PSEG Nuclear, LLC; Hope Creek Generating Station Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact; Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level, 13032-13044 [E8-4858]
Download as PDF
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
13032
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Notices
documents in paper format. Such filings
must be submitted by: (1) First class
mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or
(2) courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service to the Office of the
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this
manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants.
Filing is considered complete by firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon
depositing the document with the
provider of the service.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions
and contentions will not be entertained
absent a determination by the
Commission, the presiding officer, or
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
that the petition and/or request should
be granted and/or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a
balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). To be timely,
filings must be submitted no later than
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due
date.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at https://
ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp,
unless excluded pursuant to an order of
the Commission, an Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer.
Participants are requested not to include
personal privacy information, such as
social security numbers, home
addresses, or home phone numbers in
their filings. With respect to copyrighted
works, except for limited excerpts that
serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, Participants are requested
not to include copyrighted materials in
their submissions.
For further details with respect to this
license amendment application, see the
letter dated February 25, 2008, from the
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
which is available for public inspection
at the Commission’s PDR, located at
One White Flint North, File Public Area
O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible
electronically from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 Mar 10, 2008
Jkt 214001
reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who
do not have access to ADAMS or who
encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, should
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by
telephone at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day
of March 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Meghan M. Thorpe-Kavanaugh,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III–
2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8–4861 Filed 3–10–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–354]
PSEG Nuclear, LLC; Hope Creek
Generating Station Final
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact;
Related to the Proposed License
Amendment To Increase the Maximum
Reactor Power Level
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
SUMMARY: As required by Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
Part 51, the NRC has prepared a final
Environmental Assessment (EA) as its
evaluation of a request by the PSEG
Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) for a license
amendment to increase the maximum
thermal power at Hope Creek
Generating Station (HCGS) from 3,339
megawatts-thermal (MWt) to 3,840
MWt. The EA assesses environmental
impacts up to a maximum thermal
power level of 3,952 MWt, as the
applicant’s environmental report was
based on that power level. The NRC
staff did not identify any significant
impact from the information provided
in the licensee’s EPU application for
HCGS or from the NRC staff’s
independent review. The final EA and
Finding of No Significant Impact are
being published in the Federal Register.
The NRC published a draft EA and
finding of no significant impact on the
proposed action for public comment in
the Federal Register on October 22,
2007 (72 FR 59563). Two sets of
comments were received on the draft
EA: (1) From PSEG Nuclear, LLC by
letter dated November 21, 2007
(Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS)
Accession No. ML073600851); and (2)
from the State of New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) by
letter dated November 21, 2007
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(ADAMS Accession No. ML073600859).
These comments are addressed below.
Disposition of Public Comments on the
Draft Environmental Assessment E
PSEG Comment Number 1: Modify
the Cooling Tower Impacts section to
more clearly reflect that NJDEP has
issued the Title V Air Operating Permit
authorizing emissions at 42 lbs/hr upon
approval of the [United States
Environmental Protection Agency]
USEPA.
NRC Response Number 1: This
comment is a clarification and editorial
correction to the draft Environmental
Assessment. Based on this comment, the
NRC staff revised the appropriate
section of the final EA.
PSEG Comment Number 2: Modify
the Discharge Impacts section to reflect
that the [total dissolved solids] TDS
limits are indirectly in the Title V Air
Operating Permit and not in the [New
Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System] NJPDES Permit.
NRC Response Number 2: This
comment is a clarification and editorial
correction to the draft Environmental
Assessment. Based on this comment, the
NRC staff revised the appropriate
section of the final EA.
PSEG Comment Number 3: Modify
the Discharge Impacts section to reflect
that total suspended solids and [total
organic carbon] TOC are not routinely
monitored and acute and chronic
biological toxicity tests are performed
during each NJPDES Permit renewal.
NRC Response Number 3: This
comment is a clarification and editorial
correction to the draft Environmental
Assessment. Based on this comment, the
NRC staff revised the appropriate
section of the final EA.
PSEG Comment Number 4: Modify
the Impacts on Aquatic Biota section,
Table 1, to reflect that Atlantic Croaker
are considered to be a single Atlantic
coast stock.
NRC Response Number 4: Upon
further review, the NRC agrees with the
comment. Based on this comment, the
NRC staff revised the appropriate
section of the final EA.
PSEG Comment Number 5: Modify
the Impacts on Aquatic Biota section to
identify inland silversides instead of
tidewater silversides.
NRC Response Number 5: Upon
further review, the NRC agrees with the
comment. Based on this comment, the
NRC staff revised the appropriate
section of the final EA.
PSEG Comment Number 6: Modify
the Impacts on Aquatic Biota section to
reflect the extensive biological
monitoring program at the adjacent
Salem Generating Station, reflect the
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Notices
potential escape mechanism at the
intake based on the low intake velocity,
and change ‘‘no environmental
monitoring’’ to ‘‘no intake aquatic
monitoring.’’ There are extensive
environmental monitoring programs in
place at HCGS.
NRC Response Number 6: Based on
this comment, the NRC staff revised the
appropriate section of the final EA.
PSEG Comment Number 7: Modify
the Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts
section to remove the redundant use of
the word ‘‘waste.’’
NRC Response Number 7: This
comment is an editorial correction to
the draft Environmental Assessment.
Based on this comment, the NRC staff
revised the appropriate section of the
final EA.
PSEG Comment Number 8: Modify
the Gaseous Radioactive Waste and
Offsite Doses section to reflect values in
Table 5–3 of PSEG’s Environmental
Report for EPU.
NRC Response Number 8: This
comment is a clarification correction to
the draft Environmental Assessment.
Based on this comment, the NRC staff
revised the appropriate section of the
final EA.
PSEG Comment Number 9: Modify
the Offsite Radiation Doses section to
reflect the information contained in
Section 5.2.1 of PSEG’s Environmental
Report for EPU.
NRC Response Number 9: This
comment is a clarification correction to
the draft EA. Based on this comment,
the NRC staff revised the appropriate
section of the final EA.
PSEG Comment Number 10: Modify
the Summary section, Table 3, to reflect
only those values that were discussed in
the main text.
NRC Response Number 10: This
comment is an editorial correction to
the draft EA. Based on this comment,
the NRC staff revised the appropriate
section of the final EA.
NJDEP Comment Number 1: The
proposed modification is subject to the
Federal Consistency provisions of the
Federal Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA), and as such, a Federal
Consistency determination is required.
On July 3, 2007, the NJDEP’s Division of
Land Use Regulation issued the Federal
Consistency certification for the
proposed power project.
NRC Response Number 1: This
comment is a clarification correction to
the draft Environmental Assessment.
Based on this comment, the NRC staff
revised the appropriate section of the
final EA.
NJDEP Comment Number 2: The
proposed increase in power output
would result in a small increase to the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 Mar 10, 2008
Jkt 214001
temperature of the water being
discharged into the Delaware River.
Although the discharge is within the
limits allowed by the current permit, the
[NJDEP’s Division of Fish and Wildlife]
DFW has concerns over potential
impacts to resident and migratory fish
species within the area.
NRC Response Number 2: Blowdown
temperature and composition, and
Delaware Estuary water temperatures
would remain in compliance with the
station’s NJPDES permit, and the
proposed EPU would not result in
changes in any other effluents to the
estuary. Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that the proposed EPU would
result in negligible impacts on the
Delaware Estuary from HCGS discharge.
Based on this comment, the NRC staff
did not revise the final EA.
NJDEP Comment Number 3: Potential
impacts identified by the Draft EA
acknowledged that increased
evaporation would leave behind more
solids in the blowdown, so the
concentration of total dissolved solids
(TDS) in the effluent would be an
average of about 9 percent higher than
under current operations. While this is
in compliance with the station’s
NJPDES permit, the Division has
concerns over potential impacts to
resident and migratory fish species and
shellfish within the area.
NRC Response Number 3: Blowdown
temperature and composition, and
Delaware Estuary water temperatures
would remain in compliance with the
station’s NJPDES permit, and the
proposed EPU would not result in
changes in any other effluents to the
estuary. Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that the proposed EPU would
result in negligible impacts on the
Delaware Estuary from HCGS discharge.
Based on this comment, the NRC staff
did not revise the final EA.
NJDEP Comment Number 4: The
potential impacts to aquatic biota from
the proposed action are primarily due to
operation of the cooling water system
withdraws. Although no volume and/or
velocity changes to the circulating water
or service water systems are expected
due to the proposed EPU, the DFW
continues to be concerned for the
destruction of fish and/or shellfish
species via intake and discharge of
water at this plant. While the identity of
species potentially affected by
entrainment, impingement, and heat
shock may be inferred from ecological
information about the Delaware Estuary,
the species affected cannot be verified,
and the numbers cannot be quantified
because no environmental monitoring
programs are conducted at the facility.
It is expected that a percentage of
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13033
impinged organisms may likely die,
partially due to the fish-return system
not functioning continuously to
minimize mortality at present. It is
expected all organisms entrained at
HCGS are probably killed from exposure
to heat, mechanical, pressure-related
stresses, and/or biocidal treatment
before being discharged to the estuary.
Although the proposed action would
not change the volume or rate of cooling
water withdrawn, the DFW has
concerns regarding the number of
individual fish and shellfish, larvae and
eggs destroyed by the plant and any
associated temperature rise in the
Delaware Estuary. The entrainment kill
should be verified to species and
quantified in the future to address these
concerns. It is anticipated that any new
processes that are developed for the
other Salem units to increase
impingement survivability and decrease
entrainment will be employed by this
plant as well automatically.
NRC Response Number 4: Under the
proposed EPU, water withdrawal rates
would not change from present
conditions. Entrainment and
impingement impacts may change over
time due to changes in the aquatic
populations even though HCGS’s water
withdrawal rate would not change from
present conditions. Impacts due to
impingement and entrainment losses are
minimized because the closed-cycle
cooling system at the plant minimizes
the amount of cooling water withdrawn
from and heated effluent returned to the
estuary. The water quality of the
effluent (e.g., temperature, toxicity, TDS
concentrations) would continue to meet
present NJPDES permit conditions for
protection of aquatic life. The staff
concludes that the proposed EPU would
have no significant impact to aquatic
biota. Impingment and entrainment
effects are regulated by NJDEP under
Clean Water Act 316(b), and heat shock
is regulated by NJDEP under 316(a) as
part of NJPDES permitting. NJPDES
permit levels are not part of NRC
jurisdiction. Based on this comment, the
NRC staff did not revise the final EA.
NJDEP Comment Number 5: National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued
a letter dated January 26, 2007, that
provided information on the endangered
shortnose sturgeon; Atlantic sturgeon, a
candidate species for listing; and five
species of endangered or threatened sea
turtles: Loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley,
leatherback, green, and hawksbill
turtles. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) staff investigated the
effects of the HCGS operation on these
species and found that the primary
concern for these endangered and
threatened species is the risk of
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
13034
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Notices
impingement or entrainment due to
cooling water intake by the plant. The
HCGS has reported no takes of any of
the endangered or threatened species
listed above. Although the proposed
EPU would not change the intake flow,
and, therefore, would not increase
impingement and entrainment of these
species, the DFW remains concerned
regarding potential takes of endangered
species.
NRC Response Number 5: Under the
proposed EPU, water withdrawal rates
would not change from present
conditions. Entrainment and
impingement impacts may change over
time due to changes in the aquatic
populations even though HCGS’s water
withdrawal rate would not change from
present conditions. Impacts due to
impingement and entrainment losses are
minimized because the closed-cycle
cooling system at the plant minimizes
the amount of cooling water withdrawn
from and heated effluent returned to the
estuary. The water quality of the
effluent (e.g., temperature, toxicity, TDS
concentrations) would continue to meet
present NJPDES permit conditions for
protection of aquatic life. The staff
concludes that the proposed EPU would
have no significant impact to aquatic
biota. Impingment and entrainment
effects are regulated by NJDEP under
Clean Water Act 316(b), and heat shock
is regulated by NJDEP under 316(a) as
part of NJPDES permitting. NJPDES
permit levels are not part of NRC
jurisdiction. Based on this comment, the
NRC staff did not revise the final EA.
NJDEP Comment Number 6: The EA
notes that an Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH) for the proposed EPU was sent to
the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) under separate cover to initiate
an EFH consultation. We recommend
that the NRC should issue no final
decision on this proposal until NMFS
consultations are concluded.
NRC Response Number 6: The staff
agrees with this comment. By letter
dated July 13, 2007 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML072000450), NMFS found the
EFH assessment satisfactory. Based on
this comment, the NRC staff revised the
appropriate section of the final EA.
NJDEP Comment Number 7: No
impacts are expected to avian species.
NRC Response Number 7: The staff
agrees with this comment; however, no
changes to the final EA are warranted.
NJDEP Comment Number 8:
According to the EA, no changes to the
Hope Creek Generating Station
circulating water or service water
systems are expected due to the
proposed EPU; therefore, the proposed
EPU would not increase the amount of
water withdrawn from or discharged to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 Mar 10, 2008
Jkt 214001
the Delaware Estuary. As a result, the
intake issue appears to be unaffected by
the power re-rating.
NRC Response Number 8: The staff
agrees with this comment; however, no
changes to the final EA are warranted.
NJDEP Comment Number 9: This
Bureau has determined that because the
permittee is willing to comply with its
current discharge limits, the regulation
of the discharge via NJPDES appears to
be unaffected by the power re-rating. In
the current NJPDES permit, there is no
effluent flow limit and there is no total
dissolved solids (TDS) requirement
since the facility discharges to saline
waters. This is due to the fact that there
are currently no New Jersey Surface
Water Quality Standards for TDS.
Through the administering of the
NJPDES program, this Bureau will
continue to require effluent
characterization of the cooling tower
blowdown to monitor any changes to
the toxic pollutants that may or may not
occur due to the proposed EPU.
NRC Response Number 9: The staff
agrees with this comment; however, no
changes to the final EA are warranted.
NJDEP Comment Number 10: The
information contained in the EA
indicates that the power output of the
reactor will increase approximately 15percent. It can be concluded that this
power increase will raise magnetic field
emissions from the lines and therefore,
elevate magnetic fields along the rightof-way. These changes will increase the
magnetic field exposure of the
population living closer than 400 feet
from the center of the transmission line
configuration. At this point in time, the
consensus among the scientific
community is that there is inconclusive
evidence to suggest that long-term
exposure to magnetic fields from power
lines would result in adverse health
outcomes. However, for new or
modified lines, many health-based
organizations are still recommending
reducing magnetic fields if low or nocost options exist. In a June 2007 fact
sheet put forth from the World Health
Organization (WHO Fact sheet No. 322),
the following guidance is issued: ‘‘When
constructing new facilities and
designing new equipment low-cost ways
of reducing exposures may be
explored.’’ Therefore, in light of such
uncertainty, if there are any changes
that will be made to the power delivery
system that would lower the magnetic
fields from the power lines, it may be
prudent to explore such options.
NRC Response Number 10: The
proposed EPU does not require the
modification or building of new
transmission lines. Therefore, the
guidance in WHO Fact Sheet No. 322 is
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
not applicable. There is no scientific
consensus regarding the health effects of
electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produced
by operating transmission lines.
Therefore, the licensee did not quantify
the chronic effects of EMF on human
and biota. The potential for chronic
effects for these fields continues to be
studied and is not known at this time.
