ML11157A049
| ML11157A049 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/2011 |
| From: | Colosi P D US Dept of Commerce, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration |
| To: | Pham B M License Renewal Projects Branch 1 |
| References | |
| Download: ML11157A049 (11) | |
Text
, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NTONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE NORTHEAST REGION',~.. 55 Great Republic Drive N'jlo, Gloucester, MA 01930-2276 June3, 20.11.Bo Pham, Chief Ptofcjt Branch:I Division of License Renewal Officedof Nuclear ReActorRegulation.
US Nuclear'Regulatory Commission Washington, DC :205 55-00;01.Attn:, Leslie Perkins:Re:. Essential Fish HaabitatEFH)AssessmrientIfor Li~enseRenewal cftheHope'Ci-eekNuclear Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating, Station, Units I and 2.
Dear Mr. Pham:
We-have.reviewed the U. S. Nuclear 'Regulatory Commission's (NRC) essential fish habitat (EFH)assessment concernng an application submitted.by Pblic SerViceEnterpriseGroup (PSEG)Nuclear, LLC for the-renewal-of the oper ting'licenses for.Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station (HopeiCreek) and-,Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (Salem). The EFIIH.assessment:waýsprepared under Ithe provisions of Section 305 (b) (2) of the Magnuson.-SIevens Fishety Conservation and Managementh
ýAct:(MSA).
The NRC'has concluded that impacts to fish and shellfish from entrainment, impingement;, aid heat shock-at.Salem-and.Hope:Cireek .woUldýnot warrant additi6nalfiiitigation'beyond those preseritly undertaken'by the PSEG Estuary-Enhancemen't Piogram. The NMFS has identified power plants as a potenfial threat to criticalto habitats of living marine resources because ofah plant's use of coastal waters for cooling~and discharge'of.
heated water back into the marine environmrent.
COastal power plantsiopei'ating with once-through cooling: systems, may affect NOAA trust resource*
habitat bY dischargingheated water-effluient, discharge of effluents with harmfulchemicals, ,and by the potential impingement and entrainment of species,.
Impingement occurs when fishand other organins.
are trapped against screens where water is drawn into a facility's coling :system. The injuries oftednJprove fatal within a few days; often due to gill.damage. Young or small fish are most susceptible to being.killed by impingement.
Entrainment.,happens are drawn into, the facility.
Once inside of thefacility, entrained organisms' are exposed to lethal-pressure and high temperatures.
Egg, larvae, andjuvenile stagesof'fish are most susceptible'to death caused by these,.conditio'ns":The potential adverse individual and cumulative effects that operations
'of Hope Creek:and.Salem plants ,could, lmpose on'NOAAtriist resources warranted an expanded consultation as described in'the EFH regulaiti6ns atit5 CoFR600.920 (f). This expandedc6nsi!ltation processwith NRCallows the maximum opportunityfor NOAAFisherieýs to work together to'review'the action's impacts on EFH, and to develop FFH consultation recommendations.
Under the expande I consultation procedures,the NMFS is allowed 60'calendar daysjto review, comment, and respond to 'theminfcrmation that has been provided to us.
,General Comments Salem and Hope Creek are located along theDelaware'River in anarea of Salem County, New Jersey known as Artificial Island. The facilities are located on the lower' region poirtion0of the river, ,dt the southemiend of oný the New Jerscy,(eastern)'bank of the, Delaware at river mile (RM) 50 (River kilometer (RK) 80) and RM51 (RK'82)' respectively.ý The regionwis designated by the.Delaware River Basin Commission:as the area of the river subject to tidal ýinfluence; between the Delaware Bay:and TrentonNJ (TDRBC, 2008). The.lower, tidally inundated region of-the river and the Delaware Bay together form the Estuary, and is part of EPA's NationalEstuary Program (EPA, 2010).The Delaware Estuary'is the. pfimaryysource ofthe cooli'ng'waterfor .both:Salemi anrd' Hope Creek and receives their effluents-.The, pants use different systemsrfor condenser cooling-water and service water (PSEG, 2009a; 2009b). Salem is a twoutnit (Units'1 plant each operiatig opencyclecooling water using once-throUgh cooling water system (CWS), while>Hope Creekopeiates a closed-cycle cooling.-systemwith a natural draft cooling tower. Once]!hrough .cooling systems withdraw water from a ,waterbody, send itthrough'the cooling system one time, and then discharge theheated water back to thel'-waterbody.
