ML103260723

Lr Hearing - Indian Point

ML103260723
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	11/22/2010
From:	- No Known Affiliation
To:	Division of License Renewal
References
Download: ML103260723 (99)

Text

1 IPRenewal NPEmails From:

Fitzgerald, Robert H [rfitzgerald@goodwinprocter.com]

Sent:

Monday, November 22, 2010 9:31 AM To:

Stuyvenberg, Andrew

Subject:

Indian Point Attachments:

Cover Letter to Supplemental Report.pdf; Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels.pdf

<<Cover Letter to Supplemental Report.pdf>> <<Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels.pdf>>

Mr. Stuyvenberg:

Dara Gray asked that I forward the attached to you. This was filed with the Administrative Law Judges at the New York Department of Environmental Conservation who are handling the Indian Point SPDES Renewal and Water Quality Certification Proceedings. A hard copy will follow by mail. If you have any difficulty with the attachments, please let me know.

All the best, Robert H. Fitzgerald Goodwin Procter LLP Exchange Place Boston, MA 02109 T: (617) 570-1343 F: (617) 227-8591 rfitzgerald@goodwinprocter.com www.goodwinprocter.com IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.

Hearing Identifier:

IndianPointUnits2and3NonPublic_EX Email Number:

2111 Mail Envelope Properties (1B1A36F02EEC724FB1CBF552A8421A7104F900AF)

Subject:

Indian Point Sent Date:

11/22/2010 9:30:54 AM Received Date:

11/22/2010 9:31:42 AM From:

Fitzgerald, Robert H Created By:

rfitzgerald@goodwinprocter.com Recipients:

"Stuyvenberg, Andrew" <Andrew.Stuyvenberg@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

BOSMSGMBX02.goodwinprocter.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1862 11/22/2010 9:31:42 AM Cover Letter to Supplemental Report.pdf 268445 Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels.pdf 1628075 Options Priority:

Standard Return Notification:

No Reply Requested:

No Sensitivity:

Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

ANALYSIS OF CLOSED-LOOP COOLING SALINITY LEVELS INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC Prepared by:

Enercon Services, Inc.

500 TownPark Lane, Suite 275 Kennesaw, GA 30144 November 2010

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... iii

1

Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1

Purpose............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2

Scope................................................................................................................................ 1

2

Salinity Analysis Inputs.......................................................................................................... 2

2.1

Salinity Data..................................................................................................................... 2

2.2

Service Water Flow Description...................................................................................... 3

2.3

Meteorological Data......................................................................................................... 4

2.4

Closed-Loop Design......................................................................................................... 5

3

Method of Analysis................................................................................................................. 6

3.1

Additional Make-Up Cases.............................................................................................. 6

3.2

1.5 Cycles of Concentration............................................................................................. 8

4

Updated Salinity Calculation................................................................................................ 10

5

Results................................................................................................................................... 12

6

References............................................................................................................................. 16

Appendix A: Setpoint Selection.................................................................................................... 17

Appendix B: Monthly Make-Up Flowrates.................................................................................. 27

Appendix C: TRC Analysis.......................................................................................................... 35

Appendix D: ASAAC - Biological Assessment of Closed-Loop Cooling Flow Scenarios......... 37

Appendix E: SPX Information...................................................................................................... 50

Appendix F: ASA - Estimate of Salinity in the Hudson River at Indian Point Energy Center.... 53

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 iii Executive Summary This report describes supplemental analyses and closed-loop operational scenarios for compliance with regulatory requirements for air emissions. The updated make-up flow rates to reduce closed-loop cooling salinity are presented along with the corresponding emissions of particulate matter, based on the recent Applied Science Associates, Inc. (ASA) salinity analysis.

In the 2003 Report Economic and Environmental Impacts Associated with Conversion of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 to a Closed-Loop Condenser Cooling Water Configuration (2003 Closed-Loop Cooling Report), the salinity of a closed-loop system for Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) was determined to be 7.2 practical salinity units (psu), employing a constant (average) factor for Hudson River salinity of 1.8 psu. This salinity level was the basis for the air quality analyses of cooling tower particulate emissions performed by TRC Companies, Inc. (TRC) in 2009. The recent ASA salinity analysis has indicated that, although the 1.8 psu average is correct, the Hudson River salinity is highly variable and often significantly greater than 1.8 psu for extended periods of time. As a result, if installed, a closed-loop system at IPEC would not be able to maintain 7.2 psu, as previously evaluated by TRC.

This report evaluates how a closed-loop system would need to operate, given the recent salinity information provided by ASA and the associated air quality analyses performed by TRC. As detailed below, and summarized in the results section of this report, there is an essential trade-off between closed-loop cooling operation and air quality, given prevailing salinity conditions of the Hudson River. According to TRC, the closed-loop cooling system cannot reasonably be expected to comply with air quality standards if operated for substantial periods of time (including most of the summer months) given the expected Hudson River salinity values. As a result, previous assumptions about closed-loop cooling operations and configurations (contained in both the 2003 Closed-Loop Cooling Report and the 2010 Engineering Feasibility and Costs of Conversion of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 to a Closed-Loop Condenser Cooling Water Configuration (2010 Closed-Loop Cooling Report)) require updating.

Closed-loop cooling requires make-up water to replace water lost in evaporation and drift from the cooling towers, and to allow blowdown from the closed-loop system to maintain water quality within the system. As defined in the 2010 Closed-Loop Cooling Report, the IPEC closed-loop cooling system would draw its make-up water from the service water (SW) discharged from each Unit, which reflects the salinity of the Hudson River. According to TRC, Hudson River water salinity is the primary contributing factor to emissions. The evaluated mechanism for controlling air emissions is to limit salinity in the system through alteration of the cooling tower operations, specifically cycles of concentration, or reverting to once-through cooling (bypassing the cooling towers). Theoretically, if the River salinity is sufficiently low, it can be used for closed-loop cooling; however, as the ASA salinity analysis shows, River salinity is high for extended periods of time. This salinity effectively constrains cooling tower operations, requiring the closed-loop system to revert to once-through cooling in order to avoid exceeding the PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and PM2.5 Significant Impact Levels (SIL).

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 iv TRC evaluated the exceedance of the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS and SIL that would result from operation of closed-loop cooling at IPEC. TRC determined that to avoid exceeding the PM2.5 NAAQS with 1.5 cycles of concentration, the Hudson River salinity would have to be 0.846 psu or less. The limiting ground level concentration in the Westchester County PM2.5 non-attainment area is the SIL; to avoid exceeding the PM2.5 SIL with 1.5 cycles of concentration, TRC determined that the Hudson River dissolved solids would have to be 0.175 psu or less. These values represent make-up water salinity (i.e., Hudson River water salinity), which is the primary contributing factor to emissions.

TRCs analysis provided the basis for determining the operating profiles for closed-loop cooling based upon the Hudson River salinities (i.e., cooling tower make-up water salinities). In order to avoid exceeding the PM2.5 NAAQS or PM2.5 SIL under any meteorological condition, a PM2.5 NAAQS No Exceedance and a PM2.5 SIL No Exceedance scenario was run to determine how often IPEC would be forced to revert from closed-loop to once-through operation. While no detailed design work on a system that would allow switching from closed-loop to once-through operation at IPEC has been performed, operating constraints would likely limit the switch to a seasonal basis; however, this Report conservatively assumes the switch between closed-loop and once-through operation would be determined on a weekly basis (although impractical for actual Station operation). In addition, the closed-loop cooling configuration described in the 2003 and 2010 Closed-Loop Cooling Reports would have to be revised to accommodate switching between closed-loop cooling and once-through cooling (bypassing the cooling towers). The need to switch between once-through and closed-loop cooling may have substantial design, construction, operational, and cost ramifications.

In order to avoid exceeding the PM2.5 NAAQS and PM2.5 SIL, operation of closed-loop cooling would be expected to occur no more than 43% and 13% of the year, respectively. Operation of closed-loop cooling 43% of the time would result in reductions in entrainment, entrainment losses, and equivalent age 1 losses of 57.4%, 63.8%, and 56.6%, respectively; moreover, the PM2.5 SIL would still be exceeded. Operation of closed-loop cooling 13% of the year would result in reductions in entrainment, entrainment losses, and equivalent age 1 losses of 26.7%,

41.4%, and 38.5%, respectively. For comparison, the reductions in equivalent age 1 losses for cylindrical wedgewire screens would be approximately 89.8%, as presented in Attachment 6 of the 2010 Evaluation of Alternative Intake Technologies at IPEC Units 2 and 3 (2010 Alternative Technologies Report). Likewise, the reductions in equivalent age 1 losses associated with the existing technology and operational suite employed by Entergy (i.e., Ristroph screens and fish handling and return systems, as well as flow reductions due to variable and dual speed pumps and maintenance outages) are approximately 33.8%.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 1

1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose In the 2003 Report Economic and Environmental Impacts Associated with Conversion of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 to a Closed-Loop Condenser Cooling Water Configuration (2003 Closed-Loop Cooling Report) [Ref. 6.1], the salinity1 of a closed-loop system for Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) was determined to be 7.2 practical salinity units (psu), employing a constant (average) factor for Hudson River salinity of 1.8 psu. This salinity level was the basis for the air quality analyses of cooling tower particulate emissions performed by TRC Companies, Inc. (TRC) in 2009. The recent Applied Science Associates, Inc. (ASA) salinity analysis has indicated that, although the 1.8 psu average is correct, the Hudson River salinity is highly variable and often significantly greater than 1.8 psu for extended periods of time. As a result, if installed, a closed-loop system at IPEC would not be able to maintain 7.2 psu, as previously determined and evaluated by TRC.

This report describes supplemental analyses and closed-loop operational scenarios for compliance with regulatory requirements for air emissions. The updated make-up flow rates to reduce closed-loop cooling salinity are presented along with the corresponding emissions of particulate matter, based on the recent ASA salinity analysis.

1.2 Scope This report evaluates how a closed-loop system would need to operate, given the recent salinity information provided by ASA (Appendix F) and the associated air quality analysis performed by TRC (Appendix C). As detailed below, and summarized in the conclusions section of this report, there is an essential trade-off between closed-loop cooling operation and air quality, given prevailing salinity conditions of the Hudson River. According to TRC, the closed-loop cooling system cannot reasonably be expected to comply with PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and PM2.5 Significant Impact Levels (SIL) if operated for substantial periods of time (including most of the summer months) given the Hudson River salinity values. As a result, previous closed-loop cooling operations and configurations (contained in both the 2003 Closed-Loop Cooling Report [Ref. 6.1] and the 2010 Engineering Feasibility and Costs of Conversion of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 to a Closed-Loop Condenser Cooling Water Configuration (2010 Closed-Loop Cooling Report) [Ref. 6.1])

require updating.

1 For the purposes of this report, the term salinity is used to conservatively represent the sum of total dissolved solids (TDS) and total suspended solids (TSS), which, when measured may yield values greater than simply measuring salinity alone.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 2

2 Salinity Analysis Inputs 2.1 Salinity Data 2.1.1 2003 Closed-Loop Cooling Report Salinity Data of the 2003 Closed-Loop Cooling Report [Ref. 6.1], reflected a closed-loop salinity of 7.2 psu (7200 ppm), based on an assumed average salinity level of 1.8 psu (1800 ppm) obtained from the 1974 Economic and Environmental Impacts of Alternative Closed-Cycle Cooling Systems for Indian Point Unit 2 [Ref. 6.5]. Closed-loop salinity was used as a design consideration for cooling tower component selection, and was used to evaluate the salt deposition around the two round hybrid cooling towers [Ref. 6.4].

2.1.2 ASA Hudson River Salinity Data A long-term data set of Hudson River salinity in the vicinity of Indian Point was determined and provided by ASA, as documented in Appendix F. The data set consisted of 10 years of modeled Hudson River salinity data for the period 2000 - 2009 in 1-hr increments. Table 2.1 shows the average and maximum continuous Hudson River salinity in psu for the interpolated 10-yr data (Table 5.8 of Appendix F). Appendix F further describes ASAs analysis of the Hudson River salinity data. The average data recovery rate (i.e., percentage of data that is measure over a given period of time) for the ten year period analyzed (2000-2009) was 97.2% as shown in Appendix F, and represents an extremely robust data set.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 3

Table 2.1 Continuous 10-Year Hudson River Salinity Data (2000 - 2009)

Month 10-Year Data Average (psu) 10-Year Data Maximum (psu)

January 1.11 6.77 February 1.59 6.96 March 1.08 5.84 April 0.51 4.51 May 0.75 6.60 June 1.17 6.07 July 2.45 7.27 August 3.14 7.55 September 3.90 7.67 October 3.14 7.66 November 1.76 7.63 December 1.06 7.26 Average Annual 1.81 6.82*

• Average of the monthly maxima.

2.2 Service Water Flow Description For this analysis and consistent with 2010 Closed-Loop Cooling Report, Service Water (SW) flows were utilized as make-up flow for the closed-loop cooling system. IPEC supplied seven years (2001-2007) of measured SW intake flow data to ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc.

(ASAAC) in millions of gallons per day (MGD); the Unit 2 data includes Unit 2 service water (SW) and Unit 1 river water (RW) flow, and the Unit 3 data includes Unit 3 SW flow. This data was initially supplied for the Biological Assessment included in Attachment 6 of the 2010 Evaluation of Alternative Intake Technologies at IPEC Units 2 and 3 (2010 Alternative Technologies Report) [Ref. 6.3].

Table 2.2 shows the monthly and annual average historic flows for the Stations in gallons per minute (gpm). The monthly and average historic SW flows were used because coincident data (2000 - 2009) was not available.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 4

Table 2.2 Average Historic SW Flow Rates (2001-2007)

Month Unit 21 (gpm)

Unit 32 (gpm)

Total (gpm)

January 27,947 18,000 45,947 February 28,668 18,000 46,668 March 28,507 16,524 45,031 April 28,924 16,443 45,367 May 29,123 17,774 46,897 June 29,757 18,471 48,228 July 32,201 20,868 53,069 August 34,304 22,561 56,865 September 33,644 20,675 54,319 October 31,239 18,685 49,924 November 28,932 17,913 46,845 December 29,628 18,000 47,628 Average Annual3 30,251 18,668 48,919 1 Unit 2 flow includes Unit 2 SW flow and Unit 1 RW flow.

2 Unit 3 flow includes Unit 3 SW flow.

3 The average annual historic (2001-2007) SW flow rate is a weighted average determined using the number of days in each month with respect to the number of days in one year.

2.3 Meteorological Data Site wet-bulb temperature2 governs the amount of evaporation from the cooling towers during operation. Since closed-loop salinity is concentrated by evaporation, it is necessary to accurately define monthly variations in evaporation for the closed-loop cooling salinity level analysis. Although wet-bulb temperature is not measured directly by site meteorological instruments, wet-bulb temperature was calculated using the measured dry bulb temperature and dew point temperature data obtained from IPEC.

The eight years of IPEC meteorological data (2001-2008) utilized in the 2010 Closed-Loop Cooling Report [Ref. 6.2] was also utilized for this analysis. A thorough review was conducted to ensure that the data set was uniform with no erroneous values. The average data 2 Wet-bulb temperature is a meteorological measurement that incorporates both moisture content and temperature of the ambient air.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 5

recovery rate for the eight year period analyzed (2001-2008) was 97.2% as shown in, Table 4-1 of the 2010 Closed-Loop Cooling Report [Ref. 6.2], and represents an extremely robust data set.

2.4 Closed-Loop Design As discussed in the 2010 Closed-Loop Cooling Report [Ref. 6.2], conversion of both Units 2 and 3 to closed-loop cooling would necessitate the installation of two 100% capacity round hybrid cooling towers and the associated piping and equipment. Under the identified configuration, the new circulating water pumps (CW) for each Unit would draw suction from a modified discharge canal to provide water to cooling tower supply pipelines. In its modified configuration, the discharge canal would no longer serve its once-through cooling function to return circulating water to the Hudson River, but instead would become a new circulating water reservoir / pump pit. The new Unit 2 pump house would be located on the discharge canal between the Unit 1 and Unit 3 turbine generator buildings. The new Unit 3 pump house would be located on the discharge canal along the Hudson River bank. Although the existing CW pumps would no longer be required for closed-loop operation, SW flow would still be maintained through the existing intake structures. The discharge from the SW systems would be used after a conversion to closed-loop cooling for make-up water to the cooling towers.

In short, in order to convert to closed-loop cooling, multiple modifications to the discharge canal would be required. The existing discharge canal would need to be modified to serve as a reservoir/pump pit for the new circulating water pumps that would supply the cooling towers. The new reservoir would communicate between Units 2 and 3 and provide some operational flexibility, whereby the reserve volume would act as a buffer against flow disruptions and equipment failure.

Additional make-up flow for the closed-loop cooling system could be required to provide additional dilution during periods of high closed-loop salinity. One or more make-up pump(s) could be designed to supply the required flow to the cooling tower reservoir. The necessity for additional pumping capacity and resultant flow is discussed in Section 3.1.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 6

3 Method of Analysis 3.1 Additional Make-Up Cases Closed-loop cooling requires make-up water to replace water lost in evaporation and drift from the cooling towers, and to allow blowdown from the closed-loop system to maintain the water quality in the closed-loop system. As defined in the 2010 Closed-Loop Cooling Report

[Ref. 6.2], the IPEC closed-loop cooling system would draw its make-up water from the SW discharged from each Unit, which reflects the salinity of the Hudson River. The mechanism for controlling air emissions is to limit salinity in the system through alteration of the cooling tower operations, specifically cycles of concentration.

The make-up flow provided by historic SW discharge is substantial (see Section 2.2);

however, based upon the salinity analysis performed by ASA, SW discharge alone would not adequately reduce the closed-loop salinity in times of increased Hudson River salinity. In an attempt to limit closed-loop salinity, a control logic was chosen using SW discharge and additional make-up water used in instances of high closed-loop cooling salinity. The control logic analyzed is as follows:

1) If closed-loop salinity is less than the selected setpoint3, then utilize the SW discharge flow rate only as closed-loop make-up.

2) If closed-loop salinity is greater than the selected setpoint, then utilize the SW discharge and additional make-up flow as closed-loop make-up.

