[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13032-13044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 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, in-lieu-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 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 in-
lieu-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 non-
radiological 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use...............................  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......................  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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 13042]]

 
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.

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 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 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

[[Page 13043]]

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.

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 16-percent 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 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 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 burn-up 
after the EPU will continue to be no

[[Page 13044]]

greater than 5 weight percent uranium-235, 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.........  Increased gaseous effluents would remain within NRC limits and dose
                                          design objectives.
Liquid Radiological Effluents..........  Increased liquid effluents (2.2 percent) would remain within NRC limits
                                          and dose design objectives.
Solid Radioactive Waste................  Increased amount of solid radioactive waste generated (14.7 percent by
                                          volume) would remain bounded by evaluation in the FES.
Occupational Radiation Doses...........  Occupational dose would increase by roughly 16 percent. Doses would be
                                          maintained within NRC limits and as low as is reasonably achievable.
Offsite Radiation Doses................  Radiation doses to members of the public would increase to
                                          approximately 9.3 mrem and continue to be well within NRC and EPA
                                          regulations.
Postulated Accident Doses..............  Calculated doses for postulated design-basis accidents would remain
                                          within NRC limits.
Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts..  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 ``no-action'' 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 fuel-fired 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 demand-sidemanagement could feasibly replace the proposed EPU's 
additional power 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 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, http://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 
e-mail to [email protected].

    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