NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 

 Supplement 28 

 

Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for

License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants 

Supplement 28

Regarding 

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 

Final Report - Appendices 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Washington, DC 20555-0001
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at

NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.

Publicly released records include, to name a few,

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal

memoranda; bulletins and information notices;

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event

reports; and Commission papers and their attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC

regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

 Mail Stop SSOP

 Washington, DC 20402–0001

 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

 Telephone: 202-512-1800

 Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

 Springfield, VA 22161–0002

 www.ntis.gov 

 1–800–553–6847 or, locally, 703–605–6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written

request as follows:

Address: Office of Administration, 

 Printing and Mail Services Branch

 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov 

Facsimile: 301–415–2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC’s Web site address

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs

are updated periodically and may differ from the last

printed version. Although references to material found

on a Web site bear the date the material was accessed,

the material available on the date cited may

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical

libraries include all open literature items, such as

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and

congressional reports. Such documents as theses,

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are

maintained at—

The NRC Technical Library 

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852–2738

These standards are available in the library for

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the

originating organization or, if they are American

National Standards, from—

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036–8002

www.ansi.org 

212–642–4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated

only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including

technical specifications; or orders, not in 

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed

in contractor-prepared publications in this series are

not necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and

administrative reports and books prepared by the

staff (NUREG–XXXX) or agency contractors

(NUREG/CR–XXXX), (2) proceedings of

conferences (NUREG/CP–XXXX), (3) reports

resulting from international agreements

(NUREG/IA–XXXX), (4) brochures

(NUREG/BR–XXXX), and (5) compilations of legal

decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic

and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors’

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC’s regulations

(NUREG–0750).
 

 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2

 Supplement 28 

Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for

License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants

Supplement 28

Regarding 

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

Final Report - Appendices 

Manuscript Completed: December 2006

Date Published: January 2007

Division of License Renewal 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

(a) Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor

noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

January 2007 iii NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Abstract |

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considered the environmental impacts of |

renewing nuclear power plant operating licenses (OLs) for a 20-year period in its Generic |

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, |

Volumes 1 and 2, and codified the results in Title 10, Part 51, of the Code of Federal |

Regulations (10 CFR Part 51). In the GEIS (and its Addendum 1), the NRC staff identifies |

92 environmental issues and reaches generic conclusions related to environmental impacts for |

69 of these issues that apply to all plants or to plants with specific design or site characteristics. |

Additional plant-specific review is required for the remaining 23 issues. These plant-specific |

reviews are to be included in a supplement to the GEIS. |

|

This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to |

an application submitted to the NRC by AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen), to renew |

the OL for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS) for an additional 20 years under |

10 CFR Part 54. This SEIS includes the NRC staff’s analysis that considers and weighs the |

environmental impacts of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the |

proposed action, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. It |

also includes the NRC staff’s recommendation regarding the proposed action. |

|

Regarding the 69 issues for which the GEIS reached generic conclusions, neither AmerGen nor |

the NRC staff has identified information that is both new and significant for any issue that |

applies to OCNGS. In addition, the NRC staff determined that information provided during the |

scoping process did not call into question the conclusions in the GEIS. Therefore, the NRC |

staff concludes that the impacts of renewing the OCNGS OL would not be greater than the |

impacts identified for these issues in the GEIS. For each of these issues, the NRC staff’s |

conclusion in the GEIS is that the impact would be of SMALL(a) significance (except for |

collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and high-level waste and spent fuel, |

which were not assigned a single significance level). |

|

Regarding the remaining 23 issues, those that apply to OCNGS are addressed in this SEIS. |

For most issues, the NRC staff concludes that the significance of the potential environmental |

impacts of renewal of the OL would be SMALL. The NRC staff also concludes that no additional |

mitigation is warranted. The NRC staff determined that information provided during the scoping |

process did not identify any new issue that has a significant environmental impact. For aquatic |

resources, the NRC staff determined that the impacts of continued operation of the once- |

through cooling system during the license renewal term could, for some species, be |

MODERATE if species composition and abundance of aquatic organisms in Barnegat Bay have |
Contents

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 iv January 2007

| changed substantially from the 1970s and 1980s when the last studies of the effects of OCNGS

| operations were conducted. Alternatives to continued operation of the existing once-through

| cooling system that would mitigate impacts on aquatic resources were evaluated.

|

| The NRC staff’s recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse

| environmental impacts of license renewal for OCNGS are not so great that preserving the option

| of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This

| recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the Environmental

| Report submitted by AmerGen; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the

| NRC staff’s own independent review; and (5) the NRC staff’s consideration of public comments

| received during the scoping process.
January 2007 v NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Contents

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii |

Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi |

Abbreviations/Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii |

Appendix A - Comments Received on the Environmental Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B - Contributors to the Supplement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Appendix C - Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to the AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Application for License

Renewal of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Appendix D - Organizations Contacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

Appendix E - AmerGen Energy Company, LLC’s, Compliance Status and Consultation

Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

Appendix F - Generic Environmental Impact Statement, Environmental Issues 

Not Applicable to Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

Appendix G - NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Support of

License Renewal Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1
NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 vi January 2007

Tables

A-1 Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3

| A-2 Comments Received on the Draft SEIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-48

E-1 Consultation Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

E-2 Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, 

| and Other Approvals for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-3

F-1 GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to OCNGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

G-1 OCNGS Core Damage Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-3

G-2 Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-4

G-3 OCNGS PRA Historical Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-6

G-4 Significant Fire Areas for OCNGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-8

G-5 Comparison of FRPA and IPEEE Core Damage Frequencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-9

G-6 SAMA Cost-Benefit Screening Analysis for OCNGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-15
January 2007 vii NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Abbreviations/Acronyms

μCi microcurie(s) |

μg microgram(s)

μm micrometer(s)

μSv microsievert(s)

ac acre(s)

AC alternating current

ACC air-cooled condenser or averted cleanup and decontamination costs |

ACRS Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System |

AEA Atomic Energy Act

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable

AmerGen AmerGen Energy Company, LLC

AOC Area of Concern or averted offsite property damage costs |

AOE averted occupational exposure

AOSC averted onsite costs

APE averted public exposure

AQCR Air Quality Control Region

ASLB Atomic Safety and Licensing Board |

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry |

ATWS anticipated transient without scram

ATV all-terrain vehicle

BA Biological Assessment

BBNEP Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program

BO Biological Opinion

BOD biochemical oxygen demand |

Btu British thermal unit(s)

BWR boiling-water reactor

BWROG Boiling-Water Reactor Owners Group

EC degree(s) Celsius |

CAA Clean Air Act

CAFRA Coastal Area Facility Review Act

CCC Caribbean Conservation Corporation

CDF core damage frequency or combined disposal facility
Abbreviations/Acronyms

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 viii January 2007

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

Ci curie(s)

cm centimeter(s)

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

COE cost of enhancement

CPC Center for Plant Conservation

| CREST Continuous Radiological Environmental Surveillance Telemetry

CWA Clean Water Act

| CWPCF Central Water Pollution Control Facility

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

d day(s)

DBA design-basis accident

DC direct current

DDT dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane

DOC U.S. Department of Commerce

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior

DOL U.S. Department of Labor

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

DPR demonstration project reactor

DSM demand-side management

EFH essential fish habitat

EIA Energy Information Administration

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ELF-EMF extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPACT Energy Policy Act of 2005

ER Environmental Report

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESMP Environmental Surveillance and Monitoring Program

Exelon Exelon Corporation

| EF degree(s) Fahrenheit

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

| FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act

FES Final Environmental Statement

FPRA Fire Probabilistic Risk Assessment
Abbreviations/Acronyms

January 2007 ix NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

FR Federal Register

FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report

ft foot (feet)

ft3 cubic foot (feet) |

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

g gram(s)

gal gallon(s)

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,

NUREG-1437

GL Generic Letter

GLCF Global Land Cover Facility |

gpd gallon(s) per day

gpm gallon(s) per minute

|

HEPA high-efficiency particulate air

HLW high-level waste

hp horsepower

hr hour(s)

Hz hertz

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers

in. inch(es)

INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

IPE Individual Plant Examination

IPEEE Individual Plant Examination of External Events

ISRA Industrial Site Recovery Act

ITS Incidental Take Statement

J joule(s)

JCP&L Jersey Central Power & Light Company

kg kilogram(s)

kV kilovolt(s)

kW kilowatt(s)

kWh kilowatt hour(s)

L liter(s)

lb pound(s)

LERF large early release frequency

LLTF Lessons Learned Task Force

LOCA loss-of-coolant accident
Abbreviations/Acronyms

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 x January 2007

LOOP loss of offsite power

m meter(s)

m2 square meter(s) 

m3 cubic meter(s)

mA milliampere(s)

MAAP Modular Accident Analysis Program

MACCS2 Melcor Accident Consequence Code System 2

MAFMC Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

MDOC Maine Department of Conservation 

MEI maximally exposed individual

mg milligram(s)

mi mile(s)

mi2 square mile(s)

min minute(s)

mL milliliter(s)

mm millimeter(s)

MMACR modified maximum averted cost risk

MMSC Marine Mammal Stranding Center

mph mile(s) per hour

mrem millirem(s)

mSv millisievert(s)

MT metric ton(s) (or tonne[s])

MTBE methyl tertiary-butyl ether

MTU metric ton(s)-uranium

MW megawatt(s)

MWd megawatt-day(s)

MW(e) megawatt(s) electric

MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal

MWh megawatt hour(s)

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

NAS National Academy of Sciences

NCES National Center for Educational Statistics 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESC National Electrical Safety Code

NFSC Northeast Fisheries Science Center

ng nanogram(s)

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

NJAC New Jersey Administrative Code

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

| NJDHSS New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services
Abbreviations/Acronyms

January 2007 xi NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

NJONLM New Jersey Office of Natural Lands Management 

NJPDES New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOx nitrogen oxide(s) 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

OCDP Ocean County Department of Planning

OCNGS Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

OCPB Ocean County Planning Board

ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

OL operating license

ONJSC Office of New Jersey State Climatologist 

PA Preliminary Assessment

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

pCi picocurie(s)

PL Public Law

PM2.5 particulate matter, 2.5 microns or less in diameter

PM10 particulate matter, 10 microns or less in diameter

ppm part(s) per million

ppt part(s) per thousand

PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration |

psig pound(s) per square inch |

RAI request for additional information

REMP radiological environmental monitoring program

RG Regulatory Guide

RI Remedial Investigation

ROI region of interest

RPC replacement power cost

RPHP Radiation and Public Health Project |

rpm revolution(s) per minute

RRW risk reduction worth
Abbreviations/Acronyms

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 xii January 2007

s second(s)

SAMA severe accident mitigation alternative

SAR Safety Analysis Report

SAV submerged aquatic vegetation

SCR selective catalytic reduction

SECA Solid State Energy Conservation Alliance

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

SER Safety Evaluation Report

SERI Systems Energy Resources, Inc.

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SI Site Investigation

SJRCDC South Jersey Resource Conservation and Development Council 

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SOx sulfur oxide(s)

Sv sievert

| SWPCF Southern Water Pollution Control Facility

TDS total dissolved solids

TEL threshold effect level

TLAA time-limited aging analysis

| TS Technical Specification

TSS total suspended solids

UFSAR Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

URSGWC URS Greiner Woodward Clyde 

U.S. United States

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USCB U.S. Census Bureau

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VAC volts alternating current

VOC volatile organic compound

W watt(s)

yr year(s)
Appendix A

Comments Received on the Environmental Review
 
January 2007 A-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Appendix A

Comments Received on the Environmental Review

Part I – Comments Received During Scoping

On September 22, 2005, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a Notice of

Intent in the Federal Register (Volume 70, page 55635) to notify the public of the NRC staff’s

intent to prepare a plant-specific supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, to support the

renewal application for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS) operating

license and to conduct scoping. The plant-specific supplement to the GEIS has been prepared

in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance, and Title 10, Part 51, of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR Part 51). As outlined by NEPA, the NRC initiated the scoping process

with the issuance of the Federal Register Notice. The NRC invited the applicant; Federal, State,

and local government agencies; Native American Tribal organizations; local organizations; and

individuals to participate in the scoping process by providing oral comments at the scheduled

public meetings and/or by submitting written suggestions and comments no later than

November 25, 2005. 

The scoping process included two public scoping meetings that were held at the Quality Inn in

Toms River, New Jersey, on November 1, 2005. More than 100 members of the public

attended the meetings. Both sessions began with NRC staff members providing a brief

overview of the license renewal process and the NEPA process. After the NRC’s prepared

statements, the meetings were open for public comments. Thirty-three attendees provided oral

statements that were recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter. The meeting

transcripts are an attachment to the December 8, 2005, Scoping Meeting Summary. In addition

to the comments received during the public meetings, three comment letters were received by

the NRC in response to the Notice of Intent.

At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff and its contractors reviewed the

transcripts and all letters to identify specific comments and issues. Each set of comments from

a given commenter was given a unique identifier (Commenter ID), so that each set of comments

from a commenter could be traced back to the transcript or letter by which the comments were

submitted. Specific comments were numbered sequentially within each comment set. Several

commenters submitted comments through multiple sources (e.g., afternoon and evening

scoping meetings). Public comments and the NRC staff responses to those comments were |

published in the OCNGS Scoping Summary Report issued on March 21, 2006, prior to the draft |

SEIS. Within-scope comments and responses have been reprinted without modifications as |

Part I of Appendix A of this SEIS. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-2 January 2007

Table A.1 identifies the individuals who provided comments applicable to the environmental

review and the Commenter ID associated with each person’s set(s) of comments. The

individuals are listed in the order in which they spoke at the public meeting, and in alphabetical

order for the comments received by letter or e-mail. To maintain consistency with the Scoping

Summary Report, the unique identifier used in that report for each set of comments is retained

in this appendix.

Specific comments were categorized and consolidated by topic. Comments with similar specific

objectives were combined to capture the common essential issues raised by the commenters. 

The comments fall into one of the following general groups: 

 C Specific comments that address environmental issues within the purview of the NRC

environmental regulations related to license renewal. These comments address

Category 1 or Category 2 issues or issues that were not addressed in the GEIS. They

also address alternatives and related Federal actions. 

 C General comments (1) in support of or opposed to nuclear power or license renewal or

(2) on the renewal process, the NRC’s regulations, and the regulatory process. These

comments may or may not be specifically related to the OCNGS license renewal

application.

 C Questions that do not provide new information.

 C Specific comments that address issues that do not fall within or are specifically excluded

from the purview of NRC environmental regulations related to license renewal. These

comments typically address issues such as the need for power, emergency

preparedness, security, current operational safety issues, and safety issues related to

operation during the renewal period.

Comments applicable to this environmental review and the NRC staff’s responses are

summarized in this appendix. The parenthetical alphanumeric identifier after each comment

refers to the comment set (Commenter ID) and the comment number. This information, which

was extracted from the OCNGS Scoping Summary Report, is provided for the convenience of

those interested in the scoping comments applicable to this environmental review. The

comments that are general or outside the scope of the environmental review for OCNGS are not

included here. More detail regarding the disposition of general or inapplicable comments can

be found in the Scoping Summary Report. The Agencywide Document Access and

Management System (ADAMS) accession number for the Scoping Summary Report is

ML060530691. This accession number is provided to facilitate access to the document through

the Public Electronic Reading Room (ADAMS) (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html).
Appendix A

January 2007 A-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period

Commenter

ID Commenter Affiliation (If Stated) Comment Source (a)

OS-A Tom Jackson Scoping Meeting

OS-B Mike Mercurio St. Francis Environmental Ministry Scoping Meeting

OS-C Ed Frydendahl Scoping Meeting

OS-D Don Warren Scoping Meeting

OS-E J. Simonair Scoping Meeting

OS-F Ed Stroup International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1289 Scoping Meeting

OS-G Bud Swenson AmerGen Energy Company, LLC Scoping Meeting

OS-H Fred Polaski Exelon Scoping Meeting

OS-I Tom Cervasio EnviroWatch Scoping Meeting

OS-J Wayne Romberg Scoping Meeting

OS-K Judith Cambria Scoping Meeting

OS-L Bud Thoman International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 94 Scoping Meeting

OS-M Chip Gerrity Scoping Meeting

OS-N Don Williams Scoping Meeting

OS-O Nancy Eriksen Natural Resource Education Foundation Scoping Meeting

OS-P Paula Gotsch Grandmothers, Mothers, and More for Energy Safety Scoping Meeting

OS-Q Suzanne Leta New Jersey Public Interest Research Group Scoping Meeting

OS-R Kelly McNicholas Sierra Club Scoping Meeting

OS-S Chris Tryon Scoping Meeting

OS-T Jay Vouglitois Scoping Meeting

OS-U Terry Matthews Scoping Meeting

OS-V Roberto Weinmann Scoping Meeting

OS-W Ed Hogan, Sr. Concerned Citizens for America Scoping Meeting

OS-X Ed Hogan, Jr. Concerned Citizens for America Scoping Meeting

OS-Y Rod Sterling Scoping Meeting

OS-Z David Most Scoping Meeting

OS-AA Peggi Sturmfels New Jersey Environmental Federation Scoping Meeting

OS-AB Jeffrey Brown Scoping Meeting

OS-AC Jennifer M. Watley Scoping Meeting

OS-AD Ron Watson Scoping Meeting

OS-AE Donald Posey Scoping Meeting

OS-AF Judy Moken Scoping Meeting

OS-AG Diane Eleneski Scoping Meeting

OS-AH Jennifer Sampson,

Nicole Simmons

Clean Ocean Action Letter (ML053120157)

OS-AI Bob Scro,

Michael DeLuca

Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program Letter (ML053220253)

OS-AJ Clifford J. Day U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Letter (ML053360432)

(a) The afternoon and evening transcripts can be found under accession number ML053400397.
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-4 January 2007

A.1 Comments and Responses

Comments in this section are grouped in the following categories:

 A.1.1 Surface-Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use

 A.1.2 Aquatic Ecology

 A.1.3 Terrestrial Ecology

 A.1.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

 A.1.5 Air Quality

 A.1.6 Land Use

 A.1.7 Human Health

 A.1.8 Socioeconomics

 A.1.9 Alternate Energy Sources

 A.1.10 Postulated Accidents

 A.1.11 Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management

A.1.1 Comments Concerning Surface-Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use

Comment: At other public meetings, some raised questions about our use of chlorine. We do

use chlorine to keep the plant’s condenser tubes clean and improve the efficiency of the plant. 

However, it’s virtually nondetectable by the time it gets out of the condenser, and it certainly is

not toxic to fish or any other living organisms. In addition, we are well below the allowable

amounts of chlorine allowed by our discharge permits. (OS-G-9, OS-G-23)

Comment: The issue with chlorination, constantly dumping this chlorine. For the man to make

a statement that chlorine is not toxic to fish, I’ve had an aquarium, and one of the first things you

do in an aquarium is you dechlorinate the water before you put it in, or it will kill your fish. 

Granted, you can dilute it down to quantities that may be acceptable, but to say that it’s not

having an environmental impact is not – is not correct science. Because of this, this is why I’m

focusing my environmental question on, again, the leakage from the plant and the radioactivity

from this leakage from this plant. Without a closed-loop system, this extra contamination from

Oyster Creek is ending up in our environment, because these leaks aren’t all going into

controlled areas. These leaks are going into the recirculating cooling-water area because of the

design of the plant. So this is an environmental concern that I feel must be taken into

consideration when deciding to issue an environmental permit for Oyster Creek in this licensing

renewal. (OS-D-10)

Comment: We minimize the use of chlorine as a biocide. And by the way, all power plants that

have once-through condensers use biocide. That’s – I mean, all over the State, that’s the way it

is unless you’ve got a cooling tower. (OS-J-6)
Appendix A

January 2007 A-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Response: The release of contaminants to surface-water bodies is a Category 1 issue that has

been evaluated in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear

Plants (GEIS). All effluent discharges are regulated under the provisions of the Clean Water

Act and the implementing effluent guidelines, limitations, and standards established by the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the States. Conditions of discharge for the

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS) are specified in its New Jersey Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permit. The comment provides no new information

and will not be evaluated further.

Comment: The question is, it seems, that the flow of the Forked River may have changed the

pattern under which sediments are deposited in the ground of the river and the adjacent

lagoons that are along the Forked River. And I think there are navigational and recreational

difficulties because of these deposits that don’t allow you to get in and out unless you

(inaudible) every time. So can something be done and it was done apparently by the plant

10 years ago. The question is, can this be repeated or can something be done about it? 

(OS-V-1)

Response: The commenter suggests that station operation has resulted in an altered flow

pattern in the Forked River that may be contributing to shoaling at the mouth of the finger

canals. The impacts associated with alteration of current patterns due to station operation were

considered in the GEIS. Section 4.2.1.2.1 of the GEIS specifically discusses the operation of

OCNGS with respect to the impacts associated with the alteration of flow in both Forked River

and Oyster Creek. The GEIS states that substantial hydrological and water-quality changes in

the Forked River and Oyster Creek resulted in only minor effects in Barnegat Bay. Also

according to the GEIS, “changes to current patterns are of small significance if they are

localized near the intake and discharge of the power plant and do not alter water use or

hydrology in the wider area.” Although the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff

does not dispute the possibility that station operation is causing the shoaling and would also do

so during the period of extended operation, the NRC staff finds that the GEIS broadly

addressed this issue and finds that no new and significant information exists to suggest that the

conclusion in the GEIS is no longer valid. In the past, the licensee has periodically dredged

portions of the Forked River and Oyster Creek to maintain adequate depth. With respect to

future remediation of the shoaling problem, the NRC staff believes that this is outside the scope

of its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 review; nonetheless, the phenomenon

will be discussed in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). 

A.1.2 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues

Comment: The second reason that we sample at Oyster Creek is to protect the environment. 

We sample the air and the water that leaves the plant to make sure that we have a minimum

impact on the environment. We not only meet State and Federal regulations, but often we beat

them. We’re extremely proud of our record as a zero-release plant, and we continually improve 
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-6 January 2007

our operating procedures as we discover new ways to be better environmental stewards. 

(OS-AC-2)

Comment: I know that the DEP [Department of Environmental Protection] has jurisdiction over

their water discharge permit, and I don’t know – actually, I’d like to ask how much jurisdiction

the NRC [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission] has over that, and whether you actually look at

whether Oyster Creek is complying with the Clean Water Act, or if that is simply a matter for the

DEP to consider, because it’s unclear to me what is the truth in that. I mean, I know the DEP

does, but I don’t know what the NRC’s role is in that. So just to be clear in terms of Oyster

Creek’s water impact into the local waterways, and to Barnegat Bay, that since Oyster Creek

was built in 1969, the plant’s operation has really resulted in very far-reaching and long-lasting

environmental degradation to nearby waterways, including Forked River, Oyster Creek, and

Barnegat Bay. And, unfortunately, as it stands right now, the DEP’s draft water permit does let

the plant off the hook, and I would hope that the NRC would not do the same, if you do have

jurisdiction, any type of jurisdiction over this. (OS-Q-1)

Comment: Chlorine is injected through each of the circulating pumps daily to prevent and

remove fouling organisms such as bacteria. Maximum chlorination occurs in the summer

months when water temperatures peak and fish eggs and larvae are most abundant in the

zooplankton and invertebrate and fish numbers peaks.

1) Chlorine directly kills phyto- and zooplankton entrained in the cooling system and can

impact organisms residing in the discharge canal and surrounding waters.

a) Chlorine begins to be lethal to marine organisms at 0.01 mg/L but tolerance is

significantly lowered by high temperatures and physiological condition of the organisms.

b) OCNGS [Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station] has a permitted daily maximum

discharge limit of 0.20 mg/L of chlorine into the discharge canal, 20 times higher than

the lethal limit of many estuarine organisms including striped bass, mummichogs and

bunker. One chlorine related fish kill resulted in the death of 500 Atlantic menhaden in

January of 1974.

2) Toxic residual organic compounds (chloramines) are a byproduct of chlorination, which

persists in the canal and effluent resulting in long-term exposure to fish and other aquatic

organisms residing in the canal and plume area.

3) Radionuclides are released from OCNGS and bioaccumulate throughout the estuarine food

web. Reactor-released radionuclides (60Co, 137Cs, and 54Mn) have been detected in water,

bottom sediments, benthic marine algae, seagrass, hard clams, blue crabs, bunker, winter

flounder, summer flounder, bluefish, and several other fish. Organisms collected near

Oyster Creek had the highest levels of radionuclides but detectable levels were found

through out the bay. Recent sediments collected near the discharge canal contained levels
Appendix A

January 2007 A-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

of 60Co that were up to 63 times higher than sediments collected at other locations within the

Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor estuary.

4) The current NJPDES [New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System] permit for

OCNGS indicates a maximum daily limit of 15 ppm [parts per million] of PAHs [polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons] can be discharged from 5 of their outfall pipes. The sources of this

contaminant are not clear. (OS-AH-4)

Response: The discharge of nonradioactive contaminants in the cooling water of the station,

including chlorine and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), is limited by the NJPDES

permit. Implementation of the Clean Water Act provisions is the responsibility of the EPA, and

the EPA often delegates such authority to the State as is the case with New Jersey. The state

of New Jersey, not the NRC, sets the limits of effluents according to the Clean Water Act. This

issue was evaluated generically in the GEIS, and absent new and significant information, the

NRC staff adopts the conclusions in the GEIS. With respect to nonradioactive contaminants,

the comments provide no new information and will not be evaluated further.

A comment was made concerning bioaccumulation of radionuclides in the estuarine food web. 

The NRC staff’s review of the license renewal application includes an evaluation of offsite

releases of radionuclides from OCNGS, including their movement through the food web. The

results of this evaluation will be discussed in the SEIS.

Comment: At Oyster Creek we do everything we can to protect the Barnegat Bay. We have a

constant focus on planning and executing our work to minimize the impact to the environment. 

On a day-to-day, hour-to-hour basis, we monitor water temperatures. We regularly take water

samples to ensure compliance with regulations. We also coordinate any planned load

reductions and shutdowns to avoid the risk to marine life. This practice is often costly, but it’s

essential to meet our commitment to the environment. Just this past weekend we performed a

routine power reduction, and, due to our environmental team, there was no environmental

impact. (OS-G-8, OS-G-22)

Comment: The employees at Oyster Creek – and there are about 450 of them – are highly

trained and environmentally sensitive. We’re a zero-discharge plant. We have modified their

turbine cooling-water intake to be fish-friendly with soft sprays to return fish to the environment. 

Our intake screens are sized to be environmentally friendly. So we’ve changed some things

over the years to make the plant more friendly to the environment. (OS-J-3)

Comment: Our startups and shutdowns, we have worked very hard in the last couple of years

to do very slow startups and slow shutdowns, because that’s environmentally friendly. And

since we’ve started doing that, we’ve had no fish kills as a result. The fish don’t like a fast

change of temperature. (OS-J-5)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-8 January 2007

Comment: It’s a well-known fact that the best fishing in the area, in Ocean County, is on

Route 9 on the Oyster Creek discharge. You can go down there this afternoon and count the

fishermen and count the fish they’re getting. You know, I anchor my boat. I have an

environmentally-friendly sailboat. We anchor it in Oyster Creek. We get blue shell crabs there. 

We swim there. You know, we feel good about it. (OS-J-8)

Comment: Oyster Creek is also involved in several environmental projects. Most recently, we

purchased a boat for the Rutgers Extension Service Clam Restoration Project. The project

team is working on reestablishing clam beds in the Barnegat Bay, and the boat will be used to

more efficiently implement the restoration of the clam beds and other important environmental

projects in the future. (OS-G-11, OS-G-25)

Comment: And anybody that’s coming up with these cockeyed stories about, oh, they need

water towers, no, they don’t need water towers. The system they have is fine. The water flows

in, and it flows out, and they do a good job. (OS-N-2)

Comment: I heard a couple of statements made tonight that I feel obligated to correct. One is

that Oyster Creek is in violation of the Clean Water Act. That is simply not true. Oyster Creek

could not operate today if it was in violation of the Clean Water Act. Oyster Creek currently

operates under a New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit that was issued by

the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. That would not be possible if they

were in violation of the Clean Water Act. That is a false statement.

Secondly, I heard someone say that there are far-reaching and long-lasting environmental

degradation occurring due to the operation of the existing once-through cooling system. Well,

there was a very thorough independent evaluation of this once-through cooling system that was

done prior to the issuance of the permit that I referred to a second ago. The permit was issued

in 1994. Before issuing the permit, the DEP hired an independent consultant called Versar to

evaluate all of the studies, and there were some 20 years of intensive studies that were done on

the cooling system at Oyster Creek. I know because I participated in many of them. If I wasn’t

actually doing the work, I participated in the design of the studies. I oversaw the hiring of the

consultants. I looked over those – their shoulders as they did the work. I’m very familiar with

this work. But it’s not my opinion that’s important. It’s the opinion of the independent expert

that was hired by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection prior to the issuance

of the current permit. That independent consultant – Versar – was asked to determine if the

existing once-through cooling system complied with Sections 316(a) and (b) of the Clean Water

Act. Based upon the results of their review, Versar and the NJDEP, in the permit that they

issue, concluded that the continued operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

at the estimated levels of losses to representative important species populations – and these

are the losses due to the impingement and entrainment that you heard people talk about. 

Continued operation at those levels of losses, without modification to the intake structures

and/or operating practices – again, without modification to the intake structure, does not
Appendix A

January 2007 A-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

threaten the protection and propagation of balanced indigenous populations in Barnegat Bay. 

That’s a direct quote from the DEP’s independent consultant. It’s not opinion. It’s not

AmerGen’s or Exelon’s opinion.

It’s worth noting that Versar, the consultant that the DEP hired, was not shy about asking to

have power plants modify their cooling-water intakes. As a matter of fact, a few months before

they initiated the evaluation of Oyster Creek, they finished one up on the Salem nuclear

generating station. And based upon the results of their evaluation of that cooling system, they

called for a 50 percent reduction in cooling-water flow, which is essentially calling for backfitting,

closed-cycle cooling. So they weren’t afraid to say that Oyster Creek needed to modify their

cooling system. But, in fact, they determined the opposite – that it didn’t need to be modified. A

couple of the other conclusions that they and the DEP came to, that I’d like to share with you,

that are contrary to some of the assertions that were made tonight, include – and these are

direct quotes. “The losses due to impingement at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

were of no consequence to the compliance determination.” Losses due to impingement of no

consequence to the compliance determination. Discharge effects, contrary to the fact that you

heard that there is a thermal plume that goes all the way across the bay, causing all kinds of

havoc, the DEP’s independent consultant concluded, I quote, “Discharge effects are small and

localized and have no adverse consequences to Barnegat Bay.”

They go on to conclude, I quote, “Based on findings summarized in this report, balanced

indigenous populations of Barnegat Bay are protected under Oyster Creek’s current operations.” 

I quote, “Plant-related losses at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station do not adversely

impact spawning and nursery functions.” I quote, “Plant-related losses at the Oyster Creek

Nuclear Generating Station do not adversely affect the estuarine food web of Barnegat Bay.” I

quote, “Plant-related losses at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station do not adversely

impact the beneficial uses of Barnegat Bay.” This is contrary to the comment that I heard a few

minutes ago that the alleged degradation of the bay is having a negative impact on the

economy. These are not my conclusions. These are the conclusions of an independent expert

hired by the Department of Environmental Protection. (OS-T-1, OS-T-2)

Comment: Now we’re here to talk about the environment and I had addressed the DEP last

week and I read a statement, but I’d like to get a little bit more informal as far as our screenwash system that actually protects our marine life. I believe that we have a minimal effect on

our marine life as far as impingement or entrainment on our screen-wash system. (OS-Z-3)

Comment: So my point being too is I’m a fisherman out in Barnegat Bay. I used to clam when

I was a kid. And the only problem that I see out in Barnegat Bay is our limits. Now the state of

New Jersey limits our catch as far as striped bass. Now there was a low with striped bass I

would say about 15 years ago, you couldn’t barely catch a striped bass because they were

pretty much fished out. Well, what happened is the State stepped in and they limited the catch

limit. Well now if you look at the population in Barnegat Bay as far as our striped bass
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-10 January 2007

population, it’s huge. I mean we’re catching alligators out there and it’s great. And our weakfish

are the same.

So my point to the people that are saying that Oyster Creek has a negative effect on Barnegat

Bay, I totally disagree with them because if that was a fact, they would never come back. Now

as far as our clams, I used to clam for a living too. And I remember Cattrell’s – remember

Cattrell’s in Waretown? Well, we used to go clamming and everybody knows where the batting

ring is when baseball players put a batting ring on a bat to make it heavier. Well, these clams,

you’d have to fit the clams through a batting ring and they would consider them a cherrystone. 

Well, when I was a kid, that’s what we used to do to make a living. We used to actually clam,

and we’d drop the clams off at Cattrell’s and the clams used to fit through the batting ring and

they were considered cherrystone. You’d get more money for cherrystones. But through the

years, as our area has developed in Lacey Township, along with all our neighboring towns, the

population has just exploded. So what happens to our clams? They get fished out. So we

need time to let them reproduce, and I’m confident in time that our clam population will increase

as well as our striped bass and our weakfish. (OS-Z-6)

Comment: In the environmental area, I’m proud to say that during the last refueling outage, we

shut the plant down, performed the refueling, and restarted the plant with zero impact to the

environment. And that’s because of being good stewards of taking the time and getting the

people involved from the chemistry organizations to the outside organizations to analyze the

plant’s impact to the environment and implementing that into the scheduling itself. So we took

additional time to shut the plant down. We had people stationed out at the discharge canal and

we had zero impact on the fish and the marine life out there. So that proves to me that Oyster

Creek is a good steward, and it should be relicensed for another 20 years. (OS-AE-2)

Comment: Environmentally, I’m a local in Ocean County. I know firsthand people who fish

right around the plant. They say they’ve never caught such big fish in their life, or crabs for that

matter and none of them I’ve seen who I’ve known through the years and I’ve been here for

years, none of them have come down with cancer, none of them are turning green and none of

them are glowing in the dark. That’s one thing I can say. And the gentleman from Forked River

who’s lived here for his life and he’s in the Republican Party, he’s told you that he sees more

bass in the bay, that’s probably due to conservation, but one thing you can say it’s not because

Oyster Creek is destroying those fish. If anything, it’s helping those fish spawn. (OS-X-3)

Response: The comments are, in general, supportive of the existing once-through cooling

system of OCNGS, and no specific response is provided. The SEIS will address the impacts of

the once-through cooling system as well as those associated with an alternative closed-cycle

system.

Comment: It’s common knowledge that the state of New Jersey and the DEP is trying to force

them to build a cooling tower. The cooling tower, according to my understanding, is not under
Appendix A

January 2007 A-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

the NRC, that you are actually reviewing it based on the approved method of operation. So the

question is, is this cooling tower or what amounts to blackmail, they’re asking for 3500 acres in

order for the State to give them this water commitment separate from you? What impact does

that have on your environmental statement? (OS-U-1)

Response: The NRC’s responsibility under NEPA is to provide a fair and comprehensive

analysis of potential impacts related to the proposed action, to evaluate alternatives, and

suggest mitigation if deemed necessary. Approval of a cooling-system design is the

responsibility of the EPA, which has delegated that responsibility to the state of New Jersey. 

The NRC will evaluate the impacts of the existing once-through cooling system as well as those

associated with an alternative closed-cycle cooling system, and an alternative that includes

modifications to the existing system and wetland restoration.

Comment: So even as of 1981, the technology that existed then, one of the areas from time to

time was the water purification section – (inaudible) recovery towers, (inaudible) recovery

towers, various aspects. And when the water was discharged into the (inaudible) River, which

occurred in most of the (inaudible) – the by, the ocean – (inaudible) tanks (inaudible) clean

water as of (inaudible). Now, we had found earlier, based on (inaudible), that both Federal and

State organizations (inaudible) that the Hope Creek, New Jersey, atomic power plant

(inaudible). And now (inaudible), we had a (inaudible) recovery time and (inaudible). I’m not

aware of a fish kill at (inaudible) Creek. At the Oyster Creek facility, to my knowledge,

(inaudible). But I’m aware of (inaudible) not one, but three massive fish kills. We have learned

today that the Oyster Creek facility still does not have (inaudible). We have heard from two

gentlemen – this surprised me – that they are environmentally conscious. They are conscious

of (inaudible). The discharge site needs further work. We need a water cooler (inaudible) there

on the discharge site. We do not need these fish kills anymore. Part of the renewal process for

this license should be a consideration of a coolant tower should be built. (inaudible) one at

Hope Creek. We need one at Oyster Creek. (OS-A-1)

Response: Although, unfortunately, much of the comment was not captured in the transcript,

the NRC staff believes that the commenter intended to express concern about fish kills that

resulted from plant operations and to suggest that conversion to a closed-cycle cooling system

using a cooling tower would be advisable. In the SEIS, the NRC staff will consider the effects of

converting to a closed-cycle cooling system at OCNGS.

Comment: Oyster Creek’s present water and intake system destroys marine life. In the year

2002, the plant was fined $50,000 for killing 5,876 fish. If the Oyster Creek plant does not

construct a cooling tower, the plant will continue to contribute to the loss of habitat in the

remaining estuary, so, therefore, the plant should be shut down. (OS-I-6)

Comment: The point I’m trying to make here is they talk about the environmental impact. 

There’s a tremendous environmental impact when Oyster Creek continues to operate every
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-12 January 2007

day. The fact that they are unwilling to spend the money for a cooling tower, which is exactly

what it comes to – everybody has seemed to look at it, including the Environmental Protection

Agency, and say this is the best alternative, yet Oyster Creek is looking for the cheaper way out. 

This is not true community concern. (OS-D-9)

Comment: And I do truly believe that the environmental impact on the aquatic life and overall –

not just fish, all others, has been very, very devastating. And we are so overfishing as it is out

there, once they get bigger that we need to be able to have as many possible make it to that

point, and so they can become part of our food supply. So I’m very concerned about that. 

(OS-K-2)

Comment: I don’t want to see any more fish kills. I saw enough of them. I saw striped bass

three and four feet long when I lived in Lacey floating in that creek because of that plume that

comes out of there, that hot water. We were told before by somebody from the plant that they

add cool water to it. Again, my question to the people at AmerGen – four miles out in Barnegat

Bay that plume continues to send warm water out into the bay. You can’t tell me that that’s not

affecting the ecosystem and the environmental condition of Barnegat Bay. And I don’t care

what kind of an engineer you are, or where you went to school, or what you studied, I’m taking it

from a fisherman and an environmentalist who says that warm water should not be shot out

there. (OS-C-4)

Comment: The other thing that should be addressed is the fact that the coolant – the cooling of

the water into Barnegat Bay can be very easily solved as heat recovery systems can be put in

along the area, hydroponics, different areas. Forty years ago, we had a system – we had a bay

that was full of life. Today it’s – our oceans are 90 percent depleted. (OS-B-5)

Comment: You know, the once-through cooling system that was designed in the 1960s simply

isn’t sufficient to fix the problems that have been going on for so long in terms of intake and

water discharge. You know, to describe – I don’t know if anyone has done this yet, so I’m going

to do this – I hopefully am not repeating what someone else has already said. But for the

public’s knowledge, I want to describe how the system works. Essentially, the heated water –

excuse me, the – first, the system intakes water from Forked River to cool the reactor, and then

the heated water, which is then called thermal pollution, is then discharged into Oyster Creek. 

And the plant actually intakes and discharges over 1.4 billion gallons of water every day. The

water is taken in at a speed of about 1 to 2,000 cubic feet per second. That’s actually the force

of a medium-sized river. The chlorine levels in the water are also about 20 times the lethal level

of many different types of aquatic life. And there are grates over the intake system, but because

the water is flushed in at such a high speed, it creates a very – it’s kind of like a giant sucking

action, and that brings in an assortment of aquatic life. Some of it is small, some of it is larvae

that flows right through the grate, and it’s killed in the process of cooling the reactor. And that

effect is called entrainment. And then, larger types of aquatic life – and those include sea bass,

they include white perch, they also include endangered sea turtles. Although it’s great to hear
Appendix A

January 2007 A-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

that you’re looking at birds, that’s an endangered species that, unfortunately, you do not

address. Those creatures actually get pinned on the grate and often die from it and/or seriously

injured, and that lethal effect is called impingement. So you have entrainment, where water is

going through the system, and then you have impingement, when aquatic life is being impinged

upon the grate.

So in addition to that, Oyster Creek’s daily thermal pollution discharge often spreads a thermal

plume, and that can be over a distance of four miles across the bay. It’s actually the entire

width of the bay. It creates a fry zone for young larvae, and the NRC has actually done studies

and indicate that the thermal plume has increased the population of the tropical wood-boring

species that, you know, serve kind of as aquatic termites in the area.

So, you know, all of these problems associated with Oyster Creek’s water intake and discharge

system actually put it in violation of the Clean Water Act, because that specific Act requires the

plant to install modern technology that actually fixes the problem, and, fortunately for us, that

technology is available. That technology is called a closed-cycle cooling system. There are

different types of these types of systems. Oyster Creek will talk about how, you know, it will

have more environmental problems than without it, but the reality is that we know – and the

DEP has stated this several times – that, in fact, it won’t result in any kind of environmental

problems. In fact, it will really fix the root cause of the problem, because it actually reduces the

amount of water going into a system and being discharged out to the system by over

95 percent. And that’s actually the way to solve that particular problem involved with Oyster

Creek’s environmental record.

So we know, again, that reduces the discharge and intake by over 95 percent, and that actually

would save over 13 million fish and shellfish annually, and an estimated tens of millions of

additional larvae annually. Unfortunately, the DEP permit right now, it doesn’t require the plant

to install a closed-cycle cooling system only. Unfortunately, it gives Oyster Creek the option of

restoration. If you’re going to use restoration, you should use it as a penalty for violating the

Clean Water Act for the past 35 years. You should not use it as an alternative to modern

technology. That can actually solve the root cause of the problem.

And I would hope that the consideration of this particular issue, and of a closed-cycle cooling

system, would be part of the NRC’s environmental scoping record, and actually would look at

the DEP’s best professional judgment, which is stated, although it – although it allows for

restoration, if you take a look at that permit, it says specifically that closed-cycle cooling will

actually fix the problem. So that’s the first thing I wanted to state on the record. (OS-Q-2)

Comment: In addition to that, I wanted to just again reinforce – I know you look at aquatic life

and aquatic ecology. You want to make sure that you’re looking very closely at Oyster Creek’s

intake and discharge. (OS-Q-12)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-14 January 2007

Comment: However, given our mission, Clean Ocean Action’s current focus is on the marine

degradations caused by the plant. An immediate and significant issue for the marine

environment, linked to the re-licensing, is the renewal of the required pollution discharge permit. 

Oyster Creek Nuclear is currently operating under a New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination

System permit (hereinafter “NJPDES permit”) that expired in 1999 and has been

“administratively extended” by the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter

“NJDEP”). This permit, originally issued in 1994, is outdated (to say the least) and results in

significant harm to the marine environment. Fortunately, new Phase II regulations require

implementation of the “best technology available to minimize the adverse environmental

impact.” Revising the plant’s NJPDES permit to comply with Phase II regulations offers one of

the most important opportunities to improve Barnegat Bay.

NJDEP is currently drafting a new NJPDES permit, which will implement the new Phase II

regulations. This draft permit must be evaluated and viewed as an essential, rare opportunity to

substantially improve the marine environment of Barnegat Bay. COA will analyze and comment

on the permit application and will work to ensure that the new permit is consistent with federal

and state laws, and adequately resolves OCNGS’ current marine degradation issues, especially

those related to the antiquated once-through cooling system. Put simply, once through cooling

water systems cause substantial negative impacts to waterways. OCNGS’ current cooling

water intake structure causes severe adverse effects on the Barnegat Bay marine environment

due to impingement, entrainment, thermal discharge, and chlorination. These impacts, which

can be substantially minimized by installing a closed-cycle cooling system, are described below. 

From the outset, it is important to note, that an extensive scientific literature review has revealed

that all available data on impingement and entrainment at the plant are the result of studies

performed and/or funded by the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.

OCNGS currently operates using a once-through cooling system in which approximately

1.4 billion gallons of water passes through daily. OCNGS discharges more water into Barnegat

Bay than any other industrial or commercial user. Water is drawn into the plant via the Forked

River (Intake Canal) and released via Oyster Creek (Discharge Canal), which drains into

Barnegat Bay. Both the river and creek were dredged and the flow of the southern portion of

Forked River was actually reversed to accommodate the water needs of the plant. The

activities of the plant change the salinity, water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels in and

around the facility and release radionuclides that can be detected all the way up the food web. 

Specific environmental impacts related to the intake and discharge canals follow. The intake

canal produces significant flow velocities depending on the number of circulating pumps in

operation. The consequence is both impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms.

Impingements occur when organisms are too large to pass through the 9.5-mm screens and are

trapped against the trash racks and intake screens from the force of the water being pumped

from the intake canal.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

1) Plant records indicate 32 impingement and 14 mortalities of endangered sea turtles since

1992. These data include the following species specific incidents:

a) 21 impinged Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtles with 9 mortalities.

b) 7 impinged Loggerhead Sea Turtles with 2 mortalities.

c) 4 impinged Green Sea Turtles with 1 mortality.

OCNGS exceeded their annual incidental take in 2004 when 8 juvenile Kemp’s Ridley Sea

Turtles were impinged and 3 were killed in the 3 month period from July 4 to September 23. 

An Incidental Take Assessment by the National Marine Fisheries authorized an annual limit

of 4 Kemp’s Ridley’s (with no more than 3 mortalities), 5 Loggerheads (with no more than

2 mortalities) and 2 Green’s (no more than 1 mortality). 

2) A study conducted from September 1975 through August 1977 reported impingement of

13 million fish and invertebrates during this period.

3) A second study conducted from November 1984 through December 1985 reported

impingement of 22 million fish and invertebrates (with 7 million impinged in December 1985

alone).

Entrainments occur when small organisms pass through the 9.5-mm screens and enter the

cooling system. These smaller organisms generally consist of plankton and fish and

invertebrates in the many early life stages. The facility increases water usage (and thus flow)

during the summer months, which coincides with peak concentrations of eggs, larvae and

plankton in the water column. A study conducted from September 1975 through August 1977

reported 9.19x1013 microzooplankton (<500 μm in size including several species of copepods

and clam, snail, worm and barnacle larvae) and 4.24x 1011 macrozooplankton (>500 μm in size

including jellyfish, sand shrimp, grass shrimp, larvae of sandlance and American eels, eggs and

larvae of winter flounder, and several crab species.) were entrained during this time period.

Once entrained, the organisms are subjected to numerous and potentially fatal insults including:

1) Thermal shock from the sudden increase in water temperature (12–13 EC).

2) Shear and pressure forces from high water velocity and trapped air.

3) Mechanical stress from contact with machinery, pumps, etc.

4) Lethal levels of chlorine injected daily into the condenser section to reduce biofouling.

The once-through cooling system used by OCNGS results in an increase in water temperature

(between 22-33 EF) between the intake and discharge canals. Water temperature in the

discharge canal can reach 110 EF, which affects the behavior, physiology and habitat utilization

of aquatic organisms in the area. The elevated temperature in the discharge canal and

surrounding waters induces behavioral changes that have been documented in important

managed species such as bluefish, fluke, winter flounder, and tautogs. Some of these

behavioral changes include:
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-16 January 2007

1) Avoidance of parts or all of Oyster Creek by certain species during summer and early fall.

2) Attraction to parts or all of Oyster Creek during winter when they should have migrated out

of the area due to cold temperatures. Failure to migrate can lead to large-scale mortality

(due to thermal shock) when the plant experiences a planned or emergency shut down.

a) Records from January 1972 through December 1982 reported 2,404,496 fish were killed

due to thermal shock including Atlantic menhaden, bay anchovy, bluefish, striped bass

and weakfish.

b) An emergency shutdown on January 21, 2000 caused a 17 EF drop in the water

temperature in the discharge canal in 15 minutes. The rapid drop in temperature to 

32 EF resulted in the death of about 3500 fish including 2980 striped bass.

c) An emergency shutdown on November 11, 2001 caused a 70 EF drop in the water

temperature in the discharge canal in 15 minutes. The rapid drop in temperature to 

48 EF resulted in the death of about 1407 fish.

d) A scheduled shutdown on September 23, 2002 caused the water in the discharge canal

to increase to 101 EF in less than an hour and resulted in the death of about 6000 fish. 

AmerGen recently reached about a $1 million dollar settlement over this incident.

3) Metabolic rate of organisms increases with increased temperatures resulting in decreased

growth and survival, especially during summer months when ambient water temperatures

are at their peak.

4) High water temperature decreases oxygen solubility in water and increases Biological

Oxygen Demand (“BOD”) resulting in dangerously low dissolved oxygen concentrations in

the water.

5) Tropical/subtropical invasive species are able to thrive in the surrounding warm water

plume. Two exotic shipworms (Teredo barschi and T. furcifera) have benefitted from the

elevated temperatures with an increase in growth rate and length of breeding season along

with reduced winter mortality, which lead to a population increase that has created problems

for boat owners in the vicinity of the plume. (OS-AH-2)

Comment: Detectable Impacts of the OCNGS on the Aquatic Community

1) Reduced phytoplankton abundance at the mouth of Oyster Creek compared to other areas

in the estuary. These impacts include lower diversity, a 30 percent decrease in gross

productivity, a 20 percent decrease in net productivity and a 17.7 percent drop in biomass.

2) Changes in zooplankton abundance with some organisms showing increased abundance at

the mouth of Oyster Creek than in the discharge canal (barnacle and polychaete larvae)

while others showed a decrease in abundance (rotifers, snail larvae).
Appendix A

January 2007 A-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

3) Reduced ichthyoplankton abundance in Oyster Creek compared to Forked River including

eggs, larvae and juveniles of bay anchovy and goby and pipefish larvae.

4) The overall production loss of sand-shrimp due to impingement and entrainment associated

mortality resulted in a direct population loss of 16.6 percent and an estimated annual net

predator loss of 7,483 kg associated with the reduced forage production.

5) Economic loss of about 1 percent of potential hard clam fishery.

The above individual impacts need to be examined from an ecosystem perspective, including

cumulative effects, to fully appreciate the overall effect of OCNGS on the surrounding habitat. 

Ecosystems level impacts include:

1) Impacts at the base of the food web (phytoplankton, zooplankton and ichthyoplankton) affect

higher trophic levels with reduced prey availability and/or changes in preferred prey type.

2) Impacts on sensitive life stages such as eggs, larvae and spawning adults have obvious

population-level effects.

3) Changes in water quality and temperature induce physiological stress to organisms that

utilize the surrounding habitat. Physiological stress can confound the effects of other insults

present in the Barnegat Bay estuary such as eutrophication and contaminant exposure.

4) Peak abundance of organisms coincides with increased water usage and chlorination by

OCNGS, thus maximizing their impact on the aquatic community.

Because of the numerous adverse impacts cited above, OCNGS’ antiquated once-through

cooling system must be replaced with a closed-cycle cooling system for OCNGS to continue

operations. The abuse of the Forked River and Barnegat Bay waters must be eliminated. 

(OS-AH-5)

Comment: Under new EPA regulations, OCNGS will be required to comply with Phase II

regulations upon the imminent renewal of its NJDPES permit. Since OCNGS’ NJPDES permit

expired in 1999, the renewal of its permit will hinge on compliance with Phase II regulations.

Phase II Regulations implement Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 316(b)

of the CWA requires that the “location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water

intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental

impact” (emphasis added).

Phase II Regulations mandate that OCNGS upgrade its system to meet specific performance

standard requirements. The performance standards require a decrease in fish mortality due to
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-18 January 2007

impingement by 80-95 percent and a reduction in entrainment by 60-90 percent (depending on

total capacity utilization rates).” An existing facility may choose one of five compliance

alternatives for establishing the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental

impacts at the site.

COA finds, and strongly urges, that OCNGS install a closed-circuit-cooling system because

such systems are the “best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts.” 

Any other option simply does not reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse

environmental impacts. Habitat restoration or reductions in the performance standards due to a

cost-benefit analysis are particularly inadequate alternatives. In fact, a study of the restoration

project at Salem Nuclear Power Plant has shown that such restoration projects do not offset the

loss due to the impingement and entrainment of marine organisms. Meeting the best

technology available requirement is not only the law, but is also sound and reasonable.

It is also important to note that it is highly unlikely that OCNGS would be located where it is

today if it were to comply with current siting laws. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission laws

now state that “special precautions should be planned if a reactor is to be located at a site

where a significant quantity of radioactive effluent might accidentally flow into nearby streams or

rivers or might find ready access to underground water tables.” However, special precautions

were not taken to ensure against such accidents during the siting of OCNGS.

In short, COA will be urging the NJDEP, as it drafts the NJPDES permit for OCNGS, to mandate

the installation of a closed-cycle cooling system as a matter of law, good governance, and good

neighbor policy.

1) The law requires implementation of the “best technology available for minimizing adverse

environmental impact.”

2) Good governance requires protection of public resources and the quality of life.

3) A good neighbor enhances a neighborhood’s resources and the quality of life. (OS-AH-6)

Comment: During the past 35 years of operation at the OCNGS, there have been significant

concerns regarding impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts on estuarine and marine

life. As a result, the Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) of the BBNEP

[Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program] convened a meeting on November 1, 2005, and

drafted a number of recommendations for submission to the NRC regarding the OCNGS.

 1. An independent, scientific body (similar to the National Academy of Science) must be

assembled to coordinate and oversee surveys and studies on the impacts of the

OCNGS on the Barnegat Bay/Little Egg Harbor estuary.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

 2. The NRC must require the OCNGS to focus on remediation of its direct impacts on

estuarine and marine organisms in the Barnegat Bay/Little Egg Harbor estuary.

 3. There have been very few studies of biotic communities in central Barnegat Bay during

the past 25-30 years. Additional studies must be conducted in the Barnegat Bay/Little

Egg Harbor to accurately assess the impacts of entrainment, impingement, and thermal

discharges on estuarine and marine organisms.

 4. The use of wetlands restoration as a mitigation measure must not be implemented in

place of remediation efforts targeting bay populations and communities of organisms.

Based on the ongoing effects of the OCNGS on the estuarine ecosystem, the NJDEP and the

NRC must mandate the implementation of the best available technology for intake structure

design and operation of the OCNGS to mitigate impingement and entrainment losses.

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that the “location, design, construction, and

capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing

adverse environmental impact.” This is the position endorsed by the BBNEP and its partners.

The BBNEP strongly recommends that the permit include a condition that charges the BBNEP

with the role of the independent scientific body whose purpose is to coordinate research efforts

in the Barnegat Bay relating to the effects of the OCNGS. The BBNEP’s Comprehensive

Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) recognizes the need for such an entity. Action

Item 5.15 of the CCMP charges the BBNEP with establishing this technical group for the

examination and coordination of data in order to understand OCNGS’s role in the overall

ecological health of the bay.

Program partners agree that the BBNEP can and should have the lead role in coordinating and

overseeing much-needed surveys and studies regarding OCNGS’s effects on the Bamegat Bay

ecosystem.

In conclusion, the position of the BBNEP is that regardless of the option pursued by the NRC

regarding Oyster Creek’s license renewal, without question, the OCNGS absolutely must be

required to conduct detailed, comprehensive studies of the communities of bay organisms to

determine what the overall impact of the power plant is on Barnegat Bay. (OS-AI-1)

Comment: The applicant has identified its preferred alternative as renewal of its operating

license for an additional 20 years, without any plant modifications. The Service recommends

that the applicant re-consider in its alternatives analysis the value to the aquatic environment of

constructing a closed-loop cooling system or the employment of other project features

(see below) that are designed to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. 

For example, the use of a closed-loop system would reduce intake cooling water volumes, when

compared to the preferred alternative, by 90 percent (see the applicant’s Environmental Report
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-20 January 2007

page 7-19). Such an alternative would avoid many of the adverse environmental impacts that

are currently occurring to the aquatic biota of Barnegat Bay (i.e., entrapment, entrainment, and

thermal impacts).

The continued operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station poses individual and

cumulative impacts on the human environment. The continued use of 1.25 billion gallons of

water per day from Barnegat Bay represents an adverse impact to the bay’s aquatic biota. The

Service does not concur with the applicant’s conclusion that the impacts associated with its

proposed 20-year license renewal would be small and do not warrant mitigation (see page 6-4

or the applicant’s Environmental Report). The intake velocities for plant cooling may approach

5.0 feet per second (fps). These velocities exceed the 0.5 fps criteria established for intake

structures by the State (New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, undated). The

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) establishment of a 0.5 fps velocity for all new

cooling water intake structures that draw from rivers, streams, or ocean waters of the

United States (40 CFR Part 125.84 [b][2]) is consistent with the State’s requirements. Velocities

of intake water that exceed 0.5 fps promote adverse impacts to aquatic resources due to

entrapment or entrainment.

The Service recommends that the Draft EIS also include consideration of the following project

features as a means to avoid or minimize impacts to the aquatic environment: placement of

additional screening/netting or other project features (e.g., bubble or sound deterrent systems)

in the intake canal closer to Barnegat Bay; employment of flow reduction options during low

peak demands; construction of a large water impoundment or recirculation structure on the

Finninger’s Farm to supplement the plant’s cooling water needs; or a combination of any of the

above. (OS-AJ-5)

Response: The comments, in general, express concern over the impacts on aquatic organisms

resulting from the operation of the existing OCNGS once-through cooling system. To operate

the station, AmerGen must comply with the Clean Water Act and associated requirements

imposed by the State as part of its NJPDES permitting system. OCNGS cannot operate without

a valid NJPDES permit. On July 19, 2005, the New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection (NJDEP) issued for comment a draft NJPDES permit for OCNGS. The draft permit

affords AmerGen two options for demonstrating compliance with the EPA’s Phase II regulations

found at Title 10, Part 125, Section 125.94(a), of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR

125.94(a)) for the Clean Water Act, Section 316(b). One option is to reduce intake flow to a

level commensurate with the use of a closed-cycle cooling system. The second option is to

reduce impingement and entrainment mortality of all life stages of fish and shellfish to the EPA

performance standards of 40 CFR 125.94b(1) and (2). The State also has suggested that

wetlands restoration is one means of meeting the performance standards. The SEIS for license

renewal at OCNGS will evaluate the effects of the existing once-through cooling system as well

as the impacts of an alternative closed-cycle cooling system. These evaluations will address

impacts related to impingement and entrainment of organisms, cold shock, radiological releases
Appendix A

January 2007 A-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

to the aquatic environment, the thermal plume, and other potential or actual impacts. Any

impact on Federally protected species also will be addressed in the SEIS. The ongoing

NJPDES permitting process will ultimately determine the compliance action taken by OCNGS to

meet requirements of the Clean Water Act.

Comment: The NRC’s Draft EIS should document the adverse cumulative impacts that are

occurring to the bay’s aquatic biota from thermal impacts (cold-water shock and heated water,

as discussed below) and from entrapment or entrainment from passing through the circulation

and dissipation pumps. Because the data discussed in the applicant’s Environmental Report

are dated, it is difficult to ascertain the present level of cumulative adverse impacts. In addition,

the NRC must consider the cumulative effects on the bay’s aquatic environment due to other

actions such as mortality from recreational and commercial fishing. Without more relevant

biological data on species use of the project area, the Service must conclude that cumulative

impacts to the environment are more than minimal. Without meaningful biological data, the 

NRC’s Draft EIS should also conclude that cumulative adverse impacts would continue to occur

with the applicant’s preferred alternative (license renewal), warranting substantial measures for

compensatory mitigation. (OS-AJ-6)

Response: The SEIS will include a discussion of the cumulative impacts of the cooling system

at OCNGS.

Comment: Earlier this afternoon, a man who is a former employee of the plant talked about the

1994 Versar report regarding Oyster Creek’s water intake and discharge. I wanted to state for

the record that that report has been discredited and if you take a close look at both what the

DEP has said in public, in addition to the draft water permit for the plant, they clearly state that

the best available technology is a closed-cycle cooling system that would again reduce the

plant’s intake and discharge by over 95 percent. (OS-Q-7)

Comment: Now a few minutes ago, the representative from NJPIRG [New Jersey Public

Interest Research Group] made a statement that the Versar report has been discredited. Well, I

wish she had stayed around because I would very much like to know how the Versar report was

discredited. Who discredited it and where did they discredit it? It was a scientific report. It can’t

be discredited just by stating that it’s discredited. So you can be assured that I will be sending

her a letter to get that information, and I’ll share with as many of you as I possibly can when I

get it. I think the reason she would like it to be discredited is not only because of the conclusion

that I just read to you, but they came up with some other significant conclusions regarding the

impacts of Oyster Creek. (OS-T-3)

Response: The comment refers to a report prepared by J.K. Summers et al. of Versar, Inc.

entitled Technical Review and Evaluation of Thermal Effects Studies and Cooling Water Intake

Structure Demonstration of Impact for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station dated

May 1989. The report was prepared by Versar for the NJDEP to summarize the findings and
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-22 January 2007

conclusions of Versar’s review and evaluation of the OCNGS 316 (Section 316 of the Clean

Water Act) demonstration and to make recommendations that would assist the NJDEP in

making a Section 316 decision for the OCNGS. As part of the environmental review for the

OCNGS license renewal application, the NRC staff will consider the Versar report and its

findings.

Comment: When an agency is evaluating reasonable significant adverse effects on the human

environment in an EIS, and information is incomplete or unavailable, the agency shall determine

the reasonableness of including that information in an EIS (40 CFR Part 1502.22).

The Service recommends that the NRC postpone the issuance of its Draft EIS (June 2006) until

additional ongoing biological studies (which began recently) are completed and information is

available to assess plant operational effects on fish and wildlife resources. The results of these

studies are essential for assessing potential adverse environmental impacts to the aquatic

environment. The overall cost of obtaining this information is not exorbitant, as defined in

40 CFR Part 1502.22 (a) and is necessary to fulfill NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act of

1969] responsibilities to adequately assess individual and cumulative impacts (see cumulative

effects discussion below). Information from the biological studies will yield, at a minimum,

biomass losses of finfish and crustaceans from the applicant’s plant operation and projected

adverse impacts to the aquatic environment if the license is renewed.

The applicant’s Environmental Report uses biological data derived from a 12-year period

(1965 to 1977), to describe aquatic biota found in the project area; however, the age of the data

(28 years) limits its value for assessing current and reasonably foreseeable future impacts. The

applicant’s assertion that the impacts of entrainment of fish and shellfish are “small” (page 4-9)

cannot be supported adequately with data that are most likely outdated. In addition, the

assertion that impacts are small appears to contradict later statements in the applicant’s

Environmental Report that numerous unavoidable adverse impacts to the aquatic environment

are occurring (page 6-5).

The plant utilizes 1.25 billion gallons of water each day for cooling. Water from Barnegat Bay

enters the Forked River, passes through several small, mesh screens and large circulating or

dissipating pumps, is heated upwards of 24 degrees Fahrenheit as it passes through the heat

dissipation chamber, and is then released into Oyster Creek, eventually flowing back into the

bay. This cooling water entraps and entrains an unknown amount of aquatic biota, including

egg, larvae, juvenile, and adult finfish and crustaceans. The NJDEP (2005) reported that the

Forked River drainage area provides habitat for river herring. The same report indicated that

the Upper Branch of the Forked River had a herring spawning run, which no longer exists due to

the combined effects of pollution, habitat displacement, man-made water course blockages, and

over-fishing. Although not mentioned in the NJDEP report, it appears that Oyster Creek, just

south of the Forked River drainage area, may have also lost a herring spawning run after a dam

was build on the creek in the 1960s for the purpose of storing water for fire fighting capability at
Appendix A

January 2007 A-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

the nuclear plant. The proximity of the Forked River to the plant cooling intake structures makes

it likely that any egg larvae or young-of-the-year herring originating from Forked River will pass

through the plant’s cooling system and be killed before entering Barnegat Bay.

Significant population changes have also occurred to several commercial and recreationally

important finfish and shellfish species found in Barnegat Bay since the conclusion of the 12-year

biological sampling study in 1977. The population of the hard clam (Merceneria mercenaria)

and winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) have dropped precipitously and the

localized effects of the intake of over 1 billion gallons of water per day on these two species are

unknown. In addition, the Atlantic Coast population of the striped bass (Marone saxitilis) has

risen sharply from the mid-1980s. Striped bass and other marine species are known to utilize

the intake and discharge areas of the project, but the extent of their use is unknown. The

economic value of recreational fishing in New Jersey is high (see discussion on public access

and recreation below). The effect of the discharge of hot water is unknown on recreational sport

fish and other aquatic species. In addition, there have been several confirmed large fish kills

due to cold water shock from winter plant closings. The NRC Draft EIS should document these

fish kills and discuss the cumulative impacts of these kills in view of the data and available

information concerning the aquatic biota that is entrapped on the cooling water intake structures

or entrained in the heat dissipation chamber.

Because of the concerns outlined above, the Service [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service]

recommends expansion of the current biological sampling study to a minimum of 3 years. A

3-year study would allow the NRC to more adequately determine what effects, if any, the plant’s

operation is having on aquatic biota. Obtaining this information does not appear to be cost

prohibitive. The Service also recommends review of the current sampling method by the

NJDEP, NMFS [National Marine Fisheries Service], Service, and other interested parties to

ensure that information gathered will be adequate for assessing impacts to aquatic biota

associated with plant operation. The Service also recommends collection of biological data for

the life of the license in order to demonstrate that adverse impacts remain minimal over time. 

The license should contain conditions to require additional mitigation (see the discussion of

mitigation below) should post-license data analysis confirm that additional or unforeseen

adverse impacts are occurring. (OS-AJ-7)

Response: The NRC staff recognizes that the amount and quality of data available for NEPA

evaluations sometimes falls short of ideal, but believes that there is sufficient information

available to perform an assessment of the impacts of license renewal at OCNGS. The

assessment presented in the SEIS will be based on the best available information, drawing from

a variety of sources, including data collected by AmerGen, the NJDEP, other governmental

agencies, independent researchers, and others. If new and significant information becomes

available in the future that demonstrates a significant impact on the aquatic environment as a

result of continued station operation, the NRC staff expects the NJDEP to require modifications
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-24 January 2007

to the cooling system necessary to protect the resource through the NJPDES permitting

process.

Comment: The CEQ [Council on Environmental Quality] requires inclusion of means to

mitigate adverse environmental impacts in the EIS discussion of environmental consequences,

if not covered in the description of the proposed action or alternatives (40 CFR Part 1502.16[h]).

In addition, a mitigation plan (when necessary) is generally required prior to project

authorization by the NJDEP. Therefore, the Service recommends that the NRC develop a

mitigation plan for the proposed license renewal and discuss the plan in the Draft EIS. The

mitigation plan should be developed in consultation with the NMFS, Service, and NJDEP and

identify proposed means to avoid, minimize, and compensate (in that order) all adverse

environmental effects on fish and wildlife resources. Consistent with the Service’s Mitigation 

Policy, all in-kind options should be exhausted before considering out-of-kind mitigation. For

example, the Service is aware that the NJDEP is considering restoration of several large

wetland areas as potential mitigation. Although the Service encourages wetland restoration in

most cases, this should only be employed as out-of-kind mitigation after the applicant has

exhausted other direct compensatory options for adverse impacts to aquatic organisms (i.e., the

removal of fish blockages for river herring or the development of long-term hard clam or other

finfish or shellfish restoration projects).

During the October 11-13 interagency scoping meeting, the Service learned that a dam and

pond were constructed just below the headwaters of Oyster Creek to store water for fire fighting

capability at the plant. From a review of pre-1969 construction aerial photographs of the pond, it

appears that Oyster Creek was a functioning waterway capable of supporting fish passage and

possibly spawning habitat. Oyster Creek has the potential to offset expected adverse impacts

from the proposed license renewal via the construction of a fish ladder. The Service can assist

the NRC in identifying other potential fish ladder projects as potential mitigation for the preferred

alternative. (OS-AJ-9)

Response: In Chapter 4 of the SEIS, the NRC staff will present an evaluation of the impacts of

license renewal at OCNGS. If it is determined that the impacts of license renewal are not small

(as defined in the footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B), the NRC

staff will recommend mitigation to reduce the severity of those impacts. The installation of a fish

ladder on the small onsite reservoir located on Oyster Creek was discussed with the licensee

and will be addressed in the SEIS.

A.1.3 Comments Concerning Terrestrial Ecology Issues

Comment: We are a staunch protector of the South Jersey wildlife and natural resources. We

support the New Jersey Audubon Society. We’ve donated a significant amount of money to the

organization in recognition for the society’s efforts to help rescue and clean waterfowl impacted

by the recent oil spills in the Delaware River. (OS-G-12, OS-G-26)
Appendix A

January 2007 A-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Comment: We also do bird surveys, and we do mammal surveys out at Oyster Creek. That

information is given to the DEP, and it’s compiled, and we work with the DEP if we need to. We

also sponsor bluebird trails. Bluebirds are no longer threatened, but they were at one time, so

10 years ago we put up a bluebird trail and we monitor that to make sure that we were able to

bring that population back, which we did, not singlehandedly but we had Ocean County put up

bluebird trails. We have wood duck trails, and we have a peregrine falcon tower at the plant. 

(OS-O-4)

Response: The comments are, in general, supportive of the licensee’s current programs to

protect terrestrial resources. No specific response is provided. The impacts of license renewal

on terrestrial resources will be discussed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS.

Comment: I remember when I first moved into my home in Sunrise Beach in Lacey Township, I

took my brine tank from my saltwater conditioner and I threw it out on my driveway and some

went on my grass. Well, I didn’t realize that the salt would kill my grass. Well, the next morning,

I woke up my whole lawn was dead. So I suggest don’t ever put salt on any plant life. (OS-Z-5)

Response: The comments are noted. The effects of salt drift from a cooling tower will be

addressed in the alternatives section (Chapter 8) of the SEIS.

Comment: The Service also recommends that the Draft EIS reflect that the Conectiv 230-kV

transmission line is active. The applicant’s Environmental Report on page 3-6 states that the

line has not been constructed. (OS-AJ-4)

Response: The SEIS will provide a description of the current status of the Conectiv

transmission line.

Comment: The applicant does not propose any new construction activities with the license

renewal. However, during the inter-agency meetings noted above, the Service learned that a

substantial amount of previously contaminated dredged material, stored in a confined disposal

facility (CDF) just east of the plant on the Finninger’s Farm property, may require remediation

and/or removal to an approved upland facility. A site visit revealed that the farm consists of

several abandoned fields; an early successional forest, including some maritime forest species;

and pockets of both tidal and non-tidal wetlands. These -types of vegetative cover provide

valuable habitats for upland wildlife species. New construction activities (e.g., clearing and

grubbing of upland vegetation, upgrading roads, or the construction of an offloading barge

facility in Oyster Creek) would be expected if the CDF requires remediation or removal and

would impact terrestrial species that utilize the farm. Therefore, the Service recommends

clarifying any activities proposed on the Finninger’s Farm in the Draft EIS, including construction

methods for any remediation of the CDF. (OS-AJ-8)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-26 January 2007

Response: The need for remediation of the dredge spoils pile on the Finninger Farm portion of

the OCNGS site has not been determined. Should it be determined that remediation is

necessary or desired, that action would be subject to a separate environmental review and is

not a part of the license renewal process. The current status of the spoils pile will be discussed

in the SEIS.

Comment: The Service also recommends that, in association with implementing best

management practices (BMPs), the NRC include provisions to control the spread of invasive

species, such as Phragmites australis in the transmission line right-of-ways and the CDF on the

Finninger’s Farm.

A draft Management Plan by the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Phragmites australis Working

Group (2003) includes recommendations to curb the spread of Phragmites through federal and

state permit conditions, in order to help achieve a long-term goal of no net gain in Phragmites

acreage. The Service has subsequently recommended initiation of a similar planning effort to

control Phragmites in the Hackensack Meadowlands in Bergen and Hudson Counties, pursuant

to Executive Order 13122 and under the auspices of the National Invasive Species Council. 

The Service recommends a similar program in the project area, including the two power line

right-of-ways maintained by Conectiv and FirstEnergy and the CDF, with participation of the

NRC. In the interim, the Service recommends that any federal authorization resulting in wetland

disturbance (e.g., power line right-of-way maintenance, dredging, or excavation of the CDF)

include conditions requiring: (1) BMPs to prevent the introduction or spread of invasive species,

such as avoiding creation of elevated berms and the spread or burial of Phragmites rhizomes;

(2) 2 to 5 years of post-construction monitoring to detect the introduction or spread of invasive

species, and (3) control efforts, if Phragmites or another invasive species are detected (to

include re-grading or hydrologic corrections for any construction-related disturbances that

promote the spread of Phragmites, if other control methods [i.e., herbicides] prove insufficient in

the long-term). (OS-AJ-11)

Response: At this time, there are no planned activities associated with license renewal that

would result in the disturbance of wetlands on the OCNGS site or within the transmission line

corridor associated with OCNGS. The assessment presented in the SEIS will include an

evaluation of the vegetation-management protocols on the site and within associated

transmission corridors. This assessment will address the effects of existing protocols on the

spread of invasive species and will suggest mitigation if impacts are determined not to be small.

A.1.4 Comments Concerning Threatened and Endangered Species

Comment: Our employees are trained to do their jobs with environmental protection in mind. 

One practice that we are particularly proud of is our commitment to protect sea turtles that

become caught in our intakes. We have specific procedures in place for the safe return of all

sea turtles to their natural environment. Our operators are trained to identify, to remove, and, if
Appendix A

January 2007 A-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

need be, resuscitate those turtles. When a sea turtle is found, our operators contact the

Brigantine Marine Mammal Stranding Center, which recovers the sea turtle, gives it a checkup,

rehabilitates it if necessary, and releases it back to the sea. We also partner with Drexel

University to track the number of sea turtles that are rescued from our intake canal. Oyster

Creek has modified its intake structures to significantly reduce the impact on aquatic life. Fish

and crabs caught in our intake screens are gently returned to the discharge canal, and we pump

cool water from the intake canal to the discharge canal, diluting the warmer water coming out of

the plant. (OS-G-10, OS-G-24)

Comment: We have a program that trains our operators to rescue sea turtles, and I think you

heard about that earlier. When we’re unsuccessful, it’s generally because that sea turtle got to

us injured. Boat propeller is the most frequent injury that we see. And, obviously, when it gets

to us cut open from the boat propeller, it’s hard to resuscitate them. (OS-J-4)

Comment: If there’s a problem with an endangered species, for example, or a threatened

species, such as an osprey or – we get seals, we get all kinds of terrapins – we stop work and

take care of that animal, whether it’s calling other regulatory agencies, if it’s calling the DEP to

come in and help us, that’s what we do. (OS-O-6)

Response: The comments are noted. They are, in general, supportive of the licensee’s

activities related to threatened and endangered species. No specific response is provided. The

impacts of license renewal on threatened and endangered species will be presented in

Chapter 4 of the SEIS.

Comment: When Oyster Creek was found to be noncompliant with the turtle kills for their

intake, speaking of environmental issues, they petitioned to have it increased – the amount that

they could kill increased. This is not responsible to the community. This is not responsible to

the environment. (OS-D-5)

Comment: Plant records indicate 32 impingement and 14 mortalities of endangered sea turtles

since 1992. These data include the following species specific incidents:

 5. 21 impinged Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtles with 9 mortalities.

 6. 7 impinged Loggerhead Sea Turtles with 2 mortalities.

 7. 4 impinged Green Sea Turtles with 1 mortality.

OCNGS exceeded their annual incidental take in 2004 when 8 juvenile Kemp’s Ridley Sea

Turtles were impinged and 3 were killed in the 3 month period from July 4 to September 23. An

Incidental Take Assessment by the National Marine Fisheries authorized an annual limit of

4 Kemp’s Ridley’s (with no more than 3 mortalities), 5 Loggerheads (with no more than

2 mortalities) and 2 Green’s (no more than 1 mortality). (OS-AH-3)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-28 January 2007

Comment: AmerGen has submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) to continue operation of its Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station for an additional

20 years (the applicant’s preferred alternative). The nuclear plant has been in operation since

1969, and its license is due to expire on April 9, 2009. On October 11 through 13, 2005, the

Service attended several interagency scoping meetings with the applicant, the NRC, and

representatives from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to

discuss the project, current adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources, and potential plant

modifications and other mitigative measures that could offset these impacts. Currently, the

power plant withdraws approximately 1.25 billion gallons of water per day from Barnegat Bay to

aid in cooling the nuclear reactor. The intake of cooling water entrains and entraps an unknown

quantity of aquatic biota from Barnegat Bay. Prior to the scoping meetings, the Service

concluded with AmerGen on January 25, 2005 that the continued operation of the plant until

2029 would not adversely affect federally listed threatened and endangered species under

Service jurisdiction.

As discussed in the Service’s January 25, 2005 letter to AmerGen, except for an occasional

transient bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), no other federally listed or proposed

threatened or endangered species under the Service jurisdiction are known to occur within the

project area. Therefore, the Service concluded that the proposed project would not adversely

affect federally listed species under Service jurisdiction.

Due to the recent nesting successes of bald eagles in New Jersey, a possibility exists that a pair

of eagles could nest on or adjacent to the project area in New Jersey during the NRC’s

regulatory review or during the life of the renewed license (if approved). The NRC and

AmerGen were notified at the above scoping meetings of the possibility of future eagle nesting. 

Should nesting occur in the project area during the NRC re-licensing process or during the life

of any renewed license, additional consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA [Endangered

Species Act] would be necessary. We recommend that the NRC obtain a status update of the

bald eagle prior to its approval of any license renewal.

The Service also recommended (not required) in its January 25 letter, that AmerGen retain a

qualified botanist to conduct a survey to determine the presence of any rare plants, including

the federally listed Knieskern’s beaked-rush (Rhynchospora knieskernii) and swamp pink

(Helonias bullata), and the federal candidate bog asphodel (Narthecium americanum) in the

project area.

These species have been documented within 1.5, 2.8, and 1.3 miles (respectively) of the project

area. Since re-licensing is not expected to impact project area wetlands, the Service

recommended, rather than required, a botanical survey. To date, the Service is unaware of any

botanical survey conducted in the project area. Surveys for the above species would be

necessary if any project alternatives or mitigative measures were to involve project area

wetlands that might support these species.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

No further consultation pursuant to Section 7(a) (2) of the ESA is required with the Service at

this time. If project plans change (e.g., to involve project area wetlands) or if new information is

obtained that indicates the occurrence of a federally listed species at the proposed project

site(s), this determination may be reconsidered. The Service provides the above determination

with respect to federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered flora and fauna under the

Service jurisdiction only. The proposed project is located on Barnegat Bay and may affect

federally listed marine turtles. Principal responsibility for threatened and endangered marine

species is vested with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). We understand that the

NRC has begun formal Section 7 consultation with the NMFS. This consultation should be

completed prior to the NRC’s issuance of the Draft EIS. (OS-AJ-1)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments relate to the impacts of OCNGS

operations on threatened and endangered species and will be considered in the preparation of

the SEIS.

Comment: The Service recommends that the NRC and the applicant continue working with the

NJDEP to protect State-listed species and to obtain any other recommendations to modify plant

operations to protect resources of State concern. Any mitigation plans should be developed

prior to completing the Draft EIS. In addition, any botanical surveys conducted in the project

area should include State-listed species. (OS-AJ-2)

Response: The comment is noted. The comment relates to the impacts of OCNGS operations

on State-listed threatened and endangered species. The occurrence of State-listed species on

the OCNGS site and associated transmission lines will be presented in Chapter 2 of the SEIS.

A.1.5 Comments Concerning Air Quality Issues

Comment: They love to say that they don’t produce fossil fuels, yet the material that they use,

the fuel has to be mined. There’s a tremendous amount of fossil fuels that are used in the

production to get a plant running and to keep it running. (OS-D-6)

Comment: And stop – it is disingenuous for nuclear people to keep comparing the CO2 [carbon

dioxide] that comes from coal, as if that was the option we’re all headed for. And in terms of the

CO2, they are saying that now nuclear is so – you know, that it’s going to make our air in New

Jersey better, and I said this at another meeting – there are three of the worst coal producers –

coal-fed plants in the Midwest that have no safety equipment on them whatsoever in terms of

getting the CO2 out of their refuse there, that go to serve the uranium processing people. So

that – and that CO2 comes from Ohio and Kentucky, and wherever those plants are, right into

New Jersey. So we don’t need to keep saying that nuclear energy does not produce CO2,

because that’s disingenuous. (OS-P-2)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-30 January 2007

Comment: Oyster Creek provides a tremendous environmental benefit to the community. 

Oyster Creek represents 20 percent of JCP&L’s [Jersey Central Power & Light Company’s]

electricity needs. Not only do we produce 9 percent of New Jersey’s electricity, but we also do

this with virtually no greenhouse emissions. Each year we operate Oyster Creek avoids some

7-1/2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide that would have been produced in coastal

New Jersey by replacement of a coal plant. That replacement plant would produce carbon

emissions equivalent to two million cars, nearly half of all the cars in New Jersey now. The

clean air benefits of nuclear power production are of critical importance to New Jersey, the

United States, and the world as we look for solutions to the greenhouse gas impacts. (OS-G-6,

OS-G-20)

Comment: Oyster Creek, as a nuclear facility, is capable of producing power for over 6000

homes in New Jersey, day or night, wind or no wind, while it produces zero carbon emissions. 

In fact, we avoid the generation of carbon emissions equivalent to half the cars driven in

New Jersey on a given day. (OS-J-2)

Comment: I am for it because of the simple reason that carbon emissions present more of a

threat to human life on this planet right now, because of the fact of the amount that we’re putting

in. The United States puts 2.5 billion tons of carbon just from electric power generation through

coal-fired plants. So if you really want to point a finger at what’s causing environmental impacts,

it’s pointed to the coal industry, not to the nuclear regulatory area. (OS-B-6)

Comment: And when you look at, when it comes to diversifying in our fuel mix, because

obviously we have to worry about the quality of air in New Jersey, we have predominant winds

that blow from the west to the east. We have a lot of coal plants out there. Unfortunately,

New Jersey’s quality of air is pretty poor, which contributes to childhood diseases such as

asthma. So my point being is we have five million cars too, also in the state of New Jersey. So

how do we offset that? Well, Oyster Creek doesn’t put off an effluent which really contributes

positively to our environment. (OS-Z-2)

Response: Nuclear power contributes substantially fewer carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to

the atmosphere than fossil-fuel-based energy production methods. CO2 emissions from various

sources of energy will be discussed in the alternatives section (Chapter 8) of the SEIS.

Comment: So as far as building a cooling tower, when you think about a cooling tower at

Oyster Creek, personally, I don’t think it’s a viable issue. Environmentally, we don’t even know

the negative effect that a cooling tower could bring to Lacey Township, between all the salinity

that pumps out of the stack. (OS-Z-4)

Comment: A cooling tower is a whole different issue around economic investment and whether

or not it’s the right thing to do. I know as a resident, I don’t want a cooling tower. I’m going to
Appendix A

January 2007 A-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

have salt spray all over my car and my house, and so on. That’s enough for me or my

neighbors. (OS-J-7)

Response: The NRC staff will discuss the impacts associated with closed-cycle cooling,

including cooling-tower drift, in the alternatives section (Chapter 8) of the SEIS.

A.1.6 Comments Concerning Land-Use Issues

Comment: Federal law requires that licensees operating near the coast must adhere to State

environmental rules. Oyster Creek does not, so, therefore, the plant should be shut down. 

(OS-I-5)

Response: The NRC staff is unaware of any continuing noncompliance with State

environmental regulations. The SEIS will address recent past compliance with State

requirements.

Comment: We’ve also donated land from our Finninger Farm property across the street from

the power plant to Lacey Township for preservation. (OS-O-2)

Response: The comment is noted. The comment does not relate to an impact on the

environment, and, therefore, will not be evaluated in the SEIS.

Comment: Recreational fishing is a $35 billion industry for the nation, with approximately

900,000 New Jersey recreational anglers expending nearly $700 million annually for fishing

tackle and other related purchases (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau,

2002). A key component to these economic benefits is unimpeded public access. A federal

excise tax is collected from manufacturers of fishing equipment, as well as a portion of the

federal fuel tax that is attributed to motorboat usage. Revenue is passed on to participating

states. Since 1950, the Service’s Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Program has provided

funds to state fish and wildlife agencies. The funding is used to restore, conserve, manage, and

enhance fish species that are sought by recreational anglers, fund educational programs to

enhance the public’s understanding of aquatic resources and recreational fishing, and to

promote the development of responsible attitudes and ethics toward the aquatic environment.

Currently, recreational anglers fish in areas downstream of the hot water effluent in Oyster

Creek. However, the public access points in this area are limited to the State Route 9 Bridge

and several small shoreline areas. The Service recommends that the NRC work closely with

the applicant, the NJDEP, and interested recreational fishing organizations to develop a

comprehensive public access plan that would better address the recreational needs in the

project area. A recreational use and access plan would be consistent with public access

policies and regulations (Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 1280; 16 U.S.C.

1451-1464). The Service is available to assist in the development of a public access plan. 
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-32 January 2007

| (OS-AJ-10)

Response: Although the NRC staff agrees with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that

development of a recreational use and access plan would likely benefit anglers and address

recreational needs in the area, the requirement to develop such a plan is outside the scope of

the NEPA-mandated environmental review for license renewal. The comment will not be

evaluated further.

A.1.7 Comments Concerning Human Health Issues

Comment: We are asked to renew the license for AmerGen, so that they can continue

because they’re a business. And I understand they want to continue, because they’re a

business, but we’re a community, and we have an obligation to the community. I’m a health

care provider in this community, and my obligation is to the children of this community. And this

is the reason why I’m here. This is the reason why I spend my days off to come here, because

if I’m working in a hospital, if I can save one person’s life in a year, to me that’s an incredible

accomplishment. Shutting this plant down has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of

lives in this community for generations and generations to come. This child here was not born

at the time the Chernobyl accident happened. This child was born years later, and this is the

legacy of nuclear power. This is what happens. This plant, on a daily basis, when everything is

working fine, is releasing radiation into the environment. It’s releasing it in particulate form. It’s

contamination that stays in the environment, and it’s not like going and getting an X-ray at the

doctor’s office where you get zapped one time and then it’s gone. This stuff goes into your

body, it’s built into your bones in the form of strontium-90, it goes in your muscle – and

cesium-137. And the science has proven to show this. There’s a condition called Chernobyl

heart, which develops in children having so much cesium in their heart muscle that they actually

develop birth defects. (OS-D-8)

Comment: And I certainly do not want my grandchildren or great-grandchildren to look

anything like the picture that the gentleman showed earlier. (OS-K-6)

Comment: I hope this takes a full environmental review. I am sorry I missed your presentation

and look forward to hearing more than that. But this needs to be broader than just whether fish

die, which is something we clearly are concerned about. It needs to look at the environmental

health of people who are affected in the communities as well. (OS-R-7)

Comment: So in addition to daily radioactive emissions, whether or not you consider the Tooth

Fairy Study as part of it, I just want to make sure you’re really taking a close look at daily

emissions. And in addition to that, that’s why we’re talking about waste issues and security

issues, it’s because those fall under the general scope of radiation protection. (OS-Q-13)

Comment: The Chemistry Department samples, analyzes, and trends parameters for many of

the plant systems. However, as I see it, there are three main reasons that we take the
Appendix A

January 2007 A-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

thousands of samples that we do. The first is to protect the public. Almost 80 percent of Oyster

Creek’s employees live and raise their families in Ocean County. So for us, the public has

names and faces. The public is our families, our friends, and our neighbors. There’s nothing

that we take more seriously than our obligation to protect those that we care about. (OS-AC-1)

Comment: Now there’s about 100 or 105 of these plants around the country. None of them

have been built since 1977 or so and they were all built in about a 10-year window there. So

let’s just say the average one is 30 years of age and there’s about a 100 of them. That’s

3000 operating years of nuclear power stations. And yet, all over the country there’s not a

single proven cluster of cancer, leukemia, birth defects, or anything else.

At that point in time, people should begin to look at this and say this is safe and clean. Your

fears should be put aside. And also, I have to say that the NRC, it’s not the same as talking to

the IRS or the Department of Justice. The stakes are pretty high here. What is it that they’re

going to be paid off with for being corrupt? And it just doesn’t make any sense. They have to

breathe the same air we do. At a certain point in time this ought to be satisfied. I feel people

are alarmed by this, they seem to worry about it day in and day out. And I abhor a lot of

politicians who further these fears because it looks like they’re fighting for their constituents. I’m

standing up for this thing. I have no training in nuclear science, engineering. And I rely upon

certain people that do have the training, as we all do throughout our lives. You go to a

physician. He tells you that you need this pill or that pill. You’re relying upon his training. I

have expertise in certain areas and I expect people when they hire me to rely upon me in areas

that I have expertise in. So of course, we have to rely upon these people, and I don’t believe

that they have performed in any way that would bring any doubt upon their character or their

ability and I hope that you people will, in fact, find some solace in this and satisfaction that there

just isn’t anything to base this on. (OS-Y-2)

Response: The comments are noted. The assessment of human health impacts in the SEIS

will determine if the facility is currently limiting and will continue to limit radiological releases to

within Federal limits, which are considered protective of the public. Absent new and significant

information that would lead the NRC staff to conclude that future operation would result in

routine radiological releases in excess of the Federal limits, the NRC staff will not evaluate the

effects of low-level ionizing radiation on members of the public. The NRC staff concluded

generically in the GEIS that “the significance of radiation exposures to the public attributed to

the operation after license renewal would be small.” The comments provide no new and

significant information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.

Comment: In 1976, I was teaching school with another teacher and the area around the plant

had to go for tests within a mile and a half. They were being treated with leukemia and this was

affecting people. In Vanderbilt and I questioned about it, you know, and everything, the teacher

said that the plant was built in 1967 and at the time there was no regulatory data supporting

when the plant was built or any type of data regarding requirements, etcetera.
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-34 January 2007

When I started doing the research on it at the time, the plant was supposed to come up for

renewal and it kept on coming up for renewal, and I couldn’t believe this and what happens is

there’s a loophole in the clause that grandfathers any previous data does not have to comply

with the present data of what has to go into the plant. And when I heard this, you know, and

everything, it was really questionable. So I started doing some research about it. And

Vanderbilt University, the edu, says the RPHP [Radiation and Public Health Project] research

associates from Vanderbilt did a study on it and they said that they had the four nuclear plants

in New Jersey listed, and it said they’ve had considerable radioactivity to the local environment,

raising the question of whether local residents have been harmed. And then it goes on with the

study. And it says about the research group has investigated this issue as documented facts

that suggest such harm is occurring. A number of these findings have been published in

peer-reviewed medical journals. Radioactive emissions, the Oyster Creek reactor began

operations on May 3, 1969 making it the oldest of the 103 U.S. reactors still in operation. Now

this is – I got this off the web in 2001. So you know. The Salem and Hope Creek reactors – it

goes on and on. And it says “Oyster Creek emitted 77.0 curies of airborne radioactivity in the

period from 1970 to 1993, the largest amount of any U.S. reactors.”

And it keeps on going. And it talks about the similarity of the average concentration of

radioactive strontium-90 in 222 New Jersey baby teeth is relatively constant after 1980 and then

it keeps on going down and it says “Ocean and Monmouth County children, under age 5, is 32.4

percent greater than the U.S. rate and 30.6 percent greater than any other New Jersey

counties. Ocean and Monmouth lie directly downwind of the Oyster Creek reactor.”

And then it keeps on going down and it says “Cancer mortality in Ocean and Monmouth County

children under age 10 was 43.9 percent since the early 1980s, compared to the decline,

35.3 percent and 23.4 percent in the nation and the rest of New Jersey.”

And then it keeps on going down about the different kinds of cancers, leukemia, Hodgkin’s

disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.

And the report keeps on going on and I’m sure if you want to contact the university or whatever,

Vanderbilt will still have the report on file and this by the Ph.D. Jay M. Gould, Ph.D., Director;

Ernest J. Sternglass, Ph.D., two scientists; Jerry Brown, Ph.D.; Joseph Mangano, MPH, MBA;

William McDonnel, MA; Marsha Marks and so on. (OS-AF-1)

Response: The NRC staff acknowledges that past radiological emissions from OCNGS,

particularly in the 1970s, were significantly higher than current levels. The NRC staff’s analysis

is focused on impacts occurring during the license renewal period. The NRC staff concluded

generically in the GEIS that “the significance of radiation exposure to the public attributable to

the operation after license renewal would be small.” Absent new and significant information that

would lead the NRC staff to conclude that future operations during the license renewal period

would result in routine radiological releases in excess of Federal limits, the NRC staff will not
Appendix A

January 2007 A-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

evaluate the effects of past releases of low-level ionizing radiation on the public. The comment

provides no new and significant information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.

Comment: My question is, I understand in our previous conversation, that you will be relying

on existing studies. Will the Tooth Fairy be part of that review or is any kind of radiation

exposure currently part of the environmental review for the plant? (unidentified speaker)

Response: In 2000, a report entitled Strontium-90 in Deciduous Teeth as a Factor in Early

Childhood Cancer was published by the Radiation and Public Health Project. The report

alleges that there has been an increase in cancer incidence due to strontium-90 released from

nuclear power facilities. Elevated levels of strontium-90 in deciduous (baby) teeth were claimed

in the report as evidence for the increase in childhood cancer. This study has been largely

discredited by the scientific community for a number of reasons, including lack of controls, small

sample sizes, and the lack of environmental sampling and analysis (see http://www.nrc.gov/

reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tooth-fairy.html). The assessment of human health

impacts in the SEIS will determine if the facility is currently limiting and will continue to limit

radiological releases to within Federal limits, which are considered protective of the public. 

The comment provides no new and significant information and, therefore, will not be

evaluated further.

A.1.8 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues

Comment: In addition, Oyster Creek employees are community-minded and generous. Oyster

Creek has the largest employee-run United Way campaign in Ocean County. This past year our

employees raised more than $180,000 for the United Way. Our employees are involved in the

American Red Cross, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, and the American Cancer

Society. They are Little League coaches, Girl and Boy Scout leaders, volunteer EMTs and

firefighters, and PTA members. We support a variety of family and youth organizations and

activities in local communities, and have donated to – land to the community for recreational

use. (OS-G-5, OS-G-19)

Comment: Our employees are also involved in many environmental activities in the area,

including the World Series of Birding, aiding the Cape May Observatory, and Ocean Nature and

Conservation Society, and also the Barnegat Bay Estuary. (OS-G-13, OS-G-27)

Comment: Oyster Creek has donated thousands of dollars to the New Jersey Audubon. 

(OS-O-1)

Comment: Oyster Creek also supports me and two other members to be on the World Series

of Birding every year, which is quite expensive. It’s $2000 just to sponsor us to go out and bird,

and find all the endangered and threatened species around Ocean County and the state of

New Jersey. (OS-O-3)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-36 January 2007

Response: The comments are noted. The comments relate to socioeconomic issues and, in

general, are supportive of license renewal for OCNGS. The comments provide no new and

significant information, and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.

Comment: Additionally, there are several environmental aspects of this plant, as Suzanne Leta

went on, about the cooling towers. We also support only the option of installing cooling towers

at this plant and oppose the mitigation factor of wetlands restoration. Tourism is the third

largest industry in the state of New Jersey, and Barnegat Bay heavily contributes to that. We

need to be looking at what those factors are in determining what the harm is on Barnegat Bay

by this plant, and how that’s negatively impacting not just the environment but also the economy

of the state of New Jersey in terms of the degradation that this plant causes to that important

estuary. (OS-R-3)

Response: The commenter expressed concern that continued operation of OCNGS during the

license renewal period may adversely affect Barnegat Bay, which supports a large recreational

tourism industry in the State. The NJDEP has the responsibility of implementing the provisions

of the Clean Water Act with respect to OCNGS continued operation. The NRC staff is confident

that the NJPDES permit issued by the State will adequately protect Barnegat Bay. The

comment provides no new and significant information and, therefore, will not be evaluated

further.

Comment: More than 450 families, not including our security personnel, depend on our plant

for their livelihood. Of these 450 employees, approximately 250 are members of the

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1289. These are good, high-paying jobs

with excellent benefits. Our employees are highly skilled and dedicated, and I’m proud to work

with them. When I first came to Oyster Creek, a local resident told me, “Run Oyster Creek

safely. Do a good job, and, most importantly, keep that plant open, because a lot of my

neighbors work there.” (OS-G-2, OS-G-16)

Comment: Oyster Creek strengthens our community in so many ways. We are a significant

employer and a public – and a positive economic force in the local area. The operation of

Oyster Creek adds $52 million to Ocean County. We spend $7.7 million on goods in Ocean

County and pay $9.2 million in sales and local taxes every year. We contribute $234 million to

Ocean County’s domestic product annually, if we value the electrical production that’s

considered. And we have led the way to $33 million in increased output in Ocean County and

$46-1/2 million more in economic output in New Jersey itself every year. (OS-G-4, OS-G-18)

Comment: So what I’m saying here is I don’t want to hear that we’ve got to have this power

plant, it’s safe and it’s good and it’s producing a lot of jobs, because the people of Lacey

Township are not going to see any difference in their tax structure if that thing closed tomorrow. 

The reason for that is because the tax law was passed many, many years ago that said if
Appendix A

January 2007 A-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Oyster Creek closes, it does not have an impact on the taxes of Lacey. Let’s close it, and let’s

get it done now. (OS-C-7)

Comment: In addition to that, I took a look at what you do review in terms of the general

scoping. The first is you look at, it’s called socioeconomics and environmental justice and that

is a really, I think a very important part of thinking about environmental health and public health

and so I know you look at the evacuation plan annually which I understand. Unfortunately, it

does not look at the plan 20 years out and so when you’re thinking about socioeconomics and

environmental justice you must consider what the population is going to look like 20 years down

the line because there are excellent estimates that the census has and if you looked and talked

to the towns, that information is available and it will change and it is changing right now. 

(OS-Q-11)

Comment: However, the other thing you have to take into consideration is you’re also going to

be probably getting rid of $52 million worth of revenue for Ocean County and it may even cost

more. Because if you’re hooked up, those houses that are receiving that energy from Oyster

Creek, if they get hooked onto the power grid, then they’re going to be paying more money for

that energy, even if they seem to think it’s more environmentally sound. But that’s not – that

might be a Tooth Fairy issue, actually. Not only will we be paying more for that energy, you

probably – it might actually depress the economy a little bit because then there’s all these other

service industries that are connected to all that. It’s something to keep in mind. (OS-X-2)

Response: The comments are noted and will be considered in the preparation of the SEIS.

A.1.9 Comments Concerning Alternate Energy Sources

Comment: And I have a question for AmerGen. In 10 years, let’s say this plant did become

unsafe to operate, I’m sure that they would start taking steps into shutting it down. Now my

question to AmerGen would be and you’ve seen the advertisements on the TV, this new power

plant company that’s floating around, I believe they’re out of Canada, and they’re advocating

new nuclear power plants. Would AmerGen consider building another plant on that site? I for

one would be in favor of it. And I believe that is the future. Coal, fossil fuels, they’re not going

to last us. Look at what happened with Katrina. The pipelines shut down for a couple of days. 

Gas went up from $1.90 a gallon to $3 and something a gallon. We can’t live with that forever. 

But nuclear power plants is – maybe not the total solution, but it’s the answer today until

something else comes along. (OS-U-4)

Response: Chapter 8 (alternatives) in the SEIS will discuss the relative impacts of alternatives

on license renewal, including the impacts of replacing OCNGS generation with a new nuclear

facility.
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-38 January 2007

Comment: When you look at other alternative energies, in the case of wind, solar, and

conservation, they can easily make up for it. A gentleman before asked about why Germany

had switched. Germany has switched because of safety concerns and because Europe is

finding that alternative energies are actually filling the gap. The technology has come of age,

and it is working. (OS-D-7)

Comment: Now, we get to this person that was talking about the reactor. It’s clean, it’s safe,

but no carbon. But you’ve got 3 percent energy and 90 percent waste, nuclear waste, which is

worse. What they should be doing is cutting down on some of the – you know, some of the

energy we use. (OS-E-5)

Comment: We also took a look at part of our review and alternatives if Oyster Creek would not

have its license renewed and another source of electric generation would have to be installed

either here onsite or someplace else to generate 600 megawatts of electricity, and concluded

that any other means of generating 600 megawatts would have more of an impact on the

environment than continued operation of Oyster Creek. I think one thing we need to keep in

mind, though, here is that whatever we do, whether it’s generating electricity, driving a car,

building a new home, building a new industry, a new plant someplace for people to work, it all

has impacts on the environment. And our charge in this is to make sure that we are assessing

that and minimizing the impact on the environment to take all of that into consideration. We did

that in our review, and we concluded that the impact on the environment of continuing to

operate Oyster Creek is thebest alternative for continued generation of 600 megawatts. 

| (OS-H-4, OS-H-9)

Comment: That nuclear power – any nuclear power is outdated technology. It’s finished. 

Wind and solar are the new modern technologies. They are clean, they are safe, they are not

going to hurt us, even if something goes wrong. The plant has lived out its 40-year life span. 

Now is the time to let it die. (OS-S-2)

Comment: Then in the future there are definitely ways that we can replace the plant with clean

and safe and non-air-pollution-emitting energy generation. The primary source of that is energy

conservation and efficiency. I want to give one primary example and that example is an

Appliance Efficiency Standards Act that was actually passed this summer, and that act actually

puts eight energy-efficient appliances into the market in New Jersey and it actually saves about

300 megawatts of electricity by 2010 across the state. That’s about half of what Oyster Creek

provides and that’s eight appliances only. So I want to make sure that when we’re talking about

– I know that in this environmental review, part of the review is to take a look at what happens if

this plant is not, if the license is not extended and I want to make sure that part of that scope is

to look at other clean and renewable alternatives to Oyster Creek because I think that is a

critical part that may be missing, unfortunately. (OS-Q-10)
Appendix A

January 2007 A-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Comment: So I’m just saying to everybody, there are alternatives coming up. At the present

time, dark matter is being researched, dark energy. It still has not been containable though yet. 

So I’m saying to everybody there is future yes. (OS-AF-2)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments relate to alternative energy development

and conservation. Alternatives will be considered in Chapter 8 (alternatives) of the SEIS; they

include conservation (demand-side management) and renewable energy sources such as wind

and solar energy.

A.1.10 Comments Concerning Postulated Accidents

Comment: And what we’re talking about here is if there is a problem with that plant, and we get

a very significant release of radiation, and the consequences of that radiation are Chernobyl

children. These are the children of Chernobyl. These are not statistics. These are people’s

children. If an accident happens at Oyster Creek, these are going to be the children of our

community. These are going to be the children of our community for generations to come.

I also have another picture here. This is the Davis-Besse reactor that was being inspected

regularly by the NRC and by the licensee in Ohio. As anybody can see looking at this picture,

severe corrosion is occurring on this. However, they didn’t seem to think this was a problem

and allowed the plant to continue to operate. This is a plant is now old at Oyster Creek. So I

think you can understand why the community here has quite a few reservations about the

inspection that’s going on right now at Oyster Creek. With that said, I’d like to go back to the

original question that I asked at the first meeting. And considering how much – the length of

time it’s been since then, and nobody has gotten back to me about this question, I would hope

that you would have the information to answer this question now, because this is not a question

that has come to you out of the blue. This is a question that was asked before, and I was told

that I would be given an answer.

The question I have is that on March 1st, after restoring the main transformer and restoring the

main generator to service at Oyster Creek, a power ascension was in progress when an error

resulted in the loss of multiple reactor recirculation pumps, which led an operator to manually

scram the reactor. I’d like to add that this was not done very well. It was not controlled well. 

The water level was not controlled well, and as you go on later in this report that was the

conclusion of the NRC inspector. It was also noted that the plant had been overpressurized. 

And one of the specific questions that I was asking was how many times – from documentation

that I’ve read, it was overpressurized 10 times, the actual reactor vessel. I was asking how

many times it had actually been overpressurized, so I was hoping somebody had an answer to

that question for me. (OS-D-1)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-40 January 2007

Response: The environmental review does consider postulated plant accidents that might

occur at OCNGS during the license renewal term. As a result, the impacts of accidents are

considered within the scope of the environmental review for license renewal and will be

addressed in the SEIS. 

With respect to a Chernobyl-type accident at a U.S. nuclear power plant, U.S. reactors have

different plant designs, larger shutdown margins, robust containment structures, and operational

controls to protect them against the combination of errors that led to the accident at Chernobyl. 

Although the NRC has always acknowledged the possibility of major accidents, its regulatory

requirements provide adequate protection, subject to continuing vigilance, including review of

new information that may suggest weaknesses. Assessments in light of Chernobyl have

indicated that the causes of the accident have been adequately dealt with in the design of

U.S. commercial reactors. A Chernobyl-like accident is outside the scope of license renewal for

U.S. commercial reactors and will not be evaluated in the SEIS.

The reactor vessel head corrosion event at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant is an operational

issue and is also outside the scope of license renewal. The event has had, and continues to

have, a significant effect on both the NRC and reactor licensees. The corrosion was discovered

by the licensee during an NRC-required inspection resulting from safety concerns related to

reactor vessel head nozzle circumferential cracking. Since the discovery of the reactor vessel

head corrosion event at Davis-Besse, the NRC has significantly increased the oversight of

licensee reactor vessel head activities and other activities that may affect the condition of the

reactor vessel head. Almost immediately after the discovery, the NRC strengthened reactor

vessel head inspections with the imposition of inspection requirements by order. The immediate

initiatives by the NRC staff provide assurance that any further corrosion events will be identified

early and corrected. The NRC also formed a Lessons Learned Task Force (LLTF) to carefully

review the Davis-Besse incident and make recommendations for improvement. The LLTF has

made recommendations for improvements in reactor vessel inspection requirements, inspection

program management and inspector qualification, handling of operating experience information,

and research activities relating to leakage detection methodologies. The NRC is confident that

the implementation of the LLTF recommendations will preclude any future recurrence of reactor

vessel head corrosion similar to that at Davis-Besse.

Reactor overpressurization events are also outside the scope of the environmental review for

license renewal. The event referred to at OCNGS actually involved an excessive reactor

cooldown that occurred following an automatic reactor scram due to a low water level condition

on November 15, 2000. During scram recovery, the reactor experienced an initial cooldown

rate of 111 degrees (Fahrenheit) per hour, which exceeded the technical specification (TS) limit

of 100 degrees per hour. The TS bases consider 10 cooldowns exceeding 300 degrees per

hour to be acceptable during the lifetime of the facility to ensure calculation assumptions used

to determine reactor vessel component fatigue limits. AmerGen’s records indicate that OCNGS

has no occurrences of cooldowns exceeding the 300 degrees per hour limit. OCNGS has
Appendix A

January 2007 A-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

exceeded the 100 degree cooldown rate twice in the plant’s history, on December 29, 1972,

and again on November 15, 2000. The comment will not be evaluated further.

Comment: And the second question that I had is they put out this report to talk about normal

boiler loss of approximately three-quarters of a gallon per minute. Now, my question is: if

you’ve got a reactor that’s leaking, and it’s considered a normal part of its operation, releasing

three-quarters of a gallon per minute, where is this water going? What kind of corrosion is it

producing? How is this realistically being monitored? And not just with visual inspections.

As we can see from Davis-Besse, it didn’t work, because that reactor was so corroded through it

was basically an act of God that kept it from going critical. How is this corrosion being

monitored effectively? And not just with visual inspections, but actual testing of materials.

And also, where is this water going? Where is this being admitted? Where is this radiation

going? I mean, I know it’s part of normal operation of a nuclear reactor to be releasing

radioactivity into the environment, and I’m concerned that this is not being properly monitored

and checked. (OS-D-2)

Response: Leakage from the reactor coolant system is an operational issue and is outside the

scope of license renewal. The leakage rate from the reactor coolant system is limited by a TS

to 5 gallons per minute (gpm) for “unidentified” leakage and 20 gpm for “identified” leakage. 

The allowed leakage rates are based on the predicted and experimentally observed behavior of

cracks in pipes and on the ability to make up coolant system leakage in the event of a loss of

offsite power. 

The dry-well floor drain sump and equipment drain tank provide the primary means of leak

detection and collection. Identified leakage is that from valves and pumps in the reactor system

and from reactor vessel head flange gasket. Leakage through seals of this equipment is piped

to the dry-well equipment drain tank. Leakage from other sources is classified as unidentified

leakage and is collected in the dry-well sump.

Reactor coolant system leakage is continuously monitored and is trended to ensure that

unidentified leakage is identified, analyzed, and corrected in a timely manner. The amount of

leakage is determined by recording the amount of liquid pumped out of the dry-well equipment

drain tank and the dry-well sump. This liquid waste is sent to the radioactive waste processing

system where it is filtered and recycled for use as makeup water for the plant. Any release to

the environment would be monitored and included in the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release

Report. The comment will not be evaluated further.

Comment: Actually, I’d like to start by clarifying a couple of things. The first thing I was

clarifying is the gentleman stated before that there are no Chernobyl-style plants operating in

the United States. Although this is true with the graphite reactor, the one that they were
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-42 January 2007

operating was closed down. The point is not the type of reactor. The point is the type of

accident that can come from it, and that type of accident is a massive radiation release. And

these are the – this is what is going to cause a Chernobyl-like incident. It’s not necessarily a

fire, but if Oyster Creek – because of its age, does have a catastrophic release of radiation, the

plant in Chernobyl is only two years old. Oyster Creek has far more radiation there. So even a

significant percentage of that would be catastrophic to the environment. (OS-D-3)

Comment: I think when we talk about environmental effects, the big environmental effect that

scares me, and should scare all of us, is what happens if it really goes wrong. And it worries

me terribly that we’re taking an old, obsolete plant and saying, “Let’s put 20 more years on it.” 

(OS-K-3)

Response: The environmental review does consider postulated plant accidents that might

occur during the license renewal term. It also includes a review of the alternatives to mitigate

severe accidents if this has not previously been evaluated for the applicant’s plant. The

purpose of this consideration is to ensure that plant changes (i.e., hardware, procedures, and

training) with the potential for improving severe accident safety performance are identified,

evaluated, and, if appropriate, implemented. As a result, the impacts of accidents are

considered within the scope of the environmental review for license renewal and will be

addressed in the SEIS.

Comment: How does that accident mitigation – how does that play into the environmental

scoping process? (OS-Q-5)

Response: An analysis of severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) is included as part

of the environmental review of the application for license renewal if it had not been considered

earlier for the facility. The SAMA review is an evaluation of alternatives to mitigate severe

accidents. Severe accidents are those that could result in substantial damage to the reactor

core, whether or not there are serious offsite consequences. The NRC staff reviews and

evaluates SAMAs to ensure that changes that could improve severe accident safety

performance are identified and evaluated. Potential improvements could include hardware

modifications, changes to procedures, and changes to the training program.

In some cases, SAMAs may have already been evaluated by the NRC staff in a previous EIS,

supplement, or environmental assessment (EA) written for a facility before the applicant applied

for license renewal. In such cases, the evaluation does not have to be repeated for that

particular facility, according to NRC regulations in 10 CFR 51.53. However, if the NRC staff has

not previously evaluated SAMAs for an applicant’s plant in an EIS, a supplement, or an EA, the

license renewal applicant is required to consider alternatives to mitigate severe accidents as

part of the license renewal application. AmerGen has submitted a SAMA evaluation for OCNGS

as part of its license renewal application.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

The outcome of the SAMA analysis is a list of plant improvements that meet the criteria of being

cost-beneficial, provide a significant reduction in total risk, and are associated with aging effects

during the period of extended operation.

In some cases, however, the review leads to a determination that there are no specific SAMA

candidates that are cost-beneficial. This may be the case where there is a low residual level of

risk and where the applicant has, in fact, already implemented many plant improvements. In

other cases, a SAMA that is potentially cost-beneficial may not relate to adequately managing

the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. Such SAMAs need not be

implemented as part of the license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.

A.1.11 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management

Comment: The second question is: what are the requirements of nuclear regulatory as far as

encasing the spent fuel rods? Are there specific things at Yucca Mountain that they are

required to do, which is we can’t – and I understand a lot of the points of spent fuel rods is not in

– is the transportation of those to Yucca Mountain. What are the regulations for encasement? 

(OS-B-2)

Response: Requirements for dry cask storage and transportation are outside the scope of

license renewal. During dry cask storage and transportation, spent nuclear fuel must be

“encased” in NRC-approved casks. An NRC-approved cask is one that has undergone a

technical review of its safety aspects and been found to meet all of the NRC’s requirements. 

These requirements are specified in 10 CFR Part 72 for storage casks and 10 CFR Part 71 for

transportation casks. Regulations that govern disposal of high-level radioactive waste in a

potential geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, are provided in 10 CFR Part 63. The

comment provides no new and significant information and, therefore, will not be evaluated

further.

Comment: I’d like to know how many spent fuel rods are now stored onsite, and how many are

we generating in a yearly process? (unidentified speaker)

Response: Although outside the scope of license renewal, at the time of the scoping meetings,

there were 976 spent fuel assemblies loaded in 16 dry storage casks at the OCNGS site, and

1992 assemblies stored in the spent fuel pool. OCNGS is on a 24-month refueling cycle, with

about 180 spent fuel assemblies discharged to the pool during each refueling. Each assembly

weighs approximately 600 lb, and of that weight about 500 lb is actual uranium fuel.