A closed-cycl6ecooling system recycles or. recitculates coolinagwater witfhinits facility, andýthus withdraws only 2% to.5% of the water of that.required for cooling. Closed cycle cooling of water is ýacc-mplished by.coolingtow-ers',Salem'stservice water system (SWS) intake-is'lbcated apkiroximately400 ft4(14221rn) north'of the CWS" intake. The SWS intak*estructure ttis equipped with trashi acks,'traveling
- screens, and filters to0remove debris andObita fraom theintake water .sfrem but does niot have a~m6odifi.ýdRist rph -type travelling screen, or fishxreturn system. Backw.ash wateris.,retuned to the estuary.Both the Salem CWS.and SWS discharge water back to the a siingle retuftnhat serves(both systemspand is' located between the;Salem CWS andSWS intakes. Cooling'water from Salem is:discharged through: six adjacent pipes 7 ft idiameter and spaced 1.5 ftapart on center that merge into three pipes 10, ft indiameter (PSEG, 20006c). The'dischaigeppiping extends:approximately.500:ft frofn the shore (PSEG, 1999). The.discharge pýipes are buried for most of theit length until they discharge&
horizontallUYint the water, of-the estuaryat, a -depth at mean tidal level of about 31 ft. The dischargeis approximately perpendicular to ihe prevailing-currents.
The EPA estimates that: 2.1 'billion fish, crabs, and shrimp ,are killed'annually by impingementand entrainmnehtattthe Salem plaint(USEPA, 2010).Hope Cre.ek is a'one-unit station which uses a closedocycleciirculating wafer. system for condenser.cooling that consists of a single natural draft cooling tower andas'sociated withdrawal, circulation, and discharge facilities.
The Hope Creek.cooling'tower-is:a high single counter-flow, natural draft: cooling'tower (PSEG; 2008a),, Like Salernm Hope Creek. withdraws brackish water fromtihe Delaware RiverfrOm a single:intake structure,'
to supply an SWS, Which coolsauxiliaryand other :heat exchainge Syst6ei (PSEG, 2009b). The Hope Creek SWS intake is.located on the:shore of the river and"is equpped with pumps and associated equipmient.(trashracks, traveling screens, anda:-fish-return system). Water is drawn into the SWS through trashracks'and passes throubghthe traveling screens. After passing through the travelmig screens, the estuary water, enters the service waterpumps.
Thtecooling t6wer blow-down and 'the facili effluents.
are dischar editothe estuary through, an underwater Ilocated 1,500 ft upsteam of the Hope Creek SWS intake. The Hope Creek discharge pipe extends .10'_'offshore andis situated at mean tide level.The discha-ge fom' Hope Creek is also regulated under ihe terms of NJPDES permit number NJ0025411 (NJDEP,' 2001. 1.. The, withdrawal of Delaware Riverwater, for the,Hope Creek, CWS and SWS systems isJ regulated under the termasof Hope Creek NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025411 "and-is also 'authorizedby the'Y Delaware River Bay Commissioni.
Although it requires measurement and reporting, the NJPDES permit, doesnot.specify limits on the total withdrawal yolume of Delaware kiver water fori Hope Creek operations (NJDEP, 2003).Fish and Wildlife Coordination:
Act The inland and-openwaters of the Delaware River, Bay fnd estuary support an abundance of ecolo ically sensitive aquatic~resources.
They arepresent in the es§tuaryat varioUs!lifes`tages in a -Variety of hydrologic habitats andz imn.a range of salimuiies:.incuhding oceanic, tdally-influenced water, and tidal freshwater areas. Since the DeawareEstuary an importa migratoypathway and critical spawning, nursery and forage habitat .formanyanadromous fishes, and an ecological connection to the.coastal/ocean environment, impactsto thee0osysterncan ha'. testoffieabudance of*cnonal oishees witite watershed, onthe continentai shelf, and along:the:Mid-Atlantic coast, whichdis a signiificant concern for the NMFS., Thee444tary provides many diffeenti.habiftats, eachsupPing eco cly erse faunal commnitiie that-serve as forage and.areprey species for many federally-managed NOAA trust resources, including specific resource secies montored undersPSEGs Estuay:rEnhancement Program (YEEP)'. In addition, the'NJDEP has sampled.the Delwiare River in the project area since 1980.'The species of concerrncompnise-American eel (Anguilla rMstrata)j.Atlantic croaker (Mcropogoiniasý.undulatds)`, hickory shad (Alosa mediocris),,spot (Leiostomusxanthuruh) tautog (Tautogadonitis), hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus),,bay, anchovy (Anchoamitchilli).Atlantic silverside(Menidia menidia), striped killifish (Fundulus majadliS), mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), weakfish (Cynoscibn.regqais), blueback!herring (losa aestivalis), alewife (Aiosa'pseudoharen~)~.~American shad (A losa sapidissim), cAtlatic herrng(Clupea harengus), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus), Atlantic menhaden (Bre.voortia bluefish (PomatOm4 s saltatrix), gizzard shad (Dorsoma cepedianum), striped bass (Moione :saxatilis).
