
| |
| 13 Table 2-5. Designated Essential Fish Habitat by species and life stage in NMFS' 10 ' x 10' 14 square of latitude and longitude in the Delaware Estuary that includes Salem Nuclear 15 Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station
| |
| 'ScientificName Common Name Eggs-', '-Larvae Juveniles, -Adults Urophycis chuss Red hake Pleuronectes americanus Winter flounder X X X X Scophthalmus aquosus Windowpane flounder X X X X Pomotomus saltatrix Bluefish X X Paralichthysdentatus Summer flounder X X Peprilus triacanthus Atlantic butterfish X Stenotomus chrysops Scup n/a n/a X Centropristesstriatus Black sea bass n/a X Scomberomorus cava/la King mackerel X X X X Scomberomorus maculatus Spanish mackerel X X X X Rachycentron canadum Cobia X X X X Leucoraja eglantaria Clearnose skate X X Leucoraja erinacea Little skate X X Leucoraja ocellata Winter skate X X X indicates designated EFH within this area. Blank indicates no designated EFH in this area. n/a indicates that the species does not have this life stage or has no EFH designation for this life stage.
| |
| Sources: NOAA, 201 Oe; NOAA, 201 Of 16 17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-66 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Table 2-6. Potential Essential Fish Habitat species eliminated from further consideration 2 due to salinity requirements Species, Life Stage EFH Salinity Requirement (ppt) ) Site Salinityl'e Matches Requirement Windowpane, juvenile 5.5-36 low flow only Windowpane, adult 5.5-36 low flow only Windowpane, spawner 5.5-36 low flow only Bluefish, juvenile 23-36 no Bluefish, adult >25 no Scup, juvenile >15 no Black sea bass, juvenile >18 no King mackerel >30 no Spanish mackerel >30 no Cobia >25 no Clearnose skate, juvenile probably >22 (b) no Clearnose skate, adult probably >22 (b) no Little skate, juvenile mostly 25-30 ('1 no Little skate, adult probably >20 (c) no Winter skate, juvenile probably >20 (d) no Winter skate, adult probably > 20 (d) no (a) Salinity data from NOAA table "Summary of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and General Habitat Parameters for Federally Managed Species" unless otherwise noted.
| |
| (b) NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-174 (NOAA, 2003a).
| |
| (c) NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-175 (NOAA, 2003b).
| |
| (d) NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-179 (NOAA, 2003c).
| |
| (e) Salinities in Delaware Estuary in vicinity of Salem/HCGS: high flow 0-5 ppt, low flow 5-12 ppt.
| |
| 3 4 Table 2-7. Fish Species and Life Stages with Potentially Affected Essential Fish Habitat 5 in the Vicinity of Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station Species Eggs Larvae Juveniles Adults Winter flounder X X X X Windowpane X X X X Summer flounder x x Atlantic butterfish X Source: NRC, 2007 September 2010 2-67 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Winter Flounder 2 There are two major populations of winter flounder in the Atlantic: one inhabits estuarine and 3 coastal waters from Newfoundland to Georgia, the other lives offshore on Georges Bank and 4 Nantucket Shoal (Buckley, 1989). In the Mid-Atlantic, winter flounder are most common 5 between the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and Chesapeake Bay (Grimes et al., 1989). In the 6 Delaware Bay region, winter flounder spawn in coastal waters in February and March.
| |
| 7 Spawning occurs at depths of 7 to 260 ft (2 to 80 m) over sandy substrates in inshore coves and 8 inlets at salinities of 31 to 32.5 ppt (Buckley, 1989; NOAA, 1999a). Sexual maturity is 9 dependent on size rather than age, with southern individuals (age 2 or 3) reaching spawning 10 size more rapidly than northern fish (age 6 or 7). The eggs are demersal, stick to the substrate, 11 and are most often found at salinities between 10 and 30 ppt (Buckley, 1989). Larvae initially 12 are planktonic but become increasingly benthic as they develop (NOAA, 1999a). Juveniles and 13 adults are completely benthic, with juveniles preferring a sandy or silty substrate in estuarine 14 areas (Buckley, 1989). Juveniles move seaward as they grow, remaining in estuaries for the 15 first year (Buckley, 1989; Grimes et al., 1989). Water temperature appears to dictate adult 16 movements; south of Cape Cod, winter flounder spend the colder months in inshore and 17 estuarine waters and move farther offshore in the warmer months (Buckley, 1989). Winter 18 flounder can live for up to 15 years and may reach 23 inches (58 cm) in length (NOAA, 1999a).
| |
| 19 Winter flounder tolerate salinities of 5 to 35 ppt and prefer waters temperatures of 32 *F to 77 'F 20 (0 °C to 25 °C). Higher temperatures for extended periods can cause mortality (Buckley, 1989).
| |
| 21 Winter flounder larvae feed on small invertebrates, invertebrate eggs, and phytoplankton 22 (Buckley, 1989; NOAA, 1999a). Adults feed on benthic invertebrates such as polychaetes, 23 cnidarians, mollusks, and hydrozoans. Adults and juveniles are an important food source for 24 predatory fish such as the striped bass (Morone saxatilis), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix),
| |
| 25 goosefish (Lophius americanus), spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), and other flounders, and 26 birds such as the great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), great blue heron (Ardea herodias),
| |
| 27 and osprey (Pandion haliaetus) (Buckley, 1989).
| |
| 28 Winter flounder are highly abundant in estuarine and coastal waters and, therefore, are one of 29 the most important species of the commercial and recreational fisheries on the Atlantic coast 30 (Buckley, 1989). The NEFMC and ASMFC manage the winter flounder fishery as part of the 31 groundfish fishery, which comprises 15 demersal species (NEFMC, 2010). Winter flounder also 32 are very popular recreational fish, with the recreational catch sometimes exceeding the 33 commercial catch (Buckley, 1989). Biomass in the New England Mid-Atlantic winter flounder 34 stock declined from 1981 to 1992, and the fishery was declared overexploited. As of 1999, 35 biomass remains significantly lower than prior to overexploitation (NOAA, 1999a). As part of the 36 management program, EFH has been established for the winter flounder along the Atlantic 37 coast. The Delaware Bay's mixing and saline waters'are EFH for all parts of the winter flounder 38 lifecycle, including eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults, and spawning adults (NEFMC, 1998a).
| |
| 39 Windowpane Flounder 40 Windowpane flounder inhabit estuaries, coastal waters, and oceans over the continental shelf 41 along the Atlantic coast from the Gulf of Saint Lawrence to Florida. They are most abundant in 42 bays and estuaries south of Cape Cod in shallow waters, over sand, sand and silt, or mud 43 substrates (NOAA, 1999b). They spawn from April to December, and in the Mid-Atlantic Region 44 spawning peaks in May and September (NOAA, 1999b; Morse and Able, 1995). The eggs are Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 2-68 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 pelagic and buoyant and hatch in approximately 8 days. Larvae begin life as plankton, but soon 2 settle to the bottom (at 0.39 to 0.78 inches [10 to 20 mm] in length) and become demersal. This 3 settling occurs in estuaries and over the continental shelf for spring-spawned fish, which inhabit 4 the polyhaline portions of the estuary throughout the summer. Fall-spawned fish settle mostly 5 on the shelf. Juveniles migrate to coastal waters from the estuaries as they grow larger during 6 autumn, and they overwinter in deeper waters. Adults remain offshore throughout the year and 7 are highly abundant off southern New Jersey. Sexual maturity is reached between 3 and 4 8 years of age, and length generally does not exceed 18 inches (46 cm) (NOAA, 1999b).
| |
| 9 Juvenile and adult windowpane flounder have similar food sources, including small crustaceans 10 and fish larvae (NOAA, 1999b). Adult windowpane tolerate a wide range of temperatures and 11 salinities, from 23 *F to 80.2 'F (0 0C to 26.8 0C), and 5.5 ppt to 36 ppt. Adults and juveniles are 12 abundant in the mixing and saline zones of Delaware Bay (NOAA, 1999b), and these zones as 13 well as the inland bays are EFH for all life stages of the windowpane flounder, including eggs, 14 larvae, juveniles, adults, and spawning adults (NEFMC, 1998b). The windowpane flounder is 15 managed by the NEFMC under the multispecies groundfish plan (NEFMC, 2010). The fishery 16 does not directly target windowpane, but groundfish trawls take them as bycatch (NOAA, 1999b; 17 Morse and Able, 1995).
| |
| 18 Summer Flounder 19 The summer flounder is a demersal fish inhabiting coastal waters over sandy substrates from 20 Nova Scotia to Florida, but it is most abundant between Cape Cod and Cape Fear 21 (ASMFC, 2008e). It lives in bays and estuaries in spring, summer, and autumn, and migrates 22 offshore for the winter (NEFSC, 2006a). Migrating adults tend to return to the same bay or 23 estuary every year (NOAA, 1999c). Spawning occurs in autumn and early winter as the fish are 24 migrating over the continental shelf (NEFSC, 2006a; NOAA, 1999c). Eggs are pelagic and 25 buoyant, as are the early stages of larvae (NOAA, 1999c). Larvae move inshore between 26 October and May, where they develop in estuaries and bays (NEFSC, 2006a; ASMFC, 2008e).
| |
| 27 Larvae become demersal as soon as the right eye migrates to the top of the head, then they 28 bury themselves in the substrate while they are in the inshore nursery areas. Within the 29 estuaries, marsh creeks, seagrass beds, mud flats, and open bay areas are important habitats 30 for juveniles. Some juveniles stay in the estuary habitat until their second year, while others 31 migrate offshore for the winter. Juveniles inhabit the deeper parts of the Delaware Bay 32 throughout the winter (NOAA, 1999c). Sexual maturity is reached by age 2, females may live 33 up to 20 years and reach 26 lbs (12 kg) in weight, but males generally live for only 10 years 34 (NEFSC, 2006a).
| |
| 35 Tidal movements of juveniles may be due to the desire to stay within a desired set of 36 environmental variables, including temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen. Larvae and 37 juveniles live in waters with temperatures between 32 and 73 °F (0 and 23 0C) and usually 38 inhabit the higher-salinity portions of estuaries. Newly recruited juveniles live over a variety of 39 substrates, including mud, sand, shell hash, eelgrass beds, and oyster bars, but as they grow, 40 they are more often over sand. Larvae feed on invertebrates and small fish, with benthic prey 41 items becoming increasingly important with age. Adult summer flounder most often live over September 2010 2-69 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 substrates of sand, coarse sand, or shell fragments and may occur in marsh creeks and 2 seagrass beds. Their diet consists of varioius invertebrates and fish. Large predators, such as 3 sharks, rays, and goosefish, consume adult summer flounder (NOAA, 1999c).
| |
| 4 The summer flounder, is a highly important commercial and recreational species along the 5 Atlantic coast. Both the ASMFC and the MAFMC manage the fishery under the summer 6 . flounder, scup, and black sea bass fishery management plan. The recreational harvest makes 7 up a sizeable portion of the total and is occasionally larger than the commercial harvest. In 8 1999, the summer flounder stock was considered overexploited, but as of 2005, the stock was 9 considered not overfished (NOAA, 1999c; NEFSC, 2006a). In.2009, the ASMFC increased total 10 allowable landings. Although the stock is currently considered not overfished, it has not 11 reached rebuilt status (ASMFC, 2008e).
| |
| 12 The Delaware Bay is important as a habitat for adults and as a nursery for juveniles, and NMFS 13 has designated EFH for summer flounder larvae, juveniles, and adults in the Delaware Bay 14 (NOAA, 2010g). Summer flounder adults and juveniles are present in the Delaware Bay in -
| |
| 15 salinity zones of 0.5 ppt to above 25 ppt (NOAA Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment, 16 2005), which includes the vicinity of Salem and HCGS.
| |
| 17 Atlantic Butterfish 18 The Atlantic butterfish is a pelagic schooling fish that is ecologically important as a forage fish 19 for many larger fishes, marine mammals, and birds. Its range includes the Atlantic coast from 20 Newfoundland to Florida, but it is most abundant from the Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras 21 (NEFSC, 2006b; NOAA, 1999d). Butterfish migrate seasonally in response to changes in water 22 temperature. During summer, they migrate inshore into southern New England and Gulf of 23 Maine waters, and in winter they migrate to the edge of the continental shelf in the Mid-Atlantic 24 Bight (Cross et al., 1999). Butterfish inhabit bays, estuaries, and coastal waters up to 200 mi 25 offshore during the summer. Butterfish spawn offshore and in large bays and estuaries from 26 June through August. They are broadcast spawners that spawn at night in the upper part of the 27 water column in water of 15 °C (59 0F) or more. Eggs are pelagic and buoyant (NOAA, 1999d).
| |
| 28 Butterfish eggs and larvae are found in water with depths ranging from the shore to 6,000 ft and 29 temperatures between 9 °C (48 0F) and 19 °C (66 *F). Juvenile and adult butterfish are found in 30 waters from 33 to 1,200 ft deep and at temperatures ranging from 3 °C (37 *F) to 28 'C (82 *F) 31 (NMFS 2010b). Butterfish reach sexual maturity by age 1, rarely live more than 3 years, and 32 normally reach a weight of up to 1.1 lbs (0.5 kg) (NEFSC, 2006b). Adult butterfish prey on small 33 fish, squid, crustaceans, and other invertebrates and in turn are preyed upon by many species 34 of fish and squid. In summer, butterfish can be found over the entire continental shelf, including 35 sheltered bays and estuaries, to a depth of 200 m over substrates of sand, rock, or mud (Cross
| |
| : 36. et al., 1999).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-70 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 The Atlantic butterfish is an important commercial fish species that is also bycatch in other 2 fisheries (NEFSC, 2006b; NEFSC, 2004). The fishery has been in operation since the late 3 1800s (NOAA, 1999d). U.S. commercial landings peaked in 1984 and a record low catch 4 occurred in 2005 (NEFSC, 2006b). The MAFMC manages the Atlantic butterfish under the 5 Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish fishery management plan (NEFSC, 2006b). Due to a 6 lack of data, it has not been established if overfishing is currently occurring, but during the last 7 stock assessment in 1993, it was established that biomass was at medium levels, the catch was 8 not excessive, and recruitment was high (NEFSC, 2004). EFH for Atlantic butterfish juveniles 9 may exist in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS. Inshore EFH for the butterfish includes the mixing 10 or saline zones of estuaries where butterfish eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults are common or 11 abundant on the Atlantic coast, from Passamaquoddy Bay in Maine to the James River in 12 Virginia (NMFS 2010b).
| |
| 13 2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources 14 This section describes the terrestrial resources in the immediate vicinity of the Salem and 15 HCGS facilities on Artificial Island and within the transmission line ROWs connecting these 16 facilities to the regional power grid. For this assessment, terrestrial resources were considered 17 to include plants and animals of non-wet uplands as well as wetlands of Artificial Island and 18 bodies of freshwater located on Artificial Island or the ROWs.
| |
| 19 2.2.6.1 Artificial Island 20 The project site is within the Middle Atlantic coastal plain of the eastern temperate forest 21 ecoregion. This ecoregion, which runs along the eastern seaboard from Delaware to the South 22 Carolina/Georgia border, is characterized by low, flat plains with many marshes, swamps, and 23 estuaries (EPA, 2007). As discussed in Section 2.2.1, Land Use, Artificial Island, on which the 24 Salem and HCGS facilities were constructed, is a man-made island approximately 3 mi (4.8 kin) 25 long and 5 mi (8 km) wide that was created by the deposition of dredge spoil material atop a 26 natural sandbar. All terrestrial resources on the island have become established since creation 27 of the island began approximately 100 years ago. Consequently, Artificial Island contains poor 28 quality soils and very few trees. Approximately 65 percent of the island is undeveloped and 29 dominated by tidal marsh, which extends from the higher areas along the river eastward to the 30 marshes of the former natural shoreline adjacent to the eastern boundary of Artificial Island 31 (Figure 2-9). Terrestrial, non-wetland habitats of the island, which are limited and occur 32 primarily on the periphery of the developed portions of PSEG property, consist principally of 33 areas covered by grasses and other herbs with scrub/shrubs and planted trees. Almost all of 34 the undeveloped portions of the island consist of estuarine emergent wetlands (tidal), with 35 scattered occurrences of freshwater wetlands. Small, isolated, freshwater impoundments are 36 also present, particularly along the northwest shoreline.
| |
| 37 The Salem and HCGS facilities were constructed on adjacent portions of the PSEG property, 38 which occupies the southwest corner of Artificial Island. The PSEG property is low and flat with 39 elevations rising to about 18 ft (5.5 m) above the level of the river at the highest point.
| |
| 40 Developed areas covered by facilities and pavement occupy over 70 percent of the 740-ac 41 (300-ha) PSEG site (approximately 525 ac [212 ha]). Maintained areas of grass, including two 42 baseball fields, cover about 12 ac (5 ha) of the site interior. The remaining 27 percent of the September 2010 2-71 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1
| |
| Figure 2-11. Aerial Photo Showing the Boundaries of Artificial Island (dotted), PSEG Property (dashed), and Developed Areas (solid).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-72 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 PSEG property (approximately 200 ac [81 ha]) consists primarily of tidal marsh dominated by 2 the common reed (Phragmites australis) and several cordgrass species (Spartina spp.) (PSEG, 3 2009b).
| |
| 4 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 5 classifies all land on the project site as Urban, while the soils on the remainder of Artificial Island 6 are Udorthents consisting of dredged fine material (NRCS, 2010). The National Wetlands 7 Inventory (NWI) identifies a non-tidal inland marsh/swamp area on the periphery of the project 8 site adjacent to Hope Creek Road and two small, man-made freshwater ponds immediately 9 north of the Hope Creek reactor. NWI classifies the rest of Artificial Island as estuarine 10 emergent marsh, with the exception of the northernmost 1 mi (1.6 km) of the island, which is 11 contains freshwater emergent wetlands and freshwater ponds (FWS, 2010a).
| |
| 12 The tidal marsh vegetation of the site periphery and adjacent areas is dominated by common 13 reed, but other plants present include big cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides), salt marsh 14 cordgrass (S. alterniflora), saltmeadow cordgrass (S. patens), and saltmarsh bulrush (Scirpus 15 robustus)(PSEG, 2009b). Fragments of this marsh community exist along the eastern edge of 16 the PSEG property. The non-estuarine vegetation on the undeveloped areas within the facilities 17 consists mainly of small areas of turf grasses and planted shrubs and trees around buildings, 18 parking lots, and roads.
| |
| 19 The animal species present on Artificial Island likely are typical of those inhabiting estuarine 20 tidal marshes and adjacent habitats within the Delaware Estuary. Tidal marshes in this region 21 are commonly used by many migrant and resident birds because they provide habitat for 22 breeding, foraging, and resting (PSEG, 2004b). In 1972, Salem pre-construction surveys 23 conducted within a 4 mi (6 km) radius of the project site recorded 44 avian species, including 24 many shorebirds, wading birds, and waterfowl associated with open water and emergent marsh 25 areas of the estuary. During construction of the Salem facility, several avian species were 26 observed on the project site, including the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), common 27 grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), song sparrow (Melospiza 28 melodia), and yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas)(AEC, 1973). HCGS construction studies 29 reported the occurrence of 178 bird species within 10 mi (16 km) of the project site.
| |
| *30 Approximately half of these species were recorded primarily from tidal marsh and the open 31 water of the Delaware River (habitat similar to the project site) and roughly 45 of the 178 total 32 observed species were classified as permanent resident species (PSEG, 1983). The osprey 33 (Pandionhaliaetus)has been observed nesting on transmission line towers on Artificial Island 34 (PSEG, 1983; NRC, 1984; NJDFW, 2009b). Resident songbirds, such as the marsh wren 35 (Cistothoruspalustris), and migratory songbirds, such as the swamp sparrow (Melospiza 36 georgiana),have been observed using the nearby Alloway Creek Estuary Enhancement 37 Program restoration site for breeding purposes (PSEG, 2004b). These and other marsh 38 species likely occur in the marsh habitats on Artificial Island.
| |
| 39 Mammals reported to occur on Artificial Island in the area of the Salem and HCGS facilities 40 before their construction include the eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), Norway rat 41 (Rattus norvegicus), and house mouse (Mus musculus) (AEC, 1973). Signs of raccoon 42 (Procyon lotor) have been observed near Salem, and other mammals likely to occur in the 43 vicinity of the two facilities include the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), muskrat 44 (Ondatrazibethica), opossum (Didelphis marsupialis),and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis).
| |
| September 2010 2-73 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Surveys conducted in association with the construction of HCGS identified 45 mammals that 2 could be expected to occur within 10 mi (16 km) of the project site (PSEG, 1983). Of the 45 3 species identified, eight were species associated with marsh habitats, such as the meadow vole 4 (Microtuspennsylvanicus) and marsh rice rat (Oryzomys palustris).
| |
| 5 Eight of 26 reptile species observed during surveys related to the early operation of HCGS were 6 recorded from tidal marsh (PSEG, 1983). Three species, the snapping turtle (Chelydra 7 serpentina), northern water snake (Natrix sipedon), and eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon 8 subrubrum), prefer freshwater habitats but also occur in brackish marsh. The northern 9 diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin),inhabits saltwater and brackish habitats and 10 occurs in tidal marsh adjacent to the project site. Amphibians likely to occur in the upland 11 and/or freshwater wetland habitats of the island include the New Jersey chorus frog 12 (Pseudoacristriseriatakalmi), southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia),and Fowler's toad (Bufo 13 woodhousii fowler) (NJDEP, 2001b).
| |
| 14 Two Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) managed by the New Jersey Division of Fish and 15 Wildlife are located near Salem and HCGS:
| |
| 16 ° Abbotts Meadow WMA encompasses approximately 1,000 ac (405 ha) and is about 4 mi 17 (6.4 km) northeast of HCGS.
| |
| 18 e Mad Horse Creek State WMA encompasses roughly 9,500 acres (3,844 ha), of which the 19 northernmost portion is less than 1 mi (1.6 km) northeast of the northeast corner of the 20 PSEG property boundary. The southern portion of this WMA includes Stowe Creek, which 21 is designated as an Important Bird Area (IBA) in New Jersey. Stowe Creek IBA provides 22 breeding habitat for several pairs of bald eagles (Haliaeetusleucocephalus),which are 23 State-listed as endangered, and the adjacent tidal wetlands support large populations of the 24 northern harrier, which also is State-listed as endangered, as well as many other birds 25 dependent on salt marsh/wetland habitats (National Audubon Society, 2010).
| |
| 26 Over 1,600-ac (647-ha) of wetlands and uplands of the 3,096-ac (1,253-ha) Alloway Creek 27 Wetland Restoration Site were restored by PSEG between 1996 and 1999 (PSEG 2009c). This 28 restoration area is less than 3 mi (5 km) northeast of HCGS and Salem. Restoration efforts 29 focused on increasing fish habitat and reducing invasive vegetation species, such as 30 Phragmitesaustralis. The site includes two nature trails, several observation platforms, a 31 boardwalk to the beach, and a wildlife viewing blind.
| |
| 32 The Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), part of the Cape May NWR Complex, 33 is located approximately 7 mi (11 km) north of the project site and, like Artificial Island, consists 34 primarily of brackish tidal marshes (FWS, 2009a). Supawna Meadows NWR is adjacent to the 35 Delaware River and estuary and is recognized as a wetland of international importance and an 36 international shorebird reserve that provides important feeding and resting grounds for migratory 37 shorebirds and waterfowl.
| |
| 38 2.2.6.2 Transmission Line Right-of-Ways 39 Section 2.2.1 describes the existing power transmission system that distributes electricity from 40 Salem and HCGS to the regional power grid. There are four 500-kV transmission lines within 41 three ROWs that extend beyond the PSEG property on Artificial Island. Two ROWs extend 42 northeast approximately 40 mi (64 km) to the New Freedom substation south of Philadelphia.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 2-74 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 The other ROW extends north then west approximately 25 mi (40 km), crossing the Delaware 2 River to end at the Keeney substation in Delaware (Figure 2-8).
| |
| 3 In total, the three ROWs for the Salem and HCGS power transmission system occupy 4 approximately 4,376 ac (1,771 ha) and pass through a variety of habitat types, including 5 marshes and other wetlands, agricultural or forested land, and some urban and residential 6 areas (PSEG, 2009a). The major land cover types crossed by these ROWs are cultivated land 7 (23 percent), palustrine forested wetland (19 percent), deciduous forest (13 percent),
| |
| 8 scrub/shrub (12 percent), and estuarine emergent wetland (11 percent). Other types, such as 9 pasture/hay, urban/developed, and water, collectively cover less than 22 percent of the land 10 crossed by these ROWs (PSEG 2010). As the three ROWs exit the PSEG property, they cross 11 estuarine tidal marsh to the east and north of Artificial Island.
| |
| 12 The initial segments of the New Freedom North and New Freedom South ROWs traverse 13 approximately 3 mi (5 km) of estuarine emergent marsh east of the PSEG property boundary.
| |
| 14 This tidal marsh is part of the northern portion of the Mad Horse Creek State WMA. The middle 15 segments of the New Freedom North and New Freedom South ROWs, extending a distance of 16 approximately 30 mi (48 km), cross a mixture of mainly agricultural and forested lands.
| |
| 17 The Keeney ROW turns north after exiting HCGS, traversing approximately 5 mi (8 km) of 18 emergent marsh and swamp paralleling the New Jersey shore of the Delaware Estuary before 19 crossing 8 mi (13 km) of agricultural, sparsely forested, and rural residential lands. The Keeney 20 ROW then continues west across the Delaware River approximately 3 mi (5 km) to the Red Lion 21 substation. From the substation, the Red Lion-Keeney portion of the line within the Keeney 22 ROW remains exclusively within Delaware, crossing primarily highly developed, residential land.
