ML11203A100
| ML11203A100 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/26/2011 |
| From: | Bauer L NRC/NRR/DLR/RERGUB |
| To: | Colligan M US Dept of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service |
| Stuyvenbert A | |
| References | |
| Download: ML11203A100 (11) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 July 26, 2011 Ms. Mary A. Colligan Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Region One Blackburn Drive Gloucester, MA 01930-2298
SUBJECT:
SUPPLEMENT TO REVISED BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3
Dear Ms. Colligan:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has prepared a supplement to its December 2010 revised Biological Assessment for the proposed license renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3). The supplement is included as the enclosure to this letter. The NRC staff is conveying this supplement to address updated thermal information as part of formal consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
If you have any questions regarding this supplement to the revised Biological Assessment, please contact Mr. Andrew Stuyvenberg, Environmental Project Manager, at 301-415-4006 or bye-mail at Andrew.Stuyvenberg@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
~C/l2~
Laurel M. Bauer, Acting Chief Environmental Review and Guidance Update Branch Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286 cc w/encl: Listserv
Supplement to Revised Biological Assessment Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 License Renewal July 2011 Docket Nos. 50*247 -LR and 50*286*LR U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland
-2 Introduction In April 2007, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) submitted an application to renew the licenses of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (Indian Point), to extend the licensed period of operations for an additional 20 years. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff issued a Biological Assessment concerning that application in December 2008, and issued a revised Biological Assessment in December 2010 (NRC 2010).
The NRC staff has developed this supplement to its December 2010 revised Biological Assessment in order to address new information the staff has received from Entergy concerning the potential effects of heated discharges from Indian Point Units 2 and 3 on the endangered shortnose sturgeon.
At the time the NRC staff developed its December 2010 revised Biological Assessment, Entergy had not yet released a final, verified model of Indian Point's heated discharges. As noted in the NRC staff's December 2010 revised Biological Assessment (NRC 2010), previous modeling of the Hudson River (cited in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC's) final environmental impact statement (NYSDEC 2003) associated with the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit for Indian Point) indicated that lithe thermal discharge from Indian Point causes water temperatures to rise more than allowed," but did not provide specific information about how the rise occurred or whether the conditions would affect the shortnose sturgeon. As a result, the NRC staff was unable to provide a specific assessment of thermal effects on the shortnose sturgeon for purposes of NRC's Endangered Species Act consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
On June 16, 2011, the NRC staff learned that Entergy had submitted a final, verified triaxial thermal model to NYSDEC concerning aquatic conditions at the Indian Point Energy Center (lPEC), and that NYSDEC had relied on that model and Entergy's associated information to reach conclusions about thermal conditions at Indian Point for inclusion in a draft SPDES permit; (NYSDEC 2011). The NRC staff communicated its awareness of this information to NMFS on June 16, 2011 (NRC 2011). On June 22, 2011, the NRC staff requested that Entergy provide this information to the staff. By letter dated June 29, 2011, Entergy formally submitted to the NRC documents related to the thermal studies it had conducted (Dacimo 2011).
Thermal Assessment in the NRC Staff's 2010 Revised Biological Assessment In the NRC staff's December 2010 revised Biological Assessment (NRC 2010), the staff provided the following assessment of thermal impacts on the shortnose sturgeon:
The NRC staff cannot determine, based on available information, whether a shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River would experience any prolonged physiological stress from the thermal plume caused by the discharge from IP2 and IP3. Shortnose sturgeon could be forced to seek refuge from elevated water temperatures as they are forced to do in southern rivers, and this could limit their available habitat. If studies reveal that the plume is buoyant, shortnose sturgeon could pass underneath the plume on their passage past the facility, but there are no data to indicate that this is the case.
- 3 As noted earlier, the NYSDEC thermal modeling of the Hudson River suggests that the discharge from IP2 and IP3 could exceed the limits specified in the SPDES permit, but without a triaxial thermal study, the exact size and nature of the thermal plume is unknown. Information about the species, based on the NMFS recovery plan, suggests that increased temperatures can have a significant effect on the shortnose sturgeon. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the continued thermal effects from operation of IP2 and IP3 for an additional 20 years could potentially adversely affect the population of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson River through thermal discharge, but the staff is unable to determine the extent to which the population would be affected.