The National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related
research through the U.S Department of
Energy (DOE). A 2003 NIEHS study
published in Environmental Health
Perspectives, Volume 111, Number 3,
March 2003, titled ‘‘Power-Line
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Do
Not Induce Changes in Phosphorylation,
Localization, or Expression of the 27Kilodalton Heat Shock Protein in
Human Keratinocytes’’ by Biao Shi,
Behnom Farboud, Richard Nuccitelli,
and R. Rivkah Isseroff of the University
of California—Davis contains the
following conclusion:
’’The linkage of the exposure to the powerline frequency (50–60 Hz) electromagnetic
fields (EMF) with human cancers remains
controversial after more than 10 years of
study. The in vitro studies on the adverse
effects of EMF on human cells have not
yielded a clear conclusion. In this study, we
investigated whether power-line frequency
EMF could act as an environmental insult to
invoke stress responses in human
keratinocytes using the 27-kDa heat shock
protein (HSP27) as a stress marker. After
exposure to 1 gauss (100 µT) EMF from 20
min to 24 hr, the isoform pattern of HSP27
in keratinocytes remained unchanged,
suggesting that EMF did not induce the
phosphorylation of this stress protein. EMF
exposure also failed to induce the
translocation of HSP27 from the cytoplasm to
the nucleus. Moreover, EMF exposure did
not increase the abundance of HSP27 in
keratinocytes. In addition, we found no
evidence that EMF exposure enhanced the
level of the 70-kDa heat shock protein
(HSP70) in breast or leukemia cells as
reported previously. Therefore, in this study
we did not detect any of a number of stress
responses in human keratinocytes exposed to
power-line frequency EMF.’’
To date, there is not sufficient data to
cause the NRC staff to change its
position with respect to the chronic
effects of electromagnetic fields. If in the
future, the NRC staff finds that, contrary
to current indications, a consensus has
been reached by appropriate Federal
health agencies that there are adverse
health effects from electromagnetic
fields, the NRC staff will recommend to
the Commission to change its current
position regarding EMF. The NRC staff
did not revise the final EA based on this
comment.
NJDEP Comment Number 11: The
NJDEP’s Air Quality Permitting Office
approved the Title V air permit
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Notices
modification for this project on August
7, 2007. This approval along with a
request for a single source state
implementation plan (SIP) for a variance
to Subchapter 6 was sent to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
on November 2, 2007. The Air Quality
Permitting Office has not yet received a
response from the EPA.
NRC Response Number 11: The staff
agrees with this comment; however, no
changes to the final EA are warranted.
Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
HCGS is located on the southern part
of Artificial Island, on the east bank of
the Delaware River, in Lower Alloways
Creek Township, Salem County, New
Jersey. While called Artificial Island, the
site is actually connected to the
mainland of New Jersey by a strip of
tideland, formed by hydraulic fill from
dredging operations on the Delaware
River by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The site is 15 miles south of
the Delaware Memorial Bridge, 18 miles
south of Wilmington, Delaware, 30
miles southwest of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, and 7.5 miles southwest
of Salem, New Jersey. The station is
located on a 300-acre site.
The site is located in the southern
region of the Delaware River Valley,
which is defined as the area
immediately adjacent to the Delaware
River and extending from Trenton to
Cape May Point, New Jersey, on the
eastern side, and from Morrisville,
Pennsylvania, to Lewes, Delaware, on
the western side. This region is
characterized by extensive tidal
marshlands and low-lying
meadowlands. Most land in this area is
undeveloped. A great deal of land
adjacent to the Delaware River, near the
site, is public land, owned by the
Federal and State governments. The
main access to the plant is from a road
constructed by PSEG. This road
connects with Alloways Creek Neck
Road, about 2.5 miles, east of the site.
Access to the plant site and all activities
thereon are under the control of PSEG.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
HCGS is a single unit plant that
employs a General Electric BWR that
was designed to operate at a rated core
thermal power of 3,339 MWt, at 100percent steam flow, with a turbinegenerated rating of approximately 1,139
megawatts-electric (MWe).
In 1984, NRC issued operating license
NPF–57 to HCGS, authorizing operation
up to a maximum power level of 3,293
MWt. In 2001, NRC authorized a license
amendment for a 1.4 percent power
15:44 Mar 10, 2008
Jkt 214001
The Need for the Proposed Action
PSEG (2005) evaluated the need for
additional electrical generation capacity
in its service area for the planning
period of 2002–2011. Information
provided by the North American
Electric Reliability Council showed that,
in order to meet projected demands,
generating capacity must be increased
by at least 2 percent per year for the
Mid-Atlantic Area Council and the PJM
Interconnection, LLC (PSEG 2005). Such
demand increase would exceed PSEG’s
capacity to generate electricity for its
customers.
PSEG determined that a combination
of increased power generation and
purchase of power from the electrical
grid would be needed to meet the
projected demands. Increasing the
generating capacity at HCGS was
estimated to provide lower-cost power
than can be purchased on the current
and projected energy market. In
addition, increasing nuclear generating
capacity would lessen the need to
depend on fossil fuel alternatives that
are subject to unpredictable cost
fluctuations and increasing
environmental costs.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
This EA summarizes the nonradiological and radiological impacts
that may result from the proposed
action.
Non-Radiological Impacts
Identification of the Proposed Action
VerDate Aug<31>2005
uprate from 3,293 MWt to 3,339 MWt
and issued an Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for Increase in
Allowable Thermal Power Level (NRC
2001).
By letter dated September 18, 2006,
PSEG proposed an amendment to the
operating license for HCGS, to increase
the maximum thermal power level by
approximately 15 percent, from 3,339
MWt to 3,840 MWt. The change is
considered an EPU because it would
raise the reactor core power levels more
than 7 percent above the originally
licensed maximum power level.
Land Use Impacts
The potential impacts associated with
land use (including aesthetics and
historic and archaeological resources)
include impacts from construction and
plant modifications at HCGS. While
some plant components would be
modified, most plant changes related to
the proposed EPU would occur within
existing structures, buildings, and
fenced equipment yards housing major
components within the developed part
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13035
of the site. No new construction would
occur, and no expansion of buildings,
roads, parking lots, equipment storage
areas, or transmission facilities would
be required to support the proposed
EPU (PSEG 2005).
Existing parking lots, road access,
offices, workshops, warehouses, and
restrooms would be used during
construction and plant modifications.
Therefore, land use would not change at
HCGS. In addition, there would be no
land use changes along transmission
lines (no new lines would be required
for the proposed EPU), transmission
corridors, switchyards, or substations.
Because land use conditions would not
change at HCGS and because any
disturbance would occur within
previously disturbed areas, there would
be no impact to aesthetic resources and
historic and archeological resources in
the vicinity of HCGS (PSEG 2005).
The Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) was promulgated to encourage
and assist States and territories in
developing management programs that
preserve, protect, develop, and, where
possible, restore the resources of the
coastal zone. A ‘‘coastal zone’’ is
generally described as the coastal waters
and the adjacent shore lands strongly
influenced by each other. This includes
islands, transitional and intertidal areas,
salt marshes, wetlands, beaches, and
Great Lakes waters. Activities of Federal
agencies that are reasonably likely to
affect coastal zones shall be consistent
with the approved coastal management
program (CMP) of the State or territory
to the maximum extent practical. The
CZMA provisions apply to all actions
requiring Federal approval (new plant
licenses, license renewals, materials
licenses, and major amendments to
existing licenses) that affect the coastal
zone in a State or territory with a
Federally approved CMP. The proposed
EPU is subject to the Federal
Consistency provisions of the Federal
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA),
and as such, a Federal Consistency
determination is required. On April 23,
2007, PSEG submitted an application
requesting the State of New Jersey to
perform the Federal Consistency
determination in accordance with
CZMA. On July 3, 2007, the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) Land Use Regulation Program,
acting under Section 307 of the Federal
Coastal Management Act, issued the
Federal Consistency certification for the
proposed EPU.
The impacts of continued operation of
HCGS under EPU conditions are
bounded by the evaluation in the FES
for operation (NRC 1984). Therefore, the
potential impacts to land use, aesthetics,
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
13036
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Notices
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
and historic and archaeological
resources from the proposed EPU would
not be significant.
Cooling Tower Impacts
HCGS has one natural draft cooling
tower that is currently used to reduce
the heat output to the environment. The
potential impacts associated with
cooling tower operation under the
proposed EPU could affect aesthetics,
salt drift deposition, noise, fogging or
icing, wildlife, and particulate
emissions.
The proposed EPU would not result
in significant changes to aesthetics such
as cooling tower plume dimension at
HCGS. Atmospheric emissions from the
natural draft cooling tower consist
primarily of waste heat and water vapor
resulting in persistent cloudlike plumes.
The size of the cooling tower plume
depends on the meteorological
conditions such as temperature, dew
point, and relative humidity. For the
proposed EPU, NRC does not anticipate
any change in the dimension of the
plume under equivalent meteorological
conditions as evaluated in the FES.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that
there would be no significant aesthetic
impacts associated with HCGS cooling
tower operation for the proposed action.
Native, exotic, and agricultural plant
productivity may be adversely affected
by the increased salt concentration in
the drift deposited directly on soils or
directly on foliage. FES has indicated
that the salt drift deposition must be
above 90 lbs/acre/year before agriculture
plant productivity would be reduced.
PSEG has estimated that the proposed
EPU would not significantly increase
the rate of salt drift deposition from the
increase in cooling tower operation.
PSEG has estimated that the increase in
salt drift deposition rate would be 9
percent to a maximum of 0.109 lbs/acre/
year. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes
that there would be no significant salt
drift deposition impacts associated with
HCGS cooling tower operation for the
proposed action.
Because the HCGS cooling tower is
natural draft, no increase in noise is
expected. Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that there would be no
significant noise impacts associated
with HCGS cooling tower operation for
the proposed action.
PSEG has indicated that there would
be no significant increase in fogging or
icing expected for the proposed EPU.
Increased ground-level fogging and icing
resulting from water droplets in the
cooling tower drift may interfere with
highway traffic. The 1984 FES evaluated
the impacts of fogging and icing
associated with the operation of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 Mar 10, 2008
Jkt 214001
natural draft cooling tower at HCGS and
found these impacts to be insignificant
and inconsequential. The fact that the
nearest agricultural or residential land is
located several miles from the site
further minimizes the potential for
impact. Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that there would be no
significant fogging or icing impacts
associated with HCGS cooling tower
operation for the proposed action.
The 1984 FES has stated that although
some birds may collide with cooling
tower, unpublished surveys at existing
cooling towers indicated that the
number would be relatively small. The
proposed EPU would not increase the
risk of wildlife colliding with cooling
tower. Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that there would be no
significant wildlife impacts associated
with HCGS cooling tower operation for
the proposed action.
The proposed EPU would increase the
particulates emission rate from the
HCGS cooling tower, from the current
permitted rate of 29.4 pounds per hour
(lbs/hr) to a rate of 35.6 lbs/hr
(maximum 42.0 lbs/hr). Particulates
(primarily salts) from the cooling tower
have an aerodynamic particle size of
less than 10 microns in diameter
(PM10). The NJDEP has imposed a
maximum hourly emission rate for
particulates at 30 lbs/hr. Therefore, the
projected particulate emission rate from
the HCGS cooling tower, due to the
proposed EPU, could exceed the NJDEP
emission regulatory limit. On March 30,
2007, NJDEP issued a Public Notice and
Draft Title V Air Operating Permit for
the HCGS cooling tower, proposing to
authorize a variance to the HCGS air
operating permit with an hourly
emission rate of 42 lbs/hr (NJDEP
2007a). On June 13, 2007, NJDEP issued
the final Title V Air Operating Permit
for HCGS allowing a 42 lbs/hr
particulate emission rate for the
proposed EPU upon approval of the
State Implementation Plan by USEPA.
Since particulates from HCGS cooling
tower consist primarily of salts with
particle size of less than 10 microns, the
FES evaluated the environmental
impacts on air quality and found the
impacts to be minor. Furthermore, a
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) non-applicability analysis was
submitted to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2, by
PSEG on March 4, 2004. Based on the
information provided by PSEG, EPA
concluded that the EPU project would
not result in a significant increase in
emissions and would not be subject to
PSD review (ML071240216). In
addition, NJDEP has stated that the
Bureau of Technical Services reviewed
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the Air Quality Modeling for the
proposed Hope Creek uprate project and
determined that the project would meet
the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards and the New Jersey Ambient
Air Quality Standards. Therefore, the
NRC staff concludes that there would be
no significant particulate emission
impacts associated with HCGS cooling
tower operation for the proposed action.
Transmission Facility Impacts
The potential impacts associated with
transmission facilities include changes
in transmission line right-of-way (ROW)
maintenance and electric shock hazards
due to increased current. The proposed
EPU would not require any physical
modifications to the transmission lines.
PSEG’s transmission line ROW
maintenance practices, including the
management of vegetation growth,
would not change. PSEG did not
provide an estimate of the increase in
the operating voltage due to the EPU.
Based on experience from EPUs at other
plants, the NRC staff concludes that the
increase in the operating voltage would
be negligible. Because the voltage would
not change significantly, there would be
no significant change in the potential for
electric shock. Modifications to onsite
transmission equipment are necessary to
support the EPU; such changes include
replacement of the high- and lowpressure turbines, and the replacement
of the main transformer (PSEG 2005).
No long-term environmental impacts
from these replacements are anticipated.
The proposed EPU would increase the
current, which would affect the
electromagnetic field. The National
Electric Safety Code (NESC) provides
design criteria that limit hazards from
steady-state currents. The NESC limits
the short-circuit current to the ground to
less than 5 milliamperes. The
transmission lines meet the applicable
shock prevention provision of the
NESC. Therefore, even with the slight
increase in current attributable to the
EPU, adequate protection is provided
against hazards from electrical shock.
There would be an increase in current
passing through the transmission lines
associated with the increased power
level of the proposed EPU. The
increased electrical current passing
through the transmission lines would
cause an increase in electromagnetic
field strength. However, there is no
scientific consensus regarding the
health effects of electromagnetic fields
(EMFs) produced by operating
transmission lines. Therefore, the
licensee did not quantify the chronic
effects of EMF on human and biota. The
potential for chronic effects for these
fields continues to be studied and is not
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Notices
The impacts associated with
transmission facilities for the proposed
action would not change significantly
relative to the impacts from current
plant operation. There would be no
physical modifications to the
transmission lines, transmission line
ROW maintenance practices would not
change, there would be no changes to
transmission line ROW or vertical
ground clearances, and electric current
passing through the transmission lines
would increase only slightly. Therefore,
the NRC staff concludes there would be
no significant impacts associated with
transmission facilities for the proposed
action.
‘‘The linkage of the exposure to the powerline frequency (50–60 Hz) electromagnetic
fields (EMF) with human cancers remains
controversial after more than 10 years of
study. The in vitro studies on the adverse
effects of EMF on human cells have not
yielded a clear conclusion. In this study, we
investigated whether power-line frequency
EMF could act as an environmental insult to
invoke stress responses in human
keratinocytes using the 27–kDa heat shock
protein (HSP27) as a stress marker. After
exposure to 1 gauss (100 µT) EMF from 20
min to 24 hr, the isoform pattern of HSP27
in keratinocytes remained unchanged,
suggesting that EMF did not induce the
phosphorylation of this stress protein. EMF
exposure also failed to induce the
translocation of HSP27 from the cytoplasm to
the nucleus. Moreover, EMF exposure did
not increase the abundance of HSP27 in
keratinocytes. In addition, we found no
evidence that EMF exposure enhanced the
level of the 70–kDa heat shock protein
(HSP70) in breast or leukemia cells as
reported previously. Therefore, in this study
we did not detect any of a number of stress
responses in human keratinocytes exposed to
power-line frequency EMF.’’
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
known at this time. The National
Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS) directs related
research through the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE). A 2003 NIEHS study
published in Environmental Health
Perspectives, Volume 111, Number 3,
March 2003, titled ‘‘Power-Line
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Do
Not Induce Changes in Phosphorylation,
Localization, or Expression of the 27Kilodalton Heat Shock Protein in
Human Keratinocytes’’ by Biao Shi,
Behnom Farboud, Richard Nuccitelli,
and R. Rivkah Isseroff of the University
of California—Davis contains the
following conclusion:
Water Use Impacts
Potential water use impacts from the
proposed EPU include localized effects
on the Delaware Estuary and changes to
plant water supply. HCGS is located on
the eastern shore of the Delaware
Estuary. The estuary is approximately
2.5 miles wide, and the tidal flow past
HCGS is approximately 259,000 million
gallons per day (MGD) (NRC 2001). The
Delaware Estuary is the source of
cooling water for the HCGS circulating
water system, a closed-cycle system that
utilizes a natural draft cooling tower.