Comment: Presently, there is no permanent safe storage of nuclear waste, so rather than

continue to produce this toxic by-product, the plant should be shut down. (OS-I-3)
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-44 January 2007

Comment: Furthermore, please add to the record that the Federal Government should not

subsidize the new construction of nuclear plants until the problem of safe storage of nuclear

waste is solved, an issue not covered by the new energy bill passed by the Congress. (OS-I-8)

Comment: The particular concern – and this is not just here in this area, but having read about

it in the newspapers – is our utter and complete failure after all of these years to come up with

any solution, reasonable solution, to what to do with the rods that are left, the things that are so

completely contaminated, so heavily contaminated. And we kept hearing – you know, I’m not

young, so I’ve been hearing for years and years and years how they’re going to solve this

problem. Well, we’re no closer to it now than we were 30, 40, 50 years ago. And what we are a

lot closer to is all, and I mean all, those rods that are right up the road apiece. And so I am very

frightened about those. We keep adding more and more to them with no – no – nothing in sight

of getting rid of them. (OS-K-4)

Comment: Our number one problem is not radiation from the atomic power plant. It’s how to

get rid of – we have to get the Federal Government to start moving on disposal of the fuel rods. 

That is a major priority that’s the Federal Government’s responsibility that they should take on,

not these people. (OS-B-4)

Comment: You can mount this under a fault, and those tanks will only hold highly radioactive

radiation for 10,000 years, at most. So some of this radiation doesn’t go away for billions of

years. Then, you’ve got the radiation, you’ve got the – it’s really hot stuff, this radiation. If they

ever lose water from it – I’m telling you what is going to happen here. You know this. You know

it, and you speak it, because you’re dealing with a genocide. You don’t understand. (OS-E-1)

Comment: Our biggest concern right now is that the NRC refuses to look at the solid waste

problem and the evacuation problem as a legitimate concern within the scoping process. They

keep saying that that’s an everyday issue. We say that’s an everyday issue that every day they

don’t take care of. So, therefore, it’s a now issue, yes, but it’s an ongoing issue that isn’t being

taken care of.

In terms of the nuclear waste, if anything should be considered in an environmental scoping

meeting, it’s that waste that is not being disposed of, that is dangerous as it sits there now. 

Even going to the casks, the cement casks, no one really knows how those will hold up. There

is talk that 300 years they will probably start leaking.

In terms of Yucca Mountain, even if they ever do open that up, which it looks like they won’t,

there will be so much nuclear waste at all of the plants that we don’t even know if ours will get

there. A nuclear waste dump in New Jersey, which is what we’re talking about, is what will

happen – it is that way now, and it will continue to get worse the more we make. How can an

industry claim to be moral and community-oriented when they produce a deadly substance

where there is no known disposal for anywhere on this earth? No one can find it.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Somebody asked the reason that Germany is getting off nuclear, or wants to get off nuclear, as

the U.K. would like to, too, since they had that terrible accident at the nuclear processing plant. 

The reason they’re getting off it is because there is no place to dispose of this stuff. They are

finding out that renewable energy is getting cheaper and cheaper, when you consider the

billions of dollars that go into subsidizing the nuclear energy field. (OS-P-1)

Comment: I think there are clear problems involved with the way that the NRC looks at license

extensions, and, number one, they don’t take a look at waste. You think of it as an ongoing

issue. But there’s going to be 20 more years of it. And looking that far into the future,

unfortunately, is not part of that process. (OS-Q-3)

Comment: And when they get to Yucca Mountain, they put the high, long-lived radiation, they

put that in Yucca Mountain in carbon steel – in tanks that last 10,000 years, they say. And then,

they say it could deteriorate in 300 years, and it doesn’t go away. So you keep on putting more

fuel rods there, more radiation. Where are you going to put it? As soon as they go there, if they

go there – they probably will – they have to already make a – already did make plans with the

Indian reservations there to put it in the land there. Radiation doesn’t go away. It decays. It

has to decay to go away into another element, and some of that could be short-lived, some of

that could be billions of years. And you’re going to be sick, and your children are going to be

sick. (OS-E-3)

Comment: I wanted to ask about two things and because when I spoke in July, August, I’m

sorry, the months are going into each other, there was a concern for me about the spent fuel

rods. And at that particular meeting the NRC said that they felt that the – based upon what was

happening with Yucca Mountain that these rods could stay where they were. I want to know

what is the Federal plan or the NRC’s plan and how is it justified that more of these fuel rods

can be generated when the existing rods are still there and with the burgeoning population and

all of these other things, we don’t have a plan. And do you have a foreseeable plan? Do you

have an idea how many years the rods that are already there going to be there and generating

more. What’s that going to create in terms of what I would have a real concern about? 

(OS-AA-2) |

Comment: How can they use Yucca Mountain when Nevada doesn’t want those – if they don’t

want –. (unidentified speaker)

Response: The safety and environmental effects of long-term storage of spent fuel onsite have

been evaluated by the NRC, and as set forth in the Waste Confidence Rule (Federal Register,

Volume 40, page 34658 [49 FR 34658], 55 FR 38474, and 64 FR 68005), the NRC generically

determined that such storage could be accomplished without significant environmental impact. 

In the Waste Confidence Rule, the Commission determined that spent fuel can be stored onsite

for at least 30 years beyond the licensed operating life, which may include the term of a

renewed license. At or before the end of that period, the fuel would be moved to a permanent
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-46 January 2007

repository. The GEIS is based upon the assumption that storage of the spent fuel onsite is not

permanent. The SEIS regarding license renewal for OCNGS will be based on the same

assumption.

The Commission has determined that the comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place

and the low public doses that have been incurred ensure that the radiological impacts on the

environment will remain small during the term of a renewed license. The Commission also

concluded that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient low-level waste disposal capacity

will be available when needed for facilities during the license renewal period as well as during

decommissioning. The comments provide no new information and, therefore, will not be

evaluated further.

| Part II – Comments Received on the Draft SEIS

|

| Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC staff transmitted the Generic Environmental Impact

| Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating

| Station, Draft Report for Comment (NUREG-1437, Supplement 28, referred to as the draft

| Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement [SEIS]) to Federal, State, and local government

| agencies; certain Indian tribes; and interested members of the public. As part of the process to

| solicit public comments on the draft SEIS, the NRC staff:

|

| C Placed a copy of the draft SEIS into the NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room, its

| license renewal website, and at the Lacey Township Public Library;

|

| C Sent copies of the draft SEIS to the applicant; members of the public who requested

| copies; representatives of certain Indian tribes; and certain Federal, State, and local

| agencies;

|

| C Published a Notice of Availability of the draft SEIS in the Federal Register on

| June 16, 2006 (71 FR 34969);

|

| C Issued public announcements, such as advertisements in local newspapers and

| postings in public places, of the availability of the draft SEIS;

|

| C Announced and held two public meetings at the Toms River Quality Inn in Toms River,

| New Jersey, on July 12, 2006, to describe the results of the environmental review and

| answer related questions;

|

| C Issued public service announcements and press releases announcing the issuance of

| the draft SEIS, the public meetings, and instructions on how to comment on the draft

| SEIS; and

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

 C Established an e-mail address to receive comments on the draft SEIS through the |

Internet. |

|

During the comment period, the NRC staff received a total of 27 comment letters in addition to |

the comments received during the public meetings. |

|

The NRC staff has reviewed the public meeting transcripts and the 27 comment letters that are |

part of the docket file for the application, all of which are available in the NRC’s Public |

Document Room. Appendix A, Part II, Section A.2, contains a summary of the comments and |

the NRC staff’s responses. Related issues are grouped together. Appendix A, Part II, |

Section A.3, contains references cited in the NRC staff’s responses. Appendix A, Part II, |

Section A.4, contains excerpts of the July 12, 2006, public meeting transcripts, and Section A.5 |

contains the comment letters. |

|

Each comment identified by the NRC staff was assigned a specific alphanumeric identifier |

(marker). That identifier is typed in the margin at the beginning of the comment in each letter or |

transcript. The speakers at the meetings are listed in speaking order. Table A-2 gives the |

commenter’s ID and affiliation (if stated) and the source of the comment (i.e., public meeting |

transcript or comment letter). |

|

The NRC staff made a determination on each comment that it was one of the following: |

|

 C A comment that was actually a question and introduces no new information. |

|

 C A comment that was either related to support or opposition of license renewal in general |

(or specifically, OCNGS) or that makes a general statement about the licensing renewal |

process. It may make only a general statement regarding Category 1 and/or Category 2 |

issues. In addition, it provides no new information and does not pertain to 10 CFR |

Part 54. |

|

 C A comment about a Category 1 issue that provided new information that required |

evaluation during the review, or provided no new information. |

|

 C A comment about a Category 2 issue that provided information that required evaluation |

during the review, or provided no such information. |

|

 C A comment regarding alternatives to the proposed action. |

|

 C A comment that raised an environmental issue that was not addressed in the GEIS or |

the draft SEIS. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-48 January 2007

| C A comment outside the scope of license renewal (not related to 10 CFR Parts 51 or 54),

| including comments regarding the need for power.

|

| C A comment on safety issues pertaining to 10 CFR Part 54.

|

| C A comment that was editorial in nature.

|

|

| Table A-2. Comments Received on the Draft SEIS

|

|

| Comment ID Commenter Comment Source(a)

Page of

Comment

Section(s)

Where

| Addressed

| A-1 Eugene Creamer Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-76 A.2.4

| A-2 Eugene Creamer Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-76 A.2.4

| A-3 Eugene Creamer Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-212 A.2.11

| A-4 Eugene Creamer Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-77 A.2.4

| A-5 Eugene Creamer Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-192 A.2.10

| B-1 Isadoro Rubin Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-189 A.2.10

| B-2 Isadoro Rubin Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-190 A.2.10

| B-3 Isadoro Rubin Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-159 A.2.6

| C-1 Tom Allison, Jr. Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-75 A.2.3

| C-2 Tom Allison, Jr. Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-75 A.2.3

| C-3 Tom Allison, Jr. Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-234 A.2.13

| C-4 Tom Allison, Jr. Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-221 A.2.13

| C-5 Tom Allison, Jr. Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-186 A.2.9

| C-6 Tom Allison, Jr. Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-186 A.2.9

| D-1 Joan Rubin Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-74 A.2.3

| D-2 Joan Rubin Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-65 A.2.1

| D-3 Joan Rubin Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-149 A.2.6

| D-4 Joan Rubin Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-85 A.2.5

| D-5 Joan Rubin Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-208 A.2.10

| D-6 Joan Rubin Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-239 A.2.13

| D-7 Joan Rubin Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-82 A.2.4

| D-8 Joan Rubin Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-225 A.2.13

| D-9 Joan Rubin Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-74 A.2.3

| F-1 Joan Finn Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-234 A.2.13

| F-2 Joan Finn Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-63 A.2.1

| F-3 Joan Finn Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-234 A.2.13

| F-4 Joan Finn Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-147 A.2.6

| F-5 Joan Finn Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-239 A.2.13

| F-6 Joan Finn Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-191 A.2.10

| H-1 Tom Cervasio Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-225 A.2.13

| H-2 Tom Cervasio Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-237 A.2.13
Appendix A

January 2007 A-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Table A-2. Comments Received on the Draft SEIS (Cont.) |

|

|

Comment ID Commenter Comment Source | (a)

Page of

Comment

Section(s)

Where

Addressed |

H-3 Tom Cervasio Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-221 A.2.13 |

H-4 Tom Cervasio Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-221 A.2.13 |

H-5 Tom Cervasio Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-226 A.2.13 |

H-6 Tom Cervasio Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-63 A.2.1 |

I-1 Michael Kennish Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-100 A.2.5 |

I-2 Michael Kennish Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-63 A.2.1 |

| I-3 Michael Kennish Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-85 A.2.5 |

I-4 Michael Kennish Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-192 A.2.10 |

J-1 Barbara Bailine Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-82 A.2.4 |

J-2 Barbara Bailine Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-222 A.2.13 |

J-3 Barbara Bailine Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-75 A.2.3 |

K-1 Joseph Mangano Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-149 A.2.6 |

K-2 Joseph Mangano Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-149 A.2.6 |

K-3 Joseph Mangano Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-155 A.2.6 |

K-4 Joseph Mangano Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-155 A.2.6 |

K-5 Joseph Mangano Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-155 A.2.6 |

K-6 Joseph Mangano Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-147 A.2.6 |

K-7 Joseph Mangano Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-152 A.2.6 |

K-8 Joseph Mangano Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-63 A.2.1 |

L-1 John Rayment Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-71 A.2.2 |

L-2 John Rayment Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-73 A.2.2 |

M-1 Ed Stroup Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-71 A.2.2 |

M-2 Ed Stroup Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-174 A.2.7 |

M-3 Ed Stroup Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-136 A.2.5 |

M-4 Ed Stroup Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-209 A.2.10 |

M-5 Ed Stroup Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-136 A.2.5 |

M-6 Ed Stroup Afternoon Meeting Transcript A-71 A.2.2 |

N-1 Paul Gunter Evening Meeting Transcript A-224 A.2.13 |

N-2 Paul Gunter Evening Meeting Transcript A-140 A.2.5 |

O-1 Donald Warren Evening Meeting Transcript A-206 A.2.13 |

O-2 Donald Warren Evening Meeting Transcript A-191 A.2.10 |

O-3 Donald Warren Evening Meeting Transcript A-63 A.2.1 |

O-4 Donald Warren Evening Meeting Transcript A-191 A.2.10 |

O-5 Donald Warren Evening Meeting Transcript A-206 A.2.10 |

O-6 Donald Warren Evening Meeting Transcript A-236 A.2.13 |

O-8 Donald Warren Evening Meeting Transcript A-228 A.2.13 |

O-9 Donald Warren Evening Meeting Transcript A-226 A.2.13 |

O-10 Donald Warren Evening Meeting Transcript A-226 A.2.13 |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-50 January 2007

| Table A-2. Comments Received on the Draft SEIS (Cont.)

|

|

| Comment ID Commenter Comment Source(a)

Page of

Comment

Section(s)

Where

| Addressed

| O-11 Donald Warren Evening Meeting Transcript A-191 A.2.10

| O-12 Donald Warren Evening Meeting Transcript A-86 A.2.5

| O-17 Donald Warren Evening Meeting Transcript A-235 A.2.13

| P-1 Cindy Zipf Evening Meeting Transcript A-67 A.2.1

| P-2 Cindy Zipf Evening Meeting Transcript A-67 A.2.1

| P-3 Cindy Zipf Evening Meeting Transcript A-170 A.2.6

| Q-1 Edith Gbur Evening Meeting Transcript A-155 A.2.6

|

| Q-2 Edith Gbur Evening Meeting Transcript A-159 A.2.6

| Q-3 Edith Gbur Evening Meeting Transcript A-150 A.2.6

| Q-4 Edith Gbur Evening Meeting Transcript A-63 A.2.1

| R-1 Jack Nosti Evening Meeting Transcript A-192 A.2.10

| R-2 Jack Nosti Evening Meeting Transcript A-193 A.2.10

| R-3 Jack Nosti Evening Meeting Transcript A-72 A.2.2

| R-4 Jack Nosti Evening Meeting Transcript A-72 A.2.2

| S-1 Ed Stroup Evening Meeting Transcript A-206 A.2.10

| S-2 Ed Stroup Evening Meeting Transcript A-207 A.2.10

| S-3 Ed Stroup Evening Meeting Transcript A-71 A.2.2

| S-4 Ed Stroup Evening Meeting Transcript A-174 A.2.7

| S-5 Ed Stroup Evening Meeting Transcript A-136 A.2.5

| S-6 Ed Stroup Evening Meeting Transcript A-209 A.2.10

| S-7 Ed Stroup Evening Meeting Transcript A-136 A.2.5

| S-8 Ed Stroup Evening Meeting Transcript A-71 A.2.2

| T-1 William DeCamp, Jr. Evening Meeting Transcript A-86 A.2.5

| U-1 Roberto Weinmann Evening Meeting Transcript A-154 A.2.6

| W-1 David Most Evening Meeting Transcript A-209 A.2.10

| W-2 David Most Evening Meeting Transcript A-209 A.2.10

| W-3 David Most Evening Meeting Transcript A-208 A.2.10

| W-4 David Most Evening Meeting Transcript A-209 A.2.10

| W-5 David Most Evening Meeting Transcript A-210 A.2.10

| W-6 David Most Evening Meeting Transcript A-72 A.2.2

| X-1 Edward Shilling Evening Meeting Transcript A-226 A.2.13

| X-2 Edward Shilling Evening Meeting Transcript A-221 A.2.13

| X-3 Edward Shilling Evening Meeting Transcript A-210 A.2.10

| Y-1 David Sims Evening Meeting Transcript A-210 A.2.10

| Y-2 David Sims Evening Meeting Transcript A-75 A.2.3

| Y-3 David Sims Evening Meeting Transcript A-75 A.2.3

| Y-4 David Sims Evening Meeting Transcript A-210 A.2.10

| Y-5 David Sims Evening Meeting Transcript A-67 A.2.1
Appendix A

January 2007 A-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Table A-2. Comments Received on the Draft SEIS (Cont.) |

|

|

Comment ID Commenter Comment Source | (a)

Page of

Comment

Section(s)

Where

Addressed |

Y-6 David Sims Evening Meeting Transcript A-210 A.2.10 |

Y-7 David Sims Evening Meeting Transcript A-175 A.2.7 |

Y-8 David Sims Evening Meeting Transcript A-150 A.2.6 |

Z-1 Jennifer Nelson Evening Meeting Transcript A-73 A.2.2 |

Z-2 Jennifer Nelson Evening Meeting Transcript A-13 A.2.5 |

Z-3 Jennifer Nelson Evening Meeting Transcript A-145 A.2.5 |

Z-4 Jennifer Nelson Evening Meeting Transcript A-73 A.2.2 |

Z-5 Jennifer Nelson Evening Meeting Transcript A-72 A.2.2 |

AA-1 Wayne Romberg Evening Meeting Transcript A-72 A.2.2 |

AA-2 Wayne Romberg Evening Meeting Transcript A-136 A.2.5 |

AA-3 Wayne Romberg Evening Meeting Transcript A-72 A.2.2 |

BB-1 Gina Guerrazzi Evening Meeting Transcript A-159 A.2.6 |

BB-2 Gina Guerrazzi Evening Meeting Transcript A-206 A.2.10 |

BB-3 Gina Guerrazzi Evening Meeting Transcript A-159 A.2.6 |

CC-1 Eugene Creamer Letter (ML062610236) A-62 A.2.1 |

CC-2 Eugene Creamer Letter (ML062610236) A-76 A.2.4 |

CC-3 Eugene Creamer Letter (ML062610236) A-212 A.2.11 |

CC-4 Eugene Creamer Letter (ML062610236) A-78 A.2.4 |

CC-5 Eugene Creamer Letter (ML062610236) A-204 A.2.10 |

DD-1 Pat Crocker Letter (ML062060443) A-72 A.2.2 |

EE-1 Scott Cullen Letter (ML062550163) A-221 A.2.13 |

EE-2 Scott Cullen Letter (ML062550163) A-74 A.2.3 |

EE-3 Scott Cullen Letter (ML062550163) A-221 A.2.13 |

EE-4 Scott Cullen Letter (ML062550163) A-237 A.2.13 |

EE-5 Scott Cullen Letter (ML062550163) A-177 A.2.8 |

EE-6 Scott Cullen Letter (ML062550163) A-226 A.2.13 |

EE-7 Scott Cullen Letter (ML062550163) A-178 A.2.8 |

EE-8 Scott Cullen Letter (ML062550163) A-155 A.2.6 |

EE-9 Scott Cullen Letter (ML062550163) A-238 A.2.13 |

EE-10 Scott Cullen Letter (ML062550163) A-178 A.2.8 |

EE-11 Scott Cullen Letter (ML062550163) A-131 A.2.5 |

EE-12 Scott Cullen Letter (ML062550163) A-105 A.2.5 |

EE-13 Scott Cullen Letter (ML062550163) A-144 A.2.5 |

EE-14 Scott Cullen Letter (ML062550163) A-186 A.2.9 |

EE-15 Scott Cullen Letter (ML062550163) A-222 A.2.13 |

EE-16 Scott Cullen Letter (ML062550163) A-224 A.2.13 |

EE-17 Scott Cullen Letter (ML062550163) A-239 A.2.13 |

EE-18 Scott Cullen Letter (ML062550163) A-179 A.2.8 |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-52 January 2007

| Table A-2. Comments Received on the Draft SEIS (Cont.)

|

|

| Comment ID Commenter Comment Source(a)

Page of

Comment

Section(s)

Where

| Addressed

| FF-1 Willie DeCamp Letter (ML062610248) A-189 A.2.9

| GG-1 Tim Dillingham,

| Jennifer Samson,

| Cindy Zipf

| Letter (ML062610244) A-123 A.2.5

| GG-2 Tim Dillingham,

| Jennifer Samson,

| Cindy Zipf

| Letter (ML062610244) A-97 A.2.5

|

| GG-3 Tim Dillingham,

| Jennifer Samson,

| Cindy Zipf

| Letter (ML062610244) A-86 A.2.5

| GG-4 Tim Dillingham,

| Jennifer Samson,

| Cindy Zipf

| Letter (ML062610244) A-86 A.2.5

| GG-5 Tim Dillingham,

| Jennifer Samson,

| Cindy Zipf

| Letter (ML062610244) A-86 A.2.5

| GG-6 Tim Dillingham,

| Jennifer Samson,

| Cindy Zipf

| Letter (ML062610244) A-98 A.2.5

| GG-7 Tim Dillingham,

| Jennifer Samson,

| Cindy Zipf

| Letter (ML062610244) A-99 A.2.5

| GG-8 Tim Dillingham,

| Jennifer Samson,

| Cindy Zipf

| Letter (ML062610244) A-125 A.2.5

| GG-9 Tim Dillingham,

| Jennifer Samson,

| Cindy Zipf

| Letter (ML062610244) A-127 A.2.5

| GG-10 Tim Dillingham,

| Jennifer Samson,

| Cindy Zipf

| Letter (ML062610244) A-101 A.2.5

| GG-11 Tim Dillingham,

| Jennifer Samson,

| Cindy Zipf

| Letter (ML062610244) A-127 A.2.5

| GG-12 Tim Dillingham,

| Jennifer Samson,

| Cindy Zipf

| Letter (ML062610244) A-87 A.2.5

| GG-15 Tim Dillingham,

| Jennifer Samson,

| Cindy Zipf

| Letter (ML062610244) A-132 A.2.5
Appendix A

January 2007 A-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Table A-2. Comments Received on the Draft SEIS (Cont.) |

|

|

Comment ID Commenter Comment Source | (a)

Page of

Comment

Section(s)

Where

Addressed |

GG-16 Tim Dillingham, |

Jennifer Samson, |

Cindy Zipf |

Letter (ML062610244) A-132 A.2.5 |

|

GG-17 Tim Dillingham, |

Jennifer Samson, |

Cindy Zipf |

Letter (ML062610244) A-142 A.2.5 |

GG-18 Tim Dillingham, |

Jennifer Samson, |

Cindy Zipf |

Letter (ML062610244) A-171 A.2.6 |

GG-19 Tim Dillingham, |

Jennifer Samson, |

Cindy Zipf |

Letter (ML062610244) A-103 A.2.5 |

GG-20 Tim Dillingham, |

Jennifer Samson, |

Cindy Zipf |

Letter (ML062610244) A-201 A.2.10 |

GG-21 Tim Dillingham, |

Jennifer Samson, |

Cindy Zipf |

Letter (ML062610244) A-201 A.2.10 |

GG-22 Tim Dillingham, |

Jennifer Samson, |

Cindy Zipf |

Letter (ML062610244) A-203 A.2.10 |

GG-23 Tim Dillingham, |

Jennifer Samson, |

Cindy Zipf |

Letter (ML062610244) A-203 A.2.10 |

GG-24 Tim Dillingham, |

Jennifer Samson, |

Cindy Zipf |

Letter (ML062610244) A-74 A.2.3 |

HH-1 John Filippelli Letter (ML062610242) A-94 A.2.5 |

HH-2 John Filippelli Letter (ML062610242) A-134 A.2.5 |

HH-3 John Filippelli Letter (ML062610242) A-188 A.2.9 |

HH-4 John Filippelli Letter (ML062610242) A-89 A.2.5 |

HH-5 John Filippelli Letter (ML062610242) A-89 A.2.5 |

HH-6 John Filippelli Letter (ML062610242) A-95 A.2.5 |

HH-7 | John Filippelli Letter (ML062610242) A-117 A.2.5 |

HH-8 John Filippelli Letter (ML062610242) A-110 A.2.5 |

HH-9 John Filippelli Letter (ML062610242) A-205 A.2.10 |

HH-10 John Filippelli Letter (ML062610242) A-205 A.2.10 |

HH-11 John Filippelli Letter (ML062610242) A-205 A.2.10 |

HH-12 John Filippelli Letter (ML062610242) A-135 A.2.5 |

HH-13 John Filippelli Letter (ML062610242) A-135 A.2.5 |

HH-14 John Filippelli Letter (ML062610242) A-135 A.2.5 |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-54 January 2007

| Table A-2. Comments Received on the Draft SEIS (Cont.)

|

|

| Comment ID Commenter Comment Source(a)

Page of

Comment

Section(s)

Where

| Addressed

| HH-15 John Filippelli Letter (ML062610242) A-188 A.2.9

| HH-16 John Filippelli Letter (ML062610242) A-188 A.2.9

| II-1 Michael P. Gallagher Letter (ML062550161) A-211 A.2.11

|

| II-2 Michael P. Gallagher Letter (ML062550161) A-174 A.2.7

| II-3 Michael P. Gallagher Letter (ML062550161) A-220 A.2.13

| II-4 Michael P. Gallagher Letter (ML062550161) A-219 A.2.11

| JJ-1 Edith Gbur Letter (ML062550166) A-163 A.2.6

| JJ-2 Edith Gbur Letter (ML062550166) A-163 A.2.6

| KK-1 Edith Gbur Letter (ML062610245) A-167 A.2.6

| KK-2 Edith Gbur Letter (ML062610245) A-171 A.2.6

| KK-3 Edith Gbur Letter (ML062610245) A-171 A.2.6

| KK-4 Edith Gbur Letter (ML062610245) A-168 A.2.6

| KK-5 Edith Gbur Letter (ML062610245) A-169 A.2.6

| KK-6 Edith Gbur Letter (ML062610245) A-170 A.2.6

| KK-7 Edith Gbur Letter (ML062610245) A-171 A.2.6

| KK-8 Edith Gbur Letter (ML062610245) A-70 A.2.1

| LL-1 William Herring Letter (ML062060441) A-72 A.2.2

| LL-2 William Herring Letter (ML062060441) A-72 A.2.2

| LL-3 William Herring Letter (ML062060441) A-72 A.2.2

| LL-4 William Herring Letter (ML062060441) A-73 A.2.2

| LL-5 William Herring Letter (ML062060441) A-208 A.2.10

| MM-1 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-139 A.2.5

| MM-2 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-197 A.2.10

| MM-3 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-68 A.2.1

| MM-4 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-69 A.2.1

| MM-5 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-82 A.2.4

| MM-6 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-74 A.2.3

| MM-7 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-68 A.2.1

| MM-8 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-65 A.2.1

| MM-9 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-89 A.2.5

|

| MM-10 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-197 A.2.10

| MM-11 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-115 A.2.5

| MM-12 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-199 A.2.10

| MM-13 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-65 A.2.1

| MM-14 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-199 A.2.10

| MM-15 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-163 A.2.6

| MM-16 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-163 A.2.6

| MM-17 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-163 A.2.6
Appendix A

January 2007 A-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Table A-2. Comments Received on the Draft SEIS (Cont.) |

|

|

Comment ID Commenter Comment Source | (a)

Page of

Comment

Section(s)

Where

Addressed |

MM-18 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-137 A.2.5 |

MM-19 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-175 A.2.7 |

MM-20 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-83 A.2.4 |

MM-21 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-83 A.2.4 |

MM-22 | Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-84 A.2.4 |

MM-23 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-83 A.2.4 |

MM-24 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-84 A.2.4 |

MM-25 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-84 A.2.4 |

MM-26 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-115 A.2.5 |

MM-27 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-95 A.2.5 |

MM-28 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-116 A.2.5 |

MM-29 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-95 A.2.5 |

MM-30 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-95 A.2.5 |

MM-31 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-96 A.2.5 |

MM-32 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-96 A.2.5 |

MM-33 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-96 A.2.5 |

MM-34 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-96 A.2.5 |

MM-35 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-96 A.2.5 |

MM-36 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-96 A.2.5 |

MM-37 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-96 A.2.5 |

MM-38 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-96 A.2.5 |

MM-39 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-96 A.2.5 |

MM-40 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-96 A.2.5 |

MM-41 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-116 A.2.5 |

MM-42 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-96 A.2.5 |

MM-43 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-143 A.2.5 |

MM-44 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-143 A.2.5 |

MM-45 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-143 A.2.5 |

MM-46 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-144 A.2.5 |

MM-47 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-145 A.2.5 |

MM-48 | Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-137 A.2.5 |

MM-49 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-145 A.2.5 |

MM-50 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-146 A.2.5 |

MM-51 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-165 A.2.6 |

MM-52 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-166 A.2.6 |

MM-53 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-175 A.2.7 |

MM-54 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-85 A.2.4 |

MM-55 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-97 A.2.5 |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-56 January 2007

| Table A-2. Comments Received on the Draft SEIS (Cont.)

|

|

| Comment ID Commenter Comment Source(a)

Page of

Comment

Section(s)

Where

| Addressed

| MM-56 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-116 A.2.5

| MM-57 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-116 A.2.5

| MM-58 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-91 A.2.5

| MM-59 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-92 A.2.5

| MM-60 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-92 A.2.5

|

| MM-61 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-238 A.2.13

| MM-62 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-144 A.2.5

| MM-63 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-146 A.2.5

| MM-64 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-117 A.2.5

| MM-65 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-92 A.2.5

| MM-66 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-92 A.2.5

| MM-67 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-92 A.2.5

| MM-68 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-144 A.2.5

| MM-69 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-146 A.2.5

| MM-70 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-187 A.2.9

| MM-71 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-198 A.2.10

| MM-72 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-199 A.2.10

| MM-73 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-199 A.2.10

| MM-74 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-200 A.2.10

| MM-75 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-200 A.2.10

| MM-76 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-206 A.2.10

| MM-77 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-210 A.2.10

| MM-78 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-239 A.2.13

| MM-79 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-211 A.2.10

| MM-80 Julia Huff Letter (ML062610416) A-65 A.2.1

| NN-1 Tom Jones Letter (ML062550170) A-74 A.2.3

| NN-2 Tom Jones Letter (ML062550170) A-155 A.2.6

| OO-1 Michael J. Kennish Letter (ML062550158) A-92 A.2.5

| OO-2 Michael J. Kennish Letter (ML062550158) A-93 A.2.5

| OO-3 Michael J. Kennish Letter (ML062550158) A-93 A.2.5

|

| OO-4 Michael J. Kennish Letter (ML062550158) A-104 A.2.5

| OO-5 Michael J. Kennish Letter (ML062550158) A-101 A.2.5

| OO-6 Michael J. Kennish Letter (ML062550158) A-93 A.2.5

| OO-7 Michael J. Kennish Letter (ML062550158) A-64 A.2.1

| PP-1 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-161 A.2.6

| PP-2 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-160 A.2.6

| PP-3 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-106 A.2.5

| PP-4 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-106 A.2.5
Appendix A

January 2007 A-57 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Table A-2. Comments Received on the Draft SEIS (Cont.) |

|

|

Comment ID Commenter Comment Source | (a)

Page of

Comment

Section(s)

Where

Addressed |

PP-5 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-173 A.2.6 |

PP-6 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-187 A.2.9 |

PP-7 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-162 A.2.6 |

PP-8 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-180 A.2.8 |

PP-9 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-222 A.2.13 |

PP-10 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-228 A.2.13 |

PP-11 | Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-220 A.2.12 |

PP-12 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-193 A.2.10 |

PP-13 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-193 A.2.10 |

PP-14 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-194 A.2.10 |

PP-15 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-194 A.2.10 |

PP-16 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-106 A.2.5 |

PP-17 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-106 A.2.5 |

PP-18 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-107 A.2.5 |

PP-19 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-107 A.2.5 |

PP-20 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-108 A.2.5 |

PP-21 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-108 A.2.5 |

PP-22 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-109 A.2.5 |

PP-23 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-109 A.2.5 |

PP-24 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-110 A.2.5 |

PP-25 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-110 A.2.5 |

PP-26 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-137 A.2.5 |

PP-27 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-212 A.2.11 |

PP-28 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-212 A.2.11 |

PP-29 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-212 A.2.11 |

PP-30 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-212 A.2.11 |

PP-31 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-213 A.2.11 |

PP-32 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-213 A.2.11 |

PP-33 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-213 A.2.11 |

PP-34 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-213 A.2.11 |

PP-35 | Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-213 A.2.11 |

PP-36 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-111 A.2.5 |

PP-37 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-214 A.2.11 |

PP-38 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-214 A.2.11 |

PP-39 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-214 A.2.11 |

PP-40 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-214 A.2.11 |

PP-41 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-215 A.2.11 |

PP-42 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-214 A.2.11 |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-58 January 2007

| Table A-2. Comments Received on the Draft SEIS (Cont.)

|

|

| Comment ID Commenter Comment Source(a)

Page of

Comment

Section(s)

Where

| Addressed

| PP-43 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-216 A.2.11

| PP-44 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-215 A.2.11

| PP-45 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-215 A.2.11

| PP-46 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-215 A.2.11

| PP-47 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-215 A.2.11

| PP-48 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-113 A.2.5

| PP-49 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-216 A.2.11

| PP-50 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-216 A.2.11

| PP-51 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-216 A.2.11

| PP-52 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-217 A.2.11

| PP-53 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-217 A.2.11

| PP-54 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-194 A.2.10

| PP-55 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-195 A.2.10

| PP-56 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-195 A.2.10

| PP-57 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-218 A.2.11

| PP-58 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-217 A.2.11

| PP-59 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-217 A.2.11

| PP-60 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-195 A.2.10

| PP-61 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-218 A.2.11

| PP-62 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-219 A.2.11

| PP-63 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-78 A.2.4

| PP-64 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-174 A.2.7

| PP-65 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-79 A.2.4

| PP-66 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-81 A.2.4

| PP-67 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-83 A.2.4

| PP-68 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062610237) A-196 A.2.10

| QQ-1 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062620348) A-118 A.2.5

| QQ-2 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062620348) A-118 A.2.5

| QQ-3 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062620348) A-118 A.2.5

| QQ-4 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062620348) A-122 A.2.5

| QQ-5 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062620348) A-97 A.2.5

| QQ-6 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062620348) A-122 A.2.5

| QQ-7 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062620348) A-123 A.2.5

| QQ-8 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062620348) A-123 A.2.5

| QQ-9 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062620348) A-118 A.2.5

| QQ-10 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062620348) A-161 A.2.6

| QQ-11 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062620348) A-176 A.2.7

| QQ-12 Kenneth Koschek Letter (ML062620348) A-201 A.2.10
Appendix A

January 2007 A-59 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Table A-2. Comments Received on the Draft SEIS (Cont.) |

|

|

Comment ID Commenter Comment Source | (a)

Page of

Comment

Section(s)

Where

Addressed |

RR-1 Walter and Lorraine |

Lenskold |

Letter (ML062610243) A-211 A.2.10

SS-1 Joseph Mangano Letter (ML062050309) A-150 A.2.6 |

SS-2 Joseph Mangano Letter (ML062050309) A-150 A.2.6 |

SS-3 Joseph Mangano Letter (ML062050309) A-156 A.2.6 |

SS-4 Joseph Mangano Letter (ML062050309) A-156 A.2.6 |

SS-5 Joseph Mangano Letter (ML062050309) A-147 A.2.6 |

SS-6 Joseph Mangano Letter (ML062050309) A-152 A.2.6 |

SS-7 | Joseph Mangano Letter (ML062050309) A-148 A.2.6 |

SS-8 Joseph Mangano Letter (ML062050309) A-150 A.2.6 |

TT-1 Mary Mazzo Letter (ML062610240) A-75 A.2.3 |

TT-2 Mary Mazzo Letter (ML062610240) A-211 A.2.10 |

TT-3 Mary Mazzo Letter (ML062610240) A-222 A.2.13 |

TT-4 Mary Mazzo Letter (ML062610240) A-75 A.2.3 |

UU-1 Mary Mazzo Letter (ML062650456) A-211 A.2.10 |

VV-1 David McKeon Letter (ML062550168) A-158 A.2.6 |

WW-1 Andrew L. Raddant Letter (ML063000134) A-140 A.2.5 |

XX-1 Dotty Reynolds Letter (ML062060436) A-181 A.2.8 |

XX-2 Dotty Reynolds Letter (ML062060436) A-235 A.2.13 |

XX-3 Dotty Reynolds Letter (ML062060436) A-221 A.2.13 |

XX-4 Dotty Reynolds Letter (ML062060436) A-238 A.2.13 |

XX-5 Dotty Reynolds Letter (ML062060436) A-110 A.2.5 |

XX-6 Dotty Reynolds Letter (ML062060436) A-208 A.2.10 |

XX-7 Dotty Reynolds Letter (ML062060436) A-237 A.2.13 |

XX-8 Dotty Reynolds Letter (ML062060436) A-64 A.2.1 |

YY-1 Joan K. Rubin, Gail Marsh |

Saxter |

Letter (ML062610239) A-93 A.2.5

YY-2 Joan K. Rubin, Gail Marsh |

Saxter |

Letter (ML062610239) A-76 A.2.4

|

YY-3 Joan K. Rubin, Gail Marsh |

Saxter |

Letter (ML062610239) A-94 A.2.5

|

YY-4 Joan K. Rubin, Gail Marsh |

Saxter |

Letter (ML062610239) A-181 A.2.8

YY-5 Joan K. Rubin, Gail Marsh |

Saxter |

Letter (ML062610239) A-228 A.2.13

YY-6 Joan K. Rubin, Gail Marsh |

Saxter |

Letter (ML062610239) A-235 A.2.13

YY-7 Joan K. Rubin, Gail Marsh |

Saxter |

Letter (ML062610239) A-159 A.2.6
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-60 January 2007

| Table A-2. Comments Received on the Draft SEIS (Cont.)

|

|

| Comment ID Commenter Comment Source(a)

Page of

Comment

Section(s)

Where

| Addressed

| YY-8 Joan K. Rubin, Gail Marsh

| Saxter

Letter (ML062610239) A-189 A.2.10

| ZZ-1 Rep. Jim Saxton Letter (ML062480041) A-182 A.2.8

| AAA-1 Robert Scro Letter (ML062610234) A-102 A.2.5

| AAA-2 Robert Scro Letter (ML062610234) A-114 A.2.5

| BBB-1 Richard Webster Letter (ML062610359) A-227 A.2.13

| BBB-2 Richard Webster Letter (ML062610359) A-222 A.2.13

| BBB-3 Richard Webster Letter (ML062610359) A-187 A.2.9

| BBB-4 Richard Webster Letter (ML062610359) A-223 A.2.13

|

| BBB-5 Richard Webster Letter (ML062610359) A-228 A.2.13

| BBB-6 Richard Webster Letter (ML062610359) A-223 A.2.13

| BBB-7 Richard Webster Letter (ML062610359) A-183 A.2.8

| BBB-8 Richard Webster Letter (ML062610359) A-229 A.2.13

| BBB-9 Richard Webster Letter (ML062610359) A-228 A.2.13

| BBB-10 Richard Webster Letter (ML062610359) A-183 A.2.8

| BBB-11 Richard Webster Letter (ML062610359) A-184 A.2.8

| BBB-12 Richard Webster Letter (ML062610359) A-224 A.2.13

| BBB-13 Richard Webster Letter (ML062610359) A-185 A.2.8

| BBB-14 Richard Webster Letter (ML062610359) A-70 A.2.1

| CCC-1 Richard Webster Letter (ML062680033) A-187 A.2.9

| (a) The afternoon and evening transcripts can be found in ADAMS under accession

| numbers ML062220458 and ML062220526, respectively. |

|

| There was no new and significant information provided on Category 1 issues, and for most

| Category 2 issues, no information that required further evaluation. Therefore, the conclusions in

| the GEIS and draft SEIS remained valid and bounding for most issues, and no further

| evaluation was performed. However, additional evaluation of the impacts of the cooling system

| on aquatic resources was performed and resulted in some changes to conclusions relative to

| those in the draft SEIS.

|

| Comments without a supporting technical basis or without any new information are discussed in

| this appendix, and not in other sections of this report. Relevant references that address the

| issues within the regulatory authority of the NRC are provided where appropriate. Many of

| these references can be obtained from the NRC Public Document Room.

|

| Within each section of Part II of this appendix (A.2.1 through A.2.19), similar comments are

| grouped together for ease of reference, and a summary description of the comments is given,

| followed by the NRC staff’s response. Where the comment or question resulted in a change in
Appendix A

January 2007 A-61 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

the text of the draft report, the corresponding response refers the reader to the appropriate |

section of this SEIS where the change was made. Revisions to the text in the draft SEIS are |

designated by vertical lines beside the text in the final SEIS. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-62 January 2007

| A.2 Comments and Responses

|

| Comments in this section are grouped in the following categories:

|

| A.2.1 Comments Concerning the License Renewal Process, p. A-62

|

| A.2.2 Comments in Support of License Renewal at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station,

| p. A-71

|

| A.2.3 General Comments in Opposition to License Renewal at Oyster Creek Nuclear

| Generating Station, p. A-74

|

| A.2.4 Comments Concerning Surface-Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use Issues, p. A-76

|

| A.2.5 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology, Terrestrial Ecology, General Ecology, and

| Threatened and Endangered Species Issues, p. A-85

|

| A.2.6 Comments Concerning Human Health Issues, p. A-147

|

| A.2.7 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues, p. A-174

|

| A.2.8 Comments Concerning Postulated Accidents, p. A-177

|

| A.2.9 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues, p. A-186

|

| A.2.10 Comments Concerning Alternatives, p. A-189

|

| A.2.11 Comments Concerning Editorial Issues, p. A-211

|

| A.2.12 Comments Concerning Decommissioning Issues, p. A-220

|

| A.2.13 Issues Outside the Scope of the Environmental Review for License Renewal: 

| Safeguards and Security; Operational Safety; Aging Management; Emergency

| Response and Preparedness; and Need for Power, p. A-220

|

| A.2.1 Comments Concerning the License Renewal Process

|

| Comment: The Atomic Energy Commission issued a final EIS for Oyster Creek Nuclear

| Generating Station in 1974. Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station ascended to operation in

| 1969 and the EIS is an “after the fact” EIS. (CC-1)

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-63 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Response: Several of the first environmental impact statements produced for construction and |

operation of commercial nuclear power plants (including that for OCNGS) were produced after |

construction of the plant had already occurred. This post-construction assessment occurred |

because construction, and, in some cases, operations, preceded the passage of NEPA. The |

comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the |

SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: So I would like to request that, as Representative Saxton had requested, that the |

National Academy of Sciences do an outside review of your review and also that the |

Department of Environmental Protection have some say in this renewal and not just one |

organization because our lives are dependent on this. (F-2) |

|

Comment: I have here a letter from Congressman Saxton, James Saxton. And it says, in |

effect, "Like you, I have concerns about the safety and security of the plant. With this in mind, I |

have introduced H.R. 966, a bill that would require the National Academy of Sciences to |

conduct an independent assessment of safety and security issues prior to the NRC granting |

relicensing approval. |

|

"The bill would also require the Commission to evaluate the facility with respect to health risks, |

vulnerability to terrorist attacks, evacuation plans, population increases, ability to store nuclear |

waste, and the impact of nuclear accident are during the relicensing process. The bill is |

currently pending before the House Committee of Energy and Commerce." (H-6) |

|

Comment: Someone mentioned the Academy of Sciences. You have to have an outside, |

independent body doing assessment on things. You can't keep things locked into a state |

agency or a Federal agency. You need to have an independent body that has no buy-in, no |

monetary reason of interest, namely an interest in doing it for scientific purposes. (I-2) |

|

Comment: I urge the NRC, number one, to commission independent health studies on these |

topics; number two, to not take any position on reactor extension until these issues have been |

completely examined and completely resolved because there is nothing more important than |

human health. (K-8) |

|

Comment: I'm here because of my concern that this plant may be re-licensed and continue to |

operate for another 20 years, and especially because of what I feel is a tremendously biased |

and inadequate environmental impact statement that's being proposed by the NRC here. The |

NRC should be protecting us, not serving Exelon and Oyster Creek. When they are analyzing |

data for their environmental impact statement, it should not be the data that's provided by |

Oyster Creek. (O-3) |

|

Comment: We would like to recommend that an independent study of radiation from Oyster |

Creek be undertaken as part of the Environmental Impact Statement. (Q-4) |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-64 January 2007

| Comment: The GEIS has not been reviewed and assessed by a reputable independent

| scientific body such as the National Academy of Science. If a scientific committee of the

| National Academy of Science had been solicited to review the sampling design and procedures

| of AmerGen and previous plant owners and allowed to submit recommendations of a new

| sampling plan, the flaws recounted above in the aquatic environmental databases of the

| OCNGS could have been circumvented. The lack of an external review of the GEIS by an

| independent scientific body creates skepticism not only in the scientific community but also in

| the lay community. The credibility of the GEIS and the NRC effort related to the license renewal

| process of the OCNGS really depends on an acknowledged objective and effective review by a

| credible independent body not affiliated with AmerGen or any government agency. Such a

| review is necessary to ensure scientific rigor of the licensing process. The NRC’s work on the

| OCNGS will not be accepted or approved by the scientific community without such an external

| review. (OO-7)

|

| Comment: The decision regarding license renewal could mean life or death for thousands; the

| potential health, safety and economic impacts on New Jersey are enormous. Congressman Jim

| Saxton, in support of requests by many elected officials and citizen groups, has introduced H.R.

| 966, a bill that would require an independent assessment of safety and security issues by the

| National Academy of Sciences Research Council. It is imperative that the Academy of Sciences

| determine that Oyster Creek nuclear plant is safe, secure and necessary, prior to NRC

| relicensing approval, or Oyster Creek must be shut down. (XX-8)

|

| Response: The NRC is an independent agency established by the Energy Reorganization Act

| of 1974 to regulate civilian use of nuclear materials. The NRC's mission is to regulate the

| nation's civilian use of by-product, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate

| protection of public health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to

| protect the environment. As part of this mission, the NRC is responsible for the review and

| issuance of initial licenses and renewed licenses for nuclear power facilities.

|

| The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) is an advisory committee under the

| Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) mandated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

| amended. The ACRS is independent of the NRC staff and reports directly to the Commission,

| which appoints ACRS members. The operational practices of the ACRS are governed by the

| provisions of the FACA. The ACRS is composed of recognized technical experts in their fields. 

| It is structured so that experts representing many technical perspectives can provide

| independent advice, which can be factored into the Commission’s decision-making process. 

| Most ACRS meetings are open to the public, and any member of the public may request an

| opportunity to make an oral statement during the committee meeting. 

|

| During the license renewal process, the ACRS acts as an independent, third-party, oversight

| group that reviews and makes recommendations to the Commission on the safety aspects of

| renewal applications. The ACRS mandate does not include NEPA reviews.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-65 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

In conducting the environmental evaluation presented in the SEIS, the NRC uses information |

from a variety of sources, including the applicant’s Environmental Report (ER), data and |

information collected during a site audit, information provided by local, State, and other Federal |

agencies, and published scientific literature. The NRC’s role in the environmental review |

process is to provide a fair and unbiased evaluation of the impacts of operations during the |

license renewal term. |

|

The environmental analysis conducted by the NRC for license renewal is mandated by NEPA. |

NEPA requires that the analysis be conducted by the agency that takes the action, which, in this |

case, is the NRC. NEPA does not require an independent review of environmental analysis by |

the National Academy of Sciences or another independent scientific body. The EPA has the |

responsibility to review EISs that are prepared by other Federal agencies (including the NRC). |

This review responsibility is a requirement placed on the EPA by NEPA. The EPA’s review |

provides a measure of the NRC’s adherence to NEPA. Additionally, the EPA comments on |

draft EISs under its statutory areas of responsibility such as clean water and clean air. Other |

Federal agencies are invited to participate in the scoping process and are afforded the |

opportunity to review and comment on the draft EISs. |

|

The comments are related to the overall license renewal process. The comments provide no |

new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to |

these comments. |

|

Comment: I think that these conclusions of the NRC are based on old data, a static attitude |

towards the data that does exist, an assumption that if things haven't gotten worse, they're all |

right and in general a very negative, not-caring attitude about public welfare. (D-2) |

|

Comment: Another fundamental flaw of the DEIS is that the NRC appears to have simply |

regurgitated information supplied to it by the applicant and never confirms the veracity of the |

information. As a result, misrepresentations and inaccuracies have been interwoven and form |

the backbone of NRC's conclusions in the DEIS. (MM-8) |

|

Comment: In addition to the lack of information about the Bay populations, a review of the |

DEIS makes it clear that there is no thorough, pre-construction baseline from which to |

determine the impacts of the Facility. The 1974 Final Environmental Statement was completed |

after the Facility had been operating for 5 years, and as such cannot be used as a baseline. |

Data collected in the late 1960s would have been affected by the construction of the Facility |

which had already begun, and would also be skewed. Finally, this document is not readily |

available to the public and appears to be only available by making a Freedom of Information Act |

request. (MM-13) |

|

Comment: For the reasons articulated in this comment letter, NRC should not and cannot |

make any conclusions about either the environmental impact associated with the proposed |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-66 January 2007

| relicensing of the Facility or the license renewal application. Therefore, NRC cannot finalize the

| EIS and must prepare a new draft that addresses the inadequacies raised in this letter and

| submit it for public comment. Until a proper EIS is prepared and reviewed, NRC should not

| make any decisions with respect to the relicensing of Oyster Creek. To do otherwise would

| constitute an impermissible, irrevocable commitment of resources in violation of NEPA. 

| (MM-80)

|

| Response: The SEIS presents an evaluation of the anticipated impacts of operations during

| the license renewal term. The NRC staff recognizes that the amount and quality of data

| available for NEPA evaluations sometimes fall short of ideal, but believes that there is sufficient

| information available to perform an assessment of the impacts of license renewal at OCNGS. 

| The assessment presented in the SEIS is based on the best available information, drawing from

| a variety of sources, including data collected by AmerGen, the NJDEP, other governmental

| agencies, independent researchers, and others.

|

| Much data used in preparing the SEIS are current or less than 5 years old (e.g., radiological

| monitoring data, water quality data, impingement rates of sea turtles). The data from the 1980s

| that are referred to in the comments are related to the measured effects of operation of the

| cooling system on aquatic resources. Those data were collected to demonstrate compliance of

| cooling system operations with the Clean Water Act (CWA), specifically Sections 316(a) and

| 316(b), and were used as part of the basis of a NJPDES permit for station operations. As

| stated in the SEIS, OCNGS is currently operating under the provisions of that permit. Because

| that permit has expired but continues due to a timely renewal application, the NJDEP has

| developed a draft NJPDES permit with specific proposed alternatives to the existing cooling

| system. OCNGS is currently collecting additional impingement and entrainment data to

| determine compliance with the 316(b) Phase II regulations of the CWA, and those data will be

| used in developing the final NJPDES permit. If new and significant information becomes

| available in the future that demonstrates an increased impact on the aquatic environment as a

| result of continued station operation, the NRC staff expects the NJDEP to require modifications

| to the cooling system necessary to protect the resources through the NJPDES permitting

| process.

|

| The assessment of impacts of license renewal does not evaluate impacts occurring today

| relative to the pre-construction environment, but rather, the impacts that the station would have

| on the existing environment over the license renewal period. Shortly after construction of

| OCNGS, the licensee estimated pre-construction baseline conditions in the vicinity of the station

| based on post-construction surveys of areas adjacent to the station. 

|

| The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to

| the SEIS in response to these comments.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-67 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Comment: What about maybe licensing this plant for five years, not 20, because evolution is |

actually occurring in this world? I don't think 20 is a good number of years. It's a long time. |

(Y-5) |

|

Response: Extensive studies and experience have shown that commercial nuclear power |

facilities can be safely operated for more than 40 years. As a result, the NRC has provided an |

option in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) that allows owners of nuclear |

power reactors to seek license renewal for up to an additional 20 years with no limitations on |

the number of times the license may be renewed. The decision whether to seek license |

renewal, including the length of the renewal period, rests entirely with nuclear power reactor |

owners and typically is based on the plant’s economic viability and whether it can continue to |

meet NRC safety and environmental requirements. The NRC bases its decision regarding |

license renewal on whether the facility would continue to meet the requirements for safe |

operation and whether the protection of the environment can be assured during the renewal |

term. |

|

Comment: We learned about the hearing from the Asbury Park Press and the article that they |

wrote about the other hearing that occurred the other day on the safety issues. So we are a |

coalition of 160-plus organizations that are concerned about marine water quality in the area, |

and when we're notified about these hearings, which is part of what the coalition is about, we |

distribute that to all the organizations. So there wasn't any time for us to engage that coalition, |

make them aware of the hearing. So I'm very concerned about the process. (P-1) |

|

Response: Prior to public meetings on the draft SEIS, the NRC typically attempts to contact all |

parties who have expressed interest and have provided contact information during the scoping |

process. In addition, the NRC places advertisements of the upcoming meetings in local and |

regional newspapers; publishes a notice in the Federal Register and on the NRC website; |

notifies local governmental organizations; and issues a press release and posts them in |

advance of the meeting. In the case of the draft SEIS meeting, all of these activities were done. |

However, the NRC did not directly contact the Clean Ocean Action about the meeting. We |

apologize for the oversight. The comment provides no new and significant information; |

therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: I'm also concerned about the quality of the process because in the comments that |

we submitted during the scoping period, we raised some very serious, significant issues. Some |

of them were raised today and considered small. We categorically disagree and will be |

submitting our comments in full during the process. (P-2) |

|

Response: The scoping comments referred to in the comment were related to bioaccumulation |

of radionuclides in Barnegat Bay. The SEIS evaluates data from the Radiological |

Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) conducted by AmerGen and the independent |

Environmental Surveillance and Monitoring Program (ESMP) conducted by the Bureau of |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-68 January 2007

| Nuclear Engineering with the NJDEP. Over the period of operation of OCNGS, these two

| programs have yielded consistent results. These data and their implications to radiation

| exposure are discussed in Section 2.2.7 of the SEIS. Additional detail on this topic has been

| provided in that section.

|

| Comment: The statement of the purpose and need for the proposed action reveals much about

| the NRC's attitude toward the Facility. The purpose of the action is to maintain the status quo,

| regardless of the costs or the consequences. This flies in the face of the purposes and goals of

| the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). (MM-3)

|

| Comment: NRC defines the purpose and need of the proposed action as merely providing an

| option of keeping a nuclear power plant online. DEIS at 1-8. NRC's decision to define the

| purpose and need for the project exclusively from Oyster Creek's perspective, making renewal

| of the license a foregone conclusion, is contrary to NEPA regulations and thirty-five years of

| NEPA jurisprudence.

|

| Because the stated purpose and need of a federal action determines the range and analysis of

| alternatives, NRC's failure to properly define the purpose and need makes proper consideration

| of alternatives impossible. See City of New York v. Dep’t of Transportation, 715 F.2d 732, 743

| (2nd Cir. 1983) (it is arbitrary for an agency "to narrow the objective of its action artificially and

| thereby circumvent the requirement that relevant alternatives be considered."); see also,

| Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ("an agency may

| not define the objectives of its action in terms so unreasonably narrow that only one alternative

| from among the environmentally benign ones in the agency's power would accomplish the goals

| of the agency's action, and the EIS would become a foreordained formality.").

|

| NRC defined the purpose and need exclusively from Oyster Creek's perspective, as simply

| issuing a renewal of an operating license. NRC appears to be equating Oyster Creek's

| corporate goals with its own objectives. While the goals of a private party applicant are, to a

| limited extent, relevant in determining a project's purpose and need, "[m]ore importantly, an

| agency should always consider the views of Congress, expressed, to the extent that the agency

| can determine them, in the agency's statutory authorization to act, as well as in other

| Congressional directives." Citizens Against Burlington, 938 F.2d at 196.

|

| Coupled with NEPA's mandate to act as stewards for present and future generation,

| see 42 U.S.C. § 4331(a) (2005), it is impossible for NRC to equate its statutory objectives with

| Oyster Creek's goal of maximizing profits on behalf of its shareholders. NRC cannot fulfill its

| NEPA obligations by simply looking to what is most convenient and profitable for Oyster Creek.

| See Van Abbema v. Fornell, 807 F.2d 633,638 (7th Cir. 1986) ("the evaluation of 'alternatives'

| mandated by NEPA is to be an evaluation of alternative means to accomplish the general goal

| of an action; it is not an evaluation of the alternative means by which a particular applicant can

| reach his goals."). NRC's narrowly defined purpose and need is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse
Appendix A

January 2007 A-69 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law, as it precludes any analysis of a |

reasonable range of alternatives impermissibly rendering the result in this case a "foreordained |

formality." One of the purposes of NEPA was to "promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate |

damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man." |

42 U.S.C. 5 4321. The DEIS does nothing to forward those goals, as it suggests in the |

statement of purpose and need that the goal is to keep the Facility as an option for the State of |

New Jersey. There is no effort to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment. Further, the |

DEIS, which is riddled with flawed data, misrepresentations and bereft of any comprehensive |

information about the ecosystem directly impacted by the Facility, also fails to promote another |

of the goals of NEPA, namely to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural |

resources important to the Nation." (MM-7) |

|

Response: The NRC believes that the description of the proposed action and the purpose and |

need of the proposed action, as presented in the SEIS, are accurately stated and reflect the |

scope of the NRC’s jurisdiction and decision-making capability. The statement of the proposed |

action does not constrain the analysis of alternatives, and the NRC examines the impacts of a |

full spectrum of alternative sources of power to replace OCNGS generation should OCNGS |

cease operations upon completion of the 40-year license term. In addition, the SEIS examines |

the impacts of alternatives to the existing once-through cooling-water system should the |

NJPDES permit require changes to that system during the license renewal term. The |

description of the proposed action does not in any way restrict the decision-making authority of |

the State, other Federal agencies, and energy planners. |

|

NEPA is a procedural law and does not grant the NRC the authority to prevent or eliminate |

damage to the environment, but rather directs Federal agencies to assess the impact of an |

action on the environment, consider alternatives to the action, and propose mitigation of |

impacts. Prevention and elimination of environmental impact are the responsibilities of |

regulatory agencies charged with management and protection of specific resources. If the |

commenter is aware of flawed data or misrepresentation in the draft SEIS, those specific |

instances should be brought to the NRC staff’s attention. |

|

The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to |

the SEIS in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: The DEIS disregards the many known adverse affects and essentially parrots the |

information provided to the NRC by the applicant. As a result, the NRC has failed to take the |

requisite hard look at the proposed action. In addition, the DEIS perpetuates inaccuracies |

presented by the applicant with respect to the impact on the aquatic environment, going so far |

as to misrepresent the conclusions of studies cited. Not only does NRC misrepresent the |

studies cited, it fails to acknowledge the fact that the studies cited do not support the conclusion |

reached by the agency that the proposed action would have only a small impact on the |

environment. (MM-4) |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-70 January 2007

| Response: The SEIS and GEIS provide a thorough evaluation of the environmental

| consequences of OCNGS operations during the 20-year license renewal term. If the

| commenter believes that some adverse effects were not considered in the SEIS, these should

| be identified with more specificity. In conducting the environmental evaluation presented in the

| SEIS, the NRC uses information from a variety of sources, including the applicant’s ER, data

| and information collected during a site audit, information provided by local, State, and other

| Federal agencies, and published scientific literature. Included in the SEIS is an assessment of

| the environmental consequences of design-basis accidents and a site-specific consideration of

| SAMAs. The NRC’s role in the environmental review process is to provide a fair and unbiased

| evaluation of the impacts of operations during the license renewal term. The comment provides

| no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to

| this comment.

|

| Comment: For the reasons articulated in this comment letter, NRC should not and cannot

| make any conclusions about either the risks of accident or terrorism associated with the

| proposed relicensing of the Facility or the license renewal application. Therefore, NRC cannot

| finalize the EIS and must prepare a new draft that addresses the inadequacies raised in this

| letter and submit it for public comment. Until a proper EIS is prepared and reviewed, NRC

| should not make any decisions with respect to the relicensing of Oyster Creek. To do otherwise

| would constitute an impermissible, irrevocable commitment of resources in violation of NEPA. 

| (BBB-14)

|

| Response: The SEIS provides a site-specific evaluation of SAMAs in Chapter 5 and

| Appendix G. Nevertheless, the comment raises concern that the GEIS and SEIS do not

| adequately evaluate the possible impacts of beyond-design-basis accidents initiated by terrorist

| attacks or sabotage. However, in the GEIS, the NRC staff did evaluate existing impact

| assessments performed by the NRC and by industry at 44 nuclear plants in the United States

| and concluded that the risk from beyond-design-basis accidents at existing nuclear power

| plants would be small. Additionally, compliance with the NRC regulatory requirements under

| 10 CFR Part 73 provides reasonable assurance that the risk from sabotage would be small. 

| Even if such events were to occur, the Commission would expect that resultant core damage

| and radiological releases would be no worse than those expected from internally initiated

| events. Based on the above, the Commission concludes that the risk from beyond-design-basis

| accidents at existing nuclear power plants would be small, and, additionally, that the risks from

| other external events are adequately addressed by a generic consideration of internally initiated

| severe accidents. The text in Chapter 5 of the SEIS has been modified to provide the rationale

| for these conclusions.

|

| Comment: Why does the NRC depend [on] OCNGS for self monitoring when concerned

| taxpayers disagree because it is akin to asking the wolf to guard the chicken coop? The public

| and experts have questioned the monitoring and sampling programs and being self serving
Appendix A

January 2007 A-71 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

and/or unscientific. Why not involve the National Academy of Sciences in the SEIS when it has |

the confidence of the US Congress was requested by elected officials? (KK-8) |

|

Response: As the applicant for license renewal and the holder of an operating license, |

AmerGen is responsible for collecting monitoring data. These data are submitted to State |

agencies and the NRC and are subjected to quality control checks. Much of the data submitted |

to the NRC by AmerGen is under oath or affirmation, and severe penalties can be assessed if |

data are falsified. In addition, the State has an independent radiological monitoring program |

that has shown results consistent with those developed by the licensee. In conducting the |

environmental evaluation presented in the SEIS, the NRC uses information from a variety of |

sources, including the applicant’s ER, data and information collected during a site audit, |

information provided by local, State, and other Federal agencies, and published scientific |

literature. No discrepancies in data or interpretation were found during this environmental |

evaluation. The NRC’s role in the environmental review process is to provide a fair and |

unbiased evaluation of the impacts of operations during the license renewal term. The |

comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the |

SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

A.2.2 Comments in Support of License Renewal at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating |

Station |

|

Comment: I'm just here to tell you that I believe that Oyster Creek should get a license |

extension. (L-1) |

|

Comment: I can assure you our members, as well as management and security, are all highly |

trained, highly skilled professionals who take their responsibility seriously. Their first priority is |

to protect the public and the environment. They insure that Oyster Creek is a safe, clean, |

reliable, environmentally friendly plant, all day, every day. For all of these reasons and others, I |

urge you to relicense Oyster Creek. (M-6; S-8) |

|

Comment: Our members are highly skilled and highly trained, as is everyone at Oyster Creek; |

union, management, and security. Each is a skilled professional in their field. I can assure you |

they all take their responsibility seriously and work hard to insure the safety of the public and the |

environment all day every day. |

|

It's my belief that one of the great injustices in this whole relicensing process is that these |

dedicated professionals, along with the NRC and the State police are treated with contempt and |

referred to basically as incompetent by some of those who would like to see Oyster Creek and |

all nuclear plants closed. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the NRC and the State police |

for their hard work and professionalism that they exhibit every day. Our members live and work |

in the local community. Their families live close to the plant, and their children go to school |

here. Our lives and those of our children and families, as well as the public we serve, would be |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-72 January 2007

| affected by any problem at the plant. We would never compromise our principles for the safety

| of the plant or the public. (M-1; S-3)

|

| Comment: So I do think it is a very important thing to look at the balance because if you do

| deny the Oyster Creek re-license, we have to look towards the future and look at the impact of

| what that's going to have in our environment. But I truly agree with the NRC's assessment, and

| I definitely believe that Oyster Creek is worthy of re-license. (W-6)

|

| Comment: It looks like the operation as it is appears to be the best way to go. We feel it's the

| best way to go. There's been extremely little impact on our environment with Oyster Creek. 

| (R-3)

|

| Comment: We have to take our best look at what we feel is best for the community and go with

| that, and I ask you to continue to do what you're doing. I think you're doing a great job. (R-4)

|

| Comment: Oyster Creek is run by a team of dedicated and talented professionals who are just

| as committed as I am to protect the public, protect the environment, and protect the plant. 

| We're looking forward to continue to operate and provide clean, safe, and reliable power to New

| Jersey until 2029. (Z-5)

|

| Comment: I'm impressed with the people here at Oyster Creek. They try to do the right thing

| all of the time. It's a good, little plant. It's robust, a good design. It's simple, a great little unit. 

| I'm really pleased with it. You know, I wouldn't have chose to live so close to it if I had any

| concerns about it. (AA-1)

|

| Comment: I want to applaud the NRC for the work they're doing. As a very close resident to

| the plant, I'm very interested in it getting done right and being thorough about how you do it

| because my friends, neighbors, wife and family, we want to continue to feel safe being close to

| the plant. (AA-3)

|

| Comment: Approve it I live by the plant and feel safe. I am tired of people from out of our town

| complaining. Approve the extension PLEASE!!! (DD-1)

|

| Comment: I whole Heartedly support the relicensing of this facility. (LL-1)

|

| Comment: The employees and the management staff are committed to safety as I could see

| as an outside professional in Occupational Safety and Health, during that 15 week operation to

| enhance security at Oyster Creek, under Home Land Security operations. (LL-2)

|

| Comment: Those FEW who oppose the relicensing have not shown anyone any valid

| concerns other than false fear tactics. The plant is 40 years old come 2009, but that doesn't

| mean we can't have it safe with constant up grading. If the containment vessle is sound which is
Appendix A

January 2007 A-73 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

your job at NRC to acertain, then the plant should remain "ON LINE". It's puzzling to me and |

many of my friends and Neighbors that these groups opposing the license renewal seem to get |

a loud voice in the press and at various meetings, but really, who do they really represent but a |

very small minority of our population in Ocean County and the region. |

|

I ran my own survey these last few months speaking to many around the region, and when I |

asked: do you know of the Mothers, Grandmothers, Nuclear Opponents, etc etc... NOT ONE |

PERSON IN AS MANY AS 60 OR SO, SAID THEY REPRESENT THEM IN ANY WAY OR |

EVEN KNEW OF THESE FOLKS. (LL-3) |

|

Comment: Let's do what's right for the people overall and think positive about Nuclear Power. |

The President himself has taken a position to expand Nuclear Generation of Power. Jon |

Corzine also was reported in the press, to have some concern of the plants age, but said that's |

not a reason to shut it down. (LL-4) |

|

Comment: The members of IBEW local 1289 are at the plant 24 hours a day 7 days a week. |

We don't see old data. We see data that is happening right now every day. And I can tell you |

that the plant is run safe, and we are committed to making sure it continues to run safe. |

|

I live in Barnegat, which is less than five miles away from Oyster Creek. My wife and my |

children are within five miles of the plant. So are my parents. So is my brother. And I would |

never compromise their safety to see the power plant continue to run. |

|

My expertise is in radiation protection, and I can tell you that Oyster Creek is a safe plant, both |

radiologically and as far as the environmental is concerned. |

|

We have the operators and the radiation protection technicians, the mechanics, who are highly |

trained individuals who care, first of all, about the operation of the plant and the safety of the |

public and the safety of our families. (L-2) |

|

Comment: At Oyster Creek our most critical systems are not those that produce power and |

make us money. They're the safety systems that we would use to protect the public in the |

unlikely and unfortunate event of an accident. A large portion of our resources and time is |

spent monitoring and maintaining these systems, as well as making sure that we meet all |

regulatory requirements associated with these systems. (Z-1) |

|

Comment: My third concern is around protecting plant equipment. As an engineer, I interface |

with plant operators, maintenance personnel, chemists and others to make sure that each |

system and significant component is operating as it should. By monitoring and maintaining the |

equipment effectively, we can insure clean, safe, and reliable operation of the plant. (Z-4) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-74 January 2007

| Response: The comments are supportive of license renewal at OCNGS and are general in

| nature. The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were

| made to the SEIS in response to these comments.

|

| A.2.3 General Comments in Opposition to License Renewal at Oyster Creek Nuclear

| Generating Station

|

| Comment: I am definitely opposed to the relicensing of Oyster Creek (D-1)

|

| Comment: I just close by saying that I am very disappointed, more than disappointed. I feel

| that they are marketing a bill of goods that is detrimental to our welfare here in Ocean County

| and the State of New Jersey. (D-9)

|

| Comment: In light of the seriousness of the risks associated with on-site spent fuel storage,

| increased potential for accidents at aging reactors, vulnerability and overcrowding of spent fuel

| pools, and the region's ability to economically replace the power generated by the plant,

| OCNGS should not be re-licensed. (EE-2)

|

| Comment: For all of the above reasons, COA [Clean Ocean Action] and ALS [American Littoral

| Society] submit that the Draft GEIS fails to take a "hard look" at many of the environmental

| impacts caused by OCNGS and its antiquated once-through cooling system. It is a matter of

| public record that OCGNS creates significant, adverse and detrimental impacts to the Barnegat

| Bay ecosystem, including the death of trillions of fish and aquatic organisms each year. Without

| current data to establish the sustainability of various local species despite this momentous

| threat, the Draft GEIS' classification of these impacts as SMALL is scientifically flawed and

| without basis. Moreover, the Draft GEIS fails to reasonably evaluate closed-cycle cooling as an

| alternative to the destructive once-through system. For these reasons, COA and ALS urge the

| NRC to deny the OCNGS' application for re-licensing. (GG-24)

|

| Comment: NRC should not and cannot make any conclusions about either the environmental

| impact associated with the proposed relicensing of the Facility or the license renewal

| application. Therefore, NRC cannot finalize the EIS and must prepare a new draft that

| addresses the inadequacies raised in this letter and submit it for public comment. Until a proper

| EIS is prepared and reviewed, NRC should not make any decisions with respect to the

| relicensing of Oyster Creek. To do otherwise would constitute an impermissible, irrevocable

| commitment of resources in violation of NEPA. (MM-6)

|

| Comment: My wife and I want to voice our concerns and objections to the relicensing of the

| nuclear power plant in Lacey Township, NJ. We have read about the issues from both sides and

| remain convinced that the management is not doing enough to protect the environment and

| public safety. (NN-1)

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-75 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Comment: Please DO NOT relicense this 35 year old plant which is the oldest in the country |

(with still 5 years to go.) (TT-1) |

|

Comment: Please think safe, don’t relicense the Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant. (TT-4) |

|

Comment: Island Heights and especially Moorestown, Riverside also, in fact, much of |

New Jersey is facing a horrible and increasing risk from some nuclear science and engineering |

issues related to Oyster Creek. (C-1) |

|

Comment: The comment I am going to make now has to do with something that happened up |

in Boston very recently, but I think it's apropos. A tunnel was closed up there just a couple of |

days ago when a huge panel fell off the roof and crushed a woman in her car driving through. |

They closed up the tunnel. But what I feel is apropos is that the head of the Port Authority I |

don't know his name offhand, but he's the head of it there -- after the woman is dead, crushed to |

death, the tunnel is closed, he says to the press and the public, "Well, I want to assure |

everybody the tunnels are safe," you know, somehow that he could say that after, "Oh, my |

God," they had to close up the tunnel and the woman is crushed to death in her car and he |

says, "Don't worry about it, people. The tunnel is safe." (J-3) |

|

Comment: Anybody who thinks that a nuclear plant is 100 percent safe is simply joking with |

themselves. They're not 100 percent safe. They're darn near 100 percent safe, and worst-case |

scenarios are certainly worst-case scenarios, and we don't want to be doomsdayers (phonetic) |

and stuff and say the end of the world is coming, but a friend of my was saying just the other |

day, "The juice just ain't worth the squeeze." Okay? (Y-3) |

|

Comment: In the '60s and '70s, I was an engineer working on naval and utility nuclear power |

plant design projects. The Three Mile Island incident happened while I was working at Burns |

and Roe in Oradell, New Jersey. |

|

The reactor containment building, which I believe saved the populous from a deadly radioactive |

release, was designed by a Burns and Roe engineer named Bob Palm, whom I work closely |

with. |

|

The TMI incident itself was essentially caused by -- and this is a technical term -- cover-my-ass |

plant management. An operator moves to first operate the plant with a broken steam generator |

backup feed pump, then to turn off emergency core cooling after the reactor overheated due to |

failure of the main feed pump. The TMI event caused the demise of the U.S. nuclear power |

plant industry for quite a while. (C-2) |

|

Comment: What happened in Chernobyl pretty much destroyed the Soviet Union. You can |

pretend you're blind to that or ignore it in any way you want, but it is simply ridiculous. Okay? |

A very real thing happened over there. (Y-2) |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-76 January 2007

| Response: The comments oppose license renewal at OCNGS and are general in nature. The

| comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the

| SEIS in response to these comments.

|

| A.2.4 Comments Concerning Surface-Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use Issues

|

| Comment: Figure 2-3 on page 2-4. It's the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station site

| property map. If you would just take a look at it? You will note that both Oyster Creek and the

| South Branch of Forked River west of the plant are delineated with dotted lines. Well, I'll tell you

| what I did. I checked the USGS map plot and brought a copy of it here today. You can clearly

| see that both Oyster Creek and the south branch of Forked River on USGS quad map are solid

| blue lines. That may not seem significant, but to an ichthyologist or people that use USGS

| maps as reference material, the dotted line indicates according to USGS legend an intermittent

| stream and one that does not carry constant flow of water. At best, this map to me is

| misleading.

|

| I also noted that this map I guess was widely distributed and used for submission to other

| agencies to solicit comments. I'll leave it to the NRC to develop some sort of standards of

| integrity when it comes to using this sort of information. (A-1)

|

| Comment: The site boundary map on page 2-4 uses dotted lines to delineate or to lay out the

| south branch of the Forked River and Oyster Creek. I compared that map to a USGS quad

| map, which is the standard map that's used for showing the location of a plant and the

| surrounding environment. The difference between the map in the report and the USGS quad

| map is that the USGS quad map shows those streams as being regular streams, not intermittent

| streams, as shown on the map that is included in the draft report. (A-2)

|

| Comment: Figure 2-3 (OCNGS site boundary map), on page 2-4, delineates both Oyster

| Creek and the South Branch Forked River west of the Station with dotted lines. (Usually, dotted

| lines indicate watercourses of an intermittent nature). The USGS quad for the area delineates

| both streams with solid blue lines, well beyond the Garden State Parkway to the west. The

| NJDEP maps indicate that both streams are watershed of the Pinelands National Reserve. 

| (CC-2)

|

| Comment: It was also pointed out at this same hearing that the maps used in the draft report to

| identify the Oyster Creek and Forked River had inaccuracies relating to the designations of the

| Oyster Creek and the South Branch of Forked River waterways. (YY-2)

|

| Response: The comments point out that the map shown in Figure 2-3 uses dashed lines to

| indicate the upper reaches of Oyster Creek and the South Branch of Forked River (i.e., those

| portions upstream of the intake and discharge canals). The commenter correctly points out that

| dashed lines are conventionally used to indicate intermittent streams. Because neither the
Appendix A

January 2007 A-77 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

South Branch of Forked River nor Oyster Creek are intermittent in the area shown on the map, |

both streams are indicated as solid lines in the revised Figure 2-3 of the SEIS. |

|

Comment: The next comment I have is on section 2.2.2. And that section is titled "Water |

Use....” "Information on the two production wells at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station is |

available in a water use registration (NJDEP 2001A), which is required for users of less than |

100,000 gallons per day." That statement is incorrect. The 100,000 gallons per day is a |

regulatory threshold. The installation of equipment, which could divert 100,000 gallons a day of |

the waters of the State of New Jersey or more requires a permit. That permit is, I believe, |

covered by the Water Supply Act and is typically referred to as a water allocation permit. |

|

If you read on in that section, you will see that it refers to two production wells. If you run the |

numbers for those pump rates, you will see that they both exceed 100,000 gallons per day. |

That's why they're regulated. |

|

This brings up a whole fascinating issue here. Then the section goes on and describes |

freshwater that's used in what's referred to as a fire pond. It does not describe the pumps or the |

capacity of those pumps that could be used to divert the water, the fresh water, from the fire |

pond. If those pumps have a capacity of diverting in excess of 100,000 gallons per day, my |

interpretation of New Jersey state law is that they would require a water allocation permit. |

|

I'm not sure whether discovery is supposed to take place at these sorts of hearings, but I would |

like to bring this to your attention. Similarly, south branch of Forked River is a USGS quad, solid |

blue-delineated stream, solid blue-delineated going westerly beyond the Garden State Parkway. |

Its drainage area is significant. The entire flow of the south branch of the Forked River is |

diverted by operation of the cooling water pumps of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating |

Station. |

|

I did a review of, I believe it is called, Appendix E, a listing of -- I believe there is a listing of |

permits and approvals that the station or the owner has provided. I find no permit issued for the |

fire pond water, which I believe is actually Oyster Creek water, another stream. I find no permit |

for the diversion of water from the south branch of Forked River. |

|

I guess my question here -- oh, the other thing I wanted to mention, the section does mention |

that the wells have installed meters. And the way this usually works is that the applicant -- |

those are totalizing flow meters -- that the applicant takes readings and supplies those readings |

to the NJDEP on a periodic basis. And then the DEP sends the owner an invoice to pay a bill. I |

know you have used the terms "small," "moderate," "large." If you look at the millions of gallons, |

I think that we're talking here about diverted New Jersey state water. We may be able to get |

things large. (A-4) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-78 January 2007

| Comment: Section 2.2.2–Water Use. The statement regarding “less than 100,000 gallons per

| day” on lines 27 & 28, page 2-19, is incorrect. The 100,000 gpd is a regulatory threshold in

| accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:19-1.4 of the New Jersey Water Supply Allocation Rules. Also,

| Section 2.2.2. references NJDEP permits and metering for on-site water wells and is silent

| regarding the proposed continuous diversion of the entire South Branch Forked River fresh

| watershed (the product of a federal initiative). In my opinion, all water resources should be

| identified and quantified because the proposed action has direct impacts. (CC-4)

|

| Response: These comments refer to water permitting issues at OCNGS. The first issue

| mentioned concerns the pumping rates of the two production wells at OCNGS. As described in

| Section 2.2.2 of the SEIS, the average annual pumping rates of these two wells are 14 gallons

| per minute (gpm) and 4.1 gpm, or 20,000 gallons per day (gpd) and 5,900 gpd, respectively. 

| The combined rates are well below the 100,000-gpd threshold identified by the State

| (NJDEP 2001). The State indicated that a Water Allocation Permit is required for the diversion

| of more than 100,000 gpd, not the installation of equipment of that capacity.

|

| The second issue is whether the fire pond requires a Water Allocation Permit. The State

| (reference below) calls for a Water Allocation Permit if the withdrawal of ground and/or surface

| water is in excess of 100,000 gallons of water per day for a period of more than 30 days in a

| consecutive 365-day period. Because fire pond pumping would not take place for more than

| 30 days, the Water Allocation Permit would not be required. See NJDEP 2006a.

|

| The third issue is whether diversion permits are required for Oyster Creek and the South Branch

| of Forked River for use in the dilution pumping and circulating-water cooling system. This water

| usage is permitted under the CWA. By issuing a NJPDES permit, the State authorizes the use

| of intake water for the circulating-water pumps and the dilution pumps. Therefore, a Water

| Allocation Permit is not required. The comments provide no new and significant information;

| therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these comments.

|

| Comment: Page 2-19 fourth paragraph, indicates the two production wells on site have a water

| use registration for users of less than 100,000 gallons of water a day (gpd). On page 81 of the

| comments from the public hearing it is indicated that the statement was incorrect. The person

| making the comments indicated that it was the installation of equipment that could divert more

| than 100,000 gpd, which required a permit. A check of the water supply permits indicates that

| Amergen Energy Co. has a "Water Use Registration" 11108W. Water Use Registrations are for

| systems that have the potential to exceed the 100,000 gpd due to the size of the pumps or the

| number of wells in the system but their use is under 100,000 gpd on a 30-day average.

|

| The last paragraph, of the same page, states over the year that the usage is only 14gpm. It

| seemed unusual to site usage in this way. On page 2-20, second sentence, they indicate that

| extraction wells for the ground water remediation are discussed in Section 2.2.3. Yet in

| Section 2.2.3 [t]here is no mention of the amount of water pumped by the ground water
Appendix A

January 2007 A-79 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

extraction system. If ground water is being pumped for the clean-up technically, those amounts |

should [be] added into the plant Water Use Registration totals but there is no indication on the |

registration that there is any ground water pumping for a clean-up. If the 30-day average |

exceeded 100,000 gpd, then they would need a Water Allocation Permit. |

|

It was not clear why the report made so much of the amount of water pumped at 14 gpm until |

page 4-43 was examined. There it is stated that "Plants using less than 100 gpm are not |

expected to cause any groundwater conflicts." The next paragraph indicates that as discussed |

in Section 2.2.2 the use is less than 100 gpm and "The NRC staff has not identified any new |

and significant information during its independent review of the AmerGen ER, the site visit, the |

scoping process, or the evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff |

concludes that there would be no groundwater-use conflicts during the renewal term beyond |

those discussed in the GEIS." (PP-63) |

|

Response: These comments refer to water permitting issues at OCNGS. The first issue |

mentioned concerns the pumping rates of the two production wells at OCNGS. As described in |

Section 2.2.2 of the SEIS, the average annual pumping rates of these two wells are 14 gallons |

per minute (gpm) and 4.1 gpm, or 20,000 gallons per day (gpd) and 5,900 gpd, respectively. |

The combined rates are well below the 100,000-gpd threshold identified by the State |

(NJDEP 2001). The State indicated that a Water Allocation Permit is required for the diversion |

of more than 100,000 gpd, not the installation of equipment of that capacity. |

|

The second issue the commenter refers to is water used for groundwater remediation. The |

diesel remediation system pumps varying amounts of water. Data from 1997 to 2002 are |

presented in Jersey Central Power & Light Company (JCP&L) 2003. During this time, the |

months with the highest groundwater pumping by the system were January to June 1998. |

During this 6-month period, approximately 186,000 gallons were pumped, which is an average |

rate of 0.72 gpm or about 1036 gpd, well under the 100,000-gpd threshold limit. Other periods |

are significantly lower. The commenter’s statement that the remediation system’s withdrawals |

should be included in the Water Use Registration is true, and the facility should include this |

information in future permits with the State for completeness. However, relative to the cited |

Category 1 issue and its 100-gpm threshold, the remediation system pumping is a negligible |

additional amount relative to the average production well pumping of 14 gpm. The comment |

provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in |

response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Section 4.5, Groundwater Use and Quality. This section indicates there are no |

groundwater-use conflicts, which seems to be based on the plant not pumping more than |

100 gpm. Actually when the wells are pumping they each exceed the 100 gpm since they have |

200+ gpm pumps. Also they cite "NJDEP 2005a" for pass-through cooling water for some |

pumps. This fact sheet on the discharge permits for the plant discusses some of water use for |

the plant. In the report, on a diagram of the water flows at the plant, the South Well is shown. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-80 January 2007

| For the South Well, it is indicated that the flows from the well can range from 3,000 to

| 103,700 gpd. The Draft GEIS does not show the North Well on the diagram. What also is not

| indicated there or in the report is the any amount of ground water pumped by the ground water

| clean-up system. Another ground water pumpage at the plant site, which possibly may be used

| by the plant, is under Water Allocation Permit 2164P. This permit is for Jersey Central Power &

| Light and has a maximum rate of 1,100 gpm and 7.95 million gallons per month. The first three

| wells listed on the permit are DW-1, DW-2 and SW-1 which were drilled for the Oyster Creek

| Nuclear Plant in 1971 and 1973 to supply water to the plant. These wells are still permitted in

| the latest diversion permit for JCP&L after the selling the plant to AmerGen even though they

| were for plant water supply. It is not clear why JCP&L would have kept them under their permit

| since it is likely they still are interconnected to the plant. We doubt the original piping was

| removed after the sale of the plant. Is or can water pumped under the Jersey Central Diversion

| be used by the AmerGen plant? If so, then the fact that AmerGen reports 14 gpm averaged out

| over the year is moot. They could be using and pumping significantly more water from the site

| since it would be reported under a different diversion. Also there is no quantity being pumped

| for the ground water clean up.

|

| Based on previous records, at times the plant can and will use more water than the AmerGen

| Water Use Registration permits. The records show in the 1990's there was at least one time the

| plant exceeded its monthly diversion of 7.95 mgm. It is not clear why they used that much

| water, but if the same conditions occur again the plant would likely use similar amounts of

| water.

|

| Section 4.8.5, page 4-55. The report again indicates that the plant water use of only 14 gpm is

| inconsequential and is well below the GEIS Category 2 threshold for ground water use of

| 100 gpm. Then at the bottom of the page they again state "... the NRC staff concludes that the

| cumulative impact on groundwater resources through water usage would be SMALL, and that

| additional mitigation would not be warranted." This statement cannot be evaluated until all the

| ground water pumpage and use at the plant quantified as discussed above under Section 4.5. 

| (PP-65)

|

| Response: The comment suggests that the North and South Wells may be pumping more than

| 200 gpm when turned on. This assumes that the pumps have no controls to regulate the pump

| rate, and it assumes that the pumping takes place over a reasonably long period of time. There

| is no indication that the wells remove water at a rate more than 100 gpm. The NJPDES flow

| diagram that is described in the comment, for example, states that the South Well pumps 3000

| to 103,700 gpd, which is 2 to 72 gpm. Data for the overall combined pump rate of the North and

| South Wells averages 14 gpm.

|

| The three JCP&L wells (DW-1, DW-2, and SW-1) that are cited in the comment were originally

| constructed as dewatering wells for the proposed but cancelled Forked River site. They remain
Appendix A

January 2007 A-81 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

under current permit to JCP&L. AmerGen does not use their water and does not have access |

to them. |

|

Concern was also raised about the pumping rate the groundwater remediation system. The |

diesel remediation system pumps varying amounts of water. Data from 1997 to 2002 are |

presented in Jersey Central Power & Light Company (JCP&L) 2003. During this time, the |

months with the highest groundwater pumping by the system were January to June 1998. |

During this 6-month period, approximately 186,000 gallons were pumped, which is an average |

rate of 0.72 gpm or about 1036 gpd, well under the 100,000-gpd threshold limit. Other periods |

are significantly lower. The commenter’s statement that the remediation system’s withdrawals |

should be included in the Water Use Registration is true, and the facility should include this |

information in future permits with the State for completeness. However, relative to the cited |

Category 1 issue and its 100-gpm threshold, the remediation system pumping is a negligible |

additional amount relative to the average production well pumping of 14 gpm. The comment |

provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in |

response to this comment. The comment provides no new and significant information; |

therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Section 8.1.1.2, pages 8-14 & 8-15. The report indicates that during the |

construction of a closed-cycle cooling system the ground water usage would be negligible. |

They indicate that the water requirements, for potable water for the additional workers and for |

concrete was mixed on site, would be short and not exceed the existing registration. They also |

indicate that the underground parts of the construction would create a need for localized |

dewatering and require a permit. |

|

First, during construction there is significantly more water use during construction than for |

potable water and for concrete. Significant amounts of water are used at construction sites for |

cleaning equipment as well as dust control. Also the construction would likely continue for |

months. |

|

Second, the dewatering would require a diversion permit as the report indicates, but in aquifers |

like the Cape May and Cohansey (depending of the depth of any construction) the pumpage |

would be in the hundreds to thousands of gallons per minute. For the footing for the |

uncompleted Forked River Station the dewatering was pumping over 16,000 gpm. I do not know |

how deep the footings for cooling towers would have to go, but most likely they would be |

significantly below the water table. Also if there was any contaminated ground water in the area |

of construction most likely there would be some treatment and/or monitoring requirements |

attached to the permit. (PP-66) |

|

Response: The comment asserts that construction of a cooling-tower system would require |

large amounts of water for dust control and other needs, and that dewatering for foundation |

construction would require pumping at a rate of hundreds to thousands of gpm. Estimating the |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-82 January 2007

| amounts of water that would be withdrawn for construction of cooling towers is beyond the

| scope of this SEIS, but water uses would require permits from the State. Such withdrawals

| (e.g., for a concrete batch plant, dust control, and other construction-related usages, and

| dewatering for foundation construction) would be temporary. The NJDEP Water Supply Division

| is responsible for evaluating applications for water diversions, and its permit types for

| dewatering in excess of 100,000 gallons of water per day include a Temporary Dewatering

| Allocation Permit, or Dewatering Permit-by-Rule or Short Term Permit-by-Rule, depending on

| the duration of construction and the method employed. The comment provides no new and

| significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this

| comment.

|

| Comment: You know Barbara mentioned the tritium problem. That's only beginning the

| contamination of our groundwater by tritium. It happens to be able to spread very easily, and

| that hasn't even been considered. (D-7)

|

| Comment: I wanted to ask the NRC, how is it that they missed that ten-year tritium leak? I

| think it was called Briarwood out in Pennsylvania. And nobody caught it. The NRC certainly

| didn't catch it. It was a neighbor who saw a pool forming on his land and had it checked and

| found out it was radioactive tritium. I'm just wondering why ten years when the NRC claims

| they're so thorough and they missed it. That's my first question. And I would like it answered. 

| (J-1)

|

| Response: Monitoring for tritium takes place at the OCNGS, as described in Sections 2.2.3

| and 2.2.7 of the SEIS, under the REMP. REMP reports include surface-water and groundwater

| sampling results. The monitoring results indicate that tritium has remained well below the

| 20,000-pCi/L threshold for drinking water quality established by the EPA. The commenter is

| referring to the Braidwood Nuclear Station in Illinois. See NRC 2006 for an explanation of the

| inadvertent release of tritium from the station discharge as well as an explanation of the likely

| consequences. The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no

| changes were made to the SEIS in response to these comments.

|

| Comment: NRC also incorrectly analyzes the applicability of the EPA's Phase II rules

| regarding cooling water intake structures. Finally, NRC unreasonably relies on the incorrect

| analysis forwarded by the New Jersey DEP in the draft NJPDES permit and incorporates those

| preliminary conclusions, conclusions that have been heavily criticized and not finalized, into the

| DEIS. (MM-5)

|

| Response: The comments on NRC’s analysis of the applicability of EPA’s Phase II regulations

| lacks specificity. The NRC has determined that EPA’s Phase II regulations apply to OCNGS.

| The NRC cannot presume the outcome of the ongoing NJPDES permitting process which

| addresses the Phase II requirements, and, therefore, has incorporated information from the
Appendix A

January 2007 A-83 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

draft permit in the SEIS. The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, |

no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Page 2-22, lines 10-16. The following statement appears, "Dredging of Oyster |

Creek and the Forked River is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and |

a Coastal Area Facility Review under the New Jersey Coastal Zone Management Act. Suction |

dredging has been performed to minimize the impact of the dredging, and dredged materials |

have been conveyed to the dredge spoils basin (Figure 2-3) using hard piping. During the |

license renewal period, periodic dredging may take place in the intake and discharge canals, |

the Forked River, or Oyster Creek. The dredging would be consistent with past techniques and |

requirements." |

|

Please be advised the permit required for dredging from the NJDEP would be a Waterfront |

Development Permit under New Jersey's Waterfront Development Law and not a Coastal Area |

Facility Review Act (CAFRA) Permit. (PP-67) |

|

Response: The text in Section 2.2.3 has been revised as suggested. |

|

Comment: Why is the creation of the 1963 dam created for fire water storage not factored into |

the 1974 FES? Based on references in the DEIS, it is only discussed in a NJDEP 2005a report. |

(2-19) (MM-20) |

|

Response: The fire pond is discussed in Section 3.3 of the Final Environmental Statement |

(FES). The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were |

made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Why did NRC stop its review of water quantity issues at 2000? (2-20) Paper |

records are available from the NJDEP prior to 2000 and should be reviewed for purposes of |

determining impacts. (MM-21) |

|

Comment: With respect to water quality, NRC did not appear (2-21) to review data prior to |

2000. What is the justification for this? (MM-23) |

|

Response: The purpose of reviewing historical records is to predict water quantity and quality |

issues during the license renewal period. Review of reports from 2000 to present, together with |

review of the site’s historical data as presented in the Industrial Site Recovery Act (ISRA) |

reports published in 2000, provided an adequate basis to evaluate current water quantity and |

quality issues at OCNGS. Over the life of the station, there have been numerous upgrades to |

the radiological effluent release systems, and changes in regulations. The NRC staff considers |

the past five years of data indicative of future water quantity and quality issues during the |

license renewal period. The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, |

no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these comments. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-84 January 2007

| Comment: 2.2.3. Water Quality. The existence of a permit does not mean there is no impact

| to the environment. The benefit of NEPA is that it allows a decision maker to review cumulative

| impacts, whereas individual, departmental regulators often do not have the ability to make those

| cumulative impact determinations. In addition, the Facility does not have a perfect compliance

| record, which should affect the discussion of impacts. Indeed, the NJDEP fined the Facility

| $35,000 for violating its permit and causing a fish kill in January 2006. Moreover, the January

| 2006 incident was not the first instance of fish kills caused by the Facility. (MM-22)

|

| Response: Although valid permits do not guarantee that environmental impacts will not occur,

| permits provide regular checks of compliance and generally consider the environmental context

| of the facility. These permits, and associated monitoring, are an important means of protecting

| the environment. Past violations at OCNGS, including fish kills, are fully discussed in the SEIS. 

| Cumulative impacts of OCNGS operations are discussed in Section 4.8 of the SEIS. The

| comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the

| SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: There are more than 100 areas of concern (2-22) at the Facility. Where does NRC

| consider the past impacts that led to contamination at over 100 places at the Facility with

| respect to whether an additional 20 years of operation will have an impact on the environment? 

| (MM-24)

|

| Response: An Area of Concern (AOC) is a potential source of contamination and is not

| necessarily an actual source. These AOCs are the result of historical events and are being

| dealt with under an existing program triggered by the sale of OCNGS to AmerGen. As

| described in Section 2.2.3, most of the more than 100 AOCs were investigated, and no further

| action was recommended. Conditions at the remaining AOCs are ongoing and described in the

| text. License renewal is not expected to affect these ongoing activities. The comment provides

| no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to

| this comment.

|

| Comment: The DEIS reveals that the confined aquifer containment was breached when the

| reactor was constructed. A 1986 tank spill led to contamination of the aquifer. Groundwater is

| primary source of drinking water in this area of NJ. Where does NRC consider future impacts to

| groundwater, in the face of growing water shortages and increased water demand, based on

| past harm? (MM-25)

|

| Response: As described in Section 2.2.3, the diesel fuel spill is being addressed with a

| remediation system, with involvement of the New Jersey Bureau of Environmental Evaluation,

| Cleanup, and Responsibility Assessment and a necessary permit from the county. These

| actions are being taken to prevent contamination of the Cohansey Formation. Cumulative

| impacts on groundwater resources are discussed in Section 4.8.5 of the SEIS. The comment
Appendix A

January 2007 A-85 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in |

response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Why is there no discussion of the conflicts associated with the Facility's use of |

Forked River and Oyster Creek and other uses by the public or by wildlife? (MM-54) |

|

Response: Water use conflicts are discussed in Section 4.1 of the SEIS. As stated in |

Section 4.2.1.3 of the GEIS, “these conflicts have not been found to be a problem at operating |

nuclear power plants with once-through heat dissipation systems.” During the original licensing |

of the facility, the decision was made to significantly alter the lower reaches of both Oyster |

Creek and Forked River. That decision was made with the understanding that there would be |

conflicts with wildlife, but that these impacts would be restricted to the lower portions of these |

two streams. Because of their localized nature, the GEIS concluded that these impacts would |

be SMALL. During the NRC staff’s review of OCNGS, no new and significant information was |

identified to suggest that there would be impacts during the license renewal term beyond those |

discussed in the GEIS. The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no |

changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

A.2.5 Concerning Aquatic Ecology, Terrestrial Ecology, General Ecology, |

and Threatened and Endangered Species Issues |

|

Aquatic Ecology |

|

Comment: Then we have the idea of Barnegat Bay corruption. Now, that was addressed by |

Professor Kennish. And there's really nothing I could add. He's an expert. But the point is that |

the NRC relies on data 30 years old. That's unacceptable. And this is what we are supposed to |

swallow as the public. (D-4) |

|

Comment: You have to do population studies and community studies in the estuary. If you |

don't do that, the information is of no value. It's essentially no value. In fact, the power plant, it |

would be my recommendation that they do it because if you just look at impingement and |

entrainment data at the power plant, those numbers indicate that you have an absolute number |

of organisms that are dying because of the plant. They're very large. |

|

And so someone would say, "Well, my God. You have all these organisms dying." Well, you |

really need to take a study of the bay population and because those numbers may really not be |

translating into a real impact, as has been said by Mike and so on and his colleagues. So it |

would be to their advantage to do a population survey in the bay because if it can be |

demonstrated that the adult populations out there are not really being adversely affected, then |

you have something. But to play this guessing game or not really wanting to do population |

surveys out there and just using these numbers at the plant, it actually makes it look even worse |

because it looks like these are an absolute number of organisms that are dying, you know, a |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-86 January 2007

| quarter of a million blue crabs a year at the intake screens, for example. What does that mean

| in terms of the total population of crabs in the bay? Maybe it's one percent. But for a crab

| potter out there who says, "Oh, my God, 250,000?" the guy is going to go bonkers, you know.

|

| So we really need to really do things correctly, do it scientifically sound. That is not being done

| right now. And, again, I'm willing. I'm offering my services to help out, help out the company

| and help out the DEP and EPA. Part of the problem is the EPA itself has rescinded some of its

| obligations in terms of not enforcing or having the power companies do population surveys.

|

| So the companies themselves seem to respond mostly to pressure from outside the government

| agencies. They respond to pressure from a government agency. They're not doing things on

| their own volition in my opinion. If you go back into time, the response mainly is to a response

| to some requirement and after a permit violation or whatever, rather than someone taking the

| proactive position ahead of time to do something about it so that you remediate the problem

| before it even occurs. (I-3)

|

| Comment: The amount of aquatic life that is being pulled in there is horrendous. The fact that

| they are basing this on information from 1978 and not current levels, I personally am aware of

| the oyster beds that have seemed to have disappeared from Barnegat Bay. I am also aware of

| the declining blowfish numbers in Oyster Creek. I am also aware of the very recent studies that

| have been done and work that has been done out of Rutgers on actually the environmental

| quality of the bay and the degradation that's happened to the bay.

|

| And I think that this is the data that we really should be looking at, current studies, and if the

| NRC is planning on relicensing this plant for 20 years, then they need to go out in the bay and

| they need to look at the bay and they need to have real data, current data so that they really

| know exactly what kind of an environmental impact Oyster Creek has had on the bay and the be

| making a realistic environmental impact statement, not making assumptions from 1978. This is

| not good science. (O-12)

|

| Comment: It is totally preposterous with all that is known about impingement, entrainment, and

| thermal pollution to say that it is minimal impact or negligible. It is just absurd. (T-1)

|

| Comment: The Draft GEIS concludes that the impacts of impingement, entrainment and heat

| shock of fish and shellfish as a result of operation of the existing once-through cooling systems

| are SMALL. We strongly disagree with this conclusion and the manner in which it was reached.

| The determinations on these Category 2 issues were made based on the staff's evaluation of

| three assessments: 1) The EA [EA (1986) Entrainment and Impingement Studies at Oyster

| Creek Nuclear Generating Station 1984 - 1985. Technical Report, EA Engineering, Science,

| and Technology, Inc., Sparks, Maryland] (1986) 316(a) and (b) demonstration, 2) Summers

| et al. (1989) [Summers, J.K. et al (1989) Technical Review and Evaluation of Thermal Effects

| Studies and Cooling Water Intake Structure Demonstration of Impact for the Oyster Creek
Appendix A

January 2007 A-87 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Nuclear Generating Station. Revised Final Report. Prepared by Versar Inc. for NJ Department |

of Environmental Protection] Review ("the Versar Report") and 3) OCNGS NJPDES DRAFT |

permit and fact sheet ("Draft NJPDES Permit") from New Jersey Department of Environmental |

Protection ("NJDEP") [New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection /New Jersey |

Pollution Discharge Elimination System Draft DSW Permit #NJ0005550 for Oyster Creek |

Nuclear Generating Station. 2005. Fact Sheet]. It is important to note that these three |

documents cannot be considered different sources of information, as both documents 2 and 3 |

are reviews (not original research) that rely heavily on the flawed data presented in 1. The |

conclusions of SMALL are fundamentally flawed for several reasons, including serious scientific |

issues with the studies and documents used, lack of recent data, significant ecological changes |

in the Barnegat Bay Estuary since these data were collected and lack of analysis on cumulative |

impacts. (GG-3) |

|

Comment: The only original data used by the NRC (EA [EA (1986) Entrainment and |

Impingement Studies at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 1984 - 1985. Technical |

Report, EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., Sparks, Maryland] and JCPL [JCPL |

(1978) Oyster Creek and Forked River Nuclear Generating Stations 316 (a) and (b) |

Demonstration, Volumes 1-5. Technical Reports, Jersey Central Power and Light Company, |

Morristown, New Jersey]) to draw the conclusions that the OCNGS has a SMALL impact on fish |

and shellfish was found to be scientifically flawed and deficient by many different scientists and |

analysts, including the Versar Report. (GG-4) |

|

Comment: The NRC [Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of |

Nuclear Plans, Supplement 28 Regarding Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Draft |

Report for Comments US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1437, Pages 4-10 through |

4-25] lists many of the deficiencies and problems of these studies, some of which are detailed in |

this Section A, but fails to address them or provide any explanation why these data are still |

being utilized. To the contrary, the NRC continues to cite the conclusions made in these studies. |

In addition, these limited data are over 20 years old (data from 1975-1978 [JCPL (1978) Oyster |

Creek and Forked River Nuclear Generating Stations 316 (a) and (b) Demonstration, Volumes |

1-5. Technical Reports, Jersey Central Power and Light Company, Morristown, New Jersey] |

and 1985 [EA (1986) Entrainment and Impingement Studies at Oyster Creek Nuclear |

Generating Station 1984 - 1985. Technical Report, EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, |

Inc., Sparks, Maryland]) and there have been significant ecological changes in the Barnegat |

Bay Estuary since that time. (GG-5) |

|

Comment: The Draft GEIS accepts several conclusions of the Versar Report that are no longer |

valid based on current knowledge and understanding of natural aquatic systems in the Barnegat |

Bay estuary. Some of these invalid conclusions are set forth below together with our |

corresponding comments (in italics). |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-88 January 2007

| • "There is no evidence to suggest that past, current, or future entrainment of eggs, larvae, or

| juvenile forms of these species would destabilize or noticeably alter any important attribute

| of the resource." (Page 4-15) There have been no Bay population surveys conducted over

| the past 30 years that would allow such a conclusion to be reached. NRC readily

| acknowledges this dearth of information in Section 2.2.5.3, which states that there are no

| recent population abundance data for 12 of the 14 species listed. The information provided

| on the remaining two species (blue crab and hard clams) are based on fisheries data, which

| is not an accurate or appropriate assessment of entire Bay-wide populations;

|

| • "Continued operation of OCNGS at the estimated levels of losses to representative

| important species populations, without modification to intake structures and/or operating

| practices, does not threaten the protection and propagation of balanced, indigenous

| populations." (Page 4-21) As stated above, without recent population data from Barnegat

| Bay, the impact of the OCNGS on aquatic populations in the bay cannot be determined;

|

| • Population losses (for grass shrimp) will be rapidly compensated for by reproduction

| (Page 4-15). Both the EPA [Federal Register: July 9, 2004, Volume 69, Number 131: Rules

| and Regulations, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System-Final Regulations to

| Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities.

| EPA. Pages 41575-41624] and the California Energy Commission [Issues and

| Environmental Impacts Associated with Once-Through Cooling at California's Coastal Power

| Plants. California Energy Commission. Staff Report. CEC-700-2005-13. June 2005] came

| to separate conclusions that compensation does not reduce impacts from entrainment and

| impingement on adult populations and in fact, a population's natural compensatory ability

| may be compromised by impingement and entrainment losses in conjunction with all the

| other stressors encountered within a population's natural range;

|

| • Blue crab and winter flounder losses caused by OCNGS represent "a small fraction of the

| Barnegat Bay population" of those species (Page 4-15). Without current population data on

| the aquatic organisms in the Barnegat Bay, collected concurrently with impingement and

| entrainment studies at OCNGS, this conclusion is without support and is no longer valid. 

| This assertion is supported by the testimony of Dr. Michael Kennish at the July 12, 2006

| GEIS public hearing, as well as in his written comments submitted to NRC on the GEIS

| (August 30, 2006). In his written comments, Dr. Kennish states:

|

| "The lack of bay surveys during the past three decades, therefore, undermines the

| fundamental conclusions of the GEIS with regard to minimal impacts of impingement and

| entrainment of the OCNGS on aquatic populations in the bay";

|

| • Losses of bay anchovy and opossum shrimp "have little effect on higher trophic levels"

| (Page 4-15). Without current community dynamics data for Barnegat Bay, collected

| concurrently with impingement and entrainment studies at OCNGS, this conclusion is also
Appendix A

January 2007 A-89 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

without support and is no longer valid. Again, our assertion is supported by the testimony |

and comments of Dr. Michael Kennish. In his written comments, Dr. Kennish states: |

|

"the GEIS assessment of cooling system impacts on the aquatic ecology of the bay cannot |

be accurate because population surveys in the bay have not been conducted concurrently |

with impingement and entrainment sampling at the OCNGS since 1977. Consequently, the |

conclusions of the GEIS regarding OCNGS impacts on aquatic communities in Barnegat |

Bay are invalid and irrelevant". |

|

In reviewing the veracity of these conclusions stated in the Draft GEIS, it is important to bear in |

mind that the only available bay-wide benthic and fisheries survey studies of Barnegat Bay were |

conducted in the 1970s. As recognized in the Versar Report, these studies are "of limited value |

for assessing power plant effects [Pages IV-19, 27, 66. Page IV-51]. Some of the deficiencies |

in these studies are detailed in Section A.2 above. (GG-12) |

|

Comment: The lack of available current data on important fish and shellfish in the Barnegat |

Bay, as noted throughout this section, further illustrates the deficiencies of the Draft GEIS and |

the validity of the conclusion stated therein that continued operations of OCNGS will only result |

in SMALL impacts on important aquatic resources of the Bay. (GG-13) |

|

Comment: Our first and foremost concern is with the draft SEIS’s use of outdated data and the |

lack of a complete evaluation of the environmental effects from the continued operation of the |

facility. While other regulations may not require the regular collection of data and information, |

these in no way influence the NEPA requirement to collect data to accurately and appropriately |

analyze, evaluate, and disclose the impacts from a proposed action. For example, a serious |

shortcoming of the document is that it relies upon 20 to 30 year old aquatic resource data to |

inform the public and decision makers regarding the facility's impacts for the next 20 years to |

come. Rather than relying on nearly 20 year old data from other studies, the draft SEIS should |

have evaluated the present and continued effects from altered water quality, temperatures, |

currents, as well as entrainment and impingement, and put that evaluation in the context of the |

effects not only on Oyster Creek and the South Branch of the Forked River, but on the larger |

Forked River and the Barnegat Bay ecosystem. (HH-4) |

|

Comment: The draft SEIS also did not have a sufficient or current evaluation of the facility's |

effects on species that are residents of the area (i.e., the discharge canal and Oyster creek) |

around the facility, such as hard clam, blue crab, American eel, and herring and the important |

aquatic habitat. (HH-5) |

|

Comment: First, the impingement and entrainment losses documented over the years by |

AmerGen are virtually meaningless in the absence of Bay population surveys and associated |

population databases collected over the past 30 years against which the Facility-based losses |

can be compared. Without that basis for comparison, both NRC and AmerGen are unable to |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-90 January 2007

| arrive at any conclusions about the affect the Facility is having on the environment. Nowhere is

| this made more apparent than is section 2.2.5.3 of the DEIS. For virtually all of the species

| selected by NRC to discussion, the DEIS states that there are no population abundance data or

| trends. Professor Michael Kennish also points out this flaw in the DEIS in his testimony on

| July 12, 2006. Without this information, NRC and the Facility cannot determine the true impact

| of the Facility on aquatic communities in the bay. The only defensible assessment of the

| Facility's affect on Bay populations took place in the late 1970s, when the last population

| samples were collected in the Bay concurrently with impingement and entrainment samples. 

| This assessment was made as part of the Facility's required Clean Water Act Section 316

| Demonstration, and itself has flaws that are documented in the attached comment letter, which

| letter is incorporated herein and is to be made part of the record.

|

| In the case of the DEIS, not only has NRC relied on old and incomplete data, it completely fails

| to take into account the tremendous natural variation in the abundance of aquatic organisms in

| the Bay, as well as the natural variation in those organisms impinged and entrained by the

| Facility. Professor Kennish has noted that this natural variation can exceed 200-300% annually.

| See Kennish July 12,2006 Testimony at 72:l-5.

|

| To rectify the information deficit, and thereby allowing any regulator to arrive at defensible

| conclusions as to the impact the Facility is having on the environment, population surveys in the

| Bay should be conducted annually, or at least every five years, together with impingement and

| entrainment sampling. Id. In the absence of this information, the assessment of the cooling

| water intalce system affects on the environment, as described in Section 4.1 of the DEIS are

| simply inaccurate. Therefore, NRC's conclusions in the DEIS regarding the Facility's impacts on

| aquatic communities in Barnegat Bay are invalid.

|

| There are several, particular statements and conclusions by NRC that are questionable, at best.

| In each case, NRC is attempting to minimize the affects of entrainment and impingement of

| aquatic organisms. For example, in Section 4.1.1 (page 4-15), NRC states: "There is no

| evidence to suggest that past, current, or future entrainment of eggs, larvae, or juvenile forms of

| these species would destabilize or noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource." 

| However, for the reasons articulated in the preceding paragraph regarding the absence of Bay

| population surveys, this statement is unfounded and incorrect. This statement is particularly

| problematic in the NRC is purported to extrapolate from the current situation and make

| conclusions about what is likely to happen in the future. NRC cannot point to any data or

| studies cited in the DEIS that support this statement.

|

| Not only can NRC not point to any data that supports those conclusions, the data we do have

| for at least two of the Representative Important Species identified in the Section 3 6

| Demonstration, the hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) and winter flounder

| (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), evidences a dramatic decline in those populations in the

| Bay. In another example, NRC comes to the same faulty conclusion on page 4-21 of the DEIS:
Appendix A

January 2007 A-91 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

"There is no evidence to suggest that past, current, or future impingement of these species |

would destabilize or noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource." Thus, NRC cannot |

support its conclusions in the DEIS with respect to the impingement and entrainment effects or |

the Facility without data from Bay surveys conducted during the past three decades. |

|

In what could possibly be described as NRC's failure to rigorously review the information |

provided to it by the applicant, NRC misrepresents a statement made by Professor Kennish in |

one of his published articles on the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary. Professor |

Kennish's work is misrepresented three times in the DEIS-and it is done in such a way so as to |

support NRC's conclusion that the Facility is not having a significant impact on aquatic |

populations in Barnegat Bay. The error occurs on pages 4-15,4-21, and 4-5 1 and includes |

statements taken directly from Kennish, M. J. 2001. State of the Estuary and Watershed: An |

Overview. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 32, pp. 243-273. As Professor Kennish |

pointed out in his July 16,2006 testimony, the cited work is a review of earlier studies conducted |

on Bay populations. Professor Kennish's conclusions as to the affect the Facility is having on |

the Bay are valid only with respect to the two-year period from 1975-1977. These conclusions |

are not valid as to the entire operating period of the Facility and cannot be cited for that |

proposition. |

|

In what appears to be yet another example of an incomplete review by NRC staff of the |

information provided by the applicant, NRC suggests in the DEIS that there are a number of |

studies reviewed by NRC that do not contradict NRC's findings with respect to the affect of the |

Facility on the aquatic populations in the Bay. First, it is irrelevant whether recent studies do not |

contradict NRC's findings-as the lack of a contradiction should not be construed in any way as |

support. Second, and more troubling, is that few studies have been published recently (the past |

20-30 years) in peer-reviewed journals that deal with the Facility's impact on aquatic. NRC fails |

to cite to these studies, and thus the public is unable to discern whether NRC even reviewed |

those studies, let alone comment meaningfully on the NRC's conclusions. (MM-9) |

|

Comment: On page 4-12 at line 27, the DEIS cites estimates based on 1975-76 numbers, but |

populations fluctuate (see testimony of Michael Kennish, Ph.D.). The entrainment was |

measured at the discharge canal, but there were no corresponding studies in the Bay. This |

problem, coupled with the possible underestimation in the original study (4-12, line 27), calls |

into question this conclusion. On page 4-14, NRC only evaluated the conclusions drawn by |

others, but did not do any independent assessment; therefore, all of the flaws in the original |

data or those studies have become part of the DEIS. The DEIS states that there are no obvious |

changes in communities in the Bay, but the data collection stopped in 1981. How can NRC |

justify or support this conclusion? The DEIS references the fact that the applicant has recently |

resumed intake sampling again in 2005. However, this is not adequate for concluding that the |

impact is small and is meaningless without comprehensive data about the populations in the |

Bay. On page 4-15 (lines 34-38), the NRC misrepresents Michael Kennish's conclusions. (MM- |

58) |
Appendix A

(a) Comments on the NJPDES permit referred to in the comment are not included in the SEIS. They

are available for download from NRC’s ADAMS website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/

web-based.html under accession number ML062610416.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-92 January 2007

| Comment: 4.1.2 Fish/shellfish entrainment. Which articles support these conclusions? The

| DEIS fails to cite any authority. NRC fails to discuss how the problems with impingement

| number estimates affect its conclusions as to impacts. Professor Kennish is misrepresented on

| page 4-21 (lines 36-38). (MM-59)

|

Comment: See comments to NJPDES draft permit(a) | for a thorough critique of the thermal

| discharge from the Facility. (MM-60)

|

| Comment: How can NRC conclude that there are only minor effects in Barnegat Bay (4-48)

| when the DEIS, and all of the data submitted by the applicant to NRC is riddled with errors,

| flaws, and the significant omissions highlighted earlier in this comment letter? There are no

| baseline studies and no population numbers; therefore, NRC cannot reach this conclusion. 

| (MM-65)

|

| Comment: There have been no continuous studies to monitor the Bay populations. These

| studies could and should have been done. Updates performed now cannot be the basis for a

| determination that there are no cumulative impacts. The ecosystem was destroyed. NRC is

| unable to substantiate the conclusion that the impacts are localized (4-50). There is no

| question that the amount of freshwater that reaches the Bay has changed and will continue to

| be affected as long as the license is in place. The volume of freshwater that enters this system

| is critical, in light of the fact that this is a system that does not flush frequently. (MM-66)

|

| Comment: While there may be insufficient evidence to definitively prove that the operation of

| the Facility's cooling system is altering the ecosystem, there is no evidence whatsoever to

| suggest that the Facility's archaic once through cooling system is not having a large impact on

| the ecosystem. Taken at face value -the volume of water used, the impingement and

| entrainment data, the increasing takes of sea turtles, and the crash of fish stocks, the Facility is

| having an impact. NRC cannot arrive at any conclusions without data about the Bay

| populations. With respect to comments on the RIS (4-52), please see the attached NJPDES

| comment letter. (MM-67)

|

| Comment: Section 4.1 (Environmental Impacts of Operation: Cooling System) of the Generic

| Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) regarding the license renewal for the Oyster Creek

| Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS) has several major flaws that invalidate its overall

| conclusions on aquatic ecological effects. Of particular note is the lack of bay population

| surveys and associated population databases collected during the past 30 years to compare

| against impingement and entrainment losses of organisms at the OCNGS. Bay population

| surveys and impingement and entrainment sampling must be conducted concurrently. Without
Appendix A

January 2007 A-93 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

these databases – notably recent databases there is no way to accurately determine the true |

impact of the OCNGS on aquatic communities in the bay. The only valid assessment of |

OCNGS impacts on aquatic populations in Barnegat Bay was conducted during the 1975-1977 |

period when the last population samples were collected in the bay concurrently with |

impingement and entrainment samples. The results were reported in the OCNGS 316(a) and(b) |

Demonstration Report. (OO-1) |

|

Comment: In addition to relying on old and incomplete data collected 30 years age, the NRC |

has failed to take into account the large natural variation in abundance of organisms in the bay, |

as well as the variation of organisms impinged and entrained at the OCNGS, which can exceed |

100-300% annually. Ideally, therefore, population surveys in the bay should be conducted |

annually, or at least every five years, together with impingement and entrainment sampling. Let |

me reiterate, the GEIS assessment of cooling system impacts on the aquatic ecology of the bay |

(Section 4.1) cannot be accurate because population surveys in the bay have not been |

conducted concurrently with impingement and entrainment sampling at the OCNGS since 1977. |

Consequently, the conclusions of the GEIS regarding OCNGS impacts on aquatic communities |

in Barnegat Bay are invalid and irrelevant. (OO-2) |

|

Comment: On page 4-15 the statement is made that, “There is no evidence to suggest that |

past, current, or future entrainment of eggs, larvae, or juvenile forms of these species would |

destabilize or noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.” Because no population |

surveys have been conducted since the1975-1977 period, there is no way this statement can be |

correct, especially with regard to current losses and probably future losses as well. It certainly |

cannot be substantiated by the deficient databases that now exist. (OO-3) |

|

Comment: The GEIS also infers that more recent findings from an extensive review of |

available published information (academic journals or other sources) by the NRC staff did not |

contradict the agency’s finding of no significant OCNGS impacts on aquatic populations in the |

bay. However, there have been few studies published in peer-reviewed journals which deal with |

OCNGS biotic impacts in any form during the past two or three decades. It is incumbent on the |

NRC, therefore, to document and list for public examination the published academic journal |

articles that it notes support the findings of the GEIS regarding the lack of significant biotic |

impacts of the OCNGS. The NRC should not only list the titles of the published articles but also |

the journal names and authors, and the relevant page numbers. I have already indicated that |

my publications relevant to this issue are review articles addressing findings of the 316(a) and |

(b) Demonstration published nearly 30 years ago. (OO-6) |

|

Comment: At the July 12, 2006 public hearing Professor Michael Kennish, a research |

professor at Rutgers University and an acknowledged authority on the ecology of Barnegat Bay, |

pointed out that no recent data on the cumulative effect by Oyster Creek on Barnegat Bay had |

been provided to the NRC. He also emphasized that the studies used by the NRC to evaluate |

the current situation were at least 30 years old, and though they were relevant at that time, they |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-94 January 2007

| no longer gave a reasonable basis on which to assess the current status of Barnegat Bay. The

| League is deeply concerned not only about the lack of relevant viable data, but about the NRC's

| lack of insistence on obtaining this critical information. (YY-1)

|

| Comment: Please provide the League with the NRC’s reasons behind the decisions to use the

| obsolete 1970 data and the use of inaccurate maps. We would like your thoughts on how

| results based on incorrect information can be anything but incorrect. (YY-3)

|

| Response: These comments express concern that the effects of the OCNGS once-through

| cooling system as presented in the SEIS are underestimated, and that the data available to

| evaluate the impacts of OCNGS operations on aquatic resources are dated and do not

| necessarily reflect current impacts. Many of these comments are assertive without any data to

| support the conclusions that impingement and entrainment significantly affect the bay-wide

| populations. Nevertheless, the staff reconsidered its conclusion and revised Sections 4.1.1 and

| 4.1.2 of the SEIS stating that the operation of OCNGS has resulted in localized impacts that are

| largely confined to near-field locations that include Forked River, Oyster Creek, and portions of

| Barnegat Bay adjacent to these areas. This finding is consistent with Section 4.2.1.2.1 of the

| GEIS, which states that these impacts are unavoidable for plants that utilize a once-through

| cooling system design. The revised assessment presented in the SEIS acknowledges that

| because there are no recent monitoring data, the conditions that existed during the original

| 316(a) and 316(b) studies may or may not exist today. The revised SEIS acknowledges the

| uncertainty resulting from the lack of recent monitoring data. Neither NEPA nor the CFR

| requires NRC to collect data for analysis; however, the NRC staff recommends that any future

| monitoring studies should be designed to evaluate multiple environmental stressors (both

| anthropogenic and natural) at spatial and temporal scales sufficient to address the inherent

| variability within the system.

|

| In preparing the SEIS, the NRC staff attempted to review all pertinent information, including

| peer-reviewed scientific literature, technical reports, books, and web-based information on

| Barnegat Bay. The citation lists in Chapters 2 and 4 reflect the breadth of the investigation and

| include technical documents published by the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program, the

| 2001 Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 32 on Barnegat Bay, and Ecology of Barnegat

| Bay, a book edited by Kennish and Lutz. We also consulted websites maintained by the

| Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), National Marine Fisheries Service

| (NMFS), and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). The text in

| Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 has been revised to properly characterize Dr. Kennish’s conclusions.

|

| Comment: Based on the review of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station draft SEIS,

| the EPA has rated the project and document "Environmental Concerns-insufficient information”

| (EC-2). Our most serious concern is how the OCNGS will comply with Section 316 of the Clean

| Water Act and the how OCNGS will minimize the impacts due to entrainment and impingement

| of fish and shellfish. (HH-1)
Appendix A

January 2007 A-95 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Response: The commenter is referring to the EPA's Phase II regulations for Section 316(b) of |

the CWA. The EPA has delegated the responsibility for compliance with the Phase II |

regulations to the NJDEP. The applicant has had discussions with the NJDEP and begun data |

collection in support of its Comprehensive Demonstration Study. Compliance with the Phase II |

regulations is the responsibility of the state of New Jersey. The NRC's regulatory jurisdiction is |

limited to the characterization of impacts in accordance with NEPA. In recognizing the Phase II |

regulations may result in modification to the OCNGS cooling system, the NRC staff, in Section |

8.1 of the SEIS, evaluated two alternatives to the current cooling system proposed by the State |

of New Jersey. The NRC does not have the regulatory authority to require OCNGS compliance |

with the requirements of the CWA. OCNGS impacts due to entrainment and impingement |

would be minimized further according to requirements in the NJPDES permit. The comment |

provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in |

response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Nonetheless, this facility's impacts to aquatic ecosystems over the course of its |

operation have been significant, contrary to the statements in the draft EIS. Start-up and |

operation of OCNGS reversed the flow of the South Branch of the Forked River away from |

Barnegat Bay, changed the salinity of the water and destroyed all of the brackish and fresh |

water habitat in the lower reach of the Forked River and Oyster Creek. Given these and other |

significant changes to the aquatic environment and the representative species, the facility's |

impacts cannot be appropriately described as small. (HH-6) |

|

Response: The decision to profoundly alter the lower reaches of Oyster Creek and Forked |

River was made at the time of station construction and predated NEPA. Evaluating impacts |

comparing conditions during the license renewal period to those that existed prior to |

construction is outside the scope of the license renewal review. The current impacts on these |

water bodies are discussed in Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 of the SEIS. The text of the SEIS |

was modified in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: There are no recent population trends for bay anchovy. (2-36). How can NRC |

make conclusions about the impact of the Facility in the absence of this information? (MM-27) |

|

Comment: There are no recent population trends for four-spined stickleback (2-37). How can |

NRC make conclusions about the impact of the Facility in the absence of this information? |

(MM-29) |

|

Comment: There are no recent population trends for menhaden -only catch information. |

Indeed, the catch is down. (2-38). How can NRC make conclusions about the impact of the |

Facility in the absence of this information? (MM-30) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-96 January 2007

| Comment: There are no recent population trends for weakfish, and the population appears to

| be overfished. (2-39). How can NRC make conclusions about the impact of the Facility in the

| absence of this information? (MM-31)

|

| Comment: There are no recent population trends for spot; the condition of the stock is

| unknown. (2-39) How can NRC make conclusions about the impact of the Facility in the

| absence of this information? (MM-32)

|

| Comment: There are no recent population trends for Atlantic silverside. (2-40). How can NRC

| make conclusions about the impact of the Facility in the absence of this information? (MM-33)

|

| Comment: The size of the striped bass population in the Bay is unknown. (2-41). Because of

| the stock's decline, resource management actions were necessary. How can NRC make

| conclusions about the impact of the Facility in the absence of this information? (MM-34)

|

| Comment: There are no recent population trends for bluefish -only landing data. The stock

| had to be rebuilt. (2-42). How can NRC make conclusions about the impact of the Facility in the

| absence of this information? (MM-35)

|

| Comment: There are no recent population trends for winter flounder, but there is a FMP for the

| species. It is considered overfished and EFH has been determined. (2-43). How can NRC

| make conclusions about the impact of the Facility in the absence of this information? (MM-36)

|

| Comment: There are no recent population trends for northern pipefish. (2-44). How can NRC

| make conclusions about the impact of the Facility in the absence of this information? (MM-37)

|

| Comment: Commercial landing data is available for blue crab (2-44), but this [is] not the same

| as overall population levels or abundance. Just because there are recreational crabbers, that

| does not mean that the population can sustain both fisheries. NRC's conclusion with regard to

| what the population can withstand is unfounded. How can NRC make conclusions about the

| impact of the Facility in the absence of this information? (MM-38)

|

| Comment: There are no population estimates available for shrimp. (2-45). How can NRC

| make conclusions about the impact of the Facility in the absence of this information? (MM-39)

|

| Comment: It is unclear if there are recent population trends for hard clams. The harvest has

| dramatically declined. (2-45). How can NRC make conclusions about the impact of the Facility

| in the absence of this information? (MM-40)

|

| Comment: No recent investigations of zooplankton abundance have been conducted. They

| were only done in 1975-77. (2-49) How can NRC make any conclusions about impact to the

| environment without this data? (MM-42)
Appendix A

January 2007 A-97 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Comment: With respect to entrainment information, the DEIS fails to note or acknowledge that |

the status of populations in Barnegat Bay is unknown, and thus, it is impossible to make |

conclusions about the impact the once through cooling system is having on the Bay. Professor |

Michael Kennish's testimony at the July 12, 2006 public hearing highlights this problem, and it is |

discussed thoroughly elsewhere in this comment letter. (MM-55) |

|

Comment: Bay anchovies are one of the most abundant species in Barnegat Bay and are |

ecologically important in that they serve as a food source for fish. There are no recent |

population trends for bay anchovies so the impact of Oyster Creek on this ecologically important |

species cannot be addressed. (QQ-5) |

|

Response: The NRC staff recognizes the lack of recent ecological information for many |

species in Barnegat Bay, and that this lack of information makes assessment of the |

environmental impacts of OCNGS operations particularly difficult. The NRC has revised its |

conclusions in section 4.1 of the SEIS to reflect the lack of recent data from Barnegat Bay. The |

findings in the SEIS are based on the best available information and have been revised to |

reflect this uncertainty. |

|

Comment: While voluminous, the Draft GEIS fails to take a "hard look" at the environmental |

consequences of the proposed re-licensing and alternative courses of action. The NRC has a |

legal duty to gather and evaluate new information relevant to the impact of its actions. Where |

essential information regarding adverse impacts to the human environment is incomplete or |

missing, the NRC must obtain the information or evaluate the existing data upon theoretical |

approaches or research methods. However, these objectives are not met by the Draft GEIS. |

The Applicant has failed to supply the NRC with such basic information as current annual |

impingement and entrainment mortalities. Moreover, the Applicant has failed to provide any |

recent data as to the populations of fish and other aquatic life in the Barnegat Bay system. |

Without this information, the NRC cannot reasonably determine the extent of the impact the |

OCGNS has had on this valuable estuary, let alone its anticipated impact over the next |

20 years. |

|

As detailed within, the Draft GEIS cites out-dated studies with glaring deficiencies for the |

purposes used therein. The Draft GEIS contains conclusions that are inaccurate, inappropriate, |

and unscientific. Some environmental impacts are either mentioned in passing without any |

meaningful discussion or analysis, while others are not mentioned at all. In addition, the Draft |

GEIS does not adequately review the implementation of a closed-cycle cooling system as an |

alternative to the present once-through system at OCNGS, which is mandated by federal law, |

strongly recommended by the State, and which can be designed to eliminate the concern of |

excessive salt deposition. Accordingly, COA and ALS believe the determination and |

conclusions contained in the Draft GEIS that the subject re-licensing will result in only a small |

impact, and that no viable alternative exists are not valid, insufficiently demonstrated and |

unsupported by necessary factual information, inappropriately narrowly drawn and based on |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-98 January 2007

| methodologies discredited by the EPA. For the reasons stated herein, COA and ALS further

| believe these determinations to be arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, and justify an action

| that will undoubtedly lead to increased environmental degradation of the Barnegat Bay system. 

| (GG-2)

|

| Response: The NRC is required to make a decision regarding the proposed action using the

| best available information, and the SEIS provides a thorough evaluation of the environmental

| consequences of OCNGS operations during the 20-year license renewal term including

| (in Section 8.1) a detailed evaluation of the impacts associated with alternative cooling systems,

| including closed-cycle cooling. In conducting the environmental evaluation presented in the

| SEIS, the NRC used information from a variety of sources, including the applicant’s ER, data

| and information collected during a site audit, information provided by local, State, and other

| Federal agencies, and published scientific literature. The revised SEIS acknowledges that

| some of the data available for review are 30 years old and that conclusions regarding current

| impact levels are uncertain. The text of the SEIS has been modified in response to this

| comment.

|

| Comment: Moreover, in a nationwide study, the EPA made it clear that these older data sets

| are inadequate and new studies are needed to assess impacts. In the Federal Register dated

| July 9, 2004, the EPA stated:

|

| "the methods for monitoring impingement and entrainment used in the 1970s and 1980s, when

| most section 316(b) evaluations were performed, were often inconsistent and incomplete,

| making quantification of impacts difficult in some cases. Recent advances in environmental

| assessment techniques provide new and in some cases better tools for monitoring impingement

| and entrainment and quantifying the current magnitude of the impacts [Federal Register: July 9,

| 2004, Volume 69, Number 131: Rules and Regulations, National Pollutant Discharge

| Elimination System-Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake

| Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities. EPA. Pages 41575-41624.]

|

| Similarly, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS") provided specific comments to the

| NRC regarding OCNGS which also noted that the data were inadequate to assess impact.

| Specifically, the USFWS stated that "[t]he applicant's assertion that the impacts of entrainment

| of fish and shellfish are "small" cannot be supported adequately with data that are most likely

| outdated."

|

| The comments provided below further support the assertions of both the EPA and FWS that the

| data being used to assess impacts of operations at OCNGS are clearly outdated and

| inappropriate. Accordingly, COA and ALS find that the conclusions set forth in the Draft GEIS

| are unsupported by sound science as they are based on studies that are flawed, deficient, old,

| and inadequate. (GG-6)

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-99 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Response: The presentation of aquatic ecology impacts has been revised in the SEIS to |

reflect the lack of recent data. The SEIS recognizes that because there are no recent published |

monitoring data, the conditions that existed during the original 316(a) and 316(b) studies may or |

may not exist today. It should be noted, however, that no entity (governmental or private) is |

collecting the basic biological monitoring data that would be applicable to assessing impacts on |

Barnegat Bay. Data on current impingement and entrainment rates are being collected now at |

OCNGS, but were not available at the time of this assessment. The text of the SEIS has been |

modified in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: As stated numerous times above, there are no data available on aquatic |

populations in the Bay for the past thirty (30) years and the limited, outdated data that are |

available is scientifically flawed. |

|

In addition, original hydrodynamic models of the thermal plume produced in the mid-1980s were |

extensively flawed and the consequent models produced by the Versar Report were based on |

these original flawed data. Therefore, these models should not have been used in the Draft |

GEIS. In order to rationally and reasonably assess the extent and magnitude of the thermal |

discharge to Barnegat Bay, reliable and current data, together with newly available modeling |

technology, should have been employed. |

|

We are aware of the current intake-sampling program being conducted at OCNGS. However, it |

is irrelevant to this GEIS assessment because it will only provide data on impingement and |

entrainment at the plant. Without a concurrent biological assessment of bay-wide populations |

and communities (including benthos, plankton and nekton), it is impossible to assess the |

impacts of plant-generated losses to the populations and communities within the Bay. |

Moreover, COA and ALS are concerned that the current sampling program will have many of |

the same flaws and limitations as previous studies (see above) because the work-plan was not |

peer-reviewed, and like the previous studies, the program is not being performed by |

independent consultants. We note that the California Energy Commission recently concluded |

that "determining impacts is fundamentally a science issue, and should be independent of the |

regulations it serves, and their interpretations, except as the regulation specifies the impacts to |

be determined." Based on this concept, " [r]ecent assessments (in California) have commonly |

relied on a technical working group composed of independent scientists plus representatives |

from relevant agencies, the consulting firms doing the study, the power plant owner/operator |

and, in some cases, environmental groups, to oversee study design, implementation, and data |

and impact analyses [Issues and Environmental Impacts Associated with Once-Through |

Cooling at California's Coastal Power Plants. California Energy Commission. Staff Report. |

CEC-700-2005-13. June 2005.] We strongly recommend that this same judgment be applied to |

all OCNGS impact studies. (GG-7) |

|

Response: In conducting the environmental evaluation presented in the SEIS, the NRC used |

information from a variety of sources, including the applicant’s ER, data and information |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-100 January 2007

| collected during a site audit, information provided by local, State, and other Federal agencies,

| and published scientific literature. The revised SEIS acknowledges that some of the data

| available for review are 30 years old and that conclusions regarding current impact levels are

| uncertain. As stated in the comment, data on current impingement and entrainment rates are

| being collected now at OCNGS. This data collection program was developed by the applicant

| and approved by the NJDEP to address AmerGen’s requirements under the CWA. The text of

| the SEIS has been modified in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: I have a long history of research experience in coastal waters of New Jersey,

| including Barnegat Bay, Little Egg Harbor Estuary.

|

| I just want to mention one thing. I've been quoted a couple of times in the report. My main

| reason for being here was the quotes that were in that report, which indicate -- well, I can read

| one in particular. It states that "Despite large numbers of eggs, larvae, and small life forms at

| Barnegat Bay, organisms lost via impact passage at the OCNGS, these losses have not

| resulted in technical impacts on biotic communities in Barnegat Bay."

|

| I want to emphasize that this publication that is in reference to, which I have edited and

| published after extensive peer review, among other things I have done in the bay, is in

| reference to a review of other documents, and of old material that goes back to 1975-77, 316(a)

| and (b) demonstration reports as well as the VERSAR report. I think it was '88 and '89. And so

| that is not an assessment of what I see today in terms of looking at the entire picture, the entire

| window from 1969 until today. And largely the report, the NRC's report, related to aquatic

| impacts, they have done the best job they could do with it considering the material they had to

| deal with, but it's relatively irrelevant because if you don't take into account impingement and

| entrainment and sampling at the same time in an assessed water body, in this case a central

| part of Barnegat Bay, the information is it's impossible to draw a proper assessment.

|

| If you take the variation of a population in Barnegat Bay of any organism, at any one time, it

| could be two to three hundred percent. And to take a comparison of a population of how many

| organisms are being impinged or entrained at one time and then say, "Thirty years or 25 years

| later, you're comparing these numbers," that's also irrelevant because it doesn't take into

| account these fluctuations in the natural populations in the water body in the adult form. When

| they did these studies back in 1975, they did it. The only time it was ever relevant was when

| they did the work in 1975 and '77, when they actually had impingement and entrainment

| numbers and they did population surveys at the same time.

|

| So you're dealing with old data, 30 years old. Today's information in that report is irrelevant. 

| And, as it's not NRC's fault, the real problem lies with the Clean Water Act people, the EPA, and

| the DEP, who did not provide sufficient oversight on the parent company in terms of making

| sure that they did population surveys routinely and cyclical or periodic in the bay. With a

| variation of two to three hundred percent in populations at any one time, you really should be
Appendix A

January 2007 A-101 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

doing population surveys almost every year. And considering the cost of that, I understand, but |

you should at least do it every five years. |

|

It was not done for 30 years. And someone dropped the ball completely. And, in fact, if you |

have a parent company that espouses that they are environmentally friendly and concerned |

about the environment of the estuary, then it would be incumbent upon the company's own |

scientists. Some of whom have been there for 30 years themselves know better that they could |

have been doing population surveys periodically. That would have made the NRC's job much |

more easy to comprehend, to deal with and provide you with the necessary and accurate |

information that you need. |

|

There are problematic areas. For example, the shellfish beds of Barnegat Bay have been on |

decline. That was a species which was a representative important species back in 1975 and |

'77. And it was not followed through. If you want to get into the statement to me that there are |

no observable impacts, well, one could contend that there is a correlation or association with |

that because hard clams have been on decline in the bay, in the central bay, for some time. |

There is also some indication that winter flounder populations are negatively impacted in the |

central bay as well. |

|

I am not saying all of these things are due to the plant because I can't as a scientist and I won't |

do that. I want to be able to take data and to do data as a scientist and assess things as a |

scientist and come up with an effective proper conclusion. This can't be done the way it has |

been done in this process over the 30-year period. The information in the report is not accurate. |

It can't be accurate when you don't have population surveys that are conducted concurrently |

with impingement and entrainment studies. |

|

And, by the way, they are conducting impingement and entrainment studies today right now at |

the power plant, which, again, are irrelevant. I'll repeat that: irrelevant unless they do surveys |

in the bay, which they're not doing. And to be able to go back and say, "Well, we have 1013 |

power of polychaete worm being cropped by the power plant today, and we had 1012 back in |

1977. Therefore, everything seems to be okay" can't be done that way, not scientifically. You |

send that report out to my colleagues at Penn State and other universities. It would be rejected |

so quickly. It would be rejected very quickly. And that's part of the problem. You really need to |

take this information. (I-1) |

|

Comment: The Draft GEIS also cites statements by Dr. Kennish [M.J. Kennish (2001) State of |

the Estuary and Watershed: An Overview. Journal of Coastal Research, SI 32: 243-273.] (2001) |

to support the conclusion that the impacts of impingement and entrainment are both SMALL. Dr. |

Michael Kennish is a marine research scientist at Rutgers University and holds a Ph.D. from |

William and Mary University. He is considered an expert in life history, ecology and behavior of |

fishes in the Barnegat Bay estuary. Dr. Kennish strongly rejects the use of his scientific review |

article to support the NRC's conclusion. During his testimony at the GEIS public hearing and |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-102 January 2007

| again in his comments submitted on the GEIS (August 30, 2006), he clearly stated his

| conclusions and statements were taken out of context and are incorrect, including the following

| quotes made by Dr. Kennish in his August 30 comment letter: 

|

| • "I want to stress that this cited work is a review article, and the words quoted in the GEIS are

| taken out of context, thereby misconstruing the information." 

|

| • "Therefore, I object to . . . the use of the three quotes from my published article in the

| context shown on pages 4-15, 4-21, and 4-51 of the GEIS." 

|

| Accordingly, the reliance on the work of Dr. Kennish to support findings contained in the Draft

| GEIS of SMALL impacts is clearly misplaced. (GG-10)

|

| Comment: There is a specific reference to one of my published articles on the Barnegat Bay-

| Little Egg Harbor Estuary that has been cited three times in the GEIS in support of the NRC

| conclusions of no significant impact of the OCNGS on Barnegat Bay aquatic populations. The

| cited work is found on pages 4-15, 4-21, and 4-51 and includes statements taken directly from

| the following publication (Kennish, M. J. 2001. “State of the Estuary and Watershed: An

| Overview,” Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 32, pp. 243-273.). I want to stress that

| this cited work is a review article, and the words quoted in the GEIS are taken out of context,

| thereby misconstruing the information. More specifically, my article only supports the results of

| impingement, entrainment, and thermal discharge effects determined for the 1975-1977 period,

| the only period when impingement and entrainment data were collected concurrently with data

| population surveys in the bay. Thus, it is only relevant to a very small window of time – the two

| year period from 1975-1977 rather than to the entire operating period of the OCNGS (1969-

| Present). Therefore, I object to, and contend, the use of the three quotes from my published

| article in the context shown on pages 4-15, 4-21, and 4-51 of the GEIS. (OO-5)

|

| Comment: The GEIS contained misconstrued information based on an extensive review of

| published information (academic journals or other sources) that led to a finding by NRC staff of

| no significant impacts on aquatic populations in the bay by the OCNGS. In fact, this is not the

| case.

|

| This information (found on pages 4-15, 4-21, and 4-51 of the GEIS), contains citations from

| Kennish, M. J. 2001. State of the Estuary and Watershed: An Overview. Journal of Coastal

| Research, Special Issue 32, pp. 243-273. The information from the aforementioned publication,

| does conclude that there is no significant impact of the OCNGS on Barnegat Bay aquatic

| populations, however it is specifically referring to the results of impingement, entrainment, and

| thermal discharge effects determined for the 1975-1977 period, the only period when

| impingement and entrainment data were collected concurrently with data population surveys in

| the bay.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-103 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Dr. Kennish contested the use of the these quotes from (pages 4-15, 4-21, and 4-51 of the |

GEIS) at the public hearing for the GEIS held on Wednesday, July 12, 2006, in Toms River, |

New Jersey. Therefore, the GEIS has based its conclusions on significantly out-of-date and |

out-of-context information, rendering their conclusions on OCNGS's impacts on the aquatic |

populations of Barnegat Bay irrelevant. (AAA-1) |

|

Response: The aquatic ecology impacts have been revised to reflect the potential for adverse |

impacts at near-field (Oyster Creek, Forked River, and adjacent portions of Barnegat Bay) and |

far-field (central Barnegat Bay) locations. The assessment acknowledges that because there |

are no recent monitoring data, the conditions that existed during the 316(a) and 316(b) studies |

may or may not exist today. It was not the intention of the NRC staff to quote the author out of |

context or to misconstrue his meaning. The text of the SEIS has also been revised to indicate |

that the comments of Dr. Kennish on the impacts of OCNGS were based on his review of the |

original 316(a) and 316(b) studies. |

|

Comment: Many different factors must be considered when attempting to analyze cumulative |

impacts, including natural fluctuations in populations, the different stressors that interact to |

impact the system, and community-level effects. None of these analyzes were conducted by |

NRC in order to reach a conclusion of SMALL cumulative impact of plant operations. Moreover, |

the data does not exist at this time to conduct such an analysis. |

|

Analyzing cumulative impacts at the population level requires an understanding of the natural |

fluctuation of a population in relation to the combined effects of all the different losses |

associated with operations at OCNGS (from impingement, entrainment, thermal pollution, |

degraded water quality, etc.) over the lifetime of the plant. These total losses are incurred on the |

population every year with some consistency, yet natural aquatic populations are rarely stable, |

and according to Dr. Kennish, can fluctuate up to 300% annually. In years when a population is |

substantially reduced due to factors unrelated to plant operations, the additional impact of |

mortality from OCNGS may be much more substantial. Multiple years of poor recruitment of a |

population, combined with the consistent take from OCNGS operations, can ultimately lead to |

population crashes. For example, his scenario needs to be further explored in light of the hard |

clam fisheries collapse that has been documented in Barnegat Bay, especially considering that |

this species is consistently entrained by the once-through cooling system of OCNGS. |

|

Many of the stressors (see Section A.3 above) that currently impact the Barnegat Bay are listed |

in this section, but the NRC fails to analyze the role of OCNGS-induced impacts in light of these |

issues. Although operations at OCNGS may not necessarily be responsible for all the stressors |

listed, the ongoing mortality caused by the plant could have a much more substantial impact on |

populations and communities, considering the additional impacts from all of these stressors. |

Therefore, an important part of assessing cumulative impacts is the relative contribution of |

once-through cooling systems to overall population decline. Cumulative anthropogenic sources |

of mortality can exceed the sustainability of the population, so that even a SMALL reduction in |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-104 January 2007

| abundance of a species from OCNGS operations, can be enough to reduce that species below

| a threshold, thus resulting in a disproportionately large reduction in the population [Issues and

| Environmental Impacts Associated with Once-Through Cooling at California's Coastal Power

| Plants. California Energy Commission. Staff Report. CEC-700-2005-13. June 2005].

|

| Finally, cumulative impacts must also take into account the impact to the community structure of

| Barnegat Bay. OCNGS operations target specific species based on size and habitat utilization.

| As these species continue to endure consistent losses, their decline in abundance may alter

| predator/prey interactions. Predators may move into other areas where their preferred prey is

| more prevalent leading to a shift in community structure. Dr. Kennish has reported such a

| change in benthic community structure, with a shift from a filter-feeder dominated community to

| a deposit-feeder dominated community [Michael Kennish, personal communication, July 27,

| 2006]. The statement that "there is no evidence to suggest that the operation of the OCNGS

| cooling-water system has significantly altered the marine and estuarine food web in Barnegat

| Bay or resulted in significant changes in phytoplankton or zooplankton species composition" is

| completely unsubstantiated considering no bay-wide fisheries or invertebrate surveys have

| been conducted in Barnegat Bay for over thirty (30) years.

|

| The Draft GEIS states, "[i]t is likely that plant operations contribute to some of the environmental

| concerns found in Barnegat Bay; the precise contribution, however, cannot be quantified without

| long-term studies of the estuary." Despite this clear and acknowledged lack of understanding,

| the Draft GEIS still concludes that "the cumulative impact of continued operation of the OCNGS

| once-through cooling system on aquatic resources in Barnegat Bay estuary would be SMALL."

| This conclusion is (1) unsubstantiated, and (2) apparently based on the Versar Report and

| statements made by Dr. Michael Kennish, neither of which provide a proper basis for the

| reasons set forth in Sections A.2, A.4 and A.6 above. (GG-19)

|

| Response: On the basis of comments received on the draft SEIS and additional analysis, the

| NRC staff has revised the cumulative impact assessment presented in Section 4.8.1 of the

| SEIS.

|

| Comment: There is clear evidence of a dramatic decline of both the hard clam (Mercenaria

| mercenaria) and winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) populations in the bay. Both

| of these species, with early life stages cropped by the OCNGS, were listed as Representative

| Important Species in the 316(a) and (b) Demonstration Report submitted to Federal and state

| government agencies in 1978. These populations in the bay have not been effectively tracked

| over the past 30 years. The same comments above (albeit for different species) also apply to

| the following statement on page 4-21 of the GEIS: “There is no evidence to suggest that past,

| current, or future impingement of these species would destabilize or noticeably alter any

| important attribute of the resource.” The lack of bay surveys during the past three decades,

| therefore, undermines the fundamental conclusions of the GEIS with regard to minimal impacts

| of impingement and entrainment of the OCNGS on aquatic populations in the bay. (OO-4)
Appendix A

January 2007 A-105 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Response: The comment is confusing in that the first sentence suggests there is clear |

evidence of a dramatic decline of hard clams in the bay, yet a subsequent sentence indicates |

the populations have not been effectively tracked for 30 years. There is anecdotal information |

and some studies that have shown a large decline of hard clams throughout their’ range in |

New Jersey. This illustrates the confusion concerning the abundance of these species in |

Barnegat Bay. To account for the lack of recent monitoring data, the aquatic ecology impact |

analysis has been revised. The assessment acknowledges that because there are no recent |

monitoring data, the conditions that existed during the 316(a) and 316(b) studies may or may |

not exist today. The NRC staff also suggests that future monitoring studies should be designed |

to evaluate multiple environmental stressors (both anthropogenic and natural) at spatial and |

temporal scales sufficient to address the inherent variability within the system. The text of the |

SEIS has been modified in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: The supplemental EIS for OCNGS discusses only 17 of the 108 fish and shellfish |

species associated with Barnegat Bay and among those that are addressed, current population |

estimates are given for only two, the hard clam and shipworms. This does not connote a |

thorough, "hard look" at the environmental impacts associated with the operation of OCNGS. |

Water temperature is the primary factor in hard clam spawning and it is reasonable to conclude |

that significant population decreases over the past few decades are due to temperature |

increases and a range of stressors, including deteriorated water quality, algal blooms and |

chemical contaminants, among which OCNGS plays a significant role as the nearest point |

source. Conversely, shipworms show increased rates of reproduction in higher water |

temperatures and greater salinity. Since the opening of OCNGS in 1969, a shipworm habitat |

has established itself in the creek, especially in areas influenced by the reactor's thermal plume. |

Oyster Creek is now infested with native and non-native shipworm species that are highly |

destructive to untreated wooden piling and boat hulls. Submerged aquatic vegetation and |

phyto- and zooplankton populations that provide critical habitat for many estuary species are in |

marked decline, largely due to frequent algal blooms and decreased water quality. (EE-12) |

|

Response: The representative important species chosen for inclusion in the SEIS are |

consistent with Ecology of Barnegat Bay, New Jersey (Kennish and Lutz 1984) and the |

Barnegat Bay Estuary Characterization Report (BBNEP 2001). According to the |

characterization report, the two nonnative species of shipworm (Teredo bartschi and |

T. furcifera) are no longer present in Oyster Creek. Spawning of hard clams is mostly affected |

by water teperature and food availability. However, the thermal discharge from OCNGS would |

not cause significant population decreases because hard clams spawn when water |

temperatures increase above 68-73EF (CBP 2003). Therefore, it is unlikely that OCNGS |

operations would adversely affect spawning of hard clams. Remaining shipworm populations |

are resource limited because of the replacement of wooden pilings and structures with concrete |

and other materials. There is anecdotal information and some studies that have shown a large |

decline of hard clams throughout the species’ range in New Jersey. This decline is not likely the |

result of OCNGS operation. It is much more likely that a general degradation in regional water |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-106 January 2007

| quality due to coastal development has led to a state wide decline in hard clam abundance. 

| Because of a lack of recent monitoring data, it is not possible to determine the current status of

| phytoplankton or zooplankton communities, but the commenter is correct in noting the presence

| of algal blooms, which have been confirmed in scientific literature and may be responsible for

| reduced submerged aquatic vegetation in the estuary. This is noted in Section 2.2.5 of the

| SEIS. The text of the SEIS has been modified in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: Environmental Impacts of Operation, Heat Shock (Page 4-23, Lines 4-7)

| "...shall not be raised by no more than 2.2 degrees C (4 degrees F) from June through August,

| nor more than 0.8 degrees C (1.5 degree F) from June through August..." 

| This statement conflicts. (PP-3)

|

| Response: The referenced text in the SEIS has been corrected.

|

| Comment: Environmental Impacts of Operation, Thermal Plume extent violations (Page 4-23)

| Supplement 28 to the Draft SEIS is not clear on what the outcomes of the violations were. 

| (PP-4)

|

| Response: Summers et al. (1989) suggested that the NJDEP grant OCNGS a thermal

| variance subject to the conditions described in the 2005 NJDEP fact sheet. In response, the

| NJDEP granted OCNGS a variance to thermal discharge requirements. This variance is

| discussed in Section 4.1.3 of the SEIS and is also discussed in the 2005 NJDEP fact sheet. 

| The text of the SEIS has been modified in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: The DFW has concerns about the cumulative impact of the use of chlorine and

| biocides on estuarine organisms. No mention was made if any studies or modeling has ever

| been performed to examine potential long-term impacts of this procedure. (PP-16)

|

| Response: OCNGS is required to monitor chlorine and biocide usage as a condition of its

| NJPDES permit. Monitoring reports are submitted to the NJDEP per the requirements of the

| permit, but studies and/or modeling of long-term impacts have not been required by the NJDEP. 

| The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to

| the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: The DFW has some concerns regarding the methodology used to measure fishkills. 

| Entrained fish eggs and fish larvae are subjected to extremely high temperatures where

| mortalities are high. Cold shock due to unexpected shutdowns results in more fish mortality

| than observed or reported. When a plant shuts down and a fish kill occurs, dead fish are

| collected and enumerated. What is not observed are the schools of fish that follow the last

| "pocket" of warm water discharge out Oyster Creek and into Barnegat Bay. During the winter,

| as that "pocket" of warm water is cooled to the temperature of the water around it, those

| remaining fish (now off site of the OCNGS) and in Barnegat Bay, succumb to thermal shock. 
Appendix A

January 2007 A-107 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

During the winter, the cold water slows the decomposition process down dramatically, and the |

dead fish sink to the bottom. The extent of this mortality should be evaluated. (PP-17) |

|

Response: The available information on fish kills due to cold shock and heat shock is |

described in the SEIS in Section 4.3. Included is a short description of the procedures that |

AmerGen personnel follow to document station related fish kills. Fish kill documentation is |

provided to the NRC by OCNGS and is publicly available. The phenomenon described in the |

comment has not been documented in Barnegat Bay. It appears unlikely that a pocket of warm |

water could move into the Bay without being rapidly dispersed. The comment provides no new |

and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this |

comment. |

|

Comment: Pages 2-21 and 4-7 address fishkills related to plant shutdowns. It should be |

stressed that whether such fishkills occurred during planned or unplanned shutdowns, any |

resultant fishkills are subject to the assessment of fines. (PP-18) |

|

Response: Oversight and enforcement of compliance with NJPDES limits for OCNGS is the |

responsibility of the NJDEP. The NRC staff provides a description of past fish kills in |

Section 4.1.3 of the SEIS. The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, |

no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Several present DFW staff members took part in the '84-'86 study before joining the |

DFW. The DFW believes that there are statements in the report that are misleading and require |

some clarification. Pages 4-18 to 4-19, suggest the EA study over underestimated catch due to |

mesh size not matching mesh size of Ristroph screens. The GEIS indicates that 10.7 mm was |

used on sampling gear for nine years, 6.4 mm used for one year, whereas mesh size on |

screens was 9.5 mm. The DFW staff believes all openings except for the last year were 3/8" |

(this is 9.5 mm). The difference is how mesh size is measured and whether or not the wire |

around each individual panel is included. The DFW believes that measurements reported by |

environmental assessment included the thickness of wire surrounding each opening (because |

that's how it was ordered from the supplier at the time), which would add another mm or so to |

the width. Pages 4-18 to 4-21 - the 6.4 mm wire mesh utilized in the pool, the DFW believes, it |

would not have mattered what size was used on the fabric mesh of the collection net, since |

anything in the sluiceway experienced the effects of the screening process and would have |

been retained in the pool. Water in the sluiceway could have been sampled with 1/2" mm mesh |

and the method still would have been valid because the sample would end up in the pool and |

be processed. (PP-19) |

|

Response: The NRC staff has revised Section 4.1.2 of the SEIS in response to the comment. |

Because it is not possible to conclusively validate the statements contained in the comment, we |

consider the Summers et al. (1989) conclusion valid because it represents an environmentally |

protective approach and was used as the basis for the NJPDES permit by the NJDEP. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-108 January 2007

| Comment: Important Fish and Shellfish near the OCNGS are discussed in Section 2.2.5.3. 

| Along with a "species profile" for important species in the area, the GEIS includes the general

| statement (or variation thereof) that "primary anthropogenic stressors include hydrologic

| changes resulting from water diversion or water withdrawal activities." This water

| diversion/withdrawal (up to 1.25 million g.p.m.) is the principal source of the DFW's concern, yet

| in many respects is dismissed, perhaps as an unavoidable adverse impact in the opinion of

| some. Other potential sources of impact typically mentioned include eutrophication and

| stormwater runoff, which are probably included for completeness but may be included to divert

| attention away from the potential factor that is the focus of the GEIS. This section of the report

| also notes whether or not essential fish habitat for a particular species has been designated for

| Barnegat Bay and seems to infer that if there is no such essential fish habitat (EFH)

| designation, that species is not an issue for the OCNGS. Given the huge volumes of water

| taken in by the once-through cooling system and the losses of various fish and invertebrate

| species through impingement and entrainment mortality, it seems plausible that the plant

| operation is impacting the estuarine food web of Barnegat Bay in some manner even though

| there as yet may not have been significant, documented impacts to specific species. Has any

| effort ever been made to look at long-term impacts to the food web of the bay? (PP-20)

|

| Response: The NRC staff recognizes that the water withdrawal activities at OCNGS represent

| a potential adverse impact at near-field (Oyster Creek and Forked River and adjacent areas of

| Barnegat Bay) and far-field (Central Barnegat Bay) areas. It was not the staff's intention to infer

| that the lack of an essential fish habitat (EFH) designation for a particular species suggested

| that there were no potential adverse impacts. Rather, the staff used the EFH designations and

| also the representative important species designations available in technical documents or

| reports on Barnegat Bay to frame the impact discussions. The SEIS has been revised to

| acknowledge the lack of recent monitoring data and its implications on assessing the magnitude

| of impacts. In addition, the commenter asks if there have been any studies that look at long-

| term impacts on the food web in Barnegat Bay. Although the NRC staff is unaware of any such

| studies, Kennish and Lutz (1994) provide the most comprehensive assessment of the Bay at all

| trophic levels. The text of the SEIS has been modified in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: On page 4-18 - the statement that the pool being an overestimate of abundance,

| DFG staff disagrees mainly because smaller, soft-bodied fishes (e.g. bay anchovies) could go

| through the 3/8" mesh of the screens (i.e. go head first instead of being sideways), be crushed

| or eaten, be trapped between then screens and feeding predators, get mangled in eel grass and

| therefore not end up in the sluiceway to be counted. If anything, it is the opinion of our

| professionals that pool collections grossly underestimated abundance of smaller, soft-bodies

| fishes and macroinverts such as bay anchovies, silversides, sand and grass shrimp. So

| basically, the last year of sampling, which utilized the pool technology, was most likely more

| reflective of abundance than in previous years (not an overestimate as stated in the NRC

| report), but it still underestimated numbers of small fish and small macroinvertebrates. (PP-21)

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-109 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Response: The accuracy of this comment cannot be determined because the requisite studies |

to make a determination were not conducted at the time of the sampling. Additional information |

has been added to Section 4.1.2 to indicate that it is not possible to accurately determine |

whether abundances were over- or underestimated. The NRC staff had included the |

assessment of Summers et al. (1989) in the SEIS because it generally reflects an |

environmentally protective approach and was the basis for the NJPDES permit. The comment |

provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in |

response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Entrainment of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton (Page 4-7). The DFW does not |

agree with the following: references the General EIS for power plants and concludes that |

'entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton has not been found to be a problem at operating |

nuclear power plants"---a remarkable conclusion based on the losses to benthic infauna |

(including hard clams) as noted in the GEIS. (PP-22) |

|

Response: In preparing supplements to the GEIS, the NRC relies on conclusions reached in |

the GEIS unless “new and significant information” suggests that the conclusions reached in the |

GEIS were wrong. Because of the high fecundity and wide distribution of benthic infaunal |

species throughout the Bay, it is highly unlikely that continued OCNGS operations would have |

an adverse impact on those populations in Barnegat Bay. It is much more likely that a general |

decline in regional water quality due to intense development would result in a bay-wide decline |

in abundance. The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no |

changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Dissolved Oxygen Issues (Page 4-8). The DFW requests additional information on |

the position stated on this page, "that low D.O. has been a problem at one nuclear power plant |

with a once through cooling system, but that it has been effectively mitigated." This section |

further adds that low D.O has not been a problem at plants with cooling towers or cooling |

ponds. Has low D.O. ever been an issue at the OCNGS and if so, how was this situation |

mitigated? Or does it require mitigation? (PP-23) |

|

Response: Plant-related impacts on dissolved oxygen are discussed in the GEIS |

(NUREG-1437, Volume 1) as noted in Table 4-1 of the SEIS. The plant referred to in the GEIS |

that had a dissolved oxygen issue was the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant in Tennessee. The concern |

at that plant was related to the effects of low dissolved oxygen on downstream mussel beds and |

sauger (Sander canadensis) reproduction. The problem was unique to the site and was related |

to heated discharge from the plant interacting with water released from an upstream dam that |

occasionally had low dissolved oxygen. That problem was subsequently mitigated and has no |

bearing on OCNGS. A study conducted in Barnegat Bay from 1976 to 1980 found no |

statistically significant differences in concentrations of dissolved oxygen which was sampled at |

several locations including the mouths of Forked River and Oyster Creek (Vouglitois 1983). The |

NRC staff did not identify any issues at OCNGS associated with low dissolved oxygen, and the |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-110 January 2007

| impacts are expected to be consistent with those identified in the GEIS, that is, of SMALL

| significance. The text of the SEIS has been modified in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: The EPA's new rules under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (in

| 40 C.F.R. § 125) require OCNGS to reduce its entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life

| stages. The draft SEIS discusses the new rules that are in effect, and states that there is an

| application for renewal of the NJPDES permit. To be in accord with the new 316(b) regulations,

| the facility has proposed mitigation measures to minimize these impacts and NJDEP has

| discussed these measures in the draft NJPDES permit and summarized those provisions and

| findings in the Fact Sheet for the permit. (HH-8)

|

| Comment: Fish and Shellfish Entrainment Mitigation (Page 4-11). It is noted that "entrainment

| of fish and shellfish into the cooling water system is a potential adverse impact." This section

| notes that as part of the permit renewal process, the applicant may be required to alter the

| intake structure, redesign the cooling system, modify station operation, or take mitigative

| measures as a result of this regulation." The GEIS should be considering all these actions and

| in any case should require mitigation for the fish and shellfish resources impacted by the

| relicensing of the OCNGS. (PP-24)

|

| Comment: We do know that millions of small fish, shrimp and other aquatic animals are

| currently being killed due to the fact that the plant has no water cooling towers. Cooling towers

| are a necessity to prevent these losses of marine life which are trapped against water intake

| screens, or drawn into the plant, or killed by the change in water temperature in the bay. 

| Restoring wetlands is not a reasonable alternative. (XX-5)

|

| Response: In Section 8.1 of the SEIS, the impacts of replacing the once-through cooling

| system with a closed-cycle system are evaluated. The need for such a system to mitigate

| impacts on aquatic resources is subject to a determination by the State under Section 316(a)

| and 316(b) Phase II of the CWA, and could be a condition of the new NJPDES permit. The

| State of New Jersey also proposed restoration of wetlands as a partial alternative to the current

| cooling system. Restoration is a viable option under EPA’s Phase II regulations. The text of the

| SEIS has been modified in response to these comments.

|

| Comment: The Versar report (1989) noted that blue crabs and hard clams were the two

| species of both recreational and commercial importance impacted by the OCNGS. Table 4-3

| (page 4-13 of GEIS) indicates that the annual entrainment losses for the studied period of

| 1975-1981 for blue crab larvae was 182 million organisms. Annual losses for this same period

| for hard clam larvae was 112.3 billion organisms. However, the GEIS makes little mention of

| the OCNGS impact on the bay's population of these two species. With respect to blue crabs,

| the GEIS discusses NMFS commercial blue crab landings and indicates that there is a thriving

| recreational blue crab fishery in Barnegat Bay, "suggesting that the population of blue crabs are
Appendix A

January 2007 A-111 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

currently sufficient to sustain both commercial and recreational uses." Using the current state of |

the recreational fishery to reach this conclusion seems somewhat of a "stretch". |

|

Despite the huge losses of larval clams attributed to plant operation, in discussing the decline of |

hard clams in Barnegat Bay, the GEIS addresses a number of other factors, none of which |

include larval losses due to entrainment. It even include a reference to QPX disease, which |

typically occurs only in clams stressed by high density conditions---which is not the case in |

Barnegat Bay, where hard clam densities have fallen dramatically. For example, a survey of the |

southern portion of the Barnegat Bay System south of the Route 72 causeway (an area typically |

referred to as Little Egg Harbor Bay), hard clam stocks declined by two-thirds between the DFW |

surveys in 1987 and 2001. We may now be at a point of "recruitment limitation, "where |

densities are so low that the successful union of gametes released into the water is greatly |

diminished. With respect to declines in hard clam stocks in Barnegat Bay, the GEIS provides |

some interesting related data in its discussion of benthic infauna (pages 2-47/48). The GEIS |

notes that the densities of three benthic invertebrate species studied decreased from 9,000 to |

17,000 individuals per square meter in 1969 to less than 500 individuals per square meter in |

1973 (a decline of 94.1 to 97.1%). Coincidentally, the OCNGS began operation in December of |

1969. It's not inconceivable that the entrainment losses reported for hard clams occurred for |

numerous larval organisms (both invertebrates and vertebrates), thereby having significant, |

albeit undocumented impacts on the bay ecosystem. (PP-25) |

|

Response: The NRC staff used recreational and commercial landing data for representative |

important species because recent monitoring data were not available. The linkage between |

OCNGS operations and benthic invertebrate decline cannot be demonstrated, but the |

discussion of the benthic resources in Section 2.2.5 has been modified to describe historical |

trends. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has determined that the blue crab is |

“demonstrably secure throughout the Bight [New York Bight watershed, which includes |

Barnegat Bay] . . . The species is generally considered to be common to abundant.” On the |

other hand, the hard clam appears to be declining throughout its range in New Jersey; however, |

it is unlikely that this decline is related to OCNGS operation because of the species’ high |

fecundity and wide distribution. The aquatic ecology impact assessments for entrainment, |

impingement, and heat shock have been modified to reflect potential adverse impacts at both |

near-field (Oyster Creek, Forked River, and adjacent portions of Barnegat Bay) and far-field |

(central Barnegat Bay) locations. |

|

Comment: On page 4-15, the following is stated with respect to entrainment losses and the |

resulting conclusions of the Summers et al 1989 report: “This assessment (Summers et al |

1989) was based on population and ecosystem modeling (equivalent adult model, production |

foregone model, and spawning/nursery area of consequence model) to determine the |

environmental consequences of impingement and entrainment. The results of these models |

evaluate the combined losses associated with both impingement and entrainment. Using |

conservative assumptions to estimate OCNGS impingement and entrainment losses, data |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-112 January 2007

| available on population sizes, and survival rates and trophic relationships, Summers et al.

| (1989) concluded that population losses were rapidly compensated for by reproduction (e.g.

| sand shrimp), were a small fraction of the bay population (e.g., blue crab and winter flounder),

| or had little effect on higher trophic levels (e.g., bay anchovy and opossum shrimp).

|

| Although NJDEP (2005) acknowledged the Summers et al. (1989) conclusion that OCNGS did

| not appear to produce "unacceptable, substantial long-term population and ecosystem level

| impacts," the agency stated that it is not necessary to prove that an impact on a population is

| occurring to require the applicant to meet Section 316(b) performance standards.”

|

| While this excerpt is not incorrect, it is important to reference relevant regulatory changes that

| have occurred since the release of the Summers et al report in 1989 and the resulting 1994

| NJPDES permit that provide the background for this position as contained in the draft NJPDES

| permit. Due to the fact that the EPA Phase II section 316(b) regulations focus on plant data (i.e.

| impingement and entrainment data), biological monitoring that feeds into any assessment of 

| effects to bay-wide populations is not directly relevant for the purposes of the Phase II section

| 316(b) regulations at this time. Prior to the release in 2004 of the EPA Phase II section 316(b)

| regulations, a study of any effects on biological populations was a focal point of the document

| entitled Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Adverse Impact of Cooling Water Intake Structures on

| the Aquatic Environment: Section 316(b) P.L. 92-500 (U.S. EPA, 1977). In contrast, the 2004

| EPA Phase II section 316(b) regulations uses a reduction in impingement and entrainment as

| the metric for complying, where in some compliance alternatives the goal is the attainment of

| national performance standards, and impacts to populations are not considered.

|

| As described in the Department's comments to EPA Headquarters on the draft Phase II

| section 316(b) regulations, the Department expressed concern about a population focus as

| opposed to a focus on impingement and entrainment effects. This was due to the fact that

| results of biological population studies and modeling can be very subjective because it is

| difficult to identify, measure, and attribute the impact of each of the many variables (e.g. fishery

| regulations, climate effects) affecting populations of each of the impacted species. Rather than

| engage in this kind of biological debate, time and resources would be better spent focusing on

| the magnitude of the impingement and entrainment losses in relation to the costs and benefits

| of implementing various technologies to avoid or minimize the impact.

|

| The Department agrees that biological data is useful in monitoring the health of the estuary and

| acknowledges that both plant-related data and biological data of Barnegat Bay are dated. 

| Nonetheless, the Department determined that this data was sufficient for the purposes of

| developing a section 316(b) determination in its 2005 draft NJPDES permit. The Department

| hereby questions USNRC if adequate data is typically found at other power plants that are the

| subject of a license renewal. (PP-36)

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-113 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Response: The comment correctly reflects the overriding goals of the Phase II requirements, |

and the NRC staff agrees that it is very difficult to interpret entrainment and impingement data |

because of the large variance in measured values. The assumption is made with respect to the |

EPA’s Phase II regulations that a reduction in impingement and entrainment through the use of |

improved technology would result in improvements in the biota of the source and receiving |

water body. It is not based on a determination of measured improvement in the ecosystems. |

The NRC’s NEPA responsibility is to assess the impacts on the environment, irrespective of the |

difficulty of the task. The revised SEIS reflects the difficulty and uncertainty in interpreting |

plant-related data, whether recent or dated. The amount of environmental monitoring data |

available at operating nuclear power plants varies. Very few facilities with once-through cooling |

that have applied for license renewal have current impingement and entrainment data with |

attendant population information from the source water body. The data considered are typically |

those developed as part of the original 316(b) demonstration. The text of the SEIS has been |

modified in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: On page 4-24, the following is stated: “Summers et al (1989) also were critical of |

the hydrodynamic modeling conducted to support the 316(a) demonstration and concluded that |

the two-dimensional steady-state mass and heat balanced model used "...was a poor reflection |

of the dynamic conditions characterizing Barnegat Bay" and that "... the modeling regime |

chosen does not represent the best available methods for evaluating plume characteristics." |

|

The NRC staff's conclusion is that the analysis conducted by Summers et al. (1989) provided |

the most realistic and complete description of thermal impacts associated with OCNGS and was |

taken into account during the NJDEP's development of the draft NJPDES permit.” |

|

The Department agrees that the Summers et al (1989) report did indeed recognize these |

shortcomings of the Section 316 demonstration. However, it seems as if the conclusions from |

the Summers et al (1989) report regarding the thermal discharge are missing and should be |

included prior to including the NRC staff's conclusion. Specifically, on page VIII-1 of the |

Summers et al (1989) report the following is concluded: “The Oyster Creek NGS does not |

comply with NJDEP's Surface Water Quality Standards for thermal discharges. However, |

present discharge effects are small and localized and have no adverse consequences to |

Barneget Bay.” And, on page VIII-3 of the Summers et al (1989) report: “Based on the findings |

summarized in this report, balanced indigenous populations of Barnegat Bay are protected |

under Oyster Creek NGS's current operations (maximum BTU/hr of 5.42 x 10 9). Therefore, if |

the designated heat dissipation area was increased to the area currently occupied by Oyster |

Creek NGS's thermal plume, Barnegat Bay populations would continue to be protected.” It |

seems appropriate to include some of these conclusions of Summers et al (1989) in this |

section. (PP-48) |

|

Response: The Summers et al. (1989) conclusions have been added to the discussion of |

impacts in Section 4.1.3 of the SEIS. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-114 January 2007

| Comment: During the past 35 years of OCNGS operation, significant concerns have existed

| regarding impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts on estuarine and marine life. As a

| result, the Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) of the BBNEP convened a

| meeting on November 1, 2005, and developed the following recommendations for the NRC

| regarding the OCNGS.

|

| • An independent, scientific body (similar to the National Academy of Science) must be

| assembled to coordinate and oversee surveys and studies on the impacts of the OCNGS on

| the Barnegat Bay/Little Egg Harbor estuary.

|

| • There have been very few peer-reviewed studies during the past 30 years of the impact of

| OCNGS on the population of aquatic communities in central Barnegat Bay. Additional

| studies must be conducted in the Barnegat Bay/Little Egg Harbor to accurately assess these

| impacts and they must be done concurrently with entrainment and impingement studies.

|

| • The NRC must require the OCNGS to focus on remediation of its direct impacts on estuarine

| and marine organisms in the Barnegat Bay/Little Egg Harbor estuary.

|

| • The use of wetlands restoration as a mitigation measure must not be implemented in place

| of remediation efforts targeting bay populations and communities of organisms.

|

| The BBNEP recommends strongly that the renewal permit include a condition that charges the

| BBNEP with the role of the independent scientific body whose purpose is to coordinate research

| efforts in the Barnegat Bay relating to the effects of the OCNGS. The BBNEP's Comprehensive

| Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) recognizes the need for such an entity. Action

| Item 5.15 of the CCMP charges the BBNEP with establishing this technical group for the

| examination and coordination of data in order to understand OCNGS's role in the overall

| ecological health of the bay.

|

| Program partners agree that the BBNEP can and should have the lead role in coordinating and

| overseeing much-needed surveys and studies regarding OCNGS's effects on the Barnegat Bay

| ecosystem.

|

| In conclusion, the position of the BBNEP is that regardless of the option pursued by the NRC

| regarding Oyster Creek's license renewal, without question, the OCNGS absolutely must be

| required to conduct detailed, comprehensive studies of the communities of bay organisms to

| determine what the overall impact of the power plant is on Barnegat Bay. (AAA-2)

|

| Response: NEPA does not require an independent review of agency findings with respect to

| environmental analysis. In addition, the NRC does not have the authority to require OCNGS to

| remediate impacts on aquatic organisms in Barnegat Bay as that authority was granted to the

| EPA under the CWA. The EPA delegated that authority to the state of New Jersey. The State
Appendix A

January 2007 A-115 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

will determine through the NJPDES process appropriate mitigation, which could include |

restoration. The ongoing NJPDES permitting process will result in a determination of the |

compliance action taken by AmerGen to meet requirements of the CWA. The requirement for |

additional monitoring will be determined by the NJDEP. The comment provides no new and |

significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this |

comment. |

|

Comment: The other study cited in Section 2.2.5.1., by the Global Land Cover Facility, does |

not demonstrate that the wetlands in Barnegat Bay are being impacted in the manner suggested |

by the DEIS. Instead, a better source of information is Lathrop, R. G. and J. A. Bognar. 2001, |

Habitat loss and alteration in the Barnegat Bay region, in M. J. Kennish (editor), Barnegat Bay- |

Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey: Estuary and watershed assessment. Special Issue 32, Journal of |

Coastal Research, pp. 212-228. The Barnegat Bay system lost about 4,190 hectares (-27%) of |

its salt marsh habitat over the century period from 1870 to 1970 primarily due to development, |

but also due in part to mosquito ditching. Since 1970, however, the loss has been minimal with |

estimates of about a 1-1.5% additional loss over the past three decades. The Wetlands Act has |

been critical to this stabilization. The current loss of salt marsh is very small in the system, and |

in fact there are some areas, most notably in the vicinity of Barnegat Inlet, where the salt marsh |

area has actually increased according to the authors. In conclusion, they state the following (p. |

224): "The Wetlands Act of 1970 appears to have been largely successful in halting the high |

rate of loss of tidal salt marsh habitats due to human development." [Lathrop, R. G. and J. A. |

Bognar. 2001, Habitat loss and alteration in the Barnegat Bay region, in M. J. Kennish (editor), |

Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey: Estuary and watershed assessment. Special |

Issue 32, Journal of Coastal Research, pp. 212-228 at 224.] By way of comparison, other |

nearby states in the Mid- Atlantic region (e.g., Delaware) show the same steep decline in salt |

marsh habitat prior to the Wetlands Act and then more recent stabilization since 1970. The fact |

that the tidal marshes along the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary appear to be stable, |

however, in no way suggests that there hasn't been any loss, or that restoring these areas |

would not benefit the Bay. [Kennish, M. J. 2001. Coastal salt marsh systems: a review of |

anthropogenic impacts. Journal of Coastal Research 17: 73 1-748.] While the members of the |

Coalition firmly believe that we must vigilantly protect our salt marshes, allowing the Facility to |

"mitigate" its harmful affects on the environment by essentially writing a check and restoring |

other land does not address all of the problems caused by the Facility and does not satisfy the |

requirements of the CWA. (MM-11) |

|

Response: The reference mentioned in the comment (Lathrop and Bognar 2001) was included |

in the NRC staff review. Sections 2.2.5.1 and 2.2.5.4 of the draft SEIS have been revised to |

include their summary conclusions concerning habitat loss. |

|

Comment: The studies referenced in this section are limited to 3 year period, and were |

conducted post-operation of the Facility and nearly 10 years after construction began. In |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-116 January 2007

| addition, there were collected from Westem Barnegat Bay and do not represent a full Barnegat

| Bay study. (MM-26)

|

| Response: The referenced report (Tatham et al. 1984) represents the best information

| available on fish species of Barnegat Bay. The NRC staff recognizes the lack of a recent

| comprehensive assessment of fish communities in Barnegat Bay, which makes assessment of

| the environmental impacts of OCNGS operations particularly difficult. The findings in the SEIS

| have been revised to reflect this uncertainty.

|

| Comment: With respect to the American eel (2-36), it is a catadromous species. The current

| abundance of American eel is unknown. The dam may be restricting upstream migration. This

| species was not evaluated in the 316(b) study. The fishery appears to be in decline, and FWS is

| engaged in a status review. FWS has already determined that a listing may be warranted, and

| the 12 month finding required under the ESA is due. What consideration does NRC give to the

| impacts another 20 years of operation will have on this species? (MM-28)

|

| Response: Potential impacts of the fire pond dam on the American eel are discussed in

| Section 4.7 of the SEIS. The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore,

| no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: The DEIS reports that benthic infauna declined from 1969-1973 (2-48). The DEIS

| says that it is not possible to determine whether the Facility is a contributor to the decline, but

| does not cite any authority for this conclusion. What is NRC's authority for this conclusion?

| Localized impacts have been documented. Mobile epifauna inhabit the Bay, but the current

| abundance has not been estimated with any precision. (2-49) (MM-41)

|

| Response: The statement in the draft SEIS concerning the uncertainty of relating OCNGS

| activities to changes in benthic infaunal communities was a conclusion based on the NRC staff’s

| review of the available data. To determine whether OCNGS is impacting benthic infauna,

| additional studies would be required. It should be noted, however, that Kennish (2001) in

| reviewing the results of the OCNGS 316(a) and 316(b) study conducted from 1975 to 1977

| concluded that impacts appeared to be restricted to the discharge canal and Oyster Creek. 

| This conclusion may or may not be valid now, but this cannot be determined without additional

| monitoring data. The text in the SEIS has been modified to reflect the uncertainty associated

| with a lack of recent data.

|

| Comment: On page 4-10 (lines 35-39) what articles support this conclusion? The DEIS fails to

| cite any support for this conclusion. (MM-56)

|

| Response: There are no conclusions stated on page 4-10, lines 35-39 of the draft SEIS. The

| paragraph only summarizes the approach of the NRC staff. A complete reference list is
Appendix A

(a) Attachments referred to in the comment are not included in the SEIS. They are available for

download from NRC’s ADAMS website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html

under accession number ML062610416. |

January 2007 A-117 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

provided at the end of each chapter in the SEIS. The comment provides no new and significant |

information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: On line 31 at page 4-11, there is a discussion about mitigation, but the assumptions |

about the Phase II rules is incorrect. NRC should review the attached comments(a) on the draft |

NDPES permit and the attached letter to Commissioner Jackson on this point, both of which are |

incorporated herein and are to be considered part of the record. (MM-57) |

|

Response: The SEIS has been modified to clarify AmerGen’s options under the EPA’s |

Phase II regulations. |

|

Comment: On page 4-48, there is a discussion about the fire dam and its impact on shad. |

NRC does not discuss the possibility that shad are not using the creek because the creek was |

essentially destroyed in 1965 when the Facility began construction. There were no studies |

done prior to this to establish the baseline, so NRC and the applicant cannot conclude that there |

is no impact. The pond for firefighting will continue to exist because of the dam. If the license is |

not renewed, the dam could be removed and the pond water returned to the creek; therefore, |

the pond is affected by the decision to renew the license and should be considered. Indeed, the |

no-action alternative should review the positive environmental impacts of dam removal. |

(MM-64) |

|

Response: As stated in Section 4.7, the fire pond and dam are not owned by AmerGen. As a |

consequence, their disposition, should the OCNGS operating license (OL) not be renewed, |

cannot be determined at this time. The comment provides no new and significant information; |

therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Also, since there has not been any recent data collected to support the claims of |

small or minimal impact, we find these conclusions to be unsupported and incorrect. However, |

we understand that NRC and AmerGen are currently conducting studies, at the request of the |

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) that are intended to support the |

New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permit application. We wholly |

support that effort as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's recommendation that at least 3 |

years of biological sampling studies should be performed. We expect that since this information |

will be new and potentially significant and will be used to inform the decisions on operations and |

mitigation measures, it will be included in the final SEIS. (HH-7) |

|

Comment: It is the DLUR's [NJDEP’s Division of Land Use Regulation] understanding the |

applicant has been conducting entrainment and impingement studies from approximately |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-118 January 2007

| October 2005 to the present. The DLUR does not understand why this ongoing study does not

| represent a "new study" and how the NRC can conclude without reviewing the results of the

| on-going study, "that there would be no problems associated with the entrainment of

| phytoplankton and zooplankton during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS." 

| (QQ-1)

|

| Comment: The Draft SEIS fails to mention that the OCNGS has been conducting an

| entrainment study which began in September 2005. However, this study has not been

| concluded and the assessment of data has not been completed, therefore how can the

| statement of "no problem" be made? This issue will be further evaluated through the

| Department's NJPDES process. (QQ-9)

|

| Response: The comments refer to an impingement and entrainment characterization study

| initiated at OCNGS in response to EPA Phase II rules as administered by the NJDEP. The

| study results are not yet available and will not be available prior to the publication of the final

| SEIS. Preliminary impingement and entrainment data (September 2005 to July 2006) suggest

| that the species composition and relative numbers of organisms impinged and entrained at

| OCNGS are similar to those observed during the 316(b) demonstration study. Because of the

| high variability associated with the original 316(b) data and the current information, and the fact

| that the study by AmerGen is ongoing, it is not possible to determine at this time if impingement

| or entrainment has changed significantly since the original study. Because a baywide fishery

| assessment was not included or required in the current study design, there are no current

| population data available for ecologically, recreationally, or commercially important fish or

| shellfish The SEIS has been revised to include a brief description of this new data collection

| effort.

|

| Comment: Several places in Chapter 4 indicate that the Summers et. al. (1989) analysis

| advises that numbers produced by EA studies were underestimated. It is not obvious, when the

| GEIS discusses numbers of fish, invertebrates, plankton, etc., whether or not those numbers

| are based on EA's underestimated numbers or have been corrected to meet Summers

| estimates. (QQ-2)

|

| Response: The SEIS has been revised to clarify that the numbers used to assess impacts

| reflect the estimates of Summers et al. (1989). The source of information is also reflected in the

| table footnotes.

|

| Comment: In Appendix E, there is an evaluation of species requiring Essential Fish Habitat

| (EFH) consultation. The DLUR offers the following comments on the winter flounder

| (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) evaluation.

|

| The evaluation (E58–59) states, "OCNGS operations have the potential to adversely affect EFH

| for all life stages of winter flounder because all stages could occur in Barnegat Bay. Tatham et
Appendix A

January 2007 A-119 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

al. (1984) considered the winter flounder a resident species in Barnegat Bay that made |

significant use of the estuary for spawning and as a nursery area; the years of study (1975 to |

1978) reflected a period when commercial landings in New Jersey waters ranged from 47.7 to |

92.7 metric tons. These data appear to reflect a low point in the population based on data from |

1979 to 2004, when catches usually exceeded 100 metric tons and were greater than |

200 metric tons for seven years during that period (NMFS 2005). Winter flounder larvae |

represented between 1 and 10 percent of the annual OCNGS entrainment measured in studies |

from 1975 to 1981 (Summers et al. 1989)." ... "The total number of entrainment losses for |

winter flounder larvae for 1975 to 1976, 1977 to 1978, and 1980 to 1981 was 4330 million |

organisms (Summers et al. 1989)." ... "Winter flounder are also impinged on the OCNGS |

traveling screens. Annual impingement of winter flounder from 1975 to 1985 ranged from |

8908 individuals in 1975 to 1976, to more than 148,000 individuals from 1978 to 1979, and the |

average annual impingement was estimated (EA 1986) to be 38,866 individuals during that |

period." |

|

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (http://www.asmfc.org/) has published a more |

recent report (Fishery Management Report No. 43 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries |

Commission Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Inshore Stocks of |

Winter Flounder November 2005) on winter flounder. This report places New Jersey within the |

Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) Management Area for winter flounder. The |

report encompasses a large area, including New Jersey. The report states that within the |

SNE/MA the stock complex is overfished and overfishing is occurring based on updated |

NEFMC overfishing definitions. |

|

In addition, the report provides the following information. "Commercial landings from the |

SNE/MA stock unit averaged 8,500 mt from 1964-1972 before declining to around 4,800 mt |

throughout the mid- to late 1970s. Commercial landings increased in the early 1980s to a |

record high of 11,176 mt in 1981 and remained at high levels through 1985. Landings rapidly |

declined after 1985 and reached a record low of 2,200 mt in 1994. Commercial landings in |

2001 were 4,400 mt. Landings by distance from shore (<3 miles; 3-12 miles; >3 miles) were |

unavailable for 1994-1996 because of the switch from the NEFSC's weigh-out system to the |

Vessel Trip Reports (logbooks). Commercial landings from the EEZ (>3 miles) averaged 86% |

of total commercial landings from 1989-1993, and the 2002 stock assessment notes that the |

majority of commercial landings from the SNE/MA stock continue to come from offshore areas |

(>3 miles)." |

|

"Recreational landings from the SNE/MA stock complex peaked at 5,772 mt in 1984 before |

declining to 383 mt in 1992. Since 1992, landings have fluctuated without trend between 290 |

and 831 mt. In 2001, the recreational landings were estimated at 550 mt. Recreational landings |

as a percentage of total landings increased from 20% in 1982 to 44% in 1988, then declined to |

20% in 1990. Recreational landings as a percentage of total landings have ranged from |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-120 January 2007

| 10-18% since 1997. On average, recreational landings have comprised 23% of the total

| landings (1981-2001)."

|

| "In order to restore the stock, the states in the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic stock area

| must implement a recreational 12" minimum size limit and a 10-fish creel limit. Each state in the

| SNE/MA stock area may have a 60-day open season for recreational winter flounder fishing. In

| addition, 20 days must be closed to recreational winter flounder fishing during March and April.

| The 60-day open season can be split into no more than two blocks. While recreational

| fishermen in states within the Gulf of Maine (GOM) Stock must maintain the existing 12"

| minimum size and adopt an 8-fish creel limit. There are no required recreational closed

| seasons in the GOM stock area."

|

| "Commercial fishermen within the Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic stock area must

| implement a 12" minimum size limit, a minimum 6.5" square or diamond mesh in the cod-end,

| and maintain any existing seasonal closures. In addition, the mesh size regulation includes a

| 100 lb. trip limit for winter flounder if smaller mesh is being used. This 100 lb. "mesh trigger"

| provides for the landing of a small amount of winter flounder as bycatch in smaller-mesh

| fisheries. While commercial fishermen in the Gulf of Maine stock area must maintain the

| existing 12" minimum size limit and remain consistent with the adjacent EEZ mesh size

| regulations. The current mesh size in the EEZ adjacent to the states in the GOM stock area is a

| 6.5" diamond or square mesh in the cod-end. States must maintain existing season closures,

| including any Federal rolling closures that affect state waters in the GOM stock area."

|

| Based on the above, it appears the winter flounder stock is in trouble in the SNE/MA and the

| Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has taken measures to meet federal rebuilding

| requirements. This is somewhat of a different picture than presented in the GEIS.

|

| It is interesting to note that Fishery Management Report No. 43, Section 1.4.1.3 entitled

| "Present Condition of Habitats and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Status of the Habitat"

| presents three activities which have been identified as exerting long term deleterious effects on

| winter flounder and their habitat especially habitat areas of particular concern. They are: 1.

| Near-shore water quality degradation; 2. Suspended sediments; and 3. Entrainment and

| impingement from power plants and other activities."

|

| With regard to entrainment and impingement from power plants and other activities, the Report

| states: "Several extensive studies have been done on the impact of coastal power plants on

| winter flounder. Historically, many of these plants have been sited in the upper reaches of the

| estuaries where many winter flounder populations spawn and nursery. Power plant losses

| through entrainment and impingement of different life history stages are directly related to

| several factors: the location of the plant on the estuary, the type of system used for cooling the

| plant, volume of water used in cooling, and the type of technology employed to reduce mortality. 

| Entrainment impacts are usually associated with egg, larval and juvenile life stages where
Appendix A

January 2007 A-121 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

individuals are small enough to pass through the intake screens and subsequently through the |

plant. Impingement affects mostly the adult stage, or the individuals large enough to be caught |

on the intake screens. Impingement mortality is typically lower as technologies have been |

developed and implemented to allow fish to be diverted from the cooling water and returned to |

the estuary alive. Mandatory monitoring programs required of the industry to assess the impact |

these plants have on fisheries resources and the estuarine environment have provided valuable |

data on winter flounder populations and have led to the development of new technologies to |

reduce power plant mortality on estuarine species. There are other types of activities that |

potentially have similar impacts such as desalinization and water treatment plants." |

|

Section 5.3 of the report is entitled Recommended (Non-Mandatory) Management Measures. |

This Section discusses that the recommendations included below correspond to the threats to |

habitat areas of particular concern outlined in Section 1.4.1 above. State fishery agencies |

should actively intervene to the extent of their authority to ensure that federal, state, and local |

permitting agents are aware of the loss in winter flounder productivity associated with water |

quality degradation and habitat loss and give full consideration to the following |

recommendations. |

|

Recommendation #3 addresses concerns regarding Impacts by Power Plants (in addition water |

intake from desalinization plants, and water treatment plants). These recommendations |

include: |

|

"Either encourage closed system plants or assist industrial siting councils in siting new plants to |

avoid winter flounder spawning areas; |

|

When existing plants renew their permits or upgrade their technology, encourage closed system |

plants or other best available technology to minimize plant induced mortality. |

|

Assess cooling water entrainment/impingement mortality at existing plants on a stage-specific |

basis for both local and regional flounder populations and use this information to address these |

impacts." |

|

As the evaluation relies on +20 year old impingement and entrainment data, the Division |

recommends the SEIS be updated to include the most recent findings on the state of winter |

flounder populations and State and federal government agency requirements and |

recommendations. In addition, the update should not attempt to minimize impacts by implying |

the impact is in the millions instead of billions (4330 million = 4.33 billion). (QQ-3) |

|

Response: Sections 2.2.5 and 4.1.1 of the SEIS were revised to include information from the |

more recent ASMFC document referred to in the comment. The remaining portions of the |

comment pertain to the NJPDES permit administered by the NJDEP and do not require SEIS |

revision. Regarding the EFH assessment, the NRC staff will respond directly to the NMFS’s |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-122 January 2007

| conservation recommendations as part of the consultation process. Therefore, the final SEIS

| will not include revisions to the EFH assessment. However, NMFS’s conservation

| recommendation and NRC’s response are included in Appendix E to the final SEIS. 

|

| Comment: The GEIS should review the Fishery Management Plans for target species to insure

| the most recent information is utilized in the EFH assessments. The Division recommends

| review and inclusion of data from the websites of the various fishery management commissions

| and councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) website

| (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/#list) along with the results of the presently

| on-going impingement/entrainment studies. (QQ-4)

|

| Response: Fishery management plans for the target species were reviewed and incorporated

| into Sections 2.2.5 and 4.1.1 of the revised SEIS. Regarding the EFH assessment, the NRC

| staff will respond directly to the NMFS’s conservation recommendations as part of the

| consultation process. Therefore, the final SEIS will not include revisions to the EFH

| assessment. However, NMFS’s conservation recommendation and NRC’s response are

| included in Appendix E to the final SEIS.

|

| Comment: Table 2-3 notation says that blue crab are a species known to be affected by the

| operations of the OCNGS, yet the text says blue crab are at sufficient numbers and 1995 was

| the largest harvest recorded since 1950. Can you clarify these statements? Are blue crabs

| impacted by the OCNGS and if so, to what degree? (QQ-6)

|

| Response: Blue crab early life stages (megalope and zoea) are susceptible to entrainment by

| the OCNGS cooling system, and juveniles and adults are commonly impinged. Although

| estimated annual losses due to entrainment of megalope and zoea exceed 150 million

| organisms, this number represents only a small fraction of total megalope and zoea production

| in the Bay. Blue crab juveniles and adults exhibit a high survivability after impingement, with

| greater than 87 percent survival occurring in studies conducted in support of the 316(a) and

| 316(b) studies (Summers et al. 1989). Summers et al. concluded that the overall impacts of

| entrainment and impingement did not threaten the protection or propagation of a balanced,

| indigenous population. The NRC staff recognizes that this information is not current. 

|

| In characterizing the "species of special emphasis" associated with the Barnegat Bay Complex,

| the FWS (2006) has ranked the blue crab resource as "BW5," which indicates the "... species is

| demonstrably secure throughout the Bight [New York Bight watershed, which includes Barnegat

| Bay], though it may be quite rare or local in parts of the Bight, especially at the periphery of the

| species' range in the Bight. The species is generally determined to be common to abundant by

| both States in which it occurs, including within the Bight, and is in no danger of extirpation in

| either State portion of the watershed or in the open marine waters of the Bight."

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-123 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

The aquatic ecology impacts have been revised to include this information and to reflect the |

potential for adverse impacts at near-field (Oyster Creek, Forked River, and adjacent portions of |

Barnegat Bay) and far-field (central Barnegat Bay) locations. This impact assessment |

recognizes that because there are no recent monitoring data, the conditions that existed during |

the 316(a) and 316(b) studies may or may not exist today. The impact assessments for |

entrainment and impingement, have been revised to reflect this uncertainty. |

|

Comment: What is the number and location of hard clam beds in Barnegat Bay? (QQ-7) |

|

Response: The most recent information on hard clam beds in Barnegat Bay can be found in |

Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program (BBNEP 2005). The NRC staff also contacted the |

NJDEP Division of Fish and Wildlife Bureau of Shellfisheries and was informed that the most |

recent survey in the area was conducted in 2001 in Little Egg Harbor in southern Barnegat Bay. |

There are no current surveys of clam beds in central Barnegat Bay. The comment provides no |

new and significant information; therefore, no change was made to the SEIS text. |

|

Comment: Eelgrass represents the most important submerged aquatic vegetation. How will |

the next dredging of Oyster Creek impact the eelgrass beds and what will be done to minimize |

the impact? What is the current assessment of the eelgrass beds? (QQ-8) |

|

Response: Prior to dredging, OCNGS would be required to obtain a permit from the U.S. Army |

Corps of Engineers (USACE). Impacts on eelgrass and other benthic resources would be |

considered by USACE prior to issuance of the permit, which could require implementation of |

mitigation measures to minimize impact. Eelgrass beds are discussed in Section 2.2.5.4 of the |

SEIS; however, there are no current assessments of the distribution and abundance of eelgrass |

beds in the Bay. The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no |

changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Barnegat Bay is an important natural resource that supports populations of |

commercially and recreationally significant fish, shellfish, and rare and endangered wildlife |

species, as well as serving as a vital component of New Jersey's tourist industry.[see |

http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/programs/barn.htm]. The Bay is recognized by United |

States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") as one of 28 estuaries of "national |

significance." The fisheries (both fin and shellfish) of Barnegat Bay are an important economic |

resource: in 1991, freshwater and marine recreational fishing in New Jersey had a total |

economic impact of $1.33 billion, which supported 16,754 jobs and generated $630 million in |

retail sales to fishermen, $402 million in salaries and wages, $50 million in state tax revenues |

and $46 million in federal income tax revenues. Oyster Creek, which flows into Barnegat Bay, |

"represents a high-use recreational fishery," as stated by then-New Jersey Department of |

Environmental Protection Commissioner Bradley Campbell [NJDEP Press Release: Oyster |

Creek Generating Station Fined for Water Violations and Fish Kill: NJDEP Seeks Compensation |

for Natural Resource Damages (Dec. 12, 2002)]. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-124 January 2007

| It is widely acknowledged that Barnegat Bay is a severely stressed estuary. These stresses are

| reflected in declining natural resources. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA"),

| 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") is required to consider the

| environmental impact of the proposed re-licensing of the OCNGS for a period of twenty

| (20) years. Accordingly, the NRC must consider and disclose the ongoing damage to the

| marine environments of the Forked River, Oyster Creek, and Barnegat Bay caused by OCNGS.

| Additionally, the NRC must reevaluate the current conditions of operation of the OCNGS so that

| it might promote and advance the restoration and protection of this nationally significant estuary

| through the exercise of its authority; one of the purposes of NEPA (and by extension the NRC's

| obligations under it) is to "promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the

| environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man." 42 U.S.C. 4321.

|

| Indeed, a "hard look" at the environmental impacts of the OCNGS is mandated and warranted,

| particularly given its history of environmental abuses and the many forms of pollutants that

| emanate from the plant. Specifically, the OCNGS:

|

| • impinges millions of organisms each year;

|

| • kills hundreds of millions organisms each year by entrainment;

|

| • has killed or impinged a significant number of endangered sea turtles;

|

| • has caused several significant fish kills due to thermal shock;

|

| • discharges into Oyster Creek an assortment of pollutants, including radionuclides, chlorine,

| suspended solids, heat, and petroleum hydrocarbons.

|

| It is worth noting that all of these impacts or releases could be eliminated or greatly reduced if

| OCNGS replaced its antiquated once-through cooling system with a closed cycle cooling

| system, but the Applicant has resisted this federally mandate. (GG-1)

|

| Response: The SEIS recognizes the ecological importance of Barnegat Bay and provides a

| detailed description of Bay resources as gleaned from available literature. In addition, the SEIS

| presents the rates of entrainment and impingement at the existing OCNGS once-through

| cooling system and thermal effects of that system. The presentation of aquatic ecology impacts

| has been revised to reflect the potential for adverse impacts at near-field (Oyster Creek, Forked

| River, and adjacent portions of Barnegat Bay) and far-field (central Barnegat Bay) locations. 

| The NRC staff did provide a “hard look” at the environmental impacts of OCNGS during the

| license renewal period using the best available information from a variety of sources. This

| impact assessment recognizes that because there are no recent monitoring data, the conditions

| that existed during the 316(a) and 316(b) studies may or may not exist today. Section 8.1 of the

| SEIS presents an evaluation of the effects of an alternative closed-cycle cooling system. This
Appendix A

January 2007 A-125 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

evaluation acknowledges that impacts on aquatic resources would be reduced if OCNGS |

converted to a closed-cycle cooling system. The text of the SEIS has been modified in |

response to this comment. |

|

Comment: The Versar Report attempted to analyze the impacts of OCNGS operations on |

aquatic organisms using two available data sets, the JCPL 316(a) and (b) demonstration in |

1975-1978, and the EA study of 1985. The Versar Report found significant problems with these |

data, forcing them to throw out large portions of the data sets and make numerous assumptions |

about the remaining information. The modeling and conclusions conducted in the Versar |

Report are therefore based on a very small data set that was riddled with inconsistencies and |

inaccuracies. The Draft GEIS affirms the inaccuracy of these data and reports, but |

nevertheless uses them to justify a finding of SMALL impacts, which is both |

environmentally irresponsible and scientifically unacceptable. |

|

Some of the serious problems with the data that are noted by the Versar Report and are clearly |

acknowledged in the Draft GEIS, include: |

|

 • Best Methods Available were NOT used to determine the following impacts (most would |

have likely resulted in an underestimation of impacts): |

• Magnitude of Impingement losses |

• Annual Entrainment Losses |

• Avoidance Temperature/Thermal Plume Exclusion |

• Cold Shock/Heat Shock Mortality |

• Population/Community level Impacts of Plume on Fish and Invertebrates |

• Fish Kills associated with Heat/Cold Shock |

• Hydrodynamic Modeling; |

|

 • Population surveys of fish and invertebrates in the Barnegat Bay conducted in the 1970's |

and consequently used to determine the impact of losses due to OCNGS operations |

• Used inappropriate mesh sizes, |

• Did not calculate gear collection efficiencies, |

• Only surveyed during daytime, |

• Used inadequate sampling frequencies; |

|

 • Serious flaws in the methods used to determine entrainment losses, which would result in |

significant underestimation of losses [Id. Page IV-32. ], including: |

• The use of only one of the discharge ports (despite differences in circulation pump |

operation between ports), |

• Use of discharge samples without any adjustment for mechanical destruction, |

• Sampling only from the condenser system, not the dilution pump system. Intake |

structures for these two systems are located at opposite sides of the intake canal and |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-126 January 2007

| have different configurations, making differences in the number and types of organisms

| entrained likely;

|

| • Entrainment losses were calculated assuming a sampling efficiency of 100%, when in fact

| they could have been as low as 13% due to extrusion and avoidance. Thus entrainment

| losses were most likely significantly underestimated [Id, Page IV-27.];

|

| • Mortality estimates for entrainment losses were not determined for all "Representative

| Important Species" identified by the NRC;

| • The only two impingement mortality studies available, conducted between 1975-1978 [JCPL

| (1978)] and in 1985 [EA (1986)], used different methods for determining immediate mortality

| rates. "Major differences in impingement studies among sampling years include:

| • the type of traveling screens,

| • the mode of screen wash operation,

| • the length of impingement sampling time,

| • the frequency of sampling,

| • the time of day at which samples were collected."

| • Adequate details on methodology were not provided

| • Identical test species were not used in all studies;

|

| • Capture efficiency values "for annual impingement were also not corrected for intake screen

| collection efficiency" as they assumed 100% capture efficiency. When efficiency studies

| were finally performed in 1985, only one species was utilized and mean collection

| efficiencies were highly variable (90% in May and 53% in November). "Therefore, GPUN did

| not use best methods reasonably available for estimating screen efficiency

|

| • Sampling gear deficiencies contributed to a significant underestimate of annual impingement

| mortality [Id. Page IV-19. ];

|

| • Thermal Plume avoidance area was substantially underestimated [Id. Page IV; -42]

|

| • Hydrodynamic modeling "was a poor reflection of the dynamic conditions characterizing

| Barnegat Bay." And it "underestimated the size of the plume and its associated isotherms

| [Id, page IV-42]. (GG-8)

|

| Response: In conducting the environmental evaluation presented in the SEIS, the NRC used

| the best available information from a variety of sources, including the applicant’s ER, data and

| information collected during a site audit, information provided by local, State, and other Federal

| agencies, and published scientific literature. The revised SEIS acknowledges that some of the

| data available for review are 30 years old and that conclusions regarding current impact levels

| are uncertain. The conclusions in Sections 4.1 and 4.8.1 of the SEIS regarding impacts have

| been revised to reflect this uncertainty.
Appendix A

(a) Attachments referred to in the comment are not included in the SEIS. They are available for

download from NRC’s ADAMS website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html

under accession number ML062610244.

January 2007 A-127 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Comment: The Draft GEIS also references the Draft NJPDES Permit prepared by the NJDEP. |

This document is not final and is still under review. Therefore, it is inappropriate and improper |

for the NRC to use this document to draw conclusions. |

|

During the public comment period for the draft permit, the NJDEP received numerous and |

substantive criticisms of the data and analysis, including comments submitted by COA, ALS and |

many other concerned organizations and individuals (see attached letter, which is incorporated |

herein and is to be made part of the record).(a) One important finding set forth in the Draft |

NJPDES Permit, was the clear statement that NJDEP "is concerned about both impingement |

and entrainment losses, but is particularly concerned about the entrainment losses and |

therefore are requiring changes to OCNGS operations. As stated therein, NJDEP's preferred |

alternative is to "[r]educe intake capacity to a level commensurate with the use of a |

closed-cycle, recirculating cooling system [Id]. Indeed, these and several other statements |

by NJDEP in the Draft NJPDES Permit, have resulted in a NJDEP finding of significant |

impacts of impingement, entrainment and heat shock of fish and shellfish as a result of |

operation of the existing once-through cooling systems. These important conclusions |

directly and irreconcilably contradict the finding of SMALL environmental impacts set |

forth in the Draft GEIS. (GG-9) |

|

Response: The draft NJPDES permit, including the accompanying fact sheet, was used in the |

SEIS because it represents important information pertinent to operations of OCNGS. The |

resulting final permit may set operating standards for at least a portion of the license renewal |

period. Because the NRC cannot presume the outcome of that ongoing permitting process, the |

NRC staff used information in the draft permit to evaluate the impacts associated with the |

present once-through cooling system as well as alternatives to the existing system that were |

identified in that draft permit. |

|

In conducting the environmental evaluation presented in the SEIS, the NRC used the best |

available information from a variety of sources, including the applicant’s ER, data and |

information collected during a site audit, information provided by local, State, and other Federal |

agencies, and published scientific literature. The revised SEIS acknowledges that some of the |

data available for review are not current and that conclusions regarding current impact levels |

are uncertain. The conclusions regarding impacts have been revised to reflect this uncertainty. |

|

Comment: The Draft GEIS is incomplete because it does not evaluate several relatively new |

conditions in the Barnegat Bay system. All natural systems are dynamic, exhibiting constant |

change in biotic and abiotic factors over time, and the Barnegat Bay estuary is no exception. |

There have been substantial ecological changes within the Barnegat Bay estuary since the |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-128 January 2007

| 1970's when the only bay-wide benthic and fisheries survey studies were conducted by OCNGS

| in the Barnegat Bay, including:

|

| • The presence of substantial and persistent algal blooms of the species Aureococcus

| anophagefferens [Gastrich et al. (2004) Assessment of Brown Tide Blooms, caused by

| Aureococcus anophagefferens, and contributing factors in New Jersey Coastal Bays:

| 2000-2002. Harmful Algae, Vol. 3, pp. 305-320],

|

| • An increase in macro-algal blooms [Barnegat Bay National Estuaries Program, State of the

| Bay 2005 Technical Report. August 2005],

|

| • A significant decline in the extent of seagrass between the late 1970's and the mid-1990's,

| resulting in the reduction of essential fish habitat and the potential loss of commercially and

| recreationally important species [Id.]

|

| • Hydrologic changes including substantial reduction in base-flow of freshwater in the

| Barnegat Bay since the mid-1980's [Id],

|

| • Increased eutrophication, [M.J. Kennish (2001 Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey,

| Estuary and Watershed Assessment. Journal of Coastal Research, SI 32: pp 280],

|

| • Benthic community shift from a community dominated by filter-feeders to a deposit-feeder

| dominated benthic community, [Michael Kennish, personal communication, July 27, 2006]

|

| • New alignment of the South Jetty of the Barnegat Bay Inlet in 1991,

|

| • Significant dredging and deepening of the Barnegat Bay Inlet from 1991-1993,

|

| • Development has almost doubled since 1972 to 30% of the Barnegat Bay watershed in

| 2001 [Barnegat Bay National Estuaries Program, State of the Bay 2005 Technical Report.

| August 2005]

|

| These changes are significant enough to impact fish and invertebrate populations in the

| Barnegat Bay and the impact of the substantial losses of aquatic organisms from the continued

| operation of OCNGS must be evaluated based on these present conditions. The Draft GEIS

| lists these changes, but does not evaluate the impacts of plant operations based on these new

| conditions in the Bay, as required.

|

| Moreover, an adequate estimation of the plant's current impacts simply cannot be determined

| without concurrent monitoring of both OCNGS induced losses and bay-wide population surveys. 

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-129 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Therefore, the Draft GEIS is inappropriately narrow in considering the environmental context |

used to reach its determination of SMALL impacts. (GG-11) |

|

Response: It is not possible to quantitatively evaluate the environmental stressors listed in the |

comment because there are no recent biological monitoring data from Barnegat Bay. However, |

these stressors have been evaluated qualitatively and are discussed in Section 4.8 of the SEIS. |

This section has been revised to reflect the lack of current monitoring and the need for data to |

determine the relative contribution and importance of OCNGS effects relative to other stressors |

affecting resources in Barnegat Bay. Section 4.1 of the SEIS has been revised to reflect the |

potential for adverse impacts at near-field (Oyster Creek, Forked River, and adjacent portions of |

Barnegat Bay) and far-field (central Barnegat Bay) locations. This impact assessment |

acknowledges that because there are no recent monitoring data, the conditions that existed |

during the 316(a) and 316(b) studies may or may not exist today. The text of the SEIS has |

been modified in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: The Draft GEIS contains a finding that discharges of chlorine are not expected to |

be a problem during the twenty (20) year license renewal period. The basis of this conclusion is |

not readily apparent, but is clearly not a scientific one. The substantial, negative impacts of |

chlorine and its byproducts have been consistently documented in the scientific literature and |

therefore need to be addressed in this GEIS. Chlorine is injected through each of the circulating |

pumps daily to prevent and remove fouling organisms such as bacteria. Maximum chlorination |

occurs in the summer months to account for more rapid growth of fouling organisms. To their |

detriment, fish, fish eggs and larvae, invertebrates, and zooplankton are most abundant during |

this time of increased chlorination. Some of the impacts related to chlorine and the chlorination |

process at OCNGS are detailed below. |

|

(1) Chlorine directly kills phytoplankton and zooplankton entrained in the cooling system and |

can impact organisms residing in Oyster Creek and surrounding waters. |

|

(2) Chlorine begins to be lethal to marine organisms at 0.01 mg/L [J.S. Mattice and H.E. Zittel |

(1976) Site-specific evaluation of power plant chlorination. Journal of Water Pollution Control |

Federation, 48: 2284-2292] but tolerance is significantly lowered by high temperatures and |

physiological condition of the organisms [L.W. Hall Jr., D.T. Burton and S.L Margrey (1981) |

Acclimation temperature: an important factor in power plant chlorination studies with larval |

white perch, Morone americana. Journal of Toxicological and Environmental Health. 7(6): |

941-950]. |

|

(3) OCNGS has a permitted daily maximum discharge limit of 0.20 mg/L of chlorine produced |

oxidants (CPOs) [Effluent limitations and monitoring requirements of the 1994 (most recent) |

NJPDES/DSW Permit #NJ0005550 for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Part |

III-B/C] into the discharge canal, 20 times higher than the lethal chlorine limit of many |

estuarine organisms including striped bass, mummichogs, and bunker [J.S. Mattice and |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-130 January 2007

| H.E. Zittel (1976) Site-specific evaluation of power plant chlorination. Journal of Water

| Pollution Control Federation, 48: 2284-2292], [W.P. Davis and D.P. Middaugh (1977) A

| revised review of the impact of chlorination processes upon marine ecosystems: update

| 1977. In: R.L Jolley (eds) Water Chlorination: Environmental Impact and Health

| Effects-Volume 1, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pgs. 283-310]. One chlorine

| related fish kill resulted in the death of 500 Atlantic Menhaden in January of 1974 [M.J.

| Kennish (2001) State of the Estuary and Watershed: An Overview. Journal of Coastal

| Research, SI 32: 243-273].

|

| (4) Toxic residual organic compounds (chloramines), a byproduct of chlorination, persist in the

| discharge canal and effluent resulting in long-term exposure to fish and other aquatic

| organisms residing in the canal and plume area of Oyster Creek and Barnegat Bay [Ambient

| Water Quality Criteria for Chlorine (January 1985), USEPA 440/5-84-030, 57 pgs].

|

| In addition to chlorine discharges, the current NJPDES permit for OCNGS provides that a

| maximum daily limit of 15 ppm of petroleum hydrocarbons that can be discharged from five (of

| seven) of their outfall pipes [Effluent limitations and monitoring requirements of the 1994 (most

| recent) NJPDES/DSW Permit #NJ0005550 for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Part

| III-B/C. ]. The sources of this contaminant are not clear, however, petroleum hydrocarbons are

| harmful to marine life. These impacts should have been more thoroughly evaluated in the Draft

| GEIS.

|

| Small concentrations of sediments and other solids are sucked through and discharged from

| OCNGS. Depending on the amount, total suspended solids (TSS) and total dissolved solids

| (TDS) can have negative impacts due to increased turbidity and solids concentrations in

| surrounding waters. After forty (possibly sixty, should the license be renewed) years of

| operation, TSS and TDS can have significant adverse affects on the marine environment,

| especially if the sediment is contaminated with radionuclides. These impacts should have been

| more thoroughly evaluated in the Draft GEIS.

|

| The above individual impacts must also be examined from an ecosystem perspective, including

| cumulative effects, to fully appreciate the overall effect of OCNGS on the surrounding habitat.

| For example, survivability of fish populations and their effects on fish stocks and the effects on

| the ecosystem. 

|

| Because of the above demonstrable, significant, adverse impacts to the waters of New Jersey

| and their resources, and the fact that no studies have been conducted to determine the impacts

| of these ongoing releases to aquatic organisms, the NRC lacks evidence to conclude that these

| discharges will have "no impact" during the renewal period and beyond. (GG-14)

|

| Response: According to Section 4.2.1.2.4 of the GEIS, the “impacts of chemical discharges to

| water quality are considered to be of small significance if discharges are within effluent
Appendix A

January 2007 A-131 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

limitations designed to ensure protection of water quality and if ongoing discharges have not |

resulted in adverse effects on aquatic biota.” No new and significant information has been |

identified, and the NRC staff concludes that there would be no impacts during the license |

renewal term that are beyond those described in the GEIS. Discharge of biocides, including |

chlorine, is regulated under the NJPDES permit. OCNGS is currently in compliance with the |

discharge limits specified in the permit and is expected to continue to maintain compliance. The |

response concerning chlorine toxicity is correct, but fails to account for the instantaneous |

dilution of this compound when it enters the discharge canal. Total suspended solids and |

petroleum hydrocarbon monitoring is also a component of the NJPDES permit, and the NRC |

staff assumes that the limits set are consistent with environmental protection. The comment |

provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in |

response to this comment. |

|

Comment: The marine impacts of once-through cooling systems are well documented across |

the country and far more damaging than initially thought. Waste water with significant |

concentrations of chlorine (595,500,000 gpd flow rate) and elevated temperatures by |

approximately 25% is discharged into Barnegat Bay, which is a registered U.S. protected |

estuary. Among the concerns which the EPA has identified for Barnegat Bay, degraded water |

quality, changes in abundance and diversity, closure of shellfish beds and loss of submerged |

vegetation can be at least partially attributed to the operations of OCNGS. Because Barnegat |

Bay is shallow estuary with limited tidal flushing, it is particularly sensitive to impacts and inputs, |

natural or anthropogenic. Its ecosystem balance is dependent upon the interchange of fresh |

and salt water and warm and cool water, making for rich biodiversity that is commercially, |

recreationally and ecologically important to the region. The operations of OCNGS have already |

incurred substantial loss of habitat in the estuary, and continued operation promises to further |

the ecological disturbance to the area during the renewal period. (EE-11) |

|

Response: Section 2.2.5 of the SEIS presents a detailed description of aquatic resources in |

the vicinity of OCNGS, in general, and Barnegat Bay, in particular. Section 4.1 of the SEIS |

presents the NRC staff’s evaluation of the impacts of the OCNGS once-through cooling system. |

The cumulative impacts on aquatic resources (including those in Barnegat Bay) are presented |

in Section 4.8.1. The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no |

changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: The NRC's conclusions that impacts of both entrainment and impingement are |

SMALL is fundamentally flawed for several reasons, including serious scientific issues with the |

studies and documents used, lack of recent data, significant ecological changes in the Barnegat |

Bay estuary since these data were collected and lack of analysis on cumulative impacts. These |

issues were fully evaluated in Section A of this comment letter. |

|

We further note that the Draft GEIS does not appear to evaluate in any depth the immense |

Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) loadings into the Barnegat Bay system from OCNGS. The |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-132 January 2007

| organic loading discharged back into the Bay from the remains of entrained aquatic life

| averaged 17,000 lbs of oxygen demand per day during the summer months [C. O'Neil, D. Doyle,

| O. Donovan and E. Kearns. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) as a Measure of Entrainment

| Loss at a Nuclear Power Station. The Bulletin of the American Littoral Society. Volume 10,

| Number 3 (July 1977)]. This daily BOD loading is equivalent to that of sewage treatment plant

| having a daily capacity of 25 million gallons. As this material decomposes, oxygen is removed

| from the Bay waters, contributing to and creating hypoxic conditions. This is a significant

| environmental impact that should have been evaluated in the Draft GEIS. (GG-15)

|

| Response: The presentation of aquatic ecology impacts in the SEIS has been revised to

| reflect the potential for adverse impacts at near-field (Oyster Creek, Forked River, and adjacent

| portions of Barnegat Bay) and far-field (central Barnegat Bay) locations. This impact

| assessment acknowledges that because there are no recent monitoring data, the conditions

| that existed during the 316(a) and 316(b) studies may or may not exist today. During the NRC

| staff’s review, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) monitoring data were not available for the

| OCNGS discharge, Oyster Creek, or Barnegat Bay. However, there is no indication that there

| has ever been a problem with BOD in Oyster Creek or in adjacent portions of Barnegat Bay. In

| addition, the NRC staff is unaware of any studies that indicate that the mortalities associated

| with entrainment would be sufficient to result in BOD problems in the receiving waters at

| operating power plants. A study conducted from 1976 to 1980 in Barnegat Bay

| (Vouglitois 1983) measured water chemistry (including dissolved oxygen) at the mouths of

| several creeks that are tributaries to Barnegat Bay, including Forked River and Oyster Creek. 

| This study found no statistically significant differences between dissolved oxygen at any of the

| sampling locations, indicating that OCNGS was not noticeably affecting dissolved oxygen

| content in either Oyster Creek, Forked River, or adjacent portions of Barnegat Bay.

|

| Since 2005, the NJDEP has maintained two real-time water quality monitoring buoys in

| Barnegat Bay at Seaside Park and Tuckerton (NJDEP 2006b). Each buoy is equipped with

| sensors to measure water temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, and chlorophyll

| a. Because high BOD demand would reduce dissolved oxygen content, examination of

| dissolved oxygen trends can be helpful in assessing the impact of BOD. Data from the Seaside

| and Tuckerton buoys indicate that the dissolved oxygen levels at these locations are sufficient

| to maintain marine life, suggesting the general trends in the bay do not reflect high BOD

| loading. The text of the SEIS was modified in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: As was stated above, the Draft NJPDES Permit referred to in this section has not

| yet been finalized. The current, expired NJPDES permit allows for a temperature differential of

| 22oF (33oF under special circumstances) between the intake and discharge canal. Water

| temperature in the discharge canal is permitted to reach 110EF, which affects the behavior,

| physiology, and habitat utilization of aquatic organisms in Oyster Creek and Barnegat Bay. In

| the Draft GEIS, outdated and scientifically flawed data are once again utilized to reach the

| conclusions of (1) SMALL impacts to aquatic organisms due to heat shock, (2) NO IMPACT of
Appendix A

January 2007 A-133 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

the thermal plume on distribution of aquatic organisms and (3) NO IMPACTS of losses from |

predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stressors. There are |

significant data available on the impacts of OCNGS' thermal plume on local organisms, none of |

which are referenced in the Draft GEIS. |

|

The elevated temperature in Oyster Creek and the surrounding waters of Barnegat Bay induces |

behavioral changes that have been documented in important managed species such as |

bluefish, fluke, winter flounder, and tautogs [O. Donovan, D. Doyle, C. O'Neill and E. Kearns |

(1977) Thermal Plume Impact on Fish Distributions in Barnegat Bay. Bull. Amer. Lit. Soc. 10(3): |

14]. Some of these behavioral changes include |

|

a) Avoidance of parts or all of Oyster Creek by certain species during summer and early fall |

[M.J. Kennish, (2001) State of the Estuary and Watershed: An Overview. Journal of Coastal |

Research. SI 32: 243-273]. |

|

b) Attraction to parts or all of Oyster Creek during winter when they should have migrated out |

of the area due to cold temperatures. Failure to migrate can lead to large-scale mortality |

(due to thermal shock) when the plant experiences a planned or emergency shut down. |

|

(1) Records from January 1972 through December 1982 reported 2,404,496 fish were killed |

due to thermal shock including Atlantic menhaden, bay anchovy, bluefish, striped bass, |

and weakfish [M.J. Kennish, M.B. Roche and T.R. Tatham (1984) Anthropogenic effects |

on aquatic organisms. In: M.J. Kennish and R.A. Lutz (eds), Ecology of Barnegat Bay, |

New Jersey. NY: Springer-Verlag, pp. 318-338]. |

|

(2) An emergency shutdown on January 21, 2000 caused a 17oF drop in the water |

temperature in the discharge canal in 15 minutes. The rapid drop in temperature to 32oF |

resulted in the death of approximately 3500 fish including 2980 striped bass [Oyster |

Creek Nuclear Generating Station Fish Kill Monitoring Report (January 2000) NRC |

ML#003684420]. |

|

(3) An emergency shutdown on November 11, 2001 caused a 7oF drop in the water |

temperature in the discharge canal in 15 minutes. The rapid drop in temperature to 48oF |

resulted in the death of approximately 1407 fish [ Oyster Creek 2001 Annual |

Environmental Operating Report (February 2002) NRC ML#020660222]. |

|

(4) A scheduled shutdown on September 23, 2002 caused the water in the discharge canal |

to increase to 101oF in less than an hour and resulted in the death of approximately |

6,000 fish [A. Cradic, Oyster Creek Generating Station fined for water violations and fish |

kills: DEP seeks compensation for Natural Resources Damages New Jersey |

Department of Environmental Protection news release (December 12, 2002), available |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-134 January 2007

| for viewing athttp://www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/releases/02_0131.htm] AmerGen

| reached a settlement of approximately $1 million dollars over this incident.

|

| c) Metabolic rate of organisms increases with increased temperatures resulting in decreased

| growth and survival, [T. L. Beitinger, W. A. Bennett, R. and W. McCauley, (2000)

| Temperature Tolerances of North American Freshwater Fishes Exposed to Dynamic

| Changes in Temperature. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 58(3):237 – 275] especially

| during summer months when ambient water temperatures are at their peak.

|

| d) High water temperature decreases oxygen solubility in water and increases Biological

| Oxygen Demand ("BOD") resulting in dangerously low dissolved oxygen concentrations in

| the water.

|

| e) Calefaction or thermal loading in the discharge canal and Oyster Creek directly interferes

| with physiological processes of biota, such as enzyme activity, feeding, reproduction,

| respiration, and photosynthesis. Less conspicuous, indirect effects, which are difficult to

| quantify, include greater vulnerability to disease, to changing gaseous solubilities, and to

| chemical toxicants associated with thermal enrichment.

|

| Both the NJDEP draft permit and Versar Report found that the extent and width of the thermal

| plume often violates New Jersey surface water quality standards. These violations should

| automatically disqualify any finding of SMALL impact, because these standards are essential for

| the protection and propagation of aquatic life in the Barnegat Bay estuary. We further note that

| in other sections of the Draft GEIS, violations of state or federal standards are considered as

| MODERATE impacts. (GG-16)

|

| Response: The citations mentioned in the comment were reviewed during preparation of the

| SEIS, and the thermal effects, including referenced historic fish kills, were reported in the SEIS. 

| The SEIS has been revised to present separately the potential for adverse impacts at near-field

| (Oyster Creek, Forked River, and adjacent portions of Barnegat Bay) and far-field (central

| Barnegat Bay) locations. The revised impact assessment recognizes the decline in frequency

| of fish kills due to the thermal discharge, the lack of recent data on impingement and

| entrainment rates, as well as limited availability of information on the current state of ecological

| resources in Barnegat Bay. Comments on BOD resulting in low dissolved oxygen

| concentrations and the physiological changes in biota due to the thermal discharge are

| assertions unsupported with data from Barnegat Bay. Nevertheless, the lack of recent data

| results in some uncertainty regarding the impacts of continued OCNGS operations under the

| 20-year license renewal term. The SEIS was revised to reflect that uncertainty.

|

| Comment: We are also concerned with the impacts to the Oyster Creek and Forked River

| aquatic systems from heat shock and the lack of a consistency determination with New Jersey's

| Coastal Zone Management Plan. (HH-2)
Appendix A

January 2007 A-135 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Comment: Since OCNGS began operation there have been a number of significant fish kills in |

Oyster Creek and Barnegat Bay due to heat shock. Unfortunately, with the exception of the fish |

kill documentation and the subsequent monitoring that was required by NJDEP, there have |

been no recent studies that examine the long-term effects of heated water entering a small, |

confined system such as the discharge canal and Oyster creek. Also, there is a question as to |

whether the thermal plume has a greater effect on Barnegat Bay than has been suspected. We |

strongly recommend that new and current studies should be done for representative species |

and those results be presented in the final SEIS. The studies should address the less |

conspicuous ability of heat to preclude the use of affected areas by temperature sensitive |

species, attract and expose organisms to areas of elevated temperature during spawning |

periods, and expose eggs and larvae to water temperatures far exceeding naturally ambient |

levels. |

|

The draft SEIS also contains the conclusion that the potential impacts to fish and shellfish due |

to heat shock are small. As we have stated before, we believe that these kinds of conclusions |

are premature, particularly in this instance where current studies to determine the significance |

of the impact need to be done. The final SEIS should refrain from that terminology until that has |

been proven to be the case. (HH-13) |

|

Comment: We are concerned that OCNGS does not have a federal consistency determination |

demonstrating compliance with New Jersey's Coastal Zone Management Plan. The draft SEIS |

did not discuss the contents of the consistency determination or the reasons for its rejection by |

NJDEP other than to say that the application was found to be incomplete. Oyster Creek should |

have a federal coastal zone management plan consistency determination for inclusion in the |

final SEIS or at the least in the Record of Decision. (HH-14) |

|

Response: The NRC staff acknowledges that portions of the discharge canal and Oyster |

Creek may be adversely affected by the thermal plume, but over the last 30 years, the biota of |

these water bodies have accommodated to the elevated temperature. Many marine and |

estuarine organisms are highly mobile and seek out optimal temperatures. Those that do not |

can be adversely affected. The impacts of heat shock are discussed in Section 4.1.3 of the |

SEIS. This section has been revised to separate near-field (Oyster Creek, Forked River, and |

adjacent portions of Barnegat Bay) effects from far-field (central Barnegat Bay) effects, and |

recognizes the decline in the frequency of fish kills due to the thermal discharge. In addition, |

alternatives to the OCNGS once-through cooling system that would reduce thermal effects are |

considered in Section 8.1 of the SEIS. The Coastal Zone Management Act consistency |

determination has not yet been finalized, but Section 2.2.1 of the SEIS has been revised to |

update the current status of the consistency determination. |

|

Comment: We also recommend that the final SEIS not view entrainment and impingement as |

mutually exclusive impacts, but instead assess the combined effects of entrainment and |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-136 January 2007

| impingement, particularly since both impacts substantially affect a discrete number of species. 

| (HH-12)

|

| Response: Entrainment and impingement are treated separately in Section 4.1 of the SEIS,

| but the cumulative effects of the two stressors combined, along with other stressors are

| presented in Section 4.8.1. The comment provides no new and significant information;

| therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: As I said before, Oyster Creek sponsored and installed an artificial reef in the

| ocean working with the DEP, 3.1 miles out. That's a good thing, but I heard some people earlier

| today purported to be environmentalists dismissing that as not important. I disagree with that. 

| (M-3; S-5)

|

| Comment: At Oyster Creek we work hard to protect the environment, including Barnegat Bay. 

| On a day-to- day, hour-to-hour basis, we monitor water temperatures and regularly take water

| samples to insure safety. We coordinate any plant load reductions or shutdowns to avoid any

| risk to marine life. This is a costly practice, but it's essential for us to meet our commitment to

| the environment. (M-5; S-7)

|

| Comment: I'm most proud, however, of our efforts this past winter when plant conditions forced

| us to shut the plant down for maintenance. We recognize that our shutdown would threaten the

| nonindigenous fish species that enjoy our discharge. In order to reduce any possible impact at

| significant time and money spent, we implemented a supplemental heating system in the

| discharge canal which maintained the environment to save those fish. (Z-2)

|

| Comment: I was the project manager that worked on keeping the fish warm last winter, and I

| spent a couple hundred thousand dollars of our company's money keeping those fish warm. I

| know everybody thinks that the fish kill is about heating them up. No, it's not. The fish kill is all

| of these tropical fish that stick around in the wintertime. They should have gone south, but they

| didn't, but they stick around because we have this warm water, and if we need to shut down for

| maintenance in the wintertime, we've got a big problem, you know. The water on our discharge

| cools down to the same temperature as Barnegat Bay, and a good number of these species

| can't live at that temperature. So if we don't do some way to provide supplemental heat, they

| ain't going to make it. So anyway, I was the project manager. I had a lot of fun with that, a lot of

| sleepless nights and days making sure that that went okay, but I was real pleased with the

| support that the company provided around that. (AA-2)

|

| Response: The comments refer to actions taken by AmerGen to mitigate environmental

| impacts of OCNGS operations. The comments provide no new and significant information;

| therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these comments.