Note that if the River salinity is low enough, it can be used for closed-loop cooling; however, as the ASA salinity analysis shows, River salinity is high for extended periods of time. This salinity effectively constrains cooling tower operations, requiring the closed-loop system to revert to once-through cooling in order to avoid exceeding the PM2.5 NAAQS and PM2.5 SIL.

Figure 3.1 illustrates the closed-loop cycle for one Unit.

3 The salinity setpoint is a selected point at which additional make-up flow is initiated to counteract high closed-loop salinity levels. The setpoints are selected to minimize make-up flow requirements at the given salinity level, based on the trended analysis discussed in Appendix A. The selected setpoints are documented in Table A.1 of Appendix A.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 7

Figure 3.1 Closed-Loop Design The river water salinity is added to the closed-loop system through the SW flow and additional make-up flow, as required. Salinity is removed from the closed-loop system through blowdown and drift4 although the salinity lost from the closed-loop system from drift is negligible5. Salinity is concentrated in the closed-loop system through evaporation.

Hybrid cooling-tower operation was selected to minimize evaporation, and thereby reduce closed-loop salinity and make-up water flow requirements. SPX provided two data points for evaporation rates for hybrid cooling tower operation (Appendix E). These data points were used to create a correlation between the evaporation rates of a round hybrid cooling tower and the ambient wet-bulb temperature. Appendix E includes a chart from SPX illustrating the linear nature of the relationship between evaporation and wet-bulb temperature. The meteorological data described in Section 2.3 was used to determine the monthly average wet-4 Drift is liquid water that is carried away from the cooling towers through the exhaust air stream. Drift droplets have the same concentration of solids as the water flowing through the cooling tower.

5 The amount of flow and salt lost to drift is only 14 gpm or approximately 0.04% of the make-up flow for the closed-loop system. Therefore, the salinity lost from the closed-loop system through drift is not included in this analysis.

Condenser Intake Structure Discharge Canal Service Water Plant Cooling Cooling Tower Supply Service Water:

U2 and U3 SW flow values are based on historic monthly plant data Cooling Tower Drift Evaporation Cooling Tower Return Additional Make-up:

From the Hudson River as necessary Blowdown:

Make-up minus Evaporation and Drift

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 8

bulb temperature at IPEC because coincident data (2000 - 2009) was not available. This monthly average wet-bulb temperature was input into the correlation derived from the SPX data to determine the monthly and annual average evaporation rates. Table 3.1 shows the monthly and annual average evaporation rates used in the salinity analysis.

Table 3.1 Monthly Average Evaporation Month Evaporation Rate Average (%)

Evaporation Rate Average (gpm)

January 0.80 11,144 February 0.80 11,161 March 0.87 12,187 April 1.01 14,114 May 1.12 15,738 June 1.25 17,566 July 1.30 18,218 August 1.29 18,058 September 1.22 17,055 October 1.08 15,174 November 0.98 13,774 December 0.86 11,976 Average Annual1 1.05 14,696 1 The average annual evaporation rate is a weighted average determined using the number of days in each month with respect to the number of days in one year.

3.2 1.5 Cycles of Concentration As discussed in the 2010 Closed-Loop Cooling Report, Hudson River water currently used in the Stations circulating water systems must also be used for the circulating water in a closed-loop system6. Evaporation in the cooling tower would increase the concentration of dissolved solids in the circulating water, as compared to the Hudson River water. The number of times the dissolved minerals in the circulating water are concentrated, versus the level in the Hudson River water (i.e., the cycles of concentration), is an important parameter for cooling tower operation. Since the intake salinity at IPEC varies dramatically based on freshwater discharge to the Hudson River as well as other meteorological and oceanographic influences, the number of cycles of concentration would be dependent on the current intake salinity. The higher the salt content of the makeup water, the fewer cycles of concentration that can be employed to maintain the amount of dissolved solids in the circulating water below the design value.

When designing cooling towers, SPX prefers to limit the closed-loop TDS concentration (i.e.,

salinity) to 5000 ppm (5 psu) or less (Appendix E). Based on ASAs updated Hudson River 6 As a result of the considerable unknowns, costs, and the numerous permits required, using recycled wastewater is considered infeasible, as discussed in Section 7.1.2 of the 2010 Cooling Tower Report.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 9

salinity analysis (Appendix F), salinity in the vicinity of IPEC peaks as high as 7.67 psu, thus requiring additional make-up flow to moderate the effects of increased Hudson River salinity.

The most practical flow scenario would utilize 1.5 cycles of concentration for the closed-loop system, meaning that the concentration of TDS in the circulating water would be 1.5 times that of the incoming Hudson River water. This make-up flowrate was selected based on the recommendation of SPX for saltwater towers7. The flowrate required to achieve 1.5 cycles of concentration is equivalent to the historic Unit 2 and Unit 3 service water flowrates. The evaporation and drift flow rates would be determined as described in Section 3.1.

7 The water quality in saltwater cooling towers is typically 1.5 cycles of concentration, meaning the concentration of TDS in the circulating water would be 1.5 times that of the incoming water. Saltwater/brackish cooling towers are limited by material and thermal performance degradation at levels above 1.5 cycles of concentration and the biological impact of increased water usage at levels below 1.5 cycles of concentration.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 10 4

Updated Salinity Calculation The updated salinity analysis provides the monthly and annual closed-loop salinity levels based on an updated make-up flow operational scenario to reduce closed-loop cooling salinity in accordance with air quality requirements. The need to decrease the closed-loop salinity is balanced against the goal of not increasing the flow to a value that would significantly diminish closed-loop flow reductions. Table A.1 provides the salinity setpoint (i.e., the selected setpoint at which additional make-up flow is initiated to counteract high closed-loop salinity levels) selections, based on the trended analysis discussed in Appendix A. These setpoint values were selected in an attempt to minimize both the salinity and make-up flow required.

The closed-loop flow and salinity loop is illustrated in Figure 3.1. The initial salinity level within the closed-loop system (T1) is based on an assumed initial salinity value8 and the volume of water within the closed-loop system for both Units, shown in Equation 1.

T1 = V x SC1 (1)

where, T1 = Initial salt content in the closed-loop system (psu x gallons)

V = Volume of water in the closed-loop system (gallons)

SC1 = Initial salinity of the water in the closed-loop system (psu)

The second, and subsequent closed-loop salinity values, are calculated using Equation 2.

T = TL - SC x B + SN x M (2)

where, T = Salt content in closed-loop system (psu x gallons)

TL = Previous salt content in closed-loop system (psu x gallons)

SC = Previous salinity of the water in the closed-loop system (psu)

B = Blowdown volume (gallons)

SN = Salinity of the Hudson River water (psu)

M = Make-up volume (gallons) 8 Using an iterative process, the starting closed-loop cooling salinity is assumed to be the average closed-loop salinity calculated for each setpoint and make-up flowrate; the average closed-loop salinity is used as a representative value and has a negligible impact on the overall calculation.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 11 The closed-loop salinity values calculated using Equation 2 were reviewed and, if during a given week the closed-loop salinity would result in a value exceeding the PM2.5 NAAQS or PM2.5 SIL limits (Appendix C), the system was switched to once-through operation. For the purposes of this analysis, the switch from closed-loop to once-through cooling was conservatively determined on a weekly basis (i.e., if the closed-loop salinity value would exceed the PM2.5 NAAQS or PM2.5 SIL limits at any time in a given week, once-through operation was utilized instead of closed-loop operation). However, switching between closed-loop and once-through cooling may only be feasible (if at all practicable) on an infrequent period (such as a seasonal basis).

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 12 5

Results The updated salinity analysis on the 10-year Hudson River data provided by ASA returned values greater than the 7.2 psu defined in the 2003 and 2010 Closed-Loop Cooling Reports.

Analyses were done over a range of make-up pump flowrates as well as 1.5 cycles of concentration to determine if make-up pumps would be able to eliminate exceedance of the PM2.5 NAAQS and PM2.5 SIL. Each of these analyses was calculated in the manner described in Section 4 and was then utilized by TRC to determine the potential exceedance for each scenario.

TRC evaluated the exceedance of the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS and SIL that would result from operation of closed-loop cooling at IPEC. As discussed in Appendix C, the PM2.5 NAAQS is 5.8 micrograms per cubic meter above the ambient background levels; to avoid exceeding the PM2.5 NAAQS, the Hudson River dissolved solids would have to be 0.846 psu or less. When this value is concentrated 1.5 times, the maximum cooling tower salinity would be approximately 1.269 psu. The limiting ground level concentration in the Westchester County PM2.5 non-attainment area is the SIL of 1.2 micrograms per cubic meter; to avoid exceeding the PM2.5 SIL, the Hudson River dissolved solids would have to be 0.175 psu or less. When this value is concentrated 1.5 times, the maximum cooling tower salinity would be approximately 0.263 psu. Limiting the cooling tower salinity to below 0.263 psu theoretically would allow the closed-loop cooling system to operate at IPEC without exceeding the PM2.5 SIL limit under any meteorological condition.

In order to avoid exceeding the PM2.5 NAAQS or PM2.5 SIL under any meteorological condition, a PM2.5 NAAQS No Exceedance and a PM2.5 SIL No Exceedance scenario was run to determine how often IPEC would be forced to revert from closed-loop to once-through operation. While a conceptual design has been created for a fully closed-loop system (2003 and 2010 Reports), the detailed design for a system that would allow switching from closed-loop to once-through operation at IPEC has not been performed. The consistent circulating water flow to the main condenser is necessary to serve as a heat sink (i.e., a mechanism for heat removal) for turbine exhaust steam, turbine bypass steam, and other flow. Switching between closed-loop and once-through cooling would be complicated by the start-up and realignment of components necessary for each cooling system and the operational need to maintain a consistent circulating water flow to the main condensers with the Stations in service. This would likely require a shutdown of each Unit to accomplish the switchover. Based on these engineering considerations, and operational considerations input from IPEC personnel, switching between closed-loop and once-through cooling for any potential system may only be feasible (if at all practicable) on an infrequent period (such as a seasonal basis). Limited to a seasonal switch between closed-loop and once-through cooling, IPEC would be forced to operate entirely in once-through cooling mode over the 10-year period analyzed by ASA (Appendix F) to avoid exceeding PM2.5 SIL (based on a maximum basin salinity of 0.263 psu determined by TRC).

In order to calculate a theoretical best case scenario (i.e., maximize closed-loop operation time while avoiding exceeding PM2.5 NAAQS or PM2.5 SIL), although impractical for actual Station operation, this report conservatively assumes the switch between closed-loop and once-through operation could be accomplished on a weekly basis. The 10-year Hudson River salinity data was

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 13 reviewed and if during a given week the closed-loop salinity would exceed the PM2.5 NAAQS or PM2.5 SIL, the system was switched to once-through operation. Appendix B includes the average annual percentage of once-through run time (bypassing the cooling tower) that would be required to avoid exceeding the air quality standards9. As shown in Appendix B, in order to avoid exceeding the PM2.5 NAAQS, operation of closed-loop cooling would be expected to occur no more than 43% of the time; in order to avoid exceeding the PM2.5 SIL, operation of closed-loop cooling would be expected to occur no more than 13% of the time.

The data in Appendix A and Appendix B was utilized by ASAAC to determine reductions in entrainment10, entrainment losses11, and equivalent age 1 losses12 for each scenario that did not exceed PM2.5 NAAQS and PM2.5 SIL. Table 5.1 summarizes the results provided by TRC and ASAAC in Appendix C and Appendix D, respectively by presenting the potential exceedance of PM2.5 NAAQS and PM2.5 SIL for each closed-loop cooling make-up scenario and the associated percent reduction in entrainment, entrainment losses, and equivalent age 1 losses.

9 The cooling tower make-up flow would be equal to the historic SW flowrates and the once-through flow would be equal to the historic SW and CW flowrates for both Units 2 and 3 as used by ASAAC in the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

10 Entrainment refers to the eggs, larvae, and older life stages of fish that are drawn through a cooling water system.

11 Entrainment loss refers to the eggs, larvae, and older life stages of fish that do not survive being drawn through a cooling water system.

12 Equivalent age 1 refers to the number of fish at different ages that are equivalent one-year-old fish using estimates of the probabilities that fish entrained at various ages would survive to age 1. Equivalent age 1 loss refers to the equivalent age 1 fish that do not survive being drawn through a cooling water system.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 14 Table 5.1 IPEC Salinity Analysis Air Quality Exceedance and Entrainment Reductions Case (Make-Up Capacity1)

Air Quality Exceedance2 Entrainment Reductions3 PM2.5 SIL (Exceedance)

PM2.5 NAAQS (Exceedance)

Entrainment Entrainment Loss Equivalent Age 1 Loss (Average % Reduction)

SW Only (1.5 Cycles4)

YES YES N/A N/A N/A SW + 10,000 gpm YES YES N/A N/A N/A SW + 25,000 gpm YES YES N/A N/A N/A SW + 50,000 gpm YES YES N/A N/A N/A SW + 100,000 gpm YES YES N/A N/A N/A SW + 152,000 gpm YES YES N/A N/A N/A SW + 304,000 gpm YES YES N/A N/A N/A SW + 456,000 gpm YES YES N/A N/A N/A SW + 608,000 gpm YES YES N/A N/A N/A SW + 760,000 gpm YES YES N/A N/A N/A SW + 912,000 gpm YES YES N/A N/A N/A SW + 1,064,000 gpm YES YES N/A N/A N/A SW + 1,216,000 gpm YES YES N/A N/A N/A SW + 1,367,000 gpm5 YES YES N/A N/A N/A PM2.5 NAAQS No Exceedance6 YES7 NO 57.4 63.8 56.6 PM2.5 SIL No Exceedance6 NO NO 26.7 41.4 38.5 1 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 SW, Unit 1 RW, and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

2 The Air Quality Exceedance data is provided by TRC in Appendix C.

3 The Entrainment Reduction data is provided by ASAAC in Appendix D.

4 The flowrate required to achieve 1.5 Cycles of Concentration is equivalent to the historic Unit 2 SW, Unit 1 RW, and Unit 3 SW flowrates.

5 Maximum make-up flowrate determined using minimum SW flowrate (33,000 gpm) and sufficient make-up capacity to produce 700,000 gpm per Unit.

6 The No Exceedance case reverts from closed-loop operation to once-through operation, bypassing the cooling tower, on a weekly basis in order to avoid exceeding the PM2.5 NAAQS and PM2.5 SIL, as described in Appendix B.

7 Although the PM2.5 NAAQS No Exceedance case would not exceed the PM2.5 NAAQS, the PM2.5 SIL would be exceeded.

As discussed above, in order to avoid exceeding the PM2.5 NAAQS and PM2.5 SIL, operation of closed-loop cooling would be expected to occur no more than 43% and 13% of the year, respectively (see Appendix B). Table 5.1 shows that operation of closed-loop cooling to avoid exceeding the PM2.5 NAAQS would result in reductions in entrainment, entrainment losses, and equivalent age 1 losses of 57.4%, 63.8%, and 56.6%, respectively; moreover, the PM2.5 SIL would still be exceeded. Table 5.1 also shows that operation of closed-loop cooling to avoid PM2.5 SIL would result in reductions in entrainment, entrainment losses, and equivalent age 1 losses of 26.7%, 41.4%, and 38.5%, respectively. For comparison, the reductions in equivalent age 1 losses for cylindrical wedgewire screens would be approximately 89.8%, as presented in of the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report [Ref. 6.3]. Likewise, the reductions in equivalent age 1 losses associated with the existing technology and operational suite employed

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 15 by Entergy (i.e., Ristroph screens and fish handling and return systems, as well as flow reductions due to variable and dual speed pumps and maintenance outages) are approximately 33.8% [Ref. 6.3].

In order to accommodate switching between closed-loop cooling and once-through cooling (bypassing the cooling towers), the closed-loop cooling configuration discussed in Section 2.4 would have to be revised. The need to move between once-through and closed-loop cooling may have substantial design, construction, operational, and cost ramifications.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 16 6

References 6.1 Enercon Services, Inc. Economic and Environmental Impacts Associated with Conversion of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 to A Closed-Loop Condenser Cooling Water Configuration. June 2003.

6.2 Enercon Services, Inc. Engineering Feasibility and Costs of Conversion of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 to a Closed-Loop Condenser Cooling Water Configuration. February 2010.

6.3 Enercon Services, Inc. Evaluation of Alternative Intake Technologies at Indian Point Units 2 & 3. February 2010.

6.4 TRC Environmental Corporation. Cooling Tower Impact Analysis for the Entergy Indian Point Energy Center Westchester County, New York. Lyndhurst, NJ. September 2009.

6.5 Consolidated Edison Company of New York. Economic and Environmental Impacts of Alternative Closed-Cycle Cooling Systems for Indian Point Unit 2. December, 1974.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 17 Appendix A: Setpoint Selection The updated salinity analysis using the 10-year Hudson River data from ASA (documented in Appendix F) returned closed-loop salinity values greater than the 7.2 psu defined in the 2003 and 2010 Closed-Loop Cooling Reports [Refs. 6.1 and 6.2]. As discussed in Section 1, this report provides supplemental analyses and evaluates the closed-loop operational scenarios that determine compliance with regulatory requirements for air emissions. There is an essential trade-off between closed-loop cooling operation and air quality, given the prevailing salinity conditions in the vicinity of IPEC. The evaluated mechanism for controlling air emissions is to limit salinity in the closed-loop cooling system through alteration of the cooling tower operations. One method for altering cooling tower operations is to vary the amount of make-up flow supplied to the closed-loop system.

The updated closed-loop cooling make-up flow control logic described in Section 3 of this evaluation relies upon the selection of an acceptable salinity setpoint. The salinity setpoint is a selected point at which additional make-up flow is initiated to counteract high closed-loop salinity levels. Hudson River salinity varies considerably, resulting in a series of peak salinity values occurring throughout the 10-year period. Additional make-up flow would be utilized leading up to and during peak salinity periods in order to reduce maximum closed-loop salinity.

During non-peak conditions, providing additional make-up flow would not be required to mitigate the effect of these peak events.