The NRC staff concluded that "Sufficient information is not available at this time for the NRC staff to quantify the extent to which the shortnose sturgeon population could be affected by thermal effects, though forthcoming data is likely to provide additional information."
The NRC staff's review of the information provided by Entergy to the NRC on June 29, 2011, leads it to conclude that an update to the revised Biological Assessment is appropriate. Further, the NRC staff finds that Entergy's submission of June 29, 2011, provides the additional information necessary to determine, for purposes of this consultation, whether shortnose sturgeon are likely to be adversely affected by Indian Point's heated discharge.
NRC Staff's Assessment of Thermal Information In response to information provided by Entergy in its letter of June 29, 2011, the NRC staff supplements the December 2010 revised Biological Assessment in three respects:
- 1. The NRC staff provides additional information regarding shortnose sturgeon responses to the thermal characteristics of its environment. Specifically, the NRC staff analysis addresses the sturgeon's temperature tolerances. This portion of the staffs evaluation supplements the "Ufe History" sections on pages 8 and 9 of the December 2010 revised Biological Assessment.
- 2. The NRC staff considers Entergy's data from its recent thermal studies and monitoring efforts in the Hudson River. The NRC staff further compares Entergy's thermal data to the sturgeon's temperature tolerances. This portion of the staffs evaluation supplements the "Thermal Impacts" discussion on pages 13 and 14 of the December 2010 revised Biological Assessment.
- 3. The NRC staff assigns a potential level of impact from Indian Point's thermal plume on the shortnose sturgeon. This portion of the staff's evaluation supplements the "Conclusion" on pages 14 and 15 of the December 2010 revised Biological Assessment.
Life History Supplement The preferred temperature of fish and temperatures associated with the highest growth rates in laboratory settings are often close to avoidance temperatures and temperatures that are unsafe for survival. This is true of sturgeon, for which optimum growth temperatures are close to their upper thermal survival limits (Mayfield and Cech 2004; Allen et al. 2006; Ziegeweid et al. 2008).
-4 Crance (1986, p. 5) noted that while adult sturgeon have been found in water temperatures ranging from as low as 2° to 3°C (36° to 37°F) to as high as 34°C (93°F), young shortnose sturgeon may experience distress or rapid mortality at temperatures over 25°C (77°F). Crance concluded that for the purpose of habitat suitability modeling the optimal summer water temperature range for adult foraging was 11 ° to 22°C (52° to 72°F) and that temperatures equal to or below 8°C (47°F) or equal to or above 35°C (95°F) were unsuitable.
Thermal limits can be estimated based on the endpoints of death, typically called lethal thermal maxima, or other observable characteristics, typically called critical thermal maxima, that would affect survival in the wild. Researchers have derived upper limits of safe temperatures for fish from lethal and critical thermal maxima by subtracting a safety factor of 5°C (Young and Cech 1996; Ziegeweid et al. 2007).
The safety factor provides conservatism to address the uncertainty that results from using laboratory-derived benchmarks to develop standards that protect wild populations. Optimal temperatures for fish survival and growth depend on a variety of individual and environmental factors, such as age and life stage, photoperiod and light intensity, food availability and quality, acclimation temperature, patterns of variation in acclimation and test temperature, rate of temperature change between acclimation and test temperatures, salinity, dissolved oxygen levels, presence of parasites and disease organisms, pollutants, biotic interactions, and natural variability among individuals. Because of the uncertainty that results from having these uncontrolled variables in the wild, and because interactions among environmental variables affect responses such as fish survival and growth, the upper limit of safe temperatures for fish in the wild should be less than critical temperatures determined in the laboratory.
Ziegeweid et al. (2008) studied lethal and behavioral responses (loss of equilibrium) of juvenile shortnose sturgeon to temperature change after being acclimated to different temperatures.
Acclimation temperature and body weight significantly affect thermal tolerances. Final thermal preferences (Table 1) ranged from 26.2°C (79.2°F) to 28.3°C (82.9°F) and upper limits of safe temperatures based on loss of equilibrium ranged from 28.7°C (83.rF) to 30.1°C (86.2°F).