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-137 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Terrestrial Ecology |

|

Comment: Does NRC take the position that simply because the use of herbicides to maintain |

the transmission lines is permitted, that there is no impact? (2-16) Did NRC consider the |

ongoing impact of the use of these poisons on the water, plant and wildlife on or near the |

Facility? (MM-18) |

|

Response: The use of herbicides for vegetation management in utility rights-of-way under |

regulated and controlled practices by licensed applicators are not considered to pose harm to |

surrounding waters, plants, or wildlife. The approved herbicides are applied selectively (not |

broadcast) to small areas or individual plants. In addition, the chemicals have a very short life- |

span or active period once applied (usually on the order of hours, but less than a day) and do |

not affect animals. In addition, herbicide use is not permitted on lands under the jurisdiction of |

the Pineland Commission. The comment provides no new and significant information; |

therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: The DEIS notes that (2-57) waterfowl congregate around open water created by |

thermal discharge plume. Is this a good thing? How does this change or affect migratory |

patterns? Is this not an impact? (MM-48) |

|

Response: While there is slight warming of Barnegat Bay near the mouth of Oyster Creek, the |

effect on migratory waterfowl during late fall and winter is too small to detect. Migratory birds, |

especially waterfowl, use the entire Barnegat Bay estuary during the late fall and winter and do |

not specifically concentrate near the warmer waters. The location of waterfowl is primarily |

determined by the presence of baywide food sources and the location of the large ice-free areas |

of Barnegat Bay. For example, the FWS states that during the fall and winter “dabbling ducks |

such as mallard, which feed on plants and some animals, occur throughout this system; diving |

ducks, including canvasback and scaup, which rely largely on bivalve mollusks and gastropods |

for food, are found primarily in the deeper open water habitats where bottom sediments are rich |

in this food base. Some known concentration areas include rafts of canvasbacks in Silver Bay, |

concentrations of waterfowl around West Point Island, and concentrations of American black |

ducks around Sedge Island and the backshore of Island Beach.” (FWS 1997). The text of the |

SEIS has been modified in response to this comment. |

|

General Ecology |

|

Comment: While impacts to some species are mentioned there is no accounting for the loss of |

various early life stage aquatic organisms and the loss of migratory birds and other terrestrial |

species cause as direct or indirect impacts to the plant and/or the transmission lines associated |

with the development. It is the DFW's position that some type of mitigation is required for these |

past negative impacts and for any future impacts arising from the granting of re-licensing. The |

DFW suggests that as part of the relicensing process an estuary enhancement program should |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-138 January 2007

| be developed and implemented to mitigate for these past cumulative impacts and future

| impacts.

|

| Estuary Enhancement Program Design

| If an estuary enhancement program is developed, the DFW suggests that the following areas

| should be included into any mitigation plan:

|

| 1. Areas of potential restoration should be identified and slated for a program similar in design

| to the PSEG Estuary Enhancement Program. The DFW realizes that the potential for

| restoration is much more limited in the area of Barnegat Bay as compared to the Delaware

| Bay. All areas of marsh dominated with Phagmites australis or where hydrology may be

| restored to provide salt marsh habitat as part of the overall plan.

|

| 2. Work with the DFW's Bureau of Freshwater Fisheries to provide anadromous fish ladders at

| Manahawkin and Pohatcong Lakes and provide low flow fish passage at other low head

| dams located within the Barnegat Bay estuary.

|

| 3. Create a project within the Conserve Wildlife Foundation of NJ with a goal of being able to

| assess the use of Barnegat Bay and adjacent offshore areas by marine turtles, marine

| mammals and seals. Develop specific recommendations for their conservation in this area

| including measures for avoidance and/or minimization of cooling water intake losses. It

| appears as though many of the turtles reported at the plant come in during high easterly

| winds and/or drops in temperature (either the day before or day of capture). A modeling

| project could be developed to look at these factors, along with variables such as proximity of

| the Gulf Stream, to predict the times when turtles are most likely to be impinged. The plant

| should institute increased surveillance, including more frequent examination of the trash

| racks and canals (even include boat surveys), when turtles are most likely to be present.

|

| 4. Provide funding to the DFW's ENSP Bureau to evaluate the use of Right of Ways (ROWs)

| by Pineland snakes and federally protected avian species and develop specific

| recommendations for how ROWs can be managed within the Pinelands to benefit these

| species.

|

| 5. Work with DFW on the restoration, preservation and mapping of submerged aquatic

| vegetation within Barnegat Bay.

|

| 6. Conduct a finfish inventory of Barnegat Bay for all life stages. This inventory would be of

| value for the development of baseline data to be better to assess positive and/or negative

| impacts of future actions.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-139 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

7. Provide financial support on a yearly basis of the hard clam restoration project mentioned |

under Page 4-11 with consideration being given to including bay scallops as technology |

develops. |

|

8. Financial support should be provided to the DFW to assist with funding for the Sedge Island |

Marine Conservation Zone educational programs. |

|

9. Public Access - fishing, boat ramps, shoreline boardwalks and fishing piers (handicap |

accessible). |

|

10. Provide additional funding for Artificial Reef projects expenses (vessel cleaning, procuring |

reef material, etc.). |

|

11. Provide funding support for Clean Vessel Act pump out facilities/education. |

|

12. Provide funding support for Youth fishing programs like HOFNODS. (PP-26) |

|

Response: The NRC’s role in the NEPA process is to evaluate the effects of continued |

operations of OCNGS over the 20-year license renewal period. The actual requirements for |

mitigation are determined between the licensee and State agencies with jurisdiction over the |

affected resource. As a Federal agency, the NRC does consult with other Federal agencies |

regarding the mitigation of impacts regulated by Federal laws. For example, the NRC is |

involved in consultations required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Historic |

Preservation Act (NHPA) among others. Some of the elements mentioned in the comment are |

related to alternatives to the once-through cooling-water system proposed by the NJDEP in a |

recent draft NJPDES permit. The NRC does not have the jurisdiction to require mitigation of |

impacts, which is the responsibility of the state of New Jersey. The comment provides no new |

and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this |

comment. |

|

Comment: The operation of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station near the shores of |

Barnegat Bay is a matter of great public concern. The Bay is a public resource that is valued by |

the community for its wildlife, aesthetic values, and for fishing, boating and other recreational |

activities. Millions of dollars in public resources have been devoted to restoring the ecological |

health of the Bay. In 1987, Congress recognized the vital importance of estuaries and amended |

the Clean Water Act to create the National Estuary Program ("Program"). Clean Water Act |

Section 320, 33 U.S.C. Section 1330. In 1995, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection |

Agency accepted Barnegat Bay into the Program. Today, Barnegat Bay is one of 28 estuaries of |

"national significance." |

|

In addition to its location near the Bay, the Facility is situated within the Pinelands Preservation |

Area. It is classified as a United States Biosphere Reserve and in 1978 it was established by |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-140 January 2007

| Congress as the country's first National Reserve. This internationally important ecological region

| is 1.1 million acres in size and occupies 22% of New Jersey's land area. It is the largest body of

| open space on the Mid-Atlantic seaboard between Richmond, Virginia and Boston,

| Massachusetts and is underlain by aquifers containing 17 trillion gallons of some of the purest

| water in the land. These aquifers provide virtually all of the drinking water for the residents of

| southern New Jersey.

|

| From the time construction began in the mid-1960s, when the local ecosystem was destroyed to

| make way for the Facility and its intake and discharge canals, to the present day, the Facility

| has had a significant, adverse affect on the environment. (MM-1)

|

| Response: The comment describes the importance and recognition of the ecological resources

| in the vicinity of OCNGS. These resources are described in Chapter 2 of the SEIS, and the

| direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of continued operations over a 20-year license renewal

| period are discussed in Chapter 4. The comment provides no new and significant information;

| therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: The U.S. Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed the Draft Generic

| Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437,

| Supplement 28) regarding Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. The Department’s U.S.

| Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) commented in response to the Nuclear Regulatory

| Commission’s Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed

| project in a letter dated November 23, 2005. The comment letter has been incorporated into

| the subject document in its entirety in Appendix E (pp. E-22 through E-31). Specific passages

| in the Comments section (Appendix A) are referenced by Commenter Identifier, OS-AJ.

|

| We have no further comments on the GEIS. (WW-1)

|

| Response: The comment acknowledges that comments sent by the FWS during the public

| scoping period were incorporated into the draft SEIS. The comment provides no new and

| significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this

| comment.

|

| Threatened and Endangered Species

|

| Comment: NRC has failed to fully implement the Endangered Species Act. NRC we saw

| tonight has stated that the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on 20-year

| additional extension of Oyster Creek and its once through cooling system is small in

| environmental consequence. Oyster Creek nuclear power station draws in more than 1.5 billion

| gallons of water per day to cool the nuclear reactor, and that superheated water is discharged to

| Barnegat Bay. In fact, it is well documented that Oyster Creek and its once-through cooling

| system is a large marine predator where it is capturing not only biota, life-supporting biota of the
Appendix A

January 2007 A-141 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

marine environment, but it's also all [on?] the way to the capture and killing of endangered sea |

turtles first reported in 1992. In fact, the heated discharge is attracting sea turtles into Barnegat |

Bay and into the reactor cooling intake system, and there they are entrapped, these rare |

animals, on debris screens where they are being injured and are routinely suffocated under |

water when not promptly rescued and resuscitated. |

|

In 2004, Oyster Creek captured eight of the world's most endangered species of sea turtles, the |

Kemp's ridley. Three of these rare turtles were recovered dead. The other five were recovered |

alive. The captures, all within several months of each other, were also a record breaker for the |

nuclear power station and in violation of Oyster Creek's incidental take statement, which is |

required under the Endangered Species Act. |

|

The reactor's previous limit was set in 2001 by a Biological Opinion established by the National |

Marine Fisheries Service to permit no more than five live captures and three lethal takes of this |

species. Even this limit was raised from the original 1995 Biological Opinion which had set the |

limit for a single Kemp's ridley. Now, this is just the Kemp's that we're talking about, but on |

September 22nd, 2005, after consultation with NRC, the National Marine Fisheries Service |

again raise Oyster Creek's incidental take statement to now a total take of eight Kemp's ridley, |

four lethal captures on the water intake screens. |

|

Since Oyster Creek first started operating and reporting, we've noticed that there's a pattern of |

the operator, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Marine Fisheries Service all working |

together to revise the incidental take statements consistently upward. NIRS contends that this |

trend is not based on best available scientific data as required by Section 7 of the Endangered |

Species Act, but instead rather reflects the capitulation of the NRC and the National Marine |

Fisheries Service to the nuclear industry agenda. NMFS has a practice of revising the ITS |

upwards in response to requests by NRC without conducting a serious scrutiny of the total |

amount of such taking and how it may affect sea turtle populations as broadly defined by the |

Endangered Species Act to include killing, injuring and harassing, which is inconsistent with the |

overall ability of the species to survive and recover. |

|

Both NRC and NMFS have employed an overly narrow definition of taking in issuing these |

incidental take statements by focusing almost exclusively on the numbers of turtles that are |

killed by the once-through cooling system and disregarding to the extent which the animals are |

being harassed as defined in the Endangered Species Acts to encompass, quote, “...any |

additional and negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by |

annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns, which include, |

but are limited to breeding, feeding or sheltering.” And that's in the Code of Federal Regulation. |

This would include attracting the endangered sea turtles away from less hazardous areas where |

the animals would otherwise engage in normal feeding and sheltering, but this appear to have |

been inadequately addressed in either the Biological Opinion or this Environmental Impact |

Statement. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-142 January 2007

| Let me just close by saying that Section A(1) of the Endangered Species Act provides that all

| Federal agencies, quote, “..shall in consultation with and the assistance of the National Marine

| Fisheries Service or the FWS utilize their authorities in furtherance of any purpose of this

| chapter by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened

| species.” NIRS calls into question that NRC has complied with this obligation to protect

| endangered species, particularly sea turtles with this submission of the EIS, especially since

| there is an available reasonable alternative that would demonstrably reduce the documented

| adverse effects of power plant operations on endangered species, basically going to the dry

| cooling system. To the contrary, NRC has consistently chosen to protect Oyster Creek from

| adopting a nondestructive cooling system by accommodating the continued destructive

| operation of the current once through cooling system with a license to kill more Federally

| protected endangered species. As such, given the operation of Oyster Creek once through

| cooling system would continue to attract sea turtles and kill and injure and harass endangered

| species over the license extension period. NIRS contends that NRC is not utilizing its

| authorities in furtherance of the conservation purposes of the Endangered Species Act. (N-2)

|

| Response: The NRC staff has consistently discharged its responsibilities under the ESA in a

| timely and complete manner. We defer to the expertise of the NMFS in interpreting the

| meaning of the term “harassment,” and assume that the Biological Opinions (BO) issued by the

| NMFS is protective of the species under consideration. Although the incidental take limit for the

| Kemp’s ridley sea turtle was raised in 2005, the limits for the other sea turtle species potentially

| affected by OCNGS operations were lowered. The NRC staff recently received a new BO dated

| November 21, 2006, from the NMFS which again changes the turtle limits. The comment

| provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in

| response to this comment.

|

| Comment: OCNGS has significant impacts on aquatic species, including endangered and

| threatened species. Plant records indicate 34 impingements and 14 mortalities of endangered

| sea turtles since 1992. These data include the following species-specific incidents:

|

| • 23 impinged Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtles with nine (9) mortalities,

| • Seven (7) impinged Loggerhead Sea Turtles with two (2) mortalities, and

| • Four (4) impinged Green Sea Turtles with one (1) mortality.

|

| We note that the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtles are the most endangered and most rare sea turtle.

| The re-licensing of OCNGS will result in the continued killing and harassing of this species. 

|

| In 1993, NOAA required a formal consultation on the operation of the OCNGS due to seven (7)

| takes of threatened and endangered sea turtles over two summers (1992 and 1993). Since

| then, OCNGS has met or exceeded their Incidental Take Allowance ("ITA") for endangered sea

| turtles four (4) times. Most notably, OCNGS exceeded their annual incidental take in 2004 when
Appendix A

January 2007 A-143 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

eight (8) juvenile Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtles (of indeterminate sex) were impinged and three (3) |

were killed in the three-month period from July 4 to September 23. |

|

Despite this poor performance, in 2005, the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") |

inexplicably increased OCNGS's annual take limit of Kemp's Ridleys to eight (8) (with no more |

than four (4) mortalities). While Section 4.8.1 of the Draft GEIS suggests that OCNGS's |

Incidental Take Allowance was raised by NOAA due to an increase in Kemp's Ridley population |

abundances, there is no evidence that this species has rebounded. Kemp's Ridley retains its |

current status as being the most endangered of all the sea turtles. Rather, it appears that NMFS |

raised the take limit to accommodate mortalities that occur at the plant, as NMFS acknowledged |

that the continued operation of the plan may adversely affect this endangered species. |

|

In the latest (2005) Section 7 Consultation, NFMS concluded that "the continued operation of |

the OCNGS may adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of |

endangered Kemp's Ridley, green, or threatened loggerhead sea turtles" These findings |

contradict the conclusion (said to be based on the 2005 consultation) in the Draft GEIS that |

impacts on threatened or endangered sea turtles from continued operation of OCNGS would be |

SMALL. Based on the information provided by NMFS, it is more appropriate to conclude the |

operations of OCNGS will at least have a MODERATE impact based upon the NRC's definition |

of same. (See Draft GEIS at 1-3) (GG-17) |

|

Comment: Loggerheads (2-51) population estimated at 44,780. The DEIS cites CCC 2005. |

CCC 2005 states that the population estimate is 44,560 nesting females, and includes the |

following caveat: "Please understand that world wide population numbers for sea turtle species |

do not exist and that these are estimates of the number of nesting females based on nesting |

beach monitoring reports and publications." http://www.ccct~utle.org/loggerhead.htrnaccessed |

August 31,2006. Does NRC factor the uncertainty into its conclusions about the populations? |

(MM-43) |

|

Comment: Kemp's Ridley sea turtle are the world's most endangered sea turtle (2-51). No |

population numbers exist. However, even while NMFS was concluding its consultation with |

NRC in 2005, two additional Kemp's Ridleys were at the Facility in July 2005. Why is this |

information not presented? NRC reinitiated consultation with NMFS in June 2006, but that is |

not reflected here. Has NRC failed to consider that the Facility continues to take endangered |

sea turtles? (MM-44) |

|

Comment: With respect to Leatherbacks (2-52), the DEIS cites Pritchard data from 1983 and |

estimates females at 100,000. This data is over 20 years old. The CCC number is not |

supported with any data, and contains caveat that "world wide population numbers for sea turtle |

species do not exist and that these are estimates of the number of nesting females based on |

nesting beach monitoring reports and publications." http://www.cccturtle.org/leatherback.htm |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-144 January 2007

| accessed August 31,2006. How can NRC make any conclusions about Leatherbacks without

| this information? (MM-45)

|

| Comment: With respect to Green sea turtles (2-53), the CCC numbers cited also have the

| same caveat: "Please understand that world wide population numbers for sea turtle species do

| not exist and that these are estimates of the number of nesting females based on nesting beach

| monitoring reports and publications." http://www.cccturtle.org/green.htm accessed August

| 31,2006. Again, how can NRC arrive at conclusions about the impacts under these

| circumstances? (MM-46)

|

| Comment: On page 4-44, NRC essentially concludes that the impacts to species are small,

| because FWS concluded that the project would not adversely affect federally listed species. Is

| NRC confusing the jeopardy standard under Section 7 of the ESA with the requirements of

| NEPA? We know the Facility is adversely affecting species, because it is killing and injuring

| some of the world's most endangered sea turtles. (MM-62)

|

| Comment: There is no evidence to suggest that anyone knows what the population

| abundances are for turtles, so one cannot assume that the ITS mitigates any and all impacts.

| (4-53) The fact of the matter is that this Facility kills turtles, and those turtles are either

| threatened or endangered species. (MM-68)

|

| Response: The presentation of the impacts of impingement on sea turtles has been revised in

| the SEIS to reflect the potential for lethal takes and the lack of conclusive population abundance

| data. The number of sea turtle takes at OCNGS is not large enough to alter noticeably

| important attributes of the sea turtle populations; therefore, the adverse effects on the species

| would be small as defined by regulations to implement the ESA as well as NEPA. The text also

| presents the compliance requirements of the current BO and describes the handling protocols

| employed at OCNGS when sea turtles are found in the intake canal or on the trash racks.

|

| Comment: Endangered species policy inconsistent with other government agencies: Five

| species of sea turtles that are listed as either threatened or endangered live in the vicinity of

| OCNGS, at which there have been 34 reported cases on impingement of these turtles with a

| mortality rate of approximately 50% (NUREG-1437, Supplement 28, p 2-51 – 2-53). The

| removal of these individuals from the sea turtle populations can have dramatic effects on overall

| species viability, especially as they are attracted to artificially warmed waters surrounding the

| reactor and therefore vulnerable to dangers posed by the intake structure. While the

| supplemental EIS says that there is no significant impact to the species from reactor take limits,

| extending the permissible killing of protected species through the renewal period goes against

| the stated objectives of other government agencies and legislation. (EE-13)

|

| Response: The NRC staff has consulted with NMFS in compliance with Section 7 of the ESA. 

| OCNGS currently operates under incidental take limits established by NMFS in 2005. NMFS
Appendix A

January 2007 A-145 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

also issued a BO regarding effects of OCNGS operations during the license renewal period. |

That BO would replace the existing BO on the date of license issuance if the NRC renews the |

OCNGS OL. In that BO, NMFS concluded that, continued OCNGS operation “may adversely |

affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley or |

green sea turtles” and that it is not likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and |

recovery of loggerhead, green, or Kemp’s ridley sea turtles” On the basis of the above, the |

NRC staff concludes that the impact of OCNGS operations during the license renewal period |

would be SMALL for all species of sea turtles. The text of the SEIS has been modified in |

response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Someone talked about sea turtles. We train our operators to recognize the turtles |

that are endangered, and they go through some pretty impressive efforts. They're trained to |

resuscitate turtles. We're talking about turtle CPR. (Z-3) |

|

Response: The OCNGS handling protocols for sea turtles found in the intake canal or on the |

trash racks are described in Section 4.6.1 of the SEIS. The comment provides no new and |

significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this |

comment. |

|

Comment: The list of threatened and endangered species appears only to relate to federal |

species, with mention made of corresponding state listing status. Why are state listed species |

not considered (2-59)? (MM-47) |

|

Response: Contrary to the assertion in the comment, the list of species presented in Table 2-5 |

of the SEIS includes species that are only listed by the State and are not federally protected. |

|

Comment: With respect to bog asphodel (2-69), the DEIS says it is not likely to occur on the |

site. But it occurs within 1.3 miles of the site. NRC fails to articulate how the habitat 1.3 miles |

away from a 800 acre site can be so different that the species is not present on the site. The |

same comment applies to swamp pink (2-68), Knieskern's Beaked-Rush (2-60), and chaffseed |

(2-70). (MM-49) |

|

Response: The descriptions of the bog asphodel, swamp pink, Knieskern's beaked-rush, and |

chaffseed presented in Section 2.2.6.2 of the SEIS include a listing of the types of habitat |

suitable for those species. As stated in the text, based on the habitat requirements of the bog |

asphodel, swamp pink, and Knierskern’s beaked-rush, they may occur on isolated areas of the |

undeveloped portions of the OCNGS site and along the OCNGS-to-Manitou transmission line |

right-of-way. Botanical surveys have not been performed in the project area for rare plants to |

confirm the presence of these species. However, impacts on these species would be unlikely |

as activities during the license renewal period are not expected to impact project area wetlands. |

All recorded occurrences of the chaffseed in the State are historical rather than recent. The text |

of the SEIS has been modified in response to this comment. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-146 January 2007

| Comment: The site is suitable for bog turtle (2-71). Were impacts to this species considered? 

| If so, what was NRC's conclusion? (MM-50)

|

| Response: The SEIS states that the northern portion of the OCNGS-to-Manitou transmission

| line right-of-way (not the OCNGS site) may contain suitable habitat for the bog turtle. However,

| as stated in Section 4.6.2, the FWS concluded that the bald eagle was the only Federally listed

| species known to occur within the OCNGS area, and that the proposed license renewal would

| not adversely affect Federally listed species or critical habitat under FWS jurisdiction. In

| addition, maintenance activities and operations of the transmission line and right-of-way are not

| likely to affect the bog turtle. The comment provides no new and significant information;

| therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: In Section 4.6.2. NRC makes a conclusion that terrestrial species impact is small. 

| However, FWS recommended a survey. Why was this survey not completed before the DEIS

| was prepared and NRC reached its conclusions about impacts? (MM-63)

|

| Response: Although, during scoping, the FWS recommended a survey, it did not imply nor

| state that such a survey was a requirement for ESA compliance. Furthermore, the NRC does

| not have the authority to require such a survey unless required by a FWS-prepared BO. 

| Therefore, the NRC staff based its conclusion on the best information available at the time the

| SEIS was prepared. The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no

| changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: There is no discussion of the affects on state listed species. (4-53). The NRC

| should explain how it comes to the conclusion that with respect to threatened or endangered

| plants, there can be species found within one mile of the site, but yet the site is not suitable for

| those species. NRC or the applicant must explain how the 800 site differs from the habitat one

| mile from the site upon which threatened or endangered species are found. The absence of

| critical habitat does not mean that there is no adverse affect on a species. (MM-69)

|

| Response: State-listed species are discussed in several portions of the SEIS. State-listed

| species and their habitats in the general vicinity of the OCNGS site are presented in Section

| 2.2.6.2. The main OCNGS site is already developed, and, therefore, would likely not contain

| any suitable habitat for State-listed species. The Finninger Farm portion of the site, where most

| undisturbed habitat occurs, is unlikely to be affected by continued operations. Impacts related

| to transmission line right-of-way management are discussed in Section 4.2. While suitable

| habitat may exist on the Finninger Farm and along the transmission right-of-way, continued

| operations are not expected to affect any species or their habitats. The comment provides no

| new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to

| this comment.

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-147 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

A.2.6 Comments Concerning Human Health Issues |

|

Comment: I read some of the comments in the paper that I picked up. A doctor had said that |

the radiation effect on children in the area, on the children's teeth in the area, was a whole lot |

higher in the areas around nuclear power plants. So what about that? Have you addressed |

that? Is that in the purview of licensing or does the idea of radiation in the environment not |

affect you if you're not living here or in the shadow of another nuclear power plant? (F-4) |

|

Comment: ...in-body levels of radiation. Until our group came along, no one had ever done any |

sort of a study on how much radiation was in bodies of people who live near nuclear power |

plants. Okay? We began in 1998 something called the baby tooth study or the tooth fairy |

study. It is not a new idea. It has been done in the past before. A group of scientists from St. |

Louis in the '50s and '60s did a study of strontium-90 in baby teeth that resulted from bomb test |

fallout. There have been studies of strontium-90 after Chernobyl. There's another one of near |

the Sellafield plant in England. Our study has looked at almost 5,000 teeth. Over 600 are from |

New Jersey. We have found a couple of alarming things. Near every plant, including Oyster |

Creek, number one, from the late '80s to the late '90s, the average strontium-90 in baby teeth of |

local children has increased about 50 percent. |

|

Now, one of the handouts in the back is a fact sheet on the baby tooth study, which says that |

the study has been discredited. Well, I beg to differ. We have published articles in five different |

medical journals. That has gotten the peer review stamp of approval from experts, who say the |

study is worthy of publication. The contention of people who oppose the study is that the |

strontium-90 that comes out of the reactors that gets into people's body, it's all leftover bomb |

test fallout from the '50s and '60s. Well, if that were the case, why did we find such a sharp |

increase near Oyster Creek, near Limerick, near Indian Point, near Millstone, near the reactors |

in Florida, and so forth? (K-6) |

|

Comment: In the case of Oyster Creek, there is considerable data to suggest that emissions |

from the plant have entered the environment and human bodies, and are a potential co-factor in |

local cancer rates. |

|

 • In-Body Radioactivity. Since 1998, RPHP has conducted a study of Strontium-90 in baby |

teeth, the only study of in-body levels near U.S. nuclear plants. The study, which is |

patterned after a similar study of bomb test fallout by Washington University in the 1960s, |

has tested nearly 5,000 teeth for concentrations of this isotope. Five peer-reviewed medical |

journal articles have been published on study findings, giving the study recognition from the |

scientific community. |

|

In New Jersey, over 600 teeth have been tested, many from Ocean and Monmouth Counties, |

which are closest to and downwind from Oyster Creek. From 1986-89 to 1994-97, the average |

picocuries of Sr-90 per gram of calcium in teeth at birth rose nearly 50% in recent years: |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-148 January 2007

| Births from 1986-89 2.51 pCi/g Ca (n=44)

| Births from 1994-97 3.76 pCi/g Ca (n=31)

|

| This finding, which duplicates that found near six other U.S. reactors, nullifies the contention of

| some critics that all Sr-90 in teeth are from bomb tests of the 1950s and the 1960s. Discussion

| of other sources of Sr-90 and why it is likely that much of the Sr-90 represents ongoing

| emissions from nuclear plants can be found in Mangano JJ et al. An unexpected rise in

| strontium-90 in US deciduous teeth in the 1990s. The Science of the Total Environment

| 2003;317:37-51. (SS-5)

|

| Comment: RPHP has examined potential links between Oyster Creek radioactivity and cancer. 

| In our most recent journal article, we found that trends in average Sr-90 in baby teeth

| Monmouth and Ocean county children were followed by similar trends in cancer incidence rates

| age 0-9 in the two counties, with a five-year latency. Findings were duplicated near the

| Brookhaven and Indian Point nuclear facilities in New York. Thus, RPHP has found a statistical

| link between Sr-90 in local teeth and cancer risk. More work needs to be done, but this

| evidence should be taken seriously. (Data published in Mangano JJ. “A Short Latency Between

| Radiation Exposure from Nuclear Plants and Cancer in Young Children.” International Journal of

| Health Services 2006;36(1):113-35). (SS-7)

|

| Response: The NRC has reviewed a number of studies by the Radiation Public Health Project

| (RPHP) that assert that levels of radioactive strontium-90 are rising in the environment and that

| these increased levels are responsible for increases in cancers, particularly cancers in children,

| and infant mortality. The group claims that radioactive effluents from nuclear power plants are

| directly responsible for the increases in strontium-90. In one study, researchers reported that

| strontium-90 concentrations in baby teeth are higher in areas around nuclear power plants than

| in other areas. This has sometimes been referred to as “The Tooth Fairy Project.”

|

| However, as discussed in a background paper prepared by the NRC (2005), numerous peer-

| reviewed, scientific studies do not substantiate the RPHP claims, and the NRC finds that there

| is little or no credibility in the RPHP’s studies. Approximately 99 percent of strontium-90 in the

| environment came from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. The second largest source of

| strontium-90 in the environment was the Chernobyl accident. The amount of strontium-90 from

| all commercial nuclear power plants is a tiny fraction of the amount from Chernobyl. The

| estimated radiation dose from all sources of strontium-90 in the environment is approximately

| 0.3 percent of the dose that the average person in the United States receives from natural

| background radiation. These dose levels are well below the levels that are known to cause any

| health effects. The NRC requires nuclear power plant licensees to monitor the releases of

| radioactivity from their facilities to the environment and to annually report these releases to the

| NRC. Additionally, these licensees are required to monitor the environment around their

| facilities and report results annually to the NRC. The NRC routinely inspects these aspects of

| nuclear power plant licensee performance.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-149 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

In addition, the New Jersey Commission on Radiation Protection and the NJDEP recently |

reviewed the RPHP study “Understanding Patterns and Trends of Radioactive Sr-90 in Baby |

Teeth of New Jersey Children with Cancer: A Report to the New Jersey State Department of |

Health and Senior Services,” for which the State of New Jersey had appropriated funding. The |

Commission on Radiation Protection and the NJDEP reviewed the RPHP findings from a |

number of perspectives (State of New Jersey 2006), including the reliability of the |

measurements of strontium-90 in teeth, an assessment of the reported data, the scientific |

validity of the statistical methods employed, and a bounding calculation of the fate of strontium- |

90 in the environment from OCNGS. The Commission on Radiation Protection and the NJDEP |

concluded that further study is not worth pursuing because (1) the scientific validity of the data |

in the report is questionable, (2) the predominance of environmental data shows no increase of |

strontium-90 in the environment, (3) conservative modeling demonstrates that the strontium-90 |

in baby teeth did not originate from OCNGS, and (4) it is highly likely that the strontium-90 seen |

in baby teeth is from global fallout from nuclear weapons testing. |

|

The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to |

the SEIS in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: ...the radioactive emissions, which are put out, which is okay with the NRC. |

However, recently the National Academy of Sciences in their BEIR VII, which is an acronym, |

said that no amount of radiation is acceptable. Any amount is dangerous. And we know that |

we see around us the incidence of cancer, for instance, is just on the increase. But that is |

obviously anecdotal. I haven't done a scientific study. Why hasn't the NRC changed its |

category 1 evaluation? In other words, this is small, a small risk. (D-3) |

|

Comment: The issue of human health -- my colleagues and I believe this report is very, very |

deficient, even irresponsible, even dangerous. The reason for this is that the NRC makes a |

very, very large presumption. They presume that as long as emissions of radiation into the |

environment from Oyster Creek are below permissible limits, therefore, they can presume to be |

harmless. And there is no need to do any health studies or health analyses and reports such as |

this. Now, I am a public health researcher. We are trained not to make presumptions like this. |

This is almost like presuming that if one smokes three cigarettes a day or less, let's say, this is a |

safe level of cigarette intake and there is no harm involved and no need to do health studies. |

Well, the more professional way to go about it is to don't make any such presumption, to do the |

health studies (K-1) |

|

Comment: We have a long history in the atomic age of presumptions of low dose being safe |

later found out to being the reverse, to being harmful. Years ago, doctors did X-rays, pelvic |

X-rays, on women who were pregnant. Up until the 1970s, they were found to increase |

childhood cancer. Discontinued. For many years, the government said that the bomb tests |

from Nevada did no harm to Americans. In 1997, a Federal study showed that as many as |

212,000 Americans suffered thyroid cancer from the tests. For years, the government said that |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-150 January 2007

| workers in nuclear weapons plants were not harmed. In 2000, the government reversed their

| policy and passed a law, agreeing to compensate cancer victims who worked in nuclear

| weapons plants. So we must take the same approach here with routine emissions, low dose

| that they are, with nuclear power plants. (K-2)

|

| Comment: There's an epidemic of autism and cancer, and that has been linked to nuclear

| emissions. The National Academy of Sciences recently stated that no amount of radiation is

| safe. (Q-3)

|

| Comment: I mean, this Strontium-90 stuff is simply not a fantasy. It's real. Leukemia, cancer,

| that's the plague of the 20th Century. You want to make sure that people get a whole bunch of

| that? (Y-8)

|

| Comment: I and my colleagues find the recent Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

| Oyster Creek to be deficient in assessing health risk of extending the reactor's license for

| 20 years. The assumption that environmental releases of radioactivity do not pose a health risk

| because amounts are below federally permitted levels is presumptive, and does not constitute

| sound public health policy. Actual/historical effects of environmental releases should be

| thoroughly studied and the public informed of any potential or actual health risk before the

| license extension is considered. (SS-1)

|

| Comment: The assumption that low dose radiation exposure was harmless has been

| contradicted for several types of exposure:

|

| • Pelvic X-rays to pregnant women were performed regularly until studies (starting with Dr.

| Alice Stewart’s work in the 1950s) showed that such exposures raised risk of cancer to the

| fetus during childhood.

|

| • A 1997 National Cancer Institute study estimating as many as 212,000 Americans

| developed thyroid cancer from exposure to radioactive iodine was the first admission by the

| federal government that bomb tests had harmed Americans.

|

| • In a 2000 report, the U.S. Energy Department made its first admission that occupational

| exposures to nuclear weapons facility workers resulted in elevated cancer risk. (SS-2)

|

| Comment: I and my colleagues urge the NRC to thoroughly examine potential health risks

| from Oyster Creek using available data - rather than just presuming that permissible doses are

| safe - before making a decision on the 20 year license extension for Oyster Creek. (SS-8)

|

| Response: The comments are noted. Radiation exposure to the public during the license

| renewal term is a Category 1 issue that was evaluated in the GEIS.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-151 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Health effects from exposure to radiation are dose-dependent, ranging from no effect at all to |

death. Above certain doses, radiation can be responsible for inducing diseases such as cancer. |

Very high (hundreds of times higher than a rem), short-term doses of radiation have been |

known to cause prompt (or early, also called “acute”) effects, such as vomiting and diarrhea, |

skin burns, cataracts, and even death. |

|

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no |

data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and |

dose rates, below about 0.1 Sv (10 rem). However, radiation protection experts conservatively |

assume that any amount of radiation may pose some risk of causing cancer or a severe |

hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation exposures. Therefore, a linear, |

no-threshold dose response relationship is used to describe the relationship between radiation |

dose and detriments such as cancer induction. Simply stated, any increase in dose, no matter |

how small, results in an incremental increase in health risk. This theory is accepted by the NRC |

as a conservative model for estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the |

model probably overestimates those risks. Based on this theory, the NRC conservatively |

establishes limits for radioactive effluents and radiation exposures for workers and members of |

the public, as found in 40 CFR Part 190, 10 CFR Part 20, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. |

|

In spring 2006, the National Research Council of the National Academies published Health |

Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, BEIR VII Phase 2. The major |

conclusion of the report is that current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that |

there is a linear, no threshold dose response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation |

and the development of cancer in humans. This conclusion is consistent with the system of |

radiological protection that the NRC uses to develop its regulations. Therefore, the NRC’s |

regulations continue to be adequately protective of public health and safety and the |

environment. None of the findings in the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII |

report warrant changes to the NRC regulations. |

|

Moreover, the BEIR VII report does not say that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation; it |

does not address “safe versus not safe.” It does continue to support the conclusion that there is |

some amount of cancer risk associated with any amount of radiation exposure and that the risk |

increases with exposure and exposure rate. It does conclude that the risk of cancer induction at |

the dose levels in the NRC’s and EPA’s radiation standards is very small. Similar conclusions |

have been made in all of the associated BEIR reports since 1972 (BEIR I, III, and V); the BEIR |

VII report does not constitute new and significant information. In addition, these reports did not |

establish a link between radiation exposure and autism. |

|

The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to |

the SEIS in response to these comments. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-152 January 2007

| Comment: You can't in my opinion and my colleagues' opinion recommend that a reactor

| operate for another 20 years without doing a good report card of what the health status and

| health changes have been in the local area in the first 37 years this plant has been running. 

| The statistics, we certainly haven't done a comprehensive review, but we have certainly gone

| through childhood cancer statistics. And they're quite poor.

|

| Ocean and Monmouth Counties for years have been much higher than state or national, about

| 25 percent higher. The cancer death rate among children in these 2 counties is something like

| 43 percent higher in the last decade. You all well know that in about a decade ago, there was a

| large, the revelation of a large, outbreak of childhood cancer in Toms River, which is right here

| and close to Oyster Creek. Now, the State Health Department looked for something like 6 years

| and spent $10 million, found no environmental connections, but this shouldn't end it. When we

| have this many great concerns here, we should not be giving carte blanche or this reactor to

| operate another 20 years. (K-7)

|

| Comment: In the case of Oyster Creek, there is considerable data to suggest that emissions

| from the plant have entered the environment and human bodies, and are a potential co-factor in

| local cancer rates.

|

| • Local Cancer Rates. Infants and children are especially susceptible to the harmful

| effects of radiation. In 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

| published a report estimating that exposures to persons under age two are 10 times

| as harmful as similar exposures to adults.

|

| According to the New Jersey cancer registry, Ocean and Monmouth Counties have a rate of

| cancer diagnosed in children under age ten in 1981-2000 that is 24% higher than the U.S. rate

| (significant at p<.001). A total of 523 local children were diagnosed over the two decades. U.S.

| data is from the SEER data base of nine U.S. states and cities.

|

|

| Cases 0-9 Pop. 0-9 Cases/100,000

| Monmouth/Ocean 523 2,720,723 19.22

| U.S. 15.50

|

| In addition, the rate of cancer deaths among Monmouth and Ocean County children age 0-9 has

| steadily risen in the past two decades, while state and national rates have fallen. Data are from

| the National Center for Health Statistics, available at http://wonder.cdc.gov, underlying cause of

| death.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-153 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

|

5 Year Period Deaths 0-9 Avg.Pop 0-9 Deaths/100,000 |

1980-84 21 114,346 3.67 |

1985-89 26 126,415 4.11 |

1990-94 29 141,374 4.10 |

1995-99 34 153,988 4.42 |

|

Change 1980-84 to 1995-99 |

|

Monmouth,Ocean counties +20.2% |

New Jersey - 22.9% |

U.S. - 35.4% (SS-6) |

|

Response: The amount of radioactive material released from nuclear power facilities is well |

measured, well monitored, and known to be very small. The doses of radiation that are |

received by members of the public as a result of exposure to nuclear power facilities are so low |

that resulting cancers have not been observed and would not be expected. A number of studies |

of cancer incidence in the vicinity of nuclear power facilities have been conducted and there are |

no studies to date that are accepted by the scientific community that show a correlation |

between radiation dose from nuclear power facilities and cancer incidence in the general public. |

A number of studies that have been conducted and accepted by the scientific community are |

described below. |

|

In 1990, at the request of Congress, the National Cancer Institute conducted a study of cancer |

mortality rates around 52 nuclear power plants and 10 other nuclear facilities. The study |

covered the period from 1950 to 1984 and evaluated the change in mortality rates before and |

during facility operations. The study concluded that there was no evidence that nuclear facilities |

may be linked causally with excess deaths from leukemia or from other cancers in populations |

living nearby. |

|

In June 2000, investigators from the University of Pittsburgh found no link between radiation |

released during the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island power plant and cancer deaths |

among nearby residents. Their study followed 32,000 people who lived within 5 mi of the plant |

at the time of the accident. |

|

In January 2001, the Connecticut Academy of Sciences and Engineering issued a report on a |

study around the Haddam Neck nuclear power plant in Connecticut and concluded that |

radiation emissions were so low as to be negligible. |

|

The American Cancer Society in 2001 concluded that although reports about cancer clusters in |

some communities have raised public concern, studies show that clusters do not occur more |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-154 January 2007

| often near nuclear plants than they do by chance elsewhere in the population. Likewise, there

| is no evidence that links strontium-90 with increases in breast cancer, prostate cancer, or

| childhood cancer rates. Radiation emissions from nuclear power plants are closely controlled

| and involve negligible levels of exposure for nearby communities.

|

| Also in 2001, the Florida Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology reviewed claims that there are

| striking increases in cancer rates in southeastern Florida counties caused by increased

| radiation exposures from nuclear power plants. However, using the same data to reconstruct

| the calculations on which the claims were based, Florida officials were not able to identify

| unusually high rates of cancers in these counties compared with the rest of the State of Florida

| and the nation.

|

| In 2000, the Illinois Public Health Department compared childhood cancer statistics for counties

| with nuclear power plants to similar counties without nuclear plants and found no statistically

| significant difference.

|

| With respect to Ocean County, increased incidence of leukemia and brain and nervous systems

| cancers have been reported in children. Consequently, in 2003 the New Jersey Department of

| Health and Senior Services (NJDHSS) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

| Registry (ATSDR) conducted a comprehensive study and released the report Case-control

| Study of Childhood Cancers in Dover Township (Ocean County), New Jersey, which provided a

| study of possible risk factors for childhood cancers in Dover Township (NJDHSS and

| ATSDR 2003). The study specifically included OCNGS as a site of community concern. One of

| the conclusions of the case-control study was that OCNGS emissions did not appear to be

| associated with any childhood cancer groupings in the study area. The NJDHSS plans to

| continue its surveillance of childhood cancers in Dover Township, and will report statistical

| analyses when an additional 5 years of data are available (2001 – 2005) (NJDHSS 2004).

|

| The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to

| the SEIS in response to these comments.

|

| Comment: I work in cancer research, and I develop drugs to fight cancer, and I would have the

| slightest idea that the plant or radiation would be the cause for any increase in leukemia or

| whatever, I wouldn't have come here. There is absolutely no evidence from the New Jersey

| Cancer Commission that there is an increase in rates in this area due to the plant. So I think

| you really have to look at the information and the data that is present. The same about autism. 

| I think a lot of hearsay is published and then read, and I think health concerns if they are not

| extinguishing our animal populations that are in the water that comes out of the plant, they're

| much less affecting us. (U-1)

|

| Response: The comment is noted. The comment provides no new and significant information;

| therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-155 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Comment: A good environmental impact statement I believe should contain information on at |

least four items: the amount of emissions, the amount of radioactivity in the environment, the |

amount of radioactivity in bodies of people living near nuclear plants, and cancer rates in the |

local area. Our group has done considerable work on this near Oyster Creek and near other |

nuclear plants. (K-3) |

|

Comment: As far as the first one, emissions, go, Oyster Creek, of the 103 reactors now |

operating in the United States, Oyster Creek has emitted the greatest amount of airborne |

radioactivity, of any of the reactors, something around 77 curies, what we call iodine-131 and |

particulates, anything with, you know, a half-life of 8 days or more, and 5 times as much as was |

officially released at Three Mile Island. Okay. |

|

Even individual chemicals, such as strontium-90, strontium-89, iodine-131, barium-140, Oyster |

Creek consistently ranks in the top five reactors in the United States. You can go right on the |

NRC Web site and find out the data for the last couple of years. (K-4) |

|

Comment: Number two, environmental radioactivity. If you go to the Web site that's run by the |

EPA, they have extensive data on levels of radioactivity in the environment, in the air and the |

water and the soil and so forth. Water-borne radioactivity in Waretown, which is just one mile |

from the plant, is between 2 times and 10 times as high as that at Trenton, for example, which is |

50 miles from here. (K-5) |

|

Comment: I'm concerned about low-level radiation. The NRC just reported before in response |

to my question about the Environmental Impact Statement about what that showed in the |

release of emissions from Oyster Creek, and the answer is that it was something like zero, zero, |

zero, zero, zero, nine, four-tenths or four-whatever, and I suspect I am very suspect about that |

data, and I believe there's a possibility that the data might be flawed. |

About three years ago Oyster Creek had emitted the highest amount of radioactivity, including |

Strontium 90, among all the nuclear plants. What happened between three years ago and last |

year? (Q-1) |

|

Comment: Routine releases: The supplemental EIS does not discuss the substantially above |

average routine releases of radioactivity into the environment from OCNGS. For airborne |

emissions of Barium-140, Iodine-131, Strontium-90 and Strontium-89, OCNGS was in the top |

ten ranked reactors in 2003. OCNGS ranked number one for Strontium-90, which carries a |

half-life of 29 years, during 2003. The cumulative effects of these low-doses of radiation should |

be discussed in the EIS, as the National Academy of Sciences has found that there is no safe |

dose of radiation (NAS BIER IIV, 2005). (EE-8) |

|

Comment: The plant's radioactive gas waste emissions that are dumped into our air and |

surrounding waters are a danger. Many local officials have gone on record as saying they also |

are opposed. Please consider the consequences of your actions for the future of the |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-156 January 2007

| communities surrounding this area and the children who will be exposed years from now. 

| (NN-2)

|

| Comment: In the case of Oyster Creek, there is considerable data to suggest that emissions

| from the plant have entered the environment and human bodies, and are a potential co-factor in

| local cancer rates.

|

| Emissions. Oyster Creek has historically released much higher levels of environmental

| radioactivity compared to other U.S. nuclear reactors. From 1970 to 1993, it emitted a total of 77

| curies of Iodine-131 and particulates into the air, the highest of any U.S. reactor. (Data from

| Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, annual report 1993.

| NUREG/CR-2907).

|

| In 2003, the last year for which data is available, Oyster Creek ranked high among U.S. reactors

| for the following isotopes (data are taken from the NRC Radiation Exposure Information and

| Reporting System on effluents, available at:

| www.reirs.com/effluent/EDB_rptLicenseeReleaseAmtsQuery.asp, and expressed in total

| microcuries:

|

Strontium-90 62.3 1st | highest

Strontium-89 6233 2nd | highest

Barium-140 8672 2nd | highest

Iodine-131 10,770 9th | highest

Krypton-85m 21,100,000 4th | highest

Krypton-87 81,900,000 2nd | highest (SS-3)

|

| Comment: In the case of Oyster Creek, there is considerable data to suggest that emissions

| from the plant have entered the environment and human bodies, and are a potential co-factor in

| local cancer rates.

|

| Environmental Radioactivity. Levels of environmental radioactivity near Oyster Creek are much

| higher than in areas far from nuclear plants (i.e., Waretown, one mile from the plant, vs.

| Trenton, 50 miles distant). The information is taken from annual measurements in drinking water

| from 1984-2003 from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency program known as

| Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System (http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams), and

| expressed in average picocuries per liter.

|

| Strontium-90 Waretown .0553 Trenton .0264

| Gross Alpha Waretown .925 Trenton .088

| Gross Beta Waretown 2.015 Trenton 1.523 

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-157 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Thus, gross alpha levels are more than ten times higher in Waretown, Strontium-90 is more |

than two times higher, and gross beta is 32% higher. (SS-4) |

|

Response: All nuclear plants were licensed with the expectation that they would release |

radioisotopes to both the air and water during normal operation. Airborne and liquid releases of |

radionuclides from nuclear power plants must meet radiation dose-based limits specified in |

40 CFR Part 190, 10 CFR Part 20, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Regulatory limits are |

placed on the radiation dose that members of the public might receive from all of the |

radionuclides released by the nuclear plant combined. Among other requirements, the |

regulations specify that the dose to individual members of the public from radioactive effluent |

releases from nuclear fuel cycle facilities be less than 25 mrem to the whole body, 75 mrem to |

the thyroid, and 25 mrem to any other organ (40 CFR Part 190). In addition, the total dose to a |

member of the public is limited to 100 mrem per year from all sources (10 CFR Part 20). In |

10 CFR Part 50, dose objectives are specified for both air and liquid effluents. |

|

Licensees are required to report liquid, gaseous, and solid effluent releases annually to the |

NRC. As part of the preparation of the draft SEIS, the NRC staff visited the site and reviewed |

the effluent releases reported in the OCNGS Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports for |

the years 2000 through 2004. Average gaseous emissions from OCNGS are discussed in |

Section 2.1.4.2 of the SEIS. Although OCNGS had, during the early years of operation, among |

the highest airborne emissions of radionuclides among U.S. nuclear power plants, the releases |

and radiation doses to members of the public from all airborne radioactive emissions from |

OCNGS were and are well within the regulatory limits specified above. |

|

As discussed in Section 2.2.7 of the draft SEIS, annual emissions from OCNGS result in a dose |

to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) that is much less than 1 mrem and much less than |

1 percent of the regulatory limits. Health effects due to radiation exposure at this level are highly |

unlikely and would be indistinguishable from effects due to background radiation. The average |

dose from all sources of radiation, including the natural background, is approximately 360 mrem |

per year. With respect to the BEIR VII report, the report does not say that there is no safe level |

of exposure to radiation; it does not address “safe versus not safe.” It does continue to support |

the conclusion that there is some amount of cancer risk associated with any amount of radiation |

exposure and that the risk increases with exposure and exposure rate. It does conclude that |

the risk of cancer induction at the dose levels in the NRC’s and EPA’s radiation standards is |

very small. |

|

In addition, as discussed above, in 2003 the NJDHSS and the ATSDR conducted a |

comprehensive study of childhood cancers in Dover Township (Ocean County) (NJDHSS and |

ATSDR 2003) and concluded that OCNGS emissions did not appear to be associated with any |

childhood cancer groupings in the study area. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-158 January 2007

| With respect to drinking water, most drinking water sources have low levels of radioactive

| contaminants, the majority of which are naturally occurring. Concentrations of radionuclides in

| drinking water vary considerably between municipalities and across geographic regions and

| depend on source water characteristics (such as groundwater versus surface water) as well as

| on the drinking water treatment system employed. According to the NJDEP, sampling of public

| and private wells that draw water from southern New Jersey’s Cohansey aquifer has shown

| elevated levels of naturally occurring radioactivity (NJDEP 2006c). The aquifer, sometimes

| referred to as the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer, is present in all, or parts of Atlantic, Burlington,

| Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Monmouth, Ocean, and Salem Counties. It is not

| unusual to observe the differences in concentrations reported for Waretown, New Jersey, and

| Trenton, New Jersey, given the natural variability of radionuclides in drinking water sources. In

| both cases, the concentrations provided by the commenter are considerably below the EPA

| drinking water standards for radionuclides. There is no evidence to suggest that the differences

| noted between Waretown and Trenton are related to OCNGS operations. A REMP conducted

| around the OCNGS site since 1966 has not shown radioactivity attributable to OCNGS in

| surface water or groundwater in the vicinity of the site.

|

| The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to

| the SEIS in response to these comments.

|

| Comment: I have attached a chart that was provided to me by a resident of Ocean County.

| The chart notes that Oyster Creek had the second highest emission of Strontium-90 of twenty

| nuclear plants surveyed, from 2001 to 2003. The source listed is the NRC, but the web page

| listed at the bottom of the chart is not accessible. Please comment on this information, as it

| appears to be inconsistent with information contained within the draft Environmental Impact

| Statement for Oyster Creek. (VV-1)

|

| Response: Airborne and liquid releases of radionuclides from nuclear power plants must meet

| radiation dose-based limits specified in 40 CFR Part 190, 10 CFR Part 20, and 10 CFR Part 50,

| Appendix I. Release limits are not specified for individual radionuclides, such as Sr-90. Rather,

| regulatory limits are placed on the radiation dose that members of the public might receive from

| all of the radionuclides released by the nuclear plant combined. 

|

| Among other requirements, the regulations specify that the dose to individual members of the

| public from radioactive effluent releases from nuclear fuel cycle facilities be less than 25 mrem

| to the whole body, 75 mrem to the thyroid, and 25 mrem to any other organ (40 CFR Part 190).

| In addition, the total dose to a member of the public is limited to 100 mrem per year from all

| sources (10 CFR Part 20). In 10 CFR Part 50, the NRC requires that nuclear plant operators

| must keep radiation doses from airborne and liquid effluents as low as reasonably achievable

| (ALARA) to people offsite, and dose objectives are specified for both air and liquid effluents.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-159 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Although OCNGS had the second highest emissions of Sr-90 among the 20 reactors listed in |

the document provided by the commentor, the radiation dose to members of the public from all |

airborne radioactive emissions from OCNGS are well within the regulatory limits specified |

above. As discussed in Section 2.2.7 of the Draft SEIS, emissions from OCNGS result in doses |

that are much less than 1% of the regulatory limits. Consequently, the comments provide no |

new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to |

these comments. |

|

Comment: Are there monitors at the top of the stack? Are there records for telling us what is |

coming out? I think that would be useful for the average citizen and it be important for the NRC |

to consider that as positive proof of what they're doing or where the plant is going. (B-3) |

|

Comment: Number two, much of the data is obtained by the stacks. The stacks is monitored |

by Oyster Creek. In Illinois, the nuclear plants are monitored by independent sources and for |

good reason, because it's easy to change the data. (Q-2) |

|

Comment: The nuclear plant sits on the Cohansee Aquifer, which supplies us with our drinking |

water, and in light of the fact that Toms River has some radiation in their wells, I wondered if the |

NRC considered the fact that the nuclear plant could potentially be polluting with radiation, |

invisible radiation our drinking water. And of course, that is of major concern. (BB-1) |

|

Comment: How is it that the nuclear plant can sit on the Cohansee Aquifer which gives us our |

drinking water? And I don't know if you can address that this evening, but certainly in your |

impact statement I would like to see that being addressed because I think that's a major, major |

point that was not brought up. I don't know. I haven't been to all of the meetings, but I think it's |

very crucial because obviously we as human being -- we're human beings before we're workers |

or before we're anything, and we need clean water that doesn't have radiation. (BB-3) |

|

Comment: The health and safety of the ecologically delicate Cohansey and Kirkland aquifers |

for present and future generations demand that a more viable and in-depth study of the extent |

of the "intrusion" of radionuclides into these aquifers be undertaken and documented as a part |

of this report and for the public record. (YY-7) |

|

Response: As described in Section 2.1.4.2 of the SEIS, gaseous releases at OCNGS may |

occur from the 368-ft above-grade plant stack and vents on the turbine and off-gas buildings. |

Each release point is equipped with radiation monitoring equipment, including radioactive noble |

gas monitors, iodine samplers, and particulate samplers, as well as effluent flow and sample |

flow measuring devices. These systems must be maintained and routinely checked in |

accordance with OCNGS technical specifications. |

|

Each year, results of measurements of radiological releases and environmental monitoring are |

summarized in two annual reports: the OCNGS Annual Radiological Environmental Operating |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-160 January 2007

| Report and the OCNGS Radioactive Effluent Release Report. The limits for all radiological

| releases are specified in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, and these limits are designed to

| meet Federal standards and requirements. As part of the preparation of the draft SEIS, the NRC

| staff visited the site and reviewed the annual effluent and environmental reports for OCNGS.

|

| With respect to potential contamination of the Cohansey Aquifer, a REMP has been conducted

| around the OCNGS site since 1966. Through this program, radiological impacts on the

| environment are monitored, documented, and compared with the appropriate standards. The

| REMP includes monitoring of the concentrations of beta and gamma emitters, iodine, and

| strontium in the air; concentrations of gamma emitters in surface water, well water, fish, clams,

| sediment, and vegetation; concentrations of tritium in surface and well water; and direct

| radiation (gamma dose on thermoluminescent dosimeter locations). For trending purposes,

| radiological and direct radiation measurements are compared with past years. Surface and well

| water samples are analyzed for concentrations of tritium and gamma-emitting nuclides. No

| fission, activation products, or tritium have been detected in surface water or well water. The

| REMP will continue throughout OCNGS operations.

|

| As described in Section 2.2.7 of the SEIS, in addition to the REMP conducted by AmerGen,

| the New Jersey Bureau of Nuclear Engineering, within the NJDEP, operates and maintains

| an ESMP for the four nuclear power-generating stations in New Jersey, one of which is

| OCNGS. The purpose of the ESMP is to monitor the various pathways by which people and the

| environment could be exposed to radiation. Data are collected not only beyond the owner-

| controlled area, but at various locations onsite. Groundwater sampling is conducted within the

| OCNGS site boundary. Tap water is sampled from the OCNGS site administration building.

| Direction radiation measurements using thermoluminescent dosimeters are taken at various

| locations within the OCNGS site boundary, including the independent spent fuel storage facility.

| In addition, a Continuous Radiological Environmental Surveillance Telemetry (CREST) system

| is in place that consists of three pressurized ion chamber devices that measure direct radiation

| at various locations within the OCNGS site boundary, including the independent spent fuel

| storage facility. Historically, the results of the ESMP are consistent with those collected by the

| AmerGen REMP.

|

| The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to

| the SEIS in response to these comments.

|

| Comment: Plant and the Environment, Radiological Impacts (Page 2-75). Following is a

| clarification of the Department's Environmental Sampling and Monitoring Program (ESMP). 

| Data are collected not only beyond the owner controlled area, but at various locations onsite:

|

| Groundwater sampling is done within the OCNGS site boundary. Tap water is sampled from

| the OCNGS site Administration Building

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-161 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Direction radiation measurements using Thermoluminescent Dosimeters are taken at |

various locations within the OCNGS site boundary, including the Independent Spent Fuel |

Storage facility. |

|

Continuous Radiological Environmental Surveillance Telemetry – Three portable ion |

chamber devices (CREST monitors) measure direct radiation at various locations within the |

OCNGS site boundary, including the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility. (PP-2) |

|

Comment: Following is a clarification of the Department's Environmental Sampling and |

Monitoring Program (ESMP). Data are collected not only beyond the owner controlled area, but |

at various locations onsite: |

|

Groundwater sampling is done within the OCNGS site boundary. Tap water is sampled from |

the OCNGS site Administration Building |

|

Direction radiation measurements using Thermoluminescent Dosimeters are taken at various |

locations within the OCNGS site boundary, including the Independent Spent Fuel Storage |

facility. |

|

Continuous Radiological Environmental Surveillance Telemetry – Three pressurized ion |

chamber devices (CREST monitors) measure direct radiation at the Independent Spent Fuel |

Storage Facility. (QQ-10) |

|

Response: The description of the NJDEP’s ESMP in Section 2.2.7 of the SEIS has been |

modified as suggested by the comments. |

|

Comment: Plant and the Environment, Gaseous waste processing systems and effluent |

controls (Pages 2-11 to 2-12). The GEIS states that "continuous radiation monitoring is |

provided at various points in the system" and that "all gaseous effluents are within the NRC |

regulatory limits". There is no discussion of the operability/inoperability of the augmented offgas |

system (AOG) which over the past few years has not functioned at 100% at all times. Operating |

the AOG at or near 100% will provide the public with confidence that any offsite releases are |

kept as low as reasonably achievable and well below NRC regulatory limits. It is therefore |

important that AmerGen commit to high reliability of the AOG at or above 90%. (PP-1) |

|

Response: Oyster Creek is required by regulation (10 CFR Part 20, 10 CFR 50.34a, and |

10 CFR 50.36a) to have radioactive waste systems, Technical Specifications (TSs), and |

operating procedures to ensure that the doses to members of the public from radioactive |

effluents meet the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) design objectives contained in |

Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. In particular, there is a TS which specifically addresses the |

operability and use of liquid and gaseous effluent treatment systems. The TS states, |

“Limitations on the operability and use of the liquid and gaseous treatment systems to ensure |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-162 January 2007

| that the appropriate portions of these systems are used to reduce releases of radioactivity when

| the projected doses in a 31-day period would exceed 2 percent of the guidelines for the annual

| dose or dose commitment conforming to Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.”

|

| Thus, Oyster Creek is required to have and to use its radioactive waste systems to maintain its

| radioactive effluents ALARA. The NRC’s regulations and guidance allow flexibility in the

| manner in which a licensee meets its obligations to maintain effluents ALARA. From a

| regulatory perspective, Oyster Creek through the use of its radioactive waste treatment systems

| is complying with NRC regulations, its TS, and operating procedures while maintaining its

| radioactive effluents ALARA in accordance with the dose objectives in Appendix I to 10 CFR

| Part 50. Based on the above, we do not believe that there is a need for AmerGen to commit to

| maintain a high reliability of the augmented off-gas system at or above 90 percent.

|

| The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to

| the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: Environmental Impacts of Operation, Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

| (Page 4-31). During normal plant operations, a certain portion of effluent from the discharge

| canal is recirculated back through the intake canal. This recirculation may potentially contain

| radioactive material from the OCNGS that can settle in the aquatic sediment in the intake canal

| and Forked River. Was sampling of aquatic sediment in the intake canal performed to assess

| any potential impacts? (PP-7)

|

| Response: OCNGS has not routinely released liquid radioactive wastes to the discharge canal

| since the late 1980s and has had no plans to so. Contamination in the discharge canal due to

| OCNGS operation is almost entirely confined to the bottom sediments. Therefore, any

| contamination from the discharge canal to the intake canal would be associated with sediment

| contaminated prior to the late 1980s that is transported from the discharge canal to the intake.

| As part of the REMP, sediment sampling is conducted semiannually at four locations. Three of

| the locations are located downstream and could be affected by OCNGS operations. These three

| locations include (1) Station 33, located 0.4 mi from OCNGS in the discharge canal at the

| U.S. Highway 9 bridge, (2) Station 24, located 2.1 mi east of the OCNGS in Barnegat Bay near

| the outflow of the discharge canal, and (3) Station 23, located 3.6 mi east-northeast of OCNGS

| in Barnegat Bay. The sediment sampling results at these three locations show cesium-137

| concentrations ranging up to 39 pCi/kg (Station 24). No other OCNGS activation or fission

| products have been detected during sediment sampling since the mid-1990s. Sediment

| sampling is not routinely conducted in the intake canal.

|

| The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to

| the SEIS in response to this comment.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-163 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Comment: The following questions regards the radiological impacts from OCNGS gasous and |

liquid releses harmful to people and marine life. Mclaren/Hart (2000) documents cobalt 60 and |

Cesium 137 releases in several locatons ,-some of which was excavated, |

|

1. Why some, not all removed? Is it possible? |

|

2. Why wasn't it discovered earlier (especially if it was released before 1989)? Cesium137 |

has a half life of 35 years and is harmful to the ovaries. Cobalt 60, a half life of 5 years |

and is harmful to the liver. |

|

3. Will there be a followup study? |

|

4. Was there or will there be an an NRC investigation of the bioaccumulation of Cs 137 |

and Cobalt in marine life in /Barnegat Bay and Oyster Creek as well as our wells? |

|

5. In this assessment radionuclides were documented in groundwater and soil |

sediments.What is considered background levels? (JJ-1) |

|

Comment: OCNGS claims to have stopped releasing radionuclides and low level isotopes and |

radioactive waste discharges during the 80's. The DEP found no compliance issues or toxity. |

However, McLaren/Hart 2000 documents Cs 137 and Cobalt 60 releases. (JJ-2) |

|

Comment: The DEIS states that the Facility has not routinely released liquid wastes since |

1980s. (2-10). However, the release of these wastes is still potentially part of operations and |

should be considered in the course of ascertaining impacts to the environment. (MM-15) |

|

Comment: Because tritium was released in 2000 (2-1 I), NRC cannot assume that plant |

operates without releases of this nature as a possibility. Did NRC factor future releases into its |

analysis? (MM-16) |

|

Comment: Does NRC take the position that simply because gaseous releases are covered by |

a permit, that there is no impact? (2-12) (MM-17) |

|

Response: The McLaren/Hart report (2000) describes the existing conditions of radionuclide |

concentrations in soil at the site as of February 2000. As discussed in Sections 2.2.3 of the |

SEIS, this study was conducted as part of the New Jersey ISRA investigation performed from |

1998 to 2000 in support of the sale of OCNGS to AmerGen. Soil contamination in limited areas |

of the site is the result of historical spills or leaks from pipes and tanks containing contaminated |

water. Depending on the extent, nature, and location of the spills, some of these areas have |

been excavated and the soil removed. The McLaren/Hart report states that radionuclide activity |

in the soils at the Oyster Creek plant is not impacting the offsite environment. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-164 January 2007

| Limited areas of onsite soil contamination have been left in place for the following reasons: (1) a

| very limited extent of radionuclides is actually in the soil, (2) the concentrations are decreasing

| over time due to radioactive decay, (3) groundwater is not being impacted, and (4) access to the

| area is controlled and limited. In addition, the McLaren/Hart report notes that in many cases far

| greater radiation doses would be accumulated by the plant workers if they were to remove the

| soils, as a consequence of being within proximity to contained radiation sources nearby. This

| exposure far exceeds the resulting dose that could be avoided by the removal of the soil. 

| Consequently, delaying the cleanup of these areas until the plant is decommissioned has the

| benefit of reducing overall worker radiation doses, while still not impacting offsite areas.

|

| As stated above, the McLaren/Hart report describes the existing conditions of radionuclide

| concentrations in soil at the site as of February 2000 and was based on existing and well-

| documented information. The report summarizes historical spills, releases, and soil sampling

| results as far back as 1981 and did not identify previously unknown areas of contamination. In

| general, soil sampling was conducted soon after spills or releases were identified. Therefore,

| findings in the McLaren/Hart report did not represent any new discoveries; the report merely

| summarizes known and recorded historical conditions.

|

| All nuclear plants were licensed with the expectation that they would release radioisotopes to

| both the air and water during normal operation. Airborne and liquid releases of radionuclides

| from nuclear power plants must meet radiation dose-based limits specified in 40 CFR Part 190,

| 10 CFR Part 20, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. The regulatory limits were developed to

| ensure that radiation doses to members of the public from all of the radionuclides released by

| the nuclear plant combined remain below levels of concern. The releases were, and are,

| controlled releases so that the amount of radioactive material released to the environment

| during normal operations is precisely known. The fate of the released materials in the

| environment is known based on the results of many studies. The movement of these materials

| through the environment is predicted by models that have gone through extensive field

| verification.

|

| OCNGS has not routinely released liquid radioactive wastes since the late 1980s and has no

| plans to resume doing so. However, any potential future releases would be required to meet

| NRC regulations, and as such, would not be expected to result in significant impacts to

| members of the public or the environment. Radiation exposure to the public during the license

| renewal term is a Category 1 issue that was evaluated in the GEIS, which included

| consideration of gaseous and liquid emissions from nuclear power plants that are within

| regulatory limits.

|

| Additionally, AmerGen is required to sample various trophic levels in the environment. As

| stated in Section 2.2.7 of the SEIS, AmerGen has conducted a REMP around the OCNGS site

| since 1966, with the results presented annually in the OCNGS Annual Radiological

| Environmental Operating Report. Elevated levels of radioactive contamination above what is
Appendix A

January 2007 A-165 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

expected in marine life in Barnegat Bay and Oyster Creek because of the operation of Oyster |

Creek have not been found in recent years. |

|

Furthermore, the licensee's program to substantially reduce routine liquid releases to the |

discharge in recent years will reduce contamination of aquatic organisms. There is no evidence |

that indicates that elevated levels of radioactive contamination from nearby groundwater wells |

are in any way related to Oyster Creek. Wells with elevated levels of radioactive contamination |

in the Toms River area have been shown to be the result of naturally occurring radioisotopes. |

|

The site REMP includes monitoring of the concentrations of beta and gamma emitters, iodine, |

and strontium in the air; concentrations of gamma emitters in surface water, well water, fish, |

clams, sediment, and vegetation; concentrations of tritium in surface and well water; and direct |

radiation. Sampling locations are chosen based on meteorological factors, preoperational |

planning, and results of land-use surveys. To establish a baseline to distinguish between |

background and plant releases, a number of locations, in areas very unlikely to be affected by |

plant operations – such as upwind, up river, and upgradient – are selected as control points. |

The sampling results for these control locations are considered to be background levels. These |

levels vary, depending on environmental media as well as radionuclide. |

|

The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to |

the SEIS in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: Why does NRC only consider the monitoring results from 2000-2004 (2-74)? In light |

of the fact that there have been past releases by the Facility, how can NRC justify reviewing |

only 4 years of data from a facility that has been in operation for 40 years for purposes of |

determining whether another 20 years is warranted? In addition to pre-2000 data, post-2004 |

data should also have been considered. (MM-51) |

|

Response: The performance of operating reactors is continually monitored by the NRC to |

ensure conformance with all applicable regulations. Licensees are required to report liquid, |

gaseous, and solid effluent releases annually to the NRC, and OCNGS has done so over its |

operational history. In general, radiological releases to the environment from operating reactors |

have decreased over time. For the purposes of illustrating the magnitude of routine releases to |

the air and water from OCNGS during the license renewal term, the last 5 years of available |

data (for the years 2000 through 2004) were summarized in the SEIS. Radiation exposure to |

the public from routine operations during the license renewal term is a Category 1 issue that |

was evaluated in the GEIS. The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant |

information during its independent review of the AmerGen ER, the site visit, the scoping |

process, or the evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes |

that there would be no impacts of radiation exposures to the public during the renewal term |

beyond those discussed in the GEIS. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-166 January 2007

| The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to

| the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: With respect to Cesium-137, its presence is attributed to historical releases, and it

| has been consistently detected. In addition, it has been observed in the teeth of children who

| live close to the plant. Isn't it likely that it will continue to be detected? Isn't it possible that during

| the license renewal period, other releases could occur? Why is that possibility not considered? 

| (MM-52)

|

| Response: All nuclear plants were licensed with the expectation that they would release

| radioisotopes to both the air and water during normal operation, including cesium-137. Airborne

| and liquid releases of radionuclides from nuclear power plants must meet radiation dose-based

| limits specified in 40 CFR Part 190, 10 CFR Part 20, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. The

| regulatory limits were developed to ensure that radiation doses to members of the public from

| all of the radionuclides released by the nuclear plant combined remain below levels of concern.

| The releases were, and are, controlled releases so that the amount of radioactive material

| released to the environment during normal operations is precisely known. The fate of the

| released materials in the environment is known based on the results of many studies. The

| movement of these materials through the environment is predicted by models that have gone

| through extensive field verification. The routine release of radionuclides within regulatory limits

| is expected during the renewal term and was considered during preparation of the SEIS.

|

| The presence of cesium-137 in sediment samples in the vicinity of OCNGS has been attributed

| to historical releases of waterborne radionuclides to the discharge canal. OCNGS has not

| routinely released liquid radioactive wastes since the late 1980s. Cesium-137 is also present in

| the environment from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1960s. Because

| cesium-137 has a 30-year half-life, it will continue to be detected in the environment for quite

| some time.

|

| With respect to cesium-137 in children’s teeth, it is likely that the commenter is referring to

| studies conducted by the RPHP that assert that levels of radioactive strontium-90 are rising in

| the environment and that these increased levels are responsible for increases in cancers,

| particularly cancers in children, and infant mortality. The group claims that radioactive effluents

| from nuclear power plants are directly responsible for the increases in strontium-90. In one

| study, researchers reported that strontium-90 concentrations in baby teeth are higher in areas

| around nuclear power plants than in other areas. This has sometimes been referred to as “The

| Tooth Fairy Project.” However, as discussed in more detail in the response to Comment SS-7,

| numerous peer-reviewed, scientific studies do not substantiate the RPHP claims, and the NRC

| finds that there is little or no credibility in the RPHP’s studies.

|

| The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to

| the SEIS in response to this comment.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-167 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Comment: Can you refer me to data and specific information? You said that "the amount of |

radioactive material released to the environment during normal operations is precisely known." |

What levels of radionuclides are considered background as opposed to elevated levels? Can it |

be answered in microcuries and rads instead of rem ? This applies to Sr 90, Cs 137 and Oyster |

Creek has emitted the greatest amount of airborne radioactivity, of any reactor in the U.S. The |

amount is about 77 curies of iodine-131 aniodine and particulates with a half life of 8 days or |

more. However you testified that OCNGS radiological emissions were a tenth of the amount |

allowed or 0.026 millirems. How do the two data compare? What about the conclusions? Is it |

possible that short lasting isotopes are not counted? Do you believe that because an isotope |

decays rapidly it vanishes harmlessly? Do you know what short lived isotopes become |

transformed into different radioactive elements as they decay? What does the NRC consider a |

safe level? Do you disagree with the National Academy of Sciences June 2005 BEIR VII report |

that concludes all doses of radiation are harmful? If is calculated that 12 deaths would occur |

among residents or workers from emissions is it worth the risk? (KK-1) |

|

Response: All nuclear plants were licensed with the expectation that they would release |

radioisotopes to both the air and water during normal operation. Airborne and liquid releases of |

radionuclides from nuclear power plants must meet radiation dose-based limits specified in |

40 CFR Part 190, 10 CFR Part 20, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Licensees are required to |

measure and report liquid, gaseous, and solid effluent releases (including radioactivity) annually |

to the NRC. For OCNGS, a report titled Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report, Oyster |

Creek Nuclear Generating Station is submitted to the NRC each year and available through the |

NRC Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) website |

(http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html). In addition, the NRC compiles the effluent release |

data and dose assessment data submitted by licensees in a Radiation Exposure Information |

and Reporting System (REIRS) database available at http://www.reirs.com/effluent/ |

EDB_Main.asp?l=n. |

|

With respect to gaseous and liquid effluents discharged by the plant, any measured radioactivity |

from fission and activation products (such as cesium-137 and strontium-90) in these waste |

streams are considered to be above background and a result of plant operations. Average |

gaseous emissions from OCNGS are presented in Section 2.1.4.2 of the SEIS in units of curies |

(Ci), with dose estimates presented in units of either rad or rem. |

|

Although OCNGS had, during the early years of operation, among the highest airborne |

emissions of radionuclides among U.S. nuclear power plants, the releases and radiation doses |

to members of the public from all airborne radioactive emissions from OCNGS are well within |

the regulatory limits. As discussed in Section 2.2.7 of the SEIS, annual emissions from OCNGS |

result in a dose to the MEI that is much less than 1 mrem, and much less than 1 percent of the |

regulatory limits. The methods used to model the fate and transport of the released radioactivity |

and estimate potential doses to members of the public take into account short and long-lived |

radionuclides. The radioactive decay of radionuclides is a well-understood physical process, |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-168 January 2007

| and the dosimetric models used take into account the decay products of each radionuclide as it

| transforms to a stable element. Health effects due to radiation exposure at this level are highly

| unlikely and would be indistinguishable from effects due to background radiation. The average

| dose from all sources of radiation, including the natural background, is approximately 360 mrem

| per year. 

|

| In spring 2006, the National Research Council of the National Academies published Health

| Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, BEIR VII Phase 2. The major

| conclusion of the report is that current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that

| there is a linear, no threshold dose response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation

| and the development of cancer in humans. This conclusion is consistent with the system of

| radiological protection that the NRC uses to develop its regulations. Therefore, the NRC’s

| regulations continue to be adequately protective of public health and safety and the

| environment. None of the findings in the BEIR VII report warrant changes to the NRC

| regulations. 

|

| Moreover, the BEIR VII report does not say that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation; it

| does not address “safe versus not safe.” It does continue to support the conclusion that there is

| some amount of cancer risk associated with any amount of radiation exposure and that the risk

| increases with exposure and exposure rate. It does conclude that the risk of cancer induction at

| the dose levels in the NRC’s and EPA’s radiation standards is very small. Similar conclusions

| have been made in all of the associated BEIR reports since 1972 (BEIR I, III, and V); the BEIR

| VII report does not constitute new and significant information. 

|

| The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to

| the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: You stated that "concentrations are decreasing over time due to radioactive decay"

| as a reason for not removing all of the isotopes. However, were tests then for long lived fission

| products including plutonium-239, (half life of 24,000 years), radium-226 (half life of 1,600

| years) uranium-233 (half life 162,000 years)? (KK-4)

|

| Response: The McLaren/Hart (2000) report states that limited areas of onsite soil

| contamination have been left in place for a number of reasons, including (1) a very limited

| extent of radionuclides is actually in the soil, (2) the concentrations are decreasing over time

| due to radioactive decay, (3) groundwater is not being impacted, and (4) access to the area is

| controlled and limited. The report also discusses how radiological monitoring at OCNGS

| typically focuses on certain target radionuclides, particularly cesium-137, cobalt-60, and

| strontium-90, as trend indicators of radiological contamination. On the basis of the results of

| these measurements, the activities of all other radionuclides such as plutonium-239,

| radium-226, and uranium-233 are calculated based on ratios obtained from detailed analysis of
Appendix A

January 2007 A-169 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

waste streams in the plant. Thus, concentrations of long-lived radionuclides were not directly |

measured. |

|

The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to |

the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: You stated that some of the contaminated areas and soil was not removed because |

the McLaren/Hart report states that radionuclide activity in the soils at the Oyster Creek Plant |

are not impacting the offsite concentrations or decreasing over time due to radioactive decay. |

Where is your proof? (KK-5) |

|

Response: As stated, the McLaren/Hart report (2000) concludes that limited areas of |

radioactive contamination in onsite soils are not impacting the offsite environment. This |

conclusion is based on the extensive onsite soil and groundwater sampling results documented |

in the report. |

|

This conclusion is also supported by the results of the REMP that has been conducted around |

the OCNGS site since 1966. Through this program, radiological impacts on the environment |

are monitored, documented, and compared with the appropriate standards. The REMP includes |

monitoring of the concentrations of beta and gamma emitters, iodine, and strontium in the air; |

concentrations of gamma emitters in surface water, well water, fish, clams, sediment, and |

vegetation; concentrations of tritium in surface and well water; and direct radiation (gamma dose |

on thermoluminescent dosimeter locations). For trending purposes, radiological and direct |

radiation measurements are compared with past years. The only plant-related radionuclide |

consistently detected is cesium-137 in sediment in the discharge canal and Barnegat Bay, a |

result of historical plant releases prior to the late 1980s and fallout from nuclear weapons |

testing. |

|

As described in Section 2.2.7 of the SEIS, in addition to the REMP conducted by AmerGen, the |

New Jersey Bureau of Nuclear Engineering, within the NJDEP, operates and maintains an |

ESMP for the four nuclear power-generating stations in New Jersey, one of which is OCNGS. |

The purpose of the ESMP is to monitor the various pathways by which people and the |

environment could be exposed to radiation. Data are collected not only beyond the owner- |

controlled area, but at various locations onsite. Groundwater sampling is conducted within the |

OCNGS site boundary. Tap water is sampled from the OCNGS site administration building. |

Direct radiation measurements using thermoluminescent dosimeters are taken at various |

locations within the OCNGS site boundary, including the independent spent fuel storage facility. |

In addition, a CREST system is in place that consists of three pressurized ion chamber devices |

that measure direct radiation at various locations within the OCNGS site boundary, including the |

independent spent fuel storage facility. Historically, the results of the ESMP are consistent with |

those collected by the AmerGen REMP. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-170 January 2007

| The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to

| the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: What scientific proof do you have that "Wells with elevated levels of radioactive

| contamination in the Toms River area have been shown to be the result of naturally occurring

| radioisotopes." What natural isotopes? (KK-6)

|

| Response: According to the NJDEP, sampling of public and private wells that draw water from

| southern New Jersey’s Cohansey aquifer has shown elevated levels of naturally occurring

| radioactivity (NJDEP 2006c). The aquifer, sometimes referred to as the Kirkwood-Cohansey

| aquifer, is present in all, or parts of Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland,

| Gloucester, Monmouth, Ocean, and Salem Counties. The NJDEP and the U.S. Geological

| Survey conducted studies to better understand the presence of radioactivity in this aquifer. The

| results of these studies confirmed that naturally occurring radium-226, radium-228 and

| radium-224 may be found in elevated concentrations in parts of the Cohansey aquifer (these

| isotopes are not released in appreciable quantities from OCNGS). Isotopes of radium are not

| found in the OCNGS waste stream. 

|

| In addition, the REMP conducted around the OCNGS site since 1966 has not shown

| radioactivity attributable to OCNGS in surface water or groundwater in the vicinity of the site.

|

| The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to

| the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: In the discussion of radiological impacts of normal operations, the NRC failed to

| include the radionuclide impacts to the marine environment. We submitted substantial

| comments on that and specifically identified the fact that radionuclides have increased in the

| Barnegat Bay in the bottom sediments and the estuarine biota, and that the reactor-released

| nuclides have been detected in the water, bottom sediments, benthic marine algae, seagrass,

| blue crabs, clams, bunker, winter flounder, summer founder, bluefish, and several other fish.

|

| The organisms collected near Oyster Creek had the highest level of radionuclides, but

| detectable levels were found throughout the bay. Recent sediments collected near the

| discharge canal contained levels of Cobalt-60 that were 63 times higher than sediments

| collected at other locations within the Barnegat Bay.

|

| Now, this issue did not even appear in this EIS that I could find. It wasn't in the section called

| “Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations”. It wasn't listed in any of the other sections. So

| I'm concerned that when we submitted to your office comments raising this as a concern, and if

| you wanted to blow off Clean Ocean Action's comments, that's one thing, but the studies that

| we obtained this information from were the same studies that you reference. So the information

| was available that this was an ecological risk, and if you wanted to sort of discuss it and label it
Appendix A

January 2007 A-171 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

small, okay, but you know, I'm concerned that we go to the trouble, a significant amount of |

trouble, to submit comments, to review these issues carefully, to review them scientifically, |

legally, and we want to make sure that the process will address our concerns and be fair. So |

with that, we will be submitting our comments by the September 8th deadline and we trust, I |

guess, as best we can that they'll be considered. (P-3) |

|

Comment: The Draft GEIS fails to adequately examine the cumulative impacts of radionuclides |

released from OCNGS on aquatic organisms utilizing Barnegat Bay. Reactor-released |

radionuclides from OCNGS have accumulated in bottom sediments and the estuarine biota |

since December 1969 when the facility commenced operation [M.J. Kennish (2001) Barnegat |

Bay-Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey, Estuary and Watershed Assessment. Journal of Coastal |

Research, SI 32: pp 280]. These radionuclides (60Co, 137Cs, 54Mn) bioaccumulate throughout |

the estuarine food web, and have been detected in water, bottom sediments, benthic marine |

algae, seagrass, hard clams, blue crabs, bunker, winter flounder, summer flounder, bluefish, |

and several other fish [Id. ]. Organisms collected near Oyster Creek had the highest levels of |

radionuclides but detectable levels were found throughout the bay [ R.L. Blanchard and B. Kahn |

(1979) Abundance and distribution of radionuclides discharged from a BWR nuclear power |

station into a marine bay. Nuclear Safety 20: 190-205]. Recent sediments collected near the |

discharge canal contained levels of 60Co that were up to 63 times higher than sediments |

collected at other locations within the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor estuary [F.C. Moser and |

R.F. Bopp (2001) Particle-associated contaminants in the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor |

Estuary. Journal of Coastal Research, SI 32:229-242]. |

|

There have been several reported releases of radionuclides into the environment since |

operations began at OCNGS forty years ago. There are measurable concentrations of several |

radioactive elements in the aquatic environment at this time and considering the aging |

infrastructure, additional releases are likely should the plant continue to operate for another |

20 years. Thus, there is considerable justification to examine cumulative impacts of past and |

continued exposure to radionuclides on aquatic organisms utilizing Barnegat Bay. (GG-18) |

|

Comment: Cs 137 and cobalt 50 were found in estuary near Little Egg Harbor. What were the |

levels? Were other radionuclides found?" (KK-2) |

|

Comment: The SEIS (Part 2, 33 said during the 80's "OCNGS ended the operational releases |

of liquid radioactive waste discharges and low level radioactive [waste] into Barnegat Bay and |

Oyster Creek ." Wasn't there concern about the accumulation of 20 years of radioactive |

discharges to Barnegat Bay and Oyster Creek? (KK-3) |

|

Comment: Clean Ocean Action testified that there is an increase of contamination in the soils |

and documented and was ignored. Would it make any difference in your assessment? (KK-7) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-172 January 2007

| Response: From December 1969 until the late-1980s, the OCNGS periodically discharged

| liquid wastes containing radioactive contaminants to the discharge canal and Oyster Creek, in

| accordance with liquid effluent discharge limits specified by the NRC. These liquid discharges

| occurred as batches and contained water from the reactor system and an onsite laundry. All

| batches of liquid wastes were analyzed for radionuclide content before discharge to ensure

| compliance with release limits. Maximum discharges occurred in 1970 to 1972. OCNGS has

| not routinely released liquid wastes since the late 1980s.

|

| Radionuclide concentrations in the Barnegat Bay environment have been extensively studied,

| as documented in the studies referenced (Kennish 2001, Moser and Bopp 2001, and Blanchard

| and Kahn 1979), among others. These studies demonstrated that radioactive liquid effluents

| reached all parts of the Bay and provided measurements of radionuclides in biotia (e.g., fish,

| clams, crabs, invertebrates, and marine plants) and sediment samples. 

|

| The Blanchard and Kahn study (1979) documents a comprehensive radiological surveillance

| program in Barnegat Bay conducted by the EPA during the time of maximum OCNGS

| discharges. The study showed low but detectable levels of radionuclides from OCNGS effluents

| in fish, clams, and crabs from Barnegat Bay, with those collected near Oyster Creek having the

| highest levels. The study also showed increased radionuclide concentrations in vegetation and

| sediment. The primary radionuclides contained in sediment samples were cobalt-60, with

| concentrations ranging up to 19,000 pCi/kg, and cesium-137, with concentrations ranging up to

| 2000 pCi/kg. The highest sediment concentrations were also observed near Oyster Creek. For

| comparison, background sediment samples ranged up to 20 pCi/kg for cobalt-60 and 450 pCi/kg

| for cesium-137 (there is no isotope called cobalt-50).

|

| The Blanchard and Kahn study also included estimates of the radiation dose to MEIs from

| consuming contaminated seafood and beach exposures to contaminated sediments. The

| estimated doses were less than 1 mrem per year, much less than regulatory limits and the

| average dose from background of approximately 360 mrem per year in the United States.

|

| In addition to the studies mentioned above, a REMP has been conducted around the OCNGS

| site since 1966. Through this program, radiological impacts on the environment are monitored,

| documented, and compared with the appropriate standards. Among other measurements, the

| REMP includes monitoring of the concentrations of gamma emitters in surface water, fish,

| clams, crabs, and sediment of Barnegat Bay, with samples collected primarily in the vicinity of

| the site. For the years 2000 to 2004, the latest years for which data were available, the only

| plant-related radionuclide consistently detected has been cesium-137 in sediment, a result of

| the historical plant releases that ceased in the late 1980s as well as fallout from atmospheric

| testing of nuclear weapons. The sampling results for fish (including tautog, flounder, weakfish,

| striped bass, white perch, sea bass, bluefish, and puffer), clams, and crabs did not indicate

| plant-related radionuclide contamination.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-173 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

For trending purposes in the REMP, radiological measurements are compared with results from |

past years. The trend analyses for 1984 to 2004 reveal significant reductions in measured |

radionuclide concentrations in clams and sediments near OCNGS. For example, mean |

cobalt-60 concentrations in 1984 were approximately 12 pCi/kg in clams and 250 pCi/kg in |

sediments. By the late 1990s, cobalt-60 concentrations in clam and sediment samples were |

equal to background levels. A similar, but less rapid, decrease has been observed for |

cesium-137 in sediments; in 1984, mean cesium-137 concentrations in sediment samples were |

approximately 500 pCi/kg, decreasing to a mean of 30 pCi/kg in 2004. In part, these reductions |

are the result of the cessation of liquid discharges and radioactive decay (cobalt-60 has a half- |

life of 5.3 years and cesium-137 has a half-life of 30 years). |

|

As noted in Kennish (2001), radionuclide concentrations measured in Barnegat Bay in samples |

of biota and sediment are well within government regulatory limits for environmental and biotic |

media. Moreover, there is no evidence that radioactive releases from OCNGS have affected |

biota or impacted habitats in the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor estuary. As noted above, |

OCNGS has not routinely released liquid radioactive wastes since the late 1980s and has no |

plans to resume doing so. However, any potential future releases would be required to meet |

NRC regulations, and as such, would not be expected to result in significant impacts on |

members of the public or the environment. |

|

Although the data were reviewed during preparation of the draft SEIS, the draft did not contain a |

detailed discussion of sediment contamination or potential impacts on the marine environment. |

Consequently, additional information concerning radionuclide contaminants from liquid OCNGS |

discharges has been added to Section 2.2.7 of the SEIS. |

|

The text of the SEIS has been modified in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: Environmental Impacts of Operation, Transmission Lines (Pages 4-25 through |

4-31) New Jersey's original draft power line regulation addressed only new or modified lines. |

The policy of prudent avoidance was used as a basis for the draft. Therefore, only new or |

modified power lines were to use mitigation techniques to lower magnetic fields. (It was |

assumed that more of these fields were worse.) |

|

Many years later, research results are still contradictory in this area. The International |

Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation recommends 833 milligauss as a public exposure limit, |

based on acute effects. No power line in New Jersey will have levels that high underneath |

them. IEEE recommendations are even less conservative. |

|

Since no new transmission lines are within the scope of this GEIS (2-15, line 25 and 26), it |

would not be recommended that the utility take any action to reduce magnetic fields. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-174 January 2007

| The RPRP does not see any data in the report that indicates what the magnetic fields are under

| or at the edge of the ROW (average and maximum). The Department is requesting this

| information in order to respond to public inquiries. The Department is concerned that electric

| current could substantially increase over the years thus increasing the magnetic field under the

| line. What is the utility's plan for this eventuality? (PP-5)

|

| Response: The NRC staff's environmental review includes an evaluation of the impacts of

| electromagnetic fields associated with the transmission lines, and this evaluation can be found

| in Section 4.2.2. The NRC staff has come to the conclusion that these impacts are still

| unknown, and has not requested any additional information from the applicant regarding the

| electromagnetic field strength under the lines. The staff will continue to follow developments on

| this issue. The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes

| were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| A.2.7 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues

|

| Comment: Page Number 2-83, Line Number 18-20. What it is in DEIS: Revenues are used by

| each taxing entity to fund local and county emergency management programs, public safety,

| local public schools, local government operations, local road maintenance, and the local library

| system. What it should be changed to: Revenues are used by each taxing entity to fund local

| and county emergency management programs, public safety, local public schools, local

| government operations, local road maintenance, and the local library system. Why: Funding for

| local and county emergency management programs is funded by a levy placed on AmerGen by

| NJ under the Radiation Protection Act, not through local taxing entities. (II-2)

|

| Response: The text has been changed to more accurately reflect the distribution of local tax

| revenues to the various local government expenditure programs.

|

| Comment: Section 2.2.8.2, Public Services, Water Supply. Some of the numbers on Table 2-9

| maybe outdated. For instance, United Water has exceeded it allocation several times and has

| been trying to get an increase. They have activated their interconnection with Lacey Township

| MUA to supply some of their additional water requirements. Nowhere is a listing of other ground

| water diversions such as the Jersey Central Power & Light diversion. (PP-64)

|

| Response: The text in Section 2.2.8.2 and in Table 2-9 has been modified to reflect changes in

| the water supply system in the area surrounding the plant.

|

| Comment: Oyster Creek produces enough energy to power 600,000 homes and adds

| $52 million a year to the local economy. We contributed $202,000 last year to the United Way

| and over half a million dollars to the United States over the last three years. We contributed

| $80,000 last year to the DEP Fish and Wildlife Department and $5,000 to the Audubon Society

| to help clean waterfowl affected by the Delaware River oil spill. (M-2; S-4)
Appendix A

January 2007 A-175 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Response: The comment is noted. The comment provides no new and significant information; |

therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: And I certainly appreciate the electrical union wanting to keep their people working. |

I know that's your job, but there's better stuff to do than work at a nuclear plant. (Y-7) |

|

Response: The comment is related to employment at OCNGS. The comment provides no new |

and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this |

comment. |

|

Land Use |

|

Comment: The DEIS references (2-18) the CZMA inconsistency determination reached by |

NJDEP on August 19, 2005 and states that the determination was made based on a lack of |

information. The CZMA determination did point out the places in which no determination could |

be made because of a lack of information, but the NJDEP also made separate findings of |

inconsistency and highlighted several major issues. Specifically, the NJDEP found that the |

applicant was not in compliance with Basic Coastal Policy 5 and the Public Access to |

Waterfront Rule. August 19, 2005 CZMA Determination at 10. (MM-19) |

|

Response: The text in Section 2.2.1 has been changed to provide additional detail on the |

status of OCNGS Coastal Zone Management Act compliance. |

|

Cultural Resources |

|

Comment: How can NRC draw any conclusions with respect to archaeological resources when |

no study was completed prior to construction? The DEIS suggests that there is some dispute as |

to the presence of historic resources on the site. (MM-53) |

|

Response: The OCNGS was issued a construction permit in 1964 and started operating under |

a provisional operating license in 1969. The original regulations, implementing Section 106 of |

the NHPA (36 CFR Part 800), were promulgated in 1979, 15 years after the U.S. Atomic Energy |

Commission (AEC) issued the construction permit for OCNGS and 10 years after OCNGS |

started operating. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation had no prescribed regulatory |

process for Federal agencies to demonstrate compliance with NHPA Section 106 |

responsibilities until 1979. |

|

The AEC did conduct a review of historic sites in its FES related to the operation of OCNGS |

prior to issuance of a full-term OL (AEC 1974). The AEC provided reference to the Curator of |

Cultural History at the New Jersey State Museum and the Historic Sites Office of the NJDEP, |

both indicating no evidence at the time of archaeological sites within the station boundary, no |

National or State Register sites in the area, and no historical or architectural structures |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-176 January 2007

| impaired. However, the Historic Sites Office did suggest further study of possible

| archaeological sites (AEC 1974).

|

| AmerGen submitted an application for renewal on July 22, 2005, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. 

| The NRC has established that, as part of the staff review of any nuclear power plant license

| renewal action, a site-specific SEIS to the GEIS, NUREG-1437, will be prepared under the

| provisions of 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC rules that implement NEPA. In accordance with 36 CFR

| Part 800.8(c), the SEIS includes an analysis of potential impacts on historic and archaeological

| resources. 

|

| As stated in the SEIS, as part of this site-specific environmental review, the NRC staff contacted

| both the New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Pinelands Commission

| regarding the proposed action and requested comment. Additionally, the staff conducted a site

| file search at the New Jersey SHPO office in Trenton, New Jersey, on October 13, 2005. On

| the basis of the file search, it appears that one archaeological site may be located on the

| Finninger Farm portion of the site according to Pineland Commission records. The potential for

| additional sites to be present is noted in the SEIS because of the environmental setting and the

| land use history of the site. 

|

| The NRC staff is able to draw conclusions with respect to archaeological sites because the

| potential for impact on undiscovered archaeological resources depends mainly on whether the

| land will be disturbed, in addition to how likely the land is to contain archaeological deposits.

| Since it has been determined that because of the setting of the OCNGS facility archaeological

| deposits could be present, the analysis of archaeological resources presented in the SEIS is

| based on the potential for there to be future land disturbance that could impact unknown

| resources. As stated in the applicant’s ER, AmerGen does not plan to undertake any

| refurbishment or replacement activities (including land-disturbing activities) at the plant site

| (or along the existing transmission line corridor) during the license renewal period. Since

| AmerGen has committed to no refurbishment or replacement activities and has procedures in

| place to identify and protect unknown archaeological resources prior to any ground-disturbing

| activities, the continued operation of OCNGS would likely protect any cultural resources that are

| present. Therefore, the NRC has concluded in the SEIS that impacts on archaeological

| resources would be SMALL.

|

| The comment presents no new and significant information, therefore, no changes were made to

| the SEIS text.

|

| Environmental Justice

|

| Comment: The NRC staff used data from the 1990 Census to evaluate low-income

| populations, and data from the 2000 Census to evaluate minority populations within a 50 mile
Appendix A

January 2007 A-177 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

radius from the facility. The EJ Program questions the use of 1990 data to evaluate low-income |

populations given the fact that 2000 data are available. |

|

The GEIS did not take into consideration the projected explosive population growth and |

changing demographics in this area of New Jersey in their evaluation of potential adverse |

impacts on low-income and minority communities for the next 20 years of operation. |

|

The NRC staff concluded that "it found no unusual resource dependencies or practices such as |

subsistence agriculture, hunting or fishing that would be impacted by OCNGS license renewal." |

Again, given the time constraint associated with this review, it was difficult to confirm this |

statement. However, the EJ Program has knowledge that in many areas within the |

50 mile-radius evaluated in the EIS, low-income and minority communities are engaged, to a |

certain extent, in subsistence fishing and farming. So, the pathways through which the |

environmental impacts associated with OCNGS license renewal can affect human populations |

need to be reevaluated. (QQ-11) |

|

Response: Census data from 2000 were used to describe the distribution of low-income |

populations within 50 mi of the plant. The text in Section 4.4.6 has been modified to accurately |

reflect the data source used in the evaluation. |

|

Although total population in the area surrounding the plant has grown rapidly since 1970, with |

growth expected to continue during the license renewal period, the impact of license renewal on |

environmental justice does not take growth and changes in the geographic distribution of low- |

income and minority populations into account as these cannot be accurately predicted at this |

time. |

|

Although it may be the case that subsistence farming and fishing may be used by low-income |

and minority populations in the area surrounding the plant, the analysis determined that there |

were no food pathways associated with plant operation during the license renewal period that |

would affect these population groups. |

|

A.2.8 Comments Concerning Postulated Accidents |

|

Comment: Mark 1 design: The obsolete Mark 1 reactor design of OCNGS would not meet |

current licensing standards. This design-based defect means that in the event of an accidental |

buildup of pressure inside OCNGS, the only means to avert a core meltdown would be the |

intentional release of radioactivity directly into the environment. This design flaw poses |

unacceptable risks to public health and safety, and should not be grandfathered into a license |

extension. In light of this site-specific design flaw, how did the NRC conclude that there are no |

DBA threats at OCNGS beyond those discussed in the GEIS? (EE-5) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-178 January 2007

| Response: Many changes were made in the nuclear industry in response to the accident at

| Three Mile Island. These changes were implemented during the 1980s and resulted in a

| reduction in the risks associated with severe accidents. During the 1990s, Individual Plant

| Examinations (IPEs) were conducted at all operating plants using probabilistic risk assessment

| (PRA) techniques to identify any design or operational vulnerabilities to severe accidents. For

| plants with Mark I containments, the NRC staff identified certain containment performance

| improvements that would reduce the vulnerability of the containment to severe accident

| challenges. These included a requirement to provide a hardened wetwell vent (Generic

| Letter 89-16) and a recommendation to consider several additional enhancements for

| implementation during the IPE, that is, alternate water supply for drywell spray/vessel injection,

| enhanced reactor pressure vessel depressurization system reliability, and implementation of

| revised emergency procedure guidelines (Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 1). The results of

| the IPEs assure that any severe accident vulnerabilities were identified and eliminated, and

| show that the residual level of risk for this specific Mark 1 containment is acceptably small to

| meet NRC's safety goals.

|

| The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to

| the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: Back-up power: In the evaluation of risks, loss of on-site power accounts for 40%

| of core damage frequency (CDF) risk (Ibid.). AmerGen has not proven their ability to provide

| sufficient back-up power in the event of station blackout for the renewal period (NJDEP, ASLB

| No. 06-844-01-L.R.). (EE-7)

|

| Response: OCNGS meets all regulatory requirements related to electrical power and station

| blackout. Furthermore, the results of the plant-specific risk assessments for OCNGS show that

| the residual level of risk is acceptably small to meet NRC's safety goals. Although events

| initiated by loss of offsite power account for a significant fraction of the internal events core

| damage frequency (CDF) at OCNGS, the actual CDF for station blackout events is small and

| generally consistent with that for other plants.

|

| The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to

| the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: Reactor vulnerabilities to climatic fluctuations: The impacts of Climate Change on

| water and atmospheric temperatures present a significant threat to the future operation of

| reactors with once-through cooling systems. OCNGS is a MARK 1 design Boiling Water

| Reactor model and utilizes water from the Forked River as its primary cooling agent. When the

| water drawn in from a lake or river is too warm to maintain a differential between steam and the

| condenser, the plant cannot operate. Therefore, as water temperatures continue to rise during

| summer heat-waves, OCNGS will become an increasingly unreliable and unsafe source of

| electricity generation.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-179 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Over the coming decades, global warming is likely to usher in additional threats to OCNGS |

operational safety in the form of flood waters from rising levels in the Atlantic Ocean which |

adjoins Barnegat Bay and increased vulnerability of back-up power to blackout from increased |

frequency and strength of extreme weather events, particularly hurricanes and Nor'easters. As |

temporary shut-downs from extreme heat and weather become more common, nuclear power |

will become less and less reliable, especially during peak demand across summer months, and |

more susceptible to accidents. (EE-10) |

|

Response: Every U.S. nuclear power plant is designed to withstand design-basis events, |

including flooding, hurricanes, and tornadoes. These events are evaluated in the GEIS, which |

concludes that the environmental impacts resulting from these threats would be SMALL. Even if |

OCNGS were to lose all offsite power, the station has backup sources of power, including the |

combustion turbines just west of the OCNGS site and the onsite emergency diesel generators. |

These generators would allow OCNGS to shut down safely. Systems and procedures at the |

plant are designed to present timely response to severe weather events and to ensure that the |

plant can be shut down safely if needed. In addition, the NRC Operations Center monitors |

severe weather events and coordinates with licensees during these events to ensure safe |

operation and shutdown, if needed. |

|

The commenter also mentions the possibility that an increase in the intake water temperature |

could cause an increase in turbine backpressure, leading to reactor shutdown. It is anticipated |

that such temperature changes would be gradual, and the applicant would take measures to |

ensure that it could continue to operate either by reducing the thermal power of the reactor or by |

implementing alternatives to the cooling system. Therefore, it is unlikely that an increase in the |

temperature of Forked River due to climatic changes would cause an inadvertent shutdown. |

Even if this were to occur, systems and procedures are in place to ensure that the plant would |

shut down in a safe manner. |

|

The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to |

the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: While the supplemental EIS is not required to discuss either the need for power or |

an economic cost/benefit analysis of alternatives, the extreme risk of an accident at OCNGS as |

it ages and implicit threats to public safety and the regional economy posed by continued |

operation should be considered on a site-specific basis. (EE-18) |

|

Response: Chapter 5 of the SEIS discusses the postulated accidents that the NRC staff has |

evaluated and the mitigation alternatives considered. The aging aspects of OCNGS is |

specifically addressed in the safety review of the license renewal application and is outside the |

scope of the environmental review. The comment provides no new and significant information; |

therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-180 January 2007

| Comment: Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents (Pages 5-1 through 5-11, Appendix

| G). In light of NRC approved NEI 05 01 (rev A) Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA)

| Analysis Guidance Document, AmerGen should revise the draft SEIS. The submittal did not

| include a specific review for Individual Plant Examination for External Events (IPEEE). The

| information used to develop the basis for external events such as tornados, floods,

| earthquakes, fires, and sabotage is 10 years old. Additionally, while AmerGen did use specific

| information for the internal Individual Plan Examination, they did not use the same method for

| the IPEEE and simply applied a factor of 2 to make a risk determination. This method is clearly

| imprecise and may result in incorrect judgments. The list of potential fixes to improve the plant,

| which is located in Appendix G of the GEIS, may not be accurate as a result of this generic

| analysis. (PP-8)

|

| Response: The SAMA guidance document is intended to clarify NRC and industry

| expectations regarding the type of information and analyses that would be included in the

| SAMA portion of a license renewal applicant’s ER. It is expected that inclusion of such

| information would improve the quality of the license renewal application and result in a reduction

| in the number of SAMA-related requests for additional information (RAIs) from the NRC. Failure

| to provide the information called out in the guidance document or to address the topics at an

| appropriate level of detail would not imply that the applicant’s SAMA analysis is flawed or

| incomplete, but rather would provide a basis for the NRC to request additional information in

| those areas. AmerGen performed a detailed assessment of SAMAs and documented this

| assessment in the ER. The information provided in the ER was extensive, and generally

| responsive to the guidance in NEI 05-01 (NEI 2005). Nevertheless, the NRC identified several

| areas where additional information or analyses were deemed necessary to support the NRC

| staff’s evaluation. AmerGen provided further details and analyses via formal RAI responses. 

| The NRC considers that the information contained in the ER and the RAI responses adequately

| addresses all areas identified in NEI 05-01 and provides a sufficient basis to support the staff’s

| evaluation of SAMAs for OCNGS. 

|

| AmerGen performed a plant-specific search for SAMAs for the dominant external event risk

| contributors at OCNGS, and quantified the benefits and implementation costs of these SAMAs

| based on plant-specific considerations. This evaluation utilized insights from the best available

| risk studies, which included a 2006 update of the OCNGS fire PRA (completed subsequent to

| the ER submittal), and a 2000 revision of the OCNGS seismic PRA (revised during the

| Individual Plant Examination of External Events [IPEEE] review). For SAMAs intended primarily

| for internal events, AmerGen applied a multiplier of 2 (to the internal events benefits) to

| conservatively account for potential benefits of those SAMAs in external events. However, for

| external event SAMAs, the benefits were estimated based on use of the plant-specific external

| event risk models, and the multiplier was not applied. The approach for estimating the SAMA

| benefits (i.e., risk reduction) is discussed in Section G.4 of the SEIS, and the NRC considers the

| applicant’s approach adequately conservative in its methodology.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-181 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to |

the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: No one expected a tsunami wave to sweep across Indonesia, leaving a swath of |

death and destruction. No one thought a category 5 hurricane would strike the Gulf coast, |

causing levees to collapse in New Orleans. No one believed terrorists could fly into the world |

trade center, collapsing the twin towers and killing almost 3,000 people. No one expects a |

nuclear accident of catastrophic proportions at Oyster Creek, but should we trust the oldest |

nuclear plant in the U.S. to operate safely for another 20 years? (XX-1) |

|

Response: Tsunamis were not considered within the SAMA analyses. This is because the |

risks of a tsunami leading to core damage are so small relative to the risk from other initiating |

events, that we would not expect to identify any tsunami-related SAMAs that would substantially |

reduce the overall plant risk. High wind and hurricane events are considered within the set of |

events that the plant has been designed to withstand. External events more severe than the |

design-basis events were further evaluated as part of the IPEEEs conducted in the mid-1990s. |

These include seismic, fire, high wind and hurricane, and tornado events. As discussed in |

Appendix G, the CDF from high winds and tornados is estimated to be less than 1 × 10-6 per |

year. Although these events represent a small fraction of the total CDF, potential improvements |

to further reduce this risk contribution were explored within the SAMA analysis. |

|

Section 5.1.2 discusses the impacts of severe accidents, including sabotage. The GEIS |

findings state that compliance with the NRC regulatory requirements under 10 CFR Part 73 |

provide reasonable assurance that the risk from sabotage would be SMALL. Even if such |

events were to occur, the Commission would expect that resultant core damage and radiological |

releases would be no worse than that expected from internally initiated events. On the basis of |

the above, the Commission concludes that the risk from sabotage and beyond-design-basis |

earthquakes at existing nuclear power plants would be SMALL and additionally, that the risks |

from other external events are adequately addressed by a generic consideration of internally |

initiated severe accidents. |

|

The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to |

the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Failure to perform an in-depth study on the environmental impact of a severe |

accident when considering the risk in operating an aged nuclear plant with documented |

problems of corrosion of its drywell, the containment barrier necessary for protection of the |

public from the effects of radiological releases, for another 20 or more years is unacceptable. |

(YY-4) |

|

Response: Drywell liner corrosion will not impact the severe accident response at Oyster |

Creek. Compliance with the plant licensing basis will assure that the containment pressure |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-182 January 2007

| boundary, including the drywell liner, maintains its structural integrity up to the design-basis

| pressure of 62 pounds per square inch (psig). Although some beyond-design-basis accidents

| could result in loss of containment heat removal and gradual pressurization of the containment,

| the Oyster Creek plant is equipped with a "hardened vent system" that would be used to reduce

| containment pressure prior to exceeding the design basis pressure. The plant-specific

| Emergency Procedure and Severe Accident Guidelines direct the operator to use the hardened

| vent system to control containment pressure prior to the pressure reaching 55 psig. The

| release path would generally be through the suppression pool, where fission products would be

| scrubbed prior to release to the environment. Because the containment pressure will not

| exceed the design-basis pressure, and because containment integrity will be assured up to the

| design-basis pressure even with corrosion, severe accident response will not be impacted by

| corrosion.

|

| The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to

| the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: The recent DEIS, issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, states there are

| no environmental impacts that would preclude renewing the operating license extension of

| Oyster Creek. According to the report, the Commission has determined that the adverse

| environmental impacts of license renewal would not prevent energy planning decision makers

| from granting the operating extension.

|

| As I understand it, the NRC conducted a thorough analysis to reach this determination. 

| However, I am concerned the environmental impacts of a potential atmospheric release of

| radiation have not been adequately addressed in this report. In 2005, the National Academy of

| Sciences (NAS) released a report evaluating the potential risks of boiling water reactor (BWR)

| plants with above ground spent fuel pools. The report, entitled Safety and Security of

| Commercial Spent Fuel Storage, found the potential vulnerabilities of BWR pools are

| plant-design specific, and recommended that, "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should

| undertake additional best-estimate analyses to more fully understand the vulnerabilities and

| consequences of loss-of-pool coolant events that could lead to a zirconium cladding fire."

|

| Although the DEIS contains a specific section regarding Severe Accident Mitigation, I inquire as

| to whether or not the NAS suggested analysis was incorporated into the statement? We must

| not underestimate the catastrophic impacts to our' environment in the event a cooling pool is

| compromised.

|

| I have long supported the involvement of an independent and unbiased third party, such as the

| NAS, in the license renewal process of Oyster Creek. Additionally, I support the inclusion of

| their suggested analysis in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), and urge the NRC

| to make every effort to do so. (ZZ-1)

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-183 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Comment: The License Renewal GEIS purports to address both design-basis accidents and |

severe accidents. With respect to design-basis accidents, the GEIS provides a brief statement |

that the impacts of design-basis accidents were considered in the original EIS for each nuclear |

power plant, and that the design was found adequate to "accommodate" those accidents. |

License Renewal GEIS at 5-11. Moreover, the GEIS asserts that the consequences of |

design-basis accidents are not expected to change significantly as a result of aging of the plant. |

Id. Therefore, the GEIS does not provide a further discussion of design-basis accidents. Id. |

These impacts are also classified as "Category 1 in Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of |