| |
| 23 Animals likely to occur in the habitats within the Salem and HCGS transmission line ROWs 24 include a wide variety of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates that have 25 ranges encompassing southern New Jersey and northeastern Delaware. Species especially 26 likely to occur in ROWs are those that prefer open fields, agricultural areas, marshes, and 27 edges where forest changes to open habitats. Such species are more likely to use the open 28 habitats maintained within the ROWs than are species that prefer forest or swamp habitats.
| |
| 29 For approximately the last one-quarter of their length, before their termination at the New 30 Freedom substation, the New Freedom ROWs traverse the New Jersey Pinelands National 31 Reserve (PNR) (National Park Service [NPS], 2006a). The New Freedom North and New 32 Freedom South ROWs cross a total of approximately 10 mi (16 km) and 17 mi (27 km) of the 33 PNR, respectively. The PNR preserves the New Jersey Pinelands, also known as the Pine 34 Barrens, which is a heavily forested area of the southern New Jersey Coastal Plain that 35 supports a unique and diverse assemblage of unusual species such as orchids and carnivorous 36 plants; low, dense forests of oak and pine; a 12-ac (5-ha) stand of pygmy pitch pines; and 37 scattered bogs and marshes (New Jersey Pinelands Commission, 2010). The United Nations 38 Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) designated the Pinelands a U.S.
| |
| 39 Biosphere Reserve in 1988. Biosphere Reserves are areas of terrestrial and coastal 40 ecosystems with three complementary roles: conservation; sustainable development; and 41 logistical support for research, monitoring, and education (UNESCO, 2010). The PNR is 42 protected and its future development is guided by the Pinelands Comprehensive Management 43 Plan, which is implemented by the New Jersey Pinelands Commission.
| |
| September 2010 2-75 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 The two New Freedom ROWs also cross the Great Egg Harbor River, a designated National 2 Scenic and Recreational River located within the PNR. This 129-mi (208-km) river system 3 (including 17 tributaries) starts in suburban towns near Berlin, NJ and meanders southeast for 4 approximately 60 mi (97 km), gradually widening as tributaries enter, until terminating at the 5 Atlantic Ocean.
| |
| 6 PSEG vegetation management practices provide guidance to ensure that all vegetation under 7 HCGS and Salem transmission lines is regularly inspected and maintained to avoid vegetation-8 caused outages to transmission systems in accordance with regulations of the New Jersey 9 Board of Public Utilities (BPU, 2009) and standards of the North American Electric Reliability 10 Council (NERC, 2006). If removal of woody vegetation is necessary in the ROWs, PSEG 11 coordinates its removal with the New Jersey BPU. In addition, PSEG has incorporated into their 12 vegetation management practices measures to prevent impacts to wetlands and threatened and 13 endangered species (PSEG, 2010c). For example, PSEG schedules ROW maintenance to 14 avoid conflicts with the annual surveys it conducts for threatened and endangered species in its 15 ROWs (PSEG, 2010c).
| |
| 16 The New Jersey Pinelands Commission regulates the maintenance of the ROW portions within 17 the PNR. The commission's Comprehensive Management Plan directs the creation and 18 maintenance of early successional habitats within ROWs that represent characteristic Pinelands 19 communities while ensuring the safety and reliability of transmission lines (New Jersey 20 Pinelands Commission, 2009).
| |
| 21 2.2.7 Threatened and Endangered Species 22 This discussion of threatened and endangered species is organized based on the principal 23 ecosystems in which such species may occur in the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS facilities 24 and the associated transmission line ROWs. Thus, Section 2.2.7.1 discusses aquatic species 25 that may occur in adjacent areas of the Delaware Estuary, and Section 2.2.7.2 discusses 26 terrestrial species that may occur on Artificial Island or the three ROWs, as well as freshwater 27 aquatic species that may occur in the relatively small streams and wetlands within these 28 terrestrial areas.
| |
| 29 2.2.7.1 Aquatic Species of the Delaware Estuary 30 There are five aquatic species with a Federal listing status of threatened or endangered that 31 have the potential to occur in the Delaware Estuary in the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS 32 facilities. These species include four sea turtles and one fish (Table 2-8). In addition, there is 33 one fish species that is a Federal candidate for listing (NMFS, 2010b; FWS, 2010b). These six 34 species also have a State listing status of threatened or endangered in New Jersey and/or 35 Delaware (NJDEP, 2008b; DNREC, 2008).These species are discussed below.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-76 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Table 2-8. Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species of the Delaware Estuary Common Name Status~'
| |
| Scientific Name Federal New Jersey Delaware Reptiles Carettacaretta Loggerhead sea turtle T E E Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle T T E Lepidochelys kempii Kemp's ridley sea turtle E E E Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle E E E Fish Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon E E A. oxyrinchus oxyrinchus Atlantic sturgeon C E (a) E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate 2 Kemp's Ridley, Loggerhead, Green, and Leatherback Sea Turtles 3 The four species of sea turtles identified by NMFS as potentially occurring in the Delaware 4 Estuary are the threatened loggerhead (Carettacaretta) and green (Cheloniamydas) and the 5 endangered Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempi,) and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea).
| |
| 6 Kemp's ridley, loggerhead, and green sea turtles have been documented in the Delaware 7 Estuary at or near the Salem and HCGS facilities; the leatherback sea turtle is less likely to 8 occur in the vicinity (NMFS, 2010b).
| |
| 9 Kemp's ridley, loggerhead, and green sea turtles have a similar appearance, though they differ 10 in maximum size and coloration. The Kemp's ridley is the smallest species of sea turtle; adults 11 average about 100 pounds (Ibs; 45 kilograms [kg]) with a carapace length of 24 to 28 inches (61 12 to 71 centimeters [cm]) and a shell color that varies from gray in young individuals to olive green 13 in adults. The loggerhead is the next largest of these three species; adults average about 250 14 lbs (113 kg) with a carapace length of 36 inches (91 cm) and a reddish brown shell color. The 15 green is the largest of the three; adults average 300 to 350 lbs (136 to 159 kg) with a length of 16 more than 3 ft (1 m) and brown coloration (its name comes from its greenish colored fat). The 17 leatherback is the largest species of sea turtle and the largest living reptile; adults can weigh up 18 to about 2,000 lbs (907 kg) with a length of 6.5 ft (2 m). The leatherback is the only sea turtle 19 that lacks a hard, bony shell. Instead, its carapace is approximately 1.5 inches (4 cm) thick with 20 seven longitudinal ridges and consists of loosely connected dermal bones covered by leathery 21 connective tissue (NMFS, 2010c).
| |
| 22 The Kemp's ridley has a carnivorous diet that includes fish, jellyfish, and mollusks. The 23 loggerhead has an omnivorous diet that includes fish, jellyfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and 24 aquatic plants. The green has a herbivorous diet of aquatic plants, mainly seagrasses and 25 algae, that is unique among sea turtles. The leatherback has a carnivorous diet of soft-bodied, 26 pelagic prey such as jellyfish and salps. All four of these sea turtle species nest on sandy 27 beaches; none nest on the Delaware Estuary (NMFS, 2010c).
| |
| 28 Major threats to these sea turtles include the destruction of beach nesting habitats and 29 incidental mortality from commercial fishing activities. Sea turtles are killed by many fishing 30 methods, including longline, bottom, and mid-water trawling; dredges; gillnets; and pots/traps.
| |
| September 2010 2-77 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 The required use of turtle exclusion devices has reduced bycatch mortality. Additional sources 2 of mortality due to human activities include boat strikes and entanglement in marine debris 3 (NMFS and FWS, 2007a; NMFS and FWS, 2007b; NMFS and FWS, 2007c; NOAA, 2010i).
| |
| 4 Shortnose Sturgeon 5 The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenserbrevirostrum) is a primitive fish, similar in appearance to 6 other sturgeon (NOAA, 201 Oj), and has not evolved significantly for the past 120 million years 7 (NEFSC, 2006). This species was not specifically targeted as a commercial fishery species, but 8 has been taken as bycatch in the Atlantic sturgeon and shad fisheries. As they were not easily 9 distinguished from Atlantic sturgeon, early data is unavailable for this species (NMFS, 1998).
| |
| 10 Furthermore, since the 1950s, when the Atlantic sturgeon fishery declined, shortnose sturgeon 11 data has been almost completely lacking. Due to this lack of data, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 12 Service (FWS) believed that the species had been extirpated from most of its range; reasons 13 noted for the decline included pollution and overfishing. Later research indicated that the 14 construction of dams and industrial growth along the larger rivers on the Atlantic coast in the 15 late 1800s also contributed to their decline due to loss of habitat.
| |
| 16 Shortnose sturgeon can live from 30 years (males) to 67 years (females), grow up to 4.7 ft (143 17 cm) long, and reach a weight of 51 lbs (23 kg). Age at sexual maturity varies within their range 18 from north to south, with individuals in the Delaware Bay area reaching maturity at 3 to 5 years 19 for males and approximately 6 years for females (NOAA, 2010j). Shortnose sturgeon are 20 demersal and feed predominantly on benthic invertebrates (NMFS, 1998).
| |
| 21 The shortnose sturgeon is found along the Atlantic coast from Canada to Florida in habitats that 22 include fast-flowing rivers, estuaries, and, in some locations, offshore marine areas over the 23 continental slope. They are anadromous, spawning in coastal rivers and later migrating into 24 estuaries and nearshore environments during non-spawning periods. They do not appear to 25 make long-distance offshore migrations like other anadromous fishes (NOAA, 2010j). Migration 26 into freshwater to spawn occurs between late winter and early summer, depending on latitude 27 (NEFSC, 2006). Spawning occurs in deep, rapidly flowing water over gravel, rubble, or boulder 28 substrates, to which the demersal eggs adhere before hatching in 9 to 12 days (NMFS, 1998).
| |
| 29 Juveniles remain in freshwater or the fresher areas of estuaries for 3 to 5 years, then they move 30 to more saline areas, including nearshore ocean waters (NEFSC, 2006). In the Delaware Bay 31 drainage, shortnose sturgeon most often occur in the Delaware River and may be found 32 occasionally in the nearshore ocean but little is known of the distribution of juveniles in the 33 Delaware Estuary. Their abundance is greatest in the river between Trenton, New Jersey and 34 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Adults overwinter in large groups between Trenton and 35 Bordentown, New Jersey (USACE, 2009).
| |
| 36 NMFS began a status review of the shortnose sturgeon in 2007 (NMFS, 2008) which is ongoing.
| |
| 37 Due to its distinct population segments, the status of the species varies depending on the river 38 in question. NMFS (2008) estimated the size of the population in the Delaware River system as 39 12,047 adults based on surveys from 1999 through 2003. Current threats to the shortnose 40 sturgeon vary among rivers. Generally, over the entire range, most threats include dams, 41 pollution, and general industrial growth. Drought and climate change could aggravate the 42 existing threats due to lowered water levels, which can reduce access to spawning areas, 43 increase thermal injury, and concentrate pollutants. Additional threats include discharges, 44 dredging or disposal of material into rivers, development activities involving estuaries or riverine Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-78 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 mudflats and marshes, and mortality due to bycatch in the shad gillnet fishery. NMFS (2008) 2 determined that the Delaware River population is most threatened by dredging operations and 3 water quality issues.
| |
| 4 Atlantic Sturgeon 5 Atlantic sturgeon supported a large commercial fishery by 1870, but the fishery crashed in 6 approximately 100 years due to overfishing. The effects of overfishing were exacerbated by the 7 fact that this species takes a very long time to reach sexual maturity. The ASMFC adopted a 8 Fishery Management Plan in 1990 that implemented harvest quotas. The current status of the 9 Atlantic sturgeon stock is unknown due to little reliable data. In 1998, a coastwide stock 10 assessment by ASMFC determined that biomass was much lower than it had been in the early 11 1900s (ASMFC, 2009c). This assessment resulted in an amendment to the Fishery 12 Management Plan that instituted a coastwide moratorium on Atlantic sturgeon harvest that will 13 remain in place until 2038 in an effort to accumulate 20 years worth of breeding stock. The 14 Federal government similarly enacted a moratorium in 1999 prohibiting harvest in the exclusive 15 economic zone offshore (ASMFC, 2009c). Concurrent with the coastwide stock assessment, 16 NMFS decided that listing the Atlantic sturgeon as threatened or endangered was not warranted 17 (ASMFC, 2009c).
| |
| 18 NMFS initiated a second status review in 2005 and concluded that the stock should be broken 19 into five distinct population segments: Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, 20 Carolina, and South Atlantic stocks (ASMFCj 2009c). The Delaware River and Estuary are in 21 the New York Bight segment. NMFS determined that three of these distinct population 22 segments are likely (>50 percent chance) to become endangered in the next 20 years (New 23 York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, and Carolina), and these three were recommended by NMFS for 24 listing as threatened under the ESA. The other two population segments were determined by 25 NMFS to have a moderate (<50 percent) chance of becoming endangered in the next 20 years 26 and were not recommended for listing (ASMFC, 2009c; Greene et al., 2009). In October 2009, 27 the Natural Resources Defense Council submitted a petition under the ESA to list the Atlantic 28 sturgeon. NMFS announced in January 2010 that it agreed listing may be warranted and 29 decided to request public comment to update the 2007 species status review before beginning a 30 12-month finding and determination on whether to propose listing (NOAA, 2010c).
| |
| 31 ASMFC (2009c) lists threats to the Atlantic sturgeon that include bycatch mortality, poor water 32 quality, dredging activities, and for some populations, habitat impediments (dams blocking 33 access to spawning areas) and ship strikes. As of 2009, NMFS designates the Atlantic 34 sturgeon over its entire range as a species of concern and a candidate species. Reasons for 35 the listing include genetic diversity (distinct populations) and lack of adequate estimates of the 36 size of most population segments (NOAA, 2009b).
| |
| 37 Atlantic sturgeon inhabit the Atlantic coast in the ocean, large rivers, and estuaries from 38 labrador to northern Florida. Populations have been extirpated from most coastal systems 39 except for the Hudson River, the Delaware River, and some South Carolina systems (ASMFC, September 2010 2-79 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 2010c). Atlantic sturgeon are anadromous, migrating inshore to coastal estuaries and rivers to 2 spawn in the spring. A single fish will spawn only every 2 to 6 years (ASMFC, 2009c). Females 3 broadcast eggs in fast-flowing, deep water with hard bottoms (ASMFC, 2010c). Eggs are 4 demersal and stick to the substrate after 20 min of dispersal time. Larvae are pelagic and swim 5 in the water column before they become benthic juveniles within 4 weeks (Greene et al., 2009).
| |
| 6 Juveniles remain where they hatch for 1 to 6 years before migrating to the ocean to complete 7 their growth (ASMFC, 2009c). Little is known about the distribution and timing of juveniles and 8 their migration, but aggregations at the freshwater/saltwater interface suggest that these areas 9 are nurseries (ASMFC, 2010c). At between 30 and 36 inches (76 to 91 cm) in length, juveniles 10 move offshore (NOAA, 2009b). Data are lacking regarding adult and sub-adult distribution and 11 habitats in the open ocean (ASMFC, 2010c). Atlantic sturgeon can live for up to 60 years and 12 can reach 14 ft (4.3 m) and 800 lbs (363 kg). Females reach sexual maturity between 7 and 30 13 years of age and by males between 5 and 24 years (ASMFC, 2009c).
| |
| 14 Atlantic sturgeon feed predominantly on benthic invertebrates, such as mussels, worms, and 15 shrimps, as well as on small fish (ASMFC, 2009c). Juveniles consume annelid worms, isopods, 16 amphipods, insect larvae, small bivalve mollusks, and mysids. Little is known of the adult and 17 subadult feeding habits in the marine environment, but some studies have found that these life 18 stages consume mollusks, polychaetes, gastropods, shrimps, amphipods, isopods, and small 19 fish (ASMFC, 2009c).
| |
| 20 The Delaware River and associated estuarine habitats may have historically supported the 21 largest Atlantic sturgeon stock on the east coast. Juveniles once were caught as bycatch in 22 numbers large enough to be a nuisance in the American shad fishery. Over 180,000 females 23 spawned annually in the Delaware River before 1890. Juveniles have more recently been 24 captured in surveys near Trenton, New Jersey. Gill net surveys by the DNREC have captured 25 juveniles frequently near Artificial Island. The DNREC also tracks mortality during the spawning 26 season. In 2005 and 2006, 12 large adult fish carcasses were found with severe external 27 injuries presumed to be caused by boat strikes (Greene et al., 2009).
| |
| 28 2.2.7.2 Terrestrial and Freshwater Aquatic Species 29 There are five terrestrial species Federally listed as threatened or endangered that have 30 recorded occurrences or the potential to occur either in Salem County, in which the Salem and 31 HCGS facilities are located, or the counties crossed by the three ROWs (Gloucester and 32 Camden counties in New Jersey; New Castle County in Delaware). Thesespecies include the 33 bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergil) and four plants (Table 2-9) (FWS, 2010b). Four of these 34 species (all except one plant) are also listed as endangered in New Jersey, and the bog turtle is 35 listed as endangered in both New Jersey and Delaware (NJDEP, 2008b; DNREC, 2008). In 36 letters provided in accordance with the consultation requirements under Section 7 of the 37 Endangered Species Act, FWS confirmed that no Federally-listed species under their 38 jurisdiction are known to occur in the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS facilities (FWS, 2009c; 39 FWS, 2009c; FWS, 2010d). However, two of the species Federally-listed as threatened, the 40 bog turtle and swamp pink (Heloniasbullata), were identified by the New Jersey Field Office of 41 FWS (FWS, 201 Od) as having known occurrences or other areas of potential habitat along the 42 New Freedom North and New Freedom South transmission line ROWs. The bog turtle and 43 swamp pink are discussed below.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 2-80 September 2010
| |
| | |
| (n 3 1 Table 2-9. Threatened and Endangered Terrestrial and Freshwater Aquatic Species Recorded in Salem County and
| |
| !2 Counties Crossed by Transmission Lines 0
| |
| 0 Status Scientific Name Common Name (a),(b) County~c) Habitatrd)
| |
| Federal(') StatetibConyc Birds Deciduous, coniferous, and mixed Accipiter coopenii Cooper's hawk T/T Gloucester, Salem riparian or wetland forests; specifically remote red maple or black gum swamps.0)
| |
| Open fallow fields with high, thick herbaceous vegetation (not woody)
| |
| Amnmodramus henslowli Henslow's sparrow -E Gloucester with a few scattered shrubs; and grassy fields between salt marsh and uplands along the Delaware Bay 0? coast!"
| |
| Grasslands, pastures, agricultural A. savannarum grasshopper sparrow T/S Salem lands, and other habitats with short-to medium-height grasses scattered with patches of bare ground.()
| |
| Open meadows and fallow fields often associated with pastures, Bartramialongicauda upland sandpiper E Gloucester, Salem 0 airports or farms with a mixture of tall and short grasses.0) z C: Deciduous, riparian, or mixed X woodlands in remote, old growth Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk EIT Gloucester forests; and hardwood swamps with standing water, or vast contiguous,
| |
| :,, freshwater wetlands.0) CID Ci, CD Freshwater, brackish, and saline tidal 0.
| |
| 3>
| |
| m CD 3
| |
| Circus cyaneus northern harder -E/U Salem marshes; emergent wetlands; fallow fields; grasslands; meadows; CID airports; and agricultural areas.0) 0 a
| |
| CD
| |
| | |
| CL Status Scientific Name Common Name Federalta) State(a),(b) County(" Habitat(d) m Wet meadows, freshwater marshes, Cistothorusplatensis sedge wren E Salem bogs, and drier portions of salt or brackish coastal marshes.(0)
| |
| Hayfields, pastures, grassy meadows, and other low-intensity Dolichonyx oryzivorus bobolink TIT Salem agricultural areas; may occur in coastal and freshwater marshes during migration.01 )
| |
| Nest on buildings, bridges, man-Falcoperegrinus peregrine falcon ECamden, Gloucester, made structures1and forage in open Salem area near water( )
| |
| Large, perch trees in forested areas Haliaeetusleucocephalus bald eagle E Gloucester, Salem associated 1 with water and tidal areas.0 )
| |
| red-eadd Caden Gloceser, Upland and wetland open woods that Melanerpes erythrocephalus red-headed rT/ Camden, Glouester, contain dead or dying trees, and woodpecker Salem sparse undergrowth.) -
| |
| Dead trees or platforms near coastal/inland rivers, marshes, bays, Pandionhaliaetus osprey T/T Gloucester, Salem inlets, and other areas associated with bodies of water that support adequate fish populations.()
| |
| Open habitats such as alfalfa fields, Passerculus sandwichensis savannah sparrow -TfT Salem grasslands, meadows, fallow fields, airports, along the coast; and within salt marsh edges as well."1' Freshwater marshes associated with Podilymbus podiceps pied-billed grebe E/S Salem bogs, lakes, or slow-moving rivers.0)
| |
| | |
| Cn CD 2.
| |
| 0y Status C? Scientific Name Common Name Federal(a) State(a),(b) County(C) Habitatf"d 0
| |
| Open habitats such as alfalfa fields, Passerculussandwichensis savannah sparrow T/T Salem grasslands, meadows, fallow fields, airports, along the coast; and within 1
| |
| salt marsh edges as well( )
| |
| Freshwater marshes associated with Podilymbus podiceps pied-billed grebe E/S Salem bogs, lakes, or slow-moving rivers(i)
| |
| Pastures, grasslands, cultivated fields Pooecetes gramineus vesper sparrow E Gloucester, Salem containing 1 crops, and other open areas.( )
| |
| Remote, contiguous, old growth wetland forests, including deciduous Stnx varna barred owl TIT Gloucester, Salem wetland forests; and Atlantic white cedar swamps associated 1 with stream corridors.0 )
| |
| Reptiles and Amphibians Uplands and wetlands containing breeding ponds, forests, and Ambystoma tigrinum eastemn salamandertiger E Gloucester, Salem burrowing-appropriate soil types such 0 as old fields, and deciduous or mixed woods.(1) z C E Camden, Gloucester, Open, wet, grassy pastures or bogs Clemmys muhlenbergii bog turtle T Salem with soft, muddy bottoms.()
| |
| G) DE: E New Castle Deciduous upland forests or CD Crotalus horridushorridus timber rattlesnake E Camden pinelands habitats, often near cedar' CD C,) swamps and along streambanks.0)
| |
| CD 3
| |
| CD =3 4Ln
| |
| | |
| Z 0 Status CL 0..
| |
| Scientific Name Common Name Federal(') State(a),(b) County(') Habitat(d) m m
| |
| Specialized acidic habitats such as 3
| |
| Hyla andersoni pine barrens treefrog E Camden, Gloucester, Atlantic white cedar swamps and CD M Salem pitch pine lowlands with open canopies, heavy grounddense shrub layers, and cover.0)
| |
| -3 Mo Pituophismelanoleucus northern pine snake T Camden, Gloucester, Dry pine-oak forest types growing on Salem infertile sandy soils.!)
| |
| Uplands and wetlands containing breeding ponds, forests, and Ambystoma tignnum eastern tiger E Gloucester, Salem burrowing-appropriate soil types such as old fields, and deciduous or mixed woods. 1 )
| |
| E Camden, Gloucester, Open, wet, grassy pastures or bogs Clemmys muhlenbergii bog turtle T Salem with soft, muddy bottoms.ob)
| |
| DE: E New Castle Deciduous upland forests or Crotalus hornidus horridus timber rattlesnake E Camden pinelands habitats, often near cedar1 swamps and along streambanks.0 )
| |
| Specialized acidic habitats such as Atlantic white cedar swamps and Hyla andersoni pine barrens treefrog E Camden, pitch pine lowlands with open canopies, dense shrub 1 layers, and heavy ground cover. )
| |
| Pituophis melanoleucus northern pine snake T Camden, Gloucester, Dry pine-oak forest types growing on Salem infertile sandy soils.
| |
| Clo Invertebrates CD Dry clearings and open areas, Callophrysirus frosted elfin T Camden savannas, power-line ROWs, CD roadsides.
| |
| M 01
| |
| | |
| CW, CD "R
| |
| 3 CD NJ Status 0* Scientific Name Common Name State(a),(b)
| |
| County(') Habitat(d) 0 Federal(a)
| |
| Lampsilis canosa Medium to large rivers, lakes and ponds; substrate types - sand, silt, yellow lampmussel T Gloucester cobble, and gravel; larval hosts -
| |
| white perch and yellow perch.(22)
| |
| Freshwater water with tidal influence Leptodea ochracea tidewater mucket T Camden, Gloucester on the 32lower coastal plain, pristine rivers.( )
| |
| Lakes, ponds, streams and rivers of Ligumia nasuta eastern pond mussel T Camden, Gloucester variable depths with muddy, sandy, or 32 gravelly substrates.( )
| |
| Brackish and freshwater marshes, bogs, fens, seepages, wet sedge 0o Lycaena hyllus bronze copper E Salem meadows, riparian zones, wet grasslands, and drainage ditches.(')
| |
| Open areas, savannas, old fields, Pontia protod/ce checkered white T Camden vacant lots, power-line ROWs, forest edges. (1)
| |
| Dry clearings and open areas, Callophrysirus frosted elfin T Camden savannas, (power-line ROWs, roadsides. )
| |
| Medium to large rivers, lakes and ponds; substrate types - sand, silt, Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel T Gloucester cobble, and gravel; larval hosts -
| |
| white perch and yellow perch.(22)
| |
| Z C Freshwater water with tidal influence m Leptodea ochracea tidewater mucket T Camden, Gloucester on the 32lower coastal plain, pristine rivers.( )
| |
| Lakes, ponds, streams and rivers of 0
| |
| :- Ligumia nasuta eastern pond mussel T Camden, Gloucester variable depths with muddy, sandy, 0_
| |
| or gravelly substrates.(32)
| |
| CD, m
| |
| - Plants (D) 3 (D
| |
| .Pb.