As a result of the analysis described in Section 4, several setpoint values produce identical maximum closed-loop salinity values. Setpoint values were then chosen to minimize the make-up flow necessary (i.e., minimize potential biological effect) at the lowest 24-hr maximum closed-loop salinity. Table A.1 summarizes the 24-hr maximum salinity values (i.e., the maximum 24-hour average salinity), the maximum instantaneous salinity values, the average salinity values, and the make-up flowrates for a given make-up capacity at the selected salinity setpoints over the 10-year Hudson River data provided by ASA.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 18 Table A.1 IPEC Salinity Analysis Case Closed-Loop System Salinity Make-Up Flow1 Average (gpm)

Selected Setpoint (psu)

(Make-Up Capacity) 24-Hr Max (psu)

Max (psu)

Average (psu) 1.5 Cycles of Concentration2 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 See Note 4 SW + 10,000 gpm 10.28 10.33 2.59 49,029 10 SW + 25,000 gpm 9.63 9.69 2.57 49,545 9

SW + 50,000 gpm 9.04 9.11 2.51 51,123 8

SW + 100,000 gpm 8.51 8.59 2.50 52,124 8

SW + 152,000 gpm 8.26 8.34 2.50 52,675 8

SW + 304,000 gpm 7.96 8.05 2.41 62,570 7

SW + 456,000 gpm 7.84 7.93 2.40 66,771 7

SW + 608,000 gpm 7.78 7.87 2.40 70,661 7

SW + 760,000 gpm 7.74 7.83 2.40 74,381 7

SW + 912,000 gpm 7.72 7.81 2.39 77,910 7

SW + 1,064,000 gpm 7.70 7.79 2.39 81,320 7

SW + 1,216,000 gpm 7.68 7.77 2.39 84,612 7

SW + 1,367,000 gpm3 7.67 7.76 2.39 87,764 7

1 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 SW, Unit 1 RW, and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

2 The flowrate required to achieve 1.5 Cycles of Concentration is equivalent to the historic Unit 2 and Unit 3 service water flowrates.

3 Maximum make-up flowrate determined using minimum SW flowrate (33,000 gpm) and sufficient make-up capacity to produce 700,000 gpm per Unit.

4 No salinity setpoint was selected as no additional make-up flow is utilized for this scenario. The flowrate required to achieve 1.5 Cycles of Concentration is equivalent to the historic Unit 2 and Unit 3 service water flowrates.

Table A.1 values range from a 24-hr maximum salinity value of 11.01 psu for an average annual make-up flowrate of 48,918 gpm (1.5 Cycles of Concentration) to a 24-hr maximum salinity value of 7.67 psu for an average annual make-up flowrate of 87,764 gpm (SW + 1,367,000; essentially once-through cooling make-up capacity). As the scenario of SW + 1,367,000 is essentially once-through cooling, the 7.67 psu is representative of the maximum Hudson River salinity reported by ASA in Table 5-4 of Appendix F. All of the tabulated maximum salinity values are greater than the 7.2 psu presented in the 2003 Closed-Loop Cooling Report [Ref. 6.1].

The required make-up flow varies by month, as detailed in Appendix B.

As described in Section 3.1, a salinity setpoint is a selected salinity value in psu at which additional make-up flow is initiated to counteract high closed-loop salinity levels. Additional make-up flow above the historic SW flow would not be added to the closed-loop system until the setpoint value was reached within the closed-loop system. To determine an acceptable salinity setpoint, the analysis described in Section 4 of this evaluation was run and summary tables of the analysis are provided in Table A.2 through Table A.15. Each table provides salinity and flow information over a range of salinity setpoints.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 19 Several setpoint values result in identical maximum closed-loop salinity values. This was due to one of two scenarios: (1) no additional make-up flow was available to further dilute the closed-loop salinity (i.e., the maximum make-up flow was reached) or (2) the closed-loop salinity was equal to the Hudson River salinity. These tables also indicate that the average make-up flow rate decreases with an increase in setpoint values. Based on these trends, the highlighted values are chosen as the setpoint values. This selection minimizes the closed-loop salinity at the lowest make-up flow rate (i.e., maximizes the potential biological benefits).

Table A.2 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis at 1.5 Cycles of Concentration1 Setpoint Closed-Loop System Salinity Make-Up Flow2 SW Only Additional Make-Up (psu) 24-Hr Max (psu)

Max (psu)

Average (psu)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm) 2 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

3 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

4 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

5 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

6 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

7 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

8 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

9 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

10 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

11 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

12 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

1 No salinity setpoint was selected as no additional make-up flow is utilized for this scenario. The flowrate required to achieve 1.5 Cycles of Concentration is equivalent to the historic Unit 2 and Unit 3 service water flowrates.

2 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 SW, Unit 1 RW, and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 20 Table A.3 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 10,000 gpm Setpoint Closed-Loop System Salinity Make-Up Flow1 SW Only Additional Make-Up (psu) 24-Hr Max (psu)

Max (psu)

Average (psu)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm) 2 10.28 10.33 2.45 52,991 48,918 4,073 3

10.28 10.33 2.46 52,296 48,918 3,378 4

10.28 10.33 2.48 51,489 48,918 2,571 5

10.28 10.33 2.50 50,836 48,918 1,918 6

10.28 10.33 2.52 50,403 48,918 1,486 7

10.28 10.33 2.54 50,028 48,918 1,110 8

10.28 10.33 2.56 49,580 48,918 662 9

10.28 10.33 2.58 49,251 48,918 333 10 10.28 10.33 2.59 49,029 48,918 111 11 10.98 11.00 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

12 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

1 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 SW, Unit 1 RW, and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Table A.4 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 25,000 gpm Setpoint Closed-Loop System Salinity Make-Up Flow1 SW Only Additional Make-Up (psu) 24-Hr Max (psu)

Max (psu)

Average (psu)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm) 2 9.63 9.69 2.31 58,907 48,918 9,989 3

9.63 9.69 2.34 57,104 48,918 8,186 4

9.63 9.69 2.38 55,028 48,918 6,111 5

9.63 9.69 2.42 53,482 48,918 4,565 6

9.63 9.69 2.45 52,425 48,918 3,508 7

9.63 9.69 2.49 51,367 48,918 2,449 8

9.63 9.69 2.53 50,309 48,918 1,391 9

9.63 9.69 2.57 49,545 48,918 627 10 10.00 10.01 2.59 49,049 48,918 131 11 10.98 11.00 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

12 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

1 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 SW, Unit 1 RW, and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 21 Table A.5 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 50,000 gpm Setpoint Closed-Loop System Salinity Make-Up Flow1 SW Only Additional Make-Up (psu) 24-Hr Max (psu)

Max (psu)

Average (psu)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm) 2 9.04 9.11 2.20 68,546 48,918 19,628 3

9.04 9.11 2.24 64,722 48,918 15,804 4

9.04 9.11 2.29 60,541 48,918 11,623 5

9.04 9.11 2.35 57,570 48,918 8,653 6

9.04 9.11 2.40 55,406 48,918 6,488 7

9.04 9.11 2.45 53,079 48,918 4,162 8

9.04 9.11 2.51 51,123 48,918 2,206 9

9.05 9.11 2.56 49,736 48,918 818 10 9.99 10.01 2.59 49,051 48,918 133 11 10.97 11.00 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

12 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

1 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 SW, Unit 1 RW, and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Table A.6 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 100,000 gpm Setpoint Closed-Loop System Salinity Make-Up Flow1 SW Only Additional Make-Up (psu) 24-Hr Max (psu)

Max (psu)

Average (psu)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm) 2 8.51 8.59 2.10 87,387 48,918 38,470 3

8.51 8.59 2.15 79,195 48,918 30,277 4

8.51 8.59 2.22 70,838 48,918 21,920 5

8.51 8.59 2.29 65,095 48,918 16,177 6

8.51 8.59 2.35 60,400 48,918 11,482 7

8.51 8.59 2.43 55,631 48,918 6,713 8

8.51 8.59 2.50 52,124 48,918 3,207 9

9.00 9.02 2.56 49,752 48,918 835 10 9.98 10.01 2.59 49,056 48,918 138 11 10.97 11.00 2.60 48,919 48,918 1

12 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

1 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit SW, Unit 1 RW,2 and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 22 Table A.7 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 152,000 gpm Setpoint Closed-Loop System Salinity Make-Up Flow1 SW Only Additional Make-Up (psu) 24-Hr Max (psu)

Max (psu)

Average (psu)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm) 2 8.26 8.34 2.05 106,639 48,918 57,721 3

8.26 8.34 2.11 93,595 48,918 44,677 4

8.26 8.34 2.19 81,020 48,918 32,102 5

8.26 8.34 2.26 72,383 48,918 23,465 6

8.26 8.34 2.34 64,782 48,918 15,864 7

8.26 8.34 2.42 57,703 48,918 8,785 8

8.26 8.34 2.50 52,675 48,918 3,757 9

8.99 9.02 2.56 49,764 48,918 846 10 9.96 10.01 2.59 49,059 48,918 142 11 10.96 11.00 2.60 48,919 48,918 1

12 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

1 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 SW, Unit 1 RW, and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Table A.8 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 304,000 gpm Setpoint Closed-Loop System Salinity Make-Up Flow1 SW Only Additional Make-Up (psu) 24-Hr Max (psu)

Max (psu)

Average (psu)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm) 2 7.96 8.05 1.99 161,973 48,918 113,055 3

7.96 8.05 2.06 133,883 48,918 84,965 4

7.96 8.05 2.15 109,406 48,918 60,488 5

7.96 8.05 2.23 92,023 48,918 43,106 6

7.96 8.05 2.32 75,599 48,918 26,681 7

7.96 8.05 2.41 62,570 48,918 13,652 8

8.02 8.05 2.50 53,136 48,918 4,218 9

8.96 9.02 2.56 49,800 48,918 882 10 9.93 10.01 2.59 49,073 48,918 155 11 10.94 11.00 2.60 48,920 48,918 2

12 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

1 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 SW, Unit 1 RW, and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 23 Table A.9 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 456,000 gpm Setpoint Closed-Loop System Salinity Make-Up Flow1 SW Only Additional Make-Up (psu) 24-Hr Max (psu)

Max (psu)

Average (psu)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm) 2 7.84 7.93 1.97 216,661 48,918 167,743 3

7.84 7.93 2.04 172,827 48,918 123,909 4

7.84 7.93 2.13 136,707 48,918 87,789 5

7.84 7.93 2.22 110,463 48,918 61,545 6

7.84 7.93 2.31 85,151 48,918 36,234 7

7.84 7.93 2.40 66,771 48,918 17,853 8

8.00 8.03 2.50 53,187 48,918 4,269 9

8.93 9.02 2.56 49,832 48,918 915 10 9.93 10.01 2.59 49,087 48,918 169 11 10.96 11.00 2.60 48,920 48,918 2

12 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

1 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 SW, Unit 1 RW, and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Table A.10 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 608,000 gpm Setpoint Closed-Loop System Salinity Make-Up Flow1 SW Only Additional Make-Up (psu) 24-Hr Max (psu)

Max (psu)

Average (psu)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm) 2 7.78 7.87 1.96 270,915 48,918 221,998 3

7.78 7.87 2.03 211,076 48,918 162,158 4

7.78 7.87 2.13 163,496 48,918 114,578 5

7.78 7.87 2.21 128,303 48,918 79,385 6

7.78 7.87 2.30 94,168 48,918 45,250 7

7.78 7.87 2.40 70,661 48,918 21,744 8

8.00 8.03 2.49 53,237 48,918 4,319 9

8.90 9.02 2.56 49,869 48,918 951 10 9.93 10.01 2.59 49,098 48,918 180 11 10.95 11.00 2.60 48,920 48,918 2

12 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

1 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 SW, Unit 1 RW, and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 24 Table A.11 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 760,000 gpm Setpoint Closed-Loop System Salinity Make-Up Flow1 SW Only Additional Make-Up (psu) 24-Hr Max (psu)

Max (psu)

Average (psu)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm) 2 7.74 7.83 1.95 324,888 48,918 275,970 3

7.74 7.83 2.02 248,721 48,918 199,803 4

7.74 7.83 2.12 189,904 48,918 140,986 5

7.74 7.83 2.21 145,852 48,918 96,934 6

7.74 7.83 2.30 102,801 48,918 53,884 7

7.74 7.83 2.40 74,381 48,918 25,463 8

7.99 8.03 2.49 53,275 48,918 4,357 9

8.90 9.02 2.55 49,894 48,918 977 10 9.93 10.01 2.59 49,109 48,918 191 11 10.95 11.00 2.60 48,921 48,918 3

12 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

1 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 SW, Unit 1 RW, and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Table A.12 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 912,000 gpm Setpoint Closed-Loop System Salinity Make-Up Flow1 SW Only Additional Make-Up (psu) 24-Hr Max (psu)

Max (psu)

Average (psu)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm) 2 7.72 7.81 1.95 378,473 48,918 329,555 3

7.72 7.81 2.02 286,163 48,918 237,245 4

7.72 7.81 2.12 216,133 48,918 167,215 5

7.72 7.81 2.21 163,169 48,918 114,251 6

7.72 7.81 2.30 111,231 48,918 62,313 7

7.72 7.81 2.39 77,910 48,918 28,992 8

7.98 8.03 2.49 53,320 48,918 4,402 9

8.89 9.02 2.55 49,932 48,918 1,014 10 9.93 10.01 2.59 49,121 48,918 203 11 10.95 11.00 2.60 48,921 48,918 3

12 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

1 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 SW, Unit 1 RW, and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 25 Table A.13 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 1,064,000 gpm Setpoint Closed-Loop System Salinity Make-Up Flow1 SW Only Additional Make-Up (psu) 24-Hr Max (psu)

Max (psu)

Average (psu)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm) 2 7.70 7.79 1.94 432,155 48,918 383,237 3

7.70 7.79 2.01 323,387 48,918 274,470 4

7.70 7.79 2.11 242,066 48,918 193,149 5

7.70 7.79 2.20 180,226 48,918 131,308 6

7.70 7.79 2.29 119,454 48,918 70,536 7

7.70 7.79 2.39 81,320 48,918 32,402 8

7.97 8.03 2.49 53,390 48,918 4,472 9

8.85 9.02 2.55 49,964 48,918 1,046 10 9.93 10.01 2.59 49,132 48,918 214 11 10.94 11.00 2.60 48,922 48,918 4

12 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

1 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 SW, Unit 1 RW, and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Table A.14 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 1,216,000 gpm Setpoint Closed-Loop System Salinity Make-Up Flow1 SW Only Additional Make-Up (psu) 24-Hr Max (psu)

Max (psu)

Average (psu)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm) 2 7.68 7.77 1.94 485,384 48,918 436,466 3

7.68 7.77 2.01 360,452 48,918 311,534 4

7.68 7.77 2.11 267,939 48,918 219,021 5

7.68 7.77 2.20 197,029 48,918 148,111 6

7.68 7.77 2.29 127,572 48,918 78,655 7

7.68 7.77 2.39 84,612 48,918 35,694 8

7.96 8.03 2.48 53,416 48,918 4,499 9

8.88 9.02 2.55 49,988 48,918 1,070 10 9.93 10.01 2.59 49,144 48,918 227 11 10.96 11.00 2.60 48,922 48,918 5

12 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

1 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 SW, Unit 1 RW, and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 26 Table A.15 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 1,367,000 gpm Setpoint Closed-Loop System Salinity Make-Up Flow1 SW Only Additional Make-Up (psu) 24-Hr Max (psu)

Max (psu)

Average (psu)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm) 2 7.67 7.76 1.94 538,248 48,918 489,330 3

7.67 7.76 2.01 396,892 48,918 347,975 4

7.67 7.76 2.11 293,260 48,918 244,343 5

7.67 7.76 2.20 213,480 48,918 164,562 6

7.67 7.76 2.29 135,450 48,918 86,532 7

7.67 7.76 2.39 87,764 48,918 38,846 8

7.95 8.03 2.48 53,455 48,918 4,537 9

8.92 9.02 2.55 50,017 48,918 1,099 10 9.93 10.01 2.58 49,157 48,918 239 11 10.96 11.00 2.60 48,923 48,918 5

12 11.01 11.05 2.60 48,918 48,918 0

1 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 SW, Unit 1 RW, and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 27 Appendix B: Monthly Make-Up Flowrates The updated salinity analysis using the 10-year Hudson River data from ASA (documented in Appendix F) returned greater make-up flowrates than the SW flows used for the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report [Ref. 6.3] (see Case 15 of Attachment 6). As discussed in Section 3 of this evaluation, the updated closed-loop cooling make-up flow control logic relies upon the selection of an acceptable salinity setpoint. As discussed in Appendix A, several salinity setpoint values result in the identical maximum closed-loop salinity values while the average make-up flow rates decrease with an increase in setpoint values. The selection of setpoints in Appendix A minimizes the closed-loop salinity at the lowest make-up flow rate (i.e.,

maximizes the potential biological benefits). Based on these setpoint values, Table B.1 through Table B.14 show the average monthly and annual make-up flow rates required to minimize salinity. As discussed in Section 5, the make-up flowrate for closed-loop cooling would be based on 1.5 cycles of concentration (i.e., historic SW flow only).

Per TRC (Appendix C), the maximum salinity value that could be run through the closed-loop cooling system and not exceed the air quality standards would be 0.263 psu. In order to avoid exceeding the air quality standards, a scenario was run to determine how often IPEC would be forced to revert from closed-loop operation to once-through operation. While no detailed design work on a system that would allow switching from closed-loop to once-through operation at IPEC has been performed, operating constraints would likely limit the switch to a seasonal basis; however, this Report conservatively assumes the switch between once-through and closed-loop operation would be determined on a weekly basis (although impractical for actual Station operation). The 10-year Hudson River salinity data was reviewed and, if during a given week the closed-loop salinity would exceed the PM2.5 NAAQS or PM2.5 SIL, the system was switched to once-through operation. Table B.1 includes the average percentage of once-through run time (bypassing the cooling tower) that would be required to avoid exceeding the air quality standards. Note that the cooling tower make-up flow would be equal to the historic SW flowrates and the once-through flow would be equal to the historic SW and CW flowrates for both Units 2 and 3.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 28 Table B.1 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis at 1.5 Cycles of Concentration1 Month Make-Up Flow2 SW Only Additional Make-Up Average (gpm)

Once-Through Run Time Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

PM2.5 SIL PM2.5 NAAQS Average (%)

January 45,947 45,947 0

92%

39%

February 46,668 46,668 0

92%

72%

March 45,031 45,031 0

76%

57%

April 45,367 45,367 0

58%

29%

May 46,897 46,897 0

78%

25%

June 48,227 48,227 0

88%

43%

July 53,069 53,069 0

94%

73%

August 56,865 56,865 0

100%

83%

September 54,319 54,319 0

99%

91%

October 49,925 49,925 0

96%

82%

November 46,845 46,845 0

82%

59%

December 47,628 47,628 0

85%

38%

Annual Average 48,918 48,918 0

87%

57%

1 No salinity setpoint was selected as no additional make-up flow is utilized for this scenario (see Appendix A). The flowrate required to achieve 1.5 Cycles of Concentration is equivalent to the historic Unit 2 and Unit 3 service water flowrates.