Table 1. Temperature* maxima and related endpoints for juvenile shortnose sturgeon acclimated to different temperatures (data from Ziegeweid et al. 2008).
Death as end~oint Diseguilibrium as end~oint Final Thermal Acclimation Lethal Upper limit Critical thermal Upper limit of thermal growth temperature thermal of safe maximum safe preference optimum maximum temeerature temeerature 19.5(67.1) 34.8 (94.6) 29.8 (85.6) 33.7 (92.7) 28.7 (83.7) 26.2 (79.2) 26.2 (79.2) 24.1 {75.4} 36.1 {97.0) 31.1 {88.0} 35.1 (95.2) 30.1 (86.2) 28.3 {82.9} 28.0 {82.4)
- Temperature in °C (OF)
To understand the degree to which the thermal plume may affect the Hudson River shortnose sturgeon population, the NRC staff compared summer water temperatures reported for an IPEC study (Swanson et al. 2011 b) to temperature limits reported by Ziegeweid et al. (2008) and NMFS (1998). Specifically, the staff used the upper limit of safe temperatures based on loss of equilibrium at the higher of two acclimation temperatures (24.1 °C or 75.4 OF) reported by Ziegeweid et al. (2008), resulting in an upper safe temperature limit of 30.1 °C (86.2°F), rounded
-5 to 30°C (86°F). Although shortnose sturgeon that would be near Indian Point would likely be much larger and older than those tested by Ziegeweid et at. (2008), the NRC staff assumed that Ziegeweid et al.'s upper safe limit would be protective because it includes a safety factor.
The staff also used 28°C (82°F), as reported in NMFS (1998) and cited in the revised Biological Assessment (NRC 2010) as a temperature that, when exceeded, may cause physiological stress to juvenile shortnose sturgeon and "may severely limit available juvenile-rearing habitat in some southern rivers" (NMFS 1998). This temperature is close to both the final thermal preference and thermal growth optimum temperatures (Table 1) that Ziegewald et al. (2008) reported for juvenile fish acclimated to 24.1 °C (75.4 OF), and thus is consistent with observations that optimum growth temperatures are often near the maximum temperatures fish can endure without experiencing physiological stress.
Thermal Impacts Supplement In this section, the NRC staff considers how Indian Point's heated discharges may affect the shortnose sturgeon.
Swanson et al. (2011 b) conducted thermal sampling and modeling of the cooling water discharge at Indian Point and reported that the extent and shape of the thermal plume varied greatly, primarily in response to tidal currents. For example, the plume (illustrated as a 4°F temperature increase or LH isotherm, Figure 5-6 in Swanson et al. 2011 b) generally followed the eastern shore of the Hudson River and extended northward from Indian Point during flood tide and southward from Indian Point during ebb tide. Depending on tides, the plume can be well-defined and reach a portion of the near-shore bottom or be largely confined to the surface.
Temperature measurements reported by Swanson et al. (2011 b) generally show that the warmest water in the thermal plume is close to the surface and plume temperatures tend to decrease with depth. Because shortnose sturgeon tend to swim close to the river bottom, the conditions most likely to affect them occur when the thermal plume extends deeply rather than across the surface. A cross-river survey conducted in front of Indian Point captured one such incident during spring tide on July 13, 2010 (Figure 3-28 in Swanson et al. 2011b). Across most of the river, water temperatures were close to 82°F (28°C), often with warmer temperatures near the surface and cooler temperatures near the bottom. The Indian Point thermal plume at that point was clearly defined and extended about 1000 ft (300 m) from shore. Surface water temperatures reached about 85°F (29°C). At 23-ft to about 25-ft (7-m to 8-m) depths, observed plume temperatures of 83° to 84°F (28° to 29°C) were about 2° to 3°F (about 1° to 2°C) below the upper safe temperatures for shortnose sturgeon reported by Ziegeweid et al. (2008) and 1° to 2°F (about 0.5° to 1°C) above the temperature that NMFS (1998) indicated could cause physiological stress for juvenile sturgeon. Maximum river depth along the measured transect is approximately 50 ft (15 m).
