ML12079A218
| ML12079A218 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 02/27/2012 |
| From: | Borchardt R NRC/EDO |
| To: | Markey E US HR (House of Representatives) |
| Rihm R S415-1717 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML12069A079 | List: |
| References | |
| EDATS: SECY-2012-0096, G20120135, LTR-12-0080 | |
| Download: ML12079A218 (8) | |
Text
Responses to Information Requests from Representative Edward J. Markey Letter of February 27, 2012
- 1. Please outline the steps (including a timeline for each step) the NRC is taking to investigate and disclose the potential impacts of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS or Pilgrim) re-licensing on Atlantic sturgeon and river herring and revise its biological assessment.
In a letter to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) dated April 25, 2006, NRC staff requested information regarding protected species. NMFS replied on June 8, 2006, and identified nine species - five species of whales and four species of sea turtles - that may occur off the Massachusetts coast and may, therefore, be potentially vulnerable to the operation of PNPS. The NRC submitted a biological assessment to NMFS in a letter dated December 8, 2006, to support the staff's review of Entergy Nuclear Operations' (Entergy) license renewal application for PNPS. It considered the effects of the proposed license renewal on four species of sea turtles, five species of whales, and the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Shortnose sturgeon have never been observed in Cape Cod Bay near PNPS, but were included based on our own assessment of available information. In the biological assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed license renewal would have no effect on any of these species. Entergy has not reported any takes of federally listed species at Pilgrim since the issuance of the 2006 biological assessment. The December 8, 2006 transmittal letter for the biological assessment summarized the assessment's conclusions and requested NMFS's concurrence on the NRC's effect determinations. The NRC followed the transmittal letter with an email on December 12, 2006.
On February 6, 2012, the NMFS listed five distinct population segments of the Atlantic sturgeon under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Atlantic sturgeon near Pilgrim are part of the Gulf of Maine distinct population segment, which is listed as threatened. Within Massachusetts, the Atlantic sturgeon occur in the Merrimack, Taunton, and Connecticut Rivers. Subadults and adults occur in Cape Cod Bay occasionally during migration, but the available literature does not indicate that they are common to the Plymouth area near Pilgrim. PNPS has no recorded takes of Atlantic sturgeon in any life stage. On February 29, 2012, the NRC sent NMFS a supplement to its biological assessment of 2006, in which the NRC concludes that the proposed license renewal of Pilgrim would have no effect on the Atlantic sturgeon. The NRC requested NMFS's concurrence on the NRC's determination concerning the Atlantic sturgeon as well as the NRC's 2006 biological assessment.
River herring is a collective term that includes two herring that are similar in appearance, distribution, and biology: alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (A. aestivalis). River herring are widely distributed along the east coast of the United States, and juveniles and adults occur in waters around Pilgrim. River herring ascend coastal rivers to spawn, and the early life stages do not occur near Pilgrim. In 2006, the final PNPS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) reported that Pilgrim impinges but does not entrain either alewife or blueback herring. That is, the herring may be trapped against the cooling water intake screens or racks by the force of the moving water, but they are not carried through the screens or racks into and through the plant's cooling system.
The NMFS designated river herring as a species of concern in 2006. "Species of concern" status does not carry any procedural or substantive protections under the ESA. Therefore, because species of concern are neither threatened nor endangered, the NRC's 2006 biological assessment did not address river herring.
On November 2, 2011, NMFS announced a 90-day finding for a petition to list alewife and blueback herring as threatened and to designate critical habitat under the ESA, and said that it would conduct a review of the status of the species to determine if the listing was warranted. NMFS has 12 months to conduct such a review, and then solicits public comments. Until NMFS makes its final status finding, river herring are on the candidate list. The ESA does not require federal agencies to consult with NMFS or FWS for candidate species. The NRC is awaiting NMFS decision, which will determine the NRC's next action under the ESA.
- 2. Please provide copies of any written correspondence (including but not limited to emails) between the NRC and NMFS regarding: a) which threatened and endangered species could be affected by PNPS re-licensing, and b) how PNPS re-licensing is expected to affect these threatened or endangered species.
Copies of all written correspondence referenced in answer #1 above are being provided, as requested. Note: Because the SEIS enclosed with the NRC's letter of December 8, 2006, to NMFS is over 600 pages, only Appendix E of that SEIS, which includes the biological assessment, is provided.
- 3. Is the NRC committed to concluding this process prior to the issuance of the license extension for PNPS?
The NRC has completed the processes required for compliance with the Endangered Species Act. In its biological assessments, the NRC has fully evaluated what impacts on listed species and critical habitat could result from renewing the Pilgrim operating license. Those biological assessments concluded that renewing the Pilgrim operating license would not have any impact on listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, NMFS's regulations do not require the agency to enter into formal consultation with NMFS. As a result, legally, the ESA consultation process is complete. Nevertheless, should the river herring subsequently be listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, the NRC would undertake additional analysis at that time, if required, to ensure compliance with that Act.
- 4. Please provide a description of the process that NRC uses to decide whether an endangered or threatened species will be adversely affected by a proposed action, including but not limited to a description of: a) the manner in which the NRC determines the geographic extent of impacts for a proposed action, b) the manner in which the NRC determines possible impacts on threatened and endangered species, and c) the time it typically takes to complete an assessment for threatened and endangered species.
The NRC staff relies on a number of information sources to develop an initial list of federally listed species and designated critical habitats that may be affected by a proposed action. These sources may include the applicant's environmental report; ecological studies and surveys of the project site; the searchable endangered species database on the Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Endangered Species Program website (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/); published literature that contains species population estimates and trends; state natural heritage databases; previous correspondence between NRC and NMFS, FWS, and state resource agencies (if applicable); and environmental impact statements (EIS) for nearby Federal actions (as available). Once the NRC staff develops an initial list of species and habitats, the NRC sends that list to the NMFS or FWS for concurrence per 50 CFR 402.12(c).
After identifying relevant listed species and habitats, the NRC staff determines the likelihood of the species to occur on or in the vicinity of the site and the types of impacts that would affect the species. This preliminary analysis determines whether ESA Section 7 consultation is necessary and how the staff will document its analysis. The table below outlines the type of consultation that NRC generally initiates based on species and habitat effect determinations. Note that these are general guidelines. In unclear or unique cases, the NRC staff coordinates with NMFS or FWS to determine the appropriate path forward.
Effect determination for Listed Species Type of Section 7 concurrence/consultationPrimary documentation of NRC's analysis Secondary documentation of NRC's Analysis no effect None required; Concurrence often sought through the NEPA process environmental impact statement not applicable may affect, but not likely to adversely affect Informal consultationbiological assessmentenvironmental impact statement may affect, but not likely to adversely
affect, BUT proposed action may result in incidental take of
species Formal consultationbiological assessmentenvironmental impact statement likely to adversely affect or likely to jeopardize the continued existence Formal consultationbiological assessmentenvironmental impact statement
Effect determination for Designated Critical Habitat Type of Section 7 concurrence/consultationPrimary documentation of NRC's analysis Secondary documentation of NRC's Analysis no effect None required; Concurrence often sought through the NEPA process environmental impact statement not applicable may affect, but not likely to adversely modify or destroy Informal consultationbiological assessmentenvironmental impact statement likely to adversely modify or destroy Formal consultationbiological assessmentenvironmental impact statement The NRC staff uses a variety of sources of information, including those described above, to develop its analysis in a biological assessment (BA) or EIS. The staff also makes contact with site personnel and NMFS or FWS staff to ensure that the NRC includes all relevant and available information in its analysis. The geographic extent and types of possible impacts to listed species and habitats varies widely by project, species, and habitat type. For instance, in considering a federally listed bird, the NRC staff may have to consider how noise would affect the species' nesting behavior, which could increase the geographic extent of the analysis to an area larger than the immediate project site. By contrast, when considering a federally listed amphibian that requires habitat with vernal pools, the staff may limit the area of impacts to those areas of the project site that have suitable habitat for that species.
Once the staff completes its analysis, the staff determines if consultation is appropriate following the general guidelines in the table above. It typically takes the NRC staff approximately one year to complete the assessment for threatened and endangered species. If the NRC determines that formal or informal consultation is appropriate, the NRC sends the BA and a request to initiate consultation when the BA is complete or at the time the draft EIS is published (in those cases where the BA is included as an appendix to the EIS). Depending on the complexity of potential effects to listed species and habitats, the time it takes to complete formal consultation with NMFS varies from as little as one month up to several years.