2 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Table B.2 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 10,000 gpm1 Month Make-Up Flow2 SW Only Additional Make-Up Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

January 45,947 45,947 0

February 46,668 46,668 0

March 45,031 45,031 0

April 45,367 45,367 0

May 46,897 46,897 0

June 48,227 48,227 0

July 53,069 53,069 0

August 57,003 56,865 138 September 55,318 54,319 998 October 50,134 49,925 209 November 46,845 46,845 0

December 47,628 47,628 0

Annual Average 49,029 48,918 111 1 A setpoint of 10 psu was selected to minimize salinity (see Appendix A).

2 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 29 Table B.3 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 25,000 gpm1 Month Make-Up Flow2 SW Only Additional Make-Up Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

January 45,947 45,947 0

February 46,668 46,668 0

March 45,031 45,031 0

April 45,367 45,367 0

May 46,897 46,897 0

June 48,227 48,227 0

July 53,149 53,069 80 August 58,448 56,865 1,583 September 58,446 54,319 4,127 October 51,409 49,925 1,484 November 47,093 46,845 248 December 47,642 47,628 13 Annual Average 49,545 48,918 627 1 A setpoint of 9 psu was selected to minimize salinity (see Appendix A).

2 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Table B.4 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 50,000 gpm1 Month Make-Up Flow2 SW Only Additional Make-Up Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

January 45,947 45,947 0

February 46,669 46,668 1

March 45,031 45,031 0

April 45,367 45,367 0

May 46,952 46,897 55 June 48,227 48,227 0

July 53,919 53,069 850 August 63,083 56,865 6,218 September 65,907 54,319 11,588 October 56,002 49,925 6,078 November 48,307 46,845 1,462 December 47,788 47,628 160 Annual Average 51,123 48,918 2,206 1 A setpoint of 8 psu was selected to minimize salinity (see Appendix A).

2 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 30 Table B.5 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 100,000 gpm1 Month Make-Up Flow2 SW Only Additional Make-Up Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

January 45,947 45,947 0

February 46,670 46,668 2

March 45,031 45,031 0

April 45,367 45,367 0

May 46,956 46,897 58 June 48,227 48,227 0

July 54,048 53,069 979 August 65,413 56,865 8,548 September 72,912 54,319 18,593 October 58,195 49,925 8,271 November 48,660 46,845 1,815 December 47,807 47,628 179 Annual Average 52,124 48,918 3,207 1 A setpoint of 8 psu was selected to minimize salinity (see Appendix A).

2 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Table B.6 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 152,000 gpm1 Month Make-Up Flow2 SW Only Additional Make-Up Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

January 45,947 45,947 0

February 46,672 46,668 4

March 45,031 45,031 0

April 45,367 45,367 0

May 46,959 46,897 61 June 48,227 48,227 0

July 54,077 53,069 1,008 August 66,219 56,865 9,354 September 77,742 54,319 23,423 October 59,098 49,925 9,173 November 48,731 46,845 1,886 December 47,809 47,628 180 Annual Average 52,675 48,918 3,757 1 A setpoint of 8 psu was selected to minimize salinity (see Appendix A).

2 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 31 Table B.7 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 304,000 gpm1 Month Make-Up Flow2 SW Only Additional Make-Up Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

January 46,287 45,947 341 February 47,071 46,668 403 March 45,031 45,031 0

April 45,367 45,367 0

May 47,537 46,897 640 June 48,305 48,227 77 July 59,920 53,069 6,851 August 93,857 56,865 36,992 September 122,536 54,319 68,217 October 88,197 49,925 38,272 November 56,971 46,845 10,126 December 49,147 47,628 1,519 Annual Average 62,570 48,918 13,652 1 A setpoint of 7 psu was selected to minimize salinity (see Appendix A).

2 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Table B.8 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 456,000 gpm1 Month Make-Up Flow2 SW Only Additional Make-Up Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

January 46,294 45,947 347 February 47,138 46,668 470 March 45,031 45,031 0

April 45,367 45,367 0

May 47,561 46,897 664 June 48,312 48,227 84 July 60,658 53,069 7,590 August 103,711 56,865 46,846 September 148,211 54,319 93,892 October 99,100 49,925 49,175 November 59,680 46,845 12,836 December 49,590 47,628 1,962 Annual Average 66,771 48,918 17,853 1 A setpoint of 7 psu was selected to minimize salinity (see Appendix A).

2 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 32 Table B.9 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 608,000 gpm1 Month Make-Up Flow2 SW Only Additional Make-Up Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

January 46,301 45,947 354 February 47,160 46,668 492 March 45,031 45,031 0

April 45,367 45,367 0

May 47,551 46,897 654 June 48,312 48,227 84 July 61,227 53,069 8,158 August 112,694 56,865 55,829 September 172,513 54,319 118,194 October 109,090 49,925 59,166 November 62,115 46,845 15,270 December 49,998 47,628 2,370 Annual Average 70,661 48,918 21,744 1 A setpoint of 7 psu was selected to minimize salinity (see Appendix A).

2 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Table B.10 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 760,000 gpm1 Month Make-Up Flow2 SW Only Additional Make-Up Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

January 46,321 45,947 375 February 47,209 46,668 541 March 45,031 45,031 0

April 45,367 45,367 0

May 47,578 46,897 681 June 48,315 48,227 88 July 61,734 53,069 8,666 August 120,981 56,865 64,116 September 196,203 54,319 141,884 October 118,417 49,925 68,492 November 64,437 46,845 17,593 December 50,438 47,628 2,809 Annual Average 74,381 48,918 25,463 1 A setpoint of 7 psu was selected to minimize salinity (see Appendix A).

2 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 33 Table B.11 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 912,000 gpm1 Month Make-Up Flow2 SW Only Additional Make-Up Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

January 46,315 45,947 368 February 47,227 46,668 559 March 45,031 45,031 0

April 45,367 45,367 0

May 47,612 46,897 715 June 48,333 48,227 106 July 62,242 53,069 9,173 August 128,616 56,865 71,751 September 219,324 54,319 165,004 October 127,110 49,925 77,185 November 66,541 46,845 19,697 December 50,713 47,628 3,085 Annual Average 77,910 48,918 28,992 1 A setpoint of 7 psu was selected to minimize salinity (see Appendix A).

2 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Table B.12 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 1,064,000 gpm1 Month Make-Up Flow2 SW Only Additional Make-Up Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

January 46,376 45,947 429 February 47,190 46,668 522 March 45,031 45,031 0

April 45,367 45,367 0

May 47,589 46,897 691 June 48,350 48,227 123 July 62,722 53,069 9,653 August 136,045 56,865 79,180 September 241,751 54,319 187,431 October 135,350 49,925 85,425 November 68,667 46,845 21,822 December 50,965 47,628 3,337 Annual Average 81,320 48,918 32,402 1 A setpoint of 7 psu was selected to minimize salinity (see Appendix A).

2 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 34 Table B.13 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 1,216,000 gpm1 Month Make-Up Flow2 SW Only Additional Make-Up Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

January 46,355 45,947 409 February 47,235 46,668 567 March 45,031 45,031 0

April 45,367 45,367 0

May 47,633 46,897 735 June 48,340 48,227 113 July 62,957 53,069 9,888 August 143,189 56,865 86,324 September 263,629 54,319 209,310 October 143,549 49,925 93,624 November 70,461 46,845 23,616 December 51,224 47,628 3,596 Annual Average 84,612 48,918 35,694 1 A setpoint of 7 psu was selected to minimize salinity (see Appendix A).

2 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Table B.14 IPEC Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Analysis Flow Rate = SW + 1,367,000 gpm1 Month Make-Up Flow2 SW Only Additional Make-Up Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

Average (gpm)

January 46,376 45,947 429 February 47,305 46,668 637 March 45,031 45,031 0

April 45,367 45,367 0

May 47,632 46,897 735 June 48,354 48,227 127 July 63,634 53,069 10,565 August 149,805 56,865 92,940 September 284,811 54,319 230,491 October 150,857 49,925 100,933 November 72,033 46,845 25,188 December 51,640 47,628 4,012 Annual Average 87,764 48,918 38,846 1 A setpoint of 7 psu was selected to minimize salinity (see Appendix A).

2 Make-up flowrate based on closed-loop system logic and historic Unit 2 and Unit 3 SW flowrates used in Case 15 of Attachment 6 to the 2010 Alternative Technologies Report.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 35 Appendix C: TRC Analysis Determination of Maximum Basin Salinity to achieve PM Air Quality Compliance The closed-loop cooling tower air quality impact analysis as prepared in 2009 (Ref. 7.4) assumed a basin salinity of 7200 ppm (based upon an average Hudson River salinity of 1800 ppm with four cycles of concentration). The maximum PM2.5 ground level concentration during hybrid operation was calculated to be 32.9 micrograms/cubic meter. The PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) is 35 micrograms per cubic meter. The representative background concentration of PM2.5 for Westchester County is 29.2 micrograms per cubic meter, leaving a maximum available air quality contribution by the closed cycle cooling towers of 5.8 micrograms/cubic meter (35 - 29.2 = 5.8). In order for the particulate emissions from the cooling towers to be limited to a value that would result in impacts that would not exceed the 5.8 micrograms per cubic meter value, the maximum basin dissolved solids concentration is calculated as:

7200 ppm x (5.8 micrograms/cubic meter)/(32.9 micrograms/cubic meter) = 1269 ppm Similarly, the limiting ground level concentration in the Westchester County PM2.5 non-attainment area is the Significant Impact Level (SIL) of 1.2 micrograms per cubic meter. In order for the particulate emissions from the cooling towers to be limited to a value that would result in impacts that would not exceed the 1.2 micrograms per cubic meter value, the maximum basin dissolved solids concentration is calculated as:

7200 ppm x (1.2 micrograms/cubic meter) / (32.9 micrograms/cubic meter) = 263 ppm For practical cooling tower operation, the minimum basin cycling is assumed to be 1.5 times the concentration of the Hudson River water. For compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS the maximum Hudson River dissolved solids would be 846 ppm (1269/1.5 = 846 ppm). Similarly, to achieve the PM2.5 SIL, the Hudson River dissolved solids would be 175 ppm (263/1.5 = 175 ppm).

Note that the threshold river concentrations that would enable the closed-cycle cooling towers to achieve air quality standards compliance are also independent of the maximum river salinity. It is very important to note when the closed cycle cooling towers operate at or below these threshold river salinities, there would be no exceedance of either the PM2.5 NAAQS or the PM2.5 SIL, depending upon which target compliance threshold salinity is being considered. The river salinity thresholds for PM10 standards and SIL compliance are also provided in the Table C.1 for the hybrid operation.

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 36 Table C.1 Hudson River Salinity Thresholds for Hybrid Operation

% of Year Operating OTC to achieve NO AQ Impacts Applicable Threshold (ug/m3)

Maximum River1 Salinity (psu)

OTC CCC PM2.5 AAQS 5.8 0.846 57 43 PM2.5 SIL 1.2 0.175 87 13 PM10 AAQS 90 13.131 0

100 PM10 SIL 5

0.729 59 41 1 Base condition - basin salinity of 7.2 psu with a maximum concentration of 32.9 micrograms per cubic meter

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 37 Appendix D: ASAAC - Biological Assessment of Closed-Loop Cooling Flow Scenarios

ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc.

Corporate Office:

5 Fairlawn Drive P.O. Box 57 Washingtonville, NY 10992 Tel: 845-496-7742 Fax: 845-496-7965 3719 Union Road, Suite 211

• Cheektowaga, NY 14225 Tel: 716-681-8670 921 Pike Street, Box 303

• Lemont, PA 16851 Tel: 814-278-0482











BIOLOGICALASSESSMENTOFCLOSEDLOOP

COOLINGFLOWSCENARIOS

11/19/2010



Thisreportevaluatestheentrainmentreductionsassociatedwithexpectedmakeupflowrates

forclosedloopcoolingnecessarytomeetapplicableairqualityrequirements,inamanner

consistentwiththeentrainmentreductionanalysisperformedintheAlternativesAssessment

(Enercon2010).ThebiologicalassessmentinEnercon2010examinedtwopotentialcooling

towerflowalternatives.InAlternative15,historicalservicewaterflowswereassumedtobe

sufficienttoprovideallmakeupwatertothecoolingtowers,thusnoadditionalflowbeyond

servicewaterwouldberequired.Inalternative15.5,servicewaterflowsweresettothe

maximumlevelsforUnits2and3(15,000gpmatUnit2and18,000gpmatUnit3)asanupper

boundonpotentialcoolingwateruseforclosedlooptechnology.



SubsequenttothesubmissionoftheAlternativesAssessment,continuedrefinementofHudson

Riversalinitylevelsoccurred,andindicatedthatitwouldnotbepossibletomeetairquality

standardswhenoperatinginclosedloopmodeduringperiodsofhighriversalinity.Therevised

analysiscontemplatedacoolingsysteminwhichtheunitswouldoperateinoncethrough

modeduringhighsalinityperiods,andinclosedloopmodewhensalinityislowenoughtoallow

operationwithoutexceedingapplicableairqualityrequirements.Thesemodeswerequantified

asprojectedmonthlyservicewaterflowswhileinclosedloopmode,plussomepercentofthe

timeeachmonthwhentheoperationwouldbeinoncethroughmodeinordertomeetthe

PM2.5SILorPM2.5NAAQS.

38

ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc.

3719 Union Road, Suite 211

• Cheektowaga, NY 14225 Tel: 716-681-8670 921 Pike Street, Box 303

• Lemont, PA 16851 Tel: 814-278-0482 Month

Historical

Service

Water

Flow

Units

1,2,3

2001 2007

(gpm)

Fractionoftimein

oncethrough

mode(Provided

byEnercon)

PM2.5

SIL

PM2.5

NAAQS

Jan

45,947

0.92

0.39

Feb

46,668

0.92

0.72

Mar

45,031

0.76

0.57

Apr

45,367

0.58

0.29

May

46,897

0.78

0.25

Jun

48,227

0.88

0.43

Jul

53,069

0.94

0.73

Aug

56,865

1.00

0.83

Sep

54,319

0.99

0.91

Oct

49,925

0.96

0.82

Nov

46,845

0.82

0.59

Dec

47,628

0.85

0.38

Annual

48,918

0.87

0.57





Thebiologicalassessmentofthesenewoperatingmodeswasconductedbyestimating

expectedmonthlyentrainmentinhistoricalyears20012007astheweightedaverageof

monthlyentrainmentunderClosedLoopalternative15.5,scaledtotheexpectedmonthly

flowduringclosedloopoperation,andmonthlyentrainmentunderCurrentTechnology

alternative1:







where:

EsmyC

=Numberentrainedofspeciessinmonthminyearyundertheclosedloop

scenario

Esmy15.5=Numberentrainedofspeciessinmonthminyearyunderalternative15.5

(closedloopwithmaximumservicewaterflow)

Esmy1

=Numberentrainedofspeciessinmonthminyearyunderalternative1(current

technology)

fm

=fractionoftimethatoncethroughcoolingwouldbeusedinmonthm

FmC

=averagetotalflowrateduringclosedloopoperationduringmonthm

39

ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc.

3719 Union Road, Suite 211

• Cheektowaga, NY 14225 Tel: 716-681-8670 921 Pike Street, Box 303

• Lemont, PA 16851 Tel: 814-278-0482 F15.5

=averagetotalflowrateduringclosedloopoperationforalternative15.5



Similarcalculationswereperformedforentrainmentlosses(LsmyC)andequivalentage1

losses(L1smyC),lostyield(YsmyC),andproductionforgone(PsmyC).ThevaluesforEsmy15.5,

Lsmy15.5,L1smy15.5,YsmyC15.5,PsmyC15.5,Esmy1,Lsmy1,L1smy1,YsmyC1,andPsmyC1hadbeen

calculatedpreviouslyaspartoftheAlternativesAssessment.



AscalculatedintheAlternativesAssessment,themonthlyentrainmentnumbers,losses,

andequivalentage1lossesweresummedovertheyeartoproduceanannualtotal,and

thencomparedtotheappropriatebaselinevalues(EsyB,LsyB,L1syB)toestimatethepercent

reduction:























 







 





Toassesstotallostyield,theproductionforgone(PsmyC)wasconvertedtoexpectlost

yieldandaddedtothedirectestimateoflostyield.Thiswasdonebothwithandwithout

inclusionofstripedbassproductionforegone,whicharethetoppredatorspeciesinthe

ecosystemandrepresentalargemajorityofthetotallostyield.







TotalLostYield=





where 

0.1=trophictransferratio





R=ratioofstripedbasslostyieldtoproductionforgone(0.323for







entrainment,0.509forimpingement)



Acumulativelifecycleanalysiswasperformedtocomparethecumulativeperformance

ofthebaseline,currenttechnology,2mmwedgewirescreens,andclosedloop

alternatives(operatedtomeetthePM2.5SILandthePM2.5NAAQS)throughtheendof

thelicenserenewalperiod(2033forUnit2and2035forUnit3).Forthe2mm,for

consistencywithEnercon2010wedgewirescreens,itwasassumedthatscreenswouldbe

operationalatUnit2in2013andUnit3in2015,forconsistencywithEnercon2010.



RESULTS



Annualentrainmentwith2mmwedgewirescreenswouldbesubstantiallylessthanwith

eitherclosedloopcoolingalternative.With2mmwedgewirescreens,estimatedaverage

40

ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc.