| |
| 01
| |
| | |
| (D z 0 Status CD 0..
| |
| m Scientific Name CommonName Federal(a) State(a),(b) Countylc) Habitat(d) m 0.
| |
| Camden, Gloucester, Fresh to slightly salty (brackish) tidal Aeschynomene virginica sensitive joint vetch T E Salem marshes.(2) 0 :3 Moist, deciduous upland to swampy Aplectrum hyemale putty root -E Glouester forests.(3)
| |
| CA Aristida lanosa wooly three-awn grass -E Camden, Salem Dry fields, uplands, pink-oak woods, primarily in sandy soil.(4)
| |
| Shady, open-woods areas in wet, Asimina triloba pawpaw - E Gloucester fertile bottomlands, 5 or upland areas on rich soils.( )
| |
| rCamden, Gloucester, Wet meadows, open boggy woods, alowrough aster E and along the edges; or openings in Salem wet spruce or tamarack forests.(6)
| |
| Rocky, open slopes, woodlands, and Bouteloua curtipendula side oats grama grass - E Gloucester forest openings up to an elevation of approximately 7000 ft.(s)
| |
| Cacaliaatriplicifolia pale Indian plantain E Camden, Gloucester Dry, open woods, thickets, and rocky openings.(6)
| |
| Dry, open, sandy to rocky sites such Calystegia spithamaea erect bindweed -E Camden, Salem as pitch pine/scrub oak barrens, sandy roadsides, riverbanks, and ROWs.{7)
| |
| Swamps, bogs, marshes, very wet U) Carex aquatilis water sedge E Camden soil, ponds, lakes, marshy meadows, (D and other wetland-type sites.(9)
| |
| CD 3
| |
| C. bushii BDry Bush's sedge to mesic grasslands, and forest Cr -E Camden margins. (3) q
| |
| | |
| C',
| |
| CD CD 3 Status 0 Scientific Name Common Name State(a),(b) County"' Habitat')
| |
| Federal(') Statelai)Cutl)Hbttd C.limosa E Gloucester Fens, sphagnum bogs, wet meadows, and shorelines.(3) mud sedge Dry, sandy, open areas of scrub, C. polymorpha variable sedge E Gloucester forests, swampy woods, and along banks and marsh edge.(8)
| |
| High ridges and slopes within mixed Castanea pumila chinquapin E Gloucester, Salem hardwood5 forests, dry pinelands, and ROWs.( )
| |
| Rich, moist wooded areas in the Cerciscanadensis redbud E Camden forest understory, streambanks, and abandoned farmlands.(5)
| |
| Chenopodium rubrum red goosefoot E Camden Moist, often Atlantic salty soils along the coast.(1)
| |
| Riverbanks, floodplains, and other Cyperus lancastriensis Lancaster flat sedge E Camden, Gloucester disturbed, sunny or partly sunny places in mesic, or dry-mesic soils.(3)
| |
| Along shores, in ditches, and swales C.polystachyos coast flat sedge - E Salem between dunes.(3 z Open mesic forests, stream edges, C: C. pseudovegetus marsh flat sedge E Salem swamps, moist sandy areas, and X bottomland prairies.(11)
| |
| Wet meadows in wet soils, and pond Diodia virginiana larger buttonweed E Camden margins.( 11) 0
| |
| :-4 CL (D
| |
| m Eleocharis me/anocarpa black-fruit spike-rush - E Salem Fresh, oligotrophic, often drying, sandy shores, ponds, and ditches.(') =3 (D 0 (D
| |
| | |
| CD z Status OD Scientific Name Common Name State(a),(b) County(c) Habitat(d) m 5.
| |
| . equisetoides kr *Fresh lakes, ponds, marshes, 3 E.equ sknotted spike-rush E Gloucester streams, and cypress swamps.( ) :3 CD i,4 Bogs, ditches, seeps, and other CD E. tortilis twisted spike-rush - E Gloucester freshwater, acidic places. (3) 3 CD Eriophorum tenellum rough cotton-grass - E Camden, Gloucester Bogs and other wet, peaty substrates.(3)B C,'
| |
| Coastal meadows, fallow fields, Eupatorium capillifolium dog fennel E Camden flatwoods, marshes, and disturbed thoroughwort sites.(15 )
| |
| Tidal marshes, wetlands, open swamps, wet ditches, sandy acidic E. resinosum pine barren boneset E Camden, Gloucester soils of grass-sedge bogs, pocosin-savannah ecotones, 17beaver ponds,
| |
| )
| |
| and shrub swamps.(
| |
| eDarlington's glade Rich, cool woods along seeps, Euphorbia purpurea sargt - E Salem streams, or swamps.(17)
| |
| Glycena grandis American manna grass - E Camden Grassy areas.(6) small-flower halfchaff Emergent shorelines, but rarely Hemicarpha micrantha sedge - E Camden freshwater tidal shores.(3)
| |
| Quiet, shallow water of pools, Hottonia inflata featherfoil - E Salem streams, ditches, and occasionally in wet soil.(2°)
| |
| ci)
| |
| CD Mesic, deciduous forests, often on Hydrasfis canadensis golden seal - E Camden clayey soil.(3 )
| |
| CD 3
| |
| 0 0
| |
| C?
| |
| | |
| Status Scientific Name Common Name Federal(a) State(a),(b) County(') Habitat(d)
| |
| Hydrocotyle ranunculoides floating marsh- E Salem Ponds, marshes, and wet ground.(19) pennywort Hypericum adpressum Barton's St. John's-wort E Salem Pond shore.m Mixed deciduous forests in second-or third-growth successional stages, coniferous forests; typically light to Isotria meleoloides small-whorled pogonia T moderate leaf litter, open herb layer, moderate to light shrub layer, and relatively open canopy; flats or slope bases near canopy breaks.(3)
| |
| Borders of wet woods, wet springy Juncus caesariensis New Jersey rush E Camden bogs, and swamps.( 3 )
| |
| Edge of sloughs, wet sandy shores; along slightly alkaline watercourses; J. torreyi Torrey's rush E Camden swamps; sometimes on clay soils, alkaline soils, and calcareous wet meadows.(3)
| |
| Limestone edges of bluffs, rocky Kuhnia eupatorioides false boneset E Camden wooded slopes, and rocky limestone talus.(11)
| |
| Mesotrophic to eutrophic, quiet 3 Lemna perpusilla minute duckweed - E Camden, Salem waters with relatively mild winters.( )
| |
| 18 Limosella subulata awl-leaf mudwort E Camden Freshwater marshes.0 )
| |
| 0 Open, dry, sandplain grasslands or (D Linum intercursum sandplain flax E Camden, Salem moors; sand barrens; mown fields; CL and swaths under powerlines, usually mn in small colonies.(23)
| |
| CD
| |
| | |
| (DI Status 0 Scientific Name Common Name Federal(a) State(a),(b) County(') Habitat(d) C.
| |
| m Luzula acuminate hairy wood-rush E Gloucester, Salem Grassy areas.(6) 0 Fens, bottomland prairies; mesic (3 Melanthium virginicum Virginia bunchflower E Camden, Gloucester, upland forests; mesic upland prairies; Salem along streams, roadsides, and railroads.('1)
| |
| Sandy, pine openings- dry praires; Muhlenbergia capillaries long-awn smoke grass - E Gloucester and exposed ledges.()
| |
| 1 Myriophyllum tenellum slender water-milfoil - E Camden Sandy soil, water to 5 ft deep.( 3)
| |
| Floodplain marsh; associated with M. pinnatum cut-leaf water-milfoil - E Salem Asclepias perrenis, Salix 1 caroliniana, and Ludwigia repens.( 6)
| |
| Mostly floodplains of major rivers in Nelumbo lutea American lotus - E Camden, Salem ponds, lakes, pools in swamps and marshes, and backwaters of reservoirs.(3) 10 Onosmodium virginianum Virginia false-gromwell - E Camden, Gloucester, Sandy soil, and dry open woods.( )
| |
| Salem Rich wooded slopes, shaded Ophioglossum vulgatum southern adder's E Salem secondary woods, forested pycnostichum tongue bottomlands, and floodplain woods, south of Wisconsin glaciations. (3)
| |
| Penstemon laevigatus smooth beardtongue - E Gloucester Rich woods and fields. (6)
| |
| Floodplain forests; white cedar, Platantheraflava flava southern rein orchid - E Camden hardwood, and cypress swamps; riparian (3P thickets; and wet meadows.
| |
| Moist, woods.stream Polemonium reptans Greek-valerian banks; and deciduous
| |
| -E Salem (6)
| |
| | |
| Status Scientific Name CommonName Federal(a) State(a),(b) County(c) Habitat(d)
| |
| Prunus angustifolia Woodland edges, forest openings, chickasaw plum E Camden, Gloucester, open woodlands, savannahs, prairies, Salem plains, meadows, pastures, roadsides, and fence rows. (6)
| |
| Dry south or west facing slopes on Pycnanthemum basil mountain mint E Camden rocky soils; open oak-hickory forests, clinopodioides woodlands, or savannas with exposed bedrock. (11)
| |
| Open, dry, including red cedar P. torrei Torrey's mountain mint E Gloucester barrens, rocky summits, roadsides and trails, and dry upland woods.(8)
| |
| Rich bottomlands, and dry to moist Quercus imbricaria Quercusuplands.
| |
| shingle oak E Gloucester ulns (6) 6 Lowlands, bottoms, wet forests, Q. lyrata overcup oak E Salem streamside forests and periodically inundated areas. (ý)
| |
| Rhododendron at/antficum dwarf azalea -E Salem Moist, flat, pine woods, and savannas.
| |
| coarse grass-like Camden, Gloucester, Sandy and rocky stream banks, sink-Rhynchospora globularis bae-uh-E Slmhole ponds, upland prairies, open beaked-rush Salem rocky, and sandy areas. (11)
| |
| Knieskem's beaked- Moist to wet pine barrens, borrow R. knieskerni rush T E Camden pits, and sand pits.(3)
| |
| Swamps of acid waters and sandy Sagittariateres slender arrowhead E Camden pool shores, and mostly along Atlantic Coastal Plain.
| |
| (.
| |
| 0.
| |
| CL m
| |
| 0
| |
| =3
| |
| | |
| z Status CD Scientific Name Common Name 1 County(') Habitat(') Q_
| |
| Federal a) Statela),(b) ony' Hbttd m
| |
| Acidic, sandy or peaty soils in open
| |
| -0 flatwoods, streamhead pocosins, pitch pine lowland forests, longleaf 2_
| |
| CD CD Schwalbea americana chaffseed E E Camden pine/oak sandhills, seepage bogs, (D) palustrine pine savannahs, ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands, and xeric sandy soils.07)
| |
| CDn Scirpus Iongii Long's woolgrass E Camden Marshes. (3)
| |
| Scutellaria leonardii small skullcap E Salem Fields, meadows, and prairies. (6)
| |
| Primarily on coastal plain marshes, swamps, dry to damp roadsides, Spirantheslaciniata lace-lip ladies' tresses E Gloucester meadows, ditches, fields, cemeteries, lawns; and occasionally in standing water. (3)
| |
| Buttonbush swamps, swamp woods, Triadenum walteri Walter's St. John's wort E Camden thickets, and streambanks.(21) 13 Utriculariabiflora two-flower bladderwort E Gloucester, Salem Shores and shallows.( )
| |
| Pastures, prairies, valleys, creek Valerianellaradiata beaked comsalad E Gloucester beds, wet meadows, roadsides, glades, and railroads. (11) 6 Verbena simplex narrow-leaf vervain E Camden, Gloucester Fields, meadows, and prairies.( )
| |
| Dry fields clearings, and upland Vemonia glauca broad-leaf ironweed E Gloucester, Salem forests.y f c n 6
| |
| Vulpia elliotea squirrel-tail six-weeks E Camden, Gloucester, Grass-like, or grassy habitats.( )
| |
| grass Salem Quiet waters in warm-temperature Wolffiella floridana sword bogmat E Salem regions with relatively mild winters, CO and mesotrophic.(3)
| |
| CD CD Low pine savanna, bogs, seeps, 3 Xyris fimbriarta fringed yellow-eyed E Camden peats and mucks of pond shallows,
| |
| : a. grass and sluggish shallow streams.(3)
| |
| C?
| |
| C)
| |
| | |
| ch CD (D
| |
| Status 3 Scientific Name Common Name State(a),(b County") Habitat(')
| |
| Federal(') StatetaiICutl)Hbttd Aeschynomene virginica sensitive joint vetch T E Camden, Gloucester, Fresh to slightly salty (brackish) tidal C?
| |
| Salem marshes.(2)
| |
| Aplectrum hyemale Moist, deciduous upland to swampy putty root -E Gloucester forests.(3)
| |
| Dry fields, uplands, pink-oak woods, Aristida lanosa wooly three-awn grass -E Camden, Salem primarily in sandy soil.(4)
| |
| C)
| |
| Shady, open-woods areas in wet, Asimina triloba pawpaw - E Gloucester fertile bottomlands, or upland areas on rich soils.(5)
| |
| AsECamden, Glouester, Wet meadows, open boggy woods, Asterradula low rough aster E Cand Salem wet along sprucethe
| |
| - edges; or forests.(6) openings in or tamarack (0 Rocky, open slopes, woodlands, and W-.
| |
| Bouteloua curtipendula side oats grama grass - E Gloucester forest openings up to an elevation of approximately 7000 ft.(5)
| |
| Cacalia atriplicifolia pale Indian plantain - E Camden, Gloucester Dry open woods, thickets, and rocky openings.t 6 )
| |
| Dry, open, sandy to rocky sites such Calystegia spithamaea erect bindweed - E Camden, Salem as pitch pine/scrub oak barrens, sandy roadsides, riverbanks, and ROWs.()
| |
| 0 Swamps, bogs, marshes, very wet Carex aquatilis water sedge - E Camden soil, ponds, lakes, marshy meadows, z and other wetland-type sites.(9)
| |
| M Dry to mesic grasslands, and forest C. bushii Bush's sedge - E Camden margins. (3)
| |
| C. fimosa mud sedge - E Gloucester Fens, sphagnum bogs, wet 3>
| |
| meadows, and shorelines. (3)
| |
| (D 0.
| |
| Dry, sandy, open areas of scrub, C. polymorpha variable sedge - E Gloucester forests, swampy woods, and along banks and marsh edge.(8)
| |
| (D CD L,
| |
| | |
| 0 CD z
| |
| M Status C.
| |
| Scientific Name Common Name Federal() State(a),(b) County`c0 Habitat(d)
| |
| G)
| |
| High ridges and slopes within mixed U~) Castaneapumila chinquapin E Gloucester, Salem hardwood forests, dry pinelands, and CD ROWs.(s) :3 Rich, moist wooded areas in the 3CD Cercis canadensis redbud E Camden forest understory, streambanks, 15 and CD abandoned farmlands. )
| |
| Ln Chenopodium rubrum Moist, often salty soils along the red goosefoot E Camden Atlantic coast.(1)
| |
| Riverbanks, floodplains, and other Cyperus lancastriensis Lancaster flat sedge E Camden, Gloucester disturbed, sunny or partly sunny 1 31 places in mesic, or dry-mesic soils.
| |
| Along shores, in ditches, and swales C. polystachyos coast flat sedge E Salem between dunes.(3)
| |
| Open mesic forests, stream edges, C. pseudovegetus marsh flat sedge E Salem swamps, moist sandy 1 areas, and bottomland prairies. Y)
| |
| Wet meadows 11 in wet soils, and pond
| |
| - Diodia virginiana larger buttonweed E Camden margins.( )
| |
| Fresh, oligotrophic, often drying, Eleocharismelanocarpa black-fruit spike-rush E Salem sandy shores, ponds, and ditches.(3) 1 C,)
| |
| (D
| |
| -E5 CD 3
| |
| 0
| |
| | |
| Co CD 3 CL Species with a State listing status of E, T, or SC are not included in this table ifthey have a State Element Rank of S3 (rare), S4 (apparently secure), or SH CD (occurred historically, but no extant occurrences known).
| |
| C)j (b) E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate; - = Not Listed. Source of listing status: FWS 2009b, NJDEP 2008c, and DNREC 2009. 0.
| |
| (c) State status shown is for the counties shown. All are for New Jersey except where a Delaware status (DE:) is shown for New Castle County.
| |
| New Jersey: State status for birds separated by a slash (/) indicates a dual status. First-status refers to the breeding population in the state, and the second CD status refers to the migratory or winter population in the state. S = Stable species (a species whose population is not undergoing any long-term increase/decrease within its natural cycle); U = Undetermined (a species about which there is not enough information available to determine the status). SC
| |
| = Species Concern (a species showing evidence of decline, may become threatened) (NJDEP 2008c).
| |
| Delaware: Delaware does not maintain T&E species lists by county. Upon request, Delaware provided PSEG the locations of species of greatest conservation need that occur within 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of the transmission corridor in New Castle County (DNREC 2009). State Rank S1- extremely rare in the state (typically 5 or fewer occurrences); S2- very rare within the state (6 to 20 occurrences); S3-rare to uncommon in Delaware; B - Breeding; N -
| |
| Nonbreeding (DNREC 2009).
| |
| (d) Camden, Gloucester, and Salem Counties are in New Jersey; New Castle County is in Delaware. Source of county occurrence data: FWS 2009c, NJDEP 2008b, and DNREC 2009.
| |
| (e) Habitat Information Sources:
| |
| (1) NJDEP, 2004b (15) Alabamaplants.com, 2010 (2) FWS, 2008a (16) NatureServe, 2009 (3) eFloras.org, 2003 (17) CPC, 2010a (4) Utah State University, 2010 (18) Calflora, 2010 (5) USDA, 2006 (19) University of Washington Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture, 2006 (6) University of Texas at Austin, 2010 (20) Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1983; Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1994 (7) New England Wild Flower Society, 2003 (21) Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program, 2007 (8) NYNHP, 2010 (22) Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and WIdlife, 2009 (9) USDA, 2010 (23) Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2008 (10) neartica.com, 2010 (24) USDA, 1999 (11) Missouriplants.com, 2010 (25) University of Georgia, 2010 z
| |
| C (12) Michigan Natural Features Inventory, 2010 (26) South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, 2010 m (13) University of Wisconsin, 2010 (27) Hilty, 2010
| |
| : 1. (14) Missorui Botanical Gardens, 2010 (28) Wernert, 1998 CD 3
| |
| CD cn
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment Affected Environment 1 The bald eagle (Haliaeetusleucocephalus),which occurs in the vicinity of the site, was 2 Federally delisted in 2007. However, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the 3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act continue to provide Federal protection for the bald eagle from a wide 4 range of activities, including those that may disturb eagles sufficiently to cause injury, decreased 5 productivity, or nest abandonment (FWS, 2009e).
| |
| 6 Bo-q Turtle 7 The bog turtle (now also referred to as Glyptemys muhlenbergih) has two discontinuous 8 populations. The northern population, which occurs in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, 9 Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, was federally listed as threatened in 10 1997 under the ESA (16 USC 1531 etseq.). The southern population was listed as threatened 11 due to its similarity of appearance to the northern population. The bog turtle was federally listed 12 due to declines in abundance caused by loss, fragmentation, and degradation of early 13 successional wet-meadow habitat, and by collection for the wildlife trade (FWS, 2001b). The 14 northern population was listed as endangered by the state of New Jersey in 1974 (NJDFW, 15 2010b). In New Jersey, bog turtles are mainly restricted to rural areas of the state, including 16 Salem, Sussex, Warren, and Hunterdon Counties, and as of 2003 were found in over 200 17 individual wetlands (NJDFW, 2010c).
| |
| 18 The bog turtle is one of the smallest turtles in North America. Its upper shell is 3 to 4 inches 19 (7.6 to 10.2 cm) long and light brown to black in color, and each side of its black head has a.
| |
| 20 distinctive patch of color that is red, orange, or yellow. Its life span is generally 20 to 30 years.
| |
| 21 In New Jersey, the bog turtle usually is active from April through October and hibernates the 22 remainder of the year, often within the ground water-washed root systems of woody plants 23 (FWS, 2004; NJDFW, 2010c). Hibernation usually occurs in densely vegetated areas near the 24 edges of wooded swamps. Hatchlings usually emerge from the clutches of one to five eggs in 25 September (FWS 2001b).
| |
| 26 The bog turtle is diurnal and semi-aquatic, foraging on land and in water for a diet of plants 27 (seeds, berries, duckweed), animals (slugs, snails, and insects), and carrion (FWS, 2001b; 28 FWS, 2004; NJDFW, 2004). Northern bog turtles primarily inhabit wetlands fed by groundwater 29 or associated with the headwaters of streams and dominated by emergent vegetation. These 30 habitats typically include wet meadows with open canopies and shallow, cool water that flows 31 slowly (FWS, 2001b). Bog turtle habitats in New Jersey typically are characterized by native 32 communities of low-lying grasses, sedges, mosses, and rushes; however, many of these areas 33 are in need of restoration and management due to the encroachment of woody species and 34 invasive species such as common reed, cattail, and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium 35 vimineum) (NJDFW, 2010d). Livestock grazing maintains the early successional stage 36 vegetation favorable for bog turtles (NJDFW, 2010b). Areas of potential habitat for the bog 37 turtle occur along the New Freedom North and New Freedom South transmission line ROWs 38 (FWS, 2009a).
| |
| 39 Swamp Pink 40 Swamp pink historically occurred between New York State and the southern Appalachian 41 Mountains of Georgia. It currently is found in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, 42 Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia, but the largest concentrations are Draft NUREG-1437. Supplement 45 2-96 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 found in New Jersey (CPC, 2010b). Swamp pink was federally listed as a threatened species in 2 1988 due to population declines and threats to its habitat (FWS, 1991). It also was listed as 3 endangered by the State of New Jersey in 1991 and currently is also designated as endangered 4 in Delaware and six other states (CPC, 2010b). New Jersey contains 70 percent of the known 5 populations of swamp pink, most of which are on private lands. Swamp pink continues to be 6 threatened by direct loss of habitat to development, and by development adjacent to 7 populations, which can interfere with hydrology and reduce water quality (FWS, 201 Oc).
| |
| 8 Swamp pink, a member of the lily family, has smooth evergreen leaves. It flowers in April and 9 May. The flower stem is 1 to 3 ft (30 to 91 cm) tall with small leaves, and pink flowers are 10 clustered (30 to 50 flowers) at the top of the stalk (FWS, 201 Oc). Fruits are trilobed, heart-11 shaped, and contain many seeds (Center for Plant Conservation, 2010; FWS, 1991). Swamp 12 pink is not very successful at dispersing through seeds; rhizomes are the main source of new 13 plants (FWS, 1991). Swamp pink has a highly clumped distribution where it occurs.
| |
| 14 Populations can vary from a few individuals to several thousand plants and could be considered 15 colonies due to the the rhizomes connecting the plants (FWS, 1991).
| |
| 16 Swamp pink is a wetland plant that usually grows on hummocks in soil that is saturated but not 17 persistently flooded. It is thought to be limited to shady areas. Specific habitats include Atlantic 18 white-cedar (Chamaecypa tisthyoides) swamps, swampy forested wetlands that border small 19 streams, meadows, and spring seepage areas. It is most commonly found with other wetland 20 plants such as red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), sweetbay 21 magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.), cinnamon fern (Osmunda 22 cinnamomea), and skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus) (FWS, 2010c; CPC, 2010).
| |
| 23 As of 1991, when a recovery plan for swamp pink was completed, New Jersey supported over 24 half the known populations of the species, with 71 confirmed occurrences mostly on the coastal 25 plain in pinelands fringe areas in the Delaware River drainage (FWS, 1991). In Delaware, 15 26 sites were confirmed in the coastal plain province in the counties of New Castle, Kent, and 27 Sussex (FWS, 1991). In Delaware, one occurrence of swamp pink currently is recognized in 28 New Castle County. Delaware does not have regulations specifically for protection of rare plant 29 species (FWS, 2008b). As of 2008 in New Jersey, Salem County had 20 confirmed 30 occurrences of swamp pink, Gloucester County had 13, and Camden County had 28 (FWS, 31 2008b). According to FWS (2009c), known occurrences of swamp pink as well as other areas 32 of potential habitat occur along the New Freedom North and New Freedom South transmission 33 line ROWs.
| |
| 34 2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors 35 This section describes current socioeconomic factors that have the potential to be directly or 36 indirectly affected by changes in operations at Salem and HCGS. Salem, HCGS, and the 37 communities that support them can be described as dynamic socioeconomic systems. The 38 communities provide the people, goods, and services required to operate Salem and HCGS.
| |
| 39 Salem and HCGS operations, in turn, create the demand and pay for the people, goods, and 40 services in the form of wages, salaries, and benefits for jobs and dollar expenditures for goods 41 and services. The measure of the communities' ability to support the demands of Salem and 42 HCGS depends on their ability to respond to changing environmental, social, economic, and 43 demographic conditions.
| |
| September 2010 2-97 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| 1 The socioeconomic region of influence (ROI) for Salem is defined as the areas in which Salem 2 employees and their families reside, spend their income, and use their benefits, thereby 3 affecting the economic conditions of the region. The Salem ROI consists of a four-county region 4 where approximately 85 percent of Salem employees reside: Salem, Gloucester, and 5 Cumberland counties in New Jersey and New Castle County in Delaware. The ROI for HCGS 6 is defined as the areas in which HCGS employees and their families reside. The HCGS ROI 7 consists of the same four-county region, where 82 percent of HCGS employees reside. Salem 8 and HCGS staff include shared corporate and matrixed employees, 79 percent of whom reside 9 in the four-county region. The following sections describe the housing, public services, offsite 10 land use, visual aesthetics and noise, population demography, and the economy in the ROI for 11 Salem and HCGS.