10 C.F.R. Part 51. However, this approach fails to recognize that the build up of spent fuel at |

reactors is effectively an effect of aging, and that a new design-basis accident could arise from |

the storage of the spent fuel. (BBB-7) |

|

Response: Events involving fuel stored in the spent fuel pool are not addressed in the SAMA |

analysis. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in LBP-06-07, states, “because on-site spent |

fuel is a Category 1 issue, New Jersey’s contention challenging AmerGen’s SAMA analysis for |

failing to consider Oyster Creek’s spent fuel pool is beyond the scope of this proceeding and, |

thus, not admissible.” Spent fuel pools are robust structures constructed of very thick steel- |

reinforced concrete walls and possess a stainless steel liner. They contain enormous quantities |

of water, and as a result for most events, plant operators would have significant amounts of time |

to correct any problems. In addition, nuclear plants possess many other sources of cooling |

water that are readily available for cooling spent fuel. The comments provide no new and |

significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these |

comments. |

|

Comment: The DSEIS states that the value of eliminating all internal and external severe event |

risk is $4.46 million, DSEIS at G-12, but fails to provide any elaboration about how this estimate |

was derived. Working backwards, a consequence of $100 billion at a probability of 1 x 10^-5 |

per year has a present value of around $15 million. Risk Report at 9-2. Because the CDF in |

the analysis is close to this level of probability and the screening value is around a third of the |

present value estimated, the consequences assumed in the analysis to derive the screening |

value must be of the order of $33 billion [This is a simplistic calculation made for illustrative |

purposes only]. This amount is confirmed by the assumption in the appendix that the total cost |

of cleanup and decontamination after a severe accident would be $110 billion. DSEIS at G-28. |

This is surprising because the NRC has previously found that destruction of a private spent fuel |

storage facility would have lower consequences than a severe nuclear accident. NRC, |

CLI-01-22 Memorandum and Order, 54 NRC 255 (November 14, 2001). Beyea also points to |

another reason why the consequence estimate is far too low in the DSEIS. The standard value |

of $2,000 per person-rem used in the report, DSEIS at G-28, leads to a valuation of an avoided |

cancer death of $200,000, which is far too low. Consequence Report at 14. This means the |

SAMA analysis at Oyster Creek must be recalculated placing a much higher value on the lives |

of the public who live close to the plant. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-184 January 2007

| In addition, an assumption of $33 billion in consequences would contrast starkly with the

| estimate of consequences from a spent fuel pool fire of $180 billion to $3.6 trillion and is at

| variance with the NRC's previous position that a spent fuel facility accident would be of less

| consequence than an accident involving core damage. The Risk and Consequence Reports

| taken together suggest that the DSEIS has failed to assess the dominant source of risk at the

| Oyster Creek site. It is important to remember that when the plant was initially licensed the risk

| from the spent fuel pool was zero, because the pool was empty. In addition, the NRC did not

| intend to allow spent fuel to be packed in pools in the way it is now. Although NRC may have

| looked at the chance of a spent fuel pool fire during decommissioning, no generic assessment

| of the risk from spent fuel fires during operation has been carried out. Because the risk of a

| spent fuel pool fire now appears to dominate the risk presented by the plant, it quite

| extraordinary that the DSEIS fails to address the issue in detail. Producing an evaluation that

| grossly underestimates the risk of an action is actually worse than producing no assessment,

| because it may well lead to a decision based on a completely false assurance about risk levels. 

| This is exactly what Congress intended to prevent when it enacted NEPA. (BBB-10)

|

| Response: The methodology used to estimate the dollar benefits of reducing or eliminating

| severe accident risk is based on NRC guidance for performing cost-benefit analysis, that is,

| NUREG/BR-0184, Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook. The application of this

| methodology to OCNGS is described in Section G.6.1 of the SEIS. In addition, the monetary

| worth of $2000 per person-rem is a standard valuation for comparison purposes recommended

| by NUREG/BR-0058, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

| Commission. 

|

| The risk from fuel stored in the spent fuel pool is not addressed in the SAMA analysis. The

| Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in LBP-06-07, states, “because on-site spent fuel is a

| Category 1 issue, New Jersey’s contention challenging AmerGen’s SAMA analysis for failing to

| consider Oyster Creek’s spent fuel pool is beyond the scope of this proceeding and, thus, not

| admissible.” Spent fuel pools are robust structures constructed of very thick steel-reinforced

| concrete walls and possess a stainless steel liner. They contain enormous quantities of water,

| and as a result for most events, plant operators would have significant amounts of time to

| correct any problems. In addition, nuclear plants possess many other sources of cooling water

| that are readily available for cooling spent fuel. The comment provides no new and significant

| information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: The DSEIS suggests that there is no new significant information that leads to

| questions about the validity of the GEIS. DSEIS at 5-3. This is totally incorrect. The

| information presented by Thompson and Bayea is itself significant new information about the

| risks posed by the operation of BWR Mark 1 reactors. In addition to the analysis of spent fuel

| pool fire risks, Beyea also shows that new studies indicate that low-level radiation does could

| cause more cancers than thought when the GEIS was written in 1996. Consequence Report at
Appendix A

January 2007 A-185 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

12-15. Both the Risk Report and the Consequence Report were submitted to the NRC on |

May 25, 2006, before the DSEIS was finalized in June 2006. (BBB-11) |

|

Response: This comment refers to two reports that assess the probability and impacts of spent |

fuel fires caused by terrorist attacks and accidents. The first was prepared by Gordon |

R. Thompson, entitled Risks and Risk-Reducing Options Associated with Pool Storage of Spent |

Nuclear Fuel at the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants. The second report was |

prepared by Jan Beyea, entitled Report To The Massachusetts Attorney General On The |

Potential Consequences Of A Spent-Fuel-Pool Fire At The Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee |

Nuclear Plants. |

|

In a letter dated May 10, 2005, the NRC responded to the issue of spent fuel storage safety at |

OCNGS. In other similar letters to Congressional representatives, the NRC responded to |

several requests to conduct an independent review of the safety and security of commercial |

spent fuel storage, following the release of a report created by the National Academy of |

Sciences, entitled Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage. In its |

response, the NRC wrote that it “has taken or is taking effective actions to address these |

issues. The NRC is confident that spent fuel is stored in a manner that provides reasonable |

assurance that public health and safety, the environment, and common defense and security |

are adequately protected.” |

|

In addition, the risk from fuel stored in the spent fuel pool is not addressed in this SEIS as part |

of the SAMA analysis because the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in LBP-06-07, states, |

“because on-site spent fuel is a Category 1 issue, New Jersey’s contention challenging |

AmerGen’s SAMA analysis for failing to consider Oyster Creek’s spent fuel pool is beyond the |

scope of this proceeding and, thus, not admissible.” Spent fuel pools are robust structures |

constructed of very thick steel-reinforced concrete walls and possess a stainless steel liner. |

They contain enormous quantities of water, and as a result for most events, plant operators |

would have significant amounts of time to correct any problems. In addition, nuclear plants |

possess many other sources of cooling water that are readily available for cooling spent fuel. |

|

The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to |

the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: NRC provides a completely inadequate justification for the use of a factor of 2 times |

the benefit of SAMAs designed to mitigation internal events to take account for external events, |

including sabotage. DSEIS at 8-9. This seems totally arbitrary because it is not necessarily |

true that mitigation measures to prevent sabotage and earthquakes would also mitigate risks |

from internal events. As discussed above, the screening level of $4.46 million, DSEIS at G-12, |

is unjustifiably low and must be revised substantially to take account of new cancer risk studies, |

higher values of life, and the substantial risks presented by the accidental triggering of a spent |

fuel pool fire during operation, as well as the risk of terrorism. It is notable that Amergen's |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-186 January 2007

| process failed to focus on the risk of terrorism or of a spent fuel pool fire. DSEIS at G-13. 

| Thus, NRC's conclusion that the process was systematic and comprehensive is totally wrong. 

| DSEIS at 14. In addition, the Risk and Consequence reports show that NRC's conclusion that

| there are no impacts related to design basis accidents beyond those discussed in the generic

| EIS is false. DSEIS at 5-3. (BBB-13)

|

| Response: For SAMAs intended primarily for internal events, a multiplier of 2 was applied to

| the internal events benefits to conservatively account for potential benefits of those SAMAs in

| external events. The basis for the multiplier is discussed in Section G.2.2 of the SEIS. 

| However, for external event SAMAs, for example, seismic and fire, the benefits were estimated

| based on the use of the plant-specific external event risk models, and the multiplier was not

| applied. The approach for estimating the SAMA benefits for these SAMAs is discussed in

| Section G.4 of the SEIS. Additionally, compliance with the NRC regulatory requirements under

| 10 CFR Part 73 provides reasonable assurance that the risk from sabotage is SMALL. Even if

| such events were to occur, the Commission would expect that resultant core damage and

| radiological releases would be no worse than those expected from internally initiated events.

|

| The methodology used to estimate the dollar benefits of reducing or eliminating severe accident

| risk is based on NRC guidance for performing cost-benefit analysis, i.e., NUREG/BR-0184,

| Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook. The application of this methodology to

| OCNGS is described in Section G.6.1 of the SEIS. In addition, the monetary worth of $2000 per

| person-rem is a standard valuation for comparison purposes recommended by NUREG/BR-

| 0058, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

|

| The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to

| the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| A.2.9 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues

|

| Comment: Spent fuel contains dangerous radioactive stuff, some of which will take about

| 250,000 years to completely decay. I have heard -- well, let me continue. Twenty-six years

| after the project's 1979 inception, the geologically stable Yucca Mountain storage site is still

| empty and I think under some construction. And 26 more years worth of spent fuel sits outside

| Oyster Creek's containment in our lovely and heavily populated state. (C-5)

|

| Comment: Given our state's population and our precious shore communities adjacent to

| Oyster Creek, we really need to do something effective now concerning spent fuel and perhaps

| safety. (C-6)

|

| Comment: Spent fuel storage: While supplemental EIS for license renewal is not required to

| address and aspect of spent fuel storage, there are significant site-specific consideration at

| OCNGS that cannot be overlooked or assumed sufficiently accounted for the in the GEIS. New
Appendix A

January 2007 A-187 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Jersey as a whole has already reached a critical point in spent fuel storage capacity, OCNGS |

having surpassed storage pool capacity in 2002 and Hope Creek to exceed storage limits in |

2008. If OCNGS is re-licensed for twenty additional years of operation, the NJ Public Interest |

Resource Group has calculated that it will generate an additional 640 metric tons of waste with |

nowhere to go, inevitably adding to operation costs and increased rates for consumers in the |

region. The dry cask storage system currently in place at OCNGS does not fully address the |

issue of spent fuel rod crowding in the pool or vulnerability of waste to attack. Waste generated |

during the proposed renewal period would necessitate building more dry cask units. (EE-14) |

|

Comment: During the relicensing period, the total amount of spent fuel at the Facility will |

continue to increase. Why is the long-term impact of this stockpiling not discussed in the DEIS |

and considered? (MM-70) |

|

Comment: Environmental Impacts of Operation, Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations |

(Page 4-31) "Radiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with normal |

operations" Another twenty years of operation will impact the size of the interim spent fuel |

storage facility. What are the dose estimates for what the public might be exposed to at the |

fence line throughout the operation of the OCNGS ISFSF pending the siting of a permanent |

repository? (PP-6) |

|

Comment: Furthermore, if NRC wishes to proceed with relicensing, it must also complete the |

evaluation of the site specific consequences of adding yet more fuel to the dry cask store over |

the next twenty years. (BBB-3) |

|

Comment: In our previous comments we complained that NRC had failed to assess the effects |

of the potential accumulation of spent fuel on the site if the reactor continues to operate beyond |

the term of the existing license. This situation has been made even more likely by the |

Department of the Interior's recent decisions not to allow a private spent fuel repository to be |

constructed. I attach these decisions, which the NRC should regard as significant new |

information. |

|

This new information underscores that an off-site spent fuel repository is unlikely to open for at |

least 20 more years. Thus, it is completely foreseeable that spent fuel would accumulate further |

on the site, if the license extension were granted. This issue must therefore be addressed in the |

DSEIS, which would otherwise fail to meet the requirements of NEPA to look at the foreseeable |

environmental consequences of major federal actions. (CCC-1) |

|

Response: Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel is a Category 1 issue. The safety and |

environmental effects of long-term storage of spent fuel onsite have been evaluated by the |

NRC, and, as set forth in the Waste Confidence Rule, the NRC generically determined that such |

storage can be accomplished without significant environmental or human health impact. In the |

Waste Confidence Rule, the Commission determined that spent fuel can be safely stored onsite |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-188 January 2007

| for at least 30 years beyond the licensed operating life, which may include the term of a

| renewed license. The NRC has a certification process for onsite waste storage casks,

| regulated by 10 CFR Part 72. Spent fuel is under continual licensing control. Siting of a waste

| repository offsite is a separate regulatory action involving the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 

| The commission has determined that onsite spent fuel storage in pools and in dry cask storage

| facilities is a safe interim storage alternative. The comments do not provide new and significant

| information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these comments.

|

| Comment: One of the Department of Energy's (DOE) goals in its 2005 budget is to identify

| opportunities for recycling spent fuel, and a DOE lab is testing a process to make reprocessing

| spent fuel more viable. However, the draft SEIS did not address the issue of spent uranium fuel

| recycling in its discussion of the Uranium Fuel Cycle. Recycling spent fuel reduces the need to

| mine more uranium, which has significantly damaging effects to the environment, and reduces

| the security risk to the facility. Since there has been significant progress in the area of recycling

| spent uranium fuel from commercial nuclear power plants, we believe that the final SEIS should

| address the issue of recycling and the likelihood that Oyster Creek may employ some recycling

| technology in the future. (HH-15)

|

| Response: Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel involves the chemical treatment of the fuel to

| separate unused uranium and plutonium from radioactive fission products. Spent nuclear fuel

| can be reprocessed and recovered uranium and plutonium can be used in new fuel assemblies. 

| When most U.S. nuclear plants were built, the industry, with the Federal government’s

| encouragement, planned to recycle or reprocess used nuclear fuel. In 1979, a decision was

| made by President Carter to ban commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing because of concerns

| about possible proliferation of weapons-grade material. President Reagan lifted the

| reprocessing ban in 1981; however there was little or no interest in pursuing reprocessing by

| the nuclear industry. In early 2006, DOE announced a new initiative called the Global Nuclear

| Energy Partnership, which envisions the development and deployment of a closed fuel cycle

| that enables the recycling and consumption of long-lived radioactive waste, which includes the

| reprocessing of spent fuel. OCNGS has not stated its intention to employ some recycling

| technology in the future. However, the licensing of any U.S. reprocessing facility in the future

| would be done under the NRC’s regulatory purview, and the environmental impacts of the fuel

| reprocessing cycle would be evaluated under that licensing process and its associated EIS.

| Any realistic reprocessing capability within the U.S. will take years to develop. The comment

| provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in

| response to this comment.

|

| Comment: We recommend that the final SEIS address opportunities for pollution prevention

| and waste recycling. (HH-3)

|

| Comment: The draft SEIS was also silent on the issue and options for pollution prevention

| (P2). The final SEIS should discuss the internal and external processes and the waste streams
Appendix A

January 2007 A-189 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

that would be candidates for pollution prevention technologies. Some P2 opportunities can |

range from actions as simple as specific landscaping and reduction of herbicides within OCNGS |

grounds to the reduction of sanitary or hazardous (non-radioactive) waste generation rates. We |

encourage consultation with the DOE’S Pollution Prevention office to obtain recommendations |

that would fit with the processes at Oyster Creek. (HH-16) |

|

Response: Section 2.1.5 has been revised to provide a better description of the waste streams |

and the means for non-radiological waste disposal at OCNGS. While the SEIS discloses |

potential impacts of non-radiological waste pollution to the environment per NEPA, |

implementation of pollution prevention measures at OCNGS are implemented under the NJDEP |

and local government mandates, and is not within the NRC’s regulatory purview. Therefore, the |

SEIS does not make recommendations regarding P2. |

|

Comment: A main point you may wish to keep in mind is that in terms of ease of transfer not all |

nuclear fuel is created equal. Over the years in which the fuel has been irradiated there has |

been a wide variety in the "cladding" of the fuel assemblies. Some of the assemblies are easy to |

move around; some may be extremely difficult or risky. |

|

One of the reasons these guys may resist or stall on requirements to move to dry storage may |

be that a lot of the fuel is not safe or easy to move. (FF-1) |

|

Response: The handling of fuel assemblies at OCNGS is regulated by NRC-approved |

procedures; fuel assemblies of various cladding designs can only be licensed for commercial |

nuclear plant use under 10 CFR Part 70, and the NRC has a certification process for spent fuel |

storage casks, regulated by 10 CFR Part 72. Because the nuclear fuel materials at OCNGS are |

continuously under licensing control, the NRC is confident that spent fuel can be safely moved |

from the spent fuel pool dry storage regardless of the specific type or location of fuel assembly. |

The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to |

the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

A.2.10 Comments Concerning Alternatives |

|

Comment: I don't understand this thing with the cooling tower. The most efficient thing is a |

natural draft tower. I don't know why AmerGen asked the NRC to put in the mechanical draft, |

but why didn't the NRC say, "No. These are more efficient. Let's use them"? And what is the |

impact from them? Would they be less? (B-1) |

|

Comment: The League supports the recommendation by the NJ Department of Environmental |

Protection that natural draft cooling towers should be installed at Oyster Creek. The NRC's |

acceptance of AmerGen's system using mechanical draft cooling towers, which consume more |

energy, is an incorrect response to an important problem. (YY-8) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-190 January 2007

| Response: There are basically two ways to classify cooling-tower designs, either by the

| selected heat transfer mechanism (three types: wet, dry, or a wet-dry hybrid) or by the

| mechanism (two types: natural- or mechanical-draft) chosen to draw air through the cooling

| tower. Wet cooling towers transfer heat through evaporation, while dry cooling towers use

| nonevaporative heat transfer through convection. Both mechanisms accomplish temperature

| reduction of cooling water, with different trade-offs (e.g., energy penalty, visibility impact due to

| fogging, and aesthetic impacts resulting from views of the tower). Natural-draft tower designs

| are characteristically hyperbolic in shape and rely on the passive upward movement of air

| through the towers to provide cooling. Natural-draft towers are therefore quite large, generally

| up to 520 ft in height. Mechanical-draft towers rely on fans to move air upward through the

| towers and are generally less than 100 ft tall. In large power plant applications,

| mechanical-draft towers are multicelled systems, with fan-cells arranged in either linear or round

| configurations. Natural-draft towers are strictly “wet” cooling systems, while mechanical-draft

| towers can be “wet” or “dry” or in a variety of hybrid “wet-dry” combinations.

|

| The applicant considered a variety of alternative closed-looped cooling systems and proposed

| an alternative that would be economically feasible and minimize impacts on the environment

| while providing the lowest possible energy penalty. The applicant considered three basic types

| (wet, dry, or a wet-dry hybrid) of cooling towers and evaluated five design options that included

| both natural- and mechanical-draft towers. The design was chosen to accommodate site-

| specific constraints at the OCNGS site. The NRC evaluated the data supporting the applicant’s

| preferred option and concluded that the design includes control measures (e.g., drift

| eliminators) that mitigate adverse environmental impacts (e.g., fog or visibility impacts, drift

| deposition). The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes

| were made to the SEIS in response to these comments.

|

| Comment: At the present time, to get the plant to work, they have to have cooling water in the

| condensers. That's what they take out of the bay and put back in. In order to do that, the water

| comes out of the reactor at a temperature that they can't return directly to the bay.

|

| So they have a lot more water that they pump around and they do the loop and they put them

| together. They drop the temperature and put it back in the bay. If you have a cooling tower,

| you won't need to do any of that. And the only thing you've got to make up is essentially the

| evaporation.

|

| I quickly looked at a report. It says they would reduce the water usage 70 percent. It seemed to

| me they have reduced it 90 percent. I [don’t] understand where the 70 percent number comes

| from. So I think I've been given answers that really are not quite correct. (B-2)

|

| Response: The current circulating-water throughput is approximately 980,000 gpm. The

| evaluated closed-cycle tower design would require 260,000 gpm of dilution flow plus an intake 

| design flow of 20,000 gpm. Approximately 10,000 gpm would be evaporated and 10,000 gpm
Appendix A

January 2007 A-191 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

would be discharged to the discharge canal as blowdown. The purpose of the dilution flow is to |

dilute the blowdown flow which would have high levels of total dissolved solids (high salinity) |

and elevated temperatures. The 280,000 total gpm throughput is therefore approximately 30 |

percent of the existing once-through system water requirement. The comment provides no new |

and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this |

comment. |

|

Comment: Can I make an official request that dry cooling be assessed as an alternative in the |

environmental impact to be considered? (O-2) |

|

Comment: My case in point being the cooling towers, they stated that Oyster Creek had given |

them the cooling tower that they wanted, and they have not analyzed a dry cooling tower which |

would not require water to be taken from the environment, which I think is extremely significant. |

(O-4) |

|

Comment: Another problem that I have is with the cooling towers. As I threw up before, they |

are only using in this study the cooling towers which is personally I feel is a worst case cooling |

tower for the plant because of the large quantities of water that would still be required to be |

pulled out of Barnegat Bay. There are other types of systems. There are systems that are dry |

that would not require any water to be taken out, and when these are included in an |

Environmental Impact Statement, they cooling towers would not be moderate. In fact, they |

would probably not even be small. They would probably be as small as they could possibly be. |

The effects of the tremendous amounts of water, and I'm not going to keep continuing here |

because obviously Mr. Gunter really covered this very well, but the effects of the tremendous |

quantity of water that is being pulled out of Barnegat Bay is devastating. (O-11) |

|

Response: A wide variety of cooling-tower types, designs, and configurations were considered |

for the OCNGS. The wet-dry hybrid design was chosen as most suitable for the site-specific |

constraints for Oyster Creek. Although providing for the least water consumption and |

eliminating entrainment and impingement losses, there are major disadvantages associated |

with a dry cooling tower for use at large nuclear power generating stations. Dry systems have |

the highest installation and operating costs and would impose the largest energy penalty of any |

of the cooling-tower designs that are currently available. Such tower designs impose load |

limitations on hottest days when power demand is greatest, and there is an increased likelihood |

of unit trips. The NRC staff determined that a dry cooling system would not be a reasonable |

alternative at the OCNGS site because of the very large size of such a system and space |

limitations at the OCNGS site. Information on dry cooling towers has been added to Section |

8.1.1 of the SEIS. The text of the SEIS has been modified in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: And to what extent have those alternate plans really been evaluated by the |

Environmental Protection Agency as well as NRC? (F-6) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-192 January 2007

| Response: The NRC staff is unable to determine what “alternate plans” the commenter is

| referring to. If it relates to alternative energy sources, the NRC’s analysis is presented in

| Section 8.3 of the SEIS. The NRC staff cannot comment on the extent to which the EPA has

| evaluated alternative energy sources for OCNGS. The comment provides no new and

| significant information; therefore, no change was made to the SEIS text.

|

| Comment: And, finally, one final point, which I'm really opposed to, is this giving someone an

| alternate remediation pathway. If you're impacting weakfish in Delaware Bay, as the Salem

| plant was, you don't go into a tidal marsh and try to remediate a tidal marsh, where weakfish

| don't hang out. Okay? And that stuff is nonsense.

|

| These companies should be -- again, in this case, it bothers me. The companies, if you're using

| a natural resource, like seawater or an estuary, you should be addressing the effect that you're

| having on, directly on, the exact problem. Don't take it to some other habitat. And that is true in

| Barnegat Bay. There's nothing wrong with our tidal marshes in Barnegat Bay. We should be

| doing work in the bay itself, in the center of the bay. The communities are degraded out there.

|

| I'm telling you, and I could write three books about this. Okay? And I'm letting you know I've

| done a lot of work out there. That bay is degraded. And we need to do something about it. And

| putting a fishing reef about three miles off or Barnegat Inlet is not the way to do it. Okay? It's

| not the way to do it. You put the funds in the Barnegat Bay, not into some reef three miles off

| the Barnegat Inlet. That does not have anything to do with the health of Barnegat Bay. (I-4)

|

| Response: The current Clean Water Act 316(b) Phase II regulations allow for remediation to

| offset losses associated with impingement and entrainment. It is up to the State of New Jersey,

| during its review of the applicant’s Phase II Comprehensive Demonstration Plan, to determine if

| remediation is appropriate for OCNGS. The NRC does not have the authority to prevent or

| require remediation or studies related to aquatic impacts on Barnegat Bay. The comment

| provides no new and significant information; therefore, no change was made to the SEIS text.

|

| Comment: Also, the moderate, estimated moderate, impact of the installation of a cooling

| tower system because of the assumption that saltwater would be used for that cooling water

| does not take into consider that perhaps the use of freshwater would reduce that impact. (A-5)

|

| Comment: You said that the cooling tower requirements of 460 gallons per minute would

| possibly exceed what was available from the Oyster Creek and Forked River Creek and might

| have to be subsidized with groundwater...But we're using Barnegat Bay water now...So this

| same process is going to take the very same water and –...and use it, but not recycle it back in. 

| You're just going to take it and evaporate it into the air....So you're going to be taking from the

| same source. (R-1)

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-193 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Comment: If additional groundwater is needed, that would have a great impact on Lacey |

Township because any future development within our town required us to get a water allocation |

permit based upon how much groundwater is available. So it's quite obvious to us that the |

present system that is there now that has been working extremely well in the past would be |

certainly the one that we would favor the most. |

|

We certainly wouldn't want to favor something that might possibly at some time in the future |

require taking groundwater because that is a commodity that, you know, there's just never |

enough of. I know we know down in the lower Cape May areas we're getting, you know, salt |

water coming into the groundwater systems, and we want to leave groundwater alone as much |

as possible. Let's affect the environment as easily as possible. (R-2) |

|

Response: Makeup water for the closed-cycle cooling system would be withdrawn from the |

intake canal. The design requirement for makeup water is 20,000 gpm, or more than 29 million |

gpd. This far exceeds the flow rates in the upper reaches of Oyster Creek and the South |

Branch of Forked River, and it far exceeds the pumping capacities of the two onsite wells. |

Pumping groundwater from a well field to meet the makeup water requirement would, over time, |

presumably cause significant saltwater intrusion into the freshwater aquifer, because the high |

withdrawal rate would result in a cone of depression that would extend far to the east and draw |

saline water into onshore aquifers. For this reason, the brackish water of Barnegat Bay that |

enters the intake canal is the only realistic source of makeup water. The comments provide no |

new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to |

these comments. |

|

Comment: Alternatives, Description of the Closed-Cycle Cooling Alternatives (Pages 8-5 |

through 8-6). Would the excavation of piping have any effect on any of the existing groundwater |

monitoring network? (PP-12) |

|

Response: The potential configuration of the cooling towers and circulating water pipelines, as |

illustrated in Figure 8-1, is not expected to interfere with groundwater monitoring wells |

associated with the diesel remediation, the north parking lot, or the main transformer. |

Presumably any construction activities that would conflict with a monitoring well would result in |

construction of a replacement well at a nearby location. The comment provides no new and |

significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this |

comment. |

|

Comment: Alternatives, Environmental Impacts of the Closed-Cycle Cooling Alternative, |

Terrestrial Ecology (Pages 8-6 through 8-21). During the planning of the proposed Forked River |

Nuclear Station in the 1970's, the EIS study was done for a different type of cooling tower (draft |

rather than linear hybrid model), different location and different release point/height. Therefore, |

the comparisons about salt deposition patterns described in Supplement 28 may be different |

and therefore produce different results. (PP-13) |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-194 January 2007

| Response: The discussion in Section 8.1 of the SEIS is based on the results of a new analysis

| of drift deposition rates from the proposed alternative hybrid cooling tower. The discussion was

| not based on the cooling-tower analysis in the FES. The new analysis demonstrated that "on

| average, at 2600 ft and beyond, salt deposition remained below 8.9 lb/ac/month, NRC's level of

| significance for visible leaf damage (NRC 1996)." The weather conditions producing maximum

| impacts were shown to be during the spring with winds off the Atlantic. Even under these

| conditions, surface salt deposition west of OCNGS would fall below the NRC level of

| significance at downwind distances between 4300 and 4600 ft. The comment provides no new

| and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this

| comment.

|

| Comment: Environmental Impacts of the Closed-Cycle Alternative, Land Use (Page 8-8)

| We are not aware of any decision based on CAFRA that would preclude the construction of the

| cooling basin and towers. (PP-14)

|

| Response: The text in Section 8.1 of the SEIS has been revised to indicate that it is unclear if

| these restrictions limit the ability of the applicant to construct cooling towers on the OCNGS site.

|

| Comment: Summary of Environmental Impacts of a New Nuclear Facility Using Closed-Cycle

| Cooling at the OCNGS Site and at an Alternate Site (Tables 8-1 and 8-7). Environmental

| impacts of a new nuclear facility using closed-cycle cooling either at the OCNGS site or an

| alternative site in some cases are listed as SMALL to MODERATE or even MODERATE to

| LARGE in Table 8-7. Yet, environmental impacts of the current once-through cooling system

| and closed-cycle cooling alternatives in Table 8-1 both resulted in mostly SMALL impacts. Can

| you elaborate on the reasoning for choosing the MODERATE and MODERATE to LARGE

| impact ratings for a new nuclear facility with a cooling tower constructed on the OCNGS site? It

| seems that at least more of these impacts would be SMALL. (PP-15)

|

| Response: The construction of a new nuclear plant at a location other than the OCNGS site

| would involve substantial new land disturbance. Construction of a new nuclear plant at the

| OCNGS site would possibly require the acquisition of new lands because of the limited site

| area. Renewal at the OCNGS site would require no new land disturbance for construction. It is

| during the construction phase that most impacts are determined to be potentially MODERATE

| or LARGE. Continued operation would likely result in SMALL or SMALL to MODERATE

| impacts. The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes

| were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: Page 8-7 and 8-9. In Table 8-1 a SMALL TO MODERATE rating is given for land

| use impacts associated with the modified existing once-through cooling system with restoration

| alternative. Likewise, in Table 8-, a SMALL to MODERATE rating is given for the historic and

| archeological resources category as follows: “Short-term adverse impacts to terrestrial

| resources would result from restoration activities and could range from SMALL to MODERATE,
Appendix A

January 2007 A-195 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

depending on location and size of the site chosen. Long-term benefits to terrestrial resources |

from restoration are anticipated.” A potential "MODERATE" rating for both these categories |

seems overly conservative. The implementation of any restoration measures would inherently |

involve careful consideration by the Department of appropriate lands and a minimization of any |

negative effects to any affected species. A "MODERATE" rating seems to assume that these |

factors will not be considered. (PP-54) |

|

Response: Land disturbance would occur during restoration activities, and the location and |

size of the site have not been determined. It is true that mitigation measures are available to |

minimize some impacts, but the NRC cannot assume that those mitigation measures would be |

implemented in all cases. Therefore, a range of SMALL to MODERATE impact has been |

determined given the uncertainties in the location and the amount of disturbance associated |

with the restoration alternative. The inherent uncertainty associated with a major restoration |

alternative has some influence on the staff’s assessment of impact. The comment provides no |

new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to |

this comment. |

|

Comment: Page 8-9. For the water use and quality category in Table 8-1, the Department has |

determined that it is premature and inappropriate to characterize all impacts on water use and |

quality as "small". As noted in the next statement, cooling tower blowdown would contain |

concentrated levels of chlorine and biocides that may not be used in the current once through |

system and may not necessarily result in an overall improvement in current surface water |

quality. However, the Department does agree that the implementation of cooling towers would |

result in a reduction of heat loading. To address this issue, this statement should be modified |

as follows: “Heat impact on surface water would be reduced from current level. Cooling-tower |

blowdown containing increased dissolved solids and intermittent low concentrations of biocides |

would be released; however, they would be diluted with the dilution-pump system.” (PP-55) |

|

Response: The text in Table 8-1 of the SEIS has been modified in response to the comment. |

|

Comment: Page 8-10. In the socioeconomics category, there is no mention of benefits to |

tourism that may result from any restoration alternative. (PP-56) |

|

Response: The text in the SEIS has been changed to indicate that there may be additional |

economic activity resulting from tourism associated with restoration. |

|

Comment: Pages 8-24 – 8-25. What is the source of the information to support the below |

excerpt? The Department is unaware of any recent analyses of these technologies for the |

site-specifics of OCNGS. Any source or indication of whose conclusions these are should be |

included. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-196 January 2007

| “Other possible modifications to the system that might reduce impingement include utilizing a

| newer traveling screen design (e.g., a multidisc screen system), installation of an acoustic

| deterrent system for fish, and optimization of the existing fish-return system to reduce damage

| to fish. The effectiveness of these technologies or operational changes in reducing entrainment

| and impingement is uncertain. As stated above, none of these alternatives are expected to

| reduce losses by even 50 percent.” (PP-60)

|

| Response: The referenced conclusion regarding the effectiveness of possible modifications to

| the OCNGS once-through cooling system was based on experience at other nuclear power

| plants and does not reflect a site-specific analysis for OCNGS. Such modifications have been

| employed at other facilities with varying success. The comment provides no new and significant

| information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: Page 8-8, Lines 2-6. The following statement appears, "Construction of the cooling

| towers at the OCNGS is under the jurisdiction of New Jersey's coastal management program

| within the NJDEP's Division of Land Use Regulation. Current restrictions under the

| requirements of the New Jersey Coastal Area Facility Renewal Act (CAFRA) limiting the

| percentage of impervious surface area for Lacey Township preclude the construction of the

| cooling basin and towers (AmerGen 2006)."

|

| It appears the applicant (AmerGen) is referring to New Jersey's Coastal Zone Management

| Rules (Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:7E-1.0 et. seq.), specifically to the Subchapter 5 Rules with regard to

| impervious coverage at a proposed project site. The applicant is correct the proposed facility

| would require a Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) Permit. However, the Division is not

| aware of any guidance given to the applicant as to whether Subchapter 5 Rules would "preclude

| the construction of the cooling basin and towers." In fact, the Division has met with the

| applicant to discuss placement of additional impervious coverage on the site at or in close

| proximity to the location the towers would be placed at. (See Figure 8-1) During the meeting,

| the Division provided guidance on a way to comply with impervious coverage rules.

|

| Therefore, the Division requests the above cited statement; the statement in Table 8-1, Line 15;

| and any similar reference to Subchapter 5 impervious coverage rules be removed as not

| factual, unless there is documentation demonstrating the Division has previously advised the

| applicant that the percentage of impervious surface area would preclude the construction of the

| cooling basin and towers. If such documentation exists, then the Division reserves the right to

| review and comment on those document(s). (PP-68)

|

| Response: The text in Section 8.1 of the SEIS has been revised to indicate that these

| restrictions would not necessarily limit the ability of the applicant to construct cooling towers on

| the OCNGS site.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-197 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Comment: Because the DEIS fails to properly assess baseline conditions prior to construction |

of the Facility, the No Action Alternative is inadequately portrayed and analyzed. If the adverse |

impacts caused by the Facility were properly analyzed, and then compared to a proper |

assessment of the No Action Alternative, there would be no way to avoid the conclusion that |

operating the Facility harms, and will continue to harm, the environment. (MM-2) |

|

Response: Under NEPA, the “no-action” alternative is not taking the action that is before the |

Federal action agency. In this case, the no-action alternative evaluated in the SEIS is |

essentially denial of license renewal and cessation of operations. This review is for renewal of |

the license, not construction of the facility. Impacts related to denial of the renewal are |

evaluated in Section 8.2. The original impacts of construction were considered in the 1974 FES |

for the facility. The staff has always maintained that continued operation of OCNGS would have |

some environmental impact as does any of the alternatives. The comment provides no new and |

significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this |

comment. |

|

Comment: A troubling trend with respect to the Facility has been to ignore the negative |

impacts the Facility has on the Bay and the area immediately surrounding the Facility, and focus |

on restoring other areas. This concept was proposed by the NJDEP in the draft NJPDES |

permit, and NRC (as well as AmerGen) has gravitated to this option because it essentially |

allows AmerGen to continue to operate with impunity and externalize what should arguably be |

internalized by the Facility. Not only is this option problematic from the standpoint that it allows |

AmerGen to maintain the status quo, it suggests that regulators are reading out of the Clean |

Water Act the requirement that facility's using cooling water intake structures reduce |

impingement and entrainment impacts by implementing performance standards. In fact, EPA's |

efforts to downplay this requirement in the Phase I rules (with respect to new facilities) and |

allow for restoration in lieu of operational changes was challenged in court and that provision |

was ruled to be in violation of the Clean Water Act. A similar challenge was brought against an |

identical provision in the Phase II rules, and the Second Circuit is likely to find that the provision |

of the Phase II rules also violates the CWA. |

|

In the case of the DEIS, NRC has considered as one of the alternatives that the Facility would |

continue to operate using its antiquated once through cooling water intake system, "modified" by |

restoration efforts. DEIS Section 8.1.2. This approach is not only misguided for the reasons |

stated in the preceding paragraph (and more fully explained in the attached NJPDES comment |

letter and letter to the NJDEP), but also because it is based on a flawed or incomplete |

understanding of the Bay. First, for the reasons set out earlier in this comment letter, the status |

of Bay populations is unknown. Until that information is obtained, there can be no way to know |

what type of remedial or restorative measures should be undertaken to offset impingement and |

entrainment losses, assuming for purposes of argument that such an effect can be achieved in |

the first instance. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-198 January 2007

| The DEIS essentially assumes that coastal wetlands should be restored in an effort to offset the

| impingement and entrainment losses, but that assumption appears to be based on generalized

| information about the loss of coastal wetlands, and not connected in any way to actually

| restoring habitat that fosters the types of species adversely affected by the Facility. On

| page 2-3 1 of the DEIS, NRC cites to a study by Hartig and Gornitz in support of its conclusions

| about the loss of coastal wetlands. This study relates to Jamaica Bay, which is a completely

| different system. It is inappropriate to use this study to extrapolate both positive and negative

| benefits associated with restoration.

|

| The general loss of salt marsh along the eastern seaboard is due to sea level rise exceeding

| the rate of sediment and organic matter accumulation or accretion on the salt marsh surface.

| The sea level rise is most likely related to global warming trends. This is a problem that poses a

| long-term threat to most salt marsh systems. Some systems are maintaining their position,

| however, because of rapid accretion. The loss of salt marsh in the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg

| Harbor system appears to be relatively minimal over the past 30 years since the federal

| government, and later the State government, began protecting wetlands.

|

| Contrary to the suggestion in Section 2 of the DEIS, every bay and its associated wetlands

| areas are different. It is inappropriate to compare Jamaica Bay to the Barnegat Bay - Little Egg

| Harbor system. Development and other human activities around Jamaica Bay have been

| dramatic, even relatively recently, which is an important point of differentiation between the two

| systems. Some bays are surrounded by submerging shorelines related to excess removal of

| groundwater or oil and gas (for example Galveston Bay in Texas), while others are emerging

| due to isostatic rebound over the past 10,000 years in response to melting of continental

| glaciers from the last major glacial period (bays and shorelines in the northeastern part of the

| country). (MM-10) 

|

| Comment: The Phase II rule has been challenged and is in any event inapplicable to the

| NJDEP permit decision. See the attached NJPDES comment letter for the ramifications on

| NRC's conclusions. (MM-71)

|

| Response: Under the current Clean Water Act 316(b) Phase II regulations, restoration is

| considered appropriate mitigation, and the NRC staff cannot base its assessment on

| speculation as to what the courts might do in regard to the court challenges to the regulations. 

| Contrary to the assertions in the comment, the NRC does not favor one alternative (e.g.,

| restoration) over the other. The assessment presented in Section 8.1 weighs the relative

| impacts of each alternative on the basis of information available to the NRC staff. The staff

| agree with the commenter that the current status of many ecological resources in Barnegat Bay

| are poorly understood and has revised the presentation of impacts on aquatic resources to

| reflect the uncertainty associated with this lack of current information. It is up to the State of

| New Jersey to determine, after a review of the applicant’s Phase II Comprehensive

| Demonstration Plan, if restoration is appropriate for OCNGS. The comments provide no new
Appendix A

January 2007 A-199 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these |

comments. |

|

Comment: In the case of the Facility, the emphasis should be on aquatic habitats and |

communities right in the Bay itself for remediation. This has not been done in the DEIS, and |

cannot be done, because there is a dearth of information to even allow an effective restoration |

program to be developed. Until the necessary information exists to design the restoration |

rationally and then assess the impacts of this "alternative," it cannot be properly analyzed and |

considered as such. (MM-12) |

|

Comment: It is incorrect to say that a modified one-through cooling water system with |

mitigation restoration would lessen the impact. This can only be determined once the |

restoration plan is in place. Mindless restoration of tidal marshes will not do anything to |

mitigation the adverse impacts the Facility is having on certain populations of fish. (MM-72) |

|

Comment: NJDEP has not finalized the NJPDES permit. Restoration is not technology and it is |

not a viable alternative. In addition, the analysis of the impacts of the modified once-through |

cooling system is subject to all the same criticisms. NRC cannot conclude that restoring |

wetlands will have long term benefits to the Bay unless it knows what it is trying to accomplish |

and how that can be done. (MM-73) |

|

Response: The NRC staff agrees that the impacts (including benefits) of restoration cannot be |

understood without a better understanding of the nature and location of restoration activities. |

The impact categories assigned to this alternative reflect that uncertainty. Restoration is a |

mitigation strategy that is allowed under the Clean Water Act’s 316(b) Phase II regulations. It is |

up to the State of New Jersey to determine if restoration is a viable option to mitigate intake- |

structure-related impacts. The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, |

no change was made to the SEIS text in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: 2.1.3 Cooling-and Auxiliary-Water Systems. This section of the DEIS appears to be |

based in large measure on the draft NJPDES permit issued for comment by the NJDEP. As |

such, NRC should consider the attached comments to the draft permit. It appears NRC used |

the draft permit as the basis for determining the scope of alternatives to be considered the |

DEIS. (MM-14) |

|

Response: The draft NJPDES permit was used in the SEIS because it represents important |

new information pertinent to operations of OCNGS. The resulting final permit will set operating |

standards for at least a portion of the license renewal period. Because the NRC cannot |

presume the outcome of that ongoing permitting process, the NRC staff used information in the |

draft permit to determine the most likely outcome, and evaluated alternatives to the existing |

once-through cooling system that were identified in that draft permit. The comment provides no |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-200 January 2007

| new and significant information; therefore, no change was made to the SEIS in response to this

| comment.

|

| Comment: All of the adverse affects over the past 40 years will continue for the period of

| relicensing. The ecosystem may rebound if the Facility is not relicensed. After admitting that

| the construction of the intake and discharge canals destroyed the ecosystem, how can NRC

| conclude (8-35) that the cessation of those impacts will be small? (MM-74)

|

| Response: The impacts of the no-action alternative are described in Section 8.2 of the SEIS. 

| The construction and operation of OCNGS has altered the ecosystems in the lower portions of

| both Oyster Creek and Forked River as well as created new aquatic habitat in the intake and

| discharge canals. Over time, these altered environments have reached equilibrium and now

| provide suitable habitat for a variety of species. Permanent cessation of OCNGS operations

| could result in destruction or alteration of these existing habitats and lead to a degradation of

| the current environment in the lower portions of both Oyster Creek and Forked River because of

| the accompanying changes in flow rate, salinity, and temperature. The current high levels of

| shoreline development could contribute to poor water quality in the lower portions of these

| streams once the flushing nature of the station flow is eliminated. The comment provides no

| new and significant information; therefore, no change was made to the SEIS text in response to

| this comment.

|

| Comment: NRC should consider EPA's responses to concerns about salt, icing and fogging at

| the Brayton Point facility in Massachusetts when determining the impacts associated with

| cooling towers (see attached NJPDES comment letter). Did NRC consult with EPA on the

| assessment of the alternatives? Or is NRC relying on information supplied by the applicant? 

| (MM-75)

|

| Response: In preparing the air quality evaluation presented in Section 8.1 of the SEIS, the

| NRC evaluated information (including screening model results) developed by the applicant. 

| The applicant used an approved modeling approach and the results were reviewed by the NRC

| staff for reasonableness. These results are considered conservative, that is, they likely

| overestimate rather than underestimate salt deposition rates. 

|

| The NRC staff did not consult with the EPA on our assessment of alternatives, but did consider

| the EPA's responses to comments on the Brayton Point Station NJPDES permit. With regard to

| the issue raised on salt deposition and icing and fogging at Brayton, the NRC agrees with the

| EPA's response to public comment that "there are several alternative methods that could be

| used, alone or in combination, to adequately deal with any threat from fog or ice and that would

| not require, or at least would greatly reduce, any generating unit shutdowns. Such methods

| evaluated by EPA include, for example, plume abatement cooling towers, enhanced traffic

| safety programs, and equipping cooling towers for occasional bypassing." It should also be

| noted for the proposed mechanical-draft wet towers at Brayton, that the EPA stated that the
Appendix A

January 2007 A-201 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

agency "does not believe that the visible plume or any fogging from the cooling towers should |

be regarded as imposing an unacceptable adverse visual/aesthetic impact. In any event, the |

permittee would be required to satisfy all applicable air emission standards." Icing, fogging, and |

salt deposition from the proposed linear hybrid mechanical-draft cooling system at OCNGS is |

expected to be much less than that from the proposed mechanical-draft tower at the Brayton |

Point station. |

|

The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to |

the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Section 8 – Alternatives. The above comments also apply to this section. [Note: In |

this comment, the NJDEP is referring to their comments on aquatic ecology, human health, and |

socioeconomic portions of the SEIS.] (QQ-12) |

|

Response: The comment is not specific enough for the staff to respond. Nevertheless, see |

responses to other comments from the NJDEP (Comment identifier QQ) on aquatic ecology, |

human health, and socioeconomics. Changes were made to the SEIS in response to the |

NJDEP comments on the individual issues. This comment provides no new and significant |

information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: The Draft GEIS reaches the untenable and unsupportable conclusion that the |

alternative of closed cycle cooling would have MODERATE environmental impacts—a greater |

degree of harm than found for the present operation of OCNGS. Closed-cycle cooling would |

drastically reduce the amount of water (and species) withdrawn from Forked River by OCNGS. |

A closed-cycled cooling system would reduce the amount of water withdrawn by the OCNGS by |

as much as 96% [ EPA, Phase II Rule Technical Development Document, at 4-1 (available at |

www.epa.gov/ waterscience/316b/devdoc/ ch4.pdf)]. The mortality of species entrained by |

OCNGS would be reduced by approximately that same percentage. By way of example, where |

certain once-through cooling systems entrain 3.65 million organisms per year, replacing that |

system with a closed-cycle cooling system would reduce the number of organisms entrained to |

as low as 180,000 organisms [Riverkeeper, Inc. v. U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency, 358 F.3d 174, |

195 fn. 22 (2d Cir. 2004)]. This dramatic reduction does not even account for the number of |

organisms spared from thermal shock, impingement, and polluted discharge by the closed-cycle |

cooling system. One study has found that the conversion from a once-through cooling system |

to a closed-cycle cooling system reduced fish impingement by over 95% [Benda, Robert S., et |

al., Comparison of Fish Impingement at the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant for Once-Through |

and Closed Cycle Cooling, Indiana Academy of Science (Vol. 85, 1975)]. (GG-20) |

|

Comment: Moreover, Section 316(b) of the federal Clean Water Act requires that the "location, |

design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology |

available for minimizing adverse environmental impact." [CWA § 316(b), 33 U.S.C. § 1326(b) |

(emphasis added)]. It is well established that closed-cycle cooling is the "best" technology, |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-202 January 2007

| because, as the NJDEP has recognized, it is "the only cooling water intake structure technology

| available to [OCNGS] to reduce entrainment."[NJDEP Fact Sheet on Proposed Permit for

| OCNGS, p. 12]. Closed-cycle cooling is certainly "available," since 73 power plants have

| implemented this technology by converting from once-through to closed-cycle systems [EPA,

| Phase II Rule Technical Development Document, Chapt. 4 (available at 

| www.epa.gov/waterscience/316b/devdoc/ ch4.pdf)].

|

| This portion of the Draft GEIS, however, appears to be primarily based on an analysis

| conducted by URS Corporation for AmerGen, the plant operator, to demonstrate that conversion

| of OCNGS to a closed-cycle cooling system is "unavailable" technology for the OCNGS. The

| opening paragraph of the AmerGen document states, "This report was written with the intended

| audience being the permit writer [NJDEP] and is not intended as a detailed design engineering

| report." The analysis was not peer-reviewed, does not include all the available alternatives for

| cooling tower options, and is an obvious attempt to allow OCNGS to maintain its current

| once-through cooling system. Some of the environmental and water quality issues with cooling

| towers raised in the AmerGen report, and subsequently restated in the Draft GEIS, have been

| substantially overestimated when compared with analyses conducted by other agencies and

| consulting firms, including plume formation, salt-drift, and discharge water quality. [Issues and

| Environmental Impacts Associated with Once-Through Cooling at California's Coastal Power

| Plants. California Energy Commission. Staff Report. CEC-700-2005-13. June 2005], [

| Evaluation of Cooling System Alternatives Proposed Morro Bay Power Plant, Produced by Tetra

| Tech for the San Luis Obispo Regional Water Quality Control Board, May 2002], [EPA § 316(b)

| TDD Chapter 3 New Facility Energy Penalties, Air Emissions, and Cooling Tower Side-Effects]. 

| The Draft GEIS fails to consider available technologies that would satisfactorily address and/or

| essentially eliminate all three (3) of these concerns. In addition, the NRC did not fully explore all

| of the available alternatives to once-through cooling, nor did they question the analyses

| performed by AmerGen on the five other closed-cycle cooling systems they investigated. There

| are significant problems with AmerGen's arguments/issues used to eliminate other available

| cooling tower options that would have less of an impact on the environment, such as dry cooling

| towers. (GG-21)

|

| Response: The moderate impact level assigned to the closed-cycle cooling alternative was

| related to the anticipated exceedance of air quality standards resulting from salt drift from

| towers. The NRC staff agrees that the conversion to closed-cycle cooling would result in

| significant reductions in the numbers of organisms that are impinged and entrained and that

| thermal loading to Barnegat Bay would be significantly reduced.

|

| The staff did not rely solely on the URS Corporation document; a variety of other sources were

| used for the staff’s assessment. The nature of the staff’s review is consistent with what is

| expected for the evaluation of an alternative. The applicant’s proposed alterative and their

| assessment appeared to be reasonable.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-203 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

The proposed hybrid cooling-tower system takes advantage of some of the strengths and |

minimizes some of the weaknesses associated with an all dry or an all wet cooling-tower design |

(mechanical- or natural-draft). For example, a dry cooling system would be cost-prohibitive for |

the Oyster Creek power plant considering its size, age, and design. Furthermore, the site is not |

sufficiently large to accommodate a dry cooling system. In addition, such a system would |

impose a large energy penalty, approximately twice the 32 MW(e) associated with the proposed |

hybrid system. The proposed hybrid system design would also eliminate or significantly reduce |

the visible plume associated with a wet tower. The text of the SEIS has been modified in |

response to this comment. |

|

Comment: One of the most important and unsubstantiated conclusions put-forth by AmerGen |

and accepted by NRC, is the statement that the use of a hybrid wet-dry cooling tower |

(AmerGen's preferred cooling tower option) would result in a MODERATE impact to air quality |

from salt emissions. Such conclusions have been perpetuated by many different power plants |

attempting to circumvent the EPA Phase I and II requirements, and emphatically rejected by the |

EPA and other regulatory agencies. The issue of salt drift from power plants utilizing saltwater |

has been shown in theory and practice to be of small significance and if necessary, is easily |

mitigated [EPA § 316(b) TDD Chapter 3 New Facility Energy Penalties, Air Emissions, and |

Cooling Tower Side-Effects]. In addition, according to the EPA, " [m]odern cooling towers utilize |

advanced fill materials that have been developed to minimize salt or mineral drift effects. The |

Agency estimates that the typical plant installing a cooling tower as a result of the requirements |

of this rule will equip the tower with modern splash fill materials [Id ]." The Draft GEIS must |

evaluate such salt-mitigation technologies if it is to take a "hard look" at the available |

alternatives. (GG-22) |

|

Response: In Section 8.1 of the SEIS, it is stated that estimated or potential PM10 emissions |

from evaporated water containing total suspended and total dissolved solids, including salts, |

associated with the proposed hybrid tower design would exceed 250 tons per year. This level |

of emissions would be consistent with the EPA’s definition of a major source under current |

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations. The SEIS indicates that a first cut |

conservative screening estimate of air quality impacts associated with the proposed hybrid |

tower design would exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). To obtain a |

PSD permit, the applicant would need to submit a permit application to the NJDEP. The |

application would need to demonstrate compliance with NAAQS for PM10 and the associated |

PSD increment using a detailed air quality modeling analysis with an EPA-approved “guideline” |

model. The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were |

made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Another important alternative that was not evaluated in the Draft GEIS nor by |

AmerGen was the use of wastewater from the Central Water Pollution Control Facility (current |

provider of wastewater treatment for the plant) as the source water for the cooling towers. The |

substantial reduction in water usage of cooling towers makes the utilization of wastewater a |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-204 January 2007

| viable alternative. The reuse of the discharge from this facility would not only eliminate issues

| related to using saltwater, but would also provide an additional environmental benefit of

| eliminating or reducing the ocean discharge from the wastewater facility. The use of wastewater

| in cooling towers is not uncommon, especially in the western part of the country where water is

| an expensive commodity. For instance, the California Energy Commission has determined that

| "(w)astewater rather than seawater may be treated appropriately and used for feed-water to a

| cooling tower. Treated wastewater is less corrosive than ocean water so cooling tower

| construction materials may be less costly than is the case with salt water [Issues and

| Environmental Impacts Associated with Once-Through Cooling at California's Coastal Power

| Plants. California Energy Commission. Staff Report. CEC-700-2005-13. June 2005]" (GG-23)

|

| Response: The viability of using sanitary wastewater to meet the 20,000-gpm design

| requirement for makeup water would depend on the availability and capacity of municipal

| wastewater treatment facilities. The two wastewater treatment facilities in the vicinity of OCNGS

| are the Central Water Pollution Control Facility (CWPCF), located about 7 mi north of OCNGS

| in Berkeley Township and the Southern Water Pollution Control Facility (SWPCF), located in

| Stafford Township, about 5 mi south of OCNGS. The CWPCF has a capacity for treating

| 28 million gpd (19,400 gpm) of wastewater. Although this capacity approximates the design

| requirement for makeup water, it represents the maximum flow that can be treated at the facility. 

| The actual flow rate (and availability of water for cooling) would vary, but generally be less than

| 19,400 gpm. The SWPCF has a capacity of 20 million gpd (13,900 gpm). Relying on treated

| wastewater for use as makeup water would likely require access to both the CWPCF and

| SWPCF to ensure adequate supply, and would require modification to existing infrastructure,

| including the construction of pipelines to transport water from the treatment plants to OCNGS. 

| Although the use of municipal wastewater for cooling at OCNGS could be technically feasible,

| the NRC cannot impose implementation of any specific system on the licensee. As long as the

| applicant possesses a valid State of New Jersey NJPDES permit that allows the licensee

| access to cooling water from Barnegat Bay, it is unlikely that alternative sources of water would

| be seriously considered. The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore,

| no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: The discussion about the applicant’s alternative closed loop cooling system was

| shallow because it failed to link any air pollution emissions with cooling water quality. (CC-5)

|

| Response: Emissions were estimated on the basis of total suspended and total dissolved

| solids in the recirculating and makeup water streams. This includes consideration of the optimal

| usage of chemicals (e.g., dechlorinators, pure acrylic acid with no phosphates or phosphonates

| and acrylic acid co-polymer, and sodium hypochlorite) for corrosion and scaling control and

| control of biological fouling. The comment provides no new and significant information;

| therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-205 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Comment: In the draft NPDES permit, the NJDEP identified that the preferred alternative for |

compliance with the 316 (b) rules is a cooling tower. Several cooling tower designs were |

discussed in the draft SEIS with a linear hybrid mechanical draft design selected as the optimal |

one for OCNGS. The draft SEIS states that there would be impacts to air quality, predominantly |

particulate matter in the form of salt, from the operation of a cooling tower. (HH-9) |

|

Comment: With this in mind, we support and strongly recommend the selection of a cooling |

tower as the mitigation measure used to comply with Section 316(b). Such a system would |

reduce the water use from the Forked River by 70 percent and have a corresponding reduction |

of entrainment and impingement of aquatic life thereby achieving the 80-95% reduction goals of |

the regulation. The impacts from thermal discharges and heat shock would also be |

substantially reduced. Given these benefits to the aquatic ecosystem and the limited effects to |

air quality, a cooling tower with appropriate air pollution control would be environmentally |

preferable. (HH-11) |

|

Response: In the SEIS, the NRC staff did not select the linear hybrid mechanical-draft tower |

as the optimal one for OCNGS. The design was proposed by the applicant in AmerGen (2006). |

Section 8.1 of the SEIS evaluated the impacts of a linear hybrid mechanical-draft cooling-tower |

system, and determined that such a system would result in substantially lower impacts to |

aquatic resources relative to those resulting from operation of the existing once-through cooling |

system. The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were |

made to the SEIS in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: We agree with the draft SEIS. that the appropriate control of the PMl0 emissions |

would be a drift eliminator which is considered the Best Available Control Technology (BACT). |

However, we are very concerned that the draft SEIS states that even with the optimal drift |

eliminator efficiency the predicted downwind PMl0 concentrations would still exceed the ambient |

air quality standard and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) class II increment. |

With the exception of indicating which model was used, the draft SEIS did not discuss how this |

conclusion was reached and therefore, we ask that NRC provide to us the information and |

assumptions that were used for the model, before the release of the final SEIS. We can offer |

technical assistance to NRC and the applicant to evaluate and further reduce these effects. |

Nonetheless, we believe that these impacts can be managed. (HH-10) |

|

Response: Section 8.1 of the SEIS evaluated the impacts of a linear hybrid mechanical-draft |

cooling-tower system and determined that such a system would result in substantially lower |

impacts on aquatic resources. The NRC staff relied on the applicant’s modeling effort to predict |

downwind PM10 concentrations (AmerGen 2006). The NRC staff’s review involved a |

determination of the reasonableness of the approach and findings. On the basis of that review, |

the predicted downwind concentrations appeared reasonable. This review is preliminary and |

additional modeling would be performed based on final project design. The comment provides |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-206 January 2007

| no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to

| this comment.

|

| Comment: What is the basis for NRC's assumption that New Jersey will need to replace the

| Facility's power generation? (MM-76)

|

| Response: The NRC does not presume that New Jersey will need to replace OCNGS power

| generation capacity. Rather, the NRC evaluates the impacts of replacing that capacity. The

| comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the

| SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: I would recommend wind, solar, tidal, and conservation as a specific combination

| group, excluding all fossil fuels. (O-1)

|

| Comment: They did not include as alternatives a combination of non-fossil fuels, very

| specifically tidal, wind, solar, which could be included with conservation which would have a

| dramatically different effect on their conclusions. (O-5)

|

| Comment: I understand that you considered primarily natural gas and curtailed usage for

| replacement power, but I heard some people call tonight to look at solar, wind, and things like

| that more and to study that, and I'd like to ask you if you are going to take a look at those things,

| I would like to ask you to consider certain other factors. Number one, solar doesn't work well at

| night, and the wind doesn't always blow. Oyster Creek is a base load plant. It provides power

| all the time. (S-1)

|

| Comment: I would like to see the NRC consider in their impact statement the combination of

| alternate fuels or alternate energy sources, that being the combination of natural gas, solar

| power, wind power, and conservation.

|

| I think that it the area of conservation were given to people in the sense of a bonus, an energy

| bonus, for example, if people were seen as being cooperative with lowering their bills

| voluntarily, then maybe instead of penalizing people or not giving them any type of

| reinforcement for that, you could give them a bonus, like five bucks a month or two bucks or

| whatever it may work out to be, kind of like when you spend on your Discover card. You get a

| bonus back. So I think that to just have negative ideas about the fact that we can't conserve, I

| think that when we as a nation come together like we did post 9/11 with the little flags and

| everybody getting together in support of each other in this great country of ours, I think that

| conservation may be more positive as one of the combination alternates as you can get. (BB-2)

|

| Response: In determining the specific combination of alternatives for evaluation in the draft

| SEIS, the NRC staff chose a combination of natural gas plant generation, demand-side

| management (DSM), and purchased power. This combination was chosen because it could
Appendix A

January 2007 A-207 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

replace OCNGS’s baseload capacity and could be implemented with existing technology. The |

combination of alternatives could be derived a number of ways as discussed in Section 8.3.6 of |

the SEIS. Natural gas was determined to have the least environmental impact of the baseload |

technologies and was consequently chosen to supply the larger portion of the power needs in |

the combination of alternatives. Purchased power was chosen over solar or wind or other |

renewables because of the reduced environmental impacts of that choice. New solar and new |

wind projects would have environmental impacts during construction of those facilities. |

Purchased power could conceivably include the purchase of renewable energy from existing |

wind, solar, or hydropower plants, not only eliminating the impacts from construction of new |

power sources, but also eliminating some of the air quality impacts from existing coal or natural |

gas plants. Since impacts associated with the generation of power available for purchase are |

already occurring, no impacts associated with purchased power are added to the tabular |

summary of impacts for a combination of alternatives. DSM is evaluated in the combination of |

alternatives. A discussion of the DSM program in New Jersey and the conservation measures |

that it includes is provided in Section 8.3.5.11. |

|

In general, the comments express a desire for the NRC to also consider a combination that |

includes all renewable energy sources. The NRC staff has revised Section 8.3.5 and 8.3.6 to |

include such an assessment. Consideration of tidal energy as a component of a combination of |

alternatives was specifically requested by several commenters. Existing tidal energy systems |

rely on dams across tidal streams or basins to store and release water for power generation. A |

discussion of tidal energy systems has been added to Section 8.3.5.12 of the SEIS. The NRC |

staff considers the feasibility of developing a tidal system in the region to be low because of the |

associated environmental impacts of construction and operation and the limited tidal range |

(generally less than 1 ft) in Barnegat Bay. Newer technologies that do not require dams may |

have less impact, but have other limitations such as maintenance of minimum water depths, |

especially in navigable waters, that make them impractical in the region. The text of the SEIS |

has been modified in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: I'd also like you to consider, if you would be willing to do that, when you look at |

replacement sources for Oyster Creek that you evaluate the costs associated with that |

replacement. For example, oil is at an all-time high. Gas and coal can be extremely expensive |

compared to nuclear, and if people can't afford to use it, then it's not going to be a replacement |

power. I think we also need to look at the availability and the use of foreign oil and where those |

prices are at record high and where they're likely to go in the future as you look at this to keep a |

balance. And I'd just like to ask you if you are going to go back and reconsider it, would you |

please consider also some of those things. (S-2) |

|

Response: The Commission determined that an applicant for license renewal need not provide |

an analysis of the economic costs or economic benefits of the proposed or alternative actions. |

The NRC makes its decision whether or not to renew the license based on safety and |

environmental considerations. The final decision on whether or not to continue operating the |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-208 January 2007

| nuclear plant will be made by the utility, State, and Federal (non-NRC) decision makers. This

| final decision will be based on economics (as suggested in the comment), energy reliability

| goals, and other objectives over which the other entities may have jurisdiction. The comment

| provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in

| response to this comment.

|

| Comment: Another thing, I am at a loss to understand how the substitution of such passive

| energy sources as wind or solar power could have a moderate or large effect as compared to

| the small effect of the plant. I mean, common sense tells you that perhaps there would be some

| initial disruption of the environment in the building of these energy sources, but ultimately it is

| bound to have a small. Sure, if you're going to compare it with an unclean coal plant, I mean,

| your worst possible case, just like the cooling towers are the outdated type of cooling power for

| a nuclear plant. They should be natural draft and not mechanical or forced draft. I mean, if

| you're going to compare things like that, that is unforgivable in my opinion. (D-5)

|

| Response: The environmental impacts of alternatives to license renewal, including renewable

| sources, are greater than continued operation of OCNGS because construction of these new

| sources of energy create the most environmental damage, and this construction would have to

| occur to replace the baseload capacity of OCNGS. Many of the alternative energy sources

| would require large land areas that are presumably not now disturbed. The construction and

| future dedication of that land area to energy production, even a “green” energy source, would

| remove or alter resources for extended time periods. The impacts at OCNGS from construction

| have already occurred, and no further loss would be experienced. Many of the alternatives do

| have SMALL operational impacts, as pointed out in the various tables provided in Chapter 8. 

| The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to

| the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| Comment: I have actually residents coming out and asking why aren't we building a

| standardized reactor behind Oyster Creek, (W-3)

|

| Comment: In closing, you are charged with the decision of renewal for a 20 year period by

| statue. Just perhaps in the ensuing years more compact, modern design Nuclear Reactors,

| which are being worked on as we speak here today, maybe the new transition for plants as

| Oyster Creek as they can shift over to new reactor technology much sooner than 20 years and

| the industry itself will upgrade prior to the expiration of the licensing period. Electric Power is

precious to us all! We need every megawatt we can generate safely, without sending CO2 | into

| the atmosphere! (LL-5)

|

| Comment: If the nuclear plant is deemed necessary for power, then a new plant as planned in

| the 70's, should replace the current obsolete plant with one in the new safer design. (XX-6)

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-209 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Response: These comments address a new nuclear alternative. The impacts of building a |

new nuclear reactor are evaluated in Section 8.3.3 of the SEIS. The comments provide no new |

and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these |

comments. |

|

Comment: Oyster Creek produced zero carbon emissions and avoided 7.5 million metric tons |

of carbon dioxide that replacement power would have produced. Oyster Creek avoids carbon |

emissions equal to more than two million cars per year, or to put it differently, an amount equal |

to half of all the motor vehicles in New Jersey. (M-4; S-6) |

|

Response: Nuclear power contributes substantially fewer CO2 emissions to the atmosphere |

than fossil-fuel-based energy production methods. Although the amount of CO2 emissions is |

not zero, the uranium fuel cycle, onsite internal combustion engines, and commuting exhausts |

produced by station workers are just some of the sources of CO2 from the OCNGS. CO2 |

emissions from various sources of energy are discussed in Section 8.3 of the SEIS. The |

comment provides no new information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in |

response to this comment. |

|

Comment: And I just want to thank the NRC, too, for taking into consideration the different |

factors for alternate power sources because we all recognize who work in the industry that |

Oyster Creek is a base load plant. So I do favor renewable energies, but I think we need to |

keep them in the perspective that they belong in as that they are a complement to a base load |

plant. (W-1) |

|

Comment: As far as looking at alternative sources, I think the age we're living in is very |

interesting to see these changes that we see in our environment in the last five years that I |

recognized as far as global warming, the quality of our air and the need to lessen our |

dependency on foreign oil. |

|

We live in a dynamic society where our environment is changing constantly. Our population is |

increasing. Our cars, the amount of vehicles we have on the road in New Jersey is five million |

cars. The fellow that was talking about conservation, we have luxury military vehicles that are |

on the road, the Humvee. I mean, does that make sense to you? It doesn't make sense to me. |

But when you talk about conservation, people have all different kinds of ideas about |

conservation, and the reality is you have your idea of conservation and the fellow that owns the |

Humvee has his idea of conservation, as far as his idea. (W-2) |

|

Comment: We always end up returning to what are we going to do with the spent fuel, and I |

see the different alternatives that are out there right now, and again, it is encouraging to see |

that we're working with other countries. We're looking to recycle fuel possibly. We're looking to |

start up reactors that actually produce hydrogen, maybe to supply the gas, to supply cars for |

hydrogen fuel cells. I mean, wouldn't that be a great thing? (W-4) |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-210 January 2007

| Comment: But I have to tell you from '69 to date and moving forward, I truly believe that we

| have had a minimal effect on the environment. Now, if you want to compare that to a coal plant

| that we had there, I watched a little clip on HBO Sports with Bryant Gumbel and he was

| interviewing certain people in different towns that house these coal plants, and the companies

| were actually buying up some of the towns and destroying their homes because the people

| couldn't live in the towns anymore. The kids in the park couldn't play in the parks anymore

| because of all of the respiratory diseases. (W-5)

|

| Comment: I myself think that because of the current research and ongoing research into the

| uses of coal as a source of power, of which the United States has a proven reserve of over 

| 300 years, we could substitute that for the fuel used at Oyster Creek and we would be free of

| that worry of a nuclear catastrophe. (X-3)

|

| Comment: I think the gentleman who talked about coal being a viable source made an

| excellent point. There are better scrubbers available now, and that's a technology that has

| much room for improvement. There are ways to deal with the fumes from coal in a way where

| there's absolutely no potential of completely destroying the entire economy of the country, (Y-1)

|

| Comment: We're doing solar and wind projects every day of the week. We're doing energy

| conservation projects. If nuclear had anything resembling the obstacles that a wind project has,

| you could never get a nuclear plant in. Okay?

|

| We have to go through incredible bureaucratic hassles to get a permit. I know because I put in

| a significant portion of the wind generators on shore in the last five years. It's very, very difficult

| to get a permit to put in a wind generator at your house.

|

| The obstacles that the NRC is faced with are nothing compared to that, and the potential

| hassles and problems associated with nuclear plants are magnitudes larger than what's

| associated with wind. Between zoning and everything else, it's not that easy to get a wind

| project in.

|

| You know, I've heard Congressmen and everybody else say, "And wind is going to do the trick." 

| Well, it's not because you can't even get a permit. Okay? (Y-4)

|

| Comment: I think that coal is a lot safer. (Y-6)

|

| Comment: Excluding all of New Jersey's potential for clean energy and energy efficiency

| programs, a PJM regional electricity grid assessment of transmission requirements to the New

| Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) shows that Oyster Creek's retirement by the end of its

| current operating license in 2009 will require one transmission line upgrade. (PJM Report,

| attached). The PJM assessment also shows that if Oyster Creek retires in combination with the

| expected retirement of other aging coal plants, the solution is likely new transmission lines or
Appendix A

January 2007 A-211 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

transmission line upgrades. However, with proper planning, the electricity generated by Oyster |

Creek, 1.7% of the electricity consumed on the PJM Mid-Atlantic regional electricity grid, can |

easily be replaced through a combination of proper use of efficiency and conservation |

measures, as well as clean, safe, renewable power like wind and solar. (MM-77) |

|

Comment: New Jersey just adopted one of the strongest clean energy standards in the |

country, ensuring that 20 percent of electricity consumed in the state comes from clean sources, |

primarily wind and solar, by 2020. In addition, Governor Corzine also has a goal of reducing |

energy consumption by 20 percent by 2020. (MM-79) |

|

Comment: There is too much risk associated with a nuclear plant so close to so many people. |

There is time, if you get moving, to switch over to wind turbine power and solar power before the |

current license expires. (RR-1) |

|

Comment: So much technology for safer cleaner energy alternatives are now available and |

during the next 5 years more will be, just think what a dinosaur this plant will be by 2031 if it |

gets relicensed. (TT-2) |

|

Response: The above general comments lack specificity but address alternative energy |

sources. The impacts of these alternatives are discussed in Section 8.3 of the SEIS. The |

comments do not provide new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to |

the SEIS in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: Last week I wrote you a letter asking you NOT to relicense the 35 year old (New |

Jersey) Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant. So much change for clean safe energy has been made |

since this plant was built and so much more will be available in the near future. Such as the |

article enclosed of a company named Geoplasma in Atlanta building a plant in Florida to |

vaporize trash. Synthetic, combustible gas produced will be used to run turbines to create |

electricity. Sludge from waste water will be hardened into slag for road construction. Please |

read the attached article. (UU-1) |

|

Response: The impacts of using municipal solid waste to generate electricity as an alternative |

to OCNGS generation is addressed in Section 8.3.5.7 of the SEIS. The comment provides no |

new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to |

this comment. |

|

A.2.11 Comments Concerning Editorial Issues |

|

Comment: Page Number 2-8, Line Number 13-14. What it is in DEIS: The low-flow axial pump |

design allows for some impingement and entrainment survivability. What it should be changed |

to: The low head axial pump design allows for some impingement and entrainment survivability. |

Why: The dilution pumps are of a high flow design. (II-1) |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-212 January 2007

| Response: The text in Section 2.1.3 has been revised as suggested.

|

| Comment: Section 2.1.7 in the draft report, I think it's titled "Power Transmission System." 

| That entire section, I read through it. And it's silent with respect to the Oyster Creek Nuclear

| Generating Station output power transformers, does not indicate their location, the ownership,

| and the responsibility of those transformers. (A-3)

|

| Comment: Section 2.1.7–Power Transmission System is silent with respect to the Oyster

| Creek Nuclear Generating Station output power transformer(s).......Location, ownership,

| responsibility, secondary containment? (CC-3)

|

| Response: The text in Section 2.1.7 has been revised to provide the requested information.

|

| Comment: Page 2-28. The following statement seems to make an erroneous reference as

| Warren County does not border Philadelphia. “To the northwest, Warren County (bordering

| Philadelphia) is designated as a sulfur dioxide nonattainment area.” (PP-29)

|

| Response: The text in Section 2.2.4 has been changed in response to the comment.

|

| Comment: Page 2-20. The following additions will serve to clarify the appropriate regulations:

| “A provision of the CWA and NJPDES regulations allows facilities to continue to operate under

| an expired permit provided that the permittee makes a timely renewal application, which is the

| case with OCNGS.

|

| In July 2004, the EPA issued Phase II regulations for existing electric-generating plants that

| meet eligibility criteria as set forth at 40 CFR 125.91 including a total design intake flow of

| 50 MGD or more.” (PP-27)

|

| Response: Section 2.2.3 of the SEIS has been revised to incorporate the suggested revision.

|

| Comment: Page 2-24. The units seem to be in error and have been corrected below: “A

| concentration of 1000 μg/L was measured, which exceeds the State limit of 70 μG/L.” (PP-28)

|

| Response: The Greek symbol for micro (μ) appears to have been omitted in the draft. The text

| has been corrected as suggested.

|

| Comment: Page 4-6. The following statement is included on page 4-6: “These discharges

| have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with

| cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have been satisfactorily mitigated at other

| plants....” This finding concerns cooling-tower based dissipation system, which does not

| currently include OCNGS as it has a once-through cooling system. This should be corrected in

| any final document. (PP-30)
Appendix A

January 2007 A-213 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Response: This Category 1 issue actually applies to all plants, including those with cooling- |

tower-based systems and once-through systems. As stated in the finding, discharges have |

been mitigated at “other plants,” which in this case refers to plants with a once-through cooling |

system. The text has not been changed in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Page 4-11. This statement should be clarified to reflect the lack of definition for |

adverse environmental impact in the Phase II regulations: “While adverse environmental impact |

is undefined in the EPA Phase II 316(b) regulations, entrainment of fish and shellfish into the |

cooling-water system is a potential adverse environmental impact....” (PP-31) |

|

Comment: Page 4-11. The following sentence needs to be better worded and the threshold |

level of eligibility under the Phase II regulations should be included for clarification purposes: |

“The rule is Phase II in the EPA's development EPA has developed of Phase II 316(b) |

regulations that establish national requirements applicable to the location, design, construction, |

and capacity of cooling water intake structures at existing facilities that exceed a 50 MGD |

threshold value for water withdrawals.” (PP-32) |

|

Comment: Page 4-11. These sentences as written are factually incorrect in their description of |

the Phase II 316(b) regulations and required compliance with such. Specifically, only two of the |

five compliance alternatives contained in the Phase II regulations require compliance with |

national performance standards. In addition, compliance with any performance standards is not |

required at the time of permit renewal although any issued permit could attain a schedule for |

compliance. Suggested wording to correct these inaccuracies is as follows: “This rule allows |

for five compliance alternatives where two of these alternatives concern attainment of the . The |

new performance standards are designed to significantly reduce entrainment losses resulting |

from plant operations. Licensees are required to demonstrate compliance with the Phase II |

regulations performance standards at the time of renewal of their NPDES permit.” (PP-33) |

|

Comment: Page 4-12. A reference to a later part of the document should be included to |

ensure that the reader understands that these underestimates were accounted for. “Thus, on |

the basis of the Summers et al. (1989) analysis, it is possible that the entrainment numbers |

presented by EA (1986) were underestimates of actual entrainment. However, as described on |

page 4-14, these numbers were adjusted for the purposes of evaluating impacts.” (PP-34) |

|

Comment: Page 4-13. Because there is documented entrainment survivability via the dilution |

pumps, as referenced in studies conducted at OCNGS, a clarifying statement that the |

estimation of impacts via the Versar report is conservative should be included. “Because the |

316(a) and 316(b) demonstration report did not provide estimates of circulating-water system |

macrozooplankton entrainment losses for each year or estimates of dilution pump entrainment |

losses, Summers et al. (1989) conservatively estimated losses by assuming a 100 percent |

mortality rate for all entrained organisms (circulating-water system and dilution pumps).” |

(PP-35) |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-214 January 2007

| Comment: Page 4-15. As written the statement that there is no "clear" definition could be

| misconstrued to an understanding that there is "no" definition for calculation baseline or that any

| such definition is implied. Because the Phase II regulations do specify a definition for

| calculation baseline at 40 CFR 125.93, it would be preferable to state that the definition contains

| ambiguity. In addition, the word mortality should be stricken to be consistent with the wording in

| the national performance standards as contained at 40 CFR 125.94(b)2. Suggested changes

| are as follows:

|

| The entrainment performance standards in the EPA's Phase II regulations requires that

| entrainment mortality for all life stages of fish and shellfish be reduced by 60 to 90 percent from

| the calculated baseline, although there is no clear definition of ambiguity as to how the baseline

| is to be calculated.... (PP-37)

|

| Comment: Page 4-15. On page 12 of the draft NJPDES permit, the Department states that

| closed-cycle cooling and restoration are the only means available at this time to reduce or offset

| entrainment losses. As such, the following statement should be clarified to be consistent with

| the draft NJPDES permit: “Based on the results of this and other studies, the State of New

| Jersey may require additional mitigation measures, such as the installation of cooling towers or

| restoration, to reduce or offset entrainment.” (PP-38)

|

| Comment: Page 4-16. Because restoration was specified in the draft NJPDES permit as a

| viable means to offset entrainment and would be conducted at a separate location than the

| facility itself, this statement should be clarified as follows to be consistent with the draft NJPDES

| permit: “Regardless of the determination of impact, compliance with EPA's Phase II regulations

| may require modifications to the facility and/or the implementation of restoration measures.” 

| (PP-39)

|

| Comment: Page 4-16. Because restoration was specified in the draft NJPDES permit as a

| viable means to offset entrainment and would be conducted at a separate location than the

| facility itself, this statement should be clarified as follows to be consistent with the draft NJPDES

| permit: “As part of the NPDES renewal, licensees may be required to alter the intake structure,

| redesign the cooling system, modify station operation, or take other mitigative measures, which

| could include restoration measures, as a result of this regulation.” (PP-42)

|

| Response: The text in Section 4.1.1 has been modified in response to the comments.

|

| Comment: Page 4-16. It is important to make the distinction that there is no definition of

| adverse environmental impact contained in the Phase II regulations. This statement should be

| clarified as follows: “While adverse environmental impact is undefined in the Phase II

| regulations, I impingement of fish and shellfish into the cooling-water system is a potential

| adverse environmental impact.” (PP-40)

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-215 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Comment: Page 4-16. These sentences as written are factually incorrect in their description of |

the Phase II regulations and required compliance with such. Specifically, only two of the five |

compliance alternatives contained in the Phase II regulations require compliance with national |

performance standards and the word "losses" should be substituted with "mortality" to ensure |

consistency with the wording in the national performance standards. Suggested wording is as |

follows: “This rule allows for five compliance options where two of these options concern the |

attainment of The new performance standards are designed to significantly reduce |

impingement mortality losses resulting from plant operation. Licensees are required to |

demonstrate compliance with the Phase II regulations performance standards at the time of |

renewal of their NPDES permit.” (PP-41) |

|

Comment: Page 4-21. As stated previously for page 4-15, the following statement that there is |

no "clear" definition of calculation baseline could be misconstrued to an understanding that |

there is "no" definition for calculation baseline or that any such definition is implied. However, |

because the Phase II regulations do specify a definition for calculation baseline at 40 CFR |

125.93, it would be preferable to state that the definition contains ambiguity as follows: “The |

impingement performance standards in the EPA's Phase II regulations requires that |

impingement mortality for all life stages of fish and shellfish be reduced by 80 to 95 percent from |

the calculated baseline, although there is no clear definition of ambiguity as to how the baseline |

is to be calculated.” (PP-44) |

|

Comment: Page 4-22. Because restoration was specified in the draft NJPDES permit as a |

viable means to offset entrainment and is separate than modifications to the facility, this |

statement should be clarified as follows to be consistent with the draft NJPDES permit: |

|

Regardless of the determination of impact, compliance with the EPA's Phase II regulations may |

require modifications to the facility or the implementation of restoration measures. (PP-45) |

|

Comment: Page 4-22. Because the operating license for OCNGS expires on April 9, 2009, |

this statement contains erroneous dates for the expiration date of the operating license. “The |

fact sheet describes the principal facts and the significant legal and policy issues considered by |

NJDEP during the preparation of the draft permit that will govern activities at OCNGS until the |

permit expires on April 30, 2009 (the same date month that the current OL for OCNGS |

expires).” (PP-46) |

|

Comment: Page 4-23. The statement regarding violation of surface water quality standards, |

and thereby necessitating a thermal variance, was not contained in the July 19, 2005 fact sheet |

but rather was contained in the 1994 NJPDES permit fact sheet. Therefore, this statement |

should be modified as follows: “The results of the overflights demonstrated that the thermal |

plume extent and width often violated State surface-water quality standards, thereby requiring a |

thermal variance, as described in the NJDEP (1994 2005) fact sheet.” (PP-47) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-216 January 2007

| Response: The text in Section 4.1.3 has been modified in response to the comments.

|

| Comment: Page 4-19. It is unclear from the following statement as to who's conclusions are

| summarized in the paragraphs that follow this section and the age of any documents and/or

| data reviewed.

|

| The NRC staff also compared its assessment of impacts with the conclusions stated in Kennish

| (2001), because the author has reviewed most of the information available to the NRC staff. A

| summary of the conclusions associated with impingement impacts follows. (PP-43)

|

| Response: This paragraph has been revised to indicate that Dr. Kennish's conclusions were

| based on his review of the original 316(a) and 316(b) studies conducted between 1975 and

| 1977.

|

| Comment: Page 4-45. The Department agrees that sea turtles are impinged at the OCNGS

| intake structure and has confirmed that the data presented in Table 4-13 is correct. However,

| information contained on page 4-52 is also relevant to this section and should be included as

| follows to ensure a full understanding of the issue: “Most impinged turtles at OCNGS are

| impinged on the trash racks associated with either the circulating-water or dilution-water intake

| systems. In many cases, the dead sea turtles captured at OCNGS appeared to have died

| elsewhere, and in some cases, dead sea turtles exhibited wounds consistent with injuries from

| small boat propellers.” (PP-49)

|

| Comment: Page 4-45. A date should be included in the below excerpt to include a date as to

| when OCNGS procedures were revised. “Past difficulties in the preparation, storage, and

| shipping of turtles for necropsy have resulted in the loss of important data concerning the cause

| of death; recently, however, OCNGS procedures have been revised on [insert date] to correct

| these problems.” (PP-50)

|

| Response: The text in Section 4.6.1 of the SEIS has been modified in response to the

| comments.

|

| Comment: Page 8-2. This sentence as written is factually incorrect in its description of the

| Phase II regulations and required compliance with such. Specifically, only two of the five

| compliance alternatives contained in the Phase II regulations require compliance with national

| performance standards and the national performance standards require a reduction in

| "impingement mortality" which is distinctly different than a reduction in "impingement". 

| Suggested wording is as follows:

|

| The EPA's Phase II regulations call for reducing establish five compliance alternative where two

| of these alternatives concern the attainment of a reduction in impingement mortality the number

| of organisms impinged at the intake structure by 80 to 95 percent of baseline, and reducing
Appendix A

January 2007 A-217 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

organisms entrained through the cooling system by 60 to 90 percent of baseline (EPA 2004a). |

(PP-51) |

|

Comment: Page 8-2. This sentence as written does not accurately represent the NJDEP draft |

fact sheet. Specifically, NJDEP included a statement that the second alternative could only be |

pursued if closed-cycle cooling was "unavailable". Suggested wording is as follows: |

|

The NJDEP indicated that if AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen), can demonstrate that |

a closed-cycle cooling system is unavailable not a feasible alternative for OCNGS, AmerGen |

could implement another alternative, which is to "select, install, properly operate, and maintain a |

combination of design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/or restoration |

measures that will, in combination with any existing design and construction technologies, |

operational measures, and/or restoration measures" endeavor to meet the national performance |

standards for impingement and entrainment. (PP-52) |

|

Comment: Page 8-3. This characterization of the second alternative as contained in the |

NJDEP draft permit fact sheet is incorrect. The second alternative does not only require |

restoration measures, but also requires improvements at the intake structure. In addition, while |

the Department made reference to wetlands restoration as a viable restoration alternative, the |

Department did not limit the permittee to only this alternative. In addition, restoration measures |

are defined broadly in the EPA Phase II regulations. Restoration measures at OCNGS could |

include restoration measures, fish ladders, restoration of shellfish beds, preservation of lands |

etc. Changes are suggested as follows: |

|

The second alternative considers a requirement to implement restoration measures, which |

could include the restoration of restore wetlands, coupled with improvements to the existing |

intake structure and operations. (PP-53) |

|

Comment: Page 8-24. This sentence as written is factually incorrect in its description of the |

Phase II regulations and required compliance with such. Specifically, only two of the five |

compliance alternatives contained in the Phase II regulations require compliance with national |

performance standards. |

|

The NJDEP identified construction and operation of a closed-cycle cooling system |

(Section 8.1.1) as its preferred alternative to demonstrate compliance with Section 316(b) |

regulations meet national performance standards for impingement and entrainment losses. |

(PP-58) |

|

Comment: Page 8-24. The excerpt below has several incorrect references to either the draft |

NJPDES permit or the EPA Phase II regulations. First, as stated above for page 8-3 referenced |

above, restoration measures in the draft NJPDES permit are not limited to only the restoration of |

wetlands since restoration measures are defined broadly in the EPA Phase II regulations. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-218 January 2007

| Secondly, the entrainment performance standard is compared against baseline conditions

| which should be referenced as it was for the impingement performance standard. Third, it

| would have been inappropriate for NJDEP to have included specific information in the draft

| NJPDES permit about viable operational or design changes to reduce impingement and

| entrainment given the fact that the EPA Phase II regulation requires for this information to be

| submitted in a Comprehensive Demonstration Study that is due on January 7, 2008. This

| should be appropriately referenced. Suggested changes are as follows: 

|

| This alternative would reduce impingement and entrainment losses by retrofitting the existing

| system with improved technology, altering operations of the system, and restoring wetlands the

| implementation of restoration measures within Barnegat Bay to meet national performance

| standards that require 1) reduction in impingement mortality for all life stages of fish and

| shellfish by 80 to 95 percent from baseline conditions, and (2) reduction in entrainment for all

| life stages of fish and shellfish by 60 to 90 percent from baseline conditions. In describing this

| alternative, the NJDEP provided little information regarding operational or design changes that

| might be employed at OCNGS to reduce impingement and entrainment losses acknowledged

| that there are limited design and construction technologies available to reduce entrainment at

| this time. An identification and analysis of appropriate design and construction technologies is

| due to NJDEP as part of a Comprehensive Demonstration Study in accordance with the

| deadline of January 7, 2008 as set forth by EPA in its Phase II regulations. (PP-59)

|

| Comment: Page 8-25. The below excerpt concerning NJDEP's identification of 103 high

| priority sites is somewhat vague and should be made more specific. Suggested changes are as

| follows: “In its draft NJPDES permit for OCNGS, the The NJDEP referenced the 1995 The Trust

| for Public Land's report entitled "The Century Plan: A study of One Hundred Conservation Sites

| in the Barnegat Bay watershed" identified 103 high-priority sites within the Barnegat Bay

| watershed that could be considered by AmerGen for restoration.” (PP-61)

|

| Response: The text in Section 8.1 has been revised as suggested in the comments.

|

| Comment: Page 8-12 – 8-13. The Department agrees that any reduction in impingement

| losses via a closed-cycle system as compared to a once-through system would depend on the

| species affected. However, it is not clear from this excerpt how this conclusion can be drawn. 

| The following language is suggested to help bridge this gap in understanding: “Although

| impingement would be substantially reduced by using a closed-cycle this system, if it is

| assumed that a reduction in flow results in a corresponding reduction in impingement and

| entrainment, which is suggested by EPA in its preamble to the Phase II regulation, it is

| reasonable to assume that impingement would be reduced by 70 percent. However, because a

| closed-cycle cooling system does not require Ristroph traveling screens and therefore all

| organisms impinged would be killed, there would not necessarily be an overall reduction in

| impingement mortality via a closed-cycle cooling system as compared to the current system. 

| Specifically, current documented levels of impingement survivability for Representative
Appendix A

January 2007 A-219 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Important Species with the Ristroph traveling screens are around 88% which is higher than |

70%. Therefore, impingement mortality could be greater with the closed-cycle cooling system. |

Any , the reductions in impingement losses would only be evident for those species known to |

have high impingement mortality (e.g. , bay anchovy [Anchoa mitchilli], Atlantic silverside |

[Menidia menidia], and Atlantic menhaden [Brevoortia tyrannus]; see Section 4.1.2). Species |

with low impingement mortality (winter flounder [Pseudopleuronectes americanus], sand shrimp |

[Crangon septemspinosa], and blue crab [Callinectes sapidus]) would be less affected by this |

alternative. The reduction in flow may also reduce sea turtle impingements.” (PP-57) |

|

Response: Because of the large flow reduction associated with a closed-cycle system and the |

reduction in approach velocity to the traveling screens, the NRC staff does not believe that the |

impingement and entrainment mortality could be greater with a closed-cycle system. It is likely |

that the licensee would use the existing intake which has a fish return system that could |

continue to be operated during closed-cycle cooling. Additionally, impingement losses do not |

exhibit a linear relationship to through screen flow velocity particularly at the lower (0.5 ft/sec) |

flow rates. A reduction in intake flow to that which is expected for closed-cycle cooling would |

result in a significant reduction in impingement. The comment provides no new and significant |

information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Comment: Page 8-55. Any new coal plant, as discussed in the below excerpt, would be |

required to meet Phase I of EPA's section 316(b) regulations which applies to new facilities. |

The requirements for Phase I are significantly greater than those requirements for Phase II |

facilities and should be taken into account in any rating of impacts. This is corrected as follows: |

“This section discusses the environmental impacts of constructing and operating a coal-fired |

plant using once-through cooling. The impacts (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) of this option |

are similar to the impacts for a coal-fired plant using the closed-cycle system. However, there |

are minor differences in impacts between the closed-cycle and once-through cooling systems. |

Table 8-4 summarizes these differences. The design and operation of the intake would need to |

comply with Phase I Phase II performance standards of the EPA's section 316(b) regulations to |

minimize adverse impacts associated with water withdrawal and heated discharges would need |

to comply with Section 316(a) regulations.” (PP-62) |

|

Response: Depending on the existence of current units on the proposed site, the applicant |

may be required to comply with either Phase I or II regulations. The text in Section 8.3 has |

been revised in response to the comment. |

|

Comment: Page Number 8-67, Line 37-39. What is in DEIS: Consideration of a new nuclear |

generating plant to replace OCNGS was not included in the AmerGen ER (AmerGen 2005). |

What it should be changed to: Recommended deletion of sentence. Why: Consideration of |

Advanced Nuclear Reactor as an alternative to the proposed project was considered in the |

AmerGen Environmental Report (See Section 7.2.1.4, Other Alternatives). The criterion for |

further consideration for impacts was the reasonableness of the alternative. In the case of |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-220 January 2007

| Advanced Nuclear Reactor, it was judged to be extremely unlikely that this particular alternative

| would be licensed, constructed, and on-line in time for the expiration of the current operating

| license for Oyster Creek. (II-4)

|

| Response: The text in Section 8.3.3 has been revised to reflect that the applicant did not

| further evaluate the impacts of a new nuclear alternative in its ER because it did not consider

| new nuclear as a reasonable alternative to the proposed action. Nevertheless, the NRC staff

| did evaluate a new nuclear alternative based on the current national interest in new nuclear

| facilities and for completeness.

|

| A.2.12 Comments Concerning Decommissioning Issues

|

| Comment: Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning, (Pages 7-1 through 7-5). 10 CFR

| 50.75(g) requires AmerGen to keep "records of information important to the safe and effective

| decommissioning" of the plant. Since Oyster Creek is at the end of an initial license, seeking

| re-licensing, the Department is requesting a copy of the OCNGS's 50.75(g) file. (PP-11)

|

| Response: Licensees are required to maintain certain records regarding decommissioning per

| 10 CFR 50.75(g). However, the NRC does not maintain copies of this file. The NJDEP

| authorities can obtain full access of this file via the Regulatory Assurance Manager at OCNGS. 

| The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to

| the SEIS in response to this comment.

|

| A.2.13 Issues Outside the Scope of the Environmental Review for License Renewal: 

| Safeguards and Security; Operational Safety; Aging Management; Emergency

| Preparedness and Response; and Need for Power

|

| Uncategorized

|

| Comment: Page Number 4-25, Line Number 35-37. What it is in DEIS: This line is not

| considered within the scope of license renewal because it was not constructed for the specific

| purpose of connecting the station to the grid at the time of initial station licensing. What it

| should be changed to: The Conectiv line should be included within the scope for analysis of

| impacts for this proposed action. Why: This line should be included in scope. It is Exelon’s

| understanding that National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) court cases and Council on

| Environmental Quality guidelines indicate that scope should include connected actions, which

| include actions that will not proceed unless other actions are taken [40 CFR 1508.25(a)(ii)]. 

| Operation of the new line is as much connected to Oyster Creek Generating Station operation

| as operation of the line currently considered in the DEIS. (II-3)

|

| Response: Transmission lines considered within the scope of license renewal SEISs are those

| lines constructed to provide the original connection of the plant to the regional electrical grid. 
Appendix A

January 2007 A-221 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

The OCNGS-to-Manitou line was the only line originally built to provide that connection. The |

Conectiv line is determined to be outside the scope of the license renewal review. The |

comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the |

SEIS in response to this comment. |

|

Safeguards and Security |

|

Comment: I was told at the time of TMI that the reactor containment building, at least there, |

was designed to take an aircraft hit from a 727, Boeing 727. Of course, the ones that did the |

World Trade Center were much bigger aircraft. Will a containment building take that? I don't |

know. (C-4) |

|

Comment: The report was pulled from the NRC public database following the September 11th, |

2001 terrorist attack because agency spokesman Neil Sheehan said if a terrorist decided to |

attack any plant in the United States, not just at Indian Point; that is, in formulation about which |

fatalities it could cause, the exact knowledge of that could be very advantageous to them. (H-3) |

|

Comment: The report states that the analysis did not base their findings on events due to |

sabotage. No established method exists for estimating the likelihood of a sabotage. Nor is |

there a method for analyzing the effect of security provisions on that likelihood. (H-4) |

|

Comment: While the supplement to the GEIS is not required to discuss actual need for power, |

economic cost benefits of alternatives or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel or terrorist |

threat, we believe that these issues are central to decision making for the energy future of |

New Jersey and the regional PJM electricity grid. (EE-3) |

|

Comment: We are at war, and we do have a very, very mean, nasty enemy, and at any one |

time they could approach that plant from three or four directions and what would happen? As |

has been stated by some of the previous speakers, there would be almost cataclysmic results, |

and I just wonder what can be done. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that these |

results that I mentioned, these statistics were not pulled off a tree, that they have been the |

result of research, and I hold out this information for the benefit of all the concerned NRC |

scientists who are present who have certainly gone to great lengths in expressing the way it |

should be and what can be, but let's not forget that we are at war even though we don't have an |

enemy right now at our shores, at our gates. (X-2) |

|

Comment: Should we risk a terrorist attack at the site of a nuclear plant with on-site storage of |

spent nuclear fuel? (XX-3) |

|

Comment: As a New York City-based organization, we are specifically concerned with the |

proposed license extension of OCNGS and its accompanying threats to regional security. |

(EE-1) |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-222 January 2007

| Comment: The NRC is relying on a generic EIS that does not take current geopolitical realities

| or differentiations between reactor sites under consideration when deciding on potential

| accident risks. The 1996 GEIS for severe accidents at all reactors stated that the environmental

| impacts would be "small." This was done before 9/11 and without looking at site-specific

| vulnerabilities and distinctions of targets. AmerGen did not include external sabotage in their ER

| (NUREG 1437 Supplement 28, 5-7). (EE-15)

|

| Comment: 9/11 should be a wake up call of what can happen by terrorists when they crashed

| 2 planes into two buildings. Think of the death and destruction of a Nuclear Plant attacked. 

| You can be sure these terrorists aren’t going to listen to our security plans telling them to get out

| of the restricted air space. (TT-3)

|

| Comment: In particular, the DSEIS must assess the vulnerability of the dry cask storage

| systems to terrorist attack and the potential for environmental release of radioactive waste, and

| provide methods to mitigate these risks. (BBB-2)

|

| Response: Section 5.1.2 discusses the impacts of severe accidents, including sabotage. The

| GEIS findings state that compliance with the NRC regulatory requirements under

| 10 CFR Part 73 provide reasonable assurance that the risk from sabotage is SMALL. Even if

| such events were to occur, the Commission would expect that resultant core damage and

| radiological releases would be no worse than those expected from internally initiated events. 

| Based on the above, the Commission concludes that the risk from sabotage and beyond-

| design-basis accidents at existing nuclear power plants is SMALL, and, additionally, that the

| risks from other external events are adequately addressed by a generic consideration of

| internally initiated severe accidents. The issues of need for power and onsite spent fuel storage

| are outside the scope of the license renewal review; therefore, no changes were made to the

| SEIS in response to these comments. Alternatives to renewal are discussed in Section 8 of the

| SEIS. 

|

| Comment: I understand that out in California, the courts ruled against the NRC and said

| because of the design of the plant and the vulnerability of the fuel pool, that the NRC had to

| take into consideration a terrorist attack, even though the NRC claims it was very minimal. But

| the court said, "No. It is not minimal in this day and age.” (J-2)

|

| Comment: Finally, the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) submitted by AmerGen,

| while in compliance with NRC's regulations but not with guidance document NEI 05 01 (rev A),

| did not take into account terrorism events such as attacks involving large commercial aircraft.

| As the NRC is aware, the State of New Jersey has filed a contention with the Atomic Safety

| Licensing Board (ASLB) regarding this issue. While the ASLB argued that under the National

| Environmental Protection Act, license renewal does not have to consider very low probability

| events, after September 11, 2001, these events can no longer be considered zero probably. At

| present, the NEPA-terrorism debate continues with the NRC Commissioners' review of the
Appendix A

January 2007 A-223 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

SAMA contention. The Ninth Circuit Court decision held that the NRC cannot categorically |

refuse to perform a NEPA-terrorism review. The legal process will continue until resolution |

which may result in the Ninth Circuit Court decision being upheld thereby requiring the NRC to |

include terrorism in NEPA reviews. Judgments on the state's contention regarding SAMA seem |

relevant for the continued operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS) |

and should be included for public assurance of the continued safe operation of the OCNGS. |

|

As Commissioner Gregory B. Jaczko stated in a Memorandum and Order docketed on |

September 6, 2006, that considered the appeals of two prior ASLB decisions, an evaluation of |

terrorism events should be part of NEPA and that this process should start immediately in order |

to provide the necessary clarity for all future re-licensing of nuclear power plants. (PP-9) |

|

Comment: In addition, recently, the Ninth Circuit, concluded that it was unreasonable for the |

NRC to categorically dismiss the possibility of terrorist attack on a proposed spent fuel storage |

installation and on the entire reactor facility as too "remote and highly speculative" to warrant |

consideration under NEPA. San Luis Obispo Mothers For Peace, 449 F.3d at 1030. The court |

also found, as a matter of law, that NRC's position was inconsistent with the government's |

efforts and expenditures to combat this type of terrorist attack against nuclear facilities including |

establishment of the NRC's own Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response responsible |

for coordination with the Office of Homeland Security. Id. at 1030-31. Furthermore, the court |

found that to eliminate a possible environmental consequence from analysis by labeling a risk |

as "unquantifiable" is not supported by any provision of NEPA or any other authority cited by the |

Commission. See also Limericlc Ecology Action, 869 F.2d at 754 (J. Scirica, dissenting) (finding |

no "statutory provision, no NRC regulation or policy statement, and no case law that permits the |

NRC to ignore any risk found to be unquantifiable") (BBB-4) |

|

Comment: NRC had a longstanding policy that NEPA does not require consideration of the |

environmental impact of a terrorist attack. This was based on four 2002 decisions (Private Fuel |

Storage, Duke Cogema Stone & Webster, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut and Duke Energy) |

and the reasoning was as follows: |

|

1. The possibility of terrorist attack is too far removed from the natural or expected |

consequences of agency action to require study under NEPA |

2. Because the risk of terrorist attack cannot be determined, the analysis is likely to |

be meaningless. |

3. NEPA does not require a "worst-case" analysis |

4. NEPA's public process is not an appropriate forum for sensitive security issues. |

|

This was set out in a memorandum and order, CLI-03-1,57 NRC 1, where the NRC accepted |

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's referral of its decision to reject the environmental |

contentions related to terrorism. San Luis Obispo Mothers For Peace, 449 F.3d 1016. As |

discussed above, the Ninth Circuit has now ruled that the four reasons given by the NRC as |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-224 January 2007

| grounds for this did not support the NRC's categorical refusal to consider the effects of a

| terrorist attack. Id. at 6084. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit reiterated NEPA's direction on

| uncertain consequences 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.22(b)(3), (4), which requires an agency to deal with

| uncertainties by including in the EIS "a summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is

| relevant to evaluating the reasonable foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human

| environment, and...the agency's evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches

| or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community." The court construed the

| regulation to apply to those events with potentially catastrophic consequences "even if their

| probability of occurrence is low, provided that the analysis of impacts is supported by credible

| scientific evidence, is not based on pure conjecture, and is within the rule of reason."

| 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22 (b)(4).

|

| In addition, the NRC has now recognized that, if it is not overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court,

| the San Luis Obispo decision will require an analysis of spent fuel pool sabotage scenarios for

| Oyster Creek. Earlier this week, the NRC decided to postpone its review of the dismissal of a

| contention by the State of New Jersey that this analysis was essential, but missing. In the

| Matter of AmerGen Energy Co. (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating

| Station), LLC, CLI-06-24 (September 6,2006). (BBB-6)

|

| Comment: In addition, as the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has found, the events of

| September 11,2001 mean that the NRC must now take account of terrorist risks in SEIS

| Reports about licensing decisions. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory

| Commission, No. 03-74628,2006 WL 1511889 (9th Cir. June 2,2006). Furthermore, that

| assessment must be complete before the NRC can take any action to extend the license 

| (BBB-12)

|

| Comment: Terrorist attack impacts should be evaluated in EIS under NEPA: The recent

| decision of the Ninth Circuit court that the NRC "erred" in determining that the National

| Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not require the agency to consider potential

| environmental impacts of terrorist attacks at nuclear facilities. The determination that the

| possibility of terrorist attacks is not so "remote and speculative," and that they should be

| included under NEPA items for consideration. Given the location and spent-fuel pool

| vulnerabilities of OCNGS, the risks of an attack are relatively high and therefore potential

| environmental impacts should be considered in a supplemental EIS. License extension and

| continued waste generation will heighten the already elevated risk of an attack. (EE-16)

|

| Comment: NRC should suspend all licensing proceedings under the National Environmental

| Protection Act -- Policy Act and its governance. We make this request in light of the Ninth

| Circuit Court of Appeals decision on June 2nd, which considered how NRC was handling the

| question of environmental consequences from a successful terrorist attack by a nuclear facility

| by providing a public hearing and an environmental review under and as required by NEPA.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-225 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

NRC has repeatedly ordered that the environmental consequences of a terrorist attack on any |

nuclear facility is beyond the scope of these proceedings because they say that it's so |

speculative and remote that it cannot be considered in a site-specific proceeding. Well, the |

Federal Court found that NRC's denial of the public hearing on such security contentions to be |

unreasonable. In fact, it is our concern that NRC has failed to recognize and uphold its |

obligations to provide the public with a democratic hearing process as governed by law under |

NEPA, specifically with regard to our homeland security. And this is a very serious charge, and |

I'm sure that the NRC itself is not united and unanimous on the decision to withhold these public |

hearings from the public on particularly the issue that is so close to ground zero as Oyster |

Creek is to where we stand today. As such, now, this Environmental Impact Statement is fatally |

flawed by missing the analysis of the environmental consequence of terrorist attack on Oyster |

Creek. (N-1) |

|

Response: In LBP-06-07, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) denied a proposed |

contention, raised by the state of New Jersey, maintaining that NEPA requires the NRC to |

consider the consequences of a terrorist attack on OCNGS as well as appropriate SAMAs. The |

State of New Jersey has since appealed the ASLB decision and has asked that the Commission |

consider the recent Ninth Circuit decision, holding that the NRC cannot categorically refuse to |

perform a NEPA-terrorism review. In CLI-06-24, the Commission stated that it would postpone |

its consideration of New Jersey’s NEPA-terrorism arguments in OCNGS’s case, pending further |

resolution in the courts. The Commission subsequently agreed to make a determination of the |

agency’s response to the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision and will provide direction to the NRC |

staff for the conduct of environmental reviews. The comments provide no new and significant |

information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these comments. |

|

Comment: The fuel pool. Sure, if everything is working all right and it's covered, it's not |

presenting a radioactive hazard. However, certainly environmentally it would be a disaster of |

the most catastrophic dimensions if anything were to go wrong there. (D-8) |

|

Comment: There was a very interesting article in the Asbury Park Press, the Asbury Park |

Press dated November the 17th, year 2000. And it says, in effect, the tests offered meltdown in |

the spent fuel pool of a nuclear power plant because failed radiation-induced cancer in |

thousands of people, as far as 500 miles from the site, according to a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory |

Commission study, according to a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission study. |

|

The analysis of spent fuel pool meltdown also states that millions of people within a 500-mile |

zone might have to be evacuated for periods ranging from 30 days to one year and that people |

living within 10 miles of a nuclear plant might never be able to return to their homes. |

|

It also states the potential for prompt fatalities from radiation poisoning that would occur in areas |

close to the plant, the plant site, where emitting radioactive particles would be expected to fall. |

The extent of possible radiation damage described in the NRC documents is far more severe |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-226 January 2007

| than anything that Federal officials have disclosed in public forums or written statements. The

| agency assessments are contained in a special report prepared in October 2000 by experts

| within the NRC and the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. (H-1)

|

| Comment: Instead, analysis examined various accident scenarios ranging from worker

| mishaps to plane crashes into spent fuel pools, buildings. The report concluded that although

| the probability of such accidents is extremely low, the effects of meltdown would be enormous. 

| (H-5)

|

| Comment: If you all have seen the pictures from the areas in Louisiana and Alabama post-

| Katrina, all of those same type of buildings that were warehouses virtually disappeared in the

| hurricane. They were blown down. I have tremendous concern about this because should any

| of this debris fall into the spent fuel pool, it can dislodge the racks of fuel rods that are in there. 

| These fuel rods must be kept at certain spacing so that they maintain temperatures because if

| those temperatures are exceeded, they are encoated with something called zirconium, and this

| can burn. Very frequently the NRC and people from Oyster Creek will tell you that a Chernobyl

| cannot happen here. Well, a zirconium fire in the spent fuel pool is the same -- I shouldn't say

| "the same" -- is extremely similar to a fuel fire that happened to Chernobyl. The only difference

| is the consequences would be far more devastating because of the massive amounts of

| quantity of spent fuel that are in there. (O-9)

|

| Comment: I am extremely concerned because in the past month and a half three small aircraft

| have dropped out of the sky and landed within 20 miles of Oyster Creek. One of them I know

| for a fact landed about 11 miles away on Route 72 because it landed about a mile away from

| my house. There were also two banner planes that have just gone down recently within a

| 20-mile region. So there has been some concern about a terrorist attack. God forbid that this

| should happen on the spent fuel pool, but it would seem from past history we don't even need

| that. We have planes falling out of the sky here that easily any one of them could have landed

| on this plant. (O-10)

|

| Comment: I do have a little concern because of an article that I happened to read in the Wall

| Street Journal. That was on April 9th in 2002 in an article entitled "Nuclear War." As reported in

| the Journal on that date, Tuesday, April 9th, 2002, the Brookhaven National Laboratory located

| on Long Island estimated that a fire in a nuclear fuel storage pool could release enough

| radiation to render 188 square miles uninhabitable. In addition, this scientific research center

| estimated that, in quotes, tens of thousands of cancer fatalities and financial losses of $50

| billion would result in such an accident. (X-1)

|

| Comment: In addition to the highly questionable safety of the Mark 1 containment design, its

| elevated spent fuel pool makes the station more vulnerable to and attractive as a target for

| sabotage or attack. The spent fuel cooling pool is open at the top and has no protective

| structure surrounding it. According to the National Academy of Sciences' report, a loss of
Appendix A

January 2007 A-227 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

coolant event in the spent fuel pool would have long-term contamination effects greater than |

those from the Chernobyl accident. (EE-6) |

|

Comment: The DSEIS is inadequate because it fails to consider the environmental effects of a |

spent fuel pool fire that could be caused by accident or by an act of terrorism. This failure, |

among others, means that the analysis of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ("SAMA") is |

woefully inadequate. Calculations by experts show that a spent fuel pool fire could result from |

the packing of the spent fuel into the pool at high density, which was not originally intended. |

Such a fire could directly cause $180 billion and $1.8 trillion worth of damage, including over |

24,000 lung cancers. This is around ten times the amount of damage caused by hurricane |

Katrina. At an estimated probability of around 1 in 10,000 per year, this imposes a risk to society |

that is valued at between $200 million and $3.6 billion. AmerGen stands to make around $2.6 |

billion during the proposed 20 year extended operating period, provided nothing serious goes |

wrong with the plant during that time. Thus, the costs to society of the risk imposed by Oyster |

Creek are probably more than AmerGen would make from the electricity generated at the plant, |

even it operated at full capacity throughout the proposed 20 year extended license period. |

|

This means that even closure of the plant would be a cost effective SAMA. Further, according to |

experts, transferring the spent fuel that is over five years old to dry cask storage would |

significantly lower the chance of a spent fuel pool fire at a cost of less than $100 million. Indeed, |

AmerGen has quoted the cost as around $30 million, and, incredibly, has described this as an |

"unnecessary expense." The failure of the DSEIS to consider the possibility of a spent fuel pool |

fire means that it currently violates the requirements of both the National Environmental Policy |

Act ("NEPA"), and the NRC regulations that implement NEPA. Thus, the SAMA analysis must |

be completely revised and presented as a new draft for additional public comment. |

|

In addition, allowing Oyster Creek to continue to operate its spent fuel pool in such a reckless |

manner during any additional period of licensed operation would violate the Atomic Energy Act |

("AEA"). Moreover, there are currently no acceptable means of containing the wastes that would |

be generated by further operation of the reactor. Therefore, the NRC should refuse to relicense |

the reactor, because to do so would be "inimical to the common defense and security or to the |

health and safety of the public." 42 U.S.C. § 2133(d). Furthermore, because allowing AmerGen |

to continue to operate a high density fuel pool does not offer "adequate protection" to public |

health and safety, as required by the AEA, NRC should also take urgent action to mitigate the |

current risk caused by the spent fuel pool at Oyster Creek. Although Citizens do not think that |

the Oyster Creek site is an appropriate place for the long term disposal of high level nuclear |

waste, the extreme imminent risk posed by the existing spent fuel pool means that Citizens are |

forced to accept an expedient, imperfect, and temporary solution to lower the risk. Thus, NRC |

should order AmerGen to transfer all spent fuel that is over five years old to the dry cask storage |

facility and to maintain sufficient spacing in the pool to minimize the risk of a spent fuel pool fire. |

The DSEIS must assess the consequences this action. (BBB-1) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-228 January 2007

| Comment: Although an NRC-sponsored study conducted as early as 1979 raised the potential

| for a severe accident in a high-density fuel storage pool if water is partially lost from the pool

| (NUREG/CR-0649, Spent Fuel Heatup Following Loss of Water During Storage (March 1979),

| the NRC has failed to take that risk into account in every EIS it has prepared including the 1979

| GEIS on the environmental impacts of fuel storage and the 1996 License Renewal GEIS on

| which the Oyster Creek license renewal application relies. See NUREG-1437, Generic

| Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants at 5-1 (1996).

|

| The terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, the NRC's response to those attacks, and the finding

| of the Ninth Circuit in San Luis Obispo, show that the environmental impacts of intentional

| destructive acts against the Oyster Creek fuel pool are reasonably foreseeable. Taken together,

| the potential for severe pool accidents caused by intentional malicious acts and by equipment

| failures and natural disasters is not only reasonably foreseeable, but is likely enough to qualify

| as a "design-basis accident," i.e., an accident that must be designed against under NRC safety

| regulations. At minimum, such an event is a "severe accident." NRC's failure to take account of

| this new information when preparing the DSEIS is inconsistent with NEPA's major requirement

| that environmental decisions must take new information into account if the information shows

| that a proposed action will affect the quality of the human environment "in a significant manner

| or to a significant extent not already considered." Marsh, 490 U.S. at 374. (BBB-5)

|

| Comment: I specifically asked a question about whether the spent fuel pool was included in

| the Environmental Impact Statement because this spent fuel pool is covered only by a steel

| building. There is no concrete covering of this. (O-8)

|

| Comment: Thompson estimated the probability of an accidental fuel pool fire as 2.1 x 10^-5

| per year. This is around double the core damage frequency ("CDF") of 1.1 x 10^-5 per year

| assumed by AmerGen. DSEIS at G-2. Although NRC may have looked at the chance of a

| spent fuel pool fire during decommissioning, many of the initiating events contributing to

| accidental spent fuel pool fires are not present during decommissioning. Thus, the risk of an

| accidental spent fuel pool fire during operation is significant and has not been assessed

| generically. Therefore this risk must be considered in the revised SAMA analysis, in addition to

| the risk of terrorist attack. At present, it is completely omitted. (BBB-9)

|

| Comment: The Department is requesting that NRC make the OCNGS spent fuel pool (SFP)

| vulnerability analysis available to the Department since the SAMA does not include security

| requirements pertaining to the revised design basis threat analysis, including SFP vulnerability

| and aircraft attacks. (PP-10)

|

| Comment: The presumption that a terrorist attack and subsequent fuel pool fire would not

| affect the environment in a critical way is in contradiction to the warnings from scientists, many

| government agencies and the National Academy of Sciences. (YY-5)