3719 Union Road, Suite 211

• Cheektowaga, NY 14225 Tel: 716-681-8670 921 Pike Street, Box 303

• Lemont, PA 16851 Tel: 814-278-0482 annualentrainmentis438millionfish,butentrainmentwiththeclosedloopcooling

alternativeswere999millionwhenoperatedtomeetthePM2.5SIL,and560millionif

operatedtomeetthePM2.5NAAQS(Table1).OperationtomeetthePM2.5SILwould

onlyreduceentrainmentslightlyfromthatusingcurrenttechnology(1139million)

becausetheunitswouldoperateinoncethroughmodemostofthetime.Theaverage%

reductionforclosedloopcoolingwas26.7fortheSILand57.4fortheNAAQS,in

comparisonto74.1forthe2mmwedgewirescreenoption.



Annualentrainmentlosswith2mmwedgewirescreenswouldbesubstantiallylessthan

witheitherclosedloopcoolingalternative.With2mmwedgewirescreens,estimated

averageannualentrainmentlossis262millionfish,butentrainmentlosswiththeclosed loopcoolingalternativeswere589millionwhenoperatedtomeetthePM2.5SIL,and390

millionifoperatedtomeetthePM2.5NAAQS(Table2).OperationtomeetthePM2.5SIL

wouldonlyreduceentrainmentlossslightlyfromthatusingcurrenttechnology(646

million)becausetheunitswouldoperateinoncethroughmodemostofthetime.The

average%reductionforclosedloopcoolingwas41.4fortheSILand63.8fortheNAAQS,

incomparisonto80.3forthe2mmwedgewirescreenoption.



Annualequivalentage1entrainmentlosswith2mmwedgewirescreenswouldbe

substantiallylessthanwitheitherclosedloopcoolingalternative.With2mmwedgewire

screens,estimatedaverageannualequivalentage1entrainmentlossis0.27millionfish,

butentrainmentlosswiththeclosedloopcoolingalternativeswere2.53millionwhen

operatedtomeetthePM2.5SIL,and2.02millionifoperatedtomeetthePM2.5NAAQS

(Table3).OperationtomeetthePM2.5SILwouldonlyreduceequivalentage1

entrainmentlossslightlyfromthatusingcurrenttechnology(2.64million)becausethe

unitswouldoperateinoncethroughmodemostofthetime.Theaverage%reduction

forclosedloopcoolingwas38.5fortheSILand56.6fortheNAAQS,incomparisonto

89.8forthe2mmwedgewirescreenoption.



Estimatesofannuallostyieldfor2mmwedgewirescreenswerealsomuchlowerthan

thoseforclosedloopcooling.Totallostyieldforthewedgewirescreensrangedfrom

13,637to15,262kg,dependingonwhetherstripedbassproductionforgoneisincludedin

thecalculationofindirectlostyield(Table4).Incontrast,totallostyieldrangedfrom

84,805to92,248forPM2.5SIL,andfrom60,758to65,796forPM2.5NAAQS.The

forgonecatchrangedfrom4,433to4,924fishforthewedgewirescreens,27,008to

29,252fishfortheSILalternative,and19,350to20,869fishfortheNAAQS.



Thecumulativeanalysisthrough2035indicatedthatinstalling2mmwedgewirescreens

ontheoriginalscheduleproposed(2013and2015)wouldreducenumbersentrained

fromwhatwouldoccurwithcurrenttechnologyby14,726million,whileclosedloop

41

ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc.

3719 Union Road, Suite 211

• Cheektowaga, NY 14225 Tel: 716-681-8670 921 Pike Street, Box 303

• Lemont, PA 16851 Tel: 814-278-0482 coolingoperatedtomeetairqualityrequirementswouldreduceentrainmentbyonly

1,978million(SIL),or4,614million(NAAQS)(Table5for0%discountrate).Entrainment

losseswouldbereducedby8,056millionwithwedgewirescreens,986million(SIL)or

2,176million(NAAQS)withclosedloopcooling.Equivalentage1losseswouldbe

reducedby50millionwithwedgewirescreens,3million(SIL)or6million(NAAQS)with

closedloopcooling.Lostfisheryyieldwouldbereducedby1.63millionkgusing2mm

wedgewirescreens,butonlyby0.13(SIL)or0.26(NAAQS)withclosedloopcooling.



Ifnonzerodiscountrates,whichareusedineconomicanalysestoexpressfuturecostsor

benefitsatcurrentequivalentvalue,areusedforthecumulativeanalysis,thetotallosses

andincrementalreductionsaresmallerbutthe2mmwedgewirescreenalternative

continuestobethebestalternative.Resultsfora3%discountratearepresentedin

Table6,andthosefora7%discountrateinTable7.

42

ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc.

3719 Union Road, Suite 211

• Cheektowaga, NY 14225 Tel: 716-681-8670 921 Pike Street, Box 303

• Lemont, PA 16851 Tel: 814-278-0482



Baseline0 Year Ave%Red Ave%Red Ave%Red Ave%Red 2001 2,087



1,863



20.1 690



78.1 1,581



7.1 746 27.7 2002 765



733



13.2 244



75.4 674



20.2 450 51.0 2003 1,184



1,087



16.7 423



74.2 947



17.3 525 52.7 2004 1,511



1,438



12.9 676



67.2 1,245



48.4 688 76.2 2005 830



800



21.3 306



72.5 711



58.5 394 79.7 2006 619



597



17.2 233



74.0 559



16.8 405 56.4 2007 1,533



1,456



19.5 493



77.4 1,278



18.3 713 58.1 Average 1,219



1,139



17.3 438



74.1 999



26.7 560 57.4 CurrentTech1 2mmWWS4 CCPM2.5SIL Table1.AnnualnumberoffishentrainedunderBaselineconditions,Currenttechnology,2mmwedgewirescreens,and

underClosedCycleCoolingoperatedtomeetstandardsPM2.5SILandPM2.5NAAQS.

CCPM2.5NAAQS EntrainmentNumbers(million) 43

ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc.

3719 Union Road, Suite 211

• Cheektowaga, NY 14225 Tel: 716-681-8670 921 Pike Street, Box 303

• Lemont, PA 16851 Tel: 814-278-0482



Baseline0 Year Ave%Red Ave%Red Ave%Red Ave%Red 2001 2,095



612



37.3 256



84.1 542



6.9 320 27.6 2002 767



566



33.1 197



78.8 527



13.3 377 44.6 2003 1,197



585



34.4 241



81.0 532



56.7 356 74.2 2004 1,514



923



32.6 464



74.2 832



77.4 538 88.7 2005 840



451



34.0 193



79.7 410



71.3 256 85.6 2006 620



479



33.1 195



78.8 460



47.3 360 71.0 2007 1,539



903



38.7 288



85.1 819



17.2 526 54.8 Average 1,224



646



34.7 262



80.3 589



41.4 390 63.8 Table2.AnnualentrainmentlossunderBaselineconditions,Currenttechnology,2mmwedgewirescreens,andunder

ClosedCycleCoolingoperatedtomeetstandardsPM2.5SILandPM2.5NAAQS.

EntrainmentLoss(million)

CurrentTech1 2mmWWS4 CCPM2.5SIL CCPM2.5NAAQS 44

ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc.

3719 Union Road, Suite 211

• Cheektowaga, NY 14225 Tel: 716-681-8670 921 Pike Street, Box 303

• Lemont, PA 16851 Tel: 814-278-0482 Baseline0 Year Ave%Red Ave%Red Ave%Red Ave%Red 2001 2.26 1.25 36.7 0.19 90.0 1.18 7.4 0.90 23.1 2002 2.69 2.32 30.7 0.27 88.7 2.24 13.1 1.80 34.9 2003 3.91 2.73 35.1 0.31 93.7 2.63 48.8 2.15 65.4 2004 3.03 2.47 33.5 0.32 86.9 2.36 71.9 1.85 81.2 2005 3.20 2.78 31.3 0.20 92.1 2.66 68.4 2.13 80.3 2006 2.22 1.95 31.3 0.25 85.7 1.90 45.5 1.57 66.3 2007 5.58 4.95 37.8 0.38 91.3 4.72 14.7 3.73 44.6 Average 3.27 2.64 33.8 0.27 89.8 2.53 38.5 2.02 56.6 EquivalentAge1EntrainmentLoss(million)

CurrentTech1 2mmWWS4 CCPM2.5SIL CCPM2.5NAAQS Table3.Annualequivalentage1entrainmentlossunderBaselineconditions,Currenttechnology,2mmwedgewire

screens,andunderClosedCycleCoolingoperatedtomeetstandardsPM2.5SILandPM2.5NAAQS.

45

ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc.

3719 Union Road, Suite 211

• Cheektowaga, NY 14225 Tel: 716-681-8670 921 Pike Street, Box 303

• Lemont, PA 16851 Tel: 814-278-0482 PM2.5SIL PM2.5NAAQS DirectLY(kg) 240,068



90,617



13,470



84,617



62,651



IndirectLY(kg) 25,909



8,958



1,792



8,268



5,838



TotalLY

265,977



99,575



15,262



92,885



68,488



IndirectLY(kg) 1,968



825



167



759



526



TotalLY

242,036



91,442



13,637



85,376



63,177



DirectCatch 76,567



28,872



4,383



26,957



19,947



IndirectCatch 7,816



2,702



541



2,494



1,761



TotalCatch 84,383



31,574



4,924



29,451



21,708



IndirectCatch 594



249



50



229



159



TotalCatch 77,161



29,121



4,433



27,186



20,106



WithSBPF WithoutSBPF WithSBPF WithoutSBPF Baseline Current 2mmWW ClosedCycle Table4.AnnuallostfisheryyieldandcatchunderBaselineconditions,

Currenttechnology,2mmwedgewirescreens,andunderClosedCycle

CoolingoperatedtomeetstandardsPM2.5SILandPM2.5NAAQS.

46

ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc.

3719 Union Road, Suite 211

• Cheektowaga, NY 14225 Tel: 716-681-8670 921 Pike Street, Box 303

• Lemont, PA 16851 Tel: 814-278-0482 0%

2011 26,807





26,938





72





5.32





2011 25,060



1,748



14,203



12,735



58



14



2.01



3.31



2013/15 10,333



14,726



6,147



8,056



8



50



0.38



1.63



2029 23,082



1,978



13,217



986



55



3



1.88



0.13



2029 20,446



4,614



12,027



2,176



52



6



1.75



0.26



Note:IncrementalreductionforWWandCCalternativescalculatedfromCurrentTechnology.

CycleCoolingoperatedtomeetstandardsPM2.5SILandPM2.5NAAQS.

CurrentTechnology CCPM2.5SIL 2mmWW Incremental

Reduction Baseline CCPM2.5NAAQS Table5.Cumulative(2013through2035)numberentrained(million),entrainmentloss(million),equivalentage1loss(million),andtotal

lostyield(millionkg)forBaseline,Currenttechnology,2mmwedgewirescreens,andunderClosed

Alternative Year

Installed Incremental

Reduction Incremental

Reduction Incremental

Reduction EquivalentAge1Loss EntrainmentLoss NumberEntrained Discountrate=

TotalLostYield 47

ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc.

3719 Union Road, Suite 211

• Cheektowaga, NY 14225 Tel: 716-681-8670 921 Pike Street, Box 303

• Lemont, PA 16851 Tel: 814-278-0482 3%

2011 19,826





19,922





53





3.94





2011 18,533



1,293



10,504



9,419



43



10



1.49



2.45



2013/15 7,814



10,719



4,640



5,864



7



36



0.30



1.19



2029 17,335



1,198



9,901



603



41



2



1.41



0.08



2029 15,836



2,697



9,225



1,279



39



4



1.33



0.15



Note:IncrementalreductionforWWandCCalternativescalculatedfromCurrentTechnology.

CycleCoolingoperatedtomeetstandardsPM2.5SILandPM2.5NAAQS.

CurrentTechnology CCPM2.5SIL 2mmWW Incremental

Reduction Baseline CCPM2.5NAAQS Table6.Cumulative(2013through2035)numberentrained(million),entrainmentloss(million),equivalentage1loss(million),andtotal

lostyield(millionkg)forBaseline,Currenttechnology,2mmwedgewirescreens,andunderClosed

Alternative Year

Installed Incremental

Reduction Incremental

Reduction Incremental

Reduction EquivalentAge1Loss EntrainmentLoss NumberEntrained Discountrate=

TotalLostYield 48

ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc.

3719 Union Road, Suite 211

• Cheektowaga, NY 14225 Tel: 716-681-8670 921 Pike Street, Box 303

• Lemont, PA 16851 Tel: 814-278-0482



7%

2011 13,872





13,939





37





2.76





2011 12,967



904



7,349



6,590



30



7



1.04



1.71



2013/15 5,661



7,306



3,352



3,997



5



25



0.23



0.81



2029 12,364



603



7,043



307



29



1



1.00



0.04



2029 11,674



1,294



6,731



618



28



2



0.97



0.08



Note:IncrementalreductionforWWandCCalternativescalculatedfromCurrentTechnology.

CycleCoolingoperatedtomeetstandardsPM2.5SILandPM2.5NAAQS.

CurrentTechnology CCPM2.5SIL 2mmWW Incremental

Reduction Baseline CCPM2.5NAAQS Table7.Cumulative(2013through2035)numberentrained(million),entrainmentloss(million),equivalentage1loss(million),andtotal

lostyield(millionkg)forBaseline,Currenttechnology,2mmwedgewirescreens,andunderClosed

Alternative Year

Installed Incremental

Reduction Incremental

Reduction Incremental

Reduction EquivalentAge1Loss EntrainmentLoss NumberEntrained Discountrate=

TotalLostYield 49

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 50 Appendix E: SPX Information Figure E.1 Example Curve Illustrating Linear Relationship between Wet-Bulb Temperature and Water Usage

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 51

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 52

Analysis of Closed-Loop Cooling Salinity Levels for Indian Point Units 2 & 3 53 Appendix F: ASA - Estimate of Salinity in the Hudson River at Indian Point Energy Center





ESTIMATE OF SALINITY IN THE HUDSON RIVER AT INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER



PREPARED FOR:

Indian Point Energy Center Buchanan, NY AUTHORS:

Craig Swanson Deborah Crowley Lauren Decker Nicholas Cohn Yong Kim DATE SUBMITTED 19 November 2010 ASA Project Number: 2009-167 54





EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC Pagei ofiv www.asascience.com

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

ItisnecessarytoestimatesalinityintheHudsonRiver(River)attheIndianPointEnergyCenter

(IPEC)inordertoevaluateenvironmentaleffectsonairqualityduringclosedcyclecooling

operationssincemakeupwaterisdrawnfromtheRivertoreplacelossesfromevaporation,

driftandblowdownfromthecoolingtowers.Thewaterqualityofthecirculatingcoolingwater,

measuredinpartbysalinity,isimportantforuseinthedesignofthecoolingtowersystemto

ensureoptimaloperationandminimalenvironmentaleffectsonairquality.Ananalysisoflong termhistoricalmeasurementsofsalinityintheRiverwasmadetoprovideanestimateof

expectedsalinityofthemakeupwaterforIPEC.



DirectmeasurementsofsalinityarenotmadeatIPEC.Consequently,AppliedScience

Associates,Inc.(ASA)developedanempiricalrelationshiptoestimatesalinityattheIPECintake

basedonsalinitymeasuredatotherlocationsintheRiver.Thedatasetsusedforthisanalysis

consistedofconductivitymeasurementstakenevery15minutesbytheU.S.GeologicalSurvey

(USGS)atHastingsonHudson(Hastings),,TomkinsCove(Tomkins),andWestPoint.The

Hastingsstationislocated21midownstreamofIPECandhasbeencontinuouslyoperating

since1992.TheWestPointstationislocated9miupstreamofIPECandhasbeenoperating

since1991.TheTomkinsstationwaslocated1midownstreamofIPEC,butwasdiscontinuedin

2001.



AstatisticalanalysiswasperformedonthesalinitydataateachoftheUSGSstationsforthe

availabledata.Theanalysisrevealedadecreaseinsalinitytothenorth(upriver),fromHastings

toTomkinstoWestPoint.MeansalinityatHastingswas6.29psu,Tomkinswas2.09psu,and

WestPointwas0.79psu,consistentwiththe90thpercentilesalinityvaluesof10.88psu

(Hastings),4.96psu(Tomkins)and2.63psu(WestPoint).HastingsandWestPointexhibited

thelowestsalinity,asdeterminedbythemeanand90thpercentilevaluesfortheperiodsof

record,inApril.Lowsalinityduringthistimeiscorrelatedwithhighfreshwaterdischarge.The

highestmeanand90thpercentilevaluesoccurinSeptemberatthesetwostations,primarilyas

afunctionoflowerfreshwaterdischarge.Tomkins,withasignificantlyshorterperiodofrecord,

hadthelowestaveragesalinityvaluesinJanuaryandthehighestinAugust.



AcorrelationanalysiswasperformedthatrelatedthesalinityatTomkinstothatatWestPoint

andHastings.ItwasfoundthattheWestPointdatawasmorehighlycorrelatedtoTomkins

thanHastingswasandthereforeusedtoestimateTomkinssalinityforthelongtermdecadal

period.ThemodelwasimprovedatlowsalinitiesbyforcingtheTomkinssalinitytobeequalto

theWestPointsalinitywhentheHastingssalinityfellbelow4.07psu.Thisimprovementhad

noeffectonhighersalinitypredictions.



Thedecadal(20002009)salinitytimeseriesatIPEC(assumedequivalenttothatatTomkins)

wasgeneratedtoprovidealongtermestimateofsalinityunderavarietyofenvironmental

55





EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC Pageii ofiv www.asascience.com

conditions.Thistimeseriesisconsistentwiththeanalysisperiodconductedfortheextreme

environmentalconditionsinsupportofthehydrothermalmodeling(Swansonetal.,2010).



Themodelresultsshowedthatsalinitiesweretypicallyhigherinthesummerandfallseasons,

consistentwiththeobservationsattheUSGSstations.Someyears(2000,2001,and2006)

showedextendedperiodsofsalinityexceeding5psuforthreemonthswithpeaksexceeding7

psu.Therewerealsoshorterperiodswhenthesalinitywaszero(2000,2001,and2008),

usuallyinthespringseason.Thesevariationsareprimarilyduetofreshwaterenteringthe

River,althoughthereareoccasionalevents(stormsurge)thatcantransportsaltfromtheocean

tothevicinityoftheIPECintake.