ýspot', (Ljiostomrus xanthuru.s), while perch (Morone amiericana), and many others (N EP, 2010), TPSEG'!s ,monitoring data .isco~nsistent with these results.The NMFS: responsibilities under theFish and'Wildlife Coordination ActV(FWCA) are to providekfederal agencies such asthe NR with recommendations to avoidando mitigate for drectindirect and cumilative impacts to NOAAtrust resources that are present wi the Delaware River Basin. Te need for resource pro tection is underscoredin the case 6f alewife'and blueback herring in that'landing statistics and thenumber of fish observed on sruns idicate a draistic d line in alewife andblueback hcrring.populationsthroughout
- much of their range sincethe mid-i 960. As such; they have:been designated as species o6fcncernT by NMFS in a Federal Register,'NoticedatedOctober 17, '20066(7.1 FRN 61022). "Species of concern" are those species about which NMFS hassome concerns-regarding status and threats, butfor.which insufficient information is available to indicate, aý.need to listfthe species.under theEndangered Species Act. The shallow water environment in ssection of the Delaware River.providesvaluable habitat for these:species'as Well as striped bass arid Americanr shad.-By taking advantage:
of best available technology to .reduce impingement,.
entrainment;s and, thermal impacts, best represented by~theuse of cooling towers that use a closed cycle cooling system, the potential' for impacts to NOAAIrust r:esotirces wouldbe reduced. Inoorprati ng such'ameliorativ6:
measuies such as cooling. towersto control temperature Nould re-uti a'W poportionate reducition'ii:
fish and shellfish mortalities.
In facilities where open-cycle iooling systems exist, the NMFS would'-encourage iimplementation of the use ofhis technology.
i MainUson-Stevens Act (MSA)M EPH, has:'been:
defined in,.50'CFR Section 600.10 as "those waters and substrate necessarvyto fish for spawning; breeding, feeding, or groWth toamaturity."
50 CMR Section 600.10 :further states: For the purpose of interpteting the definition0of essefitial, fish habitat, 'Waters' include aquatic areas and'their associated physical, chemical, and biological propertiestliat are', used by fish and may miclude-aquatic areas historically used by fishwherepappropriate
'substrate includes: sediment, hard bottom, structures underlyingwaters, and associated biological communities;.
'necessary' means the habitat requiredAt;Suppoprt da.sustainable fishery and the managed'species" contribution to a healthy:ecosystem;:'spaw-ig;ibr'edig,feeding, or'r h to matuhty'c0vers a;species fUl life cycle. tm p i Salem and'HoOeCreek are located&within~an area of the Delaware:estuaryclassified by the NMFS as the salinitymixing zone. The area adjacfnt ito Aric Islalidhas been designated asMElfor variouslife stagesof several.species of fish including red'hake(Urovhycis chuss),,winter, flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), windowpane flounder, bluefish, Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthuss),cp(Stotou o), sumer floder, scup(Stenotomiusxhrysops), blacksea bass (Centropristqisstriataa),.kinagmaekerel (Scomberomorus qava/la), .Spanish mackerel (Scomnberomorus maculatus), cobia (Rachycentron canadum),Jlittle skate (Leucoraja erinaeea);
winter skate QLeucoraja ocellata)iand:clearnose skate (Raja eglantera).
Section T305 (b) (2)of the MSA requires all federal agencies to constilt.with thN.teNMFSon.any action authorized, :funded,.orundertaken by:thatagency thatrnay adversely affect EFH. ,Included n thisJ consultationprocess is the preparati6oi of a 6omplete'andappropriate EFH assessment to provide, necessary infarmation on which to consult; at50CER 60F9O5A1mandates the preparation of EFH-assessmentsýand generallyoutlinese'achagency'soblgationsinthis consultatin procedure.
ThleEFH final rule published in the.Federal Regster :on January 17, 2002.defmes an adverse effect.as:
- "any impact which reduces.the quality and/or. quantity of EFH." The rule further states Arinadverse effectamay include direct or chemical,.or biological alterations~of the:.waters or substratezandloss of, or injury to, lienthicorganiisms-prey speciesland their habliat,.and. other ecosystems components, .if suchlmodifications reducethe quality'and/or quantity.
of EFH. Adverse effects to EFH rmiay resultfrom action occurring-within EFH or outside EFH and may include site-sPecific porhabitat-wide impacts, inluding individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences ofactions.