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-229 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Comment: However, the License Renewal GEIS does not include any discussion of how |

deliberate and malicious attacks on nuclear power plants may increase the likelihood or |

consequences of severe accidents. In addition, the DSEIS it failed to make any assessment of |

the risks of sabotage. This is consistent with the NRC's long-established, but now obsolete, |

policy of refusing to examine such issues under NEPA. The rest of these comments show that |

the DSEIS is grossly deficient in this regard and is also deficient on many points of detail. The |

rest of the comments also provide a brief, very preliminary, assessment of the issues involved, |

based directly on work submitted by others to the NRC in pending license renewal proceedings. |

|

A recent filing by the Massachusetts Attorney General in license renewal proceedings for |

Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants, which are both G.E. Boiling Water Mark |

1 plants, similar to Oyster Creek, provided a quantitative analysis of the risk of spent fuel pool |

fires. The filing contains two expert reports, one on the probability of a spent fuel pool fire and |

the options to reduce that probability, and another on the consequences of a spent fuel pool fire. |

The report on probability finds that where high density racks of fuel assemblies are held in spent |

fuel pools, a loss of cooling or rupture of the pool would probably cause a spent fuel pool fire. |

Gordon R. Thompson, Risks and Risk-Reducing Options Associated with Pool Storage of Spent |

Nuclear Fuel at the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants, 9-12 (May 25, 2006) |

("Risk Report"), Ex. SC 1. |

|

The Risk Report concluded that the probability of a spent fuel pool fire is dominated by the |

possibility of a malicious attack. Id. at 57. Thompson estimated the total probability of a spent |

fuel pool fire at 1.2 x 10^-4 per year for both plants, comprised of a 1 x 10^-4 per year chance of |

a successful terrorist attack and 2.1 x 10^-5 per year chance of an accidental fuel pool fire. The |

accidental risk is around double the core damage frequency ("CDF") assumed by AmerGen. |

DSEIS at G-2. |

|

The other report submitted by the Massachusetts Attorney General in the same proceeding |

provides an analysis of the consequences of spent fuel pool fire at the Pilgrim and Vermont |

Yankee plants. It shows that the consequences of a spent fuel pool fire are comparable or |

worse than core damage accidents. Jan Beyea, Report To The Massachusetts Attorney |

General On The Potential Consequences Of A Spent-Fuel-Pool Fire At The Pilgrim and |

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plants (May 25, 2006) ("Consequence Report"), Ex. SC 2. The results |

are truly sobering. Bayea shows that, even excluding the cost of cleanup from a spent fuel pool |

fire, the consequences of such a fire at these plants would range from $87 billion to $878 billion |

and the number of induced lung cancers would range from more than 2,700 to more than |

24,000. Id. at 9, 11, 18-19. |

|

Combining the estimates of event probability with the predicted consequences, the Risk Report |

shows that a consequence of $100 billion at a probability of 1 x 10^-4 per year over twenty |

years would have a present value of $110 million to $200 million, depending on the discount |

rate. Risk Report at 58. Thus, the consequence estimates of $87 billion to $878 billion combined |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-230 January 2007

| with the probability estimate of 1 x 10^-4 per year yield a range of around $100 million to $1.8

| billion for the present value of the consequences. Therefore an investment in this range would

| be justified to avoid the consequences of a spent fuel pool fire. This is orders of magnitude

| greater than the screening value of $4.46 million used by the NRC in the SAMA analysis. DSEIS

| at G-12.

|

| The magnitude of the risk that would be imposed upon Citizens by extending the license for an

| additional 20 years has been grossly underestimated in the DSEIS because the analysis fails to

| take account of the potential for a fire in the spent fuel pool at Oyster Creek due to accident or

| deliberate attack. At a qualitative level the state of New Jersey has stated that the

| consequences of a spent fuel pool fire could be worse than the consequences of the accident at

| Chernobyl and that Oyster Creek is particularly vulnerable to an attack because the spent fuel

| pool at the plant is elevated and densely packed. Letter from Lipoti to Miller, dated

| July 30, 2004, Ex. SC 3.

|

| More specifically, New Jersey noted that it had reviewed a scientific paper which generically

| estimated the consequences of a terrorist attack on the spent fuel pool:

|

| The Alvarez Paper was available to New Jersey as was the NRC staffs review and

| comments. This paper focused on the potential generic vulnerabilities of spent fuel pools

| to terrorist attack. The paper also details the possible public safety and environmental

| consequences should such attacks successfully occur. Included in this paper were

| conservative estimates of the radiological release should a spent fuel zircaloy cladding

| fire occur due to a significant breach of a spent fuel pool. The paper states, "The long-

| term land-contamination consequences of such an event could be significantly worse

| than those from Chernobyl". The paper further states (in reference to Chernobyl), "The

| total area of this radiation-control zone is huge: 10,000 km2, equal to half the area of the

| State of New Jersey. During the following decade, the population of this area declined by

| almost half because of migration to areas of lower contamination.”

|

| Id. The letter then went on to highlight the plant specific vulnerability of Oyster Creek because

| its spent-fuel pool is elevated, it has a relatively weak superstructure over the spent fuel pool,

| which could collapse, and it is on the coast providing an unimpeded flight path for an attacking

| aircraft. Id. letter concluded by requesting NRC to provide New Jersey with site specific

| estimates of the consequences of an attack on the spent fuel pool. Id. As far as Citizens are

| aware, no such estimate has been provided. More recently New Jersey attempted to intervene

| in the license renewal proceeding to contend, among other things, that AmerGen's SAMA

| analysis was inadequate because it failed to consider the vulnerability of the spent fuel pool or

| mitigation measures to address this vulnerability. Turning to a more quantitative approach, the

| situation at Oyster Creek is very similar to that at Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee. All three plants

| are G.E. Boiling Water Reactors with a Mark 1 containment system. In addition, all three plants

| store their spent fuel assemblies in high density racks that enclose the fuel with a neutron
Appendix A

January 2007 A-231 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

absorbing material to allow fuel assemblies to be placed close to each other and fit more fuel |

into the spent fuel pool than originally intended. NRC, Information Notice No. 87-43 |

(September 8, 1987); Risk Report at 9-14. In 2002, Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee stored 2,274 |

and 2,671 fuel assemblies, respectively. Risk Report at 41. In 1995, Oyster Creek's operator |

obtained permission to store 2,645 fuel assemblies in its spent fuel pool. 60 Fed. Reg. 19,309 |

(April 17, 1995). In 2000, AmerGen obtained permission to increase the number of fuel |

assemblies in the spent fuel pool by 390 to 3,035 fuel assemblies. 65 Fed. Reg. 55,061-55,064 |

(September 12, 2000). This action was needed to allow for continued operation of the plant. Id. |

|

Citizens are aware that Oyster Creek now has a dry cask storage facility that can store spent |

fuel that is over five years old. However, press reports indicate that AmerGen only transfers |

spent fuel to dry cask storage when it runs out of room in the spent fuel pool. Robert Manor, US: |

New life for old nuclear plants, Chicago Tribune, September 18, 2004, Ex. SC 4. Thus, it |

appears that the amount of spent fuel currently in the elevated pool at Oyster Creek could be |

larger than at Pilgrim or Vermont Yankee. For simplicity, this analysis assumes that the spent |

fuel pool has an inventory similar to Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee. |

|

At root, risk is comprised of two basic elements, the probability of the event and the |

consequences. Regarding event probability, the State of New Jersey has suggested that Oyster |

Creek might be a more attractive target than other similarly designed nuclear power stations |

because it is closer to major population centers and, because it is on the coast, there is an |

unimpeded flight path. Thompson's estimate for the probability of a terrorist attack assumed that |

all plants are equally attractive targets. Thus, the likelihood of a spent fuel pool fire at Oyster |

Creek may be greater than at Pilgrim or Vermont Yankee. Although, Thompson's assumption is |

conservative for Oyster Creek, it is not unreasonable at the current level of uncertainty. |

Therefore, for simplicity, this analysis uses Thompson's estimate of 1.2 x 10^-4 per year as the |

available best estimate of the chance of a spent fuel fire. The Commission has established a |

threshold of 1 x 10^-7 per year as the threshold probability for design basis events at nuclear |

power plants. In The Matter Of Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage |

Installation), CLI-01-22,54 NRC 255 (November 14,2001). Thus, Thompson's probability |

estimate is three orders of magnitude greater than the threshold probability for consideration in |

this nuclear power plant relicensing. |

|

Turning to the consequences, Beyea's estimates of $87 billion to $878 billion in consequences |

for Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee are probably low because the population around Oyster Creek |

is larger, property values in the areas are higher than in Vermont or Massachusetts, |

contamination from a fire at Oyster Creek could contaminate major cities on the eastern |

seaboard, including New York City, Philadelphia, and Trenton, and the estimate excluded |

consideration of clean up or reconstruction of downtown areas. Thus, it is not unreasonable to |

estimate that the economic consequences could be at least double those estimated for Pilgrim |

and Vermont Yankee, ranging from around $180 billion to $1.8 trillion. At a frequency of |

1.2 x 10^-4 per year this is equivalent to a present value of between $200 million to $3.6 billion. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-232 January 2007

| Even more importantly, the number of induced lung cancers would probably be even greater

| than the 2,700 to 24,000 estimated for Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee because the population

| density in the potentially affected area is considerably higher on average.

|

| The potential consequences of a spent fuel pool fire are startlingly large. As Beyea points out

| the US government borrows around $350 billion per year. Because the government would be

| forced to foot nearly all of the bill for recovery after such a huge disaster [Note that the Price-

| Anderson Act could limit AmerGen’s liability for this huge loss to $400 million and force the

| federal government to meet all costs over $10 billion.] it would have a massive financial impact

| on the nation. Furthermore, and perhaps even more importantly, such a disaster could lead to

| major loss of life, loss of confidence, and long-term contamination of large areas. Taken

| together, these effects could have a devastating long term impact on major cities, such as New

| York City, Philadelphia, and Trenton. To put the consequence estimates into context they are

| around ten times the damage estimates for hurricane Katrina.

|

| To look at it from a different perspective, AmerGen currently claims to be making around

| $25 per Mwhr produced. Exelon Press Release, dated July 31,2006 at 6, Ex. SC 5. Thus,

| assuming plant capacity of 619 Mw and a capacity factor of 95%, the total value of the electricity

| that could be produced by AmerGen at Oyster Creek during the proposed 20-year license

| extension is at most $2.6 billion or $129 million per year, even if nothing serious went wrong

| with the plant for 20 years. Thus, the externalized risk to society from the operation of the plant

| could actually be greater than the value to its owner of its output. In such circumstances, if no

| other mitigation options are available, plant closure and decommissioning would be a feasible

| SAMA alternative.

|

| Plant closure and decommissioning must therefore be evaluated as a SAMA alternative in the

| DSEIS and Citizens believe that this is the only approach that would provide acceptable levels

| of risk over the long term. However, because the risk is large and imminent there is a need to

| mitigate this risk in the short term, rather than waiting for decommissioning. Therefore, as an

| initial temporary option, the dry cask storage facility offers an imperfect, but nonetheless useful

| option to mitigate the present risk. According to Thompson, the spent fuel at Pilgrim and

| Vermont Yankee that is more than 5 years old could be stored in dry casks at the site at a cost

| of $43 million to $87 million. Risk Report at 56. AmerGen has placed the cost of dry cask

| storage at Oyster Creek even lower at $30 million. Robert Manor, US: New life for old nuclear

| plants, Chicago Tribune, September 18,2004, Ex. SC 4. This cost would be incurred anyway at

| decommissioning, so that the net effect is to change the time at which the expenditure occurs.

| Risk Report at 32. Thus, the cost to AmerGen of this measure could be offset by reductions in

| decommissioning cost. Depending on discount rate and the life of the plant, the net cost could

| be between $15 million and $40 million.

|

| In this way, the spent fuel pool could be converted back to its original function to turn a massive

| and unacceptable risk into a lower, but still unacceptable long-term risk, at relatively low cost.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-233 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Id. at 32. Indeed, although the situation is highly uncertain, the lowest estimate of the present |

value of risk exceeds the highest estimate of the cost to mitigate that risk. It is therefore unclear |

why the NRC has not already required the risk of spent fuel pool fires to be mitigated at Oyster |

Creek and other reactors with elevated fuel pools. At minimum, the next draft of the DSEIS must |

contain a full site-specific analysis of the likelihood and consequences of a spent fuel pool fire |

and assess how to carry out effective mitigation. However, merely carrying out an assessment |

is not enough. Even this brief assessment has shown that the densely packed elevated fuel |

pool at Oyster Creek currently presents terrorists with a chance of killing 20,000 to 50,000 |

people and causing economic disruption on a scale that dwarfs even major natural disasters like |

hurricane Katrina. The risk posed by the plant to totally unacceptable and has a present value of |

over $200 million and $3.6 billion. The net cost of transferring the fuel to a less dangerous |

means of storage is between $15 million and $40 million. Therefore, there is no question that |

this action meets SAMA requirements. To provide "adequate protection" for the public, NRC |

should take urgent action to lower the risk by ordering that the spent fuel that is beyond 5 years |

old to be moved to dry cask storage for temporary storage. |

|

Unfortunately, dry cask storage not a risk free activity. Highly active nuclear waste was never |

intended to be stored at wet coastal sites in densely populated areas. The difficulty that the |

Department of Energy has had in showing whether the Yucca Mountain long -term disposal |

facility for this material could be acceptable, shows that storage of this material at the Oyster |

Creek site in the long term could not present an environmentally sound approach. In addition, |

concerns have been raised about the vulnerability of dry cask stores to terrorism. At minimum, |

the next draft of the DSEIS must consider the security and environmental risks of dry cask |

storage at this site for the current fuel inventory. This assessment shows that at present the |

failure to find a responsible approach to managing nuclear waste is causing a huge risk to the |

people of New Jersey and other states. This risk can be reduced, but cannot be totally |

eliminated, by moving the spent fuel to dry cask storage as quickly as possible. Because there |

is currently no acceptable method of disposing of spent fuel, it is simply irresponsible to allow |

AmerGen to continue to generate waste. Thus, Citizens firmly believe that the NRC should not |

allow AmerGen to operate Oyster Creek beyond its currently licensed operating period. At |

minimum, the DSEIS must assess how increasing the amount of spent fuel stored at Oyster |

Creek by 50% would change the current risks presented by the spent fuel on the site to the |

public and the environment. |

|

Although the NRC has been on notice of the potential for spent fuel pool fires since at least |

1994, the risk of such a fire being caused by terrorist attack has not been assessed generically. |

Thus, the reliance in the DSEIS on a generic determination of environmental significance of |

spent fuel pool storage during decommissioning is misplaced. DSEIS at xvi-xvii. By failing to |

analyze the risk of spent fuel pool fire from a terrorist attack or an accident during operation, the |

DSEIS is grossly deficient and would violate NEPA requirements unless this deficiency is |

remedied. (BBB-8) |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-234 January 2007

| Response: Section 5.1.2 discusses the impacts of severe accidents, including sabotage. The

| GEIS findings state that compliance with the NRC regulatory requirements under

| 10 CFR Part 73 provide reasonable assurance that the risk from sabotage would be small. 

| Even if such events were to occur, the Commission would expect that resultant core damage

| and radiological releases would be no worse than those expected from internally initiated

| events. Based on the above, the Commission concludes that the risk from sabotage and

| beyond-design-basis earthquakes at existing nuclear power plants is small, and, additionally,

| that the risks from other external events are adequately addressed by a generic consideration of

| internally initiated severe accidents.

|

| Regarding the analysis of spent fuel pool accidents, the ASLB, in LBP-06-07, states, “because

| on-site spent fuel is a Category 1 issue, New Jersey’s contention challenging AmerGen’s SAMA

| analysis for failing to consider OCNGS’s spent fuel pool is beyond the scope of this proceeding

| and, thus, not admissible.” Spent fuel pools are robust structures constructed of very thick

| steel-reinforced concrete walls and possess a stainless steel liner. They contain enormous

| quantities of water, and as a result for most events, plant operators would have significant

| amounts of time to correct any problems. In addition, nuclear plants possess many other

| sources of cooling water that are readily available for cooling spent fuel. The comments are

| outside the scope of the license renewal review; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS

| in response to these comments.

|

| Operational Safety

|

| Comment: The public's nuclear radiation risk is and continues to become worse as a result. 

| Little, if any, new and important safety-related development is occurring. I hope I am wrong

| about that statement. (C-3)

|

| Comment: Because I live in the shadow of Oyster Creek nuclear plant, I am basically

| concerned with what seems to be not within the purview of the renewal of the license; that is,

| radiation exposure, either due to the containment system being faulty or not having been

| checked. And I understand that that is not within your purview for renewal. (F-1)

|

| Comment: The issues that I am concerned about, the most important of which is that the

| containment system, which was supposed repaired about ten years ago, has not been repaired

| or looked at since then.

|

| Why AmerGen refused to have a second or third party look at that containment system I don't

| know. I would like to have an answer to that and why the cooling system that the Environmental

| Protection Agency required later on did not have to be done. That was a couple of years ago. 

| They said it would not be financially feasible. And that was not explained either.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-235 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

So I guess my biggest concerns are maybe not with NRC -- I don't know -- but with AmerGen |

and, again, with the renewal without questions being answered. (F-3) |

|

Comment: I am also part of the organization Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, which part of this |

coalition that's looking at the severe corrosion in a drywell liner. |

|

For months and months and months we asked to look at ultrasonic test data of this drywell liner |

from 1996. It was not given to us. We were told it was proprietary information. |

|

It has since come out through this public meetings and through legal actions, and the |

conclusion is that this data shows that the drywell has actually grown thicker. In some |

miraculous feat of God defying the physics that we know, the metal has actually gotten thicker, |

and this is well beyond the margins of error that could be shown in the testing, which leads us to |

believe that obviously this data was seriously flawed. |

|

The NRC did not seem to notice this for over ten years because this data was done in 1996 |

and they were in possession of this since 1996. So we have serious reservations that they are |

really protecting us, which is what they are supposed to be doing. They are not supposed to be |

trying to keep this plant open no matter what. (O-17) |

|

Comment: It is imperative that all safety factors and concerns be examined. How can the NRC |

be allowed to ignore issues which the State of New Jersey considers important? The steel |

drywell liner, the barrier preventing the release of radiation during a reactor accident, needs |

close scrutiny. Why are tests not being done now to measure the thickness of the drywell liner, |

despite previous evidence of corrosion? (XX-2) |

|

Comment: It has been documented by citizens and verified by NRC engineers, that AmerGen |

has used flawed data for 10 years in estimating the status of a critical safety component, |

namely, the drywell liner. Further, its owner Exelon had not provided information to the NRC |

about its ten-year leak of tritium at its plant in Illinois. (YY-6) |

|

Response: The NRC’s ongoing safety oversight focuses on prevention of safety problems so |

that potential issues like aging and thermal shock do not lead to accidents and subsequent |

environmental impacts. To the extent that the comments pertaining to safety of equipment and |

aging such as corrosion of the dry well are within the scope of license renewal, these issues will |

be addressed during the parallel safety review performed under 10 CFR Part 54. Operational |

safety issues are outside of the scope of the license renewal review. Although a topic may not |

be within the scope of review for license renewal, the NRC is always concerned with protecting |

health and safety. Any matter affecting safety can be addressed under processes currently |

available for an existing operating license absent a license renewal application. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-236 January 2007

| The comments are outside the scope of the license renewal review; therefore, they will not be

| evaluated further in the context of the environmental review. However, the comments will be

| forwarded to the project manager for the license renewal safety review for consideration. The

| comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the

| SEIS in response to these comments.

|

| Comment: I also have a tremendous loss of feelings of credibility with the NRC that relate to

| actually coming to one of these first meetings less than a year ago. At that meeting I held up a

| picture of the reactor at Davis-Besse, which I don't know how many of you can see, but it's

| extremely rusted and corroded. The NRC was in possession of this picture, as well as the

| operators of the plant, and yet the NRC continued to allow this to operate to the point where

| they had a corrosion hole that was the size of a football. This was in the top of the reactor. Had

| this gone all the way through, this reactor would have gone critical, and they would have had a

| major core meltdown. They assured me that they had paid a lot of attention to that and were

| looking extremely closely at this plant and would not allow something like this to occur again. 

| (O-6)

|

| Response: The reactor vessel head corrosion event at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant is an

| operational issue and outside the scope of license renewal. The event has had, and continues

| to have, a significant effect on both the NRC and reactor licensees. The corrosion event was

| unexpected and unknown to both the industry and staff. The corrosion was discovered by the

| licensee during an NRC-required inspection resulting from safety concerns related to reactor

| vessel head nozzle circumferential cracking. Since the discovery of the reactor vessel head

| corrosion event at Davis-Besse, the NRC has significantly increased the oversight of licensee

| reactor vessel head activities and other activities that may affect the condition of the reactor

| vessel head. Almost immediately after the discovery, the NRC strengthened reactor vessel

| head inspections by the imposition of inspection requirements by order. The immediate

| initiatives by the NRC staff provide assurance that any further corrosion events will be identified

| early and corrected. The NRC also formed a Lessons Learned Task Force (LLTF) to carefully

| review the Davis-Besse incident and make recommendations for improvement. The LLTF has

| made recommendations for improvements in reactor vessel inspection requirements, inspection

| program management and inspector qualification, handling of operating experience information,

| and research activities relating to leakage detection methodologies. The NRC is confident that

| the implementation of the 49 LLTF recommendations will preclude any future recurrence of

| reactor vessel head corrosion similar to that at Davis-Besse.

|

| Aging Management

|

| Comment: High risk "wear-out" phase of operation: Nuclear reactors are at the highest risk for

| failure as they approach the end of their engineered lifespan. A twenty year extension to the

| forty-year operating license would bring the facility into the high-risk "wear-out" segment of the

| bathtub curve for failure risk. The GE Mark 1 BWR design of OCNGS is such that in the event of
Appendix A

January 2007 A-237 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

an accident the containment system's only mechanism to avoid a core meltdown would be the |

direct release of radioactive steam. |

|

The regulatory track record shows that age-related damage at reactors is most-often identified |

only after they become self-revealing. Based on this track record, we can only assume that |

there is undetected age-related degradation occurring. Unfortunately, the current regulatory and |

inspection regime at the NRC has not been effective at identifying these serious threats to |

reactor integrity and enacting appropriate prevention and protection measures, nor has |

AmerGen demonstrated a satisfactory level of regard for public safety in their operations. |

Extending the operational license for OCNGS will dramatically increase the risks for system |

failure and catastrophic release of radiation. (EE-4) |

|

Comment: In spite of the best maintenance and replacement of parts, the older our car, the |

greater the likelihood our car will break down. If we want to ensure that we will get to work |

every day, safely, we routinely replace our car with a new one. How long would we continue to |

drive a car, or should we operate a nuclear plant, which could break down with dire |

consequences? (XX-7) |

|

Response: The principal safety concerns associated with license renewal are related to the |

aging of structures, systems, and components important to the continued safe operation of the |

facility. When the plants were designed, certain assumptions were made about the length of |

time each plant would be operated. During the safety review for license renewal, the NRC must |

determine whether aging effects will be adequately managed so that the original design |

assumptions will continue to be valid throughout the period of extended operation, or verify that |

any aging effects will be adequately managed. For all aspects of operation, there are existing |

regulatory requirements governing a plant that offer reasonable assurance of adequate |

protection if its license were renewed. |

|

The NRC's environmental review is confined to environmental matters relevant to the extended |

period of operation requested by the applicant. Safety matters related to aging are outside the |

scope of this environmental review. An NRC safety review for the license renewal period is |

conducted separately. The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, no |

changes were made to the SEIS in response to these comments. |

|

Emergency Preparedness |

|

Comment: The report was designed as an official NRC planning regulation in February 2001. |

A copy of the report was obtained by the Journal News. That's a New York paper. The report |

provides the basis for any future NRC regulations on evacuation needs, safety requirements, |

and insurance that compares the possible damage caused by a spent fuel pool meltdown with |

that of a meltdown in a fully operational nuclear reactor. It was developed to show the NRC |

what types of problems could occur in spent fuel pools when nuclear plants are shut down, at |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-238 January 2007

| which point the new fuel rods would be placed in the pools and how long they might pose a

| danger from meltdown and fire.

|

| The potential spread contamination cited in the report far exceeds the ten-mile zone the nation's

| nuclear plants currently use in developing emergency evacuation plans. NRC officials said the

| evacuation plans are intended to deal only with short-term radiation poisoning, which is not

| likely to occur outside of the ten-mile zone. (H-2)

|

| Comment: In the event of an accident, the evacuation route is unworkable for much of the

| area, including all of Long Beach Island. (XX-4)

|

| Response: The NRC considered the need for a review of emergency planning issues in the

| context of license renewal during its rulemaking proceedings on 10 CFR Part 54, which included

| public notice and comment. As discussed in the Statement of Consideration for rulemaking (56

| FR 64966), the programs for emergency preparedness at nuclear power facilities apply to all

| nuclear power facility licensees and require the specified levels of protection from each licensee

| regardless of plant design, construction, or license date. Requirements related to emergency

| planning are in the regulations at 10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. These

| requirements apply to all OLs and will continue to apply to facilities with renewed licenses. 

| Through its standards and required exercises, the Commission reviews existing emergency

| preparedness plans throughout the life of any facility, keeping up with changing demographics

| and other site-related factors. Therefore, the Commission has determined that emergency

| preparedness is outside the scope of license renewal and there is no need for a special review

| of emergency planning issues in the context of an environmental review. 

|

| Safety requirements and insurance are also outside the scope of the review. Safety related

| renewal issues are addressed in the ongoing safety review, which will be summarized in the

| staff’s Safety Evaluation Report to be issued early in 2007.

|

| The comments are outside the scope of the license renewal review; no changes were made to

| the SEIS in response to these comments.

|

| Comment: The location of OCNGS in a high population density area along the eastern

| seaboard further differentiates it from other reactor sites. It is situation 50 mi east of

| Philadelphia and 60 mi south of Newark, with population growth rates for Ocean County among

| the fastest in the country. The severe impediments to successful and timely evacuation of

| residents and summer transients from the region as well as long-term environmental

| contamination and population displacement following an accident are not given just weight in

| the GEIS Supplement 28. (EE-9)

|

| Comment: NRC concludes that there are no impacts since the 1996 GEIS was prepared

| (4-32). How can this be, when the GEIS referred to is 10 years old? Ocean County has had
Appendix A

January 2007 A-239 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

significant population growth and increased traffic. Have there been any changes to the |

evacuation plan? Did NRC consider expected population growth during the relicensing period |

and how that growth impacts already stale findings from 1996 regarding evacuation and other |

impacts? (MM-61) |

|

Response: The comments are noted. The NRC’s environmental review is confined to |

environmental matters relevant to the extended period of operation requested by the applicant. |

Appropriate measures have been incorporated into the emergency preparedness plans. While |

this is a legitimate matter of concern, it should continue to be addressed through the ongoing |

regulatory process as a current and generic regulatory issue that affects all nuclear facilities. All |

licensees of nuclear power stations are required to conduct a full-scale emergency exercise |

every 2 years. Offsite entities, such as the State and local governments and the U.S. Federal |

Emergency Management Agency, have responsibility for offsite emergency planning. Perceived |

deficiencies in the emergency plans should more appropriately be directed to the governmental |

entities that have responsibility for the specific portions of the plan that are judged to be |

deficient. |

|

The comments are outside the scope of the license renewal review; no changes were made to |

the SEIS in response to these comments. |

|

Need for Power |

|

Comment: The Oyster Creek contributes a maximum of 650 megawatts. And we all know that |

that is presenting a huge risk to Ocean County and to the rest of the State, certainly the |

adjoining counties, for a very small amount of electricity. I don't see a cost-benefit or a |

risk-benefit assessment giving us anything but very negative results on that. (D-6) |

|

Comment: How much of the energy generated by Oyster Creek is benefitting the people in the |

area where Oyster Creek is situated? Do we in Ocean County have any of that energy? Do we |

benefit from any of that energy? (F-5) |

|

Comment: Finally, New Jersey and regional consumers are not dependent on OCNGS for |

electricity generation. The regional PJM grid has ample supply of excess capacity and statewide |

efficiency measures and increased reliance on and deployment of renewable energy sources |

will enable New Jersey to meet future electricity demand without compromising the safety or |

economy of the region. (EE-17) |

|

Comment: The NJBPU, in conjunction with many state agencies, including the NJDEP, has |

begun developing a regional Energy Master Plan that examines the state's energy needs for the |

next 20 years. Throughout this process, New Jersey regulators will be making decisions about |

what is needed to meet New Jersey's energy demand. They will consider impacts to both the |

environment and the economy and will assume that plants will likely be retired, including Oyster |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-240 January 2007

| Creek and several aging coal plants. In addition, several measures recently adopted by the

| legislature and the NJBPU will deliver substantial energy savings and increase renewable

| energy development. (MM-78)

|

| Response: The need for power is considered to be outside the scope of license renewal

| (10 CFR 51.95 (c)(2)). The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating

| license) is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a

| current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such

| needs may be determined by State, utility, and where authorized, Federal (other than NRC)

| decision makers. The comments are outside the scope of the license renewal review; therefore,

| no changes were made to the SEIS in response to these comments.

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-241 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

A.3 References |

|

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2006. Letter from M.P. Gallagher, AmerGen |

Energy Company, LLC, Forked River, New Jersey, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, |

Document Control Desk, Rockville, Maryland. Subject: “Response to NRC Request for |

Additional Information Regarding the Environmental License Renewal Review for the Oyster |

Creek Generating Station (TAC No. MC7625).” (March 8, 2006). |

|

Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program (BBNEP). 2001. “The Barnegat Bay Estuary Program |

Characterization Report.” Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, Toms River, |

New Jersey. Available URL: http://www.bbep.org/char_rep.htm |

(Accessed September 22, 2005). |

Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program (BBNEP). 2005. 2005 State of the Bay Technical |

Report. Available URL: http://www.bbep.org (Accessed October 1, 2006). |

Blanchard, R.L, and B. Kahn, 1979. “Abundance and Distribution of Radionuclides Discharged |

from a BWR Nuclear Power Station into a Marine Bay.” Nuclear Safety, Vol. 20, pp. 190–205. |

|

Chesapeake bay Program (CBP). 2003. Hard Clam. Available URL: |

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/hard_clam.htm (Accessed December 1, 2006). |

|

Jersey Central Power & Light Company (JCP&L). 2003. Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating |

Station Groundwater Assessment/Remediation Activities Semi-Annual Report, January–June |

2002 for ISRA Case No. 99575. Morristown, New Jersey. (May 2003). |

|

Kennish, M.J., 2001, “Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey, Estuary and Watershed |

Assessment,” Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 32, pp. 3–12. |

|

Kennish, M.J., and R.A. Lutz. 1984. “Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies.” In |

Ecology of Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, M.J. Kennish and R.A. Lutz, eds. Springer-Verlag, |

New York, New York. |

|

Lathrop, R.G., and J.A. Bognar. 2001. “Habitat Loss and Alteration in the Barnegat Bay |

Region.” Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 32, pp. 212–228. |

|

McLaren/Hart, Inc. 2000. Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation Report – Radiological, |

GPU Nuclear, Inc. Oyster Creek Nuclear Generation Station, U.S. Route No. 9, Forked River, |

New Jersey, Site Remediation Program Case No. E99575. Prepared for GPU Nuclear, Inc., |

and AmerGen Energy Company, LLC. (February 28, 2000). |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-242 January 2007

| Moser, F.C., and R.F. Bopp, 2001, “Particle-Associated Contaminants in the Barnegat Bay-Little

| Egg Harbor Estuary,“ Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 32, pp. 229–242.

|

| New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2001. Letter from R. Hudgins,

| Bureau of Water Allocation, to J. Vouglitois, AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Forked River,

| New Jersey. Subject: “Water Use Registration No. 11108W.” (July 25, 2001).

|

| New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2006a. “Water Resources

| Management (Water Diversion Permitting),” NJDEP Division of Water Supply. Available URL:

| http://www.state.nj.us/dep/watersupply/wateresc.htm (Accessed September 29, 2006).

|

| New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2006b. “Marine Water

| Monitoring.” Available URL: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/bmw/sensorhome.htm

| (Accessed September 29, 2006).

|

| New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2006c. “A South Jersey

| Homeowner’s Guide to Radioactivity in Drinking Water: Radium.” Available URL: 

| http://www.nj.gov/dep/rpp/download/radwater.pdf (Accessed September 29, 2006).

|

| New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (NJDHSS). 2004. “Dover Township

| Childhood Cancer Investigation.” Available URL: http://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/

| hhazweb/dovertwp.htm (Accessed September 29, 2006).

|

| New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services and Agency for Toxic Substances and

| Disease Registry (NJDHSS and ATSDR). 2003. “Case-Control Study of Childhood Cancers in

| Dover Township (Ocean County), New Jersey Volume 1: Summary of the Final Technical

| Report.” Available URL: http://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/hhazweb/case-control_pdf/

| Volume_I/vol_i.pdf (Accessed September 29, 2006).

|

| Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2005. Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis

| Guidance Document. NEI 05-01, Rev. A., Washington, D.C. (November 2005).

|

| State of New Jersey. 2006. “Recommendation Against Further State Funding of the Radiation

| and Public Health Project for Analysis of Radioactive Strontium-90 in Baby Teeth.” (January). 

| Available URL: http://www.nj.gov/dep/rpp/download/Recommendation%20Against%20

| Further%20State%20Funding%20of%20the%20Radiation%20and%20Public%20Health%20

| Project%20-% 20Analysis%20of%20Sr-90%20in%20Baby%20Teeth.pdf

| (Accessed September 29, 2006).

|

| Summers, J.K., A.F. Holland, S.B. Weisberg, L.C. Wendling, C.F. Stroup, R.L. Dwyer,

| M.A. Turner, and W. Burton. 1989. Technical Review and Evaluation of Thermal Effects

| Studies and Cooling Water Intake Structure Demonstration of Impact for the Oyster Creek
Appendix A

January 2007 A-243 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Nuclear Generating Station. Revised Final Report. Prepared by Versar, Inc., Columbia, |

Maryland, for New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Natural |

Resources. (May 1989). |

|

Tatham, T.R., D.L. Thomas, and D.J. Danila. 1984. “Fishes of Barnegat Bay.” In Ecology of |

Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, M.J. Kennish and R.A. Lutz, eds. Springer-Verlag, New York, |

New York. |

|

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. Final Environmental Statement Related to |

Operation of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Jersey Central Power and Light |

Company. Docket No. 50-219. Directorate of Licensing. Washington, D.C. |

|

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 1997, Significant Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the |

New York Bight Watershed, Southern New England-New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems |

Program, Charleston, Rhode Island. |

|

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006. “Significant Habitats and Habitat Complexes of |

the New York Bight Watershed: Barnegat Bay Complex.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s |

Southern New England – New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems Program. Available URL: |

http://training.fws.gov/library/pubs5/web_link/text/toc.htm#6 (Accessed October 1, 2006). |

|

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement |

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. |

|

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. “Background on Radiation Protection and |

the ‘Tooth Fairy’.” Available URL: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/ |

tooth-fairy.html (Accessed September 29, 2006). |

|

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006. “Selected Plant Sites with Groundwater |

Contamination.” Available URL: http://www.ncr.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/ |

tritium/sites-grndwtr-contam.html (Accessed November 3, 2006). |

|

Vouglitois, J.J. 1983. The Ichthyofauna of Barnegat Bay, New Jersey – Relationships Between |

Long-Term Temperature Fluctuations and the Population Dynamics and Life History of |

Temperate Estuarine Fishes During a Five-Year Period, 1976–1980. Master’s Thesis. Rutger’s |

University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-244 January 2007

| A.4 Public Meeting Transcript Excerpts

|

| Transcripts of the Afternoon Public Meeting on July 12, 2006, in Toms River, New Jersey

|

| [Introduction by Mr. Cameron]

| [Presentation by Dr. Masnik]

| [Presentation by Dr. LaGory]

|

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Mike. Thanks, Kirk. We have time for some

| questions to make sure that everybody understands the process and findings in a Draft

| Environmental Impact Statement.

|

| Before we go to that, though, let me introduce our senior manager, who is with us here this

| afternoon. We have Mr. Frank Gillespie, who is the Director of the Division of License Renewal

| at this point. Thanks for being here, Frank. I think Frank may help us to answer some

| questions but definitely will talk to all of us later before the end of the meeting.

|

| Are there questions that we can answer before we go to the public comment part of the

| meeting? Yes, sir? And if you could just introduce yourself to us, please?

|

| MR. CREAMER: Yes. My name is Gene Creamer from the seashore Town of Belmar, New

| Jersey.

|

| A question for Mike. I appreciate him explaining the license renewal process to us. I noted in

| the draft environmental statement at the beginning, it referenced the Atomic Energy

| Commission for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station had issued a final Draft

| Environmental Impact Statement in 1974.

|

| Could you please explain how that differs from the current path that licensing first station would

| go through now? It appears to me that that was an after-the-fact environmental impact

| statement? In other words, the plant was already in operation by 1974.

|

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: Mike, do you get the gist of the question?

|

| DR. MASNIK: Yes.

|

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay.

|

| DR. MASNIK: It's actually a pretty obscure question. And I know the answer to it.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-245 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

It turns out that the government passed the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969. And for |

a number of years, the old Atomic Energy Commission actually resisted doing any sort of |

environmental review for nuclear power plants. |

|

And then we had a very famous decision in the courts called the Calvert Cliffs decision, which |

required the Atomic Energy Commission to do environmental assessments for nuclear power |

plants. That was an important decision because it essentially established a policy of providing |

these EISes for each of the plants. |

|

Well, since Oyster Creek was built in and began commercial operation in 1969, it predated that. |

And there was a decision made at the Atomic Energy Commission and its successor, the NRC, |

to go back and do environmental impact statements on all the plants that had current licenses |

and that were operating. |

|

That's certainly not going to happen today. If an applicant came in to build a new power plant, |

the environmental assessment would be done in advance of any construction activity. |

|

FACILITATOR CAMERON: And, Gene, does that answer your question? |

|

MR. CREAMER: That brings another question as to whether that was -- number one, I guess |

the first question I have is, the NRC with their so-called issuance on renewals for Generic |

Environmental Impact Statements, which is what you're referencing here today also, is that |

valid, number one? |

|

In other words, to date, the only environmental impact statement that has been performed by a |

Federal agency for the current operating plant was an after-the-fact environmental impact |

statement. |

|

I find it very hard to believe that a Federal agency was going to, with an after-the-fact |

environmental impact statement, come to a conclusion that its issuance or action to issue a |

permit was incorrect. Am I correct? |

|

DR. MASNIK: Well, I mean, I have looked at that 1974 final environmental impact statement. |

And for the state of the art of the science at the time, I think it was a good effort and a |

reasonable assessment of what the impacts might be from operation of that plant. |

|

Now, to say that we were 100 percent accurate on all the issues over the 40-year life span, it's |

probably not correct. But I think it was a good assessment. And I think the assessment we're |

doing now is much better. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-246 January 2007

| We have essentially 30 years of experience in predicting what the impacts might be from

| operating nuclear power plants. And I think that, you know, we have a pretty good assessment

| here as to what might happen if this plant were to operate for another 20 years.

|

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Gene. Thank you.

|

| Let's go to this gentleman. And then we'll go over there. Yes, sir?

|

| MR. RUBIN: My name is Isadore Rubin. I'm a resident of Pine Beach, which is in Ocean

| County.

|

| My question deals with the cooling tower. A natural draft tower does not require fans. Why did

| you consider the mechanical tower, which does require fans and, therefore, uses more energy? 

| That's the first question.

|

| The second question I have is related to the salt. All cooling towers will give you some

| mechanical carryover through the air or more part overflow.

|

| My question is this, this is located near a very big ocean with a lot of salt in it. And the wind is

| blowing salt there all the time. Is there some significant difference between what we're going to

| get out of these towers and especially out of the natural draft towers?

|

| Those are my two questions. Thank you.

|

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thanks, Mr. Rubin. Kirk, do you want to? Mike, do you want to

| answer?

|

| DR. MASNIK: Well, I could start, yes. First of all, it's a good question because obviously there

| are two different types of towers. There's mechanical draft, which are these low towers, and the

| natural draft, which are the ones that are, you know, anywhere from four to five hundred feet

| high.

|

| We asked the licensee, "Okay. In a request for additional information, what would you propose

| if you went to a closed cycle cooling system?" And that's the design that they came in with in

| their response to our request for additional information. So that's what we evaluated.

|

| Now, to talk a little bit about the differences, you know, certainly if you put a 530-foot tower

| there, I mean, there would be quite a visual intrusion on the skyline. And I think that may have

| gone into some of the decisions on the part of the licensee.

|

| There's also a question of costs between the two different types. So there are a number of

| different reasons. And they chose the natural draft. And that's the one we evaluated.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-247 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

As far as the salt issue, you're correct in that most plants -- and that's where our concern is, |

primarily vegetation. Most plants are relatively salt-tolerant close to the shore. |

|

However, we really have very limited experience with saltwater towers in this country. There |

are a number worldwide. But the concentrations of salt that we see at other towers on |

freshwater or even brackish water are much lower. This is very close to ocean water in salinity |

levels. So the amount of salt coming from the tower would be greater than we would |

experience at any other facility. |

|

The plants that are salt-tolerant would likely be not affected, but you have to understand when |

people move into an area, they want to start planting plants that they're familiar with and they |

may not necessarily be as salt-tolerant. |

|

The additional salt that could result from the operation of these towers could affect the local |

vegetation. |

|

FACILITATOR CAMERON: And, Mike, Mr. Rubin asked a question about salt, but I think that |

also inherent there was a comment in terms of what the draft EIS says about the effects of salt. |

And I take it that that is something that we're going to have evaluated or going to evaluate? |

|

DR. MASNIK: Well, we did evaluate it to some extent, but, you know, we certainly can look into |

it. |

|

FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Mr. Rubin. |

|

DR. MASNIK: The only other thing I would say is that the deposition from a saltwater natural |

draft tower would be over a larger area because you're starting up higher. So with the natural |

draft [sic, mechanical draft implied], which would be down lower, the salt deposition might |

necessarily be not as spread out. So there are a lot of factors on evaluating this sort of thing. |

|

FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you. We're going to go back here. |

|

MR. ALLISON: My name is Tom Allison. I'm a resident of Island Heights, just down the road |

here. |

|

On the slide you had on safety improvements that are apparently not required for relicensing, I |

guess I would like to know -- I mean, that plant is of the Three Mile Island era. |

|

Have there been improvements to deal with what happened at Three Mile Island or have these |

improvements not been done? Is it the way it always was? And this is the fundamental plant |

operation. The reactor shut down and responds. You avoid melting the core and things like |

that. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-248 January 2007

| But the plant could be relicensing without, according to the slide unless I misunderstood it,

| safety improvements?

|

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: Back again. Bob, there are two issues here. One concerns the

| SAMAs that were not related to license renewal and their cost-benefit.

|

| Related to that question, though, Mr. Allison asked, are all the safety improvements that have

| occurred since TMI and whether those have been incorporated into operating plants, such as

| Oyster Creek?

|

| I mean, there's a difference between the SAMAs and some of his concerns. And if you could

| just try to tie that together for us?

|

| MR. PALLA: Okay. Let me try to keep it simple. There were many changes made after Three

| Mile Island. Three Mile Island was a pressurized water reactor. Oyster Creek is a boiling water

| reactor, but, nevertheless, following Three Mile Island, a large number of improvements were

| identified for all of the operating plants.

|

| These have all been implemented. And the risks that exist after implementation of these

| improvements are kind of the starting point for the severe accident mitigation alternative

| analysis here.

|

| Basically, following Three Mile Island, the risk was further reduced. There was a study called

| the individual plant examination that occurred in the 1990 time period. It used probabilistic risk

| assessment techniques to further assess the level of risk at operating plants.

|

| All operating plants were required to perform these individual plant examinations. Those

| examinations looked at both internally initiated events and external events, such as fires within

| the plant and seismic events.

|

| Those studies confirmed that the level of risk was acceptably small to meet the Commission's

| safety goals. And also, these studies also, for Oyster Creek included, resulted in the

| identification of additional changes that were made subsequent to the completion of that study. 

| And these probabilistic risk assessment studies have continued to be maintained by licensees

| and updated periodically. We use the study for our SAMA analysis that's based on a 2004

| version of the risk assessment study.

|

| Now let me get to the question about the 15 or so SAMAs that you saw on the slide there. It

| said there were 15 potentially cost-beneficial improvements identified.

|

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: Tom, we're going to have to get you on the record, too. But let's let

| Bob finish his answer. And we'll see if you have a follow-up.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-249 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

MR. PALLA: Well, the 15 improvements are not required as a condition of license renewal, but |

that's not to say that they are not going to be done. And now at the point at which we wrote our |

evaluation, we did not know at that point what the licensee intended to do with those |

improvements, but subsequently, and I guess we should consider including this in the updated, |

the final version of the supplement, the licensees indicated that a number of these |

improvements are related to hardware changes. Four of them would fall into that category. And |

then a large number dealt with procedural changes. |

|

Licensees indicated that the hardware changes -- they basically identified a subset of four |

hardware changes, that if implemented rendered all of the other potentially cost-beneficial |

analyses in the baseline case to be non-cost-beneficial. |

|

So what I am trying to say is if you carefully select the improvements, you don't have to |

implement every single one of them to get the risk reduction because some of them give you the |

same benefits as some of the other ones. |

|

So the four that have been identified as hardware fixes are being further evaluated for |

implementation. And then there is a number of procedural changes, on the order of like |

15 procedural changes, that were not actually identified as cost-beneficial. The licensees |

indicated that these will be implemented as well at the time that the procedures are coming up |

for revision, according to the normal schedule for that. |

|

FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. |

|

MR. PALLA: So they're going to be making the hardware changes, and they will be making a |

series of procedural changes. |

|

FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. |

|

MR. PALLA: I'm sorry for the complicated answer. |

|

FACILITATOR CAMERON: But that's good. We are going to update the document to reflect |

that. Is that correct? We might? |

|

MR. PALLA: Yes. |

|

FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. All right. A quick follow-up, please. |

|

MR. ALLISON: How do you define cost-beneficial? |

|

MR. PALLA: Okay. There's an existing level of risk, as provided by the probabilistic risk |

assessment study. If you want to consider an additional change to the plant, you would take the |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-250 January 2007

| risk study. You would modify the analysis to reflect what that change does in terms of the core

| damage frequency and what the change does in terms of the off-site releases from the plant.

|

| So you basically translate a potential improvement into a change in, a reduction, in core

| damage frequency, a reduction in population dose. And there is a handbook, so-called

| handbook, for regulatory analysis that's used to convert these reductions in core damage

| frequency and reductions in population dose into dollars.

|

| So you basically assess a dollar benefit to the change. And then you compare it with an

| implementation cost. So if the implementation cost is greater than the benefit, the dollar benefit,

| it would not be cost-beneficial. And if the dollar benefit is greater than the implementation costs,

| it is cost-beneficial.

|

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, And, Bob, if you could talk to Mr. Allison after the

| meeting perhaps with more information on that? And I guess I would just make that point

| generally.

|

| We're going to go for three more questions. And then we'll get on with the comments. But if

| you do have questions or you need an elaboration, the NRC staff will be here after the meeting

| because we really want to get to talk to you. We really want to get out to listen to your

| comments.

|

| And I know -- is it Barbara? You're Joan. I'm sorry.

|

| MS. RUBIN: Joan. That's okay. My name is Joan Rubin.

|

| And in view of the fact that you said the preliminary findings show that the environmental impact

| on the Barnegat Bay, the aquatic environment, would be small, how can you possibly determine

| the quantifiable impacts of Oyster Creek on Barnegat Bay if there has been no complete survey

| of aquatic marine life since 1975 to about 1977, 30 years ago, with the possible exception of

| 2 small studies in the early '80s?

|

| The NRC certainly in order to give a meaningful impact statement has to compare what is there

| now with what has been. And they should certainly ask Exelon to perform a complete census of

| the aquatic life of the Bay. Without it, as I said, there can be no meaningful impact statement.

|

| Maybe you can clarify this for me.

|

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you, Mrs. Rubin. Michael?

|

| DR. MASNIK: That's a very good question. We devoted a lot of the discussion in the aquatic

| section to this question.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-251 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

There were a number of studies that were done in the late '70s and early '80s in the bay. And |

those studies were summarized in a 316(a) and 316(b) determination demonstration that was |

submitted to the state. |

|

Subsequent to that, the State actually hired a private consultant to look at the results of this. |

And they came to the conclusion that the plant was having no effect, no serious effect, on the |

bay. |

|

Obviously the operation of the plant does result in mortality of impingement due to |

impingement/entrainment. And occasionally over time we have had some instances where |

shutdown of the plant or unusual operating conditions of the plant have resulted in some fish |

kills. |

|

Nevertheless, the State seems satisfied that the plant was not having an effect, that the plant |

did make some modifications. They've put in a fish return system to further reduce the impact. |

And the plant has operated since that time. |

|

The licensee has instituted within the last year a study within the confines of the site to look at |

losses associated with impingement and entrainment and has found, at least preliminarily, |

although the data is not published, that the losses associated with the plant are very similar to |

what they found back in the late '70s and early '80s. |

|

So based on the fact that we don't see any real significant changes in the plant operation, |

admittedly there's not a whole lot of data on the fisheries within the bay. But the fact that the |

plant doesn't seem to be taking organisms in different proportions and in different amounts very |

differently than back then, it's our conclusion that things haven't changed and the plant is still |

not having a significant impact on the aquatic environment. |

|

FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mike. |

|

And I think we're going to hear from Joan later in the meeting with a comment. And she may |

raise that issue. |

|

Yes, ma'am? |

|

MS. DeMARZO: My name is Jane DeMarzo from Barnegat, New Jersey. And I believe I will |

direct this to Mr. LaGory. |

|

You say that your analytical approach for the Generic Environmental Impact Statement, you |

have two categories, a category 1 and a category 2, and that your impact levels are defined as |

small, moderate, and large. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-252 January 2007

F-1

| I would like to know the percentages of small, moderate, and large. And when does a

| percentage move from small into moderate or into large?

|

| DR. LaGORY: Yes. It's not quite proportional in that way. The way it's defined is, as I had on

| the slide, a small impact is an impact that is either not measurable, so you couldn't go out and,

| for instance, measure an effect on temperature, for instance, or the effect on temperature was

| so small that it was not causing any change in the population. So maybe you could measure it,

| but it wasn't causing some noticeable effect.

|

| So it's not quite as quantitative as you had mentioned. A moderate impact, then, is sort of a

| step up, where you are able to measure it. There isn't a measurable change in the target

| resource. Let's say we're talking about aquatic resources. The fish population was declining as

| a result of the thermal impact.

|

| But then the population was dropping, let's say, ten percent. It was dropping to a lower level

| but, then, staying stable. That's what the NRC defined as a moderate level impact. There was

| an effect, but the effect was a decline, a decline to some lower but stable level.

|

| Then the NRC defined a large impact as being one that was both measurable and caused

| destabilization of the resource of concern. So, again, let's use the aquatic resources as the

| example.

|

| And if we're looking at heat loading, if we were having a change in the thermal regime that was

| causing the aquatic resource, let's say a fishery, to spiral, to continue to decline, it was

| eventually going to go extinct as a consequence of that. That would be considered a large

| impact. So it's obviously a very noticeable large change in the resource.

|

| So the category 1 and 2 issues, the category 1 issues were all issues that were found to be

| small for all plants. So it's related to impact magnitude, but it's not directly so. Category 2

| issues can have small, moderate, or large impacts as well as category 1, category 1 all small,

| but category 2 could be small, moderate, or large.

|

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.

|

| Ma'am, did you have a question?

|

| MS. FINN: My name is Joan Finn, and I'm from Waretown.

|

| Because I live in the shadow of Oyster Creek nuclear plant, I am basically concerned with what

| seems to be not within the purview of the renewal of the license; that is, radiation exposure,

| either due to the containment system being faulty or not having been checked. And I

| understand that that is not within your purview for renewal.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-253 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

So I would like to request that, as Representative Saxton had requested, that the National | F-2

Academy of Sciences do an outside review of your review and also that the Department of |

Environmental Protection have some say in this renewal and not just one organization because |

our lives are dependent on this. |

|

Thank you. |

|

FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Joan. That's more of a suggestion and |

comment. And I think you are going to speak to us later on. |

|

But, Mike, can you say anything about the general concern and question there? |

|

DR. MASNIK: I guess your comment is noted relative to the National Academy of Sciences, but |

I do want to let you know that EPA does review our environmental impact statements. And we |

do get rather extensive comments from EPA on a regular basis. |

|

FACILITATOR CAMERON: And are those EPA comments on the public record? |

|

DR. MASNIK: Oh yes. Yes. They come in, and we docket them. They typically comment on |

our draft, and we respond to the comments and their suggestions in the final, just like we would |

with a public -- |

|

FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. We might want to make sure that Joan knows where to get |

access to those. |

|

DR. MASNIK: Sure. |

|

FACILITATOR CAMERON: All right. Dennis, can you just introduce yourself? |

|

MR. ZANNONI: Dennis Zannoni, New Jersey DEP. |

|

Is the EPA going to review this Draft Environmental Impact Statement or not? You said |

"typically." |

|

DR. MASNIK: Well, you know, I can't commit to the EPA actually providing comments. I can |

tell you that out of the 42 plants we have reviewed, probably 40 we have received comments |

from EPA. |

|

MR. ZANNONI: Thank you. |

|

DR. MASNIK: And I suspect we will in this case as well. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-254 January 2007

F-3

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: But in terms also of Dennis' question, three's no uncertainty in the

| fact that we submit all of the EISes, draft, to EPA. Is that correct?

|

| DR. MASNIK: Oh, absolutely.

|

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay.

|

| DR. MASNIK: I mean, we have already sent a copy to their regional office and requested

| comments.

|

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: All right. Did you have a question or did you have a comment that

| you want to make? Because I think we're ready to move on. Okay.

|

| Thank you for those questions. Please avail yourself of the NRC staff after the meeting to ask

| further questions, get more clarification. We do have a number of people who want to comment

| this afternoon. And I want to get to that part of the meeting.

|

| And, as I said at the beginning, I am asking you to follow a five-minute guideline in your

| comments. There's flexibility there, but I do want to make sure that we get to everybody today.

|

| I guess, as a matter of fact, we're going to go to our first commenter. Joan, I think that that is

| you if you would like to come up and just continue, give us your comments.

|

| Are you Joan Finn? Yes, Joan Finn. And we're going to go to the other Joan, too. And there

| may be more Joans, but this is Joan Finn.

|

| MS. FINN: Thank you.

|

| MS. FINN: I'm a recent resident at Waretown and hesitated to move there for one reason: 

| nuclear power plant. And I want very much not to be afraid.

|

| So I am here very informally speaking as a citizen and not a member of a group, but my

| concern after reading the articles in the Asbury Park Press, if anybody is here is from the press,

| I want to thank you for those series because they highlighted many of the issues that I am

| concerned about, the most important of which is that the containment system, which was

| supposed repaired about ten years ago, has not been repaired or looked at since then.

|

| Why AmerGen refused to have a second or third party look at that containment system I don't

| know. I would like to have an answer to that and why the cooling system that the Environmental

| Protection Agency required later on did not have to be done. That was a couple of years ago. 

| They said it would not be financially feasible. And that was not explained either.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-255 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

F-4

F-5

F-6

H-1

So I guess my biggest concerns are maybe not with NRC -- I don't know -- but with AmerGen |

and, again, with the renewal without questions being answered. |

|

I read some of the comments in the paper that I picked up. A doctor had said that the radiation |

effect on children in the area, on the children's teeth in the area, was a whole lot higher in the |

areas around nuclear power plants. |

|

So what about that? Have you addressed that? Is that in the purview of licensing or does the |

idea of radiation in the environment not affect you if you're not living here or in the shadow of |

another nuclear power plant? That's a major concern I have, not just for me but for people living |

in the area of any nuclear power plant. |

|

And the second is a question I have. How much of the energy generated by Oyster Creek is |

benefitting the people in the area where Oyster Creek is situated? Do we in Ocean County |

have any of that energy? Do we benefit from any of that energy? And to what extent have |

those alternate plans really been evaluated by the Environmental Protection Agency as well as |

NRC? |

|

So I have more questions than answers. And thank you for listening. |

|

FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Joan. We are going to talk to you specifically |

about those issues after the meeting. And I know we are going to hear more about the radiation |

issue that you raised from one of our commenters further down the line. Thank you very much. |

|

Ann Miles? Is Ann here? Hi, Ann. Would you like to come up and comment? She stole your |

thunder? Okay. You concur in those? You have the same concerns, then? All right. Thank |

you, Ann. |

|

Mr. Cervasio? Mr. Cervasio? How about right up in front so we can all see you. Thank you |

very much. |

|

MR. CERVASIO: Okay. Good. Thank you. |

|

My name is Tom Cervasio, Chairman, EnviroWatch. There was a very interesting article in the |

Asbury Park Press, the Asbury Park Press dated November the 17th, year 2000. And it says, in |

effect, the tests offered meltdown in the spent fuel pool of a nuclear power plant because failed |

radiation-induced cancer in thousands of people, as far as 500 miles from the site, according to |

a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission study, according to a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory |

Commission study. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-256 January 2007

H-2

H-3

H-4

| The analysis of spent fuel pool meltdown also states that millions of people within a 500-mile

| zone might have to be evacuated for periods ranging from 30 days to one year and that people

| living within 10 miles of a nuclear plant might never be able to return to their homes.

|

| It also states the potential for prompt fatalities from radiation poisoning that would occur in areas

| close to the plant, the plant site, where emitting radioactive particles would be expected to fall.

|

| The extent of possible radiation damage described in the NRC documents is far more severe

| than anything that federal officials have disclosed in public forums or written statements.

|

| The agency assessments are contained in a special report prepared in October 2000 by experts

| within the NRC and the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

|

| The report was designed as an official NRC planning regulation in February 2001. A copy of the

| report was obtained by the Journal News. That's a New York paper.

|

| The report provides the basis for any future NRC regulations on evacuation needs, safety

| requirements, and insurance that compares the possible damage caused by a spent fuel pool

| meltdown with that of a meltdown in a fully operational nuclear reactor.

|

| It was developed to show the NRC what types of problems could occur in spent fuel pools when

| nuclear plants are shut down, at which point the new fuel rods would be placed in the pools and

| how long they might pose a danger from meltdown and fire.

|

| The potential spread contamination cited in the report far exceeds the ten-mile zone the nation's

| nuclear plants currently use in developing emergency evacuation plans.

|

| NRC officials said the evacuation plans are intended to deal only with short-term radiation

| poisoning, which is not likely to occur outside of the ten-mile zone.

|

| The report was pulled from the NRC public database following the September 11th, 2001

| terrorist attack because agency spokesman Neil Sheehan said if a terrorist decided to attack

| any plant in the United States, not just at Indian Point; that is, in formulation about which

| fatalities it could cause, the exact knowledge of that could be very advantageous to them.

|

| The information was returned to the database in April. However, because it is an official

| regulation governing spent fuel operations and must be accessible to plant operators, I wonder

| if it is accessible to the public.

|

| The report states that the analysis did not base their findings on events due to sabotage. No

| established method exists for estimating the likelihood of a sabotage. Nor is there a method for

| analyzing the effect of security provisions on that likelihood. Thank you.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-257 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

H-5

H-6

C-1

C-2

Instead, analysis examined various accident scenarios ranging from worker mishaps to plane |

crashes into spent fuel pools, buildings. The report concluded that although the probability of |

such accidents is extremely low, the effects of meltdown would be enormous. |

|

I have here a letter from Congressman Saxton, James Saxton. And it says, in effect, "Like you, |

I have concerns about the safety and security of the plant. With this in mind, I have introduced |

H.R. 966, a bill that would require the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent |

assessment of safety and security issues prior to the NRC granting relicensing approval. |

|

"The bill would also require the Commission to evaluate the facility with respect to health risks, |

vulnerability to terrorist attacks, evacuation plans, population increases, ability to store nuclear |

waste, and the impact of nuclear accident are during the relicensing process. The bill is |

currently pending before the House Committee of Energy and Commerce." |

|

I wonder if this plan was made available to the state Evacuation Committee, which I think would |

be very, very important. I am here to try to get a copy of this plan because I think it is of great |

interest to all the people. |

|

Thank you very much. |

|

FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you, Tom. We're going to go to Tom Allison. |

|

MR. ALLISON: I would like to read you a brief e-mail that I sent to Governor Corzine which |

expresses my concerns about what's going on. |

|

"Governor Corzine, I met you briefly in Island Heights last summer, a place I love dearly, as |

does my wife, whom I met there. I have for the past 26 years operated a New Jersey |

manufacturing and engineering business in Moorestown in Riverside, New Jersey, started by |

my father and not in any way connected to nuclear power or Oyster Creek. |

|

"Island Heights and especially Moorestown, Riverside also, in fact, much of New Jersey is |

facing a horrible and increasing risk from some nuclear science and engineering issues related |

to Oyster Creek. |

|

"In the '60s and '70s, I was an engineer working on naval and utility nuclear power plant design |

projects. The Three Mile Island incident happened while I was working at Burns and Roe in |

Oradell, New Jersey. |

|

"The reactor containment building, which I believe saved the populous from a deadly radioactive |

release, was designed by a Burns and Roe engineer named Bob Palm, whom I work closely |

with. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-258 January 2007

C-3

C-4

C-5

C-6

| "The TMI incident itself was essentially caused by -- and this is a technical term -- cover my ass

| plant management. An operator moves to first operate the plant with a broken steam generator

| backup feed pump, then to turn off emergency core cooling after the reactor overheated due to

| failure of the main feed pump.

|

| "The TMI event caused the demise of the U.S. nuclear power plant industry for quite a while. 

| But, as I learned shortly after it occurred, the public's nuclear radiation risk is and continues to

| become worse as a result. Little, if any, new and important safety-related development is

| occurring. I hope I am wrong about that statement.

|

| "In 1979, the last Burns and Roe project I worked on was a proposal for the Yucca Flats, Yucca

| Mountain, Nevada safe storage facility for spent reactor fuel, a very large supply, which is sitting

| around in metal boxes" -- I may be incorrect about that; they are these things with the concrete

| on the outside of them -- "at Oyster Creek outside of any reactor containment building.

|

| "I was told at the time of TMI that the reactor containment building, at least there, was designed

| to take an aircraft hit from a 727, Boeing 727. Of course, the ones that did the World Trade

| Center were much bigger aircraft. Will a containment building take that? I don't know.

|

| Spent fuel contains dangerous radioactive stuff, some of which will take about 250,000 years to

| completely decay. I have heard -- well, let me continue. Twenty-six years after the project's

| 1979 inception, the geologically stable Yucca Mountain storage site is still empty and I think

| under some construction. And 26 more years worth of spent fuel sits outside Oyster Creek's

| containment in our lovely and heavily populated state.

|

| Many of Europe's reactors have no containment buildings. And the Chernobyl disaster gave us

| an example of what can happen when a powered reactor fails catastrophically.

|

| I was interviewing a potential employee, who came from the Ukraine. His description of

| Chernobyl was extremely upsetting, particularly the thyroid cancer story and the contaminated

| land story.

|

| Given our state's population and our precious shore communities adjacent to Oyster Creek, we

| really need to do something effective now concerning spent fuel and perhaps safety.

|

| Thank you.

|

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Tom Allison.

|

| And we're going to go to Mike Kennish.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-259 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

MR. KENNISH: My name's Mike Kennish. I am a research professor at Rutgers University. I | I-1

have a long history of research experience in coastal waters of New Jersey, including Barnegat |

Bay, Little Egg Harbor Estuary. |

|

I just want to mention one thing. I've been quoted a couple of times in the report. My main |

reason for being here was the quotes that were in that report, which indicate -- well, I can read |

one in particular. It states that "Despite large numbers of eggs, larvae, and small life forms at |

Barnegat Bay, organisms lost via impact passage at the OCNGS, these losses have not |

resulted in technical impacts on biotic communities in Barnegat Bay." |

|

I want to emphasize that this publication that is in reference to, which I have edited and |

published after extensive peer review, among other things I have done in the bay, is in |

reference to a review of other documents, and of old material that goes back to 1975-77, 316(a) |

and (b) demonstration reports as well as the BURSAR report. I think it was '88 and '89. |

|

And so that is not an assessment of what I see today in terms of looking at the entire picture, |

the entire window from 1969 until today. And largely the report, the NRC's report, related to |

aquatic impacts, they have done the best job they could do with it considering the material they |

had to deal with, but it's relatively irrelevant because if you don't take into account impingement |

and entrainment and sampling at the same time in an assessed water body, in this case a |

central part of Barnegat Bay, the information is it's impossible to draw a proper assessment. |

|

If you take the variation of a population in Barnegat Bay of any organism, at any one time, it |

could be two to three hundred percent. And to take a comparison of a population of how many |

organisms are being impinged or entrained at one time and then say, "Thirty years or 25 years |

later, you're comparing these numbers," that's also irrelevant because it doesn't take into |

account these fluctuations in the natural populations in the water body in the adult form. |

|

When they did these studies back in 1975, they did it. The only time it was ever relevant was |

when they did the work in 1975 and '77, when they actually had impingement and entrainment |

numbers and they did population surveys at the same time. |

|

So you're dealing with old data, 30 years old. Today's information in that report is irrelevant. |

And, as it's not NRC's fault, the real problem lies with the Clean Water Act people, the EPA, and |

the DEP, who did not provide sufficient oversight on the parent company in terms of making |

sure that they did population surveys routinely and cyclical or periodic in the bay. |

|

With a variation of two to three hundred percent in populations at any one time, you really |

should be doing population surveys almost every year. And considering the cost of that, I |

understand, but you should at least do it every five years. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-260 January 2007

I-2

| It was not done for 30 years. And someone dropped the ball completely. And, in fact, if you

| have a parent company that espouses that they are environmentally friendly and concerned

| about the environment of the estuary, then it would be incumbent upon the company's own

| scientists.

|

| Some of whom have been there for 30 years themselves know better that they could have been

| doing population surveys periodically. That would have made the NRC's job much more easy to

| comprehend, to deal with and provide you with the necessary and accurate information that you

| need.

|

| There are problematic areas. For example, the shellfish beds of Barnegat Bay have been on

| decline. That was a species which was a representative important species back in 1975 and

| '77. And it was not followed through.

|

| If you want to get into the statement to me that there are no observable impacts, well, one could

| contend that there is a correlation or association with that because hard clams have been on

| decline in the bay, in the central bay, for some time. There is also some indication that winter

| flounder populations are negatively impacted in the central bay as well.

|

| I am not saying all of these things are due to the plant because I can't as a scientist and I won't

| do that. I want to be able to take data and to do data as a scientist and assess things as a

| scientist and come up with an effective proper conclusion.

|

| This can't be done the way it has been done in this process over the 30-year period. The

| information in the report is not accurate. It can't be accurate when you don't have population

| surveys that are conducted concurrently with impingement and entrainment studies.

|

| And, by the way, they are conducting impingement and entrainment studies today right now at

| the power plant, which, again, are irrelevant. I'll repeat that: irrelevant unless they do surveys

| in the bay, which they're not doing.

|

And to be able to go back and say, "Well, we have 1013 | power of polychaete worm being

cropped by the power plant today, and we had 1012 | back in 1977. Therefore, everything seems

| to be okay" can't be done that way, not scientifically.

|

| You send that report out to my colleagues at Penn State and other universities. It would be

| rejected so quickly. It would be rejected very quickly. And that's part of the problem.

|

| You really need to take this information. Someone mentioned the Academy of Sciences. You

| have to have an outside, independent body doing assessment on things. You can't keep things

| locked into a state agency or a federal agency. You need to have an independent body that
Appendix A

January 2007 A-261 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

I-3

has no buy-in, no monetary reason of interest, namely an interest in doing it for scientific |

purposes. |

|

I certainly fall into that category. I have no interest in whether a company is making money or -- |

you know, I would like to help the NRC and other government agency bodies to do their job. I'll |

do it for nothing to do it right. |

|

I mean, I live in Ocean County myself. So if there's any reason for me to be concerned about all |

of this, it's that I live in the county, too, and because I do all kinds of oceanography stuff in New |

Jersey and elsewhere. So I have to be near the ocean pretty much. |

|

But, again, I have a lot I could talk about. I could answer a lot of questions. I want to work with |

the DEP, quite frankly, Susan, and offer my services free -- I'll repeat that: free of my time and |

services -- to develop a way that we should be addressing these problems at the power plant |

and in the bay. |

|

You have to do population studies and community studies in the estuary. If you don't do that, |

the information is of no value. It's essentially no value. In fact, the power plant, it would be my |

recommendation that they do it because if you just look at impingement and entrainment data at |

the power plant, those numbers indicate that you have an absolute number of organisms that |

are dying because of the plant. They're very large. |

|

And so someone would say, "Well, my God. You have all these organisms dying." Well, you |

really need to take a study of the bay population and because those numbers may really not be |

translating into a real impact, as has been said by Mike and so on and his colleagues. |

|

So it would be to their advantage to do a population survey in the bay because if it can be |

demonstrated that the adult populations out there are not really being adversely affected, then |

you have something. But to play this guessing game or not really wanting to do population |

surveys out there and just using these numbers at the plant, it actually makes it look even worse |

because it looks like these are an absolute number of organisms that are dying, you know, a |

quarter of a million blue crabs a year at the intake screens, for example. |

|

What does that mean in terms of the total population of crabs in the bay? Maybe it's one |

percent. But for a crab potter out there who says, "Oh, my God, 250,000?" the guy is going to |

go bonkers, you know. |

|

So we really need to really do things correctly, do it scientifically sound. That is not being done |

right now. And, again, I'm willing. I'm offering my services to help out, help out the company |

and help out the DEP and EPA. Part of the problem is the EPA itself has rescinded some of its |

obligations in terms of not enforcing or having the power companies do population surveys. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-262 January 2007

I-4

A-1

| So the companies themselves seem to respond mostly to pressure from outside the government

| agencies. They respond to pressure from a government agency. They're not doing things on

| their own volition in my opinion.

|

| If you go back into time, the response mainly is to a response to some requirement and after a

| permit violation or whatever, rather than someone taking the proactive position ahead of time to

| do something about it so that you remediate the problem before it even occurs.

|

| And, finally, one final point, which I'm really opposed to, is this giving someone an alternate

| remediation pathway. If you're impacting weakfish in Delaware Bay, as the Salem plant was,

| you don't go into a tidal marsh and try to remediate a tidal marsh, where weakfish don't hang

| out. Okay? And that stuff is nonsense.

|

| These companies should be -- again, in this case, it bothers me. The companies, if you're using

| a natural resource, like seawater or an estuary, you should be addressing the effect that you're

| having on, directly on, the exact problem. Don't take it to some other habitat. And that is true in

| Barnegat Bay.

|

| There's nothing wrong with our tidal marshes in Barnegat Bay. We should be doing work in the

| bay itself, in the center of the bay. The communities are degraded out there.

|

| I'm telling you, and I could write three books about this. Okay? And I'm letting you know I've

| done a lot of work out there. That bay is degraded. And we need to do something about it.

|

| And putting a fishing reef about three miles off or Barnegat Inlet is not the way to do it. Okay? 

| It's not the way to do it. You put the funds in the Barnegat Bay, not into some reef three miles

| off the Barnegat Inlet. That does not have anything to do with the health of Barnegat Bay.

|

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you. Thank you much.

|

| (Applause.)

|

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: Gene, Gene Creamer?

|

| MR. CREAMER: Gene Creamer from Belmar again. By the way, I'm glad -- I don't have formal

| prepared comments, but I do have some notes. I'm glad that you did provide copies of the draft

| report. I would like to make a reference to specific sections. Otherwise this is not going to

| make any sense at all.

|

| Figure 2-3 on page 2-4. It's the Oyster Creek nuclear generating station site property map. If

| you would just take a look at it? You will note that both Oyster Creek and the South Branch of

| Forked River west of the plant are delineated with dotted lines.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-263 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

A-2

A-3

A-4

Well, I'll tell you what I did. I checked the USGS map plot and brought a copy of it here today. |

You can clearly see that both Oyster Creek and the south branch of Forked River on USGS |

quad map are solid blue lines. |

|

That may not seem significant, but to an ichthyologist or people that use USGS maps as |

reference material, the dotted line indicates according to USGS legend an intermittent stream |

and one that does not carry constant flow of water. At best, this map to me is misleading. |

|

I also noted that this map I guess was widely distributed and used for submission to other |

agencies to solicit comments. I'll leave it to the NRC to develop some sort of standards of |

integrity when it comes to using this sort of information. |

|

Oh, I'm sorry. I guess what I'm doing is backing up away from the microphone as I speak. In |

brief, I'll just repeat. The site boundary map on page 2-4 uses dotted lines to delineate or to lay |

out the south branch of the Forked River and Oyster Creek. |

|

I compared that map to a USGS quad map, which is the standard map that's used for showing |

the location of a plant and the surrounding environment. The difference between the map in the |

report and the USGS quad map is that the USGS quad map shows those streams as being |

regular streams, not intermittent streams, as shown on the map that is included in the draft |

report. That is my first comment. |

|

Second comment. Section 2.1.7 in the draft report, I think it's titled "Power Transmission |

System." That entire section, I read through it. And it's silent with respect to the Oyster Creek |

nuclear generating station output power transformers, does not indicate their location, the |

ownership, and the responsibility of those transformers. |

|

Just as an aside, I'm sure all the people from NRC know once you have a fault in an output |

power transformer, it shuts the plant down. The plant automatically has to shut down. |

|

A lot of verbiage in that section was devoted to local distribution system and essentially a |

backup power supply. And the title of the section was "Power Transmission System." |

|

The next comment I have is on section 2.2.2. And that section is titled "Water Use." If we just |

look at page -- it looks like 2-19. You have to excuse me, by the way. I just got new glasses |

yesterday. I'm having a little bit of difficulty getting accustomed to using them. |

|

The fourth paragraph down, second line, "Information on the two production wells at Oyster |

Creek nuclear generating station is available in a water use registration (NJDEP 2001A), which |

is required for users of less than 100,000 gallons per day." That statement is incorrect. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-264 January 2007

A-5

| The 100,000 gallons per day is a regulatory threshold. The installation of equipment, which

| could divert 100,000 gallons a day of the waters of the State of New Jersey or more requires a

| permit. That permit is, I believe, covered by the Water Supply Act and is typically referred to as

| a water allocation permit.

|

| If you read on in that section, you will see that it refers to two production wells. If you run the

| numbers for those pump rates, you will see that they both exceed 100,000 gallons per day. 

| That's why they're regulated.

|

| This brings up a whole fascinating issue here. Then the section goes on and describes

| freshwater that's used in what's referred to as a fire pond. It does not describe the pumps or the

| capacity of those pumps that could be used to divert the water, the fresh water, from the fire

| poind.

|

| If those pumps have a capacity of diverting in excess of 100,000 gallons per day, my

| interpretation of New Jersey state law is that they would require a water allocation permit.

|

| I'm not sure whether discovery is supposed to take place at these sorts of hearings, but I would

| like to bring this to your attention. Similarly, south branch of Forked River is a USGS quad, solid

| blue-delineated stream, solid blue-delineated going westerly beyond the Garden State Parkway. 

| Its drainage area is significant.

|

| The entire flow of the south branch of the Forked River is diverted by operation of the cooling

| water pumps of the Oyster Creek nuclear generating station.

|

| I did a review of, I believe it is called, appendix E, a listing of -- I believe there is a listing of

| permits and approvals that the station or the owner has provided. I find no permit issued for the

| fire pond water, which I believe is actually Oyster Creek water, another stream. I find no permit

| for the diversion of water from the south branch of Forked River.

|

| I guess my question here -- oh, the other thing I wanted to mention, the section does mention

| that the wells have installed meters. And the way this usually works is that the applicant --

| those are totalizing flow meters -- that the applicant takes readings and supplies those readings

| to the NJDEP on a periodic basis. And then the DEP sends the owner an invoice to pay a bill.

|

| I know you have used the terms "small," "moderate," "large." If you look at the millions of

| gallons, I think that we're talking here about diverted New Jersey state water. We may be able

| to get things large.

|

| Also, the moderate, estimated moderate, impact of the installation of a cooling tower system

| because of the assumption that saltwater would be used for that cooling water does not take

| into consider that perhaps the use of freshwater would reduce that impact.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-265 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

J-1

J-2

J-3

Thank you. I'm not done with my comment. Well, I'm done with my comments here today, but |

I'll follow through with review of the report. |

|

FACILITATOR CAMERON: Great. Thank you very much, Gene. It all sounds very useful. And |

thanks for spending the time looking through the document. We'll look forward to your |

comments. |

|

We're going to go to Barbara, Barbara Bailine. Just so you can get ready, after Barbara, we are |

going to go to Joan Rubin and then to Ed Stroup. And this is Barbara. |

|

MS. BAILINE: Barbara, yes. Can you hear me okay in the back? I have two questions and a |

comment. |

|

I would like to feel relieved because of all the charts and the diagrams to calm my fears. |

However, still in my heart still pumps a little hard there. |

|

I wanted to ask the NRC, how is it that they missed that ten-year tritium leak? I think it was |

called Briarwood out in Pennsylvania. And nobody caught it. The NRC certainly didn't catch it. |

It was a neighbor who saw a pool forming on his land and had it checked and found out it was |

radioactive tritium. I'm just wondering why ten years when the NRC claims they're so thorough |

and they missed it. That's my first question. And I would like it answered. |

|

The other question I have is I understand that out in California, the courts ruled against the NRC |

and said because of the design of the plant and the vulnerability of the fuel pool, that the NRC |

had to take into consideration a terrorist attack, even though the NRC claims it was very |

minimal. But the court said, "No. It is not minimal in this day and age." So I would like that |

answered. |

|

The comment I am going to make now has to do with something that happened up in Boston |

very recently, but I think it's apropos. A tunnel was closed up there just a couple of days ago |

when a huge panel fell off the roof and crushed a woman in her car driving through. |

|

They closed up the tunnel. But what I feel is apropos is that the head of the Port Authority -- I |

don't know his name offhand, but he's the head of it there -- after the woman is dead, crushed to |

death, the tunnel is closed, he says to the press and the public, "Well, I want to assure |

everybody the tunnels are safe," you know, somehow that he could say that after, "Oh, my |

God," they had to close up the tunnel and the woman is crushed to death in her car and he |

says, "Don't worry about it, people. The tunnel is safe." |

|

Okay. That is my comment. And those are the two questions I have. Thank you. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-266 January 2007

K-1

K-2

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Barbara. And we will try to answer those

| questions. The first may be offline, but the second one may be important enough that we might

| want to just give an answer to that during the meeting if we have time before it closes.

|

| We're going to go to Mr. Joe Mangano right now, Radiation and Public Health Project. Joe?

|

| MR. MANGANO: Good afternoon. I'm sorry to those two speakers that I kind of bumped here.

|

| Again, my name is Joseph Mangano. I am National Coordinator of a group called Radiation and

| Public Health Project. We are a group of scientific and health professionals that do research on

| health risks from nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors. We have published 22 medical journal

| articles and 5 books on the topic in the past 12 years.

|

| I have some brief comments to make on the environmental impact statement that has been

| discussed today. Basic comment is that from the issue that our group deals with -- and that is

| the issue of human health -- my colleagues and I believe this report is very, very deficient, even

| irresponsible, even dangerous.

|

| The reason for this is that the NRC makes a very, very large presumption. They presume that

| as long as emissions of radiation into the environment from Oyster Creek are below permissible

| limits, therefore, they can presume to be harmless. And there is no need to do any health

| studies or health analyses and reports such as this.

|

| Now, I am a public health researcher. We are trained not to make presumptions like this. This

| is almost like presuming that if one smokes three cigarettes a day or less, let's say, this is a safe

| level of cigarette intake and there is no harm involved and no need to do health studies.

|

| Well, the more professional way to go about it is to don't make any such presumption, to do the

| health studies, especially when we have a long history in the atomic age of presumptions of low

| dose being safe later found out to being the reverse, to being harmful.

|

| Years ago, doctors did X-rays, pelvic X-rays, on women who were pregnant. Up until the

| 1970s, they were found to increase childhood cancer. Discontinued.

|

| For many years, the government said that the bomb tests from Nevada did no harm to

| Americans. In 1997, a federal study showed that as many as 212,000 Americans suffered

| thyroid cancer from the tests.

|

| For years, the government said that workers in nuclear weapons plants were not harmed. In

| 2000, the government reversed their policy and passed a law, agreeing to compensate cancer

| victims who worked in nuclear weapons plants. So we must take the same approach here with

| routine emissions, low dose that they are, with nuclear power plants.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-267 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

K-3

K-4

K-5

K-6

A good environmental impact statement I believe should contain information on at least four |

items: the amount of emissions, the amount of radioactivity in the environment, the amount of |

radioactivity in bodies of people living near nuclear plants, and cancer rates in the local area. |

Our group has done considerable work on this near Oyster Creek and near other nuclear plants. |

|

As far as the first one, emissions, go, Oyster Creek, of the 103 reactors now operating in the |

United States, Oyster Creek has emitted the greatest amount of airborne radioactivity, of any of |

the reactors, something around 77 curies, what we call iodine-131 and particulates, anything |

with, you know, a half-life of 8 days or more, and 5 times as much as was officially released at |

Three Mile Island. Okay. |

|

Even individual chemicals, such as strontium-90, strontium-89, iodine-131, barium-140, Oyster |

Creek consistently ranks in the top five reactors in the United States. You can go right on the |

NRC Web site and find out the data for the last couple of years. |

|

Number two, environmental radioactivity. If you go to the Web site that's run by the EPA, they |

have extensive data on levels of radioactivity in the environment, in the air and the water and |

the soil and so forth. |

|

Water-borne radioactivity in Waretown, which is just one mile from the plant, is between 2 times |

and 10 times as high as that at Trenton, for example, which is 50 miles from here. |

|

Number three, in-body levels of radiation. Until our group came along, no one had ever done |

any sort of a study on how much radiation was in bodies of people who live near nuclear power |

plants. Okay? |

|

We began in 1998 something called the baby tooth study or the tooth fairy study. It is not a new |

idea. It has been done in the past before. A group of scientists from St. Louis in the '50s and |

'60s did a study of strontium-90 in baby teeth that resulted from bomb test fallout. There have |

been studies of strontium-90 after Chernobyl. There's another one of near the Sellafield plant in |

England. |

|

Our study has looked at almost 5,000 teeth. Over 600 are from New Jersey. We have found a |

couple of alarming things. Near every plant, including Oyster Creek, number one, from the late |

'80s to the late '90s, the average strontium-90 in baby teeth of local children has increased |

about 50 percent. |

|

Now, one of the handouts in the back is a fact sheet on the baby tooth study, which says that |

the study has been discredited. Well, I beg to differ. We have published articles in five different |

medical journals. That has gotten the peer review stamp of approval from experts, who say the |

study is worthy of publication. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-268 January 2007

K-7

K-8

| The contention of people who oppose the study is that the strontium-90 that comes out of the

| reactors that gets into people's body, it's all leftover bomb test fallout from the '50s and '60s. 

| Well, if that were the case, why did we find such a sharp increase near Oyster Creek, near

| Limerick, near Indian Point, near Millstone, near the reactors in Florida, and so forth?

|

| The final point in cancer. You can't in my opinion and my colleagues' opinion recommend that a

| reactor operate for another 20 years without doing a good report card of what the health status

| and health changes have been in the local area in the first 37 years this plant has been running.

|

| The statistics, we certainly haven't done a comprehensive review, but we have certainly gone

| through childhood cancer statistics. And they're quite poor.

|

| Ocean and Monmouth Counties for years have been much higher than state or national, about

| 25 percent higher. The cancer death rate among children in these 2 counties is something like

| 43 percent higher in the last decade.

|

| You all well know that in about a decade ago, there was a large, the revelation of a large,

| outbreak of childhood cancer in Toms River, which is right here and close to Oyster Creek.

|

| Now, the State Health Department looked for something like 6 years and spent $10 million,

| found no environmental connections, but this shouldn't end it. When we have this many great

| concerns here, we should not be giving carte blanche or this reactor to operate another 20

| years.

|

| So I say, in conclusion, I urge the NRC, number one, to commission independent health studies

| on these topics; number two, to not take any position on reactor extension until these issues

| have been completely examined and completely resolved because there is nothing more

| important than human health.

|

| Thank you for your time.

|

| (Applause.)

|

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you, Joe, for coming down. And, as Joe pointed out, he and

| his group have been involved in this for a long time. And there's been an extensive dialogue

| with the NRC on this. Joe mentioned that the NRC has done an assessment. And, from his

| remarks, obviously he disagrees with it. But it is back on the table for those of you who want to

| read that piece.

|

| Now we're going to go back to -- is it Joan? -- Joan Rubin. Thank you, Joan.

|

| MS. RUBIN: Hello. Thank you. Thank you. I hope that's good. Okay.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-269 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

D-1

D-2

D-3

D-4

D-5

D-6

D-7

Well, I came here today. I am definitely opposed to the relicensing of Oyster Creek, but I came |

here wanting to hear what was being said. And I have to say that I think now that I evaluate that |

report from my limited background. But I have to say that I think it's junk science. |

|

I think that these conclusions of the NRC are based on all data, a static attitude towards the |

data that does exist, an assumption that if things haven't gotten worse, they're all right and in |

general a very negative, not caring attitude about public welfare. |

|

First of all, let's just talk about something that Joe Mangano said, I guess, the radioactive |

emissions, which are put out, which is okay with the NRC. However, recently the National |

Academy of Sciences in their BEIR VII, which is an acronym, said that no amount of radiation is |

acceptable. Any amount is dangerous. |

|

And we know that we see around us the incidence of cancer, for instance, is just on the |

increase. But that is obviously anecdotal. I haven't done a scientific study. Why hasn't the |

NRC changed its category 1 evaluation? In other words, this is small, a small risk. |

|

Then we have the idea of Barnegat Bay corruption. Now, that was addressed by Professor |

Kennish. And there's really nothing I could add. He's an expert. But the point is that the NRC |

relies on data 30 years old. That's unacceptable. And this is what we are supposed to swallow |

as the public. |

|

Another thing, I am at a loss to understand how the substitution of such passive energy sources |

as wind or solar power could have a moderate or large effect as compared to the small effect of |

the plant. |

|

I mean, common sense tells you that perhaps there would be some initial disruption of the |

environment in the building of these energy sources, but ultimately it is bound to have a small. |

Sure, if you're going to compare it with an unclean coal plant, I mean, your worst possible case, |

just like the cooling towers are the outdated type of cooling power for a nuclear plant. They |

should be natural draft and not mechanical or forced draft. I mean, if you're going to compare |

things like that, that is unforgivable in my opinion. |

|

The Oyster Creek contributes a maximum of 650 megawatts. And we all know that that is |

presenting a huge risk to Ocean County and to the rest of the state, certainly the adjoining |

counties, for a very small amount of electricity. I don't see a cost-benefit or a risk-benefit |

assessment giving us anything but very negative results on that. |

|

You know Barbara mentioned the tritium problem. That's only beginning the contamination of |

our groundwater by tritium. It happens to be able to spread very easily, and that hasn't even |

been considered. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-270 January 2007

D-8

D-9

L-1

L-2

| The fuel pool. Sure, if everything is working all right and it's covered, it's not presenting a

| radioactive hazard. However, certainly environmentally it would be a disaster of the most

| catastrophic dimensions if anything were to go wrong there.

|

| I just close by saying that I am very disappointed, more than disappointed. I feel that they are

| marketing a bill of goods that is detrimental to our welfare here in Ocean County and the State

| of New Jersey.

|

| Thank you.

|

| (Applause.)

|

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Joan.

|

| We're going to go to John Rayment next and then to Ed Stroup and then to Edith Gbur. This is

| John Rayment.

|

| MR. RAYMENT: Thanks.

|

| As the gentleman said, I'm John Rayment. I'm an employee of Oyster Creek. I've been there

| for 25 years as a radiation protection technician. I'm also a member of the International

| Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a group that was formed initially to watch out for the safety of

| linemen. So we're very interested in safety.

|

| I'm very interested in not only nuclear safety but industrial safety at the plant. I'm just here to tell

| you that I believe that Oyster Creek should get a license extension.

|

| The members of IBEW local 1289 are at the plant 24 hours a day 7 days a week. We don't see

| old data. We see data that is happening right now every day. And I can tell you that the plant is

| run safe, and we are committed to making sure it continues to run safe.

|

| I live in Barnegat, which is less than five miles away from Oyster Creek. My wife and my

| children are within five miles of the plant. So are my parents. So is my brother. And I would

| never compromise their safety to see the power plant continue to run.

|

| My expertise is in radiation protection, and I can tell you that Oyster Creek is a safe plant, both

| radiologically and as far as the environmental is concerned.

|

| We have the operators and the radiation protection technicians, the mechanics, who are highly

| trained individuals who care, first of all, about the operation of the plant and the safety of the

| public and the safety of our families.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-271 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

M-1

M-2

Thank you. |

|

(Applause.) |

|

FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, John. |

|

Next we have Ed Stroup. |

|

MR. STROUP: Thank you. |

|

My name is Ed Stroup. I'm President of local 1289. I represent about 230 bargaining unit |

members at Oyster Creek. I can tell you you are going to hear a common theme between what |

John just told you and I am going to say. |

|

Both John's remarks and my remarks were prepared independently. Neither of us talked to the |

other one about what we were going to say, but what we do know is Oyster Creek and the |

people that work there. And I think that you're going to see a common theme between the two |

based on our firsthand knowledge of the plant and the people who work there. |

|

Our members are highly skilled and highly trained, as is everyone at Oyster Creek: union, |

management, and security. Each is a skilled professional in their field. I can assure you they all |

take their responsibility seriously and work hard to ensure the safety of the public and the |

environment all day every day. |

|

It is my belief that one of the great injustices in this whole relicensing process is that these |

dedicated professionals along with the NRC and the state police are treated with contempt and |

referred to basically as incompetent by some whose only agenda is to close Oyster Creek and |

all nuclear plants. |

|

Our members live and work in the local community. Their families live close to the plant, and |

their children go to school here. Our lives and those we love are local to Oyster Creek along |

with the public that we serve. |

|

We would never compromise our principles or the safety of the plant and the public. Oyster |

Creek produces enough energy to power 600,000 and adds $52 million a year to the local |

economy. |

|

We contributed $202,000 to United Way last year and over half a million over the last 3 years. |

We contributed $80,000 last year to the New Jersey DEP Fish and Wildlife Department and |

$5,000 to the Audubon Society to help clean water fowl affected by the Delaware River oil spill. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-272 January 2007

M-3

M-4

M-5

M-6

| Oyster Creek sponsored and installed an artificial reef in the bay working with the New Jersey

| DEP. At the same time it was undertaking these environmental projects, Oyster Creek

| produced zero carbon emissions and avoided 7.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide that

| replacement power would have produced.

|

| Oyster Creek avoids carbon emissions equal to more than two million cars per year or, to put it

| in a different way, an amount equal to half of all the motor vehicles in New Jersey.

|

| At Oyster Creek, we work hard to protect the environment, including Barnegat Bay. On a

| day-to-day, hour-to-hour basis, we monitor water temperatures and regularly take water

| samples to ensure safety.

|

| We coordinate any planned load reductions or shutdowns to avoid any risks to marine life. This

| is a costly practice but essential to meet out commitment to the environment.

|

| I can assure you our members as well as management and security are all highly trained, highly

| skilled professionals who take their responsibilities seriously. Their first priority is to protect the

| public and the environment. They ensure that Oyster Creek is a safe, clean, reliable,

| environmentally friendly plant all day every day.

|

| It is for all these reasons and others that I urge you to relicense Oyster Creek. Thank you.

|

| (Applause.)

|

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Ed.

|

| Edith Gbur was up next, and she was just here. I don't know if she left. We'll wait. Maybe she'll

| be back.

|

| Is there a Kevin Commons here? Yes? Kevin, did you want to talk?

|

| MR. COMMONS: No.

|

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Kevin.

|

| Gina Guerrazzi? And, Gina -- no. All right.

|

| How about Jeff, Jeff Munyan?

|

| MR. MUNYAN: No.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-273 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

B-1

B-2

B-3

FACILITATOR CAMERON: All right. Oh, here comes Edith. Edith? No, she doesn't? |

Tonight? Okay. Edith will be back tonight. |

|

Isadore Rubin, did you want to comment to us? Why don't you come up? |

|

MR. RUBIN: Good afternoon. My name is Rubin. I live in Pine Beach. |

|

I asked the question before about the cooling towers. And I received an answer that puzzles |

me. So I want to go back to that again. |

|

Recently I was asked to be chaperon at a high school dance. And I was asked by one of the |

young ladies to dance. And I said, "Well, maybe if you play a waltz, I'll do a dance but not this |

hard rock." |

|

I don't understand this thing with the cooling tower. The most efficient thing is a natural draft |

tower. I don't know why AmerGen asked the NRC to put in the mechanical draft, but why didn't |

the NRC say, "No. These are more efficient. Let's use them"? And what is the impact from |

them? Would they be less? |

|

I also don't understand something else. At the present time, to get the plant to work, they have |

to have cooling water in the condensers. That's what they take out of the bay and put back in. |

In order to do that, the water comes out of the reactor at a temperature that they can't return |

directly to the bay. |

|

So they have a lot more water that they pump a round and they do the loop and they put them |

together. They drop the temperature and put it back in the bay. If you have a cooling tower, |

you won't need to do any of that. And the only thing you've got to make up is essentially the |

evaporation. |

|

I quickly looked at a report. It says they would reduce the water usage 70 percent. It seemed to |

me they have reduced it 90 percent. I understand where the 70 percent number comes from. |

So I think I've been given answers that really are not quite correct. |

|

As far as the safety of the thing is concerned -- and there have been these two gentlemen just |

speak about their interest in maintaining the thing safe -- as a layman, I don't know where the |

escaped gases are vented from the existing system. |

|

I assume that they go up that tall stack that's there. So I have had that question before, and I |

still have that question. Are there monitors at the top of the stack? Are there records for telling |

us what is coming out? |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-274 January 2007

| I think that would be useful for the average citizen and it be important for the NRC to consider

| that as positive proof of what they're doing or where the plant is going. And, therefore, I feel

| that those questions should be answered before the NRC says, "Okay. You can go ahead for

| another 20 years."

|

| Thank you.

|

| FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you.

|

| Mike Masnik and Kirk will talk to you about that issue after we're done with the meeting. And I

| know that we're going to go to Barbara Bailine with some information hopefully or perhaps about

| the tritium and also about the court case in California.

|

| That's the last speaker that we had signed up for this afternoon's session. And you know we

| are going to be back here tonight to open house at 6:00 and the meeting starting at 7:00. So

| please feel free to join us at that time.

|

| I'm going to ask Frank Gillespie, who is the Division Director of License Renewal -- all license

| renewals come under Frank's watch -- to close the meeting out for us.

|

| Frank, do you want to use this or do you want to get up there, whatever you prefer?

|

| [Presentation by Dr. Gillespie]

|

| Transcripts of the Evening Public Meeting on July 12, 2006, in Toms River, New Jersey

|

| [Introduction by Mr. Cameron]

| [Presentation by Dr. Masnik]

| [Presentation by Dr. LaGory]

|

| MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Kirk.

|

| We have time for some questions about the process or about the Draft Environmental Impact

| Statement. Paul.

|

| MR. GUNTER: My name is Paul Gunter, and I'm with Nuclear Information and Resource

| Service.

|

| I'm wondering if NRC can give me some insight. Just briefly on June 2nd, 2006, the Ninth

| Circuit Federal Appellate Court in California rendered a decision that the environmental reviews

| that NRC conducts with regard to all -- you know, particularly the license extensions, must

| consider the environmental consequences of a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-275 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

And I know that one of the contentions that was submitted on November 14th, 2005, by the |

State of New Jersey addressed exactly this issue under SAMA. |

|

So my question is: what is NRC doing right now to reconsider and reevaluate the impact of the |

Ninth Circuit decision on this proceeding and other proceedings? |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Paul. |

|

I'm going to ask Mitzi Young of our Office of General Counsel to speak to that. Mitzi. |

|

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Chip. |

|

Good evening, everyone. Paul, I hate to disagree with your interpretation of the Court's ruling, |

but it did not address license renewal. It addressed the assessment of environmental impacts |

for an independent spent fuel storage facility at Diablo Canyon. That decision is currently being |

considered. Whether the government will file an appeal, the time for that has been extended |

and decisions will be made on that until late August. |

|

So the NRC, Department of Justice, the government in general is trying to decide how best to |

respond to that decision. |

|

MR. GUNTER: Not to have a back-and-forth on this, but would you agree that the Ninth Circuit |

does have impact on NEPA proceedings? The NRC had previously stated that the |

consequences of an act of terrorism are so remote and speculative that they cannot be raised |

under a NEPA proceeding. |

|

The license renewal process is governed by NEPA. So am I correct in stating that the Ninth |

Circuit does bear on all NEPA proceedings? At least it raises it as a precedent court decision. |

|

MS. YOUNG: As a government attorney I'm certainly not here to advise a member of the public |

specifically, but, yes, the decision does question whether the exclusion for the independent |

spent fuel pool installation of analysis of impacts was appropriate in terms of a NEPA statement, |

and that's the extent of the ruling. |

|

What the impact is for all of NRC's program is still being under consideration by the Commission |

and Department of Justice. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay, and I guess it's a watch the space to see what the Commission, and as |

you phrased it, the Government, since the Department of Justice is involved, decides to do with |

this, and I suppose there's a whole range of possibilities that we don't even want to speculate |

on, but it could at one end of the spectrum possibly go there. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-276 January 2007

| MS. YOUNG: I neglected to mention in terms of New Jersey's concern specifically -- I'm sorry --

| in terms of New Jersey's concern specifically, I believe there have been filings in a number of

| cases before the NRC, including Oyster Creek where the proponents of the case, Mothers for

| Peace. Their counsel has filed with the Commission specifically a statement saying, "Please

| consider this as controlling precedent."

|

| So that argument has been raised with the Commission and the Commission will have to deal

| with it.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Mitzi. Thanks, Paul.

|

| Other questions on the process? Yes.

|

| MR. WARREN: Yes, actually I have a question. I was wondering does the Environmental

| Impact Statement that you were reviewing here today cover the spent fuel pool at Oyster Creek.

|

| DR. MASNIK: In what fashion? In other words, the document does describe the facility and

| state that there is a spent fuel pool.

|

| MR. WARREN: I guess specifically in the vulnerability of the spent fuel pool to a terrorist

| incident or in the consequences of our problem with the spent fuel pool per se, a zirconium

| cladding fire, and the environmental impact that that would cause.

|

| DR. MASNIK: No, it does not. The issue of sabotage or terrorism is outside the scope of the

| license renewal as I had stated during my talk. So it's not covered from the standpoint of

| terrorism or sabotage.

|

| MR. WARREN: Okay. How about an accident that might be caused, say, by a hurricane, such

| as debris from the building being blown into the spent fuel pool?

|

| DR. MASNIK: Again, that is an issue that is an ongoing concern, and it's covered under the

| current operating license. So those kinds of concerns are a day-to-day concern on the NRC,

| and it's outside the scope of the license renewal.

|

| MR. WARREN: I mean, so it's outside the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement. Is

| that what you're saying?

|

| DR. MASNIK: That's correct, outside the scope of our environmental review for that facility.

|

| MR. WARREN: So the Environmental Impact Statement does not include anything to do with –

|

| DR. MASNIK: It does not.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-277 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

MR. WARREN: -- possible contamination from an accident from the spent fuel pool? |

|

DR. MASNIK: It does not. |

|

MR. WARREN: Okay. Another question I had is you had mentioned that in the combination of |

looking at the alternatives to the plant, you mentioned the combination included oil, gas, coal |

and combination. Does that mean that wind, solar, tidal and conservation were excluded when |

you were assessing the alternative to re-licensing the plant? |

|

DR. MASNIK: What we did was we looked at the alternatives, alternative power generation |

from a number of different sources of generation, and we recognized that one of the possible |

ways of replacing the power would be a combination of alternatives, and that's the one we |

talked about, a combination. |

|

We also looked at solar and some of the other newer technologies as well as alternatives, but |

we did not consider them in a combination I guess to answer your question. |

|

MR. WARREN: Okay. So none of the non-fossil fuel alternatives, none of them were |

considered in a combination as an alternative to re-licensing the plant is basically what I'm |

getting here. Am I correct in assuming that? |

|

DR. LaGORY: The combination of alternatives that we looked at was a 530 megawatt natural |

gas plant together with conservation, 40 megawatts conservation and 70 megawatts of |

purchased power. That was the combination of alternatives that we evaluated. |

|

We looked at alternate energy sources as single energy sources for full replacement. So we |

looked at solar, and we looked at wind as a replacement possibility. We did evaluate those |

alternatives, but they weren't part of the combination suite that we evaluated. |

|

MR. WARREN: Is it your intention to look at those in a combination in deciding alternatives to |

re-licensing this plant? |

|

DR. LaGORY: The combination, I mean, we can take that as a comment. Right now our |

alternative evaluation, we feel, is covering a broad spectrum of the alternatives possible. A |

combination of alternatives, if you will, where you actually identify a combination of different |

power sources for replacement could constitute almost an infinite variety of energy sources. |

|

We picked one that we thought was most likely to be implementable. |

|

MR. WARREN: Okay. I mean other than conservation, it seems that the others that have been |

picked have the most significant environmental impacts. Obviously solar and wind would have |

the least environmental impacts. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-278 January 2007

O-1

| Another question I had -- 

|

| DR. MASNIK: Just to follow up --

|

| MR. WARREN: Oh, sure.

|

| DR. MASNIK: -- perhaps you have a recommendation of a combination of alternatives that we

| can --

|

| MR. WARREN: I certainly do. I would recommend wind, solar, tidal, and conservation as a

| specific combination group, excluding all fossil fuels.

|

| DR. MASNIK: Okay. All right. Thank you for that comment.

|

| MR. WARREN: Does this mean this will be done or it's just a comment?

|

| DR. MASNIK: Well, you know, we'll have to go back and --

|

| MR. WARREN: Am I wishful thinking here?

|

| DR. MASNIK: Well, I think it's not beyond the realm of possibility that we could consider that for

| you.

|

| MR. WARREN: Can I make an official request?

|

| DR. MASNIK: Sure, sure. You have.

|

| MR. WARREN: Okay. Thank you.

|

| DR. MASNIK: An on-the-record comment is a request.

|

| MR. WARREN: Thank you.

|

| Another question I had was regarding the cooling towers. You had mentioned the use of water

| from Barnegat Bay which has a very high saline content, salt content. Have alternatives to this

| type of cooling tower that might include fresh water or brackish water been considered? And if

| not, why?

|

| DR. MASNIK: Actually the water requirements for such a tower would be extremely high and

| would probably exceed -- well, certainly would exceed the flow of Forked River and Oyster

| Creek. There's a possibility that you could remove some ground water, but again, the volumes
Appendix A

January 2007 A-279 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

O-2

of water even for the closed cycle system are extremely high, and it would be questionable |

whether or not groundwater supplies would be available. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Let me borrow this back and let's do this quickly. Could you just repeat that |

and tell us who you are? |

|

MS. ZIPF: My name is Cindy Zipf, Clean Ocean Action. |

|

I just wanted for you to clarify the volume. I do have a question, but you answered his question |

saying it's a large volume. What is the volume? |

|

DR. MASNIK: Off the top of my head I don't know the number. Kirk, do you? Can we look that |

up in the book? Do we have that? |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay. |

|

DR. MASNIK: Give us a second to check the actual number. I don't want to -- |

|

MR. CAMERON: And could you just introduce yourself to us? |

|

MR. WARREN: Certainly. My name is Donald Warren. I'm actually here as a representative of |

Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch and a resident of Ship Bottom, which is about 11 miles from the |

plant. |

|

Another question I had is if dry cooling has been considered and looked at and evaluated and if |

not, why. |

|

DR. MASNIK: It has not been considered for this facility. What we did was we asked the |

licensee based on comments that we received here the last time we were here and based on |

the draft permit for the NPDES permit which talked about cooling towers, to provide us with a |

proposal. |

|

The proposal that the licensee proposed was a linear hybrid mechanical draft towers, and that's |

what we evaluated. |

|

MR. WARREN: Okay. Can I make an official request that dry cooling be assessed as an |

alternative in the environmental impact to be considered? |

|

DR. MASNIK: Yes, you may. |

|

MR. WARREN: Okay. Thank you. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-280 January 2007

| DR. LaGORY: It's 460,000 gallons per minute.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Kirk, before you sit down, could you just tell us what the 460,000 gallons per

| minute refers to so that people understand this? And when you do it, can you do it at the mic,

| please?

|

| DR. LaGORY: You can find the evaluation and all of these specific numbers on page 8-18.

|

| What we're talking about is a water circulation rate of 460,000 gallons per minute. Make-up

| water would constitute about 14,000 gallons per minute, and that's to make up the water that's

| lost through evaporation.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Okay. We're going to go to Edith and then back here and we'll get to the rest

| of you possibly, hopefully.

|

| MS. GBUR: Hi. My name is Edith Gbur, and I represent Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch.

|

| And I have a question, and the question is has the release of low-level radiation from Oyster

| Creek been considered as a health risk in the Environmental Impact Statement.

|

| DR. MASNIK: I missed one of the words, Edith. Has the -- can you repeat it for me again?

|

| MR. CAMERON: Has the risk of low-level -- the release of low-level radiation from the Oyster

| Creek facility been considered in the Environmental Impact Statement?

|

| Did I get that right, Edith?

|

| MS. GBUR: Yes.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Okay.

|

| DR. MASNIK: Yes, it has. We've looked at, as Kirk had mentioned in his talk, we came to the

| site and we reviewed the historical record of releases from the facility, and we made a

| determination that the releases are a very small fraction of those that are essentially allowed by

| our regulations.

|

| The maximum exposure to a member of the public last year based on the results of last year's

| monitoring would have been .026 millirem. To put that in perspective, most of us get about one

| to two millirem per year watching TV on a conventional television. So it's a small fraction of the

| radiation that you would get from watching TV, and that's the calculated dose to the maximally

| exposed individual.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-281 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

R-1

R-2

MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Mike. |

|

Yes, sir. |

|

MR. NOSTI: Yes. My name is Jack Nosti. I'm the president of the Lacey Township Republican |

Club. |

|

Now, one of the items that you just brought up was of extreme interest to me. Now, if I |

understood you correctly, you said that the cooling tower requirements of 460 gallons per |

minute would possibly exceed what was available from the Oyster Creek and Forked River |

Creek and might have to be subsidized with groundwater. |

|

DR. MASNIK: The question I was asked was what if you used fresh water to make up the |

losses associated with the cooling tower evaporation, as opposed to what was proposed by the |

licensee, and that is to use Barnegat Bay water to make up the losses associated by the cooling |

towers. |

|

MR. NOSTI: But we're using Barnegat Bay water now. |

|

DR. MASNIK: That's correct. That's correct. |

|

MR. NOSTI: So this same process is going to take the very same water and -- |

|

DR. MASNIK: Yes, but considerably less |

|

MR. NOSTI: -- and use it, but not recycle it back in. You're just going to take it and evaporate it |

into the air. |

|

DR. MASNIK: Yes. |

|

MR. NOSTI: Okay. So you're going to be taking from the same source. |

|

DR. MASNIK: That's correct. Well, I mean, that's the proposal that was put before us by the |

licensee. I believe that was the proposal; that's what the State of New Jersey had in mind when |

they drafted their draft permit for the NPDES permit. |

|

MR. NOSTI: Okay, because obviously if additional groundwater is needed, that would have a |

great impact on Lacey Township because any future development within our town required us to |

get a water allocation permit based upon how much groundwater is available. So it's quite |

obvious to us that the present system that is there now that has been working extremely well in |

the past would be certainly the one that we would favor the most. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-282 January 2007

S-1

S-2

| We certainly wouldn't want to favor something that might possibly at some time in the future

| require taking groundwater because that is a commodity that, you know, there's just never

| enough of. I know we know down in the lower Cape May areas we're getting, you know, salt

| water coming into the groundwater systems, and we want to leave groundwater alone as much

| as possible. Let's affect the environment as easily as possible.

|

| And I suggest that in the future that possibly a meeting like this could be held without air

| conditioning so that the people who are most concerned about affecting the environment could

| appreciate what it's like to get back to nature.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, sir.

|

| And, Mike, just to reemphasize so that there's no misunderstanding, is that the proposal that we

| looked at is to use the bay water.

|

| DR. MASNIK: That's correct, and what happened was I was asked what about using fresh

| water, and there are really only two sources of fresh water, surface water and groundwater. So

| --

|

| MR. CAMERON: So you're just responding to the question.

|

| DR. MASNIK: That's correct.

|

| MR. CAMERON: All right. Yes, sir.

|

| MR. STROUP: Hi. My name is Ed Stroup.

|

| I didn't really come thinking I was going to ask you to take a look at something else. I

| understand that you considered primarily natural gas and curtailed usage for replacement

| power, but I heard some people call tonight to look at solar, wind, and things like that more and

| to study that, and I'd like to ask you if you are going to take a look at those things, I would like to

| ask you to consider certain other factors.

|

| Number one, solar doesn't work well at night, and the wind doesn't always blow. Oyster Creek

| is a base load plant. It provides power all the time.

|

| I'd also like you to consider, if you would be willing to do that, when you look at replacement

| sources for Oyster Creek that you evaluate the costs associated with that replacement. For

| example, oil is at an all-time high. Gas and coal can be extremely expensive compared to

| nuclear, and if people can't afford to use it, then it's not going to be a replacement power.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-283 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

I think we also need to look at the availability and the use of foreign oil and where those prices |

are at record high and where they're likely to go in the future as you look at this to keep a |

balance. |

|

And I'd just like to ask you if you are going to go back and reconsider it, would you please |

consider also some of those things. |

|

Thank you. |

|

DR. MASNIK: Just a quick response. We actually do in our document talk about these |

alternatives, but what the question was is if we combined a number of these together would the |

outcome be different than what we did before, and we will look at that combination, but we'll |

also consider the issues that you brought up as well. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay. We have time for a couple more questions. Yes, sir. |

|

MR. deCAMP: My name is William deCamp, Jr. I'm President of Save Barnegat Bay. |

|

We got contributions last year from over 1,700 families in the Barnegat Bay watershed. |

|

Is your purpose at this moment to entertain questions regarding the scope and nature of this |

hearing or are you just taking any old question? |

|

MR. CAMERON: And this is just to clarify it. As a meeting, "hearing", in NRC parlance means |

something special, an adjudicatory hearing, but I take it are you bothered by the fact that there |

are questions that seem outside the scope? I'm trying to figure out how we can best respond to |

your question. |

|

What is your concern? |

|

MR. deCAMP: I'm not bothered. I'm trying to ask a question appropriate to the format. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay. Go ahead. |

|

MR. deCAMP: And at one point I thought I heard the gentleman at the front of the room say |

that he wanted to clarify the scope of the proceedings. |

|

But if we're open for all questions, I think people would like to know that also. |

|

But anyway, so my question regards the cooling towers, and I believe you found that they would |

have an impact. Was it a moderate impact? |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-284 January 2007

| DR. MASNIK: Well, first of all --

|

| MR. deCAMP: As an alternative.

|

| DR. MASNIK: -- cooling towers is a good question for this forum, and what we do is we don't

| assign an overall assessment. What we do is we look at a number of different categories or

| areas, for example, cultural resources, and in one case for the cooling towers or actually in two

| areas, we said that the impacts could reach moderate levels under certain conditions.

|

| MR. deCAMP: So my question is when you say they could reach moderate, is that like

| moderately adverse? In other words, are you saying that any impact is adverse?

|

| DR. MASNIK: No, what we're saying is moderate based on our definition of small, moderate,

| and large that we provided during the presentation.

|

| Can you put that back, the definitions back up? And I think that may make it clear.

|

| MR. deCAMP: And while they're looking for that slide, can I ask was this moderate impact was

| the result of salinity effects on vegetation. We said those impacts would be small.

|

| DR. LaGORY: We looked at the deposition rates that we would expect of salt in basically

| concentric circles around the cooling towers, and we looked at what distance would you see an

| effect on vegetation, and we found that at about three-quarters of a mile there would not be any

| detectable effect on vegetation with the calculated salt deposition rate that we were finding

| based on the throughput of the system.

|

| So we considered that a small impact, especially given the fact that we're in a coastal area and

| most of these plants are tolerant of salt. So about a three-quarter mile ring depending on wind

| direction.