A temperature contour plot of a cross-river transect at Indian Point prepared in response to a NYSDEC review illustrates a similar condition on July 11, 2010 during slack before flood tide (Swanson et al. 2011a, Figure 1-10). Here the thermal plume is evident to about 2000 ft (600 m) from the eastern shore (the location of the Indian Point discharge) and extends to a depth of about 35 ft (11 m) along the eastern shore. Bottom temperatures above 82°F (28°C),
the temperature at which juvenile sturgeon might experience physiological stress, were confined
- 6 to about the first 250 ft (76 m) from shore. The river here is over 4500 ft (1400 m) wide. In that small area, bottom water temperatures might also exceed 30°C (86°F) and might not be safe for shortnose sturgeon; elsewhere, bottom water temperatures were about 80°F (27°C) and within safe limits. These limited-area unsafe conditions would not last long, however, as they would change with the tidal cycle. Further, any sturgeon in this location would be able to retreat to adjacent deeper and cooler water. (As noted in the 2010 revised Biological Assessment, sturgeon eggs and larvae, both of which may be relatively immobile, have rarely been identified in this portion of the river and therefore are unlikely to be affected.) Under other conditions, when the thermal plume is close to the surface, the shortnose sturgeon population should remain unaffected. Under no conditions did interpolated temperatures in Entergy's modeled results exceed the sturgeon's safe limits (either 28°C (82°F) or 30°C (86°F>> in the deep reaches of the river channel (Swanson 2011 a).
In response to the NYSDEC's review of the Indian Point thermal studies (Swanson et al.
2011 b), Mendelsohn et al. (2011) modeled the maximum area and width of the thermal plume (defined by the 4°F (2°C) llT isotherms) in the Hudson River. Mendelsohn, et al. reported that for four cross-river transects near IP2 and IP3, the maximum cross-river area of the plume would not exceed 12.3 percent and the maximum cross-river width of the plume would not exceed 28.6 percent of the river (Mendelsohn, et al.'s Table 3-1). These findings, along with the observations that the plume generally tends to rise toward the surface and that bottom temperatures do not appear to exceed safe temperature limits for shortnose sturgeon, suggest that a migration of shortnose sturgeon would not be affected by the thermal plume. Additionally, inasmuch as temperatures above the safe temperature limit only rarely reach even an isolated portion of the near-shore river bottom, the NRC staff finds it unlikely that individual sturgeon will experience deleterious effects from the thermal plume.
Conclusion Supplement Entergy has now conducted a triaxial thermal study program that includes modeling and verification, and that provides previously unavailable information concerning the size and nature of the thermal plume arising from operation of Indian Point Units 2 and 3. Based on the results of Entergy's thermal studies and modeling, the NRC staff finds that Indian Point's heated discharge during the license renewal term is not likely to adversely affect shortnose sturgeon. In the December 2010 revised Biological Assessment (!\IRC 2010),
the NRC staff found that"... impingement and entrainment would not adversely affect the population of shortnose sturgeon." Therefore, having considered the potential for adverse impacts resulting from license renewal (including impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts), the NRC staff now finds that license renewal of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 is not likely to adversely affect the Hudson River population of shortnose sturgeon.
-7 Literature Cited Allen, P.J., M. Nicholl, S. Cole, A. Vlazny, and J.J. Cech Jr. 2006. Growth of larval to juvenile green sturgeon in elevated temperature regimes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135(1 ):89-96.
Crance, J.H. 1986. Habitat Suitability Index Models and Instream Flow Suitability Curves:
Shortnose Sturgeon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(10.129). 31 pp.
Dacimo, F. 2011. Letter from F. Dacimo to NRC Document Control Desk, "License Renewal Thermal Study Documents." June 29, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11189A026.
Mayfield, R.B. and J.J. Cech Jr. 2004. Temperature effects on green sturgeon bioenergetics.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133(4):961-970.
Mendelsohn, D. C. Swanson, and D. Crowley. 2011. Part 1 of Response to the NYSDEC Staff Review of the 2010 Field Program and Modeling Analysis of the Cooling Water Discharge from the Indian Point Energy Center. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center, Buchanan, New York. ADAMS Accession No. ML11189A026. Available URL:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/57609.html.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. "Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)," prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. Accessed at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recoverylsturgeon shortnose.pdf on December 11, 2007.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010. Biological Assessment, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, License Renewal. December 2010. Docket Nos.