The rule also states: .Loss of preymay be-an:adverse.effect on EFH and managed species because .the presenceofprey makes-waters and.substrate function as feedinglhabitat' and the definition of:EFH includes waterg and substrate necessary.to fish for feeding. Therefore, actions thatreduce the availability-9f a.major, preyspecies, either.through direct h ori capture, or through adverse impacts to the prey species'habitat that are known to cause a reduction in the population.of the-preyqspecies,,:may be considered adverse effects on"EFH if such actions reduceihe quality of EFH..Any actions that affect prey speciesi adversely also affec!tIREH.
impingement,.
entrainment,.thermal.Shock-caused byrelease of heated effluent discharge fromthe" station, a-indoverallplant operatiohs at both.Salem anid.Hope Creek will have substantial and'unacceptable impacts to a wide variety of NOAAstruSt resources.
Buckeland~
onover (199.7),in Fahay et al. (1999) report that the'diet, items ofjuvenile bluefish include Alosa species such American shad, as well as bay anchovy, ,silversides and other fish species. All juvenile Alosa species, have beenidentified Aas prey species, for!
windowpane flounder,,(Scophthalmus aquosus), winter"skate (Leucoraja oce/lata) and summer flounder (Paralichthysdentatus) in.Steinme et al. (2000). Bluefish, windowpane, winter.skate and summer flounder-are federally managedspecies whose EF14has'been designated in the mixing.zone of the Delaware River. As:a result, activities that adversely affect'the spawning success and*the quality for the ,nursery habiat'bf these-anadrornous fish Will adversely affect theEFHfor these. species' byreducing the.availability of piey item s.NRC's most recent-evaluation acknowledges that impacis to federallymanaged-species will take place, and that closed-cycle cooling would drastically reduce theeamountof water (and &species) withdrawn'from
- theDelaware Estuaryby.
PSEG, NRC has concludedthat, oveiall, therange of effects.to EFH caused by operational activities-(e.g, impingement, entrainment, heat.shock, and loss of forage/prey species)*associated with license renewal for' Salem and ýHope Creek-ewould vary widely depending upon th~e1 individual species. Furtherý NRC asserts that .,any ýimpact's incurred Would be offset by ecological gains elsewhere within the ecosystem through a'seriesof facility-and ýsite-`specific conserivationmeasures
- including'best management practices that -would erseenvironmentafimmpactsto iEFH associated with .entraihimentarand impingement.
NMFS contends that~th~'ongoing iortality caused by specific pl'at operations coiuldhave a much geater'substantial on populations and:communities.
Th eindependent impactanalysi§sconducted by'ESSA Techiiologies, aicbnsiultant for theNew Jersey Department of Environmental Protectionýýindicatesdthat-the applicant
'mayhaves igificanty'underestimated the total biomass offish lost to the ecosystem beause f ,data collection biases, and,,because of overlooked impingement of fish, eggs, anid larvae pnto ma Iterial;clogging the travelingescreens.
Species potentiallyaffectedby this underestimate are.bay anchooyy,r spot, striped bass,'Atlanfie-'croaikefrand weakfish..
While these speciesare.
nortfederallymanagd, thei :early life:stages provide critical f6rage to federally.managed species (ESSA.,2000).
Overall, tpc ologies such qascoolingjtowerswill Minimzepresentimpacts toalUNOAA.tnlt resources.
...Conservation Reboimmeindations As a steward of our nd ion's: living marine resources, the NMFShhasan'obligation andlegalmandate:to'-conserve, protect, ,and manage these: resources.
and must consult with.federal zagenciesý-that fund, authorize or'undertake~actions thatmaylaffect living marine resources and, th ir'habitats.
T1TeNew Enigland and Mid-Atlantic.Fishery' Management Councils have designated EFH for.riany, of the:species listed.above.
We anticipate thati this ation will,have adversedimpactslto EFH. Therefore; .the NMFS mustiprovide the NRC wiih conservation recommendations to avoid and minimize the im On June '3,. 1994,, a NMFS letter to Mr. Dennis'Hart, Adriinistrator for :the Wastewater'Facilities Regulation Program of~the New Jersey Department of Environmental.Protection and Energy expressed.concern about an application to allow the.continued operationof the Salem-Nuclear Generating Station, Public Service Electric and Gasof New Jersey (PSEG): nconjunction with an offset program to:offset egg, larvae'and fish.losses..at the cooling water intake.at Salem., The program'included w.etland habitat restoration, fish, ladder installation; new cooling water intake technol6gy, and abi0ologicalmonitoring program..
Wetlafdthabitat restoration was thecore:componentL The wetland festoration program used ecologcal engineering prin iples to festore approximately 4550.ha to tidal w'etlancds; and protects upland buffers and other lands:for a total 'ofover 8700 ha (Ballefto, etqal (2005).Fish ladders'were iristalled, to allow. ariadriimous' river:herring to eturnti trevious ly blckedspawring
'habitat.
at twelve. sites in".the Delaware Estuary, four in New Jersey.and eight :in Delaware.
In 2008, the.most successful fish laddler appears'io be the ladder at CourseyiPond with 1,096 fish counied (PSEG:* 2008b). Lower numbers of fish werereported several oftheeotherfish' ad"ders wIihzerounted at Garison Lakeand Silver Lake (Milford) and' between one and eight reported at Nokxntwn6'Pond, 'Silver Lake (Dover), Cooper-River.Lake, Newton Lake, (PSEG 2008b). The ladders at, Moorse Lake and McColley-Pond showed passage of 63,9 and 652 fish,.respectively.
PSEG also'implemented operational modifications in the Salem platnt by installing advanced Cooling water intake technologyto reduce lbsses0of invertebrates'and early life stages of -fish, adcohnducted.
studies of behavioral deterrents.
The biological monitoning:progran continues .to assess theabundance and distribution ofjuepnile coastal migratory fish species while they are ini the Delaware River Estuary; it also monitorsuse.
of wetlands byfishand invertebrates., It is difficult to. determine the success of the actions for restoration projects within, the Delaware Bay, to.enhanceand protect fisheryresources.
Both empirical and predictive (i.e. mathematical modeling)methods have been employed to6measuredthe scale of im provements and/or damagesassociated with each project aswell as any cumulative effects 6n the resources.
In time series mipdeling analyses, gains achieved from the vanous:restoration-components vwere reflectedtointtal ,ecosystem biomass for some trophic groups such as'benthic meioofauna, benthic macrofauna, phytoplakton, and esoplanktonbut-decreases in biomass of marsh.fishes; blue crabs, littotal zone forage fishes, bluefish andi American eels.-Nemersoni.and Able,,(2005)found thatthree-sciaenid:
species were equally or more abundant at the-restored marshes. Moreover,, measures-of fish foragýhaitat sweregenerally equal or, higher atrthe, restored site as was stomach fullness which was equal to or significantly, higher at the restored marsh: compared ,withtthe reference'marsh.
Their studies also indicated that-a seasona'lpattemr tyical:of mid-Atlantic estuaries of recruitment, changein1food -habit's and- emigration of traslient fishes-was apparent.at both restored and un-restored sites-. .A few. studies,, ificluding Able;,et al. (2008),compared structural (distribution,, abundance) and functional.(feeding,.
growth, survival, reproduction, production).
aspects of the.,estuary's mgratory.:fish populations so as. to evaluate .the restored marshesinh an*essential fish habitat--eontext.
Thby comparedcnine-ydars (1995.-2004) offield measuremients between three restored marsheI anda reference -iarshn the mesohalineprition of Delaware Baybychannel morhdlogy, geomorphology; vegetation sediment organic matter, fish assemblages, blue crabs, horseshoe crabs, and benthic infauna. Marsh vegetation and drainage density responded gradually and ,poSitively with restored approxiiatin-the stateoofthe reference marshwithin the nine-yearstudy period. The fauna responded morequickly and:dramatically with:most measures equal or greater in the-regiored marsahes within the:first one:or two years after,-restoration.
Differences in response time between ihe vegetation and the fauna imply thatthe faunal response was more dependenton access to tlheshallow miftertidalnmarsh surface and intertidal and subtidal creeks.than on characteristics of the vegetatedmarsh.
The fish in createdsubtidal creeks in restored marshes responded imnmediately, and maintained fish assemblages similar to the reference marsh overthe study period.
creek fish assemblages tended bt become more like the reference marsh in the last years of the~comparison.
Monitoring studies-of-fish assemblagesat specificrestorationý sites, indicated that, wide variations in fish assemblages occurred (Grothues and Able, 2003), so much so that:no definitive conclusion in favor of successtcouldbe made. Difficulty separatimg out actual lnhancenent value from natural variabilityvwas encountered., Further, it is a opgicl conce_ hatanymc(eseinfish abundance as aresultrof the marsh, restorations may-result in proportional increase in-iosses jduetoimpingement and entrainment at the facilities.