During normal plant operations, water
usage at HCGS accounts for less than
0.03 percent of the average tidal flow of
the Delaware Estuary (PSEG 2005).
HCGS’s service water system
withdraws approximately 67 MGD from
the Delaware Estuary for cooling and
makeup water. When estuary water
temperature is less than 70 degrees
Fahrenheit (°F), two pumps operate to
supply an average service water flow
rate of approximately 37,000 gallons per
minute (gpm). When estuary water
temperature is greater than 70 °F, three
pumps operate to supply an average
service water flow rate of approximately
52,000 gpm (Najarian Associates 2004).
Estuary water is delivered to the cooling
tower basin and acts primarily as
makeup water to the circulating water
system—replacing 47 MGD that are
returned to the estuary as cooling tower
blowdown, and depending upon
meteorological conditions and the
circulating water flow rate, replacing
approximately 10–13 MGD of cooling
water that are lost through evaporation
from the cooling tower. Approximately
7 MGD of the 67 MGD are used for
intake screen wash water and strainer
backwash. The circulating water system
has an operating capacity of 11 million
gallons; however, approximately 9
million gallons of water actually reside
in the circulating water system at any
given time. Water is re-circulated
through the condensers at a rate of
To date, there is not sufficient data to
cause the NRC staff to change its
position with respect to the chronic
effects of electromagnetic fields. If in the
future, the NRC staff finds that, contrary
to current indications, a consensus has
been reached by appropriate Federal
health agencies that there are adverse
health effects from electromagnetic
fields, the NRC staff will recommend to
the Commission to change its current
position regard EMF.
The 1984 FES evaluated bird
mortality resulting from collision with
towers and conductors. The FES has
estimated that only 0.07 percent of the
mortality of waterfowls from causes
other than hunting resulted from
collision with towers and conductors at
HCGS. Because the proposed EPU does
not require physical modifications to
the transmission line system, the
additional impacts of bird mortality
would be minimal.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 Mar 10, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13037
approximately 550,000 gpm (PSEG
2005). No changes to the HCGS
circulating water or service water
systems are expected due to the
proposed EPU; therefore, the proposed
EPU would not increase the amount of
water withdrawn from or discharged to
the Delaware Estuary.
Consumptive use of surface water by
HCGS is not expected to change
substantively as a result of the proposed
EPU and is regulated by the Delaware
River Basin Commission (DRBC)
through a water use contract. The
proposed EPU would likely result in a
small increase in cooling tower
blowdown temperature. To mitigate this
temperature increase, PSEG has
modified its cooling tower to improve
its thermal performance, and as
discussed in the following section,
thermal discharge to the Delaware
Estuary would remain within the
regulatory limits set by the New Jersey
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NJPDES) permit granted to HCGS by
NJDEP (PSEG2005; NJDEP 2002).
Two groundwater wells access the
Raritan aquifer to provide domestic and
process water to HCGS. The wells are
permitted by NJDEP and are also
regulated by DRBC. The proposed EPU
would not increase the use of
groundwater by HCGS or change the
limits of groundwater use currently set
by DRBC (PSEG 2005). As such, the
conclusions in the 1984 FES regarding
groundwater use at HCGS would remain
valid for the proposed EPU.
The proposed EPU would not increase
the amount of surface water withdrawn
from the Delaware Estuary and
groundwater use at HCGS would not
increase. Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes the proposed EPU would
have negligible water use impacts on the
estuary.
Discharge Impacts
Potential impacts to a water body
from power plant discharge include
increased turbidity, scouring, erosion,
sedimentation, contamination, and
water temperature. The proposed EPU
would not increase the amount of
cooling tower blowdown discharged to
the Delaware Estuary; therefore, the
turbidity, scouring, erosion, and
sedimentation would not be expected to
significantly change. Additionally, the
proposed EPU would not introduce any
new contaminants to the Delaware
Estuary and would not significantly
increase any potential contaminants that
are presently regulated by the station’s
NJPDES permit. The concentration of
total dissolved solids (TDS) in the
cooling tower blowdown would
increase due to the increased rate of
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
13038
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Notices
evaporation; however, the amount of
blowdown discharged to the estuary
would decrease, and the concentration
of TDS would remain within the
station’s air permit limits.
Although the amount of water
withdrawn from the Delaware Estuary
would remain unchanged, the proposed
EPU would result in a slight increase in
the temperature of the cooling tower
blowdown discharged to the estuary.
The station’s NJPDES permit imposes
limits on the temperature of the
blowdown and the amount of heat
rejected to the estuary by the HCGS
circulating water system. The NJDES
permit specifies that the 24-hour
average maximum blowdown
temperature is limited to 97.1 °F, and
heat rejection is limited to 662 million
British thermal units per hour (MBTU/
hr) from September 1 through May 31
and 534 MBTU/hr from June 1 through
August 31. DRBC also imposes thermal
regulations on HCGS through the
NJPDES permit, specifying that the net
temperature increase of the Delaware
Estuary may not exceed 4 °F from
September through May, and 1.5 °F
from June through August or estuary
water temperature may not exceed a
maximum of 86 °F, whichever is less.
These limitations apply to waters
outside of the heat dissipation area,
which extends 2,500 feet upstream and
downstream of the discharge point and
1,500 feet offshore from the discharge
point. The licensee has performed
hydrothermal modeling analysis for the
HCGS EPU and concluded that the plant
would continue to meet the
requirements of the NJPDES permit.
The 1984 FES concluded that the
station’s shoreline discharge would not
adversely affect the estuary because of
its large tidal influence, which would
dilute, mix, and rapidly dissipate the
heated effluent (PSEG 2005).
Hydrothermal modeling conducted for
the proposed EPU determined that, even
during extreme meteorological
conditions, the post-EPU increase in
cooling tower blowdown temperature
would not exceed 91.7 °F, and the
station would continue to comply with
all applicable Delaware Estuary water
quality standards set by the station’s
NJPDES permit and DRBC (Najarian
Associates 2004).
In addition to setting thermal
discharge limits, the NJPDES permit
also regulates all surface and wastewater
discharges from the station. The NJPDES
permit, effective March 1, 2003,
regulates discharge from six outfalls at
HCGS, including the cooling tower
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 Mar 10, 2008
Jkt 214001
blowdown, low volume oily wastewater,
stormwater, and sewage treatment; these
discharges ultimately flow to the
Delaware Estuary. As required by the
NJPDES permit, in addition to
temperature, cooling tower blowdown is
monitored for flow, pH, chlorine
produced oxidants (CPOs), and total
organic carbon. HCGS operates a
dechlorination system that utilizes
ammonium bisulfate to reduce CPOs in
the blowdown. Furthermore, acute and
chronic biological toxicity tests were
routinely performed on cooling tower
blowdown from 1998 through 2001 and
are performed at each NJDES Permit
renewal to comply with NJDEP nontoxicity regulations (PSEG 2005).
The NJPDES permit sets monitoring,
sampling, and reporting requirements
for all HCGS discharges. The NRC staff
performed a search of the NJDEP Open
Public Records Act Datamine online
database which revealed no water
quality violations for HCGS (NJDEP
2007).
With the exception of increased
blowdown temperature and TDS
concentration, as discussed above, the
proposed EPU would not be expected to
alter the composition or volume of any
other effluents, including stormwater
drainage, oily water, and sewage
treatment (PSEG 2005). Blowdown
temperature and composition, and
Delaware Estuary water temperatures
would remain in compliance with the
station’s NJPDES permit, and the
proposed EPU would not result in
changes in any other effluents to the
estuary. Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that the proposed EPU would
result in negligible impacts on the
Delaware Estuary from HCGS discharge.
Impacts on Aquatic Biota
The potential impacts to aquatic biota
from the proposed action are primarily
due to operation of the cooling water
system and to maintain the transmission
line ROWs. Cooling water withdrawal
affects aquatic populations through
impingement of larger individuals (e.g.,
fish, some crustaceans, turtles) on the
intake trash bars and debris screens and
entrainment of smaller organisms that
pass through the screens into the
cooling water system. The proposed
action would not change the volume or
rate of cooling water withdrawn. Most
of the additional heat generated under
the proposed EPU would be dissipated
by the cooling tower, and PSEG
proposes no changes to the cooling
water system.
Discharge of heated effluent alters
natural thermal and current regimes and
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
can induce thermal shock in aquatic
organisms. The HCGS effluent would
change under the proposed EPU.
Because the volume of makeup water
withdrawn from the estuary would
remain unchanged and the volume of
evaporative loss from the cooling tower
would increase, the volume of the
blowdown released as effluent, which is
the difference between the water
withdrawn and the water lost to
evaporation, would decrease. The
increased evaporation would leave
behind more solids in the blowdown, so
the concentration of TDS in the effluent
would be an average of about 9 percent
higher than under current operations
(Najarian Associates 2004). The effluent
would also be somewhat warmer, but
modeling predicts that all present
NJPDES permit conditions for the
effluent would still be met (Najarian
Associates 2004).
PSEG proposes no new transmission
line ROWs and no change in current
maintenance procedures for
transmission line ROWs under the
proposed EPU, so this potential source
of impact will not be considered further
for aquatic resources.
The potential receptors of the
environmental stressors of
impingement, entrainment, and heat
shock are the aquatic communities in
the Delaware Estuary near HCGS.
Ecologists typically divide such
communities into the following
categories for convenience when
considering ecological impacts of power
plants: microbes, phytoplankton,
submerged aquatic vegetation,
invertebrate zooplankton, benthic
invertebrates, fish, and sometimes birds,
reptiles (e.g., sea turtles), and marine
mammals. Of these, effects of power
plant operation have been consistently
demonstrated only for fish.
Unless otherwise noted, the following
information on Delaware Estuary fish
and blue crab ( Callinectes sapidus) is
from information summarized in the
2006 Salem NJPDES Permit Application
(NJDEP 2006). Salem is an adjacent
nuclear power plant that has conducted
several large studies in support of
permitting of its once-through cooling
water system. About 200 species of fish
have been reported from the Delaware
Estuary. Some are resident, some are
seasonal migrants, and some are
occasional strays. In its NJPDES Permit
Application, PSEG selected 11 species,
one invertebrate and ten fish, as species
representative of the aquatic community
(Table 1).
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Notices
13039
TABLE 1.—SPECIES REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DELAWARE ESTUARY AQUATIC COMMUNITY NEAR ARTIFICIAL ISLAND
Common name
Scientific name
Comment
Blue Crab ..................
Alewife .......................
American Shad ..........
Atlantic Croaker .........
Callinectes sapidus ...................
Alosa pseudoharengus .............
Alosa sapidissima .....................
Micropogonias undulatus ..........
Atlantic Menhaden .....
Atlantic Silverside ......
Bay Anchovy .............
Blueback Herring .......
Spot ...........................
Brevoortia tyrannus ...................
Menidia menidia ........................
Anchoa mitchelli ........................
Alosa aestivalis .........................
Leiostomus xanthurus ...............
Striped Bass ..............
Weakfish ....................
Morone saxatilis ........................
Cynoscion regalis ......................
White Perch ...............
Morone americana ....................
Swimming crab, abundant in the estuary. Recreational and commercial species.
Anadromous herring; abundant in the estuary.
Anadromous herring; abundant in the estuary. Recreational and commercial species.
Drum family. Atlantic coast population is considered a single stock. Recreational and
commercial species.
Herring. Larvae and juveniles use the estuary as a nursery. Commercial species.
Resident in intertidal marsh creeks and shore zones.
Common in the bay and tidal river zones.
Anadromous herring; abundant in the estuary.
Drum family. Juveniles use the estuary as a nursery. Recreational and commercial
species.
Anadromous temperate bass. Recreational and commercial species.
Drum family. Larvae and juveniles use the estuary as nursery. Recreational and commercial species.
Temperate bass. Year-round residents anadromous within estuary. Recreational species.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Source: NJDEP 2006.
HCGS is located in the Delaware
Estuary between the Delaware River
upstream and the wide Delaware Bay
downstream. Estuaries are drowned
river valleys where fresh water from
rivers mixes with the higher salinity
water of the ocean and bays. In
estuaries, salinity and water
temperature may change with season,
tides, and meteorological conditions.
Typically, few species are resident in an
estuary all of their lives, perhaps
because surviving the wide variations in
salinity and temperature poses
physiological challenges to fish and
invertebrates. The predominant resident
fish species in the Delaware Estuary are
hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus), white
perch (Morone americana), bay anchovy
(Anchoa mitchelli), Atlantic and inland
silversides (Menidia menidia and M.
beryllina, respectively), naked goby
(Gobiosoma bosc), and mummichog
(Fundulus heteroclitus).
Resident fish species are represented
by Atlantic silversides, bay anchovy,
and white perch (Table 1). Atlantic
silversides are relatively small common
fish that inhabit intertidal creeks and
shore zones. They mature in less than a
year and seldom live beyond 2 years.
Although there may be no discernable
long-term trend in abundance in the
Delaware Estuary, the short-term trend
appears to be decreasing abundance.
Bay anchovy may be the most abundant
species in the estuary. This small fish
overwinters in deep areas of the lower
estuary and near-shore coastal zone.
Though bay anchovies tend to stay in
the lower part of the estuary, they stray
as far north as Trenton. They tend to
mature in the summer following their
birth. Typically two spawning peaks
occur, one in late May and one in midJuly, although some spawning occurs all
summer. Most spawning occurs where
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 Mar 10, 2008
Jkt 214001
salinity exceeds 20 parts per thousand
(ppt), but some spawning may occur
throughout the estuary. Although no
long-term trend in abundance is
evident, abundance since the mid-1990s
appears to be declining. White perch are
found throughout the brackish portions
of the estuary. They are anadromous
within the estuary (‘‘semianadromous’’), meaning that they
undergo a seasonal migration from the
deeper, more saline areas where they
overwinter in fresh, shallow waters in
the spring to spawn and then return to
more brackish waters. They typically
mature in 2 to 3 years. The abundance
of white perch in the Delaware Estuary
appears to be stable or increasing,
possibly in response to long-term
improvements in water quality.
Adult blue crabs are resident macroinvertebrates in the Delaware Estuary,
although their larvae are not. After
mating in shallow brackish areas of the
upper estuary in spring, adult females
migrate to the mouth of the bay. The
eggs, which are extruded and carried on
the undersides of females, hatch
typically in the warm (77–86 °F), high
salinity (18–26 ppt) waters of the lower
bay in summer. After hatching, the
larvae pass through seven planktonic
stages, called zoeae, and move offshore
with near-shore surface currents. The
first post-larval stage, called a megalops,
uses wind-driven currents and tides to
move inshore. They then metamorphose
to the first crab stage and move up the
estuary. Adult male crabs do not migrate
from the upper estuary. Crabs typically
mature when 1 or 2 years old. Between
1980 and 2004, blue crab abundance in
the Delaware Estuary appears to have
increased.