|

| The moderate impact actually resulted from exceedance of the State standard for particulate

| emissions for a new source. That standard is 30 pounds per hour of particulate emission, and

| the calculated emission rate for the two cooling towers would be 60 pounds per hour.

|

| MR. deCAMP: Of what?

|

| DR. LaGORY: Of particulate matter, and in this case it's mostly salt, not entirely. It's like

| 70 percent of the drift particles would be salt.

|

| MR. deCAMP: So here comes my question. In determining this moderate impact and small

| impact, are you weighing that against the enormous improvement you would have with

| entrainment, impingement, and thermal pollution and heat shock?
Appendix A

January 2007 A-285 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

In other words, did you take everything into the balance? |

|

DR. LaGORY: Well, we state what we think the impacts would be. We state that we think there |

would be a reduction in the impacts to aquatic resources, for instance. We state that we're |

going to be using about 70 percent less water, and you would expect a proportional decrease in |

impacts to aquatic resources. |

|

Remember our conclusion based on the studies that we had available to us was that the |

impacts of the existing once through system would be small, that the studies that have been |

conducted have not shown an effect of Oyster Creek on the Barnegat Bay system. |

|

There are large numbers of organisms that are pulled through the system, both entrainment and |

impingement, but there's no indication that those are actually causing effects on populations |

within the bay. |

|

There have been some very specific studies examining that effect. |

|

MR. CAMERON: I think that what this gentleman's concern is is how does the NRC look at all |

of the impacts identified. How are those balanced in terms of using the Environmental Impact |

Statement in NRC decision making. I think that's the question. |

|

MR. deCAMP: That is my question. Why do you only rate as small or moderate those impacts |

on one side of the equation and then just not even count in your rating of small or moderate or |

large the positive impacts? That would be my question. |

|

MR. CAMERON: And I'm going to let them answer and then I'm going to try to get two other |

people. |

|

MR. deCAMP: I have others. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Well, you can during the comment period, but we need to get to that so that |

we can make sure we get everybody on here. |

|

MR. deCAMP: But I have another question about the scope of the hearing. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay. We need to address these quickly. |

|

DR. MASNIK: All right. Let me quickly address your question here, and that is that obviously in |

these sorts of quantitative assessments where we're looking at a number of different categories |

and a number of different options, it's often difficult to come up with a scheme that will satisfy |

everybody. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-286 January 2007

T-1

| Now, the National Council on Environmental Quality said that this is an acceptable way of

| comparing alternatives, and based on our assessment, we've come out with the conclusion that

| the impacts associated with impingement, entrainment, and heat shock of the current system is

| small for the organisms in the Barnegat Bay, and we've come out with a moderate impact

| associated with the salt releases.

|

| MR. deCAMP: If I could just be permitted to speak because I know we don't have all night, I'm

| not going to argue with you. I'd just like to go on record as expressing my opinion that it is

| totally preposterous with all that is known about impingement, entrainment, and thermal

| pollution to say that it is minimal impact or negligible. It is just absurd.

|

| But anyway, I have another question, and that is is it not the case that if Oyster Creek runs for

| 20 more years that they will have to build another facility to store high level nuclear waste?

|

| MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you.

|

| MR. deCAMP: But it's the scope of the hearing.

|

| MR. CAMERON: Well, you asked the question, and we're going to give you an answer.

|

| MR. deCAMP: And can I follow up?

|

| MR. CAMERON: We really have to --

|

| MR. deCAMP: I would be finished by now if you weren't just --

|

| MR. CAMERON: We really have to give other people a chance to ask questions.

|

| DR. MASNIK: We certainly can speak to you after the meeting, too.

|

| MR. CAMERON: And we will talk to you after the meeting, okay?

|

| MR. deCAMP: Right, after the meeting.

|

| MR. CAMERON: That's right.

|

| DR. MASNIK: To answer your question, yes, there would be additional spent fuel generated

| based on 20 additional years of operation, and that fuel would be stored on site until a high level

| waste repository is made available

|

| MR. deCAMP: Okay. So if you are going to store it on site --

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-287 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

MR. CAMERON: We really need to get you on the record. We're going to go to this gentleman |

and this gentleman and we will try to answer all of your questions after the meeting because we |

have to get to people who want to make comments. That's what we need to do. |

|

Yes, sir. |

|

MR. WEINMANN: Hi. My name is Roberto Weinmann. I have a house in Forked River. |

|

And I presented at the last meeting when the question about whether there was an impact |

analysis of the reverse flow of the Forked River on the erosion, on the wildlife section that is on |

the bay and on the deposit of sediments all over the Forked River where there are private |

residences that don't have access to the river readily. |

|

Because of the river's flow, the sediments are accumulating. And I don't know, there must be |

aerial photographs to show where there has been coastal erosions and regions that are not |

protected by these barriers that we put where we have residences. |

|

DR. MASNIK: Yes, Roberto, I remember your comment, and in fact, we had our hydrologist |

look at it, and if you look in [Section] 4.7 of our document, we address that concern. |

|

What we did was we went back and looked at our Generic Environmental Impact Statement that |

we did in 1996, and in fact, we used the example of Oyster Creek as an example to say that we |

recognize that operation of facilities, particularly in coastal areas and certainly once through |

plants, could result in some movement of sediment, but that these effects are localized and |

occur close to the plant. |

|

The decision was made at that time that this was considered a small impact. I recognize that's |

not much help to you because you, in fact, are the owner of a home and a boat that has |

difficulty getting out into the bay. |

|

We did state in there that there perhaps is something you can do in talking with the licensee |

over this issue, but we recognize it and we realize that this is an occurrence that will happen. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you. |

|

Yes. |

|

MR. DILLINGHAM: My name is Tim Dillingham. I'm with the American Littoral Society. It's a |

conservation organization. |

|

I have a question, I guess, about the science on which you base the EIS. It's actually, I guess, |

a question of clarification. The way I read it, you went back and evaluated the studies that have |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-288 January 2007

| been done as part of the GEIS and other earlier work, and the latest date I can find it is

| somewhere around 1986. Is that accurate that that's the information on which this work has

| been developed primarily?

|

| DR. MASNIK: I think you may have it a little bit inaccurately in your description in that what we

| did was we did go back. First of all, I believe your concern is on the aquatic issues; is that

| correct?

|

| MR. DILLINGHAM: Primarily.

|

| DR. MASNIK: What we did was we did go back and look at the data that was developed back

| in the '70s and the early '80s. We also examined the record to see if there were any more

| recent data, and certainly the majority of the sampling was done back in the '70s and '80s when

| the licensee was in the process of getting their 316(a) and 316(b) demonstration studies

| together.

|

| There has been some data that was collected since that time, not a whole lot, but some data.

|

| In addition, the licensee, in response to the EPA's Phase II regulations, has begun a study at

| the plant that began, I guess, last September or October to look at impingement, entrainment

| losses associated with the plant.

|

| That data is not published, but we are aware of it, and we have discussed with the licensee and

| their contractor what the general findings of that study has been to date.

| Based on that information and primarily a study commissioned by the State, the VERSAR study

| that was done back in the '80s, we came to the conclusion that the impingement [and]

| entrainment losses represented a small impact event.

|

| MR. DILLINGHAM: Okay. So basically the information in which you reached the conclusions

| that the impacts were small is based on field data or information that is at least 20 years old.

|

| DR. MASNIK: Some of it, yes, yes, but not entirely.

|

| MR. DILLINGHAM: And there's a comment in I guess it's the record from the scoping hearing. 

| It looks like a comment submitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which asserts that that

| information is not adequate to make a judgment about cumulative or longer term impacts, and

| the NRC's response is sort of that, "Well, we think it is sufficient".

|

| If you could just give me some more insight as to how you reached that idea that 20-year-old

| data is sufficient, given all of the changes that have happened in this bay and in the watersheds

| around it in that time period.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-289 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

W-1

W-2

DR. MASNIK: I guess my response would be the same as what I just said. We looked at the |

data back then. We looked at the very limited amount of data that has been collected since |

then. We haven't discovered anything that shows any dramatic changes in the losses in the |

bay. |

|

In looking at the data or at least in our discussions with the data that has been collected at the |

plant, the losses associated with impingement and entrainment are similar to what was |

experienced back in the '80s. So the expectation is that if populations had dramatically |

increased or decreased in certain species, those kinds of changes would essentially show up at |

the plant just like any sampling device would demonstrate it. |

|

So we don't see that. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you all for those questions. I'm sorry that we don't have time |

right now to go to any more questions on this part of the meeting because we do need to hear |

from all of you who want to speak. |

|

As I said, the staff will be here after the formal part of the meeting closes for as long as you |

want to stay to talk and try to answer any of your questions, but we're going to go to our first |

speaker at this point, and that's going to be David Most, who I believe is a Lacey Township |

committeeman. |

|

David. And if you could come down here for us. |

|

And next we'll go to Paul Gunter and then Don Warren, to give you an idea of who's going to be |

up next, and this is David Most. |

|

MR. MOST: Thanks. |

|

How's everybody doing this evening? It's nice to see everybody come out and have some |

dialogue here. I want to thank the NRC for having this meeting. |

|

And I just want to thank the NRC, too, for taking into consideration the different factors for |

alternate power sources because we all recognize who work in the industry that Oyster Creek is |

a base load plant. |

|

So I do favor renewable energies, but I think we need to keep them in the perspective that they |

belong in as that they are a complement to a base load plant. |

|

As far as looking at alterative sources, I think the age we're living in is very interesting to see |

these changes that we see in our environment in the last five years that I recognized as far as |

global warming, the quality of our air and the need to lessen our dependency on foreign oil. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-290 January 2007

W-3

W-4

W-5

W-6

| We live in a dynamic society where our environment is changing constantly. Our population is

| increasing. Our cars, the amount of vehicles we have on the road ion New Jersey is five million

| cars. The fellow that was talking about conservation, we have luxury military vehicles that are

| on the road, the Humvee. I mean, does that make sense to you? It doesn't make sense to me.

|

| but when you talk about conservation, people have all different kinds of ideas about

| conservation, and the reality is you have your idea of conservation and the fellow that owns the

| Humvee has his idea of conservation, as far as his idea.

|

| Also, I recognize as a committee person, it's very encouraging to see that I have actually

| residents coming out and asking why aren't we building a standardized reactor behind Oyster

| Creek, and it's really amazing the heightened level. they are becoming more educated as far as

| nuclear is concerned.

|

| And what I wanted to talk about is we always end up returning to what are we going to do with

| the spent fuel, and I see the different alternatives that are out there right now, and again, it is

| encouraging to see that we're working with other countries. We're looking to recycle fuel

| possibly. We're looking to start up reactors that actually produce hydrogen, maybe to supply

| the gas, to supply cars for hydrogen fuel cells. I mean, wouldn't that be a great thing?

|

| So all I'm saying is technology moves forward. Look at where we've come in the last 50 years,

| and I have to tell you I lived in Forked River most of my life, and I live three miles -- I was raised

| across the farm on the east side in the development, and Oyster Creek come on line in '69. I've

| worked there for 25 years, and as a worker and supervisor at the plant, we all believe as far as

| minimizing the impact we have to our environment.

|

| But I have to tell you from '69 to date and moving forward, I truly believe that we have had a

| minimal effect on the environment. Now, if you want to compare that to a coal plant that we had

| there, I watched a little clip on HBO Sports with Bryant Gumbel and he was interviewing certain

| people in different towns that house these coal plants, and the companies were actually buying

| up some of the towns and destroying their homes because the people couldn't live in the towns

| anymore. The kids in the park couldn't play in the parks anymore because of all of the

| respiratory diseases.

|

| So I do think it is a very important thing to look at the balance because if you do deny the Oyster

| Creek re-license, we have to look towards the future and look at the impact of what that's going

| to have in our environment.

|

| But I truly agree with the NRC's assessment, and I definitely believe that Oyster Creek is worthy

| of re-license.

|

| Thank you for your time.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-291 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

N-1

N-2

(Applause.) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you. |

|

And we're going to go to Paul Gunter now. Paul. |

|

MR. GUNTER: Thank you. |

|

My name is Paul Gunter. I'm Director of the Reactor Watchdog Project with Nuclear Information |

and Resource Service in Takoma Park, Maryland. |

|

We were the principal author of the contention on the dry well corrosion at Oyster Creek, and |

we've been joined by New Jersey Coalition and Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic in a license |

challenge, and tonight we're here to talk about the Environmental Impact Statement. |

|

Let me start by saying that NRC should suspend all licensing proceedings under the National |

Environmental Protection Act -- Policy Act and its governance. We make this request in light of |

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on June 2nd, which considered how NRC was |

handling the question of environmental consequences from a successful terrorist attack by a |

nuclear facility by providing a public hearing and an environmental review under and as required |

by NEPA. |

|

NRC has repeatedly ordered that the environmental consequences of a terrorist attack on any |

nuclear facility is beyond the scope of these proceedings because they say that it's so |

speculative and remote that it cannot be considered in a site specific proceeding. |

|

Well, the federal court found that NRC's denial of the public hearing on such security |

contentions to be unreasonable. In fact, it is our concern that NRC has failed to recognize and |

uphold its obligations to provide the public with a democratic hearing process as governed by |

law under NEPA specifically with regard to our homeland security. |

|

And this is a very serious charge, and I'm sure that the NRC itself is not united and unanimous |

on the decision to withhold these public hearings from the public on particularly the issue that is |

so close to ground zero as Oyster Creek is where we stand today. |

|

As such, now, this Environmental Impact Statement is fatally flawed by missing the analysis of |

the environmental consequence of terrorist attack on Oyster Creek. |

|

I'd like to take one more point up. I know I'm running out of time, but NRC has failed to fully |

implement the Endangered Species Act. NRC we saw tonight has stated that the draft |

supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on 20-year additional extension of Oyster Creek |

and its once through cooling system is small in environmental consequence. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-292 January 2007

| Oyster Creek nuclear power station draws in more than 1.5 billion gallons of water per day to

| cool the nuclear reactor, and that super heated water is discharged to Barnegat Bay. In fact, it

| is well documented that Oyster Creek and its once through cooling system is a large marine

| predator where it is capturing not only biota, life supporting biota of the marine environment, but

| it's also all the way to the capture and killing of endangered sea turtles first reported in 1992.

|

| In fact, the heated discharge is attracting sea turtles into Barnegat Bay and into the reactor

| cooling intake system, and there they are entrapped. These rare animals on debris screens

| where they are being injured and are routinely suffocated under water when not promptly

| rescued and resuscitated.

|

| In 2004, Oyster Creek captured eight of the world's most endangered species of sea turtles, the

| Kemp's ridley. Three of these rare turtles were recovered dead. The other five were recovered

| alive. The captures, all within several months of each other, were also a record breaker for the

| nuclear power station and in violation of Oyster Creek's incidental take statement, which is

| required under the Endangered Species Act.

|

| The reactor's previous limit was set in 2001 by a biological opinion established by the National

| Marine Fisheries Service to permit no more than five live captures and three lethal takes of this

| species. Even this limit was raised from the original 1995 biological opinion which had set the

| limit for a single Kemp's ridley.

|

| Now, this is just the Kemp's that we're talking about, but on September 22nd, 2005, after

| consultation with NRC, the National Marine Fisheries Service again raise Oyster Creek's

| incidental take statement to now a total take of eight Kemp's ridley, four lethal captures on the

| water intake screens.

|

| Since Oyster Creek first started operating and reporting, we've noticed that there's a pattern of

| the operator, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Marine Fisheries Service all working

| together to revise the incidental take statements consistently upward. 

|

| NIRS contends that this trend is not based on best available scientific data as required by

| Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, but instead rather reflects the capitulation of the NRC

| and the National Marine Fisheries Service to the nuclear industry agenda.

|

| NMFS has a practice of revising the ITS upwards in response to requests by NRC without

| conducting a serious scrutiny of the total amount of such taking and how it may affect sea turtle

| populations as broadly defined by the Endangered Species Act to include killing, injuring and

| harassing, which is inconsistent with the overall ability of the species to survive and recover.

|

| Both NRC and NMFS have employed an overly narrow definition of taking in issuing these

| incidental take statements by focusing almost exclusively on the numbers of turtles that are
Appendix A

January 2007 A-293 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

killed by the once through cooling system and disregarding to the extent which the animals are |

being harassed as defined in the Endangered Species Acts to encompass, quote, any |

additional and negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by |

annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns, which include, |

but are limited to breeding, feeding or sheltering. And that's in the Code of Federal Regulation. |

|

This would include attracting the endangered sea turtles away from less hazardous areas where |

the animals would otherwise engage in normal feeding and sheltering, but this appear to have |

been inadequately addressed in either the biological opinion or this Environmental Impact |

Statement. |

|

Let me just close by saying that Section A(1) of the Endangered Species Act provides that all |

federal agencies, quote, shall in consultation with and the assistance of the National Marine |

Fisheries Service or the FWS utilize their authorities in furtherance of any purpose of this |

chapter by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened |

species. |

|

NIRS calls into question that NRC has complied with this obligation to protect endangered |

species, particularly sea turtles with this submission of the EIS, especially since there is an |

available reasonable alternative that would demonstrably reduce the documented adverse |

effects of power plant operations on endangered species, basically going to the dry cooling |

system. |

|

To the contrary, NRC has consistently chosen to protect Oyster Creek from adopting a |

nondestructive cooling system by accommodating the continued destructive operation of the |

current once through cooling system with a license to kill more federally protected endangered |

species. As such, given the operation of Oyster Creek once through cooling system would |

continue to attract sea turtles and kill and injure and harass endangered species over the |

license extension period. NIRS contends that NRC is not utilizing its authorities in furtherance |

of the conservation purposes of the Endangered Species Act. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Paul. |

|

(Applause.) |

|

MR. CAMERON: We're going to next hear from Don Warren and then Edith Gbur and then |

we're going to go to Ed Stroup and John Rayment, and we will get to you, Mr. Schilling. |

|

This is Don Warren. |

|

MR. WARREN: Thank you. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-294 January 2007

O-3

O-4

O-5

O-6

O-7

| Hi. My name is Donald Warren. I am a member of Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch. I am also a

| resident of Long Beach Island. Actually I live in Ship Bottom, which is only about 11 miles from

| the plant.

|

| I am also very significantly a health care provider in this community, which means that I am

| directly involved in the care of people who can suffer consequences of environmental impacts

| from any accident and release of information that can happen at this plant.

|

| I'm here because of my concern that this plant may be re-licensed and continue to operate for

| another 20 years, and especially because of what I feel is a tremendously biased and

| inadequate Environmental Impact Statement that's being proposed by the NRC here.

|

| The NRC should be protecting us, not serving Exelon and Oyster Creek. When they are

| analyzing data for their environmental impact statement, it should not be the data that's 

| provided by Oyster Creek. For a best case scenario, my case in point being the cooling towers,

| they stated that Oyster Creek had given them the cooling tower that they wanted, and they have

| not analyzed a dry cooling tower which would not require water to be taken from the

| environment, which I think is extremely significant.

|

| They also mentioned earlier that they did not include as alternatives a combination of non-fossil

| fuels, very specifically tidal, wind, solar, which could be included with conservation which would

| have a dramatically different effect on their conclusions.

|

| I also have a tremendous loss of feelings of credibility with the NRC that relate to actually

| coming to one of these first meetings less than a year ago. At that meeting I held up a picture

| of the reactor at Davis-Besse, which I don't know how many of you can see, but it's extremely

| rusted and corroded. The NRC was in possession of this picture, as well as the operators of the

| plant, and yet the NRC continued to allow this to operate to the point where they had a

| corrosion hole that was the size of a football. This was in the top of the reactor. Had this gone

| all the way through, this reactor would have gone critical, and they would have had a major core

| meltdown.

|

| They assured me that they had paid a lot of attention to that and were looking extremely closely

| at this plant and would not allow something like this to occur again. However, I am also part of

| the organization Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch which part of this coalition that's looking at the

| severe corrosion in a dry well line.

|

| For months and months and months we asked to look at ultrasonic test data of this dry well liner

| from 1996. It was not given to us. We were told it was proprietary information.

|

| It has since come out through this public meetings and through legal actions, and the

| conclusion is that this data shows that the dry well has actually grown thicker. In some
Appendix A

January 2007 A-295 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

O-8

O-9

O-10

miraculous feat of God defying the physics that we know, the metal has actually gotten thicker, |

and this is well beyond the margins of error that could be shown in the testing, which leads us to |

believe that obviously this data was seriously flawed. |

|

The NRC did not seem to notice this for over ten years because this data was done in 1996 |

and they were in possession of this since 1996. So we have serious reservations that they are |

really protecting us, which is what they are supposed to be doing. They are not supposed to be |

trying to keep this plant open no matter what. |

|

Getting more specific onto the environmental problems I have here, I specifically asked a |

question about whether the spent fuel pool was included in the environmental impact statement |

because this spent fuel pool is covered only by a steel building. There is no concrete covering |

of this. |

|

If you all have seen the pictures from the areas in Louisiana and Alabama post Katrina, all of |

those same type of buildings that were warehouses virtually disappeared in the hurricane. They |

were blown down. |

|

I have tremendous concern about this because should any of this debris fall into the spent fuel |

pool, it can dislodge the racks of fuel rods that are in there. These fuel rods must be kept at |

certain spacing so that they maintain temperatures because if those temperatures are |

exceeded, they are encoded with something called zirconium, and this can burn. Very |

frequently the NRC and people from Oyster Creek will tell you that a Chernobyl cannot happen |

here. Well, a zirconium fire in the spent fuel pool is the same -- I shouldn't say "the same" -- is |

extremely similar to a fuel fire that happened to Chernobyl. The only difference is the |

consequences would be far more devastating because of the massive amounts of quantity of |

spent fuel that are in there. |

|

Chernobyl was only two years old. There wasn't nearly as much radioactive material and Curies |

at that plant. |

|

I am extremely concerned because in the past month and a half three small aircraft have |

dropped out of the sky and landed within 20 miles of Oyster Creek. One of them I know for a |

fact landed about 11 miles away on Route 72 because it landed about a mile away from my |

house. |

|

There were also two banner planes that have just gone down recently within a 20-mile region. |

So there has been some concern about a terrorist attack. God forbid that this should happen on |

the spent fuel pool, but it would seem from past history we don't even need that. We have |

planes falling out of the sky here that easily any one of them could have landed on this plant, |

had we not had some divine intervention looking out for us. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-296 January 2007

O-11

O-12

| That's my opinion, and obviously the NRC and Oyster Creek are not.

|

| Another problem that I have is with the cooling towers. As I through up before, they are only

| using in this study the cooling towers which is personally I feel is a worst case cooling tower for

| the plant because of the large quantities of water that would still be required to be pulled out of

| Barnegat Bay. 

|

| There are other types of systems. There are systems that are dry that would not require any

| water to be taken out, and when these are included in an Environmental Impact Statement, they

| cooling towers would not be moderate. In fact, they would probably not even be small. They

| would probably be as small as they could possibly be.

|

| The effects of the tremendous amounts of water, and I'm not going to keep continuing here

| because obviously Mr. Gunter really covered this very well, but the effects of the tremendous

| quantity of water that is being pulled out of Barnegat Bay is devastating. The amount of aquatic

| life that is being pulled in there is horrendous.

|

| The fact that they are basing this on information from 1978 and not current levels, I personally

| am aware of the oyster beds that have seemed to have disappeared from Barnegat Bay. I am

| also aware of the declining blow fish numbers in Oyster Creek. I am also aware of the very

| recent studies that have been done and work that has been done out of Rutgers on actually the

| environmental quality of the bay and the degradation that's happened to the bay.

|

| And I think that this is the data that we really should be looking at, current studies, and if the

| NRC is planning on re-licensing this plant for 20 years, then they need to go out in the bay and

| they need to look at the bay and they need to have real data, current data so that they really

| know exactly what kind of an environmental impact Oyster Creek has had on the bay and the be

| making a realistic environmental impact statement, not making assumptions from 1978. This is

| not good science.

|

| Thank you very much.

|

| (Applause.)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Don.

|

| We're going to go to Edith Gbur and then Ed Stroup and then Edward Schilling.

|

| Edith, would you like to come up here? Thank you. No, there's no mic on there. So why don't

| you come up to the front for us? And we'll probably have to adjust this for Edith. It's right over

| here. All right, good, and he'll adjust that down for you.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-297 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Q-1

Q-2

Q-3

Q-4

MS. GBUR: Hi. I'm concerned about low level radiation. The NRC just reported before in |

response to my question about the Environmental Impact Statement about what that showed in |

the release of emissions from Oyster Creek, and the answer is that it was something like zero, |

zero, zero, zero, zero, nine, four-tenths or four-whatever, and I suspect I am very suspect about |

that data, and I believe there's a possibility that the data might be flawed. |

|

About three years ago Oyster Creek had emitted the highest amount of radioactivity, including |

Strontium 90, among all the nuclear plants. What happened between three years ago and last |

year? |

|

Number two, much of the data is obtained by the stacks. The stacks is monitored by Oyster |

Creek. In Illinois, the nuclear plants are monitored by independent sources and for good |

reason, because it's easy to change the data. |

|

There's an epidemic of autism and cancer, and that has been linked to nuclear emissions. The |

National Academy of Sciences recently stated that no amount of radiation is safe. We would |

like to recommend that an independent study of radiation from Oyster Creek be undertaken as |

part of the Environmental Impact Statement. |

|

Thank you. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Edith. |

|

(Applause.) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Ed and then we'll go to Edward Schilling. |

|

MR. STROUP: Good evening. Good evening. My name is Ed Stroup, and I'm President of |

Local Union 1289, which represents 230 bargaining unit members at Oyster Creek. |

|

I have to tell you I'm tired of the untruths, innuendos and inflammatory statements made by |

some participants in this process. The truth and the facts are ultimately important here. |

|

With that in mind, I testified earlier today. I'd like to make a correction to my earlier testimony. |

Minor as it is, I stated that the artificial reef that Oyster Creek installed was in the bay. That's |

incorrect. It's in the ocean, and I'll speak a little more about that later. |

|

Nearly 100 years ago the IBEW was originally formed because 50 percent of the workers in the |

electrical industry were killed at work. The IBEW has a long history of safety and providing |

safety for our members and the public, and that continues today. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-298 January 2007

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

| Our members are highly skilled and highly trained, as is everyone at Oyster Creek, union,

| management, and security. Each is a skilled professional in their field. I can assure you they all

| take their responsibility seriously and work hard to insure the safety of the public and the

| environment all day every day.

|

| It's my belief that one of the great injustices in this whole re-licensing process is that these

| dedicated professionals, along with the NRC and the state police are treated with contempt and

| referred to basically as incompetent by some of those who would like to see Oyster Creek and

| all nuclear plants closed. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the NRC and the State Police

| for their hard work and professionalism that they exhibit every day.

|

| Our members live and work in the local community. Their families live close to the plant, and

| their children go to school here. Our lives and those of our children and families, as well as the

| public we serve, would be affected by any problem at the plant. We would never compromise

| our principles for the safety of the plant or the public.

|

| Oyster Creek produces enough energy to power 600,000 homes and adds $52 million a year to

| the local economy. We contributed $202,000 last year to the United Way and over half a million

| dollars to the United State over the last three years.

|

| We contributed $809,000 last year to the DEP Fish and Wildlife Department and $5,000 to the

| Audubon Society to help clean water fowl affected by the Delaware River oil spill.

|

| As I said before, Oyster Creek sponsored and installed an artificial reef in the ocean working

| with the DEP, 3.1 miles out. That's a good thing, but I heard some people earlier today

| purported to be environmentalists dismissing that as not important.

|

| I disagree with that. At the same time Oyster Creek was undertaking these environmental

| friendly projects, Oyster Creek produced zero carbon emissions and avoided 7.5 million metric

| tons of carbon dioxide that replacement power would have produced. Oyster Creek avoids

| carbon emissions equal to more than two million cars per year, or to put it differently, an amount

| equal to half of all the motor vehicles in New Jersey.

|

| At Oyster Creek we work hard to protect the environment, including Barnegat Bay. On a day to

| day, hour to hour basis, we monitor water temperatures and regularly take water samples to

| insure safety. We coordinate any plant load reductions or shutdowns to avoid any risk to marine

| life. This is a costly practice, but it's essential for us to meet our commitment to the

| environment.

|

| I can assure you our members, as well as management and security, are all highly trained,

| highly skilled professionals who take their responsibility seriously. Their first priority is to protect
Appendix A

January 2007 A-299 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

X-1

X-2

X-3

the public and the environment. They insure that Oyster Creek is a safe, clean, reliable, |

environmentally friendly plant, all day every day. |

|

For all of these reasons and others, I urge you to re-license Oyster Creek. |

|

Thank you very much. |

|

(Applause.) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Ed. |

|

We're going to go to Edward Schilling and then next to David Sims and then to Jennifer Nelson, |

and this is Edward Schilling coming up to talk to us. |

|

MR. SCHILLING: I'm very happy that we who live in Ocean County have a fine power source |

such as the Oyster Creek generating station. However, I do have a little concern because of an |

article that I happened to read in the Wall Street Journal. That was on April 9th in 2002 in an |

article entitled "Nuclear War." |

|

As reported in the Journal on that date, Tuesday, April 9th, 2002, the Brookhaven National |

Laboratory located on Long Island estimated that a fire in a nuclear fuel storage pool could |

release enough radiation to render 188 square miles uninhabitable. |

|

In addition, this scientific research center estimated that, in quotes, tens of thousands of cancer |

fatalities and financial losses of $50 billion would result in such an accident. |

|

This, of course, is a worst scene scenario, but we are at war, and we do have a very, very |

mean, nasty enemy, and at any one time they could approach that plant from three or four |

directions and what would happen? |

|

As has been stated by some of the previous speakers, there would be almost cataclysmic |

results, and I just wonder what can be done. |

|

I myself think that because of the current research and ongoing research into the uses of coal |

as a source of power, of which the United States has a proven reserve of over 300 years, we |

could substitute that for the fuel used at Oyster Creek and we would be free of that worry of a |

nuclear catastrophe. |

|

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that these results that I mentioned, these |

statistics were not pulled off a tree, that they have been the result of research, and I hold out |

this information for the benefit of all the concerned NRC scientists who are present who have |

certainly gone to great lengths in expressing the way it should be and what can be, but let's not |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-300 January 2007

Y-1

Y-2

Y-3

Y-4

| forget that we are at war even though we don't have an enemy right now at our shores, at our

| gates.

|

| Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you.

|

| (Applause.)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Edward.

|

| David Sims.

|

| MR. SIMS: Good evening. I'm Dave Sims, and my company is Ecological Systems, and I

| install solar and wind electric generators.

|

| First of all, I want to mention to the guy from the Electrical Workers I don't think anybody has

| insinuated your people are anything but as competent as any technicians on the face of the

| earth.

|

| And as far as the NRC, I'm certain they're doing the very best they can to square away to the

| issues in a fair manner.

|

| I think the real problem is that there actually is a thing that happened over in Chernobyl that's

| very real. Okay. Accidents happen, weird things happen. Technologies advance. I think the

| gentleman who talked about coal being a viable source made an excellent point. There are

| better scrubbers available now, and that's a technology that has much room for improvement.

|

| There are ways to deal with the fumes from coal in a way where there's absolutely no potential

| of completely destroying the entire economy of the country, and what happened in Chernobyl

| pretty much destroyed the Soviet Union. You can pretend you're blind to that or ignore it in any

| way you want, but it is simply ridiculous. Okay? A very real thing happened over there.

|

| Anybody who thinks that a nuclear plant is 100 percent safe is simply joking with themselves. 

| They're not 100 percent safe. They're darn near 100 percent safe, and worst case scenarios

| are certainly worst case scenarios, and we don't want to be doomsdayers (phonetic) and stuff

| and say the end of the world is coming, but a friend of my was saying just the other day, "The

| juice just ain't worth the squeeze." Okay?

|

| You're squeezing like heck to try and get some one percent of extra grid power out there. Well,

| we're doing solar and wind projects every day of the week. We're doing energy conservation

| projects. If nuclear had anything resembling the obstacles that a wind project has, you could

| never get a nuclear plant in. Okay?

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-301 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Y-5

Y-6

Y-7

Y-8

Z-1

We have to go through incredible bureaucratic hassles to get a permit. I know because I put in |

a significant portion of the wind generators on shore in the last five years. It's very, very difficult |

to get a permit to put in a wind generator at your house. |

|

The obstacles that the NRC is faced with are nothing compared to that, and the potential |

hassles and problems associated with nuclear plants are magnitudes larger than what's |

associated with wind. Between zoning and everything else, it's not that easy to get a wind |

project in. |

|

You know, I've heard Congressmen and everybody else say, "And wind is going to do the trick." |

Well, it's not because you can't even get a permit. Okay? |

|

That's going to change and maybe it will change within the nest five years, but what about |

maybe licensing this plant for five years, not 20, because evolution is actually occurring in this |

 world? I don't think 20 is a good number of years. It's a long time, and I think that coal is a lot |

safer. |

|

And I certainly appreciate the electrical union wanting to keep their people working. I know |

that's your job, but there's better stuff to do than work at a nuclear plant. I mean, this Strontium |

90 stuff is simply not a fantasy. It's real. Leukemia, cancer, that's the plague of the 20th |

Century. You want to make sure that people get a whole bunch of that? Well, keep saying the |

stuff you're saying. You get to say it. You've got the right. I think it's wrong. |

|

Thank you. |

|

(Applause.) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Dave. |

|

Jennifee (phonetic)? Is Jennifee still here, Jennifee Nelson? Here she is. |

|

MS. NELSON: Good evening, everyone. My name is Jennifer Nelson. I'm an engineer at |

Oyster Creek and a resident of Jackson Township. |

|

I just want to talk to you for a few minutes tonight about what I do and the things that I keep in |

mind as I go about my duties every day. |

|

My first concern and the concern of everyone at the plant is to protect the public. At Oyster |

Creek our most critical systems are not those that produce power and make us money. They're |

the safety systems that we would use to protect the public in the unlikely and unfortunate event |

of an accident. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-302 January 2007

Z-2

Z-3

Z-4

Z-5

| A large portion of our resources and time is spent monitoring and maintaining these systems, as

| well as making sure that we meet all regulatory requirements associated with these systems.

|

| My second concern is they're not protecting the environment. Our goal is to have as little

| impact on the environment as possible. Our plant processes and procedures insure that we

| operate the plant in a manner which minimizes our impact.

|

| I'm most proud, however, of our efforts this past winter when plant conditions forced us to shut

| the plant down for maintenance. We recognize that our shutdown would threaten the

| nonindigenous fish species that enjoy our discharge. In order to reduce any possible impact at

| significant time and money spent, we implemented a supplemental heating system in the

| discharge canal which maintained the environment to save those fish.

|

| In addition, someone talked about sea turtles. We train our operators to recognize the turtles

| that are endangered, and they go through some pretty impressive efforts. They're trained to

| resuscitate turtles. We're talking about turtle CPR.

|

| My third concern is around protecting plant equipment. As an engineer, I interface with plant

| operators, maintenance personnel, chemists and others to make sure that each system and

| significant component is operating as it should. By monitoring and maintaining the equipment

| effectively, we can insure clean, safe, and reliable operation of the plant.

|

| Oyster Creek is run by a team of dedicated and talented professionals who are just as

| committed as I am to protect the public, protect the environment, and protect the plant. We're

| looking forward to continue to operate and provide clean, safe, and reliable power to New

| Jersey until 2029.

|

| Thank you.

|

| (Applause.)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Jennifer.

|

| We're going to go to Jack, Jack Nosti, and then to Wayne Romberg, to Roberto Weinmann, and

| to Cindy Zipf.

|

| And this is Jack Nosti. 

|

| MR. NOSTI: Good evening. My name is Jack Nosti. I'm the President of the Lacey Township

| Republican Club.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-303 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

AA-1

I would just like to reiterate some of the remarks I made earlier, that the Oyster Creek nuclear |

generating station has been an extremely friendly and great neighbor to the residents of Lacey |

Township, and for this reason this is why those of us that have chosen to live and raise our |

children and grandchildren in Lacey Township very strongly support and endorse the clean and |

safe continued operation of Oyster Creek. |

|

There's no way that we would do this with our families there if this wasn't what we believed |

actually is the case. And we ask the NRC to continue your studies as you've done. It looks like |

the operation as it is appears to be the best way to go. We feel it's the best way to go. |

|

There's been extremely little impact on our environment with Oyster Creek. We hear constantly |

from people that say the sky is falling. What if this happens? What if that happens? I could |

have got killed on the parkway, you know, here tonight, but yet, you know, I got up, a long day, |

tired, you know, extended day, and came here because I feel it's important. |

|

We can't worry about the naysayers. We have to take our best look at what we feel is best for |

the community and go with that, and I ask you to continue to do what you're doing. I think |

you're doing a great job. |

|

Thank you. |

|

MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Jack. |

|

And Wayne. |

|

MR. ROMBERG: Thank you. |

|

My name is Wayne Romberg. I live in Forked River. Actually I live on Forked River about a |

mile from the plant. I'm on the intake. |

|

And we moved here about five years ago. I could have chose to live anywhere I wanted to. I |

came with the company that bought the plant, and I chose about a mile from the river, not far |

from where this gentleman lives, and we have some common interests. He's trying to get his |

boat out, and I just bought a new sailboat. So I've got to get it out, too. So we're interested in |

all of the things that have to do with the river. |

|

I also enjoy fish, a fisherman. I enjoy eating fish from Barnegat Bay. We have got some great |

fishing here, and I really like this area. I'm delighted. |

|

I've been in this business 37 years. I've seen lots of things. I've worked for lots of utilities. I'm |

impressed with the people here at Oyster Creek. They try to do the right thing all of the time. |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-304 January 2007

AA-2

AA-3

| It's a good, little plant. It's robust, a good design. It's simple, a great little unit. I'm really

| pleased with it.

|

| You know, I wouldn't have chose to live so close to it if I had any concerns about it.

|

| And about walking the talk, you know, we talk about environmental consciousness. Well, I was

| the project manager that worked on keeping the fish warm last winter, and I spent a couple

| hundred thousand dollars of our company's money keeping those fish warm. I know everybody

| thinks that the fish kill is about heating them up. No, it's not. The fish kill is all of these tropical

| fish that stick around in the wintertime. They should have gone south, but they didn't, but they

| stick around because we have this warm water, and if we need to shut down for maintenance in

| the wintertime, we've got a big problem, you know. The water on our discharge cools down to

| the same temperature as Barnegat Bay, and a good number of these species can't live at that

| temperature.

|

| So if we don't do some way to provide supplemental heat, they ain't going to make it. So

| anyway, I was the project manager. I had a lot of fun with that, a lot of sleepless nights and

| days making sure that that went okay, but I was real pleased with the support that the company

| provided around that.

|

| A couple of other things that just got stuck in my craw. I'm a private pilot, too. I keep my plane

| over here. My wife support all of my expensive hobbies, but I have a plane over here at the R.J.

| Miller about 11 miles from the plant, and I'm always incensed when people talk about little

| planes as being a danger to nuclear power plants. They are not. We don't have enough mass

| or fuel or anything on board to damage a robust structure like a nuclear power plant, and I don't

| care what part of it you hit.

|

| You know, we could shut it down by getting tangled up in the power lines, but that's about it. So

| I always bristle a little when somebody makes the false accusations about us little guys flying

| our little airplanes around causing great fear and danger to everybody.

|

| Anyway, I've rambled long enough. I want to applaud the NRC for the work they're doing. As a

| very close resident to the plant, I'm very interested in it getting done right and being thorough

| about how you do it because my friends, neighbors, wife and family, we want to continue to feel

| safe being close to the plant.

|

| Thank you.

|

| (Applause.)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Wayne.

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-305 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

U-1

P-1

And now we're going to go to Roberto. |

|

MR. WEINMANN: Well, thank you, everyone, for staying so long. |

|

I just wanted to make a comment. I work in cancer research, and I develop drugs to fight |

cancer, and I would have the slightest idea that the plant or radiation would be the cause for any |

increase in leukemia or whatever, I wouldn't have come here. There is absolutely no evidence |

from the New Jersey Cancer Commission that there is an increase in rates in this area due to |

the plant. So I think you really have to look at the information and the data that is present. The |

same about autism. |

|

I think a lot of hearsay is published and then read, and I think health concerns if they are not |

extinguishing our animal populations that are in the water that comes out of the plant, they're |

much less affecting us. |

|

That's all. Thank you. |

|

(Applause.) |

|

MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Roberto. |

|

Next we're going to go to Cindy, Cindy Zipf with Clean Ocean Action. |

|

MS. ZIPF: Thank you. |

|

I wasn't planning on saying anything tonight, but I couldn't resist. One of the questions that I |

wanted to ask during the question and answer period but there wasn't enough time was the |

process on how we were notified about the hearing. |

|

Clean Ocean Actions staff scientists are Ph.D. in marine toxicology and also our attorney spent |

a great deal of time working and evaluating the Oyster Creek cooling water permit application to |

the Department of Environmental Protection, and we have been submitting comments and |

actually submitted comments during the scoping process here as well. |

|

However, we learned about the hearing from the Asbury Park Press and the article that they |

wrote about the other hearing that occurred the other day on the safety issues. |

|

So we are a coalition of 160-plus organizations that are concerned about marine water quality in |

the area, and when we're notified about these hearings, which is part of what the coalition is |

about, we distribute that to all the organizations. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-306 January 2007

P-2

P-3

| So there wasn't any time for us to engage that coalition, make them aware of the hearing. So

| I'm very concerned about the process.

|

| I'm also concerned about the quality of the process because in the comments that we submitted

| during the scoping period, we raised some very serious, significant issues. Some of them were

| raised today and considered small. We categorically disagree and will be submitting our

| comments in full during the process.

|

| But one curiosity is that in the EIS that we've all been given copies of, in the discussion of

| radiological impacts of normal operations, the NRC failed to include the radionucleide (phonetic)

| impacts to the marine environment. We submitted substantial comments on that and

| specifically identified the fact that radionucleides have increased in the Barnegat Bay in the

| bottom sediments and the estuarine biota, and that the reactor released nucleides have been

| detected in the water, bottom sediments, benthic marine algae, seagrass, blue crabs, clams,

| bunker, winter flounder, summer founder, bluefish, and several other fish.

|

| The organisms collected near Oyster Creek had the highest level of radionucleides, but

| detectable levels were found throughout the bay. Recent sediments collected near the

| discharge canal contained levels of Cobalt 60 that were 63 times higher than sediments

| collected at other locations within the Barnegat Bay.

|

| Now, this issue did not even appear in this EIS that I could find. It wasn't in the section called

| radiological impacts of normal operations. It wasn't listed in any of the other sections. So I'm

| concerned that when we submitted to your office comments raising this as a concern, and if you

| wanted to blow off Clean Ocean Action's comments, that's one thing, but the studies that we

| obtained this information from were the same studies that you reference. So the information

| was available that this was an ecological risk, and if you wanted to sort of discuss it and label it

| small, okay, but you know, I'm concerned that we go to the trouble, a significant amount of

| trouble, to submit comments, to review these issues carefully, to review them scientifically,

| legally, and we want to make sure that the process will address our concerns and be fair.

|

| So with that, we will be submitting our comments by the September 8th deadline and we trust, I

| guess, as best we can that they'll be considered.

|

| (Applause.)

|

| MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, Cindy.

|

| Let me just say that I'm sorry that you didn't get notice. It should have happened routinely

| because of your past participation, and we'll find out what happened and make sure it doesn't

| happen in the future. So thank you for calling that to our attention and also reiterating your

| comment.
Appendix A

January 2007 A-307 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

BB-1

BB-2

BB-3

I don't think that I introduced the senior NRC manager here earlier, Mr. Frank Gillespie, who is |

the Director of the Division of License Renewal at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and |

we've heard from all of the speakers tonight, and I was going to ask Frank to say some words to |

you before we adjourned and get together with you informally, and this is Frank Gillespie. |

|

[Presentation by Dr. Gillespie] |

|

MS. GUERRAZZI: Well, thank you. Thank you very much. |

|

My name is Ms. Guerrazzi, and I just had a couple of questions that were not addressed this |

evening. |

|

One of them goes to the fact that the nuclear plant sits on the Cohansee Aquifer, which supplies |

us with our drinking water, and in light of the fact that Toms River has some radiation in their |

wells, I wondered if the NRC considered the fact that the nuclear plant could potentially be |

polluting with radiation, invisible radiation our drinking water. And of course, that is of major |

concern. |

|

And the second comment that I had is that I would like to see the NRC consider in their impact |

statement the combination of alternate fuels or alternate energy sources, that being the |

combination of natural gas, solar power, wind power, and conservation. |

|

I think that it the area of conservation were given to people in the sense of a bonus, an energy |

bonus, for example, if people were seen as being cooperative with lowering their bills |

voluntarily, then maybe instead of penalizing people or not giving them any type of |

reinforcement for that, you could give them a bonus, like five bucks a month or two bucks or |

whatever it may work out to be, kind of like when you spend on your Discover card. You get a |

bonus back. |

|

So I think that to just have negative ideas about the fact that we can't conserve, I think that |

when we as a nation come together like we did post 9/11 with the little flags and everybody |

getting together in support of each other in this great country of ours, I think that conservation |

may be more positive as one of the combination alternates as you can get. |

|

But back to my original question. How is it that the nuclear plant can sit on the Cohansee |

Aquifer which gives us our drinking water? And I don't know if you can address that this |

evening, but certainly in your impact statement I would like to see that being addressed |

because I think that's a major, major point that was not brought up. I don't know. I haven't been |

to all of the meetings, but I think it's very crucial because obviously we as human being -- we're |

human beings before we're workers or before we're anything, and we need clean water that |

doesn't have radiation. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-308 January 2007

| MR. GILLESPIE: I think that kind of was brought up, and I think Mike kind of committed to look

| at that, and it was brought up, but not in terms of the aquifer. That's a spinoff actually, I think, of

| effluents and sediment.

|

| Is it in there? Okay. Page 24. Let Mike get together --

|

| MS. GUERRAZZI: Okay.

|

| MR. GILLESPIE: -- and you can see what's in there.

|

| Central New Jersey, as I understand it, has kind of a unique thing, and you've got radioactive

| water, and it's not from nuclear power. There's very high radon rates in many of the wells

| around here, and as I understand it, in fact, some of the water systems actually have to have

| holding tanks to allow the radon decay and decay products in New Jersey.

|

| Yes.

|

| PARTICIPANT: (Speaking from a location without a microphone.)

|

| MR. GILLESPIE: Is that northern New Jersey?

|

| PARTICIPANT: Yes.

|

| MR. GILLESPIE: Okay.

|

| PARTICIPANT: (Speaking from a location without a microphone.) 

|

| MR. GILLESPIE: Oh, that's okay. I'm going to get him and he's going to invite you up.

|

| I'm just using that as an example, and I think Mike did respond to that, and he's got it in the

| book, and he'll get with you after and show you what we have written, and actually this is a

| comment period that's open for us to accept written comments also, and he did put up a slide,

| and he'll take them by E-mail, phone, mail or any other way.

|

| With that I'm getting in trouble because I'm not allowed to be a facilitator. That's Chip's job. So

| again, thank you very much for coming out. I appreciate your patience, and please get us

| written comments, amplify them if you'd like. We do want them, and thank you very much. 

| Thank you.

|

| (Whereupon, at 9:40 p.m., the public meeting in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 
Appendix A

January 2007 A-309 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

CC-1

CC-2

A.5 Letters and E-Mails Received on the Draft SEIS |

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-310 January 2007

CC-3

CC-4

CC-5

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-311 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-312 January 2007

DD-1

| From: Pat Crocker [mailto:mcroc47374@yahoo.com] 

| Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:47 AM

| To: OysterCreekEIS@nrc.gov

| Subject: Re Approval

|

| 1. Approve it I live by the plant and feel safe.I am tired of people from out of our town

| complaining.Approve the extension PLEASE!!!

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-313 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

EE-1

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-314 January 2007

EE-2

EE-3

EE-4

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-315 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

EE-5

EE-4

(contd)

EE-7

EE-6

EE-8

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-316 January 2007

EE-11

EE-9

EE-10

EE-8

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-317 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

EE-12

EE-11

(contd)

EE-13

EE-14

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-318 January 2007

EE-14

(contd)

EE-15

EE-16

EE-17

EE-18

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-319 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

EE-18

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-320 January 2007

FF-1

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-321 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

GG-1

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-322 January 2007

GG-1

(contd)

GG-2

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-323 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

GG-3

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-324 January 2007

GG-4

GG-5

GG-6

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-325 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

GG-6

(contd)

GG-7

GG-8

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-326 January 2007

GG-8

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-327 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

GG-8

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-328 January 2007

GG-8

(contd)

GG-9

GG-10

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-329 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

GG-10

(contd)

GG-11

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-330 January 2007

GG-11

(contd)

GG-12

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-331 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

GG-12

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-332 January 2007

GG-12

(contd)

GG-13

GG-14

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-333 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

GG-14

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-334 January 2007

GG-15

GG-16

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-335 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

GG-16

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-336 January 2007

GG-16

(contd)

CG-17

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-337 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

GG-17

(contd)

GG-18

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-338 January 2007

GG-19

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-339 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

GG-19

(contd)

GG-20

GG-21

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-340 January 2007

GG-21

(contd)

GG-22

GG-23

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-341 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

GG-23

(contd)

GG-24

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-342 January 2007

HH-1

HH-2

HH-3

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-343 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

HH-4

HH-5

HH-6

HH-7

HH-8

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-344 January 2007

HH-9

HH-10

HH-11

HH-12

HH-13

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-345 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

HH-13

(contd)

HH-14

HH-15

HH-16

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-346 January 2007

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-347 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-348 January 2007

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-349 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

II-1

II-2

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-350 January 2007

II-3

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-351 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

II-4

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-352 January 2007

JJ-1

JJ-2

| >>> "Edith" <gbur1@comcast.net> 8/30/06 3:30 PM >>>

|

| To Donnie Ashley and Dr Masnik, 

|

| Your response to help me in preparing comments.

|

| The following questions regards the radiological impacts from OCNGS gasous and liquid

| releses harmful to people and marine life. 

|

| Part 2 -25-1-7

| Mclaren/Hart 2000 documents cobalt 60 and Cesium 137 releases in several locatons ,-some

| of which was excavated,

|

| 1. Why some, not all removed? Is it possible/ 

|

| 2. Why wasn't it discovered earlier?(Espcially if it was released before 1989)?

| Cesium137 has a half life of 35 years and is harmful to the ovaries. Cobalt 60, a half life of 5

| years.and is harmful to the liver .

|

| 3. Will there be a followup study? 

|

| 4. Was there or will there be an an NRC investigation of the Bioaccumulation of Cs 137 and

| Cobalt in marine life in /Barnegat Bay and Oyster Creek as well as our wells? 

|

| 4. , 4.In this assessment Radionuclides were documented in groundwater and soil

| sediments.What is considered background levels? 

|

| SEIS Part 2, 33, lines 1-12 

|

| OCNGS claims to have stopped releasing radionuclides and low leevel isotopes and

| radioactive waste dischargesduring the 80’s.

|

| The DEP found no compliance issues or toxity.

|

| However, McLaren/Hart 2000 documents Cs 137 and Cobalt 60 releases.’

|

| Edith Gbur, Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch 

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-353 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

KK-1

KK-2

KK-3

KK-4

From: Edith [gbur1@comcast.net] |

Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 7:09 PM |

To: D. Ashley; Michael Masnik; OysterCreekEIS@nrc.gov; Bo Pham |

Subject: Re: More Questons regarding the EIS |

|

Thank you . Yes, i do wish more information, as follows: |

|

1. Can you refer me to data and specific informantion |

|

2. You said that " the amount of radioative material released to the environment during normal |

operations is precisely known." |

What levels of radionuclides are considedred background as opposed to evlevated levels ? - |

Can it be answered in miiccuries and rads instead of rem ? This applies to Sr 90, Cs 137 and |

OysterCreek has emitted the greatestamount of airborne radioactivity, of anyreactor in the US. |

The amoun5 is about 77 curies of iodine 131 aniodine and particulates with a half life of 8 days |

or more. However you testiied that OCNGS radiological emissionswere a tenth of the amount |

allowed or .026 milirams. |

How do the two data compare? What about the conclusions? |

Is it possible that short lasting isotopes are not counted? Do you believe that because an isitop |

decays rapidly it vanishes harrmlessly ? Do you knowwhat short lived isotopes become |

transformed into different radioactive elements asthey decay? |

What does the NRC consider a safe level ? Do you disagree with the National Academy of |

Sciences June 2005 BEIR VII report that concludes all doses of radiation are harmful? |

If is calculated that 12 deaths would occur among residents or workers from emissilons is |

it worth the risk? |

|

3. Cs 137 and cobalt 50 were found in estuary near Little Egg Harbor, What were the levels? |

Were other radionuclildes found?" |

|

4. .The SEIS (Part 2, 33 said during the 80's "OCNGS ended the operatonsal releases liquid |

radioactive waste discharges and low level radioactive into Barnegat Bay and Oyster Creek ." |

Wasn't there concern about the accumulation of 20 years of radioactive dischares to Barnegat |

Bay bay and Oyster Creek. |

|

5 .You stated that "concentrations are decreasing over time due to radioactive decay" as a |

reason for not removing all of the isotopes. |

However , Were tests tken for long lived fisssion produces including plutonium 239, (half life of |

24,000 years), radium 226 (half life of 1,600 years) uranium 233 (half life 162,000 years, - |

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-354 January 2007

KK-5

KK-6

KK-7

KK-8

| 6. You stated that some of the contaminated areas and soil was not removed because The

| McLaren/Hart report states that radionuclide activity in the soils at the Oyster Creek Plant are

| not impacting the offsite concentrations are decreasing over time due to radioactive decay -

| environment.. Where is your proof ? 

|

| 7. What scientific proof do you have that " Wells with elevated levels of radioactive

| contamination in the Toms River area have been shown to be the result of naturally occurring

| radioisotopes." What natural isotopes?

|

| 8. Clean Ocean Action testified that that there is an increase of contimation in the soil s and

| documented and was ignored., Would it make any differnce in your assessment 

|

| 8. Why does the NRC depend OCNGS for self monitoring when concerned taxpayers disagree

| becaue it is akin to asking the wolf to guard the chicken c oop? The public and experts have

| questined the montiroing and sampling progrms and being self serving and/or unscientific. 

| Why not involve the National Academy of Sciences in the SEIS when it has the confience of the

| US Congrsss was requested by elected officials'

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-355 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

LL-1

LL-2

LL-3

LL-4

LL-5

From: Bill Hering [mailto:bill.hering@smelectric.com] |

Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 12:08 PM |

To: 'OysterCreekEIS@nrc.gov' |

Cc: 'laceyclerk@comcast.net' |

Subject: License Renewal |

|

Gentlemen, I would like to submit my comments to you regarding the re-licensing process for Oyster |

Creek Nuclear Station in Lacey Township, NJ. |

|

I am a property owner and resident of Lacey Township, NJ for many years. I whole Heartedly support the |

relicensing of this facility. I have had extensive involvement in the Security UpGrade through the Electrical |

Contractor during 2004. The employees and the management staff are committed to safety as I could see |

as an outside professional in Occupational Safety and Health, during that 15 week operation to enhance |

security at Oyster Creek, under Home Land Security operations. I also was involed in that same capacity |

at Salem Hope Creek during 2005. The plant is a safe facility. |

Those FEW who oppose the relicensing have not shown anyone any valid concerns other than false fear |

tactics. The plant is 40 years old come 2009, but that doesn't mean we can't have it safe with constant up |

grading. If the containment vessle is sound which is your job at NRC to acertain, then the plant should |

remain "ON LINE". It's puzzling to me and many of my friends and Neighbors that these groups opposing |

the license renewal seem to get a loud voice in the press and at various meetings, but really, who do they |

really represent but a very small minority of our population in Ocen County and the region. |

|

I ran my own survey these last few months speaking to many around the region, and when I asked: do you |

know of the Mothers, Grandmothers, Nuclear Opponents, etc etc... NOT ONE PERSON IN AS MANY AS |

60 OR SO, SAID THEY REPRESENT THEM IN ANY WAY OR EVEN KNEW OF THESE FOLKS. |

|

Let's do what's right for the people overall and think positive about Nuclear Power. The President himself |

has taken a position to expand Nuclear Generation of Power. |

Jon Corzine also was reported in the press, to have some concern of the plants age, but said that's not a |

reason to shut it down. |

|

In closing, you are charged with the decision of renewal for a 20 year period by statue. Just perhaps in the |

ensuing years more compact, modern design Nuclear Reactors, which are being worked on as we speak |

here today, maybe the new transition for plants as Oyster Creek as they can shift over to new reactor |

technology much sooner than 20 years and the industry itself will upgrade prior to the expiration of the |

licensing period. Electric Power is precious to us all ! We need every Megawatt we can generate safely, |

without sending CO 2 into the atmoshere! |

|

My best to you all, I have faith in you, good luck and God Speed ! |

|

William E. Hering |

1005 Peaksail Point |

Lanoka Harbor, NJ 08734 |

|

609 971 0930 |

732 713 2839 |
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-356 January 2007

MM-1

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-357 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

MM-1

(contd)

MM-2

MM-3

MM-4

MM-5

MM-6

MM-7

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-358 January 2007

MM-7

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-359 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

MM-8

MM-9

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-360 January 2007

MM-9

(contd)

MM-10

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-361 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

MM-10

(contd)

MM-11

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-362 January 2007

MM-11

(contd)

MM-12

MM-13

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-363 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

MM-14

MM-15

MM-16

MM-17

MM-18

MM-19

MM-20

MM-21

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-364 January 2007

MM-22

MM-23

MM-24

MM-25

MM-26

MM-27

MM-28

MM-29

MM-30

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-365 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

MM-31

MM-32

MM-33

MM-34

MM-35

MM-36

MM-37

MM-38

MM-39

MM-40

MM-41

MM-42

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-366 January 2007

MM-43

MM-44

MM-45

MM-46

MM-47

MM-48

MM-49

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-367 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

MM-50

MM-51

MM-52

MM-53

MM-54

MM-55

MM-56

MM-57

MM-58

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-368 January 2007

MM-58

(contd)

MM-59

MM-60

MM-61

MM-62

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-369 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

MM-63

MM-64

MM-65

MM-66

MM-67

MM-68

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-370 January 2007

MM-68

(contd)

MM-69

MM-70

MM-71

MM-72

MM-73

MM-74

MM-75

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-371 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

MM-76

MM-77

MM-78

MM-79

MM-80

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-372 January 2007

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-373 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

NN-1

NN-2

From: Tom Jones [tdj51@comcast.net] |

Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 7:28 PM |

To: oystercreekEIS@nrc.gov |

Subject: Relicensing of the plant |

|

1. My wife and I want to voice our concerns and objections to the relicensing of the nuclear |

power plant in Lacey Township, NJ. We have read about the issues from both sides and remain |

convinced that the management is not doing enough to protect the environment and public |

safety. The plant's radioactive gas waste emissions that are dumped into our air and |

surrounding waters are a danger. Many local officials have gone on record as saying they also |

are opposed. |

Please consider the consequences of your actions for the future of the communities surrounding |

this area and the children who will be exposed years from now. |

Sincerely, |

|

Tom D. Jones |

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-374 January 2007

OO-1

OO-2

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-375 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

OO-3

OO-4

OO-5

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-376 January 2007

OO-6

OO-7

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-377 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

PP-1

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-378 January 2007

PP-2

PP-3

PP-4

PP-5

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-379 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

PP-5

(contd)

PP-6

PP-7

PP-8

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-380 January 2007

PP-9

PP-10

PP-11

PP-12

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-381 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

PP-13

PP-14

PP-15

PP-16

PP-17

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-382 January 2007

PP-17

(contd)

PP-18

PP-19

PP-20

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-383 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

PP-20

(contd)

PP-21

PP-22

PP-23

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-384 January 2007

PP-24

PP-25

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-385 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

PP-26

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-386 January 2007

PP-26

(contd)

PP-27

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-387 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

PP-27

(contd)

PP-28

PP-29

PP-30

PP-31

PP-32

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-388 January 2007

PP-32

(contd)

PP-33

PP-34

PP-35

PP-36

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-389 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

PP-36

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-390 January 2007

PP-36

(contd)

PP-37

PP-38

PP-39

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-391 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

PP-40

PP-41

PP-42

PP-43

PP-44

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-392 January 2007

PP-44

(contd)

PP-45

PP-46

PP-47

PP-48

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-393 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

PP-48

(contd)

PP-49

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-394 January 2007

PP-49

(contd)

PP-50

PP-51

PP-52

PP-53

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-395 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

PP-53

(contd)

PP-54

PP-55

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-396 January 2007

PP-56

PP-57

PP-58

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-397 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

PP-59

PP-60

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-398 January 2007

PP-61

PP-62

PP-63

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-399 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

PP-63

(contd)

PP-64

PP-65

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-400 January 2007

PP-65

(contd)

PP-66

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-401 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

PP-66

(contd)

PP-67

PP-68

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-402 January 2007

PP-68

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-403 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-404 January 2007

QQ-1

QQ-2

QQ-3

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-405 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

QQ-3

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-406 January 2007

QQ-3

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-407 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

QQ-3

(contd)

QQ-4

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-408 January 2007

QQ-5

QQ-6

QQ-7

QQ-8

QQ-9

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-409 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

QQ-10

QQ-11

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-410 January 2007

QQ-12

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-411 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

RR-1

From: Walter Lenskold [lenskoldw@hotmail.com] |

Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:11 PM |

To: OysterCreekEIS@nrc.gov |

Subject: Do not relicense Oyster Creek |

|

There is too much risk associated with a nuclear plant so close to so many people. There is |

time, if you get moving, to switch over to wind turbine power and solar power before the current |

license expires. God help us all if you don't listen and act properly. |

|

Walter & Lorraine Lenskold |

Toms River, NJ |

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-412 January 2007

SS-1

SS-2

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-413 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

SS-2

(contd)

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-414 January 2007

SS-5

(contd)

SS-6

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-415 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

SS-6

(contd)

SS-7

SS-8

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-416 January 2007

TT-1

TT-2

TT-3

TT-4

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-417 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

UU-1

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-418 January 2007

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-419 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

VV-1

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-420 January 2007

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-421 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

WW-1

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-422 January 2007

XX-1

XX-2

XX-3

XX-4

XX-5

XX-6

XX-7

XX-8

| From: Dotty Reynolds [mailto:ddreynolds@all2ez.net]

| Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 3:57 PM

| To: OysterCreekEIS@nrc.gov

| Subject: U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hearing

| Importance: High

|

| COMMENTS FOR OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR PLANT PUBLIC HEARINGS, JULY 12, 2006

|

| No one expected a tsunami wave to sweep across Indonesia, leaving a swath of death and

| destruction. No one thought a category 5 hurricane would strike the Gulf coast, causing levees

| to collapse in New Orleans. No one believed terrorists could fly into the world trade center,

| collapsing the twin towers and killing almost 3,000 people. No one expects a nuclear accident

| of catastrophic proportions at Oyster Creek, but should we trust the oldest nuclear plant in the

| U.S. to operate safely for another 20 years?

|

| It is imperative that all safety factors and concerns be examined. 

| How can the NRC be allowed to ignore issues which the State of New Jersey considers

| important? The steel drywell liner, the barrier preventing the release of radiation during a

| reactor accident, needs close scrutiny. Why are tests not being done now to measure the

| thickness of the drywell liner, despite previous evidence of corrosion? Should we risk a terrorist

| attack at the site of a nuclear plant with on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel? In the event of an

| accident, the evacuation route is unworkable for much of the area, including all of Long Beach

| Island.

|

| We do know that millions of small fish, shrimp and other aquatic animals are currently being

| killed due to the fact that the plant has no water cooling towers. Cooling towers are a necessity

| to prevent these losses of marine life which are trapped against water intake screens, or drawn

| into the plant, or killed by the change in water temperature in the bay. Restoring wetlands is not

| a reasonable alternative.

|

| The NRC may do doing an extensive in depth review, but unless all concerns are considered

| objectively, the results will be flawed. If the nuclear plant is deemed necessary for power, then

| a new plant as planned in the 70's, should replace the current obsolete plant with one in the

| new safer design.

|

| In spite of the best maintenance and replacement of parts, the older our car, the greater the

| likelihood our car will break down. If we want to ensure that we will get to work every day,

| safely, we routinely replace our car with a new one. How long would we continue to drive a car,

| or should we operate a nuclear plant, which could break down with dire consequences?

|

| The decision regarding license renewal could mean life or death for thousands; the potential

| health, safety and economic impacts on New Jersey are enormous. Congressman Jim Saxton,
Appendix A

January 2007 A-423 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

XX-8

(contd)

in support of requests by many elected officials and citizen groups, has introduced H.R. |

966, a bill that would require an independent assessment of safety and security issues by the |

National Academy of Sciences Research Council. It is imperative that the Academy of Sciences |

determine that Oyster Creek nuclear plant is safe, secure and necessary, prior to NRC |

relicensing approval, or Oyster Creek must be shut down. |

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-424 January 2007

YY-1

YY-2

YY-3

YY-4

YY-5

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-425 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

YY-6

YY-7

YY-8

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-426 January 2007

ZZ-1

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-427 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

AAA-1

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-428 January 2007

AAA-2

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-429 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-430 January 2007

BBB-1

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-431 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

BBB-1

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-432 January 2007

BBB-1

(contd)

BBB-2

BBB-3

BBB-4

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-433 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

BBB-4

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-434 January 2007

BBB-4

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-435 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

BBB-5

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-436 January 2007

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-437 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

BBB-6

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-438 January 2007

BBB-6

(contd)

BBB-7

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-439 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

BBB-7

(contd)

BBB-8

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-440 January 2007

BBB-8

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-441 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

BBB-8

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-442 January 2007

BBB-8

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-443 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

BBB-8

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-444 January 2007

BBB-8

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-445 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

BBB-8

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-446 January 2007

BBB-8

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-447 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

BBB-8

(contd)

BBB-9

BBB-10

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-448 January 2007

BBB-10

(contd)

BBB-11

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-449 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

BBB-11

(contd)

BBB-12

BBB-13

BBB-14

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-450 January 2007

BBB-14

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

January 2007 A-451 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

CCC-1

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix A

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 A-452 January 2007

CCC-1

(contd)

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix B

Contributors to the Supplement

January 2007 B-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Appendix B

Contributors to the Supplement

The overall responsibility for the preparation of this supplement was assigned to the Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The supplement

was prepared by members of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation with assistance from

other NRC organizations, Argonne National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,

and Information Systems Laboratories, Inc. 

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Michael Masnik Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager

Bo Pham Nuclear Reactor Regulation Deputy Project Manager; 

Radiation Protection

Robert Schaaf Nuclear Reactor Regulation Deputy Project Manager

James Wilson Nuclear Reactor Regulation Ecology

Jennifer Davis Nuclear Reactor Regulation Cultural Resources; Socioeconomics

Robert Palla Nuclear Reactor Regulation Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

Harriet Nash Nuclear Reactor Regulation Ecology, Administrative Support

Evan Keto Nuclear Reactor Regulation Administrative Support

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY(a)

Kirk LaGory Team Leader

Frederick Monette Deputy Team Leader; Health Physics

Timothy Allison Socioeconomics; Land Use

Patricia Hollopeter Technical Editor

John Krummel Terrestrial Ecology

Michael Lazaro Meteorology; Air Quality

Ellen Moret Administrative Support

John Quinn Hydrology

Konstance Wescott Cultural Resources; Alternatives

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY(b)

Jeffrey Ward Aquatic Ecology

INFORMATION SYSTEMS LABORATORIES, INC.

(c)

Robert Schmidt Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

Kimberly Green Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

(a) Argonne National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by UChicago Argonne, LLC.

(b) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial Institute.

(c) Information Systems Laboratories, Inc., is located in Rockville, Maryland.
 
Appendix C

Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to the AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, 

Application for License Renewal of

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

January 2007 C-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Appendix C

Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to the AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, 

Application for License Renewal of 

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

This appendix contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) and AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen), and other

correspondence related to the NRC staff’s environmental review, under Title 10, Part 51, of the

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 51), of AmerGen’s application for renewal of the

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS) operating license. All documents, with the

exception of those containing proprietary information, have been placed in the Commission’s

Public Document Room, at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland, and are available electronically from the Public Electronic Reading Room found on

the Internet at the following web address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. From this site,

the public can gain access to the NRC’s Agencywide Document Access and Management

System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC’s public documents in the |

Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of ADAMS. The ADAMS accession |

numbers for each document are included below.

July 22, 2005 Letter from AmerGen to NRC, forwarding the application for renewal

of the operating license for OCNGS, requesting an extension of the

operating license for an additional 20 years 

(Accession No. ML053050477).

July 29, 2005 Letter from NRC to AmerGen, “Receipt and Availability of the License

Renewal Application for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station” 

(Accession No. ML052100022).

September 9, 2005 Letter from NRC to AmerGen, transmitting “Determination of

Acceptability and Sufficiency for Docketing, Proposed Review

Schedule, and Opportunity for a Hearing Regarding the Application

from AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, for Renewal of the Operating

License for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station”

(Accession No. ML052520034).
Appendix C

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 C-2 January 2007

September 16, 2005 Letter from NRC to AmerGen, forwarding the Federal Register Notice

of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct

Scoping in Support of the Review of the License Renewal Application

(Accession No. ML052590296).

October 12, 2005 Letter from NRC to Mr. Clifford Day, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS), New Jersey Field Office, “Request for List of Protected

Species Within the Area Under Evaluation for the Oyster Creek

Nuclear Generating Station License Renewal” 

(Accession No. ML052870166).

| October 12, 2005 Letter from NRC to Ms. Dorothy Guzzo, New Jersey State Historic

| Preservation Office, “Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

| License Renewal Review” (Accession No. ML052870531).

|

| October 12, 2005 Letter from NRC to Mr. Don Klima, Advisory Council on Historic

| Preservation, “Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station License

| Renewal Review” (Accession No. ML052870543).

October 12, 2005 Letter from NRC to Ms. Patricia A. Kurkul, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries

Service, Northeast Regional Office, “Request for List of Protected

Species and Essential Fish Habitat Within the Area Under Evaluation

for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station License Renewal”

(Accession No. ML052870502).

| October 12, 2005 Letter from NRC to Mr. Robert Chicks, President, StockbridgeMunsee Community, inviting participation in the scoping process

related to NRC’s environmental review of the license renewal

application for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 

(Accession No. ML052900227).

| October 12, 2005 Letter from NRC to The Honorable Joe Brooks, Chief, Delaware Tribe

of Indians, inviting participation in the scoping process related to

NRC’s environmental review of the license renewal application for

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 

(Accession No. ML052870553).
Appendix C

January 2007 C-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

October 12, 2005 Letter from NRC to Ms. Tamara Francis, Native American Graves |

Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) Director, Delaware Nation |

of Western Oklahoma, inviting participation in the scoping process

related to NRC’s environmental review of the license renewal

application for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 

(Accession No. ML052870571).

October 12, 2005 Letter from NRC to The Honorable Mark Gould, Tribal Chairman, |

Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey, inviting participation

in the scoping process related to NRC’s environmental review of the

license renewal application for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating

Station (Accession No. ML052870563).

October 12, 2005 Letter from NRC to Mr. Brice Obermeyer, NAGPRA Director, The |

Delaware Tribe, inviting participation in the scoping process related to

NRC’s environmental review of the license renewal application for

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

(Accession No. ML052870572).

November 2, 2005 Email from Ms. Deborah Fimbel, New Jersey State Historic |

Preservation Office, to NRC, “Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating |

Station license renewal and invitation to public scoping meeting” |

(Accession No. ML053070461). |

November 9, 2005 Letter from NRC to AmerGen, “Request for Additional Information |

(RAI) Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) for

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station” 

(Accession No. ML053130387).

November 15, 2005 Letter from Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program to NRC regarding

environmental review of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 

(Accession No. ML053220253).

November 23, 2005 Letter from Mr. Clifford Day, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), |

New Jersey Field Office, to NRC, "Scoping Comments on Applicant's |

Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage, Oyster |

Creek Generating Station" |

(Accession No. ML053360432). |
Appendix C

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 C-4 January 2007

December 8, 2005 “Summary of Public Scoping Meetings Regarding the Review of

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station License Renewal

Application” (Accession No. ML053430247).

| December 8, 2005 Letter from NRC to AmerGen, “Request for Additional Information

(RAI) Regarding the Environmental License Renewal Review for the

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station” 

(Accession No. ML053430198).

January 9, 2006 Letter from AmerGen to NRC, “Response to NRC Request for

Additional Information Related to Severe Accident Mitigation

Alternatives (SAMA) for Oyster Creek Generating Station”

(Accession No. ML060130238).

January 30, 2006 Letter from New Jersey State Representatives L.T. Connors, Jr.,

| C.J. Connors, and B.E. Rumpf to the NRC regarding constituent’s

concerns about fish kills (Accession No. ML060730108).

February 21, 2006 Letter from NRC to AmerGen, “Issuance of Environmental Scoping

Summary Report Associated with the Staff’s Review of the Application

by AmerGen for Renewal of the Operating License for the Oyster

Creek Nuclear Generating Plant” (Accession No. ML060530691).

March 2, 2006 Letter from AmerGen to NRC, “Correction of Minor Errors in the

Oyster Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application”

(Accession No. ML060660177).

March 8, 2006 Letter from AmerGen to NRC, “Response to NRC Request for

Additional Information Regarding the Environmental License Renewal

Review for the Oyster Creek Generating Station” 

(Accession No. ML060720126).

| March 13, 2006 Letter from NRC to L.T. Connors, Jr., New Jersey State

| Representative, regarding constituent’s concerns about fish kills

(Accession No. ML060720453).

March 15, 2006 Letter from AmerGen to NRC, “Clarifications to Responses to NRC

Request for Additional Information Related to Severe Accident

Management (sic) Alternatives (SAMA) for Oyster Creek Generating

Station” (Accession No. ML060760379).
Appendix C

January 2007 C-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

June 9, 2006 Letter from NRC to Ms. Patricia A. Kurkul, NOAA, National Marine |

Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office, “Request Initiation of an |

Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Regarding License Renewal of |

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station” |

(Accession No. ML061500190). |

|

June 13, 2006 Letter from NRC to Ms. Dorothy Guzzo, New Jersey State Historic |

Preservation Office, “Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station |

License Renewal” (Accession No. ML061580022). |

|

September 28, 2006 Letter from Mr. Peter D. Colosi, Jr., NOAA, National Marine Fisheries |

Service, Northeast Regional Office to NRC, “Essential Fish Habitat |

Consultation Regarding License Renewal of Oyster Creek Nuclear |

Generating Station (TAC No. MC7625)” |

(Accession No. ML062890168). |

October 18, 2006 Letter from NRC to Mr. Peter D. Colosi, Jr., NOAA, National Marine |

Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office to NRC, “Letter |

Received on October 16, 2006, Regarding the Essential Fish Habitat |

for License Renewal of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station |

(TAC # MC7625)” |

(Accession No. ML062930088). |

November 21, 2006 Letter from Ms. Patricia A. Kurkul, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries |

Service, Northeast Regional Office, to NRC, “Biological Opinion for |

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station” |

(Accession No. ML063320346). |

December 1, 2006 Letter from AmerGen to NRC, “Federal Consistency Certification for |

Oyster Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application” |

(Accession No. ML063380072). |

December 4, 2006 Email from AmerGen, to NRC, “Re: Non-rad Wastes” |

(Accession No. ML063380366). |

|

December 5, 2006 Letter from NRC to Mr. Peter D. Colosi, Jr., NOAA, National Marine |

Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office to NRC, “Response to |

Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendation Regarding the |

Proposed License Renewal of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating |

Station” |

(Accession No. ML063330176). |
 
Appendix D

Organizations Contacted

January 2007 D-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Appendix D

Organizations Contacted

During the course of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff’s independent review of

environmental impacts from operations during the renewal term, the following Federal, State,

regional, local, and Native American Tribal agencies were contacted:

Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program, Toms River, New Jersey.

Delaware Nation of Western Oklahoma, Anadarko, Oklahoma

Delaware Tribe of Indians, Bartlesville, Oklahoma

Lacey Township, New Jersey

Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians, Bridgeton, New Jersey

National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, Massachusetts

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, New Jersey

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Nuclear Engineering, Trenton,

New Jersey

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Endangered and Non-game Species

Program, Trenton, New Jersey

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Historic Preservation Office, Trenton,

New Jersey

New Jersey Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, New Jersey

Ocean County, Department of Planning, Toms River, New Jersey

Stockbridge-Munsee Community, Bowler, Wisconsin

The Delaware Tribe, Emporia, Kansas

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pleasantville, New Jersey

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, New York, New York

Appendix E

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC’s

Compliance Status and Consultation Correspondence
 
January 2007 E-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Appendix E

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC’s

Compliance Status and Consultation Correspondence

Correspondence received during the process of evaluation of the application for renewal of the

license for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS) is identified in Table E-1. 

Copies of the correspondence are included at the end of this appendix.

The licenses, permits, consultations, and other approvals obtained from Federal, State,

regional, and local authorities for OCNGS are listed in Table E-2.

Table E-1. Consultation Correspondence

Source Recipient Date of Letter

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (P.T. Kuo)

Stockbridge-Munsee Community

(R. Chicks)

October 12, 2005(a)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (P.T. Kuo)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(C. Day) 

October 12, 2005 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (P.T. Kuo)

New Jersey State Historic Preservation

Officer (D. Guzzo)

October 12, 2005

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory |

Commission (P.T. Kuo) |

Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation (D. Klima)

October 12, 2005

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (P.T. Kuo)

National Marine Fisheries Service

(P. Kurkul)

October 12, 2005

New Jersey State Historic

Preservation Officer (D. Fimbel)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(M. Masnik)

November 2, 2005

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(C. Day)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(M. Lesar)

November 23, 2005

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory |

Commission (F. Gillespie) |

National Marine Fisheries Service

(P. Kurkul)

June 9, 2006

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory |

Commission (R. Franovich) |

New Jersey State Historic Preservation

Office (D. Guzzo)

June 13, 2006

National Marine Fisheries Service |

(P.D. Colosi, Jr.) |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(F. Gillespie)

September 28, 2006

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory |

Commission (F. Gillespie) |

National Marine Fisheries Service

(P.D. Colosi, Jr.)

October 18, 2006
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-2 January 2007

Source Recipient Date of Letter

| National Marine Fisheries Service

| (P.A. Kurkul)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(F. Gillespie)

November 21, 2006

| AmerGen Energy Company, LLC

| (T. Rausch)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(P.T. Kuo)

December 1, 2006

| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

| Commission (P.T. Kuo)

National Marine Fisheries Service

(P.D. Colosi, Jr.)

December 5, 2006

(a) Similar letters were sent to four other Native American Tribes listed in Appendix C.
Table E-2. Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and Other

Approvals for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

Agency Authority Description Number

Issue

Date

Expiration

Date Remarks

NRC 10 CFR Part 50 Operating license,

Oyster Creek NuclearGenerating Station

DPR-16 04/09/69 04/09/09 Authorizes operation of OCNGS.

DOT 49 USC 5108 Registration 052804 700

004MO

05/28/04 06/30/07 Authorizes hazardous materials

shipment.

FWS Section 7 of the Endangered

Species Act (16 USC 1536)

Consultation NA NA NA Requires a Federal agency to

consult with the FWS regardingwhether a proposed action willaffect endangered or threatenedspecies.

NMFS Endangered Species Act

(16 USC 1531-1544)

Incidental TakePermit – Sea Turtles

NA Ongoing Ongoing Possession and disposition of

impinged or stranded sea turtles.

NJDEP,Division ofParks andForestry

Section 106 of the NationalHistoric Preservation Act(16 USC 470f)

Consultation NA NA NA The National Historic Preservation

Act requires Federal agencies totake into account the effect of anyundertaking on any district, site,building, structure, or object that isincluded in or eligible for inclusionin the National Register of HistoricPlaces.

NJDEP, LandUseRegulations

Federal Coastal ZoneManagement Act(16 USC 1452 et seq.)

Certification NA NA NA Requires applicant to prove

certification to Federal agencyissuing the license that licenserenewal would be consistent withthe Federally approved StateCoastal Zone Managementprogram. Based on its review ofthe proposed activity, the Statemust concur with or object to theapplicant’s certification.

NJDEP Clean Water Act, Section 401

(33 USC 1341)

Certification NA NA NA State issuance of NPDES permit

constitutes 401 certification.

January 2007 E-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Appendix E
Table E-2. (contd)

Agency Authority Description Number

Issue

Date

Expiration

Date Remarks

NJDEP Clean Water Act (33 USC

1251 et seq.); NJ StatutesAnnotated (NJSA) WaterPollution Control Act 58:10A etseq.; and NJ AdministrativeCode (NJAC) 7:14 et seq.

New Jersey PollutantDischarge EliminationSystem Permit –surface water

NJ0005550 10/24/94 Remains in

effectpending Stateaction oncurrentapplication

Wastewater (industrial surfacewater, thermal surface water, andstormwater runoff) discharges toOyster Creek, Forked River, andSouth Branch of the Forked River.

NJDEP Clean Water Act (33 USC

1251 et seq.); NJSA 58:10A etseq.; NJAC 7:14A et seq.

New Jersey PollutantDischarge EliminationSystem Permit –groundwater

NJ101966 02/20/04 02/20/09 Wastewater (percolation lagoon,

underground injection, dredgespoils) to groundwater.

NJDEP Coastal Area Facility Review

Act (NJSA 13:19-1 et seq.);Waterfront Development Act(NJSA 12:5-3); Wetlands Act(NJSA 13:9A-1 et seq.)

Certification NA NA NA Compliance with coastal zone

management rules, freshwaterwetlands protection rules, andCoastal Permit Program rules.

NJDEP Water Supply Management

Act (NJSA 58:1A et seq.)

Water UseRegistration

11108W 07/25/01 NA Registers two wells with collective

diversions of less than100,000 gallons per day.

NJDEP NJAC 7:7A Freshwater Wetlands

Statewide GeneralPermit

1500-02-0004.1

06/04/02 06/04/07 Remove vegetation from fire pond.

NJDEP Chapter 251, Soil Erosion and

Sediment Control Act, PL 195

Certificate SCD 1302 07/09/05 01/09/09 Soil Erosion Control and Sediment

Control Plan for upland dredgedisposal site.

NJDEP Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et

seq.); Air Pollution Control Act(NJSA 26:2C-9.2)

Certificate to operate PCP970001 09/08/97 09/08/07 Air emissions for DL-42 boiler and

DL-68 boiler.

NJDEP Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et

seq.); Air Pollution Control Act(NJSA 26:2C-9.2)

Certificate to operate PCP970002 10/09/02 10/09/07 Emergency Fire Diesel 1-2.

NJDEP Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et

seq); Air Pollution Control Act(NJSA 26:2C-9.2)

Certificate to operate PCP970003 11/14/97 11/14/07 #1 Boiler.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-4 January 2007

Appendix E
Table E-2. (contd)

Agency Authority Description Number

Issue

Date

Expiration

Date Remarks

NJDEP Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et

seq.); Air Pollution Control Act(NJSA 26:2C-9.2)

Certificate to operate PCP970005 01/08/03 01/08/08 Forked River Emergency Fire

Diesel.

NJDEP Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et

seq.); Air Pollution Control Act(NJSA 26:2C-9.2)

Certificate to operate PCP970006 10/31/02 10/29/07 Dirty Oil Lube Tank.

NJDEP Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et

seq.); Air Pollution Control Act(NJSA 26:2C-9.2)

Certificate to operate PCP960005 03/23/04 03/23/09 Aboveground Gasoline Storage

Tank.

NJDEP Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et

seq.); Air Pollution Control Act(NJSA 26:2C-9.2)

Certificate to operate PCP960006 07/10/04 07/10/09 Emergency Generator 1.

NJDEP Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et

seq.); Air Pollution Control Act(NJSA 26:2C-9.2)

Certificate to operate PCP960007 07/10/04 07/10/09 Emergency Diesel Generator 2.

NJDEP | Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et

seq.); Air Pollution Control Act |(NJSA 26:2C-9.2) |

Certificate to operate | E801 06/26/96 06/26/11 Grit Blaster.

NJDEP Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et

seq.); Air Pollution Control Act(NJSA 26:2C-9.2)

Certificate to operate PCP020001 07/29/02 07/28/07 Emergency Fire Diesel 1-1.

NJDEP NJAC 7:14B Certificate to operate GEN000001 07/18/05 07/18/10 Emergency Generator 2.

NJDEP Clean Water Act (33 USC

1251 et seq.); Clean Air Act(42 USC 7401 et seq.);Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (42 USC 6901et seq.); Water PollutionControl Act (NJSA 48:10A etseq.); Industrial Site RecoveryAct (NJSA 26:2C-1 et seq.and NJAC 7:14B)

Registration UST 000002 08/24/04 08/24/09 Underground Storage Tank –

Emergency Spill Tank.

January 2007 E-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Appendix E
Table E-2. (contd)

Agency Authority Description Number

Issue

Date

Expiration

Date Remarks

NJDEP | NJAC 7:18 et seq. Laboratory

certification |

15304 06/30/06 06/30/07 State-certified laboratory to

perform listed analyses. |

NJDOT Fish and Game, Wild Birds

and Animals

License H-205 01/31/06 01/31/07 Oyster Creek Helistop.

NJDEP Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et

seq.); Air Pollution Control Act(NJSA 26:2C-9.2)

Certificate to operate PCP960004 02/13/06 02/13/11 Emergency Diesel Generator Fuel

Oil Storage Tank.

SCDHEC South Carolina Radioactive

Waste Transportation andDisposal Act (Act No. 429)

South CarolinaRadioactive WasteTransport Permit

0043-29-04 12/31/05 – Transportation of radioactive

waste into the state of SouthCarolina.

VDEP | Virginia Department of

Emergency Management |Title 44, Code of Virginia, |Chapter 3.3, |Section 44–146.3 |

Virginia Registration |to Transport |Hazardous |Radioactive Materials |

AO-S- |063006 |

06/30/06 07/31/08 Transport of hazardous

radioactive materials. |

|

TDEC Tennessee Department of

Environment andConservation Rule 1200-2-10.32

TennesseeRadioactive WasteLicense-for-Delivery

T-NJ001-L04 12/31/05 – Transportation of radioactive

waste into the state of Tennessee.

NJDEP 40 CFR 266 Subpart N,

NJAC 7:26G

ConditionalExemption

NA NA NA Storage and treatment of low-level

mixed waste.

Ocean CountyUtilitiesAuthority

NA Agreement NA NA NA OCNGS provides continuous

radiation monitoring of dischargesof OCNGS wastewater to publiclyowned treatment facility.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-6 January 2007

Appendix E
Table E-2. (contd)

– = date not givenCFR = Code of Federal RegulationsDOT = U.S. Department of TransportationFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceNA = not applicableNJAC = New Jersey Administrative CodeNJDEP = New Jersey Department of Environmental ProtectionNJDOT = New Jersey Department of TransportationNJSA = New Jersey Statutes AnnotatedNMFS = National Marine Fisheries ServiceNPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemNRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionOCNGS = Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating StationPL = Public LawSCDHEC = South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental ControlTDEC = Tennessee Department of Environment and ConservationUSC = United States CodeVDEP = Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

Appendix E

January 2007 E-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-8 January 2007
Appendix E

January 2007 E-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-10 January 2007
Appendix E

January 2007 E-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-12 January 2007
Appendix E

January 2007 E-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-14 January 2007
Appendix E

January 2007 E-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-16 January 2007
Appendix E

January 2007 E-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-18 January 2007
Appendix E

January 2007 E-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-20 January 2007
Appendix E

January 2007 E-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-22 January 2007
Appendix E

January 2007 E-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-24 January 2007
Appendix E

January 2007 E-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-26 January 2007
Appendix E

January 2007 E-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-28 January 2007
Appendix E

January 2007 E-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-30 January 2007
Appendix E

January 2007 E-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-32 January 2007
Appendix E

January 2007 E-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-34 January 2007
Appendix E

January 2007 E-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-36 January 2007
Appendix E

January 2007 E-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-38 January 2007
Appendix E

January 2007 E-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-40 January 2007

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix E

January 2007 E-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-42 January 2007

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix E

January 2007 E-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

|
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-44 January 2007

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix E

January 2007 E-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-46 January 2007

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix E

January 2007 E-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-48 January 2007

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN

THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AND

AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC,

REGARDING THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT REVIEW

FOR RENEWING THE OPERATING LICENSE FOR

THE OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
Appendix E

January 2007 E-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-50 January 2007
Appendix E

January 2007 E-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-52 January 2007

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT

FOR RENEWAL OF THE OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING

STATION OPERATING LICENSE
Appendix E

January 2007 E-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, (FCMA) which was

reauthorized and amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, sets forth the essential

fish habitat (EFH) provisions designed to protect important habitats of Federally managed

marine and anadromous fish species. The Act requires the eight regional fishery management

councils to describe and identify EFH in their respective regions, to specify actions that would

conserve and enhance EFH, and to minimize the adverse effects of fishing on EFH. Pursuant

to the Act, Congress has defined EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for

spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity”. Federal agencies that fund, permit, or

undertake activities that may adversely affect EFH are required to consult with the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the potential effects of their actions on EFH, and

respond in writing to NMFS’s conservation recommendations. For the purpose of consultation,

an adverse effect includes any impact that reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH. The

consultation document must include the following information:

C A description of the proposed action;

C An analysis of the potential adverse effects of the action on EFH and the managed

species;

C The Federal agency’s conclusions regarding the effects of the action on EFH; and

C Proposed mitigation, if applicable.

On July 22, 2005, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an application from

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen), for renewal of the operating license (OL) of the

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS), which expires on April 9, 2009. As part of

the application, AmerGen submitted an Environmental Report (ER) (AmerGen 2005a) prepared

in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Part 51, of the Code of Federal Regulations

(10 CFR Part 51). 

On September 22, 2005, the NRC staff published (NRC 2005a) a Notice of Intent to prepare a

plant-specific supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal

of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996,1999). During the

development of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), the NRC staff

visited the site, met with members of Federal and State regulatory agencies, spoke to local

citizens, interviewed individuals who had conducted environmental research in Oyster Creek,

Forked River, or Barnegat Bay, and reviewed a variety of technical reports, journal articles, and

other relevant information to determine whether license renewal would result in adverse

environmental impacts. This information and other sources relevant to EFH issues were
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-54 January 2007

consulted during the development of this document. This EFH assessment has been developed

to fulfill the NRC requirement under the FCMA for the OCNGS license renewal review.

2.0 PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION

The proposed Federal action is renewal of the OL for OCNGS, a nuclear power plant that is

located in eastern New Jersey adjacent to Barnegat Bay. OCNGS is a single-unit plant with a

boiling-water reactor and steam turbine manufactured by General Electric. The reactor has a

design power level of 1930 megawatts thermal (MW[t]) and a net power output of

640 megawatts electric (MW[e]). Plant cooling is provided by a once-through cooling system

that draws cooling water from Barnegat Bay via the Forked River and a man-made intake canal,

and discharges heated water back to Barnegat Bay via a discharge canal and Oyster Creek. 

The current OL for OCNGS expires on April 9, 2009. By a letter dated July 22, 2005, AmerGen

submitted an application (AmerGen 2005b) to the NRC to renew the OL for an additional

20 years of operation (i.e., until April 9, 2029). Details concerning the renewal of the OL can be

found on the NRC website (NRC 2006a).

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

OCNGS is located in eastern New Jersey, approximately 60 mi south of Newark, 35 mi north of

Atlantic City, and 50 mi east of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Figure 1). The nearest major water

body is Barnegat Bay, a protected estuary on the central New Jersey coast (Figure 2). OCNGS

is bounded on the north by the South Branch of the Forked River and on the south by Oyster

Creek (Figure 3). Barnegat Bay is a shallow, lagoon-type estuary that is separated from the

Atlantic Ocean by a nearly contiguous barrier island complex (Chizmadia et al. 1984;

BBNEP 2001). The bay is approximately 43 mi long and 3 to 9 mi wide. Depths range from 3 to

23 ft, with the greatest depths associated with the Intracoastal Waterway, a dredged channel

running parallel to the U.S. eastern seaboard (Chizmadia et al. 1984; BBNEP 2002). The total

quantity of water associated with the bay is estimated to be 60 billion gal (Guo et al. 2004). The

estuary is bordered by the mainland to the west, Point Pleasant and Bay Head to the north, the

barrier islands to the east, and Manahawkin Causway to the south. Freshwater enters the bay

from numerous streams, including, from north to south, Manasquan River and Canal,

Metedeconk River, Kettle Creek, Toms River, Cedar Creek, Stout Creek, Forked River, and

Oyster Creek (Chizmadia et al. 1984). Seawater enters the bay from the north through the

Point Pleasant Canal via Manasquan Inlet and from the south through Little Egg Inlet. There is

also an entrance to Barnegat Bay via Barnegat Inlet, a narrow navigable passage to the Atlantic

Ocean through the barrier islands located to the southeast of Oyster Creek. The configuration

of the Barnegat Inlet jetty system and the entrance channel have undergone extensive

modifications by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and a major
Appendix E

January 2007 E-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Figure 1. Location of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, 50-mi Region

 (Source: AmerGen 2005a)

program was initiated in 1988 to realign the south jetty and dredge accumulated sediments from

the channel to improve navigation (Seabergh et al. 2003). Because of the limited connection of

Barnegat Bay to the Atlantic Ocean, tides in the bay are attenuated relative to the open ocean. 

Complete turnover of the water within the bay is estimated to occur every 96 tidal cycles with 1

tidal cycle completed every 12.7 hr (Chizmadia et al. 1984; 
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-56 January 2007

Guo et al. 2004). Salinity ranges from approximately 11 to 32 parts per thousand (ppt); the

highest salinity is associated with the inlets, and the lowest is along the western shoreline near

the mouths of various rivers and creeks. Water temperature in Barnegat Bay ranges from an

average of 34.9 EF (1.6 °C) in winter to 73.4 EF (23.0 °C) in summer (Chizmadia et al. 1984;

BBNEP 2001).

Figure 2. Location of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, 6-mi Region

 (Source: AmerGen 2005a)
Appendix E

January 2007 E-57 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

The substrate of Barnegat Bay is typical of a shallow estuary. Central portions of the bay are

composed primarily of fine to medium sand, with muddier sand present closer to the western

shore. The intertidal areas adjacent to the mouths of Forked River and Oyster Creek are

primarily sandy mud (Chizmadia et al. 1984). The barrier islands and mainland shores of

Barnegat Bay support a network of salt marshes and other coastal wetlands that represent

important habitats for juvenile fish and invertebrates (BBNEP 2001). In recent years, concern

has been raised regarding the loss of salt marsh habitat along the Atlantic Coast (GLCF 2005). 

The cause of the observed losses is not known, but it is assumed to be a combination of sea

level rise and hydrologic changes that result in an inadequate supply of sediment required for

marsh maintenance (Hartig and Gornitz 2001).

4.0 PLANT COOLING-WATER SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

OCNGS has a once-through cooling system that uses water from Barnegat Bay. Cooling water

is withdrawn from the bay via the South Branch of the Forked River, then through a 150-ft-wide 

Figure 3. Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Site Boundary

 (Source: AmerGen 2005a)
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-58 January 2007

Figure 4. Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Site Layout

 (Source: AmerGen 2005a)

intake canal to the intake structure. Heated cooling water is discharged to a 150-ft-wide

discharge canal that flows into Oyster Creek, which in turn flows into the bay. The intake and

discharge canals are divided by a berm. Three dilution pumps move water from the intake

canal directly into the discharge canal to lower the temperature of the station cooling water in

the discharge canal. Details on the circulating-water system are presented below. Unless

otherwise noted, the discussion of the circulating-water system was obtained from the Updated

Final Safety Analysis Report (AmerGen 2003), the Final Environmental Statement for OCNGS

operations (AEC 1974), or the ER (AmerGen 2005a).
Appendix E

January 2007 E-59 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

The intake structure has two bays, each equipped with a trash rack, a 3/8-in.-mesh traveling

screen, a screen-wash system, two service-water pumps, two emergency service-water pumps,

and two circulating-water pumps. Each of the four circulating-water pumps located in the intake

structure can provide up to 115,000 gallons per minute (gpm) of cooling water to the

condensers. In addition to the circulating water system OCNGS has a separate service water

system that provides cooling water to the reactor building and turbine building heat exchangers. 

An angled boom in the intake canal immediately in front of the intake prevents large mats of

eelgrass and algae from clogging the intake system.

The trash racks are composed of nearly vertical steel bars on 3-in. centers, with effective

openings of 2.5 in. After passing through the trash racks, water passes through 3/8-in.-mesh

traveling screens equipped with Ristroph buckets. A low-pressure screen wash washes off

impinged aquatic organisms and debris into the Ristroph buckets. The Ristroph buckets empty

into a flume that conveys the fish and shellfish to the head of the discharge canal in the area of

the dilution pump discharge (NJDEP 2005a).

Each bay of the intake structure has a service-water pump with a capacity of 6000 gpm, a

second service-water pump with a capacity of 2000 gpm, two emergency service-water pumps

each with a capacity of 4150 gpm, and a screen-wash pump with a capacity of 900 gpm. These

pumps are located immediately downstream of the traveling screens. Service water provides

cooling water to the reactor building and turbine building heat exchangers. The service water

empties into the discharge canal.

Three dilution water pumps (low-speed, axial flow pumps with 7-ft impellers, each rated at

260,000 gpm) are located on the western side of the intake canal and are protected by trash

racks. Because the dilution pump intakes lack traveling screens, fish may be drawn through the

pumps. No impingement or entrainment safeguards are present; however, AmerGen contends

that the pump design allows for some impingement and entrainment survivability (NJDEP

2005a). The purpose of the dilution pumps is to decrease the temperature of the discharge

water, which otherwise would encourage migratory fish to stay during the spring and fall, and to

reduce thermal stress on organisms in the discharge canal during the summer. The use of the

dilution pumps is covered in the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES)

permit, which allows only two of the three pumps to operate concurrently during normal

operations. During a station shutdown, dilution pumps are operated to minimize the impact of

thermal shock on organisms in Oyster Creek and Barnegat Bay. In the winter, a recirculation

tunnel transfers water from the discharge to the intake structure as needed to prevent icing.

Sodium hypochlorite is injected into the circulating-water and plant service-water systems, and

chlorine gas is injected into the augmented off-gas/new radioactive waste service-water system

to minimize fouling in the pipes and condensers. The main condenser’s six sections are

chlorinated one at a time so that the sections are consecutively chlorinated for 20 minutes each
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-60 January 2007

during the daily cycle for a maximum of 2 hours per day of chlorination for the entire condensor

(NJDEP 2005a).

5.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF PLANT OPERATION

ON BIOTA AND HABITAT

The cooling-water system associated with OCNGS utilizes water from Forked River and

Barnegat Bay and may affect EFH in the following ways:

C Impingement of juvenile or adult forms of fish and shellfish;

C Entrainment of eggs or larvae of fish and shellfish, or of phytoplankton and zooplankton

that form the basis of the nearshore marine food webs; and

C Discharge of heated cooling water containing biocides or other chemicals into Oyster

Creek and Barnegat Bay

These impacts are discussed in this section.

5.1 IMPINGEMENT

At maximum flow, with all circulating and dilution pumps operating, the OCNGS cooling-water

system requires approximately 1.25 million gpm. However, the licensee normally does not

operate more than two dilution pumps at a time so total plant flow is typically less than one

million gpm. At this flow rate, the velocity in the intake and discharge canals is typically less

than 2.0 ft/s, but the flow is sufficient to result in impingement of fish and shellfish on the

traveling screens associated with the cooling-water intake system.

Impingement mortality studies were conducted between 1965 and 1977 on a variety of fish and

shellfish species, including bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia),

winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus),

sand shrimp (Crangon septemspinosa), and blue crab (Callinectes sapidus). Winter flounder

exhibited the highest survival after impingement (77 to 93 percent), and bay anchovy exhibited

the lowest survival (4 to 19 percent) (Summers et al. 1989).
Appendix E

January 2007 E-61 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

5.2 ENTRAINMENT

During normal operations, a variety of organisms are entrained, including eggs and larvae of

fish and shellfish occurring in Barnegat Bay or Forked River, and phytoplankton and

zooplankton that contribute to the marine-estuarine food web in Barnegat Bay. The number and

variety of entrained organisms vary seasonally and annually. The most commonly entrained

organisms include juvenile and adult opossum shrimp (Neomysis integer); zoea, juvenile, and

adult sand shrimp; eggs and larvae of the bay anchovy; and larvae of winter flounder.

5.3 THERMAL RELEASES

The discharge of heated water into Oyster Creek creates elevated temperatures 

(>86 EF [30 EC]) in the discharge canal and produces a thermal plume in Barnegat Bay that

varies in extent and magnitude based on plant operation characteristics, ambient air and water

temperatures, and hydrodynamic characteristics associated with wind and tide. These thermal

emissions have the potential to affect food web dynamics, alter fish behavior, or produce acute

or chronic impacts on temperature-sensitive species.

E

The NJDEP fact sheet (NJDEP 2005a) identified the following thermal surface-water quality

standards applicable to OCNGS operations:

C Ambient water temperatures in the receiving waters shall not be raised by more than 

4 EF (2.2 EC) from June through August, nor more than 1.5EF (0.8EC) from June through

August, nor cause temperature to exceed 85EF (29.4EC), except in designated heat

dissipation areas.

C Heat dissipation in streams (including saline estuarine waters) shall not exceed

one-quarter of the cross section and/or volume of the water body at any time; nor more

than two-thirds of the surface from shore to shore at any time.

Interruption of the flow of heated water from the plant, or failure of the dilution pump system, has

resulted in a number of fish kills since OCNGS began operating in 1969. Fish kills associated

with thermal fluctuations from 1972 to 1982 are summarized in Kennish (2001). Additional

details on fish kills related to thermal fluctuations at OCNGS are provided in Section 4 of

Supplement 28 to the GEIS (NRC 2006b).
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-62 January 2007

6.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

ON DESIGNATED ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

OF MANAGED SPECIES

6.1 EVALUATION OF SPECIES REQUIRING EFH CONSULTATION

During the development of this EFH assessment, NMFS websites (NMFS 2006a,b,c) were

consulted to develop an initial list of candidate fish species that would be considered for

EFH consultation. Because Barnegat Bay encompasses four different 10-minute × 10-minute

grids for EFH habitats in addition to the Barnegat Bay complex (Table 1), the initial candidate

species list includes organisms living in nearshore estuarine and oceanic habitats (Table 2). 

During the initial review of life history and EFH requirements for each candidate species, some

species or life stages were eliminated from further consideration based on salinity or depth

requirements, or life history information that suggested that the appearance of some species or

life stage is unlikely in Barnegat Bay, Oyster Creek, or Forked River (Table 3). Table 4 gives

the final list of species and life stages that were evaluated in this EFH assessment.

Table 1. Essential Fish Habitat Areas Associated with Barnegat Bay

North East South West Web Address

40E

10.0'N

74E 0.00'W 40E 00.0'N 74E 10.0'W http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/STATES4/new_

jersey/40007400.html

40E

00.0'N

74E 0.00'W 39E 50.0'N 74E 10.0'W http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/STATES4/new_

jersey/39507400.html

39E

50.0'N

74E 10.0'W 39E 40.0'N 74E 20.0'W http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/STATES4/new_

jersey/39407400.html

39E

40.0'N

74E 10.0'W 39E 30.0'N 74E 20.0'W http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/STATES4/new_

jersey/39307410.html

Barnegat Bay, New Jersey http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/nj1.html

6.2 SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS AND IMPACT DETERMINATION

EFH requirements for the relevant species and life stages presented in Table 4 are discussed in

this section. Species descriptions include, if available, information on fish abundance patterns

in Barnegat Bay, common depth distributions, migratory and spawning habits, tolerance and

preference ranges for temperature and salinity, habitat needs, and information on food

preferences. For each species and life stage, OCNGS operations were evaluated to determine

whether they resulted in (1) no adverse impact, (2) minimal adverse impact, or (3) substantial

adverse impact on EFH. These impact categories follow the standard used by 
Appendix E

January 2007 E-63 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Table 2. Initial List of Candidate Species and Life Stages

 Considered for Inclusion in EFH Assessment

Scientific Name Common Name

Life Stage

Egg Larvae Juvenile Adult

Spawning

Adult

Carcharhinus obscurus dusky shark #(a)

Carcharhinus plumbeus sandbar shark #(a) # #

Centropristis striata black sea bass # #

Clupea harengus harengus Atlantic sea herring # #

Gadus morhua Atlantic cod #

Galeocerdo cuvier tiger shark #(a) #

Glyptocephalus cynoglossus witch flounder #

Hippoglossoides platessoides American plaice # #

Leocoraja erinacea little skate # #

Leucoraja ocellata winter skate # #

Limanda ferruginea yellowtail flounder # #

Lophius americanus monkfish # #

Merluccius bilinearis whiting ## # #

Paralichthys dentatus summer flounder # ##

Peprilus triacanthus Atlantic butterfish #

Pomatomus saltatrix bluefish # #

Pseudopleuronectes americanus winter flounder ## # # #

Rachycentron canadum cobia ## # #

Raja eglanteria clearnose skate # #

Scomberomorus cavalla king mackerel ## # #

Scomberomorus maculatus Spanish mackerel ## # #

Scophthalmus aquosus windowpane flounder ## # # #

Spisula solidissima surf clam # #

Stenotomus chrysops scup # #

Urophycis chuss red hake ## #

Zoarces americanus ocean pout # ##

(a) Neonates and/or early-stage juveniles.
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-64 January 2007

Table 3. Species and Life Stages Eliminated from Consideration

in EFH Assessment and Rationale for Elimination

Common Name

Life Stages Eliminated from

EFH Assessment Rationale for Elimination

American plaice All life stages Salinity and depth requirements not

present in Barnegat Bay

Atlantic butterfish All life stages Depth requirements not present in

Barnegat Bay

Atlantic cod All life stages Salinity and depth requirements not

present in Barnegat Bay

Atlantic sea herring All life stages Salinity and depth requirements not

present in Barnegat Bay

Black sea bass Adults

(juveniles retained)

Depth requirements not present in

Barnegat Bay

Bluefish Adults

(juveniles retained)

Salinity requirements not present in

Barnegat Bay

Cobia All life stages Salinity requirements not present in

Barnegat Bay

King mackerel All life stages Salinity requirements not present in

Barnegat Bay

Monkfish All life stages Depth requirements not present in

Barnegat Bay

Ocean pout All life stages Salinity requirements not present in

Barnegat Bay

Red hake Juveniles

(eggs and larvae retained)

Salinity requirements not present in

Barnegat Bay

Spanish mackerel All life stages Salinity requirements not present in

Barnegat Bay

Summer flounder Larvae

(juveniles and adults retained)

Depth requirements not present in

Barnegat Bay

Whiting All life stages Depth requirements not present in

Barnegat Bay

Witch flounder All life stages Salinity and depth requirements not

present in Barnegat Bay

Yellowtail flounder All life stages Salinity and depth requirements not

present in Barnegat Bay
Appendix E

January 2007 E-65 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Table 4. Species and Life Stages Included in EFH Consultation

Common Name

Life Stage

Egg Larvae Juvenile Adult

Spawning

Adult

Black sea bass #

Bluefish #

Clearnose skate # #

Dusky shark #(a)

Little skate # #

Red hake # #

Sandbar shark #(a) # #

Scup # #

Summer flounder # #

Surf clam # #

Tiger shark #(a) #

Windowpane flounder ## # # #

Winter flounder ## # # #

Winter skate # #

(a) Neonates and/or early-stage juveniles.

the Northeast Regional Office of the NMFS. To determine impact level, OCNGS monitoring

data, scientific journal articles or technical reports, and other relevant information were

reviewed.

Black Sea Bass (Centropristis striata)

Barnegat Bay is considered EFH for juvenile black sea bass. The shallow depth of Barnegat

Bay prevents it from meeting EFH criteria for black sea bass adults. Juveniles enter the estuary

in late spring and early summer after settlement has occurred in coastal waters, and move to

warmer offshore or southern waters during the winter months. Juvenile young-of-the-year

(YOY) are tolerant of temperatures of 43-86 EF (6 to 30 EC) and salinities of 8 to 38 ppt, but

prefer temperatures of 63-77 EF (17 to 25 EC) and salinities of 18 to 20 ppt. In winter, juvenile

black sea bass require water temperatures higher than 41 EF (5 EC) and prefer salinities of

approximately 18 to 20 ppt (NMFS 1999a). The EFH of juvenile black sea bass includes

shallow, hard-bottom substrates with structure present to provide protection and refuge. 

Suitable habitat includes oyster or mussel beds, seagrass beds, piers, wharves, 
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-66 January 2007

artificial reefs, and cobble and shoal areas (NMFS 2006a,b,c). Juveniles do not prefer open

areas, unvegetated sandy intertidal areas, or beaches. Juvenile black sea bass are diurnal,

visual predators, and their diet consists of small benthic crustaceans, polychaetes, sand shrimp,

amphipods, and shrimp. There is also no evidence that entrainment of prey items (e.g., sand

shrimp) has significantly disrupted the population of juvenile black sea bass in Barnegat Bay. 

Reported losses of seagrass habitat in Barnegat Bay appear to be related to increased

urbanization and possibly to alterations to Barnegat Inlet that have changed the salinity and

resulted in the proliferation of algal blooms that can kill seagrass or limit light penetration and

productivity (McLain and McHale 1996; BBNEP 2001; Gastrich et al. 2004). This species is not

commonly impinged on OCNGS traveling screens, nor has it been identified in episodic fish kills

associated with the thermal plume. Although prey items are entrained or impinged in the

OCNGS cooling system, there is no indication that prey populations have been measurably

affected. OCNGS operations would likely have a minimal adverse effect on juvenile black sea

bass EFH. 

Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix)

Barnegat Bay is considered EFH for juvenile and adult bluefish, although adults are generally

not found in the bay because they require oceanic (>35 ppt) salinity. According to the

NMFS (1999b), juvenile bluefish distribution over the continental shelf has not been

documented; thus, it is unclear whether this life stage is estuarine-dependent. Juveniles have

been observed in all estuaries within the Middle Atlantic Bight from May through October. As

water temperatures cool during the autumn and winter, juveniles and adults move south. 

Optimum conditions for pelagic juveniles (summer cohort) include temperatures of 59 to 68 EF

(15 to 20 EC) and salinities of 31 to 36 ppt. Summer cohort juveniles prefer temperatures of 68

to 86 E F (20 to 30 EC) and salinities of 23 to 33 ppt. Bluefish are known to be voracious

predators and appear to eat whatever prey items are abundant, including small fish,

polychaetes, and crustaceans. It is likely that the juvenile summer-spawned cohort uses

Barnegat Bay as a nursery area (Tatham et al. 1984). Although juvenile bluefish are among the

species that have been killed by thermal shock associated with OCNGS operations

(Kennish 2001), the number of fish kills has declined dramatically over the past decade because

of improved procedures. There is no evidence that large numbers of juvenile bluefish are

impinged on the OCNGS cooling system traveling screens, nor is there evidence that

entrainment or impingement of prey items at OCNGS has resulted in a detectable disruption of

the food web in Barnegat Bay (EA 1986; Summers et al. 1989). It appears that OCNGS

operations would likely have a minimal adverse effect on bluefish EFH. 

Clearnose Skate (Raja eglanteria)

On the basis of the distribution patterns described by NMFS (2006c), Barnegat Bay may provide

EFH for juvenile and adult clearnose skates. Little information is available to determine whether

juveniles and adults frequent Barnegat Bay. However, there is some evidence that they enter
Appendix E

January 2007 E-67 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

the coastal waters of New Jersey during the spring and early summer and move offshore and

southward as the water cools during the autumn and winter (NMFS 2003a). Tatham et al.

(1984) considered the clearnose skate as a local marine stray in Barnegat Bay. Clearnose

skates occur over a relatively large temperature range (48 to 86 EF [9 to 30 EC]) and have been

found in water with salinity ranging from 6 to greater than 35 ppt (NMFS 2003a). The optimum

temperature for both juveniles and adults appears to be approximately 48 to 68EF (9 to 20 EC),

and the optimum salinity appears to range from 31 and 35 ppt. Skates are often found on softbottom habitats along the continental shelf and have been caught in water depths ranging from

approximately 1 to 300 m; they are most common in waters ranging from about 5 to 20 m. 

Juveniles and adults generally move inshore and northward during the spring and early

summer, and offshore and southward during the autumn and early winter. Juvenile and adult

clearnose skates are not commonly impinged on the OCNGS traveling screens, nor is there

evidence to suggest that clearnose skates make significant use of the estuary for reproduction

or nursery activities. It is also unlikely that OCNGS operations have adversely affected EFH for

this species because the operational impacts on nearshore sediments are generally restricted to

Oyster Creek and Forked River (EA 1986; Summers et al. 1989). Although prey items are

entrained or impinged in the OCNGS cooling system, there is no indication that prey populations

have been measurably affected. OCNGS operations would likely have a minimal adverse effect

on EFH for adult or juvenile clearnose skates.