50-247 and 50-286. ADAMS No. ML102990043.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. E-mail fromA.Stuyvenberg.NRC.to J. Crocker, NMFS. June 16, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML11167A108.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2011. Letter from M.D. Sanza, Assistant Counsel, to Administrative law Judges M. Villa and D.P. O'Connell, NYSDEC Office of Hearings and Mediation Services.
Subject:
Entergy Indian Point Nuclear Units 2 and 3, SPDES Permit Renewal I § 401 wac Application Proceedings, DEC Staff's Review of Thermal Information. Available URL: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/57609.html.
Accessed on July 18, 2011.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2003. "Final Environmental Impact Statement Concerning the Applications to Renew New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permits for the Roseton 1 and 2 Bowline 1 and 2 and IP2 and IP3 2 and 3 Steam Electric Generating Stations, Orange, Rockland and Westchester Counties" (Hudson River Power Plants FEIS). June 25, 2003. ADAMS Accession No. ML083360752.
- 8 Swanson, C., D. Crowley, Y. Kim, N. Cohn, and D. Mendelsohn. 2011a. Part 2 of Response to the NYSDEC Staff Review of the 2010 Field Program and Modeling Analyis of the Cooling Water Discharge from the Indian Point Energy Center. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center, Buchanan, New York. ADAMS Accession No. ML11189A026. Available URL:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/57609.html.
Swanson, C., D. Mendelsohn, N. Cohn, D. Crowley, Y. Kim, L Decker, and L Miller. 2011 b.
Final Report: 2010 Field Program and Modeling Analysis of the Cooling Water Discharge from the Indian Point Entergy Center. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center, Buchanan, New York. ADAMS Accession No. ML11189A026. Available URL:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/57609.html.
Young, P.S. and J.J. Cech Jr. 1996. Environmental tolerances and requirements of spottail.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:664-678.
J.R. Ziegeweid, C.A. Jennings, and D.L. Peterson. 2008. Thermal maxima for juvenile shortnose sturgeon acclimated to different temperatures. Environmental Biology of Fishes 82:299-307.
July 26, 2011 Ms. Mary A. Colligan Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Region One Blackburn Drive Gloucester, MA 01930-2298
SUBJECT:
SUPPLEMENT TO REVISED BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3
Dear Ms. Colligan:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has prepared a supplement to its December 2010 revised Biological Assessment for the proposed license renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (lP2 and IP3). The supplement is included as the enclosure to this letter. The NRC staff is conveying this supplement to address updated thermal information as part of formal consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
If you have any questions regarding this supplement to the revised Biological Assessment, please contact Mr. Andrew Stuyvenberg, Environmental Project Manager, at 301-415-4006 or bye-mail at Andrew.Stuyvenberg@nrc.gov.
Sincerely, IRA!
Laurel M. Bauer, Acting Chief Environmental Review and Guidance Update Branch Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286 cc w/encl: Listserv DISTRI BUTION:
See next page ADAMS Accession No. ML11203A100 *via e-mail
- RPOB:DLR GS: RERB:DLR OGC* BC:RERB:DLR DLo an STurk LBauer 07/22/11 07/26/11
Letter to Mary A. Colligan from Laurel M. Bauer dated July 26, 2011
SUBJECT:
SUPPLEMENT TO REVISED BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 DISTRIBUTION:
E-MAIL:
PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RidsNrrDlrRerb Resource RidsNrrDlrRpob Resource RidsOgcMailCenter Resource DWrona EDacus, OCA BPham GMeyer, RI RKuntz RConte, RI AStuyvenberg MGray, RI RAuluck NMcNamara, RI JBoska DScrenci, RI OPA NSalgado PCataldo, RI GBowman MCatts, RI STurk, OGC BBickett, RI BHarris, OGC AAyegbusi, RI AJones, OGC MHalter, RI DRoth, OGC NSheehan, RI OPA ICouret, OPA SBurnell, OPA