| |
| 12 Salem employs a permanent workforce of approximately 644 employees and the HCGS 13 permanent workforce includes approximately 521 employees (PSEG, 2010d). Salem and HCGS 14 share an additional 340 PSEG corporate and 109 matrixed employees. Approximately 15 85 percent of the Salem workforce, 82 percent of the HCGS workforce, and 79 percent of the 16 PSEG corporate and matrixed employees live in Salem, Gloucester, and Cumberland counties 17 in New Jersey and New Castle County in Delaware (Table 2-10). The remaining 15 percent of 18 the Salem workforce are divided among 14 counties in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and 19 Maryland, as well as one county in Georgia, with numbers ranging from 1 to 42 employees per 20 county. The remaining 18 percent of the HCGS workforce are divided among 16 counties in 21 New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, as well as one county in each of three States 22 (Delaware, New York, and Washington), with numbers ranging from 1 to 38 employees per 23 county. The remaining 21 percent of the corporate and matrixed employees reside in 13 24 counties in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, as well as one county in Delaware, one 25 county in North Carolina, and the District of Columbia. Given the residential locations of Salem 26 and HCGS employees, the most significant impacts of plant operations are likely to occur in 27 Salem, Gloucester, and Cumberland counties in New Jersey and New Castle County in 28 Delaware. Therefore, the socioeconomic impact analysis in this draft SEIS focuses on the 29 impacts of Salem and HCGS on these four counties.
| |
| 30 Table 2-10. Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station 31 Employee Residence by County Number of Number of Number Total Percent of County Salem HCGS Corporate Matrixedand Number of Total Employees Employees Employees Employees Workforce Salem, NJ 253 198 189 640 39.7 Gloucester, NJ 100 74 68 242 15.0 Cumberland, NJ 73 51 35 159 9.8 New Castle, DE 123 106 64 293 18.2 Other 95 92 93 280 17.3 Total 644 521 449 1,614 100 Source: PSEG, 2010d Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 2-98 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Refueling outages at Salem and HCGS generally occur at 18-month intervals for both stations.
| |
| 2 During refueling outages, site employment increases by as many as 600 workers at each station 3 for approximately 23 days (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Most of these workers are assumed 4 to be located in the same geographic areas as the permanent Salem and HCGS Staff.
| |
| 5 2.2.8.1 Housing 6 Table 2-11 lists the total number of occupied and vacant housing units, vacancy rates, and 7 median value in the four-county ROI. According to the 2000 census, there were nearly 373,600 8 housing units in the ROI, of which approximately 353,000 were occupied. The median value of 9 owner-occupied units ranged from $91,200 in Cumberland County to $136,000 in New Castle 10 County. The vacancy rate was highest in Salem County (7.1 percent) and Cumberland County 11 (7.0 percent) and lower in New Castle County (5.3 percent) and Gloucester County 12 (4.6 percent).
| |
| 13 By 2008, the total number of housing units within the four-county ROI had grown by 14 approximately 28,000 units to 401,673 housing units, while the total number of occupied units 15 grew by 17,832 units to 370,922. The median house value increased approximately $101,600 16 between the 2000 census and the 3-year estimation period (2006 through 2008). As a result, 17 the vacancy rate increased from 6 percent to 8 percent of total housing units.
| |
| 18 Table 2-11. Housing in Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem Counties, New Jersey, and 19 New Castle County, Delaware Cumberland Gloucester Salem New Castle ROI 2000 Total Housing Units 52,863 95,054 26,158 199,521 373,596 Occupied housing units 49,143 90,717 24,295 188,935 353,090 Vacant units 3,720 4,337 1,863 10,586 20,506 Vacancy rate (percent) 7 4.6 7.1 5.3 5.5 Median value (dollars) 91,200 120,100 105,200 136,000 113,125 20081" Total Housing Units 55,261 106,641 27,463 212,308 401,673 Occupied housing units 50,648 100,743 24,939 194,592 370,922 Vacant units 4,613 5,898 2,524 17,716 30,751 Vacancy rate (percent) 8.3 5.5 9.2 8.3 7.7 Median value (dollars) 171,600 238,200 197,100 252,000 214,725 (a) Housing values for the 2008 estimates are based on 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau.
| |
| Source: USCB, 2010c.
| |
| 20 2.2.8.2 Public Services 21 This section presents a discussion of public services, including water, education, and 22 transportation.
| |
| September 2010 2-99 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| 1 Water Supply 2 Information for the major municipal water suppliers inthe three New Jersey counties, including 3 firm capacity and peak demand, is presented in Table 2-12. Population served and water source 4 for each system is also provided. The primary source of potable water in Cumberland County is 5 groundwater withdrawn from the Cohansey-Maurice watershed. In Gloucester County, the water 6 is primarily groundwater obtained from the Lower Delaware watershed. The major suppliers in 7 Salem County obtain their drinking water supply from surface water or groundwater from the 8 Delaware Bay watershed.
| |
| 9 Information for the major municipal water suppliers in New Castle County, DE, is provided in 10 Table 2-13, including maximum capacity and average daily production, as well as population 11 served and water source for each system. The majority of the potable water supply is surface 12 water withdrawn from the Brandywine-Christina watershed.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 2-100 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Table 2-12. Major Public Water Supply Systems in Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem 2 Counties, New Jersey Water System Population Primary Water Dai PDemandal Total Capacity Served Source DMGD) (MGD)
| |
| Cumberland County City of Bridgeton 22,770 GW 4.05 3.35 City of Millville 27,500 GW 5.71 7.83 City of Vineland 33,000 GW 15.26 16.49 Gloucester County Borough of Clayton 7,155 GW 1.09 1.22 Deptford Township 26,000 (Purchased) 4.79 8.80 Borough of Glassboro 19,238 GW 4.29 6.31 Mantua Township 11,713 se 2.19 2.74 (Purchased)
| |
| Monroe Township 26,145 GW 6.22 7.15 Borough of Paulsboro 6,200 GW 1.25 1.80 Borough of Pitman 9,445 GW 0.96 1.59 Washington Township 48,000 GW 8.25 12.92 West Deptford Township 20,000 GW 4.26 7.03 Borough of Westville 6,000 GW 0.70 1.73 City of Woodbury 11,000 SW 1.76 4.32 (Purchased)
| |
| Salem County Pennsville Township 13,500 GW 1.63 1.87 City of Salem 6,199 SW 1.66 4.27 MGD = million gallons per day; GW = groundwater; SW = surface water (a) Current peak yearly demand plus committed peak yearly demand.
| |
| Sources: EPA, 2010f (population served and primary water source); NJDEP, 2009d (peak annual demand and available capacity) 3 4
| |
| September 2010 2-101 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| 1 Table 2-13. Major Public Water Supply Systems in New Castle County, Delaware Population Primary SourceWater Average Pdun Daily Maximum oServed Capacity (MGD) wate Sytem ervd Sorce(MGD)
| |
| City of Middletown 16,000 GW NA NA City of New Castle 6,000 GW 0.5 1.3 City of Newark 36,130 SW 4 6 City of Wilmington 140,000 SW 29 61 GW = groundwater; SW = surface water; NA = not available Sources: EPA, 2010f (population served and primary water source); PSEG, 2009a and PSEG, 2009b (reported production and maximum capacity) 2 Education 3 Salem and HCGS are located in Lower Alloways Creek School District, which had an enrollment 4 of approximately 223 students in pre-Kindergarten through 8th grade for the 2008-2009 school 5 year. Salem County has 15 public school districts, with a total enrollment of 12,012 students.
| |
| 6 Cumberland County has a total of 15 school districts with 26,739 students enrolled in public 7 schools in the county in 2008-2009. Gloucester County has 28 public school districts with a 8 total 2008-2009 enrollment of 49,782 students (NJDOE, 2010). There are five public school 9 districts in New Castle County, DE; total enrollment in the 2009-2010 school year is 10 66,679 students (DDE, 2010).
| |
| 11 Transportation 12 Figures 2.1-1 and 2.1-2 show the Salem and HCGS location and highways within a 50-mi (80 13 km) radius and a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the facilities. At the larger regional scale, the major 14 highways serving Salem and HCGS are Interstate 295 and the New Jersey Turnpike, located 15 approximately 15 mi (24 km) north of the facilities. Interstate 295 crosses the Delaware River via 16 the Delaware Memorial Bridge, providing access to Delaware and, via Interstate 95, to 17 Pennsylvania.
| |
| 18 Local road access to Salem and HCGS is from the northeast via Alloway Creek Neck Road, a 19 two-lane road which leads directly to the facility access road. Alloway Creek Neck Road 20 intersects County Route (CR) 658 approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) northeast of Salem and HCGS.
| |
| 21 CR 658 leads northward to the City of Salem, where it intersects New Jersey State Route 49, 22 which is the major north-south route through western Salem County and connects local traffic to 23 the Delaware Memorial Bridge to the north. Approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) east of its intersection 24 with Alloway Creek Neck Road, CR 658 intersects with CR 623 (a north-south road) and CR 25 667 (an east-west road). Employees who live to the north, northeast, and northwest of Salem 26 and HCGS, as well as those from Delaware and Pennsylvania, could travel south on State 27 Route 49, connecting to CR 658 and from there to Alloway Creek Neck Road to reach the 28 facilities. Employees from the south could travel north on CR 623, connecting to Alloway Creek 29 Neck Road via CR 658. Employees living farther south or to the southeast could use State 30 Route 49, connecting to Alloway Creek Neck Road via CR 667, and CR 658 or CR 623 (PSEG, 31 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 32 Traffic volumes in Salem County are highest on roadways in the northern and eastern parts of 33 the county, where all of the annual average daily traffic counts greater than 10,000 were Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-102 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 measured. The highest annual average daily traffic count in the county is 27,301 on Interstate 2 295 in the northeastern corner of the county. In western Salem County, in the vicinity of Salem 3 and HCGS, annual average daily traffic counts range from 236 to 1,052, while within the City of 4 Salem they range from 4,218 to 9,003. At the traffic count location closest to Salem and HCGS, 5 located on CR 623, the annual average daily traffic count is 895 (NJDOT, 2009). Level of 6 service data, which describe operational conditions on a roadway and their perception by 7 motorists, are not collected by the State of New Jersey (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 8 2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use 9 This section describes offsite land use in the four-county ROI, including Salem, Gloucester, and 10 Cumberland counties in New Jersey and New Castle County in Delaware, which is where the 11 majority of Salem and HCGS employees reside. Salem and HCGS are located in western 12 Salem County adjacent to the Delaware River, which is the border between New Jersey and 13 Delaware.
| |
| 14 Salem County, New Jersey 15 Salem County is rural in nature, consisting of more than 338 square miles (mi 2; 875 square 16 kilometers [km 2]) of land with an estimated 66,141 residents, a 2.9 percent increase since 2000 17 (USCB, 2010c). Only 13 percent of the land area in the county is considered urban (in 18 residential, commercial, or industrial use), with development concentrated in western Salem 19 County along the Delaware River. The remaining 87 percent of the county is dedicated farmland 20 under active cultivation (42 percent) or undeveloped natural areas, primarily tidal and freshwater 21 wetlands (30 percent) and forests (12 percent) (Morris Land Conservancy, 2008). There are 199 22 farms for a total of 26,191 ac (10,600 ha), or 12 percent of the county, which have been 23 preserved in Salem County under the New Jersey Farmland Preservation Program (SADC, 24 2009).
| |
| 25 Two municipalities within Salem County, Lower Alloways Creek Township and the City of 26 Salem, receive annual real estate tax payments from Salem and from HCGS. Over half of the 27 land area in Lower Alloways Creek Township is wetlands (65 percent), 15 percent is used for 28 agriculture, and 8 percent is urban. The City of Salem is largely urban (49 percent), with 29 24 percent of its area wetlands and 12 percent in agricultural use (Morris Land Conservancy, 30 2006).
| |
| 31 Land use within Salem County is guided by the Smart Growth Plan (Rukenstein & Associates, 32 2004), which has the goal of concentrating development within a corridor along the Delaware 33 River and Interstate 295/New Jersey Turnpike in the northwestern part of the county and 34 encouraging agriculture and the preservation of open space in the central and eastern parts of 35 the county. Land development is regulated by the municipalities within Salem County through 36 the use of zoning and other ordinances.
| |
| 37 Lower Alloways Creek Township has a master plan to guide development, which includes a 38 land use plan (LACT, 1992). The plan encourages development in those areas of the township 39 most capable of providing necessary services, continuation of agricultural use, and restriction on 40 development in the conservation district (primarily wetlands). The land use plan includes an 41 industrial district adjacent to Artificial Island. The master plan was updated in the 2005 Master September 2010 2-103 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| I Plan Reexamination Report (Alaimo Group, 2005), which looked at key issues and reaffirmed 2 the importance of preserving farmland, open space, and environmental resources.
| |
| 3 Cumberland County, New Jersey 4 Cumberland County, which is located to the south and east of Salem County, occupies about 5 489 mi2 (1,300 km 2) of land along the Delaware Bay at the south end of New Jersey. In 2008, 6 the county had an estimated population of 156,830 residents, which is a 7.1 percent increase 7 since 2000 (USCB, 2010c). Over 60 percent of the land area in the county is forest (32 percent) 8 or wetlands (30 percent). Approximately 19 percent is occupied by agriculture, mostly 9 concentrated in the northwestern part of the county near Salem County. Only 12 percent of 10 Cumberland County is considered urban (DVRPC, 2009). Under the New Jersey Farmland 11 Preservation Program, 117 farms, including a total of 14,569 ac (5,900 ha) of farmland, have 12 been preserved in Cumberland County (SADC, 2009).
| |
| 13 Cumberland County has assembled a series of planning initiatives that together provide a 14 strategic plan for the future of the county (Ortho-Rodgers, 2002). A recently completed 15 FarmlandPreservationPlan for the county seeks to maintain its productive farmland in active 16 use. The Western/Southem CumberlandRegion Strategic Plan (issued as a draft in 2005) 17 identifies 32 existing community centers in the county for concentration of future residential and 18 commercial growth, and the county Master Plan, prepared in 1967, is in the process of being 19 updated. The municipalities within Cumberland County regulate land development through 20 zoning and other ordinances (DVRPC, 2009).
| |
| 21 Gloucester County, New Jersey 22 'Gloucester County is located northeast of Salem County. Gloucester County has approximately 23 325 mi2 (840 km2) of land and in 2008, had an estimated population of 287,860 residents, which 24 represents a 12.6 percent increase since 2000 (USCB, 2010c). It is the fastest growing county 25 in New Jersey and has the fastest growing municipality (Woolwich Township) on the East Coast 26 (Gloucester County, 2010). Major land uses in the county are urban (26 percent) and agriculture 27 (26 percent), with 30 percent of the county land area vacant and 10 percent wetlands 28 (Gloucester County, 2009). There are 113 farms with a total of 9,527 ac (3,800 ha; 4 percent of 29 the county land area) that have been preserved in Gloucester County under the New Jersey 30 Farmland Preservation Program (SADC, 2009).
| |
| 31 The County Development Management Plan and its various elements provide guidance for land 32 use planning in Gloucester County. It encourages a growth pattern that will concentrate 33 development rather than disperse it, enhancing existing urban areas and preserving natural 34 resources. The Gloucester County NortheastRegion Strategic Plan goals include taking 35 advantage of infill opportunities to avoid sprawl into undeveloped areas and creating compact 36 development that allows preservation of farms and open spaces. Land development is regulated 37 by the municipalities within Gloucester County through zoning and other ordinances 38 (GCPD, 2005).
| |
| 39 New Castle County, Delaware 40 New Castle County, the northernmost county in the State of Delaware, is located east of Salem 41 County across the Delaware River. The county encompasses slightly more than 426 mi 2 (1,100 42 km 2) and has an estimated resident population of 529,641, which is a 5.9 percent increase from 43 2000 to 2008. It is the most populous of the three counties in Delaware (USCB, 2010c). The 44 three major land uses in New Castle County are agriculture (29 percent), residential (28 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-104 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 percent), and forests (15 percent) (New Castle County, 2007). In 2007, the county had a total of 2 347 farms (less than 14 percent of all farms in the State) located on approximately 67,000 ac 3 (27,000 ha) of land. This reflects a decrease of 6 percent in land used for farming compared to 4 2000 (USDA, 2007).
| |
| 5 The New Castle County ComprehensiveDevelopment Plan addresses county policies with 6 regard to zoning, density, and open space preservation. It seeks to concentrate new growth, as 7 well as redevelopment, in established communities in order to preserve limited resources. This 8 is accomplished through the use of a future land use map. The plan proposes policies to 9 encourage development in the northern part of the county with growth in the southern portion 10 more centralized and compact (New Castle County, 2007).
| |
| 11 2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise 12 Salem and HCGS are bordered by the Delaware River to the west and south and by a large 13 expanse of wildlife management areas on the north, east, and southeast. The access road runs 14 east to west along the shoreline of Artificial Island then continues east through the wetlands.
| |
| 15 The immediate area is flat in relief, consisting of open water and large expanses of tidal and 16 freshwater marsh. Across the bay, in Delaware, the shoreline consists of State parks and 17 wildlife areas with low profile marshy habitats and very few structures to interrupt the view.
| |
| 18 Beyond the parks and wetland areas are farmlands and then small to medium sized towns, in 19 both Delaware and New Jersey.
| |
| 20 The main vertical components of the Salem and HCGS building complex are the HCGS natural 21 draft cooling tower (514-ft [157-m] tall), the most prominent feature on Artificial Island, and the 22 three-domed reactor containment buildings (190 to 200-ft [58 to 61-m] tall). The structures are 23 most visible from the Delaware River. Portions of the Salem and HCGS building complex can be 24 seen from many miles away, in particular the cooling tower and the plume it produces. The 25 complex can easily be seen from the marsh areas and the river itself, while in the more 26 populated areas, it is often blocked by trees or houses and can only be seen from certain 27 angles. The structures within the Salem and HCGS building complex are for the most part made 28 of concrete and metal, with exposed non-concrete buildings and equipment painted light, 29 generally neutral colors, such as brown and blue (AEC, 1973; PSEG, 1983). The overhead 30 transmission lines leading away to the north, northeast, and east can also be seen from many 31 directions as they cross over the low profile expanses of the marshes. Farther inland, portions of 32 the transmission lines are visible, especially as they pass over roads and highways.
| |
| 33 Sources of noise at Salem and HCGS include the cooling tower, transformers, turbines, circuit 34 breakers, transmission lines and intermittent industrial noise from activities at the facilities.
| |
| 35 Noise studies were conducted prior to the operation of the Salem generating units. The 36 transformers were each estimated to produce between 82 and 85 adjusted decibels (dBA) at 6 ft 37 (1.8 m) away and the turbines were each estimated to produce 95 dBA at 3 ft (0.9 m) away.
| |
| 38 The combined noise from all sources was estimated at 36 dBA at the site boundary. The noise 39 from the plant at the nearest residence, approximately 3.5 mi (5.6 km) from the Salem and 40 HCGS facilities, was estimated to be approximately 27 dBA. The U. S. Department of housing 41 and urban development (HUD) criterion guidelines for non-aircraft noise define 45 dBA as the 42 maximum noise level for the "clearly acceptable" range. An ambient noise survey, within a 43 radius of 5 mi (8 km), established that most of the existing sound levels were within New September 2010 2-105 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| 1 Jersey's limits for industrial operations, as measured at residential property boundaries (PSEG, 2 1983).
| |
| 3 Given the industrial nature of these two stations, noise emissions are generally nothing more 4 than an intermittent minor nuisance. Noise levels may sometimes exceed the 55 dBA level that 5 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses as a threshold level to protect against 6 excess noise during outdoor activities (EPA, 1974). However, according to the EPA this 7 threshold does "not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation," but was intended to 8 provide a basis for state and local governments establishing noise standards. To date, no noise 9 complaints associated with operations at Salem and HCGS have been reported from 10 neighboring communities.
| |
| 11 2.2.8.5 Demography 12 According to the 2000 census, approximately 501,820 people lived within a 20-mi (32-kmý 13 radius of Salem and HCGS, which equates to a population density of 450 persons per mi . This 14 density translates to a Category 4 (greater than or equal to 120 persons per mi 2 within 20 mi) 15 using the generic environmental impact statement (GELS) measure of sparseness.
| |
| 16 Approximately 5,201,842 people live within 50 mi (80 km) of Salem and HCGS, for a density of 17 771 persons per mi2 (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Applying the GElS proximity measures, this 18 density is classified as Category 4 (greater than or equal to 190 persons per mi 2 within 50 mi 19 [80 km]). Therefore, according to the sparseness and proximity matrix presented in the GElS, a 20 Category 4 value for sparseness and for proximity indicates that Salem and HCGS are located 21 in a high population area.
| |
| 22 Table 2-14 shows population projections and growth rates from 1970 to 2050 in Cumberland, 23 Gloucester, and Salem counties in New Jersey and New Castle County in Delaware. All of the 24 four counties experienced continuous growth during the period 1970 to 2000, except for Salem 25 County, which saw a 1.5 percent decline in population between 1990 and 2000. Gloucester 26 County experienced the greatest rate of growth during this period. Beyond 2000, county 27 populations are expected to continue to grow in the next decades, with Gloucester County 28 projected to experience the highest rate of growth.
| |
| 29 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-106 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Table 2-14. Population and Percent Growth in Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem 2 Counties, New Jersey, and New Castle County, Delaware from 1970 to 2000 and 3 Projected for 2010 to 2030 Cumberland County Gloucester County Salem County New Castle County Year Percent Percent Percent Percent Population Growth(al Population Growth(') Population Growth(') Population Growth(')
| |
| 1970 121,374 - 172,681 - 60,346 --- 385,856 ----
| |
| 1980 132,866 9.5 199,917 15.8 64,676 7.2 398,115 3.2 1990 138,053 3.9 230,082 15.1 65,294 1.0 441,946 11.0 2000 146,438 6.1 254,673 10.7 64,285 -1.5 500,265 13.2 2008 155,388 6.1 284,886 11.9 65,952 2.6 526,414 5.2 2010 157,745 7.7 289,920 13.8 66,342 3.2 535,572 7.1 2 0 2 0(b) 164,617 4.4 307,688 6.1 69,433 4.7 564,944 5.5 2 0 3 0(b) 176,784 7.4 338,672 10.1 74,576 7.4 586,387 3.8 2040(c) 185,421 4.9 360,845 6.5 78,351 5.1 613,116 4.6 2050(c) 194,941 5.1 385,221 6.8 82,468 5.3 638,524 4.1
| |
| - = Not applicable (a) Percent growth rate is calculated over the previous decade.
| |
| (b) The 2020 and 2030 population projections for Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem counties are for 2018 and 2028, respectively.
| |
| (c) Calculated.
| |
| Sources: Population data for 1970 through 1990 (USCB, 1995a; USCB, 1995b); population data for 2000 (USCB, 2000d); Population estimates for 2008 (USCB, 201 Oc); New Jersey counties estimated population for 2009 (USCB, 2010b); New Castle County projected population for 2010 to 2040 (DPC, 2009); New Jersey counties projected population for 2018 and 2028 (CUPR, 2009).
| |
| 4 The 2000 demographic profile of the four-county ROI is included in Table 2-15. Persons 5 self-designated as minority individuals comprise approximately 30 percent of the total 6 population. This minority population is composed largely of Black or African American residents.
| |
| September 2010 2-107 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| 1 Table 2-15. Demographic Profile of the Population in the Salem Nuclear Generating 2 Station and Hope Creek Generating Station Region of Influence in 2000 Cumberland, NJ Gloucester, NJ Salem, NJ New Castle, DE ROI Total Population 146,438 254,673 64,285 500,265 965,661 Race, Not-Hispanic or Latino (percent of total population)
| |
| White 58.4 85.7 79.6 70.7 73.4 Black or African American 19.2 8.9 14.4 19.9 16.5 American Indian and Alaska Native 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 Asian 0.9 1.5 0.6 2.6 1.9 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 Some other race 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Two or more races 1.63 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.2 Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 27,823 6,583 2,498 26,293 63,197 Percent of total population 19.0 2.6 3.9 5.3 6.5 Minority Populations (including Hispanic or Latino ethnicity)
| |
| Total minority population 60,928 36,411 13,114 146,505 256,958 Percent minority 41.6 14.3 20.4 29.3 26.6 Source: USCB, 2000d 3
| |
| 4 According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year 5 Estimates, minority populations were estimated to have increased by approximately 61,000 6 persons and comprised 30.8 percent of the four-county ROI population (see Table 2-16). Most 7 of this increase was due to an estimated influx of Hispanic or Latinos (over 25,000 persons), an 8 increase in population of over 39.8 percent from 2000. The next largest increases in minority 9 populations were Black or African American and Asian populations with increases of 10 approximately 23,000 and 9,700 persons or 14.4 and 53 percent, respectively, from 2000.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-108 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Table 2-16. Demographic Profile of the Population in the Salem and HCGS 2 Region of Influence, 2006-2008 Three-Year Estimate New Region Gloucester, Salem, Castle, of Cumberland, NJ NJ NJ DE Influence Total Population 155,388 284,886 65,952 526,414 1,032,640 Race (percent of total population, Not-Hispanic or Latino)
| |
| White 53.6 82.8 77.8 65.3 69.2 Black or African American 19.2 9.5 14.8 22.0 17.7 American Indian and Alaska Native 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 Asian 1.1 2.3 0.6 3.7 2.7 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 Some other race 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 Two or more races 1.6 1.6 0.9 1.4 1.4 Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 36,530 10,409 3,489 37,929 88,357 Percent of total population 23.5 3.7 5.3 7.2 8.6 Minority Populations (including Hispanic or Latino ethnicity)
| |
| Total minority population 72,112 48,927 14,653 182,540 318,232 Percent minority 46.4 17.2 22.2 34.7 30.8 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 American Community Survey (USCB, 2010c).
| |
| 3 4 Transient Population 5 Within 50 mi (80 km) of Salem and HCGS, colleges and recreational opportunities attract daily 6 and seasonal visitors who create demand for temporary housing and services. In 2000, in the 7 four-county ROI, 0.5 percent of all housing units were considered temporary housing for 8 seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Table 2-17 provides information on seasonal housing 9 for the counties located within the Salem and HCGS ROI (USCB, 2000b). In 2008, there were 10 49,498 students attending colleges and universities located within 50 mi (80 km) of Salem and 11 HCGS (NCES, 2009).
| |
| 12 September 2010 2-109 Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| 1 Table 2-17. Seasonal Housing in the Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek 2 Generating Station Region of Influence in 2000 Number of Housing Vacant Housing Units for Seasonal, County Units Recreational, or Occasional Use Percent Cumberland 52,863 826 1.6 Gloucester 95,054 274 0.3 Salem 26,158 131 0.5 New Castle 199,521 707 0.4 ROI 373,596 1,938 0.5 Source: USCB, 2000c 3
| |
| 4 Migrant Farm Workers 5 Migrant farm workers are individuals whose employment requires travel to harvest agricultural 6 crops. These workers may or may not have a permanent residence. Some migrant workers may 7 follow the harvesting of crops, particularly fruit, throughout the northeastern U.S. rural areas.
| |
| 8 Others may be permanent residents near Salem and HCGS who travel from farm to farm 9 harvesting crops.
| |
| 10 Migrant workers may be members of minority or low-income populations. Because they travel 11 and can spend a significant amount of time in an area without being actual residents, migrant 12 workers may be unavailable for counting by census takers. If uncounted, these workers would 13 be "underrepresented" in U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) minority and low income population 14 counts.
| |
| 15 The 2007 Census of Agriculture collected information on migrant farm and temporary labor.
| |
| 16 Table 2-18 provides information on migrant farm workers and temporary (less than 150 days) 17 farm labor within 50 mi (80 km) of Salem and HCGS. According to the 2007 Census of 18 Agriculture, 15,764 farm workers were hired to work for less than 150 days and were employed 19 on 1,747 farms within 50 mi (80 km) of Salem and HCGS. The county with the largest number of 20 temporary farm workers (4,979 persons on 118 farms) was Atlantic County, NJ (USDA, 2007).
| |
| 21 Salem County had 804 temporary farm workers on 121 farms; Cumberland County had 1,857 22 temporary workers on 141 farms, and Gloucester County had 1,228 on 110 farms 23 (USDA, 2007). New Castle County reported 320 temporary workers on 52 farms.
| |
| 24 Farm operators were asked whether any hired workers were migrant workers, defined as a farm 25 worker whose employment required travel that prevented the migrant worker from returning to 26 their permanent place of residence the same day. A total of 453 farms in the region (within a 27 50-mi [80 km] radius of Salem and HCGS) reported hiring migrant workers. Chester County, PA 28 reported the most farms (101) with hired migrant workers. Within the four-county ROI, a total of 29 164 farms were reported with hired migrant farm workers, including Cumberland County with 65 30 farms, followed by Gloucester County with 56 and Salem County with 33. New Castle County 31 reported a total of 10 farms with hired migrant workers (USDA, 2007).