Notwithstanding, the plant opetati6ns.
gtill-maintain sigtiificaiitlevels of impact mortality by ,impingement and:enfrainmcnt.
Datain: thegeneric EIS (QUS NRC2010) provided by PSEG(2006), .show estimatedannual entrainment losses atheSalfhem plant were 1.571 billion in 2002, 527 million in 2003 and 2:522 billion in 2006; Some sPecies level examples ,include alewife anrual entrainmnent losses from 9.4 to 2.4million, and blueback herring losses; fm 0Wto 1.6 million Total-impingement.losses at Salem for the representative species: are estimated as 7.8 'billion in 2002, 3.5billionin 2003 and 4.4 billiOn in 2004 (US-NRC 2010).. Annual alewife iosses range from 10,996 in 2002 to.63,492in 2004, and weakfish losses totaled 2.1 billionin 2004. In addition, the-final report-prepared by ESSA (2000)indicates that-the open cycle coolingoperation of the plant mayberesponsiblefor more fish losses than the monitoring,,can determine.
We also note that in our 1994 letter to Mr. Dennis Hart, we recommended that the permit'issued.foi the proposed mitigation should-not extend beyond the life-of the existing operating license.As a stewardlbf our nationsV living marine resources, NMIFS has an 0bligation and legal mandate:to.
conserveprotect, and manage these resources.
The MSA, FWCAand bther'maxidates require that we provide advice andxrecommendationsmto federal action agencies on ways -tofirst avoid, and then minimize adverse :impacts to"living marine resources and their !habitats.'
The datashow that:entrainment and impingemert losses atfthe Salem nfacility total billions of fish annually., Species lost~arecommercially and/or recreationally valuable, ecologically valuable as ,preyspecies and, i the case of alewife and blueback:herring, have been designated as, species of concemto NOAA. In an effort to avoid, minimize and reduce potential impactsýto EFH for NOAA trust resources and federally-managed species, associated with the-renewal of the:operatinglicenses forHopeCreek Genefating Station (Hope Creek) andSalem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and'2 (Salem), the NMFS recommends the fo11owing plant specific EFH conservation recommendations:.
Salem Generating Station.Imp.ementclosed-cycle coolin gfeatrin "cooling towersthatemploysufficient safe rds to ensure against release bf blow down pollutants' into the aquatic environment Minimize water intake flowland assqciated entrainment,:ndimpingement-by not:locating intake systems in areas wherefishery organisms are.'concentrated.
.Reduce w6thdrawal and di'schge of lNrge'volures of by lowering intake rate and instituting recycling of present quantities withinthe system. Dischargepointsshouldbe -located m..... .. .... ..... ............
- , ioi "of 10.0 i 7 .L. ..... :.. ..... ...in;areas that have low concentrations oflivingnanne'resources.
Ifitakesshould'be designed to minimizeimping ent."Velociypsthat~produce horzontal mngelnn Vl oct cap thIpodc horizontal intake/discharge currents 'should' be employed and, ,intake ývelocities across the intake screen should be determ ied'that cause the least acceptable amount. ofmortality:
to' marine organisms.
- Discharge'temperatures (both heated and cooled effluent,):should notexceed thethermal tolerance:.
of the majority of the planit andanimal.species iýtherýieceiving body ofwater; and Employ addtional mitigation measures (e.g., Ristroph trmvelingscreens) intended to minimirzee entrainment.
Intake screen mesh should besized to avoid entrainment of most larval and post-larval marine flshery organisms,.
AcceptablIe'mesh size is generally'in the range.o0f.5 to 0.7 mim and rarely exceeds 1.0 mm in estuarinewaters or waters that support!anadromous.
fish eggs:and larvae.SHope Creekl-Genefating Station'. Carry-on the continuous operation of
~trveimg screens; Evaluate iopportunity for further mitigation, effectiveness such as alteringý and lowering discharge rates, and relocating discharge pipesAt6oareas of least impact to resources.
- Continue to implement provisionsin thegeneraldischargepermit.
Pleasenote'thatL Section 305 (b)(4')(B) bf the MSA requires the NRC to1provide NMFS withadetailedc writteh:response toi'these EFH coniserva:tin recommendations, incu!diig the measures adoptedby the NRC for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting-the impact license renewal would ha1ve-on EFH. In the case of a:response that is inconbistent with NMFS'.recommeridaiions, Section 305 (b) (4) .(B) of the. MS~A also indicates that the NRC must explain its reasons for not followingthe recommendaiionis.
