[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