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-110 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Table 2-18. Migrant Farm Worker and Temporary Farm Labor within 50 Miles of Salem 2 Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station Farm workers Farms hiring workers working less than for less than 150 Farms reporting Farms with hired County(') 150 days days migrant farm labor farm labor Delaware:
| |
| Kent 728 106 22 169 New Castle 320 52 10 81 County Subtotal 1,048 158 32 250 Maryland:
| |
| Caroline 478 121 13 153 Cecil 546 87 5 128 Hartford 266 101 12 155 Kent 245 78 8 111 Queen Anne's 317 89 13 126 County Subtotal 1,852 476 51 673 New Jersey:
| |
| Atlantic 4,979 118 74 163 Camden 470 43 17 52 Cape May 173 38 8 46 Cumberland 1,857 141 65 192 Gloucester 1,228 110 56 163 Salem 804 121 33 172 County Subtotal 9,511 571 253 788 Pennsylvania:
| |
| Chester 2,687 403 101 580 Delaware 106 19 2 25 Montgomery 560 115 14 155 Philadelphia - 5 5 County Subtotal 3,353 542 117 765 County Total 15,764 1,747 453 2,746 (a) Includes counties with approximately more than half their area within a 50-mi radius of Salem and HCGS.
| |
| Source: USDA, 2007 3 2.2.8.6 Economy 4 This section contains a discussion of the economy, including employment and income, 5 unemployment, and taxes.
| |
| 6 Employment and Income 7 Between 2000 and 2007, the civilian labor force in Salem County decreased 4.4 percent to 8 18,193. During the same time period, the civilian labor force in Gloucester County and September 2010 2-111 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| 1 Cumberland County grew 18.5 percent and 5.8 percent, respectively, to the 2007 levels of
| |
| .2 92,154 and 48,468. In New Castle County, DE, the civilian labor. force increased slightly 3 (0.9 percent) to 284,647 between 2000 and 2007 (USCB, 2010a).
| |
| 4 In 2008, trade, transportation, and utilities represented the largest sector of employment in the 5 three New Jersey counties, followed by education and health services in Salem and Gloucester 6 counties and manufacturing in Cumberland County (NJDLWD, 2010a; NJDLWD, 2010b; 7 NJDLWD, 2010c). The trade, transportation, and utilities sector employed the most people in 8 New Castle County, DE in 2008, followed closely by the professional and business services 9 sector (DDL, 2009). A list of some of the major employers in Salem County is provided in Table 10 2-19. The largest employer in the county in 2006 was PSEG with over 1,300 employees.
| |
| 11 Table 2-19. Major Employers in Salem County in 2007 Firm Number of Employees PSEG 1.300+(a)
| |
| E.I. duPont 1,250 Mannington Mills 826 Memorial Hospital of Salem County 600 Atlantic City Electric 426 R.E. Pierson Construction 400+
| |
| Anchor Glass 361 McLane NJ 352 Elmer Hospital 350 Wal-Mart 256 Berkowitz Glass 225 Siegfried (USA) 155 Source: Salem County, 2007 (a) PSEG (2010c) reports that Salem and HCGS employ approximately 1,165 employees and share an additional 340 PSEG corporate and 109 matrixed employees, for a total of 1,614 employees.
| |
| 12 13 Income information for the four-county ROI is presented in Table 2-20. Median household 14 incomes in Gloucester and New Castle counties were each above their respective State median 15 household income averages, while Salem and Cumberland counties had median household 16 incomes below the State of New Jersey average. Per capita incomes in Salem, Gloucester, and 17 Cumberland counties were each below the State of New Jersey average, while the New Castle 18 County per capita income was above the State of Delaware average. In Salem and Cumberland 19 counties, 9.9 and 15.1 percent of the population, respectively, was living below the official 20 poverty level, which is greater than the percentage for the State of New Jersey as a whole 21 (8.7 percent). Only 7.5 percent of the Gloucester County population was living below the poverty 22 level. In Delaware, 9.9 percent of the New Castle County population was living below the 23 poverty level, while the State average was 10.4 percent. In addition, Cumberland County has 24 the highest percentage of families living below the poverty level in the ROI.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-112 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Table 2-20. Income Information for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope 2 Creek Generating Station Region of Influence, 2008 Salem Gloucester Cumberland New New Castle Delaware County County County Jersey County Median household 61,204 72,316 49,944 69,674 62,628 57,270 income (dollars)
| |
| Per capita income 27,785 30,893 21,316 34,899 31,400 29,124 (dollars)
| |
| Persons below poverty level 9.9 7.5 15.1 8.7 9.9 10.4 (percent)
| |
| Families below poverty level 5.9 5.7 12.6 6.3 6.1 7.1 (percent)
| |
| Source: USCB, 2010c.
| |
| 3 4 Unemployment 5 In 2008, the annual unemployment average in Salem, Gloucester, and Cumberland counties 6 was 7.5, 6.4, and 9.6 percent, respectively, all of which were higher than the unemployment 7 average of 6.0 percent for the State of New Jersey. Conversely, the annual unemployment 8 average of 5.6 for New Castle County was lower than the State of Delaware average of 9 6.0 percent (USCB, 2010c).
| |
| 10 Taxes 11 The owners of Salem and HCGS pay annual property taxes to Lower Alloways Creek Township.
| |
| 12 From 2003 through 2009, PSEG and Exelon paid between $1,191,870 and $1,511,301 annually 13 in property taxes to Lower Alloways Creek Township (Table 2-21). During the same time 14 period, these tax payments represented between 54.2 and 59.3 percent of the township's total 15 annual property tax revenue. Each year, Lower Alloways Creek Township forwards this tax 16 money to Salem County, which provides most services to township residents. The property 17 taxes paid annually for Salem and HCGS during 2003 through 2009 represent approximately 18 2.5 to 3.5 percent of Salem County's total annual property tax revenue. As a result of the 19 payment of property taxes for Salem and HCGS to Lower Alloways Creek Township, residents 20 of the township do not pay local municipal property taxes on residences, local school taxes, or 21 municipal open space taxes; they pay only Salem County taxes and county open space taxes 22 (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 23 In addition, PSEG and Exelon pay annual property taxes to the City of Salem for the Energy and 24 Environmental Resource Center, located in Salem. From 2003 through 2009, between 25 $177,360 and $387,353 in annual property taxes for the Center were paid to the city (Table 2-26 22).
| |
| September 2010 2-113 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| 1 Table 2-21. Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station Property Tax Paid and Percentage of z 2 Lower Alloways Creek Township and Salem County Tax Revenues, 2003 to 2009 C
| |
| m Lower Alloways Creek Township Salem County 0-G)
| |
| Total Pr yTax PSEG and/or Exelon PSEG and/or Exelon 2 Property Property Tax as Total Property Tax Property Tax as P
| |
| Exelon x (dollars) Townshipn Percentage of Total Revenue in County Percentage of Total CD-C- Property Tax Revenue (dollars) Property Tax Revenue
| |
| -o (dollars)
| |
| (lr(percent) (percent) 3 Year Salem HCGS Total Salem HCGS Total Salem HCGS Total (D
| |
| 4 2003 748,537 464,677 1,213,214 2,099,185 35.7 22.1 57.8 34,697,781 2.2 1.3 3.5 2004 764,379 474,512 1,238,891 2,251,474 34.0 21.1 55.0 36,320,365 2.1 1.3 3.4 2005 783,644 485,624 1,269,268 2,325,378 33.7 20.9 54.6 40,562,971 1.9 1.2 3.1 2006 734,841 457,029 1,191,870 2,195,746 33.5 20.8 54.3 43,382,037 1.7 1.1 2.7 2007 772,543 480,476 1,253,019 2,310,262 33.4 20.8 54.2 46,667,551 1.7 1.0 2.7 2008 745,081 463,397 1,208,478 2,038,467 36.6 22.7 59.3 49,058,072 1.5 0.9 2.5 2009 931,785 579,516 1,511,301 2,644,636 35.2 21.9 57.1 51,636,999 1.8 1.1 2.9 Source: PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b; PSEG, 2010e (n
| |
| CD CD 3
| |
| C?
| |
| 0" 0
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Table 2-22. Energy and Environmental Resource Center Property Tax Paid and 2 Percentage of City of Salem Tax Revenues, 2003 to 2009 PSEG and/or Exelon Property Tax Paid by PSEG Total Property Tax Revenue Propertyo Tax as Year and/or Exelon (dollars) In City of Salem (dollars) Property Tax Revenue in City of Salem (percent) 2003 177,360 5,092,527 3.5 2004 211,755 6,049,675 3.5 2005 220,822 6,294,613 3.5 2006 228,492 6,485,947 3.5 2007 318,910 7,389,319 4.3 2008 184,445 8,423,203 2.2 2009 387,353 8,313,289 4.7 Source: PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b; PSEG, 2010e 3
| |
| 4 This represented between 2.2 and 4.7 percent of the city's total annual property tax revenue.
| |
| 5 Ownership of the Energy and Environmental Resource Center was transferred to PSEG Power 6 in the fourth quarter of 2008; therefore, Exelon is no longer minority owner of the center.
| |
| 7 In 1999, the State of New Jersey deregulated its utility industry (EIA, 2008). Any changes to the 8 tax assessment for Salem or HCGS would already have occurred and are reflected in the tax 9 payment information provided in Table 2-21. Potential future changes to Salem and HCGS 10 property tax rates due to deregulation would be independent of license renewal.
| |
| 11 The continued availability of Salem and HCGS and the associated tax base is an important 12 feature in the ability of Salem County communities to continue to invest in infrastructure and to 13 draw industry and new residents.
| |
| 14 2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources 15 This section presents a brief summary of the region's cultural background and a description of.
| |
| 16 known historic and archaeological resources at the Salem/HCGS site and its immediate vicinity.
| |
| 17 The information presented was collected from area repositories, the New Jersey State Historic 18 Preservation Office (SHPO), the New Jersey State Museum (NJSM), and the applicant's ER 19 (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).
| |
| 20 2.2.9.1 Cultural Background 21 The prehistory of New Jersey includes four major temporal divisions based on technological 22 advancements, the stylistic evolution of the lithic tool kit, and changes in subsistence strategies 23 related to a changing environment and resource base. These divisions are as follows:
| |
| 24 0 The Paleo-lndian Period (circa 12,000-10,000 years before present [BP])
| |
| 25 0 The Archaic Period (circa 10,000-3,000 years BP)
| |
| September 2010 2-115 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1
| |
| * The Woodland Period (circa 3,000 BP-1600 AD) 2
| |
| * The Contact Period (circa 1600-1700 AD) 3 These periods are typically broken into shorter time intervals reflecting specific adaptations and 4 stylistic trends and are briefly discussed below.
| |
| 5 Paleo-lndian Period 6 The Paleo-Indian Period began after the Wisconsin glacier retreated from the region 7 approximately 12,000 years ago, and represents the earliest known occupation in New Jersey.
| |
| 8 The Paleo-Indian people were hunter-gatherers whose subsistence strategy may have been 9 dependent upon hunting large game animals over a wide region of tundra-like vegetation that 10 gradually developed into open grasslands with scattered coniferous forests (Kraft, 1982). The 11 settlement pattern during this period likely consisted of small, temporary camps (Kraft, 1982).
| |
| 12 Few Paleo-lndian sites have been excavated in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Within New Jersey, 13 Paleo-lndian sites, such as the Plenge site excavated in the Musconetcong Valley in the 14 northwestern part of the State, have largely been identified in valley and ridge zones 15 (Marshall, 1982).
| |
| 16 Archaic Period 17 The Archaic Period is marked by changes in subsistence and settlement patterns. While hunting 18 and gathering were still the primary subsistence activities, the emphasis seems to have shifted 19 toward hunting the smaller animals inhabiting the deciduous forests that developed during this 20 time. Based on archaeological evidence, the settlement pattern that helps define the Archaic 21 Period consisted of larger, more permanent habitation sites. In addition to game animals, the 22 quantities of plant resources, as well as fish and shellfish remains that have been identified at 23 these sites, indicate that the Archaic people were more efficiently exploiting the natural 24 environment (Kraft, 1982).
| |
| 25 An example of a typical Archaic Period site in southern New Jersey is the Indian Head Site, 26 located about 35 mi (56 km) northeast of the Salem/HCGS site. The Indian Head Site is a large 27 multi-component site with evidence of both Middle and Late Archaic Period occupations.
| |
| 28 Woodland Period 29 The Woodland Period marks the introduction of ceramic manufacture, as clay vessels replaced 30 the earlier carved soapstone vessels. Hunting and gathering subsistence activities persisted, 31 however, the period is notable for the development of horticulture. As horticulture became of 32 increasing importance to the subsistence economy of the Woodland people, settlement patterns 33 were affected. Habitation sites increased in size and permanence, as a larger population size 34 could be sustained due to the more efficient exploitation of the natural environment for 35 subsistence (Kraft, 1982).
| |
| 36 Examples of Woodland Period occupations in southern New Jersey are well documented in the 37 many Riggins Complex sites recorded in the Cohansey Creek and Maurice River drainages.
| |
| 38 Contact Period 39 European exploration of the Mid-Atlantic Region began in the 16th century, and by the early 40 17th century, maps of the area were being produced (aclink.org). The Dutch ship Furtuyn 41 explored the Mullica River in 1614. The Dutch and Swedish were the first to colonize the area, Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 2-116 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 though they were eventually forced to give control of lands to the British in the later part of the 2 17th century. These settlements mark the beginning of the Contact Period, a time of 3 ever-increasing contact between the Native Americans of the region and the Europeans.
| |
| 4 The native groups of the southern New Jersey region were part of the widespread Algonquin 5 cultural and linguistic tradition (Kraft, 1982). Following initial contact, a pattern of 6 Indian/European trade developed and the Native Americans began to acquire European-made 7 tools, ornaments, and other goo~ds. This pattern is reflected in the archaeological record, as the 8 artifact assemblages from Contact Period sites contain both Native American and European
| |
| : 9. cultural material.
| |
| 10 At the time of contact, the Lenni Lenape inhabited the Salem/HCGS area. The Lenni Lenape, 11 who eventually became known as the Delaware tribe, also occupied lands throughout New 12 Jersey, as well as in present-day Pennsylvania and New York (Eaton, 1899). The group 13 occupying southern New Jersey spoke the Southern Unami dialects of the Algonquin language 14 (Kraft, 2001).
| |
| 15 Historic Period 16 The first European settlement in the vicinity of the Salem/HCGS site occurred in 1638, when a 17 Swedish fort was established along the Delaware River in the present day town of Elsinborough 18 (CSS, 2010). This settlement was short lived, as the location was plagued with mosquitoes and 19 was eventually deemed untenable. Later attempts to settle the area by Swedish, Finnish, and 20 Dutch groups also met with limited success. In 1675, the Englishman John Fenwick and his 21 group of colonists landed along the Delaware River, north of the original Swedish settlement at 22 Elsinborough (Brown, 2007). They established "Fenwicks Colony" and the town of Salem. In 23 1790, the population of Salem County was 10,437. By 1880, the county's population had more 24 than doubled in size, reaching 24,579. Today, approximately 65,000 people inhabit Salem 25 County (USCB, 2010a).
| |
| 26 During the 18th and 19th century, the predominant industries in Salem County included 27 commercial fishing, shipping of agricultural products, ship building businesses, glass 28 manufacturing, and farming (DSC, 2010). In the latter part of the 19th century, the DuPont 29 Company established a gunpowder manufacturing plant in Salem County. At its peak, in the 30 early part of the 20th century, the plant employed nearly 25,000 workers. The DuPont facilities 31 continued operation into the late 1970s. In addition to generation of electric power at the Salem 32 and HCGS sites, furniture and glass manufacturing have been the predominate industries in 33 Salem County in the latter part of the 20th and the early part of the 21st centuries 2.
| |
| 34 2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at the Salem/Hope Creek Site 35 Previously Identified Resources 36 The NJSM houses the State's archaeological site files, and the New Jersey SHPO houses 37 information on historic resources such as buildings and houses, including available information 38 concerning the National or State Register eligibility status of these resources. The NRC cultural 39 resource team visited the NJSM and collected site files on archaeological sites and information 2 Personal communication with 8. Gallo, Editor of Today's Sunbeam, Salem County, New Jersey. March 9, 2010.
| |
| September 2010 2-117 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 on historic resources located within or nearby the Salem/HCGS property. Online sources were 2 used to identify properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in Salem 3 County, NJ and New Castle County, DE (NRHP, 2010).
| |
| 4 A review of the NJSM files to identify archaeological resources indicated that no archaeological 5 or historic sites have been recorded on Artificial Island. The nearest recorded prehistoric 6 archaeological site, 35CU99, is located approximately 3.5 mi (5.6 km) southeast of the plant 7 site, in Cumberland County. 35CU99 is an Archaic Period archeological site containing stone 8 tools and evidence of stone tool making activity. The closest NRHP-lis'ted site is the Joseph 9 Ware House, which is located 6 mi (9.6 km) to the northeast, in Hancock's Bridge. To date, 6 10 properties within a 10-mi (16 km) radius of the Salem/HCGS site in Salem County, NJ have 11 been listed on the NRHP. A total of 17 NRHP-listed sites in New Castle County, DE fall within a 12 10-mi radius of the Salem/HCGS site.
| |
| 13 Potential Archaeological Resources 14 The Salem and HCGS sites are located on a man-made island in the Delaware River. This 15 would suggest a very low potential for the discovery of previously undocumented prehistoric 16 archaeological sites on the plant property. However, given the age of the artificial island upon 17 which the generating stations were constructed, it is possible that previously undocumented 18 historic-period resources may be present. Further research would be required to determine 19 historic period land use patterns on the island during the 20th century.
| |
| 20 2.3 Related Federal Project Activities 21 The Staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might impact the 22 renewal of the operating licenses for Salem and HCGS. Any such activity could result in 23 cumulative environmental impacts and the possible need for a Federal agency to become a 24 cooperating agency in the preparation of the Salem and HCGS SEIS.
| |
| 25 The Staff has determined that there are no Federal projects that would make it desirable for 26 another Federal agency to become a cooperating agency in the preparation of the SEIS.
| |
| 27 Federal facilities and parks and wildlife areas within 50 mi (80 km) of Salem and HCGS are 28 listed below.
| |
| 29 0 Coast Guard Training Center, Cape May (New Jersey) 30 0 Dover Air Force Base (Delaware) 31 0 Aberdeen Test Center (Maryland) 32 0 United States Defense Government Supply Center, Philadelphia 33 (Pennsylvania) 34 0 Federal Correctional Institution, Fairton (New Jersey) 35 0 Federal Detention Center, Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) 36 0 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail 37 0 Great Egg Harbor National Scenic and Recreational River (New Jersey) 38 0 New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-118 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (Delaware, 2 Maryland) 3 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network (Delaware, Maryland) 4 Hopewell Furnace - National Historic Site (Pennsylvania) 5 *Cape May National Wildlife Refuge (New Jersey) 6 *Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (New Jersey) 7 *Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge (Maryland) 8 *Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge (Delaware) 9 *Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge (Delaware) 10 Independence National Historical Park (Pennsylvania) 11 The USACE is involved in a project that could affect resources in the vicinity of Salem and 12 HCGS. The USACE plans on deepening the Delaware River main navigation channel from 13 Philadelphia to the Atlantic Ocean to a depth of 45 ft (14 m). This channel passes close to 14 Artificial Island and the Salem and HCGS effluent discharge area. Studies determined that 15 potential minor changes in hydrology, including salinity, would be possible. Temporary 16 increases in turbidity would be expected during construction (USACE, 2009).
| |
| 17 Although it is not a Federal project, the potential construction of a fourth unit at the Salem and 18 HCGS site would require action by a Federal agency. PSEG intends to submit an early site 19 permit application to the NRC regarding possible construction of a new nuclear power plant unit 20 at the Salem and HCGS site on Artificial Island (PSEG, 20100.
| |
| 21 The NRC is required under Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 22 (NEPA), as amended, to consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency that has 23 jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. The 24 NRC consulted with the NMFS and the FWS. Federal agency consultation correspondence and 25 comments on the SEIS are presented in Appendix D.
| |
| 26 2.4 References 27 10 CFR Part 20; Code of FederalRegulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for 28 Protection Against Radiation."
| |
| 29 10 CFR Part 50. Code of FederalRegulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of 30 Production and Utilization Facilities."
| |
| 31 10 CFR Part 51. Code of FederalRegulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental 32 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."
| |
| 33 10 CFR Part 54. Code of FederalRegulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Requirements for 34 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."
| |
| 35 10 CFR Part 72. Code of FederalRegulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 72, "Licensing 36 Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive 37 Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Thank Class C Waste."
| |
| September 2010 2-119 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 16 USC 1456. United States Code. Title 16, Chapter 33, Part 1456, "Coordination and 2 Cooperation."
| |
| 3 40 CFR Part 81. Code of FederalRegulations, Title 40, Protectionof the Environment, Part 81, 4 "Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes."
| |
| 5 40 CFR Parts 239 through 259. Code of FederalRegulations, Title 40, Protection of the 6 Environment, "Non-hazardous Waste Regulations."
| |
| 7 40 CFR Part 261. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protectionof the Environment, 8 Part 261, "Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste."
| |
| 9 40 CFR Part 262. Code of FederalRegulations, Title 40, Protectionof the Environment, 10 Part 262, "Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste."
| |
| 11 40 CFR Part 273. Code of FederalRegulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 273, 12 "Standards for Universal Waste Management."
| |
| 13 42 USC 11001. United Stated Code. Title 42, Chapter 116, Subchapter 1,Part 11001, 14 "Establishment of State commissions, planning districts, and local committees."
| |
| 15 50 CFR Part 600. Code of FederalRegulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries,.Part600, 16 "Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions."
| |
| 17 63 FR 31268, Environmental Protection Agency. Washington D.C. "Emergency Planning and 18 Community Right-to-Know Programs; Amendments to Hazardous Chemical Reporting 19 Thresholds Streamlining Requirements. "Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 109, pp. 31268-31280 20 June 8, 1998.
| |
| 21 73 FR 13032, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington D.C. "PSEG Nuclear, LLC; Hope 22 Creek Generating Station Final Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact; Related to 23 the Proposed License Amendment to increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level." Federal 24 Register, Vol. 73, No. 48, pp. 13032-13044, March 11, 2008.
| |
| 25 Alabamaplants.com. 2010. "Photographs and Information for the plants of Alabama, USA."
| |
| 26 Accessed at: http://alabamaplants.com/ on April 7, 2010.
| |
| 27 Alaimo Group. 2005. "2005 Master Plan Reexamination Report, Township of Lower Alloways 28 Creek, Salem County, NJ," Approved by the Lower Alloways CreekTownship Planning Board, 29 June 22, 2005.