Included in such reasoningpwould be the scientific justification for any dwiagreementswith NMFS& over the anticipated effects':of the proposedaction and the measures needed'to avoid, mnimze, mtigate ornoffsetisuchieffet pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920(k).
..z,.mtiateor....t..c
...e.In addition, a distinct and further EFH consultationmust',be reinitiated pursuanit to 50 CRE 600.920 (j) if new informationbecomes available, or-if the project-is revised in such a marmer that affects the basis, for the above EFHI conservation recommendations.
Conclusion The'Delaware;Estuary and~the aqcuatic life that inhabit it are commonly-recognized aslan ecosystemithatis severely ecologically stressed b'y a number of anthropogenic,sources.
Thedistressis-eflected'in declinng .stcks'of sps ecific.estre organisms.
Envirom~nental impacts. relatedo tothe pperation-.of:Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units .1 and, 2 (Salem)-arceof principal concern to the NMFS. Environmental Effects from theHope Creek Generating Station are sigpficantly ess.NMFSmaintains
- a. longstandingposition-that.
the continiued operation of both Salem facilifies-under current conditions cause significant adverse impacts .to a- number-of .NOAA trust resources and federally-managed species that: use the -Delaware Estuary as a mnigatoy corridor,, forage area orfspawninig-and nursery ground. NMFS conservation recommendations are offered.to address the, loss ofconsiderable numbers;of-the early life, stages&of various anadromous fishspecies discussed abovethat arecritical tothe ecologicallhealth of the estuary.'We-hope that 'this letter clarifies our position on the renewal of the operating licenses for .Hope Creek-Nuclear Generating.
Station,(Hope Creek):and SalemNuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and,2 (Salem)..We recognize that mrany factors mustbe'corigdered'dimnany deCision to move forard on, the' proj ect: and therefore,, we must recommend that the NRCiftiplement fcertainmi6dificati6ns to eachfacility.
Shoulda decision be-made to-consent to-our conservatioh'recommendations, we will work :with the NRC as well'as other state and federal agencies to ensurethat, appropriatermitigation and consetvation~measures' are.putinto'practice to6 offset'iimpactstoNOAA trust resources to the maximum extent possible.We look forward to continued coordination with the-NRC as it moves ahead-with the relicensing process for both.Salem and Hope Creek facilities.
Should you have any questionsi need, additional
'infornation, or would like to'arrange an informal meeting to further.disduss specific elements-of the EFH'consultation.
process-or impacts to resourcesvof concern to NMFS, please contactKaren Greene at 7324872-3023,or.
StanleyGorski at,'732-872-3037.
Sincerely, Peter Di. Colosi, Jr Assistant Regional-Administrator HabitAttConservati'on Division.
cc: EPA.-Region M -FWS -StateiCollege--
J, Kagel NJDEP- DFW:-PADEP PRD ,-J. Crocker PAFish and'Boat Commission M. Kaufman:DRFWMC.1.1 References Able, K-, T. Gr6thucsj et al. (2008). "Long-term response of fishes and other fauna to. restoration of former salt hay farms: multiple measures of restoration success." Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 18(1): 65-97..AEC (Atomic Energy Commission).
1973.-Final Envirofhmental
$tiatement Related to the Salem-Nuclear Generating.Station Units 1 and 2, Public .Service Electric and.Gas:.Company., Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311,-Washington,D.C:, April 19731.Alarniic Sturgeon Status Review Team. 2007. Status review'of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipneser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), Report to -the National Marine*FTisherines Service. Northeast Regional Qffice. February 23, 2007. 174*pp.Balietto, J. H., M. V.-Heimbucfi,,et-al.
(2005). "DelawareBay salt marsh restoration:
MitigatiIon for a pow'er-plant.cooling watersyste'm inNew-Jersey, USA."[EcologicaEngineeRing-25(3):-:204-213.
Buckel,-J.A.
AndD.OO..Conover.
1997. Moyements,.feeding penodsi, and daily rationofpiscivorous bluefish,,-Pom6tomus saltatrix, in;the Hudsonr-River estuary. Fish. Bull. (U.S.)950()'66-56791.
DRBC (DelaWare-River:
Basin.Commission).
2008. "Delaware River State-of the:Basin Report," Delaware RiVer BasinmConinmission, West Trentoh, NJ.EPA (U]S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. "Partnership for the DelawareEstuary 20 (NEP Profile)." AVailable URI: http://www.epa.gov/owow/estariesipro'gams/deýhtml (accessed December 3, 2010)...ESSA Technologiesl, Ltd. 2000. Reviewof Portions of New'Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) Renewal Application for the Public ServiýceElectfic
& Gas (PSE&G) Salem GenieratmgStation.