- 5. For each nuclear reactor for which a license extension was granted in the past ten years, please provide a copy of either a) NMFS written concurrence with NRC's biological assessment, or b) NMFS biological opinion that was used to form the basis of NRC's Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance for the license extension. If neither document was prepared, please further explain the basis for concluding that the license extension complied with the legal obligations of the ESA.
The table below summarizes the information requested for reactor license extensions granted over the past ten years. The "ML" references indicate the document accession numbers in the NRC Agencywide Documents Access and Management System. Copies of the referenced documents are being provided, as requested.
Renewed License Granted Facility NMFS Consultation Type Status Documentation July 20, 2011 Hope Creek Formal Ongoing 12/13/10 NRC letter: ML103350271 June 30, 2011 Salem Formal Ongoing 12/13/10 NRC letter: ML103350271 June 27, 2011 Prairie Island None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 39, Section 4.7: ML11133A029 April 21, 2011 Palo Verde None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 43, Section 4.7: ML103630728 March 21, 2011 Vermont Yankee None** n/a 9/15/06 NMFS letter: ML063260338 February 24, 2011 Kewaunee None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 40, Section 4.7: ML102280229 December 16, 2010 Duane Arnold None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 42, Section 4.7: ML102790308 November 29, 2010 Cooper None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 41, Section 4.7: ML102100371 November 24, 2009 Susquehanna None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 35, Section 4.6: ML090700454 November 5, 2009 Beaver Valley None** n/a 11/15/07 NMFS letter: ML080160443 October 22, 2009 Three Mile Island None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 37, Section 4.7: ML091751063 June 3, 2009 Vogtle Informal Concluded8/5/08 NMFS letter: ML082490542 April 8, 2009 Oyster Creek Formal Concluded11/21/06 NMFS biological opinion: ML063320346 December 17, 2008 Harris None** n/a 6/18/08 NMFS letter: ML081980231 November 20, 2008 Wolf Creek None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 32, Section 4.6: ML081260608 September 8, 2008 J. A. Fitzpatrick None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 31, Section 4.6: ML080170183 July 17, 2007 Palisades None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 27, Section 4.6: ML062710300 November 8, 2006 Monticello None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 26, Section 4.6: ML062490078 October 31, 2006 Nine Mile Point None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 24, Section 4.6: ML061290310 June 25, 2006 Brunswick Informal Concluded9/19/05 NMFS letter: ML060240452
May 4, 2006 Browns Ferry None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 21, Section 4.6: ML051730443 December 22, 2005 Point Beach None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 23, Section 4.6: ML052230490 November 28, 2005 Millstone Informal Concluded1/12/05 NMFS letter: ML051020154 August 30, 2005 DC Cook None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 20, Section 4.6: ML051150556 June 30, 2005 Arkansas Nuclear None** n/a 12/11/03 NMFS letter: ML040130740 May 12, 2005 Farley None** n/a 6/21/02 NMFS letter: ML033520044 October 28, 2004 Dresden None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 17, Section 4.6: ML041890266 October 28, 2004 Quad Cities None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 16, Section 4.6: ML041880213 April 23, 2004 VC Summer None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 15, Section 4.6: ML040540718 May 19, 2004 RE Ginna None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 14, Section 4.6: ML040230341 April 19, 2004 HB Robinson Informal Concluded10/7/03 NMFS letter: ML032930113 December 3, 2003 McGuire None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 8, Section 4.6: ML023600261 December 3, 2003 Catawba None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 9, Section 4.6: ML030020356 November 4, 2003 Fort Calhoun None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 12, Section 4.6: ML032230075 October 2, 2003 St. Lucie Informal Concluded7/30/02 NMFS letter: ML022200253 May 7, 2003 Peach Bottom None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 10, Section 4.6: ML030270059 March 20, 2003 North Anna None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 7, Section 4.6: ML023380745 March 20, 2003 Surry None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 6, Section 4.6: ML023520406 July 17, 2002 Turkey Point None* n/a NUREG-1437, Suppl. 5, Section 4.6: ML020280236 *NEPA analysis revealed no species under NMFS jurisdiction affected by the action. **Correspondence with NMFS as part of the NEPA analysis determined consultation not warranted.