Anadromous species live their adult
lives at sea and migrate into fresh water
to spawn. The most common
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
anadromous fish species in the
Delaware Estuary are alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus), American shad (A.
sapidissima), blueback herring (A.
aestivalis), and striped bass (Morone
saxatilis), of which the first three are
members of the herring family. The
endangered shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum) is also
anadromous. The ecology of the three
herrings is similar, as is their
appearance. All use the estuary as
spawning and nursery habitat. All
migrate to fresh water in the spring and
are believed to return to their natal
streams to spawn. The newly hatched
larvae are planktonic and move
downstream with the current. Juveniles
remain in freshwater nursery areas
throughout the summer and migrate to
sea in the fall. They then remain at sea
until maturity and migrate along the
coast. Alewife have become more
abundant since 1980, although the trend
since 1990 is unclear. Abundance of
American shad in the Delaware Estuary
drastically declined in the early 1900s
due to poor water quality, dam
construction, over-fishing, and habitat
destruction. American shad began to
recover in the 1960s and 1980s and
appears to be recovering still. No trends
are evident in blueback herring
abundance.
Striped bass is a fairly large member
of the temperate bass family, which also
includes white perch. Adult striped
bass, which may reach weights of over
100 pounds, migrate up the estuary to
fresh and brackish waters in the spring
to spawn and are believed to return to
their natal rivers and streams for
spawning. The newly hatched larvae are
planktonic and move downstream with
the current. Small juveniles use fresh
and brackish areas as nurseries, and
larger juveniles use the higher salinity
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
13040
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Notices
waters of the lower estuary as feeding
grounds. Adult striped bass live at sea
and the lower estuary and migrate along
the coast. Like American shad, the
striped bass population in the Delaware
Estuary declined prior to the 1980s but
is now recovering.
The most common marine species
that use the estuary include weakfish
(Cynoscion regalis), spot (Leiostomus
xanthurus), Atlantic croaker
(Micropogonias undulatus), bluefish
(Pomatomus saltatrix), summer flounder
(Paralichthys dentatas), and Atlantic
menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus). Four
of these, weakfish, spot, Atlantic
croaker, and Atlantic menhaden, are
shown as representative in Table 1.
Atlantic croaker, spot, and weakfish are
members of the drum family. Adult
Atlantic croaker inhabit the deep, open
areas of the lower bay from late spring
through mid-fall. They spawn from July
through April along the continental
shelf. Larval Atlantic croaker first move
with the currents and later move to the
shallow areas of the bay. Juveniles use
the shallow areas and tidal creeks in
fresh and brackish water as nurseries,
but move into deeper water during
colder periods. They mature at about 2
to 4 years of age. Abundance of Atlantic
croaker in the Delaware Estuary has
been increasing since the early 1990s.
Spot spawn over the continental shelf
from late September through April.
Larvae live in the ocean then move to
the Bay. The young juveniles move
upstream into tidal creeks and
tributaries with low salinity. Like
Atlantic croaker, spot move into deeper
water during colder periods. Spot
mature at 1 to 3 years old. Abundance
of spot appears to be negatively related
to the abundance of Atlantic croaker
and has been decreasing. Weakfish
spawn in the mouth of Delaware Bay in
mid-May through mid-September, and
after hatching, the larvae move up into
the estuary to nursery areas of lower
salinity (3 to 15 ppt). In mid-to-late
summer they move south to mesohaline
nursery grounds, and as temperatures
decline in fall, the juveniles move south
from the nursery areas to the continental
shelf and south. They mature at an age
of one or two years. Abundance of
weakfish in the Delaware Estuary
appear to have increased from the 1970s
to 1990s and then declined.
Atlantic menhaden is a pelagic
species that overwinters on the shelf,
and large numbers overwinter off Cape
Hatteras, North Carolina. The
population moves north along the coast
in the spring and south in the fall. The
populations spawns all year, and peak
spawning occurs off the Delaware Bay
in spring and fall. The larvae move by
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:03 Mar 10, 2008
Jkt 214001
wind-driven currents into estuarine
nursery grounds, where they transform
to juveniles and move upstream to
oligohaline waters and then move out
the estuary with falling temperatures. In
the fall, they congregate into dense
schools and move out of the estuary and
south along the coast. Atlantic
menhaden mature at about age two. No
trend in abundance in the Delaware
Estuary is apparent.
While the identity of species
potentially affected by entrainment,
impingement, and heat shock may be
inferred from ecological information
about the Delaware Estuary and the
adjacent Salem Generating Station, the
species affected cannot be verified, and
the numbers cannot be quantified
because no intake aquatic monitoring
programs are conducted at the HCGS.
Impinged organisms may die, and the
fish-return system does not function
continuously to minimize mortality, but
the intake velocity should allow most to
escape the plant. All organisms
entrained at HCGS, which operates a
cooling tower, are probably killed from
exposure to heat, mechanical, pressurerelated stresses, and possibly biocidal
chemicals before being discharged to the
estuary.
Under the proposed EPU, water
withdrawal rates would not change from
present conditions. Entrainment and
impingement impacts may change over
time due to changes in the aquatic
populations even though HCGS(s water
withdrawal rate would not change from
present conditions. Impacts due to
impingement and entrainment losses are
minimized because the closed-cycle
cooling system at the plant minimizes
the amount of cooling water withdrawn
from and heated effluent returned to the
estuary. The water quality of the
effluent (e.g., temperature, toxicity, TDS
concentrations) would continue to meet
present NJPDES permit conditions for
protection of aquatic life. The staff
concludes that the proposed EPU would
have no significant impact to aquatic
biota.
Essential Fish Habitat Consultation
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(MSA) identifies the importance of
habitat protection to healthy fisheries.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined
as those waters and substrata necessary
for spawning, breeding, feeding, or
growth to maturity (Magnuson-Stevens
Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). Designating
EFH is an essential component in the
development of Fishery Management
Plans to minimize habitat loss or
degradation of fishery stocks and to take
actions to mitigate such damage. The
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
consultation requirements of section
305(b) of the MSA provide that Federal
agencies consult with the Secretary of
Commerce on all actions or proposed
actions authorized, funded, or
undertaken by the agency that may
adversely affect EFH. An EFH
assessment for the proposed EPU was
sent to the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) under separate cover to
initiate an EFH consultation. By letter
dated July 13, 2007 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML072000450), NMFS found the
EFH assessment satisfactory.
Impacts on Terrestrial Biota
The potential impacts to terrestrial
biota from the proposed action would be
those from transmission line ROW
maintenance. Under EPU conditions,
PSEG does not plan to change
transmission line maintenance or add
new transmission lines. In addition,
PSEG does not plan to conduct major
refurbishment of significant landdisturbing activities in order to
implement the proposed EPU. Because
no changes are planned that have the
potential to impact terrestrial biota, the
NRC staff concludes that the proposed
EPU would have no impacts to
terrestrial biota associated with
transmission line ROW maintenance.
Threatened and Endangered Species
and Critical Habitat
In a letter dated December 8, 2006,
pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1969, as amended, the
NRC requested from the NMFS a list of
species and information on protected,
proposed, and candidate species and
critical habitat that are under their
jurisdiction and may be in the vicinity
of HCGS and its associated transmission
lines. In response, NMFS issued a letter
dated January 26, 2007, that provided
information on the endangered
shortnose sturgeon; Atlantic sturgeon
(Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), a
candidate species for listing; and five
species of endangered or threatened sea
turtles: loggerhead (Caretta caretta),
Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii),
leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea),
green (Chelonia mydas), and hawksbill
(Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles. The
NRC staff investigated the effects of
HCGS operation on these species and
found that the primary concern for these
endangered and threatened species is
the risk of impingement or entrainment
due to cooling water intake by the plant.
The proposed EPU would not change
the intake flow, and, therefore, would
not increase in the risk of impingement
and entrainment. To dissipate the
additional heat created by the EPU, the
temperature of the plant’s cooling water
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Notices
discharge would be slightly elevated,
but still within the NJPDES 24-hour
average temperature limit of 97.1 °F. In
addition, HCGS has had no takes of any
of the endangered or threatened species
listed above. Therefore, the NRC staff
anticipates no effects related to the
intake or discharge on threatened or
endangered species under NMFS(s
jurisdiction, and on May 3, 2007, sent
a letter to NMFS concluding the
informal section 7 consultation.
Although an informal consultation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
regarding bald eagles was initiated for
the HCGS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service delisted bald eagles pursuant to
the Endangered Species Act on July 9,
2007, and concluded the informal
consultation.
Socioeconomic Impacts
The potential socioeconomic impacts
due to the proposed EPU include
changes in the payments in lieu of taxes
for Lower Alloways Creek Township
and Salem County and changes in the
size of the workforce at HCGS. Nearly
70 percent of HCGS employees
currently reside in Salem, Cumberland,
and Gloucester Counties in New Jersey.
The proposed EPU would not increase
the size of the HCGS workforce, since
proposed plant modifications and other
planned activities would be handled by
the current workforce or would be
phased in during planned outages. Also,
the proposed EPU would not increase
the size of the HCGS workforce during
future refueling outages. Therefore, the
proposed EPU would not have any
measurable effect on annual earnings
and income in Salem, Cumberland, and
Gloucester Counties nor would there be
any increased demand for community
services.
According to the 2000 Census, Salem,
Cumberland, and Gloucester County
populations were about 20.4, 41.6, and
14.3 percent minority, respectively
(USCB 2000). The percentages of
minority populations residing in Salem
and Gloucester Counties were well
below the State minority population of
34.0 percent. In addition, the poverty
rates for individuals living in Salem and
Cumberland Counties were 9.5 and 15.0
percent, respectively, which were
higher than the State’s average of 8.5
percent (the Gloucester County poverty
rate was 6.2 percent) (USCB 2000a).
Even though these percentages are
relatively high, the proposed EPU
would not have any disproportionately
high and adverse impacts to minority
and low-income populations, because
no significant environmental impacts
were identified during the analysis.
The proposed EPU could affect the
value of HCGS and the amount of
monies paid to local jurisdictions, inlieu-of-property tax payments, because
the total amount of tax money to be
distributed would increase as power
generation increases and because the
proposed EPU would increase HCGS’s
value, thus resulting in potentially
larger payments to Lower Alloways
Creek Township and Salem County.
Also, because the proposed EPU would
increase the economic viability of
13041
HCGS, the probability of early plant
retirement would be reduced. Early
plant retirement would have a negative
impact on the local economy by
reducing or eliminating payments to
Lower Alloways Creek Township and
Salem County and limiting employment
opportunities in the region.
Since the proposed EPU would not
affect annual earnings and income in
Salem County, nor demand for
community services and due to the lack
of significant environmental impacts on
minority or low-income populations,
there would be no significant
socioeconomic or environmental justice
impacts associated with the proposed
EPU. Conversely, the proposed EPU
could have a positive effect on the
regional economy because of the
potential increase in the payments inlieu-of-taxes received by the Lower
Alloways Creek Township and Salem
County, due to the potential increase in
the book value of HCGS and long-term
viability of HCGS.
Summary
The proposed EPU would not result
in a significant change in nonradiological impacts in the areas of land
use, water use, waste discharges,
cooling tower operation, terrestrial and
aquatic biota, transmission facility
operation, or socioeconomic factors. No
other non-radiological impacts were
identified or would be expected. Table
2 summarizes the non-radiological
environmental impacts of the proposed
EPU at HCGS.
TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF NON-RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No significant land use modifications; installed temporary office space to support EPU.
Cooling Tower .................................
No significant aesthetic impact; no significant fogging or icing.
Transmission Facilities ....................
No physical modifications to transmission lines or ROWs; lines meet shock safety requirements; small increase in electrical current would cause small increase in electromagnetic field around transmission
lines.
Water Use .......................................
No configuration change to intake structure; no increase rate of withdrawal; slightly increase in water consumption due to increased evaporation; no water use conflicts.
Discharge ........................................
Increase in water temperature and containment concentration discharged to Delaware River; would meet
discharge limits in current NJPDES permit following EPU implementation.
Aquatic Biota ...................................
Entrainment and impingement losses may change over time due to changes in the aquatic population but
are minimized because of the closed-cycle cooling system utilized at the plant. The water quality of the
effluent would continue to meet NJPDES permit conditions for protection of aquatic life. EFH consultation ongoing.
Terrestrial Biota ...............................
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Land Use .........................................
No land disturbance or changes to transmission line ROW maintenance are expected; therefore, there
would be no significant effects on terrestrial species or their habitat.
Threatened and Endangered Species.
No significant impacts are expected on threatened or endangered species or their habitat. Informal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ongoing.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 Mar 10, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
13042
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Notices
TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF NON-RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS—Continued
Socioeconomic ................................
No change in the size of HCGS labor force required for plant operation and planned outages; proposed
EPU could increase payments in-lieu-of-taxes to Lower Alloways Creek Township and Salem County as
well as the book value of HCGS; there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations.
Radiological Impacts
The NRC staff evaluated radiological
environmental impacts on waste
streams, dose, accident analysis, and
fuel cycle and transportation factors.
Following is a general discussion of
these issues and an evaluation of their
environmental impacts.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts
HCGS uses waste treatment systems
designed to collect, process, and dispose
of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that
might contain radioactive material in a
safe and controlled manner such that
the discharges are in accordance with
the requirements of Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 20,
and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
The licensee has indicated that
operation at EPU conditions would not
result in any changes in the operation or
design of equipment in the radioactive
solid waste, liquid waste, or gaseous
waste management systems (GWMS).
The safety and reliability of these
systems would be unaffected by the
power uprate. Neither the
environmental monitoring of any of
these waste streams nor the radiological
monitoring requirements of the HCGS
Technical Specifications and/or Offsite
Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM)
would be affected by the EPU.
Furthermore, the EPU would not
introduce any new or different
radiological release pathways, nor
would it increase the probability of
either an operator error or an equipment
malfunction, that would result in an
uncontrolled radioactive release (PSEG
2005). The EPU would produce a larger
amount of fission and activation
products; however, the waste treatment
systems are designed to handle the
additional source term. The specific
effects on each of the radioactive waste
management system are evaluated
below.
Gaseous Radioactive Waste and Offsite
Doses
During normal operation, HCGS’s
GWMS processes and controls the
release of gaseous radioactive effluents
to the environment. The GWMS
includes the off-gas system and various
building ventilation systems. The
radioactive release rate of the gaseous
effluent is well monitored and
administratively controlled by the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 Mar 10, 2008
Jkt 214001
HCGS ODCM (PSEG 2005). The single
year highest annual releases of gaseous
radioactive material, for the time period
2000–2004, were 63.0 Curies (Ci) for
noble gases in 2003, 0.060 Ci for
particulates in 2000, and 0.014 Ci for
iodines in 2003 (PSEG 2005).
The licensee has estimated that the
amount of radioactive material released
in gaseous effluents would increase in
proportion to the increase in power
level (15 percent) (PSEG 2005). Based
on experience from EPUs at other
plants, the NRC staff concludes that this
is an acceptable estimate. The dose to a
member of the public, including the
additional gaseous radioactive material
that would be released from the
proposed EPU, is calculated to still be
well within the radiation standards of
10 CFR Part 20 and the dose design
objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part
50. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes
that the impact from the EPU would not
be significant.
Liquid Radioactive Waste and Offsite
Doses
During normal operation, HCGS’s
Liquid Waste Management System
(LWMS) processes and controls the
release of liquid radioactive effluents to
the environment, such that the doses to
individuals offsite are maintained
within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and
the design objectives of Appendix I to
10 CFR Part 50. The LWMS is designed
to process the waste and then recyclesit
within the plant as condensate,
reprocesses it through the radioactive
waste system for further purification, or
discharges it to the environment as
liquid radioactive waste effluent in
accordance with facility procedures
which comply with New Jersey and
Federal regulations. The radioactive
release rate of the liquid effluent is well
monitored and administratively
controlled by the HCGS ODCM (PSEG
2005). The single year highest annual
releases of liquid radioactive material,
for the time period 2000–2004, were
54,742,400 gallons (2.072E+8 liters) and
0.068 Ci of fission and activation
products in 2003 (PSEG 2005).