| |
| 30 Arcadis. 2006. "Site Investigation Report, Salem Generating Station," Newtown, PA, 31 July 15, 2006.
| |
| 32 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1998a. "Fishery Management Report 33 No. 32 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Interstate Fishery Management Plan 34 for Horseshoe Crab," December 1998. Accessed at:
| |
| 35 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/horseshoeCrablfmps/hscFMP.pdf on April 9, 2010.
| |
| 36 ASMFC. 1998b. "Amendment 1 to the Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (Includes 37 Environmental Impact Statement and Regulatory Review) Volume I," Mid-Atlantic Fishery 38 Management Council and ASMFC in cooperation with the NMFS, the New England Fishery 39 Management Council, and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, October 1998.
| |
| 40 Accessed at:
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-120 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/bluefish/fmps/bluefishAmendmentlVol1.pdf on April 9, 2 2010 3 ASMFC. 1999. "Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Shad & River 4 Herring," April 1999. Accessed at:
| |
| 5 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/shad/fmps.shadaml.pdf on April 9, 2010.
| |
| 6 ASMFC. 2001. "Fishery Management Report No. 37 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 7 Commission, Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden,"
| |
| 8 July 2001. Accessed at:
| |
| 9 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/menhaden/fmps/menhadenAm%201.pdf on April 9, 10 2010.
| |
| 11 ASMFC. 2002. "Fishery Management Report No. 39 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 12 Commission, Amendment 4 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Weakfish,"
| |
| 13 November 2002. Accessed at:
| |
| 14 http:/lwww.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/weakfish/fmps/weakfishAmendment4.pdf on April 9, 15 2010.
| |
| 16 ASMFC. 2003. "Fishery Management Report No. 41 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 17 Commission, Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped 18 Bass," February 2003. Accessed at:
| |
| 19 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/stripedBass/fmps/sbAmendment6.pdf on February 19, 20 2010.
| |
| 21 ASMFC. 2004. "Special Report No. 80 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 22 Status of the Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus)on the Atlantic Coast," Final Report, October 23 2004. Accessed at:
| |
| 24 http:I/www.asmfc.org/publications/specialReports/SR8OFinalBlueCrabStatus.pdf on February 25 12,2010.
| |
| 26 ASMFC. 2005a. "Species Profile: Atlantic Menhaden.Species Profile: Atlantic Menhaden Stock 27 Healthy Coastwide, But Questions Remain Regarding Localized Stock Condistions."." Accessed 28 at: http://fishtheisland.com/Species/Menhaden/menhadenProfile.pdf on June 21, 2010.
| |
| 29 ASMFC. 2005b. "Fishery Management Report No. 44 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 30 Commission, Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Croaker,"
| |
| 31 November 2005. Accessed at:
| |
| 32 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/southAtianticSpecies/atlanticcroaker/fmps/croakerAme 33 ndmentl.pdf on February 19, 2010.
| |
| 34 ASMFC. 2006a. "2006 Review of the Fishery Management Plan for Spot (Leiostomus 35 xanthurus)," prepared by The Spot Plan Review Team: Herb Austin, Ph.D., Virginia Institute of 36 Marine Science; John Schoolfield, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries; Harley Speir, 37 Maryland Department of Natural Resources; Nichola Meserve, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 38 Commission, October 24, 2006. Accessed at:
| |
| 39 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/southAtlanticSpecies/spot/fmpreviews/spot06FMPrevi 40 ew.pdf on February 19 2010.
| |
| 41 ASMFC. 2006b. "Species Profile: Bluefish: Joint Plan Seeks to Restore Premier Fighting Fish."
| |
| 42 Accessed at: http:I/www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/bluefish/bluefishProfile.pdf on April 9, 43 2010.
| |
| September 2010 2-121 Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 ASMFC. 2007a. "Species Profile: Shad & River Herring: Atlantic States Seek to Improve 2 Knowledge of Stock Status and Protect Populations Coastwide." Accessed at:
| |
| 3 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/shad/speciesProfile07.pdf on April 9, 2010.
| |
| 4 ASMFC. 2007b. "Species Profile: Atlantic Croaker. Amendment Seeks to Maintain Healthy 5 Mid-Atlantic Stock Component." Accessed at:
| |
| 6 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/southAtlanticSpecies/atlanticcroaker/speciesProfile.pd 7 f on April 9, 2010.
| |
| 8 ASMFC. 2008a. "Species Profile: Horseshoe Crab: Populations Show Positive Response to 9 Current Management Measures." Accessed at: www.asmfc.org on April 9, 2010 10 ASMFC. 2008b. "Fishery Management Report No. 32e of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 11 Commission, Addendum V to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Horseshoe Crab,"
| |
| 12 September 2008. Accessed at:
| |
| 13 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/horseshoeCrab/fmps/hscAddendumV.pdf on April 9, 14 2010.
| |
| 15 ASMFC. 2008c. "Species Profile: Spot: Short-Lived Fish Supports South Atlantic Fisheries &
| |
| 16 Serves as Important Prey Species." Accessed at:
| |
| 17 http://www.asmfc. org/speciesDocuments/southAtlanticSpecies/spot/speciesProfile0505.pdf on 18 February 9, 2010.
| |
| 19 ASMFC. 2008d. "Species Profile: Atlantic Striped Bass: New Stock Assessment Indicates a 20 Healthy Stock and Continued Management Success." Accessed at:
| |
| 21 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/stripedBass/profiles/speciesprofile.pdf on February 19, 22 2010.
| |
| 23 ASMFC. 2008e. "Species Profile: Summer Flounder: Positive Assessment Results Yield Higher 24 Quotas." Accessed at:
| |
| 25 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/sfScupBSB/summerflounder/sFIounderProfile.pdf on 26 March 2, 2010.
| |
| 27 ASMFC. 2009a. "Amendment 2 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Shad and River 28 Herring (River Herring Management)," May 2009. Accessed at:
| |
| 29 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/shad/fmps/amendment2_RiverHerring.pdf on April 9, 30 2010.
| |
| 31 ASMFC. 2009b. "Species Profile: Weakfish: Board Initiates Addendum to Address All Time Low 32 in Weakfish Biomass." Accessed at:
| |
| 33 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/weakfish/weakfishProfile.pdf on February 19, 2010.
| |
| 34 ASMFC. 2009c. "Species Profile: Atlantic Sturgeon: Ancient Species' Slow Road to Recovery."
| |
| 35 Accessed at: http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/sturgeon/sturgeonProfile.pdf on April 13, 36 2010.
| |
| 37 ASMFC. 2009d. "Atlantic Coast Diadromous Fish Habitat: A Review of Utilization, Threats, 38 Recommendations for Conservation, and Research Needs Habitat Management Series #9.
| |
| 39 Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenseroxyrinchus oxyrinchus)," January 2009. Accessed at:
| |
| 40 http://www.link75.org/mmb/Cybrary/pages/hms9_diadrohabitat_2009_9.pdf on April 7, 2010.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-122 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 ASMFC. 201 Oa. "Horseshoe Crab (Limulus polyphemus): Life History and Habitat Needs."
| |
| 2 Accessed at: http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/horseshoeCrab/hscHabitatFactsheet.pdf 3 on April 12, 2010.
| |
| 4 ASMFC. 2010b. "Atlantic Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis): Life History and Habitat Needs."
| |
| 5 Accessed at:
| |
| 6 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/stripedBass/stripedbassHabitatFactsheet.pdf on 7 February 23, 2010.
| |
| 8 ASMFC. 2010c. "Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Habitat Factsheet: Atlantic 9 Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus oxyrhynchus)." Accessed at:
| |
| 10 http://www. asmfc. org/speciesDocuments/sturgeon/habitatFactsheet. pdf on April 13, 2010.
| |
| 11 Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1971. "Salem Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2, 12 Supplemental Environmental Report, Operating License Stage," Docket Nos. 50-272 and 13 50-311, Washington, D.C.
| |
| 14 AEC. 1973. "Final Environmental Statement Related to the Salem Nuclear Generating Station 15 Units 1 and 2, Public Service Electric and Gas Company," Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, 16 Washington, D.C., April 1973.
| |
| 17 Bozeman, EL., Jr., and M.J. VanDen Avyle. 1989. "Species Profiles: Life Histories and 18 Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Atlantic) -Alewife and 19 Blueback Herring," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service BiologicalReport, 82(11.111), U.S. Army 20 Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, pp. 17.
| |
| 21 Brown, J. 2007. "A Brief History of Salem County, New Jersey." Accessed at:
| |
| 22 http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/-njsalem/documents/History-SalemCounty-NJ.txt on April 6, 23 2010.
| |
| 24 Buckley, J. 1989. "Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal 25 Fishes and Invertebrates (North Atlantic) -Winter Flounder," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 26 BiologicalReport, 82(11.87), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, pp. 12.
| |
| 27 Burrell, V.G., Jr. 1986. "Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of 28 Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Atlantic) - American Oyster," U.S. Fish and Wildlife 29 Service BiologicalReport, 82(11.57), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, pp. 17 30 Calflora. 2010. "Limosella subulata," Berkeley, California. Accessed at:
| |
| 31 http:/lwww.calflora.orglcgi-bin/speciesquery.cgi?where-calrecnum=4845 on April 8, 2010.
| |
| 32 Center for Plant Conservation (CPC). 2010a. National Collection Plant Profile. Accessed at:
| |
| 33 http:llwww.centerforplantconservation.org/Collection/NationalCollection.asp on April 8, 2010.
| |
| 34 CPC. 2010b. "Heloniasbullata,"CPCNational Collection Plant Profile. Accessed at:
| |
| 35 http://www. centerforplantconservation.org/collection/cpcviewprofile.asp?CPCNum=2210 on 36 May 10, 2010.
| |
| 37 Census of Antarctic Marine Life. 2008. Benthos. Accessed at:
| |
| 38 http://www.caml.aq/benthos/index.html on July 29, 2010.
| |
| 39 Center for Urban Policy Research (CUPR). 2009. "Impact Assessment of the New Jersey State 40 Development and Redevelopment Plan," Prepared for New Jersey Department of Community September 2010 2-123 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Affairs, December 11, 2009. Accessed at:
| |
| 2 http:/lwww.nj.govldcaldivisionslosgldocs/dfplanprojections.pdf on May 12, 2010.
| |
| 3 Chesapeake Bay Ecological Foundation, Inc. 2010. "Ecological Depletion of Atlantic Menhaden 4 & Bay Anchovy: Effects on Atlantic Coast Striped Bass, First Year-Round Ecological Study of 5 Large Chesapeake Bay Striped Bass." Accessed at:
| |
| 6 http://www.chesbay.org/articles/striped%20bass%20study(1 -09). asp on February 19, 2010.
| |
| 7 Chesapeake Bay Program. 2009. "American Shad Harvest," November 2009. Accessed at:
| |
| 8 http://www.chesapeakebay.net/americanshadharvest.aspx?menuitem=15315 on February 18, 9 2010.
| |
| 10 Clean Air Act, as amended. 42 USC 7410, 7491 (a)(2), 7601(a). 1963 11 Colonial Swedish Society (CSS). 2010. A Brief History of New Sweden in America. Accessed 12 at: http://www.colonialswedes.org/History/History.html on April 12, 2010.
| |
| 13 Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and 14 deepwater habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 15 Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home 16 Page. Accessed at: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/classwet/classwet.htm (Version 17 04DEC98) on July 30, 2010.
| |
| 18 Delaware Department of Education (DDE). 2010. School Profiles, Fall Student Enrollment 19 (School Year 2009-2010), School Districts in New Castle County, DE. Accessed at:
| |
| 20 http:/lprofiles.doe.kl2.de.us/SchoolProfiles/State/Default.aspx on May 11, 2010.
| |
| 21 Delaware Department of Labor (DDL). 2009. Delaware State and County Level Employment 22 and Wages by Industry for 2008, Office of Occupational and Labor Market Information, 23 September 2, 2009. Accessed at:
| |
| 24 http://www.delawareworks.com/oolmi/lnformation/LMIData/QCEW/QCEW-Annual_V1132.aspx 25 on April 27, 2010.
| |
| 26 Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). 2003. "Public 27 Water Supply Source Water Assessment for Artesian Water Co. (Bayview), PWS ID:
| |
| 28 DE0000553. New Castle County, Delaware," Division of Water Resources, October 2, 2003.
| |
| 29 Accessed at:
| |
| 30 http://www.wr.udel.edu/swaphome-old/phase2/final_assess/artesianother/awc-bayview.pdf on 31 February 24, 2010.
| |
| 32 DNREC. 2006a. '"Weakfish Tagging Project," May 2006. Accessed at:
| |
| 33 http://www.fw.delaware.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/FW`%20GalleryAVeakfishTagging. pdf on 34 February 19, 2010.
| |
| 35 DNREC. 2006b. "Striped Bass Food Habits Project," May 2006. Accessed at:
| |
| 36 http://www.fw.delaware.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/FW%20Gallery/StripedBassFoodHabits.p 37 df on February 19, 2010.
| |
| 38 DNREC. 2008. "Endangered Species of Delaware." Accessed at:
| |
| 39 http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/nhp/information/endangered.shtml on May 4, 2010.
| |
| 40 DNREC. 2009. Letter from E. Stetzar, Natural Heritage and Endangered Species, Division of 41 Fish and Wildlife, to E. J. Keating, PSEG Nuclear LLC, Hancocks Bridge, NJ. Response to Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-124 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 request from PSEG for information on rare, threatened, and endangered species and other 2 significant natural resources relevant to operating license renewal for Salem and HCGS and 3 specifically addressing the ROW alignment extending from Artificial Island, NJ across the 4 Delaware River to end in New Castle County, DE. April 21.
| |
| 5 DNREC. 2010. "Delaware's Oyster Management Program." Accessed at:
| |
| 6 http://www.fw.delaware.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/FW%2OGallery/Research/oyster%20doc.
| |
| 7 pdf on April 14, 2010.
| |
| 8 Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. 201 Oa. "Augustine Wildlife Area (2,667 Acres), Silver 9 Run Area, Deer/Upland," Dover, DE. Accessed at:
| |
| 10 www.fw.delaware.gov/Hunting/Documents/NMA%20Maps/9. pdf May 18, 2010.
| |
| 11 Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. 2010b. "Delaware River: Striped Bass Spawning Stock 12 Survey." Accessed at:
| |
| 13 http://www.fw.delaware.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/FW%2OGallery/Striped%2OBass%2OSpa 14 wning%20Stock%2OSurvey%20FIyer.pdf on February 19, 2010.
| |
| 15 Delaware Estuary Program. 1995. "Delaware Estuary: Discover its Secrets: A Management 16 Plan for the Delaware Estuary." Accessed at: http://www.delawareestuary.org/pdf/CCMP.pdf on 17 February 18, 2010.
| |
| 18 Delaware Estuary Program. 2010. "History of the Eastern Oyster." Accessed at:
| |
| 19 http://www.delawareestuary.org/publications/factsheets/Oysterw. pdf on April 14, 2010.
| |
| 20 Delaware Population Consortium (DPC). 2009. "2009 Delaware Population Projections 21 Summary Table, Total Projected Population, 2000-2040." Accessed at:
| |
| 22 http://stateplanning.delaware.gov/information/dpcprojections.shtml on may 12, 2010.
| |
| 23 Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). 1961. Delaware River Basin Compact, U.S. Public 24 Law 87-328, West Trenton, NJ, Delaware River Basin Commission, Reprinted 2007.
| |
| 25 DRBC. 1977. Contract No. 76-EP-482 Covering to Provide the Supply of Cooling Water from 26 the Delaware River, Required for Operation of Salem Units 1 and 2 at Salem Nuclear 27 Generating Station. Parties to the contract: Delaware River Basin Commission and Public 28 Service Electric and Gas Company, January 1977.
| |
| 29 DRBC. 1984a. "Revision of the Hope Creek Generating Station Project Previously Included in 30 the Comprehensive Plan," Docket No. D-73-193 CP (Revised), West Trenton, NJ, May 1984.
| |
| 31 DRBC. 1984b. Water Supply Contract Between DRBC and PSEG Concerning the Water 32 Supply at Hope Creek Generating Station, West Trenton, NJ, December 1984.
| |
| 33 DRBC. 2000. "Groundwater Withdrawal," Docket No. D-90-71 Renewal, Delaware River Basin 34 Commission, West Trenton, NJ, November 2000.
| |
| 35 DRBC. 2001. "Approval to Revise Delaware Basin Compact," Docket No. D-68-20 (Revision 36 20), Delaware Basin River Commission, West Trenton, NJ, September 2001.
| |
| 37 DRBC. 2005. Year 2005 Water Withdrawal and Consumptive Use by Large Users on the Tidal 38 Delaware River. Accessed at: http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/wateruse/largeusers_05.htm on 39 February 15, 2010.
| |
| September 2010 2-125 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 DRBC. 2008a. "Delaware River State of the Basin Report," Delaware River Basin Commission, 2 West Trenton, NJ.
| |
| 3 DRBC. 2008b. "Nutrient Criteria Strategy for the Tidal and Non-tidal Delaware River."
| |
| 4 Accessed at: http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/DRBC-NutrientStrategyO42508.pdf on April 15, 2010.
| |
| 5 DRBC. 2010. "The Delaware River Basin." Accessed on: http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/thedrb.htm 6 on February 24, 2010.
| |
| 7 Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC). 2009. "2009 Farmland Preservation 8 Plan for the County of Cumberland, NJ," Prepared for Cumberland County Agriculture 9 Development Board. Accessed at:
| |
| 10 http://www.co.cumberland.nj.us/content/173/251/761/2947/3098/2969/6996.aspx on May 17, 11 2010.
| |
| 12 Discover Salem County (DSC). 2010. History of Salem County. Accessed at:
| |
| 13 http://www.discoversalemcounty.com/history/colonialhistory.asp on April 6, 2010.Eaton, H.P.
| |
| 14 1899. "Jersey City and Its Historic Sites," The Women's Club. Jersey City, NJ.
| |
| 15 eFloras.org. 2003. Floras of North America online. Accessed at:
| |
| 16 http://www.efloras.org/flora-page.aspx?flora-id=l on April 2, 2010.
| |
| 17 Electric Power Research (EPRI). 2006. Technical Resource Document for Modified Ristroph 18 Travelling Screens. Final Report, November 2006. Accessed at:
| |
| 19 http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/public/000000000001013308.pdf on August 11, 2010.
| |
| 20 Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2008. Status of Electricity Restructuring by State, New 21 Jersey Restructuring Active, EIA, U.S. Department of Energy, September 2008. Accessed at:
| |
| 22 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/restructuring/newjersey.html on April 29, 2010.
| |
| 23 Fay, C.W., R.J. Neves, and G.B. Pardue. 1983a. "Species Profiles: Life Histories and 24 Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) -Atlantic 25 Silverside," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of BiologicalServices, FWS/OBS-82/1 1.10.
| |
| 26 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, pp. 15.
| |
| 27 Fay, C.W., R.J. Neves, and G.B. Pardue. 1983b. "Species Profiles: Life Histories and 28 Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) - Striped Bass,"
| |
| 29 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, FWS/OBS-82/11.8. U.S. Army 30 Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, pp. 36.
| |
| 31 Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2008. "Special Concern Plant Species in Georgia,"
| |
| 32 Wildlife Resources Division. Accessed at:
| |
| 33 http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga. us/content/specialconcernplants.asp on April 8, 2010.
| |
| 34 Gloucester County Planning Division (GCPD). 2005. "Final County of Gloucester, NJ, Cross 35 Acceptance Report, Preliminary State Development and Redevelopment Plan," Prepared for 36 Gloucester County Planning Board, April 2005. Accessed at:
| |
| 37 http://www.state.nj.us/dca/divisions/osg/plan/ca.html on May 17, 2010.
| |
| 38 Gloucester County. 2009. Gloucester County Online Web Book. Accesed at:
| |
| 39 http://www.co.gloucester.nj.us/plan/webbook/webdata.html on December 17, 2009.
| |
| 40 Gloucester County. 2010. Gloucester County, New Jersey, Economic Development homepage.
| |
| 41 Accessed at:
| |
| Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 2-126 September 2010 '
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 http:/lwww.co.gloucester.nj.us/GovernmentlDepartments/EconomicDev/mainnew.cfm on 2 February 5, 2010.
| |
| 3 Greene, K. E., J. L. Zimmerman, R. W. Laney, and J. C. Thomas-Blate. 2009. Atlantic Coast 4 DiadromousFish Habitat:A Review of Utilization, Threats, Recommendations for Conservation, 5 and Research Needs. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Habitat Management Series 6 No. 9, Washington, D.C. Accessed at: http://www.asmfc.org/diadromousSpeciesDocument.htm 7 on July 21, 2010.
| |
| 8 Grimes, B.H., M.T. Huish, J.H. Kerby, and D.P Moran. 1989. "Species Profiles: Life Histories 9 and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) - Summer 10 and Winter Flounder," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service BiologicalReport, 82(11.112), U.S. Army 11 Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, pp. 18.
| |
| 12 Hill, J., D.L. Fowler, and M.J. Van Den Avyle. 1989. "Species Profiles: Life Histories and 13 Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) - Blue Crab,"
| |
| 14 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 82(11.100), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 15 TR EL-82-4, pp. 18.
| |
| 16 Hilty, J. 2010. "Illinois Wildflowers." Accessed at: http://www.illinoiswildflowers.info/on May 14, 17 2010.
| |
| 18 Kraft, H.C. and R. Alan Mounier. 1982. "The Archaic Period in Northern New Jersey." In Olga 19 Chesler (Ed.), New Jersey'sArchaeologicalResources: A Review of Research Problems and 20 Survey Priorities:The Paleo-lndian Periodto Present, State of New Jersey Department of 21 Environmental Protection, Natural and Historic Resources, Historic Preservation Office, Trenton, 22 NJ, February 1982.
| |
| 23 Kraft, H.C. 1986. The Lenape: Archaeology, History and Ethnography. New Jersey Historical 24 Society.
| |
| 25 Kraft, H.C. 2001. The Lenape-DelawareIndian Heritage: 10,000 BC to AD 2000, Lenape Books.
| |
| 26 Lassuy, D.R. 1983. "Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements (Gulf of 27 Mexico) - Atlantic Croaker," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, 28 FWS/ORS-82/11.3, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, pp. 12.
| |
| 29 Lower Alloways Creek Township (LACT). 1988a. Tax Map, Zone 8, Lower Alloways Creek 30 Township, May 1988.
| |
| 31 LACT. 1988b. Tax Map, Zone 14, Lower Alloways Creek Township, May 1988.
| |
| 32 LACT. 1992. Master Plan, Adopted by Lower Alloways Creek Township Planning Board 33 September 17, 1992.
| |
| 34 MacKenzie, C., L.S. Weiss-Glanz, and J.R. Moring. 1985. "Species Profiles: Life Histories and 35 Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) - American 36 Shad," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service BiologicalReport, 82(11.37), U.S. Army Corps of 37 Engineers, TR EL-82-4, pp. 18.
| |
| 38 Marshall, S. 1982. "Aboriginal Settlement in New Jersey During the Paleo-Indian Cultural 39 Period: ca. 10,000 B.C. - 6,000 B.C." In Olga Chesler (Ed.), New Jersey's Archaeological 40 Resources:A Review of Research Problems and Survey Priorities:The Paleo-lndianPeriodto September 2010 2-127 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Present,State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Natural and Historic 2 Resources, Historic Preservation Office, Trenton, NJ, February 1982.
| |
| 3 Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2008. White Perch Fisheries Management 4 Plan. Accessed at:
| |
| 5 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/management/FMP/FMPWhitePerchO4.pdf on February 18, 6 2010.
| |
| 7 Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. 2009. Natural Heritage Endangered Species 8 Program, List of Rare Species in Massachusetts. Accessed at:
| |
| 9 http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/species-info/mesa-list/mesa-list.htm#PLANTS on April 10 8,2010.
| |
| 11 Mercer, L.P. 1989. "Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal 12 Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) - Weakfish," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological 13 Report, 82(11.109), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, pp. 17.
| |
| 14 Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 2010. Michigan's Special Animals and Plants. Accessed 15 at: http://web4.msue.msu.edu/Mnfi/on April 7, 2010.
| |
| 16 Missouri Botanical Gardens. 2010. Kemper Center for Home Gardening PlantFinder. Accessed 17 at: http://www.mobot.org/gardeninghelp/plantfinder/alpha.asp on April 7, 2010.
| |
| 18 Missouriplants.com. 2010. "Photographs and descriptions of the flowering and non-flowering 19 plants of Missouri, USA." Accessed at: http://www.missouriplants.com/ on April 7, 2010.
| |
| 20 Moisan, Tiffany A., Nolan, Jessica K., Campbell, Brian A., Firestone, Elaine R. 2007. Rising 21 Tides. CoastalObs Project. Education and Public Outreach office. Hydrospheric and Biospheric 22 Sciences Laboratory. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Wallops Flight Facility. Accessed at:
| |
| 23 http://phytoplankton.gsfc.nasa.gov/risingtides/pdf/RisingTides-Journal-Complete.pdf on July 29, 24 2010.
| |
| 25 Monaco, Mark E. and Ulanowicz, Robert E. 1997. Comparative ecosystem trophic structure of 26 three US. mid-Atlantic estuaries. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 161: 239-254.
| |
| 27 Published December 31, 1997.