Final Report. Prepared For: New J"erseyDepartment of Enivironmiental Protection Fahay, M.P., P.L. Berrien, D;L. Johnson-and W.W. Mors. _1999. Essential Fish Habitat-Source Document:
Bluefish, Pornatomus SaltatrixIifeshitory and habitat characteristics.
U.S;. Dep. Commer., NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE- 144.Frisk, M.-G.,T. J. Miller, et. al. (20411). "Assessing biomassgaihs from-marsh restoration in Delaware Bay usi ng:Ecpath with Ecosimr" Ecological Modelling 222(1): 190-200.Grothues, T. M. and K. W. Able.(203)..
)*"Response of Juvenil.e Fish Assemblages in Tidal Salt Marsh Creeks-Treated for Phragmites-Removal.",Estuaries 26(2):, 563-573.Hastings, R.W., J.C. O'Herron, K. Schick and M.A Lazzar. 1 987. Occurrence-and distribution of shoitnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in the upper' tidal Delaware River. Estuari es 10(4):337-341.
La zzari, A. M., J.C. O'Herron and- R.W. Hastings.
1986.! Occurrence ofjuvenile Atlantic sturgeon, Aczpneser.oxyrinchus, inthe upper tidal Delaware Riverý Estuaries 9(4B): 356-361.Nemerson, Dý.M. and K. W. Able (2005). "Juvenile scianid fishes respond favorably to Delaware Bay marsh restoration.`,'
Ecological Enmineenn.
25(3): 260-2174 NJDEP (NewJersey Departmentof Environmental Protection).
,2003.:Final Consolidated Renewal Permit Action for Industrial Wastewater~and Stormwater, Hope Creek-Generating Stat ion, NJPDES PertNo.NJ002541 1, January 2003. Provided in Appendix B of Applicant's Environmental Report (PSEG, 2009a).New Jersey Departmentof.
Ehvironmental Protection.
2010. Delaware River Seine Survey. Division of Fish and Wildlife., Trenton, NJ.New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
2910. DelawareRiverSeine Survey.; Division of Fish and Wildlife.
Tfenton, NJ.o'0Herron.:J.C.,,K.W.
Able and R.W. Hastings.
1993'. Movements of shortnose sturgeon in theDelaware River. Estuaries 16(2):2357240; OHerron, J.C., C.A. Shirey, and E.A. Logothetis.
1995. Shortuose Sturgeon and Atlantic Sturgeon.
Pages 275-2831in rL:.E. Dove'andRM.M Nýyrm Living the DelawarteEstuair ThieDelaware;
" Estuary Program.PSEG.(ISEG Nuclear, LLC).. 1984.,Salem Generating Station 31 6(b)'Demonstration, NPDES Permit No.NJ0005622.
LC).l9499.
Permi' RenewalApplication, NJPDESPermit.No.
38 NJ0005622.
SalemGenerating Station,.
March 1999.PSEG(PSEG Nuclear LLC) -20,06. Salem NJPDES Permit Renewal Application, NIPDES Permit No.NJ0005622, Public Service Enterprise Group, Newark, AT, February 200'6.PSEG (PSEG LLC). :2008. Salem and Generating Stations!2007.
Annual Radiological EnvironmeiitalOperating Report. ADAMS 1ýAccession No. ML081280737..
I PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2008b. Biological monitoi~ing program annual report. Site status-reports.
1995-2008
.Steinle, F.W., R.A.,Pikanowski, D.G. McMillan, C.A. Zetlin, and S.J. Wilk. .2000. Demersal fish and Amenrican lobster dietsinthe Lower Hudson-Raritan Estuary. NOAA Technical, Memorandum NMES-NE-161. WoodsHoleMA.
10&6p.U.S Environmental Protection Agency. .20-1. CleanWater Act Section 316(b) Existing Facility'Proposed.Rule: Q's and A's: http://water.epa.aov/lawsrezs/lawszuidance/cwa/3.16b/ulýload/ca proposedjpdf (Accessed, March. 17.2011).US NRC. 2010. Generic environmental impact statement for license~renewal of nuclear plants..Supplement
- 45. Regarding Hope Creek Nuclear. Generating Station and Salem Nuolear Generatifg Station, units I and 2. Draftreport for .omment, mainareport.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Washington,.DC.
NUREG-1437 Vol 1. Sup. 45.