Even though the EPU would produce
a larger amount of radioactive fission
and activation products and a larger
volume of liquid to be processed, the
licensee expects the LWMS to remove
all but a small amount of the increased
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
radioactive material. The licensee has
estimated that the volume of radioactive
liquid effluents released to the
environment and the amount of
radioactive material in the liquid
effluents would increase by 2.2 percent,
due to the EPU. Based on experience
from EPUs at other plants, the NRC staff
concludes that this is an acceptable
estimate. The dose to a member of the
public, including the additional liquid
radioactive material that would be
released from the proposed EPU, is
calculated to still be well within the
radiation standards of 10 CFR Part 20
and the dose design objectives of
Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that
the impact from the EPU would not be
significant.
Solid Radioactive Waste and Offsite
Doses
During normal operation, HCGS’s
Solid Waste Management System
(SWMS) collects, processes, packages,
and temporarily stores radioactive dry
and wet solid wastes prior to shipment
offsite and permanent disposal. The
SWMS is designed to package the wet
and dry types of radioactive solid waste
for offsite shipment and burial, in
accordance with the requirements of
applicable NRC and Department of
Transportation regulations, including 10
CFR Part 61, 10 CFR Part 71, and 49
CFR Parts 170 through 178. This results
in radiation exposures to a member of
the public to be well within the limits
of 10 CFR Part 20 and the design
objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part
50. The volume of solid radioactive
waste generated varied from about 11.7
to almost 90.4 cubic meters per year for
the time period 2000–2004; the largest
volume generated was 90.4 cubic meters
in 2002. The amount of solid radioactive
material in the waste generated varied
from 1 to almost 600 Ci per year during
that same period. The largest amount of
radioactive material generated in the
solid waste was 591 Ci in 2001 (PSEG
2005).
The EPU would produce a larger
amount of radioactive fission and
activation products, and treatment of
this increase would require more
frequent replacement or regeneration of
SWMS filters and demineralizer resins.
The licensee has estimated that the
volume and radioactivity of solid
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Notices
radioactive waste would increase by
approximately 14.7 percent from the
average of the time period 2000–2004,
due to the EPU (PSEG 2005). Based on
experience from EPUs at other plants,
the NRC staff concludes that this is an
acceptable estimate. Therefore, the staff
concludes that the impact from the
increased volume of solid radwaste
generated due to the EPU would not be
significant.
The licensee estimates that the EPU
would require replacement of 10
percent more fuel assemblies at each
refueling. This increase in the amount of
spent fuel being generated would
require an increase in the number of dry
fuel storage casks used to store spent
fuel. However, the current dry fuel
storage facility at HCGS can
accommodate the increase.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Occupational Radiation Doses
The proposed EPU would result in the
production of more radioactive material
and higher radiation dose rates in some
areas at HCGS. PSEG’s radiation
protection staff will monitor these
increased dose rates and make
adjustments in shielding, access
requirements, decontamination
methods, and procedures as necessary
to minimize the dose to workers. In
addition, occupational dose to
individual workers must be maintained
within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and
as low as reasonably achievable.
The licensee has estimated that after
the implementation of EPU, the
estimated annual average collective
occupational dose would be in the range
of 146 person-rem, representing a 16percent increase of in-plant occupation
exposure (PSEG 2005). According to the
2004 report on ‘‘Occupational Radiation
Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power
Reactors and Other Facilities,’’ the
highest HCGS occupational exposure is
240 person-rem in 2004, for the time
period 2002–2004 (NUREG 2004). The
dose to a member of HCGS personnel
from the radiation exposures described
above, increased by 20 percent, would
still be well within the radiation
standards of 10 CFR Part 20. Based on
experience from EPUs at other plants,
the NRC staff concludes that these
estimates are acceptable. Based on these
estimates, the NRC staff concludes that
the increase in occupational exposure
would not be significant.
Offsite Radiation Doses
Offsite radiation dose consists of three
components: gaseous, liquid, and direct
gamma radiation. As previously
discussed under the Gaseous
Radiological Wastes and Liquid
Radiological Wastes sections, the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 Mar 10, 2008
Jkt 214001
estimated doses to a member of the
public from gaseous and liquid effluents
after the EPU is implemented would be
within the dose design objectives of
Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
The final component of offsite dose is
from direct gamma radiation dose from
radioactive waste stored temporarily
onsite, including spent fuel in dry cask
storage, and radionuclides (mainly
nitrogen-16) in the steam from the
reactor passing through the turbine
system. The high energy radiation from
nitrogen-16 is scattered or reflected by
the air above the site and represents an
additional public radiation dose
pathway known as ‘‘skyshine.’’ The
licensee estimated that the offsite
radiation dose from skyshine would
increase approximately 16 percent for a
20-percent increase in steam flow,
which bounds the proposed EPU; more
nitrogen-16 is produced at the higher
EPU power and less of the nitrogen-16
decays before it reaches the turbine
system because of the higher rate of
steam flow due to the EPU. The
licensee’s radiological environmental
monitoring program measures radiation
dose at the site boundary and in the area
around the plant with an array of
thermoluminescent dosimeters. The
licensee estimated that the offsite
radiation dose would increase to
approximately 9.3 millirem (mrem), in
proportion to the EPU power increase
(15 percent) (PSEG 2005). Based on
experience from EPUs at other plants,
the NRC staff concludes that this is an
acceptable estimate. EPA regulation 40
CFR Part 190, and NRC regulation 10
CFR Part 20, limit the dose to any
member of the public to 25 mrem per
year to the whole body from the entire
nuclear fuel cycle. The offsite dose from
all sources, including radioactive
gaseous and liquid effluents and direct
radiation, would still be well within this
limit after the EPU is implemented.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that
the increase in offsite radiation dose
would not be significant.
Postulated Accident Doses
As a result of implementation of the
proposed EPU, there would be an
increase in the inventory of
radionuclides in the reactor core; the
core inventory of radionuclides would
increase as power level increases. The
concentration of radionuclides in the
reactor coolant may also increase;
however, this concentration is limited
by the HCGS technical specifications.
Therefore, the reactor coolant
concentration of radionuclides would
not be expected to increase
significantly. Some of the radioactive
waste streams and storage systems may
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13043
also contain slightly higher quantities of
radioactive material. The calculated
doses from design basis postulated
accidents for HCGS are currently well
below the criteria of 10 CFR 50.67. The
licensee has estimated that the
radiological consequences of postulated
accidents would increase approximately
in proportion to the increase in power
level from the EPU (15 percent). Based
on experience from EPUs at other
plants, the NRC staff concludes that this
is an acceptable estimate. The
calculated doses from design basis
postulated accidents would still be well
within the criteria of 10 CFR 50.67 after
the increase due to the implementation
of the EPU. These calculated doses are
based on conservative assumptions for
the purposes of safety analyses.
Estimates of the radiological
consequences of postulated accidents
for the purposes of estimating
environmental impact are made by the
NRC using best estimate assumptions,
which result in substantially lower dose
estimates. Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that the increase in
radiological consequences for
postulated accidents due to the EPU
would not be significant.
Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts
The environmental impacts of the fuel
cycle and transportation of fuel and
waste are described in 10 CFR 51.51
Table S–3 and 10 CFR 51.52 Table S–
4, respectively. An NRC generic EA (53
FR 6040, dated February 29, 1988)
evaluated the applicability of Tables S–
3 and S–4 to a higher burn-up fuel cycle
and concluded that there would be no
significant change in environmental
impact from the parameters evaluated in
Tables S–3 and S–4 for fuel cycles with
uranium enrichments up to 5 weight
percent uranium-235 and burn-ups less
than 60,000 MW days per metric ton of
uranium-235 (MWd/MTU).
The proposed EPU would increase the
power level to 3,840 MWt, which is
approximately 1 percent above the
reference power level of 3,800 MWt for
Table S–4. The increased power level of
3,840 MWt corresponds to
approximately 1,265 MWe, which is
26.5 percent above the reference power
level of 1,000 MWe for Table S–3. Part
of the increase is due to a more efficient
turbine design, which does not affect
the impacts of the fuel cycle and
transportation of waste. More fuel will
be used in the reactor (more fuel
assemblies will be replaced at each
refueling outage), and that will
potentially affect the impacts of the fuel
cycle and transportation of waste.
However, the fuel enrichment and burnup after the EPU will continue to be no
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
13044
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 11, 2008 / Notices
greater than 5 weight percent uranium235, and the fuel burn-up will be
maintained less than 60,000 MWd/
MTU. The NRC staff concludes that the
HCGS EPU is bounded by the analysis
of the environmental effects of the
transportation of fuel and waste as
described in the ‘‘Extended Burnup Fuel
Use in Commercial [Light Water
Reactors] LWRs; Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact,’’ dated February 29,
1988 (53 FR 6040).
Summary
Based on the NRC staff review of
licensee submission and the FES for
operation, it is concluded that the
proposed EPU would not significantly
increase the consequences of accidents,
would not result in a significant
increase in occupational or public
radiation exposure, and would not
result in significant additional fuel cycle
environmental impacts. Accordingly,
the Commission concludes that there
would be no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action. Table 3
summarizes the radiological
environmental impacts of the proposed
EPU at HCGS.
TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Gaseous Radiological Effluents ......
Liquid Radiological Effluents ...........
Solid Radioactive Waste .................
Occupational Radiation Doses .......
Offsite Radiation Doses ..................
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Postulated Accident Doses .............
Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts.
Increased gaseous effluents would remain within NRC limits and dose design objectives.
Increased liquid effluents (2.2 percent) would remain within NRC limits and dose design objectives.
Increased amount of solid radioactive waste generated (14.7 percent by volume) would remain bounded by
evaluation in the FES.
Occupational dose would increase by roughly 16 percent. Doses would be maintained within NRC limits
and as low as is reasonably achievable.
Radiation doses to members of the public would increase to approximately 9.3 mrem and continue to be
well within NRC and EPA regulations.
Calculated doses for postulated design-basis accidents would remain within NRC limits.
Fuel enrichment and burnup criteria would be met. Potential increases in the impact due to uranium fuel
cycle and the transportation of fuel and waste would not be significant.
Alternatives to Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the NRC staff considered denial
of the proposed EPU (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the
application would result in no change
in the current environmental impacts.
However, if the proposed EPU were not
approved, other agencies and electric
power organizations may be required to
pursue alternative means of providing
electric generation capacity to offset the
increased power demand forecasted for
the PJM regional transmission territory.
A reasonable alternative to the
proposed EPU would be to purchase
power from other generators in the PJM
network. In 2003, generating capacity in
PJM consisted primarily of fossil fuelfired generators: coal generated 36.2
percent of PJM capacity; oil 14.3
percent; natural gas 6.8 percent; dual
fired (i.e., gas and oil) 18.9 percent;
nuclear 17.1 percent; hydroelectric 5.5
percent; and renewables 1.3 percent
(ML062630235). This indicates that the
majority of purchased power in the PJM
territory would likely be generated by a
fossil-fuel-fired facility. Construction (if
new generation is needed) and
operation of a fossil fuel plant would
create impacts in air quality, land use,
and waste management significantly
greater than those identified for the
proposed EPU at HCGS. HCGS does not
emit sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
carbon dioxide, or other atmospheric
pollutants that are commonly associated
with fossil fuel plants. Conservation
programs such as demandsidemanagement could feasibly replace
the proposed EPU’s additional power
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:44 Mar 10, 2008
Jkt 214001
output. However, forecasted future
energy demand in the PJM territory may
exceed conservation savings and still
require additional generating capacity.
Furthermore, the proposed EPU does
not involve environmental impacts that
are significantly different from those
originally identified in the 1984 HCGS
FES for operation.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use
of any resources not previously
considered in the original FES for
construction (AEC 1974).
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on July 24, 2007, the NRC staff
consulted with the New Jersey State
official, Mr. Jerry Humphreys, of the
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed
action. The State of New Jersey
provided comments in a letter from
Kenneth C. Koschek, Supervising
Environmental Specialist, Office of
Permit coordination and Environmental
Review, dated November 21, 2007
(ML073600859). The comments are
addressed in this final EA.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the EA, the NRC
concludes that the proposed action
would not have a significant effect on
the quality of the human environment.
Accordingly, the NRC has determined
not to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
application dated September 18, 2006,
as supplemented on October 10, and
October 20, 2006; February 14, February
16, February 28, March 13 (2 letters),
March 22, March 30 (2 letters), April 13,
April 18, April 30, May 10, May 18 (3
letters), May 24, June 22, August 3,
August 17 (2 letters), August 27, August
31, September 11, October 10, October
23, November 15, November 30, and
December 31, 2007; January 14, January
15, January 16, January 18, January 25,
and January 30, 2008. Documents may
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at
the NRC’s Public Document Room
(PDR), located at One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly
available records will be accessible
electronically from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the NRC Web site,
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS should contact the
NRC PDR Reference staff at 1–800–397–
4209, or 301–415–4737, or send an email to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day
of March 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John G. Lamb,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch I–2, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8–4858 Filed 3–10–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13032-13044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-4858]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-354]
PSEG Nuclear, LLC; Hope Creek Generating Station Final
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact; Related
to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Reactor Power
Level
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
SUMMARY: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR) Part 51, the NRC has prepared a final Environmental Assessment
(EA) as its evaluation of a request by the PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) for
a license amendment to increase the maximum thermal power at Hope Creek
Generating Station (HCGS) from 3,339 megawatts-thermal (MWt) to 3,840
MWt. The EA assesses environmental impacts up to a maximum thermal
power level of 3,952 MWt, as the applicant's environmental report was
based on that power level. The NRC staff did not identify any
significant impact from the information provided in the licensee's EPU
application for HCGS or from the NRC staff's independent review. The
final EA and Finding of No Significant Impact are being published in
the Federal Register.
The NRC published a draft EA and finding of no significant impact
on the proposed action for public comment in the Federal Register on
October 22, 2007 (72 FR 59563). Two sets of comments were received on
the draft EA: (1) From PSEG Nuclear, LLC by letter dated November 21,
2007 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)
Accession No. ML073600851); and (2) from the State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) by letter dated November
21, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML073600859). These comments are
addressed below.
Disposition of Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment E
PSEG Comment Number 1: Modify the Cooling Tower Impacts section to
more clearly reflect that NJDEP has issued the Title V Air Operating
Permit authorizing emissions at 42 lbs/hr upon approval of the [United
States Environmental Protection Agency] USEPA.
NRC Response Number 1: This comment is a clarification and
editorial correction to the draft Environmental Assessment. Based on
this comment, the NRC staff revised the appropriate section of the
final EA.
PSEG Comment Number 2: Modify the Discharge Impacts section to
reflect that the [total dissolved solids] TDS limits are indirectly in
the Title V Air Operating Permit and not in the [New Jersey Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System] NJPDES Permit.
NRC Response Number 2: This comment is a clarification and
editorial correction to the draft Environmental Assessment. Based on
this comment, the NRC staff revised the appropriate section of the
final EA.
PSEG Comment Number 3: Modify the Discharge Impacts section to
reflect that total suspended solids and [total organic carbon] TOC are
not routinely monitored and acute and chronic biological toxicity tests
are performed during each NJPDES Permit renewal.
NRC Response Number 3: This comment is a clarification and
editorial correction to the draft Environmental Assessment. Based on
this comment, the NRC staff revised the appropriate section of the
final EA.
PSEG Comment Number 4: Modify the Impacts on Aquatic Biota
section, Table 1, to reflect that Atlantic Croaker are considered to be
a single Atlantic coast stock.
NRC Response Number 4: Upon further review, the NRC agrees with
the comment. Based on this comment, the NRC staff revised the
appropriate section of the final EA.
PSEG Comment Number 5: Modify the Impacts on Aquatic Biota section
to identify inland silversides instead of tidewater silversides.
NRC Response Number 5: Upon further review, the NRC agrees with
the comment. Based on this comment, the NRC staff revised the
appropriate section of the final EA.