| |
| 28 Morris Land Conservancy. 2006. "County of Salem: Open Space and Farmland Preservation 29 Plan, Volume 1: Open Space and Recreation Plan," Compiled by Morris Land Conservancy with 30 . Salem County Open Space Advisory Committee, December 2006. Accessed at:
| |
| 31 http://www.salemcountynj.gov/cmssite/downloads/departments/PlanningBoard/9-32 2008/Open%2OSpace%20and%20Recreation%20Plan%202006.pdf on December 9, 2009 33 Morris Land Conservancy. 2008. "County of Salem: Open Space and Farmland Preservation 34 Plan, Volume 2: Farmland Preservation Plan, Update 2007," August 2008. Accessed at:
| |
| 35 http://www.salemcountynj.gov/cmssite/downloads/departments/PlanningBoard/2008Farmland 36 PreservationPlan.pdf 37 Morse, W.W. and K.W. Able. 1995. "Distribution and life history of windowpane, Scophthalmus 38 aquosus, off the northeastern United States," FisheryBulletin, 93:675-693.
| |
| 39 Morton, T. 1989. "Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal 40 Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) - Bay Anchovy," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 41 BiologicalReport, 82(11.97), pp. 13.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-128 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Najarian Associates. 2004. "Hydrological Modeling Analysis for the Hope Creek Generating 2 Station Extended Power Uprate Project," Final Report, Submitted to PSEG, Environmental 3 Health and Safety, Newark, NJ.
| |
| 4 National Audubon Society. 2010. Important Bird Areas in the U.S. - Site Report for Mad Horse 5 Creek and Abbots Meadow Wildlife Management Areas/Stowe Creek. Accessed at:
| |
| 6 http://iba.audubon.org/iba/profileReport.do?siteld=2961 &navSite=search&pagerOffset=O&page 7 =1 on February 12, 2010.
| |
| 8 National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). 2009. College Navigator, Institute of 9 Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Accessed at:
| |
| 10 http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?s=NJ&zc=08079&zd=50&of=3&ct=1 on December 22, 11 2009 12 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon 13 (Acipenserbrevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National 14 Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. December. 104 pages.
| |
| 15 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999. "Highly Migratory Species Management 16 Division 1999, Final Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tuna, Swordfish, and Sharks, 17 Including the Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement, the Final Regulatory Impact 18 Review, the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and the Final Social Impact Assessment."
| |
| 19 April 1999.
| |
| 20 NMFS. 2008. "Biennial Report to Congress on the Recovery Program for Threatened and 21 Endangered Species," October 1, 2006 - September 30, 2008.
| |
| 22 NMFS. 2009. "Species of Concern: NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service: River Herring 23 (Alewife and Blueback Herring) Alosa pseudoharngus and A. aestivalis."Accessed at:
| |
| 24 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/riverherringdetailed.pdf on February 17, 2010.
| |
| 25 NMFS. 2010a. Letter from S. W. Gorski, Field Offices Supervisor, Habitat Conservation 26 Division, James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory, Highlands, NJ, to B. Pham, Office of 27 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Letter 28 responded to NRC request for information on essential fish habitat designated in the vicinity of 29 the Salem and HCGS facilities. February 23, 2010.
| |
| 30 NMFS. 201 Ob. Letter from M. A. Colligan, Assistant Regional Administator for Protected 31 Resources, Northeast Region, to B. Pham, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, US Nuclear 32 Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Letter responded to NRC request for information on 33 the presence of species listed by NMFS as threatened or endangered that may occur in the 34 vicinity of the Salem and HCGS facilities. Part of ESA Section 7 consultation pursuant to 35 Federally protected species under the jurisdiction of NMFS. February 11, 2010.
| |
| 36 NMFS. 2010c. "Marine Turtles." Accessed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/ on 37 February 23, 2010.
| |
| 38 National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and FWS). 2007a.
| |
| 39 "Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), Five Year Review: Summary and Evaluation."
| |
| 40 Accessed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/leatherback_5yearreview.pdf on May 6 41 2010.
| |
| September 2010 2-129 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 NMFS and FWS. 2007b. "Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempih), Five Year Review:
| |
| 2 Summary and Evaluation." Accessed at:
| |
| 3 http://www. nmfs. noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/kempsridley_5yearreview.pdf on May 5 2010.
| |
| 4 NMFS and FWS. 2007c. "Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas), Five Year Review: Summary 5 and Evaluation." Accessed at:
| |
| 6 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/greenturtle_5yearreview.pdf on May 5 2010.
| |
| 7 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1999a. "NOAA Technical 8 Memorandum NMFS-NE-138: Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Winter Flounder, 9 Pseudopleuronectesamericanus,Life History and Habitat Characteristics," U.S. Department of 10 Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 11 Service, Northeast Region, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA, September 12 1999. Accessed at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm138/tm138.pdf on May 5, 13 2010.
| |
| 14 NOAA. 1999b. "NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-137: Essential Fish Habitat Source 15 Document: Windowpane, Scophthalmus aquosus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics," U.S.
| |
| 16 Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 17 Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA, 18 September 1999. Accessed at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tml37/tm137.pdf on 19 May 5, 2010.
| |
| 20 NOAA. 1999c. "NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-151: Essential Fish Habitat Source 21 Document: Summer Flounder, Paralichthysdentatus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics,"
| |
| 22 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 23 Marine Fisheries Service. Northeast Region, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, 24 MA, September 1999. Accessed at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm151/tm151.pdf 25 on May 5, 2010.
| |
| 26 NOAA. 1999d. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-145. EssentialFish Habitat Source 27 Document: Butterfish, Peprilustriacanthus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. U. S.
| |
| 28 Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Marine 29 Fisheries Service. Northeast Region. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.
| |
| 30 September 1999 31 NOAA. 2003a. "NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-174: Essential Fish Habitat Source 32 Document: Clearnose Skate, Raja eglanteria,Life History and Habitat Characteristics," U.S.
| |
| 33 Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 34 Fisheries Service. Northeast Region, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA, 35 March 2003. Accessed at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm174/index.htm on May 36 6, 2010.
| |
| 37 NOAA. 2003b. "NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-175: Essential Fish Habitat Source 38 Document: Little Skate, Leucoraja erinacea,Life History and Habitat Characteristics," U.S.
| |
| 39 Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 40 Fisheries Service. Northeast Region, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA, 41 March 2003. Accessed at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm175/index.htm on May 42 6, 2010.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-130 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 NOAA. 2003c. "NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-179: Essential Fish Habitat Source 2 Document: Winter Skate, Leucoraja ocellata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics," U.S.
| |
| 3 Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 4 Fisheries Service. Northeast Region, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA, 5 March 2003. Accessed at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tm179/ on June 21, 6 2010.
| |
| 7 NOAA. 2004. "Climatography of the United States No. 20, Monthly Station Climate Summaries, 8 1971-2000," National Climatic Data Center.
| |
| 9 NOAA. 2006a. "NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-198: Essential Fish Habitat Source 10 Document: Bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix,Life History and Habitat Characteristics, Second 11 Edition," U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 12 National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA, June 13 2006. Accessed at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm198/tm198.pdf on June 21, 14 2010.
| |
| 15 NOAA. 2006b. Delaware River Watershed: Acronyms & Definitions. Accessed at:
| |
| 16 http://mapping2.orr.noaa.gov/portal/Delaware/definitions.html on 5 May 2010.
| |
| 17 NOAA. 2008. "Climate of New Jersey, Introduction," National Climatic Data Center.
| |
| 18 NOAA. 2009a. "Forecast for the 2009 Gulf and Atlantic Menhaden Purse-Seine Fisheries and 19 Review of the 2008 Fishing Season," Sustainable Fisheries Branch, NMFS Beaufort, NC, March 20 2009.
| |
| 21 NOAA. 2009b. "Species of Concern: NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service: Atlantic 22 sturgeon (Acipenser oxytinchus oxyrinchus)." Accessed at:
| |
| 23 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/atlanticsturgeon-detailed.pdf on April 13, 2010.
| |
| 24 NOAA. 2010a. Locate Weather Station, Salem County, NJ, National Climatic Data Center.
| |
| 25 Accessed at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/stationlocator.html on February 26, 2010.
| |
| 26 NOAA. 2010b. Query Results, Storm Events in Salem County, NJ, National Climatic Data 27 Center. Accessed at: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent-Storms on 28 February 26, 2010.
| |
| 29 NOAA. 2010c. Event Record Details, Salem County, NJ, National Climatic Data Center.
| |
| 30 Accessed at: http:/lwww4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent-ShowEvent-435196 on 31 February 26, 2010.
| |
| 32 NOAA. 2010d. NCDC Station List, within 25 Miles of Woodstown, NJ, National Climatic Data 33 Center. Accessed at:
| |
| 34 http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI-StnsNear-20018793-25 on February 26, 35 2010.
| |
| 36 NOAA. 2010e. "Summary of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Designation: 10' x 10' Square 37 Coordinates," NOAA Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation Division. Accessed at:
| |
| 38 http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/STATES4/newjersey/39207530.html on May 16, 2010.
| |
| 39 NOAA. 2010f. "Summary of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Designation: Delaware Bay, New 40 Jersey/Delaware." Accessed at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/nj2.html on February 25, 2010.
| |
| September 2010 2-131 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 NOAA. 2010g. "Summer flounder (Paralichthysdentatus): Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for 2 Summer flounder." Accessed at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/summerflounder.htm on March 3 1,2010.
| |
| 4 NOAA. 2010h. "Butterfish (Peprilustriacanthus): Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Butterfish."
| |
| 5 Accessed at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/butterfish.htm on March 1, 2010.
| |
| 6 NOAA. 2010i. "Loggerhead Turtle (Carettacaretta)," NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected 7 Resources. Accessed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/loggerhead.htm on May 8 5,2010.
| |
| 9 NOAA. 2010j. "Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenserbrevirostrum),"NOAA Fisheries, Office of 10 Protected Resources. Accessed at:
| |
| 11 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/shortnosesturgeon.htm on May 5, 2010. National Park 12 Service (NPS). 2006. Pinelands National Reserve - New Jersey Web site. Accessed at:
| |
| 13 http://www.nps.gov/pine/index.htm on February 24, 2010.
| |
| 14 National Park Service (NPS). 2006a. Pinelands National Reserve - New Jersey website.
| |
| 15 Accessed 24 February 2010 at http://www.nps.gov/pine/index.htm.
| |
| 16 NPS. 2006b. Great Egg Harbor National Scenic and Recreational River - Things to Know.
| |
| 17 Accessed 14 May 2010 at http://www.nps.gov/greg/planyourvisit/things2know.htm.
| |
| 18 National Register of Historic Places. New Castle County, Delaware. Accessed at:
| |
| 19 http:/lwww.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/de/New+Castle/state.html on April 9, 2010 20 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2010. Web Soil Survey - National 21 Cooperative Soil Survey. Accessed at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm 22 on February 10, 2010.
| |
| 23 NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life (Web application).
| |
| 24 Version 7.1, NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Accessed at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ on 25 March 18, 2010. Neartica.com. 2010. "The Natural History of North America, Coast Blite 26 (Chenopodium rubrum)." Accessed at:
| |
| 27 http://www.nearctica.com/flowers/bandc/chenop/Crubrum.htm on April 5, 2010.
| |
| 28 New Castle County. 2007. "ll. Future Land Use and Design," 2007 Comprehensive 29 Development Plan Update, New Castle County Department of Land Use, July 24, 2007.
| |
| 30 Accessed at:
| |
| 31 http://www2.nccde.org/landuse/documents/PlanningComprehensivePlanDocuments/Sectionil-32 FutureLandUse.pdf on December 17, 2009.
| |
| 33 New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC). 1998a. "Essential Fish Habitat 34
| |
| | |
| == Description:==
| |
| Winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus)."Accessed at:
| |
| 35 http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/winter.pdf on February 10, 2010.
| |
| 36 NEFMC. 1998b. "Essential Fish Habitat
| |
| | |
| == Description:==
| |
| Windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus 37 aquosus)." Accessed at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/windowpane.pdf on February 26, 2010.
| |
| 38 NEFMC. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Overview. Accessed at: http://www.nefmc.org/ on August 39 8, 2006.New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). 2010. "Northeast Multispecies 40 (Large Mesh/Groundfish) Fishery Management Plan." Accessed at:
| |
| 41 http:llwww.nefmc.org/nemulti/summaryllargemeshmulti.pdf on February 26, 2010.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-132 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 New England Wild Flower Society. 2003. "New England Plant Conservation Program, 2 Calystegia spithamaea (L.) Pursh ssp. spithamaea Low Bindweed: Conservation and Research 3 Plan for New England." December 2003. Accessed at:
| |
| 4 http://www.newenglandwild.org/docslpdflcalystegiaspithamaea.pdf on April 5, 2010.
| |
| 5 New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C.). 7:26. Solid & Hazardous Waste Rules 6 N.J.A.C. 7:1.4 Water Pollution ControlAct 7 New Jersey American Water (NJAW). 2010. "2008 Annual Water Quality Report," Cherry Hill, 8 NJ. Accessed at:
| |
| 9 http://www.amwater.com/njawlensuring-water-qualitylwater-quality-reports.html on February 24, 10 2010.
| |
| 11 New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU). 2009. Proposed Amendments to the Electric Service 12 Rules - Electric Utility Line Vegetation Management, N.J.A.C. 14:5-9.2 and 9.6, BPU Docket 13 #EX0804235. Accessed at:
| |
| 14 http://www.state.nj.us/bpulpdf/rulesNeg%20Mgmt%2OAmendments%20-%2OProposal%20-15 %20COURTESY%20COPY%20(5%20-%208%20-%2009).pdf on August 23, 2010.
| |
| 16 New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE). 2010. 2008-2009 Enrollment, School Districts 17 in Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem Counties, NJ. Accessed at:
| |
| 18 http:llwww.nj.gov/education/data/enr/enrO9/county.htm on January 15, 2010.
| |
| 19 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2001a. Final Surface Water 20 Renewal Permit Action for Industrial Wastewater, Salem Generating Station, NJPDES Permit 21 No. NJ0005622, June 2001. (Included as Appendix B to Applicant's Environmental Report.)
| |
| 22 NJDEP. 2001b. Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of New Jersey. Division of Fish and 23 Wildlife, Endangered and Nongame Species Program. 1 st edition, February. Accessed at:
| |
| 24 http:l/www.state. nj. us/deplfgwlensp/pdf/frogs. pdf on August 20, 2010.
| |
| 25 NJDEP. 2002a. Fact Sheet for a Draft NJPDES Permit Including Section 316 (a) variance 26 determination and Section 316(b) decision, Trenton, NJ, November 2002.
| |
| 27 NJDEP. 2002b. Hope Creek Generating Station Permit No. NJ002541 1, Surface Renewal 28 Water Permit Action, Draft Permit and Fact Sheet and Statement of Bases, Trenton, NJ, 29 November 2002.
| |
| 30 NJDEP. 2003. Final Consolidated Renewal Permit Action for Industrial Wastewater and 31 Stormwater, Hope Creek Generating Station, NJPDES Permit No. NJ002541 1, January 2003.
| |
| 32 (Included as Appendix B to Applicant's Environmental Report.)
| |
| 33 NJDEP. 2004a. "Water Allocation Permit - Minor Modification," Permit No. WAP040001.
| |
| 34 December 2004.
| |
| 35 NJDEP. 2004b. New Jersey's Endangered and Threatened Wildlife lists. Accessed at:
| |
| 36 http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/tandespp.htm on April 1, 2010.
| |
| 37 NJDEP. 2005a. Final Surface Water Major Mod Permit Action - Clarification of BOD and TSS 38 Minimum Percent Removal Limits, Hope Creek Generating Station, NJPDES Permit No.
| |
| 39 NJ0025411, January 31, 2005.
| |
| September 2010 2-133 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 NJDEP. 2005b. "Estuarine Algal Conditions, Page 1- Updated 2/2008," Environmental Trends 2 Report, NJDEP, Division of Science, Research & Technology. Accessed at:
| |
| 3 http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/trends2005/ on February 16, 2010.
| |
| 4 NJDEP. 2005c. "Annual Summary of Phytoplankton Blooms and Related Conditions in the New 5 Jersey Coastal Waters," Summer of 2005.
| |
| 6 NJDEP. 2005d. "Locations of Anadromous American Shad and River Herring During Their 7 Spawning Period in New Jersey's Freshwaters Including Known Migratory Impediments and 8 Fish Ladders," Division of Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Freshwater Fisheries, Southern Regional 9 Office, March 2005.
| |
| 10 NJDEP. 2006. New Jersey Landscape ProjectMap Book, Division of Fish and Wildlife, 11 Endangered and Nongame Species Program, Trenton, NJ. Accessed at:
| |
| 12 http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/mapbook.htm on May 14, 2008.
| |
| 13 NJDEP. 2007a. "Determination of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) in Aqueous Samples, Final 14 Report," Division of Water Supply, Bureau of Safe Drinking Water, Trenton, NJ, January 2007.
| |
| 15 Accessed at: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/watersupply/final_pfoareport.pdf on April 23, 2010.
| |
| 16 NJDEP. 2007b. "Environmental Surveillance and Monitoring Report for the Environs of New 17 Jersey's Nuclear Power Generating Stations," Bureau of Nuclear Engineering. Accessed at:
| |
| 18 http://www.state.nj.usldeplrpp/bnelbnedown/2007EnviroSurvandMonitReport.pdf on April 19, 19 2010.
| |
| 20 NJDEP. 2008a. "Environmental Surveillance and Monitoring Report for the Environs of New 21 Jersey's Nuclear Power Generating Stations," Bureau of Nuclear Engineering. Accessed at:
| |
| 22 http://www.state.nj.us/dep/rpplbnelbnedown/2007EnviroSurvandMonitReport.pdf on April 19, 23 2010.
| |
| 24 NJDEP. 2008b. Letter from H. A. Lord, Data Request Specialist, Natural Heritage Program, to 25 L. Bryan, Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. Letter Responded to Request for Rare Species Information for 26 the Salem and HCGS Site and Transmission Line ROWs in Camden, Gloucester, and Salem 27 Counties.
| |
| 28 NJDEP. 2008c. New Jersey's Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, Division of Fish & Wildlife, 29 February 5, 2008. Accessed at: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/tandespp.htm on May 4, 2010.
| |
| 30 NJDEP. 2009a. "Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan 2009," NJDEP Bureau of Air Monitoring, 31 June 2009. Accessed at: http://www.njaqinow.net/Default.aspx on February 26, 2010.
| |
| 32 NJDEP. 2009b. Operating Permit Renewal Application, Administrative Completeness - with 33 Application Shield, Permit Activity No. BOP080003, December 2009.
| |
| 34 NJDEP. 2009c. "Environmental Surveillance and Monitoring Report for the Environs of New 35 Jersey's Nuclear Power Generating Stations." Accessed at:
| |
| 36 www.state.nj.us/dep/rpp/bne/esmr.htm on April 19, 2010.
| |
| 37 NJDEP. . Public Water System Deficit/Surplus; Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem Counties, 38 Division of Water Supply. Accessed at: http://www.nj.gov/dep/watersupply/pws.htm on May 11, 39 2010.
| |
| 40 NJDEP. 2010a. Attainment Areas Status, Bureau of Air Quality Planning. Accessed at:
| |
| 41 http://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/aas.html February 26, 2010.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-134 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 NJDEP. 2010b. Division of Land Use Regulation. Accessed at: http://www.nj.gov/dep/landuse/
| |
| 2 on February 24, 2010.
| |
| 3 NJDEP. 2010c. Enforcement Actions Issued at Site ID:15647 Between 1/01/2000 and 4 8/12/2010. Accessed at http://datamine2.state.nj.us/DEP_OPRA/OpraMain/get longreport?
| |
| 5 on August 12, 2010.
| |
| 6 New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (NJDLWD). 2010a. Southern 7 Regional Community Fact Book, Cumberland County Edition, Division of Labor Market and 8 Demographic Research, February 2010. Accessed at:
| |
| 9 http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lpa/pub/factbook/cumfct.pdfon April 28, 2010.
| |
| 10 NJDLWD. 201 Ob. Southern Regional Community FactBook, Gloucester County Edition, 11 Division of Labor Market and Demographic Research, February 2010. Accessed at:
| |
| 12 http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lpa/pub/factbook/glcfct.pdf on April 28, 2010.
| |
| 13 NJDLWD. 2010c. Southern Regional Community Fact Book, Salem County Edition, Division of 14 Labor Market and Demographic Research, February 2010. Accessed at:
| |
| 15 http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lpa/pub/factbook/slmfct.pdf on April 28, 2010.
| |
| 16 New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). 2009. 2009 Short Term Counts Stations 17 List with Annual Average Daily Traffic Data. Accessed at:
| |
| 18 http://www.state. nj.usltransportation/refdata/roadway/pdf/StationListingO9.pdf on March 23, 19 2010.
| |
| 20 New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife (NJDFW). 2004. "Bog Turtle - November 2003 Species 21 of the Month," October 2004. Accessed at: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/somnov.htm on 22 February 26, 2010.
| |
| 23 NJDFW. 2009a. "Wildlife Management Areas," Trenton, NJ. Accessed at:
| |
| 24 http://www.state.nj.us./dep/fgw/wmaland.htm on May 18, 2010.
| |
| 25 NJDFW. 2009b. "The 2009 Osprey Project in New Jersey," Endangered and Nongame 26 Species Program. Accessed at: http://www.conservewildlifenj.org/downloads/cwnj_13.pdf on 27 February 18, 2010.
| |
| 28 NJDFW. 2010a. "Bald Eagle, Haliaeetusleucocephalus."Accessed at:
| |
| 29 http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end-thrtened/baldeagle.pdf on February 24, 2010.
| |
| 30 NJDFW. 2010b. "Bog Turtle, Clemmys muhlenbergii."Accessed at:
| |
| 31 http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end-thrtened/bogtrtl.pdf on May 9, 2010.
| |
| 32 NJDFW. 2010c. "New Jersey Bog Turtle Project." Accessed at:
| |
| 33 http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/bogturt.htm on February 26, 2010.
| |
| 34 NJDFW. 2010d. "Bog Turtle Habitat Management and Restoration Slide Show." Accessed at:
| |
| 35 http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/slideshows/bogturtle/bogtrtintro.htm on February 26, 2010.
| |
| 36 New Jersey Pinelands Commission. 2009. "New Jersey Pinelands Electric-Transmission 37 Right-of-Way Vegetation-Management Plan, Final Draft," Lathrop, R.G. and J.F. Bunnell, 38 Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, February 2009.
| |
| 39 New Jersey Pinelands Commission. 2010. The Pinelands National Reserve. Accessed at:
| |
| 40 http://www.state.nj.us/pinelands/reserve/ on August 20, 2010.
| |
| September 2010 2-135 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 New Jersey State Atlas (NJSA). 2008. Interactive State Plan Map. Accessed at:
| |
| 2 http://njstateatlas.com/luc/ on February 8, 2010.
| |
| 3 New Jersey Water Science Center (NJWSC). 2009. "Major Aquifers in New Jersey." Accessed 4 at: http://nj. usgs.gov/infodata/aquifers/ on February 24, 2010.
| |
| 5 New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP). 2009. "Atlantic silverside." Accessed at:
| |
| 6 http://www.acris.nynhp.org/report.php?id=7304 on February 25, 2010.
| |
| 7 NYNHP. 2010. Animal and Plant Guides. Accessed at: http://www.acris.nynhp.org/plants.php 8 on April 5, 2010.
| |
| 9 Newberger, T. A. and E. D. Houde. 1995. "Population Biology of Bay Anchovy Anchoa mitchilli 10 in the Mid Chesapeake Bay," Marine Ecology ProgressSeries, 116:25-37 11 NOAA Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment. 2005. Estuarine Living Marine 12 Resources query results for summer flounder, all life stages in Delaware Bay and Delaware 13 Inland Bays, August 2005. Accessed at: http://www8.nos.noaa.gov/biogeopublic/elmr.aspx on 14 March 2, 2010.
| |
| 15 North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). 2006. Standard FAC-003 16 Transmission Vegetation Management Program. Accessed 7 April 2010 at 17 http:/lwww.nerc.comlfiles/FAC-003-1.pdf.
| |
| 18 Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2004. "Report of the 38th Northeast Regional 19 Stock Assessment Workshop (38th SAW): Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) 20 consensus summary of assessments," Ref. Doc. 04-03; 246 p. Accessed at:
| |
| 21 http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/crd/crdO4O3/butterfish.pdf on March 2, 2010 22 NEFSC. 2006. 'Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern US, NEFSC - Resource 23 Evaluation and Assessment Division, Atlantic and Shortnose sturgeons. Atlantic (Acipenser 24 oxyrhynchus), Shortnose (Acipenserbrevirostrum),"by Gary Shepherd, December 2006.
| |
| 25 Accessed at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/af/sturgeon/ on May 5, 2010 26 NEFSC. 2006a. "Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern US, NEFSC - Resource 27 Evaluation and Assessment Division, Summer flounder (Paralichthysdentatus)," by Mark 28 Terceiro, December 2006. Accessed at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/fldrs/summer/ on 29 March 2, 2010.
| |
| 30 NEFSC. 2006b. "Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern US, NEFSC - Resource 31 Evaluation and Assessment Division, Butterfish (Peprilustriacanthus),"by William Overholtz, 32 December 2006. Accessed at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/op/butter/ on February 26.
| |
| 33 2010.
| |
| 34 NEFSC. 2008. "Assessment of 19 Northeast Groundfish Stocks through 2007: Report of the 35 3rd Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM Ill)," Northeast FisheriesScience Center 36 Reference Document, 08-15; 884 p + xvii, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, 37 MA, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries, August 4--8, 2008.
| |
| 38 Nuclear News. 2009. "World List of Nuclear Power Plants," Vol. 52, pp. 54, March 2009.
| |
| 39 Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1983. "HottoniaInflata Ell., Featherfoil," November 40 1983. Accessed at:
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-136 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 http://www dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/3/Abstracts/Abstract-pdf/H/Hottoniainflata.pdf on April 8, 2 2010.
| |
| 3 Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1994. "Triadenum walteri Gleason Walter's St. John's 4 Wort," January 1994. Accessed at:
| |
| 5 http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/3/Abstracts/Abstract-pdf/T/Triadenum-walteri.pdf on April 8, 6 2010.
