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
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........
Recreational and commercial species.
Alewife.....
American
Shad........
Recreational and commercial species.
Atlantic
Croaker.....
undulatus.
considered a single stock. Recreational and
commercial
species.
Atlantic
Menhaden....
a nursery. Commercial species.
Atlantic
Silverside..
zones.
Bay
Anchovy.....
Blueback
Herring.....
Spot........
nursery.
Recreational and commercial species.
Striped
Bass........
commercial
species.
Weakfish....
estuary as nursery. Recreational and commercial
species.
White
Perch.......
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)
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'
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)
sapidissima)
(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)
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.........
to support EPU.
------------
Cooling
Tower.......
------------
Transmission
Facilities..
shock safety requirements; small increase in electrical current would
cause small increase in electromagnetic field around transmission
lines.
------------
Water
Use.........
withdrawal; slightly increase in water consumption due to increased
evaporation; no water use conflicts.
------------
Discharge...
to Delaware River; would meet discharge limits in current NJPDES
permit following EPU implementation.
------------
Aquatic
Biota.......
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.......
expected; therefore, there would be no significant effects on
terrestrial species or their habitat.
------------
Threatened
and Endangered Species.....
or their habitat. Informal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service ongoing.
------------
[[Page
13042]]
Socioeconomic.
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,'
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.'
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...
design objectives.
Liquid
Radiological Effluents...
and dose design objectives.
Solid
Radioactive Waste.......
volume) would remain bounded by evaluation in the FES.
Occupational
Radiation Doses.......
maintained within NRC limits and as low as is reasonably achievable.
Offsite
Radiation Doses.......
approximately 9.3 mrem and continue to be well within NRC and EPA
regulations.
Postulated
Accident Doses.......
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'
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)
the
PJM territory would likely be generated by a fossil-fuel-
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-sidemanageme
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)
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.
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 <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = SKYPE />
e-mail
to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of March 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John
G. Lamb,
Senior
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, Division of
Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR
Doc. E8-4858 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
To: Norm Cohen;
Subject: RE: Hope Creek uprate
Hello and Norm:
Attached is a brief we released nearly four years ago concerning an extended
power uprate at the Quad Cities nuclear plant in Illinois. Quad Cities has
two boiling water reactors, older than the boiling water reactor at Hope
Creek but similar to it.
More recently, the boiling water reactor at Vermont Yankee was approved for
an extended power uprate. Its cooling tower collapsed. Among the plant
modifications performed to support the power uprate was the replacement of
the fans in the cooling towers. (Vermont Yankee has mechanical draft cooling
towers instead of a natural draft cooling tower like Hope Creek. It uses
fans rather than the chimney effect to force air past the warm water to cool
it.) The replacement fans were heavier than the old fans and spun at a
higher rate. The increased weight and vibrations collapsed the cooling
tower.
The point -- neither the companies nor the NRC wanted the power-uprate
damage that occurred at Quad Cities and Vermont Yankee, yet it happened any
way. And how was the damage found? By aggressive testing that uncovered the
damage in its earlier phases? Nope. By equipment volunteering it was
damaged, like the vibration monitor at Quad Cities that shook itself loose
and fell onto the floor and the cooling tower at Vermont Yankee that fell
down.
What troubles us about this "clueless approach to power uprates" is
that
power uprate related damage to safety equipment may not reveal itself as
readily as the other equipment did. Nuclear power plants have lots of safety
equipment that is in standby mode, starting only in event of an accident.
That's a really bad time to find that the equipment is damaged and won't
protect the reactor core from meltdown. A very bad time to find that out.
This pattern is eerily similar to that NASA experienced prior to the
Challenger shuttle disaster. On nine prior shuttle flights, the double
o-rings in the booster fuel tanks had experienced burn damage, in more than
one case extending past the first o-ring to degrade the second. Any damage
was unacceptable, but since it kept happening and didn't lead to loss of the
shuttle, NASA viewed it as annoying rather than critical. They kept
launching shuttles. Until Challenger blew up about 73 seconds after launch
when both o-rings burned through. Then and only then did NASA re-design the
external fuel tanks to solve the o-ring problem.
NRC is experiencing power-uprate failure after power-uprate failure. But
since no one died yet, NRC views it as annoying rather than critical. So,
NRC will keep approving power uprates without understanding what's going
wrong until some one dies. Then they will take a step back. It's called
tombstone regulation. And no one does it better than NRC.
Thanks,
Dave Lochbaum
Director, Nuclear Safety Project
Union of Concerned Scientists
NEW ADDRESS AS OF MARCH 31, 2008:
1825 K Street NW Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006-1232