PSEG Comment Number 6: Modify the Impacts on Aquatic Biota section
to reflect the extensive biological monitoring program at the adjacent
Salem Generating Station, reflect the
[[Page 13033]]
potential escape mechanism at the intake based on the low intake
velocity, and change ``no environmental monitoring'' to ``no intake
aquatic monitoring.'' There are extensive environmental monitoring
programs in place at HCGS.
NRC Response Number 6: Based on this comment, the NRC staff
revised the appropriate section of the final EA.
PSEG Comment Number 7: Modify the Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts
section to remove the redundant use of the word ``waste.''
NRC Response Number 7: This comment is an editorial correction to
the draft Environmental Assessment. Based on this comment, the NRC
staff revised the appropriate section of the final EA.
PSEG Comment Number 8: Modify the Gaseous Radioactive Waste and
Offsite Doses section to reflect values in Table 5-3 of PSEG's
Environmental Report for EPU.
NRC Response Number 8: This comment is a clarification correction
to the draft Environmental Assessment. Based on this comment, the NRC
staff revised the appropriate section of the final EA.
PSEG Comment Number 9: Modify the Offsite Radiation Doses section
to reflect the information contained in Section 5.2.1 of PSEG's
Environmental Report for EPU.
NRC Response Number 9: This comment is a clarification correction
to the draft EA. Based on this comment, the NRC staff revised the
appropriate section of the final EA.
PSEG Comment Number 10: Modify the Summary section, Table 3, to
reflect only those values that were discussed in the main text.
NRC Response Number 10: This comment is an editorial correction to
the draft EA. Based on this comment, the NRC staff revised the
appropriate section of the final EA.
NJDEP Comment Number 1: The proposed modification is subject to
the Federal Consistency provisions of the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA), and as such, a Federal Consistency determination
is required. On July 3, 2007, the NJDEP's Division of Land Use
Regulation issued the Federal Consistency certification for the
proposed power project.
NRC Response Number 1: This comment is a clarification correction
to the draft Environmental Assessment. Based on this comment, the NRC
staff revised the appropriate section of the final EA.
NJDEP Comment Number 2: The proposed increase in power output
would result in a small increase to the temperature of the water being
discharged into the Delaware River. Although the discharge is within
the limits allowed by the current permit, the [NJDEP's Division of Fish
and Wildlife] DFW has concerns over potential impacts to resident and
migratory fish species within the area.
NRC Response Number 2: Blowdown temperature and composition, and
Delaware Estuary water temperatures would remain in compliance with the
station's NJPDES permit, and the proposed EPU would not result in
changes in any other effluents to the estuary. Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that the proposed EPU would result in negligible impacts on
the Delaware Estuary from HCGS discharge. Based on this comment, the
NRC staff did not revise the final EA.
NJDEP Comment Number 3: Potential impacts identified by the Draft
EA acknowledged that increased evaporation would leave behind more
solids in the blowdown, so the concentration of total dissolved solids
(TDS) in the effluent would be an average of about 9 percent higher
than under current operations. While this is in compliance with the
station's NJPDES permit, the Division has concerns over potential
impacts to resident and migratory fish species and shellfish within the
area.
NRC Response Number 3: Blowdown temperature and composition, and
Delaware Estuary water temperatures would remain in compliance with the
station's NJPDES permit, and the proposed EPU would not result in
changes in any other effluents to the estuary. Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that the proposed EPU would result in negligible impacts on
the Delaware Estuary from HCGS discharge. Based on this comment, the
NRC staff did not revise the final EA.
NJDEP Comment Number 4: The potential impacts to aquatic biota
from the proposed action are primarily due to operation of the cooling
water system withdraws. Although no volume and/or velocity changes to
the circulating water or service water systems are expected due to the
proposed EPU, the DFW continues to be concerned for the destruction of
fish and/or shellfish species via intake and discharge of water at this
plant. While the identity of species potentially affected by
entrainment, impingement, and heat shock may be inferred from
ecological information about the Delaware Estuary, the species affected
cannot be verified, and the numbers cannot be quantified because no
environmental monitoring programs are conducted at the facility. It is
expected that a percentage of impinged organisms may likely die,
partially due to the fish-return system not functioning continuously to
minimize mortality at present. It is expected all organisms entrained
at HCGS are probably killed from exposure to heat, mechanical,
pressure-related stresses, and/or biocidal treatment before being
discharged to the estuary. Although the proposed action would not
change the volume or rate of cooling water withdrawn, the DFW has
concerns regarding the number of individual fish and shellfish, larvae
and eggs destroyed by the plant and any associated temperature rise in
the Delaware Estuary. The entrainment kill should be verified to
species and quantified in the future to address these concerns. It is
anticipated that any new processes that are developed for the other
Salem units to increase impingement survivability and decrease
entrainment will be employed by this plant as well automatically.
NRC Response Number 4: Under the proposed EPU, water withdrawal
rates would not change from present conditions. Entrainment and
impingement impacts may change over time due to changes in the aquatic
populations even though HCGS's water withdrawal rate would not change
from present conditions. Impacts due to impingement and entrainment
losses are minimized because the closed-cycle cooling system at the
plant minimizes the amount of cooling water withdrawn from and heated
effluent returned to the estuary. The water quality of the effluent
(e.g., temperature, toxicity, TDS concentrations) would continue to
meet present NJPDES permit conditions for protection of aquatic life.
The staff concludes that the proposed EPU would have no significant
impact to aquatic biota. Impingment and entrainment effects are
regulated by NJDEP under Clean Water Act 316(b), and heat shock is
regulated by NJDEP under 316(a) as part of NJPDES permitting. NJPDES
permit levels are not part of NRC jurisdiction. Based on this comment,
the NRC staff did not revise the final EA.
NJDEP Comment Number 5: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
issued a letter dated January 26, 2007, that provided information on
the endangered shortnose sturgeon; Atlantic sturgeon, a candidate
species for listing; and five species of endangered or threatened sea
turtles: Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, green, and hawksbill
turtles. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff investigated the
effects of the HCGS operation on these species and found that the
primary concern for these endangered and threatened species is the risk
of
[[Page 13034]]
impingement or entrainment due to cooling water intake by the plant.
The HCGS has reported no takes of any of the endangered or threatened
species listed above. Although the proposed EPU would not change the
intake flow, and, therefore, would not increase impingement and
entrainment of these species, the DFW remains concerned regarding
potential takes of endangered species.
NRC Response Number 5: Under the proposed EPU, water withdrawal
rates would not change from present conditions. Entrainment and
impingement impacts may change over time due to changes in the aquatic
populations even though HCGS's water withdrawal rate would not change
from present conditions. Impacts due to impingement and entrainment
losses are minimized because the closed-cycle cooling system at the
plant minimizes the amount of cooling water withdrawn from and heated
effluent returned to the estuary. The water quality of the effluent
(e.g., temperature, toxicity, TDS concentrations) would continue to
meet present NJPDES permit conditions for protection of aquatic life.
The staff concludes that the proposed EPU would have no significant
impact to aquatic biota. Impingment and entrainment effects are
regulated by NJDEP under Clean Water Act 316(b), and heat shock is
regulated by NJDEP under 316(a) as part of NJPDES permitting. NJPDES
permit levels are not part of NRC jurisdiction. Based on this comment,
the NRC staff did not revise the final EA.
NJDEP Comment Number 6: The EA notes that an Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH) for the proposed EPU was sent to the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) under separate cover to initiate an EFH
consultation. We recommend that the NRC should issue no final decision
on this proposal until NMFS consultations are concluded.
NRC Response Number 6: The staff agrees with this comment. By
letter dated July 13, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072000450), NMFS
found the EFH assessment satisfactory. Based on this comment, the NRC
staff revised the appropriate section of the final EA.
NJDEP Comment Number 7: No impacts are expected to avian species.
NRC Response Number 7: The staff agrees with this comment;
however, no changes to the final EA are warranted.
NJDEP Comment Number 8: According to the EA, no changes to the
Hope Creek Generating Station circulating water or service water
systems are expected due to the proposed EPU; therefore, the proposed
EPU would not increase the amount of water withdrawn from or discharged
to the Delaware Estuary. As a result, the intake issue appears to be
unaffected by the power re-rating.
NRC Response Number 8: The staff agrees with this comment;
however, no changes to the final EA are warranted.
NJDEP Comment Number 9: This Bureau has determined that because
the permittee is willing to comply with its current discharge limits,
the regulation of the discharge via NJPDES appears to be unaffected by
the power re-rating. In the current NJPDES permit, there is no effluent
flow limit and there is no total dissolved solids (TDS) requirement
since the facility discharges to saline waters. This is due to the fact
that there are currently no New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards
for TDS. Through the administering of the NJPDES program, this Bureau
will continue to require effluent characterization of the cooling tower
blowdown to monitor any changes to the toxic pollutants that may or may
not occur due to the proposed EPU.
NRC Response Number 9: The staff agrees with this comment;
however, no changes to the final EA are warranted.
NJDEP Comment Number 10: The information contained in the EA
indicates that the power output of the reactor will increase
approximately 15-percent. It can be concluded that this power increase
will raise magnetic field emissions from the lines and therefore,
elevate magnetic fields along the right-of-way. These changes will
increase the magnetic field exposure of the population living closer
than 400 feet from the center of the transmission line configuration.
At this point in time, the consensus among the scientific community is
that there is inconclusive evidence to suggest that long-term exposure
to magnetic fields from power lines would result in adverse health
outcomes. However, for new or modified lines, many health-based
organizations are still recommending reducing magnetic fields if low or
no-cost options exist. In a June 2007 fact sheet put forth from the
World Health Organization (WHO Fact sheet No. 322), the following
guidance is issued: ``When constructing new facilities and designing
new equipment low-cost ways of reducing exposures may be explored.''
Therefore, in light of such uncertainty, if there are any changes that
will be made to the power delivery system that would lower the magnetic
fields from the power lines, it may be prudent to explore such options.
NRC Response Number 10: The proposed EPU does not require the
modification or building of new transmission lines. Therefore, the
guidance in WHO Fact Sheet No. 322 is not applicable. There is no
scientific consensus regarding the health effects of electromagnetic
fields (EMFs) produced by operating transmission lines. Therefore, the
licensee did not quantify the chronic effects of EMF on human and
biota. The potential for chronic effects for these fields continues to
be studied and is not known at this time. The National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related research through
the U.S Department of Energy (DOE). A 2003 NIEHS study published in
Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 111, Number 3, March 2003,
titled ``Power-Line Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Do Not Induce
Changes in Phosphorylation, Localization, or Expression of the 27-
Kilodalton Heat Shock Protein in Human Keratinocytes'' by Biao Shi,
Behnom Farboud, Richard Nuccitelli, and R. Rivkah Isseroff of the
University of California--Davis contains the following conclusion:
''The linkage of the exposure to the power-line frequency (50-60
Hz) electromagnetic fields (EMF) with human cancers remains
controversial after more than 10 years of study. The in vitro
studies on the adverse effects of EMF on human cells have not
yielded a clear conclusion. In this study, we investigated whether
power-line frequency EMF could act as an environmental insult to
invoke stress responses in human keratinocytes using the 27-kDa heat
shock protein (HSP27) as a stress marker. After exposure to 1 gauss
(100 [mu]T) EMF from 20 min to 24 hr, the isoform pattern of HSP27
in keratinocytes remained unchanged, suggesting that EMF did not
induce the phosphorylation of this stress protein. EMF exposure also
failed to induce the translocation of HSP27 from the cytoplasm to
the nucleus. Moreover, EMF exposure did not increase the abundance
of HSP27 in keratinocytes. In addition, we found no evidence that
EMF exposure enhanced the level of the 70-kDa heat shock protein
(HSP70) in breast or leukemia cells as reported previously.
Therefore, in this study we did not detect any of a number of stress
responses in human keratinocytes exposed to power-line frequency
EMF.''
To date, there is not sufficient data to cause the NRC staff to
change its position with respect to the chronic effects of
electromagnetic fields. If in the future, the NRC staff finds that,
contrary to current indications, a consensus has been reached by
appropriate Federal health agencies that there are adverse health
effects from electromagnetic fields, the NRC staff will recommend to
the Commission to change its current position regarding EMF. The NRC
staff did not revise the final EA based on this comment.
NJDEP Comment Number 11: The NJDEP's Air Quality Permitting Office
approved the Title V air permit
[[Page 13035]]
modification for this project on August 7, 2007. This approval along
with a request for a single source state implementation plan (SIP) for
a variance to Subchapter 6 was sent to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) on November 2, 2007. The Air Quality Permitting Office has
not yet received a response from the EPA.
NRC Response Number 11: The staff agrees with this comment;
however, no changes to the final EA are warranted.
Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
HCGS is located on the southern part of Artificial Island, on the
east bank of the Delaware River, in Lower Alloways Creek Township,
Salem County, New Jersey. While called Artificial Island, the site is
actually connected to the mainland of New Jersey by a strip of
tideland, formed by hydraulic fill from dredging operations on the
Delaware River by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The site is 15
miles south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, 18 miles south of
Wilmington, Delaware, 30 miles southwest of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
and 7.5 miles southwest of Salem, New Jersey. The station is located on
a 300-acre site.
The site is located in the southern region of the Delaware River
Valley, which is defined as the area immediately adjacent to the
Delaware River and extending from Trenton to Cape May Point, New
Jersey, on the eastern side, and from Morrisville, Pennsylvania, to
Lewes, Delaware, on the western side. This region is characterized by
extensive tidal marshlands and low-lying meadowlands. Most land in this
area is undeveloped. A great deal of land adjacent to the Delaware
River, near the site, is public land, owned by the Federal and State
governments. The main access to the plant is from a road constructed by
PSEG. This road connects with Alloways Creek Neck Road, about 2.5
miles, east of the site. Access to the plant site and all activities
thereon are under the control of PSEG.
Identification of the Proposed Action
HCGS is a single unit plant that employs a General Electric BWR
that was designed to operate at a rated core thermal power of 3,339
MWt, at 100-percent steam flow, with a turbine-generated rating of
approximately 1,139 megawatts-electric (MWe).
In 1984, NRC issued operating license NPF-57 to HCGS, authorizing
operation up to a maximum power level of 3,293 MWt. In 2001, NRC
authorized a license amendment for a 1.4 percent power uprate from
3,293 MWt to 3,339 MWt and issued an Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact for Increase in Allowable Thermal
Power Level (NRC 2001).
By letter dated September 18, 2006, PSEG proposed an amendment to
the operating license for HCGS, to increase the maximum thermal power
level by approximately 15 percent, from 3,339 MWt to 3,840 MWt. The
change is considered an EPU because it would raise the reactor core
power levels more than 7 percent above the originally licensed maximum
power level.
The Need for the Proposed Action
PSEG (2005) evaluated the need for additional electrical generation
capacity in its service area for the planning period of 2002-2011.
Information provided by the North American Electric Reliability Council
showed that, in order to meet projected demands, generating capacity
must be increased by at least 2 percent per year for the Mid-Atlantic
Area Council and the PJM Interconnection, LLC (PSEG 2005). Such demand
increase would exceed PSEG's capacity to generate electricity for its
customers.
PSEG determined that a combination of increased power generation
and purchase of power from the electrical grid would be needed to meet
the projected demands. Increasing the generating capacity at HCGS was
estimated to provide lower-cost power than can be purchased on the
current and projected energy market. In addition, increasing nuclear
generating capacity would lessen the need to depend on fossil fuel
alternatives that are subject to unpredictable cost fluctuations and
increasing environmental costs.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
This EA summarizes the non-radiological and radiological impacts
that may result from the proposed action.
Non-Radiological Impacts
Land Use Impacts
The potential impacts associated with land use (including
aesthetics and historic and archaeological resources) include impacts
from construction and plant modifications at HCGS. While some plant
components would be modified, most plant changes related to the
proposed EPU would occur within existing structures, buildings, and
fenced equipment yards housing major components within the developed
part of the site. No new construction would occur, and no expansion of
buildings, roads, parking lots, equipment storage areas, or
transmission facilities would be required to support the proposed EPU
(PSEG 2005).