| |
| 7 Ortho-Rodgers. 2002. "Planning for the Future: A Summary of Cumberland County Planning 8 Initiatives," Prepared for the Cumberland County Department of Planning and Development, 9 October 2002.
| |
| 10 Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 2010. "Temperate Basses, Family Moronidae,"
| |
| 11 Pennsylvania Fishes (Chapter 21). Accessed at:
| |
| 12 http://fishandboat.com/pafish/fishhtms/chap21.htm on February 18, 2010.
| |
| 13 Pennsylvannia Natural Heritage Program. 2007. Species Fact Sheets. Accessed at:
| |
| 14 http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/Factsheets.aspx on April 8, 2010.
| |
| 15 Phillips, J.M., M.T. Huish, J.H. Kerby, and D.P. Moran. 1989. "Species Profiles: Life Histories 16 and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) - Spot,"
| |
| 17 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 82(11.98), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 18 TR EL-82-4, pp. 13.
| |
| 19 Pottern, G.B., M.T. Huish, and J.H. Kerby. 1989. "Species Profiles: Life Histories and 20 Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) - Bluefish,"
| |
| 21 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 82(11.94), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR 22 EL-82-4, pp. 20.
| |
| 23 PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG). 1983. "Hope Creek Generating Station, Applicant's Environmental 24 Report - Operating License Stage," Volume 1, March 1983.
| |
| 25 PSEG. 1984. Salem Generating Station 316(b) Demonstration, NPDES Permit No. NJ0005622.
| |
| 26 PSEG. 1999. Permit Renewal Application, NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622, Salem Generating 27 Station, March 1999.
| |
| 28 PSEG. 2004a. "Remedial Action Work Plan," PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, 29 Hancock's Bridge, NJ, July 2004.
| |
| 30 PSEG. 2004b. "Alloway Creek Watershed Phragmites-Dominated Wetland Restoration 31 Management Plan," Public Service Enterprise Group, Newark, NJ, February 17, 2004.
| |
| 32 PSEG. 2005a. "2004 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report January 1 to 33 December 31, 2004," Lower Alloways Creek Township, NJ, April 2005, ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 34 ML051260140.
| |
| 35 PSEG. 2005b. "Hope Creek Generating Station Environmental Report for Extended Power 36 Uprate," Prepared for PSEG Nuclear LLC by PSEG Services Corporation, Salem, NJ, April 37 2005.
| |
| 38 PSEG. 2006a. "Hope Creek Generating Station - Updated Final Safety Analysis Report,"
| |
| 39 Revision 15, Newark, NJ, October 2006.
| |
| September 2010 2-137 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 PSEG. 2006b. "2005 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report January 1 to 2 December 31, 2006," Lower Alloways Creek Township, NJ, May 2006, ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 3 ML061300067.
| |
| 4 PSEG. 2006c. Salem NJPDES Permit Renewal Application, NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622, 5 Public Service Enterprise Group, Newark, NJ, February 2006.
| |
| 6 PSEG. 2007a. "Salem Generating Station - Updated Final Safety Analysis Report," Document 7 No. PSEG-0008, Revision 23, Public Service Enterprise Group, Newark, NJ, October 2007.
| |
| 8 PSEG. 2007b. "2006 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report January 1 to 9 December 31, 2006," Lower Alloways Creek Township, NJ, April 2007, ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 10 ML071230112.
| |
| 11 PSEG. 2008a. "2007 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report January 1 to 12 December 31, 2007." Lower Alloways Creek Township, NJ, April 2008, ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 13 ML081280737.
| |
| 14 PSEG. 2008b. "2007 Hazardous Waste Report," Lower Alloways Creek Township, NJ, 15 February 2008.
| |
| 16 PSEG. 2008c. "The Hope Creek Generating Station." Accessed at:
| |
| 17 http://www.pseg.com/companies/nuclearlhopecreek.jsp on October 2008 18 PSEG. 2009a. "Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application, 19 Appendix E - Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage," Lower 20 Alloways Creek Township, NJ, August 2009, ADAMS Accession Nos. ML092400532, 21 ML092400531, ML092430231.
| |
| 22 PSEG. 2009b. "Hope Creek Generating Station, License Renewal Application, Appendix E -
| |
| 23 Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage," Lower Alloways Creek 24 Township, NJ, August 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML092430389.
| |
| 25 PSEG. 2009c. "2008 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report January 1 to 26 December 31, 2009," Lower Alloways Creek Township, NJ, April 2009, ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 27 ML091200612.
| |
| 28 PSEG. 2009d. "Salem Generating Station - Updated Final Safety Analysis Report," Revision 29 24, Document No. PSEG-0008, May 11, 2009.
| |
| 30 PSEG. 2009e. "Quarterly Remedial Action Progress Report, Fourth Quarter 2008, PSEG 31 Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station," Developed by Arcadis for PSEG Nuclear LLC, 32 May 26, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML091690304.
| |
| 33 PSEG. 2010a. "2009 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report January I to 34 December 31, 2009," Lower Alloways Creek Township, NJ, April 2010, ADAMS Accession No.
| |
| 35 ML101241151.
| |
| 36 PSEG. 2010b. "Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations Hazardous Waste Generator 37 Status for 2009," Lower Alloways Creek Township, NJ, March 2010.
| |
| 38 PSEG. 2010c. Transmission system landcover map with table of acreages by landcover type.
| |
| 39 Provided to NRC by PSEG on August 20, 2010 in response to an NRC request for additional 40 information.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-138 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 PSEG. 2010d. Table 2.6-2 Update, "Residential Distribution of Salem Employees;" Table 2.6-2 2 Update, "Residential Distribution of Hope Creek Employees;" and Table 2.6-2a, "Residential 3 Distribution of Salem/Hope Creek Staffs who are Matrixed and Corporate Employees," Provided 4 in response to Salem/Hope Creek Environmental Audit Needs List as requested in NRC letter 5 dated April 16, 2010, Document designations LUS-6 (Index No. Socioeconomics 7 and 8) and 6 No LUS# (Index No. Socioeconomics 23).
| |
| 7 PSEG. 2010e. Update to Table 2.7-1, "Tax Information for Salem and Hope Creek Generating 8 Station and the Energy and Environmental Resource Center, 2003-2009," Provided in response 9 to Salem/Hope Creek Environmental Audit Needs List as requested in NRC letter dated 10 April 16, 2010, Document designation LUS-4 (Index No. Socioeconomics 4, 5, and 6).
| |
| 11 PSEG. 2010f. Letter from W. Lewis (PSEG) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 12 Document Control Desk,
| |
| | |
| ==Subject:==
| |
| PSEG Power, LLC and PSEG Nuclear, LLC Early Site Permit 13 Application Expected Submission Date, February 11, 2010.
| |
| 14 Rogers, S.G., and M.J. Van Den Avyle. 1989. "Species Profiles: Life Histories and 15 Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) -Atlantic 16 Menhaden," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service BiologicalReport, 82(11.108), U.S. Army Corps of 17 Engineers, TR EL-82-4, pp. 23.
| |
| 18 Rosenau, J.C., S.M. Lang, G.S. Hilton, and J.G. Rooney. 1969. "Geology and Ground-water 19 Resources of Salem County, New Jersey," New Jersey Departmentof Conservation and 20 Economic Development Special Report 33, pp. 142.
| |
| 21 Rukenstein & Associates. 2004. "Smart Growth Plan, Delaware River and 1-295/NJ Turnpike 22 Planned Growth Corridor, Salem County, New Jersey," Ron Rukenstein & Associates, Titusville, 23 NJ, January 21, 2004. Accessed at:
| |
| 24 http://www.salemcountynj.gov/cmssite/default.asp?contentlD=1208 on December 9, 2009.
| |
| 25 Salem County. 2007. "Salem County, New Jersey: An Economic Resource Guide," Salem 26 County Economic Development Department. Accessed at:
| |
| 27 http://www.salemcountynj.gov/cmssite/downloads/new%20tourism/Salem-Co-NJO6.pdf on April 28 27, 2010.
| |
| 29 Salem County. 2008. "Salem County Farmland Preservation Plan," August, 2008. Accessed at:
| |
| 30 http://www.salemcountynj.gov/cmssite/default.asp?contentlD= 1103 on February 24, 2010.
| |
| 31 Sellers, MA. and J. G. Stanley. 1984. "Specieý Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental 32 Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (North Atlantic) -American Oyster." U.S.
| |
| 33 Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, FWS/OBS-82/11.23, U.S. Army Corps 34 of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, pp. 15.
| |
| 35 Smithsonian Marine Station. 2008. "Species Name: Anchoa mitchilli. Common Name: Bay 36 Anchovy." Accessed at: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlSpec/Anchoamitchilli.htm on February 18, 37 2010.
| |
| 38 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2010. Species Descriptions. Accessed at:
| |
| 39 http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/species.html#T on May 9, 2010.
| |
| 40 South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization (SJTPO). 2008. "2035 RTP Update."
| |
| 41 Accessed at: http://www.sjtpo.org/2035-rtp-final.pdf on May 13, 2010.
| |
| September 2010 2-139 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Stanley, J.G. and D.S. Danie. 1983. "Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental 2 Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (North Atlantic) -White Perch," U.S. Fish 3 and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, FWS/OBS-82/11.7, U.S. Army Corps of 4 Engineers, TR EL-82-4, pp. 12.
| |
| 5 State Agriculture Development Committee (SADC). 2009. "New Jersey Farmland Preservation 6 Program." Accessed at:
| |
| 7 http://www.nj.gov/agriculture/sadc/farmpreserve/progress/stats/preservedsummary.pdf on 8 December 10, 2009.
| |
| 9 Sutton, C.C., J.C. O'Herron, II, and R.T. Zappalorti. 1996. "The Scientific Characterization of the 10 Delaware Estuary," Performed for the Delaware Estuary Program, Delaware River Basin 11 Commission (DRBC) Project # 321.
| |
| 12 TetraTech. 2009. "Salem/Hope Creek Generating Station Calculation Package for Ground 13 Water Pumpage, Salem & Hope Creek Generating Station," TetraTech NUS, Aiken, SC, 14 February 23, 2009.
| |
| 15 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2010. Biosphere 16 Reserve Information - New Jersey Pinelands. Accessed at:
| |
| 17 http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.php 18 URLID=6797&URLDO=DOTOPIC&URLSECTION=201.html on February 24, 2010.
| |
| 19 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1992. Delaware River Comprehensive Navigational 20 Study. Main Channel Deepening. Final Interim Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact 21 Statement. February, 1992.
| |
| 22 USACE. 2007. "Delaware Bay Oyster Restoration Project, Delaware and New Jersey, Final 23 Environmental Assessment," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, June 2007.
| |
| 24 USACE. 2009. "Delaware River Main Stem and Channel Deepening Project Environmental 25 Assessment," April 2009. Accessed at: http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-26 pl/MainChannel_EA_3AprO9.pdf on February 19 2010.
| |
| 27 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 1995a. "New Jersey, Population of Counties by Decennial 28 Census: 1900 to 1990." Accessed at: http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/nj190090.txt 29 on May 12, 2010.
| |
| 30 USCB. 1995b. "Delaware, Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900 to 1990."
| |
| 31 Accessed at: http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/de190090.txt on May 12, 2010.
| |
| 32 USCB. 2000a. Census 2000 Demographic Profile for Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem 33 Counties, New Jersey, and New Castle County, Delaware. Accessed at:
| |
| 34 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuld=&_I 35 ang=en&_ts= on December 8, 2009 36 USCB. 2000b. Demographic Profile for Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem Counties, New 37 Jersey, and New Castle County, Delaware. Accessed at:
| |
| 38 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuld=&_I 39 ang=en&_ts= on December 09, 2009 40 USCB. 2000c. "H1. Housing Units [1] - Universe: Housing units. Data Set: Census 2000 41 Summary File 1 (SF1) 100-Percent Data" and "H5. Vacancy Status [7] - Universe: Vacant Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-140 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 housing units. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1) 100-Percent Data" for 2 Cumberland, Gloucester, Salem Counties, State of New Jersey, New Castle County, and State 3 of Delaware. Accessed at: http://factfinder.census.gov/ on May 14, 2010.
| |
| 4 USCB. 2000d. "P4. Hispanic or Latino, and not Hispanic or Latino by Race [73] - Universe:
| |
| 5 Total population. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data." Accessed 6 at: http://factfinder.census.gov/ on May 14, 2010 7 USCB. 2006. Nonemployer Statistics, 2006 Total for all Sectors Salem County, NJ.Accessed 8 at: http:/lwww.census.gov/epcd/nonemployer/2006/njINJO33/HTM on May 5, 2010.
| |
| 9 USCB. 2010a. State & County QuickFacts for Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem Counties, 10 New Jersey and New Castle County, Delaware, April 22, 2010. Accessed at:
| |
| 11 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd on April 27, 2010.
| |
| 12 USCB. 2010b. GCT-T1. Population Estimates, New Jersey County, Data Set: 2009 Population 13 Estimates. Accessed at: http://factfinder.census.gov on May 12, 2010.
| |
| 14 USCB. 2010c. 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates for Cumberland, 15 Gloucester, and Salem Counties and New Jersey; New Castle County and Delaware, Selected 16 Economic Characteristics. Accessed at: http://factfinder.census.gov. on April 28, 2010.
| |
| 17 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1999. "American Kestrel (Falcosparverius)," Fish and 18 Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet. Accessed at:
| |
| 19 ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.govANHMINVEB/pdf/kestrel(1).pdf on May 9, 2010.
| |
| 20 USDA. 2006. Plants Database, Threatened and Endangered Plants of New Jersey, PLANTS 21 Profile. Accessed at: http://plants.usda.gov/java/threat?statelist=states&stateSelect=US34 on 22 April 2, 2010.
| |
| 23 USDA. 2007. "Table 7. Hired Farm Labor-Workers and Payroll: 2007," Volume 1, Chapter 2:
| |
| 24 County Level Data; Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, the Census of Agriculture.
| |
| 25 Accessed at:
| |
| 26 http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/FullReport/Volumel,_Chapter-2-County_L 27 evel/Maryland/st24_2_007 007.pdf on December 17, 2009 28 USDA. 2010. Fire Effects Information Network, Plant Species Life Form Database. Accessed 29 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/ on April 5, 2010.
| |
| 30 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
| |
| 31 2010. Web Soil Survey- National Cooperative Soil Survey. Accessed at:
| |
| 32 http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm on February 10, 2010.
| |
| 33 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. "Information on Levels of Environmental 34 Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety."
| |
| 35 Report 550/9-74-004, Wahington D.C. Available at:
| |
| 36 http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels74/levels74.htm March. (See also "EPA Identifies Noise 37 Levels Affecting Health and Welfare." September 21, 2007. Available online at 38 http:/lwww.epa.govlhistoryltopics/noise/0l .htm.)
| |
| 39 EPA. 1988. "New Jersey Coastal Plain Aquifer, Support Document, Atlantic, Burlington, 40 Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, and September 2010 2-141 Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Salem Counties, New Jersey," May 1988. Accessed at:
| |
| 2 http:l/www.epa.gov/Region2/water/aquifer/coastlcoastpln. htm on February 24, 2010.
| |
| 3 EPA. 1998. "Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Estuaries," EPA 600-R-98-147, Office of Research 4 and Development, Washington, D.C.
| |
| 5 EPA. 2001. "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; Regulations Addressing Cooling 6 Water Intake Structures for New Facilities," 40 CFR Parts 9, 122, et al., 66 FR 65256, 7 Washington D.C., December 2001.
| |
| 8 EPA. 2007. "Level III Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States," Western Ecology 9 Division. Accessed at: http:llwww.epa.govlwedlpageslecoregions/level_iii.htm on F 10 EPA. 2010a. Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO), Detailed Facility Report.
| |
| 11 Accessed at:
| |
| 12 http:llwww.epa-echo.govlcgi-bin/getl cReport.cgi?tool=echo&l DNumber=1 10000603142 on May 13 18,2010.
| |
| 14 EPA. 2010b. Region 2 Air. 2010 Title V Operating Permits Database. Accessed at:
| |
| 15 http:llwww.epa.gov/regionO2/airltitle v2Ol 0.pdf on August 6, 2010.
| |
| 16 EPA. 2010c. Environmental Protection Agency, Safe Drinking Water Information System 17 (SDWIS), Salem County, New Jersey. Accessed at: http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/sdw_queryv2 18 on February 24, 2010.
| |
| 19 EPA. 2010d. Environmental Protection Agency, Safe Drinking Water Information System 20 (SDWIS), New Castle County, Delaware. Accessed at:
| |
| 21 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/sdwqueryv2 on February 24, 2010.
| |
| 22 EPA. 2010e. Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, National Estuary Program. Accessed at:
| |
| 23 http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/programs/de.html on February 24, 2010.
| |
| 24 EPA. 2010f. Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). Results based on data 25 extracted on October 16, 2009. Accessed at: http:/lwww.epa.govlsafewater/dwinfo/nes.htm on 26 January 20, 2010.
| |
| 27 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1991. "Swamp Pink (Heloniasbullata) Recovery Plan,"
| |
| 28 Newton Corner, MA, pp. 56. Accessed at:
| |
| 29 http://www.fws.govlecos/ajax/docs/recoveryplan/910930c.pdf on May 9 2010.
| |
| 30 FWS. 2001a. "Shortnose Sturgeon Habitat Model." Accessed at:
| |
| 31 http://www.fws.gov/r5gomp/gom/habitatstudy/metadata/shortnose-sturgeon_mode1.htm on May 32 5, 2010.
| |
| 33 FWS. 2001b. "Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergi), Northern Population, Recovery Plan,"
| |
| 34 Hadley, MA, pp. 103. Accessed at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/010515.pdf on 35 February 26, 2010.
| |
| 36 FWS. 2003. "Delaware Bay Shorebird-Horseshoe Crab Assessment Report and Peer Review,"
| |
| 37 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Publication R9-03/02, Arlington, VA, pp. 99.
| |
| 38 Accessed at: http://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/DBshorebird.pdf on April 9, 2010.
| |
| 39 FWS. 2004. "The Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergil): Protecting New Jersey's Rarest Turtle,"
| |
| 40 February 2004. Accessed at:
| |
| Draft NUREG-1 437, Supplement 45 2-142 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Fact%20Sheets%20PDF%20holding/Bogturtle.pdf on 2 February 26, 2010.
| |
| 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006. "The Horseshoe Crab. Limulus polyphemus. A 4 Living Fossil." Accessed at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pdf/horseshoe.fs.pdf on April 9, 2010.
| |
| 5 FWS. 2008a. "Sensitive Joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica) [threatened]," New Jersey Field 6 Office, Endangered Species Program. Accessed at:
| |
| 7 http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Endangered/jointvetch.html on May 13, 2010.
| |
| 8 FWS. 2008b. "Five Year Review, Swamp Pink (Helonias bullata), Summary and Evaluation."
| |
| 9 Accessed at: http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/fiveyear-review/doc2OO6.pdf on May 9 2010.
| |
| 10 FWS. 2009a, Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Department of the Interior, 11 Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region. Accessed at:
| |
| 12 http://www.fws.gov/supawnameadows/ on December 11, 2009.
| |
| 13 FWS. 2009b. Federally listed and candidate species occurrences in New Jersey by county and 14 municipality. December. Accessed at 15 http://www.fws.gov/northeastlnjfieldoffice/Endangered/specieslist.pdf on February 26, 2010.
| |
| 16 FWS. 2009c. Letter from Fish and Wildlife Service New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantville, NJ to 17 E. J. Keating, PSEG Nuclear LLC, Hancocks Bridge, NJ. Response to PSEG request for 18 information on the presence of federally listed endangered and threatened species in the vicinity 19 of the existing Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations located on Artificial Island in Lower 20 Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, NJ. September 9.
| |
| 21 FWS. 2009d. Letter from L. Miranda, Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD to W.
| |
| 22 Walsh, New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantville, NJ. Letter addressed the potential for 23 occurrence of Federally listed species in the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS facilities and the 24 transmission line crosses river into Delaware. August 18.
| |
| 25 FWS. 2009e. The Migratory Bird Program: Conserving America's Birds, Bald and Golden 26 Eagles, Migratory Bird Management Information: Eagle Rule Questions and Anwers. Last 27 updated September 4, 2009. Accessed August 22, 2010 at:
| |
| 28 http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Management/BaldEagle/QAs%20for%20E 29 agle%20Rule.final. 10.6.09.pdf.
| |
| 30 FWS. 2010a. National Wetlands Inventory Website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 31 Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Accessed at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ on February 10, 32 2010.
| |
| 33 FWS. 2010b. "Federally Listed and Candidate Species in New Jersey," Endangered Species 34 Program, New Jersey Field Office, April 20, 2010. Accessed at:
| |
| 35 http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Endangered/specieslist.pdf on May 16, 2010.
| |
| 36 FWS. 2010c. "Swamp Pink (Helonias bullata)." Accessed at:
| |
| 37 http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Endangered/swamppink.html on May 10, 2010.
| |
| 38 FWS. 2010d. Letter from R. Popowski, Fish and Wildlife Service New Jersey Field Office, 39 Pleasantville, NJ to B. Pham, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory 40 Commission, Washington, DC. Response to NRC request for information on the presence of 41 federally listed endangered and threatened species in the vicinity of the existing Salem and September 2010 2-143 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Hope Creek Generating Stations located on Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township, 2 Salem County, NJ. June 29.
| |
| 3 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1983. R.L. Walker, "Evaluation of Water Levels in Major 4 Aquifers of the New Jersey Coastal Plain, 1978," Water-Resources Investigations Report 5 82-4077, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.
| |
| 6 USGS. 2007. W. Jones and D. Pope, "Summary of the Ground Water Level Hydrologic 7 Conditions in New Jersey 2006," Fact Sheet 2007-3049, U.S. Department of the Interior, New 8 Jersey Water Science Center, West Trenton, NJ, June 2007.
| |
| 9 USGS. 2009. V.T. DePaul, R. Rosman, and P.J. Lacombe, "Water-Level Conditions in 10 Selected Confined Aquifers of the New Jersey and Delaware Coastal Plain, 2003," Scientific 11 InvestigationsReport 2008-5145, pp. 135, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological 12 Survey, Reston, VA.
| |
| 13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1984. "Final Environmental Statement Related to 14 the Operation of Hope Creek Generating Station," Docket Number 50-354, NUREG-1074.
| |
| 15 Washington D.C., December 1984.
| |
| 16 NRC. 2005. "Order Modifying License," Docket No. 72-48, Washington D.C., May 2005.
| |
| 17 NRC. 2007. "Essential Fish Habitat for an Extended Power Uprate at Hope Creek Generating 18 Station," Docket No. 50-354, June 2007, ADAMS Accession No. ML071520463.
| |
| 19 NRC. 2010a. "Pressurized Water Reactors." Accessed at:
| |
| 20 http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/pwrs.html on May 18, 2010.
| |
| 21 NRC. 2010b. "Boiling Water Reactors." Accessed at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/bwrs.html on 22 May 18, 2010.
| |
| 23 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2010. Biosphere 24 Reserve Information - New Jersey Pinelands. Accessed at:
| |
| 25 http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.php-URL ID=6797&URLDO=DOTOPIC&U RLSECTI 26 ON=201.html February 24, 2010. University of Georgia. 2010. "Reptiles and Amphibians of 27 South Carolina and Georgia," The Savannah River Ecology Herpetology Program. Accessed at:
| |
| 28 http://www.uga.edu/srelherp/index.htm#Reptiles on May 9, 2010.
| |
| 29 University of Texas at Austin. 2010. Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, Native Plant 30 Information Network (NPIN). Accessed at:
| |
| 31 http://www.wildflower.org/collections/collection.php?all=true on April 5, 2010.
| |
| 32 University of Washington Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture. 2006. "Hydrocotyle 33 ranunculoides,floating marsh-pennywort." Accessed at:
| |
| 34 http://biology.burke.washington.edu/herbarium/imagecollection.php?Genus=Hydrocotyle&Speci 35 es=ranunculoides on April 8, 2010.
| |
| 36 University of Wisconsin. 2010. "Stevens Point Freckmann Herbarium, Plants of Wisconsin."
| |
| 37 Accessed at: http://wisplants.uwsp.eduNVisPlants.html on April 7, 2010.
| |
| 38 Utah State University. 2010. "Grass Manual on the Web." Accessed at:
| |
| 39 http://herbarium.usu.edu/webmanual/default.htm on April 2, 2010.
| |
| Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 2-144 September 2010
| |
| | |
| Affected Environment 1 Versar, Inc. (Versar). 1991. "An Assessment of Key Biological Resources in the Delaware 2 Estuary," Performed for the Delaware Estuary Program. Accessed at:
| |
| 3 http:llwww.nap.usace.army.millcenap-pllbl13.pdf on February 11 2010.
| |
| 4 Weiss-Glanz, L.S., J.G. Stanley, and J.R. Moring. 1986. "Species Profiles: Life Histories and 5 Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (North Atlantic) - American 6 Shad, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service BiologicalReport, 82 (11.59), U.S. Army Corps of 7 Engineers, TR EL-82-4, pp. 16.
| |
| 8 Wernert, S.J. 1998. Reader's Digest North American Wildlife: An Illustrated Guide to 2, 000 9 Plantsand Animals. Accessed at:
| |
| 10 http://books.google.com/books?id=YedAnP3klIMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=reader~s+digest+n 11 orth+american+wildlife+susan+j+wernert&source=bl&ots=es2QFm3yqo&sig=s1OpQWxaIri3k-G 12 vcm0Efppyttw&hI=en&ei=O2TtS4NQhrKsB46qqJcG&sa=X&oi=book-result&ct=result&resnum=
| |
| 13 1&ved=OCAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=stinking%20fleabane&f=false on May 14, 2010.
| |
| September 2010 2-;145 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45}}
| |