AstatisticalanalysiswasperformedonthehourlymodeledsalinitypredictionsatIPECforthe

decadalperiod2000through2009.Themeansalinityovertheentireperiodwas1.80psu,the

minimum0.07psuandthemaximum7.67psu.Themedian,or50thpercentile,was0.72psu,

indicatingthatthesalinitydistributionisnotanormaldistribution,butslightlybiasedtolower

salinities.The90thpercentilesalinitywas5.23psu.Salinitiesbetween0and0.25psuwere

foundtooccur30.62%ofthetimewhilesalinitiesbetween0.25and0.50psudroppedto

12.29%ofthetime.Thelargenumberoflowsalinitiesisindicatedbythecumulativefrequency

ofoccurrencethatshowsover50%(54.78%)ofthesalinitieswerelessthan1.00psu.



Thestatisticalsummaryofthe10yrdatasetbrokendownbyyearshowedthat2001hadthe

highestmean(3.21psu)andhighestmedian(3.28psu),2002hadthehighestmaximum(7.67

psu)andhighest90thpercentile(6.90psu).Salinitiesbetween0and0.25psuoccurred

between12%ofthetimein2000and42%in2009whilesalinitiesbetween0.25and0.50psu

droppeddramaticallyforallyears.Thelargenumberoflowsalinitieswasindicatedbythe

cumulativefrequencyofoccurrenceshowedthatbetween33%(in2001)and70%(in2000)of

thesalinitiesarelessthan1.00psu.



Thestatisticalsummaryofthe10yrdatasetbrokendownbymonthshowedthatSeptember

hadthehighestmean(3.84psu),highestmaximum(7.67psu),highestmedian(3.70psu)and

highest90thpercentile(7.16psu),followedbythemonthsofJuly,August,Octoberand

November.ThewinterandspringmonthshadlowervalueswithAprilthelowestofanymonth.

Salinitiesbetween0and0.25psuvariedbetween5%ofthetimeinSeptemberand85%in

April,consistentwithfluctuationsinfreshwaterdischargetotheRiver.Salinitiesbetween0.25

and0.50psudroppeddramaticallyformostmonths,indicatinganunevendistributionof

salinitiesacrosstherangeofvalues.Thelargenumberoflowsalinitiesisindicatedbythe

cumulativefrequencyofoccurrencethatshowsbetween18%(inSeptember)and86%(inApril)

ofthesalinitiesarelessthan1.00psu.



Theeffectofusinglinearinterpolationtofillthemissinghours(2.8%ofthetotalhours)is

insignificantwhenviewedinthecontextofthe10yrrecordasallstatisticalmeasuresshoweda

maximumdifferenceofonly0.01psuwhencomparedtotheresultsofthenonfilleddataset.

Theindividualyearsandmonthsexhibitedlargerdifferencesbutwerestillrelativelysmall.

56





EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC Pageiii ofiv www.asascience.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS



ExecutiveSummary..........................................................................................................................i

TableofContents............................................................................................................................iii

ListofFigures..................................................................................................................................iii

ListofTables...................................................................................................................................iv

1

Introduction.............................................................................................................................1

2

USGSData................................................................................................................................3

3

DataAnalysis............................................................................................................................4

3.1

TomkinsData....................................................................................................................4

3.2

HastingsandWestPointData..........................................................................................6

3.2.1

HastingsData............................................................................................................6

3.2.2

WestPointData........................................................................................................8

4

IPECSalinityModelDevelopment.........................................................................................10

4.1

Tomkinsvs.HastingsSalinityCorrelation......................................................................10

4.2

Tomkinsvs.WestPointSalinityCorrelation..................................................................12

4.3

IPECModelResults.........................................................................................................15

5

StatisticalAnalyses................................................................................................................18

5.1

Entire20002009Analysis..............................................................................................18

5.2

YearlyAnalysisforEachYearin10yrRecord................................................................20

5.3

MonthlyAnalysisforEachMonthin10yrRecord........................................................23

5.4

Continuous10yrDataSetAnalysis...............................................................................26

6

Conclusions............................................................................................................................29

7

References.............................................................................................................................31



LIST OF FIGURES Figure11.MapofaportionoftheHudsonRivershowingtheUSGSstationsusedinthe

presentanalysis(Hastings,Tomkins,andWestPoint)inrelationtoIPEC.....................................2

Figure31.HourlytimeseriesatTomkinsfortheperiodofrecord(15May1997through16July

2001)...............................................................................................................................................5

Figure32.HourlytimeseriesatHastingsfortheperiodfrom1October1999through31

December2009...............................................................................................................................7

57





EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC Pageiv ofiv www.asascience.com

Figure33.HourlytimeseriesatWestPointfortheperiodfrom1October1998through31

December2009...............................................................................................................................9

Figure41.ScatterplotofsalinitydataforUSGSstationsatTomkinsandHastingswithapower

lawregressionsuperimposedonthedata...................................................................................10

Figure42.ScatterplotofsalinitydataforUSGSstationsatTomkinsandHastingswithan

empiricallybasedregressionsuperimposedonthedata.............................................................12

Figure43.ScatterplotofsalinitydataforUSGSstationsatTomkinsandWestPointwitha

powerlawregressionsuperimposedonthedata........................................................................13

Figure44.ScatterplotofsalinitydataforUSGSstationsatTomkinsandWestPointwithan

empiricallybasedregressionsuperimposedonthedata.............................................................14

Figure45.Salinitytimeseriesofperiodofrecord(October1999throughJuly2001)..............16

Figure46.Salinitytimeseriesofshortportionofrecord(30Januarythrough9April2000)

showingabilityofmodeltosimulatelowsalinitiesatTomkins...................................................16

Figure47.PredictedsalinityatIPEC(usingTomkinsasaproxy)fortheperiod2000through

2009..............................................................................................................................................17

Figure51.Frequencyandcumulativefrequencydistributionsfortheentire10yrrecord........19

Figure52.Statisticalsummarybyyearforthe10yrperiod......................................................21

Figure53.Frequencydistributionsforeachyearofthe10yrrecord.......................................22

Figure54.Cumulativefrequencydistributionsforeachyearofthe10yrrecord....................22

Figure55.Statisticalsummarybymonthforthe10yrperiod..................................................24

Figure56.Frequencydistributionsforeachmonthofthe10yrrecord...................................25

Figure57.Cumulativefrequencydistributionsforeachmonthofthe10yrrecord.................26



LIST OF TABLES Table31.StatisticalsummaryfortheentireTomkinsperiodofrecord(15May1997through

16July2001)andforeachyearandmonthintherecord.............................................................4

Table32.StatisticalsummaryfortheentireHastingsperiodofrecord(October1999through

December2009)andforeachyearandmonthintherecord........................................................6

Table33.StatisticalsummaryfortheentireWestPointperiodofrecord(October1998

throughDecember2009)andforeachyearandmonthintherecord..........................................8

Table41.EmpiricallybasedbininformationforHastingssalinitydata......................................11

Table42.EmpiricallybasedbininformationforWestPointsalinitydata..................................13

Table51.Statisticalsummaryfortheentire10yrrecord.........................................................18

Table52.Frequencyandcumulativefrequencydistributionsin0.25psubinsfortheentire10 yrrecord........................................................................................................................................19

Table53.Statisticalsummaryforeachyearofthe10yrrecord...............................................20

Table54.Statisticalsummaryforeachmonthofthe10yrrecord...........................................23

Table55.Summaryofdatagapsinthe10yrrecord.................................................................26

Table56.Statisticalsummaryforthecontinuousentire10yrrecord......................................27

Table57.Statisticalsummaryforeachyearofthecontinuous10yrrecord............................28

Table58.Statisticalsummaryforeachmonthofthecontinuous10yrrecord........................28

58







Page1 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com

1 INTRODUCTION TheEntergyIndianPointEnergyCenter(IPEC),consistingoftwooperatingnuclearpowerplants

(Units2and3),islocatedalongtheeasternsideoftheHudsonRiver(River)approximately42

milesupstreamoftheBattery(locatedatthesoutherntipofManhattananddefinedasthe

mouthoftheRiver)intheVillageofBuchanan,NewYork.IPECusesaoncethroughcooling

waterconfigurationtocoolthesystem,dischargingheatedwateremployedinthecooling

processthroughadischargecanaltotheRiver.ThedischargeispermittedbytheNewYork

StateDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation(NYSDEC)viaaStatePollutantDischarge

EliminationSystem(SPDES)PermitNY0004472.AspartoftherenewalprocessNYSDEC

directedEntergytoperformafeasibilityandalternativetechnologyassessmentoftheuseof

closedloopcooling,i.e.,coolingtowers.



ThepurposeofthisreportistoassessthesalinityvariationinthewatersoftheRivernearIPEC

thatwouldbeusedtosupplymakeupwatertothecoolingtowers.Thismakeupwateris

requiredtoreplacewaterlostbyevaporation,driftandblowdownfromcoolingtower

operations.Thewaterqualityofthecirculatingcoolingwater,measuredinpartbysalinity,is

importantforuseinthedesignofthecoolingtowertoensureoptimaloperationandminimal

environmentaleffectsonairquality.SincetheRiverisanestuary,saltconcentrationcanvary

widelybasedonenvironmentalforcingsothataconstantsalinityvaluetoassessthe

environmentaleffectsandplantefficiencyisimpractical.Therefore,ananalysisofhistorical

measurementsofsalinityfromthreelocationsintheRiverwasperformedtoprovideamore

appropriateestimateofexpectedsalinityofthemakeupwaterforIPEC.



DirectmeasurementsofsalinityarenotmadeatIPEC.Consequently,AppliedScience

Associates,Inc.(ASA)developedanempiricalrelationshiptoestimatesalinityenteringtheIPEC

intakebasedonsalinitymeasuredatotherlocationsintheRiver.Thedatasetsusedforthis

analysisconsistedofconductivitymeasurementstakenevery15minbytheU.S.Geological

Survey(USGS)atHastingsonHudson(Hastings),TomkinsCove(Tomkins),andWestPoint.The

Hastingsstationislocated21midownstreamofIPECandhasbeenoperatingcontinuously

since1992.TheWestPointstationislocated9miupstreamofIPECandhasbeenoperating

continuouslysince1991.TheTomkinsstationislocated1midownstreamofIPEC,butwas

discontinuedin2001.Figure1showsthelocationsofUSGSstationsintheRiverrelativeto

IPEC.

59







Page2 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com



Figure 1-1. Map of a portion of the Hudson River showing the USGS stations used in the present analysis (Hastings, Tomkins, and West Point) in relation to IPEC.

60







Page3 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com

2 USGS DATA Waterlevel,temperatureandspecificconductivitydataisavailablein15minintervalsfrom

twolongtermstationslocatedintheRiver.TheHastingsstationislocated21midownstream

fromIPECandWestPointislocated9miupstreamofIPEC(Figure11).Thesestationsprovide

acontinuouslongtermhistoryofconductivityvariationsintheRiverand,althoughlocated

somedistancefromIPEC,theobservationsboundtherangeofconductivity(andultimately

salinity)atIPEC.AsummaryofthestationsadaptedfromtheUSGSwebsite

[1]isprovidedbelow:



Hastings(USGSstation01376304)located21miaboveBatteryatLat40°59'16",Long

73°53'15"referencedtoNorthAmericanDatumof1927,WestchesterCounty,NY,

HydrologicUnit02030101,180feetfromleftbankonabandonedMobilOilCorporation

platform,0.5misouthwestofrailroadstation,atHastingsonHudson.Specific

conductivityismeasuredatadepthof10ftbelowtheNationalGeodeticVerticalDatum

of1929(approximatelymeansealevel).Hastingsconductivitydataisavailablefrom1

October1999tothepresent(realtime).



WestPoint(USGSstation01374019)located51miaboveBatteryatLat41°23'10",Long

73°57'20"referencedtoNorthAmericanDatumof1927,OrangeCounty,NY,Hydrologic

Unit02020008,onrightbankatSouthDockatWestPoint.Specificconductivityis

measuredatadepthof10ftbelowtheNationalGeodeticVerticalDatumof1929

(approximatelymeansealevel).WestPointconductivitydataisavailablefrom1

October1998tothepresent(realtime).



Additionalcontinuous(15mininterval)USGSdatafromanowdiscontinuedstation(01374349)

atTomkinswasobtainedfortheperiodfromMay1997throughJuly2001.Sincemetadatadid

notexistforthisstation,itisassumedthattheinstrumentdepthis10ft,consistentwithother

USGSstations.SinceTompkinsislocatedonly1midownstreamofIPEC(Figure11)atLat

41°15'31",Long73°58'41",itispotentiallyagoodproxyforthesalinityattheIPECintake,

despiteitslocationontheoppositesideoftheRiver.





61







Page4 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com

3 DATA ANALYSIS Therawspecificconductancedata,withunitsofS/cmat25°C,receivedfromUSGSconsisted

ofindividualreadingstakenevery15min.Thedatawasconvertedtosalinity,withunitsof

PracticalSalinityUnits(psu),usingtherelationship:



Salinity=100*ln(1(Conductivity/178500))



ThisequationisbasedonananalysisconductedbyNormandeauAssociates,Inc.onproperties

ofwaterintheRiver(TexasInstruments,1976).



Theconvertedsalinitydatawasthenfilteredwithacentered1hrmovingaverageand

subsampledtoeveryhour.TheTomkinsrecordwasanalyzedfortheperiodfromMay1997to

July2001.However,longerrecordswereavailablefortheothertwoUSGSstations,sothe

salinitywasanalyzedfromOctober1998toDecember2009forWestPointandfromOctober

1999toDecember2009forHastings.Thefollowingsectionsdescribetheanalysisofthe

individualdatasets.

3.1 TOMKINS DATA TherawspecificconductancedatareceivedfromUSGSfortheTomkinsstationconsistedof

recordsevery15minfrom15May1997to16July2001.Thedatawasconvertedtosalinity,

filteredwithacentered1hrmovingaverageandsubsampledtoanhour.Figure31displays

thetimeseriesofthehourlysubsampledsalinitydata.Table31outlinesbasicstatisticsofthe

Tomkinsdataset,brokendownbymonthandyear.Thedataindicatesthatthereisalarge

rangeinsalinityatTomkinsrangingfrom0.09to9.27psu.Themaximumsalinityreadingat

TomkinsoccursinAugust1999.Themeansalinityfortheentirerecordis2.09psuandthe

median(50thpercentile)is1.49psu.Largedifferencebetweenthemeanandmedianvalues

indicatesthattheaverageisdrivenupbysomehighsalinityspikeswithintheriver.Additionally,

theyeartoyearvariationissignificantwithlargedifferencesinthe50thand90thpercentile

valuesamongtheyears.



Themonthlyvariationshowslowermeanvalues,between0.36and1.50psu,fromJanuary

throughJunepresumablyduetoincreasedfreshwaterdischarge.Highermeanvalues,witha

rangebetween2.56and4.07psu,occurfromJulythroughDecember.Highersalinityis

generallyindicativeoflowerfreshwaterdischargeintotheRiver.Thisgeneralseasonaltrendis

alsoapparentintheotherstatisticalmeasures.Forexample,thehighest90thpercentilevalues

occurinAugustandSeptember,at7.22and6.49psu,respectively.



Table 3-1. Statistical summary for the entire Tomkins period of record (15 May 1997 through 16 July 2001) and for each year and month in the record.

Period Mean (psu)

Minimum (psu)

Maximum (psu) 50th Percentile (psu) 90th Percentile (psu)

All

2.09

0.09 9.27 1.49 4.96

62







Page5 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com

Period Mean (psu)

Minimum (psu)

Maximum (psu) 50th Percentile (psu) 90th Percentile (psu) 1997

3.36

0.10 6.71 4.03 5.56

1998

2.12

0.09 6.61 2.04 4.54

1999

2.60

0.13 9.27 1.93 6.54

2000

1.20

0.10 7.99 0.60 3.18

2001

1.29

0.09 6.20 0.74 3.23

Jan 1.47

0.09 4.66 1.31 2.98

Feb 1.24

0.14 4.28 1.11 2.58

Mar 0.92

0.11 7.72 0.18 2.97

Apr 0.36

0.09 2.96 0.17 0.94

May 1.11

0.09 6.20 0.26 3.53

Jun 1.50

0.11 5.27 0.79 3.85

Jul 2.56

0.12 8.25 2.32 5.22

Aug 4.07

0.17 9.27 4.44 7.22

Sep 3.70

0.18 9.00 4.17 6.49

Oct 3.26

0.15 6.68 3.69 5.34

Nov 3.12

0.24 7.99 3.17 5.36

Dec 1.88

0.12 5.90 1.75 3.92





Figure 3-1. Hourly time series at Tomkins for the period of record (15 May 1997 through 16 July 2001).

63







Page6 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com





3.2 HASTINGS AND WEST POINT DATA TherawspecificconductancedatareceivedfromUSGSfortheHastingsandWestPointstations

consistedofobservationsevery15minextendingfrom1October1998to31December2009

forWestPointand1October1999to31December2009forHastings.Thedatawere

convertedtosalinity,filteredwithacentered1hrmovingaverageandsubsampledtoanhour.

Theperiodusedinthemodeldevelopmentandcalibration,asdescribedinlatersections,

extendedfrom1October1999through16July2001sincethisperiodincludedallthreeUSGS

stations.Theperiodusedinthesubsequentmodelpredictionswasthedecade2000-2009,

consistentwithpreviousASAanalyses(Swansonetal.,2010).



3.2.1 HASTINGS DATA TheHastingsdataisshowninFigure32withsummarystatisticsgiveninTable32.Thesalinity

variationatHastingsissubstantial,indicativeofthedynamicprocessesoccurringintheRiver

estuary.Thelargerangeinsalinityatthesitevariesfrom0.10psutoamaximumof19.06psu

inFebruary2007.Themeansalinityfortheentirerecordis6.29psuisclosetothemedian(50th

percentile)is6.12psu,indicativeofanormaldistribution.Theyeartoyearvariationforthe

meanrangesfrom4.86psuin2000and7.77psuin2001.The50thpercentilevaluesrange

from5.19psuin2000and7.92psuin2001whilethe90thpercentilevaluesrangefrom8.28psu

in2000to12.99psuin2002.