Dusky Shark (Carcharhinus obscurus)

According to the NMFS (2006c), Barnegat Bay is designated as EFH for dusky shark neonates

and early-stage juveniles. Shallow bays and estuaries are used as nursery areas for young

sharks. After giving birth, females leave the estuary (FMNH 2006a). Adults are considered

highly migratory (NMFS 2006d) and generally move north during the summer and south during

the winter. Adults avoid low-salinity conditions and rarely enter estuaries. This species was not

identified in Barnegat Bay by Tatham et al. (1984). EFH for neonates and early-stage juveniles

is considered to be shallow coastal waters, inlets, and estuaries to depths of approximately

25 m (NMFS 2006d), and it appears that the young sharks are tolerant of both temperature and

salinity extremes common to estuaries. Because recently born sharks are approximately one m

in length, their diet is assumed to be similar to adults and includes a variety of fish and

invertebrates occurring near the bottom. This species was not commonly impinged (EA 1986;

Summers et al. 1989), and dusky sharks have not been found in OCNGS fish kills. Although

prey items are entrained or impinged in the OCNGS cooling system, there is no indication that

prey populations have been measurably affected. OCNGS operations would likely have a

minimal adverse effect on EFH for neonates and early-stage juveniles. 
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-68 January 2007

Little Skate (Leocoraja erinacea)

On the basis of the distribution patterns presented in NMFS 2006c, Barnegat Bay likely contains

EFH for juvenile and possibly adult little skates. Adults and juveniles generally move into

shallow coastal areas and estuaries during the spring and summer, and into deeper water

during the winter. They may also leave estuaries for deeper waters during warm summer

months (NMFS 2003b). Juvenile skates are generally found in water depths ranging from

1 to 400 m, but are most common in depths of 5 to 8 m. They are able to tolerate temperatures

ranging from 32 to 45 EF (0 to 7 EC) in the winter and 57 to 72 EF (14 to 22 EC) in the summer,

and salinity ranging from approximately 15 to 35 ppt. Adults and juveniles collected from the

New York Bight were found at a mean temperature of 47 EF (8.5 EC) and a mean salinity of

32 ppt (NMFS 2003b). Preferred prey items for adult and juvenile little skates include decapod

crustaceans and amphipods. Fish and squid are also eaten. On the basis of studies of the

OCNGS once-through cooling system, entrainment of early life stages of fish and invertebrates

has not adversely affected the prey items of Barnegat Bay that could potentially support juvenile

and adult skates, nor is this species commonly impinged on the traveling screens associated

with the cooling-water intakes. Although fish kills due to thermal fluctuations have occurred,

little skate was not among the species killed. OCNGS operations would likely have a minimal

adverse effect on EFH for juvenile and adult little skate. 

Red Hake (Urophycis chuss)

Barnegat Bay is considered EFH for eggs and larvae of the red hake. Red hake are demersal

fish common along the New Jersey coastline. Spawning adults are known to frequent coastal

ports, and spawning occurs from about April to November at temperatures between 

41 and 50 E F (5 and 10 EC) (NMFS 1999c). Eggs are about 0.6 to 1.0 mm in diameter and

float near the water surface. EFH for red hake eggs includes surface waters of the middle

Atlantic region at sea surface temperatures below 50 EF (10 EC) and salinities of less than 25

ppt. Eggs are usually observed from May to November, with peak densities during June and

July (NMFS 2006a,c). Temperature dependent hatching occurs at temperatures ranging from

37 to 45 EF (3 to 7 EC). Larvae of red hake are less than 2.0 mm at hatching and dominate the

ichthyoplankton during the late summer months in the Middle Atlantic Bight (NMFS 1999c). 

EFH for larval red hake includes surface waters of the middle Atlantic region at depths less than

200 m, temperatures less than 66 EF(19 EC), and salinities greater than 0.5 ppt. Larvae are

observed from May to December, with peak densities in September and October (NMFS

2006b). Larvae are nocturnal feeders that prey upon copepods and other microcrustaceans. 

On the basis of results of the 316(b) demonstration study at OCNGS (EA 1986; Summers et al.

1989), eggs and larvae of red hake were not identified in entrainment samples at OCNGS, nor

is there evidence that entrainment or thermal fluctuations associated with the facility have

resulted in a detectable disruption of food web dynamics in the estuary with respect to the

presence and abundance of microcrustacean prey items. OCNGS operations would likely have

a minimal adverse effect on EFH for red hake eggs and larvae.
Appendix E

January 2007 E-69 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Sandbar Shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus)

Barnegat Bay is considered EFH for neonate, juvenile, and adult sandbar sharks. Sandbar

sharks are bottom-dwelling and represent one of the most numerous shark species in the

western Atlantic. EFH requirements for neonates and early juveniles (90 cm or less) include

shallow coastal waters at depths reaching 25 m, and nursery areas generally located in shallow

coastal waters with temperatures higher than 70 EF (21 o

C) and salinities greater than 22 ppt

(NMFS 2006b). EFH for late-stage juveniles and subadults (91 to 179 cm) is identified in coastal

and pelagic waters near Barnegat Inlet that range in depth from 25 to 200 m (NMFS 2006c). 

EFH for adult sandbar sharks (>179 cm) includes shallow coastal areas to a depth of 50 m. 

Temperature and salinity preferences for various life stages are assumed to be typical of

estuaries. Sandbar sharks are opportunistic feeders, and prey items commonly include small

fish, molluscs, and crustaceans. Some of these prey are commonly impinged at OCNGS. The

sandbar shark was not identified as a common species in Barnegat Bay by Tatham et al.

(1984), juveniles and adults are not routinely impinged on the OCNGS traveling screens (EA

1986; Summers et al. 1989), and this species has not been found in OCNGS fish kills (Kennish

2001). OCNGS operations would likely have a minimal adverse effect on EFH for this species.

Scup (Stenotomus chrysops)

Barnegat Bay contains EFH for the both juvenile and adult scup. Scup are considered a

temperate species, with a range extending from Massachusetts to South Carolina, and are

common in the summer and early fall in coastal estuaries containing both open and structured

environments (NMFS 1999d). Tatham et al. (1984) considered scup a local marine stray in

Barnegat Bay. Juveniles are found in water depths ranging from intertidal to approximately

39 m; they prefer water temperatures of approximately 61 to 70 EF (16 to 22 EC), but are found

in water with temperatures higher than 45 EF (7 EC) in winter. Juveniles in estuaries are found

at salinities greater than 15 ppt; those in coastal environments are found at salinities exceeding

30 ppt. The primary prey items for juveniles include small benthic invertebrates, fish eggs, and

larvae. EFH for juvenile scup includes the demersal waters over the continental shelf and

estuaries where juvenile scup are abundant. In estuaries like Barnegat Bay, juveniles are

commonly found in sandy and muddy environments, near mussel and eelgrass beds where

water temperatures are higher than 45 EF (7 EC) and salinities are greater than 15 ppt. In

summer, adult scup are found in water depths of approximately 2 to 38 m, at temperatures

ranging from 45 to 77 EF (7 to 25 EC), and at salinities greater than 15 ppt. In winter, adults are

generally found offshore in water depths ranging from 38 to 185 m, water temperatures higher

than 45 EF (7 EC), and salinities exceeding 30 ppt (NMFS 2006b). Adult scup feed on small

benthic invertebrates and small fish. EFH for adult scup is similar to that described for

juveniles. Fish kills at OCNGS have included scup, but fewer than 10 individuals were killed per

event. Previous studies and the conclusions of Kennish (2001) indicate that there is no

evidence that OCNGS operations have resulted in detectable changes in scup prey

populations. On the basis of work by Tatham et al. (1984), scup were not abundant in Barnegat
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-70 January 2007

Bay during the 1980s, nor were they commonly entrained at OCNGS (EA 1986; Summers et al.

1989). OCNGS operations would likely have a minimal adverse effect on EFH for scup

juveniles and adults. 

Summer Flounder (Paralichthys dentatus)

Barnegat Bay is considered EFH for summer flounder juveniles and adults. Summer flounder

are common in coastal and estuarine waters from Nova Scotia to Florida; the highest

abundances are associated with waters of the Middle Atlantic Bight (NMFS 1999e). 

Tatham et al. (1984) considered this species a warmwater migrant in Barnegat Bay. Summer

flounder exhibit a strong seasonal migration pattern that finds them in shallow coastal and

estuarine waters during the spring and summer, and in deeper offshore waters during the fall

and winter. EFH for juveniles includes demersal waters over the continental shelf, and

estuaries where juveniles have been observed. Nursery habitat used by juvenile flounder in

Barnegat Bay includes salt marsh creeks, seagrass beds, mudflats, and open bay areas. 

Preferred water temperature is higher than 37 EF (3 EC), and preferred salinities range from 10

to 30 ppt. EFH for adult summer flounder includes demersal waters over the continental shelf at

water depths to 152 m and coastal systems similar to Barnegat Bay (NMFS 2006c). Juvenile

and adult summer flounder are opportunistic feeders; juveniles appear to prefer crustaceans

and polychaetes, while larger individuals appear to prefer crustaceans and fish. The primary

impacts of OCNGS operations on summer flounder EFH are expected to be impingement of

juveniles and adults on OCNGS traveling screens, and impacts associated with the OCNGS

thermal discharges. Annual summer flounder impingements ranged from 1308 to

4266 individuals. This represented less than 0.2 percent of the total number of individual fish

impinged during that period and was considered inconsequential by EA (1986), given the

number of fish caught by recreational anglers during that period. Fish kills associated with

thermal fluctuations at OCNGS did not include summer flounder (Kennish 2001). Also, there is

no evidence to suggest that the operation of the facility has significantly affected the prey of this

species (EA 1986; Summers et al. 1998). Thus, OCNGS operations would likely have a

minimal adverse effect on EFH for this species.

Surf Clam (Spisula solidissima)

The coastal region adjacent to Barnegat Bay is considered EFH for juvenile and adult surf

clams. Both adults and juveniles are found along the Atlantic Coast from the Gulf of

St. Lawrence to Cape Hatteras, from the beach zone to a water depth of approximately 60 m

(FWS/DOI/USACE 1983; Weinberg 2000; NJDEP 2005b). The species prefers oceanic

salinities (>32 ppt) and temperatures ranging from 59 to 86 EF (15 to 30 EC). Both juveniles and

adults are filter-feeders, and their diet consists of a variety of algae associated with the

sediment surface and the water column. EFH for juveniles and adults includes substrates to a

depth of one m below the water-sediment interface in waters from the eastern edge of Georges

Bank and the Gulf of Maine through the Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone, in areas that
Appendix E

January 2007 E-71 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

encompass the top 90 percent of all ranked 10-minute squares for the areas where surf clams

were caught during the Northeast Fisheries Science Center surf clam and ocean quahog

dredge surveys (NMFS 2006c). Because surf clams are known to burrow in medium to coarse

sand and gravel substrates, they may occur in Barnegat Bay near the Barnegat Inlet. It is

unlikely that OCNGS operations impact the EFH or food supply of surf clams because they are

generally found in coastal rather than estuarine waters. Surf clam larvae have not been

reported in OCNGS entrainment samples, and hydrodynamic modeling indicates that the

OCNGS thermal plume does not extend to Barnegat Inlet (EA 1986). Although the number of

surf clams appears to have decreased since 1996, a variety of factors are likely responsible for

the decline, including a change in ambient water temperature due to a warm water intrusion

over the mid-Atlantic shelf. This intrusion may be responsible for the mortality of larger clams,

and the gradual northward shift of the population (Weinberg 2000). In conclusion, no adverse

effect on surf clam EFH is expected from continued OCNGS operations.

Tiger Shark (Galeocerdo cuvier)

Barnegat Bay is considered EFH for neonate and juvenile tiger sharks (NMFS 2006b). This

species is common throughout the world in temperate waters and exhibits a high tolerance for

many different kinds of marine habitats, including rivers, estuaries, harbors, and other

nearshore locations where there are numerous prey items (FMNH 2006b). Adults migrate north

from tropical to temperate waters during the summer months and return to the tropics during the

winter. Mating occurs between March and May, and young are born between April and June of

the following year. EFH for neonates and juveniles includes shallow coastal waters to a depth

of 200 m from Cape Canaveral, Florida, to offshore Montauk, Long Island, New York

(NMFS 2006c). Adults are known to feed on a variety of fish and invertebrates, and it is

assumed that juveniles share this characteristic. Juveniles are not routinely impinged on the

traveling screens associated with the circulating-water cooling system, nor is there evidence to

suggest that plant operations have significantly affected prey populations (Kennish 2001). 

OCNGS operations would likely have a minimal adverse effect on EFH of the tiger shark. 

Windowpane Flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus)

Barnegat Bay is considered EFH for all life stages of the windowpane flounder, including

spawning adults (NMFS 2006b). This species occurs in estuaries, nearshore waters, and waters

associated with the continental shelf along the Atlantic Coast from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to

Florida, and is most abundant in water depths of two m or less (NMFS 1999f). Eggs are

buoyant and are typically found in surface waters, with greatest abundance between May and

October. Larvae are approximately 2 mm long at hatching, and metamorphose into juvenile

forms when they reach a length of approximately 5.5 mm; they settle to the bottom when they

reach a total length of approximately 10 mm (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). Juveniles typically

reach a size range of 11 to 19 cm about 4 months after spawning, and the total length of adults

is about 46 cm (NMFS 1999f). Adults generally spawn from February to December, with peak
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-72 January 2007

spawning occurring in May in the middle-Atlantic region (NMFS 2006a). Juvenile and adult

windowpane flounder feed on small crustaceans (mysid shrimp and decapods) and larval forms

of fish.

EFH for eggs includes surface waters extending from the Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras. 

Optimum water temperatures are less than 68 EF (20 °C) and water depths of less than 70 m

(NMFS 2006c). EFH for larvae is similar to that described for eggs. EFH for juvenile

windowpane flounder includes mud or fine-grained sand substrates with water temperatures

below 77 EF (25 EC), depths of 1 to 100 m, and salinities between 5.5 and 36 ppt

(NMFS 2006c). EFH for adults is similar to that described for juveniles, with water temperatures

below 81 EF (27 EC). Spawning adults in the mid-Atlantic region prefer habitats with mud or

fine-grained sand, water temperatures below 70 EF (21 EC), salinities ranging from 5.5 and 36

ppt, and water depths ranging from 1 to 75 m. The peak spawning period is May (NMFS

2006c).

Because all life stages of windowpane flounder could occur in Barnegat Bay, it is possible that

OCNGS activities could adversely affect EFH for this species. Tatham et al. (1984) considered

the windowpane flounder a local marine stray and did not consider it to be an abundant species

based on trawl studies in the study area from 1975 to 1978, nor was it designated as a species

that uses the estuary for spawning or as a nursery area. On the basis of commercial landing

data for this species for the state of New Jersey provided by the NMFS (2005), commercial

landings of windowpane flounder during the Tatham et al. study period ranged from 0 to

0.6 metric tons, and were less than 4.5 metric tons from 1971 to 1996. This could account for

the low abundances of this species in Barnegat Bay. Commercial landings in New Jersey

increased dramatically after 1996, peaking at 51 metric tons in 2001. Commercial landings of

windowpane flounder have declined since 2001 and accounted for 16.9 metric tons in 2004

(NMFS 2005). 

The results of studies conducted at OCNGS between 1965 and 1977 suggest that eggs and

larvae of windowpane flounder are not commonly entrained, and there was no evidence of

significant impingement of this species during that time (EA 1986; Summers et al. 1989). In

addition, this species has not been found in fish kills resulting from OCNGS operations (Kennish

2001). Unfortunately, most of the relevant information collected to determine potential OCNGS

impacts occurred during a period of low abundance of this species (NMFS 2005). Detailed

abundance, entrainment, and impingement data are not available for Barnegat Bay during years

when commercial landings were at historical highs (1997 to 2004). Therefore, it is not possible

to quantify EFH impacts for this species during that period. Despite this, it appears likely that

the general conclusions stated in EA (1986), Summers et al. (1989), and Kennish (2001) are

still valid. All three sources concluded that the operation of OCNGS did not result in a

discernable effect on invertebrate or fish communities in Barnegat Bay. OCNGS operations are

expected to result in a minimal adverse effect on EFH for windowpane flounder eggs, larvae,

juveniles, adults, and spawning adults.
Appendix E

January 2007 E-73 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Winter Flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus)

Barnegat Bay is considered EFH for all lifestages of the winter flounder, including spawning

adults. Winter flounder represent a valuable recreational and commercial resource along the

Atlantic Coast; this species is ubiquitous in inshore areas from Massachusetts to New Jersey

(NMFS 1999g). Winter flounder eggs are adhesive and occur in clusters. Larval forms are

initially planktonic and begin to settle to the bottom when they reach a length of approximately

9 to 13 mm. In New Jersey waters, YOY and juvenile winter flounder are found in shallow

water, where they may grow from 0.23 to 0.47 mm per day (NMFS 1999g). Adults can grow to

a length of 58 cm and may live up to 15 years. Adults enter nearshore estuaries and rivers

during the fall and early winter and spawn in late winter and early spring. After spawning, adults

typically leave inshore areas. Winter flounder larvae eat small planktonic organisms (copepods,

eggs, and phytoplankton); juveniles and adults are opportunistic feeders, and their diets include

polychaetes and crustaceans. EFH for winter flounder eggs consists of bottom habitats with

sand, muddy sand, and gravel substrates; a depth range of 0.3 to 4.5 m, an optimum

temperature range of 37 to 41 EF (3 to 5 EC), and a preferred salinity range of 10 to 32 ppt

(NMFS 1999g; NMFS 2006a). EFH for larvae includes shallow (1 to 4.5 m) inshore areas with a

fine sand to gravel substrate, temperatures of 36 to 59 EF (2 to 15 °C), and a salinity range of

3.2 to 30 ppt. YOY and juveniles prefer a habitat consisting of mud or sand (with shell

fragments) and water depths ranging from approximately 0.5 to 27 m. Preferred temperatures

range from 36 to 84 EF (2 to 29 EC) for YOY and from 50 to 77 EF (10 to 25 EC) for juveniles. 

Preferred salinity ranges are approximately 23 to 33 ppt for YOY and 19 to 21 ppt for juveniles. 

Adult winter flounder are typically found in 1 to 30 m of water with a mud, sand, or large cobble

substrate. The preferred water temperature range is 54 to 59 E F (12 to 15 °C), and the

preferred salinity range is 15 to 33 ppt.

OCNGS operations have the potential to adversely affect EFH for all life stages of winter

flounder because all stages could occur in Barnegat Bay. Tatham et al. (1984) considered the

winter flounder a resident species in Barnegat Bay that made significant use of the estuary for

spawning and as a nursery area; the years of study (1975 to 1978) reflected a period when

commercial landings in New Jersey waters ranged from 47.7 to 92.7 metric tons. These data

appear to reflect a low point in the population based on data from 1979 to 2004, when catches

usually exceeded 100 metric tons and were greater than 200 metric tons for seven years during

that period (NMFS 2005). Winter flounder larvae represented between 1 and 10 percent of the

annual OCNGS entrainment measured in studies from 1975 to 1981 (Summers et al. 1989). 

Juvenile and adult opossum shrimp represented the largest percentage of organisms entrained

during that period (49 to 91 percent). The total number of entrainment losses for winter flounder

larvae for 1975 to 1976, 1977 to 1978, and 1980 to 1981 was 4330 million organisms (Summers

et al. 1989). Opossum shrimp entrainment losses during this same period were 209,889 million

organisms (Summers et al. 1989). Winter flounder are also impinged on the OCNGS traveling

screens. Annual impingement of winter flounder from 1975 to 1985 ranged from 8908
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-74 January 2007

individuals in 1975 to 1976, to more than 148,000 individuals from 1978 to 1979), and the

average annual impingement was estimated (EA 1986) to be 38,866 individuals during that

period. These totals represented less than 1.5 percent of the total impingements observed at

the facility during the study period (sand shrimp and blue crab accounted for the majority of the

impingements) and less than 1 percent of the total population in Barnegat Bay during that time. 

It is likely the winter flounder impingement losses are actually lower than those described in EA

(1986) because they did not reflect the high survival observed in impinged organisms (77 to 94

percent) (Summers et al. 1989). Although thermal fluctuations associated with OCNGS

operations have caused significant fish kills, winter flounder have not been among the affected

species (Kennish 2001).

On the basis of the results of OCNGS studies (EA 1986; Summers et al. 1989) and the results

reported in Kennish (2001), OCNGS operations have not resulted in discernable changes in

invertebrate or fish communities in Barnegat Bay. OCNGS does not appear to adversely affect

winter flounder egg EFH, since the eggs are demersal, adhesive, and occur in clusters. 

OCNGS operations would likely have a minimal adverse effect on EFH for larvae, juveniles,

adults, and spawning adults of the winter flounder.

Winter Skate (Leucoraja ocellata)

On the basis of the distribution patterns described in NMFS (2006c), Barnegat Bay may provide

EFH for both juvenile and adult winter skate. This species is common along the Atlantic Coast,

with a range extending from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Cape Hatteras. The population center

is believed to be on Georges Bank (NMFS 2003c). EFH for juvenile and adult winter skates

includes sand- and gravel-bottom substrates at depths of up to 300 m. During the spring,

juveniles are found in water temperatures ranging from 34 to 54 EF (1 to 12 EC), with the

majority occurring in temperatures of 39 to 41 EF (4 to 5 EC) and a salinity range of 32 to 33 ppt. 

During the fall, juveniles occur in water temperatures ranging from 41 to 70 EF (5 to 21 EC), with

peak abundances observed at 59 EF (15 °C) and in salinities of 32 and 33 ppt (NMFS 2003c). 

Adult winter skates are found year round at temperatures ranging from 36 to 52 EF (2 to 11 EC)

and depths ranging from 31 to 60 m. Adults are typically found at salinities ranging from 30 to

36 ppt. Juvenile and adult winter skates are bottom feeders and preferred prey include

polychaetes and crustaceans. Crustaceans are believed to make up more than 50 percent of

their diet (NMFS 2003c). Because this species generally occurs in water with salinities greater

than 32 ppt, it is not likely that this species spends a significant amount of time in the western

portion of Barnegat Bay. However, it may frequent the eastern portion where higher salinity

exists near the Barnegat Inlet. Tatham et al. (1984) did not identify winter skate as a common

species in Barnegat Bay, nor are juveniles or adults routinely impinged on OCNGS traveling

screens (EA 1986; Summers et al. 1989). This species was not identified in OCNGS fish kills

(Kennish 2001). Current OCNGS operations may entrain or impinge some winter skate prey,

but there is no evidence that prey populations have been measurably affected. OCNGS
Appendix E

January 2007 E-75 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

operations would likely have a minimal adverse effect on winter skate EFH for juveniles and

adults.

7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES

Three categories of impacts related to OCNGS operations that could influence EFH are: (1)

release of heated cooling water containing biocides or other chemicals; (2) entrainment of eggs,

larvae, or phytoplankton and zooplankton in the water column; and (3) impingement of juveniles

or adults. These operations are regulated under a NJPDES permit that is currently under

review for extension to April 30, 2009. The NJDEP developed a fact sheet (NJDEP 2005a) that

describes the agency’s assessment of impacts and potential mitigation alternatives that may be

necessary to comply with Phase II requirements of Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act.

The existing dilution-pump system was designed to mitigate thermal effects in the discharge

canal, Oyster Creek, and Barnegat Bay. Water at ambient temperature is pumped directly from

the intake canal to the discharge canal where it mixes with the heated discharged water. The

dilution water serves to reduce the temperature of the discharged circulation water immediately. 

Such temperature reduction greatly reduces any potential thermal effects on EFH in the

discharge canal, Oyster Creek, and Barnegat Bay.

The NJDEP has granted OCNGS a variance from thermal surface-water quality standards for

heat and temperature pursuant to Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act. This variance was

granted based on the assessment by Summers et al. (1989) that the operation of OCNGS did

not appear to produce long-term population or ecosystem level impacts. Thus, the draft 

NJPDES permit does not require additional mitigation measures for thermal discharges beyond

those already stipulated in the existing permit, which include temperature monitoring at various

locations near OCNGS and plant shutdown restrictions during December, January, February,

and March to reduce the possibility of fish kills related to cold shock.

Current mitigation measures also are in place to reduce effects of impingement on EFH in

Barnegat Bay, Forked River, and the intake canal. In 1984, the circulating-water intake was 

fitted with 3/8-in.-mesh traveling screens with Ristroph buckets and a screen-wash and

fish-return system. Impinged organisms are washed into or fall into the buckets; the buckets

deliver the organisms into the fish-return system, which transports them to the discharge canal 

where the dilution water enters the canal. Such mitigation measures greatly reduce the effects

of impingement on EFH, including various life stages of prey species, in the Barnegat Bay

system.

The fact sheet also addresses the impacts of entrainment and impingement by evaluating the

potential losses of representative important species using three population models: equivalent

adult model, production foregone model, and spawning/nursery area of consequence model. 

Although the NJDEP acknowledged the conclusion of Summers et al. (1989) that OCNGS
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-76 January 2007

operations did not appear to produce “unacceptable, substantial long-term population and

ecosystem level impacts,” the agency stated that it is not necessary to prove that an impact on a

population is occurring to trigger the 2004 EPA Phase II Section 316(b) requirements. The

NJDEP went on to state that “this rationale is consistent with the Phase II regulations which

specify compliance alternatives, including national performance standards, and do not define

adverse environmental impact.” The National entrainment performance standard requires that

entrainment mortality for all life stages of fish and shellfish be reduced by 60 to 90 percent from

the calculated baseline, though there is no guidance on how the baseline is to be calculated. 

Impingement mortality is to be reduced by 80 to 90 percent from the calculated baseline. In

addition to compliance with these performance standards, the NJDEP has indicated that

AmerGen should initiate a wetlands restoration and enhancement program, within the Barnegat

Bay estuary, to offset any residual impingement and entrainment losses at the facility. If such

mitigation were to occur, it is likely that the potential impact of OCNGS activities on EFH would

be further reduced during the license renewal period.

8.0 CONCLUSION

The expected impacts of OCNGS operations on EFH is summarized in Table 5. Because

OCNGS operates a once-through cooling system, it has the potential to create a substantial

adverse impact on EFH due to the withdrawal of water from the Forked River and Barnegat Bay. 

However, the general lack of interaction between EFH species and the facility, as well as

current mitigation measures in place at OCNGS, reduce the potential adverse effect on EFH. 

OCNGS operations do not have an adverse effect on the food web in Barnegat Bay. The NRC

staff concludes that license renewal for OCNGS for an additional 20 years of operation would

result in a minimal adverse effect on EFH.
Appendix E

January 2007 E-77 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Table 5. Impacts of OCNGS Operations on EFH

Species Life Stage EFH Description

Expected Effect

of OCNGS Operations on EFH

Black sea bass Juveniles Shallow water hard substrate with

refuge. Temperatures of 17 to

25°C, and salinity of 18 to 22 ppt.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Probably

does not frequent nearshore areas

near OCNGS and not commonly

impinged. Prey items are entrained

or impinged at OCNGS, but prey

population size not affected.

Bluefish Juveniles Habitat requirements not specified. 

Summer cohort temperatures of

20 to 30°C, and salinity of 31 to

36 ppt.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Not

commonly impinged. Some

documented thermal shock

mortality. Prey items are entrained

or impinged at OCNGS, but prey

population size not affected.

Clearnose skate Juveniles Soft-bottom substrate. 

Temperatures of 9 to 20°C, and

salinity of 31 to 35 ppt.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Not

common in Barnegat Bay or

commonly impinged, no

documented thermal shock

mortality. Prey items are entrained

or impinged at OCNGS, but prey

population size not affected.

Adults Same as juveniles Minimal Adverse Effect. Same as

juveniles.

Dusky shark Neonates and

juveniles

Shallow coastal waters to 25 m.

Temperature of about 19°C, and

salinity of >30 ppt.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Not

common in Barnegat Bay or

commonly impinged, no

documented thermal shock

mortality. Prey items are entrained

or impinged at OCNGS, but prey

population size not affected.

Little skate Juveniles Shallow coastal water and

estuaries (5 to 8 m). Temperatures

of 0 to 7°C (winter), and 14 to 22°C

(summer). Salinity of 15 to 35 ppt.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Not

common in Barnegat Bay or

commonly impinged, no

documented thermal shock

mortality. Prey items are entrained

or impinged at OCNGS, but prey

population size not affected.

Adults Same as juveniles. Minimal Adverse Effect. Same as

juveniles.

Red hake Eggs Surface waters of mid-Atlantic

region. Temperature of <10°C, and

salinity of <25 ppt.

No Adverse Effect. Not commonly

entrained.

Larvae Surface waters of mid-Atlantic

region. Temperature of <19°C, and

salinity of >0.5 ppt.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Not

commonly entrained. Prey items

are entrained at OCNGS, but prey

population size not affected.
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-78 January 2007

Table 5. (contd)

Species Life Stage EFH Description

Expected Effect

of OCNGS Operations on EFH

Sandbar shark Neonates and

juveniles

Shallow coastal waters (25 to

200 m). Temperature of >21°C,

and salinity of >22 ppt.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Not

common in Barnegat Bay or

commonly impinged, no

documented thermal shock

mortality. Prey items are entrained

or impinged at OCNGS, but prey

population size not affected.

Adults Shallow coastal waters (<50 m). 

Temperature and salinity similar to

coastal estuaries with oceanic

influence.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Same as

juveniles.

Scup Juveniles Sandy or muddy habitat.

Temperature of >7°C, and salinity

of >15 ppt.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Not

common in Barnegat Bay or

commonly impinged. Some

documented thermal shock

mortality. Prey items are entrained

or impinged at OCNGS, but prey

population size not affected.

Adults Same as juveniles. Minimal Adverse Effect. Same as

juveniles.

Summer

flounder

Juveniles Coastal estuaries with seagrass,

mudflats, or open areas. 

Temperature of >3°C, and salinity

10 to 30 ppt.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Some

annual impingement mortality, but

no observed population impacts. 

No documented thermal shock

mortality. Prey items are entrained

or impinged at OCNGS, but prey

population size not affected.

Adults Demersal waters over continental

shelf, oceanic conditions.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Same as

juveniles.

Surf clam Juveniles Coastal water in medium and

coarse sand/gravel at water depths

to 60 m.

No Adverse Effect. Limited

distribution in Barnegat Bay. Prey

abundance probably not influenced

by operations.

Adults Same as juveniles. No Adverse Effect. Same as

juveniles.

Tiger shark Neonates and

juveniles

Shallow coastal waters to a depth

of 200 m.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Not

common in Barnegat Bay or

commonly impinged. No

documented thermal shock

mortality. Prey items are entrained

or impinged at OCNGS, but prey

population size not affected.

Windowpane

flounder

Eggs Surface water with temperatures

<20°C.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Limited

distribution in Barnegat Bay. Eggs

not commonly entrained.
Appendix E

Table 5. (contd)

Species Life Stage EFH Description

Expected Effect

of OCNGS Operations on EFH

January 2007 E-79 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Larvae Same as eggs. Minimal Adverse Effect. Limited

distribution in Barnegat Bay. 

Larvae not commonly entrained. 

Prey items are entrained at

OCNGS, but prey population size

not affected.

Juveniles Mud or fine-grained sand habitat at

depths of 1 to 100 m. Temperature

of <25°C, and salinity of 5.5 to 36

ppt.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Not

common in Barnegat Bay or

commonly impinged. No

documented thermal shock

mortality. Prey items are entrained

or impinged at OCNGS, but prey

population size not affected.

Adults Mud or fine-grained sand habitat at

depths of 1 to 75 m. Temperature

of <26.8°C, and salinity of 5.5 to 36

ppt.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Same as

juveniles.

Spawning adults Mud or fine-grained sand habitat at

depths of 1 to 75 m. Temperature

of <21°C, and salinity of 5.5 to 36

ppt.

Minimal Adverse Effect Same as

juveniles.

Winter flounder Eggs Sand, muddy sand, and gravel

habitat with depths of 0.3 to 4.5 m. 

Temperatures of 3 to 5°C, and

salinity of 10 to 32 ppt.

No Adverse Effect Eggs demersal

and adhesive. Not reported from

entrainment samples.

Larvae Shallow (1 to 4.5 m) inshore areas

with fine sand to gravel substrate. 

Temperatures of 3 to 5°C, and

salinity of 10 to 32 ppt.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Some

annual entrainment loss. No

documented thermal shock

mortality. Prey items entrained at

OCNGS, but prey population size

not affected.

Juveniles Mud or sand habitat with shell

hash. Water depths of 0.5 to 27 m,

temperatures of 2 to 29°C, and

salinity of 19 to 33 ppt.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Some

annual impingement loss, but no

documented thermal shock

mortality. Prey items are entrained

or impinged at OCNGS, but prey

population size not affected.

Adults Mud, sand, or large cobble

substrate, depths of 1 to 30 m. 

Temperatures of 12 to 15°C, and

salinity of 15 to 33 ppt.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Same as

juveniles.

Spawning adults Same as adults. Minimal Adverse Effect. Same as

juveniles.
Appendix E

Table 5. (contd)

Species Life Stage EFH Description

Expected Effect

of OCNGS Operations on EFH

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-80 January 2007

Winter skate Juveniles Sand and gravel substrates to

300 m. Springtime temperatures of

4 to 5°C, and salinities of 28 to

32 ppt. Fall temperatures of 5 to

21°C, with peak abundance at

15°C, and salinities of 31 to 35 ppt.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Not

common in Barnegat Bay or

commonly impinged. No

documented thermal shock

mortality. Prey items are entrained

or impinged at OCNGS, but prey

population size not affected.

Adult Sand and gravel substrates to

300 m. Springtime temperatures of

4 to 5°C and salinities of 28 to

32 ppt. Fall temperatures of 5 to

21°C, with peak abundance at

15°C and salinities of 31 to 35 ppt.

Minimal Adverse Effect. Same as

juveniles.

9.0 REFERENCES

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2003. Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station,

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision 13. Docket No. 50-219. Forked River,

New Jersey. (April 2003).

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2005a. Applicant’s Environmental Report –

Operating License Renewal Stage, Oyster Creek Generating Station. Docket No. 50-219. 

Forked River, New Jersey. (July 22, 2005).

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2005b. License Renewal Application, Oyster

Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Docket No. 50-219, Facility Operating License No. DPR-16. 

Forked River, New Jersey. (July 22, 2005).

Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program (BBNEP). 2001. “The Barnegat Bay Estuary Program

Characterization Report.” Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, Toms River,

New Jersey. Available URL: http://www.bbep.org/char_rep.htm 

(Accessed September 22, 2005).

Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program (BBNEP). 2002. “Final Conservation and

Management Plan.” May. Available URL: http://www.bbep.org (Accessed August 8, 2005).
Appendix E

January 2007 E-81 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Bigelow, H.B., and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. “Fishes of the Gulf of Maine.” Fishery Bulletin 74 of

the Fish and Wildlife Service 53, Contribution 592. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Available URL: http://www.gma.org/fogm/ (Accessed August 8, 2005).

Chizmadia, P.A., M.J. Kennish, and V.L. Ohori. 1984. “Physical Description of Barnegat Bay,” 

Chapter 1 in Ecology of Barnegat Bay, M.J. Kennish and R.A. Lutz, eds. Springer-Verlag,

New York, New York.

EA Engineering Science and Technology, Inc. (EA). 1986. Entrainment and Impingement

Studies at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, 1984–1985. Sparks, Maryland.

Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (FCMA). 16 USC 1801, et seq.

Florida Museum of Natural History (FMNH ). 2006a. “Biological Profiles: Dusky Shark.” 

Available URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/ Descript/duskyshark/duskyshark.html

(Accessed January 17, 2006).

Florida Museum of Natural History (FMNH ). 2006b. Biological Profiles: Tiger Shark.” 

Available URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/Tigershark/tigershark.htm 

(Accessed January 23, 2006).

Gastrich, M.D., R. Lathrop, S. Haag, M.P. Weinstein, M. Danko, D.A. Caron, and R. Schaffner.

2004. “Assessment of Brown Tide Blooms, Caused by Aureococcus anophagefferens, and

Contributing Factors in New Jersey Coastal Bays: 2000–2002.” Harmful Algae, Vol. 3,

pp. 305–320.

Global Land Cover Facility (GLCF). 2005. “Coastal Marsh Project, Research Description and

Rationale.” Available URL: http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/data/coastalMarsh/research.shtml

(Accessed September 5, 2005).

Guo, Q., N.P. Psuty, G.P. Lordi, S. Glenn, M.R. Mund, and M.D. Gastrich. 2004. “Research

Project Summary, Hydrographic Study of Barnegat Bay.” New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection, Division of Science, Research, and Technology. Available URL: 

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/research/hydrographic.pdf (Accessed September 8, 2005).

Hartig, E.K., and V. Gornitz. 2001. “The Vanishing Marshes of Jamaica Bay: Sea Level Rise or

Environmental Degradation?” Science Briefs, December. Available URL: http://www.giss.

nasa.gov/research/briefs/hartig (Accessed September 5, 2005).

Kennish, M.J. 2001. “State of the Estuary and Watershed: An Overview.” Journal of Coastal

Research, Special Issue 32, pp. 243–273.
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-82 January 2007

McLain, P., and M. McHale. 1996. “Barnegat Bay Eelgrass Investigations 1995–96.” In

Proceedings of the Barnegat Bay Ecosystem Workshop, November 14, 1996. Barnegat Bay

Estuary Program. Rutgers Cooperative Extension of Ocean County. Toms River, New Jersey.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999a. “Essential Fish Habitat Source Document:

Black Sea Bass, Centropristis striata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.” NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-143. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, Northeast

Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. September. Available

URL: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/ (Accessed December 8, 2005).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999b. “Essential Fish Habitat Source Document:

Bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.” NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-NE-144. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, Northeast

Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. September. Available

URL: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/ (Accessed December 8, 2005).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999c. “Essential Fish Habitat Source Document:

Red Hake, Urophycis chuss, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.” NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-NE-133. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, Northeast

Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. September. Available

URL: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/ (Accessed December 8, 2005).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999d. “Essential Fish Habitat Source Document:

Scup, Stenotomus chrysops, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.” NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-NE-149. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, Northeast

Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. September. Available

URL: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/ (Accessed December 8, 2005).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999e. “Essential Fish Habitat Source Document:

Summer Flounder, Paralichthys dentatus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.” NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-151. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, Northeast

Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. September. Available

URL: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/ (Accessed December 8, 2005).
Appendix E

January 2007 E-83 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999f. “Essential Fish Habitat Source Document:

Windowpane Flounder, Scophthalmus aquosus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.” 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-137. U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region,

Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. September. Available

URL: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/ (Accessed December 8, 2005).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999g. “Essential Fish Habitat Source Document:

Winter Flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.” 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-138. U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region,

Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. September. Available

URL: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/ (Accessed December 8, 2005).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2003a. “Essential Fish Habitat Source Document:

Clearnose Skate, Raja eglanteria, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.” NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-NE-174. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, Northeast

Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. March. Available

URL: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/ (Accessed December 8, 2005).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2003b. “Essential Fish Habitat Source Document:

Little Skate, Leucoraja erinacea, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.” NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-NE-175. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, Northeast

Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. March. Available

URL: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/ (Accessed December 8, 2005).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2003c. “Essential Fish Habitat Source Document:

Winter Skate, Leucoraja ocellata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.” NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-NE-179. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, Northeast

Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. March. Available

URL: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/ (Accessed December 8, 2005).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2005. “Annual Commercial Landing Statistics.” 

Available URL: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/landings/ annual_landings.html

(Accessed August 8, 2005).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2006a. “Summary of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

and General Habitat Parameters for Federally Managed Species.” Available URL:

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/efhtables.pdf (Accessed January 17, 2006).
Appendix E

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 E-84 January 2007

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2006b. ?Guide to Essential Fish Habitat

Designations in the Northeastern United States.” Available URL: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/

hcd/STATES4/new_jersey/39407400.html (Accessed January 17, 2006).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2006c. “Guide to Essential Fish Habitat

Descriptions.” Available URL: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/list.htm 

(Accessed December 7, 2005).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2006d. “Guide to EFH Consultations.” 

Available URL: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/appguide1.html (Accessed April 4, 2006).

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2005a. “Fact Sheet on the

New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) Surface Water Renewal Permit

Action for Oyster Creek Facility.” Available URL: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/pdf/

oysterck_factsh.pdf (Accessed December 20, 2005).

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2005b. “Willdlife Populations:

Surf Clam.” Available URL: http://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/trends2005/pdfs/wildlife-surfclam.pdf

(Accessed January 23, 2006).

Seabergh, W.C., M.A. Cialone, J.W. McCormick, K.D. Watson, and M.A. Chasten. 2003. 

Monitoring Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey, South Jetty Realignment. U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory,

TR-03-9 (August 2003).

Summers, J.K., A.F. Holland, S.B. Weisberg, L.C. Wendling, C.F. Stroup, R.L. Dwyer,

M.A. Turner, and W. Burton. 1989. “Technical Review and Evaluation of Thermal Effects

Studies and Cooling Water Intake Structure Demonstration of Impact for the Oyster Creek

Nuclear Generating Station. Revised Final Report.” Prepared for New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection, Division of Natural Resources by Versar, Inc.

Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. Public Law 104-297.

Tatham, T.R., D.L. Thomas, and D.J. Danila. 1984. “Fishes of Barnegat Bay.” In Ecology of

Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, M.J. Kennish and R.A. Lutz, eds. Springer-Verlag, New York,

New York.
Appendix E

January 2007 E-85 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. Final Environmental Statement Related to

Operation of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Jersey Central Power and Light

Company. Docket No. 50-219. Directorate of Licensing. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, and U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (FWS/DOI/USACE). 1983. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental

Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic). Surf Clam.” FWS/OBS82/11.13. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers. October. Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/0118.pdf

(Accessed January 19, 2006).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1,

Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final

Report.” NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005a. “AmerGen Energy Company, LLC,

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement and Conduct Scoping Process.” Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 183,

pp. 55635–55637. Washington, D.C. (September 22, 2005).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005b. “Biological Assessment for the

Reinitiation of a Formal Consultation for Continued Operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear

Generating Station (TAC MC4079).” Rockville, Maryland. (March 29, 2005).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006a. ?Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating

Station — License Renewal Application.” Available URL: 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ licensing/renewal/applications/oystercreek.html

(Accessed March 22, 2006).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 28, Regarding Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant.

NUREG-1437, Rockville, Maryland.

Weinberg, J. 2000. “Atlantic Surf Clam.” Available URL: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/

spsyn/iv/surfclam/surfclam.pdf (Accessed January 23, 2006). 
 
Appendix F

Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

Environmental Issues Not Applicable to

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

January 2007 F-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Appendix F

Generic Environmental Impact Statement

Environmental Issues Not Applicable to

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

Table F-1 lists those environmental issues listed in the Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) (NRC 1996, 1999)(a) and Title 10,

Part 51, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 51), Subpart A, Appendix B,

Table B-1, that are not applicable to Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS)

because of plant or site characteristics.

Table F-1. GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to OCNGS

ISSUE–10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, Table B-1 Category

GEIS

Sections Comment

SURFACE-WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Altered thermal stratification of lakes 1 4.2.1.2.2;

4.4.2.2

OCNGS does not use surface

water from lakes.

Water-use conflicts (plants with cooling

ponds or cooling towers using makeup

water from a small river with low flow)

2 4.3.2.1;

4.4.2.1

The OCNGS cooling system

does not use cooling ponds

or cooling towers.

AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Premature emergence of aquatic insects 1 4.2.2.1.7,

4.4.3

OCNGS is located on an

estuary and cooling water is

too saline to support aquatic

insects.
Appendix F

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 F-2 January 2007

Table F-1. (contd)

ISSUE–10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, Table B-1 Category

GEIS

Sections Comment

AQUATIC ECOLOGY

(FOR PLANTS WITH COOLING-TOWER-BASED HEAT-DISSIPATION SYSTEMS)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early

life stages

1 4.3.3 OCNGS does not use a

cooling tower.

Impingement of fish and shellfish 1 4.3.3 OCNGS does not use a

cooling tower.

Heat shock 1 4.3.3 OCNGS does not use a

cooling tower.

GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY

Groundwater-use conflicts (potable and

service water, and dewatering; plants that

use >100 gpm)

2 4.8.1.1;

4.8.2.1

OCNGS does not use

>100 gpm of groundwater. 

Groundwater-use conflicts (plants using

cooling towers withdrawing makeup water

from a small river)

2 4.8.1.3;

4.4.2.1

OCNGS does not use a

cooling tower.

Groundwater-use conflicts (Ranney wells) 2 4.8.1.4 OCNGS does not use

Ranney wells.

Groundwater-quality degradation (Ranney

wells)

1 4.8.2.2 OCNGS does not use

Ranney wells.

Groundwater-quality degradation (cooling

ponds in salt marshes)

1 4.8.3 OCNGS does not use a

cooling pond.

Groundwater-quality degradation (cooling

ponds at inland sites)

2 4.8.3 OCNGS does not use a

cooling pond.
Appendix F

Table F-1. (contd)

ISSUE–10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, Table B-1 Category

GEIS

Sections Comment

January 2007 F-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Cooling-tower impacts on crops and

ornamental vegetation

1 4.3.4 OCNGS does not use a

cooling tower.

Cooling-tower impacts on native plants 1 4.3.5.1 OCNGS does not use a

cooling tower.

Bird collisions with cooling towers 1 4.3.5.2 OCNGS does not use a

cooling tower.

Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial

resources

1 4.4.4 OCNGS does not use a

cooling pond.

HUMAN HEALTH

Microbial organisms (occupational health) 1 4.3.6 OCNGS does not use a

cooling tower.

Microbial organisms (public health)

(plants using lakes or canals, or cooling

towers or cooling ponds that discharge to

a small river).

2 4.3.6 This issue is related to heatdissipation systems that are

not installed at OCNGS.

F.1 References

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report, ?Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1,

Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final

Report.” NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

Appendix G

NRC Staff Evaluation

of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

in Support of License Renewal Application

January 2007 G-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Appendix G

NRC Staff Evaluation

of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

in Support of License Renewal Application

Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) requires that |

license renewal applicants consider alternatives to mitigate severe accidents if the U.S. Nuclear |

Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has not previously evaluated severe accident mitigation |

alternatives (SAMAs) for the applicant’s plant in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or |

related supplement or in an environmental assessment. The purpose of this consideration is to |

ensure that plant changes (i.e., hardware, procedures, and training) with the potential for |

improving severe accident safety performance are identified and evaluated. SAMAs have not |

been previously considered for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS); therefore, |

the remainder of Appendix G addresses those alternatives. |

|

G.1 Introduction

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen), submitted an assessment of SAMAs for OCNGS |

as part of the Environmental Report (ER) (AmerGen 2005). This assessment was based on the |

most recent OCNGS Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) available at that time, a plant-specific

offsite consequence analysis performed with the MELCOR Accident Consequence Code

System 2 (MACCS2) computer code, and insights from the OCNGS Individual Plant

Examination (IPE) (GPU Nuclear 1992) and Individual Plant Examination of External Events |

(IPEEE) (GPU Nuclear 1995). In identifying and evaluating potential SAMAs, AmerGen |

considered SAMAs that addressed the major contributors to core damage frequency (CDF) and

large early release frequency (LERF) at OCNGS, as well as SAMA candidates for other

operating plants that have submitted license renewal applications. AmerGen identified 136

potential SAMA candidates. This list was reduced to 37 unique SAMA candidates by

eliminating SAMAs that are not applicable to OCNGS because of design differences, required

extensive changes that would involve implementation costs known to exceed any possible

benefit, have already been implemented, are of low benefit, or are addressed by a similar

SAMA. AmerGen assessed the costs and benefits associated with each of the potential SAMAs

and concluded that several of the candidate SAMAs evaluated would be cost-beneficial.

On the basis of a review of the SAMA assessment, the NRC issued a request for additional

information (RAI) to AmerGen by letter dated November 9, 2005 (NRC 2005). Key questions

concerned changes to the Level 1 and Level 2 PRA model since the IPE, the PRA

self-assessment performed in 2004, the multiplier used to account for external events, the

reanalysis of the fire risk subsequent to the IPEEE; clarification/information on several specific
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 G-2 January 2007

candidate SAMAs, and the evaluation of combinations of potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. 

AmerGen submitted additional information by letters dated January 9, 2006 (AmerGen 2006a),

and March 15, 2006 (AmerGen 2006b). In the responses, AmerGen provided a listing of the

major modifications made to the Level 1 model since the IPE, a description of the current

Level 2 model, a description and summary results of the self-assessment, justification for the

use of the multiplier for external events, information regarding the updated fire PRA, specific

requested information for the SAMAs of interest, and the results of combining selected

potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. AmerGen’s responses addressed the NRC staff’s concerns.

An assessment of SAMAs for OCNGS is presented below.

G.2 Estimate of Risk for OCNGS

AmerGen’s estimates of offsite risk at OCNGS are summarized in Section G.2.1. The summary

is followed by the NRC staff’s review of AmerGen’s risk estimates in Section G.2.2.

G.2.1 AmerGen’s Risk Estimates

Two distinct analyses are combined to form the basis for the risk estimates used in the SAMA

analysis: (1) the OCNGS Level 1 and 2 PRA model, which is an updated version of the IPE

| (GPU Nuclear 1992), and (2) a supplemental analysis of offsite consequences and economic

impacts (essentially a Level 3 PRA model) developed specifically for the SAMA analysis. The

SAMA analysis is based on the most recent OCNGS Level 1 and 2 PRA model, referred to as

the 2004B PRA model. The scope of the OCNGS PRA does not include external events.

The baseline CDF for the purpose of the SAMA evaluation is approximately 1.1 × 10-5 per year. 

The CDF is based on the risk assessment for internally initiated events. AmerGen did not

include the contribution from external events within the OCNGS risk estimates; however, it did

account for the potential risk reduction benefits associated with external events by doubling the

estimated benefits for internal events. AmerGen also utilized a recently completed fire PRA to

assess the risk reduction for several fire-related SAMAs. This is discussed further in

Sections G.2.2 and G.6.2.

Table G-1 provides the breakdown of the CDF by initiating event. As shown in this table, events

initiated by loss of offsite power (LOOP) are the dominant contributors to CDF. Although not

separately reported, station blackout sequences contribute about 43 percent of the total internal

events CDF (4.48 × 10-6 per year), while anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) sequences

are small contributors to CDF (2.89 × 10-7 per year).
Appendix G

January 2007 G-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Table G-1. OCNGS Core Damage Frequency

Initiating Event

CDF

(per year)

% Contribution

to CDF

Loss of offsite power (LOOP) 4.2 × 10-6 40

Manual shutdown 6.8 × 10-7 7

Medium loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) 6.5 × 10-7 6

Reactor trip 5.8 × 10-7 6

Loss of 4160-volts alternating current (VAC) Bus 1C 5.3 × 10-7 5

Condenser bay area feedwater flood 4.9 × 10-7 5

Loss of 4160-VAC Bus 1D 4.5 × 10-7 4

Turbine trip 3.5 × 10-7 3

Loss of circulating water 3.5 × 10-7 3

Loss of feedwater 3.4 × 10-7 3

Others 1.9 × 10-6 18

Total CDF 1.05 × 10-5 100

The current OCNGS Level 2 PRA model represents a significant change from the somewhat

simplistic analysis that was utilized in the IPE. This update is a full Level 2 model that is stated

to meet standard industry practice. The Level 1 results are initially characterized by 13 accident

sequence functional classes. A separate containment event tree is used for each of the Level 1

accident classes to describe the response of the containment. The linked Level 1/Level 2 end

states are then grouped into release categories based on magnitude and timing of the expected

releases. The resulting release categories are then reduced to 10 consequence categories for

use in consequence analyses. The fission product release fractions are obtained from the

results of analyses of representative sequences for each consequence category by using

version 4.0.5 of the Modular Accident Analysis Program (MAAP). The results of the Level 2

PRA are a set of consequence categories with their respective frequency and release

characteristics. The results of this analysis for OCNGS are provided in Tables F-6 and F-7 of

the ER (AmerGen 2005).

The offsite consequences and economic impact analyses use the MACCS2 code to determine

the offsite risk impacts on the surrounding environment and public. Input for these analyses

includes plant-specific and site-specific values for core radionuclide inventory, source term and

release characteristics, site meteorological data, projected population distribution (within a

50-mi radius) for the year 2029, emergency response evacuation modeling, and economic data. 

The magnitude of the onsite impacts (in terms of cleanup and decontamination costs and

occupational dose) is based on information provided in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997a).
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 G-4 January 2007

In its ER, AmerGen estimated the dose to the population within 50 mi of the OCNGS site to be

approximately 36 person-rem per year. The breakdown of the total population dose by

containment release mode is summarized in Table G-2. Containment failures within the early

time frame (less than 6 hours following declaration of a general emergency) and intermediate

time frame (within 6 to 24 hours following declaration of a general emergency) dominate the

population dose risk at OCNGS. 

Table G-2. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment

 Release Mode

Containment Release Mode

Population Dose

(person-rem(a) per year) % Contribution

Early containment failure 23.6 66

Intermediate containment failure 10.3 29

Late containment failure 1.6 4

Bypass 0.4 1

Intact containment 0.1 negligible

Total population dose 36 100

(a) One person-rem = 0.01 person-Sv.

G.2.2 NRC Staff’s Review of AmerGen’s Risk Estimates

AmerGen’s determination of offsite risk at OCNGS is based on the following four major

elements of analysis:

C The Level 1 and 2 risk models that form the basis for the 1992 IPE submittal

| (GPU Nuclear 1992) and the external events analyses of the 1995 IPEEE

| submittal (GPU Nuclear 1995),

C The major modifications to the IPE model that have been incorporated into the

OCNGS PRA,

C The recent reassessment of the fire portion of the IPEEE, referred to as the Fire PRA

(FPRA), and

C The MACCS2 analyses performed to translate fission product source terms and release

frequencies from the Level 2 PRA model into offsite consequence measures.

Each of these analyses was reviewed to determine the acceptability of AmerGen’s risk

estimates for the SAMA analysis, as summarized below.
Appendix G

January 2007 G-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

The NRC staff’s review of the OCNGS IPE is described in an NRC report dated August 2, 1994

(NRC 1994). On the basis of a review of the IPE submittal, the staff concluded that the IPE

submittal met the intent of Generic Letter (GL) 88-20; that is, the IPE was of adequate quality to

be used to look for design or operational vulnerabilities. The NRC staff did note, however, that

the OCNGS IPE’s lack of treatment of preinitiators in the human reliability analysis might limit

the IPE’s usefulness in other applications. This deficiency was resolved in subsequent PRA

updates. The IPE did not identify any severe accident vulnerabilities associated with either core

damage or poor containment performance. 

Although no vulnerabilities were identified, 15 modifications to the plant, procedures, and

training were identified that had either been implemented, were to be implemented, or were

being considered at the time of the completion of the IPE process. Eight of the improvements

have not been completed and have been included as candidate SAMAs in the current

evaluation (AmerGen 2005).

Several revisions have been made to the IPE model since its submittal. A comparison of the

internal events CDF between the IPE and the 2004B PRA model indicates an increase of

approximately 6.8 × 10-6 per year in the total CDF (from 3.69 × 10-6 per year to 1.05 × 10-5 per

year). The increase is mainly attributed to many modeling and data changes that have been

incorporated since the IPE was submitted. A summary listing of those changes that resulted in

the greatest impact on the internal events CDF was provided in the ER (AmerGen 2005) and

further discussed in response to an RAI (AmerGen 2006a). Table G-3 summarizes the major

changes.

The IPE CDF value for OCNGS was the lowest CDF value reported in the IPE for boiling-water

reactor (BWR) 1/2/3 plants. Figure 11.2 of NUREG-1560 shows that the IPE-based total

internal events CDF for BWR 1/2/3 plants ranges from 3 × 10-6 to 5 × 10-5 per year

(NRC 1997a). It is recognized that other plants have updated the values for CDF subsequent to

the IPE submittals because of modeling and hardware changes. The current internal events

CDF results for OCNGS are reasonably consistent with that for plants of similar vintage and

characteristics.

The NRC staff considered the peer review performed for the OCNGS PRA, and the potential

impact of the review findings on the SAMA evaluation. In the ER, AmerGen described the

previous peer reviews, the most significant of which was the Boiling-Water Reactor Owners

Group (BWROG) Peer Review of the 1992 PRA model (i.e., the IPE) conducted in 1997. The

BWROG review concluded that the OCNGS PRA can be effectively used to support applications

involving relative risk significance. AmerGen stated that all Level A (important and 
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 G-6 January 2007

Table G-3. OCNGS PRA Historical Summary

PRA

Version Summary of Changes from Prior model

CDF

(per year)

1992 IPE submittal 3.69 × 10-6

2001A Resolution of peer review comments 6.27 × 10-6

Inclusion of internal flooding

Data update

Level 2 reassessment with simplified large early release frequency

(LERF) model

2004B Conversion from RISKMAN to CAFTA software platform 1.05 × 10-5

Addition of AC and DC initiating events

Addition of more detailed modeling of extreme weather and impact

on AC power

Addition of recirculation pump seal leakage scenario

Addition of induced LOOP events for transients and LOCAs

Utilized updated plant-specific failure data

Extensive human reliability analysis (HRA) reassessment

Revised/updated common cause failure calculations

Updated and more detailed ATWS analysis

LERF model upgraded to full Level 2 model

necessary to address before the next regular PRA update) and Level B (important and

necessary to address, but disposition may be deferred until the next PRA update) facts and

observations from the peer review have been resolved by model changes. AmerGen further

stated that no outstanding model issues exist outside the normal PRA maintenance program,

and that none are known to have the potential to impact the SAMA conclusions.

In the ER and subsequent responses to RAIs (AmerGen 2006a,b), AmerGen describes the selfassessment process of the OCNGS PRA model and documentation performed in 2004. This

review of the 2001 PRA, against the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) PRA

Standard (ASME 2003) and Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.200 (NRC 2004a), identified a number of

items for updating. Changes required to meet Capability Category II of the ASME Standard

were then incorporated into the 2004A model. Subsequently, the 2004A model was completely

reassessed against the same requirements. AmerGen indicated that most of the “gaps” relative
Appendix G

January 2007 G-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

to the requirements have been addressed as part of the current update (i.e., the 2004B update),

and that none of the remaining items are judged to affect the SAMA evaluation.

The NRC staff concludes that the Level 1 PRA model is of sufficient quality to support the

SAMA evaluation because (1) the OCNGS Level 1 internal events PRA model has been both

peer reviewed and subjected to an extensive self-assessment process; (2) the review findings

have been resolved or judged to have no adverse impact on the SAMA evaluation; and

(3) AmerGen has satisfactorily addressed NRC staff questions regarding the PRA.

As indicated above, the current OCNGS PRA (2004B) does not include external events. In the

absence of such an analysis, AmerGen used the OCNGS IPEEE to identify the highest risk

accident sequences and potential means of reducing the risk posed by those sequences. In

addition, subsequent to the ER submittal, a FPRA has been completed. In response to

NRC staff RAIs (NRC 2005, 2006), AmerGen described the use of the IPEEE and updated fire

analyses to support the identification and evaluation of potential SAMAs related to external

events (AmerGen 2006a,b).

The OCNGS IPEEE was submitted in December 1995, in response to Supplement 4 of

GL 88-20 (GPU Nuclear 1995). GPU Nuclear, Inc., did not identify any fundamental |

weaknesses or vulnerabilities to severe accident risk in regard to the external events related to

seismic, fire, or other external events. In a letter dated February 8, 2001, the NRC staff

concluded that the submittal met the intent of Supplement 4 to GL 88-20, and that the licensee’s

IPEEE process is capable of identifying the most likely severe accidents and severe accident

vulnerabilities (NRC 2001).

The seismic PRA performed for the initial OCNGS IPEEE submittal resulted in a seismic CDF of

3.6 × 10-6 per year. The seismic model was modified significantly as a result of the NRC IPEEE

review and subsequently yielded a total seismic CDF of 4.7 × 10-6 per year. The dominant

contributors to this value are failure of the turbine building and the reactor building since their

failures lead directly to core damage. The seismic IPEEE assumed that all relays that did not

meet USI A-46 requirements would be replaced. The NRC staff Safety Evaluation Report

(SER) for USI A-46 (NRC 2000) accepted the A-46 resolution. In response to an RAI, AmerGen

confirmed that all relays that did not meet A-46 requirements have been replaced or otherwise

shown to be acceptable (AmerGen 2006a).

The OCNGS IPEEE fire analysis consisted of a FPRA based on Electric Power Research

Institute’s (EPRI’s) Fire Induced Vulnerability Evaluation (FIVE) methodology (supplemented by

an existing fire hazards analysis) and the IPE internal events PRA models. An initial qualitative

screening phase was utilized to screen out fire areas based on a lack of risk-significant

components or lack of a demand for a reactor trip. Quantitative screening of fire areas was then

employed to screen out areas where the conservatively determined (neglecting fire suppression

and conservatively estimating fire propagation) CDF is less than 1 × 10-6 per year. This was
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 G-8 January 2007

then followed by a detailed analysis that included the consideration of fire suppression, fire

propagation, and fire severity factor. Eight fire areas required detailed analysis.

Based on the IPEEE, Table G-4 gives the fire areas with frequencies greater than 1 × 10-6 per

year that were considered to be the dominant contributors, comprising more than 80 percent of

the estimated total fire CDF.

Table G-4. Significant Fire Areas for OCNGS

Fire Area Description CDF (per year)

OB-FZ-4 Lower cable spreading room 8.6 × 10-6

OB-FZ-6A 480-VAC switchgear room 5.1 × 10-6

TB-FZ-11D Turbine building basement 1.9 × 10-6

The resulting total fire CDF from the IPEEE was estimated as 1.9 × 10-5 per year (NRC 2001).

Subsequent to the ER submittal, AmerGen completed a FPRA for OCNGS (AmerGen 2006a). 

The FPRA includes a comprehensive reanalysis of the entire plant and indicates a fire CDF of

9.4 × 10-6 per year. AmerGen stated that the reanalysis applied accepted industry methods

(as documented in the EPRI Fire PRA Implementation Guide and modified by NRC generic

RAIs and responses) and incorporated updated fire frequency values and fire-induced spurious

actuation probabilities (AmerGen 2006b). A comparison of the results from the FPRA with

those from the IPEEE was provided in response to RAIs (AmerGen 2006a,b) and is

summarized below. Included are the dominant contributors to the IPEEE, as listed above, and

the areas from the FPRA that have a CDF contribution of more than approximately 2.7 × 10-7 per

year (which corresponds to an averted cost risk of approximately $50,000). The major reason

for the reduction in fire CDF is stated to be attributable to the more detailed treatment of fire

ignition sources and incorporation of alternate mitigation measures involving the remote

shutdown panel for fire area OB-FZ-4.

As Table G-5 indicates, the overall fire CDF from the IPEEE is conservative.

| The IPEEE analysis of other external events (GPU Nuclear 1995) followed the screening

specified in Supplement 4 to GL 88-20 (NRC 1991) and did not identify any unduly significant

sequences or vulnerabilities. The plant design was reviewed to determine if it met 1975

Standard Review Plan design criteria for high winds, floods, and other external events. If it met

these criteria and a walkdown did not identify any unique vulnerabilities, then the CDF from the

external hazard was considered to be less than 1 × 10-6 per year. If it did not meet the criteria, 
Appendix G

January 2007 G-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Table G-5. Comparison of FRPA and IPEEE Core Damage Frequencies

CDF (per year)

Fire Area Description IPEEE FPRA

OB-FZ-6A “A” 480-VAC switchgear room 5.1 × 10-6 3.1 × 10-6

OB-FZ-8C A and B batt room, tunnel and elec tray room 4.6 × 10-7 2.1 × 10-6

TB-FZ-11E Condenser bay Screened 6.0 × 10-7

TB-FA-3A 4169-VAC switchgear 1C vault Screened 5.1 × 10-7

OB-FZ-5 Control room 3.3 × 10-7 4.3 × 10-7

MT-FA-12 Main transformer and condensate storage tank Screened 3.9 × 10-7

OB-FZ-4 Cable spreading room 8.6 × 10-6 3.9 × 10-7

OB-FZ-10A Monitoring and change room Screened 3.8 × 10-7

TB-FA-3B 4169-VAC switchgear 1D Vault Screened 3.3 × 10-7

TB-FZ-11D Turbine building basement, south end 1.9 × 10-6 6.2 × 10-8

then additional analysis was performed to evaluate the specific concern. Since tornadoes were

not part of the design basis for OCNGS, high winds and tornadoes could not be screened out. 

Further analysis summarized in the IPEEE SER (NRC 2001) indicated that the CDF due to high

winds and tornadoes is less than 1 × 10-6 per year.

Based on the IPEEE results, the external events CDF (fire: 1.9 × 10-5 per year, seismic: 

4.7 × 10-6 per year) is approximately 2.3 times the internal events CDF (1.05 × 10-5 per year). 

AmerGen argued that, in addition to the fire risk being conservatively estimated, a SAMA

derived to address the internal events risk profile will have a less profound impact on the

external event risk profile, and that assuming a one-to-one correspondence will overestimate

the external events benefit. Therefore, in the ER, AmerGen doubled the benefit that was

derived from the internal events model to account for the contribution from external events. This

doubling was not applied to those SAMAs that specifically addressed external events risk (i.e.,

SAMAs 67, 124, 125, 130, and 134). Doubling the benefit for these SAMAs is not appropriate

since these SAMAs are specific to external event risks and would not have a corresponding

benefit on the risk from internal events. 

As discussed above, in response to staff RAIs, AmerGen provided the results of an updated

FPRA (AmerGen 2006b). The CDF from the FPRA, combined with the IPEEE seismic CDF,

yields a total external events CDF of 1.41 × 10-5 per year or approximately 1.3 times the internal

events CDF. The total CDF is approximately 2.3 times the CDF internal events. In the

discussion provided in the response to RAIs, AmerGen argues that since seismic risk is only

marginally impacted by SAMAs intended to mitigate the risk from internal events, the seismic

risk should not be included in the total mitigated risk. If seismic is not included, the external
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 G-10 January 2007

events CDF for the purposes of SAMA evaluations is approximately 0.9 times the internal

events CDF, or the total CDF is approximately 1.9 times the internal events CDF.

On the basis of the above, the NRC staff concludes that the applicant’s use of a multiplier of 2

to account for external events is reasonable for the purposes of the SAMA evaluation.

The NRC staff reviewed the general process used by AmerGen to translate the results of the

Level 1 PRA into containment releases, as well as the results of this Level 2 analysis. AmerGen

characterized the releases for the spectrum of possible radionuclide release scenarios by using

a set of release categories defined based on the timing and magnitude of the release. The

frequency of each release category was obtained from the quantification of a linked Level

1/Level 2 model that effectively evaluates a containment event tree for each Level 1 accident

sequence. The process for assigning accident sequences to the various release categories and

the dominant accident sequences for each release category is described in the ER (AmerGen

2005). The release categories were then reduced to 10 consequence categories by combining

several of the low and very low release categories. The fission product release fractions for

each consequence category were obtained from the results of analyses of representative

sequences for each category by using version 4.0.5 of MAAP. The frequencies and fission

product release characteristics for each of the release and consequence categories are

presented in Tables F-6, F-6a, and F-7 of the ER (AmerGen 2005).

While the IPE Level 2 analysis was reviewed by the NRC and found to be consistent with the

intent of the IPE program (NRC 1994), the current Level 2 analysis is a significant modification

of the earlier analysis. In response to RAIs, AmerGen described the development of the current

model, the reviews performed, and the experience and qualifications of the team that prepared

it. The IPE Level 2 model was upgraded in 2003 to a “LERF only” model. This model was

included within the PRA self-assessment performed in 2004. The results of this

self-assessment against the requirements of the ASME PRA Standard and RG 1.200 were then

used to upgrade the 2003 model, while at the same time expanding the scope of the model to

treat the spectrum of radionuclide releases. The upgraded Level 2 model was incorporated into

the 2004A PRA model and then reassessed against the above requirements. The NRC staff

notes that the team that developed the Level 2 model has considerable experience in Level 2

PRA analysis and has been involved in developing industry standards for such analyses. The

staff concludes that the process used for determining the consequence category frequencies

and source terms is reasonable and appropriate for the purposes of the SAMA analysis.

As indicated in the ER, the reactor core radionuclide inventory used in the consequence

analysis is based on a plant-specific ORIGEN 2.1 calculation and corresponds to best estimate,

end-of-cycle values for a 24-month fuel cycle. All releases were modeled as occurring at

ground level with a thermal content the same as ambient. AmerGen assessed the impact of

alternative assumptions (i.e., elevated releases for selected consequence categories). The
Appendix G

January 2007 G-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

results of this sensitivity study showed that the 50-mi population dose and offsite economic risks

would increase by less than 1 percent.

The NRC staff reviewed the process used by AmerGen to extend the containment performance

(Level 2) portion of the PRA to an assessment of offsite consequences (essentially a Level 3

PRA). This included consideration of the major input assumptions used in the offsite

consequence analyses. The MACCS2 code was utilized to estimate offsite consequences. 

Plant-specific inputs to the code include the source terms for each consequence category and

the reactor core radionuclide inventory (both discussed above), site-specific meteorological

data, projected population distribution within a 50-mi radius for the year 2029, emergency

evacuation modeling, and economic data. This information is provided in Appendix F of the ER

(AmerGen 2005).

AmerGen used site-specific meteorological data processed from hourly measurements for the

2003 calendar year as input to the MACCS2 code. The hourly data were collected from the

onsite meteorological tower. Small data voids (less than six consecutive hours) were filled

using interpolation between data points. Larger data voids were filled using data from the

previous hours or days. Data from 2000 and 2001 were also considered, but 2003 data were

found to be the most complete and resulted in the highest population dose risk and offsite

economic cost risk. Data for 2003 were subsequently used in base case MACCS2 risk

calculations. (Data for 2002 were not readily available because of modifications to the

collection system implemented in mid-2002.) The NRC staff considers use of the 2003

meteorological data in the SAMA analysis to be reasonable.

The population distribution the applicant used as input to the MACCS2 analysis was estimated

for the year 2029, using SECPOP2000 (NRC 2003), U.S. Census block-group level population

data (USCB 2000), and population growth rate estimates. The 1990 and 2000 census data

were used to estimate an annual average population growth rate for each of the 50-mi-radius

rings. The annual growth rate estimate for each ring was applied uniformly to all sectors in the

respective ring. The NRC staff considers the methods and assumptions for estimating

population reasonable and acceptable for purposes of the SAMA evaluation.

The emergency evacuation model was modeled as a single evacuation zone extending out

10 mi from the plant. It was assumed that 95 percent of the population would move at an

average speed of approximately 1.3 mph, with a delayed start time of 30 minutes after a

General Emergency has been declared (AmerGen 2005). This assumption is conservative

relative to the NUREG-1150 study (NRC 1990) that assumed evacuation of 99.5 percent of the

population within the emergency planning zone. The evacuation assumptions and analysis are

deemed reasonable and acceptable for the purposes of the SAMA evaluation.

Much of the site-specific economic data were provided from SECPOP2000 (NRC 2003) by

specifying the data for each of the counties surrounding the plant, to a distance of 50 mi. 
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 G-12 January 2007

Generic economic data were revised from the MACCS2 sample problem when better

information was available (e.g., per diem living expenses, relocation costs, and value of farm

and nonfarm wealth). These values were updated to the year 2000 by using the Consumer

Price Index ratio.

The NRC staff concludes that the methodology AmerGen used to estimate the offsite

consequences for OCNGS provides an acceptable basis from which to proceed with an

assessment of risk reduction potential for candidate SAMAs. Accordingly, the staff based its

assessment of offsite risk on the CDF and offsite doses reported by AmerGen.

G.3 Potential Plant Improvements

The process for identifying potential plant improvements, an evaluation of that process, and the

improvements evaluated in detail by AmerGen are discussed in this section.

G.3.1 Process for Identifying Potential Plant Improvements

AmerGen's process for identifying potential plant improvements (SAMAs) consisted of the

following elements: 

C Review of the most significant basic events from the OCNGS 2004B Level 1 and 2 PRA,

C Review of Phase II SAMAs from license renewal applications for five other U.S. nuclear

sites,

C Review of potential plant improvements identified in the OCNGS IPE and IPEEE,

C Review of dominant fire areas and SAMAs that could potentially reduce the associated

fire risk, and

C Input from OCNGS system managers during the PRA update process and the

development of the SAMA list.

On the basis of this process, an initial set of 136 candidate SAMAs was identified. (The ER

states that 138 SAMAs were identified; however, two were listed as Not Used.) In Phase I of

the evaluation, AmerGen performed a qualitative screening of the initial list of SAMAs and

eliminated SAMAs from further consideration using the following criteria: 

C The SAMA is not applicable at OCNGS because of design differences;

C The SAMA requires extensive changes that would involve implementation costs known

to exceed any possible benefit (a screening value of $4.46 million, which represents the
Appendix G

January 2007 G-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

dollar value associated with completely eliminating all internal and external event severe

accident risk at OCNGS, was used to support this determination);

C The SAMA has already been implemented at OCNGS;

C The implementation cost obviously exceeds the benefit, or the benefit is negligible; or

C The SAMA has been addressed by a similar SAMA.

Based on this screening, 99 SAMAs were eliminated, leaving 37 for further evaluation. The

remaining SAMAs are listed in Table F-16 of the ER (AmerGen 2005). A detailed evaluation

was performed for each of the 37 remaining SAMA candidates, as described in Sections G.4

and G.6 below. To account for the potential impact of external events, the estimated benefits

based on internal events were multiplied by a factor of 2 (except for those SAMAs specific to

external events, since those SAMAs would not have a corresponding benefit on the risk from

internal events).

G.3.2 Review of AmerGen’s Process

AmerGen’s efforts to identify potential SAMAs focused primarily on areas associated with

internal initiating events, but also included explicit consideration of potential SAMAs for seismic,

fire, and high wind events. The initial list of SAMAs generally addressed the accident

sequences considered to be important to CDF from functional, initiating event, and risk

reduction worth (RRW) perspectives at OCNGS, and included selected SAMAs from other

plants.

AmerGen provided a tabular listing of the PRA basic events sorted according to their RRW

(AmerGen 2005). SAMAs impacting these basic events would have the greatest potential for

reducing risk. AmerGen used a RRW cutoff of 1.01, which approximately corresponds to a

1 percent change in CDF given 100 percent reliability of the event. This equates to an averted

cost risk (benefit) of approximately $45,000 (after the benefits are doubled to account for

external events). AmerGen also provided and reviewed the LERF-based RRW events down to

an RRW of 1.01. AmerGen correlated the top Level 1 and 2 events with the SAMAs evaluated

in the ER and showed that all of the significant basic events are addressed by one or more

SAMAs (AmerGen 2005). Based on this information, the NRC staff concludes that the set of

SAMAs evaluated in the ER addresses the major contributors to CDF and offsite dose.

Although the IPE did not identify any vulnerabilities, 15 modifications to the plant, procedures,

and training were identified that had either been implemented, were to be implemented, or were

being considered at the time of the completion of the IPE process. Eight of the improvements

have not been completed and were included as candidate SAMAs in the current evaluation.
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 G-14 January 2007

AmerGen identified OCNGS-specific candidate SAMAs for external events by using the OCNGS

IPEEE (as well as the recently completed FPRA.) A total of 14 SAMAs were identified to

address external events and were included as candidate SAMAs in the Phase I analysis. These

included 11 seismic-related SAMAs and 3 fire-related SAMAs. In addition, two SAMAs related

to high wind events were identified and included based on input from OCNGS system

managers. Of these SAMAs, five were retained for more detailed evaluation in the Phase II

analysis, specifically, two seismic-related SAMAs (67 and 124), one fire-related SAMA (125),

and two high-wind-related SAMAs (130 and 134).

The NRC staff notes that the set of SAMAs submitted is not all inclusive, since additional,

possibly even less expensive, design alternatives can always be postulated. However, the staff

concludes that the benefits of any additional modifications are unlikely to exceed the benefits of

the modifications evaluated and that the alternative improvements would not likely cost less

than the least expensive alternatives evaluated, when the subsidiary costs associated with

maintenance, procedures, and training are considered. 

The NRC staff concludes that AmerGen used a systematic and comprehensive process for

identifying potential plant improvements for OCNGS, and that the set of potential plant

improvements identified by AmerGen is reasonably comprehensive and therefore acceptable. 

This search included reviewing insights from the plant-specific risk studies, reviewing plant

improvements considered in previous SAMA analyses, and using the knowledge and

experience of its PRA personnel.

G.4 Risk Reduction Potential of Plant Improvements

AmerGen evaluated the risk reduction potential of the 37 remaining SAMAs that were applicable

to OCNGS. The changes made to the model to quantify the impact of the SAMAs are detailed

in Section F.6 of Appendix F to the ER (AmerGen 2005). The SAMA evaluations were

performed by using realistic assumptions with some conservatism.

AmerGen used model requantification to determine the potential benefits. The CDF and

population dose reductions were estimated by using the 2004B model version of the

OCNGS PRA. Table G-6 lists the assumptions considered to estimate the risk reduction for

each of the evaluated SAMAs, the estimated risk reduction in terms of percent reduction in CDF

and population dose, and the estimated total benefit (present value) of the averted risk. The

estimated benefits reported in Table G-6 reflect the combined benefit in both internal and

external events. The determination of the benefits for the various SAMAs is further discussed in

Section G.6.
Table G-6. SAMA Cost-Benefit Screening Analysis for OCNGS

SAMA(a) Assumptions

 % Risk Reduction

Total

Benefit

Using 7%

Discount

Rate ($)

Total

Benefit

Using 3%

Discount

Rate ($) Cost ($) CDF

Population

Dose

7. Enhance alternate injection 

reliability. Provide hard pipecross-connection betweenemergency service water(ESW) and core spray.

Failure probability of 1 × 10-2 assigned to

represent operator actionand additional equipmentoperation that couldprevent the modificationfrom functioning.

3 4 174,000 240,000 500,000

10. Install alternate path to the

torus hard pipe vent via thewet well using a rupturedisk.

Operator actions and ACand DC powerassociated with ventingremoved from model.

16 19 788,000 1,088,000 1,000,000

18. Improve ability to cool

residual heat removal (RHR)heat exchangers throughprocedure and hardwaremodifications to allow manualalignment of the fireprotection system.

Change model logic suchthat failure of servicewater AND failure of firewater, in addition to ESWpumps required for failureof containment spray heatexchangers. 

0.5 0.3 8,000 10,000 265,000

20. Reopen main steam isolation

valves (MSIVs) to restoremain condenser as a heatsink.

Operator error of 0.1assumed for reopening ofspuriously closed steamline.

0.4 0.3 4,000 6,000 400,000

23. Enable manual bypass of

explosive valves viainstallation of a bypass lineand manual valve.

Operator error of 0.01assumed for use of newbypass valve.

0.7 1 42,000 58,000 150,000

January 2007 G-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Appendix G
Table G-6. (contd)

SAMA(a) Assumptions

% Risk Reduction

Total

Benefit

Using 7%

Discount

Rate ($)

Total

Benefit

Using 3%

Discount

Rate ($) Cost ($) CDF Population Dose

25. Install bypass switch to enable

quick bypassing of lowpressure permissive for corespray.

Operator error of 0.01assumed for operatoraction to bypass thepermissive.

0.3 0.3 4,000 6,000 50,000

67. Strengthen seismic capability

of the condensate storagetank (CST).

Factor of 5 reduction inCST seismic failurecontribution to seismiccore damage frequency(CDF). 

251 251 139,000 190,000 1,000,000

84. Enable manual operation of all

containment vent valves vialocal controls.

Operator error of 0.01assumed as alternate ifsupport systems fail.

2 2 80,000 110,000 150,000

88. Modify procedure(s) to specify

a control band for containmentventing.

Reduction by factor of 10in operator error forfailure to control venting.

0.1 0 0 0 50,000

89. Improve procedure(s) for

aligning shutdown cooling(SDC) given high dry wellpressure

Operator errorrequantified consideringtime available to alignSDC increased from3 hours to 19 hours.

~0 ~0 0 0 50,000

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 G-16 January 2007

Appendix G
Table G-6. (contd)

SAMA(a) Assumptions

% Risk Reduction

Total

Benefit

Using 7%

Discount

Rate ($)

Total

Benefit

Using 3%

Discount

Rate ($) Cost ($) CDF Population Dose

91. Modify procedures and

training to allow operatorsto cross-tie emergency ACBuses 1C and 1D underemergency conditions thatrequire operation of criticalequipment.

Added gates fordivisions of core sprayand containment spraythat are potentiallyavailable with the newcross-tie. Operatorerror of 0.1 assumed foraction to align the newcross-tie.

3 3 118,000 162,000 90,000

92. Modify procedure to eliminate

flow restriction and maximizecontrol rod drive (CRD) flow.

Model revised to allowcredit for CRD for allevents except loss-ofcoolant accident(LOCAs).

2 0.6 36,000 50,000 100,000

94. Modify Emergency Operating

Procedures (EOPs) to providea crew action to align fireprotection for reactor pressurevessel (RPV) injection.

Operator errorsassociated with aligningfire protection systemreevaluated considering5-minute increase tocognitive time window.

0.2 0 0 0 50,000

95. Modify procedure(s) to include

a caution that containmentspray should not be secured ifbeing utilized for accidentmitigation.

No penalty is included inthe Probabilistic RiskAssessment (PRA) forassociated error ofcommission, thus nobenefit calculated.

~0 ~0 0 0 50,000

January 2007 G-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Appendix G
Table G-6. (contd)

SAMA(a) Assumptions

% Risk Reduction

Total

Benefit

Using 7%

Discount

Rate ($)

Total

Benefit

Using 3%

Discount

Rate ($) Cost ($) CDF Population Dose

99. Modify procedures and

training to operate theisolation condensers(ICs) with no supportsystems available.

Factor of 10 reductionin operator errorassociated withopening IC when DCpower is unavailable.

16 16 674,000 928,000 150,000

100. Modify the circuit to allow

the combustion turbines(CTs) to also supply the “A”bus directly.

Added gates for divisionsof core spray andcontainment spray thatare potentially availablewith the new connection. Also a revised model forincreased feedwatersystem availability (0.01)and heat removal paths(0.1).

4 4 146,000 204,000 500,000

101. Provide a procedure for

determining RPV level usingfuel zone level indicatorswith standby liquid controloperating.

Factor of 3 reduction inoperator errorsassociated with loweringlevel to control power foran anticipated transientwithout scram (ATWS).

0.2 0 0 0 50,000

102. Revise AWTS EOP to

provide RPV level correctionbased on power.

Factor of 3 reduction inoperator errorsassociated with loweringlevel to control power foran ATWS.

0.2 0 0 0 50,000

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 G-18 January 2007

Appendix G
Table G-6. (contd)

SAMA(a) Assumptions

% Risk Reduction

Total

Benefit

Using 7%

Discount

Rate ($)

Total

Benefit

Using 3%

Discount

Rate ($) Cost ($) CDF Population Dose

104. Develop loss of circulating

water abnormal operatingprocedure to includeguidance to allowcondensate and feedwaterto be adequately protected.

Added credit for coolingcondensate pumps byservice water as abackup to circulatingwater. No operatoractions modeled.

3 0.8 44,000 60,000 250,000

106. Revise procedure to provide

direction for cooldownfollowing loss of reactorbuilding closed coolingwater by reducing RPVpressure.

Assumed a 10%reduction in seal LOCAprobability.

0.7 0.6 34,000 46,000 50,000

107. Modify the spill valve air

supply to be fitted with airaccumulators.

Reduced probability oflosing CST inventory onloss of instrument airfrom 0.1 to 0.001.

0.1 0 0 0 250,000

108. Relocate reference leg

instrument penetrationcloser to top of active fueland recalibrate.

Reduced operator errorsto adequately controlwater level while usingeither condensate pumpsor fire protection or corespray systems followingan ATWS.

~0 ~0 0 0 1,000,000

January 2007 G-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Appendix G
Table G-6. (contd)

SAMA(a) Assumptions

% Risk Reduction

Total

Benefit

Using 7%

Discount

Rate ($)

Total

Benefit

Using 3%

Discount

Rate ($) Cost ($) CDF Population Dose

109/125A. Provide portable

battery chargercapable of supplying125-V DC buses.

Combined operatorerror and equipmentfailure probability of 0.1in added credit for nonLOCA loss of AC powersequences.

16(b)

54(c)

16(b)

59(c)

674,000

3,390,000

930,000

4,680,000

75,000

110. Delete high dry well

pressure signal fromshutdown cooling isolation.

Same as SAMA 89. ~0 ~0 0 0 75,000

111. Provide alternate dry well

spray injection source,e.g., emergency servicewater cross-tie, servicewater cross-tie, diesel firepump cross-tie.

Credit given for use of fireprotection system in caseof failure of each set ofcontainment spraypumps.

~0 ~0 0 0 500,000

112. Ensure high reliability of the

cooling-water intakestructure via surveillanceand active programs.

Loss of intake structureinitiating event frequencyreduced by approximatelya factor of 5.

0.8 0.3 8,000 10,000 1,000,000

124. Reinforce block wall 53. Seismic CDF contribution

from block wall failureeliminated. Release

parameters based onmodified Individual PlantExamination of ExternalEvents (IPEEE) seismicClass distribution. 

15(d) 151(d) 84,000 115,000 150,000

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 G-20 January 2007

Appendix G
Table G-6. (contd)

SAMA(a) Assumptions

% Risk Reduction

Total

Benefit

Using 7%

Discount

Rate ($)

Total

Benefit

Using 3%

Discount

Rate ($) Cost ($) CDF Population Dose

125B.Add a bus cross-tie circuit

breaker to Bus 1B2.

Eliminates fire risk ofArea OB-FZ-6A basedon Fire ProbabilisticRisk Assessment(FPRA) results.

15(e) 12(e) 445,000 611,000 100,000

125C.Relocation of relief valve

cables, circuitry, andcomponents, as well asother modifications, toensure one train of corespray remains unaffected byfire.

Eliminated dominantcontributors to fire riskremaining afterimplementation ofSAMAs 109/125A and125B.

29(f) 17(f) 397,000 540,000 750,000

127. Increase operator training

on systems and operatoractions determined to beimportant in the PRA.

Not modeled. Not

estimated

Not

estimated

50,000

128. Institute a program to

reduce IC biofouling.

Reduce biofouling basicevents by an order ofmagnitude.

~0 ~0 14,000 20,000 200,000

129. Improve internal flooding

procedures.

Reduce all internal floodinitiating events except“Fire Protection Spray ofBuses 1A, 1B” by a factorof 2.

4 1 56,000 78,000 100,000

January 2007 G-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Appendix G
Table G-6. (contd)

SAMA(a) Assumptions

% Risk Reduction

Total

Benefit

Using 7%

Discount

Rate ($)

Total

Benefit

Using 3%

Discount

Rate ($) Cost ($) CDF Population Dose

130. Increase CT building

integrity to withstandhigher winds.

Assumed factor of 20reduction in extremeweather loss of offsitepower (LOOP), whichalso causes failure ofCT.

30 34 747,000 1,032,000 600,000

132. Modify procedures to

allow switching of the CTsto OCNGS while running.

Probability of spurioustrip of running CTassumed to be 0.5.

1 1 46,000 64,000 50,000

133. Increase the hot well

makeup capability to allowcondensate/feedwater to bebeneficial over a wide rangeof LOCA conditions.

Remove from modelfailure of feedwater dueto insufficient makeupcapability.

1 2 72,000 100,000 250,000

134. Increase fire pump

building integrity towithstand higher winds.

Assumed factor of 20reduction in extremeweather LOOP, whichalso causes failure offire pump building.

16 19 438,000 606,000 150,000

136. Provide alternate power to

condensate transfer pumps.

Add gates for alternateAC power supplies toindividual condensatetransfer pump models.

0.2 0 0 0 100,000

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 G-22 January 2007

Appendix G
Table G-6. (contd)

SAMA(a) Assumptions

% Risk Reduction

Total

Benefit

Using 7%

Discount

Rate ($)

Total

Benefit

Using 3%

Discount

Rate ($) Cost ($) CDF Population Dose

138. Protect transformers from

explosive failure.

LOOP frequencyincreased by 1 × 10-2 per

year to incorporateimpact of postulatedtransformer explosions.

8(g)

9(g) 446,000 616,000 780,000

(a) SAMAs in bold are potentially cost-beneficial when either a 7 percent or 3 percent real discount rate is used in the NRC staff’s analysis.

(b) Value based on doubling of internal events benefits, as reported in ER Section F.6.23 (AmerGen 2005) for SAMA 109.(c) Value based on modified base PRA that incorporates the dominant fire risk contributors from the FPRA update, as reported in

ER Section F.6.28 for SAMA 125A.

(d) Values represent the reduction in seismic risk. Risk from internal and fire events is assumed to be unchanged. (e) Value based on updated FPRA results, as described in AmerGen’s response to RAI followup questions (AmerGen 2006b).(f) Benefit is based on prior implementation of SAMAs 109/125A and 125B. (g) Impact of transformer explosion not in current PRA. Risk reduction of SAMA is, therefore, equal to risk increase when it is added to the model.

January 2007 G-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Appendix G
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 G-24 January 2007

For those SAMAs that specifically address external events (i.e., SAMAs 67, 124, 125, 130, and

134), the reduction in CDF and population dose were calculated as discussed below.

SAMAs 67 and 124 involve modifying the condensate storage tank and reinforcing a block wall

to increase their capability in seismic events. For these SAMAs, a seismic baseline risk (CDF,

population dose, and offsite economic cost risk) was developed from the IPEEE Level 1 seismic

results, and release parameters based on IPEEE seismic accident class distribution, and

release characteristics were estimated based on the current Level 2 model. The contribution to

seismic CDF from each of the failures addressed by the SAMAs was then estimated from the

IPEEE and used with the seismic baseline risk to estimate the averted cost risk. These SAMAs

were assumed to have no additional benefits in internal events.

SAMA 125 was subsequently separated into three specific SAMAs that address fire risk

contributors: SAMA 125A involves providing portable battery chargers capable of supplying

125-V DC buses, SAMA 125B involves adding a circuit breaker related to fire area OB-FZ-6A,

and SAMA 125C involves rerouting of cable in dominant fire areas. To determine the benefit of

these modifications, a new baseline risk was determined by incorporating the two dominant fire

areas from the FPRA reanalysis into the internal events PRA. The benefits of the SAMA 125

modifications were then determined by making appropriate changes to this new baseline risk

model and reevaluating the risk. The evaluations for each SAMA are discussed below.

C SAMA 125A – This SAMA involves providing a portable battery charger capable of

supplying 125-V DC buses in order to preserve isolation condenser and electromagnetic

relief valve operability along with adequate instrumentation. The same plant change

was identified as SAMA 109, based on internal event considerations. SAMA 109 and

125A represent the same physical modification evaluated by using two different

approaches. The first approach is based on a doubling of benefits from the internal

events PRA to account for external events, and results in an estimated benefit of

$674,000 based on a 7 percent discount rate. The second approach is based on the

use of the modified baseline risk model, which incorporates the two dominant fire areas

from the FPRA reanalysis, and results in an estimated benefit of $3.4 million based on a

7 percent discount rate. The latter value is considered the best value to use for the

benefit of SAMAs 109/125A.

The NRC staff notes that SAMA 109 was singled out for reevaluation by using the

revised fire model because it was designed to deal with station blackout sequences;

these types of sequences dominate both the internal event risk and the fire risk. Other

internal event SAMAs were reviewed by AmerGen to identify similar circumstances and

found not to be applicable, or to be less beneficial than SAMA 109.

C SAMA 125B – This SAMA involves the installation of an additional circuit breaker on

Bus 1B2 in order to reduce a failure mode applicable to fires in the “A” 480-VAC
Appendix G

January 2007 G-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

switchgear room. The estimated benefit for SAMA 125B reported in the ER is based on

an assumption that SAMA 109/125A has already been implemented (i.e., the residual

risk after implementing SAMA 109/125A was used as the baseline for determining the

further benefit of SAMA 125B.) In response to an RAI, AmerGen provided an estimate

of the benefits associated with SAMA 125B without credit for prior implementation of

SAMA 109/125A (AmerGen 2006b). This estimate was based on the result of the

FPRA. The averted cost risk for SAMA 125B (without credit for implementation of SAMA

109/125A) is approximately $445,000, based on a 7 percent discount rate.

C SAMA 125C – This SAMA involves the relocation of relief valve cables, circuitry, and

components to allow credit for depressurization and core spray as a backup to the

isolation condenser. In addition, other modifications would be required to ensure that at

least one train of core spray remains unaffected by the postulated fire event. The risk

after incorporation of SAMAs 109/125A and 125B was used as the baseline to evaluate

SAMA 125C. The averted cost risk for SAMA 125C (with credit for prior implementation

of SAMAs 109/125A and 125B) is approximately $397,000 based on a 7 percent

discount rate. AmerGen did not provide an estimate for the implementation of SAMA

125C alone on the basis that the costs, competing risks, and expected benefit

associated with this SAMA would make it undesirable. In a follow-up RAI response,

AmerGen indicated that if SAMA 125B is not implemented for fire area OB-FZ-6A, then

SAMA 125C should be considered in place of SAMA 125B (AmerGen 2006b).

SAMAs 130 and 134 involve modifications to the combustion turbine building and fire pump

building to address high wind events. For these SAMAs, the internal events model includes the

impact of failure of the building due to high winds by taking no credit for these

components/structures for those Loss of Offsite Power events that are due to extreme winds.

The benefit of strengthening these structures to withstand higher wind speeds was estimated by

reducing the probability that extreme winds would fail these structures. Since these SAMAs

would not have any impact on risk from other external events, the factor of 2 multiplier for

external events was not applied. In response to an NRC RAI, AmerGen discussed the

implications of changes in the wind hazard curve suggested by an NRC RAI on the IPEEE, and

provided additional benefit estimates based on an alternative wind hazard curve. The NRC staff

believes that the original assessment of the benefits of SAMAs 130 and 134, as provided in the

ER, are appropriate.

The NRC staff has reviewed AmerGen’s bases for calculating the risk reduction for the various

plant improvements and concludes that the rationale and assumptions for estimating risk

reduction are reasonable and somewhat conservative (i.e., the estimated risk reduction is

similar to or somewhat higher than what would actually be realized). Accordingly, the staff

based its estimates of averted risk for the various SAMAs on AmerGen’s risk reduction

estimates.
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 G-26 January 2007

G.5 Cost Impacts of Candidate Plant Improvements

AmerGen estimated the costs of implementing the 37 candidate SAMAs through the application

of engineering judgment, use of other licensees’ estimates for similar improvements, and

development of site-specific cost estimates. The cost estimates conservatively did not include

the cost of replacement power during extended outages required to implement the

modifications, nor did they include contingency costs associated with unforeseen

implementation obstacles. The cost estimates provided in the ER did not account for inflation.

The NRC staff reviewed the bases for the applicant’s cost estimates. For certain improvements,

the staff also compared the cost estimates with estimates developed elsewhere for similar

improvements, including estimates developed as part of other licensees’ analyses of SAMAs for

operating reactors and advanced light-water reactors. The staff reviewed the costs and found

them to be consistent with estimates provided in support of other plants’ analyses.

The NRC staff concludes that the cost estimates provided by AmerGen are sufficient and

appropriate for use in the SAMA evaluation.

G.6 Cost-Benefit Comparison

AmerGen’s cost-benefit analysis and the NRC staff’s review are described in the following

sections.

G.6.1 AmerGen’s Evaluation

The methodology used by AmerGen was based primarily on NRC’s guidance for performing

cost-benefit analysis, that is, NUREG/BR-0184, Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation

Handbook (NRC 1997b). The guidance involves determining the net value for each SAMA

according to the following formula:

Net Value = (APE + AOC + AOE + AOSC) – COE

where, 

APE = present value of averted public exposure ($),

AOC = present value of averted offsite property damage costs ($),

AOE = present value of averted occupational exposure costs ($),

AOSC = present value of averted onsite costs ($), and

COE = cost of enhancement ($).
Appendix G

January 2007 G-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

If the net value of a SAMA is negative, the cost of implementing the SAMA is larger than the

benefit associated with the SAMA and it is not considered cost-beneficial. AmerGen’s

derivation of each of the associated costs is summarized below.

NUREG/BR-0058 has recently been revised to reflect the agency's policy on discount rates. 

Revision 4 of NUREG/BR-0058 states that two sets of estimates should be developed: one at

3 percent and one at 7 percent (NRC 2004b). AmerGen provided both sets of estimates

(AmerGen 2005).

Averted Public Exposure (APE) Costs

The APE costs were calculated by using the following formula:

APE = Annual reduction in public exposure (Δ person-rem/year)

× monetary equivalent of unit dose ($2000 per person-rem)

× present value conversion factor (10.76 based on a 20-year period with a 

 7 percent discount rate).

As stated in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997b), it is important to note that the monetary value of

the public health risk after discounting does not represent the expected reduction in public

health risk due to a single accident. Rather, it is the present value of a stream of potential

losses extending over the remaining lifetime (in this case, the renewal period) of the facility. 

Thus, it reflects the expected annual loss due to a single accident, the possibility that such an

accident could occur at any time over the renewal period, and the effect of discounting these

potential future losses to present value. For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes

elimination of all severe accidents due to internal events, AmerGen calculated an APE of

approximately $775,000 for the 20-year license renewal period.

Averted Offsite Property Damage Costs (AOC)

The AOCs were calculated by using the following formula:

AOC = Annual CDF reduction

× offsite economic costs associated with a severe accident (on a per-event 

 basis)

× present value conversion factor.

For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents due to internal events

are eliminated, AmerGen calculated an annual offsite economic risk of about $118,000 based

on the Level 3 risk analysis. This results in a discounted value of approximately $1,270,000 for

the 20-year license renewal period.
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 G-28 January 2007

Averted Occupational Exposure (AOE) Costs

The AOE costs were calculated by using the following formula:

AOE = Annual CDF reduction

× occupational exposure per core damage event

× monetary equivalent of unit dose

× present value conversion factor.

AmerGen derived the values for averted occupational exposure from information provided in

Section 5.7.3 of the regulatory analysis handbook (NRC 1997b). Best estimate values provided

for immediate occupational dose (3300 person-rem) and long-term occupational dose

(20,000 person-rem over a 10-year cleanup period) were used. The present value of these

doses was calculated by using the equations provided in the handbook in conjunction with a

monetary equivalent of unit dose of $2000 per person-rem, a real discount rate of 7 percent,

and a time period of 20 years to represent the license renewal period. For the purposes of

initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents due to internal events are eliminated,

AmerGen calculated an AOE of approximately $4000 for the 20-year license renewal period.

Averted Onsite Costs (AOSC)

The AOSC include averted cleanup and decontamination costs and averted power replacement

costs. Repair and refurbishment costs are considered for recoverable accidents only and not

for severe accidents. AmerGen derived the values for AOSC based on information provided in

Section 5.7.6 of the regulatory analysis handbook (NRC 1997b).

AmerGen divided this cost element into two parts: the Onsite Cleanup and Decontamination

Cost, also commonly referred to as averted cleanup and decontamination costs, and the

Replacement Power Cost.

Averted cleanup and decontamination costs (ACC) were calculated by using the following

formula:

ACC = Annual CDF reduction

× present value of cleanup costs per core damage event

× present value conversion factor.

The total cost of cleanup and decontamination subsequent to a severe accident is estimated in

the regulatory analysis handbook to be $1.1 x 109

 (discounted). This value was converted to

present costs over a 10-year cleanup period and integrated over the term of the proposed

license extension. For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents

due to internal events are eliminated, AmerGen calculated an ACC of approximately $124,000

for the 20-year license renewal period.
Appendix G

January 2007 G-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

Long-term replacement power costs (RPC) were calculated using the following formula: 

 

RPC = Annual CDF reduction

× present value of replacement power for a single event

× factor to account for remaining service years for which replacement power is

 required

× reactor power scaling factor

AmerGen based its calculations on the value of 630 megawatts electric (MW(e)). Therefore, |

AmerGen applied power scaling factors of 630 MWe/910 MWe to determine the replacement

power costs. For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents due to

internal events are eliminated, AmerGen calculated the AOSC to be approximately $182,000.

By using the above equations, AmerGen estimated the total present dollar value equivalent

associated with completely eliminating severe accidents due to internal events at OCNGS to be

about $2,231,000. To account for additional risk reduction in external events, AmerGen

doubled this value (to $4,462,000) to provide the modified maximum averted cost risk

(MMACR), which represents the dollar value associated with completely eliminating all internal

and external event severe accident risk at OCNGS.

AmerGen’s Results

If the implementation costs for a candidate SAMA were greater than the MMACR of $4,462,000,

then the SAMA was screened from further consideration. A more refined look at the costs and

benefits was performed for the remaining SAMAs. If the implementation costs for a candidate

SAMA exceeded the calculated benefit, the SAMA was considered not to be cost-beneficial. In

the baseline analysis contained in the ER (using a 7 percent discount rate), AmerGen identified

seven potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. On the basis of an analysis using a 3 percent real

discount rate, as recommended in NUREG/BR-0058 (NRC 2004b), two additional SAMA

candidates were determined to be potentially cost-beneficial. The potentially cost-beneficial

SAMAs are:

C SAMA 10 – install alternate path to the torus hard pipe vent via the wet well using a

rupture disk (cost-beneficial at 3 percent discount rate),

C SAMA 91 – modify procedures and training to allow operators to cross-tie emergency

AC Buses 1C and 1D under emergency conditions that require operation of critical

equipment,

C SAMA 99 – modify procedures and training to operate the isolation condensers with no

support systems available,
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 G-30 January 2007

C SAMA 109/125A – provide portable DC battery charger capable of supplying 125-V

buses in order to preserve isolation condenser and electromagnetic relief valve

operability along with adequate instrumentation,

C SAMA 125B – add a bus cross-tie circuit breaker to Bus 1B2 to reduce the impact of

fires in the 480-V AC switchgear room,

C SAMA 127 – increase operator training on the systems and operator actions determined

to be important from the PRA,

C SAMA 130 – increase combustion turbine building integrity to withstand higher winds so

that combustion turbines would be capable of withstanding a severe weather event,

C SAMA 132 – modify procedures to allow switching of the combustion turbines to OCNGS

while running (cost-beneficial at 3 percent discount rate), and

C SAMA 134 – increase fire pump house building integrity to withstand higher winds so

that the fire system would be capable of withstanding a severe weather event.

AmerGen performed additional analyses to evaluate the impact of parameter choices and

uncertainties on the results of the SAMA assessment (AmerGen 2005). If the benefits are

increased by a factor of 2.5 to account for uncertainties, six additional SAMA candidates

(beyond those identified in the 3 percent discount rate case) were determined to be potentially

cost-beneficial (SAMAs 84, 106, 124, 125C, 129, and 138). The potentially cost-beneficial

SAMAs are discussed in more detail in Section G.6.2.

G.6.2 Review of AmerGen’s Cost-Benefit Evaluation

The cost-benefit analysis performed by AmerGen was based primarily on NUREG/BR-0184

(NRC 1997b) and was executed consistent with this guidance. 

To account for external events, AmerGen multiplied the internal event benefits by a factor of 2

for each SAMA, except those SAMAs that specifically address external events (i.e., SAMAs 67,

124, 125, 130, and 134). Doubling the benefit for these SAMAs is not appropriate since these

SAMAs are specific to external events and would not have a corresponding benefit in risk from

internal events. Given that the CDF from internal fires and other external events as reported by

AmerGen is less than the CDF for internal events, the NRC staff agrees that the factor of

2 multiplier for external events is reasonable.

AmerGen considered the impact that possible increases in benefits from analysis uncertainties

would have on the results of the SAMA assessment. Currently, an uncertainty distribution is not

available for the SAMA PRA model. Therefore, AmerGen reviewed the point estimate and
Appendix G

January 2007 G-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

95th percentile CDFs for several SAMA submittals. The factor by which the 95th percentile

CDFs are greater than the point estimate CDFs ranged from 2.35 to 2.45 (AmerGen 2005). 

AmerGen reexamined the initial set of SAMAs to determine if any additional Phase I SAMAs

would be retained for further analysis if the benefits were increased by a factor of 2.5. No

additional Phase I SAMAs were identified. AmerGen also considered the impact on the

Phase II screening if the benefits were increased by a factor of 2.5 (in addition to the factor of

2 multiplier already included in the baseline benefit estimates to account for external events). 

Six additional SAMAs (beyond the nine SAMAs identified above) could be cost-beneficial. 

These additional SAMAs are SAMAs 84, 106, 124, 125C, 129, and 138.

AmerGen recognized that a combination of lower-cost SAMAs can provide much of the risk

reduction associated with higher-cost SAMAs, and may act synergistically to yield a combined

risk reduction greater than the sum of the benefits for each SAMA if implemented individually. 

AmerGen assessed various combinations of the seven potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs

identified in the baseline case. Based on this, AmerGen identified a subset of four SAMAs

along with a priority for implementation based on individual maximum net values. In order of

implementation priority, they are: 

C SAMA 109/125A – provide portable DC battery charger capable of supplying 125-V

buses in order to preserve isolation condenser and electromagnetic relief valve

operability along with adequate instrumentation,

C SAMA 134 – increase fire pump house building integrity to withstand higher winds so

that the fire system would be capable of withstanding a severe weather event,

C SAMA 125B – add a bus cross-tie circuit breaker to Bus 1B2 to reduce the impact of

fires in the 480-V AC switchgear room, and

C SAMA 127 – increase operator training on the systems and operator actions determined

to be important from the PRA.

AmerGen concluded that if the above SAMAs are implemented, then the remaining SAMAs

identified as cost-beneficial in the baseline analysis (i.e., SAMAs 91, 99, and 130) will no longer

be cost-beneficial (AmerGen 2005). 

The NRC staff noted that several SAMAs, which are only cost-beneficial at the upper bound

(95th percentile), do not appear to have competing effects and may remain cost-beneficial

(at the upper bound) even after implementing the four aforementioned SAMAs. Therefore, the

staff asked AmerGen to provide an assessment of the upper bound net values for these SAMAs

(i.e., SAMAs 10, 84, 106, 124, 125C, 129, 132, and 138), assuming that the four cost-beneficial

SAMAs noted above are implemented (NRC 2005). In its response, AmerGen provided the

upper bound net values for these SAMAs (AmerGen 2006a). With the exception of SAMAs 84
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 G-32 January 2007

and 138, these SAMAs remained individually cost-beneficial at the upper bound. Two of these

SAMAs (10 and 125C) have large implementation costs (approximately $1 million); however,

the upper bound net values are also large (approximately $200,000 to $800,000). The other

four SAMAs (99, 129, 132, and 124) have lower implementation costs ($50,000 to $150,000),

but also have lower net values ($60,000 to $90,000).

The NRC staff concludes that, with the exception of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs

discussed above, the costs of the SAMAs evaluated would be higher than the associated

benefits.

G.7 Conclusions

AmerGen compiled a list of 136 SAMAs based on a review of the most significant basic events

from the plant-specific PRA, Phase II SAMAs from license renewal activities for other plants,

insights from the plant-specific IPE and IPEEE, review of dominant fire areas, and input from

OCNGS systems managers. A qualitative screening removed SAMA candidates that (1) were

not applicable at OCNGS because of design differences, (2) required extensive changes that

would involve implementation costs known to exceed any possible benefit (i.e., more than

$4.46 million), (3) had already been implemented at OCNGS, (4) had a negligible benefit, or

(5) had been addressed by a similar SAMA. Ninety-nine SAMAs were eliminated, leaving 37 for

further evaluation.

For the remaining SAMA candidates, a more detailed design and cost estimates were

developed as shown in Table G-6. The cost-benefit analyses showed that seven of the SAMA

candidates were potentially cost-beneficial in the baseline analysis. AmerGen performed

additional analyses to evaluate the impact of parameter choices and uncertainties on the results

of the SAMA assessment. As a result, seven additional SAMAs were identified as potentially

cost-beneficial. AmerGen evaluated the impact of implementing four potentially cost-beneficial

SAMAs. The evaluation indicated that the remaining three SAMAs that were determined to be

cost-beneficial in the baseline analysis would no longer be cost-beneficial. However, several

SAMAs would remain potentially cost-beneficial when evaluated at the upper bound.

The NRC staff reviewed the AmerGen analysis and concluded that the methods used and the

implementation of those methods were sound. The treatment of SAMA benefits and costs

support the general conclusion that the SAMA evaluations performed by AmerGen are

reasonable and sufficient for the license renewal submittal. Although the treatment of SAMAs

for external events was somewhat limited by the unavailability of an external events PRA, the

likelihood of there being cost-beneficial enhancements in this area was minimized by inclusion

of several candidate SAMAs related to external events, insights from the FPRA, and inclusion of

a multiplier to account for external events.
Appendix G

January 2007 G-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

The NRC staff concurs with AmerGen’s identification of areas in which risk can be further

reduced in a cost-beneficial manner through the implementation of all or a subset of the

identified, potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. Given the potential for cost-beneficial risk

reduction, the staff concludes that further evaluation of these SAMAs by AmerGen is warranted. 

However, none of these SAMAs relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the

period of extended operation. Therefore, they need not be implemented as part of license

renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.

G.8 References

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental |

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” |

|

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for |

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” |

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2005. Applicant’s Environmental Report –

Operating License Renewal Stage, Oyster Creek Generating Station. Forked River,

New Jersey. (July 22, 2005).

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2006a. Letter from P.B. Cowan, AmerGen

Energy Company, LLC, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Document Control Desk, Rockville, Maryland, Subject: “Response to NRC Request for

Additional Information Related to Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) for Oyster

Creek Generating Station (TAC No. MC7625).” (January 9, 2006).

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen). 2006b. Letter from M.P. Gallagher, Exelon

Generation, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Document

Control Desk, Rockville, Maryland, Subject: “Supplemental Response to NRC Request for

Additional Information Related to Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) for Oyster

Creek Generating Station (TAC No. MC7625).” (March 15, 2006).

American Society for Mechanical Engineers (ASME). 2003. “Standard for Probabilistic Risk

Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications,” ASME RA-S-2002, dated April 5, 2002, and 

“Addenda to ASME RA-S-2002,” ASME RA-SA-2003. (December 5, 2003).

GPU Nuclear, Inc. 1992. Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS), Operating |

License No. DPR-16, Docket No. 50-219, Response to Generic Letter 88-20, “Individual Plant

Examinations for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities (IPE).” Forked River, New Jersey. (August

14, 1992).
Appendix G

NUREG-1437, Supplement 28 G-34 January 2007

| GPU Nuclear, Inc. 1995. Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS), Operating

License No. DPR-16, Docket No. 50-219, Response to Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4,

“Individual Plant Examination for External Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities.” 

(December 29, 1995).

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000. “Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) – 100 Percent

Data.” Available URL: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/SumFile1.html.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment

for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1991. Procedural and Submittal Guidance for the

Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities.

NUREG-1407, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1994. Letter from A.W. Dromerick, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., to J.J. Barton, GPU Nuclear, Inc., Forked River,

New Jersey. Subject: “Review of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Individual Plant

Examination (IPE) Submittal (TAC No. M74443).” (August 2, 1994).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997a. Individual Plant Examination Program: 

Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant Performance. NUREG-1560, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997b. Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation

Handbook. NUREG/BR-0184, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Letter from H.N. Pastis, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., to M.B. Roche, GPU Nuclear, Inc., Forked River,

New Jersey. Subject: “Safety Evaluation Report for USI A-46 Program Implementation at

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (TAC No. M69467).” (January 19, 2000).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. Letter from H.N. Pastis, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., to R. DeGregorio, AmerGen, Forked River,

New Jersey. Subject: “Review of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek)

Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) Submittal (TAC No. M83652).” 

(February 8, 2001).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. SECPOP2000: Sector Population, Land

Fraction, and Economic Estimation Program. NUREG/CR-6525, Rev. 1, Washington, D.C.
Appendix G

January 2007 G-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 28

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. An Approach for Determining the

Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities,

Regulatory Guide 1.200 for Trial Use. (February 2004).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 4, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. Letter from M.T. Masnik, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Rockville, Maryland, to C.N. Swenson, AmerGen Energy Company,

LLC, Forked River, New Jersey. Subject: “Request for Additional Information (RAI) Regarding

Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

(TAC No. MC7625).” (November 9, 2005).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006. Note from M.T. Masnik, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Rockville, Maryland. Subject: “Telecommunication with AmerGen

Energy Company, LLC, to Discuss Requests for Additional Information Pertaining to the NRC

Staff’s Review of the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative (SAMA) Analysis in the Oyster

Creek License Renewal Application (TAC No. MC7625).” (March 5, 2006).

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse)

NRC FORM 335

(9-2004)

NRCMD 3.7

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

 (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

NUREG-1437, Vol. 2, Supp. 28

3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH

January

YEAR

2007

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants

Supplement 28

Regarding Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

Final Report - Appendices

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT

Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor,

Division of License Renewal

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above"; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Same as 8 above

provide name and mailing address.)

and mailing address.)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Docket Number 50-219

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

This final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to an application submitted to

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen) to renew the operating license for

the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek) for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54. This final SEIS

includes the NRC staff's analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental

impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. 

The NRC staff's recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal

for Oyster Creek are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision makers would be

unreasonable. This recommendation is based on the following: (1) the analysis and findings in the Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437); (2) the Environmental Report submitted by AmerGen;

(3) consultation with other Federal, State, Tribal, and Local agencies; (4) the staff's own independent review; and (5) the staff's

consideration of public comments.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.)

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Satement

GEIS

National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA

License Renewal

14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

unlimited

(This Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001
Printed

on recycled

paper

Federal Recycling Program