Existing parking lots, road access, offices, workshops, warehouses,
and restrooms would be used during construction and plant
modifications. Therefore, land use would not change at HCGS. In
addition, there would be no land use changes along transmission lines
(no new lines would be required for the proposed EPU), transmission
corridors, switchyards, or substations. Because land use conditions
would not change at HCGS and because any disturbance would occur within
previously disturbed areas, there would be no impact to aesthetic
resources and historic and archeological resources in the vicinity of
HCGS (PSEG 2005).
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was promulgated to encourage
and assist States and territories in developing management programs
that preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, restore the
resources of the coastal zone. A ``coastal zone'' is generally
described as the coastal waters and the adjacent shore lands strongly
influenced by each other. This includes islands, transitional and
intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, beaches, and Great Lakes
waters. Activities of Federal agencies that are reasonably likely to
affect coastal zones shall be consistent with the approved coastal
management program (CMP) of the State or territory to the maximum
extent practical. The CZMA provisions apply to all actions requiring
Federal approval (new plant licenses, license renewals, materials
licenses, and major amendments to existing licenses) that affect the
coastal zone in a State or territory with a Federally approved CMP. The
proposed EPU is subject to the Federal Consistency provisions of the
Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and as such, a Federal
Consistency determination is required. On April 23, 2007, PSEG
submitted an application requesting the State of New Jersey to perform
the Federal Consistency determination in accordance with CZMA. On July
3, 2007, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
Land Use Regulation Program, acting under Section 307 of the Federal
Coastal Management Act, issued the Federal Consistency certification
for the proposed EPU.
The impacts of continued operation of HCGS under EPU conditions are
bounded by the evaluation in the FES for operation (NRC 1984).
Therefore, the potential impacts to land use, aesthetics,
[[Page 13036]]
and historic and archaeological resources from the proposed EPU would
not be significant.
Cooling Tower Impacts
HCGS has one natural draft cooling tower that is currently used to
reduce the heat output to the environment. The potential impacts
associated with cooling tower operation under the proposed EPU could
affect aesthetics, salt drift deposition, noise, fogging or icing,
wildlife, and particulate emissions.
The proposed EPU would not result in significant changes to
aesthetics such as cooling tower plume dimension at HCGS. Atmospheric
emissions from the natural draft cooling tower consist primarily of
waste heat and water vapor resulting in persistent cloudlike plumes.
The size of the cooling tower plume depends on the meteorological
conditions such as temperature, dew point, and relative humidity. For
the proposed EPU, NRC does not anticipate any change in the dimension
of the plume under equivalent meteorological conditions as evaluated in
the FES. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no
significant aesthetic impacts associated with HCGS cooling tower
operation for the proposed action.
Native, exotic, and agricultural plant productivity may be
adversely affected by the increased salt concentration in the drift
deposited directly on soils or directly on foliage. FES has indicated
that the salt drift deposition must be above 90 lbs/acre/year before
agriculture plant productivity would be reduced. PSEG has estimated
that the proposed EPU would not significantly increase the rate of salt
drift deposition from the increase in cooling tower operation. PSEG has
estimated that the increase in salt drift deposition rate would be 9
percent to a maximum of 0.109 lbs/acre/year. Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that there would be no significant salt drift deposition
impacts associated with HCGS cooling tower operation for the proposed
action.
Because the HCGS cooling tower is natural draft, no increase in
noise is expected. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would
be no significant noise impacts associated with HCGS cooling tower
operation for the proposed action.
PSEG has indicated that there would be no significant increase in
fogging or icing expected for the proposed EPU. Increased ground-level
fogging and icing resulting from water droplets in the cooling tower
drift may interfere with highway traffic. The 1984 FES evaluated the
impacts of fogging and icing associated with the operation of the
natural draft cooling tower at HCGS and found these impacts to be
insignificant and inconsequential. The fact that the nearest
agricultural or residential land is located several miles from the site
further minimizes the potential for impact. Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that there would be no significant fogging or icing impacts
associated with HCGS cooling tower operation for the proposed action.
The 1984 FES has stated that although some birds may collide with
cooling tower, unpublished surveys at existing cooling towers indicated
that the number would be relatively small. The proposed EPU would not
increase the risk of wildlife colliding with cooling tower. Therefore,
the NRC staff concludes that there would be no significant wildlife
impacts associated with HCGS cooling tower operation for the proposed
action.
The proposed EPU would increase the particulates emission rate from
the HCGS cooling tower, from the current permitted rate of 29.4 pounds
per hour (lbs/hr) to a rate of 35.6 lbs/hr (maximum 42.0 lbs/hr).
Particulates (primarily salts) from the cooling tower have an
aerodynamic particle size of less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10).
The NJDEP has imposed a maximum hourly emission rate for particulates
at 30 lbs/hr. Therefore, the projected particulate emission rate from
the HCGS cooling tower, due to the proposed EPU, could exceed the NJDEP
emission regulatory limit. On March 30, 2007, NJDEP issued a Public
Notice and Draft Title V Air Operating Permit for the HCGS cooling
tower, proposing to authorize a variance to the HCGS air operating
permit with an hourly emission rate of 42 lbs/hr (NJDEP 2007a). On June
13, 2007, NJDEP issued the final Title V Air Operating Permit for HCGS
allowing a 42 lbs/hr particulate emission rate for the proposed EPU
upon approval of the State Implementation Plan by USEPA.
Since particulates from HCGS cooling tower consist primarily of
salts with particle size of less than 10 microns, the FES evaluated the
environmental impacts on air quality and found the impacts to be minor.
Furthermore, a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) non-
applicability analysis was submitted to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2, by PSEG on March 4, 2004. Based on
the information provided by PSEG, EPA concluded that the EPU project
would not result in a significant increase in emissions and would not
be subject to PSD review (ML071240216). In addition, NJDEP has stated
that the Bureau of Technical Services reviewed the Air Quality Modeling
for the proposed Hope Creek uprate project and determined that the
project would meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the
New Jersey Ambient Air Quality Standards. Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that there would be no significant particulate emission
impacts associated with HCGS cooling tower operation for the proposed
action.
Transmission Facility Impacts
The potential impacts associated with transmission facilities
include changes in transmission line right-of-way (ROW) maintenance and
electric shock hazards due to increased current. The proposed EPU would
not require any physical modifications to the transmission lines.
PSEG's transmission line ROW maintenance practices, including the
management of vegetation growth, would not change. PSEG did not provide
an estimate of the increase in the operating voltage due to the EPU.
Based on experience from EPUs at other plants, the NRC staff concludes
that the increase in the operating voltage would be negligible. Because
the voltage would not change significantly, there would be no
significant change in the potential for electric shock. Modifications
to onsite transmission equipment are necessary to support the EPU; such
changes include replacement of the high- and low-pressure turbines, and
the replacement of the main transformer (PSEG 2005). No long-term
environmental impacts from these replacements are anticipated.
The proposed EPU would increase the current, which would affect the
electromagnetic field. The National Electric Safety Code (NESC)
provides design criteria that limit hazards from steady-state currents.
The NESC limits the short-circuit current to the ground to less than 5
milliamperes. The transmission lines meet the applicable shock
prevention provision of the NESC. Therefore, even with the slight
increase in current attributable to the EPU, adequate protection is
provided against hazards from electrical shock.
There would be an increase in current passing through the
transmission lines associated with the increased power level of the
proposed EPU. The increased electrical current passing through the
transmission lines would cause an increase in electromagnetic field
strength. However, there is no scientific consensus regarding the
health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produced by operating
transmission lines. Therefore, the licensee did not quantify the
chronic effects of EMF on human and biota. The potential for chronic
effects for these fields continues to be studied and is not
[[Page 13037]]
known at this time. The National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS) directs related research through the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE). A 2003 NIEHS study published in Environmental Health
Perspectives, Volume 111, Number 3, March 2003, titled ``Power-Line
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Do Not Induce Changes in
Phosphorylation, Localization, or Expression of the 27-Kilodalton Heat
Shock Protein in Human Keratinocytes'' by Biao Shi, Behnom Farboud,
Richard Nuccitelli, and R. Rivkah Isseroff of the University of
California--Davis contains the following conclusion:
``The linkage of the exposure to the power-line frequency (50-60
Hz) electromagnetic fields (EMF) with human cancers remains
controversial after more than 10 years of study. The in vitro
studies on the adverse effects of EMF on human cells have not
yielded a clear conclusion. In this study, we investigated whether
power-line frequency EMF could act as an environmental insult to
invoke stress responses in human keratinocytes using the 27-kDa heat
shock protein (HSP27) as a stress marker. After exposure to 1 gauss
(100 [mu]T) EMF from 20 min to 24 hr, the isoform pattern of HSP27
in keratinocytes remained unchanged, suggesting that EMF did not
induce the phosphorylation of this stress protein. EMF exposure also
failed to induce the translocation of HSP27 from the cytoplasm to
the nucleus. Moreover, EMF exposure did not increase the abundance
of HSP27 in keratinocytes. In addition, we found no evidence that
EMF exposure enhanced the level of the 70-kDa heat shock protein
(HSP70) in breast or leukemia cells as reported previously.
Therefore, in this study we did not detect any of a number of stress
responses in human keratinocytes exposed to power-line frequency
EMF.''
To date, there is not sufficient data to cause the NRC staff to
change its position with respect to the chronic effects of
electromagnetic fields. If in the future, the NRC staff finds that,
contrary to current indications, a consensus has been reached by
appropriate Federal health agencies that there are adverse health
effects from electromagnetic fields, the NRC staff will recommend to
the Commission to change its current position regard EMF.
The 1984 FES evaluated bird mortality resulting from collision with
towers and conductors. The FES has estimated that only 0.07 percent of
the mortality of waterfowls from causes other than hunting resulted
from collision with towers and conductors at HCGS. Because the proposed
EPU does not require physical modifications to the transmission line
system, the additional impacts of bird mortality would be minimal.
The impacts associated with transmission facilities for the
proposed action would not change significantly relative to the impacts
from current plant operation. There would be no physical modifications
to the transmission lines, transmission line ROW maintenance practices
would not change, there would be no changes to transmission line ROW or
vertical ground clearances, and electric current passing through the
transmission lines would increase only slightly. Therefore, the NRC
staff concludes there would be no significant impacts associated with
transmission facilities for the proposed action.
Water Use Impacts
Potential water use impacts from the proposed EPU include localized
effects on the Delaware Estuary and changes to plant water supply. HCGS
is located on the eastern shore of the Delaware Estuary. The estuary is
approximately 2.5 miles wide, and the tidal flow past HCGS is
approximately 259,000 million gallons per day (MGD) (NRC 2001). The
Delaware Estuary is the source of cooling water for the HCGS
circulating water system, a closed-cycle system that utilizes a natural
draft cooling tower. During normal plant operations, water usage at
HCGS accounts for less than 0.03 percent of the average tidal flow of
the Delaware Estuary (PSEG 2005).
HCGS's service water system withdraws approximately 67 MGD from the
Delaware Estuary for cooling and makeup water. When estuary water
temperature is less than 70 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F), two pumps
operate to supply an average service water flow rate of approximately
37,000 gallons per minute (gpm). When estuary water temperature is
greater than 70 [deg]F, three pumps operate to supply an average
service water flow rate of approximately 52,000 gpm (Najarian
Associates 2004). Estuary water is delivered to the cooling tower basin
and acts primarily as makeup water to the circulating water system--
replacing 47 MGD that are returned to the estuary as cooling tower
blowdown, and depending upon meteorological conditions and the
circulating water flow rate, replacing approximately 10-13 MGD of
cooling water that are lost through evaporation from the cooling tower.
Approximately 7 MGD of the 67 MGD are used for intake screen wash water
and strainer backwash. The circulating water system has an operating
capacity of 11 million gallons; however, approximately 9 million
gallons of water actually reside in the circulating water system at any
given time. Water is re-circulated through the condensers at a rate of
approximately 550,000 gpm (PSEG 2005). No changes to the HCGS
circulating water or service water systems are expected due to the
proposed EPU; therefore, the proposed EPU would not increase the amount
of water withdrawn from or discharged to the Delaware Estuary.
Consumptive use of surface water by HCGS is not expected to change
substantively as a result of the proposed EPU and is regulated by the
Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) through a water use contract.
The proposed EPU would likely result in a small increase in cooling
tower blowdown temperature. To mitigate this temperature increase, PSEG
has modified its cooling tower to improve its thermal performance, and
as discussed in the following section, thermal discharge to the
Delaware Estuary would remain within the regulatory limits set by the
New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permit
granted to HCGS by NJDEP (PSEG2005; NJDEP 2002).
Two groundwater wells access the Raritan aquifer to provide
domestic and process water to HCGS. The wells are permitted by NJDEP
and are also regulated by DRBC. The proposed EPU would not increase the
use of groundwater by HCGS or change the limits of groundwater use
currently set by DRBC (PSEG 2005). As such, the conclusions in the 1984
FES regarding groundwater use at HCGS would remain valid for the
proposed EPU.
The proposed EPU would not increase the amount of surface water
withdrawn from the Delaware Estuary and groundwater use at HCGS would
not increase. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes the proposed EPU would
have negligible water use impacts on the estuary.
Discharge Impacts
Potential impacts to a water body from power plant discharge
include increased turbidity, scouring, erosion, sedimentation,
contamination, and water temperature. The proposed EPU would not
increase the amount of cooling tower blowdown discharged to the
Delaware Estuary; therefore, the turbidity, scouring, erosion, and
sedimentation would not be expected to significantly change.
Additionally, the proposed EPU would not introduce any new contaminants
to the Delaware Estuary and would not significantly increase any
potential contaminants that are presently regulated by the station's
NJPDES permit. The concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) in the
cooling tower blowdown would increase due to the increased rate of
[[Page 13038]]
evaporation; however, the amount of blowdown discharged to the estuary
would decrease, and the concentration of TDS would remain within the
station's air permit limits.
Although the amount of water withdrawn from the Delaware Estuary
would remain unchanged, the proposed EPU would result in a slight
increase in the temperature of the cooling tower blowdown discharged to
the estuary. The station's NJPDES permit imposes limits on the
temperature of the blowdown and the amount of heat rejected to the
estuary by the HCGS circulating water system. The NJDES permit
specifies that the 24-hour average maximum blowdown temperature is
limited to 97.1 [deg]F, and heat rejection is limited to 662 million
British thermal units per hour (MBTU/hr) from September 1 through May
31 and 534 MBTU/hr from June 1 through August 31. DRBC also imposes
thermal regulations on HCGS through the NJPDES permit, specifying that
the net temperature increase of the Delaware Estuary may not exceed 4
[deg]F from September through May, and 1.5 [deg]F from June through
August or estuary water temperature may not exceed a maximum of 86
[deg]F, whichever is less. These limitations apply to waters outside of
the heat dissipation area, which extends 2,500 feet upstream and
downstream of the discharge point and 1,500 feet offshore from the
discharge point. The licensee has performed hydrothermal modeling
analysis for the HCGS EPU and concluded that the plant would continue
to meet the requirements of the NJPDES permit.
The 1984 FES concluded that the station's shoreline discharge would
not adversely affect the estuary because of its large tidal influence,
which would dilute, mix, and rapidly dissipate the heated effluent
(PSEG 2005). Hydrothermal modeling conducted for the proposed EPU
determined that, even during extreme meteorological conditions, the
post-EPU increase in cooling tower blowdown temperature would not
exceed 91.7 [deg]F, and the station would continue to comply with all
applicable Delaware Estuary water quality standards set by the
station's NJPDES permit and DRBC (Najarian Associates 2004).
