1

PSEGESPEnvDocsPEm Resource

From: Mars, Steve <steve_mars@fws.gov>Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 1:21 PMTo: Fetter, AllenSubject: [External_Sender] Re: Query: FWS anticipated date for responding to NRC's letter?Attachments: NRC NLTAA PSEG Early Site Review.pdf

Allen: here is our NLTAA determination. Thanks for your patience On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Fetter, Allen <Allen.Fetter@nrc.gov> wrote:

Steve,

As per our conversation on February 4, 2016, you anticipated that, based on the information I provided you both verbally and via e-mail, FWS would be providing a response letter back to NRC in about 2 or 3 weeks. Could you please let me know if this timetable is still workable for you? If you do need more time, just give me your best estimate of a new target date.

For your convenience and reference, I’ve attached a copy of NRC’s August 21, 2015 letter to FWS. The supplement BA referred to in the letter is located online in Volume 3, Appendix F of the FEIS for the PSEG Site ESP – link as follows: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr2168/v3/

Please send your response letter to:

Jennifer Dixon-Herrity, Chief

Environmental Projects Branch

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Mail Stop T-6 E55M

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852

Many Thanks,

Allen H. Fetter, Senior Project Manager

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of New Reactors

Division of New Reactor Licensing

Environmental Projects Branch

2

Washington, D.C.

301-415-8556 (Office)

301-832-4909 (Mobile)

From: Fetter, Allen Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:46 PM To: 'Mars, Steve' <steve_mars@fws.gov> Cc: Eric Schrading <eric_schrading@fws.gov>; Ron Popowski <ron_popowski@fws.gov> Subject: FW: Biological Monitoring Program Annual Reports (PSEG - Salem)

Steve,

Here’s some additional information for you (email chain below and attached). Could you please give me a ballpark date (+/- one month) as to when NRC can expect a written response from FWS on our supplemental BA (and other supporting information I’ve provided)?

Many Thanks,

Allen H. Fetter, Senior Project Manager

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of New Reactors

Division of New Reactor Licensing

Environmental Projects Branch

Washington, D.C.

301-415-8556 (Office)

301-832-4909 (Mobile)

From: Robillard, David L [mailto:David.Robillard@pseg.com] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:26 PM To: Fetter, Allen <Allen.Fetter@nrc.gov> Subject: [External_Sender] FW: Biological Monitoring Program Annual Reports

Allen,

See below for the email chain of discussion between Ken Strait of PSEG and Susan Rosenwinkel of NJDEP regarding the renewal of the Salem NJPDES permit.

Dave Robillard

From: Strait, Kenneth A. Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 1:46 PM

3

To: 'Rosenwinkel, Susan' Subject: RE: Biological Monitoring Program Annual Reports

Attached are some figures from the CDS. HSC spawning would typically occur somewhere in the week 16-24 range, dependent on the lunar cycle. The primary spawning beaches are also farther downbay where there is sand instead of mud (http://www.horseshoecrab.org/nh/habitat.html). ECSI tells me that they have seen

From: Rosenwinkel, Susan [mailto:Susan.Rosenwinkel@dep.nj.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 1:21 PM To: Strait, Kenneth A. Subject: RE: Biological Monitoring Program Annual Reports

Email sent from outside of PSEG. Use caution before using links/attachments.

Hi Ken – what is the typical salinity in the area of the station?

From: Strait, Kenneth A. [mailto:Kenneth.Strait@pseg.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 7:40 AM To: Rosenwinkel, Susan Subject: RE: Biological Monitoring Program Annual Reports

Susan:

You are correct that horseshoe crab larvae have generally not been observed in entrainment samples. Entrainment samples are processed only for fish eggs and larvae, so any observations would be anecdotal.

HSC eggs and crab larvae would not be expected in the vicinity of the Station since their spend their first couple of years in and on the bottom near the spawning habitat; and they generally prefer higher salinity than present at the Station. Egg development typically requires 10-15 ppt; optimal levels for development are reportedly 20-30 ppt; and a salinity of 8 ppt is generally accepted as minimal for survival of eggs, larvae or adults. (http://www.fws.gov/r5gomp/gom/habitatstudy/metadata/horseshoe_crab_model.htm)

Can we meet or conference call for a few minutes to chat about the CWS flow monitoring alternative? Given the spurious results that we have been getting and can’t explain, we are very hesitant to do any further dye testing while waiting for the minor modification.

Ken

From: Rosenwinkel, Susan [mailto:Susan.Rosenwinkel@dep.nj.gov] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 5:26 PM To: Strait, Kenneth A. Subject: Biological Monitoring Program Annual Reports

Email sent from outside of PSEG. Use caution before using links/attachments.

4

Ken – would you agree that this is an accurate assessment of entrainment data in relation to horseshoe crablarvae?

PSEG conducts entrainment abundance sampling at the circulating water intake structure by pumping river waterout of the intake bay of Circulating Water Pumps 12B or 22A into a plankton net having a 0.5-mm mesh. For each species collected, the life stage is determined, the total number counted, and the lengths of a subsample aremeasured; therefore, entrainment data represents all individual species. Based on a review of recent BiologicalMonitoring Program Annual Reports, horseshoe crab larvae have not been identified in entrainment samples.

The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without written authorization from PSEG. This e-mail may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. This notice is included in all e-mail messages leaving PSEG. Thank you for your cooperation.

The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message, in whole or in part, without written authorization from PSEG. This e-mail may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. This notice is included in all e-mail messages leaving PSEG. Thank you for your cooperation.

Hearing Identifier: PSEG_Site_ESP_EnvDocs_Public Email Number: 105 Mail Envelope Properties (CANbXMhk=ZZe3rqaQEcOxLFZwT-KVR-Nu3cCEMJwa+HAge2fpVw) Subject: [External_Sender] Re: Query: FWS anticipated date for responding to NRC's letter? Sent Date: 3/16/2016 1:20:56 PM Received Date: 3/16/2016 1:21:13 PM From: Mars, Steve Created By: steve_mars@fws.gov Recipients: "Fetter, Allen" <Allen.Fetter@nrc.gov> Tracking Status: None Post Office: mail.gmail.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 7482 3/16/2016 1:21:13 PM NRC NLTAA PSEG Early Site Review.pdf 1322000 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received: