Hope Creek Uprate
[Federal
Register: March 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 48)]
[Notices]
[Page
13032-13044]
From
the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.
[DOCID:fr11mr08-
------------
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)
Department
of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) by letter dated November
21,
2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML073600859)
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.'
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)
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'
Behnom
Farboud, Richard Nuccitelli, and R. Rivkah Isseroff of the
University
of California--
''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)
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'
Richard
Nuccitelli, and R. Rivkah Isseroff of the University of
California--
``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