In addition to setting thermal discharge limits, the NJPDES permit
also regulates all surface and wastewater discharges from the station.
The NJPDES permit, effective March 1, 2003, regulates discharge from
six outfalls at HCGS, including the cooling tower blowdown, low volume
oily wastewater, stormwater, and sewage treatment; these discharges
ultimately flow to the Delaware Estuary. As required by the NJPDES
permit, in addition to temperature, cooling tower blowdown is monitored
for flow, pH, chlorine produced oxidants (CPOs), and total organic
carbon. HCGS operates a dechlorination system that utilizes ammonium
bisulfate to reduce CPOs in the blowdown. Furthermore, acute and
chronic biological toxicity tests were routinely performed on cooling
tower blowdown from 1998 through 2001 and are performed at each NJDES
Permit renewal to comply with NJDEP non-toxicity regulations (PSEG
2005).
The NJPDES permit sets monitoring, sampling, and reporting
requirements for all HCGS discharges. The NRC staff performed a search
of the NJDEP Open Public Records Act Datamine online database which
revealed no water quality violations for HCGS (NJDEP 2007).
With the exception of increased blowdown temperature and TDS
concentration, as discussed above, the proposed EPU would not be
expected to alter the composition or volume of any other effluents,
including stormwater drainage, oily water, and sewage treatment (PSEG
2005). Blowdown temperature and composition, and Delaware Estuary water
temperatures would remain in compliance with the station's NJPDES
permit, and the proposed EPU would not result in changes in any other
effluents to the estuary. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the
proposed EPU would result in negligible impacts on the Delaware Estuary
from HCGS discharge.
Impacts on Aquatic Biota
The potential impacts to aquatic biota from the proposed action are
primarily due to operation of the cooling water system and to maintain
the transmission line ROWs. Cooling water withdrawal affects aquatic
populations through impingement of larger individuals (e.g., fish, some
crustaceans, turtles) on the intake trash bars and debris screens and
entrainment of smaller organisms that pass through the screens into the
cooling water system. The proposed action would not change the volume
or rate of cooling water withdrawn. Most of the additional heat
generated under the proposed EPU would be dissipated by the cooling
tower, and PSEG proposes no changes to the cooling water system.
Discharge of heated effluent alters natural thermal and current
regimes and can induce thermal shock in aquatic organisms. The HCGS
effluent would change under the proposed EPU. Because the volume of
makeup water withdrawn from the estuary would remain unchanged and the
volume of evaporative loss from the cooling tower would increase, the
volume of the blowdown released as effluent, which is the difference
between the water withdrawn and the water lost to evaporation, would
decrease. The increased evaporation would leave behind more solids in
the blowdown, so the concentration of TDS in the effluent would be an
average of about 9 percent higher than under current operations
(Najarian Associates 2004). The effluent would also be somewhat warmer,
but modeling predicts that all present NJPDES permit conditions for the
effluent would still be met (Najarian Associates 2004).
PSEG proposes no new transmission line ROWs and no change in
current maintenance procedures for transmission line ROWs under the
proposed EPU, so this potential source of impact will not be considered
further for aquatic resources.
The potential receptors of the environmental stressors of
impingement, entrainment, and heat shock are the aquatic communities in
the Delaware Estuary near HCGS. Ecologists typically divide such
communities into the following categories for convenience when
considering ecological impacts of power plants: microbes,
phytoplankton, submerged aquatic vegetation, invertebrate zooplankton,
benthic invertebrates, fish, and sometimes birds, reptiles (e.g., sea
turtles), and marine mammals. Of these, effects of power plant
operation have been consistently demonstrated only for fish.
Unless otherwise noted, the following information on Delaware
Estuary fish and blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) is from information
summarized in the 2006 Salem NJPDES Permit Application (NJDEP 2006).
Salem is an adjacent nuclear power plant that has conducted several
large studies in support of permitting of its once-through cooling
water system. About 200 species of fish have been reported from the
Delaware Estuary. Some are resident, some are seasonal migrants, and
some are occasional strays. In its NJPDES Permit Application, PSEG
selected 11 species, one invertebrate and ten fish, as species
representative of the aquatic community (Table 1).
[[Page 13039]]
Table 1.--Species Representative of the Delaware Estuary Aquatic Community Near Artificial Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common name Scientific name Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Crab............................ Callinectes sapidus.... Swimming crab, abundant in the estuary.
Recreational and commercial species.
Alewife.............................. Alosa pseudoharengus.. Anadromous herring; abundant in the estuary.
American Shad........................ Alosa sapidissima..... Anadromous herring; abundant in the estuary.
Recreational and commercial species.
Atlantic Croaker..................... Micropogonias Drum family. Atlantic coast population is
undulatus. considered a single stock. Recreational and
commercial species.
Atlantic Menhaden.................... Brevoortia tyrannus... Herring. Larvae and juveniles use the estuary as
a nursery. Commercial species.
Atlantic Silverside.................. Menidia menidia....... Resident in intertidal marsh creeks and shore
zones.
Bay Anchovy.......................... Anchoa mitchelli...... Common in the bay and tidal river zones.
Blueback Herring..................... Alosa aestivalis...... Anadromous herring; abundant in the estuary.
Spot................................. Leiostomus xanthurus.. Drum family. Juveniles use the estuary as a
nursery. Recreational and commercial species.
Striped Bass......................... Morone saxatilis...... Anadromous temperate bass. Recreational and
commercial species.
Weakfish............................. Cynoscion regalis..... Drum family. Larvae and juveniles use the
estuary as nursery. Recreational and commercial
species.
White Perch.......................... Morone americana...... Temperate bass. Year-round residents anadromous
within estuary. Recreational species.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NJDEP 2006.
HCGS is located in the Delaware Estuary between the Delaware River
upstream and the wide Delaware Bay downstream. Estuaries are drowned
river valleys where fresh water from rivers mixes with the higher
salinity water of the ocean and bays. In estuaries, salinity and water
temperature may change with season, tides, and meteorological
conditions. Typically, few species are resident in an estuary all of
their lives, perhaps because surviving the wide variations in salinity
and temperature poses physiological challenges to fish and
invertebrates. The predominant resident fish species in the Delaware
Estuary are hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus), white perch (Morone
americana), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchelli), Atlantic and inland
silversides (Menidia menidia and M. beryllina, respectively), naked
goby (Gobiosoma bosc), and mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus).
Resident fish species are represented by Atlantic silversides, bay
anchovy, and white perch (Table 1). Atlantic silversides are relatively
small common fish that inhabit intertidal creeks and shore zones. They
mature in less than a year and seldom live beyond 2 years. Although
there may be no discernable long-term trend in abundance in the
Delaware Estuary, the short-term trend appears to be decreasing
abundance. Bay anchovy may be the most abundant species in the estuary.
This small fish overwinters in deep areas of the lower estuary and
near-shore coastal zone. Though bay anchovies tend to stay in the lower
part of the estuary, they stray as far north as Trenton. They tend to
mature in the summer following their birth. Typically two spawning
peaks occur, one in late May and one in mid-July, although some
spawning occurs all summer. Most spawning occurs where salinity exceeds
20 parts per thousand (ppt), but some spawning may occur throughout the
estuary. Although no long-term trend in abundance is evident, abundance
since the mid-1990s appears to be declining. White perch are found
throughout the brackish portions of the estuary. They are anadromous
within the estuary (``semi-anadromous''), meaning that they undergo a
seasonal migration from the deeper, more saline areas where they
overwinter in fresh, shallow waters in the spring to spawn and then
return to more brackish waters. They typically mature in 2 to 3 years.
The abundance of white perch in the Delaware Estuary appears to be
stable or increasing, possibly in response to long-term improvements in
water quality.
Adult blue crabs are resident macro-invertebrates in the Delaware
Estuary, although their larvae are not. After mating in shallow
brackish areas of the upper estuary in spring, adult females migrate to
the mouth of the bay. The eggs, which are extruded and carried on the
undersides of females, hatch typically in the warm (77-86 [deg]F), high
salinity (18-26 ppt) waters of the lower bay in summer. After hatching,
the larvae pass through seven planktonic stages, called zoeae, and move
offshore with near-shore surface currents. The first post-larval stage,
called a megalops, uses wind-driven currents and tides to move inshore.
They then metamorphose to the first crab stage and move up the estuary.
Adult male crabs do not migrate from the upper estuary. Crabs typically
mature when 1 or 2 years old. Between 1980 and 2004, blue crab
abundance in the Delaware Estuary appears to have increased.
Anadromous species live their adult lives at sea and migrate into
fresh water to spawn. The most common anadromous fish species in the
Delaware Estuary are alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), American shad (A.
sapidissima), blueback herring (A. aestivalis), and striped bass
(Morone saxatilis), of which the first three are members of the herring
family. The endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is
also anadromous. The ecology of the three herrings is similar, as is
their appearance. All use the estuary as spawning and nursery habitat.
All migrate to fresh water in the spring and are believed to return to
their natal streams to spawn. The newly hatched larvae are planktonic
and move downstream with the current. Juveniles remain in freshwater
nursery areas throughout the summer and migrate to sea in the fall.
They then remain at sea until maturity and migrate along the coast.
Alewife have become more abundant since 1980, although the trend since
1990 is unclear. Abundance of American shad in the Delaware Estuary
drastically declined in the early 1900s due to poor water quality, dam
construction, over-fishing, and habitat destruction. American shad
began to recover in the 1960s and 1980s and appears to be recovering
still. No trends are evident in blueback herring abundance.
Striped bass is a fairly large member of the temperate bass family,
which also includes white perch. Adult striped bass, which may reach
weights of over 100 pounds, migrate up the estuary to fresh and
brackish waters in the spring to spawn and are believed to return to
their natal rivers and streams for spawning. The newly hatched larvae
are planktonic and move downstream with the current. Small juveniles
use fresh and brackish areas as nurseries, and larger juveniles use the
higher salinity
[[Page 13040]]
waters of the lower estuary as feeding grounds. Adult striped bass live
at sea and the lower estuary and migrate along the coast. Like American
shad, the striped bass population in the Delaware Estuary declined
prior to the 1980s but is now recovering.
The most common marine species that use the estuary include
weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), Atlantic
croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix),
summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatas), and Atlantic menhaden
(Brevoortia tyrannus). Four of these, weakfish, spot, Atlantic croaker,
and Atlantic menhaden, are shown as representative in Table 1. Atlantic
croaker, spot, and weakfish are members of the drum family. Adult
Atlantic croaker inhabit the deep, open areas of the lower bay from
late spring through mid-fall. They spawn from July through April along
the continental shelf. Larval Atlantic croaker first move with the
currents and later move to the shallow areas of the bay. Juveniles use
the shallow areas and tidal creeks in fresh and brackish water as
nurseries, but move into deeper water during colder periods. They
mature at about 2 to 4 years of age. Abundance of Atlantic croaker in
the Delaware Estuary has been increasing since the early 1990s. Spot
spawn over the continental shelf from late September through April.
Larvae live in the ocean then move to the Bay. The young juveniles move
upstream into tidal creeks and tributaries with low salinity. Like
Atlantic croaker, spot move into deeper water during colder periods.
Spot mature at 1 to 3 years old. Abundance of spot appears to be
negatively related to the abundance of Atlantic croaker and has been
decreasing. Weakfish spawn in the mouth of Delaware Bay in mid-May
through mid-September, and after hatching, the larvae move up into the
estuary to nursery areas of lower salinity (3 to 15 ppt). In mid-to-
late summer they move south to mesohaline nursery grounds, and as
temperatures decline in fall, the juveniles move south from the nursery
areas to the continental shelf and south. They mature at an age of one
or two years. Abundance of weakfish in the Delaware Estuary appear to
have increased from the 1970s to 1990s and then declined.
Atlantic menhaden is a pelagic species that overwinters on the
shelf, and large numbers overwinter off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.
The population moves north along the coast in the spring and south in
the fall. The populations spawns all year, and peak spawning occurs off
the Delaware Bay in spring and fall. The larvae move by wind-driven
currents into estuarine nursery grounds, where they transform to
juveniles and move upstream to oligohaline waters and then move out the
estuary with falling temperatures. In the fall, they congregate into
dense schools and move out of the estuary and south along the coast.
Atlantic menhaden mature at about age two. No trend in abundance in the
Delaware Estuary is apparent.
While the identity of species potentially affected by entrainment,
impingement, and heat shock may be inferred from ecological information
about the Delaware Estuary and the adjacent Salem Generating Station,
the species affected cannot be verified, and the numbers cannot be
quantified because no intake aquatic monitoring programs are conducted
at the HCGS. Impinged organisms may die, and the fish-return system
does not function continuously to minimize mortality, but the intake
velocity should allow most to escape the plant. All organisms entrained
at HCGS, which operates a cooling tower, are probably killed from
exposure to heat, mechanical, pressure-related stresses, and possibly
biocidal chemicals before being discharged to the estuary.
Under the proposed EPU, water withdrawal rates would not change
from present conditions. Entrainment and impingement impacts may change
over time due to changes in the aquatic populations even though HCGS(s
water withdrawal rate would not change from present conditions. Impacts
due to impingement and entrainment losses are minimized because the
closed-cycle cooling system at the plant minimizes the amount of
cooling water withdrawn from and heated effluent returned to the
estuary. The water quality of the effluent (e.g., temperature,
toxicity, TDS concentrations) would continue to meet present NJPDES
permit conditions for protection of aquatic life. The staff concludes
that the proposed EPU would have no significant impact to aquatic
biota.
Essential Fish Habitat Consultation
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)
identifies the importance of habitat protection to healthy fisheries.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined as those waters and substrata
necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity
(Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). Designating EFH is an
essential component in the development of Fishery Management Plans to
minimize habitat loss or degradation of fishery stocks and to take
actions to mitigate such damage. The consultation requirements of
section 305(b) of the MSA provide that Federal agencies consult with
the Secretary of Commerce on all actions or proposed actions
authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely
affect EFH. An EFH assessment for the proposed EPU was sent to the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under separate cover to
initiate an EFH consultation. By letter dated July 13, 2007 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML072000450), NMFS found the EFH assessment satisfactory.
Impacts on Terrestrial Biota
The potential impacts to terrestrial biota from the proposed action
would be those from transmission line ROW maintenance. Under EPU
conditions, PSEG does not plan to change transmission line maintenance
or add new transmission lines. In addition, PSEG does not plan to
conduct major refurbishment of significant land-disturbing activities
in order to implement the proposed EPU. Because no changes are planned
that have the potential to impact terrestrial biota, the NRC staff
concludes that the proposed EPU would have no impacts to terrestrial
biota associated with transmission line ROW maintenance.
Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat
In a letter dated December 8, 2006, pursuant to section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1969, as amended, the NRC requested from the
NMFS a list of species and information on protected, proposed, and
candidate species and critical habitat that are under their
jurisdiction and may be in the vicinity of HCGS and its associated
transmission lines. In response, NMFS issued a letter dated January 26,
2007, that provided information on the endangered shortnose sturgeon;
Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), a candidate
species for listing; and five species of endangered or threatened sea
turtles: loggerhead (Caretta caretta), Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys
kempii), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), green (Chelonia mydas),
and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles. The NRC staff
investigated the effects of HCGS operation on these species and found
that the primary concern for these endangered and threatened species is
the risk of impingement or entrainment due to cooling water intake by
the plant. The proposed EPU would not change the intake flow, and,
therefore, would not increase in the risk of impingement and
entrainment. To dissipate the additional heat created by the EPU, the
temperature of the plant's cooling water
[[Page 13041]]
discharge would be slightly elevated, but still within the NJPDES 24-
hour average temperature limit of 97.1 [deg]F. In addition, HCGS has
had no takes of any of the endangered or threatened species listed
above. Therefore, the NRC staff anticipates no effects related to the
intake or discharge on