ML13196A183

Email from J. Crocker, NOAA to B. Balsam, NRR Pilgrim - a Few Clarification Questions

ML13196A183
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	04/11/2012
From:	Crocker J G US Dept of Commerce, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
To:	Balsam B A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FOIA/PA-2013-0135
Download: ML13196A183 (4)

Text

/7Craver, PattiFrom: Julie Crocker Ojulie.crocker@noaa.gov]

.Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 8:52 AMTo: Balsam, Briana

Subject:

Re: Pilgrim -A few clarification questions thanks -this is helpful!On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Balsam, Briana <Briana.Balsam6nrc.gov>

wrote:Julie,I attached our partial responses to your questions as well as the 2010 impingement and entrainment monitoring reports for Pilgrim, which my responses reference.

The questions that I have yet to answer concern the thermal plume. I am still tracking down the reference thatthe NRC used in the SEIS to be able to provide you with a more complete description of the plume. I havenoted those items for which I still owe you an answer in the attached document.

BrianaBriana A. BalsamBiologist Division of License RenewalOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-1042 briana.balsam@nrc.gov

ý I I rý'-I From: Julie Crocker [mallto:julie.crocker(&noaa.gov]

Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 3:51 PMTo: Balsam, Briana; Logan, Dennis

Subject:

Pilgrim -A few clarification questions Hi Briana and Dennis -As we continue to work on the Pilgrim consultation, several questions have come up that I am hoping you cananswer or help point me to sources of this information.

If it is easier to talk through this over the phone, let meknow. I am around tomorrow afternoon and most of the day Wednesday.

Most of these questions seek toclarify our understanding of information you have provided to date.1. Are there any in-water acoustic impacts of the Pilgrim facility?

Have any in-water measurements ofunderwater noise been taken here or at similar plants? The EIS states that "noise has not been found to be aproblem at operating plants and is not expected to be a problem at any plant during the license renewal term.The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of the PNPS ER,the site visit, the scoping process, evaluation of other available information, or consideration of publiccomments.

Therefore, the staff concludes that there would be no impacts of noise during the license renewalterm beyond those discussed in the GELS." This statement makes it unclear whether there is underwater noiseassociated with Pilgrim, but it would not rise to the level of being a concern, or whether there is not actually anyunderwater noise associated with operations.

Could you clarify?2. The dimensions of the thermal plume appear to be described in terms of delta T. Is the 1 C delta T the extentchange that is detectable?

We are trying to use the size of the thermal plume as part of the description of theaction area.3. Section 4.1.3 discusses the 1974 thermal plume study that characterized the surface plume. It states, "Forexample, water with a delta T of 3C (37.4F) covered approximately 216 acres (ac) in August when theambient temperature was 17.OC (62.6F),

but only 14 ac in November when the ambient temperature was 8.5C(47.3F)."

The first part of that sentence is confusing, do you mean that the 216 acre area had water that was 3Cgreater than ambient or 37.4F greater than ambient or something else?? Also, can you provide the description of the size of the area that had a delta T of IC at the surface (later text in the EIS describes that area for thebottom)?4. I also have a question about this statement

-- "At the bottom, similar to the surface, the smallesttemperature increment measured (IC or 33.8F) covered the largest area (up to 1.2 ac), and water with highertemperatures relative to ambient covered much smaller areas. For example, the highest delta T measured, 9C2 (48.2o'),

covered less than 0.13 ac of the bottom" (in 4.1.3) Did that heated area (1.2 acres) have temperatures that were IC above ambient or 33.8F above ambient, because those would be two very different scenarios!

5. Thermal backwash

-Can you describe the size of the plume? The EIS says it is thin and only lasts a fewhours but can you describe how far from the discharge canal it extends and its temperature profile (e.g., the sizeof area with delta T of 3C, IC etc.)3. Have there been any jellyfish (leatherback turtle prey) impinged or entrained at Pilgrim?

I do not see anylisted on table 4-3 on the EIS but it is not clear to me if that table includes invertebrates.

Is there a list of theinvertebrates that have been impinged or entrained?

If it is in the EIS I am having trouble finding it.4. Zooplankton

-- As you know, right whales feed on copepods (mostly Calanus spp.). The EIS states,"Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton has not been found to be a problemat operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term." Doesthis mean that no zooplankton is entrained at Pilgrim?

And if it is entrained, are there estimates of the annualloss? Also, the EIS refers to studies to characterize the zooplankton in the area conducted in the 1970s(2.2.5.3.3).

Have there been similar studies carried out since Pilgrim became operational?

Could you clarifywhat evidence was reviewed to make this determination....

"However, based upon the review conducted by theNRC staff, there is no evidence that the operation of the PNPS cooling system has had an impact onphytoplankton or zooplankton communities, or any resultant effects on the aquatic food web, in Cape Cod Bay."(from 4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts)5. Crabs -The EIS states that cancer crabs (Cancer spp.) were the second most impinged invertebrate.

Can youprovide information on the number of crabs impinged per year?6. Atlantic herring:

The EIS states, "and based on the 2005 Pilgrim monitoring data, the loss to the stock due toentrainment by PNPS appears to be significantly less than 1 percent (Normandeau 2006a)."

Was an actualpercentage provided in Normandeau 2006a?7. sand lance -Has there been an assessment of the effects of removal of sand lance like there is for some of theother fish species (i.e., less than 1% of the population or similar types of conclusions?).

Thank you!Julie3 Julie CrockerProtected Resources DivisionNortheast Regional OfficeNational Marine Fisheries Service55 Great Republic DriveGloucester, MA 01930Julie CrockerProtected Resources DivisionNortheast Regional OfficeNational Marine Fisheries Service55 Great Republic DriveGloucester, MA 019304