ThemonthlyvariationmeansalinityvaluesarethelowestbetweenDecemberandJune,dueto

increasedfreshwaterdischargeintotheRiver.TheexceptionoccursinFebruarywhenthe

meansalinityat6.36psu,farexceedingthemeanintheotherwinterandspringmonths.

Highermeanvalues,rangingbetween6.10and9.44psu,areobservedfromJulythrough

November.Thistrendisalsoevidentfromotherstatisticalmeasures,includingthepeak90th

percentilemonthlyvalueof12.84,whichoccursinSeptember.



Table 3-2. Statistical summary for the entire Hastings period of record (October 1999 through December 2009) and for each year and month in the record.

Period Mean (psu)

Minimum (psu)

Maximum (psu) 50th Percentile (psu) 90th Percentile (psu)

All

6.29

0.10 19.06 6.12 10.88

1999

5.99

1.30 14.25 5.89 8.47

2000

4.86

0.13 15.02 5.18 8.28

2001

7.77

0.16 15.32 7.92 11.94

2002

7.56

0.72 16.28 7.06 12.99

2003

5.55

0.12 18.50 5.41 9.76

2004

6.59

0.22 16.17 6.48 10.57

2005

6.49

0.12 16.22 6.51 11.29

64







Page7 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com

Period Mean (psu)

Minimum (psu)

Maximum (psu) 50th Percentile (psu) 90th Percentile (psu) 2006

5.75

0.13 15.96 5.67 9.96

2007

7.03

0.12 19.06 7.74 11.04

2008

5.41

0.10 18.43 5.23 10.10

2009

5.94

0.21 14.47 6.02 9.18

Jan 5.36

0.14 16.30 5.34 9.15

Feb 6.36

0.12 19.06 6.53 9.85

Mar 4.92

0.10 15.25 5.19 8.79

Apr 3.43

0.12 13.96 2.87 7.38

May 5.03

0.13 13.97 4.67 8.60

Jun 5.37

0.15 15.84 5.12 8.89

Jul 8.17

0.15 16.28 8.38 11.83

Aug 8.56

1.15 16.02 9.22 12.25

Sep 9.44

0.31 16.28 9.78 12.84

Oct 7.87

0.18 18.43 8.14 11.90

Nov 6.10

0.13 14.49 6.02 10.46

Dec 4.96

0.13 14.47 4.88 8.98





Figure 3-2. Hourly time series at Hastings for the period from 1 October 1999 through 31 December 2009.



65







Page8 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com

3.2.2 WEST POINT DATA TheWestPointdataisshowninFigure33withsummarystatisticsgiveninTable33.Thereis

alowerobservedsalinityvariationatWestPointrelativetotheothertwoUSGSstationssimply

duetoitsupstreamlocation.Therangeinsalinityatthesitevariesfrom0.07psutoamaximum

of6.99psu,whichoccursinSeptemberof2003.Themeansalinityfortheentirerecordisonly

0.79psuandthemedian(50thpercentile)is0.17psu.Theyeartoyearvariationforthemean

rangesfrom0.36psuin2009and1.57psuin2001.The50thpercentilerangesfrom0.13psuin

2006and1.17psuin1998whilethe90thpercentilevaluesrangefrom0.54psuin2003to4.21

psuin2006.



Themonthlyvariationshowslowermeans,between0.19and0.78psu,fromDecember

throughJune,duetoincreasedfreshwaterdischargeintotheRiverwithhighermeans,between

0.78and2.03psu,fromJulythroughNovemberindicativeoflowerdischarge.Thistrendisalso

generallyseenintheotherstatisticalmeasuressuchaswiththehighest90thpercentilevalueof

4.70psuoccurringinSeptember.



Table 3-3. Statistical summary for the entire West Point period of record (October 1998 through December 2009) and for each year and month in the record.

Period Mean (psu)

Minimum (psu)

Maximum (psu) 50th Percentile (psu) 90th Percentile (psu)

All

0.79

0.07 6.99 0.17 2.63

1998

1.22

0.22 3.06 1.17 2.12

1999

1.03

0.10 6.08 0.34 3.49

2000

0.39

0.10 5.73 0.14 1.00

2001

1.57

0.09 5.29 1.05 3.64

2002

1.44

0.09 6.99 0.37 4.21

2003

0.27

0.10 2.45 0.16 0.54

2004

0.44

0.10 3.24 0.16 1.28

2005

0.77

0.10 4.39 0.20 2.47

2006

0.38

0.08 3.62 0.13 1.14

2007

1.39

0.08 6.94 0.37 3.91

2008

0.59

0.07 4.73 0.15 1.72

2009

0.36

0.10 3.12 0.14 0.99

Jan 0.41

0.08 3.95 0.15 1.14

Feb 0.49

0.10 4.16 0.18 1.35

Mar 0.37

0.10 3.75 0.16 1.08

Apr 0.19

0.08 1.99 0.13 0.29

May 0.33

0.07 3.84 0.12 1.03

Jun 0.42

0.10 3.36 0.14 1.16

Jul 1.03

0.08 4.74 0.60 2.67

Aug 1.77

0.09 6.08 1.36 3.98

Sep 2.03

0.11 6.99 1.44 4.70

Oct 1.37

0.11 6.64 0.68 3.65

Nov 0.78

0.09 5.73 0.21 2.40

66







Page9 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com

Period Mean (psu)

Minimum (psu)

Maximum (psu) 50th Percentile (psu) 90th Percentile (psu)

Dec 0.46

0.09 4.70 0.14 1.46





Figure 3-3. Hourly time series at West Point for the period from 1 October 1998 through 31 December 2009.







67







Page10 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com

4 IPEC SALINITY MODEL DEVELOPMENT ToestimatethelongtermsalinityvariationintheRiveratTomkins(nearIPEC),statistical

correlationsweredevelopedamongtheUSGSstationdata.Ananalysiswasconducted

examiningthecorrelationbetweenbothTomkinsandWestPointandTomkinsandHastings

USGSstationstoassesstherelationshipsamongthestations.

4.1 TOMKINS VS. HASTINGS SALINITY CORRELATION Figure41showsascatterplotofthesalinitiesatTomkinsversusHastingsduringtheOctober

1999throughJuly2001periodwhenallthreedatasetsoverlapped.Thereisalargevariationof

salinityatHastings(0-8psu)whenthatobservedatTomkinsissmall(~0.1psu).However,

thereisalsolargevariationatTomkins(0-6psu)whenthesalinityatHastingsisfixedat8psu.

Thevisualbestfitlinetothedataisaleastsquaresfittedpowerlawfunction,asshown

superimposedoverthedataonFigure41.Thepowerlawfunctionhasavarianceof0.66psu2

andastandarddeviationof0.81psu.





Figure 4-1. Scatterplot of salinity data for USGS stations at Tomkins and Hastings with a power law regression superimposed on the data.

68







Page11 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com



Analternativeempiricallybasedapproachusesanoncontinuousbinnedrelationshipbetween

themeanvaluesofsalinityatTomkinsaveragedoverasmallrangeofsalinities(thebinwidth)

atHastings.Thebinsvaryinwidthfromaminimumof0.084psuatlowestsalinitiestoa

maximumof0.764psuathighersalinities(i.e.,>5psu)andaresummarizedinTable41.The

newempiricallyderivedlineissuperimposedoverthedatainFigure42.Thescatterorfitto

theempiricalbinnedfunctionhasavarianceof0.60psu2andastandarddeviationof0.78psu.

Thisnewmethodresultsinalowerstandarddeviationandthusabetterfitascomparedto

thepowerlawfunctionshowninFigure41.TheimprovementisseenatthehigherHastings

salinitieswheretheTomkinstoHastingsratiosalinityslopedecreasestoaccountforthelarger

scatterinthedata.



Table 4-1. Empirically based bin information for Hastings salinity data.

Bin Number Bin Width (psu)

Bin Max (psu) 1 0.084 0.084 2

0.044 0.128 3

0.059 0.187 4

0.138 0.325 5

0.153 0.478 6

0.187 0.664 7

0.227 0.892 8

0.252 1.144 9

0.304 1.448 10 0.327 1.775 11 0.373 2.148 12 0.420 2.568 13 0.447 3.015 14 0.510 3.525 15 0.537 4.062 16 0.506 4.568 17 0.764 5.332 18 0.406 5.738



69







Page12 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com



Figure 4-2. Scatterplot of salinity data for USGS stations at Tomkins and Hastings with an empirically based regression superimposed on the data.

4.2 TOMKINS VS. WEST POINT SALINITY CORRELATION ThescatterplotofTomkinsversusWestPointisshowninFigure43withthesuperimposed

leastsquaresfittedpowerlawfunction.ThescatterismuchsmallerthanHastingsasindicated

bythevarianceof0.23psu2(standarddeviationof0.48psu).Tochecktheempiricallybased

approachusedabove,themeanvalueofsalinityatTomkinswasaveragedoverasmallrangeof

salinities(thebinwidth)atWestPoint(Figure44).Thebinsvaryinwidthfromaminimumof

0.145psuatlowestsalinitiestoamaximumof0.994psuatthehighestsalinities(i.e.,11.5psu)

andaresummarizedinTable42.ThescatterismuchsmallerthanatHastingasindicatedby

thelowvarianceof0.18psu2,correspondingtoastandarddeviationof0.43psu.

70







Page13 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com



Figure 4-3. Scatterplot of salinity data for USGS stations at Tomkins and West Point with a power law regression superimposed on the data.



Table 4-2. Empirically based bin information for West Point salinity data.

Bin Number Bin Width (psu)

Bin Max (psu) 1 0.145 0.145 2

0.043 0.187 3

0.141 0.328 4

0.154 0.482 5

0.185 0.667 6

0.230 0.897 7

0.262 1.159 8

0.282 1.441 9

0.344 1.785 10 0.375 2.160 11 0.425 2.585 12 0.479 3.064 13 0.497 3.560 14 0.547 4.107 71







Page14 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com

Bin Number Bin Width (psu)

Bin Max (psu) 15 0.592 4.699 16 0.633 5.332 17 0.665 5.998 18 0.723 6.721 19 0.774 7.494 20 0.833 8.327 21 0.826 9.153 22 0.940 10.093 23 0.953 11.046 24 0.994 12.040





Figure 4-4. Scatterplot of salinity data for USGS stations at Tomkins and West Point with an empirically based regression superimposed on the data.





72







Page15 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com

4.3 IPEC MODEL RESULTS SincetheTomkinssalinityiswellcorrelatedtoWestPointbutnottoHastings,initiallyonlythe

WestPointdatawasusedinestimatingTomkinssalinity.However,acomparisonofthe

estimatedsalinityfromtheempiricallybasedregressionmodelcomparedtotheobserved

indicatesthatwhensalinitiesarelowatWestPoint(<1psu)themodeloverpredictsTomkins

salinities.However,furthertestingandanalysisshowedthat,whenthesalinityatHastingsfell

below4.07psu,thesalinityatbothWestPointandTomkinswastypicallyveryclosetozero.

Therefore,inallperiodswhentheHastingssalinitydroppedbelow4.07psutheTomkins

statisticalmodelwassetequaltotheWestPointsalinity.Thisprocesspreventedunreasonably

highmodelpredictionsofsalinityatTomkins.



Figure45showsthesalinitytimeseriesduringtheperiodwhensalinityobservationswere

reportedforallthreeUSGSstations,October1999throughJuly2001.Asexpected,WestPoint

alwayshadthelowestsalinityatanygiventime,Tomkinssalinitywasessentiallythesameor

higherthanWestPointsalinity,andHastingsconsistentlyhadthehighestsalinity.Duringhigh

dischargeperiods,thesalinityrecordedatHastingswasveryclosetothatobservedatTomkins

andWestPoint.TheempiricalmodelestimateatTomkinsisalsoshowninFigure45and

trackstheobserveddataatTomkinsclosely.



Toseehowwelltheempiricalmodelcorrelatedwiththeobservationsonshortertimescales,

Figure46displaysasegmentofthetimeseriesfrom30Januarythrough9April2000.During

thefirstmonthoftheperiod,Hastingssalinityisgreaterthan4.07psuandthemodeltracksthe

Tomkinssalinitydatawell.FortherestoftheperiodtheHastingssalinityfrequentlyfallsbelow

4.07psuandtheWestPointsalinityisessentiallyzero,thusthemodelforcestheTomkins

salinitytotheWestPointvalue.Thisassumptiontypicallyworkswellexceptthatsomesmall

excursionsofTomkinssalinityarenotcapturedduringthisperiod(e.g.,earlyinMarch)orthat

extraneoussmall(<1psu)levelsareintermittentlypredicted(earlyFebruary).



73







Page16 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com



Figure 4-5. Salinity time series of period of record (October 1999 through July 2001).



Figure 4-6. Salinity time series of short portion of record (30 January through 9 April 2000) showing ability of model to simulate low salinities at Tomkins.

74







Page17 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com



TheresultingtimeseriesofhourlysalinityatTomkins,usedasaproxyfortheIPECintake,is

showninFigure47forthe10yearperiod2000-2009.Thereisnoclearannualcyclealthough

salinitiesaretypicallyhigherinthesummerandfallseasons.Someyears(2001,2002,2005,

and2007)showextendedperiodsofsalinitycontinuouslyexceeding4psuformorethantwo

monthswithpeaksexceeding7psu.Thesevariationsareprimarilyduetofreshwaterentering

theRiver,althoughtherearesometimesevents(stormsurge)thatcantransportsaltfromthe

oceantothevicinityoftheIPECintake.Thecomplete1hrempiricallycalculatedsalinitydata

setforthe10yrperiodisavailableuponrequestasanExcelspreadsheet.





Figure 4-7. Predicted salinity at IPEC (using Tomkins as a proxy) for the period 2000 through 2009.







75







Page18 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com

5 STATISTICAL ANALYSES Statistics,frequencyandcumulativefrequencydistributionsweredeterminedforthehourly modeledsalinitypredictionsatIPEC(withTomkinsasaproxy)forthedecadalperiod2000

through2009.Separateanalysesarereportedfortheentireperiod,foreachofthe10years

andeachofthe12monthsintherecord.

5.1 ENTIRE 2000-2009 ANALYSIS Therewereatotalof85,192hoursofdatacontainedinthedecadalrecord(Table51).This

valuefallsbelowthefull87,672hoursthatfallwithintheperiodofrecordfrom2000to2009

duetoanumberofmissingdatapoints.ThemissingdatapointsintheoriginalUSGSrecords

arelikelyafunctionofinstrumentmalfunction,interference,ormaintenance.



Themeansalinityisseentobe1.80psu,theminimum0.07psuandthemaximum7.67psu.

Themedian,or50thpercentile,is0.72psu,indicatingthatthesalinitydistributionisnota

normaldistribution,butslightlybiasedtolowersalinities.The90thpercentilesalinity,which

meansthat90%ofthesalinityvaluesintherecordarelessthan5.23psu,while10%are

greater.



Table 5-1. Statistical summary for the entire 10-yr record.

Period Count (hrs)

Mean (psu)

Minimum (psu)

Maximum (psu) 50th Percentile (psu) 90th Percentile (psu) 20002009

85,192

1.80 0.07 7.67 0.72

5.23



Figure51andTable52documentthefrequencyandcumulativefrequencydistributionofthe

entire10yrdataset.Thesalinitybinresolutionis0.25psu(0-0.25,0.25-0.50,0.50-0.75,

etc).Salinitiesbetween0and0.25psuoccur30.62%ofthetimewhilesalinitiesbetween0.25

and0.50psudropto12.29%ofthetime.Thelargenumberoflowsalinitiesisindicatedbythe

cumulativefrequencyofoccurrencethatshowsover50%(54.78%)ofthesalinitiesarelessthan

1.00psu.Therearenosalinitybinsabove1.00psuexceedingafrequencyof3%.

76







Page19 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com



Figure 5-1.Frequency and cumulative frequency distributions for the entire 10-yr record.



Table 5-2. Frequency and cumulative frequency distributions in 0.25 psu bins for the entire 10-yr record.

Minimum Salinity (psu)

Maximum Salinity (psu)

Frequency

(%)

Cumulative Frequency

(%)

0.00

0.25 30.62%

30.62%

0.25

0.50 12.29%

42.91%

0.50

0.75 7.68%

50.59%

0.75

1.00 4.20%

54.78%

1.00

1.25 2.85%

57.63%

1.25

1.50 2.35%

59.98%

1.50

1.75 1.83%

61.81%

1.75

2.00 1.89%

63.70%

2.00

2.25 2.79%

66.49%

2.25

2.50 2.91%

69.40%

2.50

2.75 2.83%

72.23%

2.75

3.00 2.64%

74.88%

3.00

3.25 2.21%

77.09%

3.25

3.50 2.04%

79.13%

3.50

3.75 1.74%

80.87%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 Frequency Salinity(psu)

FrequencyandCumulativeFrequencyDistributions

Frequency CumFreq 77







Page20 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com

Minimum Salinity (psu)

Maximum Salinity (psu)

Frequency

(%)

Cumulative Frequency

(%)

3.75

4.00 1.69%

82.56%

4.00

4.25 1.57%

84.13%

4.25

4.50 1.64%

85.77%

4.50

4.75 1.58%

87.35%

4.75

5.00 1.36%

88.71%

5.00

5.25 1.41%

90.12%

5.25

5.50 1.97%

92.10%

5.50

5.75 1.45%

93.55%

5.75

6.00 1.24%

94.79%

6.00

6.25 0.99%

95.78%

6.25

6.50 0.82%

96.60%

6.50

6.75 0.70%

97.30%

6.75

7.00 0.76%

98.07%

7.00

7.25 0.95%

99.02%

7.25

7.50 0.77%

99.79%

7.50

7.75 0.21%

100.00%

7.75

8.00 0.00%

100.00%

8.00

8.25 0.00%

100.00%



5.2 YEARLY ANALYSIS FOR EACH YEAR IN 10-YR RECORD Thestatisticalsummaryofthe10yrdatasetbrokendownbyyearispresentedinTable53and

displayedinFigure53.Countsforeachyearvaryfrom7,846(2003)to8,759(2001)indicating

whichyearshavemissingdata.Nonleapyearshave8,760hrswhileleapyearshave8,784hrs.

Thedatashowsthattheyears2001,2002,and2007havehighersalinitiesonaverage,whilethe

years2000,2003,and2009generallyhavelowersalinities.Highestmaximumsalinitiesacross

theentiredatasetoccurin2000,2001,2002and2007,withallexceeding7.40psu.The

minimumsalinitiesvaryforallyearsbetween0.07and0.11psu.Themeanisconsistently

greaterthanorequaltothemedianindicatingthattherearemorelowervaluesthanhigher

values.The90thpercentilesalinitiesshowvaluesgreaterthan6psuduring2001,2002and

2007.



Table 5-3. Statistical summary for each year of the 10-yr record.

Period Count (hrs)

Mean (psu)

Minimum (psu)

Maximum (psu) 50th Percentile (psu) 90th Percentile (psu) 2000

8692

1.10 0.10 7.63 0.52

3.20 2001

8759

3.21 0.09 7.40 3.28

6.32 2002

8572

2.75 0.09 7.67 1.94

6.90 2003

7846

0.97 0.10 5.08 0.52

2.46 2004

8458

1.37 0.11 5.84 0.69

3.60 2005

8486

1.96 0.10 7.13 1.10

5.10 2006

8435

1.16 0.08 6.23 0.38

3.43 78







Page21 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com

2007

8705

2.71 0.08 7.67 2.06

6.60 2008

8501

1.56 0.07 7.23 0.55

4.22 2009

8738

1.15 0.11 5.76 0.45

3.19





Figure 5-2. Statistical summary by year for the 10-yr period.



Figures53and54showthefrequencydistributionandcumulativefrequencydistribution,

respectivelyforeachyearinthe10yrrecord.Salinitiesbetween0and0.25psuoccur12%of

thetimein2000and42%in2009,whilesalinitiesbetween0.25and0.50psuoccurevenless

oftenforallyears.Above1.5psu,nosalinitybinsexceedafrequencygreaterthan5%except

for2009between5.50psuand6.00psu.Cumulativefrequencydistributionsindicatethat

between33%(in2001)and70%(in2000)ofthesalinitiesarelessthan1.00psu.



0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Salinity(psu)

Year StatisticalSummaryofSalinitiesbyYear Mean Min Max 50th%

90th%

79







Page22 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com



Figure 5-3. Frequency distributions for each year of the 10-yr record.



Figure 5-4. Cumulative frequency distributions for each year of the 10-yr record.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

0 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 CumulativeFrequency(%)

Salinity(psu)

FrequencyDistributionbyYear

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 CumulativeFrequency(%)

Salinity(psu)

CumulativeFrequencyDistributionbyYear

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 80







Page23 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com



5.3 MONTHLY ANALYSIS FOR EACH MONTH IN 10-YR RECORD Thestatisticalsummaryofthe10yrdatasetbrokendownbymonthisshowninTable54and

Figure55.Countsforeachmonthvaryfrom6,698to7,440,differingbasedonyearsthathave

fewerdaysandmissingdata.Februaryhas672hrsduringnonleapyearsand696hrsduring

leapyears.ThedatashowsthatthemonthsofJulythroughOctoberhavehighersalinities

whiletheothermonthshavelowersalinities,withAprilthelowest.Highestmaximumsalinities

occurbetweenJulyandDecember,withallexceeding7.20psuwhiletheminimumsalinities

varyforallmonthsbetween0.07and0.11psu.Themeanisconsistentlylargerthanthe

medianindicatingthattherearemorelowervaluesthanhighervalues.The90thpercentile

salinitiesshowvaluesgreaterthan6psuduringAugust,September,andOctober.



Table 5-4. Statistical summary for each month of the 10-yr record.

Month Count (hrs)

Mean (psu)

Minimum (psu)

Maximum (psu) 50th Percentile (psu) 90th Percentile (psu)

Jan 7440

1.11

0.08 6.77 0.39

3.56 Feb 6792

1.59

0.11 6.96 1.09

3.65 Mar 7433

1.08

0.10 5.84 0.63

3.16 Apr 7100

0.52

0.08 4.51 0.13

1.83 May 7276

0.76

0.07 6.60 0.21

2.95 Jun 6698

1.22

0.10 6.07 0.35

3.33 Jul 6804

2.56

0.08 7.27 2.39

5.31 Aug 6739

3.22

0.09 7.55 3.05

6.46 Sep 6939

3.84

0.11 7.67 3.70

7.16 Oct 7422

3.13

0.11 7.66 2.78

6.46 Nov 7200

1.76

0.09 7.63 0.77

5.13 Dec 7349

1.04

0.09 7.26 0.28

3.83



81







Page24 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com



Figure 5-5. Statistical summary by month for the 10-yr period.



Figures56and57showthefrequencydistributionandcumulativefrequencydistribution,

respectivelyforeachmonthinthe10yrrecord.Salinitiesbetween0and0.25psuvary

between5%ofthetimeinSeptemberand85%inApril,consistentwithfreshwaterdischargeto

theRiver.Generally,thereisadramaticdropforthesalinitybinbetween0.25and0.50psufor

mostmonths.Above1.5psu,nosalinitybinsexceedafrequencygreaterthan5%exceptfor

Septemberforthe7.5psubin.Cumulativefrequencydistributionsindicatethatbetween18%

(inSeptember)and86%(inApril)ofthesalinitiesarelessthan1.00psu.



0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 Salinity(psu)

Year StatisticalSummaryofSalinitiesbyMonth Mean Min Max 50th%

90th%

82







Page25 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com



Figure 5-6. Frequency distributions for each month of the 10-yr record.



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 CumulativeFrequency(%)

Salinity(psu)

FrequencyDistributionbyMonth Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 83







Page26 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com



Figure 5-7. Cumulative frequency distributions for each month of the 10-yr record.



5.4 CONTINUOUS 10-YR DATA SET ANALYSIS AsnotedinSection5.1therewereatotalofonly85,192hrsofdatainthe10yrrecordof

modelpredictionsduetomissingdatavaluesintheoriginalUSGSdatarecordsused.Since

thereare87,672hrsintheperiod2000through2009atotalof2,480hrsweremissing.In

ordertoprovideacontinuoustimeseriesforsubsequentanalysisofcoolingtoweroperation

themissingvaluesneededtobeinterpolatedfromthepredictions.Ananalysisofthemissing

hoursrevealsthatthelargestgapextendedfor739hrsdownto601hrgapssummarizedin

Table55.



Table 5-5. Summary of data gaps in the 10-yr record.

StartTime GapDuration

(hr) 8/3/0315:00 739 6/9/0423:00 324 6/10/0310:00 167 7/4/080:00 154 7/1/0519:00 88 4/15/058:00 78 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 CumulativeFrequency(%)

Salinity(psu)

CumulativeFrequencyDistributionbyMonth Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 84







Page27 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com

StartTime GapDuration

(hr) 9/20/055:00 53 5/28/0214:00 44 7/23/061:00 41 7/27/064:00 41 12/17/0023:00 35 7/17/0621:00 24 7/22/060:00 24 7/25/063:00 24 7/19/0623:00 23 7/26/064:00 23 7/21/061:00 22 7/16/0620:00 14 7/18/0622:00 13 7/16/067:00 12 12/15/0021:00 11 4/14/0519:00 11 12/14/0022:00 9

8/1/0514:00 9

7/15/0620:00 9

7/17/0611:00 9

9/6/0221:00 8

9/24/0720:00 8

NumberofGaps



12 7

20 6

17 5

6 4

12 3

27 2

60 1



Sincethetotalnumberofmissingvaluesisonly2.8%ofthetotalhrsin10yrstheformofthe

interpolationwouldnotlikelyaffectoveralldistributionofsalinityvalues.Thereforeasimple

linearinterpolationwasusedtoestimatethemissingvalues.Tocheckwhetherthe

interpolationaffectedthedistribution,thestatisticalanalysesusedinprevioussectionswas

repeated.Thestatisticalsummaryforthecontinuousentire10yrrecordisgiveninTable56.

TheonlydifferencesfromtheresultsinTable51area0.01psuincreaseinmeanand50th

percentilevaluesanda0.01psudropin90thpercentilevalue,noneofwhicharesignificant.

Table 5-6. Statistical summary for the continuous entire 10-yr record.

Period Count (hrs)

Mean (psu)

Minimum (psu)

Maximum (psu) 50th Percentile (psu) 90th Percentile (psu) 20002009

87672

1.81 0.07 7.67 0.73

5.22 85







Page28 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com

Thestatisticalsummaryforeachyearofthecontinuous10yrrecordisshowninTable57.The

differencesofthemeanscomparedtoTable53varyfrom0psuin2001and2008uptoa

maximumof0.10psuin2003.Thelargestdifferencein2003isduetotherelativelylarge

numberofmissinghours,greaterthan900hrs.Thelargestdifferenceinthe50thpercentilewas

also0.10psuandthelargestdifferenceinthe90thpercentilewas0.18psu,alloccurringduring

2003.



Table 5-7. Statistical summary for each year of the continuous 10-yr record.

Period Count (hrs)

Mean (psu)

Minimum (psu)

Maximum (psu) 50th Percentile (psu) 90th Percentile (psu) 2000

8784

1.11 0.10 7.63 0.52

3.19 2001

8760

3.21 0.09 7.40 3.28

6.32 2002

8760

2.79 0.09 7.67 2.01

6.97 2003

8760

1.07 0.10 5.08 0.62

2.64 2004

8784

1.34 0.11 5.84 0.68

3.58 2005

8760

1.95 0.10 7.13 1.09

5.12 2006

8760

1.12 0.08 6.23 0.36

3.41 2007

8760

2.74 0.08 7.67 2.08

6.67 2008

8784

1.56 0.07 7.23 0.56

4.19 2009

8760

1.16 0.11 5.76 0.45

3.20



Thestatisticalsummaryforeachmonthofthecontinuous10yrrecordisshowninTable58.

ThedifferenceinthemeanscomparedtoTable54varyfrom0.00psuforJanuary,February,

MarchandNovemberuptoamaximumof0.11psuforJuly,consistentwiththemostmonths

withmissingdatasummarizedinTable55.Thelargestdifferenceforthe50thand90th

percentilesoccurredinAugust,consistentwiththelargestgapinAugust.



Table 5-8. Statistical summary for each month of the continuous 10-yr record.

Month Count (hrs)

Mean (psu)

Minimum (psu)

Maximum (psu) 50th Percentile (psu) 90th Percentile (psu)

Jan 7440

1.11

0.08 6.77 0.39

3.56 Feb 6792

1.59

0.11 6.96 1.09

3.65 Mar 7440

1.08

0.10 5.84 0.63

3.15 Apr 7200

0.51

0.08 4.51 0.13

1.80 May 7440

0.75

0.07 6.60 0.19

2.90 Jun 7200

1.17

0.10 6.07 0.35

3.26 Jul 7440

2.45

0.08 7.27 2.30

5.26 Aug 7440

3.14

0.09 7.55 2.76

6.37 Sep 7200

3.90

0.11 7.67 3.77

7.22 Oct 7440

3.14

0.11 7.66 2.79

6.49 Nov 7200

1.76

0.09 7.63 0.77

5.13 Dec 7440

1.06

0.09 7.26 0.29

3.81







86







Page29 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com

6 CONCLUSIONS AnanalysiswasperformedtoestimatethevariabilityofsalinityattheintakestoIPEConthe

River.Longterm(greaterthanadecade)datarecordsofconductivitywereidentifiedforactive

USGSstationsatWestPointandHastingsthatarelocated9miupstreamand21mi

downstreamofIPEC,respectively.Inaddition,adiscontinuedUSGSstationatTomkinsCove,

located1misouthofIPEC,wasidentifiedthathadashorter(4yr)periodofrecord.Sincethe

Tomkins,stationwasrelativelyclosetoIPECitwasusedasaproxyforsalinityattheIPEC

intakes.



Astatisticalanalysiswasperformedonthehourlysalinitydataforeachperiodofrecordfor

eachstation.Statistics,includingmean,minimum,maximum,50thand90thpercentilevalues,

alongwithfrequencyandcumulativefrequencydistributions,werecalculated.Theanalysis

revealedadecreaseinsalinityfromHastingstoTomkinsandfromTomkinstoWestPoint,

consistentwiththeirlocationsmovingupriver.MeansalinityatHastingswas6.29psu,Tomkins

was2.09psu,andWestPointwas0.79psu,consistentwiththeorderofthe90thpercentile

salinityvaluesof10.88psu(Hastings),4.96psu(Tomkins)and2.63psu(WestPoint).Hastings

andWestPointshowedthelowestmeanand90thpercentilevaluesinApril,consistentwith

highfreshwaterdischarge,andhighestmeanand90thpercentilevaluesinSeptember,

consistentwithlowfreshwaterdischarge.Tomkins,withasignificantlyshorterperiodof

record,showedthelowestmeanand90thpercentilevaluesinJanuaryandthehighestin

August.



AcorrelationanalysiswasperformedthatrelatedthesalinityatTomkinstosalinitiesatWest

PointandHastings.ItwasfoundthattheWestPointdatawasmorehighlycorrelatedto

TomkinsthanHastingswasandthususedtoestimateTomkinssalinityforthelongterm

decadalperiod.ThemodelwasimprovedatlowsalinitiesbyforcingtheTomkinssalinitytobe

equaltotheWestPointsalinitywhentheHastingssalinityfellbelow4.07psu.This

improvementhadnoeffectonhighersalinitypredictions.



Thedecadal(20002009)salinitytimeseriesatIPEC(assumedequivalenttothatatTomkins)

wasgeneratedtoprovidealongtermestimateofsalinityunderavarietyofenvironmental

conditions.Thistimeseriesisconsistentwiththeanalysisperiodconductedfortheextreme

environmentalconditionsinsupportofthehydrothermalmodelingatIPEC(Swansonetal.,

2010).



Themodelresultsshowedthatsalinitiesweretypicallyhigherinthesummerandfallseasons,

consistentwiththeobservationsattheUSGSstations.Someyears(2000,2001,and2006)

showedextendedperiodsofsalinityexceeding5psuforthreemonthswithpeaksexceeding7

psu.Therewerealsoshorterperiodswhenthesalinitywasnearzero(2000,2001,and2008),

usuallyinthespringseason.Thesevariationsareprimarilyduetofluctuationsinfreshwater

enteringtheRiver,althoughthereareoccasionalevents(stormsurge)thatcantransportsalt

fromtheoceantothevicinityoftheIPECintake.

87







Page30 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com



AstatisticalanalysiswasperformedonthehourlymodeledsalinitypredictionsatIPECforthe

decadalperiod2000through2009.Themeansalinityovertheentireperiodwas1.80psu,the

minimum0.07psuandthemaximum7.67psu.Themedian,or50thpercentile,was0.72psu,

indicatingthatthesalinitydistributionisnotanormaldistribution,butslightlybiasedtolower

salinities.The90thpercentilesalinitywas5.23psu.Salinitiesbetween0and0.25psuwere

foundtooccur30.62%ofthetimewhilesalinitiesbetween0.25and0.50psudroppedto

12.29%ofthetime.Thelargenumberoflowsalinitiesisindicatedbythecumulativefrequency

ofoccurrencethatshowsover50%(54.78%)ofthesalinitieswerelessthan1.00psu.



Thestatisticalsummaryofthe10yrdatasetbrokendownbyyearshowedthat2001hadthe

highestmean(3.21psu)andhighestmedian(3.28psu),2002hadthehighestmaximum(7.67

psu)andhighest90thpercentile(6.90psu).Salinitiesbetween0and0.25psuoccurred

between12%ofthetimein2000and42%in2009whilesalinitiesbetween0.25and0.50psu

droppeddramaticallyforallyears.Thelargenumberoflowsalinitieswasindicatedbythe

cumulativefrequencyofoccurrencethatshowedbetween33%(in2001)and70%(in2000)of

thesalinitiesarelessthan1.00psu.



Thestatisticalsummaryofthe10yrdatasetbrokendownbymonthshowedthatSeptember

hadthehighestmean(3.84psu),highestmaximum(7.67psu),highestmedian(3.70psu)and

highest90thpercentile(7.16psu).July,August,OctoberandNovemberhadthenexthighest

valuesafterSeptember.ThewinterandspringmonthshadlowervalueswithAprilthelowest

ofanymonth.Salinitiesbetween0and0.25psuvariedthroughouttheyear,withsuchlow

valuesoccurringonly5%ofthetimeinSeptemberandashighas85%inApril,directlyrelated

tothefreshwaterdischargetotheRiverwhilesalinitiesbetween0.25and0.50psudropped

dramaticallyformostmonths,exceptingthosewithlowestsalinities.Thelargenumberoflow

salinitiesisindicatedbythecumulativefrequencyofoccurrencethatshowsbetween18%(in

September)and86%(inApril)ofthesalinitiesarelessthan1.00psu.



Theeffectofusinglinearinterpolationtofillthemissinghours(2.8%ofthetotalhours)is

insignificantwhenviewedinthecontextofthe10yrrecordasallstatisticalmeasuresshoweda

maximumdifferenceofonly0.01psuwhencomparedtotheresultsofthenonfilleddataset.

Theindividualyearsandmonthsexhibitedlargerdifferencesbutwerestillrelativelysmall.





88







Page31 of31 EstimateofSalinityintheHudsonRiveratIPEC www.asascience.com

7 REFERENCES Swanson,C.,D.Mendelsohn,YongKim,andD.Crowley,2010.HydrothermalModelingofthe

CoolingWaterDischargefromtheIndianPointEnergyCentertotheHudsonRiver.ASAProject

09167.PreparedforEliseZoli,GoodwinProcter,Boston,MA,22March2010.



TexasInstruments,1976.Asynthesisofavailabledatapertainingtomajorphysicochemical

variableswithintheHudsonRiverEstuaryemphasizingtheperiodfrom1972to1975.Prepared

byTexasInstrumentsIncorporatedEcologicalServices,Dallas,TX.PreparedforConsolidated

EdisonCompanyofNewYork,Inc.,NewYork,NY,November1976.



89